Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 24206-24266 [2024-04784]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
24206
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[EERE–2022–BT–TP–0028]
RIN 1904–AF49
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedure for Central Air Conditioners
and Heat Pumps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and announcement of public meeting.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes to amend the
Federal test procedure for central air
conditioners and heat pumps (‘‘CAC/
HPs’’) to incorporate by reference the
latest versions of the applicable industry
standards. Specifically, DOE proposes:
to amend the current test procedure for
CAC/HPs (‘‘appendix M1’’) for
measuring the current cooling and
heating metrics—seasonal energy
efficiency ratio 2 (‘‘SEER2’’) and heating
seasonal performance factor 2
(‘‘HSPF2’’), respectively; and to
establish a new test procedure
(‘‘appendix M2’’) for CAC/HPs that
would adopt two new metrics—seasonal
cooling and off-mode rating efficiency
(‘‘SCORE’’) and seasonal heating and
off-mode rating efficiency (‘‘SHORE’’).
Testing to the SCORE and SHORE
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 CAC/HPs. DOE
welcomes written comments from the
public on any subject within the scope
of this document (including relevant
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 proposal no later than
June 4, 2024. See section V, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for details.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public
meeting via webinar on Thursday, April
25, 2024, 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
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE–2022–BT–TP–0028.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE–
2022–BT–TP–0028, by any of the
following methods:
(1) Email:
CACandHeatPump2022TP0028@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–2022–BT–TP–0028 in the subject
line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact
disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
(3) 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.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, public meeting attendee lists
and transcripts (if a public meeting is
held), comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at 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/EERE2022-BT-TP-0028. The docket web page
contains instructions on how to access
all documents, including public
comments, in the docket. See section V
for information on how to submit
comments through
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–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–
5904. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email:
peter.cochran@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in a public meeting (if one is held),
contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or by email: ApplianceStandards
Questions@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE
proposes to maintain previously
approved incorporations by reference
and incorporate by reference the
following industry standards into 10
CFR parts 429 and 430:
AHRI 210/240–202X, 202X Standard
for Performance Rating of Unitary AirConditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
Equipment (‘‘AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft’’). AHRI 210/240–202X Draft is in
draft form and this draft was announced
for public review on November 16,
2023.1 DOE references this version for
the purposes of drafting this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’). If this
industry test standard is formally
adopted, DOE intends to incorporate by
reference the final published version of
AHRI 210/240, not the current draft
version, in DOE’s subsequent test
procedure final rule, unless there are
substantive changes between the draft
and final versions, in which case DOE
may adopt the substance of the AHRI
210/240–202X Draft or provide
additional opportunity for comment on
the changes to the industry consensus
standard.
AHRI 1600–202X, 202X Standard for
Performance Rating of Unitary AirConditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
Equipment (‘‘AHRI 1600–202X Draft’’).
AHRI 1600–202X Draft is in draft form
and this draft was announced for public
review on November 16, 2023.2 DOE
references this version for the purposes
of drafting this NOPR. If this industry
test standard is formally adopted, DOE
intends to incorporate by reference the
final published version of AHRI 1600,
not the current draft version, in DOE’s
subsequent test procedure final rule,
unless there are substantive changes
between the draft and published
versions, in which case DOE may adopt
the substance of the AHRI 1600–202X
1 Public review of AHRI 210/240–202X Draft was
announced in the November 16, 2023 AHRI Update
here: https://newsmanager.commpartners.com/ahri/
issues/2023-11-16-email.html.
2 Public review of AHRI 1600–202X Draft was
also announced in the November 16, 2023 AHRI
Update here: https://newsmanager.commpartners.
com/ahri/issues/2023-11-16-email.html.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Draft or provide additional opportunity
for comment on the changes to the
industry consensus standard.
Copies of the AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft are
available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking for review.
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16–2016,
Method of Testing for Rating Room Air
Conditioners, Packaged Terminal Air
Conditioners, and Packaged Terminal
Heat Pumps for Cooling and Heating
Capacity, ANSI approved November 1,
2016, (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016’’).
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009,
Methods of Testing for Rating
Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment, ANSI approved June 25,
2009, (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009’’).
ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010, Methods of
Testing for Rating Seasonal Efficiency of
Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps, ANSI approved February 24,
2010, (‘‘ASHRAE 116–2010’’).
Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016,
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, and ASHRAE
116–2010 can be purchased from the
American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) website at
www.ashrae.org/resources-publications.
See section IV.M of this document for
further discussion of these standards.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
C. Updates to Industry Standards
1. AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
2. AHRI 1600–202X Draft
3. ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016
5. ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010
D. Proposed CAC/HP Test Procedure
E. Efficiency Metrics
1. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M1
2. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M2
F. Near-Term Changes in the CAC/HP Test
Procedure
1. Representativeness of Fixed Speed
Testing for Variable Speed (VS) Systems
(a) Background
(b) Comments Received
(c) Commenter Conclusions Regarding
Load-Based Testing
(d) DOE’s Conclusion and Approach
(e) CVP Proposal
2. Low-Temperature Heating Performance
(a) CCHP Definition
(b) Mandatory H4 Heating Tests for CCHPs
(c) Heating Load Line and Sizing for
CCHPs
(d) Cold Climate Heating Metric of Interest,
COPpeak
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
3. Cut-out and Cut-in Temperature
Certification
4. Low-Static Single-Split Blower-Coil
System Definition and Testing
Provisions
5. Mandatory Constant Circulation Systems
6. Dual-Fuel Systems
7. Provisions for Outdoor Units With No
Match
8. Inlet and Outlet Duct Configurations
9. Heat Comfort Controllers
G. Long-Term Changes in the CAC Test
Procedure
1. Power Consumption of Auxiliary
Components
(a) General Comments About Standby and
Off Mode Power Consumption
(b) Adjustment of Off Mode Power
Consumption for Number of
Compressors, System Capacity, and
Variable Speed and Weighting of OffMode Test Power Measurements
(c) Crankcase Heaters
(d) Shoulder-Season Fan Power
Consumption
(e) Accounting for Auxiliary Components’
Power Consumption
2. Impact of Defrost on Performance
(a) Demand Defrost Credit
(b) Supplementary Heat Usage
3. Updates to Building Load Lines and
Temperature Bin Hours
4. Default Fan Power Coefficients for CoilOnly Systems
5. Indoor Ambient Test Conditions for
Cooling Mode Tests
6. Air Flow Limits To Address Inadequate
Dehumidification
H. General Comments Received in
Response to the January 2023 RFI
I. Represented Values
1. Calculating Represented Values for the
Federal Trade Commission
2. Off-Mode Power
3. AEDM Tolerance for SCORE and SHORE
4. Removal of the AEDM Exception for
Split-System CAC/HPs
J. Enforcement Provisions
1. Verifying Cut-Out and Cut-In
Temperatures
2. Controls Verification Procedure
K. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
1. Appendix M1
2. Appendix M2
L. Compliance Date and Waivers
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 M1
(b) Cost and Compliance Associated With
Appendix M2
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24207
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 Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Central air conditioners (‘‘CACs’’) and
central air conditioning heat pumps
(‘‘HPs’’) (collectively, ‘‘CAC/HPs’’) are
included in the list of ‘‘covered
products’’ for which DOE is authorized
to establish and amend energy
conservation standards and test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(3)) DOE’s
test procedures for CAC/HPs are
currently prescribed at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix M1 (‘‘appendix
M1’’). The following sections discuss
DOE’s authority to establish and amend
test procedures for CAC/HPs and
relevant background information
regarding DOE’s consideration of test
procedures for this product.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, Pub. L. 94–163, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’),3 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 B of EPCA 4
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles, which sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. These
products include CAC/HPs, the subject
of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(3))
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
3 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.
4 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
24208
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA specifically include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6296).
The Federal testing requirements
consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must
use as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE
that their products comply with the
applicable energy conservation
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making other
representations about the efficiency of
those consumer products (42 U.S.C.
6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether
the products comply with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297)
DOE may, however, grant waivers of
Federal preemption for particular State
laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions of
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE must
follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered products.
EPCA requires that any test procedures
prescribed or amended under this
section be reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and
not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
EPCA also requires that, at least once
every 7 years, DOE evaluate test
procedures for each type of covered
product, including CAC/HPs, 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 or period of use. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A))
If the Secretary determines, on her
own behalf or in response to a petition
by any interested person, that a test
procedure should be prescribed or
amended, the Secretary shall promptly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
publish in the Federal Register
proposed test procedures and afford
interested persons an opportunity to
present oral and written data, views,
and arguments with respect to such
procedures. The comment period on a
proposed rule to amend a test procedure
shall be at least 60 days and may not
exceed 270 days. In prescribing or
amending a test procedure, the
Secretary shall take into account such
information as the Secretary determines
relevant to such procedure, including
technological developments relating to
energy use or energy efficiency of the
type (or class) of covered products
involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)). If DOE
determines that test procedure revisions
are not appropriate, DOE must publish
its determination not to amend the test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)(ii))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE
amend its test procedures for all covered
products to integrate measures of
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
Standby mode and off mode energy
consumption must be incorporated into
the overall energy efficiency, energy
consumption, or other energy descriptor
for each covered product unless the
current test procedures already account
for and incorporate standby and off
mode energy consumption or such
integration is technically infeasible. If
an integrated test procedure is
technically infeasible, DOE must
prescribe a separate standby mode and
off mode energy use test procedure for
the covered product, if technically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii))
Any such amendment must consider the
most current versions of the
International Electrotechnical
Commission (‘‘IEC’’) Standard 62301 5
and IEC Standard 62087 6 as applicable.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
DOE is publishing this NOPR in
satisfaction of the 7-year review
requirement specified in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
B. Background
On January 5, 2017, DOE published a
final rule regarding the Federal test
procedures for CAC/HPs. 82 FR 1426
(‘‘January 2017 Final Rule’’). The
January 2017 Final Rule amended the
current test procedure at that time, 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M
(‘‘appendix M’’) and established
appendix M1, use of which was
5 IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances—
Measurement of standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011–
01).
6 IEC 62087, Audio, video and related
equipment—Methods of measurement for power
consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1–6: 2015, Part 7:
2018).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
required beginning January 1, 2023, for
any representations, including
compliance certifications, made with
respect to the energy use or efficiency of
CAC/HPs. Appendix M provides for the
measurement of the cooling and heating
performance of CAC/HPs using the
seasonal energy efficiency ratio
(‘‘SEER’’) metric and heating seasonal
performance factor (‘‘HSPF’’) metric,
respectively. Appendix M1 specifies a
revised SEER metric (i.e., ‘‘SEER2’’) and
a revised HSPF metric (i.e., ‘‘HSPF2’’).
On October 25, 2022, DOE published
a final rule to address limited-scope
amendments to the existing test
procedures for CAC/HPs in appendix
M1. 87 FR 64550 (‘‘October 2022 Final
Rule’’). The October 2022 Final Rule
provided changes to improve the
functionality of appendix M1 to address
the issues identified in test procedure
waivers, improve representativeness,
and correct typographical issues raised
by commenters. Id. at 87 FR 64551. In
the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE noted
that several commenters indicated the
need for test procedure amendments
beyond the scope of the rulemaking. Id.
at 87 FR 64554–64555. DOE received
comments recommending consideration
of load-based testing methods, controls
validation (particularly for variable
speed systems), amended metrics,
amended definitions, and expansion of
test methods to capture low-temperature
heating performance for heat pumps. Id.
In its response to these comments, DOE
noted that it had initiated that
rulemaking not as a comprehensive
revision that would satisfy the 7-year
lookback requirements (see 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)), but to address a limited
set of known issues, including those
that have been raised through the test
procedure waiver process. 87 FR 64554.
DOE, however, also acknowledged that
a future rulemaking may more
comprehensively address the issues
raised by the commenters. Id.
On January 24, 2023, DOE published
in the Federal Register a request for
information (‘‘RFI’’) regarding the need
for amendments to the test procedures
for CAC/HPs, including the need for
amendments to address the issues raised
by commenters in the previous
rulemaking, in satisfaction of the 7-year
review requirements specified in EPCA.
88 FR 4091 (‘‘January 2023 RFI’’). In the
January 2023 RFI, DOE requested
comments, information, and data about
a number of issues, and considered
these issues in two separate categories:
(1) the consideration of load-based
testing methodologies under
development by various organizations
and whether certain aspects of these
methodologies might be adopted into
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24209
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the DOE test procedure; and (2) issues
with the current appendix M1 test
procedure that may or may not still be
relevant if or when load-based concepts
are adopted in the DOE test procedure.
Id. at 88 FR 4092–4093.
DOE received comments in response
to the January 2023 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.
TABLE I.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE JANUARY 2023 RFI
Commenter(s)
Reference in this NOPR
Comment No.
in the docket
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ..................................
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, and National
Consumer Law Center.
British Columbian Hydro and Power Authority .............................................
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and
Southern California Edison; collectively, the California Investor-Owned
Utilities.
Carrier Global Corporation ...........................................................................
CoilPod LLC .................................................................................................
Daikin Comfort Technologies North America Inc .........................................
Lennox International Inc ...............................................................................
National Comfort Products ...........................................................................
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ...........................................................
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority ..................
Rheem Manufacturing Company ..................................................................
Samsung HVAC ...........................................................................................
AHRI .............................
Joint Advocates ............
14
8
BC Hydro ......................
CA IOUs ........................
15
10
Trade Association.
Efficiency Organizations
and Consumer Advocacy Organizations.
Utility.
Utilities.
Carrier ...........................
CoilPod .........................
Daikin ............................
Lennox ..........................
NCP ..............................
NEEA ............................
NYSERDA .....................
Rheem ..........................
Samsung .......................
5
4
16
6
7
13
9
12
11
Manufacturer.
Service Provider.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Efficiency Organization.
State Agency.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.7
In response to the January 2023 RFI,
DOE received multiple comments
regarding the energy conservation
standards for CAC/HPs. Comments
regarding energy conservation standards
are outside the scope of consideration
for this test procedure rulemaking and
are not addressed in this NOPR. Topics
related to energy conservation standards
for CAC/HPs would be addressed in a
separate rulemaking process.
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to
update its test procedures for CAC/HPs
by: (1) updating the reference in the
Federal test procedure at appendix M1
to the most recent draft version of the
AHRI Standard 210/240 industry test
procedure, AHRI 210/240–202X Draft,
for measuring SEER2 and HSPF2; and
(2) establishing a new test procedure at
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
M2 (‘‘appendix M2’’) that references the
draft new industry test procedure, AHRI
1600–202X Draft, for measuring new
efficiency metrics, seasonal cooling and
off-mode rating efficiency (‘‘SCORE’’),
and seasonal heating and off-mode
rating efficiency (‘‘SHORE’’).
If AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and
AHRI 1600–202X Draft are finalized and
formally adopted, DOE intends to
incorporate by reference the final
published version of AHRI 210/240 and
AHRI 1600 in DOE’s subsequent test
procedure final rule.
To implement the proposed changes,
DOE proposes: (1) to amend appendix
M1 to incorporate by reference AHRI
210/240–202X Draft for CAC/HPs, while
maintaining the current efficiency
metrics; and (2) to add a new appendix
M2 to subpart F of 10 CFR part 430 to
incorporate by reference AHRI 1600–
Commenter type
202X Draft, which introduces new
efficiency metrics, SCORE and SHORE.
DOE would list appendix M2 as the
applicable test method for CAC/HPs for
any standards denominated in terms of
SCORE and SHORE. Use of appendix
M2 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 M2
would be required, appendix M1 would
no longer be required as part of the
Federal test procedure. DOE is also
proposing to amend certain provisions
within DOE’s regulations for
representation and enforcement
consistent with the proposed test
procedure amendments.
Table II.1 summarizes the current
DOE test procedure for CAC/HPs, DOE’s
proposed changes to that test procedure,
and the reason for each proposed
change.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED APPENDIX M1 AND PROPOSED APPENDIX M2 TEST PROCEDURES
RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE
Current DOE test procedure
Proposed appendix M1 test
procedure
Proposed appendix M2 test
procedure
Attribution
Incorporates by reference AHRI
210/240–2008.
Includes provisions for determining
SEER2, HSPF2, EER2, and
PW,OFF.
Incorporates by reference AHRI
210/240–202X Draft.
Maintains provisions for determining SEER2, HPSF2, EER2,
and PW,OFF.
Incorporates by reference AHRI
1600–202X Draft.
Includes provisions for determining SCORE and SHORE
and maintains provisions for determining EER2.
Updates to the applicable industry
test procedures.
Updates to the applicable industry
test procedures.
7 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket of DOE’s
rulemaking to develop test procedures for CAC/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
HPs. (Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–TP–0028, which
is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
name, comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24210
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED APPENDIX M1 AND PROPOSED APPENDIX M2 TEST PROCEDURES
RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE—Continued
Current DOE test procedure
Proposed appendix M1 test
procedure
Proposed appendix M2 test
procedure
Includes certain CAC/HP provisions regarding determination of
represented values in 10 CFR
429.16.
Includes provisions to remove the
alternative efficiency determination method (‘‘AEDM’’) exception for split-systems in 10 CFR
429.16.
Does not include certain CAC/HPspecific enforcement provisions
in 10 CFR 429.134(k).
Includes CAC/HP-specific enforcement provisions regarding
verification of cut-out and cut-in
temperatures and a controls
verification procedure.
Includes provisions to remove the
AEDM exception for split-systems, to extend the AEDM tolerance requirement to SCORE
and SHORE, and to no longer
require representations of the
PW,OFF metric in 10 CFR
429.16.
Includes CAC/HP-specific enforcement provisions regarding
verification of cut-out and cut-in
temperatures and a controls
verification procedure.
DOE has tentatively determined that
the proposed amendments to the CAC/
HP test procedures in appendix M1 and
the proposed appendix M2 would not
be unduly burdensome. Furthermore,
DOE has tentatively determined that the
proposed amendments to appendix M1,
if made final, would not alter the
measured efficiency of CAC/HPs 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 M1,
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 M1
beginning 180 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 M2 would, if
adopted, alter the measured efficiency
of CAC/HPs, in part because the
amended test procedure would adopt
different energy efficiency metrics than
in the current test procedure.
Additionally, DOE has tentatively
determined that the proposed
amendments to appendix M2, if made
final, would not increase the cost of
testing. Tentative cost estimates are
discussed in section III.L of this
document. As discussed, use of
appendix M2 would not be required
until the compliance date of amended
energy conservation standards
denominated in terms of SCORE and
SHORE, should DOE adopt such
standards.
The proposed amendments to
representation requirements in 10 CFR
429.43 would not be required until 180
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
days after publication in the Federal
Register of a test procedure final rule.
Discussion of DOE’s proposed actions
are addressed in further detail in section
III of this NOPR.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE
proposes certain amendments to its test
procedures for CAC/HPs. For each
proposed amendment, DOE provides
relevant background information,
explains why the proposed amendment
merits consideration, discusses relevant
public comments, and proposes a
potential approach.
A. Scope of Applicability
This rulemaking applies to CAC/HPs.
DOE defines the term Central air
conditioner or central air conditioner
heat pump to mean a product, other
than a packaged terminal air conditioner
or packaged terminal heat pump, singlephase single-package vertical air
conditioner with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 British thermal units
(‘‘Btu’’) per hour (‘‘Btu/h’’), single-phase
single-package vertical heat pump with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h,
computer room air conditioner, or
unitary dedicated outdoor air system as
these equipment categories are defined
at 10 CFR 431.92, which is powered by
single phase electric current, air cooled,
rated below 65,000 Btu/h, not contained
within the same cabinet as a furnace,
the rated capacity of which is above
225,000 Btu/h, and is a heat pump or a
cooling unit only. A central air
conditioner or central air conditioning
heat pump may consist of: A singlepackage unit; an outdoor unit and one
or more indoor units; an indoor unit
only; or an outdoor unit with no match.
In the case of an indoor unit only or an
outdoor unit with no match, the unit
must be tested and rated as a system
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Attribution
Improve representativeness of
test procedure.
Clarify how DOE will conduct enforcement testing.
(combination of both an indoor and an
outdoor unit). 10 CFR 430.2.
Appendix M1 applies to the following
CACs/HPs:
(a) Split-system air conditioners,
including single-split, multi-head minisplit, multi-split (including VRF), and
multi-circuit systems;
(b) Split-system heat pumps,
including single-split, multi-head minisplit, multi-split (including VRF), and
multi-circuit systems;
(c) Single-package air conditioners;
(d) Single-package heat pumps;
(e) Small-duct, high-velocity systems
(including VRF);
(f) Space-constrained products—air
conditioners; and
(g) Space-constrained products—heat
pumps.
See section 1.1 of appendix M1.
DOE is not proposing to change the
scope of CACs/HPs covered by the test
procedure in appendix M1 or the
proposed appendix M2.
B. Definitions
CAC/HPs are defined in 10 CFR 430.2,
as described in the previous section.
This definition was last amended in the
October 2022 Final Rule. DOE revised
the central air conditioner or central air
conditioning heat pump definition so
that it explicitly excluded certain
equipment categories that met the CAC/
HP definition based on their
characteristics but are exclusively
distributed in commerce for commercial
and industrial applications. 87 FR
64550, 64573. DOE noted in the October
2022 Final Rule that there are certain
types of equipment that meet the CAC/
HP definition but are exclusively
distributed in commerce for commercial
and industrial applications, and that
EPCA did not intend to regulate as
consumer products. Id.
As laid out in section 1.1 of appendix
M1, the test procedure applies to CAC/
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
HPs, including the following categories,
which are defined either in 10 CFR
430.2 or in section 1.2 of appendix M1:
(a) Split-system air conditioners,
including single-split, multi-head minisplit, multi-split (including variable
refrigerant flow (‘‘VRF’’)), and multicircuit systems;
(b) Split-system heat pumps,
including single-split, multi-head minisplit, multi- split (including VRF), and
multi-circuit systems;
(c) Single-package air conditioners;
(d) Single-package heat pumps;
(e) Small-duct, high-velocity systems
(including VRF);
(f) Space-constrained products—air
conditioners; and
(g) Space-constrained products—heat
pumps.
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE sought
comment on whether the definition of
CAC/HP needs revision, and whether
the scope of the appendices M and M1
needs to be limited, expanded, clarified,
or revised in any way.8 88 FR 4091,
4093.
In its response, Rheem requested a
revision to the definition and scope of
CAC/HPs covered by appendix M1 to
add a new product class of ‘‘spaceconstrained vertical package’’ product.
(Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 1–2) Rheem
proposed that this new product class
would meet all definitions of the current
‘‘space-constrained’’ product class but
also consist of the following three
additions: (1) is factory-assembled as a
single package that has major
components that are arranged vertically;
(2) is intended for interior mounting on
adjacent, interior to, or through an
outside wall; (3) and is nonweatherized. (Id.) Rheem suggested the
product class delineation should be
used to establish a reasonable minimum
test external static pressure (‘‘ESP’’) of
0.15 inches of water column (‘‘in. wc.’’),
which Rheem claimed will result in
more congruity between tested and
actual unit operation for the consumer
for these types of units. Id.
Rheem asserted that DOE’s current
space-constrained product class is too
general, and as a result puts
unreasonable testing burden on ‘‘spaceconstrained vertical package’’ units. (Id.)
Specifically, Rheem commented that the
minimum ESP of 0.3 in. wc. required by
appendix M1 for space-constrained
products 9 is not representative of
8 On
January 1, 2023, use of appendix M1 became
required for any representations—including
compliance certifications—made with respect to the
energy use, power, or efficiency of CAC/HPs. Prior
to January 1, 2023, such representations were
required to be based on the test procedure at
appendix M to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
9 See Table 4 of appendix M1 for the minimum
ESP requirements for ducted blower-coil systems,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
installations of these units. Rheem
explained that ‘‘space-constrained
vertical package’’ products are typically
entirely installed inside a closet with a
short supply duct of 5–15 feet, without
a return duct, and usually are found
within small multifamily or lodging
applications (such as assisted living and
low-income housing). (Id.) Additionally,
Rheem noted that one of its brands,
Friedrich, has multiple products in
which operation at an ESP greater than
0.3 in. wc. is prohibited per the
installation and operation instructions.
(Id.) Rheem commented that designing
and testing the equipment to meet the
minimum 0.3 in. wc. requirement of the
current space-constrained category will
lead to size and cost changes that will
serve no benefit to the consumer and
would make replacement units cost or
size prohibitive. (Id.)
DOE notes that Rheem’s comment
lacked sufficient information, such as
product literature and test data, that
would indicate that the current test
procedure ESP requirement for ‘‘spaceconstrained’’ products is unsuitable for
the products Rheem described in its
comment, puts undue burden on
manufacturers for testing, and is not
representative of current installations of
these units in the field. DOE is not
aware of any space-constrained
products that are not able to be tested
according to the existing test procedure
requirements. Given the limited
information describing the products that
are the subject of Rheem’s comment,
DOE is not proposing to amend the
definition of space-constrained vertical
package units within the scope of CAC/
HPs.
Regarding the scope and definition of
CAC/HPs, AHRI, Carrier, and Lennox all
submitted comments relating to a
definition for heat pumps optimized for
performance in cold climates. (AHRI,
No. 14 at p. 7; Carrier, No. 5 at p. 2;
Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3) Comments
regarding heat pumps optimized for
low-temperature heating performance
are discussed in section III.F.2 of this
NOPR. AHRI also submitted a comment
regarding systems that use a heat pump
and a furnace in combination as a
source for heating (i.e., ‘‘dual-fuel’’ heat
pumps). (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 7)
Comments regarding such systems are
discussed in section III.F.6 of this
NOPR.
Notably, both Carrier and Lennox
commented that they find the current
scope of CAC/HPs covered by appendix
M1 to be appropriate. (Carrier, No. 5 at
p. 2; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3) Lennox also
including the 0.3 in. wc. requirement for spaceconstrained systems.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24211
stated that it finds the general definition
of central air conditioner or central air
conditioning heat pump to be adequate.
(Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3)
Except as noted, DOE is not proposing
any further amendments to the
definition of central air conditioner or to
the scope of CAC/HPs covered by
appendix M1 or the newly proposed
appendix M2.
C. Updates to Industry Standards
DOE’s current test procedures for
CAC/HPs are codified at appendix M1
and incorporate by reference various
industry standards. The regulatory text
at appendix M1 has generally been
closely aligned with the relevant
industry standard for CAC/HPs, AHRI
Standard 210/240—however, several
rulemakings have changed the
regulatory portions of appendix M1 over
time with amendments and additions,
not all of which have been mirrored in
the AHRI 210/240 standards.
Appendix M1 currently references
ANSI/AHRI 210/240–2008 with
Addenda 1 and 2 (‘‘AHRI 210/240–
2008’’ 10): 2008 Standard for
Performance Rating of Unitary Air
Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
Equipment. However, the latest AHRI
Standard 210/240 is AHRI 210/240–
2023, Standard for Performance Rating
of Unitary Air Conditioning & Air
Source Heat Pump Equipment,
copyright 2020 (‘‘AHRI 210/240–2023
(2020)’’ 11).
Following publication of the January
2023 RFI, AHRI and other relevant
stakeholders, including DOE,
participated in the development of two
updated industry standards relevant to
CAC/HPs, the AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
and the AHRI 1600–202X Draft.12 DOE
understands that these drafts were
commissioned primarily to address the
issues raised by DOE in the January
2023 RFI, and secondarily to harmonize
the AHRI industry standards with the
DOE test procedures, which were last
amended in the October 2022 Final
Rule.
DOE has reviewed both drafts and
determined that they allow for a more
representative measurement of the
efficiencies of CAC/HPs than the current
Federal test procedure, without being
unduly burdensome. Rather than make
10 A copy of AHRI 210/240–2008 can be obtained
from AHRI, 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500,
Arlington, VA 22201, USA, 703–524–8800, or by
going to www.ahrinet.org.
11 A copy of AHRI 210/240–2023 (2020) can be
obtained from AHRI, 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite
500, Arlington, VA 22201, USA, 703–524–8800, or
by going to www.ahrinet.org.
12 Both draft standards are available in Docket No.
EERE–2022–BT–TP–0028.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24212
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
more amendments to the regulatory text
of the current appendix M1 test
procedure, DOE is proposing to adopt
each industry standard respectively as
the basis for an updated appendix M1
and a new appendix M2, similar to how
AHRI 210/240–2008 was adopted as the
basis of the current appendix M1 test
procedure. Specifically, DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft, and the
relevant standards it references: ANSI/
ASHRAE 16–2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37–
2009, and ASHRAE 116–2010 as the
basis for the updated appendix M1 test
procedure. Similarly, DOE is proposing
to incorporate by reference AHRI 1600–
202X Draft, and the relevant standards
it references ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016,
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, and ASHRAE
116–2010 as the basis for the new
appendix M2 test procedure.
Incorporating each industry standard
would enable DOE to better harmonize
with the industry standards and
eliminate manufacturer burden in
certifying with separate test procedures.
1. AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
As previously discussed, AHRI and
other relevant stakeholders, including
DOE, worked to develop a revised AHRI
210/240 standard that would
incorporate revisions to align with the
October 2022 Final Rule, and
additionally, seek to address the issues
raised in the January 2023 RFI with
broad stakeholder consensus. DOE
understands that this new update is
currently in draft form (i.e., AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft) and will supersede the
current version of the standard, AHRI
210/240–2023 (2020). While AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft does not introduce
changes that would alter the measured
efficiency of CAC/HPs, it does introduce
new test provisions as compared to
AHRI 210/240–2023 (2020), and
addresses several issues that DOE raised
in the January 2023 RFI. Section III.F of
this NOPR includes further discussion
of the changes that are reflected in AHRI
210/240–202X Draft.
In light of these updates to AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft, DOE is proposing to
amend its test procedure for CAC/HPs at
appendix M1 by incorporating by
reference AHRI 210/240–202X Draft.
DOE intends to update its incorporation
by reference to the final published
version of AHRI 210/240–202X Draft in
the final rule, unless the draft version is
not finalized before the final rule or
there are substantive changes between
the draft and published versions, in
which case DOE may adopt the
substance of the AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft or provide additional opportunity
for comment on the substantive changes
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
to the updated industry consensus
standard. Specifically, DOE is proposing
to utilize sections 3 (excluding 3.2.15,
3.2.19, 3.2.47, 3.2.52, 3.2.64, 3.2.79 and
3.2.80), 5, 6 (excluding 6.1.8, 6.2, 6.3,
6.4 and 6.5), 11, and 12 and appendices
D, E, G, K, and L of the AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft in the Federal test procedure
for CAC/HPs at appendix M1.
Additionally, DOE is proposing
additions and deletions to the
incorporations by reference for the CAC/
HP Federal test procedure to align with
the references made within the AHRI
210/240–202X Draft. Currently,
appendix M1 incorporates by reference:
AMCA 210–2007,13 AHRI 210/240–
2008, AHRI 1230–2010,14 ASHRAE
23.1–2010,15 ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009,
and ASHRAE 116–2010. 10 CFR 430.3.
In the proposed test procedures at
appendix M1, DOE is proposing to add
an incorporation by reference to ANSI/
ASHRAE 16–2016 and remove
incorporations by reference to AMCA
210–2007, AHRI 210/240–2008, AHRI
1230–2010 and ASHRAE 23.1–2010.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft, ANSI/ASHRAE 16–
2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, and
ASHRAE 116–2010, at appendix M1.
2. AHRI 1600–202X Draft
In parallel to the AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft, AHRI and other relevant
stakeholders, including DOE, worked to
develop a forward-looking AHRI test
procedure that would act as the
successor to the AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and be effective in the long-term
(i.e., AHRI 1600–202X Draft). DOE is
proposing to establish a new test
procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M2
by incorporating by reference AHRI
1600–202X Draft. DOE intends to
update its incorporation by reference to
13 ANSI/AMCA 210–2007, ANSI/ASHRAE 51–
2007, (‘‘AMCA 210–2007’’) Laboratory Methods of
Testing Fans for Certified Aerodynamic
Performance Rating, ANSI approved Aug. 17, 2007.
A copy of AMCA 210–2007 can be purchased from
the Air Movement and Control Association
International Inc. (‘‘AMCA’’) website at
www.amca.org/store/index.php.
14 ANSI/AHRI 1230–2010 with Addendum 2,
(‘‘AHRI 1230–2010’’): 2010 Standard for
Performance Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow
(‘‘VRF’’) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat
Pump Equipment, ANSI approved Aug. 2, 2010. A
copy of AHRI 1230–2010 can be obtained from
AHRI, 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500,
Arlington, VA 22201, USA, 703–524–8800, or by
going to www.ahrinet.org.
15 ANSI/ASHRAE 23.1–2010, (‘‘ASHRAE 23.1–
2010’’): Methods of Testing for Rating the
Performance of Positive Displacement Refrigerant
Compressors and Condensing Units that Operate at
Subcritical Temperatures of the Refrigerant, ANSI
approved Jan. 28, 2010. A copy of ASHRAE 23.1–
2010 can be obtained from the ASHRAE website at
www.ashrae.org/resources--publications.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the final published version of AHRI
1600–202X Draft in the final rule, unless
the draft version is not finalized before
the final rule or there are substantive
changes between the draft and
published versions, in which case DOE
may adopt the substance of the AHRI
1600–202X Draft or provide additional
opportunity for comment on the
substantive changes to the updated
industry consensus standard.
Specifically, DOE is proposing to utilize
sections 3 (excluding 3.1.15, 3.1.19,
3.1.47, 3.1.52, 3.1.65, 3.1.80, and
3.1.81), 5, 6 (excluding 6.1.8, 6.2, 6.3,
6.4 and 6.5), 11, and 12 and appendices
D, E, G, K, and L of the AHRI 1600–
202X Draft in the Federal test procedure
for CAC/HPs at appendix M2.
DOE is also proposing to incorporate
by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016,
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, and ASHRAE
116–2010, which are referenced within
AHRI 1600–202X Draft. Therefore, in
total, DOE is proposing to incorporate
by reference the AHRI 1600–202X Draft,
ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016, ANSI/
ASHRAE 37–2009, and ASHRAE 116–
2010, at appendix M2.
3. ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, which
provides a method of test for many
categories of air conditioning and
heating products and equipment, is
referenced for testing CAC/HPs by both
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and the AHRI
1600–202X Draft. More specifically,
section 5 and appendices C, D, E, I, and
J of AHRI 210/240–202X and AHRI
1600–202X Draft refer to methods of test
in ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009. DOE
currently incorporates by reference
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 in 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, and the current
incorporation by reference applies to the
current Federal test procedure for CAC/
HPs specified at appendix M1. Given
that AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
references ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 for
several test instructions, DOE has
tentatively concluded that it is
appropriate to maintain the existing
incorporation by reference of ANSI/
ASHRAE 37–2009 in appendix M1.
Additionally, given that the AHRI 1600–
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 M2.
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016
ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016, which
provides a method of test for rating
Room Air Conditioners, Packaged
Terminal Air Conditioners, and
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps, is
referenced for testing CAC/HPs by both
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
the AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and the
AHRI 1600–202X Draft. More
specifically, section 5.1.1 of AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X
Draft refer to testing of non-ducted CAC/
HPs from provisions in ANSI/ASHRAE
16–2016, or by using a combination of
provisions in ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009
and ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2016.
Currently, ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016 is
not incorporated by reference in
appendix M1. DOE has tentatively
concluded that testing conducted per
ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016 for non-ducted
CAC/HPs, will not impact ratings in
comparison to testing conducted per
provisions in ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009
and ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010. Thus,
given that the AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
and AHRI 1600 202X Draft refer to
ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016 as an option
for testing of non-ducted CAC/HPs, and
that it does not impact ratings, DOE has
tentatively concluded that it is
appropriate to incorporate by reference
ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016 for appendices
M1 and M2.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
5. ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010
ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010, which
provides a method of test for unitary air
conditioners and heat pumps with a
cooling capacity of 65,000 Btu/h and
less, is referenced for testing CAC/HPs
by both AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and
AHRI 1600–202X Draft. More
specifically, sections 5, 6, 8, and 11 and
appendices D and E of AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft
refer to methods of test in ANSI/
ASHRAE 116–2010. Given that AHRI
210/240–202X Draft references ANSI/
ASHRAE 116–2010 for several test
instructions, DOE has tentatively
concluded that it is appropriate to
maintain the existing incorporation by
reference of ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010
in appendix M1. Additionally, given
that the AHRI 1600–202X Draft
references ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010 for
several test instructions, DOE is
proposing to additionally incorporate by
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010 for
use with appendix M2.
D. Proposed CAC/HP Test Procedure
As discussed, EPCA requires that test
procedures for each type of covered
product, including CAC/HPs, 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 or period of use. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A))
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to
maintain the current efficiency metrics
of SEER2 and HSPF2 in appendix M1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
and is proposing to reference AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft in appendix M1 for
measuring the existing metrics. DOE has
tentatively determined that the
proposed amendments to appendix M1
would not affect the measured
efficiency of CAC/HPs or require
retesting solely because of DOE’s
adoption of the proposed amendments
to the appendix M1 test procedure, if
made final. Additionally, DOE is
proposing to establish a new test
procedure at appendix M2 that would
adopt the AHRI 1600–202X Draft,
including the newly proposed SCORE
and SHORE metrics. Use of appendix
M2 would not be required until the
compliance date of any amended
standards denominated in terms of the
proposed new metrics for appendix M2,
should such standards be adopted.
If finalized versions of AHRI 210/240
and AHRI 1600 are not published before
the test procedure final rule, or if there
are substantive changes between the
drafts and published versions of the
standards that are not supported by
stakeholder comments in response to
this NOPR, DOE may adopt the
substance of the AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft or
provide additional opportunity for
comment on the final version of that
industry consensus standard.
Specifically, at appendix M1, DOE is
proposing to require the following
sections of the AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft: sections 3 16, 5, 6 17, 11, and 12,
and appendices D, E, G, K, and L. At
appendix M2, DOE is proposing to
require the following sections of the
AHRI 1600–202X Draft: sections 3 18, 5,
6 19, 11, and 12 and appendices D, E, G,
K and L.
16 DOE is not proposing to include the following
provisions from section 3 of AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft because the terms are either defined in
appendix M1, or are not needed for the proposed
DOE test procedure: 3.2.15 (Double-duct system),
3.2.19 (Gross Capacity), 3.2.47 (Oil Recovery Mode),
3.2.52 (Published Rating), 3.2.64 (Standard Filter),
3.2.80 (Unitary Air-conditioner), and 3.2.81
(Unitary Heat Pump).
17 DOE is not proposing to include the following
provisions from section 6 of AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft because the provisions are either defined in
10 CFR 429.16, or are not needed for the proposed
DOE test procedure: 6.1.8 (Tested Combinations or
Tested Units), 6.2 (Application Ratings), 6.3
(Publication of Ratings), 6.4 (Ratings), and 6.5
(Uncertainty and Variability).
18 DOE is not proposing to include the following
provisions from section 3 of AHRI 1600–202X Draft
because the terms are either defined in appendix
M1, or are not needed for the proposed DOE test
procedure: 3.1.15 (Double-duct System), 3.1.19
(Gross Capacity), 3.1.47 (Oil Recovery Mode), 3.1.52
(Published Rating), 3.1.65 (Standard Filter), 3.1.80
(Unitary Air-conditioner), and 3.1.81 (Unitary Heat
Pump).
19 DOE is not proposing to include the following
provisions from section 6 of AHRI 1600–202X Draft
because the provisions are either defined in 10 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24213
Further, at both appendix M1 and
appendix M2, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the following:
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009; ANSI/
ASHRAE 16–2016; and ANSI/ASHRAE
116–2010.
Issue 1: DOE requests feedback on its
proposal to revise appendix M1 to
incorporate by reference AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft for measuring the existing
metrics, SEER2 and HSPF2.
Issue 2: DOE requests feedback on its
proposal to establish a new appendix
M2, which would incorporate by
reference AHRI 1600–202X Draft to
determine the SCORE and SHORE
metrics.
E. Efficiency Metrics
As discussed, DOE proposes to update
the current Federal test procedure for
CAC/HPs at appendix M1 consistent
with the most recent draft version of the
relevant industry consensus test
procedure, AHRI 210/240–202X Draft.
DOE is also proposing a new Federal
test procedure at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix M2, consistent with
the draft version of the industry
consensus test procedure, AHRI 1600–
202X Draft. Sections III.E.1 and III.E.2
indicate which metrics are applicable
for appendices M1 and M2,
respectively.
1. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M1
In the updated appendix M1, DOE
proposes to maintain the current energy
efficiency metrics (i.e., energy efficiency
ratio 2 (‘‘EER2’’), SEER2, and HSPF2),
and to define a new optional metric: the
peak load coefficient of performance
(‘‘COPpeak’’), applicable to CHPs (see
details in section III.F.2.d of this
document). The proposed revisions to
appendix M1 to align with the most
recent draft of AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft maintain the existing energy
efficiency metrics, and DOE has
tentatively determined that testing
under the proposed appendix M1 would
be consistent with the existing test
procedure and there would be no
impact on measured efficiencies.
2. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M2
As previously discussed in this
NOPR, the proposed appendix M2 will
introduce new integrated cooling and
integrated heating efficiency metrics,
namely SCORE and SHORE,
respectively. Unlike SEER2 and HSPF2,
which are seasonal energy efficiency
descriptors, SCORE and SHORE are
429.16, or are not needed for the proposed DOE test
procedure: 6.1.8 (Tested Combinations or Tested
Units), 6.2 (Application Ratings), 6.3 (Publication of
Ratings), 6.4 (Ratings), and 6.5 (Uncertainty and
Variability).
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24214
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
integrated metrics that include off-mode
power, PW,OFF. Hence, appendix M2 will
not require separate representations for
off-mode power.
DOE is proposing to retain EER2 in
appendix M2, with EER2 evaluated in
the same way as it was in appendix M1.
DOE is also proposing the determination
of an optional metric, COPpeak, as
discussed in section III.E.1 of this
document, in appendix M2.
F. Near-Term Changes in the CAC/HP
Test Procedure
The following sections discuss issues
that affect the CAC/HP test procedure in
the near-term—i.e., they will be
effective 180 days after publication of
the final rule. As previously explained,
these near-term revisions are
implemented at appendix M1 via
incorporation by reference of the
relevant industry consensus test
procedure, AHRI 210/240–202X Draft.
DOE has reviewed AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and has concluded that it satisfies
the EPCA requirement that test
procedures should not be unduly
burdensome to conduct and should be
representative of an average use cycle.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) These nearterm amendments in appendix M1
would not alter the measured efficiency
of CAC/HPs in terms of the current
cooling and heating test metrics, SEER2
and HSPF2, respectively.
DOE clarifies that while all issues
discussed subsequently are considered
near-term, they are also part of the longterm CAC/HP test procedure—i.e., these
revisions are also included in AHRI
1600–202X Draft, which DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference at
appendix M2. As such, when discussing
these near-term changes, DOE makes
references to both AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft.
1. Representativeness of Fixed Speed
Testing for Variable Speed (VS) Systems
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(a) Background
Appendix M1 uses a steady-state test
concept where test room conditions are
kept within narrow operating tolerances
for each test point, and the CAC/HP
system is manually controlled to operate
at the specified compressor speed and
airflow rate for each test point. In the
October 2022 Final Rule, several
stakeholders encouraged DOE to review
ways to improve the representativeness
of the test procedures for CAC/HPs
(especially variable speed), particularly
to examine test procedures where the
unit operates under its own native
controls in responding to conditioning
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
loads (i.e., load-based testing).20 DOE
stated in the October 2022 Final Rule
that the rulemaking had been initiated
only to address a limited number of
known issues in the current appendix
M1 method, including those raised
through the test procedure waiver
process. 87 FR 64554, 64554. However,
DOE also responded that in order to
satisfy the 7-year lookback requirement
(see 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)), a future
rulemaking may address more
comprehensively the issues raised by
the commenters. (Id.)
As discussed in section I.B of this
document, on January 24, 2023, DOE
published the January 2023 RFI in order
to collect data and information
regarding the need to amend the test
procedures for CAC/HPs, to address
issues raised by commenters in the
October 2022 Final Rule, and in
satisfaction of the 7-year review
requirement specified in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)). 87 FR 64554,
64554. In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
requested comments, information, and
data pertaining to the consideration of
load-based testing methodologies under
development by various organizations
and whether certain aspects of these
methodologies might be adopted into
the DOE test procedure. 88 FR 4091,
4098–4101. Among the load-based
testing methodologies summarized by
DOE in the January 2023 RFI was the
first edition of Canadian Standard
Association (‘‘CSA’’) EXP07:19, ‘‘Loadbased and climate-specific testing and
rating procedures for heat pumps and
air conditioners’’ (‘‘EXP07’’). 88 FR
4091, 4095. DOE notes that EXP07 was
superseded by CSA SPE–07:23 21
(‘‘SPE07’’) in January 2023, an updated
version of EXP07 with changes made
based on comments received during a
technical review period.
(b) Comments Received
In response to the January 2023 RFI,
DOE received a variety of comments
20 A load-based test method differs from the
steady-state test method currently used in DOE test
procedures for air conditioning and heat pump
equipment. In a steady-state test method, the indoor
room is maintained at a constant temperature
throughout the test. In this type of test, any variable
speed or variable-position components of air
conditioners and heat pumps are set in a fixed
position, which is typically specified by the
manufacturer. In contrast, a load-based test has the
conditioning load applied to the indoor room using
a load profile that approximates how the load varies
for units installed in the field. In this type of test,
an air conditioning system or heat pump is allowed
to automatically determine and vary its control
settings in response to the imposed conditioning
loads rather than relying on manufacturer-specified
settings.
21 SPE07 is available for download at:
wwwcsagroup.org/store/product/CSA%20SPE07:23/.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
related to various aspects of load-based
testing. The comments are summarized
in the following sub-sections, segregated
by topic as appropriate.
(1) Repeatability and Reproducibility
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
presented several initiatives and
programs that were investigating,
researching, and/or developing loadbased test methods. 88 FR 4091, 4095–
4098. DOE requested data and
information to quantify which of these
load-based methods—and any other that
DOE is not aware of—had higher
repeatability and reproducibility
compared to the others, and also
compared to fixed-speed tests. 88 FR
4091, 4099.
In response, Samsung, Carrier, Daikin,
Rheem, AHRI, and Lennox all
commented that available test data have
shown that the repeatability and
reproducibility of load-based methods is
not on par with current fixed-speed
testing used for regulatory purposes.
(Samsung, No. 11 at p. 1; Carrier, No. 5
at pp. 2–3; Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 2–3;
Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 2–3; AHRI, No. 14
at pp. 8–9; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3)
Samsung asserted that adopting
something unproven, like the loadbased test methods, may create a chaotic
situation in the marketplace, and will
create additional test burden for
manufacturers since load-based testing
methods do not address alternative
efficiency determination methods
(‘‘AEDMs’’). (Samsung, No. 11 at p. 1)
Carrier referred to the Technology
Collaboration Program of Energy
Efficient End-use Equipment,
International Energy Efficiency (‘‘4E
IEA’’) 22 and AHRI 8026 23 initiatives,
which showed that load-based testing of
the same units across different facilities
showed high variability, and
commented that more work and
research needs to be done in order to
reduce this variability before adopting
load-based testing for determining
energy efficiency of CAC/HP systems.
(Carrier, No. 5 at pp. 2–3) Daikin also
commented that until all issues
pertaining to load-based testing are fully
vetted, there would be significant
problems with repeatability and
reproducibility. (Daikin, No. 16 at pp.
2–3) Daikin mentioned several items
that contribute to variability in load22 ‘‘AC/HP Test Methods Investigative Testing:
Phase 2 Preliminary Findings’’ 4E IEA presentation
(May 7, 2021). See www.iea-4e.org/wp-content/
uploads/2021/08/AC-HP-Test-Methods-Phase-2key-Findings-2021-08-06-CLEAN.pdf.
23 Dhillon, P., Horton, W.T., & Braun, J.E. (2022).
AHRI 8026—Repeatability and Reproducibility
Assessment of CSA EXP07:19 and AHRI 210–
240:2023. Air Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
based testing, such as the controller
(room thermostat), controller setup,
control modifications in the test
chamber, and the application of the
load. (Id. at pp. 2–3) Daikin also
requested that stakeholders thoroughly
evaluate the secondary capacity check
process during load-based testing, and
compare that with the accuracy,
repeatability, and reproducibility of
conventional fixed-speed testing.
(Daikin, No. 16 at p. 12)
Rheem and AHRI both referred to the
results of AHRI 8026. (Rheem, No. 12 at
pp. 2–3; AHRI, No. 14 at pp. 8–9)
Rheem commented that per AHRI 8026,
the transient conditions during loadbased testing cause poorer repeatability
and reproducibility in comparison to
fixed-speed testing currently in
appendix M1. (Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 2–
3) Rheem further stated that even with
appendix M1 testing, reproducibility of
transient components like cyclic
degradation and defrost can be
challenging. (Id.) AHRI commented that
AHRI 8026 results revealed concerns
when it comes to repeatability and
reproducibility of performance metrics
of load-based testing. (AHRI, No. 14 at
pp. 8–9) Further, AHRI noted that there
are no analyses of control system
parameter variability available for loadbased testing, and that such analyses
would require significant investments in
lab facilities and technical training and
none of the load-based testing methods
address the use of AEDMs. (Id.)
Similarly, Lennox mentioned several
items that affect the repeatability and
reproducibility of load-based testing,
including the varying degrees of test
burden in the different methods,
changes required to lab facilities to
accommodate load-based testing,
interaction between the unit under test
and the lab facility, and how the lab
facility affects the load-based tests.
(Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3) Lennox
expressed concern over the fact that labs
may need to significantly invest in their
facilities and resources if their present
setups were found to positively or
negatively influence load-based test
results. (Id.)
NEEA commented that a pre-defined
load test 24 may have greater
repeatability and reproducibility in
comparison to an adaptive load test,
24 In its comment, NEEA defined a pre-defined
load test as those where the unit under test (UUT)
is subjected to pre-defined sensible or latent loads,
and stated that the 4E program and the DOE CCHP
Tech Challenge were examples of such a load based
test method. They defined adaptive load test
methods as those where a constant or variable
sensible and latent is applied to the UUT, but the
magnitude of the load can be altered, based on unit
behavior, and stated that the SPE07 was an example
of such a method.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
because multiple variables need to be
controlled for an adaptive load, and
there are several interactive effects
between unit performance and test lab
conditions. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 6) NEEA
referred to the 4E IEA program,25 stating
that preliminary results from phase 4 of
4 are expected to be available by midsummer 2023, with full study results to
be released at the end of 2023 or early
in 2024. (Id.)
(2) Field Performance
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
requested data showing that load-based
testing was more representative of field
performance, in comparison to
conventional fixed-speed and fixedsetting test procedures. 88 FR 4091,
4099. DOE also requested data that
would indicate whether CAC/HP units
that performed poorly in the lab, when
tested using load-based methods, also
performed poorly in the field. Id.
Carrier commented that it was not
aware of publicly available data
showing that load-based test methods
are more or less representative than
fixed-speed and fixed-setting test
procedures. (Carrier, No. 5 at p. 3)
Carrier further commented that even
though there is value in verifying the
operation of variable speed systems, it
was unclear if a load-based test method
would provide more representative tests
in comparison to fixed-speed testing
with a controls verification procedure
(‘‘CVP’’) to confirm unit operation at the
speeds specified in the fixed-speed
tests. (Id.) Similarly, Daikin stated that
even though several studies are being
conducted, there is a general lack of
information and data to substantiate
whether load-based testing or fixedspeed testing is more representative of
real-world scenarios. (Daikin, No. 16 at
p. 3) Daikin expressed concern over the
fact that load-based test methods, such
as SPE07, do not account for real-world
scenarios when a CAC/HP is installed
with a controller (or room thermostat) of
a different brand than the manufacturer
of the CAC/HP. (Id.) Daikin commented
that if controller operation is central to
load-based testing, then smart
thermostat manufacturers would also
need to provide ratings when their
product is matched with another
manufacturer’s CAC/HP, similar to the
process followed by independent coil
manufacturers (‘‘ICMs’’) for representing
the ratings of their indoor coils with
different combinations of other
manufacturers’ outdoor coils. (Id.)
25 ‘‘AC/HP Test Methods Investigative Testing:
Phase 2 Preliminary Findings’’ 4E IEA presentation
(May 7, 2021). See: www.iea-4e.org/wpcontent/
uploads/2021/08/AC-HP-Test-Methods-Phase-2key-Findings-2021-08-06-CLEAN.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24215
Daikin also commented that load-based
test methods currently do not address
AEDM calculation methods for nontested combinations (‘‘NTCs’’), nor do
they have a method for ICMs to rate
their indoor coil products with an
outdoor unit that has been tested using
load-based methods. (Id.)
Rheem commented that while it
believed more studies are needed for
evaluating the representativeness of
load-based methods, field performance
is very dependent on installation
practices. (Rheem, No. 12 at p. 3) The
CA IOUs commented that the current
appendix M1 test procedure uses fixed
compressor speeds and air volume rates
with fixed indoor and outdoor
temperature conditions, and is thus not
representative of field use, indicating
that the energy efficiencies may be
misinterpreted. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at pp.
1–2)
(3) Test Burden
A critical component of load-based
testing is the relevant burden(s)
associated with the testing—i.e., total
testing time, time needed for control
system learning, number of official test
points, time required to transition
between test points, upgrades to
laboratory equipment, and cost and time
associated with training technicians to
be able to conduct load-based testing. In
the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested
comment from stakeholders on
information pertaining to the
aforementioned test burdens. 88 FR
4091, 4099.
In response, Carrier, Daikin, and
Rheem commented that the test burden
of load-based testing is generally more
than that of fixed-speed testing. (Carrier,
No. 5 at pp. 3–4; Daikin, No. 16 at pp.
3–4; Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 3–4)
Regarding costs, Carrier commented that
lab investments will be needed to
emulate Virtual Building Load
(‘‘VBL’’),26 and Rheem commented that
even though predicting the cost impact
of emerging load-based methods is
difficult, there will definitely be costs
associated with changes to test
chambers and equipment that
manufacturers will have to bear.
(Carrier, No. 5 at pp. 3–4; Rheem, No.
26 Virtual Building Load is a load-based or native
controls test procedure during which the software
that controls the indoor test room conditions (i.e.,
operates the indoor room reconditioning system) is
programmed to mimic the response of building
heating or cooling in real time by monitoring the
capacity of the unit under test and adjusting the
indoor room conditions according to the virtual
building model. The virtual building model defines
the time-dependent rate of change of the indoor
room temperature and humidity conditions as a
function of the target building load and the
measured capacity of the tested system.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24216
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
12 at pp. 3–4) Carrier and Daikin both
commented that load-based testing
methods would require more time to
conduct due to the higher number of
tests involved. (Carrier, No.5 at pp. 3–
4; Daikin, No.16 at pp. 3–4)
Daikin also stated that during new
product development, manufacturers
only have to do a subset of appendix M1
tests, often iteratively, because results of
those subsets are enough to inform the
manufacturer of the design changes
needed. (Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 3–4)
Daikin commented that due to lack of
experience with load-based methods
such as SPE07, it would not be possible
to do quick assessments like these. (Id.
at pp. 3–4) Finally, Daikin stated that
changes to refrigerant regulations that
will occur in 2023 will require a full
redesign of the products, and
manufacturers may not be able to
accomplish that in a timely manner
using load-based methods. (Id.)
Rheem referred to the 4E IEA project
report, in which it was estimated that
the additional test burden due to the
Target Compensation Load method will
have a 60-percent to 250-percent
increase in test burden. (Rheem, No. 12
at pp. 3–4) Rheem commented that loadbased test methods would require
changes to control schemes, additional
test setups, and additional equipment,
due to rapidly changing loads inside the
chamber. (Id.) Rheem referred to several
research studies 27 28 that showed loadbased test methods are influenced by
the thermal inertia of the psychrometric
chambers in which the tests are
conducted; thus, adaptation of the
control system to this thermal inertia
may be a time-consuming process. (Id.)
AHRI stated that even though the value
of load-based testing remains unknown,
the burden has been quantified. (AHRI,
No. 14 at p. 5)
In summary, all comments received
indicated that the test burden for loadbased testing will be higher than that of
conventional fixed-speed testing laid
out in appendix M1.
27 Cremaschi, L., & Perez Paez, P. (2017).
Experimental feasibility study of a new load-based
method of testing for light commercial unitary
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (ASHRAE
RP–1608). Science and Technology for the Built
Environment, 23(7), 1178–1188. Available at
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/
23744731.2016.1274628.
28 Go
¨ bel, S.A., Zottl, A., Noack, R., Mock, D.,
Wachau, A., Vering, C., & Mu¨ller, D. (2022, August).
How to calibrate heat pump test stands for loadbased testing—Towards technology-neutral
prescriptions [Paper presentation]. 14th
International Conference on Applied Energy,
ICAE22, August 8–11, 2022, Bochum, Germany.
Available at www.ebc.eonerc.rwth-aachen.de/go/id/
dncb/file/855717?lidx=1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
(4) Thermostat Selection and Built-In
Control Firmware
Thermostats (i.e., ‘‘control systems’’)
can vary significantly in their control
algorithms and communication with the
unit under test. Thus, thermostat
selection can play a key role in the
results of load-based tests. In the
January 2023 RFI, DOE requested
comment on several impacts of
thermostats with respect to load-based
testing, including the observed range of
performance of the same unit tested
with different thermostats, and
consideration of whether a thermostat
needs to be certified as part of the tested
combination. 88 FR 4091, 4099. DOE
also requested comment on what
percentage of thermostats may be
updated remotely versus in the field,
and how unit behavior in the field
depends on thermostats shipped with
the unit versus those purchased from
third-party suppliers. (Id.)
In response to this issue, DOE
received comments from several
stakeholders. Carrier and Rheem
commented that thermostats have a big
impact on load-based test results.
(Carrier, No. 5 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 12 at
p. 4) Carrier commented that since the
majority of HVAC systems in the market
are not installed with a manufacturer‘s
thermostat, it would not be feasible for
manufacturers to test with the different
thermostats available. (Carrier, No. 5 at
p. 4) Carrier further stated that only
variable speed systems shipped with the
manufacturer‘s thermostat should have
certification requirements. (Id.) The
Joint Advocates and NYSERDA
encouraged DOE to require certification
of thermostats as part of the tested
combination. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at
p. 2; NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 6–7)
Specifically, the Joint Advocates
encouraged DOE to investigate how the
performance of single-stage, two-stage,
and variable speed equipment is
impacted by integrations of different
thermostats, and to develop testing
requirements for ensuring that the tested
thermostat is representative of the one
selected in the field. (Joint Advocates,
No. 8 at pp. 2–3)
NYSERDA commented that
thermostat selection will be integral to
a CVP, which verifies that the
manufacturer‘s supplemental testing
instructions for setting critical
parameters during fixed-speed testing
are within the range of critical
parameters that the system would
utilize when operating under its native
controls. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 6–7)
NYSERDA further commented that
communicating systems may only be
compatible with certain thermostats;
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
hence, DOE should have a regulatory
requirement that discourages pairing
such systems with third-party
thermostats. (Id.) However, NYSERDA
recognized that in some situations, such
as for blower coil indoor units, the
system has communication technology
built in that allows the use of any
thermostat, which may not require
certification with external thermostats.
(Id. at p. 7) NYSERDA concluded that
the actual firmware governing unit
behavior is built into the unit, and not
into the thermostat, meaning that
updated testing would be required only
in instances when the updated firmware
results in an updated model number.
(Id.) AHRI stated that certification
requirements will be complicated with
thermostats, especially when utilizing
those that are not specified by the
manufacturer. (AHRI, No. 14 at pp. 9–
10) AHRI also stated that different
thermostats will give different loadbased test results, and referred to an
article stating that smart thermostats
were only being used by 16 percent of
households. (Id.)
Daikin commented that due to the
limited time allowed for submitting
comments in response to the January
2023 RFI, it did not have thermostatassociated data to share with DOE other
than that from its own ‘‘Daikin One’’
thermostat. (Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 4–5)
Daikin stated that several issues pertain
to thermostat selections, making loadbased testing unrepresentative of realworld situations; for instance, Daikin
questioned whether, in the case of
systems installed with smart
thermostats like Nest or EcoBee, the unit
manufacturer will be responsible for
rating the system if the thermostat
receives a remote firmware upgrade.
(Id.)
Several commenters referred to Annex
I of SPE07, which outlines a Thermostat
Environment Emulator (‘‘TEE’’)
developed by Purdue University that is
a thermostat enclosure aimed at
providing controlled airflow and
temperature distribution to the air
sensed by the thermostat. (Daikin, No.
16 at pp. 4–5; Joint Advocates, No. 8 at
p. 3; NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 7)
Specifically, Daikin commented that the
TEE demonstrated that thermostat
location is an integral part of unit
performance, but such an enclosure is
not representative of real-world
installations. (Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 4–
5) In contrast, the Joint Advocates
encouraged DOE to adopt something
similar to the TEE in its test procedure
so that reproducibility issues occurring
between the various indoor rooms of
psychrometric chambers (that conduct
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
load-based testing) may be mitigated.
(Joint Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3)
Rheem pointed out that temperature
sensors inside thermostats may not be as
responsive or accurate as laboratorygrade temperature sensors, and because
of this, temperature offsets are often
necessary for tests done under native
controls. (Rheem, No. 12 at p. 4) Rheem
further commented that since these
offsets may be influenced by the air flow
rate over the thermostat, thermostat
location, and orientation, there may be
a requirement to dynamically modify
this offset as the load-based test
proceeds. (Id.) Rheem stated that remote
update of unit/controller firmware is a
relatively new feature, and therefore not
as widely available as firmware updates
done in the field by service technicians.
(Id.)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(5) Utilizing Distinct Test Methods for
Different Purposes
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
requested comment on whether there
are any load-based methods that are
being used for regulatory or voluntary
incentive-based programs. 88 FR 4091,
4100. Rheem, AHRI, and NYSERDA all
commented that they are unaware of
any load-based methods being used for
the aforementioned purposes. (Rheem,
No. 12 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 14 at p. 10;
NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 9) Daikin
commented that in 2024, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(‘‘EPA’’) ENERGY STAR® Version 6.1
specifications (‘‘ENERGY STAR Spec
V6.1’’) 29 will be required for the Canada
Greener Homes Program, even though
currently it is an optional load-based
method applicable only to cold climate
heat pumps (‘‘CCHPs’’). (Daikin, No. 16
at p. 5) Daikin pointed out that due to
the resources and efforts required to
develop new products with low global
warming potential (‘‘GWP’’) refrigerants
like R32, Daikin doubts it will engage in
any non-mandatory load-based testing.
(Id.) NYSERDA referred to three
initiatives associated with load-based
testing, namely (1) the Canadian market
transformation roadmap presented at
the 2018 Energy and Mines Ministers’
Conference,30 (2) British Columbia‘s
2022 Heat Pump Technology Attraction
29 Version 6.1 of the ENERGY STAR specification
for CAC/HPs, revised in January 2022, can be found
at www.energystar.gov/products/spec/central_air_
conditioner_and_air_source_heat_pump_
specification_version_6_0_pd.
30 NYSERDA referred to p. 32 of the 2018 report
titled ‘‘Paving the Road to 2030 and Beyond: Market
transformation road map for energy efficient
equipment in the building sector.’’ Available at
www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-naturalresources-and-industry/electricity-alternativeenergy/energy-efficiency/18-00072-nrcan-road-mapeng.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
Strategy,31 and (3) a plan for
differentiating advanced heat pumps
using load-based testing criteria in the
Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships (‘‘NEEP’’) qualified
product list.32 (NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp.
8–9) NYSERDA encouraged incentivebased approaches for advanced heat
pumps that include: (1) a CVP to
identify unit operation under native
controls, (2) using regional HSPF2 to
differentiate advanced heat pumps, and
(3) prescribing capacity maintenance
and coefficient of performance (‘‘COP’’)
levels at 5 °F, similar to those in the
ENERGY STAR Spec V6.1 requirements.
(Id. at p. 9)
(6) Comparison of Test Conditions of
Appendix M1 and SPE07
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
provided a detailed explanation of the
first edition of EXP07. 88 FR 4091, 4095.
As previously mentioned, EXP07 was
superseded by SPE07, an updated
version of EXP07 with changes made
based on comments received during a
technical review period in January 2023.
SPE07 is a load-based methodology
where the unit under test is allowed to
respond to a thermostat installed in the
return air stream, while the indoor room
conditioning equipment control is used
to adjust that temperature (to represent
heating or cooling conditioning load),
mimicking the response of a typical
building. The test sequences through a
set of representative outdoor room
conditions. In the January 2023 RFI,
DOE pointed out that these test
conditions differ from those laid out in
appendix M1. 88 FR 4091, 4100. Due to
these differences, DOE requested
comment on how unit performance
would compare when tested using the
SPE07 test conditions (indoor as well as
outdoor) and the appendix M1 test
conditions. Id. DOE further requested
feedback on the pros and cons of
potentially revising the test conditions
in appendix M1. Id.
AHRI pointed out that the concept of
SPE07 is interesting from a research
perspective but not suitable for
regulatory purposes. (AHRI, No. 14 at p.
5) AHRI noted that the seasonal COP
metrics in SPE07 are climate zone
dependent, and there is no metric that
calculates unit performance at a
31 NYSERDA referred to pages 20, 25, and 26 of
the Vancouver Energy Commission’s BC Heat Pump
Technology Attraction Strategy, available at
vancouvereconomic.com/wp-content/uploads/
2022/11/11-2022-BC-Heat-Pump-Strategy-ReportWeb-1.1.pdf.
32 NYSERDA referred to page 14 of the
‘‘Advanced Heat Pump White paper,’’ available at
www.mwalliance.org/sites/default/files/mediadocument/
Advanced%20HP%20Whitepaper%20v1.13.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24217
national average level. (AHRI, No. 14 at
pp. 5–6) AHRI pointed to 42 U.S.C.
6291(22), to state that the seasonal COP
metrics cannot be adopted by DOE in
appendix M1 as the efficiency
descriptors. (Id. at p. 6) Further, AHRI
commented that SPE07 is currently not
applicable to coil-only systems, which
means that if adopted, the process of
certification and enforcement for split
systems would need to be overhauled.
(Id.) AHRI also pointed that SPE07
currently does not address AEDMs,
which implies that a regulatory regime
under SPE07 would create significant
test burden due to the large number of
rated combinations of split-system
units. (Id.) AHRI referred to the testing
reporting requirements in appendix M1
for variable speed mini and multi-splits,
stating that SPE07 does not properly
define requirements for established
ratings for these products. (Id. at p.7)
Finally, AHRI cited a section of 42
U.S.C 6293(b)(3) to point out that test
procedures should not be unduly
burdensome to conduct.33 (Id.) AHRI
commented that its commentary is
limited to SPE07, stating that it is the
most developed and established loadbased methodology, but AHRI still does
not see a viable pathway for SPE07
moving forward. (Id.)
Daikin and Rheem both commented
that since appendix M1 and SPE07 have
different performance metrics, their
ratings cannot be compared. (Daikin,
No. 16 at p. 5; Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 4–
5) Daikin commented that it lacks data
that can be shared comparing appendix
M1 and SPE07 testing. (Daikin, No. 16
at p. 5) Daikin pointed out that the
different indoor dry bulb and wet bulb
temperature setpoints in appendix M1
and SPE07 would lead to different
efficiencies, and the higher number of
test points in SPE07 adds to test burden.
(Daikin, No. 16 at p. 5) Daikin referred
to how the tolerance of 10 percent was
chosen when commercial HVAC
products moved to a seasonal metric
(integrated energy efficiency ratio
(‘‘IEER’’)), from a peak load metric (i.e.,
EER), rather than 5 percent, indicating
that the tolerance for certified ratings
would have to be increased if DOE
adopted a load-based testing method for
regulatory purposes. (Id. at p. 6)
Rheem referred to a research paper 34
to back its claim that relative rankings
33 From this comment, DOE considers that AHRI
wanted to make the point that SPE07, as it currently
stands, is unduly burdensome.
34 Dhillon, P., Horton, W. T., & Braun, J. E. (2022).
Comparison of residential heat pump heating
seasonal performance based on load-based and
steady-state testing methodologies. ASHRAE
Transactions, 128(1), 181–189. Available at
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
Continued
05APP2
24218
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
of SPE07 and appendix M1 are
impossible. (Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 4–5)
Rheem further pointed out that since the
indoor dry bulb and wet bulb
temperature in appendix M1 are the
same for all tests, the time for testing is
optimized. (Id.) Similarly, Carrier
commented that research currently in
progress would enable a comparison of
the ranking of units when tested with
appendix M1 and SPE07, but any
conclusions cannot be reached
currently. (Carrier, No. 5 at pp. 4–5)
Samsung supported AHRI‘s comment on
SPE07 and stated that load-based testing
is not currently at a stage where it may
be adopted as the mandatory test
procedure by DOE. (Samsung, No. 11 at
p. 1)
BC Hydro strongly encouraged DOE to
adopt SPE07 as the next test procedure
for CAC/HPs and referred to four NEEA
papers 35 that highlighted lessons
learned from EXP07 testing that
prompted the update to SPE07. (BC
Hydro, No. 15 at pp. 1–2) Similarly,
both the CA IOUs and the Joint
Advocates referred to a NEEP
representativeness project 36 and
encouraged DOE to update the CAC/HP
test procedure on the basis of those
results. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 2; Joint
Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) NYSERDA
commented that more work needs to be
done in order to consider the VBL
approach (used as the basis of testing in
SPE07), and specifically referred to
additional efforts needed to ensure the
repeatability and reproducibility of this
method—namely, field data to validate
lab data, lab-to-lab round robin testing,
and an uncertainty analysis method that
accounts for the unit under test‘s
www.techstreet.com/standards/lv-22-c025comparison-of-residential-heat-pump-heatingseasonal-performance-based-on-load-based-andsteady-state-testing-methodologies?product_
id=2505150.
35 Heat Pump and Air Conditioner Efficiency
Ratings: Why Metrics Matter. Available at neea.org/
resources/heat-pump-and-air-conditionerefficiency-ratings-why-metrics-matter.
EXP07:19 Load-Based and Climate-Specific
Testing and Rating Procedures for Heat Pumps and
Air Conditioners. Available at neea.org/resources/
exp0719-load-based-and-climate-specific-testingand-rating-procedures-for-heat-pumps-and-airconditioners.
CSA EXP07: Ongoing Progress, Lessons Learned,
and Future Work in Load-based Testing of
Residential Heat Pumps. Available at neea.org/
resources/csa-exp07-ongoing-progress-lessonslearned-and-future-work-in-load-based-testing-ofresidential-heat-pumps.
EXP07 Value Engineering Memo and PowerPoint.
Available at neea.org/resources/exp07-valueengineering-memo-and-powerpoint.
36 The NEEP Heat Pump Rating
Representativeness Project. Available at neep.org/
sites/default/files/media-files/hp_
representativeness_research_project-rfp_7.7.21.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
embedded controls and thermostat.
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 6)
Regarding test conditions, NYSERDA
commented that it did not have specific
analysis about the overall outdoor
conditions but did point out: (1) SPE07
focuses on more extreme outdoor
conditions; (2) different rankings of
appendix M1 metrics and load-based
testing results are mainly due to the
influence of the unit‘s native controls on
operation and any minor changes to the
appendix M1 test conditions will not
have a big impact on rankings; and (3)
the addition of a hot-dry SEER2 rating
would better capture performance at
extreme climates.37 (NYSERDA, No. 9 at
p. 10) AHRI recommended that a fair
comparison of appendix M1 and SPE07
would involve a study where the test
conditions of each are swapped and the
test results compared. (AHRI, No. 14 at
p. 10) AHRI added that measurement
uncertainties associated with both
procedures should be accounted for in
the comparison as well. (Id.)
(7) Communicating and NonCommunicating Variable Speed Systems
Controls used with CAC/HPs may
transfer information between system
components (i.e., communicating
systems), or they may use more
conventional low-voltage on-off signals
to indicate ‘‘calls’’ for space
conditioning and/or consumer selection
of fan settings (i.e., noncommunicating). Communicating
systems are defined as those that
communicate the difference between
space temperature and space setpoint
temperature to the control that sets
compressor speed and provides a signal
to the indoor fan to set fan speed
appropriate for compressor staging and
air volume rate. 87 FR 16830, 16837. In
the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested
test data that could potentially show
how the performance of communicating
and non-communicating variable speed
CAC/HPs compares when tested using
load-based methods, and how do loadbased methods address modulation of
compressor speed for systems equipped
with non-communicating controls. 88
FR 4091, 4100.
37 In one of its comments, NYSERDA referred to
the contents in Table II–1, which outlines the
applicability of the load-based methods to
equipment types (ducted or non-ducted), and the
capacity measurement procedure (calorimetric
room or air enthalpy method). (NYSERDA, No. 9 at
p. 9) NYSERDA commented that DOE did not point
out that SPE07 applies to ducted equipment, and
the ENERGY STAR CCHP CVP applies to nonducted equipment. DOE would like to point out that
it did, in fact, indicate in the table that SPE07 and
the ENERGY STAR CCHP CVP are applicable to
ducted and non-ducted equipment, respectively.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
In response, Daikin, Rheem, AHRI,
and NYSERDA commented that they are
not aware of any test or field data
comparing the performance of
communicating and noncommunicating systems when tested
using load-based methods. (Daikin, No.
16 at p. 6; Rheem, No. 12 at p. 5; AHRI,
No. 14 at pp. 10–11; NYSERDA, No. 9
at p. 10)
Daikin commented that load-based
test methods would incentivize
manufacturers to develop control
schemes that optimize performance in
the test lab rather than in the field.
(Daikin, No. 16 at p. 6) Daikin further
stated that the definition adopted by
DOE in the October 2022 Final Rule 38
for Variable Speed Coil-Only systems
was too restrictive and will limit
technology and progress. (Id.)
Rheem commented that even for noncommunicating systems, operating
parameters of the refrigeration cycle are
affected by the heat sink temperatures
and heat source. Rheem listed suction
pressure, liquid line pressure, return gas
temperature, and liquid line
temperature as the parameters, and cited
a research paper 39 that outlined a
variable system controlled by refrigerant
superheat. (Rheem, No. 12 at p. 5)
NYSERDA commented that a noncommunicating thermostat would not
typically allow the variable speed
system to modulate, and the system will
simply cycle on and off like a singlespeed system. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p.
10) NYSERDA cited a research paper
indicating that for low-load conditions,
variable speed units suffer more from
cycling losses in comparison to singlestage and two-stage systems. (Id.)
(8) Load-Based Testing for Single-Stage
and Two-Stage Systems
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
requested comment on whether there
38 Section 1.2 of appendix M1 defines
‘‘Communicating Variable Speed Coil-Only Central
Air Conditioner or Heat Pump’’ as follows: Variable
speed Communicating Coil-Only Central Air
Conditioner or Heat Pump means a variable speed
compressor system having a coil-only indoor unit
that is installed with a control system that (a)
communicates the difference in space temperature
and space setpoint temperature (not a setpoint
value inferred from on/off thermostat signals) to the
control that sets compressor speed; (b) provides a
signal to the indoor fan to set fan speed appropriate
for compressor staging and air volume rate; and (c)
has installation instructions indicating that the
required control system meeting both (a) and (b)
must be installed.
39 Yang, D. S., Lee, G., Kim, M. S., Cho, Y. M.,
Hwang, Y. J., & Chung, B. Y. (2004). A study on the
capacity control of a variable speed vapor
compression system using superheat information at
compressor discharge. In 10th International
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Conference at
Purdue, July 12–15, 2004. Purdue University
Libraries, West Lafayette, IN. Available at
docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc/689/.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
are aspects of single- and two-stage
system operation that are not adequately
captured by appendix M1, and if loadbased testing should be applicable to
them. 88 FR 4091, 4101. DOE also
requested comment on whether the
current cyclic tests in appendix M1
adequately capture cyclic losses
associated with cycling of compressors
when unit capacity exceeds building
load. (Id.)
In response, the Joint Advocates
commented that even though load-based
testing is best suited to accurately
capture part-load operation of variable
speed systems, it may be beneficial to
apply it to single-stage and two-stage
systems. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2)
In contrast, Carrier commented that
appendix M1 captures the performance
of single- and two-stage systems
adequately, and the application of loadbased testing to these systems will not
provide any value. (Carrier, No. 5 at p.
5) Daikin commented that if fixed-speed
testing (currently in appendix M1) is
used for single-stage and two-stage
products and load-based testing is used
for variable speed products, then it will
not be possible to compare these
products on an equivalant basis.
(Daikin, No. 16 at p. 6) Similarly, Rheem
pointed out that load-based testing is
mainly appropriate for variable speed
products, and its suitability for singlestage and two-stage systems is
questionable. (Rheem, No. 12 at p. 5)
AHRI commented that any test
procedure needs to compare different
equipment classes on an equal basis.
(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 11)
Regarding cyclic losses, the Joint
Advocates commented that appendix
M1 fails to properly account for the
cycling performance of units. (Joint
Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) The Joint
Advocates referred to the current
method of calculating the cyclic
degradation coefficient in appendix
M1 40 and cited a research paper 41 to
highlight the issues in this calculation
40 Sections 3.5 and 3.8 of appendix M1 contain
provisions for conducting optional cooling and
heating cyclic tests. These cyclic tests are used to
determine the Coefficient of Degradation (‘‘CD’’),
which is incorporated into the calculation of SEER2
and HSPF2, to account for any compressor cycling
losses. If the optional cyclic tests are not conducted,
appendix M1 requires use of the default CD value
of 0.25. However, for the majority of single- and
two-stage systems, a lower CD can be achieved
when completing the optional cyclic tests, which
results in higher SEER2 and HSPF2.
41 Dhumane, Rohit; Qiu, Tianyue; Ling, Jiazhen;
Aute, Vikrant Chandramohan; Hwang, Yunho;
Radermacher, Reinhard; Kirkwood, Allen Chad; and
Esformes, Jack, ‘‘Evaluating the Impact of the
Measurement Setup on Cyclic Degradation
Coefficient of Air Conditioning Systems’’ (2018).
International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Conference. Paper 2012. Available at
docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc/2012.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
methodology. (Id.) Daikin pointed out
the unsuitability of load-based tests for
capturing cyclic losses, by stating that
the cyclic tests in appendix M1 are
executed with dry indoor coils since it
is not easy to measure briskly changing
moisture content during these tests.
(Daikin, No. 16 at p. 6) Daikin added
that for load-based cyclic tests, the coils
will get wet, which will lead to
concerns with the repeatability and
reproducibility of capturing cyclic
losses using load-based methods. (Id.)
(9) Other Factors Affecting System
Energy Use
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
requested comment on how load-based
testing could be used to capture other
parameters that affect energy use of
CAC/HPs, particularly, but not limited
to, defrost systems, operation of electric
resistance heat, operation of fans during
the shoulder season, and operation of
crankcase heaters during off-mode
hours. 88 FR 4091, 4101.
In response, Rheem commented that
most power consumption is accounted
for in the off-mode test procedure,42
except fan-only operation, which may
be difficult to capture in a load-based
test since outside air is not introduced
during operation. (Rheem, No. 12 at p.
5) AHRI commented that incorporation
of the parameters and aspects
mentioned by DOE would result in the
need for new energy efficiency
descriptors. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 11)
NYSERDA recommended that DOE
adopt an average space heating capacity
adjustment using a defrost degradation
coefficient consistent with the
provisions of a test procedure term sheet
issued by the Appliance Standards and
Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee Commercial Unitary Air
Conditioner and Heat Pump Working
Group on December 15, 2022 (‘‘2022
ASRAC CUAC and CUHP WG TP term
sheet’’).43 (NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 10–
11) NYSERDA commented that the
cyclic defrost tests in appendix M1 (at
outdoor temperature of 35 °F) could still
be applicable for evaluating the
maximum defrost degradation. (Id.)
42 Section 3.13 of appendix M1 outlines the
procedure to determine off-mode average power
ratings.
43 On July 21, 2022, ASRAC chartered the CUAC
and CUHP Working Group to negotiate term sheets
on the test procedure and energy conservation
standards for CUACs and CUHPs. On December 15,
2022, the Working Group completed a term sheet
for the test procedure, which is available at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2022-BTSTD-0015-0065.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24219
(c) Commenter Conclusions Regarding
Load-Based Testing
In general, almost all commenters
pointed toward several issues with loadbased testing that make it infeasible for
adoption as a regulatory test method at
this time. Carrier commented that it is
strongly opposed to DOE adopting any
of the load-based testing procedures
described in the January 2023 RFI since
current research on these methods
needs to be finalized before DOE
incorporates them into the test
procedure. (Carrier, No. 5 at p. 2) Daikin
pointed out that while load-based
testing may be appropriate when used
as a CVP (similar to how it is used for
VRF products in AHRI 1230–2021: 2021
Standard for Performance Rating of
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment (‘‘AHRI 1230–2021’’)),44 it is
not suitable for evaluating unit
efficiency and capacity. (Daikin, No. 16
at p. 1) Daikin encouraged DOE to make
modifications to the existing appendix
M1 and adopt a CVP in appendix M1
that is similar to the VRF CVP, but not
to adopt load-based testing as the
primary regulatory test method. (Id. at
pp. 1–2) Similary, AHRI commented
that although it will support the
improvement of load-based testing as an
academic pursuit, load-based testing has
not yet developed sufficiently such that
it may be used for regulatory purposes.
(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 7) AHRI further
commented it expects DOE to carefully
evaluate all the information
manufacturers have to report for
certification of their products and also
evaluate the burden for this reporting
and testing if planning to adopt loadbased testing. (Id.) NEEA stated that
although it has published several
articles that question the rank order
performance ratings evaluated from
fixed-speed testing, there is currently no
clear evidence that exhibits the
advantages of load-based testing.
(NEEA, No. 13 at p. 1) NYSERDA
commented that regarding the adoption
of load-based methods for regulatory
purposes, DOE should account for
products such as coil-only systems, split
system ACs or HPs with coil blowers,
and multi-split products.45 (NYSERDA,
No. 9 at p. 6) NYSERDA further
commented that there is still more work
that needs to be done in order to make
load-based testing suitable for DOE
regulatory purposes. (Id.) Finally,
44 See www.ahrinet.org/system/files/2023-06/
AHRI_Standard_1230-2021.pdf.
45 DOE believes that NYSERDA made this
comment owing to the fact that SPE07 does not
explicitly state that it is applicable to these product
types.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24220
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
NYSERDA stated that although it
supports a feasible and representative
load-based approach, developing a
procedure could be challenging. (Id. at
p. 4) The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to
collaborate with stakeholders to move to
a test procedure that requires units to
operate under native controls, but
recognized that an industry-wide
transition to load-based testing will be
time consuming and cost intensive. (CA
IOUs, No. 10 at pp. 1–2) The Joint
Advocates commented that load-based
testing methodologies would provide
better information on the field operation
of a CAC/HP, in comparison to the
fixed-speed tests currently in appendix
M1. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at pp. 1–2)
The Joint Advocates referred to how the
native controls testing in DOE’s Cold
Climate Heat Pump Technology
Challenge (‘‘DOE CCHP Tech
Challenge’’) 46 was informed by the
results of the steady-state regulatory
tests,47 and suggested that DOE could
adopt a similar provision for both
cooling and heating tests, in its
amended load-based test procedure.
(Id.)
Instead of wholesale adoption of a
load-based method, comments received
on the January 2023 RFI pointed toward
consensus preference for a limited form
of load-based testing to verify steadystate regulatory test performance under
native controls (i.e., a CVP). Samsung,
Lennox, AHRI, NYSERDA, NEEA, and
Rheem all encouraged DOE to adopt a
CVP that would ensure settings used
during steady state tests are
representative of those during native
controls operation. (Samsung, No. 11 at
pp. 1–2; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3; AHRI,
No. 14 at p. 7; NYSERDA, No. 9 at p.
5; NEEA, No. 13 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 12
at p. 3) Specifically, Lennox stated that
while steady state testing currently used
in appendix M1 should continue to be
used, a CVP can be used to validate the
settings used to test variable capacity
systems. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3) AHRI
commented that use of a CVP would be
more repeatable and less burdensome
than using load-based testing for direct
measurement of performance, adding
that CVPs have been used for other
product categories and may need some
adapatation for application to CAC/HPs.
46 On May 19, 2021, DOE, in conjunction with
EPA and NRCan, announced the DOE CCHP Tech
Challenge as part of the Energy, Emissions and
Equity (‘‘E3’’) Initiative. The specification of the
DOE CCHP Tech Challenge is available at
www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/btocchp-tech-challenge-spec-102521.pdf.
47 As an example, if a heating capacity of 18,000
Btu/h was measured during the H11 regulatory test,
the native controls ‘‘Min/Mild’’ test would apply an
equivalent 18,000 Btu/h cooling load to the indoor
room‘s conditioning equipment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 9) Additionally,
AHRI referred to a study it co-sponsored
with NEEA to collect representative
field data, which was expected to
conclude at the end of winter 2022/
2023. (Id. at p. 9) NYSERDA described
the CVP used in AHRI 1230–2021 for
VRFs and recommended that DOE adopt
something similar to it. (NYSERDA, No.
9 at p. 5) NYSERDA further
recommended that DOE adopt the CVP
outlined in ENERGY STAR Spec V6.1
for the low ambient heating steady-state
tests in appendix M1, namely H32 and
H42. (Id. at pp. 5–6) NYSERDA referred
to how the wet bulb test conditon in the
H4 heating test had increased from 3 °F
to 4 °F, which would decrease test
burden for labs if they conduct a loadbased CVP outlined in ENERGY STAR
Spec V6.1. (Id.) NYSERDA further
encouraged DOE to adopt a ‘‘budget’’
method to account for variability in
critical parameters during a CVP, and
recommended incorporation of a CVP
for validating the H11 (heating
minimum) test, and also a minimumspeed CVP at outdoor dry bulb
temperature of 17 °F.48 (Id.) NYSERDA
commented that performance of units at
part-load at milder temperatures has a
pronounced impact on the overall
seasonal energy efficiency, especially
when considering the intersection of
low-speed loads beween 17 °F and 47 °F,
highlighting that this impact was not
fully considered in implementation of
the ‘‘Min/Mild’’ CVP in the
specifications of the DOE CCHP Tech
Challenge. (Id. at p. 6) NEEA referred to
the two types of CVPs as descibed in
section III.F.1.b. and commented the
results of a study it performed called
into question whether a CVP can truly
capture the impact of native controls on
unit performance.49 (Id. at pp. 3–6)
Hence, NEEA commented that DOE
needs additional test data to make any
claims that CVP testing fully addresses
the impact of native control logic on
unit performance. Id. NEEA pointed to
the representativeness study 50 being
conducted by NEEP on three ducted and
three non-ducted heat pumps, tested
using AHRI 210/240 and SPE07, and
48 Currently, appendix M1 only has a full-speed
heating test at an ambient outdoor temperature of
17 °F, i.e., the H32 test.
49 Bruce Harley, Mark Alatorre, Christopher
Dymond, Gary Hamer, ‘‘CSA EXP07: Ongoing
Progress, Lessons Learned, and Future Work in
Load-based Testing of Residential Heat Pumps’’
(2022). Purdue University. Available at
docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=3455&context=iracc.
50 In its comment, NEEA pointed out that
preliminary analysis and data from this study will
be available probably by July 2023, but at the time
of writing this NOPR, neither the analysis, nor the
data, has become available.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
stated that this study could potentially
indicate what elements of a CVP are
critical to include in a revised appendix
M1, and also inform other issues raised
by DOE in the RFI, namely the
repeatability, reproducibility, and test
burden of load-based methods when
compared to fixed-speed testing. (Id. at
pp. 2–3)
To summarize, comments from the
January 2023 RFI indicated that
stakeholders preferred a CVP for
validating the performance of variable
capacity systems, rather than adopting a
load-based testing method for regulatory
purposes.
(d) DOE’s Conclusion and Approach
As mentioned previously, AHRI and
other relevant stakeholders, including
DOE, participated in the development of
revised AHRI test standards to address
the issues raised in the January 2023
RFI. In particular, the issues outlined in
the aforementioned comments in regard
to the representativeness of fixed-speed
testing for variable speed systems were
discussed in detail and consensus was
developed on a CVP approach. Based on
review of the stakeholder comments
received in response to the January 2023
RFI, specifically that it has not yet been
conclusively demonstrated that such
methods have sufficient repeatability
and reproducibility to be the basis of
direct measurement of system
performance, DOE has tentatively
concluded that use for direct
measurement of performance for
regulatory purposes would not be
suitable at this time. However, DOE also
tentatively concludes that a CVP would
be necessary to ensure that fixed-speed
settings of variable speed systems would
be achieved using native (unfixed)
control. Thus, DOE proposes to adopt
the CVP outlined in AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft
through incorporation by reference. The
next section discusses the
aforementioned CVP approach.
(e) CVP Proposal
Appendix I of the AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft
includes a CVP to verify variable
capacity system operation. The CVP is
intended to validate whether override of
modulating components in regulatory
tests is consistent with native control
operation. The CVP verifies: (1)
compliance with the variable capacity
compressor system definition; and (2)
consistency of fixed-position settings for
the compressor and indoor fan used in
steady-state regulatory tests with native
control operation.
The CVP in appendix I includes a set
of three cooling tests conducted in
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24221
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
bulb temperature is held constant at
three or four different levels, but is
controlled to ramp up from lower to
higher temperature as the heating mode
CVP transitions between the full load (at
5 °F if applicable and 17 °F outdoor dry
bulb temperature), intermediate load,
and low load test intervals.
As noted, part of the CVP (the
intermediate-load test) determines
compliance with the variable-capacity
compressor system definition. AHRI
210/240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–
202X Draft define variable capacity
compressor systems as:
Variable capacity compressor system
means an air conditioner or heat pump
that has either (a) a compressor that uses
a variable speed drive or inverter to vary
the compressor speed by four or more
speeds in each mode of operation (i.e.,
cooling/heating), or (b) a digital
compressor that mechanically
modulates output using a duty cycle;
and which controls the system by
monitoring system operation and
automatically modulating the
compressor output, indoor air flow and
other system parameters as required in
order to maintain the indoor room
temperature.
To determine compliance with the
definition, the CVP results obtained
from the intermediate load interval is
evaluated based on section I4.3.1 of
appendix I in in AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft, which requires that the standard
deviation of the system power does not
exceed 20 percent of the mean system
power. For a system that does not
comply with this compressor power (or
outdoor unit power) requirement, and
cycles between off and a single stage or
capacity level (+/¥15 percent), the
system is classified as a variable
capacity certified, single capacity
system. If this occurs for just one of the
operating modes (heating or cooling) for
a heat pump, the system is classified as
variable capacity certified, single
capacity for both modes. Additionally, a
= RAT(t) + M[VLs(T1)-Qs]
C
'
Where,
RAT(t) = the current indoor dry-bulb
temperature setpoint for the indoor room
reconditioning system
˙ s = the net sensible cooling capacity
Q
provided by the unit under test in the
current time step, as determined by airside measurements (see note below)
Dt = the time interval for updating the indoor
room reconditioning system controller
setpoint, in h
C = the simulated thermal capacitance of the
building interior, in units of Btu/°F,
given by
51 The modified VBL in the CVP differs from the
VBL in SPE07. For the modified VBL, the building
load used in the equations does not depend on the
indoor temperature and is a fixed function of target
indoor and outdoor temperatures.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
C
= SHRA,full * Qc(95)
24
VLs(Tj) = the sensible cooling portion of the
modified VBL for target outdoor ambient
dry-bulb temperature for each interval.
The magnitude of VLs(Tj) is directly
proportional to the certified cooling
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
52 For brevity, only cooling mode is explained in
the NOPR, to illustrate the 2nd part of the CVP.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
EP05AP24.050</GPH>
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
RAT(t + Llt)
system that does not comply with the
compressor power (or outdoor unit
power) requirement is not classified as
Variable Capacity Certified, SingleCapacity, and cycles between more than
one stage or capacity level (+/¥15
percent) is classified as a Variable
Capacity Certified, Two-Capacity
System. Again, this designation applies
for both modes for a heat pump, even
if the operation meets this description
for one of the modes. These terms are
defined in AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
and AHRI 1600–202X Draft as:
Variable Capacity Certified, Single
Capacity System means a system that is
certified as a variable capacity system
but demonstrates Single-Capacity
System behavior during the Variable
Capacity Determination CVP in
appendix I.
Variable Capacity Certified, Two
Capacity System means a system that is
certified as a variable capacity system,
but demonstrates Two-Capacity System
behavior during the Variable Capacity
Determination CVP in appendix I.
Use of the Intermediate Load CVP test
and its determination of compliance
with the variable speed system
definition in DOE enforcement testing is
discussed in section III.K.2 of this
document.
The full-load and low-load intervals
of the CVP determine if the fixed-speed
settings for the compressor and indoor
fan used during the regulatory test are
consistent with those that occur when
the unit is allowed to modulate under
native controls, as it maintains the
indoor room dry bulb temperature.
During the cooling mode CVP,52 the
indoor return air wet bulb temperature
is maintained at 67.0 °F, but the updated
target indoor dry-bulb temperature
setpoint for the indoor room
reconditioning system, RAT(t + Dt), is
updated based on equations I4–I6 of
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and AHRI
1600–202X Draft, as shown below:
EP05AP24.049</GPH>
series with intervening transition
periods, including the full,
intermediate, and minimum capacities.
The CVP uses a modified VBL 51
approach to simulate space condition
(temperature and humidity) response to
system operation, as explained in
section III.F.1.b.3 of this document.
Similarly, the CVP also includes three
or four heating tests conducted in series
for CHPs—the fourth test is specified for
those CHPs for which performance at
5 °F outdoor temperature is measured.
Similar to the cooling tests, the heating
tests have intervening transition periods
between the full, intermediate, and
minimum capacity test intervals.
For the three cooling tests, the indoor
return air conditions are controlled by
equations I1–I6 and paragraph I4.1.8 in
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and AHRI
1600–202X Draft—i.e., the indoor return
air wet bulb temperature is set at 67 °F,
and the indoor return air dry bulb target
varies near 80 °F based on the varying
system capacity and calculated building
load. The temperature setpoint of the
control of the system being tested is set
throughout the series of tests near 80 °F
with some adjustment to account for
control bias and offset. The outdoor dry
bulb temperature is held constant at
three different levels during the three
cooling-mode tests, but is controlled to
ramp down from higher to lower
temperature as the cooling mode CVP
transitions between the full load,
intermediate load, and low load test
intervals.
For the heating tests, the indoor
return air conditions are controlled by
equations I7–I13 in AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft. The
indoor return air dry bulb temperature
varies near 70 °F based on the varying
system capacity and calculated building
load. The temperature setpoint of the
control of the system being tested is set
throughout the series of tests near 70 °F
with some adjustment to account for
control bias and offset. The outdoor dry
24222
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
capacity at 67 °F outdoor ambient-dry
bulb temperature—i.e., the Flow test, and
the target SHR from the Flow regulatory
tests, as illustrated in equations I1 and
I3 of AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and
AHRI 1600–202X Draft. Thus, this
illustrates that the modulation of the
compressor speed setting and indoor air
flow rate is verified against those used
in the regulatory tests, as the unit tries
to maintain the indoor dry-bulb
temperature.
DOE proposes that load-based testing
will be not part of the test procedure
required for each test for any CAC/HP
products. DOE acknowledges that the
CVP approach outlined in appendix I of
the relevant AHRI drafts represents
industry consensus regarding the
verification of compliance of systems
with the variable capacity system
definition, and to verify the consistency
of fixed-speed settings of compressor
and indoor fan with native control
operation as part of enforcement. DOE
considers that this CVP approach will
provide a more representative test
procedure for variable speed systems
operating in the field, because it
provides a tool to verify that the
compressor speed settings and indoor
air fan settings used in regulatory tests
are representative of native-control
operation as the unit operates to
maintain the thermostat setpoint, i.e.,
indoor dry-bulb temperature. Therefore,
DOE is proposing to incorporate by
reference appendix I of the AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft to support enforcement
associated with testing conducted in
accordance with appendix M1, and to
incorporate by reference appendix I of
the AHRI 1600–202X Draft to support
enforcement associated with testing
conducted in accordance with appendix
M2. This is discussed in more detail in
section III.K.2 of this document.
2. Low-Temperature Heating
Performance
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
requested comment on several issues
regarding the foundational work needed
to improve the appendix M1 test
procedure to better account for CAC/HP
performance in cold climates, as
recommended by NYSERDA during the
previous rulemaking cycle that
culminated in the October 2022 Final
Rule. 88 FR 4091, 4103. In response to
the low-temperature heating
performance issues raised in the January
2023 RFI (i.e., whether to make the H4
heating tests mandatory, whether the
heating load line should be based on
heating or cooling capacity, and
methods of heat pump sizing), DOE
received several comments regarding
the establishment of a clear definition
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
for a CCHP as well as potential ways of
reporting performance for CCHPs. These
aforementioned topics are detailed in
separate sections below.
(a) CCHP Definition
In response to the January 2023 RFI,
several stakeholders commented in
support of establishing a definition for
products specifically engineered to
provide comfort heating at low ambient
conditions (i.e., CCHPs). Daikin
recommended that DOE work with
stakeholders to establish a clear
definition for CCHPs, whether as a
separate product class or an optional set
of recognition criteria. (Daikin, No. 16 at
p. 9) Similarly, AHRI commented in
support of a uniform definition for
products specifically engineered to
provide comfort heating at low ambient
conditions. (AHRI, No. 14 at pp. 2–3)
AHRI commented that engagement from
all stakeholders would be necessary to
overcome the shortcomings of previous
efforts to develop a definition for
CCHPs. (Id.)
Additionally, in forming a DOE
definition for CCHPs, AHRI requested it
be acknowledged that (1) not all U.S.
consumers would benefit from highertech CCHPs, and (2) the topography of
the United States makes it difficult to
assign regions that would correlate
heating degree days in the same way as
is done for split-system air conditioners,
as shown by Figure 1 53 of AHRI’s
response to the January 2023 RFI.
(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 3) Referring to
Figure 1, AHRI commented that it is
easy to see the cooling degree day
division between the North and South,
as in effect today, and that heating
degree days, on the other hand, meander
and are very closely tied to elevation
and longitude (to some extent). (Id.)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
other stakeholders, including DOE,
discussed several issues raised in the
January 2023 RFI when considering
updated versions of industry standards,
including the topic of a clear definition
for CCHPs. DOE notes that AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X
Draft both include a new definition for
CCHP as shown below:
Cold climate heat pump means a heat
pump for which both low-temperature
compressor cut-out and cut-in
temperatures are specified to be less
53 Figure 1 of AHRI’s response to the January 2023
RFI shows average annual cooling and heating
degree days in the contiguous United States from
1901–2000, using National Centers for
Environmental Information (‘‘NCEI’’) data compiled
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (‘‘NOAA’’). (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 3)
A degree day is equivalent to one day with an
average temperature that is one degree above or
below 65 °F.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
than 5 °F and for which capacity for the
H4full test (at 5 0F) is certified to be at
least 70 percent of the capacity for the
nominal full capacity test conducted at
47 0F (H1Full or H1Nom).
DOE surmises that the CCHP
definition provided in the relevant
AHRI drafts represents industry
consensus regarding a uniform
definition for products specifically
engineered to provide comfort heating at
low ambient conditions. DOE has also
tentatively determined that the
definition includes the relevant criteria
to characterize CCHP performance,
specifically low-temperature cut-out
and cut-in temperature settings to allow
operation down to at least 5 °F ambient
temperature, and maintenance of
heating capacity at low temperatures.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the definition
of a cold climate heat pump provided in
the AHRI 210/240–202X and AHRI
1600–202X Drafts, at appendix M1 and
appendix M2, respectively.
(b) Mandatory H4 Heating Tests for
CCHPs
While the H4 heating tests provide
meaningful information and more
representative ratings for products
designed specifically for low
temperature operation, in the January
2023 RFI, DOE noted that the current
appendix M1 test procedure includes
H4 heating tests as optional tests, as
they may not be appropriate for all HPs.
88 FR 4091, 4103. Currently, appendix
M1 allows the performance at 5 °F to be
extrapolated based on tests conducted at
17 °F and 47 °F (i.e., using the H32 and
H12 tests, respectively) for HPs that are
not tested at the H4 heating condition.
As such, in the January 2023 RFI,
DOE requested comment on whether it
would be appropriate to make the H4,
H42, or H43 heating tests in appendix
M1 mandatory for either all or a subset
of HPs (e.g., CCHPs) in order to produce
more representative ratings that account
for system performance at 5 °F. 88 FR
4091, 4103. In the case of mandating the
H4 heating tests for only a subset of
HPs, DOE requested information on
what characteristics would represent a
clear delineation to distinguish such
models from others. (Id.) DOE also
requested information on the prevalence
of test chambers capable of testing CHPs
at an outdoor ambient temperature of
5 °F. (Id.)
In response, AHRI and Daikin
recommended that the H4 tests be
mandated only for variable speed HPs
for which the compressor speed at the
H4 condition was different from that at
the H1 and H3 condition. (AHRI, No. 14
at p. 13; Daikin, No. 16 at p. 9) Daikin
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
asserted that it does not make sense to
require the H4 tests for any HP that does
not change speed, because, for singleand two-stage HPs, performance at 5 °F
can be extrapolated based on existing
test data since compressor performance
is linear for those products. (Daikin, No.
16 at p. 9) Daikin clarified that the
mandatory H4 tests would be applicable
even for a variable speed HP where the
manufacturer is targeting the southern
United States as a market. (Id.)
Like AHRI and Daikin, Rheem
commented against mandating the H4
tests for single- and two-stage
equipment; however, Rheem neither
supported nor opposed mandating the
H4 tests for variable speed systems.
(Rheem, No. 12 at p. 7) Rheem noted
that the current test procedure in
appendix M1 allows linear
extrapolation of heat pump performance
at outdoor temperatures colder than
17 °F using equations 4.2.1–4 and 4.2.1–
5 for HPs having a single-speed
compressor, and using equations 4.2.2–
3 and 4.2.2–4 for HPs having a twocapacity compressor. (Id.) As such,
Rheem commented that the test
procedure in appendix M1 reliably
indicates heat pump performance in
cold climates for single- and two-stage
equipment. (Id.) However, for variable
speed systems, Rheem acknowledged
that, in addition to compressor speed,
indoor and outdoor airflow rates may
change, which may bring the accuracy
of linear extrapolation into question for
these systems. (Id.)
Lennox commented against the idea
of making the H4 tests mandatory for
any HPs, contending that consumer
needs in many areas of the United States
with milder climates do not need the
capability of a CCHP and, thus, should
not require the additional test burden
associated with mandatory H4 tests.
(Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4)
NEEA recommended making the H4
heating tests mandatory for all HPs, but
not required within the test metric,
contending that this would result in a
more representative assessment of cold
climate efficiency and capacity across
all HPs. (NEEA, No. 13 at pp. 7–8)
Further, NEEA commented that in
conversations with industry
representatives, NEEA has received
indications that many manufacturers
already have test chambers that can test
down to 5 °F, suggesting that the testing
infrastructure is already in place to
implement a mandatory requirement for
the H4 heating tests. (Id.)
NEEA also recommended that for
units required to test at part-load
conditions (e.g., CCHPs), DOE require
reporting unit COP at part load
conditions. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 7)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
Specifically, NEEA recommended that
DOE require the reporting of COP at
FLow (at 67 °F) and H1Low (at 47 °F) for
units that are required to test at those
conditions. (Id.) NEEA commented that,
by requiring manufacturers to report
this data in a consistent format,
contractors will be able to make betterinformed choices about equipment that
works in their climate, and utility
companies will know which heat
pumps to recommend (i.e., incentivize)
to their customers. (Id.) NEEA pointed
to DOE’s CCHP Tech Challenge
specifications as an example of the kind
of information that consumers and
utilities need in order to make informed
decisions for their desired region and
application. (Id.)
NYSERDA encouraged DOE to make
H42 tests mandatory, but only for United
States North climate regions, at airentering outdoor unit temperatures of
5 °F dry bulb and 4 °F (max) wet bulb.
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 4) NYSERDA
explained that a precedence for
mandatory H42 tests was recently
codified in Canada’s Regulations
Amending the Energy Efficiency
Regulations, 2016 (Amendment 17),
published in the Canada Gazette, Part II,
on December 7, 2022.54 (Id.) NYSERDA
noted that mandatory reporting
requirements to National Resources
Canada (‘‘NRCan’’) as of January 1,
2023, are as follows: (a) a Region V
HSPF2; (b) information that indicates
whether the results of the appendix M1
H4 test, if conducted, were included in
the calculation of the Region V HSPF2;
(c) heating capacity at 5 °F if the H4 test
was conducted; and (d) COP at 5 °F if
the H4 test was conducted. (Id.) Further,
NYSERDA noted that, in Canada, HPs
manufactured on or after January 1,
2025, must be tested at the H4 test
conditions prescribed in appendix M1,
and that mandatory reporting
requirements to NRCan for the H4 test
conditions include heating capacity at
5 °F and COP at 5 °F. (Id.) More broadly,
NYSERDA recommended that DOE
should study more carefully whether
the incentives to conduct the optional
H42 tests on good-performing cold
climate equipment (because it would
increase the HSPF2 rating, particularly
in region V) are enough to ensure that
most manufacturers would conduct the
test to demonstrate that benefit. (Id.)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
other stakeholders, including DOE,
discussed issues raised in the January
2023 RFI, including the topic of
mandatory H4 heating tests for either all
or a subset of HPs, when developing
54 See canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2022/202212-21/html/sor-dors265-eng.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24223
updated industry standards in AHRI
210/240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–
202X Draft. DOE notes that these draft
industry standards include a footnote to
Table 7 (i.e., the required tests table),
applicable to all product types,
requiring the H4full heating test for all
products that meet the definition of a
CCHP. DOE surmises that this new
mandate for all products certified as a
CCHP in the relevant AHRI drafts
represents industry consensus regarding
whether it would be appropriate to
make the H4 heating tests mandatory for
either all or a subset of HPs. DOE has
tentatively determined that the H4
heating tests are representative of CCHP
operation. Therefore, in addition to its
proposal to incorporate the CCHP
definition as discussed in section
III.E.2.a of this document, DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the mandate for products certified as
CCHP to conduct the H4 heating tests
(either the H4, H42, or H43 heating test,
as applicable) provided in the AHRI
210/240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–
202X Draft, at appendix M1 and
appendix M2, respectively.
(c) Heating Load Line and Sizing for
CCHPs
In a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘SNOPR’’) regarding CAC/
HP test procedures published on August
24, 2016 (‘‘August 2016 SNOPR’’), DOE
noted that most heat pump units in the
field are sized based on cooling capacity
as opposed to heat pump capacity,
consistent with the Air Conditioning
Contractors of America (‘‘ACCA’’)
Manual S provisions. 81 FR 58163,
58188. Subsequently, in the January
2017 Final Rule, DOE revised appendix
M1 such that the determination of the
heating load line was based on cooling
capacity rather than heating capacity. 82
FR 1426, 1453–1454. In the January
2023 RFI, DOE explained that part of the
motivation for this change was that the
previous approach of heating load line
determination based on the nominal
heating capacity (‘‘H1N capacity’’)
provided little incentive to design for
good heat pump performance, since low
H1N capacity resulted in a low load line
and generally better HSPF2. 88 FR 4091,
4103. DOE explained that sizing based
on cooling capacity is consistent with
trends for sales distributions of heat
pumps, which have had greater
adoption in milder climates than cold
climates.55 (Id.) However, DOE also
55 Residential Energy Consumption Survey
(‘‘RECS’’) 2020 data shows that electric heat pumps
represent 29 percent of primary space heating
equipment in homes in the South region, which is
a higher number as compared to the 14 percent for
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
Continued
05APP2
24224
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
expressed awareness that NRCan has
proposed alternatives for sizing CAC/
HPs, in its ‘‘Air Source Heat Pump
Sizing and Selection Guide,’’ 56 which
provides four different approaches with
varying emphasis on heating vs. cooling,
ranging from sizing based on cooling to
sizing such that the heat pump can meet
the design heating load without need for
resistance auxiliary heat. (Id.) In the
January 2023 RFI, DOE acknowledged
that in cold climates, sizing a heat pump
for heating may be more appropriate
than sizing for cooling. (Id.) Further,
DOE acknowledged that accurate
information regarding heat pump coldweather performance is relevant for
selection of the best heat pumps for cold
climates. (Id.) Nevertheless, DOE found
it unclear how a test procedure using a
heating load line based on heating
performance would incentivize good
heating performance, particularly if it is
based on heating performance at 47 °F,
which is not a heating design
temperature, and noted that this is the
same issue that led DOE to move to the
cooling-capacity-based heating load line
in appendix M1 in the January 2017
Final Rule.57 (Id.) As a result, in the
January 2023 RFI, DOE requested
comment on whether the test procedure
for CCHPs should use a heating load
line based on heating performance, and
how such an approach could be
implemented such that it does not
weaken the incentive for good coldtemperature heating performance.
In response, NYSERDA commented
that sizing for cooling mode in climates
where HPs will increasingly be relied
upon to provide full home heat is not
an appropriate approach to ensure that
the right equipment is sized and
selected, and suggested that a regional
approach to HSPF2 ratings should be
considered for CCHPs to allow for the
prioritization of design heating
performance. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 2)
NYSERDA commented in support of
prioritizing sizing based on design
heating loads at design temperatures as
low as ¥4 °F, specifically pointing to
US overall. See www.eia.gov/consumption/
residential/data/2020/hc/pdf/HC%206.8.pdf.
56 The ‘‘Air Source Heat Pump Sizing and
Selection Guide’’ was written by NRCan in response
to stakeholder requests for consistent guidance for
sizing ASHPs according to the design heating or
cooling load and intended use as well as identifying
the appropriate system according to the installation
and application. The four methods of sizing in the
Guide are Options 4A (Emphasis on Cooling), 4B
(Balanced Heating and Cooling), 4C (Emphasis on
Heating) and 4D (Sized on Design Heating Load).
The ‘‘Air Source Heat Pump Sizing and Selection
Guide’’ is available at publications.gc.ca/
collections/collection_2021/rncan-nrcan/M154-1382020-eng.pdf.
57 See 82 FR 1426, 1453–1459 of the January 2017
Final Rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
the NRCan ‘‘Air Source Heat Pump
Sizing and Selection Guide’’ mentioned
previously. (Id.) Citing the NEEP ‘‘Guide
to Sizing & Selecting Air-Source Heat
Pumps in Cold Climates,’’ 58 NYSERDA
explained that installers are
recommended to match system heating
capacity (minus any reliance on
auxiliary heat) at design temperatures
within 100–115 percent of the estimated
heating load. (Id.) Further, NYSERDA
commented that in partnership with
electric utilities in New York,
NYSERDA has designed a tool for
residential buildings capable of
demonstrating that a CCHP sized for
heating load may be considered to meet
an alternate compliance method for the
mechanical design requirements under
the 2020 Energy Conservation
Construction Code of New York State,
which would typically apply to the
International Energy Conservation Code
(‘‘IECC’’) as well.59 (Id.) NYSERDA
noted that the tools and guidance
around sizing for heating load were
developed to ensure successful
installations of CCHPs and grew out of
market needs for this information.
NYSERDA pointed to a DOE-sponsored
market survey conducted of 156
ductless HP (single-split systems as
defined in appendix M1) owners in
Juneau, Alaska, that confirmed owners
place emphasis on design heating loads
while prioritizing climate, reducing
fossil fuel usage, and lowering heating
costs.60 (Id.) The survey results showed
that the ability to have air conditioning
was ranked the lowest in terms of
owners’ priorities, that about 93 percent
of homeowners expressed satisfaction
with their decision to install ductless
HPs, and that most respondents viewed
ductless HPs as products that would
entirely replace or significantly reduce
the use of other heating sources.
Aside from its suggested design for
heating in cold climates, NYSERDA
commented that it would not support
changing the heating load line equations
in appendix M1. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at
pp. 2–3) NYSERDA reasoned that
revising the rating procedure to account
for heating sizing in the building
heating load line equation would
essentially suppress the heating load
seen by HPs and reduce or minimize the
assumed use of auxiliary electric heat in
the HSPF bin model. (Id.) NYSERDA
commented that this would have the
impact of overstating the performance of
58 See neep.org/sites/default/files/resources/
ASHP%20Sizing%20%26%20Selecting%20%208x11_edits.pdf.
59 See cleanheat.ny.gov/contractor-resources/.
60 See cchrc.org/media/2020-Juneau-DHP-SurveyFinal1.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
systems that have poor capacity in cold
weather conditions, and would reduce
(not emphasize) the differences in HSPF
between those systems and others that
have high capacity at low outdoor
temperatures. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented in support
of NYSERDA’s recommendation for
assuming heat pump sizing based on the
design heating load solely in heatingdominated regions. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at
p. 4) Similarly, AHRI and Rheem both
commented that they would support
modifications to the test procedure to
address the differences between the
cooling and heating load profiles for
colder climates. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 13;
Rheem, No. 12 at p. 7)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
other stakeholders, including DOE,
discussed several issues raised in the
January 2023 RFI, including the topic of
the heating load line and sizing for
CCHPs, when considering updated
versions of industry standards. The
information provided in the
aforementioned comments was
discussed in detail in the development
of the AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and
AHRI 1600–202X Draft, which include
no exception for CCHPs to base the
heating load line on heating
performance rather than cooling
performance. DOE surmises that the
absence of such an exception in the
relevant AHRI drafts represents industry
consensus regarding whether the test
procedure for CCHPs should use a
heating load line based on heating
performance, rather than cooling
performance. Further, DOE has
tentatively concluded that the
aforementioned approach is appropriate
for sizing of CCHPs and is consistent
with DOE’s position expressed in a prior
rulemaking that the heating load line
determination based on the nominal
heating capacity (H1N capacity)
provides little incentive to design for
good heat pump performance, since low
H1N capacity results in a low load line
and generally better HSPF. (See 81 FR,
58164, 58186). This would hold true
also if the heating load line was based
on a different heating operating
condition, e.g. capacity for 5 °F outdoor
temperature, since poor performance at
the test point would lower the heating
load line. Therefore, DOE is proposing
to incorporate no exception for CCHPs
to base the heating load line on heating
performance rather than cooling
performance (i.e., DOE proposes to
retain the current size-for-cooling
approach) at both appendix M1 and
appendix M2.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
fractional bin hours in Region V are
present across all bins compared to
Region IV, for cities located in climate
zones designated as subarctic/arctic by
the IECC, weather data suggest a Region
V HSPF2 is more appropriate for all
cold climate regions and shows focusing
only on Region IV HSPF2 does not
benefit consumers in colder climates.
(Id.)
Similarly, AHRI commented in
support of a test method for products
specifically engineered to provide
comfort heating at low ambient
conditions. (AHRI, No. 14 at pp. 2–3)
AHRI commented that engagement from
all stakeholders would be necessary to
overcome the shortcomings of previous
efforts to develop testing methodologies
for CCHPs. (Id.) Carrier also commented
that all stakeholders could benefit from
an update to appendix M1 that includes
optional tests to improve the
representativeness of products marketed
as a CCHP. (Carrier, No. 5 at p. 1)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
other stakeholders, including DOE,
discussed several issues raised in the
January 2023 RFI when considering
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
COPPeak
and BL(5) is the building load at 5 °F, is
the electrical power consumption of the
heat pump during the H4Full test, and Full
is the space heating capacity of the heat
pump during the H4Full test.
COPpeak provides the opportunity for
manufacturers to make optional
representations of their HPs, regardless
of whether they are CCHPs, and is
distinct from COP at the H4 testing
conditions as it accounts for the
additional resistance heat required to
meet the building load under peak
conditions. As such, COPpeak would be
less than the tested COP at 5 °F but
greater than 1, for any HP with COP
greater than 1 at 5 °F.
DOE surmises that the inclusion of
COPpeak in the relevant AHRI drafts
represents industry consensus regarding
improvements to representations of HP
performance at low ambient
temperatures. DOE has tentatively
determined that inclusion of COPpeak
would allow for representative
61 The heating fractional bin hours in Table 1 of
NYSERDA’s response are based on archived
weather data accessed from National Renewable
Energy Laboratory’s (‘‘NREL’’) National Solar
Radiation Database (‘‘NSRDB’’) and NREL’s PSM v3
TMY weather data accessed from NSRDB.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:14 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
=
updated versions of industry standards,
including the topic of test methods that
accurately measure the cold climate
heating performance of HPs. The
information provided in the
aforementioned comments was
discussed in detail in the development
of the AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and
AHRI 1600–202X Draft, which add a
new test method in appendix L to
measure the heating performance of HPs
at low ambient temperatures. Rather
than designate Region V HSPF2 as the
relevant ‘‘cold climate’’ heating metric
of interest or requiring a separate test
procedure for CCHPs, appendix L of the
AHRI 210/240–202X and AHRI 1600–
202X Drafts include the calculation
steps for a new heating performance
metric, the peak load coefficient of
performance (‘‘COPpeak’’), intended to
provide an indication of total heating
efficiency as applied under peak heating
load conditions. Specifically, COPpeak
conveys the total energy consumed by
both the HP and supplemental heat
when meeting the building load at 5 °F,
calculated using the equation below:
BL(S)
3.412. PFuzz(S) + [BL(S) - ClFuzz(S)]
The calculation of HSPF2 in appendix
M1 requires values for cut-out 62 and
cut-in 63 temperatures (see, e.g.,
equation 4.2.1–3 in section 4.2 of
appendix M1). For CAC/HPs that do not
include the cut-out and cut-in
temperatures in their installation
manuals, the manufacturer (or DOE, in
the case of compliance testing) must
provide the test lab with this
information. In the January 2023 RFI,
DOE explained that, based on lab
testing, it has found manufacturers often
use cut-out and cut-in temperatures in
their HSPF2 calculations that are much
lower than can be reasonably expected
in the field—in some instances as low
as ¥40 °F. 88 FR 4091, 4105. DOE
expressed concern in this finding
because of a review of product literature
for scroll compressors with model
numbers Copeland ZP*3KE and ZP*5KE
R–410A (typically used in CAC/HPs)
that shows the lowest refrigerant
evaporating temperature of these
systems is no lower than ¥10 °F.64 (Id.)
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE also
shared findings, in testing, that the
ambient temperatures at which a unit’s
control cuts out and cuts in may
significantly differ from the control’s
specified temperatures. 88 FR 4091,
4105. DOE acknowledged that this can
be due to control component
manufacturing variation. (Id.) However,
DOE also explained that it can be due
to sensors being located where
62 Cut-out temperature refers to the outdoor
temperature at which the unit compressor stops
(cuts out) operation.
63 Cut-in temperature refers to the outdoor
temperature at which the unit compressor restarts
(cuts in) operation.
64 Figure 7 in the operating bulletin of the
Copeland ZP*3KE and ZP*5KE R–410A scroll
compressors shows their evaporating envelope,
clearly indicating that they should not be used
below saturated suction temperatures of ¥10 °F,
implying that this should be set as the cut-out
temperature. The bulletin is available at
climate.emerson.com/documents/ae-1331-zp16-tozp44k3e-zp14-to-zp61k5e-r-410a-1-5-to-5-toncopeland-scroll-compressors-en-us-1571048.pdf.
characterizations of HP performance at
low ambient temperatures. Therefore,
DOE is proposing to incorporate by
reference COPpeak as an optional
representation for manufacturers hoping
to advertise their HPs’ peak load
performance, as outlined in appendix L
of the AHRI 210/240–202X and AHRI
1600–202X Drafts, at appendix M1 and
appendix M2, respectively.
3. Cut-Out and Cut-In Temperature
Certification
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
EP05AP24.051</GPH>
(d) Cold Climate Heating Metric of
Interest, COPpeak
Currently, the Federal energy
conservation standards and
certification, compliance, and
enforcement provisions for CAC/HPs
only require manufacturers to report the
HSPF2 of HPs based on Region IV.
However, DOE acknowledges that
Region IV HSPF2 may not adequately
represent the cold climate performance
of such systems.
To better represent the heating
performance of HPs in cold climates, in
response to the January 2023 RFI,
NYSERDA commented in support of the
use and publication of Region V HSPF2
in addition to Region IV HSPF2, and of
designating Region V HSPF2 as a
relevant ‘‘cold climate’’ heating metric
of interest. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 3)
Table 1 of NYSERDA’s response
summarizes the heating fractional bin
hours for several U.S. cities in cold and
very cold climate regions 61 and
compares them to the current Region IV
heating fractional bin hours presented
in Table 20 of appendix M1. (Id.)
NYSERDA stated that, since the heating
24225
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
24226
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
temperature deviates from that of the
ambient air (e.g., downstream of the
outdoor coil, which absorbs heat from
the ambient air during heat pump
operation). (Id.) As such, in the January
2023 RFI, DOE requested information on
the range of cut-out temperatures for
compressor operation of CAC/HPs. (Id.)
In response, Rheem commented that a
sufficient hysteresis, or difference
between cut-in and cut-out
temperatures, is necessary for reliable
compressor operation and in some cases
is prescribed by the compressor drive
manufacturer. (Rheem, No. 12 at p. 8)
The CA IOUs concurred with DOE’s
observation that the controls and
sensors can significantly impact actual
cut-in and cut-out temperatures and
commented in support of DOE’s
investigation of cut-out and cut-in
temperature certification, stating that
the CA IOUs had observed similar
discrepancies between cut-out
temperatures listed in manufacturer
installation/operations materials relative
to those seen under native controls in
laboratory testing of packaged terminal
heat pumps. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 4)
The Joint Advocates encouraged DOE to
consider adopting a cut-in and cut-out
temperature validation test (instead of
relying on manufacturer-provided
values), if DOE determines that the
discrepancies regarding cut-out and cutin temperatures described earlier
contributes to unrepresentative ratings
of seasonal heating performance. (Joint
Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3)
NYSERDA also supported an
approach to certify cut-out and cut-in
temperatures and proposed that DOE
consider recommendation 10 of the
2022 ASRAC CUAC and CUHP WG TP
term sheet. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 12–
13) Recommendation 10 suggests
requiring manufacturers to certify cutout and cut-in temperatures to DOE or
the absence thereof, and prescribes that
DOE adopt a product-specific
enforcement provision that includes a
verification test based on the following
method:
• Outdoor air temperature (‘‘OAT’’) is
measured using an outdoor coil air
sampler.
• Start at an OAT above but close to
cut-out temperature.
• Ramp down OAT temperature at
1 °F per 5 minutes.
• Wait for 5 minutes once unit shuts
off. Cut-out temperature is the measured
temperature with the unit turned off.
• Reverse temperature ramp and
increase the temperature by 1 °F per 5
minutes.
• Wait for 5 minutes once the unit
turns on. Cut-in temperature is the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
measured temperature with the unit
turned on.
NYSERDA further commented that
recommendation 10 could be adapted
for HPs in a manner that allows
adjustment to the low temperature cutout factor specified in equation 4.2.1–3
of appendix M1, if DOE deems during
its enforcement test that the measured
cut-out and cut-in temperatures
significantly deviate from manufacturercertified values, thereby impacting the
calculated HSPF2 value during the
enforcement testing process.
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 12–13)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
other stakeholders, including DOE,
discussed several issues raised in the
January 2023 RFI, including the topic of
cut-out and cut-in temperature
certification, when considering updated
versions of industry standards. The
information provided in the
aforementioned comments was
discussed in detail in the development
of the AHRI 210/240–202X and AHRI
1600–202X Drafts, which, in the
appendix K of their respective drafts,
include a test applicable to all HPs to
determine cut-out and cut-in
temperatures (i.e., Toff and Ton
respectively). Appendix K follows
recommendation 10 of the 2022 ASRAC
CUAC and CUHP WG TP term sheet and
includes an accommodation for those
test facilities incapable of reaching
OATs below ¥22 °F. For units with cutout temperatures below ¥22 °F tested in
facilities that are incapable of reaching
OATs below ¥22 °F, appendix K
instructs to (alternatively) end the test 5
minutes after the average outdoor coil
air inlet temperature reaches and
maintains the coldest achievable
temperature below ¥22 °F, and to
record Toff as this coldest achievable
temperature below ¥22 °F. DOE
surmises that this approach provided in
appendix K of the relevant AHRI drafts
represents industry consensus regarding
a test to verify cut-out and cut-in
temperatures for HPs. DOE has
tentatively determined that this
approach is appropriate while
accounting for the capability limitations
of certain test facilities. Therefore, DOE
is proposing to require appendix K of
the AHRI 210/240–202X Draft to
support enforcement associated with
testing conducted in accordance with
appendix M1, and to require appendix
K of the AHRI 1600–202X Draft to
support enforcement associated with
testing conducted in accordance with
appendix M2. As further discussed in
section III.J.1 of this document, DOE
may verify certified cut-out and cut-in
temperatures using the test methods in
appendix K of the relevant AHRI drafts
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
for the purposes of assessment and
enforcement testing.
4. Low-Static Single-Split Blower-Coil
System Definition and Testing
Provisions
Section 3.1.4.1.1 of appendix M1
defines the minimum ESP for ducted
blower-coil systems in Table 4. For
conventional blower-coil systems (i.e.,
all CAC/HPs that are not classified as
ceiling-mount, wall-mount, mobile
home, low-static, mid-static, small-duct
high-velocity (‘‘SDHV’’), or spaceconstrained), the minimum ESP is
specified as 0.5 in. wc. The definition
for low-static blower-coil systems
includes only multi-split and multihead mini-split systems—it does not
include single-split systems.
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
explained that, during the previous
rulemaking cycle that culminated in the
October 2022 Final Rule, stakeholders
requested that the low-static blower-coil
system definition be expanded to
include products, such as single-split
systems, that cannot accommodate the
0.5 in. wc. necessary for testing. 88 FR
4091, 4105–4106. However, in the
October 2022 Final Rule, DOE did not
revise the definition for low-static
blower-coil systems, nor did it include
any new test provisions to accommodate
these system types. 87 FR 64550,
64575–64576. DOE believed that
revising the definition of low-static
blower-coil systems would conflict with
the intent of comments made by
stakeholders when establishing
appendix M1, and could potentially
create an unfair competitive advantage
for these system types by allowing more
lenient testing conditions (and thus
comparatively higher ratings) as
compared to conventional centrally
ducted systems tested at minimum ESPs
exceeding 0.5 in. wc. (Id.)
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
considered it appropriate to revisit the
issue of extending the definition of lowstatic blower-coil systems to single-split
systems, rather than grant test procedure
waivers to allow such models to test
using lower ESPs.65 88 FR 4091, 4106.
As such, DOE requested comment from
stakeholders on whether the low-static
blower-coil system definition should be
extended to single-split systems, and if
extended, how these low-static blower65 In the time since the January 2023 RFI, DOE
has granted an interim waiver pending final
determinations that allow testing for certain basic
models of single-split low-static ducted blower-coil
systems (which are incapable of meeting the
conventional minimum ESP requirement of 0.5 in.
wc. found in Table 4 of appendix M1). This interim
waiver was granted to Samsung on June 5, 2023 (see
88 FR 36558).
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
coil systems should be differentiated
from conventional systems. (Id.)
In response, Daikin commented in
support of developing a definition with
stakeholders. (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 11)
Similar to the existing ‘‘wall-mount’’
and ‘‘ceiling-mount’’ blower-coil
systems defined in appendix M1, Daikin
commented that low-static blower-coil
systems have physical and operational
characteristics that could be defined
such that it would not be possible for a
common residential ducted blower-coil
to ‘cheat’ the system and test at a lower
ESP. (Id.) Daikin suggested this could be
accomplished by defining physical
dimensions (in a similar fashion to
‘‘ceiling-mount’’) as well as applying an
appropriate maximum airflow rate per
capacity (cfm per ton) at a relatively low
ESP. (Id.)
AHRI also commented in support of
the addition of a definition for singlesplit low-static blower-coil systems, as
low static single-zone 66 units cannot
accommodate the minimum 0.5 in. wc.
ESP necessary to be tested using
appendix M1. (AHRI No. 14 at pp. 14–
15) AHRI proposed the following
amended definition of a low-static
blower-coil system (addition is in italic):
Low static blower-coil system means
(a) a ducted multi split or multi head
mini split system for which all indoor
units produce 67 greater than 0.01 in.
wc. and a maximum of 0.35 in. wc.
external static pressure when operated
at the cooling full load air volume rate
not exceeding 400 cfm per rated ton of
cooling, or (b) a ducted single zone mini
split for which the indoor unit produces
a maximum of 0.25 in. wc. external
static pressure not exceeding 350 cfm/
ton when operated at the highest
possible air flow rate and has a rated
heating or cooling capacity less than
24,500 Btu/h.
Samsung agreed with AHRI’s
proposed definition and requested its
adoption. (Samsung, No. 11 at p. 2)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
other stakeholders, including DOE,
considered several issues raised in the
January 2023 RFI, including the topic of
extending the definition of low-static
blower-coil systems, when considering
updated versions of industry test
standards. The information provided in
the aforementioned comments was
discussed in detail in the development
66 The comments used the term ‘‘single-zone’’,
which is addressed by the term ‘‘single-split’’ in
appendix M1.
67 The proposed alternate definition for ‘‘LowStatic Blower-Coil System’’ in AHRI’s response uses
the language ‘‘the indoor unit produce.’’ (AHRI No.
14 at p. 14) DOE surmises that this is a
typographical error and that AHRI meant to write
‘‘all indoor units produce’’ as is in appendix M1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
of the AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and
AHRI 1600–202X Draft, which, rather
than amend the current low-static
blower-coil system definition, include a
new definition specific for low-static
single-split blower-coil systems as
shown below.
Low-static single-split blower-coil
system means a ducted single-split
system air conditioner or heat pump for
which all of the following apply:
(1) The Outdoor Unit has a certified
cooling capacity less than or equal to
24,000 Btu/h;
(2) If the Outdoor Unit is a heat pump
or a variable capacity air conditioner, it
is separately certified with a blower-coil
indoor unit tested with a minimum 0.5
in. wc. ESP, otherwise it is separately
certified with a coil-only indoor unit;
and
(3) The Indoor Unit is marketed for
and produces a maximum ESP less than
0.5 in. wc. when operated at the
certified cooling full-load air volume
rate not exceeding 400 scfm per rated
ton of cooling.
Both AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and
AHRI 1600–202X Draft also include
provisions instructing low-static singlesplit blower-coil systems to be tested at
their certified airflow (not to exceed 400
scfm per rated ton of cooling capacity)
at their maximum airflow setting. If the
ESP achieved at the rated airflow is less
than 0.1 in. wc., the provisions instruct
adjustment of the airflow measurement
apparatus fan to reduce airflow and
increase ESP until a minimum of 0.1 in.
wc. is achieved.
DOE surmises that the new definition
of low-static single-split blower-coil
system and associated testing provisions
provided in the relevant AHRI drafts
represent industry consensus regarding
the issue of expanding the low-static
blower-coil system definition to include
products, such as single-split systems,
that cannot accommodate the 0.5 in. wc.
necessary for testing in appendix M1.
DOE considers the new definition of
low-static single-split blower-coil
systems and the corresponding test
requirements to be appropriate as they
allow for testing of system combinations
including indoor units that cannot meet
the minimum ESP of 0.5 in. w.c. This
approach would also require the
outdoor unit to be rated when operating
with a 0.5 in w.c. (or blower-coil) indoor
unit, thus ensuring that the outdoor
units of low-static combinations do not
gain an unfair advantage due to being
allowed to test with an indoor unit at a
lower ESP. Therefore, DOE is proposing
to incorporate by reference the new
definition of low-static single-split
blower-coil system and the
aforementioned testing provisions
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24227
outlined in the AHRI 210/240–202X and
AHRI 1600–202X Drafts, at appendix
M1 and appendix M2, respectively.
Should the new definition of lowstatic single-split blower-coil system
and the associated testing provisions be
adopted, DOE would terminate an
interim waiver pending final
determination, which allows testing for
certain basic models of low-static singlesplit ducted blower-coil systems that are
incapable of meeting the conventional
minimum ESP requirement of 0.5 in.
wc. found in Table 4 of appendix M1.
The interim waiver was granted to
Samsung on June 5, 2023 (see 88 FR
36558). The interim waiver granted an
alternate test procedure, which instructs
the manufacturer to test their specific
basic models at 0.1 in. wc. ESP but to
adjust the fan power 68 to reflect
operation at 0.5 in. wc. ESP, consistent
with the requirements of appendix M1.
The alternate test procedure also
instructed to adjust heating and cooling
capacities 69 to account for increased fan
heat. The interim waiver was granted
with the understanding that it was
impossible to test the manufacturers’
specific basic models according to the
prescribed test procedures in appendix
M1, DOE surmises that this alternate
test procedure would no longer be
necessary should appendix M1 be
amended to enable testing of the
manufacturers’ specific basic models.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to
terminate the aforementioned waiver for
Samsung, should the new definition of
low-static single-split blower-coil
system and associated testing provisions
provided in the AHRI 210/240–202X
and AHRI 1600–202X Drafts be adopted.
5. Mandatory Constant Circulation
Systems
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE noted
that there is a potential for increased use
of indoor fan constant circulation in
systems that employ new refrigerants to
mitigate flammability risks. 88 FR 4091,
4102. Currently, nearly all CAC/HP
products are designed with R–410A as
the refrigerant. The EPA Significant
New Alternatives Policy (‘‘SNAP’’)
Program evaluates and regulates
substitutes for ozone-depleting
chemicals (such as CAC/HP refrigerants)
68 In all sections of appendix M1 where total
cooling capacity, total heating capacity, sensible
cooling capacity, and electrical power consumption
are calculated, the alternate test procedure requires
the measured indoor fan power to be increased by
87 watts per 1000 scfm. (see 88 FR 36558).
69 The alternate test procedure requires that, for
all tests, cooling capacity be decreased by the Btu/
h equivalent of the fan power adjustment (i.e., 297
Btu/h per 1000 scfm); likewise, for all tests, the
heating capacity be increased by the same Btu/h
equivalent. (see 88 FR 36558).
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24228
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
that are being phased out under the
stratospheric ozone protection
provisions of the Clean Air Act. (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 70 Of interest to
CAC/HPs, the EPA SNAP Program’s list
of viable substitutes 71 includes a group
of refrigerants classified as A2L
refrigerants. A2L refrigerants receive
high attention for their low GWP in
addition to their minimal to zero ozone
depletion potential. However, A2L
refrigerants also face stricter safety
requirements than most due to the
flammability concerns associated with
their ‘‘2L’’ ASHRAE safety
classification.72
Considering A2L flammability
concerns and the large push toward
their increased use in design, UL
published updated safety standards 73
for electrical heat pumps, airconditioners, and dehumidifiers that
include the CAC/HP products at issue in
this document. One safety risk these
standards address is refrigerant leakage,
which can be especially hazardous with
A2Ls involved. In satisfaction of new
UL safety requirements, manufacturers
may need to adjust CAC/HP product
design to include refrigerant leak
detection systems that use sensors and
control logic to detect a loss of pressure,
activate the evaporator fan, and use
circulated air to quickly disperse and
dilute refrigerant in the event of a
leakage. In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
acknowledged that a subsequent need
may exist for the constant circulation of
refrigerant or circulation based on leak
detection to accommodate these
refrigerant leak detection and mitigation
strategies in CAC/HP product design. 88
FR 4091, 4102. As such, DOE requested
comment on whether UL safety
requirements for A2L refrigerants will
require some level of circulation on a
continuous basis from a unit’s indoor
fan, or whether circulation to disperse
refrigerant will only be required when
70 Additional information regarding EPA’s SNAP
Program is available online at: www.epa.gov/ozone/
snap/.
71 List of EPA SNAP program-approved
refrigerant substitutes is available at www.epa.gov/
snap/substitutes-residential-and-light-commercialair-conditioning-and-heat-pumps.
72 ASHRAE assigns safety classification to
refrigerants based on toxicity and flammability data.
The capital letter designates a toxicity class based
on allowable exposure and the numeral denotes
flammability. For toxicity, Class A denotes
refrigerants of lower toxicity, and Class B denotes
refrigerants of higher toxicity. For flammability,
class 1 denotes refrigerants that do not propagate a
flame when tested as per the standard; classes 2 and
2L denote refrigerants of lower flammability; and
class 3 denotes highly flammable refrigerants (such
as hydrocarbons).
73 On November 1, 2019, UL published an
updated 3rd edition of UL 60335–2–40 that
includes safety requirements regarding the use A2L
refrigerants in CAC/HP product design.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
sensors detect a leak. Id. DOE also
expressed interest to know of any other
techniques that manufacturers will use
for dispersing the A2L refrigerant in the
event of a refrigerant leak. Id.
In response, AHRI, Rheem, and
Samsung all commented that constant
circulation is a permitted option for A2L
mitigation, but is not required. (AHRI,
No. 14 at p. 12; Rheem, No. 12 at p. 6;
Samsung, No. 11 at p. 2) Daikin
specifically noted that UL/CSA 60335–
2–40 will only require circulation in the
event of detection of a refrigerant leak,
which is abnormal operation, and thus
not a ‘‘typical use cycle.’’ (Daikin, No.
16 at p. 8) For alternative methods of
A2L mitigation, Rheem pointed to
ASHRAE Standard 15–2016, Safety
Standard for Refrigeration Systems
(‘‘ASHRAE 15–2016’’),74 which
prescribes several methods to disperse/
diffuse leaked refrigerant and allows
selection of one or more methods to
comply with safety standards. (Rheem,
No. 12 at p. 6) Related to this topic, the
CA IOUs commented that leak detection
systems (which only activate the fan
when required to disperse fugitive
refrigerant) likely reduce a unit’s energy
consumption. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 4)
While constant circulation may not be
a required option, DOE notes that CAC/
HPs may increasingly incorporate
constant circulation systems in future
design. As previously mentioned, AHRI
and other stakeholders, including DOE,
discussed several issues raised in the
January 2023 RFI, including the topic of
mandatory constant circulation systems,
when considering updated versions of
industry standards. The information
provided in the aforementioned
comments was discussed in detail in the
development of AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft, for
which stakeholders agreed to include a
new definition for ‘‘mandatory constant
circulation system,’’ shown below.
Mandatory constant circulation
system means an air conditioner or heat
pump that operates the indoor fan
continuously when power is applied to
the unit regardless of control settings.
The updated industry standard drafts
also include testing provisions for such
systems, outlined in sections 5.1.1,
6.1.3.1.1, and 6.1.3.2.1 as well as Table
7 of both AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and
AHRI 1600–202X Draft.75 These
provisions require CAC/HPs meeting the
74 ASHRAE 15–2016 is available for purchase at
www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/ashrae-152016-packaged-w-34-2016?product_id=1938420.
75 DOE notes that additional testing provisions for
mandatory constant circulation systems are
included in the AHRI 1600–202X Draft, which are
separately discussed and proposed to be adopted in
section III.F.1.e) of this NOPR.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mandatory constant circulation system
definition not to use the default cooling
and heating degradation coefficients,
but rather to evaluate these degradation
coefficients using the respective cyclic
tests specified by Table 7, conducted in
accordance with section E12 of
appendix E of AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft. DOE
surmises that the new definition of
mandatory constant circulation system
and the aforementioned testing
provisions provided in the relevant
AHRI drafts represent industry
consensus regarding representative
testing of those CAC/HPs that may use
constant circulation to meet the safety
requirements for A2L refrigerants. DOE
has tentatively determined that the
definition and approach included in the
draft industry standards provides a
more representative measure of CAC/HP
efficiency for units with mandatory
constant circulation systems. Therefore,
DOE is proposing to incorporate by
reference the new definition of
mandatory constant circulation system
and the aforementioned testing
provisions outlined in AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft,
at appendix M1 and appendix M2,
respectively.
6. Dual-Fuel Systems
Heat pumps generally perform less
efficiently at low ambient outdoor
temperatures than they do at moderate
ambient outdoor temperatures. In the
January 2023 RFI, DOE expressed
awareness of HPs that combine the
operation of a conventional electric HP
with a back-up heating source, such as
a fuel-fired furnace or boiler. 88 FR
4091, 4106. These are referred to as
‘‘dual-fuel’’ systems or hybrid heat
pumps (‘‘HHPs’’) and provide an
alternative to heat pumps specifically
designed to perform in cold climates
(i.e., cold climate heat pumps). Dualfuel systems rely on heat pump
operation at milder ambient
temperatures, but switch to the back-up
heating source at low ambient
temperatures.
Currently, the HSPF2 calculation at
appendix M1 does not differ for a dualfuel system and a HP that relies solely
on vapor-compression or electric
resistance auxiliary heating. However,
in the January 2023 RFI, DOE explained
that this may not be representative of
HHP field operation since the back-up
heating source takes over for much of
the coldest conditions when HP
efficiency would be lower. 88 FR 4091,
4106. DOE also noted that, while the
focus of test procedures for cold climate
heat pumps has been on evaluation of
performance at colder temperatures
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(e.g., the optional 5 °F test condition) to
incentivize improved cold-temperature
performance, incentivizing efficiency
improvement for HHPs might more
appropriately focus on warmer
conditions, potentially temperatures
warmer than 17 °F. (Id.)
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
requested information on the prevalence
of HHP systems (including shipment
numbers and shipment breakdown
among single-stage, two-stage and
variable-capacity) and the climates they
are most used in. 88 FR 4091, 4106.
Additionally, DOE requested
information on how the controls for
HHPs are generally set up to provide
dual functionality—specifically,
whether the furnace is just set at a
higher stage, or whether there is a
crossover temperature below which the
HP isn’t used; if so, the range of
crossover temperatures and whether
these systems have electric resistance
auxiliary heaters. (Id.) DOE also
requested feedback on whether it is
more appropriate to adjust the HSPF2 to
address actual operation of the heat
pump or just to emphasize performance
only in heat pump mode (i.e., when the
back-up source is not operating). (Id.)
In response, AHRI and Daikin both
suggested that a proper definition and
scope for HHP products should be
developed if modifications to appendix
M1 are made to address HHPs. (AHRI,
No. 14 at pp. 3–4; Daikin, No. 16 at p.
11) Daikin commented that, while the
most common HHPs, dual-fuel systems,
have a temperature-based changeover
where the heat pump stops operating
and the gas furnace takes over, other
HHPs may not always follow that model
and may operate the gas furnace
simultaneously with the heat pump
under certain conditions. (Daikin, No.
16 at p. 11) Similarly, AHRI commented
that, in most cases, accessory control
tries to satisfy the set point temperature
with the heat pump by itself, and, when
unable to satisfy the set point, it will
turn off the heat pump and turn on the
furnace. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 15) AHRI
also noted that the heat pump lock-out
temperature is typically set by the
homeowner in the accessory control.
(Id.)
AHRI and Rheem both commented in
support of a credit for dual-fuel systems
in the HSPF2 calculation and noted that
dual-fuel systems do not typically have
electric resistance heaters. (AHRI, No.
14 at p. 15; Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 8–9)
AHRI commented that dual-fuel heat
pumps and HHPs offer a lower carbon
heating solution that may pose other
benefits as well. (AHRI, No. 14 at pp. 3–
4) AHRI commented that electrification
with fuel backup provides resiliency to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
the energy grid, particularly in locations
where the grid is designed to
accommodate summer peaking loads.
(Id.) AHRI also commented that moving
the thermal load from gas to electric
results in a significant increase in peak
electric demand in winter. (Id.)
NYSERDA commented against
including a credit for HHPs in the
HSPF2 calculation, noting that an
HSPF2 credit adjustment would serve to
encourage the use of switch-over
controls that operate at a higher outdoor
ambient temperature, which is at odds
with maximizing heat pump
performance and limits the
decarbonization potential of heat
pumps. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 13)
NYSERDA suggested a certification
approach, which would incentivize an
integrated control that optimally locks
out auxiliary heating options (electric or
gas) until it is no longer feasible for the
HP to heat the space via only the vaporcompression cycle. (Id.) NYSERDA also
recommended that DOE work to
encourage lower temperature settings
for the switchover device of a HHP
whenever possible in the structure of
the test procedure. (Id.) NYSERDA
suggested that certification of cut-in and
cut-out temperatures may help address
some aspects of the issues presented in
the January 2023 RFI regarding HHPs.
(Id.) However, NYSERDA also stated
that it has found manufacturer’s lowest
catalogued temperature (‘‘LCT’’) in the
engineering tables may be more
important in practice than the cut-out
and cut-in temperatures, which are
often quite low. (Id.) While it
acknowledged that cut-out and cut-in
temperatures are useful for planning
equipment applications and should be
accounted for in bin model calculations
of HSPF2, NYSERDA recommended
using the LCT, the lowest temperature at
which a manufacturer will stand behind
its capacity and that DOE require the
HSPF2 bin model always attribute a
COP of 1 for any bin temperature below
the LCT of a tested product. (Id.)
NEEA recommended that DOE
continue to explore HHP ratings that
focus on maximizing time spent in
electric heat pump mode before
switching over to supplemental heating
and suggested that on-board controls,
which learn and adjust the crossover
temperature based on performance,
could earn a higher efficiency rating.
(NEEA, No. 13 at p. 8)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
other stakeholders, including DOE,
discussed several issues raised in the
January 2023 RFI, including the topic of
dual-fuel systems, when considering
updated versions of industry standards.
The information provided in the
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24229
aforementioned comments was
discussed in detail in the development
of AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and AHRI
1600–202X Draft, which include a new
definition for ‘‘dual-fuel heat pump,’’
shown below.
Dual-fuel heat pump means A central
air conditioning heat pump consisting
of (a) a rated combination of outdoor
heat pump unit, of any type covered
within this standard, (b) an indoor coil
and (c) a furnace certified to DOE as an
air mover and backup heat source.
Additionally, AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft
introduce a new seasonal efficiency
metric, Dual Fuel Utilization Efficiency
(‘‘DFUE’’), meant to capture the heating
efficiency of such dual-fuel heat pump
systems. Calculation of DFUE is
optional, requires no additional testing,
and is outlined in appendix L of both
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and AHRI
1600–202X Draft.
DOE has tentatively determined that
the definition and optional test
approach included in the draft industry
standards may provide a representative
test approach for dual-fuel heat pump
systems, but DOE is continuing to
evaluate whether to include such
provisions in its CAC/HP test
procedures. Therefore, DOE is not
proposing to incorporate by reference
the new definition of dual-fuel heat
pump and the optional seasonal
efficiency metric, DFUE, outlined in the
AHRI 210/240–202X and AHRI 1600–
202X Drafts at this time.
DOE notes that since dual-fuel heat
pump systems are comprised of two
covered products currently subject to
energy conservations standards (i.e., a
heat pump and a furnace), DOE would
continue to require reporting of the
relevant CAC/HP and consumer furnace
heating metrics—HSPF2 and SHORE for
CAC/HP, and AFUE for consumer
furnaces—but recognizes that
representations of dual-fuel heat pump
performance may be useful to
consumers. DOE is not proposing
provisions for dual-fuel heat pumps, but
would allow manufacturers to make
optional representations of dual-fuel
heat pump performance consistent with
available industry test standards.
7. Provisions for Outdoor Units With No
Match
For split-system CAC/HPs, section
2.2.e of appendix M1 requires that an
outdoor unit with no match
(‘‘OUWNM’’) (i.e., outdoor units that are
not distributed in commerce with any
indoor units) be tested using a coil-only
indoor unit with a single cooling air
volume rate whose coil has round tubes
of outer diameter no less than 0.375
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
24230
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
inches, and normalized gross indoor fin
surface (‘‘NGIFS’’, gross indoor fin
surface divided by the measured cooling
capacity) no greater than 1.0 square inch
per British thermal unit per hour (sq.
in./Btu/hr). (10 CFR 429.16 (b)(2)(i) and
appendix M1, section 2.2.e) These
provisions were introduced in a final
rule regarding CAC/HP test procedures
published on June 8, 2016 (‘‘June 2016
Final Rule’’), to address outdoor-unitonly replacements of old R–22 outdoor
units. 81 FR 36992, 37008–37012.
Effective January 1, 2010, EPA banned
sales and distribution of CAC/HPs
designed to use R–22, a
hydrochlorofluorocarbon (‘‘HCFC’’)
refrigerant, that causes ozone depletion.
74 FR 66450 (Dec. 15, 2009). However,
EPA continued to allow sale and
distribution of ‘‘components’’ of CAC/
HP systems for repair purposes, such as
outdoor units. Id. at 74 FR 66452. In the
June 2016 Final Rule, DOE introduced
the testing provisions for OUWNM to
ensure that performance ratings for such
installations would be representative of
the replacement of outdoor units
originally designed for R–22 and using
the original indoor units. See 81 FR
36992, 37008–37011.
While these OUWNM provisions were
precipitated by EPA’s ruling on R–22
units, DOE’s intention was to apply
them more broadly to any case where an
outdoor unit is sold without an indoor
unit. In the June 2016 Final Rule, DOE
noted that its test provisions were
introduced to ensure that an unmatched
outdoor unit would be compliant when
tested with an indoor unit that is
representative of indoor units in the
field with which the outdoor unit could
be paired. 81 FR 36992, 37009. DOE
designed these requirements to meet the
statutory requirement that the test
procedure measure a representative
average use cycle. Id. DOE noted that
the indoor unit specifications represent
lower-efficiency indoor units that would
be paired with a given outdoor unit with
no match. Id. DOE believed this
approach was consistent with the
requirement that the represented value
for a basic model reflect the
performance of the poorest-performing
model that is part of the basic model. Id.
In a final rule published on October
24, 2023 (‘‘October 2023 EPA Final
Rule’’), EPA, pursuant to provisions of
the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act, enacted on
December 17, 2020 (42 U.S.C. 7675),
restricted the installation of residential
and light commercial systems that are
designed for hydrofluorocarbon (‘‘HFC’’)
refrigerants having a GWP greater than
700, starting January 1, 2025. 88 FR
73098. On December 26, 2023, EPA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
published an amendment to the October
2023 EPA Final Rule that extended the
installation deadline to January 1, 2026
as long as the components being
installed were manufactured or
imported prior to January 1, 2025. 88 FR
88825. Split-system CAC/HPs are
included in the scope of residential and
light commercial systems. As such,
split-system CAC/HPs designed for use
with R–410A and sold as a combination
of an outdoor and indoor unit, would be
banned for installation per the October
2023 EPA Final Rule. However, EPA
allows consumers and businesses to
replace, retrofit, and service
components of existing systems that are
over the GWP limits defined in the
October 2023 EPA Final Rule to ensure
that new equipment with lower-GWP
refrigerants is phased in only when all
components of the older equipment
reach the end of their functional life. 88
FR 73089, 73202. Hence, this provides
an exemption for individual
components of R–410A based splitsystem CAC/HP to be sold as
replacements, similar to the component
exemption adopted when R–22 was
phased out. 74 FR 66450, 66459–66460.
As noted, DOE’s OUWNM provisions
apply for any outdoor units that are
distributed in commerce without an
indoor matching pair, regardless of the
refrigerant the outdoor unit employs.
Therefore, DOE clarifies that because of
the October 2023 EPA Final Rule, any
outdoor unit designed for R–410A or
any banned refrigerant as per EPA
regulations, when distributed in
commerce without an indoor unit on or
after January 1, 2026, would be deemed
an outdoor unit with no match,
precisely because the October 2023 EPA
Final Rule allows installation of such
outdoor units only as no-match
replacements. As EPA provided for after
the R–22 ban, such outdoor units may
be installed as a replacement
component for an existing system but
may not be sold with indoor units for
installation as a complete split CAC/HP
system.
Although the current provisions for
an outdoor unit with no match in
appendix M1, 10 CFR 429.16, and 10
CFR 429.70 were finalized in the June
2016 Final Rule, DOE notes that
appendix M1 currently does not
explicitly define outdoor units with no
match. While AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
and AHRI 1600–202X Draft define
outdoor units with no match, the
definition applies explicitly only to R–
22 replacement outdoor units and
outdoor units using refrigerants with
properties similar to R–22. This was
because the initial establishment of the
outdoor unit with no match provisions
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
occurred in the wake of the R–22 ban.
In light of the October 2023 EPA Final
Rule, DOE is clarifying that similar
treatment is applicable to replacement
outdoor units designed for use with R–
410A, and any other refrigerants banned
by EPA for full system installations.
Because the definition of outdoor unit
with no match in AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft is
specifically focused on R–22 outdoor
units, DOE is not incorporating the
definition by reference, and is instead
proposing a clarifying definition that is
consistent with DOE’s intention in the
June 2016 Final Rule. The proposed
definition for appendix M1 is as
follows:
Outdoor Unit with No Match
(OUWNM). An Outdoor Unit that is not
distributed in commerce with any
indoor units, and that meets any of the
following criteria:
(a) is designed for use with a
refrigerant that makes the unit banned
for installation when paired with an
Indoor Unit as a system, according to
EPA regulations in 40 CFR chapter I,
subchapter C,
(b) is designed for use with a
refrigerant that has a 95 °F midpoint
saturation absolute pressure that is ±18
percent of the 95 °F saturation absolute
pressure for R–22, or
(c) is shipped without a specified
refrigerant from the point of
manufacture or is shipped such that
more than two pounds of refrigerant are
required to meet the charge per section
5.1.8 of AHRI 210/240–202X Draft. This
shall not apply if either (a) the factory
charge is equal to or greater than 70%
of the outdoor unit internal volume
times the liquid density of refrigerant at
95 °F or (b) an A2L refrigerant is
approved for use and listed in the
certification report.
The proposed definition of OUWNM
for appendix M2 is the same as that for
appendix M1, except that the reference
in part (c) of the definition is to section
5.1.8 of AHRI 1600–202X Draft.
DOE is proposing separate definitions
in appendix M1 and appendix M2
because part of the definitions refer to
sections of the relevant AHRI standards
that are incorporated by reference (i.e.,
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft for appendix
M1, and AHRI 1600–202X Draft for
appendix M2). Additionally, since the
terms ‘‘outdoor unit’’ and ‘‘indoor unit’’
appear in the definition of outdoor unit
with no match, DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference the definitions
for them from AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
and AHRI 1600–202X Draft.
DOE tentatively concludes that the
above definitions would further help
clarify that the existing test procedure
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
and rating requirements for outdoor
units with no match are applicable to R–
410A based systems, and any other
refrigerants banned by EPA regulations
from January 1, 2026, as they have been
previously, for R–22 and any other
ozone depleting refrigerants. The
proposed definitions would apply to all
types of outdoor units (i.e., heat pump,
air conditioner, single-speed, two-speed,
variable-speed, etc.). Outdoor units with
no match would continue to be tested
with an indoor coil having nominal tube
diameter of 0.375 in and an NGIFS of
1.0 or less (as determined in section
5.1.6.3 of AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and
AHRI 1600–202X Draft). The
determination of represented values,
AEDM requirements, combinations
selected for testing, and certification
report requirements applicable to
outdoor units with no match would
remain the same as those specified in
Table 1 to paragraph (a)(1), paragraph
(c)(2), Table 2 to paragraph (b)(2)(i), and
paragraph (e)(3), respectively in 10 CFR
429.16. Existing outdoor models
currently distributed in commerce as
part of a split system basic model that
transition to a replacement outdoor unit
only would need to be tested, rated, and
recertified under the provisions in 10
CFR 429.16 for an outdoor unit with no
match. The basic model number would
need to change to reflect that the
outdoor unit is no longer part of a
combination as previously certified, but
rather as an outdoor unit with no match,
but the outdoor unit model could still
be assigned the same individual model
number.
8. Inlet and Outlet Duct Configurations
In the June 2016 Final Rule, DOE
made the following amendments
regarding inlet and outlet duct
configurations: clarified indoor unit air
inlet geometry; ensured that the inlet
plenum is not installed upstream of the
airflow prevention device; and specified
that the minimum lengths of inlet
plenum, locations of static-pressure
taps, and minimum cross-sectional
dimensions are consistent with ANSI/
ASHRAE 37–2009. 81 FR 36992, 37037.
DOE also clarified that when an inlet
plenum is not used, then the length of
straight duct upstream of the unit’s inlet
within the airflow prevention device
must still adhere to the inlet plenum
length requirements as illustrated in
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, Figures 7b, 7c,
and 8. (Id.)
In response, as discussed in the
January 2017 Final Rule, stakeholders
commented that DOE’s clarification of
inlet plenum may result in the overall
height of unit setup exceeding the
current height limit of many existing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
psychrometric rooms. 82 FR 1426, 1463.
These stakeholders proposed that DOE
consider allowing the approach
included in ASHRAE’s Research Project
(‘‘RP’’) 1581, requesting DOE to approve
the use of the 6″ skirt coupled with the
90° square vane elbow, along with the
appropriate outlet duct. Id.
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE sought
test data that shows testing done using
reduced overall height of the unit setup
(similar to that proposed in ASHRAE RP
1581) and compared against the baseline
duct designs in ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009
Figures 7b and 7c for blower-coil indoor
units, and Figure 8 for coil-only indoor
units. 88 FR 4091, 4105. DOE also
requested information that could help
inform the existing CAC/HP test
procedures to allow testing in smaller
environmental chambers, or to
incorporate adjustments to the test setup
that might reduce test burden. (Id.) DOE
did not receive any such test data in
responses to the January 2023 RFI.
However, AHRI, Daikin, and Rheem all
commented in support of including
updates from the newest draft version of
ASHRAE Standard 37 into the test
procedure, which includes revisions
investigated in RP 1581. (AHRI, No. 14
at p. 14; Daikin, No. 16 at p. 10; Rheem,
No. 12 at p. 8) Stakeholders also
commented in support of including
revisions investigated in RP 1743,
which explored reduced-length,
alternative inlet duct configurations.
(Id.)
In May 2023, ASHRAE released for
public review its first draft of a new
version of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37
(‘‘May 2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft’’), which
includes both RP 1581 and RP 1743
updates in section 6.4 of the standard.
Subsequently, AHRI and other
stakeholders, including DOE, worked to
include these updates in AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft.
Both appendix D of the AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft and appendix D of the AHRI
1600–202X Draft contain May 2023
ASHRAE 37 Draft updates regarding
inlet and outlet duct configurations,
including the duct revisions
investigated in RP 1581 and RP 1743 to
accommodate smaller environmental
chambers. DOE surmises that the
inclusion of these May 2023 ASHRAE
37 Draft updates in appendix D of the
relevant AHRI drafts represents industry
consensus regarding inlet and outlet
duct configurations. Additionally, DOE
has tentatively determined that the
updates included in the May 2023
ASHRAE 37 Draft are appropriate for
CAC/HP testing while limiting testing
burden. Consequently, DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference
appendix D of AHRI 210/240–202X
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24231
Draft at appendix M1 and to incorporate
by reference appendix D of AHRI 1600–
202X Draft at appendix M2.
DOE notes that AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft
reference the current version of
ASHRAE Test Standard 37, ANSI/
ASHRAE 37–2009, because the May
2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft has not yet been
finalized and published. DOE notes that
it may choose to update its
incorporation by reference to the final
published version of the May 2023
ASHRAE 37 Draft in a future
rulemaking.
9. Heat Comfort Controllers
A heat comfort controller enables a
heat pump to regulate the operation of
the electric resistance elements such
that the air temperature leaving the
indoor section does not fall below a
specified temperature (see section 1.2 of
appendix M1).
Section 3.6.5 of appendix M1
includes test instructions for testing
heat pumps having a heat comfort
controller. Section 4.2.5 of appendix M1
includes additional steps for calculating
the HSPF2 of heat pumps having a heat
comfort controller, and covers the
following system types:
(1) heat pumps having a single-speed
compressor and either a fixed-speed
indoor blower or a constant-air-volumerate indoor blower installed;
(2) single-speed coil-only system heat
pumps;
(3) heat pumps having a single-speed
compressor and a variable-speed,
variable-air-volume-rate indoor blower;
(4) heat pumps having a two-capacity
compressor;
Unlike the other aforementioned
system types having a heat comfort
controller, appendix M1 does not
currently specify additional steps for
calculating the HSPF2 of heat pumps
having a heat comfort controller and
having a variable-speed compressor.
However, section 4.2.5.4 of appendix
M1 is reserved for potential additional
steps for calculating HSPF2 for this
system type. This section was initially
reserved in appendix M in the CAC/HP
test procedure final rule published on
October 11, 2005. 70 FR 59122
(‘‘October 2005 Final Rule’’).
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
requested information on the prevalence
of HP systems that include heat comfort
controllers. 88 FR 4091, 4105. DOE also
requested feedback on whether the heat
comfort controller test approach in
appendix M1 is utilized by
manufacturers, and if yes, whether it
needs to be updated. (Id.)
In response, Rheem commented that
heat comfort controllers are typically
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
24232
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
found on premium CAC/HPs, many of
which are variable-speed. (Rheem, No.
12 at p. 8) However, Rheem also noted
that since no additional steps for
calculating the HSPF2 of heat pumps
having a variable-speed compressor and
a heat comfort controller are specified in
the appendix M1 test procedure, there is
limited utilization of the heat comfort
controller test approach in appendix
M1. (Id.) AHRI commented that it was
unable to provide information regarding
the current prevalence of heat comfort
controllers due to time constraints but
suggested that DOE require
manufacturers notify consumers of the
additional impacts to power
consumption that come with the
purchase of a heat comfort controller.
(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 14)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
other stakeholders, including DOE,
considered several issues raised in the
January 2023 RFI, including the topic of
heat comfort controller provisions,
when considering updated versions of
industry test standards. The information
provided in the aforementioned
comments was discussed in detail in the
development of AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft.
Neither the AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
nor the AHRI 1600–202X Draft include
any changes to the heat comfort
controller testing provisions for the
following system types:
(1) heat pumps having a single-speed
compressor and either a fixed-speed
indoor blower or a constant-air-volumerate indoor blower installed;
(2) single-speed coil-only system heat
pumps;
(3) heat pumps having a single-speed
compressor and a variable-speed,
variable-air-volume-rate indoor blower;
(4) and heat pumps having a twocapacity compressor.
However, AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
and AHRI 1600–202X Draft now specify
additional steps for calculating the
HSPF2 and SHORE of heat pumps
having a variable-capacity compressor
and a heat comfort controller. These
additional steps are similar to the
additional steps for calculating the
HSPF2 and SHORE of other system
types having a heat comfort controller.
DOE has tentatively determined that the
inclusion of these additional steps for
calculating HSPF2 and SHORE is
appropriate for heat pumps having a
variable-capacity compressor and a heat
comfort controller because these
provisions provide a representative
measures of unit operation when
installed with heat comfort controllers.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the additional
steps for calculating the HSPF2 of heat
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
pumps having a variable-capacity
compressor and a heat comfort
controller outlined in section 11.2.2.5 of
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft, at appendix
M1. Likewise, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the additional
steps for calculating the SHORE of heat
pumps having a variable-capacity
compressor and a heat comfort
controller outlined in section 11.2.2.5 of
AHRI 1600–202X Draft, at appendix M2.
G. Long-Term Changes in the CAC Test
Procedure
The following sections discuss issues
that affect the CAC/HP test procedure in
the long-term—i.e., they will be
effective when new CAC/HP standards
are established denominated in terms of
the metrics in appendix M2, SCORE,
and SHORE. As previously explained,
these long-term revisions would be
implemented at appendix M2 via
incorporation by reference of the
relevant industry consensus test
procedure, AHRI 1600–202X Draft. DOE
has reviewed the AHRI 1600–202X Draft
in relevance to its proposed to
incorporate the standard by reference at
appendix M2, and has tentatively
concluded that it satisfies the EPCA
requirement that test procedures should
not be unduly burdensome to conduct
and should be representative of an
average use cycle. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)) These long-term
amendments in appendix M2 would
alter the measured efficiency of CAC/
HPs and would require representations
in terms of new cooling and heating test
metrics, SCORE and SHORE,
respectively.
Additionally, DOE clarifies that all
proposals related to near-term issues
discussed in section III.F of this
document also apply to appendix M2.
1. Power Consumption of Auxiliary
Components
In the January 2023 RFI, discussed
consideration of reflecting the power
consumption of auxiliary components
in the SEER2 and HSPF2 efficiency
metrics for CAC/HPs, at the
recommendation of a comment made by
the CA IOUs during the limited scope
rulemaking that culminated in the
October 2022 Final Rule. 88 FR 4091,
4102–4103. To help DOE further assess
whether its test procedure adequately
addresses crankcase heater (and other
auxiliary component) energy use, DOE
requested information and data from
stakeholders regarding the power
consumption of crankcase heaters and
other auxiliary components in the
January 2023 RFI. 88 FR 4091, 4102–
4103. The sections below address a
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
range of topics associated with power
consumption of auxiliary components.
In addition, in the January 2023 RFI,
DOE also requested information and
available field data on any auxiliary
components other than crankcase
heaters that come equipped with CAC/
HPs that use energy or affect systems
energy use. 88 FR 4091, 4103. In
response, Rheem commented that the
off-mode power measurement per
appendix M1 would account for leak
sensor power consumption if leak
sensors are required to be installed in
the system during testing. (Rheem, No.
12 at p. 7) Additionally, Rheem
commented that base pan heaters can
only be installed by the factory, while
other accessories, such as UV lights and
electrostatic filters, are typically field
installed. (Id.)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
other stakeholders, including DOE,
discussed several topics included in the
January 2023 RFI, including the topic of
accounting for auxiliary components’
power consumption, when considering
updated versions of industry standards.
The information provided by
stakeholders in comments, summarized
in the following subsections, was
discussed in detail in the development
of the AHRI 1600–202X Draft, which
accounts for crankcase heater, base pan
heater, and constant circulation fan
energy consumption (as applicable) in
the calculations of the new cooling and
heating performance metrics, SCORE
and SHORE. As part of the proceedings
to develop the AHRI 1600–202X Draft,
manufacturers provided survey data
regarding auxiliary components, their
prevalence and their wattages, and the
group conducted analysis to determine
which auxiliary components not yet
addressed in the current DOE test
procedure should be considered.
(a) General Comments About Standby
and Off Mode Power Consumption
In response to the January 2023 RFI,
the CA IOUs and NYSERDA both
requested that DOE revisit the issue of
accounting for the standby mode energy
consumption of auxiliary components
in appendix M1. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p.
2; NYSERDA No. 9 at p. 7) NYSERDA
requested elaboration on the
justification for DOE’s conclusion in the
January 2023 RFI that standby mode
energy consumption is addressed in the
off-mode power consumption
calculations in section 4.3 of appendix
M1. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 7)
NYSERDA commented that it seeks this
clarification because DOE had
previously summarized that standby
mode is addressed in the part load SEER
and HSPF metrics in both the August
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
2016 SNOPR 76 and the June 2016 Final
Rule.77 (Id.) Further, NYSERDA noted
that, in the June 2016 Final Rule, DOE
previously reviewed IEC Standard
62301 and determined that the
procedures contained therein are not
sufficient to properly measure off mode
power for the unique characteristics of
the components that contribute to offmode power for CAC/HP products (i.e.,
the crankcase heaters).
Daikin commented that, in line with
the general principle floated in the
recent commercial unitary air
conditioner (‘‘CUAC’’) and commercial
unitary heat pump (‘‘CUHP’’)
(collectively, ‘‘CUAC/HP’’)
rulemaking,78 a seasonal metric should
measure all capacity delivered divided
by all power consumed; and there
should be a single seasonal metric for
cooling and a single seasonal metric for
heating to encompass all energy
consumption, eliminating secondary
metrics such as energy efficiency ratio
(‘‘EER’’) and off-mode power (‘‘PW,OFF’’).
(Daikin, No. 16 at p. 7)
NYSERDA commented that, while
further consideration to off-mode energy
consumption may not be strictly
necessary for CAC/HPs (because
appendix M1 already includes off-mode
provisions), it urges DOE to consider a
more comprehensive approach to
standby mode. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp.
7–8) NYSERDA recommended the
inclusion of crankcase heater power in
seasonal efficiency ratings that include
shoulder periods. (Id.)
DOE notes that, while IEC Standard
62301 and EPCA (see 42 U.S.C. (gg)(1))
define both standby mode and off mode
for energy-using products such as airconditioners and heat pumps, DOE
defined only ‘‘off mode’’ in its test
procedures for CAC/HPs. ‘‘Off mode
power consumption’’ is defined as the
power consumption when the unit is
connected to its main power source but
is neither providing cooling nor heating
to the building it serves. Thus, off-mode
power consumption can be considered
to include power consumption
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
76 See
81 FR 58163, 58165. DOE noted, ‘‘for CAC/
HP, standby mode is incorporated into the SEER
and HSPF metrics, while off mode power
consumption is separately regulated. This SNOPR
includes proposals relevant to the determination of
both SEER and HSPF (including standby mode) and
off mode power consumption.’’
77 See 81 FR 36992, 36994. DOE noted, ‘‘for
central air conditioners and heat pumps, standby
mode is incorporated into the SEER metric, while
off mode power consumption is separately
regulated. This final rule includes modifications
relevant to the determination of both SEER
(including standby mode) and off mode power
consumption.’’
78 See 88 FR 56392 for the most recent NOPR
regarding CUAC/HPs published on August 17,
2023.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
associated with any system components
(e.g., crankcase heaters, fans, controls,
base pan heaters, etc.) during any times
that neither cooling nor heating are
being provided, including shoulder
season, heating season for a coolingonly air-conditioner, and times when
the compressor is not operating (e.g.,
during an off-cycle during a cooling or
heating season). While some of the
system modes during these times could
be seen as complying with the EPCA
definition for standby mode, the
appendix M1 test procedure uses the
single term ‘‘off mode’’ to refer to all of
these modes. Discussion about these
modes for central air conditioner and
heat pumps has often used both the
terms ‘‘standby’’ and ‘‘off,’’ even though
they are both, per appendix M1, defined
as ‘‘off mode.’’
Thus, in response to NYSERDA, DOE
clarifies that standby power
consumption (per appendix M1, ‘‘offmode’’ power consumption) is indeed
incorporated to an extent in the SEER2
and HSPF2 metrics, and that some of
the off-mode power consumption is
separately regulated by the off-mode
power metric, PW,OFF. As noted in a
footnote of the January 2023 RFI, some
energy use associated with crankcase
heaters may be measured in the cyclic
cooling test (for non-temperature
dependent crankcase heaters) and cyclic
heating test in appendix M1. 88 FR
4091, 4102. The energy use of auxiliary
components such as control boards,
reversing valves, and electronic
expansion valves would also be
captured during the off cycle during
cyclic testing. Hence, some off mode
energy consumption is captured in the
SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics. However,
DOE acknowledges that not all off mode
energy consumption is captured by the
SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics because the
calculations for these metrics do not
account for all the hours in a year.
Specifically, shoulder-season energy use
of auxiliary components is not captured
consistent with the number of hours
that such components may be energized
(e.g., for hours representing outdoor
temperatures between 54.5 °F and
64.5 °F). In response, as detailed in
section III.F.1.e of this NOPR, DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the AHRI 1600–202X Draft at appendix
M2, which addresses additional standby
and off-mode power consumption in the
SCORE and SHORE metrics, including
base pan heaters and indoor fans that
are required to operate in constant
circulation mode to address A2L
refrigerant requirements. The test
standard also provides a more
comprehensive way to include all
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24233
significant standby and off-mode energy
use, including that of crankcase heaters,
in the efficiency metrics, in a way that
is similar to the approach described in
recommendation 13 of the 2022 ASRAC
CUAC and CUHP WG TP term sheet.79
Specifically, the SCORE and SHORE
efficiency metrics both represent
conditioning provided during the
cooling or heating season, respectively,
divided by relevant energy use
associated with all components that
contribute significantly to energy use.
(b) Adjustment of Off Mode Power
Consumption for Number of
Compressors, System Capacity, and
Variable Speed and Weighting of OffMode Test Power Measurements
In response to the January 2023 RFI,
the CA IOUs requested that DOE
consider removing the adjustment
factors for off-mode power
consumption, and, instead, change the
requirement for off-mode power
consumption to a maximum allowed
power consumption table based on
system capacity, number of
compressors, and stages. (CA IOUs, No.
10 at pp. 2–3)
The CA IOUs also recommended that
the P1 and P2 components of PW,OFF be
weighted based on the populationweighted number of hours where the
outdoor temperature is less than 70 0F,
instead of simply averaged. (CA IOUs,
No. 10 at p. 3) Aligning with the data
presented in Table 2 of their response,80
the CA IOUs stated that this approach
would change the weighting from 50percent P1 and 50-percent P2 (a simple
average) to 30-percent P1 and 70-percent
P2. (Id.)
DOE notes that the modified approach
for off-mode energy consumption in
AHRI 1600–202X Draft, which DOE
proposes to incorporate by reference,
addresses both of these points, as
discussed in section III.G.1.e of this
NOPR.
(c) Crankcase Heaters
Regarding crankcase heaters, in the
January 2023 RFI, DOE requested
information as to what percentage of
units on the market (split separately
79 Recommendation 13 of the 2022 ASRAC CUAC
and CUHP WG TP term sheet requires
manufacturers to certify crank case heat watts for
each heater in the certified CUAC/CUHP, where
each of the certified wattages must be within 10%
of the maximum heater wattage determined
according to the CUAC/CUHP TP at the tested
nameplate voltage
80 Table 2 of the CA IOUs response to the January
2023 RFI includes data taken from ASHRAE
Standard 169–2021, Climatic Data for Building
Design Standard, and the United States Census
Bureau, with additional analysis performed by CA
IOUs. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 3)
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
24234
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
between air conditioners and heat
pumps) are shipped from the factory
with crankcase heaters; what percentage
have crankcase heaters installed in the
field (e.g., by contractors); and the
percentage breakdown of controls used
with units (both factory- and fieldinstalled)—by those that are energized
at full power during the compressor off
cycle, those that also have an ambient
thermostat to prevent use when
temperature is high, and those that are
self-regulating. 88 FR 4091, 4102–4103.
In response, Daikin commented that
the majority (shipment volume) of air
conditioners do not have crankcase
heaters, while nearly all heat pumps do
have crankcase heaters. (Daikin, No. 16
at p. 8) Daikin stated that the use of
crankcase heaters typically correlates
with higher refrigerant charge
quantities, and that, as a result, higher
efficiency AC units, with higher
refrigerant charge quantities, are more
likely to have crankcase heaters than
lower efficiency ones. (Id.) Further,
Daikin commented that long-line set
applications, such as multi-story
apartment buildings, would be the most
common applications of field-installed
crankcase heaters—again due primarily
to the additional refrigerant charge
required in those applications. (Id.)
Rheem estimated that less than 10
percent of factory units have crankcase
heaters and commented that it believes
field installations for crankcase heaters
to be infrequent, but depends on the
length of refrigerant line set for a given
installation. (Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 6–7)
The CA IOUs, NEEA, and NYSERDA
all recommended that DOE account for
crankcase heater energy use by aligning
with recommendation 13 of the 2022
ASRAC CUAC and CUHP WG TP term
sheet. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 2; NEEA,
No. 13 at p. 8; NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp.
10–12) Recommendation 13 of the 2022
ASRAC CUAC and CUHP WG TP term
sheet suggests that DOE require
manufacturers to certify crankcase
heater wattage for each heater, and that
each wattage certified be within 10
percent of the maximum wattage for that
heater as determined in accordance with
the test procedure at the tested
nameplate voltage. Further, equipment
that does not employ crankcase heating
shall certify a value of zero.
In response, DOE notes that
accounting for crankcase heater energy
use for CUAC/CUHPs differs from such
accounting for CAC/HPs in two
fundamental ways that make
recommendation 13 of the CUAC/CUHP
WG TP term sheet inappropriate for this
test procedure. First, CUACs and CUHPs
generally have more than one
compressor, often three or four
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
compressors, whereas nearly every
CAC/HP has just one. Second, control of
crankcase heaters in CUACs and
CUHPs, as discussed in the WG
discussions is much more
straightforward than for CAC/HPs.
Specifically, the crankcase heaters for
CUACs and CUHPs are nearly
exclusively controlled to be on when
the compressor is off and off when the
compressor is on, with no consideration
of shutoff for warm temperatures, and
no significant use of self-regulating
heater designs. Thus, it is both possible
and necessary to conduct testing to
understand CAC/HP crankcase energy
use—possible because of the single
compressor (and crankcase heater), and
necessary to understand the control.
The certification of crankcase heater
wattages, as was adopted CUACs and
CUHPs to avoid the additional test
burden to testing multiple heaters,
would not reduce the need for testing in
the case of CAC/HPs. Although this
rulemaking does not specifically
address certification, DOE may consider
certification requirements for crankcase
heater wattages in a separate
rulemaking.
Similar to ratings in SPE07,
NYSERDA suggested that crankcase
heaters and drain pan heaters (if
present) could be included in the test
procedure as separate tests and
appropriately attributed to efficiency
metrics depending on their specific
control strategy. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p.
8) NYSERDA suggested this approach,
commenting it could be employed in the
DOE procedure without causing a
wholesale change in operating test
procedures. (Id.)
DOE responds that the test procedure
as included in AHRI 1600–202X Draft,
which DOE proposes to incorporate by
reference in the CAC/HP test procedure,
addresses crankcase heaters (and base
pan heaters if present) in a way that is
consistent with the approach
recommended by NYSERDA. The
information provided in the
aforementioned comments was
discussed in detail in the development
of the AHRI 1600–202X Draft, which
accounts for crankcase heater power
consumption in the new cooling and
heating metrics, SCORE and SHORE.
The AHRI 1600–202X Draft provisions
that account for crankcase heater power
consumption are detailed in section
III.G.1.e of this NOPR.
In the August 2016 SNOPR, DOE
revised the off-mode test procedure by
imposing time delays to allow selfregulating crankcase heaters to approach
equilibrium. 81 FR 58163, 58173–58174.
Specifically, DOE proposed a 4-hour
time delay for units without compressor
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
sound blankets and an 8-hour time
delay for units with compressor sound
blankets. (Id.) DOE proposed these time
delays based on testing of a 5-ton
residential condensing unit. (Id.) In
response to stakeholder comments
regarding the aforementioned time
delays, DOE decided in the January
2017 Final Rule to adopt the proposed
time delays for measurements of offmode power in appendix M1 for units
with self-regulating crankcase heaters or
heater systems in which the crankcase
heater control is affected by the heater’s
heat. 82 FR 1426, 1438. Nevertheless, in
the January 2023 RFI, DOE
acknowledged that with more test
procedure development time, an
approach could potentially be
developed that would allow for accurate
projections of self-regulating crankcase
heater energy use to be determined in
reduced time and requested comment
on this possibility. 88 FR 4091, 4103.
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
requested test data that would indicate
if and how the 4-hour time delay (for
compressors without sound blankets)
and 8-hour time delay (for compressors
with sound blankets) may be reduced
for units with self-regulating crankcase
heaters without compromising the
accuracy of the off-mode power
consumption measurement. 88 FR 4091,
4103. In response, Rheem commented
that more study would be needed to
understand the effects of delay
reductions on both the accuracy of offmode power consumption as well as on
reliability of the compressor and
crankcase heater. (Rheem, No. 12 at p.
7) No other stakeholders commented on
this issue. Hence, DOE is proposing no
changes to the 4- or 8-hour test duration
for self-regulating crankcase heaters.
(d) Shoulder-Season Fan Power
Consumption
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
requested comments on fan-only
operation during the shoulder season,
constant circulation controls, current
use of constant circulation among CAC/
HP products, the potential of increased
future fan use (considering the
transition to low-GWP refrigerants), and
whether a need exists to account for
constant circulation mode in the
measurement of SEER2 and HSPF2. 88
FR 4091, 4101–4102. Additionally, DOE
requested information on the typical fan
power for constant circulation mode for
blower-coil systems (or as a fraction of
cooling or heating fan power), the
percentage of people that use this mode
and the associated hours per year on
average the system would be in this
mode, whether constant circulation
mode is a default or user configurable
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
setting for these systems, whether the
measurement of SEER2 and/or HSPF2
should take into consideration that a
certain fraction of systems will use
constant circulation mode rather than
turn off the fan during the compressor
off mode, and whether manufacturers
could use constant circulation as part of
their mitigation strategy for refrigerant
leakage. (Id.)
In response, AHRI, Daikin, and
Samsung all commented that constant
circulation mode is a user configurable
setting; and Samsung elaborated that the
default constant circulation mode
setting for its products is ‘‘OFF.’’ (AHRI,
No. 14 at p. 11; Daikin, No. 16 at p. 7;
Samsung, No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI and
Daikin commented that only a small
portion of consumers use constant
circulation mode, citing the January
2023 RFI’s reference to DOE’s furnace
fan efficiency rulemaking that suggests
it is only used by 9 percent of
consumers.81 (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 11;
Daikin, No. 16 at p. 7)
AHRI and Rheem commented that it
is impossible to predict how widespread
the use of constant circulation will be as
a potential mitigation for A2L
refrigerants. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 11;
Rheem No. 12 at pp. 5–6) Rheem
explained that, for systems containing
group A2L refrigerants and utilizing
continuous circulation airflow as a
mitigation strategy, the required
circulation airflow rate is defined in
safety standards as a function of system
charge and refrigerant lower
flammability limit. (Rheem No. 12 at pp.
5–6) Rheem noted that airflow rates
(and associated blower motor power
consumption) in continuous airflow
mode for systems designed today—
which contain group A1 refrigerants—
are unlikely to be the same as the
minimum circulation airflow rate
defined in safety standards, and that,
therefore, using data from systems sold
today is unlikely to be representative of
systems sold in the future. (Id.) Rheem
asserted that it is difficult to predict
whether manufacturers will redesign
blower-coil systems to match the
minimum circulation airflow as
calculated from equations prescribed by
safety standards, or choose an existing
airflow tap that gives an airflow rate
greater than the required minimum
when utilizing continuous circulation
airflow as the mitigation action. (Id.)
AHRI, Daikin, Rheem, and Samsung
all were opposed to accounting for
constant circulation mode in the test
procedure and efficiency metrics for
81 See 77 FR 28674, 28682–28683 for the survey
data used to estimate this value in a furnace fan
NOPR published on May 15, 2012.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
CAC/HPs, reasoning that, as described
earlier, constant circulation airflow is
utilized by only a small portion of all
consumers and only occurs due to
consumer selection. (AHRI, No. 14 at p.
12; Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 7–8; Rheem,
No. 12 at p. 6; Samsung, No. 11 at p. 2)
Conversely, the CA IOUs and NYSERDA
both recommended that DOE consider
addressing the energy consumption of
fans in constant circulation mode for all
products in either the CAC/HP test
procedure or furnace fan test procedure.
(CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 4; NYSERDA, No.
9 at p. 12) To back its position,
NYSERDA pointed to its evaluation of
heat pump programs that found fan
energy is not adequately accounted for
in reported data and can be widely
variable. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 12)
Further, NYSERDA suggested that,
when a manufacturer’s standard
equipment settings include a
continuous or intermittent fan-on mode
of operation (for example, to sample the
air temperature) as the default, constant
fan-on energy should be incorporated in
the standby power measurement, along
with the bin-hour attribution of standby
to SEER2 and HSPF2. (Id.)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
stakeholders, including DOE,
considered several topics raised in the
January 2023 RFI, including shoulderseason fan power consumption, when
considering updated versions of
industry standards. The information
provided in the aforementioned
comments was discussed in detail in the
development of AHRI 1600–202X Draft.
The draft industry test standards do not
include constant circulation fan energy
consumption in the efficiency metrics
due to the use of this mode by the
minority of consumers which are
understood to select it, for systems for
which the mode is user-selectable.
However, for systems that require
constant circulation at all times as a
refrigerant leakage mitigation strategy,
the constant circulation is considered as
part of the standby and off mode energy
use in the SCORE and SHORE metrics
of AHRI 1600–202X Draft, and also in
the cyclic degradation coefficient for
both test standards. The AHRI 1600–
202X Draft provisions that account for
shoulder-season fan power consumption
are detailed in section III.F.1.e of this
NOPR.
(e) Accounting for Auxiliary
Components’ Power Consumption
The information provided by
stakeholders in comments, summarized
in the previous subsections, was
discussed in detail in the development
of AHRI 1600–202X Draft, which
accounts for crankcase heater, base pan
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24235
heater, and constant circulation fan
energy consumption (as applicable) in
the calculations of the new cooling and
heating performance metrics, SCORE
and SHORE. AHRI 1600–202X Draft
introduces SCORE and SHORE as
replacements for the current cooling and
heating performance metrics, SEER2
and HSPF2, used to determine the
measured efficiency of CAC/HPs. Unlike
SEER2 and HSPF2, which DOE
previously noted are only seasonal
descriptors, these new metrics account
for the standby and off-mode power
consumption of auxiliary components,
including those components discussed
previously (i.e., crankcase heaters and
indoor fans utilizing constantcirculation) for both SCORE and
SHORE; and, additionally, base pan
heaters for SHORE.
AHRI 1600–202X Draft includes a
new quantity, Es,c (measured in watthours), added to the denominator of the
calculation for SCORE, meant to
represent all auxiliary component
energy usage during cooling mode (i.e.,
during both cooling conditioning hours
and cooling-season shoulder-season
hours, as applicable). Outlined in
section 11.2.1.4 of AHRI 1600–202X
Draft, Es,c is the summation of each
component’s average power multiplied
by each component’s number of hours
of standby operation during cooling
mode, as follows:
Es,c = (P1 * N1 + P2 * N2) + (PCCF * NCCF)
Table 14 of AHRI 1600–202X Draft
outlines instructions for determining
each component’s number of standby
power operating hours in cooling mode
(N1 and N2 for the crankcase heater and
NCCF for the constant circulation fan). In
the case of crankcase heaters,
calculations for N1 and N2 depend on
the type of crankcase heater controls
used by the CAC/HP system.
AHRI 1600–202X Draft also includes
a new quantity, Es,h (also measured in
watt-hours), added to the denominator
of the calculation for SHORE, that is
meant to represent all auxiliary
component energy usage during heating
mode (i.e., during both heating
conditioning hours and heating-season
shoulder-season hours, as applicable).
Outlined in section 11.2.1.4 of AHRI
1600–202X Draft, Es,c is the summation
of each component’s average power
multiplied by each component’s number
of hours of standby operation during
heating mode, as follows:
Es,h = (P1 * N1 + P2 * N2) + (PBPH * NBPH)
Table 16 of AHRI 1600–202X Draft
outlines instructions for determining
each component’s number of standby
power operating hours in heating mode
(N1 and N2 for the crankcase heater,
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24236
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
NCCF for the constant circulation fan,
and NBPH for the base pan heater). In the
case of crankcase heaters, calculations
for N1 and N2 depend on the type of
crankcase heater controls used by the
CAC/HP system. Similarly, the
calculation of NBPH depends on the type
of base pan heater controls used by the
system.
Appendix H of AHRI 1600–202X Draft
outlines instructions for determining the
average power (P1 and P2 for the
crankcase heater, PCCF for the constant
circulation fan, and PBPH for the base
pan heater) of all auxiliary components
considered in the calculations of either
Es,c or Es,h.
DOE surmises that the respective
inclusions of Es,c and Es,h into the
calculations of the new cooling and
heating performance metrics, SCORE
and SHORE, represent industry
consensus regarding whether to reflect
the power consumption of auxiliary
components in the efficiency metrics for
CAC/HPs. DOE has tentatively
determined that inclusion of the energy
consumed by auxiliary components in
the efficiency metrics for CAC/HPs
would result in more representative
measures of efficiency. Therefore, DOE
is proposing to incorporate by reference
the new cooling and heating
performance metrics, SCORE and
SHORE, as included in AHRI 1600–
202X Draft, and the associated
provisions regarding the standby and
off-mode power consumption of
auxiliary components, in appendix M2.
2. Impact of Defrost on Performance
When operating in moderate to low
outdoor ambient temperatures, the
outdoor coil surface temperature of a HP
is sufficiently low to freeze over, and
frost collects on the coil. To combat the
collection of ice on the outdoor coil, a
HP must undergo a defrost cycle, where
the HP temporarily switches to cooling
mode operation. Temporarily switching
to cooling mode operation enables a HP
to transfer heat from the indoor coil to
the outdoor coil, thus providing the heat
needed to warm the coil and melt the
frost. During defrost, different control
strategies are applied to maintain
comfort level inside the house. For
example, the indoor fan may or may not
be operated during defrost, and (if the
indoor fan is operated) the auxiliary
resistance heater may or may not be
energized to warm the indoor air while
the system is temporarily in defrost
mode. Defrost initiation can be based on
time (clock time or time of compressor
operation), or the need for defrost can be
determined based on temperature and
pressure or other measurements that
provide an indication of the need for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
defrost.82 Currently, appendix M1
defines a demand-defrost control system
as a system that defrosts the HP outdoor
coil only when measuring a
predetermined degradation of
performance. When frequent defrost
occurrences are not needed (e.g., when
there is insufficient moisture in the
outdoor air to build up a significant
frost layer on the outdoor coil), demand
defrost can save energy by delaying
defrost initiation. Defrost cycles are
terminated when there is indication that
defrost has been long enough for frost to
be eliminated from the coil (e.g., when
a coil temperature sensor indicates the
coil is well above 32°F).
(a) Demand Defrost Credit
For CAC/HPs equipped with demand
defrost, appendix M1 includes a term
called the demand defrost credit (‘‘Fdef’’)
in the HSPF2 calculation to provide
nominal credit for HPs with a demanddefrost control system,83 reflecting the
relative improvement in heating mode
efficiency due to use of demand defrost
rather than defrosts with fixed
periodicity. The credit equation has
remained unchanged in its current form
in the test procedure since at least
January 22, 2001, when DOE published
a NOPR regarding CAC/HP test
procedures. 66 FR 6767. In the January
2023 RFI, based on test results of several
CAC/HPs in various programs, DOE
noted that it is aware of a range of
defrost operation sequences and a range
of approaches to defrost initiation for
demand defrost. 88 FR 4091, 4104.
Based on these observations, DOE
acknowledged that the demand defrost
credit may no longer accurately reflect
the benefits of demand defrost. Id.
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE sought
information on the operation of
demand-defrost control systems,
specifically any information that would
indicate whether the demand-defrost
credit outlined in the calculation in
section 3.9.2 of appendix M1 is
representative of the improvement in
82 Some examples of parameters monitored for
demand-defrost control systems are coil to air
differential temperature, coil differential air
pressure, outdoor fan power or current, optical
sensors. Note that systems that vary defrost
intervals according to outdoor dry-bulb temperature
are not demand-defrost systems.
83 The demand-defrost credit, first introduced in
a March 14, 1988 rulemaking (53 FR 8304, 8319),
is calculated by the following equation in section
3.9.2 of appendix M1: Fdef = 1 + 0.03[1¥Dtdef¥1.5/
Dtmax¥1.5], where Dtdef = time between defrost
terminations (in hours) or 1.5, whichever is greater.
Dtdef is assigned a value of 6 if this limit is reached
during a frost accumulation test and the heat pump
has not completed a defrost cycle, and Dtmax =
maximum time between defrosts as allowed by the
controls (in hours) or 12, whichever is less, as
provided in the certification report.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
seasonal heating efficiency in field
operation. 88 FR 4091, 4104. DOE also
requested comment on whether any
specific change in the credit equation
could improve its accuracy. Id.
In response, AHRI, Daikin, and
Rheem all commented that they would
support an effort by stakeholders to
establish a new demand defrost credit
that incentivizes advanced defrost
strategies and more accurately reflects
the current state of defrost technology.
(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 13; Daikin, No. 16
at pp. 9–10; Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 7–8)
Similarly, the Joint Advocates
encouraged DOE to provide a more
sophisticated calculation of the credit, if
a revised test procedure maintains the
treatment of defrost separately (as a
separate test). (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at
pp. 3–4)
Daikin and the Joint Advocates
commented that the current defrost
credit is overly dependent on timing
between defrosts and suggested that the
current defrost credit calculation
methodology should be modified to
recognize, differentiate, and incentivize
other advanced defrost strategies and
their controls. (Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 9–
10; Joint Advocates, No. 8 at pp. 3–4)
Daikin specifically pointed out that
appendix M1 currently only recognizes
a 3-percent maximum credit during
defrost for a defrost cycle of 91 minutes
(even though modern equipment in
some cases can go significantly longer
than 91 minutes before performance
degradation necessitates a defrost) and
suggested that the current procedure be
modified so that it no longer
incentivizes the 91-minute cycle
regardless of whether equipment needs
to defrost at that time. (Daikin, No. 16
at pp. 9–10) The Joint Advocates noted
that, in the definition of demand defrost
control system, DOE acknowledges the
different types of controls including
parameters that vary with the amount of
frost accumulated on the outdoor coil
(e.g., coil to air differential temperature,
coil differential air pressure, outdoor fan
power or current, or optical sensors) and
suggested that these parameters be
included in the calculation
methodology of a new demand defrost
credit. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at pp. 3–
4)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
other stakeholders, including DOE,
discussed several issues raised in the
January 2023 RFI, including the topic of
the demand defrost credit, when
considering updated versions of
industry standards. The information
provided in the aforementioned
comments was discussed in detail in the
development of AHRI 1600–202X Draft,
which includes a simplified demand
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
defrost credit that uniformly applies a
3% increase to the SHORE rating for all
HPs. As such, Fdef no longer depends on
the amount of time between defrost
initiations (e.g., Tdef and Tmax in
appendix M1), and can be either one of
two values: 1.03 (for systems equipped
with a demand defrost control system)
or 1 (for all other systems). DOE
surmises that the simplified demand
defrost credit in AHRI 1600–202X Draft
represents industry consensus regarding
improvements to the accuracy of the
credit, incentives for more efficient
defrost control strategies, and more
accurate representations of modern
defrost control technologies in the test
procedure. DOE has tentatively
determined that a simplified demand
defrost credit would disincentivize
unnecessary early defrosts (90 minutes
after the termination of the prior defrost
cycle), accurately represent defrost
energy use while limiting test burden,
and consequently allow for more
advanced and efficient defrost control
strategies. Therefore, DOE is proposing
to incorporate by reference the
simplified demand defrost credit in
AHRI 1600–202X Draft, at appendix M2.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(b) Supplementary Heat Usage
Appendix M1 requires that HPs
undergo a test at 35 ßF dry-bulb
temperature and 33 °F wet-bulb
temperature, a condition for which frost
accumulation is rapid, generally
affecting performance before a 30minute steady-state test can be
completed. For this condition, the test
procedure prescribes use of a transient
test, including a frost accumulation
period followed by defrost. Capacity
and power input for the test are
averaged for a full cycle of heating
followed by defrost. At this condition,
appendix M1 estimates the average
capacity is at least 10 percent lower
than it would be if there were no frost
accumulation, while average power may
be just slightly lower, thus reducing
efficiency. At temperatures between 17
°F and 45 °F, the performance
calculations prescribed in the test
procedure call for representing capacity
as a linear function of temperature
based on the tests conducted at 17 °F
and 35 °F—likewise for power input.
Hence, the frost/defrost impact is built
into the HSPF2 calculation for
temperatures in this range. The DOE test
procedure requires use of the 35 °F test
for single-stage and two-stage HPs for all
capacity levels. However, for variable
speed HPs, the test procedure requires
the defrost test be conducted only at
intermediate compressor speed, and
performance is estimated using default
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
degradation factors at full capacity (see
section 3.6.4.1.c of appendix M1).
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE noted
that it has observed variations in testing
among HP models regarding defrost
control (e.g., time durations of the
defrost can vary significantly for
different models, and the indoor unit
fan shuts off during defrost for some
units but not all). 88 FR 4091, 4104. In
addition, as part of testing systems with
electric resistance heaters for the DOE
CCHP Tech Challenge, DOE noted that
it has observed that resistance heater
operation during defrost can vary
significantly for different models. (Id.)
DOE acknowledged that this varying
behavior clearly affects energy use, and,
while some aspects of resistance heater
operation may be captured by the
current appendix M1 test procedure,
others may not be.
As a result, in the January 2023 RFI,
DOE requested information regarding
defrost impact on heating capacity and
power input over a range of
temperatures to inform evaluation of
whether the approach used in the DOE
test procedure to account for this impact
is accurate or whether it could be
improved.
In response, Daikin commented that it
believes the current appendix M1 test
conditions represent the worst-case
scenario and adequately capture
performance during frosting and
defrosting operation. (Daikin, No. 16 at
pp. 9–10) As such, Daikin asserted that
additional test points would provide
little benefit. (Id.) Similarly, neither
AHRI nor Rheem had any concerns with
the current testing approach. (AHRI, No.
14 at p. 13; Rheem, No. 12 at p. 8)
However, Daikin, the Joint Advocates,
and NEEA all suggested that DOE
somehow include auxiliary resistance
heat during defrost as part of the defrost
test, claiming it would be more
representative to include this power.
(Daikin, No. 16 at p. 12; Joint Advocates,
No. 8 at p. 3; NEEA, No. 13 at p. 8)
Currently, the appendix M1 test
procedure specifies that electric heat is
not to be powered during the defrost
test, regardless of whether a unit may do
so in the field. To try and estimate the
change in efficiency that comes with
including auxiliary resistance heat, the
Joint Advocates cited a recent Purdue
study of a 3-ton, single-stage heat pump,
which calculated a COP at 34 °F that
was 10-percent lower when the
auxiliary heat was allowed to operate in
defrost.84 (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at p.
84 See docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=3475&context=iracc at p. 6.
The 34 °F outdoor ambient test condition is taken
from EXP07.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24237
3) Acknowledging that many test
facilities are not designed to handle the
power required for auxiliary heat
operation, Daikin suggested that power
be added to the defrost test energy
consumption and capacity as a
calculation only, based on the
maximum allowable power for a given
HP system. (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 12)
NYSERDA and the Joint Advocates
both noted that as a load-based test,
SPE07 would inherently address defrost
impacts, including power input and
capacity loss, and require no separate
test. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at pp. 3–4;
NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 10–11)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
other stakeholders, including DOE,
discussed several topics raised in the
January 2023 RFI, including the topic of
accounting for supplementary heat
usage (e.g., auxiliary resistance heat) in
the CAC/HP efficiency metrics, when
considering updated versions of
industry standards. The information
provided in the aforementioned
comments was discussed in detail in the
development of AHRI 1600–202X Draft,
which accounts for use of
supplementary heat during defrost. The
AHRI 1600–202X Draft approach
reduces the efficiency ratings of such
systems, depending on: (1) whether the
HP uses what is defined as defrost heat
mode; (2) whether the HP meets what is
defined as the lockout limitation
criteria; and (3) the time period for
which the HP operates in what is
defined as defrost overrun mode. The
definitions for defrost heat mode,
lockout limitation, and defrost overrun
mode in AHRI 1600–202X Draft are
shown below.
Defrost Heat Mode means a mode of
operation in which an indoor heating
source controlled by any component of
the rated combination (e.g., by the heat
pump, heat pump controls, blower
controls, or thermostat) operates for any
period of time while the system is
defrosting. Heat pump systems that have
the ability to operate the indoor blower
during defrost, whether or not that
ability is the manufacturer default, are
considered to have a Defrost Heat Mode.
Defrost Overrun Mode means a mode
of operation in which a rated individual
combination that has been operating in
a Defrost Heat Mode, continues to
operate for a period of time following
the termination of a defrost. In order to
qualify as having a Defrost Overrun
Mode, rated individual combinations
must first have a Defrost Heat Mode.
Lockout Limitation means rated
individual combinations that lock out
the operation of all non-heat pump
indoor heating sources under the
control of the rated individual
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24238
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
combination during defrost do not have
a Defrost Heat Mode. Locking out means
preventing those heating sources from
operating in all cases, with no
configuration option to change this
behavior.
AHRI 1600–202X Draft introduces
two new debits, multiplied to the new
heating metric, SHORE, in the same
manner as the demand defrost credit, to
penalize the efficiency ratings of HPs
that use defrost heat mode (unless they
meet the lockout limitation criteria) or
spend a period of time greater than or
equal to 60 seconds in defrost overrun
mode. One such debit is the defrost heat
debit (‘‘FH’’), which is meant to reflect
the reduction in efficiency experienced
by HPs that use defrost heat mode and
can be either one of two values: 0.98 (for
systems with a defrost heat mode) or 1
(for systems that meet the lockout
limitation criteria). The second debit is
the defrost overrun debit (‘‘FO’’), which
is meant to reflect the reduction in
efficiency experienced by HPs that
spend longer time periods in defrost
overrun mode and can be either one of
two values: 0.98 (for systems with a
defrost overrun mode greater than or
equal to 60 seconds) or 1.00 (for systems
with a defrost overrun mode less than
60 seconds, or systems that meet the
lockout limitation criteria).
DOE surmises that the AHRI 1600–
202X Draft’s introductions of the defrost
heat debit, the defrost overrun debit,
and the associated definitions for
defrost heat mode, lockout limitation,
and defrost overrun mode represent
industry consensus regarding whether
and how to include the additional
power consumption required by
supplementary heat (e.g., auxiliary
resistance heat) in the defrost test. DOE
has tentatively determined that these
provisions result in more representative
CAC/HP efficiencies for models with
supplementary heat during defrost.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference at appendix M2
the defrost heat debit, the defrost
overrun debit, and the associated
definitions for defrost heat mode,
lockout limitation, and defrost overrun
mode in AHRI 1600–202X Draft.
3. Updates to Building Load Lines and
Temperature Bin Hours
In the current CAC/HP test procedure
at appendix M1, the cooling efficiency
metric, SEER2, is calculated by
evaluating the ratio of the heating
removed from the conditioned space to
the energy use of the refrigeration cycle
during the cooling season. For CHPs, the
heating efficiency metric, HSPF2, is
calculated by evaluating the ratio of the
heating provided to the conditioned
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
space to the space energy usage of both
the CHP unit (reverse refrigeration
cycle) and the resistive heat component,
during the heating season. For the
evaluation of SEER2 and HSPF2, the
respective ratios are summed over a
temperature range, which is split into 5degree ‘‘bins,’’ and an average
temperature and fractional hours are
assigned to each bin, denoted by n(j)/N.
The cooling season fractional hours,
used in the evaluation of SEER2, are set
forth at Table 19 of appendix M1. The
heating season fractional hours, used in
the evaluation of HSPF2, are set forth at
Table 20 of appendix M1. The HSPF2
rating is calculated using the fractional
hours particular to Region IV. The
amount of cooling and/or heating
delivered are driven by the building
cooling and heating loads, BL(Tj).85 For
the current test procedure, the building
cooling and heating loads are both
proportional to the nominal cooling
capacity at 95 °F outdoor temperature,
˙ c(95 °F), except for heating-only heat
Q
pumps, for which the heating load is
directly proportional to the nominal
heating capacity at 47 °F outdoor
˙ h(47 °F).
temperature, Q
In response to the January 2023 RFI,
NYSERDA encouraged DOE to
reevaluate the fractional cooling bin
hours used for calculating SEER2.
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 9–10)
NYSERDA pointed out that these
fractional cooling bin hours were
originally developed in 1978
specifically for units with a two-speed
compressor and units equipped with
two compressors. (Id.) NYSERDA
suggested that these hours should be
recalculated using more recent Typical
Meteorological Year (‘‘TMY’’) data, and
also consider the improvements in CAC/
HP technology since 1978. (Id. at p. 10)
As previously mentioned, AHRI
1600–202X Draft includes new cooling
and heating metrics for namely SCORE
and SHORE. These new metrics use
total hours instead of fractional hours.
This change is consistent with the
recent approach of having metrics that
represent total conditioning delivered
divided by all power consumed. Total
hours are split into conditioning hours
and shoulder hours—conditioning
hours are hours when conditioning
(cooling/heating) is required and
shoulder hours are hours when
conditioning (cooling/heating) is not
required (i.e., there is no conditioning
load). For the cooling season, the total
hours are split into cooling conditioning
hours and cooling season shoulder
85 The building cooling load and building heating
load are calculated by Equations 4.1–2, and 4.2–2,
respectively, in appendix M1.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
hours. For the heating season, the total
hours are split into heating conditioning
hours and heating season shoulder
hours. The cooling conditioning hours
and cooling season shoulder hours for
each bin are listed in Table 13 of AHRI
1600–202X Draft, and the heating
conditioning hours and heating season
shoulder hours for each bin are listed in
Table 15 of AHRI 1600–202X Draft.
The total hours for the cooling and
heating seasons were calculated using
TMYx:2007–2021 data (‘‘TMYx’’),
which is a specific set of weather data
from years 2007 to 2021. Because
SCORE and SHORE are intended to be
national efficiency standards, the total
hours for each season were populationweighted. Multiple cities were selected,
based on their population, from each
climate zone specified in ASHRAE 169–
2021,86 for capturing the variations in
climate along those zones. To determine
the appropriate split between
conditioning hours (i.e., when cooling/
heating is required) and shoulder hours
(i.e., when cooling/heating is not
required), Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory (‘‘PNNL’’) performed a series
of building load analyses using
EnergyPlus version 9.6 on a prototype
single-family detached house based on
the 2009 IECC code, located in
representative cities in ASHRAE climate
zones 1–8. The inputs for the
EnergyPlus simulations were selected to
largely mirror those that had been
previously used in informing the
January 2017 Final Rule, but with
appropriate updates to the weather data
and the IECC code.87 The underlying
weather data was updated to TMYx and
the IECC building code was updated to
the 2009 version. The data from each
individual EnergyPlus simulation
output was binned and yielded the
cooling conditioning hours, cooling
season shoulder hours, heating
conditioning hours, and heating season
shoulder hours for each climate zone,
which were then population-weighted
to arrive at the national numbers in
Table 13 and Table 15 of AHRI 1600–
202X Draft. Additionally, for CAC/HPs
86 ASHRAE 169–2021 ‘‘Climatic Data for Building
Design Standards’’ provides a variety of climatic
information used mainly the design, planning and
sizing of buildings’ energy systems and equipment.
Available for purchase at www.ashrae.org/
technical-resources/bookstore/weather-datacenter#:∼:text=Standard%20169%2D2021%2C%20
Climatic%20Data,the%202021
%20ASHRAE%20Handbook
%E2%80%94Fundamentals.
87 For the January 2017 Final Rule, the building
load analysis done by ORNL using EnergyPlus is
summarized in the following report: ORNL, Rice, C.
Keith, Bo Shen, and Som S. Shrestha, 2015. An
Analysis of Representative Heating Load Lines for
Residential HSPF Ratings, ORNL/TM–2015/281,
July. (Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0004–0046).
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
{tj - 61}
BL(tj) = { 72 _5 _ 61 } • BL(72.5)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Where BL(47.5) is the cooling
building load at 72.5 °F.
Similarly, the heating building load
line for outdoor temperatures at and
below 47.5 °F was maintained consistent
with current appendix M1, but with one
change—requiring that the slope
(adjustment) factor,Cx, be set to 1.07 for
variable-capacity compressor systems,
and 1.15 otherwise, regardless of
climate zone.
For outdoor temperatures above
47.5 °F, the heating building load line
was modified, given by:
Where BL(47.5) is the heating
building load at 72.5 °F.
DOE surmises that the switch from
fractional hours to total hours, the
associated values of the conditioning
hours and shoulder hours, and changes
in the building load line equations
represent industry consensus for
calculations of the new cooling and
heating performance metrics, SCORE
and SHORE. DOE has tentatively
determined that this approach best
represents CAC/HP operation over a
representative period of use. Therefore,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
DOE is proposing to incorporate by
reference the new cooling conditioning
hours, cooling season shoulder hours,
heating conditioning hours, heating
season shoulder hours, and the updated
building load line equations in the
AHRI 1600–202X Draft, at appendix M2.
DOE is also clarifying that
representations of SHORE made using
the ‘Cold Climate Average’ heating
conditioning hours and shoulder season
hours in Table 15 of AHRI 1600–202X
Draft are optional.
4. Default Fan Power Coefficients for
Coil-Only Systems
Coil-only air conditioners are
matched split systems consisting of a
condensing unit and indoor coil that are
distributed in commerce without an
indoor blower or separate designated air
mover. Such systems installed in the
field rely on a separately installed
furnace or a modular blower for indoor
air movement. Because coil-only CAC/
HPs do not include their own indoor fan
to circulate air, the DOE test procedures
prescribe equations that are used to
calculate the assumed (i.e., ‘‘default’’)
power input and heat output of an
average furnace fan with which the test
procedure assumes the indoor coil is
paired in a field installation. In each
equation, the measured airflow rate (in
cubic feet per minute of standard air
(‘‘scfm’’)) is multiplied by a defined
coefficient (expressed in Watts (‘‘W’’)
per 1000 scfm (‘‘W/1000 scfm’’) for fan
power, and Btu/h per 1000 scfm (‘‘Btu/
h/1000 scfm’’) for fan heat), hereafter
referred to as the ‘‘default fan power
coefficient’’ and ‘‘default fan heat
coefficient.’’ The resulting fan power
input value is added to the electrical
power consumption measured during
testing. The resulting fan heat output
value is subtracted from the measured
cooling capacity of the CAC/HP for
cooling mode tests and added to the
measured heating capacity for heating
mode tests.
In appendix M1, separate fan power
and fan heat equations are provided for
different types of coil-only systems (e.g.,
the equations for mobile home or spaceconstrained are different than for
‘‘conventional’’ non-mobile home and
non-space-constrained, and the
equations for single-stage are different
than for two-stage and variable
speed).88 See, e.g., appendix M1, section
88 The different default fan power and default fan
heat coefficients for mobile-home and spaceconstrained systems as compared to conventional
systems reflect the lower duct pressure drop
expected for such systems in field operation—the
lower values are consistent with the lower ESP
levels required in testing of blower-coil systems
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
3.3. For single-stage coil-only units
installed in mobile homes and for
single-stage space-constrained systems,
appendix M1 defines a default fan
power coefficient of 406 W/1000 scfm
and a default fan heat coefficient of
1385 Btu/h/1000 scfm. See, e.g.,
appendix M1, section 3.3.d. For singlestage coil-only units installed in
‘‘conventional’’ (i.e., non-mobile-home
and non-space-constrained) systems,
appendix M1 defines a default fan
power coefficient of 441 W/1000 scfm
and a default fan heat coefficient of
1505 Btu/h/1000 scfm. See, e.g.,
appendix M1, section 3.3.e.
For two-stage and variable speed coilonly systems, appendix M1 defines
equations to interpolate different default
fan power coefficients and default fan
heat coefficients for the full-load and
part-load tests, depending on the air
volume rate used for each test expressed
as a percentage of the cooling full-load
air volume rate (‘‘%FLAVR’’). See, e.g.,
appendix M1, section 3.3, equations for
DFPCMHSC and DFPCC. Appendix M1
interpolates the default fan power
coefficient for two-stage and variable
speed coil-only units installed in mobile
homes and for two-stage and variable
speed space-constrained coil-only
systems (‘‘DFPCMHSC’’) using
assumptions for full-load default fan
power at 406 W (i.e., the same as for
single-stage systems) and a lower-load
default fan power at a reduced air
volume rate of 75 percent, at 308 W. For
‘‘conventional’’ non-mobile-home and
non-space-constrained two-stage and
variable speed systems, appendix M1
interpolates the default fan power
coefficient (‘‘DFPCC’’) using
assumptions for full-load default fan
power at 441 W (i.e., the same as for
single-stage systems) and a lower-load
default fan power at a reduced air
volume rate of 75 percent, at 335 W. The
default fan power values used in the
determination of the default fan power
coefficients were a result of empirical
analysis presented by DOE in the
October 2022 Final Rule. (See 87 FR
64550, 64555–64559).
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
other stakeholders, including DOE,
considered several topics, including the
topic of default fan power coefficients
for coil-only systems, when developing
updated versions of industry standards.
AHRI 1600–202X Draft updates the
default fan power values used in each
interpolation to better reflect the fan
power values used by coil-only systems
today (on average) and changes the
equations for default fan power
intended for mobile home and spaced-constrained
applications (see Table 4 of appendix M1).
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
EP05AP24.053</GPH>
located in cold climates, Table 15 of
AHRI 1600–202X Draft also includes the
‘‘Cold Climate Average’’ heating
conditioning hours and heating
shoulder hours. These were calculated
by a population-weighted average of the
data from EnergyPlus simulations for
the colder climate ASHRAE zones 5–8.
Regarding updates to the building
load lines, the PNNL EnergyPlus
simulations also yielded the average
cooling and average heating loads for
each climate zone, binned by
temperature intervals of 5 °F. The results
obtained were largely consistent with
the building load lines (BL(Tj)) in the
current appendix M1, barring the minor
flattening of the building load near the
zero-load points. As such, the equations
used for calculating the building loads
were ‘split’ into two sections in AHRI
1600–202X Draft. The cooling building
load line for outdoor temperatures at
and above 72.5 °F was maintained
consistent with current appendix M1,
but with one change—requiring that the
multiplier ‘V’ in the cooling building
load line apply to all variable-capacity
compressor systems instead of just
variable-capacity heat pumps.
For outdoor temperatures above
72.5 °F, the cooling building load line
was modified, given by:
24239
EP05AP24.052</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
24240
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
coefficients to use lower-load default
fan powers at a reduced air volume rate
of 65 percent, rather than 75 percent as
in appendix M1. For space-constrained
coil-only systems, the AHRI 1600–202X
Draft uses a full-load default fan power
of 293 W and a lower-load default fan
power of 135 W in the default fan power
coefficient interpolation. For non-spaceconstrained coil-only systems, AHRI
1600–202X Draft uses a full-load default
fan power of 346 W and a lower-load
default fan power of 159 W. All default
fan powers are lower than those used in
the calculation of DFPCMHSC and DFPCC
in appendix M1. DOE surmises that the
new equations for default fan power
coefficients and default fan heat
coefficients (and their reduced full-load
default fan powers and their reduced
lower-load default fan powers at a
reduced air volume rate of 65 percent)
in AHRI 1600–202X Draft represent
industry consensus regarding the
assumed power input and heat output of
an average furnace fan or modular
blower with which the test procedure
assumes the indoor coil is pared in a
field installation. DOE has tentatively
determined that the reduced full-load
and low-load default fan powers more
accurately reflect the average design of
the current installed base for blowers
paired with coil-only CAC/HP
installations, which increasingly use
more efficient fan motors (with lower
wattages). DOE has also tentatively
determined that the reduced air volume
rate more accurately reflects the average
low-load air volume rate of the current
installed base for blowers paired with
coil-only CAC/HP installations.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the default fan
power coefficient equations and default
fan heat coefficient equations, and
associated default fan powers used to
interpolate such coefficients, in AHRI
1600–202X Draft, at appendix M2.
5. Indoor Ambient Test Conditions for
Cooling Mode Tests
Currently, appendix M1 prescribes
test conditions for CAC/HPs in Tables 5,
6, 7, and 8 that require all cooling mode
tests to be performed under air entering
indoor unit temperatures of 80 °F (drybulb temperature)/67 °F (wet-bulb
temperature), with some wet-bulb
temperature exceptions.
In response to the January 2023 RFI,
DOE received several comments
regarding these indoor ambient test
conditions. As mentioned previously in
this NOPR, the Joint Advocates
encouraged DOE to choose more
representative indoor air temperatures
for the cooling mode tests. (Joint
Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3) Specifically,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
the Joint Advocates referred to an
ACEEE paper 89 that suggests indoor
temperatures of 75 °F/63 °F would be
more representative than the 80 °F/67 °F
conditions currently used in appendix
M1. (Id.) The Joint Advocates also
referred to recommendation 4 of the
2022 ASRAC CUAC and CUHP WG TP
term sheet, which recommends return
air temperature (‘‘RAT’’) test conditions
for cooling at 77 °F/64 °F, not 80 °F/
67 °F, to calculate seasonal performance
metrics. (Id.) Similarly, NYSERDA also
recommended that DOE consider
revising the air entering indoor unit
temperature conditions in the cooling
mode tests, asserting that the conditions
are not representative of actual setpoints
in the field, per 2020 RECS data.90
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 9)
In its comments regarding the
comparison of appendix M1 test
conditions to those test conditions used
by SPE07, Daikin pointed out that
changing the indoor dry-bulb and wetbulb temperature conditions would
significantly alter the numerical value of
resultant efficiency metrics. (Daikin, No.
16 at p. 5) Specifically, Daikin estimated
that changing the indoor ambient test
conditions from 80 °F/67 °F to 75 °F/
63 °F alone would result in an
approximate 9-percent reduction in
capacity (and therefore efficiency),
although Daikin could not share its data
to back this estimate. (Id.) If the indoor
ambient test conditions were to change,
Daikin stated that the numerical shift
should not affect the ranking order of
CAC/HPs by measured efficiencies. (Id.)
Daikin also noted that requiring
additional testing at different test
conditions would increase time burden,
costs, and trouble for manufacturers.
(Id.)
The information provided in the
aforementioned comments was
discussed in detail in the development
of the AHRI 1600–202X Draft, which
maintained the existing indoor ambient
test conditions for cooling tests. DOE
surmises that this absence of change
tentatively represents industry
consensus regarding whether the
existing 80 °F/67 °F indoor ambient test
conditions require amendments at this
time. DOE has tentatively determined
that the potential benefits of such a
change would not outweigh the
resulting consumer confusion and
oversizing issues stemming from a
change to the nominal ratings of
systems. Therefore, DOE is proposing no
change to the current indoor ambient
89 See www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2006/
data/papers/SS06_Panel1_Paper24.pdf.
90 See www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/
data/2020/hc/pdf/HC%207.1.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
test conditions for the cooling mode
tests.
6. Air Flow Limits To Address
Inadequate Dehumidification
During the development of AHRI
1600–202X Draft, AHRI and other
stakeholders, including DOE,
considered a variety of topics regarding
CAC/HPs, including topics that were
not explicitly raised by issues presented
in the January 2023 RFI. Among those
topics was how to address issues
relating to the dehumidification
inadequacy of some CAC/HPs. Some
CAC/HPs have sensible heat ratios
(‘‘SHRs’’) too high to meet consumer
needs for dehumidification, especially
in hot and warm, humid climates.
To ensure that CAC/HPs ratings
account for adequate dehumidification
in these climates, the AHRI 1600–202X
Draft establishes new airflow limits for
the cooling mode tests to avoid high
SHRs. Specifically, section 6.1.5.2 of the
AHRI 1600–202X Draft sets a maximum
airflow limit at 37.5 scfm per 1000
Btu/h (i.e., 450 cfm per ton of capacity)
for cooling full airflow. Additionally,
section 6.1.5.3 of the AHRI 1600–202X
Draft sets a maximum airflow limit at 50
scfm per 1000 Btu/h (i.e., 600 cfm per
ton of capacity) for cooling low airflow.
Should the cooling full airflow or
cooling low airflow specified by the
manufacturer exceed these limits, the
AHRI 1600–202X Draft requires that
airflows be reduced to meet these limits
for testing.
DOE surmises that the addition and
selection of specific cooling airflow
limits in the AHRI 1600–202X Draft
represent industry consensus regarding
the issue of inadequate
dehumidification. DOE has tentatively
determined that such airflow limits are
appropriate to ensure that CAC/HPs
provide adequate dehumidification
during cooling mode operation.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the cooling full
airflow and cooling low airflow limits
specified in the AHRI 1600–202X Draft,
at appendix M2.
H. General Comments Received in
Response to the January 2023 RFI
In response to the January 2023 RFI,
DOE received several general comments
not specific to any one test procedure
provision. This section discusses those
general comments received.
Both AHRI and NCP commented that
the requirement to test according to
appendix M1 (effective January 1, 2023),
specifically the change to SEER2 and
HSPF2 metrics, caused considerable
confusion in the marketplace. (AHRI,
No. 14 at p. 4; NCP, No. 7 at p. 2) As
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
a result of the metrics change (and lower
values for efficiency for SEER2 and
HSPF2), AHRI and NCP explained that
they and other manufacturers worked
together to develop educational
resources for dealers, contractors, code
officials, and end-users in an effort to
quell confusion. (Id.) However, AHRI
stated that distributing such resources
was difficult considering the large
number of contractors and installers in
jurisdictions across the nation. (Id.)
Both AHRI and NCP commented that
the burden associated with the previous
metrics change to SEER2 and HSPF2
was not well accounted for in the last
test procedure rulemaking. (Id.)
Subsequently, NCP stated that DOE
should allow time to measure the
overall impact of the new appendix M1
ratings and assess any actual benefit
before undertaking additional steps to
amend the procedure in this test
procedure rulemaking. (NCP, No. 7 at p.
2)
As noted earlier, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference industry
standards at appendix M1 and appendix
M2, which were developed with the
broad consensus of several stakeholders,
including AHRI and NCP. It is DOE’s
hope that incorporating each industry
standard in full as the basis for each
respective appendix would enable DOE
to limit manufacturer burden that would
have otherwise arisen solely due to
certifying to a standalone Federal test
procedure. DOE has tentatively
determined that the revisions proposed
at appendix M1 would not result in
changes in the SEER2 and HSPF2
metrics, and notes that use of appendix
M2 would not be required until the
compliance date of any amended
standards denominated in terms of the
new metrics, SCORE and SHORE.
Additionally, DOE has assessed the test
procedure costs and impacts in section
III.M of this NOPR and has provided an
opportunity to comment.
Lennox stated that DOE should fully
consider the impacts of transitioning to
lower GWP refrigerants as part of the
test procedure rulemaking process.
(Lennox, No. 6 at p. 2) Lennox
commented that HVACR manufactures
will be investing millions of dollars in
product development and capital
investment to facilitate a transition
across the entire HVACR product
portfolio of residential and commercial
equipment and that these impacts must
be considered in this test procedure
rulemaking. (Id.)
DOE notes that Lennox did not
identify any specific impacts related to
transitioning to low GWP refrigerants.
As discussed in section III.F.5, DOE has
considered that with the use of low
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
GWP refrigerants, particularly A2L
refrigerants, a subsequent need may
exist for the constant circulation of air
or circulation based on leak detection to
accommodate the refrigerant leak
detection and mitigation strategies in
CAC/HP product design. Both the AHRI
210/240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–
202X Draft include provisions for such
systems, which DOE is incorporating by
reference at appendix M1 and appendix
M2, respectively. Lennox was involved
in the development of these industry
standards and DOE surmises that
Lennox’s concerns pertaining to impacts
of lower GWP refrigerants have been
appropriately addressed.
Lennox also stated that DOE should
exercise caution as it proceeds with test
procedure amendments for CAC/HP
products to ensure the impacts and
timing of test procedure amendments
are fully considered, particularly so that
manufacturers may fully evaluate any
test procedure impacts before DOE
assesses potentially amending energy
conservation standards. (Lennox, No. 6
at p. 2)
In response to Lennox, DOE notes that
both test procedures and energy
conservation standards actions are
subject to the requirements of EPCA. As
discussed, EPCA states that the
Secretary shall review test procedures
for all covered products, including
CAC/HPs, at least once every 7 years.
(see 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(a)) The most
recent CAC/HP test procedure
rulemaking completed in satisfaction of
EPCA’s 7-year review requirement
concluded with the January 2017 Final
Rule. (See 82 FR 1426). Similarly, EPCA
also requires that, not later than 6 years
after the issuance of any final rule
establishing or amending a standard,
DOE evaluate the energy conservation
standards for each type of covered
product, including CAC/HPs, and
publish either a notification of
determination that the standards do not
need to be amended, or a NOPR that
includes new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (See 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) The most recent
CAC/HP energy conservation standards
rulemaking completed in satisfaction of
EPCA’s 6-year review requirement
concluded with a direct final rule
published on January 6, 2017 (‘‘January
2017 ECS DFR’’). (See 82 FR 1786). As
noted, revisions proposed at appendix
M1 would not result in changes in the
SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics, and use of
appendix M2 would not be required
until the compliance date of any
amended standards denominated in
terms of the new metrics, SCORE and
SHORE. DOE has tentatively determined
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24241
that this proposed test procedure
structure would provide sufficient time
to assess new metrics when considering
any future amended energy
conservation standards.
While Lennox stated it supports test
procedure changes to improve the
representativeness of the CAC/HP test
procedures, it also emphasized that
such changes must not be unduly
burdensome. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4)
Similarly, NCP stated that DOE should
avoid amendments to the test procedure
that increase burden and noted that
EPCA requires test procedures to not be
unduly burdensome. (NCP, No. 7 at p.
2) Specifically, NCP stated that DOE
should avoid amendments to the test
procedure that increase burden for
space-constrained AC and HP products,
as it has found no significant benefits to
be attained by test procedure changes to
this type of product at this time. (Id.)
As discussed previously, EPCA
requires test procedures proposed by
DOE not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE
discusses the estimated costs and
impact of the proposed test procedures
at appendix M1 and appendix M2 in
section III.M of this NOPR. As noted
earlier, DOE is proposing to incorporate
by reference industry standards at
appendix M1 and appendix M2 that
were developed with the broad
consensus of several stakeholders,
including Lennox and NCP. DOE has
tentatively determined that
incorporating each industry standard in
full as the basis for each respective
appendix would limit manufacturer
burden.
AHRI requested that DOE parse test
procedure changes into separate
groupings, so stakeholders can
understand those changes that would
substantively impact the ratings and, if
possible, the extent of their impact.
(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 4)
In response, DOE notes that it has
categorized the proposed test
procedures by topic and timing of
changes (i.e., near-term changes at
appendix M1 versus long-term changes
at appendix M2) to assist in
manufacturers’ understandings of the
changes themselves and the impacts
they may pose.
The Joint Advocates encouraged DOE
to consider additional reporting
requirements in a test procedure
rulemaking. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at p.
4) Specifically, the Joint Advocates
asserted that the ability for various
stakeholders to calculate performance in
any climate will likely be very
important for the adoption of heat
pumps in coming years. (Id.)
Subsequently, the Joint Advocates
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
24242
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
encouraged DOE to engage stakeholders
to determine which additional
performance reporting requirements
would be beneficial (e.g., capacity
maintenance or COP at various
temperatures) in a test procedure
rulemaking. (Id.)
In response, DOE notes that it will
consider certification requirements for
CAC/HPs, including additional
reporting requirements mentioned by
the Joint Advocates, in a separate
rulemaking for certification,
compliance, and enforcement.
NYSERDA recommended that DOE
consider approaches in the test
procedure that address both demand
response-enabled and thermal storage
performance features of CAC/HPs.
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 14) To highlight
the potential opportunities for load
curtailment using demand response,
NYSERDA stated that it evaluated
outdoor temperatures greater than or
equal to 95 °F for certain U.S.-based
cities. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 14)
NYSERDA stated that it then developed
charge and discharge pattern estimates
using renewable portfolio standards
(‘‘RPS’’) as a pathway to generation
while relying on the energy storage
perspectives offered in a California
Independent System Operator
Corporation (‘‘CAISO’’) report on
California and Europe.91 (Id.) NYSERDA
stated that these estimates are
summarized in Figure 1 of NYSERDA’s
response to the January 2023 RFI. (Id.)
NYSERDA commented that several high
outdoor temperatures within Figure 1
fall within the charge zone associated
with lower-price periods and high
generation and contended that the small
percentage of outdoor temperatures
within the discharge zone (i.e., higher
price periods with peak demand) could
be managed using the general
curtailment and critical curtailment
approaches specified in AHRI Standard
1380–2019. (Id.)
Additionally, NYSERDA noted that
specifications issued by EPA and the
Consortium for Energy Efficiency
(‘‘CEE’’) prescribe connected criteria for
demand response-enabled products, and
that energy efficiency program
administrators may consider offering
incentives on connected criteria to
strategically manage peak load outside
of solely focusing on performance
metrics such as SEER2, HSPF2, and
EER2. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 14)
NYSERDA recommended that DOE
account for such demand responseenabled features in the revised test
procedure, for example, by down91 See www.caiso.com/Documents/EnergyStoragePerspectivesFromCalifornia-Europe.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
weighting or eliminating the bin hours
from the SEER2 rating above a typical
curtailment threshold. (Id.) NYSERDA
stated that this could be provided as a
secondary metric so that users who
choose not to participate in demandresponse programs would still have
access to the ‘‘normal’’ SEER2 rating for
comparison. (Id.)
Neither AHRI 210/240–202X Draft nor
AHRI 1600–202X Draft include any
provisions regarding demand responseenabled products. In the absence of
discussion or changes to the AHRI test
procedures, DOE surmises that no
changes need to be made regarding
demand response-enabled CAC/HP
products in the test procedures at this
time. Therefore, DOE is proposing no
provisions to address demand responseenabled CAC/HP products in the test
procedures at either appendix M1 or
appendix M2. DOE will continue to
evaluate demand response functions in
CAC/HPs and consider whether such
functions should be accounted for in a
future DOE test procedure. While DOE
is not proposing changes to the Federal
test procedures, DOE does note that the
ENERGY STAR Spec V6.1 includes
requirements for demand response
capability and provides a means for
product differentiation.
NYSERDA also commented that it has
been working with heat pump
technologies that incorporate thermal
storage,92 and suggested that this
technology would fit under DOE’s CAC/
HP test procedure rulemaking.
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 14–15)
NYSERDA recommended that DOE
consider if this technology may make
sense to be a standalone product
category or otherwise consider the
potential growth of this technology and
how it would fit into the scope of CAC/
HPs. (Id.)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and
other stakeholders, including DOE,
considered a variety of topics regarding
CAC/HPs. However, the topic of heat
pump technologies that incorporate
thermal storage was not brought up as
a topic for discussion, and neither AHRI
210/240–202X Draft nor AHRI 1600–
202X Draft include any provisions
regarding such technologies.
Additionally, DOE has tentatively
determined that heat pumps with
thermal storage are a niche application,
and DOE currently does not have
enough information to include test
92 In its simplest form, thermal storage involves
using excess energy to heat/cool, melt or vaporize
a material so that this stored energy can be
recovered later. Heat pumps with thermal energy
storage can store energy during times when
electricity prices are low and release it during peak
demand hours.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
provisions for such systems within
CAC/HP test procedure. DOE also has
not received any petitions for test
procedure waivers to date that would
address this technology. In the absence
of discussion or changes to the AHRI
test procedures, DOE has tentatively
determined that no provisions are
currently necessary regarding heat
pump technologies that incorporate
thermal storage in the test procedures at
either appendix M1 or appendix M2.
However, DOE may consider the topic
of heat pump technologies that
incorporate thermal storage in a future
rulemaking.
I. Represented Values
In the following sections, DOE
discusses requirements regarding
represented values. To the extent that
DOE is proposing changes to the
requirements specified in 10 CFR 429
regarding representations of CAC/HPs,
such amendments to 10 CFR part 429,
if made final, would be required starting
180 days after publication in the
Federal Register of the test procedure
final rule. Prior to 180 days after
publication in the Federal Register of
the test procedure final rule, the current
requirements would apply. However,
manufacturers would be permitted to
choose between using the current or
new requirements for a period between
30 days and 180 days after publication
in the Federal Register of the test
procedure final rule.
1. Calculating Represented Values for
the Federal Trade Commission
As described in a final rule regarding
EnergyGuide labels published on
October 12, 2022, the Federal Trade
Commission (‘‘FTC’’) is responsible for
periodical updates to energy labeling for
major home appliances and other
consumer products, including CAC/
HPs, to help consumers compare
competing models. 87 FR 61465, 61466.
Among other disclosures, EnergyGuide
labels for CAC/HPs include estimated
annual energy costs for both cooling and
heating, which are based on the
represented values for each basic
model’s efficiencies (SEER2 and HSPF2,
as applicable) and cooling capacities
and estimates for cooling load hours
(‘‘CLH’’) and heating load hours
(‘‘HLH’’) in a year. Currently, the FTC
uses 1,000 and 1,572 hours as estimates
for CLH and HLH, respectively, for all
ratings of CAC/HP basic models.93 In
this NOPR, DOE is proposing to retain
the current CLH and HLH estimates in
appendix M1, for use in conjunction
93 See Table 21 of appendix M1 for the current
CLH and HLH estimates used for rating values.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
with SEER2 and HSPF2 representations.
However, DOE is also proposing new
estimates for CLH and HLH for use in
conjunction with the proposed
appendix M2 efficiency metrics, SCORE
and SHORE. Specifically, DOE is
proposing to use 1,457 and 972 hours as
estimates for CLH and HLH,
respectively, for use in conjunction with
SCORE and SHORE representations.
Unlike SEER2 and HSPF2, SCORE and
SHORE are integrated metrics (that
include off-mode and standby power)
and use updated weather data for the
United States’ average number of
conditioning and shoulder-season hours
per temperature bin. Given the different
metrics, DOE has tentatively determined
that the proposed appendix M2 requires
new CLH and HLH values for use by the
FTC. Step-by-step derivations of
proposed appendix M2 CLH and HLH
values are presented in a docketed
white paper titled ‘‘Derivation of
Proposed Appendix M2 Cooling Load
Hours and Heating Load Hours for the
Federal Trade Commission.’’ 94
2. Off-Mode Power
Off-mode power, PW,OFF, is a required
represented value for all CAC/HPs, as
specified in 10 CFR 429.16(a)(1).
Currently, section 3.13 of appendix M1
includes testing instructions to
determine off mode power ratings for
CAC/HPs. As discussed in section
III.F.1, the revised appendix M1
incorporates by reference AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft. Section 11.2.3 and
appendix H of AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft include the same test instructions
to determine PW,OFF as are present in the
current appendix M1 and therefore no
changes are required when
representation are made per appendix
M1.
However, as discussed in section
III.F.1 of this NOPR, the metrics
applicable to appendix M2, SCORE and
SHORE, incorporate off-mode power
consumption, unlike the current cooling
and heating metrics SEER2 and HSPF2,
respectively. As such, requiring
representation of PW,OFF would be
redundant for appendix M2. Therefore,
DOE is proposing to clarify at 10 CFR
429.16(a)(2) that represented values of
PW,OFF are only required when testing in
accordance with appendix M1.
Additionally, 10 CFR 429.16(b)(2)(ii)
currently allows flexibility for
manufacturers to not test each
individual model/combination (or
tested combination) for PW,OFF, but at a
minimum, test at least one individual
model/combination for PW,OFF among
94 This paper is available for reference in Docket
No. EERE–2022–BT–TP–0028.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
individual models/combinations with
similar off-mode construction. DOE is
retaining this flexibility for testing to
appendix M1. DOE is also extending
similar flexibility for determining offmode power values P1 (off-mode power
in shoulder season) and P2 (off-mode
power in heating season), which are
used in the calculation of the SCORE
and SHORE metrics when testing to
appendix M2, but for which DOE is not
proposing to require represented values.
Specifically, DOE is proposing at 10
CFR 429.16(b)(2)(iii) that when testing
in accordance with appendix M2 and
determining SCORE and SHORE, each
individual model/combination is not
required to be tested for values of P1
(off-mode power in shoulder season)
and P2 (off-mode power in heating
season). Instead, at a minimum, among
individual models/combinations with
similar off-mode construction (even
spanning different models of outdoor
units), a manufacturer must test at least
one individual model/combination, for
which P1 and P2 are the most
consumptive.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its
proposal at 10 CFR 429.16(b)(2)(iii) to
extend testing flexibility to P1 (off-mode
power in shoulder season) and P2 (offmode power in heating season) when
determining SCORE and SHORE, such
that each individual model/combination
is not required to be tested for values of
P1 and P2.
3. AEDM Tolerance for SCORE and
SHORE
DOE’s existing regulations allow the
use of an AEDM, in lieu of testing, to
simulate the efficiency of CAC/HPs. 10
CFR 429.16(d). For models certified
with an AEDM, results from DOE
verification tests are subject to certain
tolerances when compared to certified
ratings. 10 CFR 429.70(e)(5)(v). The
current tolerance specified for efficiency
metrics for CAC/HPs (i.e., SEER2,
HSPF2, and EER2) requires that the
result from the DOE verification test
must be greater than or equal to 0.95
multiplied by the certified represented
value. To maintain consistency with the
existing efficiency metrics, DOE is
proposing to extend the same tolerance
requirement to the new efficiency
metrics measured per appendix M2—
SCORE and SHORE.
4. Removal of the AEDM Exception for
Split-System CAC/HPs
Currently, the AEDM requirements at
10 CFR 429.70Ö allow that, until July 1,
2024, non-space-constrained singlesplit-system CAC/HPs rated based on
testing in accordance with appendix M1
are allowed to test a single-unit sample
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24243
from 20 percent of the basic models
distributed in commerce to validate the
AEDM. On or after July 1, 2024,
validation of the AEDM has to be based
on complete testing of each basic model.
See 10 CFR 429.70(e)(2)(i)(A).
Corresponding provisions are also
included at 10 CFR 429.16, paragraphs
(b)(2)(i) and (c)(1)(i)(B).
Since amendments proposed in this
NOPR are not expected to be finalized
and made effective before July 1, 2024,
the aforementioned AEDM exception for
non-space-constrained single-splitsystem CAC/HPs would no longer apply
at the time this rulemaking finalizes. As
such, DOE is proposing to remove the
date-based application of the AEDM
requirement and instead clarifies that
AEDM validation for all CAC/HPs,
including non-space-constrained singlesplit-system CAC/HPs, must be based on
complete testing of each basic model.
J. Enforcement Provisions
1. Verifying Cut-Out and Cut-In
Temperatures
As discussed in section III.E.3 of this
NOPR, appendix J of AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X
Draft—which DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference—includes a
test to determine cut-out and cut-in
temperatures (i.e., Toff and Ton
respectively) that is applicable to all
HPs. To enable DOE to verify certified
cut-out and cut-in temperatures using
the test methods in appendix K of the
AHRI drafts, DOE is proposing productspecific provisions at 10 CFR
429.134(k)—specifically, DOE is
proposing that for assessment and
enforcement testing of CHP models, the
cut-out and cut-in temperatures may be
verified using the method in appendix
J and that if this method is conducted,
the cut-in and cut-out temperatures
determined using this method will be
used to calculate the relevant heating
metric for purposes of compliance.
DOE will consider certification
requirements for CAC/HPs, including
the potential requirement for
certification of cut-out and cut-in
temperatures, in a separate rulemaking.
2. Controls Verification Procedure
As discussed in section III.E.1.d of
this NOPR, appendix I of AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X
Draft—which DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference—includes a
CVP to verify compliance of system
operation with the variable-capacity
compressor system definition and
consistency of fixed-position settings for
the compressor and indoor fan used in
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24244
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
steady-state tests with native control
operation.
DOE is proposing provisions at 10
CFR 429.134(k) to establish
requirements for DOE’s use of the CVP
for the purposes of assessment and
enforcement testing. DOE is proposing
that after conducting the CVP, which
itself would be performed after an
assessment or enforcement test using
the DOE test procedure (i.e., a
certification test using Appendix M1 or
Appendix M2, as applicable), if a unit
is determined to be either a variablecapacity compressor system, variable
capacity certified, single-capacity
system, or variable capacity certified,
two-capacity system, and meets the
tolerances on capacity measurement
(+/¥6 percent) and efficiency 95 (+/¥10
percent) for the full and minimum load
CVP intervals, the efficiency metrics for
the unit will be evaluated by conducting
the prescribed DOE rating tests per
Appendix M1 or Appendix M2
applicable to that system. These tests
will be conducted based on the override
instructions from the manufacturer for
setting the appropriate compressor and
fan speeds for each test.
However, if either of the full or
minimum load CVP intervals fail to
meet the required tolerances, and the
control device allows adjustment of the
compressor and indoor blower speeds,96
DOE will conduct certification tests by
setting the speeds for the tests to the
average values observed during the
corresponding failed CVP interval.97 If
either of the full or minimum load CVP
intervals fail to meet the required
tolerances, and the control device does
not allow adjustment of the compressor
and indoor blower speeds, DOE will use
average capacity and power(s) or, for
CVP intervals that do not meet the
operating tolerances and condition
tolerances, time averaged integrated
capacity and time averaged integrated
power(s), measured during the CVP, in
order to calculate SEER2, HSPF2 and
EER2 for appendix M1, and SCORE,
SHORE and EER2, for appendix M2. For
certification tests that do not have a
corresponding CVP interval, the
95 EER2 for cooling load intervals, and COP2 for
heating load intervals
96 For the purpose of the CVP, ‘‘adjustment’’
means that the control device has the ability to
make discrete adjustments, as required, to the
compressor and indoor blower speeds without the
need of any additional hardware or non-publicly
available software.
97 For tests that do not correspond to any load
intervals of the CVP, DOE will adjust the
compressor speed as follows: the compressor
speeds for tests Bfull, Blow, H1,full, H2,full, H2,low and
H0,low, will be set at the same speeds observed in
the CVP load intervals associated with the Afull,
Flow, H3,full, H3,full, and H1,low tests, respectively.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
corresponding efficiency will be
calculated by adjusting the capacity and
efficiency, by application of a ratio to
the corresponding CVP interval.98
For CHPs determined to be variable
capacity certified, single capacity
system, or variable capacity certified,
two capacity system that are certified/
marketed for use with only a proprietary
control device, DOE may utilize two
options, (1) contact the manufacturer to
provide override control instructions
consistent with the full and, if
applicable, minimum speed operation
observed during the CVP, to enable tests
without a corresponding CVP interval to
be conducted at the appropriate speeds,
or (2) conduct the tests for H1,Nom, H2,Full,
H2,Low and H3,Low, as applicable, using
the certified instructions, and for other
certification tests, the corresponding
efficiency will be calculated by
adjusting the capacity and efficiency, by
application of a ratio to the
corresponding CVP interval.99
Otherwise, the same simulated
thermostat low voltage signal that
resulted in in full speed compressor
operation for the full load intervals shall
be used for all certification full load
tests (for variable capacity certified,
single capacity system, or variable
capacity certified, two capacity
systems), and the same simulated
thermostat low voltage signal that
resulted in low speed compressor
operation for the low load intervals,
shall be used for all certification low
load tests (for variable capacity certified,
two capacity system).
DOE will address any associated
certification requirements for the CVP in
a separate rulemaking.
Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its
proposals related to enforcement
provisions when conducting the CVP.
K. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
EPCA requires that test procedures
proposed by DOE not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3)) As discussed, DOE proposes
to update the current Federal test
procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M1
consistent with the most recent draft
version of the relevant industry
consensus test procedure, AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft. DOE is also proposing
a new Federal test procedure at 10 CFR
98 As an example, the capacity at B
full condition,
QB,Full, will be calculated by the following equation:
QB,Full, = QB,Full,Certification × QCVP,A,Full/
QA,Full,Certification, where QB,Full,Certification is the
capacity at Bfull condition, QCVP,A,Full is the full load
interval capacity in cooling mode, and
QA,Full,Certification is the capacity at Afull condition.
99 As an example, the capacity at HO
Low
condition, QH0,Low, will be calculated by the
following equation: QHO,Low, = QH0,Low,Certification ×
QCVP,H1,Low/QH,Low,,Certification.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
430, subpart B, appendix M2, consistent
with the draft version of the industry
consensus test procedure, AHRI 1600–
202X Draft. Appendix M2 would not be
required for use until the compliance
date of amended standards for CAC/
HPs. DOE also proposes to amend its
representation and enforcement
provisions for CAC/HPs.
1. Appendix M1
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to
update its regulations at 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix M1 by
incorporating by reference AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft and relevant industry
standards referenced in AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft (ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009,
ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016, and ANSI/
ASHRAE 116–2010), and amending
certain provisions for representations
and enforcement in 10 CFR part 429,
consistent with the changes proposed to
the test procedure. The proposed
revisions to appendix M1 would retain
the current efficiency metrics (i.e.,
EER2, SEER2, and HSPF2). The
proposed testing requirements in
appendix M1 are those in AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft, which in turn
references ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009,
ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016, and ANSI/
ASHRAE 116–2010.
DOE has tentatively determined that
the proposed amendments to appendix
M1 and the proposed representation and
enforcement provisions would improve
the representativeness, accuracy, and
reproducibility of the test results and
would not be unduly burdensome for
manufacturers to conduct. DOE has also
tentatively determined that the
proposed amendments would not result
in an increase in testing cost from the
current test procedure. The proposed
revisions to the test procedure in
appendix M1 for measuring EER2,
SEER2, and HSPF2 per AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft would not increase thirdparty laboratory testing costs per unit
relative to the current DOE test
procedure. DOE estimates the current
costs for physical testing, including offmode testing, to range from $10,800 to
$19,800, depending on the configuration
of the CAC/HP (single-stage, two-stage,
variable-capacity). Further, DOE has
tentatively concluded that the proposed
revisions to the test procedure in
appendix M1 would not change
efficiency ratings for CAC/HPs, and
therefore would not require retesting or
redesign solely as a result of DOE’s
adoption of the proposed amendments
to the DOE test procedure, if made
final.100
100 Manufacturers are not required to perform
laboratory testing on all basic models. In
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
As discussed in section III.E.1.(d) of
this NOPR, DOE proposes to include a
CVP in its enforcement regulations to
validate whether override of modulating
components in regulatory tests for
variable-capacity compressor systems is
consistent with native control operation.
The proposed CVP for variable-capacity
compressor systems in appendix I of
AHRI 210/240–202X is not mandatory
for manufacturers to perform, therefore,
the proposed inclusion of this provision
in DOE’s enforcement regulations
clarifies the approach DOE would
follow for potential enforcement testing.
To the extent that a manufacturer has
not already verified the appropriateness
of the fixed performance during
regulatory tests as compared to native
control operation (i.e., the system may
currently be improperly certified), a
manufacturer may need to adjust fixedspeed overrides used in regulatory tests
in accordance with the proposed CVP
and subsequently re-run the regulatory
tests. However, having no strong
evidence to the contrary, DOE expects
that current variable-capacity
certifications are generally consistent
with system performance. Thus, DOE
concludes that any such cost to verify
performance and potentially retest is
negligible.
As explained in section III.E.2 of this
NOPR, a new definition for CCHPs is
introduced in AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft, for which the H4full test (outdoor
dry-bulb temperature of 5 °F) will be
mandatory, which is otherwise optional
for CHPs. However, this test and claim
of CCHP status is optional. Also, DOE
anticipates that units that will certify as
CCHPs are most likely to be already
testing at the 5 °F condition, and hence
no added costs or test burden are
expected to be associated with them.
The proposal for determination of cutin and cut-out temperatures in DOE’s
enforcement provisions, as laid out in
appendix J of the AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft, would not be required for
manufacturer testing. Thus, it will not
cause manufacturers to incur any
additional costs or burden.
As explained in section III.F.5 of this
NOPR, AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
introduced a definition for mandatory
circulation systems. DOE is currently
unaware of any CAC/HPs equipped with
these systems, and they are anticipated
accordance with 10 CFR 429.16, CAC/HP
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
to become more commonplace once A2L
refrigerant regulations are enforced.
CAC/HPs equipped with mandatory
circulation systems will need to have
their cyclic degradation coefficients
evaluated using the respective cyclic
tests, which are otherwise optional.
Since cyclic tests are already often
conducted by manufacturers to improve
upon the default cyclic degradation
coefficients, and because it is unclear
whether any systems having such
mandatory circulation will be
introduced, DOE considers that there
will be no significant increase in cost or
test burden associated with the
requirement for CAC/HPs equipped
with mandatory circulation systems to
conduct cyclic tests.
Issue 5: DOE requests comment on its
tentative determination that the
proposed amended appendix M1 would
not require re-testing or result in any
increase in test cost as compared to the
existing appendix M1.
2. Appendix M2
As explained previously, DOE
proposes to establish new regulations at
10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix M2 as
follows: (1) incorporate by reference
AHRI 1600–202X Draft, and relevant
industry standards referenced in AHRI
1600–202X Draft (ANSI/ASHRAE 37–
2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016, and
ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010); and (2)
establish provisions for determining
SCORE and SHORE for CAC/HPs.
Appendix M2 would not be required for
testing until the compliance date of any
future new standards for CAC/HPs
based on the SCORE and SHORE
metrics proposed in appendix M2. The
proposed testing requirements in
appendix M2 are those in AHRI 1600–
202X Draft, which in turn references
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, ANSI/
ASHRAE 16–2016, and ANSI/ASHRAE
116–2010.
DOE has tentatively determined that
the proposed amendments in appendix
M2 would be representative of average
use cycle, not be unduly burdensome
for manufacturers to conduct, and not
result in increased testing cost as
compared to the current test procedure.
The proposed revisions to the test
procedure in appendix M2 for
measuring EER2, SCORE, and SHORE
per AHRI 1600–202X Draft would not
increase third-party laboratory testing
costs per unit relative to the current
DOE test procedure. DOE estimates the
costs of physical testing, for the new
metrics SCORE and SHORE to range
from $10,800 to $19,800, same as that
for appendix M1, depending on the
configuration of the CAC/HP (e.g.,
single-stage, two-stage, variable-
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24245
capacity). DOE has tentatively
concluded that the proposed revisions
to the test procedure in appendix M2
would change efficiency ratings for
CAC/HPs—however, testing and
recertification based on appendix M2
would not be required until DOE adopts
any amended CAC/HP standards in
terms of the new metrics in a future
energy conservation standards
rulemaking.
As previously mentioned in this
NOPR, the AHRI 1600–202X Draft
introduces new cooling and heating
performance metrics, SCORE and
SHORE, as replacements for the current
cooling, heating, and off-mode
performance metrics, SEER2, HSPF2,
and PW,OFF, used to determine the
measured efficiency of CAC/HPs. Unlike
SEER2 and HSPF2, these new metrics
account for the off-mode power
consumption of auxiliary components,
including crankcase heaters and indoor
fans utilizing constant circulation for
both SCORE and SHORE, as well as base
pan heaters for SHORE.101 The off-mode
power consumption of auxiliary
components is determined using
appendix G of the AHRI 1600–202X
Draft. This appendix includes
measurement of power for base pan
heaters and constant circulation fans,
which are not included in the current
test procedure measurements to
determine off-mode power. The
measurements are otherwise identical to
those required by the current test,
although the calculations used to
determine off-mode power are different.
Measurements of base pan heater power
and constant circulation power may
require separate power measurement
instrumentation to be applied for the
base pan heater, and may require a brief
power measurement test period for
constant circulation, both test method
additions which represent minor test
burden increase and would be
applicable only for a minority of
models. Hence, adoption of the new
cooling and heating metric would not
result in significant increase in testing
costs as compared to the current test
procedure.
The other proposed amendments
mainly affect calculations and, other
than potentially imposing limits on
airflow settings (item (e) in this
paragraph), will not affect testing. The
proposed amendments are (a) revising
101 As described in section III.F.1.a of this NOPR,
the off-mode power consumption definition in
appendix M1 includes energy use for all operating
modes not associated with times that the system is
providing cooling or heating. Thus, off-mode in the
context of the CAC/HP test procedure includes
operating modes that would be interpreted as
standby or active modes under IEC 62301.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24246
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
the demand defrost credit for CHPs
equipped with demand defrost systems;
(b) accounting for the additional power
use from supplementary heat during
defrost by introducing defrost heat debit
and the defrost overrun mode; (c)
updating the building load lines and
temperature bin hours for calculation of
the new seasonal metrics SCORE and
SHORE; (d) revising the default fan
power coefficients for coil-only systems;
and (e) imposing air flow limits to
address inadequate dehumidification.
Thus, DOE does not anticipate these
additional amendments will cause any
increased test procedure costs.
Issue 6: 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
M2. DOE also requests comment on the
cost of testing CAC/HPs in accordance
with AHRI 1600–202X Draft compared
to DOE’s estimated appendix M2 testing
costs for physical testing ranging from
$10,800 to $18,000, which are
unchanged from the appendix M1
testing costs.
L. Compliance Date and Waivers
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 180 days after
publication of such a test procedure
final rule in the Federal Register. (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) 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 standards. Section 8(e) of
appendix A 10 CFR part 430 subpart C.
If DOE were to publish an amended
test procedure, EPCA provides an
allowance for individual manufacturers
to petition DOE for an extension of the
180-day period if the manufacturer may
experience undue hardship in meeting
the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To
receive such an extension, petitions
must be filed with DOE no later than 60
days before the end of the 180-day
period and must detail how the
manufacturer will experience undue
hardship. (Id.)
Upon the compliance date of test
procedure provisions of an amended
test procedure, should DOE issue a such
an amendment, any waivers that had
been previously issued and are in effect
that pertain to issues addressed by such
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
provisions are terminated. 10 CFR
430.27(h)(3). Recipients of any such
waivers would be required to test the
products subject to the waiver according
to the amended test procedure as of the
compliance date of the amended test
procedure. The amendments proposed
in this document pertain to issues
addressed by the interim waiver granted
to Samsung HVAC America LLC (88 FR
36558, Case No. 2022–009). To the
extent that such an interim waiver
permit the petitioner to test according to
an alternate test procedure to appendix
M1, the interim waiver will terminate
on the date the amendments to the
appendix M1 test procedure take effect
(i.e., 180 days after publication of the
test procedure final rule in the Federal
Register).
Notably, the amendments proposed in
this document do not pertain to issues
addressed by the interim waiver granted
to Johnson Controls Inc. (‘‘JCI’’) (88 FR
72449, Case No. 2023–005). This interim
waiver permits JCI to test certain basic
models of CAC/HPs that use variable
speed, oil-injected scroll compressors
(‘‘VSS systems’’) with a 72-hour breakin period, in lieu of the 20-hour breakin limit prescribed in appendix M1. (Id.)
Because the 72-hour break-in period
permitted to VSS systems listed in JCI’s
petition is unique to the CAC/HP
market, DOE surmises that amendments
to address this issue do not belong in
either of the proposed Federal test
procedures for CAC/HPs (i.e., appendix
M1 or appendix M2). However, DOE
notes that JCI may continue to request
a waiver to extend the allowable breakin period for its VSS systems. To the
extent the interim waiver permits JCI to
test according to an alternate test
procedure to appendix M1, the interim
waiver will terminate on the date testing
is required according to appendix M2,
which will occur on the compliance
date for updated efficiency standards.
DOE notes that JCI may petition for
another waiver at the time testing is
required according to appendix M2.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866, 13563, and 14094
Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as
supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan.
21, 2011) and E.O. 14094, ‘‘Modernizing
Regulatory Review,’’ 88 FR 21879 (April
11, 2023), requires agencies, to the
extent permitted by law, to (1) propose
or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that its benefits
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
justify its costs (recognizing that some
benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to
impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among
other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public. DOE emphasizes as
well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to
use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management
and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized
that such techniques may include
identifying changing future compliance
costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons
stated in the preamble, this proposed
regulatory action is consistent with
these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also
requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant
regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review.
OIRA has determined that this proposed
regulatory action does not constitute a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
this action was not submitted to OIRA
for review under E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by
law must be proposed for public
comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is
Being Considered
DOE proposes to update the current
Federal test procedure for CAC/HPs at
appendix M1 consistent with the most
recent draft version of the relevant
industry consensus test procedure,
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft. DOE is also
proposing a new Federal test procedure
at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
M2, consistent with the draft version of
the industry consensus test procedure,
AHRI 1600–202X Draft. Appendix M2
would not be effective until new
standards are established for CAC/HPs
that rely on metrics present in appendix
M2. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing
amendments to the test procedure for
CAC/HPs in satisfaction of the 7-year
review statutory requirement specified
in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(3) and
6293(b)(1)(A))
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for,
Rule
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE must
follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered products.
EPCA requires that any test procedures
prescribed or amended under this
section be reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and
not be unduly burdensome to conduct.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
EPCA also requires that, at least once
every 7 years, DOE review test
procedures for all type of covered
products, including CAC/HPs, to
determine whether amended test
procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements that
the test procedures are: (1) reasonably
designed to produce test results which
reflect energy efficiency, energy use,
and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use; and (2) not unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A))
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
DOE is publishing this NOPR
proposing amendments to the test
procedure for CAC/HPs in satisfaction
of the aforementioned obligations under
EPCA.
3. Description and Estimated Number of
Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of CAC/HPs, 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 333415,102
‘‘Air-Conditioning and Warm Air
Heating Equipment and Commercial
and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.’’ 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 used publicly available
information to identify potential small
businesses that manufacture CAC/HPs.
DOE identified manufacturers using
DOE’s Compliance Certification
Database (‘‘CCD’’) 103 and the prior CAC/
HP rulemakings. DOE used the publicly
available information and subscriptionbased market research tools (e.g., reports
from Dun & Bradstreet) 104 to identify 22
original equipment manufacturers
(‘‘OEMs’’) of the covered equipment. Of
the 22 OEMs, DOE identified five
domestic manufacturers of CAC/HPs.
DOE expects manufacturers that
certify to AHRI Directory of Certified
Product Performance (‘‘AHRI
Directory’’) 105 to have different
potential regulatory costs from
manufacturers that do not certify to the
AHRI Directory. All five small OEMs
certify their CAC/HPs to the AHRI
Directory.
4. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements
This NOPR proposes to adopt updated
industry test standards for CAC/HPs.
DOE proposes to update the current
Federal test procedure for CAC/HPs at
appendix M1, consistent with the most
102 The size standards are listed by NAICS code
and industry description and are available at
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards (last accessed Sept. 22, 2023).
103 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is
available at www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms (last
accessed Sept. 19, 2023).
104 Dun & Bradstreet login available at https://
app.dnbhoovers.com.
105 The AHRI Directory of Certified Product
Performance is available at www.ahridirectory.org.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24247
recent draft version of the relevant
industry consensus test procedure,
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft. DOE is also
proposing a new Federal test procedure
at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix
M2, consistent with the draft version of
the industry consensus test procedure,
AHRI 1600–202X Draft. More specific
amendments to the DOE test procedure
are summarized in the following
subsections.
(a) Cost and Compliance Associated
With Appendix M1
In appendix M1, DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft for CAC/HPs and to amend
certain provisions for representations
and enforcement in 10 CFR part 429,
consistent with the changes proposed to
the test procedure. The proposed
revisions to appendix M1 would retain
the current efficiency metrics—EER2,
SEER2, and HSPF2. The proposed
testing requirements in appendix M1 are
generally consistent with those in AHRI
210/240–202X Draft, which in turn
references ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009,
ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016, and ASHRAE
116–2010. This proposed revision to the
test procedure in appendix M1 for
measuring EER2, SEER2, and HSPF2
would not increase third-party
laboratory testing costs per unit relative
to the current DOE test procedure. The
proposed CVP’’ for variable-capacity
compressor systems in appendix I of
AHRI 210/240–202X is not mandatory
for manufacturers to perform, and DOE
considers these developmental costs to
be negligible and not burdensome to
manufacturers. The H4full test (outdoor
dry-bulb temperature of 5 °F) will be
mandatory, but DOE anticipates no
added costs as units that will certify as
CCHPs are likely currently testing at the
5 °F condition. The proposal for
determination of cut-in and cut-out
temperatures in appendix J of the AHRI
210/240–202X Draft would be included
in DOE’s enforcement provisions and
would not be mandatory for
manufacturer testing, and thus
manufacturers will not incur additional
costs. Additionally, CAC/HPs equipped
with mandatory circulation systems will
have their cyclic degradation
coefficients evaluated using respective
cyclic tests, but DOE anticipates no
added costs to manufacturers since
cyclic tests are already often conducted
on CAC/HPs (regardless of whether they
are equipped with a mandatory constant
circulation system) to improve the
default cyclic degradation coefficients.
DOE has tentatively concluded that
the proposed revisions to the test
procedure in appendix M1 would not
change efficiency ratings for CAC/HPs,
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24248
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
and therefore would not require
retesting or redesign solely as a result of
DOE’s adoption of this proposed
amendment to the DOE test procedure,
if made final.106 Further, the proposed
test procedure in appendix M1 would
not increase third-part laboratory testing
costs per unit; DOE estimates current
costs for physical testing to range from
$10,800 to $19,800, depending on the
configuration of the CAC/HP (singlestage, two-stage, variable-capacity).
Therefore, DOE does not expect that the
test procedure amendments in appendix
M1 would result in manufacturers,
including small manufacturers,
incurring additional testing costs.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(b) Cost and Compliance Associated
With Appendix M2
In appendix M2, DOE proposes to
establish a new test procedure that
references the draft industry test
procedure, AHRI 1600–202X Draft, for
measuring new efficiency metrics,
SCORE and SHORE. Appendix M2
would not be effective until new
standards are established for CAC/HPs
that rely on metrics present in appendix
M2, should DOE adopt such standards.
The proposed testing requirements in
appendix M2 are generally consistent
with those in AHRI 1600–202X Draft,
which in turn references ANSI/ASHRAE
37–2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016, and
ASHRAE 116–2010. This proposed
revision to the test procedure in
appendix M2 for measuring EER2,
SCORE, and SHORE would not increase
third-party laboratory testing costs per
unit relative to the current DOE test
procedure. The standby and off-mode
power consumption of auxiliary
components is determined using
appendix G of the AHRI 1600–202X
Draft and does not differ substantially
from the process to determine off-mode
power from the current version of
appendix M1, in section 3.13. The
adoption of the new cooling and heating
metric would not result in increased
testing costs as compared to the current
test procedure. Other proposed
amendments will not affect testing cost,
which include (a) building load lines
and temperature bin hours for
calculation of SCORE and SHORE, (b)
default fan power coefficients for coil106 Manufacturers are not required to perform
laboratory testing on all basic models. In
accordance with 10 CFR 429.16, CAC/HP
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
only systems, and (c) air flow limits to
address inadequate dehumidification.
The testing cost will not increase with
appendix M2. DOE estimates the costs
of physical testing for the new metrics
SCORE and SHORE to range from
$10,800 to $18,000, depending on the
configuration of the CAC/HP (singlestage, two-stage, variable-capacity).
Additionally, DOE allows the use of
AEDMs in lieu of physically testing all
basic models. The use of an AEDM is
less costly than physical testing of CAC/
HP models; DOE estimates the cost to
develop an AEDM to be $16,860 per
AEDM for a basic model, which
includes the cost of physical testing
done at a third-party laboratory to
validate the AEDM.107 The development
of the AEDM would reduce the need for
physical testing on the part of
manufacturers. Once the AEDM is
developed, DOE estimates that it would
take 5 minutes of an engineer’s time 108
to determine efficiency for each
individual model within a basic model
using the AEDM.
DOE understands all manufacturers
currently certifying in the AHRI
Directory (including small businesses)
will be testing their models in
accordance with AHRI 1600–202X Draft,
the industry test procedure DOE is
proposing to reference at appendix M2.
As stated, testing and certification of the
SCORE and SHORE metrics will not be
required until the compliance date of
any future energy conservation
standards based on these metrics;
however, DOE anticipates
manufacturers will need to re-test their
models to rate them in terms of the
SCORE and SHORE metrics to comply
with the AHRI certification program,
and the re-rating will occur prior to a
future energy conservation standards
rulemaking. As a result, DOE has
tentatively determined that the
proposed test procedure amendments
would not add any additional testing
burden to manufacturers. Therefore, the
proposed test procedure amendments in
appendix M2 would not add any
additional testing burden to the five
small domestic manufacturers who
certify in the AHRI database.
Issue 7: DOE requests comment on the
number of small business OEMs of
CAC/HPs, their participation in the
AHRI Directory, and associated
compliance costs.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict
With Other Rules and Regulations
107 AEDM = physical testing cost + (time to
develop AEDM * engineering technician wage) =
$14,400 + (60 hours * $41/hour).
108 DOE estimates a fully-burdened wage rate of
$41 per hour for an engineering technician based
on Bureau of Labor Statistics median wage data for
mechanical engineering technicians and benefits
data for the private sector.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
DOE is not aware of any rules or
regulations that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the rule being considered.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
DOE proposes to amend the CAC/HPs
test procedure in reference to industry
standards in both appendices M1 and
M2. DOE proposes to incorporate by
reference AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and
the subsequent relevant standards it
references (ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016,
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, and ASHRAE
116–2010) as the basis for the updated
appendix M1 test procedure. Similarly,
DOE proposes to incorporate by
reference AHRI 1600–202X Draft and
the subsequent relevant standards it
references (ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016,
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, and ASHRAE
116–2010) as the basis for the new
appendix M2 test procedure. DOE
considered alternative test methods and
modifications to the proposed test
procedures in appendices M1 and M2
for CAC/HPs. However, alternatives
deviating from the industry standard
would burden manufacturers with
additional costs for separate test
procedures. 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. Adoption of
alternatives that do not incorporate the
consensus industry test procedures
would increase testing costs on small
manufacturers. Therefore, DOE is
proposing to amend the existing DOE
test procedure for CAC/HPs through
incorporation by reference of AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X
Draft with the additional modifications
as discussed throughout this NOPR.
In addition, individual manufacturers
may petition for a waiver of the
applicable test procedure. 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.
Manufacturers of CAC/HPs must
certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy
conservation standards. To certify
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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 CAC/HPs. (See generally 10
CFR part 429.) The collection-ofinformation 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 CAC/HPs in this NOPR. DOE will
address certification requirements for
CAC/HPs in a separate rulemaking for
certification, compliance, and
enforcement. 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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this NOPR, DOE proposes test
procedure amendments that will be
used to develop and implement future
energy conservation standards for CAC/
HPs. 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24249
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, the proposed
rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
proposed regulatory action likely to
result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. On March 18,
1997, DOE published a statement of
policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
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
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24250
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to
amend the test procedure for measuring
the energy efficiency of CAC/HPs is not
a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
would not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as
a significant energy action by the
Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is
not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply
with section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974, as amended
by the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C.
788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially
provides in relevant part that, where a
proposed rule authorizes or requires use
of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the
public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section
32(c) requires DOE to consult with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’)
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The proposed modifications to the
test procedure for CAC/HPs would
specifically reference testing methods
contained in certain sections of the
following commercial standards: AHRI
210/240–202X Draft, ANSI/ASHRAE
37–2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016, and
ASHRAE 116–2010. DOE has evaluated
these standards and is unable to
conclude whether they fully comply
with the requirements of section 32(b) of
the FEAA (i.e., whether it was
developed in a manner that fully
provides for public participation,
comment, and review). DOE will
consult with both the Attorney General
and the Chairman of the FTC
concerning the impact of these test
procedures on competition, prior to
prescribing a final rule.
M. Description of Materials
Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference the following
test standards:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
AHRI Standard 210/240–202X Draft.
This test standard is an update to AHRI
210/240–2023 (2020), and is a draft
industry test procedure for measuring
the heating and cooling capacity and
efficiency of unitary air-source air
conditioners and heat pumps with
capacities less than 65,000 Btu/hour.
The revised appendix M1 will be
consistent with provisions in AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft.
AHRI 1600–202X Draft. This test
standard is a major update to AHRI 210/
240–2023 (2020), and is a draft industry
test procedure for measuring the heating
and cooling capacity and efficiency of
unitary air-source air conditioners and
heat pumps with capacities less than
65,000 Btu/hour, including new
seasonal cooling and heating efficiency
metrics, namely SCORE and SHORE.
The new appendix M2 will be
consistent with provisions in AHRI
1600–202X Draft.
Copies of AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
and AHRI 1600–202X Draft can be
obtained from AHRI, 2311 Wilson Blvd.,
Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703)
524–8800, or found online at:
www.ahrinet.org. Copies of the AHRI
210/240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–
202X Draft are also available in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking.
If finalized versions of AHRI 210/240
and AHRI 1600 are not published before
the test procedure final rule, or if there
are substantive changes between the
drafts and published versions of the
standards that are not supported by
stakeholder comments in response to
this NOPR, DOE may adopt the
substance of the AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft or
provide additional opportunity for
comment on the final version of that
industry consensus standard.
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.
ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016. This test
standard is an industry-accepted test
procedure that provides a method of test
for room air conditioners, packaged
terminal air conditioners, and packaged
terminal heat pumps.
ASHRAE 116–2010. This test
standard is an industry-accepted test
procedure that provides a method of test
for electrically driven, residential aircooled air conditioners and heat pumps
with cooling capacity of 65,000 Btu/hr.
and less.
Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009,
ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016 and ASHRAE
116–2010 are available on ASHRAE’s
website at www.ashrae.org.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar are
listed in the DATES section at the
beginning of this document. Webinar
registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar
participants will be published on DOE’s
website www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
standards.aspx?productid=48&action=
viewlive. Participants are responsible for
ensuring their systems are compatible
with the webinar software.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
Any person who has plans to present
a prepared general statement may
request that copies of his or her
statement be made available at the
public meeting. Such persons may
submit requests, along with an advance
electronic copy of their statement in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format, to the appropriate address
shown in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this document. The request
and advance copy of statements must be
received at least one week before the
public meeting and are to be emailed.
Please include a telephone number to
enable DOE staff to make follow-up
contact, if needed.
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
DOE will designate a DOE official to
preside at the public meeting and may
also use a professional facilitator to aid
discussion. The meeting will not be a
judicial or evidentiary-type public
hearing, but DOE will conduct it in
accordance with section 336 of EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6306) A court reporter will be
present to record the proceedings and
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the
right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the
procedures governing the conduct of the
public meeting. There shall not be
discussion of proprietary information,
costs or prices, market share, or other
commercial matters regulated by U.S.
anti-trust laws. After the public meeting,
interested parties may submit further
comments on the proceedings, as well
as on any aspect of the rulemaking, until
the end of the comment period.
The public meeting will be conducted
in an informal conference style. DOE
will present 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
allow, 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
questions of participants concerning
other matters relevant to this proposed
rulemaking. The official conducting the
public meeting will accept additional
comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification
of the previous procedures that may be
needed for the proper conduct of the
public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will
be included in the docket, which can be
viewed as described in the Docket
section at the beginning of this
document and will be accessible on the
DOE website. 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.109 Interested parties
may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
109 DOE has historically provided a 75-day
comment period for test procedure NOPRs pursuant
to the North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.Canada-Mexico (‘‘NAFTA’’), Dec. 17, 1992, 32
I.L.M. 289 (1993); the North American Free Trade
Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103–
182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended at
10 U.S.C.A. 2576) (1993) (‘‘NAFTA Implementation
Act’’); and Executive Order 12889, ‘‘Implementation
of the North American Free Trade Agreement,’’ 58
FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on July 1, 2020,
the Agreement between the United States of
America, the United Mexican States, and the United
Canadian States (‘‘USMCA’’), Nov. 30, 2018, 134
Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA), went into
effect, and Congress’s action in replacing NAFTA
through the USMCA Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C.
4501 et seq. (2020), implies the repeal of E.O. 12889
and its 75-day comment period requirement for
technical regulations. Thus, the controlling laws are
EPCA and the USMCA Implementation Act.
Consistent with EPCA’s public comment period
requirements for consumer products, the USMCA
only requires a minimum comment period of 60
days. Consequently, DOE now provides a 60-day
public comment period for test procedure NOPRs.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24251
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 itself 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
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
24252
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. 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, 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).
version of AHRI 210/240–202X Draft,
for measuring the existing metrics,
SEER2 and HSPF2.
Issue 2: DOE requests feedback on its
proposal to establish a new appendix
M2, to be consistent with the latest
version of AHRI 1600–202X Draft, and
to adopt the SCORE and SHORE metrics
as determined under AHRI 1600–202X
Draft in appendix M2 of the Federal test
procedure for CAC/HPs.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its
proposal to extend testing flexibility to
P1 (off-mode power in shoulder season)
and P2 (off-mode power in heating
season) when determining SCORE and
SHORE.
Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its
proposals related to enforcement
provisions when conducting the CVP.
Issue 5: 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 revised appendix
M1.
Issue 6: 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
M2. DOE also requests comment on the
cost of testing CAC/HPs in accordance
with AHRI 1600–202X Draft compared
to DOE’s estimated appendix M2 testing
costs for physical testing ranging from
$10,800 to $18,000, which are
unchanged from the appendix M1
testing costs.
Issue 7: DOE requests comment on the
number of small business OEMs of
CAC/HPs and their participation in the
AHRI Directory.
Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this rulemaking that may
not specifically be identified in this
document.
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
Issue 1: DOE requests feedback on its
proposal to revise appendix M1 by
making it consistent with the latest
10 CFR Part 429
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
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
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Small
businesses.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on February 27,
2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document
with the original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on March 1,
2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
parts 429 and 430 of Chapter II of Title
10, Code of Federal Regulations as set
forth below:
PART 429—CERTIFICATION,
COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT
FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 429
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
2. Amend § 429.4 by:
a. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2)
through (c)(7) as paragraphs (c)(3)
through (c)(8); and
■ b. Adding new paragraphs (c)(2) and
(c)(9).
The additions read as follows:
■
■
§ 429.4 Materials incorporated by
reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) AHRI Standard 210/240–202X,
202X Standard for Performance Rating
of Unitary Air-Conditioning & AirSource Heat Pump Equipment, [version
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
and date TBD]; IBR approved for
§ 429.134.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) AHRI 1600–202X, 202X Standard
for Performance Rating of Unitary AirConditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
Equipment, [version and date TBD]; IBR
approved for § 429.134.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Amend § 429.16 by revising
paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3)(i), (b)(2),
and (3)(ii), (c)(1)(i)(B), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(3),
(d)(2), and (f) to read as follows:
■
§ 429.16 Central air conditioners and
central air conditioning heat pumps.
(a) * * *
24253
(1) Required represented values.
Determine the represented values
(including as applicable, SEER2, EER2,
HSPF2, PW,OFF, SCORE, SHORE, cooling
capacity, and heating capacity) for the
individual models/combinations (or
‘‘tested combinations’’) specified in the
following table.
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1)
Category
Equipment subcategory
Single-Package Unit ............
Single-Package Air Conditioner (AC) (including spaceconstrained).
Single-Package Heat Pump (HP) (including space-constrained).
Single-Split-System AC with Single-Stage or Two-Stage
Compressor (including Space-Constrained and
Small-Duct, High Velocity Systems (SDHV)).
Outdoor Unit and Indoor Unit
(Distributed in Commerce
by Outdoor Unit Manufacturer (OUM)).
Required represented values
Single-Split System AC with Other Than Single-Stage
or Two-Stage Compressor (including Space-Constrained and SDHV).
Single-Split-System HP (including Space-Constrained
and SDHV).
Multi-Split, Multi-Circuit, or Multi-Head Mini-Split Split
System—non-SDHV (including Space-Constrained).
Multi-Split, Multi-Circuit, or Multi-Head Mini-Split Split
System—SDHV.
Indoor Unit Only Distributed
in Commerce by Independent Coil Manufacturer
(ICM).
Single-Split-System Air Conditioner (including SpaceConstrained and SDHV).
Single-Split-System Heat Pump (including Space-Constrained and SDHV).
Multi-Split, Multi-Circuit, or Multi-Head Mini-Split Split
System—SDHV.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Outdoor Unit with no Match ...............................................................................................
(2) PW,OFF. Represented values of
PW,OFF are only required when
determining represented values in
accordance with 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix M1. If individual
models of single-package systems or
individual combinations (or ‘‘tested
combinations’’) of split systems that are
otherwise identical are offered with
multiple options for off mode-related
components, determine the represented
value for the individual model/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
Every individual model distributed in commerce.
Every individual model distributed in commerce.
Every individual combination distributed in commerce.
Each model of outdoor unit must include a represented value for at least one coil-only individual
combination that is distributed in commerce and
which is representative of the least efficient combination distributed in commerce with that particular
model of outdoor unit. For that particular model of
outdoor unit, additional represented values for coilonly and blower-coil individual combinations are allowed, if distributed in commerce.
Every individual combination distributed in commerce,
including all coil-only and blower-coil combinations.
Every individual combination distributed in commerce.
For each model of outdoor unit, at a minimum, a nonducted ‘‘tested combination.’’ For any model of outdoor unit also sold with models of ducted indoor
units, a ducted ‘‘tested combination.’’ The ducted
‘‘tested combination’’ must comprise the highest static variety of ducted indoor unit distributed in commerce (i.e., conventional, mid-static, or low-static).
Additional representations are allowed, as described
in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section, respectively.
For each model of outdoor unit, an SDHV ‘‘tested combination.’’ Additional representations are allowed, as
described in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section.
Every individual combination distributed in commerce.
For a model of indoor unit within each basic model, an
SDHV ‘‘tested combination.’’ Additional representations are allowed, as described in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)
of this section.
Every model of outdoor unit distributed in commerce
(tested with a model of coil-only indoor unit as specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section.
combination with the crankcase heater
and controls that are the most
consumptive. A manufacturer may also
determine represented values for
individual models/combinations with
less consumptive off mode options;
however, all such options must be
identified with different model numbers
for single-package systems or for
outdoor units (in the case of split
systems).
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(3) Refrigerants. (i) If a model of
outdoor unit (used in a single-split,
multi-split, multi-circuit, multi-head
mini-split, and/or outdoor unit with no
match system) is distributed in
commerce and approved for use with
multiple refrigerants, a manufacturer
must determine all represented values
for that model using each refrigerant
that can be used in an individual
combination of the basic model
(including outdoor units with no match
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24254
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
or ‘‘tested combinations’’). This
requirement may apply across the listed
categories in the table in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section. A refrigerant is
considered approved for use if it is
listed on the nameplate of the outdoor
unit.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The table identifies the minimum
testing requirements for each basic
model that includes multiple individual
models/combinations; if a basic model
spans multiple categories or
subcategories listed in the table,
multiple testing requirements apply. For
each basic model that includes only one
individual model/combination, test that
individual model/combination.
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(2)(i)
Category
Equipment subcategory
Single-Package Unit
Single-Package AC (including SpaceConstrained).
Single-Package HP (including SpaceConstrained).
Outdoor Unit and Indoor Unit (Distributed in Commerce
by OUM).
Single-Split-System AC with SingleStage or Two-Stage Compressor (including Space-Constrained and
Small- Duct, High Velocity Systems
(SDHV)).
Single-Split-System HP with SingleStage or Two-Stage Compressor (including Space-Constrained and
SDHV).
Single-Split System AC or HP with
Other Than Single-Stage or TwoStage Compressor having a coil-only
individual combination (including
Space-Constrained and SDHV).
Single-Split System AC or HP with
Other Than Single-Stage or TwoStage Compressor without a coilonly individual combination (including Space-Constrained and SDHV).
Multi-Split, Multi-Circuit, or Multi-Head
Mini-Split Split System—non-SDHV
(including Space-Constrained).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Indoor Unit Only
(Distributed in
Commerce by
ICM).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Multi-Split, Multi-Circuit, or Multi-Head
Mini-Split Split System—SDHV.
Single-Split-System Air Conditioner (including Space-Constrained and
SDHV).
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Must test:
With:
The individual model with the lowest
seasonal energy efficiency ratio 2
(SEER2) (when testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B
of part 430) or SCORE (when testing in accordance with appendix M2
to subpart B of part 430).
The model of outdoor unit ....................
N/A.
The model of outdoor unit ....................
A model of indoor unit.
The model of outdoor unit ....................
A model of coil-only indoor unit.
The model of outdoor unit ....................
A model of indoor unit.
The model of outdoor unit ....................
At a minimum, a ‘‘tested combination’’
composed entirely of non-ducted indoor units. For any models of outdoor units also sold with models of
ducted indoor units, test a second
‘‘tested combination’’ composed entirely of ducted indoor units (in addition to the non-ducted combination).
The ducted ‘‘tested combination’’
must comprise the highest static variety of ducted indoor unit distributed
in commerce (i.e., conventional, midstatic, or low-static).
A ‘‘tested combination’’ composed entirely of SDHV indoor units.
The least efficient model of outdoor
unit with which it will be paired
where the least efficient model of
outdoor unit is the model of outdoor
unit in the lowest SEER2 combination (when testing under appendix
M1 to subpart B of part 430) or
SCORE combination (when testing
under appendix M2 to subpart B of
part 430) as certified by the OUM. If
there are multiple models of outdoor
unit with the same lowest SEER2
(when testing under appendix M1 to
subpart B of part 430) or SCORE
(when testing under appendix M2 to
subpart B of part 430) represented
value, the ICM may select one for
testing purposes.
The model of outdoor unit ....................
A model of indoor unit ..........................
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
A model of coil-only indoor unit.
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
24255
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(2)(i)—Continued
Single-Split-System Heat Pump (including Space-Constrained and
SDHV).
Multi-Split, Multi-Circuit, or Multi-Head
Mini-Split Split System—SDHV.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Outdoor Unit with
No Match.
...............................................................
(ii) When testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430,
each individual model/combination (or
‘‘tested combination’’) identified in
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is not
required to be tested for PW,OFF. Instead,
at a minimum, among individual
models/combinations with similar offmode construction (even spanning
different models of outdoor units), a
manufacturer must test at least one
individual model/combination for
PW,OFF.
(iii) When testing in accordance with
appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430
and determining SCORE and SHORE,
each individual model/combination (or
‘‘tested combination’’) identified in
paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is not
required to be tested for values of P1
(off-mode power in shoulder season)
and P2 (off-mode power in heating
Season). Instead, at a minimum, among
individual models/combinations with
similar off-mode construction (even
spanning different models of outdoor
units), a manufacturer must test at least
one individual model/combination, for
which P1 and P2 are the most
consumptive.
(3) * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
Must test:
With:
Nothing, as long as an equivalent air
conditioner basic model has been
tested. If an equivalent air conditioner basic model has not been
tested, must test a model of indoor
unit.
A model of indoor unit ..........................
The model of outdoor unit ....................
(ii) SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, SCORE and
SHORE. Any represented value of the
energy efficiency or other measure of
energy consumption for which
consumers would favor higher values
shall be less than or equal to the lower
of:
(A) The mean of the sample, where:
and, x¯ is the sample mean; n is the
number of samples; and xi is the ith
sample; or,
(B) The lower 90 percent confidence
limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by
0.95, where:
LCL
=x -
s
t_90(..fn_)
And x¯ is the sample mean; s is the
sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t0.90 is the t
statistic for a 90 percent one-tailed
confidence interval with n ¥ 1 degrees
of freedom (from appendix D). Round
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
A ‘‘tested combination’’ composed entirely of SDHV indoor units, where
the outdoor unit is the least efficient
model of outdoor unit with which the
SDHV indoor unit will be paired. The
least efficient model of outdoor unit
is the model of outdoor unit in the
lowest SEER2 combination (when
testing under appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430) or SCORE combination (when testing under appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430) as
certified by the OUM. If there are
multiple models of outdoor unit with
the same lowest SEER2 represented value (when testing under
appendix M1 to subpart B of part
430) or SCORE represented value
(when testing under appendix M2 to
subpart B of part 430), the ICM may
select one for testing purposes.
A model of coil-only indoor unit meeting the requirements of section 4 of
appendix M1 (when testing under
appendix M1 to subpart B of part
430); or meeting the requirements of
section 3 of appendix M2 (when
testing under appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430).
represented values of EER2, SEER2,
HSPF2, SCORE and SHORE to the
nearest 0.05.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The represented values of the
measures of energy efficiency or energy
consumption through the application of
an AEDM in accordance with paragraph
(d) of this section and § 429.70. An
AEDM may only be used to determine
represented values for individual
models or combinations in a basic
model (or separate approved refrigerants
within an individual combination) other
than the individual model or
combination(s) required for mandatory
testing under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(ii) When testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430,
for every individual model/combination
within a basic model tested pursuant to
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, but for
which Pw,off testing was not conducted,
the represented value of Pw,off may be
assigned through, either:
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
EP05AP24.055</GPH>
Equipment subcategory
EP05AP24.054</GPH>
Category
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
24256
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(A) The testing result from an
individual model/combination of
similar off-mode construction; or
(B) The application of an AEDM in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section and § 429.70.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) For multi-split systems, multicircuit systems, and multi-head minisplit systems. The following applies:
(i) When testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430,
or appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430,
for basic models that include additional
varieties of ducted indoor units (i.e.,
conventional, low-static, or mid-static)
other than the one for which
representation is required in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, if a manufacturer
chooses to make a representation, the
manufacturer must conduct testing of a
tested combination according to the
requirements in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section.
(ii) When testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430,
or appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430,
for basic models that include mixed
combinations of indoor units (any two
kinds of non-ducted, low-static, midstatic, and conventional ducted indoor
units), the represented value for the
mixed combination is the mean of the
represented values for the individual
component combinations as determined
in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of
this section.
(iii) When testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430,
or appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430,
for basic models including mixed
combinations of SDHV and another kind
of indoor unit (any of non-ducted, lowstatic, mid-static, and conventional
ducted), the represented value for the
mixed SDHV/other combination is the
mean of the represented values for the
SDHV and other tested combination as
determined in accordance with
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(iv) All other individual combinations
of models of indoor units for the same
model of outdoor unit for which the
manufacturer chooses to make
representations must be rated as
separate basic models, and the
provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) through
(3) and (c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this
section apply.
(v) When testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430,
and with respect to Pw,off only, for every
individual combination (or ‘‘tested
combination’’) within a basic model
tested pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of
this section, but for which Pw,off testing
was not conducted, the representative
values of Pw,off may be assigned through
either:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
(A) The testing result from an
individual model or combination of
similar off-mode construction, or
(B) Application of an AEDM in
accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section and § 429.70.
(d) * * *
(2) Energy efficiency. Any represented
value of the SEER2, EER2, HSPF2,
SCORE, SHORE or other measure of
energy efficiency of an individual
model/combination for which
consumers would favor higher values
must be less than or equal to the output
of the AEDM but no less than the
standard.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Represented values for the Federal
Trade Commission. Use the following
represented value determinations to
meet the requirements of the Federal
Trade Commission.
(1) Annual Operating Cost—Cooling.
Determine the represented value of
estimated annual operating cost for
cooling-only units or the cooling portion
of the estimated annual operating cost
for air-source heat pumps that provide
both heating and cooling, as follows:
(i) When using appendix M1 to
subpart B of part 430, the product of:
(A) The quotient of the represented
value of cooling capacity, in Btu’s per
hour as determined in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii) of this section, and multiplied
by 0.93 for variable speed heat pumps
only, divided by the represented value
of SEER2, in Btu’s per watt-hour, as
determined in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this
section.
(B) The representative average use
cycle for cooling of 1,000 hours per
year;
(C) A conversion factor of 0.001
kilowatt per watt; and
(D) The representative average unit
cost of electricity in dollars per
kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to
section 323(b)(2) of the Act.
(ii) When using appendix M2 to
subpart B of part 430, the product of:
(A) The quotient of the represented
value of cooling capacity, in Btu’s per
hour as determined in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii) of this section, and multiplied
by 0.93 for variable speed heat pumps
only, divided by the represented value
of SCORE, in Btu’s per watt-hour, as
determined in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this
section.
(B) The representative average use
cycle for cooling of 1,457 hours per
year;
(C) A conversion factor of 0.001
kilowatt per watt; and
(D) The representative average unit
cost of electricity in dollars per
kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to
section 323(b)(2) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) Annual Operating Cost—Heating.
Determine the represented value of
estimated annual operating cost for airsource heat pumps that provide only
heating or for the heating portion of the
estimated annual operating cost for airsource heat pumps that provide both
heating and cooling, as follows:
(i) When using appendix M1 to
subpart B of part 430, the product of:
(A) The quotient of the represented
value of cooling capacity (for air-source
heat pumps that provide both cooling
and heating) in Btu’s per hour, as
determined in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of
this section, or the represented value of
heating capacity (for air-source heat
pumps that provide only heating), as
determined in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(D) of
this section, divided by the represented
value of HSPF2, in Btu’s per watt-hour,
calculated for Region IV, as determined
in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section;
(B) The representative average use
cycle for heating of 1,572 hours per
year;
(C) The adjustment factor of 1.15 (for
heat pumps that are not variable speed)
or 1.07 (for heat pumps that are variable
speed), which serves to adjust the
calculated design heating requirement
and heating load hours to the actual
load experienced by a heating system;
(D) A conversion factor of 0.001
kilowatt per watt; and
(E) The representative average unit
cost of electricity in dollars per
kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to
section 323(b)(2) of the Act;
(ii) When using appendix M2 to
subpart B of part 430, the product of:
(A) The quotient of the represented
value of cooling capacity (for air-source
heat pumps that provide both cooling
and heating) in Btu’s per hour, as
determined in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of
this section, or the represented value of
heating capacity (for air-source heat
pumps that provide only heating), as
determined in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(D) of
this section, divided by the represented
value of SHORE, in Btu’s per watt-hour,
as determined in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of
this section;
(B) The representative average use
cycle for heating of 972 hours per year;
(C) The adjustment factor of 1.15 (for
heat pumps that are not variable speed)
or 1.07 (for heat pumps that are variable
speed), which serves to adjust the
calculated design heating requirement
and heating load hours to the actual
load experienced by a heating system;
(D) A conversion factor of 0.001
kilowatt per watt; and
(E) The representative average unit
cost of electricity in dollars per
kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to
section 323(b)(2) of the Act;
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
(3) Annual Operating Cost—Total.
Determine the represented value of
estimated annual operating cost for airsource heat pumps that provide both
heating and cooling by calculating the
sum of the quantity determined in
paragraph (f)(1) of this section added to
the quantity determined in paragraph
(f)(2) of this section.
(4) Regional Annual Operating Cost—
Cooling. Determine the represented
value of estimated regional annual
operating cost for cooling-only units or
the cooling portion of the estimated
regional annual operating cost for airsource heat pumps that provide both
heating and cooling as follows:
(i) When using appendix M1 to
subpart B of part 430, the product of:
(A) The quotient of the represented
value of cooling capacity, in Btu’s per
hour as determined in paragraph
(b)(3)(iii) of this section, and multiplied
by 0.93 for variable speed heat pumps
only, divided by the represented value
of SEER2, in Btu’s per watt-hour, as
determined in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this
section;
(B) The estimated number of regional
cooling load hours per year determined
from the following table:
(A) The estimated number of regional
heating load hours per year determined
from the following table:
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
§ 429.70 Alternative methods for
determining energy efficiency and energy
use.
*
TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(5)(i)(A)
Regional
heating load
hours
Climatic region
I .................................................
II ................................................
III ...............................................
IV ..............................................
V ...............................................
VI ..............................................
493
857
1,247
1,701
2,202
1,842
(B) The quotient of the represented
value of cooling capacity (for air-source
heat pumps that provide both cooling
and heating) in Btu’s per hour, as
determined in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(C) of
this section, or the represented value of
heating capacity (for air-source heat
pumps that provide only heating), as
determined in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(D) of
this section, divided by the represented
value of HSPF2, in Btu’s per watt-hour,
calculated for the appropriate
generalized climatic region of interest,
and determined in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B)
of this section;
(C) The adjustment factor of 1.15 (for
TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(4)(i)(B)
heat pumps that are not variable speed)
or 1.07 (for heat pumps that are variable
Regional
speed), which serves to adjust the
Climatic region
cooling load calculated design heating requirement
hours
and heating load hours to the actual
I .................................................
2,400 load experienced by a heating system;
II ................................................
1,800
(D) A conversion factor of 0.001
III ...............................................
1,200 kilowatts per watt; and
IV ..............................................
800
(E) The representative average unit
V ...............................................
400
VI ..............................................
200 cost of electricity in dollars per
kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to
section 323(b)(2) of the Act.
(C) A conversion factor of 0.001
kilowatts per watt; and
(ii) When using appendix M2 to
(D) The representative average unit
subpart B of part 430, regional annual
cost of electricity in dollars per
operating cost for air-source heat pumps
kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to
that provide only heating or for the
section 323(b)(2) of the Act.
heating portion, does not apply.
(ii) When using appendix M2 to
(6) Regional Annual Operating Cost—
subpart B of part 430, regional annual
Total. For air-source heat pumps that
operating cost for cooling-only units or
provide both heating and cooling, the
the cooling portion of the estimated
estimated regional annual operating cost
regional annual operating cost airis the sum of the quantity determined in
source heat pumps that provide both
paragraph (f)(4) of this section added to
heating and cooling, does not apply.
the quantity determined in paragraph
(5) Regional Annual Operating Cost— (f)(5) of this section.
Heating. Determine the represented
(7) Annual Operating Cost—
value of estimated regional annual
Rounding.
Round any represented
operating cost for air-source heat pumps
values of estimated annual operating
that provide only heating or for the
heating portion of the estimated regional cost determined in paragraphs (f)(1)
annual operating cost for air-source heat through (6) of this section to the nearest
dollar per year.
pumps that provide both heating and
cooling as follows:
■ 4. Amend § 429.70 by revising
(i) When using appendix M1 to
paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i)(A) to read
subpart B of part 430, the product of:
as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
24257
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) Criteria an AEDM must satisfy. A
manufacturer may not apply an AEDM
to an individual model/combination to
determine its represented values
(SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, SCORE, SHORE
and/or PW,OFF) pursuant to this section
unless authorized pursuant to
§ 429.16(d) and:
(i) The AEDM is derived from a
mathematical model that estimates the
energy efficiency or energy
consumption characteristics of the
individual model or combination
(SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, SCORE, SHORE
and/or PW,OFF) as measured by the
applicable DOE test procedure; and
(ii) The manufacturer has validated
the AEDM in accordance with
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Minimum testing. The
manufacturer must test each basic
model as required under § 429.16(b)(2).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Amend § 429.134 by revising
paragraph (k) to read as follows:
§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement
provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Central air conditioners and heat
pumps—Before [Date 180 days after
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 180 days after
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 individual model (for singlepackage systems) or individual
combination (for split systems) will be
measured pursuant to the test
requirements of § 430.23(m) of this
chapter. The mean of the
measurement(s) (either the measured
cooling capacity for a single unit sample
or the average of the measured cooling
capacities for a multiple unit sample)
will be used to determine the applicable
standards for purposes of compliance.
(2) Verification of CD value. (i) For
central air conditioners and heat pumps
other than models of outdoor units with
no match, if manufacturers certify that
they did not conduct the optional tests
to determine the CDc and/or CDh value
for an individual model (for singlepackage systems) or individual
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
24258
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
combination (for split systems), as
applicable, for each unit tested, the
default CDc and/or CDh value will be
used as the basis for the calculation of
SEER2 or HSPF2 when testing in
accordance with appendix M1 to
subpart B of part 430, or SCORE or
SHORE when testing in accordance with
appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430.
If manufacturers certify that they
conducted the optional tests to
determine the CDc and/or CDh value for
an individual model (for single-package
systems) or individual combination (for
split systems), as applicable, the
following provisions apply.
(A) If testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430,
the CDc and/or CDh value will be
measured for each unit tested pursuant
to appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430
and the result for each unit tested
(either the tested value or the default
value, as selected according to the
criteria for the cyclic test in section E17
of AHRI 210/240–202X (incorporated by
reference, see § 429.4)) will be used as
the basis for calculation of SEER2 or
HSPF2.
(B) If testing in accordance with
appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430,
the CDc and/or CDh value will be
measured for each unit tested pursuant
to appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430
and the result for each unit tested
(either the tested value or the default
value, as selected according to the
criteria for the cyclic test in section E17
of AHRI 1600–202X (incorporated by
reference, see § 429.4)) will be used as
the basis for calculation of SCORE or
SHORE.
(ii) For models of outdoor units with
no match, DOE will use the default CDc
and/or CDh pursuant to appendix M1 to
subpart B of part 430 or appendix M2
to subpart B of part 430, as applicable.
(3) Verification of cut-out and cut-in
temperatures for central heat pumps. (i)
When testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430,
the cut-out and cut-in temperatures may
be verified using the method in
appendix J of AHRI 210/240–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4).
If this method is conducted, the tested
TOFF,T and TON,T values determined in
the test shall be used as the cut-out and
cut-in temperatures, respectively, to
calculate HSPF2.
(ii) When testing in accordance with
appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430,
the cut-out and cut-in temperatures may
be verified using the method in
appendix J of AHRI 1600–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4).
If this method is conducted, the tested
TOFF,T and TON,T values determined in
the test shall be used as the cut-out and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
cut-in temperatures, respectively, to
calculate SHORE.
(4) Verification of Variable Capacity
Operation and of Fixed Settings for the
Compressor and the Indoor Fan when
Testing Variable Capacity Compressor
Systems—(i) Conducting the Controls
Verification Procedure. A controls
verification procedure (CVP) may be
performed for any model certified as a
variable capacity compressor system for
the purposes of assessment or
enforcement testing conducted
according to appendix M1 to subpart B
of part 430 or appendix M2 to subpart
B of part 430 (i.e., the certification tests),
as applicable. For a heat pump, either a
cooling mode CVP, a heating mode CVP,
or both may be conducted, as elected by
DOE. If a CVP is not conducted, the
override instructions for the compressor
and indoor fan, as specified by the
manufacturer, will be used to conduct
the tests per appendix M1 to subpart B
of part 430 or, appendix M2 to subpart
B of part 430, as applicable.
(A) When testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430.
The CVP will be conducted per
appendix I of AHRI 210/240–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4).
(B) When testing in accordance with
appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430.
The CVP will be conducted per
appendix I of AHRI 1600–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4).
(C) For systems determined to be
variable capacity certified, single
capacity systems as described in
paragraph (k)(4)(ii)(B) of this section,
the CVP cooling and heating minimum
intervals may be omitted.
(ii) Variable Capacity
Determination.(A) If the unit tested does
meet the definition of a variable
capacity compressor system based on
performance of the CVP per paragraph
(k)(4)(i)(A) or paragraph (k)(4)(i)(B) of
this section, the efficiency metrics
(SEER2, HSPF2, EER2, SCORE, SHORE,
as applicable) shall be determined using
the certification test applicable to
variable capacity compressor systems.
(B) If the unit tested does not meet the
definition of a variable capacity
compressor system based on
performance of the CVP per paragraph
(k)(4)(i)(A) or paragraph (k)(4)(i)(B) of
this section, and the tested unit is
instead determined to be a variable
capacity certified, single capacity
system, the efficiency metrics (SEER2,
HSPF2, EER2, SCORE, SHORE, as
applicable) shall be determined using
the certification test applicable to
variable capacity certified, single
capacity systems.
(C) If the unit tested does not meet the
definition of a variable capacity
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
compressor system based on
performance of the CVP per paragraph
(k)(4)(i)(A) or paragraph (k)(4)(i)(B) of
this section, and the tested unit is
instead determined to be a variable
capacity certified, two capacity system,
the efficiency metrics (SEER2, HSPF2,
EER2, SCORE, SHORE, as applicable)
shall be determined using the
certification test applicable to variable
capacity certified, two capacity systems.
(D) If, for a heat pump, a CVP is
conducted for just one of the operating
modes (heating or cooling), the system
classifications for both modes will be
based on the results of the one CVP
conducted.
(iii) CVP Tolerance Evaluation for
Full and Minimum Load Intervals.
(A) The data collected in the CVP per
paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or paragraph
(k)(4)(i)(B) of this section shall be
evaluated for the duration of the
individual CVP full or minimum load
interval excluding the preliminary 30
minutes of equilibrium data, to
determine compliance with test
condition tolerances and test operating
tolerances listed in section I5.1 of
appendix I of AHRI 210/240–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix
M1); or of AHRI 1600–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix
M2).
(1) If the specified tolerances are met
under system operation for 60 minutes,
the average capacity and average power
measured over this 60-minute test
interval shall be recorded.
(2) If the four-hour time limit is
reached by the system without
maintaining the tolerances for a 60minute period, but two successive test
period sub-intervals are identified, each
a minimum of 30 minutes, and
comprised of a whole number of
compressor cycles (either compressor
on-off cycles or speed/capacity cycles)
or in which minimal fluctuations of the
compressor speed/capacity level are
observed, where both the time averaged
integrated capacity and time averaged
integrated power for the full 60 minutes
of the two periods are observed to be
within two percent of each other, a
single capacity average and a single
power average shall be recorded, both
averaged over compressor-on periods of
the two 60-minute sub-intervals. These
average capacity and power values shall
be considered the capacity and power
values recorded for the test interval.
(3) If the four-hour time limit is
reached by the system without
complying with either paragraph
(k)(4)(iii)(A)(1) or (k)(4)(iii)(B)(2) of this
section, the time averaged integrated
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
capacity and time averaged integrated
power shall be recorded for only the
compressor-on periods over the final
120 minutes of the test interval.
(B) The measured capacity for each
full load interval, as evaluated per the
CVP conducted in paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A)
or paragraph (k)(4)(i)(B) of this section,
Cooling full:
24259
shall agree with the corresponding
certification test within 6%, as follows:
x 100 :S 6.0
CJA,Full- CJCVP,A,Full
fJA,Full
Heating full (l 7°F):
Heating full (5°F):
(C) The measured capacity for each
minimum load interval, as evaluated per
the CVP conducted in paragraph
CJH4,F~u- CJcvP,H(s)
qH4,Full
100 :S 6.0
X
CJcvP,H(i 7)
qH3,Full
fJHa,Fu'.z-
x 100 :S 6.0
(k)(4)(i)(A) or paragraph (k)(4)(i)(B) of
this section, shall agree with the
corresponding certification test within
6% of the cooling or heating mode full
load certification test capacity, as
follows:
fJCVP,F,Low- CJF,Low
Cooling minimum: - - - ~ - x 100 :S 6.0
CJA,Full
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
. m1mmum:
. .
H eatmg
(iv) Evaluation of results when CVP
tolerances are met. If the tolerances for
capacity and efficiency are met by the
applicable full and minimum load
intervals as per paragraphs (k)(4)(iii)(B),
(k)(4)(iii)(C) and (k)(4)(iii)(D) of this
section, the certified override
instructions for the compressor and
indoor fan, as specified by the
manufacturer, shall be deemed valid,
Jkt 262001
COPHa,Full- COPcvP,H(11)
COPHa,Full
COPH1,Low- COPcvP,H(47)
100 :S 10.0
X
X
Frm 00055
lOO :S l0.0
COPH1,Low
and the efficiency metrics (SEER2,
HSPF2, EER2, SCORE, SHORE, as
applicable), shall be determined based
on these certification tests with no
adjustments determined based on the
CVP results.
(v) Evaluation of results when CVP
tolerances are not met. If the tolerances
for capacity and efficiency are not met
by the applicable full and minimum
PO 00000
100 :S 10.0
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
load intervals as per paragraphs
(k)(4)(iii)(B), (k)(4)(iii)(C) and
(k)(4)(iii)(D) of this section, the unit
shall be tested per instructions in
paragraphs (k)(4)(v)(A) to (k)(4)(v)(C) of
this section, as applicable. The
instructions in paragraphs (k)(4)(v)(A) to
(k)(4)(v)(C) of this section shall be
followed, as applicable, only for the
certification tests corresponding to the
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
EP05AP24.062</GPH>
EP05AP24.061</GPH>
X
100 :S 10.0
EP05AP24.060</GPH>
X
EERF,Low-EERcvP,F,Low
EERF,Low
COPH4,Full- COPcvP,H(s)
COP2H4,Full
Heating full (17oF):
l00 :S lO.0
EP05AP24.059</GPH>
Heating full (5oF):
X
with the corresponding certification test
within 10%, as follows:
EP05AP24.058</GPH>
EER2Ayuzz- EER2cvP,A,Full
EER2A,Full
Cooling minimum:
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
100 :S 6.0
paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or paragraph
(k)(4)(i)(B) of this section, shall agree
Cooling full:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
X
EP05AP24.057</GPH>
(D) The measured efficiency for the
full and minimum load interval, as
evaluated per the CVP conducted in
CJcvP,H~ 47 )- CJHi,Low
qH3,Full
EP05AP24.056</GPH>
Heating minimum:
24260
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
failed compressor speed interval based
on the evaluations of paragraphs
(k)(4)(iii)(B), (k)(4)(iii)(C) and
(k)(4)(iii)(D) of this section. For all
compressor speed intervals for which
the capacity and EER/COP are in
tolerance as per paragraphs (k)(4)(iii)(B),
(k)(4)(iii)(C) and (k)(4)(iii)(D) of this
section, the corresponding certification
tests shall be used without adjustments.
(A) The instructions of this paragraph
shall be applied to systems for which
the same control device used as per the
CVP conducted in paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A)
or paragraph (k)(4)(i)(B) of this section
is used as the means for overriding the
controls, and both (a) monitoring of the
compressor and indoor blower speed
during native-control operation without
otherwise impacting the control of the
system, and (b) monitoring and
adjustment of the compressor and
indoor blower speed during certification
tests, where monitoring and adjustment
means the control device has the ability
to display and make discrete
adjustments, as required, to the
compressor and indoor blower speeds
without additional hardware or nonpublicly available software, is supported
by the control device. The compressor
and indoor blower speed shall be
monitored during the CVP conducted in
paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or paragraph
(k)(4)(i)(B) of this section. The average
compressor and indoor blower speeds
and indoor air volume rate shall be
evaluated for the same time period(s)
used as described in paragraph
(k)(4)(iii)(A) to determine average
capacity and power for the CVP test.
The compressor speed for the
certification test shall be set at this
average value observed during the
corresponding CVP test interval. The
indoor blower speed shall be set as
described in section 6.1.5 of AHRI 210/
240–202X (incorporated by reference,
see § 429.4) (if testing in accordance
with appendix M1); or of AHRI 1600–
202X (incorporated by reference, see
§ 429.4) (if testing in accordance with
appendix M2), except the ‘‘specified
airflow’’ shall be set as the average value
observed during the corresponding CVP
test interval. The same adjusted
compressor speed shall be used for the
other certification tests that require the
same speed, as applicable, as detailed in
the following table. Specifically, for
each of the CVP tests listed in the first
column for which either the capacity
tolerances of paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(B) or
paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(C) of this section
are not met or the efficiency tolerances
of paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(D) are not met,
the certification tests to be conducted
again using the compressor speed
determined in the corresponding CVP
test are listed in the last three columns
of the table, depending on which of the
three kinds of system the model is
designated. If required, the adjusted
q˙H3,Full and PH3,Full shall be used to
calculate q˙k=2 hcalc (47) and P k=2 hcalc
(47), respectively, to represent
performance at 47 °F as described in
section 11.2.2.4 of AHRI 210/240–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix
M1), or of AHRI 1600–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix
M2), and for use in calculating
performance at 35 °F. If required, the
adjusted H1,Low and H3,Low tests shall be
used to calculate q˙thi,H2,Low and PH2,Low,
respectively, as described in section
6.1.3.4 of AHRI 210/240–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix
M1), or of AHRI 1600–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix
M2). No adjustments are required for
intermediate or nominal compressor
speed tests or, if cyclic tests are
conducted, for the degradation
coefficient(s).
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (k)(4)(v)(A)
Certification Tests that use the Indicated CVP Test Compressor Speed or would have certification test results adjusted per Paragraph (k)(4)(v)(B) of this section, if the CVP Test is out of Capacity or EER/COP
Tolerance per Paragraph (k)(4)(iii) of this section
CVP Test
Variable capacity certified, two
capacity system
AFull, BFull ......................................
N/A ................................................
N/A ................................................
H2,Full, H3,Full .................................
H4,Full ............................................
AFull, BFull ......................................
BLow, FLow .....................................
H0,Low, H1,Low, H3,Low ....................
H3,Full ............................................
H4,Full ............................................
(B) The instructions of this paragraph
shall be applied to systems for which
the means for overriding the compressor
and indoor blower speed as discussed in
paragraph (k)(4)(v)(A) of this section is
not provided by the control used for
conducting the CVP. For each of the
CVP tests listed in the first column of
Table 1 of this section for which either
the capacity tolerances of paragraph
(k)(4)(iii)(B) or paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(C) of
this section are not met or the efficiency
tolerances of paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(D) are
not met, depending on which of the
three kinds of system the model is
designated, the certification test results
to be adjusted based on the results of the
CVP test are indicated by the last three
columns of the table for each CVP test
listed in the first column. The average
capacities and power(s) measured
during the CVP time period(s) described
in paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(A) of this section
shall be used. For the certification tests
requiring adjustment with no CVP
interval (any required certification test
other than Afull, Flow, H1low, H3full and
H4full), the capacity and power shall be
Variable capacity system
AFull, BFull.
BLow, FLow.
H0,Low, H1,Low.
H3,Full.
H4,Full.
adjusted. The capacity shall be adjusted
by applying the ratio of the capacity
measured during the CVP test interval
divided by the capacity measured
during the certification test (for the
corresponding CVP interval). The power
shall be adjusted by applying the ratio
of the efficiency measured during the
CVP test interval divided by the
efficiency measured during the
certification test (for the corresponding
CVP interval), as follows:
Cooling full capacity:
C/.cvP,A,Full
Cfo,Full
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:09 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
=
PO 00000
C/.B,Full,Certification X C/.A,Full,Certification
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
EP05AP24.063</GPH>
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Afull .................................................
Flow .................................................
H1,low ..............................................
H3,full ...............................................
H4,Full ..............................................
Variable capacity certified, single
capacity system
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
24261
Cooling full power:
PB,Full
=
PB,Full,Certification X
EE R 2A,Full,Certification
EER2cvP,A,Full
Cooling minimum capacity:
'1.B,Low
=
'1.cvP,F,Low
'1.B,Low,Certification X '1.F,Low,certification
Cooling minimum power:
EE RF,Low,Certif ication
PB,Low
=
PB,Low,Certification X
EERcvP,F,Low
Heating minimum capacity:
'1.cvP,Hl,Low
'1.HO,Low = '1.HO,Low,Certification X '1.Hl,Low,Certification
'1.cvP,Hl,Low
'1.H3,Low =
(1 + 30 · CSF)
Heating minimum power:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
6. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
7. Amend § 430.3 by revising
paragraphs (b)(4), (c) and (g) to read as
follows:
■
§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by
reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) ANSI/AMCA 210–07, ANSI/
ASHRAE 51–07 (‘‘AMCA 210–2007’’),
Laboratory Methods of Testing Fans for
Certified Aerodynamic Performance
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
EP05AP24.069</GPH>
low voltage signal that resulted in lowspeed compressor operation for the low
load intervals shall be used for all
certification low load tests.
*
*
*
*
*
EP05AP24.068</GPH>
(C) If required, the measured QH3,Full
and EH3,Full from the CVP shall be used
to calculate q˙k=2 hcalc(47) and Pk=2 hcalc
(47), respectively, to represent
performance at 47 °F as described in
section 11.2.2.4 of AHRI 210/240–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix
M1), or of AHRI 1600–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix
M2), and for use in calculating
performance at 35 °F. If required, the
measured H1,Low from the CVP and the
adjusted H3,Low tests shall be used to
calculate q˙thi,H2,Low and PH2,Low,
respectively, as described in section
6.1.3.4 of AHRI 210/240–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix
M1) or of AHRI 1600–202X
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix
M2). No adjustments are required for
intermediate or nominal compressor
speed tests or, if cyclic tests are
conducted, the degradation
coefficient(s).
(D) If the test unit is determined to be
variable capacity certified, single
capacity system, or variable capacity
certified, two capacity system and is not
certified or marketed for use with only
a proprietary control device, the same
simulated thermostat low voltage signal
that resulted in full speed compressor
operation for the full load intervals shall
be used for all certification full load
tests. If the test unit is determined to be
variable capacity certified, two capacity
system, the same simulated thermostat
EP05AP24.067</GPH>
Where:
CSF = 0.0204/°F, capacity slope factor for
Split Systems
CSF = 0.0262/°F, capacity slope factor for
Single Package Units
PSF = 0.00455/°F, power slope factor for all
products
CO PHl,Low,Certification
CO pCVP,Hl,Low
EP05AP24.066</GPH>
pCVP,Hl,Low
= (1 + 30 · PSF)
PHO,Low,Certification X
EP05AP24.065</GPH>
PH3,Low
=
EP05AP24.064</GPH>
PHO,Low
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
24262
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Rating, ANSI approved August 17, 2007,
Section 8—Report and Results of Test,
Section 8.2—Performance graphical
representation of test results, IBR
approved for appendix M to subpart B,
as follows:
(i) Figure 2A—Static Pressure Tap,
and
(ii) Figure 12—Outlet Chamber
Setup—Multiple Nozzles in Chamber.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson
Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201,
703–524–8800, or go to https://
www.ahrinet.org.
(1) ANSI/AHRI 210/240–2008 with
Addenda 1 and 2 (’’AHRI 210/240–
2008’’), 2008 Standard for Performance
Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning &
Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment,
ANSI approved October 27, 2011
(Addendum 1 dated June 2011 and
Addendum 2 dated March 2012), IBR
approved for appendix M to subpart B,
as follows:
(i) Section 6—Rating Requirements,
Section 6.1—Standard Ratings, 6.1.3—
Standard Rating Tests, 6.1.3.2—
Electrical Conditions;
(ii) Section 6—Rating Requirements,
Section 6.1—Standard Ratings, 6.1.3—
Standard Rating Tests, 6.1.3.4—
Outdoor-Coil Airflow Rate;
(iii) Section 6—Rating Requirements,
Section 6.1—Standard Ratings, 6.1.3—
Standard Rating Tests, 6.1.3.5—
Requirements for Separated Assemblies;
(iv) Figure D1—Tunnel Air Enthalpy
Test Method Arrangement;
(v) Figure D2—Loop Air Enthalpy
Test Method Arrangement; and
(vi) Figure D4—Room Air Enthalpy
Test Method Arrangement.
(2) AHRI Standard 210/240–202X
(‘‘AHRI 210/240–202X’’), 202X
Standard for Performance Rating of
Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source
Heat Pump Equipment [version and
date TBD]; IBR approved for appendix
M1 to subpart B.
(3) AHRI Standard 1160–2009 (‘‘AHRI
1160’’), Performance Rating of Heat
Pump Pool Heaters, 2009, IBR approved
for appendix P to subpart B.
(4) ANSI/AHRI 1230–2010 with
Addendum 2 (‘‘AHRI 1230–2010’’),
2010 Standard for Performance Rating of
Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) MultiSplit Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment (including Addendum 1
dated March 2011), ANSI approved
August 2, 2010 (Addendum 2 dated
June 2014), IBR approved for appendix
M to subpart B, as follows:
(i) Section 3—Definitions (except 3.8,
3.9, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.23, 3.24,
3.26, 3.27, 3.28, 3.29, 3.30, and 3.31);
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
(ii) Section 5—Test Requirements,
Section 5.1 (untitled), 5.1.3–5.1.4;
(iii) Section 6—Rating Requirements,
Section 6.1—Standard Ratings, 6.1.5—
Airflow Requirements for Systems with
Capacities <65,000 Btu/h [19,000 W];
(iv) Section 6—Rating Requirements,
Section 6.1—Standard Ratings, 6.1.6—
Outdoor-Coil Airflow Rate (Applies to
all Air-to-Air Systems);
(v) Section 6—Rating Requirements,
Section 6.2—Conditions for Standard
Rating Test for Air-cooled Systems <
65,000 Btu/h [19,000W] (except Table
8); and
(vi) Table 4—Refrigerant Line Length
Correction Factors.
(5) AHRI 1600–202X (‘‘AHRI 1600–
202X’’), 202X Standard for Performance
Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning &
Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment,
[version and date TBD]; IBR approved
for appendix M2 to subpart B.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) ASHRAE. American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., 180
Technology Parkway NW, Peachtree
Corners, GA 30092; (800) 527–4723 or
(404) 636–8400; www.ashrae.org.
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16–2016
(‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 16’’), Method of
Testing for Rating Room Air
Conditioners, Packaged Terminal Air
Conditioners, and Packaged Terminal
Heat Pumps for Cooling and Heating
Capacity, ANSI approved November 1,
2016; IBR approved for appendices F,
M1, and M2 to subpart B.
(2) ANSI/ASHRAE 23.1–2010,
(‘‘ASHRAE 23.1–2010’’), Methods of
Testing for Rating the Performance of
Positive Displacement Refrigerant
Compressors and Condensing Units that
Operate at Subcritical Temperatures of
the Refrigerant, ANSI approved January
28, 2010, IBR approved for appendix M
to subpart B, as follows:
(i) Section 5—Requirements;
(ii) Section 6—Instruments;
(iii) Section 7—Methods of Testing;
and
(iv) Section 8—Compressor Testing.
(3) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009,
(‘‘ASHRAE 37–2009’’), Methods of
Testing for Rating Electrically Driven
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat
Pump Equipment, ANSI approved June
25, 2009, IBR approved for appendices
M1, M2, AA, CC, and CC1 to subpart B.
(4) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009,
(‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009’’), Methods
of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat
Pump Equipment, ANSI approved June
25, 2009, IBR approved for appendix M
to subpart B, as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(i) Section 5—Instruments, Section
5.1—Temperature Measuring
Instruments: 5.1.1;
(ii) Section 5—Instruments, Section
5.2—Refrigerant, Liquid, and Barometric
Pressure Measuring Instruments;
(iii) Section 5—Instruments, Section
5.5—Volatile Refrigerant Flow
Measurement;
(iv) Section 6—Airflow and Air
Differential Pressure Measurement
Apparatus, Section 6.1—Enthalpy
Apparatus (Excluding Figure 3): 6.1.1–
6.1.2 and 6.1.4;
(v) Section 6—Airflow and Air
Differential Pressure Measurement
Apparatus, Section 6.2—Nozzle Airflow
Measuring Apparatus (Excluding Figure
5);
(vi) Section 6—Airflow and Air
Differential Pressure Measurement
Apparatus, Section 6.3—Nozzles
(Excluding Figure 6);
(vii) Section 6—Airflow and Air
Differential Pressure Measurement
Apparatus, Section 6.4—External Static
Pressure Measurements;
(viii) Section 6—Airflow and Air
Differential Pressure Measurement
Apparatus, Section 6.5—Recommended
Practices for Static Pressure
Measurements;
(ix) Section 7—Methods of Testing
and Calculation, Section 7.3—Indoor
and Outdoor Air Enthalpy Methods
(Excluding Table 1);
(x) Section 7—Methods of Testing and
Calculation, Section 7.4—Compressor
Calibration Method;
(xi) Section 7—Methods of Testing
and Calculation, Section 7.5—
Refrigerant Enthalpy Method;
(xii) Section 7—Methods of Testing
and Calculation, Section 7.7—Airflow
Rate Measurement, Section 7.7.2—
Calculations—Nozzle Airflow
Measuring Apparatus (Excluding Figure
10), 7.7.2.1–7.7.2.2;
(xiii) Section 8—Test Procedures,
Section 8.1—Test Room Requirements:
8.1.2–8.1.3;
(xiv) Section 8—Test Procedures,
Section 8.2—Equipment Installation;
(xv) Section 8—Test Procedures,
Section 8.6—Additional Requirements
for the Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method,
Section 8.6.2;
(xvii) Section 8—Test Procedures,
Section 8.6—Additional Requirements
for the Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method,
Table 2a—Test Tolerances (SI Units),
and
(xviii) Section 8—Test Procedures,
Section 8.6—Additional Requirements
for the Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method,
Table 2b—Test Tolerances (I–P Units);
(xix) Section 9—Data to be Recorded,
Section 9.2—Test Tolerances; and
(xx) Section 9—Data to be Recorded,
Table 3—Data to be Recorded.
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(5) ASHRAE 41.1–1986 (Reaffirmed
2006) (‘‘ASHRAE 41.1–1986’’), Standard
Method for Temperature Measurement,
approved February 18, 1987; IBR
approved for appendices AA, CC, and
CC1 to subpart B.
(6) ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1–2013 (‘‘ANSI/
ASHRAE 41.1’’), Standard Method for
Temperature Measurement, ANSI
approved January 30, 2013; IBR
approved for appendices F and X1 to
subpart B.
(7) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.1–
2013, (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1–2013’’),
Standard Method for Temperature
Measurement, ANSI approved January
30, 2013, IBR approved for appendix M
to subpart B, as follows:
(i) Section 4—Classifications;
(ii) Section 5—Requirements, Section
5.3—Airstream Temperature
Measurements;
(iii) Section 6—Instruments; and
(iv) Section 7—Temperature Test
Methods (Informative).
(8) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.1–
2020 (‘‘ASHRAE 41.1–2020’’), Standard
Methods for Temperature Measurement,
ANSI-approved June 30, 2020; IBR
approved for appendix E to subpart B.
(9) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2–
1987 (RA 92), (‘‘ASHRAE 41.2–1987
(RA 1992)’’), Standard Methods for
Laboratory Airflow Measurement, ANSI
reaffirmed April 20, 1992; IBR approved
for appendix F to subpart B.
(10) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2–
1987 (RA 1992), (‘‘ASHRAE 41.2–1987
(RA 1992)’’), Standard Methods for
Laboratory Airflow Measurement, ANSI
reaffirmed April 20, 1992, Section 5—
Section of Airflow-Measuring
Equipment and Systems, IBR approved
for appendix M to subpart B, as follows:
(i) Section 5.2—Test Ducts, Section
5.2.2—Mixers, 5.2.2.1—Performance of
Mixers (excluding Figures 11 and 12
and Table 1); and
(ii) Figure 14—Outlet Chamber Setup
for Multiple Nozzles in Chamber.
(11) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.3–
2014, (‘‘ASHRAE 41.3–2014’’), Standard
Methods for Pressure Measurement,
ANSI approved July 3, 2014; IBR
approved for appendix F to subpart B.
(12) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.6–
1994 (RA 2006) (‘‘ASHRAE 41.6–1994’’),
Standard Method for Measurement of
Moist Air Properties, ANSI-reaffirmed
January 27, 2006; IBR approved for
appendices CC and CC1 to subpart B.
(13) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.6–
2014, (‘‘ASHRAE 41.6–2014’’), Standard
Method for Humidity Measurement,
ANSI approved July 3, 2014; IBR
approved for appendices E, F, and EE to
subpart B.
(14) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.6–
2014, (‘‘ASHRAE 41.6–2014’’), Standard
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
Method for Humidity Measurement,
ANSI approved July 3, 2014, IBR
approved for appendix M to subpart B,
as follows:
(i) Section 4—Classifications;
(ii) Section 5—Requirements;
(iii) Section 6—Instruments and
Calibration; and
(iv) Section 7—Humidity
Measurement Methods.
(15) ANSI/ASHRAE 41.9–2011,
(‘‘ASHRAE 41.9–2011’’), Standard
Methods for Volatile-Refrigerant Mass
Flow Measurements Using Calorimeters,
ANSI approved February 3, 2011, IBR
approved for appendix M to subpart B,
as follows:
(i) Section 5—Requirements;
(ii) Section 6—Instruments;
(iii) Section 7—Secondary Refrigerant
Calorimeter Method;
(iv) Section 8—Secondary Fluid
Calorimeter Method;
(v) Section 9—Primary Refrigerant
Calorimeter Method; and
(vi) Section 11—Lubrication
Circulation Measurements.
(16) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.11–
2014, (‘‘ASHRAE 41.11–2014’’),
Standard Methods for Power
Measurement, ANSI approved July 3,
2014; IBR approved for appendix F to
subpart B.
(17) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103–
1993, (‘‘ASHRAE 103–1993’’), Methods
of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization
Efficiency of Residential Central
Furnaces and Boilers, (with Errata of
October 24, 1996), except for sections
7.1, 7.2.2.2, 7.2.2.5, 7.2.3.1, 7.8, 8.2.1.3,
8.3.3.1, 8.4.1.1, 8.4.1.1.2, 8.4.1.2,
8.4.2.1.4, 8.4.2.1.6, 8.6.1.1, 8.7.2, 8.8.3,
9.1.2.2.1, 9.1.2.2.2, 9.5.1.1, 9.5.1.2.1,
9.5.1.2.2, 9.5.2.1, 9.7.1, 9.7.4, 9.7.6, 9.10,
11.5.11.1, 11.5.11.2 and appendices B
and C, approved October 4, 1993; IBR
approved for § 430.23 and appendix N
to subpart B.
(18) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103–
2007 (‘‘ASHRAE 103–2007’’), Method of
Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization
Efficiency of Residential Central
Furnaces and Boilers, ANSI-approved
March 25, 2008; IBR approved for
appendix AA to subpart B.
(19) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103–
2017 (‘‘ASHRAE 103–2017’’), Method of
Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization
Efficiency of Residential Central
Furnaces and Boilers, ANSI-approved
July 3, 2017; IBR approved for § 430.23
and appendices O and EE to subpart B.
(20) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 116–
2010, (‘‘ASHRAE 116–2010’’), Methods
of Testing for Rating Seasonal Efficiency
of Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps, ANSI approved February 24,
2010, Section 7—Methods of Test,
Section 7.4—Air Enthalpy Method—
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24263
Indoor Side (Primary Method), Section
7.4.3—Measurements, Section 7.4.3.4—
Temperature, Section 7.4.3.4.5, IBR
approved for appendix M to subpart B.
(21) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 116–
2010, (‘‘ASHRAE 116–2010’’), Methods
of Testing for Rating Seasonal Efficiency
of Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps, ANSI approved February 24,
2010; IBR approved for appendices M1
and M2 to subpart B.
(22) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 118.2–
2022 (‘‘ASHRAE 118.2–2022’’), Method
of Testing for Rating Residential Water
Heaters and Residential-Duty
Commercial Water Heaters, ANSIapproved March 1, 2022; IBR approved
for appendix E to subpart B.
(23) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 146–
2011 (‘‘ASHRAE 146’’), Method of
Testing and Rating Pool Heaters,
ASHRAE approved February 2, 2011;
IBR approved for appendix P to subpart
B.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Amend § 430.23 by revising
paragraph (m) to read as follows:
§ 430.23 Test procedures for the
measurement of energy and water
consumption.
*
*
*
*
*
(m) Central air conditioners and heat
pumps. See the note at the beginning of
appendices M1 and M2 to this subpart
to determine the appropriate test
method. Determine all values discussed
in this section using a single appendix.
(1) Determine cooling capacity from
the steady-state wet-coil test (A or Afull
Test), as per instructions in section 2 of
appendix M1 or M2 to this subpart, and
rounded off to the nearest:
(i) To the nearest 50 Btu/h if cooling
capacity is less than 20,000 Btu/h;
(ii) To the nearest 100 Btu/h if cooling
capacity is greater than or equal to
20,000 Btu/h but less than 38,000 Btu/
h; and
(iii) To the nearest 250 Btu/h if
cooling capacity is greater than or equal
to 38,000 Btu/h and less than 65,000
Btu/h.
(2) Determine seasonal energy
efficiency ratio 2 (SEER2) as described
in sections 2 and 4 of appendix M1 to
this subpart or seasonal cooling and offmode rating efficiency (SCORE) as
described in sections 2 and 3 of
appendix M2 to this subpart, and round
off to the nearest 0.025 Btu/W-h.
(3) Determine energy efficiency ratio 2
(EER2) as described in section 2 of
appendix M1 or M2 to this subpart, and
round off to the nearest 0.025 Btu/W-h.
EER2 is the efficiency from the A or Afull
test, whichever applies.
(4) Determine heating seasonal
performance factor 2 (HSPF2) as
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24264
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
described in sections 2 and 4 of
appendix M1 to this subpart or seasonal
heating and off-mode rating efficiency
(SHORE) as described in sections 2 and
3 of appendix M2 to this subpart, and
round off to the nearest 0.025 Btu/W-h.
(5) Determine average off mode power
consumption as described in section 3
of appendix M1 to this subpart, and
round off to the nearest 0.5 W. Average
off mode power consumption is not
required when testing in accordance
with appendix M2 to this subpart.
(6) Determine all other measures of
energy efficiency or consumption or
other useful measures of performance
using appendix M1 or M2 of this
subpart.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. Appendix M1 to subpart B of part
430 is revised to read as follows:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Appendix M1 to Subpart B of Part
430—Uniform Test Method for
Measuring the Energy Consumption of
Central Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps
Note: Prior to [Date 180 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register], representations with respect to the
energy use or efficiency of central air
conditioners and heat pumps, including
compliance certifications, must be based on
testing conducted in accordance with:
(a) Appendix M1 to this subpart, in the 10
CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as
of January 1, 2023; or
(b) This appendix.
Beginning [Date 180 days after publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register], and
prior to the compliance date of amended
standards for central air conditioners and
heat pumps based on Seasonal Cooling and
Off-mode Rating Efficiency (SCORE) and
Seasonal Heating and Off-mode Rating
Efficiency (SHORE), representations with
respect to energy use or efficiency of central
air conditioners and heat pumps, including
compliance certifications, must be based on
testing conducted in accordance with this
appendix.
Beginning on the compliance date of
amended standards for central air
conditioners and heat pumps based on
SCORE and SHORE, representations with
respect to energy use or efficiency of central
air conditioners and heat pumps, including
compliance certifications, must be based on
testing conducted in accordance with
appendix M2 to this subpart.
Manufacturers may also certify compliance
with any amended energy conservation
standards for central air conditioners and
heat pumps based on SCORE or SHORE prior
to the applicable compliance date for those
standards, and those compliance
certifications must be based on testing in
accordance with appendix M2 to this
subpart.
1. Incorporation by Reference
In § 430.3, DOE incorporated by reference
the entire standard for AHRI 210/240–202X,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37–
2009 and ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010.
However, certain enumerated provisions of
AHRI 210/240–202X, ANSI/ASHRAE 16–
2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 and ANSI/
ASHRAE 116–2010, as set forth in sections
1.1 through 1.4 of this appendix, 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 210/240–202X
(a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable,
(c) The following subsections of Section 3
Definitions are inapplicable: 3.2.15 (Doubleduct system), 3.2.19 (Gross capacity), 3.2.47
(Oil Recovery Mode), 3.2.52 (Published
Rating), 3.2.64 (Standard Filter), 3.2.79
(Unitary Air-conditioner), 3.2.80 (Unitary
Heat Pump),
(d) Section 4 Classifications is
inapplicable,
(e) The following subsections of Section 6
Rating Requirements are inapplicable: 6.1.8,
6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5,
(f) Section 7 Minimum Data Requirements
for Published Ratings is inapplicable,
(g) Section 8 Operating Requirements is
inapplicable,
(h) Section 9 Marking and Nameplate Data
is inapplicable,
(i) Section 10 Conformance Conditions is
inapplicable,
(j) Appendix A References—Normative is
inapplicable,
(k) Appendix B References—Informative is
inapplicable,
(l) Appendix C Secondary Capacity Check
Requirements—Normative is inapplicable,
(m) Appendix F Unit Configurations for
Standard Efficiency Determination—
Normative is inapplicable,
(n) Appendix H Verification Testing—
Normative is inapplicable,
(o) Appendix I Controls Verification
Procedure—Normative is inapplicable, and
(p) Appendix J Determination of Cut in and
Cut out temperatures—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.
1.3
ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016
(a) Section 1—Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2—Scope is inapplicable, and
(c) Section 4—Classification is
inapplicable.
1.4
ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010
(a) Section 1—Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2—Scope is inapplicable,
(c) Section 4—Classification is
inapplicable,
(d) Section 7—Methods of Test is
inapplicable,
(e) References is inapplicable,
(f) Appendix A—Example Bin Calculations
is inapplicable, and
(g) Appendix B—Bibliography is
inapplicable.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
2. General
Determine the cooling capacity, heating
capacity, and applicable energy efficiency
metrics (SEER2, HSPF2, and EER2) in
accordance with the specified sections of
AHRI 210/240–202X and the applicable
provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016, ANSI/
ASHRAE 37–2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116–
2010. The AFull (cooling mode) and H1, Full or
H1, Nom (heating mode, if applicable) shall
have a secondary capacity check completed.
For all other tests in each mode, it is
permissible to not use a secondary capacity
check.
Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this appendix
provide additional instructions for testing. In
cases where there is a conflict, the language
of this appendix takes highest precedence,
followed, in order, by: AHRI 210/240–202X,
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16–
2016 and ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010. 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. Off-Mode Power
Determine off-mode power, PW, OFF, in
accordance with section 11.3 and appendix
G of AHRI 210/240–202X.
4. Outdoor Units With No Match (OUWNM)
4.1 Definition
An Outdoor Unit that is not distributed in
commerce with any indoor units, that meets
any of the following criteria:
(a) Is designed for use with a refrigerant
that makes the unit banned for installation
when paired with an Indoor Unit as a system,
according to EPA regulations in 40 CFR
chapter I, subchapter C,
(b) Is designed for use with a refrigerant
that has a 95 °F midpoint saturation absolute
pressure that is ±18 percent of the 95 °F
saturation absolute pressure for R–22, or
(c) Is shipped without a specified
refrigerant from the point of manufacture or
is shipped such that more than two pounds
of refrigerant are required to meet the charge
per section 5.1.8 of AHRI 210/240–202X.
This shall not apply if either:
(1) The factory charge is equal to or greater
than 70% of the outdoor unit internal volume
times the liquid density of refrigerant at
95 °F, or
(2) An A2L refrigerant is approved for use
and listed in the certification report.
4.2 Testing
An OUWNM shall be tested with an indoor
coil having nominal tube diameter of 0.375
in and an NGIFS of 1.0 or less (as determined
in section 5.1.6.3 of AHRI 210/240–202X).
5. Test Conditions
5.1 Test Conditions for Certifying
Compliance With Standards
The following conditions specified in
AHRI 210/240–202X apply when testing to
certify to the SEER2 and HSPF2 energy
conservation standards in § 430.32(c).
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
For cooling mode, use the rating conditions
specified in table 8 of AHRI 210/240–202X
and the fractional cooling bin hours in table
15 of AHRI 210/240–202X to determine
SEER2, and EER2 for models subject to
regional standards in terms of EER2.
For heat pump heating mode, use the
rating conditions specified in table 8 of AHRI
210/240–202X and the fractional heating bin
hours specified for Region IV in table 16 of
AHRI 210/240–202X to determine the heating
efficiency metric, HSPF2.
5.2
Optional Representations
Representations of EER2 made using the
rating conditions specified in Table 8 of
AHRI 210/240–202X are optional for models
not subject to regional standards in terms of
EER2. Representations of HSPF2 made using
the rating conditions specified in table 8 of
AHRI 210/240–202X and the fractional
heating hours specified for Regions other
than Region IV in Table 14 AHRI 210/240–
202X are optional. Representations of
COPpeak made using appendix K are optional.
10. Appendix M2 to subpart B of part
430 is added to read as follows:
■
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Appendix M2 to Subpart B of Part
430—Uniform Test Method for
Measuring the Energy Consumption of
Central Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps
Note: Prior to [Date 180 days after
publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register], representations with respect to the
energy use or efficiency of central air
conditioners and heat pumps, including
compliance certifications, must be based on
testing conducted in accordance with:
(a) Appendix M1 to this subpart, in the 10
CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as
of January 1, 2023; or
(b) Appendix M1 to this subpart.
Beginning [Date 180 days after publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register],
and prior to the compliance date of amended
standards for central air conditioners and
heat pumps based on Seasonal Cooling and
Off-mode Rating Efficiency (SCORE) and
Seasonal Heating and Off-mode Rating
Efficiency (SHORE), representations with
respect to energy use or efficiency of central
air conditioners and heat pumps, including
compliance certifications, must be based on
testing conducted in accordance with
appendix M1 to this subpart.
Beginning on the compliance date of
amended standards for central air
conditioners and heat pumps based on
SCORE and SHORE, representations with
respect to energy use or efficiency of central
air conditioners and heat pumps, 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 central air conditioners and
heat pumps based on SCORE or SHORE prior
to the applicable compliance date for those
standards, and those compliance
certifications must be based on testing in
accordance with this appendix.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
1. Incorporation by Reference
In § 430.3, DOE incorporated by reference
the entire standard for AHRI 1600–202X,
ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37–
2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010.
However, certain enumerated provisions of
AHRI 1600–202X, ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016,
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE
116–2010, as set forth in sections 1.1 through
1.4 of this appendix, 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 1600–202X
(a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable,
(c) The following subsections of Section 3
Definitions are inapplicable: 3.1.15 (Doubleduct system), 3.1.19 (Gross capacity), 3.1.47
(Oil Recovery Mode), 3.1.52 (Published
Rating), 3.1.65 (Standard Filter), 3.1.80
(Unitary Air-conditioner), 3.1.81 (Unitary
Heat Pump),
(d) Section 4 Classifications is
inapplicable,
(e) The following subsections of Section 6
Rating Requirements are inapplicable: 6.1.8,
6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5
(f) Section 7 Minimum Data
Requirements for Published Ratings is
inapplicable,
(g) Section 8 Operating Requirements is
inapplicable,
(h) Section 9 Marking and Nameplate
Data is inapplicable,
(i) Section 10 Conformance Conditions is
inapplicable,
(j) Appendix A References—Normative is
inapplicable,
(k) Appendix B References—Informative
is inapplicable,
(l) Appendix C Secondary Capacity
Check Requirements—Normative is
inapplicable,
(m) Appendix F Unit Configurations for
Standard Efficiency Determination—
Normative is inapplicable,
(n) Appendix H Verification Testing—
Normative is inapplicable,
(o) Appendix I Controls Verification
Procedure—Normative is inapplicable,
(p) Appendix J Determination of Cut in
and Cut out temperatures—Normative is
inapplicable, and
(q) Appendix M Outdoor Temperature
Bin Hours—Informative 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.
1.3. ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016
(a) Section 1—Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2—Scope is inapplicable, and
(c) Section 4—Classification is
inapplicable.
1.4. 1.4. ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010
(a) Section 1—Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2—Scope is inapplicable,
(c) Section 4—Classification is
inapplicable,
(d) Section 7—Methods of Test is
inapplicable,
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
24265
(e) References is inapplicable,
(f) Appendix A—Example Bin Calculations
is inapplicable, and
(g) Appendix B—Bibliography is
inapplicable.
2. General
Determine the applicable energy efficiency
metrics (SCORE, SHORE, and EER2) in
accordance with the specified sections of
AHRI 1600–202X and the applicable
provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016, ANSI/
ASHRAE 37–2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116–
2010. The AFull (cooling mode) and H1, Full or
H1, Nom (heating mode, if applicable) shall
have a secondary capacity check completed.
For all other tests in each mode, it is
permissible to not use a secondary capacity
check. 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, in order, by: AHRI 1600–202X,
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16–
2016, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010. 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. Outdoor Units With No Match (OUWNM)
3.1 Definition
An Outdoor Unit that is not distributed in
commerce with any indoor units, that meets
any of the following criteria:
(a) Is designed for use with a refrigerant
that makes the unit banned for installation
when paired with an Indoor Unit as a system,
according to EPA regulations in 40 CFR
chapter I, subchapter C,
(b) Is designed for use with a refrigerant
that has a 95 °F midpoint saturation absolute
pressure that is ±18 percent of the 95 °F
saturation absolute pressure for R–22, or
(c) Is shipped without a specified
refrigerant from the point of manufacture or
is shipped such that more than two pounds
of refrigerant are required to meet the charge
per section 5.1.8 of AHRI 1600–202X. This
shall not apply if either:
(1) The factory charge is equal to or greater
than 70% of the outdoor unit internal volume
times the liquid density of refrigerant at 95 °F
or,
(2) An A2L refrigerant is approved for use
and listed in the certification report.
3.2 Testing
An OUWNM shall be tested with an indoor
coil having nominal tube diameter of 0.375
in and an NGIFS of 1.0 or less (as determined
in section 5.1.6.3 of AHRI 1600–202X).
4. Test Conditions
4.1 Test Conditions for Certifying
Compliance With Standards
The following conditions specified in
AHRI 1600–202X apply when testing to
certify to the SCORE and SHORE energy
conservation standards, in § 431.97.
For cooling mode, use the rating conditions
specified in table 8 of AHRI 1600–202X and
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
24266
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
the ‘U.S. National Average’ cooling
conditioning hours and shoulder season
hours in Table 15 of AHRI 1600–202X, to
determine SCORE, and EER2 for models
subject to regional standards in terms of
EER2.
For heat pump heating mode, use the
rating conditions specified in Table 8 of
AHRI 1600–202X and the ‘U.S. National
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:51 Apr 04, 2024
Jkt 262001
Average’ heating conditioning hours and
shoulder season hours specified in Table 18
of AHRI 1600–202X to determine the heating
efficiency metric, SHORE.
4.2 Optional Representations
Representations of EER2 made using the
rating conditions specified in Table 8 of
AHRI 1600–202X are optional for models not
subject to regional standards in terms of
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
EER2. Representations of SHORE made using
the rating conditions specified in Table 8 of
AHRI 1600–202X and the ‘Cold Climate
Average’ heating conditioning hours and
shoulder season hours in Table 18 of AHRI
1600–202X are optional. Representations of
COPpeak made using appendix K are optional.
[FR Doc. 2024–04784 Filed 4–4–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\05APP2.SGM
05APP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24206-24266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04784]
[[Page 24205]]
Vol. 89
Friday,
No. 67
April 5, 2024
Part III
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Central Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 67 / Friday, April 5, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 24206]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[EERE-2022-BT-TP-0028]
RIN 1904-AF49
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Central Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend the
Federal test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps
(``CAC/HPs'') to incorporate by reference the latest versions of the
applicable industry standards. Specifically, DOE proposes: to amend the
current test procedure for CAC/HPs (``appendix M1'') for measuring the
current cooling and heating metrics--seasonal energy efficiency ratio 2
(``SEER2'') and heating seasonal performance factor 2 (``HSPF2''),
respectively; and to establish a new test procedure (``appendix M2'')
for CAC/HPs that would adopt two new metrics--seasonal cooling and off-
mode rating efficiency (``SCORE'') and seasonal heating and off-mode
rating efficiency (``SHORE''). Testing to the SCORE and SHORE 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 CAC/HPs. DOE
welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the
scope of this document (including relevant 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 proposal no later than June 4, 2024. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for details.
Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Thursday,
April 25, 2024, 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-2022-BT-TP-0028. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2022-BT-TP-0028, by any of the
following methods:
(1) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket
number EERE-2022-BT-TP-0028 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(3) 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.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a
public meeting is held), comments, and other supporting documents/
materials, is available for review at 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-2022-BT-TP-0028. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section V for information on how to submit comments through
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-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-5904. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting (if
one is held), contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to maintain previously approved
incorporations by reference and incorporate by reference the following
industry standards into 10 CFR parts 429 and 430:
AHRI 210/240-202X, 202X Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary
Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment (``AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft''). AHRI 210/240-202X Draft is in draft form and this draft was
announced for public review on November 16, 2023.\1\ DOE references
this version for the purposes of drafting this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (``NOPR''). If this industry test standard is formally
adopted, DOE intends to incorporate by reference the final published
version of AHRI 210/240, not the current draft version, in DOE's
subsequent test procedure final rule, unless there are substantive
changes between the draft and final versions, in which case DOE may
adopt the substance of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft or provide
additional opportunity for comment on the changes to the industry
consensus standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public review of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft was announced in
the November 16, 2023 AHRI Update here: https://newsmanager.commpartners.com/ahri/issues/2023-11-16-email.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI 1600-202X, 202X Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary
Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment (``AHRI 1600-202X
Draft''). AHRI 1600-202X Draft is in draft form and this draft was
announced for public review on November 16, 2023.\2\ DOE references
this version for the purposes of drafting this NOPR. If this industry
test standard is formally adopted, DOE intends to incorporate by
reference the final published version of AHRI 1600, not the current
draft version, in DOE's subsequent test procedure final rule, unless
there are substantive changes between the draft and published versions,
in which case DOE may adopt the substance of the AHRI 1600-202X
[[Page 24207]]
Draft or provide additional opportunity for comment on the changes to
the industry consensus standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Public review of AHRI 1600-202X Draft was also announced in
the November 16, 2023 AHRI Update here: https://newsmanager.commpartners.com/ahri/issues/2023-11-16-email.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copies of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft are
available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking for review.
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-2016, Method of Testing for Rating Room Air
Conditioners, Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners, and Packaged Terminal
Heat Pumps for Cooling and Heating Capacity, ANSI approved November 1,
2016, (``ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016'').
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, Methods of Testing for Rating
Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,
ANSI approved June 25, 2009, (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009'').
ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010, Methods of Testing for Rating Seasonal
Efficiency of Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, ANSI approved
February 24, 2010, (``ASHRAE 116-2010'').
Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and ASHRAE 116-
2010 can be purchased from the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'') website at
www.ashrae.org/resources--publications.
See section IV.M of this document for 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
C. Updates to Industry Standards
1. AHRI 210/240-202X Draft
2. AHRI 1600-202X Draft
3. ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016
5. ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010
D. Proposed CAC/HP Test Procedure
E. Efficiency Metrics
1. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M1
2. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M2
F. Near-Term Changes in the CAC/HP Test Procedure
1. Representativeness of Fixed Speed Testing for Variable Speed
(VS) Systems
(a) Background
(b) Comments Received
(c) Commenter Conclusions Regarding Load-Based Testing
(d) DOE's Conclusion and Approach
(e) CVP Proposal
2. Low-Temperature Heating Performance
(a) CCHP Definition
(b) Mandatory H4 Heating Tests for CCHPs
(c) Heating Load Line and Sizing for CCHPs
(d) Cold Climate Heating Metric of Interest, COPpeak
3. Cut-out and Cut-in Temperature Certification
4. Low-Static Single-Split Blower-Coil System Definition and
Testing Provisions
5. Mandatory Constant Circulation Systems
6. Dual-Fuel Systems
7. Provisions for Outdoor Units With No Match
8. Inlet and Outlet Duct Configurations
9. Heat Comfort Controllers
G. Long-Term Changes in the CAC Test Procedure
1. Power Consumption of Auxiliary Components
(a) General Comments About Standby and Off Mode Power
Consumption
(b) Adjustment of Off Mode Power Consumption for Number of
Compressors, System Capacity, and Variable Speed and Weighting of
Off-Mode Test Power Measurements
(c) Crankcase Heaters
(d) Shoulder-Season Fan Power Consumption
(e) Accounting for Auxiliary Components' Power Consumption
2. Impact of Defrost on Performance
(a) Demand Defrost Credit
(b) Supplementary Heat Usage
3. Updates to Building Load Lines and Temperature Bin Hours
4. Default Fan Power Coefficients for Coil-Only Systems
5. Indoor Ambient Test Conditions for Cooling Mode Tests
6. Air Flow Limits To Address Inadequate Dehumidification
H. General Comments Received in Response to the January 2023 RFI
I. Represented Values
1. Calculating Represented Values for the Federal Trade
Commission
2. Off-Mode Power
3. AEDM Tolerance for SCORE and SHORE
4. Removal of the AEDM Exception for Split-System CAC/HPs
J. Enforcement Provisions
1. Verifying Cut-Out and Cut-In Temperatures
2. Controls Verification Procedure
K. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
1. Appendix M1
2. Appendix M2
L. Compliance Date and Waivers
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 M1
(b) Cost and Compliance Associated With Appendix M2
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 Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Central air conditioners (``CACs'') and central air conditioning
heat pumps (``HPs'') (collectively, ``CAC/HPs'') are included in the
list of ``covered products'' for which DOE is authorized to establish
and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(3)) DOE's test procedures for CAC/HPs are currently prescribed
at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M1 (``appendix M1''). The
following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish and amend test
procedures for CAC/HPs and relevant background information regarding
DOE's consideration of test procedures for this product.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163, as amended
(``EPCA''),\3\ 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 B of EPCA \4\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,
which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency. These products include CAC/HPs, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(3))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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.
\4\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 24208]]
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1)
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)),
and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of those
consumer products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether the products comply with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures
and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered product, including CAC/HPs, 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 or period of
use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a
petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be
prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
Federal Register proposed test procedures and afford interested persons
an opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments
with respect to such procedures. The comment period on a proposed rule
to amend a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and may not exceed
270 days. In prescribing or amending a test procedure, the Secretary
shall take into account such information as the Secretary determines
relevant to such procedure, including technological developments
relating to energy use or energy efficiency of the type (or class) of
covered products involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)). If DOE determines
that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its
determination not to amend the test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)(ii))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Standby mode and off
mode energy consumption must be incorporated into the overall energy
efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy descriptor for each
covered product unless the current test procedures already account for
and incorporate standby and off mode energy consumption or such
integration is technically infeasible. If an integrated test procedure
is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode
and off mode energy use test procedure for the covered product, if
technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii)) Any such amendment
must consider the most current versions of the International
Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 62301 \5\ and IEC
Standard 62087 \6\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\6\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015,
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is publishing this NOPR in satisfaction of the 7-year review
requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
B. Background
On January 5, 2017, DOE published a final rule regarding the
Federal test procedures for CAC/HPs. 82 FR 1426 (``January 2017 Final
Rule''). The January 2017 Final Rule amended the current test procedure
at that time, 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M (``appendix M'')
and established appendix M1, use of which was required beginning
January 1, 2023, for any representations, including compliance
certifications, made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of
CAC/HPs. Appendix M provides for the measurement of the cooling and
heating performance of CAC/HPs using the seasonal energy efficiency
ratio (``SEER'') metric and heating seasonal performance factor
(``HSPF'') metric, respectively. Appendix M1 specifies a revised SEER
metric (i.e., ``SEER2'') and a revised HSPF metric (i.e., ``HSPF2'').
On October 25, 2022, DOE published a final rule to address limited-
scope amendments to the existing test procedures for CAC/HPs in
appendix M1. 87 FR 64550 (``October 2022 Final Rule''). The October
2022 Final Rule provided changes to improve the functionality of
appendix M1 to address the issues identified in test procedure waivers,
improve representativeness, and correct typographical issues raised by
commenters. Id. at 87 FR 64551. In the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE
noted that several commenters indicated the need for test procedure
amendments beyond the scope of the rulemaking. Id. at 87 FR 64554-
64555. DOE received comments recommending consideration of load-based
testing methods, controls validation (particularly for variable speed
systems), amended metrics, amended definitions, and expansion of test
methods to capture low-temperature heating performance for heat pumps.
Id. In its response to these comments, DOE noted that it had initiated
that rulemaking not as a comprehensive revision that would satisfy the
7-year lookback requirements (see 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)), but to
address a limited set of known issues, including those that have been
raised through the test procedure waiver process. 87 FR 64554. DOE,
however, also acknowledged that a future rulemaking may more
comprehensively address the issues raised by the commenters. Id.
On January 24, 2023, DOE published in the Federal Register a
request for information (``RFI'') regarding the need for amendments to
the test procedures for CAC/HPs, including the need for amendments to
address the issues raised by commenters in the previous rulemaking, in
satisfaction of the 7-year review requirements specified in EPCA. 88 FR
4091 (``January 2023 RFI''). In the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested
comments, information, and data about a number of issues, and
considered these issues in two separate categories: (1) the
consideration of load-based testing methodologies under development by
various organizations and whether certain aspects of these
methodologies might be adopted into
[[Page 24209]]
the DOE test procedure; and (2) issues with the current appendix M1
test procedure that may or may not still be relevant if or when load-
based concepts are adopted in the DOE test procedure. Id. at 88 FR
4092-4093.
DOE received comments in response to the January 2023 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.
Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the January 2023 RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No. in
Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPR the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI...................... 14 Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Advocates........... 8 Efficiency Organizations
American Council for an Energy-Efficient and Consumer Advocacy
Economy, Consumer Federation of America, Organizations.
and National Consumer Law Center.
British Columbian Hydro and Power BC Hydro.................. 15 Utility.
Authority.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San CA IOUs................... 10 Utilities.
Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern
California Edison; collectively, the
California Investor-Owned Utilities.
Carrier Global Corporation............... Carrier................... 5 Manufacturer.
CoilPod LLC.............................. CoilPod................... 4 Service Provider.
Daikin Comfort Technologies North America Daikin.................... 16 Manufacturer.
Inc.
Lennox International Inc................. Lennox.................... 6 Manufacturer.
National Comfort Products................ NCP....................... 7 Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance..... NEEA...................... 13 Efficiency Organization.
New York State Energy Research and NYSERDA................... 9 State Agency.
Development Authority.
Rheem Manufacturing Company.............. Rheem..................... 12 Manufacturer.
Samsung HVAC............................. Samsung................... 11 Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for CAC/HPs. (Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-TP-0028, which
is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged
as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the January 2023 RFI, DOE received multiple comments
regarding the energy conservation standards for CAC/HPs. Comments
regarding energy conservation standards are outside the scope of
consideration for this test procedure rulemaking and are not addressed
in this NOPR. Topics related to energy conservation standards for CAC/
HPs would be addressed in a separate rulemaking process.
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update its test procedures for CAC/
HPs by: (1) updating the reference in the Federal test procedure at
appendix M1 to the most recent draft version of the AHRI Standard 210/
240 industry test procedure, AHRI 210/240-202X Draft, for measuring
SEER2 and HSPF2; and (2) establishing a new test procedure at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix M2 (``appendix M2'') that references the
draft new industry test procedure, AHRI 1600-202X Draft, for measuring
new efficiency metrics, seasonal cooling and off-mode rating efficiency
(``SCORE''), and seasonal heating and off-mode rating efficiency
(``SHORE'').
If AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft are finalized
and formally adopted, DOE intends to incorporate by reference the final
published version of AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 1600 in DOE's subsequent
test procedure final rule.
To implement the proposed changes, DOE proposes: (1) to amend
appendix M1 to incorporate by reference AHRI 210/240-202X Draft for
CAC/HPs, while maintaining the current efficiency metrics; and (2) to
add a new appendix M2 to subpart F of 10 CFR part 430 to incorporate by
reference AHRI 1600-202X Draft, which introduces new efficiency
metrics, SCORE and SHORE. DOE would list appendix M2 as the applicable
test method for CAC/HPs for any standards denominated in terms of SCORE
and SHORE. Use of appendix M2 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 M2 would be required, appendix
M1 would no longer be required as part of the Federal test procedure.
DOE is also proposing to amend certain provisions within DOE's
regulations for representation and enforcement consistent with the
proposed test procedure amendments.
Table II.1 summarizes the current DOE test procedure for CAC/HPs,
DOE's proposed changes to that test procedure, and the reason for each
proposed change.
Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Proposed Appendix M1 and Proposed Appendix M2 Test Procedures Relative to
Current Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed appendix M1 Proposed appendix M2
Current DOE test procedure test procedure test procedure Attribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporates by reference AHRI 210/ Incorporates by Incorporates by Updates to the
240-2008. reference AHRI 210/240- reference AHRI 1600- applicable industry
202X Draft. 202X Draft. test procedures.
Includes provisions for determining Maintains provisions Includes provisions for Updates to the
SEER2, HSPF2, EER2, and PW,OFF. for determining SEER2, determining SCORE and applicable industry
HPSF2, EER2, and SHORE and maintains test procedures.
PW,OFF. provisions for
determining EER2.
[[Page 24210]]
Includes certain CAC/HP provisions Includes provisions to Includes provisions to Improve
regarding determination of remove the alternative remove the AEDM representativeness of
represented values in 10 CFR 429.16. efficiency exception for split- test procedure.
determination method systems, to extend the
(``AEDM'') exception AEDM tolerance
for split-systems in requirement to SCORE
10 CFR 429.16. and SHORE, and to no
longer require
representations of the
PW,OFF metric in 10
CFR 429.16.
Does not include certain CAC/HP- Includes CAC/HP- Includes CAC/HP- Clarify how DOE will
specific enforcement provisions in specific enforcement specific enforcement conduct enforcement
10 CFR 429.134(k). provisions regarding provisions regarding testing.
verification of cut- verification of cut-
out and cut-in out and cut-in
temperatures and a temperatures and a
controls verification controls verification
procedure. procedure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to the
CAC/HP test procedures in appendix M1 and the proposed appendix M2
would not be unduly burdensome. Furthermore, DOE has tentatively
determined that the proposed amendments to appendix M1, if made final,
would not alter the measured efficiency of CAC/HPs 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 M1, 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 M1
beginning 180 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 M2 would, if adopted, alter the measured
efficiency of CAC/HPs, in part because the amended test procedure would
adopt different energy efficiency metrics than in the current test
procedure. Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the
proposed amendments to appendix M2, if made final, would not increase
the cost of testing. Tentative cost estimates are discussed in section
III.L of this document. As discussed, use of appendix M2 would not be
required until the compliance date of amended energy conservation
standards denominated in terms of SCORE and SHORE, should DOE adopt
such standards.
The proposed amendments to representation requirements in 10 CFR
429.43 would not be required until 180 days after publication in the
Federal Register of a test procedure final rule.
Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are addressed in further
detail in section III of this NOPR.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE proposes certain amendments to its
test procedures for CAC/HPs. For each proposed amendment, DOE provides
relevant background information, explains why the proposed amendment
merits consideration, discusses relevant public comments, and proposes
a potential approach.
A. Scope of Applicability
This rulemaking applies to CAC/HPs. DOE defines the term Central
air conditioner or central air conditioner heat pump to mean a product,
other than a packaged terminal air conditioner or packaged terminal
heat pump, single-phase single-package vertical air conditioner with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 British thermal units (``Btu'') per
hour (``Btu/h''), single-phase single-package vertical heat pump with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, computer room air conditioner,
or unitary dedicated outdoor air system as these equipment categories
are defined at 10 CFR 431.92, which is powered by single phase electric
current, air cooled, rated below 65,000 Btu/h, not contained within the
same cabinet as a furnace, the rated capacity of which is above 225,000
Btu/h, and is a heat pump or a cooling unit only. A central air
conditioner or central air conditioning heat pump may consist of: A
single-package unit; an outdoor unit and one or more indoor units; an
indoor unit only; or an outdoor unit with no match. In the case of an
indoor unit only or an outdoor unit with no match, the unit must be
tested and rated as a system (combination of both an indoor and an
outdoor unit). 10 CFR 430.2.
Appendix M1 applies to the following CACs/HPs:
(a) Split-system air conditioners, including single-split, multi-
head mini-split, multi-split (including VRF), and multi-circuit
systems;
(b) Split-system heat pumps, including single-split, multi-head
mini-split, multi-split (including VRF), and multi-circuit systems;
(c) Single-package air conditioners;
(d) Single-package heat pumps;
(e) Small-duct, high-velocity systems (including VRF);
(f) Space-constrained products--air conditioners; and
(g) Space-constrained products--heat pumps.
See section 1.1 of appendix M1.
DOE is not proposing to change the scope of CACs/HPs covered by the
test procedure in appendix M1 or the proposed appendix M2.
B. Definitions
CAC/HPs are defined in 10 CFR 430.2, as described in the previous
section. This definition was last amended in the October 2022 Final
Rule. DOE revised the central air conditioner or central air
conditioning heat pump definition so that it explicitly excluded
certain equipment categories that met the CAC/HP definition based on
their characteristics but are exclusively distributed in commerce for
commercial and industrial applications. 87 FR 64550, 64573. DOE noted
in the October 2022 Final Rule that there are certain types of
equipment that meet the CAC/HP definition but are exclusively
distributed in commerce for commercial and industrial applications, and
that EPCA did not intend to regulate as consumer products. Id.
As laid out in section 1.1 of appendix M1, the test procedure
applies to CAC/
[[Page 24211]]
HPs, including the following categories, which are defined either in 10
CFR 430.2 or in section 1.2 of appendix M1:
(a) Split-system air conditioners, including single-split, multi-
head mini-split, multi-split (including variable refrigerant flow
(``VRF'')), and multi-circuit systems;
(b) Split-system heat pumps, including single-split, multi-head
mini-split, multi- split (including VRF), and multi-circuit systems;
(c) Single-package air conditioners;
(d) Single-package heat pumps;
(e) Small-duct, high-velocity systems (including VRF);
(f) Space-constrained products--air conditioners; and
(g) Space-constrained products--heat pumps.
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE sought comment on whether the
definition of CAC/HP needs revision, and whether the scope of the
appendices M and M1 needs to be limited, expanded, clarified, or
revised in any way.\8\ 88 FR 4091, 4093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ On January 1, 2023, use of appendix M1 became required for
any representations--including compliance certifications--made with
respect to the energy use, power, or efficiency of CAC/HPs. Prior to
January 1, 2023, such representations were required to be based on
the test procedure at appendix M to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its response, Rheem requested a revision to the definition and
scope of CAC/HPs covered by appendix M1 to add a new product class of
``space-constrained vertical package'' product. (Rheem, No. 12 at pp.
1-2) Rheem proposed that this new product class would meet all
definitions of the current ``space-constrained'' product class but also
consist of the following three additions: (1) is factory-assembled as a
single package that has major components that are arranged vertically;
(2) is intended for interior mounting on adjacent, interior to, or
through an outside wall; (3) and is non-weatherized. (Id.) Rheem
suggested the product class delineation should be used to establish a
reasonable minimum test external static pressure (``ESP'') of 0.15
inches of water column (``in. wc.''), which Rheem claimed will result
in more congruity between tested and actual unit operation for the
consumer for these types of units. Id.
Rheem asserted that DOE's current space-constrained product class
is too general, and as a result puts unreasonable testing burden on
``space-constrained vertical package'' units. (Id.) Specifically, Rheem
commented that the minimum ESP of 0.3 in. wc. required by appendix M1
for space-constrained products \9\ is not representative of
installations of these units. Rheem explained that ``space-constrained
vertical package'' products are typically entirely installed inside a
closet with a short supply duct of 5-15 feet, without a return duct,
and usually are found within small multifamily or lodging applications
(such as assisted living and low-income housing). (Id.) Additionally,
Rheem noted that one of its brands, Friedrich, has multiple products in
which operation at an ESP greater than 0.3 in. wc. is prohibited per
the installation and operation instructions. (Id.) Rheem commented that
designing and testing the equipment to meet the minimum 0.3 in. wc.
requirement of the current space-constrained category will lead to size
and cost changes that will serve no benefit to the consumer and would
make replacement units cost or size prohibitive. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Table 4 of appendix M1 for the minimum ESP requirements
for ducted blower-coil systems, including the 0.3 in. wc.
requirement for space-constrained systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that Rheem's comment lacked sufficient information, such
as product literature and test data, that would indicate that the
current test procedure ESP requirement for ``space-constrained''
products is unsuitable for the products Rheem described in its comment,
puts undue burden on manufacturers for testing, and is not
representative of current installations of these units in the field.
DOE is not aware of any space-constrained products that are not able to
be tested according to the existing test procedure requirements. Given
the limited information describing the products that are the subject of
Rheem's comment, DOE is not proposing to amend the definition of space-
constrained vertical package units within the scope of CAC/HPs.
Regarding the scope and definition of CAC/HPs, AHRI, Carrier, and
Lennox all submitted comments relating to a definition for heat pumps
optimized for performance in cold climates. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 7;
Carrier, No. 5 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3) Comments regarding heat
pumps optimized for low-temperature heating performance are discussed
in section III.F.2 of this NOPR. AHRI also submitted a comment
regarding systems that use a heat pump and a furnace in combination as
a source for heating (i.e., ``dual-fuel'' heat pumps). (AHRI, No. 14 at
p. 7) Comments regarding such systems are discussed in section III.F.6
of this NOPR.
Notably, both Carrier and Lennox commented that they find the
current scope of CAC/HPs covered by appendix M1 to be appropriate.
(Carrier, No. 5 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3) Lennox also stated that
it finds the general definition of central air conditioner or central
air conditioning heat pump to be adequate. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3)
Except as noted, DOE is not proposing any further amendments to the
definition of central air conditioner or to the scope of CAC/HPs
covered by appendix M1 or the newly proposed appendix M2.
C. Updates to Industry Standards
DOE's current test procedures for CAC/HPs are codified at appendix
M1 and incorporate by reference various industry standards. The
regulatory text at appendix M1 has generally been closely aligned with
the relevant industry standard for CAC/HPs, AHRI Standard 210/240--
however, several rulemakings have changed the regulatory portions of
appendix M1 over time with amendments and additions, not all of which
have been mirrored in the AHRI 210/240 standards.
Appendix M1 currently references ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008 with
Addenda 1 and 2 (``AHRI 210/240-2008'' \10\): 2008 Standard for
Performance Rating of Unitary Air Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
Equipment. However, the latest AHRI Standard 210/240 is AHRI 210/240-
2023, Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary Air Conditioning & Air
Source Heat Pump Equipment, copyright 2020 (``AHRI 210/240-2023
(2020)'' \11\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A copy of AHRI 210/240-2008 can be obtained from AHRI, 2111
Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, USA, 703-524-8800,
or by going to www.ahrinet.org.
\11\ A copy of AHRI 210/240-2023 (2020) can be obtained from
AHRI, 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, USA,
703-524-8800, or by going to www.ahrinet.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following publication of the January 2023 RFI, AHRI and other
relevant stakeholders, including DOE, participated in the development
of two updated industry standards relevant to CAC/HPs, the AHRI 210/
240-202X Draft and the AHRI 1600-202X Draft.\12\ DOE understands that
these drafts were commissioned primarily to address the issues raised
by DOE in the January 2023 RFI, and secondarily to harmonize the AHRI
industry standards with the DOE test procedures, which were last
amended in the October 2022 Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Both draft standards are available in Docket No. EERE-2022-
BT-TP-0028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has reviewed both drafts and determined that they allow for a
more representative measurement of the efficiencies of CAC/HPs than the
current Federal test procedure, without being unduly burdensome. Rather
than make
[[Page 24212]]
more amendments to the regulatory text of the current appendix M1 test
procedure, DOE is proposing to adopt each industry standard
respectively as the basis for an updated appendix M1 and a new appendix
M2, similar to how AHRI 210/240-2008 was adopted as the basis of the
current appendix M1 test procedure. Specifically, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference AHRI 210/240-202X Draft, and the relevant
standards it references: ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and
ASHRAE 116-2010 as the basis for the updated appendix M1 test
procedure. Similarly, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI
1600-202X Draft, and the relevant standards it references ANSI/ASHRAE
16-2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and ASHRAE 116-2010 as the basis for the
new appendix M2 test procedure. Incorporating each industry standard
would enable DOE to better harmonize with the industry standards and
eliminate manufacturer burden in certifying with separate test
procedures.
1. AHRI 210/240-202X Draft
As previously discussed, AHRI and other relevant stakeholders,
including DOE, worked to develop a revised AHRI 210/240 standard that
would incorporate revisions to align with the October 2022 Final Rule,
and additionally, seek to address the issues raised in the January 2023
RFI with broad stakeholder consensus. DOE understands that this new
update is currently in draft form (i.e., AHRI 210/240-202X Draft) and
will supersede the current version of the standard, AHRI 210/240-2023
(2020). While AHRI 210/240-202X Draft does not introduce changes that
would alter the measured efficiency of CAC/HPs, it does introduce new
test provisions as compared to AHRI 210/240-2023 (2020), and addresses
several issues that DOE raised in the January 2023 RFI. Section III.F
of this NOPR includes further discussion of the changes that are
reflected in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft.
In light of these updates to AHRI 210/240-202X Draft, DOE is
proposing to amend its test procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M1 by
incorporating by reference AHRI 210/240-202X Draft. DOE intends to
update its incorporation by reference to the final published version of
AHRI 210/240-202X Draft in the final rule, unless the draft version is
not finalized before the final rule or there are substantive changes
between the draft and published versions, in which case DOE may adopt
the substance of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft or provide additional
opportunity for comment on the substantive changes to the updated
industry consensus standard. Specifically, DOE is proposing to utilize
sections 3 (excluding 3.2.15, 3.2.19, 3.2.47, 3.2.52, 3.2.64, 3.2.79
and 3.2.80), 5, 6 (excluding 6.1.8, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5), 11, and 12
and appendices D, E, G, K, and L of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft in the
Federal test procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M1.
Additionally, DOE is proposing additions and deletions to the
incorporations by reference for the CAC/HP Federal test procedure to
align with the references made within the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft.
Currently, appendix M1 incorporates by reference: AMCA 210-2007,\13\
AHRI 210/240-2008, AHRI 1230-2010,\14\ ASHRAE 23.1-2010,\15\ ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009, and ASHRAE 116-2010. 10 CFR 430.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ANSI/AMCA 210-2007, ANSI/ASHRAE 51-2007, (``AMCA 210-
2007'') Laboratory Methods of Testing Fans for Certified Aerodynamic
Performance Rating, ANSI approved Aug. 17, 2007. A copy of AMCA 210-
2007 can be purchased from the Air Movement and Control Association
International Inc. (``AMCA'') website at www.amca.org/store/index.php.
\14\ ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010 with Addendum 2, (``AHRI 1230-2010''):
2010 Standard for Performance Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow
(``VRF'') Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment, ANSI
approved Aug. 2, 2010. A copy of AHRI 1230-2010 can be obtained from
AHRI, 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, USA,
703-524-8800, or by going to www.ahrinet.org.
\15\ ANSI/ASHRAE 23.1-2010, (``ASHRAE 23.1-2010''): Methods of
Testing for Rating the Performance of Positive Displacement
Refrigerant Compressors and Condensing Units that Operate at
Subcritical Temperatures of the Refrigerant, ANSI approved Jan. 28,
2010. A copy of ASHRAE 23.1-2010 can be obtained from the ASHRAE
website at www.ashrae.org/resources--publications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the proposed test procedures at appendix M1, DOE is proposing to
add an incorporation by reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016 and remove
incorporations by reference to AMCA 210-2007, AHRI 210/240-2008, AHRI
1230-2010 and ASHRAE 23.1-2010. Therefore, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-
2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and ASHRAE 116-2010, at appendix M1.
2. AHRI 1600-202X Draft
In parallel to the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft, AHRI and other relevant
stakeholders, including DOE, worked to develop a forward-looking AHRI
test procedure that would act as the successor to the AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft and be effective in the long-term (i.e., AHRI 1600-202X Draft).
DOE is proposing to establish a new test procedure for CAC/HPs at
appendix M2 by incorporating by reference AHRI 1600-202X Draft. DOE
intends to update its incorporation by reference to the final published
version of AHRI 1600-202X Draft in the final rule, unless the draft
version is not finalized before the final rule or there are substantive
changes between the draft and published versions, in which case DOE may
adopt the substance of the AHRI 1600-202X Draft or provide additional
opportunity for comment on the substantive changes to the updated
industry consensus standard. Specifically, DOE is proposing to utilize
sections 3 (excluding 3.1.15, 3.1.19, 3.1.47, 3.1.52, 3.1.65, 3.1.80,
and 3.1.81), 5, 6 (excluding 6.1.8, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5), 11, and 12
and appendices D, E, G, K, and L of the AHRI 1600-202X Draft in the
Federal test procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M2.
DOE is also proposing to incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 16-
2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and ASHRAE 116-2010, which are referenced
within AHRI 1600-202X Draft. Therefore, in total, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the AHRI 1600-202X Draft, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016,
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and ASHRAE 116-2010, at appendix M2.
3. ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, which provides a method of test for many
categories of air conditioning and heating products and equipment, is
referenced for testing CAC/HPs by both AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and the
AHRI 1600-202X Draft. More specifically, section 5 and appendices C, D,
E, I, and J of AHRI 210/240-202X and AHRI 1600-202X Draft refer to
methods of test in ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. DOE currently incorporates by
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, and the
current incorporation by reference applies to the current Federal test
procedure for CAC/HPs specified at appendix M1. Given that AHRI 210/
240-202X Draft references ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 for several test
instructions, DOE has tentatively concluded that it is appropriate to
maintain the existing incorporation by reference of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009
in appendix M1. Additionally, given that the AHRI 1600-202X 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 M2.
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016
ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, which provides a method of test for rating
Room Air Conditioners, Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners, and Packaged
Terminal Heat Pumps, is referenced for testing CAC/HPs by both
[[Page 24213]]
the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and the AHRI 1600-202X Draft. More
specifically, section 5.1.1 of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-
202X Draft refer to testing of non-ducted CAC/HPs from provisions in
ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, or by using a combination of provisions in ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009 and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2016. Currently, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016
is not incorporated by reference in appendix M1. DOE has tentatively
concluded that testing conducted per ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016 for non-ducted
CAC/HPs, will not impact ratings in comparison to testing conducted per
provisions in ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010. Thus, given
that the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600 202X Draft refer to
ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016 as an option for testing of non-ducted CAC/HPs, and
that it does not impact ratings, DOE has tentatively concluded that it
is appropriate to incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016 for
appendices M1 and M2.
5. ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010
ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010, which provides a method of test for unitary
air conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity of 65,000 Btu/h
and less, is referenced for testing CAC/HPs by both AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft. More specifically, sections 5, 6, 8,
and 11 and appendices D and E of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-
202X Draft refer to methods of test in ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010. Given that
AHRI 210/240-202X Draft references ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010 for several
test instructions, DOE has tentatively concluded that it is appropriate
to maintain the existing incorporation by reference of ANSI/ASHRAE 116-
2010 in appendix M1. Additionally, given that the AHRI 1600-202X Draft
references ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010 for several test instructions, DOE is
proposing to additionally incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010
for use with appendix M2.
D. Proposed CAC/HP Test Procedure
As discussed, EPCA requires that test procedures for each type of
covered product, including CAC/HPs, 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 or period of use. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A))
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to maintain the current efficiency
metrics of SEER2 and HSPF2 in appendix M1 and is proposing to reference
AHRI 210/240-202X Draft in appendix M1 for measuring the existing
metrics. DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to
appendix M1 would not affect the measured efficiency of CAC/HPs or
require retesting solely because of DOE's adoption of the proposed
amendments to the appendix M1 test procedure, if made final.
Additionally, DOE is proposing to establish a new test procedure at
appendix M2 that would adopt the AHRI 1600-202X Draft, including the
newly proposed SCORE and SHORE metrics. Use of appendix M2 would not be
required until the compliance date of any amended standards denominated
in terms of the proposed new metrics for appendix M2, should such
standards be adopted.
If finalized versions of AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 1600 are not
published before the test procedure final rule, or if there are
substantive changes between the drafts and published versions of the
standards that are not supported by stakeholder comments in response to
this NOPR, DOE may adopt the substance of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft
and AHRI 1600-202X Draft or provide additional opportunity for comment
on the final version of that industry consensus standard.
Specifically, at appendix M1, DOE is proposing to require the
following sections of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft: sections 3 \16\, 5,
6 \17\, 11, and 12, and appendices D, E, G, K, and L. At appendix M2,
DOE is proposing to require the following sections of the AHRI 1600-
202X Draft: sections 3 \18\, 5, 6 \19\, 11, and 12 and appendices D, E,
G, K and L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ DOE is not proposing to include the following provisions
from section 3 of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft because the terms are
either defined in appendix M1, or are not needed for the proposed
DOE test procedure: 3.2.15 (Double-duct system), 3.2.19 (Gross
Capacity), 3.2.47 (Oil Recovery Mode), 3.2.52 (Published Rating),
3.2.64 (Standard Filter), 3.2.80 (Unitary Air-conditioner), and
3.2.81 (Unitary Heat Pump).
\17\ DOE is not proposing to include the following provisions
from section 6 of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft because the provisions are
either defined in 10 CFR 429.16, or are not needed for the proposed
DOE test procedure: 6.1.8 (Tested Combinations or Tested Units), 6.2
(Application Ratings), 6.3 (Publication of Ratings), 6.4 (Ratings),
and 6.5 (Uncertainty and Variability).
\18\ DOE is not proposing to include the following provisions
from section 3 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft because the terms are either
defined in appendix M1, or are not needed for the proposed DOE test
procedure: 3.1.15 (Double-duct System), 3.1.19 (Gross Capacity),
3.1.47 (Oil Recovery Mode), 3.1.52 (Published Rating), 3.1.65
(Standard Filter), 3.1.80 (Unitary Air-conditioner), and 3.1.81
(Unitary Heat Pump).
\19\ DOE is not proposing to include the following provisions
from section 6 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft because the provisions are
either defined in 10 CFR 429.16, or are not needed for the proposed
DOE test procedure: 6.1.8 (Tested Combinations or Tested Units), 6.2
(Application Ratings), 6.3 (Publication of Ratings), 6.4 (Ratings),
and 6.5 (Uncertainty and Variability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, at both appendix M1 and appendix M2, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the following: ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009; ANSI/
ASHRAE 16-2016; and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010.
Issue 1: DOE requests feedback on its proposal to revise appendix
M1 to incorporate by reference AHRI 210/240-202X Draft for measuring
the existing metrics, SEER2 and HSPF2.
Issue 2: DOE requests feedback on its proposal to establish a new
appendix M2, which would incorporate by reference AHRI 1600-202X Draft
to determine the SCORE and SHORE metrics.
E. Efficiency Metrics
As discussed, DOE proposes to update the current Federal test
procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M1 consistent with the most recent
draft version of the relevant industry consensus test procedure, AHRI
210/240-202X Draft. DOE is also proposing a new Federal test procedure
at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M2, consistent with the draft
version of the industry consensus test procedure, AHRI 1600-202X Draft.
Sections III.E.1 and III.E.2 indicate which metrics are applicable for
appendices M1 and M2, respectively.
1. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M1
In the updated appendix M1, DOE proposes to maintain the current
energy efficiency metrics (i.e., energy efficiency ratio 2 (``EER2''),
SEER2, and HSPF2), and to define a new optional metric: the peak load
coefficient of performance (``COPpeak''), applicable to CHPs
(see details in section III.F.2.d of this document). The proposed
revisions to appendix M1 to align with the most recent draft of AHRI
210/240-202X Draft maintain the existing energy efficiency metrics, and
DOE has tentatively determined that testing under the proposed appendix
M1 would be consistent with the existing test procedure and there would
be no impact on measured efficiencies.
2. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M2
As previously discussed in this NOPR, the proposed appendix M2 will
introduce new integrated cooling and integrated heating efficiency
metrics, namely SCORE and SHORE, respectively. Unlike SEER2 and HSPF2,
which are seasonal energy efficiency descriptors, SCORE and SHORE are
[[Page 24214]]
integrated metrics that include off-mode power, PW,OFF.
Hence, appendix M2 will not require separate representations for off-
mode power.
DOE is proposing to retain EER2 in appendix M2, with EER2 evaluated
in the same way as it was in appendix M1. DOE is also proposing the
determination of an optional metric, COPpeak, as discussed
in section III.E.1 of this document, in appendix M2.
F. Near-Term Changes in the CAC/HP Test Procedure
The following sections discuss issues that affect the CAC/HP test
procedure in the near-term--i.e., they will be effective 180 days after
publication of the final rule. As previously explained, these near-term
revisions are implemented at appendix M1 via incorporation by reference
of the relevant industry consensus test procedure, AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft. DOE has reviewed AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and has concluded that
it satisfies the EPCA requirement that test procedures should not be
unduly burdensome to conduct and should be representative of an average
use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) These near-term amendments in
appendix M1 would not alter the measured efficiency of CAC/HPs in terms
of the current cooling and heating test metrics, SEER2 and HSPF2,
respectively.
DOE clarifies that while all issues discussed subsequently are
considered near-term, they are also part of the long-term CAC/HP test
procedure--i.e., these revisions are also included in AHRI 1600-202X
Draft, which DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference at appendix
M2. As such, when discussing these near-term changes, DOE makes
references to both AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft.
1. Representativeness of Fixed Speed Testing for Variable Speed (VS)
Systems
(a) Background
Appendix M1 uses a steady-state test concept where test room
conditions are kept within narrow operating tolerances for each test
point, and the CAC/HP system is manually controlled to operate at the
specified compressor speed and airflow rate for each test point. In the
October 2022 Final Rule, several stakeholders encouraged DOE to review
ways to improve the representativeness of the test procedures for CAC/
HPs (especially variable speed), particularly to examine test
procedures where the unit operates under its own native controls in
responding to conditioning loads (i.e., load-based testing).\20\ DOE
stated in the October 2022 Final Rule that the rulemaking had been
initiated only to address a limited number of known issues in the
current appendix M1 method, including those raised through the test
procedure waiver process. 87 FR 64554, 64554. However, DOE also
responded that in order to satisfy the 7-year lookback requirement (see
42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)), a future rulemaking may address more
comprehensively the issues raised by the commenters. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ A load-based test method differs from the steady-state test
method currently used in DOE test procedures for air conditioning
and heat pump equipment. In a steady-state test method, the indoor
room is maintained at a constant temperature throughout the test. In
this type of test, any variable speed or variable-position
components of air conditioners and heat pumps are set in a fixed
position, which is typically specified by the manufacturer. In
contrast, a load-based test has the conditioning load applied to the
indoor room using a load profile that approximates how the load
varies for units installed in the field. In this type of test, an
air conditioning system or heat pump is allowed to automatically
determine and vary its control settings in response to the imposed
conditioning loads rather than relying on manufacturer-specified
settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section I.B of this document, on January 24, 2023,
DOE published the January 2023 RFI in order to collect data and
information regarding the need to amend the test procedures for CAC/
HPs, to address issues raised by commenters in the October 2022 Final
Rule, and in satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)). 87 FR 64554, 64554. In the January
2023 RFI, DOE requested comments, information, and data pertaining to
the consideration of load-based testing methodologies under development
by various organizations and whether certain aspects of these
methodologies might be adopted into the DOE test procedure. 88 FR 4091,
4098-4101. Among the load-based testing methodologies summarized by DOE
in the January 2023 RFI was the first edition of Canadian Standard
Association (``CSA'') EXP07:19, ``Load-based and climate-specific
testing and rating procedures for heat pumps and air conditioners''
(``EXP07''). 88 FR 4091, 4095. DOE notes that EXP07 was superseded by
CSA SPE-07:23 \21\ (``SPE07'') in January 2023, an updated version of
EXP07 with changes made based on comments received during a technical
review period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ SPE07 is available for download at: wwwcsagroup.org/store/product/CSA%20SPE-07:23/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Comments Received
In response to the January 2023 RFI, DOE received a variety of
comments related to various aspects of load-based testing. The comments
are summarized in the following sub-sections, segregated by topic as
appropriate.
(1) Repeatability and Reproducibility
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE presented several initiatives and
programs that were investigating, researching, and/or developing load-
based test methods. 88 FR 4091, 4095-4098. DOE requested data and
information to quantify which of these load-based methods--and any
other that DOE is not aware of--had higher repeatability and
reproducibility compared to the others, and also compared to fixed-
speed tests. 88 FR 4091, 4099.
In response, Samsung, Carrier, Daikin, Rheem, AHRI, and Lennox all
commented that available test data have shown that the repeatability
and reproducibility of load-based methods is not on par with current
fixed-speed testing used for regulatory purposes. (Samsung, No. 11 at
p. 1; Carrier, No. 5 at pp. 2-3; Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 2-3; Rheem, No.
12 at pp. 2-3; AHRI, No. 14 at pp. 8-9; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3) Samsung
asserted that adopting something unproven, like the load-based test
methods, may create a chaotic situation in the marketplace, and will
create additional test burden for manufacturers since load-based
testing methods do not address alternative efficiency determination
methods (``AEDMs''). (Samsung, No. 11 at p. 1)
Carrier referred to the Technology Collaboration Program of Energy
Efficient End-use Equipment, International Energy Efficiency (``4E
IEA'') \22\ and AHRI 8026 \23\ initiatives, which showed that load-
based testing of the same units across different facilities showed high
variability, and commented that more work and research needs to be done
in order to reduce this variability before adopting load-based testing
for determining energy efficiency of CAC/HP systems. (Carrier, No. 5 at
pp. 2-3) Daikin also commented that until all issues pertaining to
load-based testing are fully vetted, there would be significant
problems with repeatability and reproducibility. (Daikin, No. 16 at pp.
2-3) Daikin mentioned several items that contribute to variability in
load-
[[Page 24215]]
based testing, such as the controller (room thermostat), controller
setup, control modifications in the test chamber, and the application
of the load. (Id. at pp. 2-3) Daikin also requested that stakeholders
thoroughly evaluate the secondary capacity check process during load-
based testing, and compare that with the accuracy, repeatability, and
reproducibility of conventional fixed-speed testing. (Daikin, No. 16 at
p. 12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``AC/HP Test Methods Investigative Testing: Phase 2
Preliminary Findings'' 4E IEA presentation (May 7, 2021). See
www.iea-4e.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/AC-HP-Test-Methods-Phase-2-key-Findings-2021-08-06-CLEAN.pdf.
\23\ Dhillon, P., Horton, W.T., & Braun, J.E. (2022). AHRI
8026--Repeatability and Reproducibility Assessment of CSA EXP07:19
and AHRI 210-240:2023. Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rheem and AHRI both referred to the results of AHRI 8026. (Rheem,
No. 12 at pp. 2-3; AHRI, No. 14 at pp. 8-9) Rheem commented that per
AHRI 8026, the transient conditions during load-based testing cause
poorer repeatability and reproducibility in comparison to fixed-speed
testing currently in appendix M1. (Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 2-3) Rheem
further stated that even with appendix M1 testing, reproducibility of
transient components like cyclic degradation and defrost can be
challenging. (Id.) AHRI commented that AHRI 8026 results revealed
concerns when it comes to repeatability and reproducibility of
performance metrics of load-based testing. (AHRI, No. 14 at pp. 8-9)
Further, AHRI noted that there are no analyses of control system
parameter variability available for load-based testing, and that such
analyses would require significant investments in lab facilities and
technical training and none of the load-based testing methods address
the use of AEDMs. (Id.) Similarly, Lennox mentioned several items that
affect the repeatability and reproducibility of load-based testing,
including the varying degrees of test burden in the different methods,
changes required to lab facilities to accommodate load-based testing,
interaction between the unit under test and the lab facility, and how
the lab facility affects the load-based tests. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3)
Lennox expressed concern over the fact that labs may need to
significantly invest in their facilities and resources if their present
setups were found to positively or negatively influence load-based test
results. (Id.)
NEEA commented that a pre-defined load test \24\ may have greater
repeatability and reproducibility in comparison to an adaptive load
test, because multiple variables need to be controlled for an adaptive
load, and there are several interactive effects between unit
performance and test lab conditions. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 6) NEEA
referred to the 4E IEA program,\25\ stating that preliminary results
from phase 4 of 4 are expected to be available by mid-summer 2023, with
full study results to be released at the end of 2023 or early in 2024.
(Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ In its comment, NEEA defined a pre-defined load test as
those where the unit under test (UUT) is subjected to pre-defined
sensible or latent loads, and stated that the 4E program and the DOE
CCHP Tech Challenge were examples of such a load based test method.
They defined adaptive load test methods as those where a constant or
variable sensible and latent is applied to the UUT, but the
magnitude of the load can be altered, based on unit behavior, and
stated that the SPE07 was an example of such a method.
\25\ ``AC/HP Test Methods Investigative Testing: Phase 2
Preliminary Findings'' 4E IEA presentation (May 7, 2021). See:
www.iea-4e.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/08/AC-HP-Test-Methods-Phase-2-key-Findings-2021-08-06-CLEAN.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Field Performance
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested data showing that load-based
testing was more representative of field performance, in comparison to
conventional fixed-speed and fixed-setting test procedures. 88 FR 4091,
4099. DOE also requested data that would indicate whether CAC/HP units
that performed poorly in the lab, when tested using load-based methods,
also performed poorly in the field. Id.
Carrier commented that it was not aware of publicly available data
showing that load-based test methods are more or less representative
than fixed-speed and fixed-setting test procedures. (Carrier, No. 5 at
p. 3) Carrier further commented that even though there is value in
verifying the operation of variable speed systems, it was unclear if a
load-based test method would provide more representative tests in
comparison to fixed-speed testing with a controls verification
procedure (``CVP'') to confirm unit operation at the speeds specified
in the fixed-speed tests. (Id.) Similarly, Daikin stated that even
though several studies are being conducted, there is a general lack of
information and data to substantiate whether load-based testing or
fixed-speed testing is more representative of real-world scenarios.
(Daikin, No. 16 at p. 3) Daikin expressed concern over the fact that
load-based test methods, such as SPE07, do not account for real-world
scenarios when a CAC/HP is installed with a controller (or room
thermostat) of a different brand than the manufacturer of the CAC/HP.
(Id.) Daikin commented that if controller operation is central to load-
based testing, then smart thermostat manufacturers would also need to
provide ratings when their product is matched with another
manufacturer's CAC/HP, similar to the process followed by independent
coil manufacturers (``ICMs'') for representing the ratings of their
indoor coils with different combinations of other manufacturers'
outdoor coils. (Id.) Daikin also commented that load-based test methods
currently do not address AEDM calculation methods for non-tested
combinations (``NTCs''), nor do they have a method for ICMs to rate
their indoor coil products with an outdoor unit that has been tested
using load-based methods. (Id.)
Rheem commented that while it believed more studies are needed for
evaluating the representativeness of load-based methods, field
performance is very dependent on installation practices. (Rheem, No. 12
at p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that the current appendix M1 test
procedure uses fixed compressor speeds and air volume rates with fixed
indoor and outdoor temperature conditions, and is thus not
representative of field use, indicating that the energy efficiencies
may be misinterpreted. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at pp. 1-2)
(3) Test Burden
A critical component of load-based testing is the relevant
burden(s) associated with the testing--i.e., total testing time, time
needed for control system learning, number of official test points,
time required to transition between test points, upgrades to laboratory
equipment, and cost and time associated with training technicians to be
able to conduct load-based testing. In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
requested comment from stakeholders on information pertaining to the
aforementioned test burdens. 88 FR 4091, 4099.
In response, Carrier, Daikin, and Rheem commented that the test
burden of load-based testing is generally more than that of fixed-speed
testing. (Carrier, No. 5 at pp. 3-4; Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 3-4; Rheem,
No. 12 at pp. 3-4) Regarding costs, Carrier commented that lab
investments will be needed to emulate Virtual Building Load
(``VBL''),\26\ and Rheem commented that even though predicting the cost
impact of emerging load-based methods is difficult, there will
definitely be costs associated with changes to test chambers and
equipment that manufacturers will have to bear. (Carrier, No. 5 at pp.
3-4; Rheem, No.
[[Page 24216]]
12 at pp. 3-4) Carrier and Daikin both commented that load-based
testing methods would require more time to conduct due to the higher
number of tests involved. (Carrier, No.5 at pp. 3-4; Daikin, No.16 at
pp. 3-4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Virtual Building Load is a load-based or native controls
test procedure during which the software that controls the indoor
test room conditions (i.e., operates the indoor room reconditioning
system) is programmed to mimic the response of building heating or
cooling in real time by monitoring the capacity of the unit under
test and adjusting the indoor room conditions according to the
virtual building model. The virtual building model defines the time-
dependent rate of change of the indoor room temperature and humidity
conditions as a function of the target building load and the
measured capacity of the tested system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daikin also stated that during new product development,
manufacturers only have to do a subset of appendix M1 tests, often
iteratively, because results of those subsets are enough to inform the
manufacturer of the design changes needed. (Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 3-4)
Daikin commented that due to lack of experience with load-based methods
such as SPE07, it would not be possible to do quick assessments like
these. (Id. at pp. 3-4) Finally, Daikin stated that changes to
refrigerant regulations that will occur in 2023 will require a full
redesign of the products, and manufacturers may not be able to
accomplish that in a timely manner using load-based methods. (Id.)
Rheem referred to the 4E IEA project report, in which it was
estimated that the additional test burden due to the Target
Compensation Load method will have a 60-percent to 250-percent increase
in test burden. (Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 3-4) Rheem commented that load-
based test methods would require changes to control schemes, additional
test setups, and additional equipment, due to rapidly changing loads
inside the chamber. (Id.) Rheem referred to several research studies
27 28 that showed load-based test methods are influenced by
the thermal inertia of the psychrometric chambers in which the tests
are conducted; thus, adaptation of the control system to this thermal
inertia may be a time-consuming process. (Id.) AHRI stated that even
though the value of load-based testing remains unknown, the burden has
been quantified. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Cremaschi, L., & Perez Paez, P. (2017). Experimental
feasibility study of a new load-based method of testing for light
commercial unitary heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(ASHRAE RP-1608). Science and Technology for the Built Environment,
23(7), 1178-1188. Available at www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23744731.2016.1274628.
\28\ G[ouml]bel, S.A., Zottl, A., Noack, R., Mock, D., Wachau,
A., Vering, C., & M[uuml]ller, D. (2022, August). How to calibrate
heat pump test stands for load-based testing--Towards technology-
neutral prescriptions [Paper presentation]. 14th International
Conference on Applied Energy, ICAE22, August 8-11, 2022, Bochum,
Germany. Available at www.ebc.eonerc.rwth-aachen.de/go/id/dncb/file/
855717?lidx=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, all comments received indicated that the test burden
for load-based testing will be higher than that of conventional fixed-
speed testing laid out in appendix M1.
(4) Thermostat Selection and Built-In Control Firmware
Thermostats (i.e., ``control systems'') can vary significantly in
their control algorithms and communication with the unit under test.
Thus, thermostat selection can play a key role in the results of load-
based tests. In the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested comment on several
impacts of thermostats with respect to load-based testing, including
the observed range of performance of the same unit tested with
different thermostats, and consideration of whether a thermostat needs
to be certified as part of the tested combination. 88 FR 4091, 4099.
DOE also requested comment on what percentage of thermostats may be
updated remotely versus in the field, and how unit behavior in the
field depends on thermostats shipped with the unit versus those
purchased from third-party suppliers. (Id.)
In response to this issue, DOE received comments from several
stakeholders. Carrier and Rheem commented that thermostats have a big
impact on load-based test results. (Carrier, No. 5 at p. 4; Rheem, No.
12 at p. 4) Carrier commented that since the majority of HVAC systems
in the market are not installed with a manufacturer`s thermostat, it
would not be feasible for manufacturers to test with the different
thermostats available. (Carrier, No. 5 at p. 4) Carrier further stated
that only variable speed systems shipped with the manufacturer`s
thermostat should have certification requirements. (Id.) The Joint
Advocates and NYSERDA encouraged DOE to require certification of
thermostats as part of the tested combination. (Joint Advocates, No. 8
at p. 2; NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 6-7) Specifically, the Joint Advocates
encouraged DOE to investigate how the performance of single-stage, two-
stage, and variable speed equipment is impacted by integrations of
different thermostats, and to develop testing requirements for ensuring
that the tested thermostat is representative of the one selected in the
field. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at pp. 2-3)
NYSERDA commented that thermostat selection will be integral to a
CVP, which verifies that the manufacturer`s supplemental testing
instructions for setting critical parameters during fixed-speed testing
are within the range of critical parameters that the system would
utilize when operating under its native controls. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at
pp. 6-7) NYSERDA further commented that communicating systems may only
be compatible with certain thermostats; hence, DOE should have a
regulatory requirement that discourages pairing such systems with
third-party thermostats. (Id.) However, NYSERDA recognized that in some
situations, such as for blower coil indoor units, the system has
communication technology built in that allows the use of any
thermostat, which may not require certification with external
thermostats. (Id. at p. 7) NYSERDA concluded that the actual firmware
governing unit behavior is built into the unit, and not into the
thermostat, meaning that updated testing would be required only in
instances when the updated firmware results in an updated model number.
(Id.) AHRI stated that certification requirements will be complicated
with thermostats, especially when utilizing those that are not
specified by the manufacturer. (AHRI, No. 14 at pp. 9-10) AHRI also
stated that different thermostats will give different load-based test
results, and referred to an article stating that smart thermostats were
only being used by 16 percent of households. (Id.)
Daikin commented that due to the limited time allowed for
submitting comments in response to the January 2023 RFI, it did not
have thermostat-associated data to share with DOE other than that from
its own ``Daikin One'' thermostat. (Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 4-5) Daikin
stated that several issues pertain to thermostat selections, making
load-based testing unrepresentative of real-world situations; for
instance, Daikin questioned whether, in the case of systems installed
with smart thermostats like Nest or EcoBee, the unit manufacturer will
be responsible for rating the system if the thermostat receives a
remote firmware upgrade. (Id.)
Several commenters referred to Annex I of SPE07, which outlines a
Thermostat Environment Emulator (``TEE'') developed by Purdue
University that is a thermostat enclosure aimed at providing controlled
airflow and temperature distribution to the air sensed by the
thermostat. (Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 4-5; Joint Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3;
NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 7) Specifically, Daikin commented that the TEE
demonstrated that thermostat location is an integral part of unit
performance, but such an enclosure is not representative of real-world
installations. (Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 4-5) In contrast, the Joint
Advocates encouraged DOE to adopt something similar to the TEE in its
test procedure so that reproducibility issues occurring between the
various indoor rooms of psychrometric chambers (that conduct
[[Page 24217]]
load-based testing) may be mitigated. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3)
Rheem pointed out that temperature sensors inside thermostats may
not be as responsive or accurate as laboratory-grade temperature
sensors, and because of this, temperature offsets are often necessary
for tests done under native controls. (Rheem, No. 12 at p. 4) Rheem
further commented that since these offsets may be influenced by the air
flow rate over the thermostat, thermostat location, and orientation,
there may be a requirement to dynamically modify this offset as the
load-based test proceeds. (Id.) Rheem stated that remote update of
unit/controller firmware is a relatively new feature, and therefore not
as widely available as firmware updates done in the field by service
technicians. (Id.)
(5) Utilizing Distinct Test Methods for Different Purposes
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether there are
any load-based methods that are being used for regulatory or voluntary
incentive-based programs. 88 FR 4091, 4100. Rheem, AHRI, and NYSERDA
all commented that they are unaware of any load-based methods being
used for the aforementioned purposes. (Rheem, No. 12 at p. 4; AHRI, No.
14 at p. 10; NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 9) Daikin commented that in 2024,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') ENERGY STAR[supreg]
Version 6.1 specifications (``ENERGY STAR Spec V6.1'') \29\ will be
required for the Canada Greener Homes Program, even though currently it
is an optional load-based method applicable only to cold climate heat
pumps (``CCHPs''). (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 5) Daikin pointed out that due
to the resources and efforts required to develop new products with low
global warming potential (``GWP'') refrigerants like R32, Daikin doubts
it will engage in any non-mandatory load-based testing. (Id.) NYSERDA
referred to three initiatives associated with load-based testing,
namely (1) the Canadian market transformation roadmap presented at the
2018 Energy and Mines Ministers' Conference,\30\ (2) British Columbia`s
2022 Heat Pump Technology Attraction Strategy,\31\ and (3) a plan for
differentiating advanced heat pumps using load-based testing criteria
in the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (``NEEP'') qualified
product list.\32\ (NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 8-9) NYSERDA encouraged
incentive-based approaches for advanced heat pumps that include: (1) a
CVP to identify unit operation under native controls, (2) using
regional HSPF2 to differentiate advanced heat pumps, and (3)
prescribing capacity maintenance and coefficient of performance
(``COP'') levels at 5 [deg]F, similar to those in the ENERGY STAR Spec
V6.1 requirements. (Id. at p. 9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Version 6.1 of the ENERGY STAR specification for CAC/HPs,
revised in January 2022, can be found at www.energystar.gov/products/spec/central_air_conditioner_and_air_source_heat_pump_specification_version_6_0_pd.
\30\ NYSERDA referred to p. 32 of the 2018 report titled
``Paving the Road to 2030 and Beyond: Market transformation road map
for energy efficient equipment in the building sector.'' Available
at www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/electricity-alternative-energy/energy-efficiency/18-00072-nrcan-road-map-eng.pdf.
\31\ NYSERDA referred to pages 20, 25, and 26 of the Vancouver
Energy Commission's BC Heat Pump Technology Attraction Strategy,
available at vancouvereconomic.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/11-2022-BC-Heat-Pump-Strategy-Report-Web-1.1.pdf.
\32\ NYSERDA referred to page 14 of the ``Advanced Heat Pump
White paper,'' available at www.mwalliance.org/sites/default/files/media-document/Advanced%20HP%20Whitepaper%20v1.13.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Comparison of Test Conditions of Appendix M1 and SPE07
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE provided a detailed explanation of the
first edition of EXP07. 88 FR 4091, 4095. As previously mentioned,
EXP07 was superseded by SPE07, an updated version of EXP07 with changes
made based on comments received during a technical review period in
January 2023. SPE07 is a load-based methodology where the unit under
test is allowed to respond to a thermostat installed in the return air
stream, while the indoor room conditioning equipment control is used to
adjust that temperature (to represent heating or cooling conditioning
load), mimicking the response of a typical building. The test sequences
through a set of representative outdoor room conditions. In the January
2023 RFI, DOE pointed out that these test conditions differ from those
laid out in appendix M1. 88 FR 4091, 4100. Due to these differences,
DOE requested comment on how unit performance would compare when tested
using the SPE07 test conditions (indoor as well as outdoor) and the
appendix M1 test conditions. Id. DOE further requested feedback on the
pros and cons of potentially revising the test conditions in appendix
M1. Id.
AHRI pointed out that the concept of SPE07 is interesting from a
research perspective but not suitable for regulatory purposes. (AHRI,
No. 14 at p. 5) AHRI noted that the seasonal COP metrics in SPE07 are
climate zone dependent, and there is no metric that calculates unit
performance at a national average level. (AHRI, No. 14 at pp. 5-6) AHRI
pointed to 42 U.S.C. 6291(22), to state that the seasonal COP metrics
cannot be adopted by DOE in appendix M1 as the efficiency descriptors.
(Id. at p. 6) Further, AHRI commented that SPE07 is currently not
applicable to coil-only systems, which means that if adopted, the
process of certification and enforcement for split systems would need
to be overhauled. (Id.) AHRI also pointed that SPE07 currently does not
address AEDMs, which implies that a regulatory regime under SPE07 would
create significant test burden due to the large number of rated
combinations of split-system units. (Id.) AHRI referred to the testing
reporting requirements in appendix M1 for variable speed mini and
multi-splits, stating that SPE07 does not properly define requirements
for established ratings for these products. (Id. at p.7) Finally, AHRI
cited a section of 42 U.S.C 6293(b)(3) to point out that test
procedures should not be unduly burdensome to conduct.\33\ (Id.) AHRI
commented that its commentary is limited to SPE07, stating that it is
the most developed and established load-based methodology, but AHRI
still does not see a viable pathway for SPE07 moving forward. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ From this comment, DOE considers that AHRI wanted to make
the point that SPE07, as it currently stands, is unduly burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daikin and Rheem both commented that since appendix M1 and SPE07
have different performance metrics, their ratings cannot be compared.
(Daikin, No. 16 at p. 5; Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 4-5) Daikin commented
that it lacks data that can be shared comparing appendix M1 and SPE07
testing. (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 5) Daikin pointed out that the different
indoor dry bulb and wet bulb temperature setpoints in appendix M1 and
SPE07 would lead to different efficiencies, and the higher number of
test points in SPE07 adds to test burden. (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 5)
Daikin referred to how the tolerance of 10 percent was chosen when
commercial HVAC products moved to a seasonal metric (integrated energy
efficiency ratio (``IEER'')), from a peak load metric (i.e., EER),
rather than 5 percent, indicating that the tolerance for certified
ratings would have to be increased if DOE adopted a load-based testing
method for regulatory purposes. (Id. at p. 6)
Rheem referred to a research paper \34\ to back its claim that
relative rankings
[[Page 24218]]
of SPE07 and appendix M1 are impossible. (Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 4-5)
Rheem further pointed out that since the indoor dry bulb and wet bulb
temperature in appendix M1 are the same for all tests, the time for
testing is optimized. (Id.) Similarly, Carrier commented that research
currently in progress would enable a comparison of the ranking of units
when tested with appendix M1 and SPE07, but any conclusions cannot be
reached currently. (Carrier, No. 5 at pp. 4-5) Samsung supported AHRI`s
comment on SPE07 and stated that load-based testing is not currently at
a stage where it may be adopted as the mandatory test procedure by DOE.
(Samsung, No. 11 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Dhillon, P., Horton, W. T., & Braun, J. E. (2022).
Comparison of residential heat pump heating seasonal performance
based on load-based and steady-state testing methodologies. ASHRAE
Transactions, 128(1), 181-189. Available at www.techstreet.com/standards/lv-22-c025-comparison-of-residential-heat-pump-heating-seasonal-performance-based-on-load-based-and-steady-state-testing-methodologies?product_id=2505150.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BC Hydro strongly encouraged DOE to adopt SPE07 as the next test
procedure for CAC/HPs and referred to four NEEA papers \35\ that
highlighted lessons learned from EXP07 testing that prompted the update
to SPE07. (BC Hydro, No. 15 at pp. 1-2) Similarly, both the CA IOUs and
the Joint Advocates referred to a NEEP representativeness project \36\
and encouraged DOE to update the CAC/HP test procedure on the basis of
those results. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 2; Joint Advocates, No. 8 at p.
2) NYSERDA commented that more work needs to be done in order to
consider the VBL approach (used as the basis of testing in SPE07), and
specifically referred to additional efforts needed to ensure the
repeatability and reproducibility of this method--namely, field data to
validate lab data, lab-to-lab round robin testing, and an uncertainty
analysis method that accounts for the unit under test`s embedded
controls and thermostat. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Heat Pump and Air Conditioner Efficiency Ratings: Why
Metrics Matter. Available at neea.org/resources/heat-pump-and-air-conditioner-efficiency-ratings-why-metrics-matter.
EXP07:19 Load-Based and Climate-Specific Testing and Rating
Procedures for Heat Pumps and Air Conditioners. Available at
neea.org/resources/exp0719-load-based-and-climate-specific-testing-and-rating-procedures-for-heat-pumps-and-air-conditioners.
CSA EXP07: Ongoing Progress, Lessons Learned, and Future Work in
Load-based Testing of Residential Heat Pumps. Available at neea.org/resources/csa-exp07-ongoing-progress-lessons-learned-and-future-work-in-load-based-testing-of-residential-heat-pumps.
EXP07 Value Engineering Memo and PowerPoint. Available at
neea.org/resources/exp07-value-engineering-memo-and-powerpoint.
\36\ The NEEP Heat Pump Rating Representativeness Project.
Available at neep.org/sites/default/files/media-files/hp_representativeness_research_project-rfp_7.7.21.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding test conditions, NYSERDA commented that it did not have
specific analysis about the overall outdoor conditions but did point
out: (1) SPE07 focuses on more extreme outdoor conditions; (2)
different rankings of appendix M1 metrics and load-based testing
results are mainly due to the influence of the unit`s native controls
on operation and any minor changes to the appendix M1 test conditions
will not have a big impact on rankings; and (3) the addition of a hot-
dry SEER2 rating would better capture performance at extreme
climates.\37\ (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 10) AHRI recommended that a fair
comparison of appendix M1 and SPE07 would involve a study where the
test conditions of each are swapped and the test results compared.
(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 10) AHRI added that measurement uncertainties
associated with both procedures should be accounted for in the
comparison as well. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ In one of its comments, NYSERDA referred to the contents in
Table II-1, which outlines the applicability of the load-based
methods to equipment types (ducted or non-ducted), and the capacity
measurement procedure (calorimetric room or air enthalpy method).
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 9) NYSERDA commented that DOE did not point
out that SPE07 applies to ducted equipment, and the ENERGY STAR CCHP
CVP applies to non-ducted equipment. DOE would like to point out
that it did, in fact, indicate in the table that SPE07 and the
ENERGY STAR CCHP CVP are applicable to ducted and non-ducted
equipment, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Communicating and Non-Communicating Variable Speed Systems
Controls used with CAC/HPs may transfer information between system
components (i.e., communicating systems), or they may use more
conventional low-voltage on-off signals to indicate ``calls'' for space
conditioning and/or consumer selection of fan settings (i.e., non-
communicating). Communicating systems are defined as those that
communicate the difference between space temperature and space setpoint
temperature to the control that sets compressor speed and provides a
signal to the indoor fan to set fan speed appropriate for compressor
staging and air volume rate. 87 FR 16830, 16837. In the January 2023
RFI, DOE requested test data that could potentially show how the
performance of communicating and non-communicating variable speed CAC/
HPs compares when tested using load-based methods, and how do load-
based methods address modulation of compressor speed for systems
equipped with non-communicating controls. 88 FR 4091, 4100.
In response, Daikin, Rheem, AHRI, and NYSERDA commented that they
are not aware of any test or field data comparing the performance of
communicating and non-communicating systems when tested using load-
based methods. (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 6; Rheem, No. 12 at p. 5; AHRI,
No. 14 at pp. 10-11; NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 10)
Daikin commented that load-based test methods would incentivize
manufacturers to develop control schemes that optimize performance in
the test lab rather than in the field. (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 6) Daikin
further stated that the definition adopted by DOE in the October 2022
Final Rule \38\ for Variable Speed Coil-Only systems was too
restrictive and will limit technology and progress. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Section 1.2 of appendix M1 defines ``Communicating Variable
Speed Coil-Only Central Air Conditioner or Heat Pump'' as follows:
Variable speed Communicating Coil-Only Central Air Conditioner or
Heat Pump means a variable speed compressor system having a coil-
only indoor unit that is installed with a control system that (a)
communicates the difference in space temperature and space setpoint
temperature (not a setpoint value inferred from on/off thermostat
signals) to the control that sets compressor speed; (b) provides a
signal to the indoor fan to set fan speed appropriate for compressor
staging and air volume rate; and (c) has installation instructions
indicating that the required control system meeting both (a) and (b)
must be installed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rheem commented that even for non-communicating systems, operating
parameters of the refrigeration cycle are affected by the heat sink
temperatures and heat source. Rheem listed suction pressure, liquid
line pressure, return gas temperature, and liquid line temperature as
the parameters, and cited a research paper \39\ that outlined a
variable system controlled by refrigerant superheat. (Rheem, No. 12 at
p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Yang, D. S., Lee, G., Kim, M. S., Cho, Y. M., Hwang, Y. J.,
& Chung, B. Y. (2004). A study on the capacity control of a variable
speed vapor compression system using superheat information at
compressor discharge. In 10th International Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Conference at Purdue, July 12-15, 2004. Purdue
University Libraries, West Lafayette, IN. Available at
docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc/689/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYSERDA commented that a non-communicating thermostat would not
typically allow the variable speed system to modulate, and the system
will simply cycle on and off like a single-speed system. (NYSERDA, No.
9 at p. 10) NYSERDA cited a research paper indicating that for low-load
conditions, variable speed units suffer more from cycling losses in
comparison to single-stage and two-stage systems. (Id.)
(8) Load-Based Testing for Single-Stage and Two-Stage Systems
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether there
[[Page 24219]]
are aspects of single- and two-stage system operation that are not
adequately captured by appendix M1, and if load-based testing should be
applicable to them. 88 FR 4091, 4101. DOE also requested comment on
whether the current cyclic tests in appendix M1 adequately capture
cyclic losses associated with cycling of compressors when unit capacity
exceeds building load. (Id.)
In response, the Joint Advocates commented that even though load-
based testing is best suited to accurately capture part-load operation
of variable speed systems, it may be beneficial to apply it to single-
stage and two-stage systems. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) In
contrast, Carrier commented that appendix M1 captures the performance
of single- and two-stage systems adequately, and the application of
load-based testing to these systems will not provide any value.
(Carrier, No. 5 at p. 5) Daikin commented that if fixed-speed testing
(currently in appendix M1) is used for single-stage and two-stage
products and load-based testing is used for variable speed products,
then it will not be possible to compare these products on an equivalant
basis. (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 6) Similarly, Rheem pointed out that load-
based testing is mainly appropriate for variable speed products, and
its suitability for single-stage and two-stage systems is questionable.
(Rheem, No. 12 at p. 5) AHRI commented that any test procedure needs to
compare different equipment classes on an equal basis. (AHRI, No. 14 at
p. 11)
Regarding cyclic losses, the Joint Advocates commented that
appendix M1 fails to properly account for the cycling performance of
units. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) The Joint Advocates referred to
the current method of calculating the cyclic degradation coefficient in
appendix M1 \40\ and cited a research paper \41\ to highlight the
issues in this calculation methodology. (Id.) Daikin pointed out the
unsuitability of load-based tests for capturing cyclic losses, by
stating that the cyclic tests in appendix M1 are executed with dry
indoor coils since it is not easy to measure briskly changing moisture
content during these tests. (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 6) Daikin added that
for load-based cyclic tests, the coils will get wet, which will lead to
concerns with the repeatability and reproducibility of capturing cyclic
losses using load-based methods. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Sections 3.5 and 3.8 of appendix M1 contain provisions for
conducting optional cooling and heating cyclic tests. These cyclic
tests are used to determine the Coefficient of Degradation (``CD''),
which is incorporated into the calculation of SEER2 and HSPF2, to
account for any compressor cycling losses. If the optional cyclic
tests are not conducted, appendix M1 requires use of the default CD
value of 0.25. However, for the majority of single- and two-stage
systems, a lower CD can be achieved when completing the optional
cyclic tests, which results in higher SEER2 and HSPF2.
\41\ Dhumane, Rohit; Qiu, Tianyue; Ling, Jiazhen; Aute, Vikrant
Chandramohan; Hwang, Yunho; Radermacher, Reinhard; Kirkwood, Allen
Chad; and Esformes, Jack, ``Evaluating the Impact of the Measurement
Setup on Cyclic Degradation Coefficient of Air Conditioning
Systems'' (2018). International Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Conference. Paper 2012. Available at docs.lib.purdue.edu/iracc/2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(9) Other Factors Affecting System Energy Use
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested comment on how load-based
testing could be used to capture other parameters that affect energy
use of CAC/HPs, particularly, but not limited to, defrost systems,
operation of electric resistance heat, operation of fans during the
shoulder season, and operation of crankcase heaters during off-mode
hours. 88 FR 4091, 4101.
In response, Rheem commented that most power consumption is
accounted for in the off-mode test procedure,\42\ except fan-only
operation, which may be difficult to capture in a load-based test since
outside air is not introduced during operation. (Rheem, No. 12 at p. 5)
AHRI commented that incorporation of the parameters and aspects
mentioned by DOE would result in the need for new energy efficiency
descriptors. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 11) NYSERDA recommended that DOE adopt
an average space heating capacity adjustment using a defrost
degradation coefficient consistent with the provisions of a test
procedure term sheet issued by the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking
Federal Advisory Committee Commercial Unitary Air Conditioner and Heat
Pump Working Group on December 15, 2022 (``2022 ASRAC CUAC and CUHP WG
TP term sheet'').\43\ (NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 10-11) NYSERDA commented
that the cyclic defrost tests in appendix M1 (at outdoor temperature of
35 [deg]F) could still be applicable for evaluating the maximum defrost
degradation. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Section 3.13 of appendix M1 outlines the procedure to
determine off-mode average power ratings.
\43\ On July 21, 2022, ASRAC chartered the CUAC and CUHP Working
Group to negotiate term sheets on the test procedure and energy
conservation standards for CUACs and CUHPs. On December 15, 2022,
the Working Group completed a term sheet for the test procedure,
which is available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Commenter Conclusions Regarding Load-Based Testing
In general, almost all commenters pointed toward several issues
with load-based testing that make it infeasible for adoption as a
regulatory test method at this time. Carrier commented that it is
strongly opposed to DOE adopting any of the load-based testing
procedures described in the January 2023 RFI since current research on
these methods needs to be finalized before DOE incorporates them into
the test procedure. (Carrier, No. 5 at p. 2) Daikin pointed out that
while load-based testing may be appropriate when used as a CVP (similar
to how it is used for VRF products in AHRI 1230-2021: 2021 Standard for
Performance Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (``AHRI 1230-2021'')),\44\ it is
not suitable for evaluating unit efficiency and capacity. (Daikin, No.
16 at p. 1) Daikin encouraged DOE to make modifications to the existing
appendix M1 and adopt a CVP in appendix M1 that is similar to the VRF
CVP, but not to adopt load-based testing as the primary regulatory test
method. (Id. at pp. 1-2) Similary, AHRI commented that although it will
support the improvement of load-based testing as an academic pursuit,
load-based testing has not yet developed sufficiently such that it may
be used for regulatory purposes. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 7) AHRI further
commented it expects DOE to carefully evaluate all the information
manufacturers have to report for certification of their products and
also evaluate the burden for this reporting and testing if planning to
adopt load-based testing. (Id.) NEEA stated that although it has
published several articles that question the rank order performance
ratings evaluated from fixed-speed testing, there is currently no clear
evidence that exhibits the advantages of load-based testing. (NEEA, No.
13 at p. 1) NYSERDA commented that regarding the adoption of load-based
methods for regulatory purposes, DOE should account for products such
as coil-only systems, split system ACs or HPs with coil blowers, and
multi-split products.\45\ (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 6) NYSERDA further
commented that there is still more work that needs to be done in order
to make load-based testing suitable for DOE regulatory purposes. (Id.)
Finally,
[[Page 24220]]
NYSERDA stated that although it supports a feasible and representative
load-based approach, developing a procedure could be challenging. (Id.
at p. 4) The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to collaborate with stakeholders to
move to a test procedure that requires units to operate under native
controls, but recognized that an industry-wide transition to load-based
testing will be time consuming and cost intensive. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at
pp. 1-2) The Joint Advocates commented that load-based testing
methodologies would provide better information on the field operation
of a CAC/HP, in comparison to the fixed-speed tests currently in
appendix M1. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at pp. 1-2) The Joint Advocates
referred to how the native controls testing in DOE's Cold Climate Heat
Pump Technology Challenge (``DOE CCHP Tech Challenge'') \46\ was
informed by the results of the steady-state regulatory tests,\47\ and
suggested that DOE could adopt a similar provision for both cooling and
heating tests, in its amended load-based test procedure. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See www.ahrinet.org/system/files/2023-06/AHRI_Standard_1230-2021.pdf.
\45\ DOE believes that NYSERDA made this comment owing to the
fact that SPE07 does not explicitly state that it is applicable to
these product types.
\46\ On May 19, 2021, DOE, in conjunction with EPA and NRCan,
announced the DOE CCHP Tech Challenge as part of the Energy,
Emissions and Equity (``E3'') Initiative. The specification of the
DOE CCHP Tech Challenge is available at www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/bto-cchp-tech-challenge-spec-102521.pdf.
\47\ As an example, if a heating capacity of 18,000 Btu/h was
measured during the H11 regulatory test, the native
controls ``Min/Mild'' test would apply an equivalent 18,000 Btu/h
cooling load to the indoor room`s conditioning equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead of wholesale adoption of a load-based method, comments
received on the January 2023 RFI pointed toward consensus preference
for a limited form of load-based testing to verify steady-state
regulatory test performance under native controls (i.e., a CVP).
Samsung, Lennox, AHRI, NYSERDA, NEEA, and Rheem all encouraged DOE to
adopt a CVP that would ensure settings used during steady state tests
are representative of those during native controls operation. (Samsung,
No. 11 at pp. 1-2; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 14 at p. 7;
NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 5; NEEA, No. 13 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 12 at p. 3)
Specifically, Lennox stated that while steady state testing currently
used in appendix M1 should continue to be used, a CVP can be used to
validate the settings used to test variable capacity systems. (Lennox,
No. 6 at p. 3) AHRI commented that use of a CVP would be more
repeatable and less burdensome than using load-based testing for direct
measurement of performance, adding that CVPs have been used for other
product categories and may need some adapatation for application to
CAC/HPs. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 9) Additionally, AHRI referred to a study
it co-sponsored with NEEA to collect representative field data, which
was expected to conclude at the end of winter 2022/2023. (Id. at p. 9)
NYSERDA described the CVP used in AHRI 1230-2021 for VRFs and
recommended that DOE adopt something similar to it. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at
p. 5) NYSERDA further recommended that DOE adopt the CVP outlined in
ENERGY STAR Spec V6.1 for the low ambient heating steady-state tests in
appendix M1, namely H32 and H42. (Id. at pp. 5-6)
NYSERDA referred to how the wet bulb test conditon in the H4 heating
test had increased from 3 [deg]F to 4 [deg]F, which would decrease test
burden for labs if they conduct a load-based CVP outlined in ENERGY
STAR Spec V6.1. (Id.) NYSERDA further encouraged DOE to adopt a
``budget'' method to account for variability in critical parameters
during a CVP, and recommended incorporation of a CVP for validating the
H11 (heating minimum) test, and also a minimum-speed CVP at
outdoor dry bulb temperature of 17 [deg]F.\48\ (Id.) NYSERDA commented
that performance of units at part-load at milder temperatures has a
pronounced impact on the overall seasonal energy efficiency, especially
when considering the intersection of low-speed loads beween 17 [deg]F
and 47 [deg]F, highlighting that this impact was not fully considered
in implementation of the ``Min/Mild'' CVP in the specifications of the
DOE CCHP Tech Challenge. (Id. at p. 6) NEEA referred to the two types
of CVPs as descibed in section III.F.1.b. and commented the results of
a study it performed called into question whether a CVP can truly
capture the impact of native controls on unit performance.\49\ (Id. at
pp. 3-6) Hence, NEEA commented that DOE needs additional test data to
make any claims that CVP testing fully addresses the impact of native
control logic on unit performance. Id. NEEA pointed to the
representativeness study \50\ being conducted by NEEP on three ducted
and three non-ducted heat pumps, tested using AHRI 210/240 and SPE07,
and stated that this study could potentially indicate what elements of
a CVP are critical to include in a revised appendix M1, and also inform
other issues raised by DOE in the RFI, namely the repeatability,
reproducibility, and test burden of load-based methods when compared to
fixed-speed testing. (Id. at pp. 2-3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Currently, appendix M1 only has a full-speed heating test
at an ambient outdoor temperature of 17 [deg]F, i.e., the
H32 test.
\49\ Bruce Harley, Mark Alatorre, Christopher Dymond, Gary
Hamer, ``CSA EXP07: Ongoing Progress, Lessons Learned, and Future
Work in Load-based Testing of Residential Heat Pumps'' (2022).
Purdue University. Available at docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3455&context=iracc.
\50\ In its comment, NEEA pointed out that preliminary analysis
and data from this study will be available probably by July 2023,
but at the time of writing this NOPR, neither the analysis, nor the
data, has become available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To summarize, comments from the January 2023 RFI indicated that
stakeholders preferred a CVP for validating the performance of variable
capacity systems, rather than adopting a load-based testing method for
regulatory purposes.
(d) DOE's Conclusion and Approach
As mentioned previously, AHRI and other relevant stakeholders,
including DOE, participated in the development of revised AHRI test
standards to address the issues raised in the January 2023 RFI. In
particular, the issues outlined in the aforementioned comments in
regard to the representativeness of fixed-speed testing for variable
speed systems were discussed in detail and consensus was developed on a
CVP approach. Based on review of the stakeholder comments received in
response to the January 2023 RFI, specifically that it has not yet been
conclusively demonstrated that such methods have sufficient
repeatability and reproducibility to be the basis of direct measurement
of system performance, DOE has tentatively concluded that use for
direct measurement of performance for regulatory purposes would not be
suitable at this time. However, DOE also tentatively concludes that a
CVP would be necessary to ensure that fixed-speed settings of variable
speed systems would be achieved using native (unfixed) control. Thus,
DOE proposes to adopt the CVP outlined in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and
AHRI 1600-202X Draft through incorporation by reference. The next
section discusses the aforementioned CVP approach.
(e) CVP Proposal
Appendix I of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft
includes a CVP to verify variable capacity system operation. The CVP is
intended to validate whether override of modulating components in
regulatory tests is consistent with native control operation. The CVP
verifies: (1) compliance with the variable capacity compressor system
definition; and (2) consistency of fixed-position settings for the
compressor and indoor fan used in steady-state regulatory tests with
native control operation.
The CVP in appendix I includes a set of three cooling tests
conducted in
[[Page 24221]]
series with intervening transition periods, including the full,
intermediate, and minimum capacities. The CVP uses a modified VBL \51\
approach to simulate space condition (temperature and humidity)
response to system operation, as explained in section III.F.1.b.3 of
this document. Similarly, the CVP also includes three or four heating
tests conducted in series for CHPs--the fourth test is specified for
those CHPs for which performance at 5 [deg]F outdoor temperature is
measured. Similar to the cooling tests, the heating tests have
intervening transition periods between the full, intermediate, and
minimum capacity test intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ The modified VBL in the CVP differs from the VBL in SPE07.
For the modified VBL, the building load used in the equations does
not depend on the indoor temperature and is a fixed function of
target indoor and outdoor temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the three cooling tests, the indoor return air conditions are
controlled by equations I1-I6 and paragraph I4.1.8 in AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft--i.e., the indoor return air wet bulb
temperature is set at 67 [deg]F, and the indoor return air dry bulb
target varies near 80 [deg]F based on the varying system capacity and
calculated building load. The temperature setpoint of the control of
the system being tested is set throughout the series of tests near 80
[deg]F with some adjustment to account for control bias and offset. The
outdoor dry bulb temperature is held constant at three different levels
during the three cooling-mode tests, but is controlled to ramp down
from higher to lower temperature as the cooling mode CVP transitions
between the full load, intermediate load, and low load test intervals.
For the heating tests, the indoor return air conditions are
controlled by equations I7-I13 in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI
1600-202X Draft. The indoor return air dry bulb temperature varies near
70 [deg]F based on the varying system capacity and calculated building
load. The temperature setpoint of the control of the system being
tested is set throughout the series of tests near 70 [deg]F with some
adjustment to account for control bias and offset. The outdoor dry bulb
temperature is held constant at three or four different levels, but is
controlled to ramp up from lower to higher temperature as the heating
mode CVP transitions between the full load (at 5 [deg]F if applicable
and 17 [deg]F outdoor dry bulb temperature), intermediate load, and low
load test intervals.
As noted, part of the CVP (the intermediate-load test) determines
compliance with the variable-capacity compressor system definition.
AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft define variable
capacity compressor systems as:
Variable capacity compressor system means an air conditioner or
heat pump that has either (a) a compressor that uses a variable speed
drive or inverter to vary the compressor speed by four or more speeds
in each mode of operation (i.e., cooling/heating), or (b) a digital
compressor that mechanically modulates output using a duty cycle; and
which controls the system by monitoring system operation and
automatically modulating the compressor output, indoor air flow and
other system parameters as required in order to maintain the indoor
room temperature.
To determine compliance with the definition, the CVP results
obtained from the intermediate load interval is evaluated based on
section I4.3.1 of appendix I in in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft, which
requires that the standard deviation of the system power does not
exceed 20 percent of the mean system power. For a system that does not
comply with this compressor power (or outdoor unit power) requirement,
and cycles between off and a single stage or capacity level (+/-15
percent), the system is classified as a variable capacity certified,
single capacity system. If this occurs for just one of the operating
modes (heating or cooling) for a heat pump, the system is classified as
variable capacity certified, single capacity for both modes.
Additionally, a system that does not comply with the compressor power
(or outdoor unit power) requirement is not classified as Variable
Capacity Certified, Single-Capacity, and cycles between more than one
stage or capacity level (+/-15 percent) is classified as a Variable
Capacity Certified, Two-Capacity System. Again, this designation
applies for both modes for a heat pump, even if the operation meets
this description for one of the modes. These terms are defined in AHRI
210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft as:
Variable Capacity Certified, Single Capacity System means a system
that is certified as a variable capacity system but demonstrates
Single-Capacity System behavior during the Variable Capacity
Determination CVP in appendix I.
Variable Capacity Certified, Two Capacity System means a system
that is certified as a variable capacity system, but demonstrates Two-
Capacity System behavior during the Variable Capacity Determination CVP
in appendix I.
Use of the Intermediate Load CVP test and its determination of
compliance with the variable speed system definition in DOE enforcement
testing is discussed in section III.K.2 of this document.
The full-load and low-load intervals of the CVP determine if the
fixed-speed settings for the compressor and indoor fan used during the
regulatory test are consistent with those that occur when the unit is
allowed to modulate under native controls, as it maintains the indoor
room dry bulb temperature. During the cooling mode CVP,\52\ the indoor
return air wet bulb temperature is maintained at 67.0 [deg]F, but the
updated target indoor dry-bulb temperature setpoint for the indoor room
reconditioning system, RAT(t + [Delta]t), is updated based on equations
I4-I6 of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft, as shown
below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ For brevity, only cooling mode is explained in the NOPR, to
illustrate the 2nd part of the CVP.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.049
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where,
RAT(t) = the current indoor dry-bulb temperature setpoint for the
indoor room reconditioning system
Qs = the net sensible cooling capacity provided by the unit under
test in the current time step, as determined by air-side
measurements (see note below)
[Delta]t = the time interval for updating the indoor room
reconditioning system controller setpoint, in h
C = the simulated thermal capacitance of the building interior, in
units of Btu/[deg]F, given by
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.050
VLs(Tj) = the sensible cooling portion of the modified VBL for
target outdoor ambient dry-bulb temperature for each interval.
The magnitude of VLs(Tj) is directly proportional to the certified
cooling
[[Page 24222]]
capacity at 67 [deg]F outdoor ambient-dry bulb temperature--i.e., the
Flow test, and the target SHR from the Flow
regulatory tests, as illustrated in equations I1 and I3 of AHRI 210/
240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft. Thus, this illustrates that
the modulation of the compressor speed setting and indoor air flow rate
is verified against those used in the regulatory tests, as the unit
tries to maintain the indoor dry-bulb temperature.
DOE proposes that load-based testing will be not part of the test
procedure required for each test for any CAC/HP products. DOE
acknowledges that the CVP approach outlined in appendix I of the
relevant AHRI drafts represents industry consensus regarding the
verification of compliance of systems with the variable capacity system
definition, and to verify the consistency of fixed-speed settings of
compressor and indoor fan with native control operation as part of
enforcement. DOE considers that this CVP approach will provide a more
representative test procedure for variable speed systems operating in
the field, because it provides a tool to verify that the compressor
speed settings and indoor air fan settings used in regulatory tests are
representative of native-control operation as the unit operates to
maintain the thermostat setpoint, i.e., indoor dry-bulb temperature.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference appendix I of
the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft to support enforcement associated with
testing conducted in accordance with appendix M1, and to incorporate by
reference appendix I of the AHRI 1600-202X Draft to support enforcement
associated with testing conducted in accordance with appendix M2. This
is discussed in more detail in section III.K.2 of this document.
2. Low-Temperature Heating Performance
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested comment on several issues
regarding the foundational work needed to improve the appendix M1 test
procedure to better account for CAC/HP performance in cold climates, as
recommended by NYSERDA during the previous rulemaking cycle that
culminated in the October 2022 Final Rule. 88 FR 4091, 4103. In
response to the low-temperature heating performance issues raised in
the January 2023 RFI (i.e., whether to make the H4 heating tests
mandatory, whether the heating load line should be based on heating or
cooling capacity, and methods of heat pump sizing), DOE received
several comments regarding the establishment of a clear definition for
a CCHP as well as potential ways of reporting performance for CCHPs.
These aforementioned topics are detailed in separate sections below.
(a) CCHP Definition
In response to the January 2023 RFI, several stakeholders commented
in support of establishing a definition for products specifically
engineered to provide comfort heating at low ambient conditions (i.e.,
CCHPs). Daikin recommended that DOE work with stakeholders to establish
a clear definition for CCHPs, whether as a separate product class or an
optional set of recognition criteria. (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 9)
Similarly, AHRI commented in support of a uniform definition for
products specifically engineered to provide comfort heating at low
ambient conditions. (AHRI, No. 14 at pp. 2-3) AHRI commented that
engagement from all stakeholders would be necessary to overcome the
shortcomings of previous efforts to develop a definition for CCHPs.
(Id.)
Additionally, in forming a DOE definition for CCHPs, AHRI requested
it be acknowledged that (1) not all U.S. consumers would benefit from
higher-tech CCHPs, and (2) the topography of the United States makes it
difficult to assign regions that would correlate heating degree days in
the same way as is done for split-system air conditioners, as shown by
Figure 1 \53\ of AHRI's response to the January 2023 RFI. (AHRI, No. 14
at p. 3) Referring to Figure 1, AHRI commented that it is easy to see
the cooling degree day division between the North and South, as in
effect today, and that heating degree days, on the other hand, meander
and are very closely tied to elevation and longitude (to some extent).
(Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Figure 1 of AHRI's response to the January 2023 RFI shows
average annual cooling and heating degree days in the contiguous
United States from 1901-2000, using National Centers for
Environmental Information (``NCEI'') data compiled by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (``NOAA''). (AHRI, No. 14 at
p. 3) A degree day is equivalent to one day with an average
temperature that is one degree above or below 65 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders, including
DOE, discussed several issues raised in the January 2023 RFI when
considering updated versions of industry standards, including the topic
of a clear definition for CCHPs. DOE notes that AHRI 210/240-202X Draft
and AHRI 1600-202X Draft both include a new definition for CCHP as
shown below:
Cold climate heat pump means a heat pump for which both low-
temperature compressor cut-out and cut-in temperatures are specified to
be less than 5 [deg]F and for which capacity for the H4full
test (at 5 \0\F) is certified to be at least 70 percent of the capacity
for the nominal full capacity test conducted at 47 \0\F
(H1Full or H1Nom).
DOE surmises that the CCHP definition provided in the relevant AHRI
drafts represents industry consensus regarding a uniform definition for
products specifically engineered to provide comfort heating at low
ambient conditions. DOE has also tentatively determined that the
definition includes the relevant criteria to characterize CCHP
performance, specifically low-temperature cut-out and cut-in
temperature settings to allow operation down to at least 5 [deg]F
ambient temperature, and maintenance of heating capacity at low
temperatures. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference
the definition of a cold climate heat pump provided in the AHRI 210/
240-202X and AHRI 1600-202X Drafts, at appendix M1 and appendix M2,
respectively.
(b) Mandatory H4 Heating Tests for CCHPs
While the H4 heating tests provide meaningful information and more
representative ratings for products designed specifically for low
temperature operation, in the January 2023 RFI, DOE noted that the
current appendix M1 test procedure includes H4 heating tests as
optional tests, as they may not be appropriate for all HPs. 88 FR 4091,
4103. Currently, appendix M1 allows the performance at 5 [deg]F to be
extrapolated based on tests conducted at 17 [deg]F and 47 [deg]F (i.e.,
using the H32 and H12 tests, respectively) for
HPs that are not tested at the H4 heating condition.
As such, in the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether
it would be appropriate to make the H4, H42, or
H43 heating tests in appendix M1 mandatory for either all or
a subset of HPs (e.g., CCHPs) in order to produce more representative
ratings that account for system performance at 5 [deg]F. 88 FR 4091,
4103. In the case of mandating the H4 heating tests for only a subset
of HPs, DOE requested information on what characteristics would
represent a clear delineation to distinguish such models from others.
(Id.) DOE also requested information on the prevalence of test chambers
capable of testing CHPs at an outdoor ambient temperature of 5 [deg]F.
(Id.)
In response, AHRI and Daikin recommended that the H4 tests be
mandated only for variable speed HPs for which the compressor speed at
the H4 condition was different from that at the H1 and H3 condition.
(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 13; Daikin, No. 16 at p. 9) Daikin
[[Page 24223]]
asserted that it does not make sense to require the H4 tests for any HP
that does not change speed, because, for single- and two-stage HPs,
performance at 5 [deg]F can be extrapolated based on existing test data
since compressor performance is linear for those products. (Daikin, No.
16 at p. 9) Daikin clarified that the mandatory H4 tests would be
applicable even for a variable speed HP where the manufacturer is
targeting the southern United States as a market. (Id.)
Like AHRI and Daikin, Rheem commented against mandating the H4
tests for single- and two-stage equipment; however, Rheem neither
supported nor opposed mandating the H4 tests for variable speed
systems. (Rheem, No. 12 at p. 7) Rheem noted that the current test
procedure in appendix M1 allows linear extrapolation of heat pump
performance at outdoor temperatures colder than 17 [deg]F using
equations 4.2.1-4 and 4.2.1-5 for HPs having a single-speed compressor,
and using equations 4.2.2-3 and 4.2.2-4 for HPs having a two-capacity
compressor. (Id.) As such, Rheem commented that the test procedure in
appendix M1 reliably indicates heat pump performance in cold climates
for single- and two-stage equipment. (Id.) However, for variable speed
systems, Rheem acknowledged that, in addition to compressor speed,
indoor and outdoor airflow rates may change, which may bring the
accuracy of linear extrapolation into question for these systems. (Id.)
Lennox commented against the idea of making the H4 tests mandatory
for any HPs, contending that consumer needs in many areas of the United
States with milder climates do not need the capability of a CCHP and,
thus, should not require the additional test burden associated with
mandatory H4 tests. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4)
NEEA recommended making the H4 heating tests mandatory for all HPs,
but not required within the test metric, contending that this would
result in a more representative assessment of cold climate efficiency
and capacity across all HPs. (NEEA, No. 13 at pp. 7-8) Further, NEEA
commented that in conversations with industry representatives, NEEA has
received indications that many manufacturers already have test chambers
that can test down to 5 [deg]F, suggesting that the testing
infrastructure is already in place to implement a mandatory requirement
for the H4 heating tests. (Id.)
NEEA also recommended that for units required to test at part-load
conditions (e.g., CCHPs), DOE require reporting unit COP at part load
conditions. (NEEA, No. 13 at p. 7) Specifically, NEEA recommended that
DOE require the reporting of COP at FLow (at 67 [deg]F) and
H1Low (at 47 [deg]F) for units that are required to test at
those conditions. (Id.) NEEA commented that, by requiring manufacturers
to report this data in a consistent format, contractors will be able to
make better-informed choices about equipment that works in their
climate, and utility companies will know which heat pumps to recommend
(i.e., incentivize) to their customers. (Id.) NEEA pointed to DOE's
CCHP Tech Challenge specifications as an example of the kind of
information that consumers and utilities need in order to make informed
decisions for their desired region and application. (Id.)
NYSERDA encouraged DOE to make H42 tests mandatory, but
only for United States North climate regions, at air-entering outdoor
unit temperatures of 5 [deg]F dry bulb and 4 [deg]F (max) wet bulb.
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 4) NYSERDA explained that a precedence for
mandatory H42 tests was recently codified in Canada's
Regulations Amending the Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 (Amendment
17), published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, on December 7, 2022.\54\
(Id.) NYSERDA noted that mandatory reporting requirements to National
Resources Canada (``NRCan'') as of January 1, 2023, are as follows: (a)
a Region V HSPF2; (b) information that indicates whether the results of
the appendix M1 H4 test, if conducted, were included in the calculation
of the Region V HSPF2; (c) heating capacity at 5 [deg]F if the H4 test
was conducted; and (d) COP at 5 [deg]F if the H4 test was conducted.
(Id.) Further, NYSERDA noted that, in Canada, HPs manufactured on or
after January 1, 2025, must be tested at the H4 test conditions
prescribed in appendix M1, and that mandatory reporting requirements to
NRCan for the H4 test conditions include heating capacity at 5 [deg]F
and COP at 5 [deg]F. (Id.) More broadly, NYSERDA recommended that DOE
should study more carefully whether the incentives to conduct the
optional H42 tests on good-performing cold climate equipment
(because it would increase the HSPF2 rating, particularly in region V)
are enough to ensure that most manufacturers would conduct the test to
demonstrate that benefit. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See canadagazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2022/2022-12-21/html/sor-dors265-eng.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders, including
DOE, discussed issues raised in the January 2023 RFI, including the
topic of mandatory H4 heating tests for either all or a subset of HPs,
when developing updated industry standards in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft
and AHRI 1600-202X Draft. DOE notes that these draft industry standards
include a footnote to Table 7 (i.e., the required tests table),
applicable to all product types, requiring the H4full
heating test for all products that meet the definition of a CCHP. DOE
surmises that this new mandate for all products certified as a CCHP in
the relevant AHRI drafts represents industry consensus regarding
whether it would be appropriate to make the H4 heating tests mandatory
for either all or a subset of HPs. DOE has tentatively determined that
the H4 heating tests are representative of CCHP operation. Therefore,
in addition to its proposal to incorporate the CCHP definition as
discussed in section III.E.2.a of this document, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the mandate for products certified as CCHP to
conduct the H4 heating tests (either the H4, H42, or
H43 heating test, as applicable) provided in the AHRI 210/
240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft, at appendix M1 and appendix
M2, respectively.
(c) Heating Load Line and Sizing for CCHPs
In a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (``SNOPR'')
regarding CAC/HP test procedures published on August 24, 2016 (``August
2016 SNOPR''), DOE noted that most heat pump units in the field are
sized based on cooling capacity as opposed to heat pump capacity,
consistent with the Air Conditioning Contractors of America (``ACCA'')
Manual S provisions. 81 FR 58163, 58188. Subsequently, in the January
2017 Final Rule, DOE revised appendix M1 such that the determination of
the heating load line was based on cooling capacity rather than heating
capacity. 82 FR 1426, 1453-1454. In the January 2023 RFI, DOE explained
that part of the motivation for this change was that the previous
approach of heating load line determination based on the nominal
heating capacity (``H1N capacity'') provided little
incentive to design for good heat pump performance, since low
H1N capacity resulted in a low load line and generally
better HSPF2. 88 FR 4091, 4103. DOE explained that sizing based on
cooling capacity is consistent with trends for sales distributions of
heat pumps, which have had greater adoption in milder climates than
cold climates.\55\ (Id.) However, DOE also
[[Page 24224]]
expressed awareness that NRCan has proposed alternatives for sizing
CAC/HPs, in its ``Air Source Heat Pump Sizing and Selection Guide,''
\56\ which provides four different approaches with varying emphasis on
heating vs. cooling, ranging from sizing based on cooling to sizing
such that the heat pump can meet the design heating load without need
for resistance auxiliary heat. (Id.) In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
acknowledged that in cold climates, sizing a heat pump for heating may
be more appropriate than sizing for cooling. (Id.) Further, DOE
acknowledged that accurate information regarding heat pump cold-weather
performance is relevant for selection of the best heat pumps for cold
climates. (Id.) Nevertheless, DOE found it unclear how a test procedure
using a heating load line based on heating performance would
incentivize good heating performance, particularly if it is based on
heating performance at 47 [deg]F, which is not a heating design
temperature, and noted that this is the same issue that led DOE to move
to the cooling-capacity-based heating load line in appendix M1 in the
January 2017 Final Rule.\57\ (Id.) As a result, in the January 2023
RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the test procedure for CCHPs
should use a heating load line based on heating performance, and how
such an approach could be implemented such that it does not weaken the
incentive for good cold-temperature heating performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS'') 2020 data
shows that electric heat pumps represent 29 percent of primary space
heating equipment in homes in the South region, which is a higher
number as compared to the 14 percent for US overall. See
www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/hc/pdf/HC%206.8.pdf.
\56\ The ``Air Source Heat Pump Sizing and Selection Guide'' was
written by NRCan in response to stakeholder requests for consistent
guidance for sizing ASHPs according to the design heating or cooling
load and intended use as well as identifying the appropriate system
according to the installation and application. The four methods of
sizing in the Guide are Options 4A (Emphasis on Cooling), 4B
(Balanced Heating and Cooling), 4C (Emphasis on Heating) and 4D
(Sized on Design Heating Load). The ``Air Source Heat Pump Sizing
and Selection Guide'' is available at publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2021/rncan-nrcan/M154-138-2020-eng.pdf.
\57\ See 82 FR 1426, 1453-1459 of the January 2017 Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, NYSERDA commented that sizing for cooling mode in
climates where HPs will increasingly be relied upon to provide full
home heat is not an appropriate approach to ensure that the right
equipment is sized and selected, and suggested that a regional approach
to HSPF2 ratings should be considered for CCHPs to allow for the
prioritization of design heating performance. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 2)
NYSERDA commented in support of prioritizing sizing based on design
heating loads at design temperatures as low as -4 [deg]F, specifically
pointing to the NRCan ``Air Source Heat Pump Sizing and Selection
Guide'' mentioned previously. (Id.) Citing the NEEP ``Guide to Sizing &
Selecting Air-Source Heat Pumps in Cold Climates,'' \58\ NYSERDA
explained that installers are recommended to match system heating
capacity (minus any reliance on auxiliary heat) at design temperatures
within 100-115 percent of the estimated heating load. (Id.) Further,
NYSERDA commented that in partnership with electric utilities in New
York, NYSERDA has designed a tool for residential buildings capable of
demonstrating that a CCHP sized for heating load may be considered to
meet an alternate compliance method for the mechanical design
requirements under the 2020 Energy Conservation Construction Code of
New York State, which would typically apply to the International Energy
Conservation Code (``IECC'') as well.\59\ (Id.) NYSERDA noted that the
tools and guidance around sizing for heating load were developed to
ensure successful installations of CCHPs and grew out of market needs
for this information. NYSERDA pointed to a DOE-sponsored market survey
conducted of 156 ductless HP (single-split systems as defined in
appendix M1) owners in Juneau, Alaska, that confirmed owners place
emphasis on design heating loads while prioritizing climate, reducing
fossil fuel usage, and lowering heating costs.\60\ (Id.) The survey
results showed that the ability to have air conditioning was ranked the
lowest in terms of owners' priorities, that about 93 percent of
homeowners expressed satisfaction with their decision to install
ductless HPs, and that most respondents viewed ductless HPs as products
that would entirely replace or significantly reduce the use of other
heating sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See neep.org/sites/default/files/resources/ASHP%20Sizing%20%26%20Selecting%20-%208x11_edits.pdf.
\59\ See cleanheat.ny.gov/contractor-resources/.
\60\ See cchrc.org/media/2020-Juneau-DHP-Survey-Final1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside from its suggested design for heating in cold climates,
NYSERDA commented that it would not support changing the heating load
line equations in appendix M1. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 2-3) NYSERDA
reasoned that revising the rating procedure to account for heating
sizing in the building heating load line equation would essentially
suppress the heating load seen by HPs and reduce or minimize the
assumed use of auxiliary electric heat in the HSPF bin model. (Id.)
NYSERDA commented that this would have the impact of overstating the
performance of systems that have poor capacity in cold weather
conditions, and would reduce (not emphasize) the differences in HSPF
between those systems and others that have high capacity at low outdoor
temperatures. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented in support of NYSERDA's recommendation for
assuming heat pump sizing based on the design heating load solely in
heating-dominated regions. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 4) Similarly, AHRI
and Rheem both commented that they would support modifications to the
test procedure to address the differences between the cooling and
heating load profiles for colder climates. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 13;
Rheem, No. 12 at p. 7)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders, including
DOE, discussed several issues raised in the January 2023 RFI, including
the topic of the heating load line and sizing for CCHPs, when
considering updated versions of industry standards. The information
provided in the aforementioned comments was discussed in detail in the
development of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft,
which include no exception for CCHPs to base the heating load line on
heating performance rather than cooling performance. DOE surmises that
the absence of such an exception in the relevant AHRI drafts represents
industry consensus regarding whether the test procedure for CCHPs
should use a heating load line based on heating performance, rather
than cooling performance. Further, DOE has tentatively concluded that
the aforementioned approach is appropriate for sizing of CCHPs and is
consistent with DOE's position expressed in a prior rulemaking that the
heating load line determination based on the nominal heating capacity
(H1N capacity) provides little incentive to design for good heat pump
performance, since low H1N capacity results in a low load line and
generally better HSPF. (See 81 FR, 58164, 58186). This would hold true
also if the heating load line was based on a different heating
operating condition, e.g. capacity for 5 [deg]F outdoor temperature,
since poor performance at the test point would lower the heating load
line. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate no exception for CCHPs
to base the heating load line on heating performance rather than
cooling performance (i.e., DOE proposes to retain the current size-for-
cooling approach) at both appendix M1 and appendix M2.
[[Page 24225]]
(d) Cold Climate Heating Metric of Interest, COPpeak
Currently, the Federal energy conservation standards and
certification, compliance, and enforcement provisions for CAC/HPs only
require manufacturers to report the HSPF2 of HPs based on Region IV.
However, DOE acknowledges that Region IV HSPF2 may not adequately
represent the cold climate performance of such systems.
To better represent the heating performance of HPs in cold
climates, in response to the January 2023 RFI, NYSERDA commented in
support of the use and publication of Region V HSPF2 in addition to
Region IV HSPF2, and of designating Region V HSPF2 as a relevant ``cold
climate'' heating metric of interest. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 3) Table 1
of NYSERDA's response summarizes the heating fractional bin hours for
several U.S. cities in cold and very cold climate regions \61\ and
compares them to the current Region IV heating fractional bin hours
presented in Table 20 of appendix M1. (Id.) NYSERDA stated that, since
the heating fractional bin hours in Region V are present across all
bins compared to Region IV, for cities located in climate zones
designated as subarctic/arctic by the IECC, weather data suggest a
Region V HSPF2 is more appropriate for all cold climate regions and
shows focusing only on Region IV HSPF2 does not benefit consumers in
colder climates. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ The heating fractional bin hours in Table 1 of NYSERDA's
response are based on archived weather data accessed from National
Renewable Energy Laboratory's (``NREL'') National Solar Radiation
Database (``NSRDB'') and NREL's PSM v3 TMY weather data accessed
from NSRDB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, AHRI commented in support of a test method for products
specifically engineered to provide comfort heating at low ambient
conditions. (AHRI, No. 14 at pp. 2-3) AHRI commented that engagement
from all stakeholders would be necessary to overcome the shortcomings
of previous efforts to develop testing methodologies for CCHPs. (Id.)
Carrier also commented that all stakeholders could benefit from an
update to appendix M1 that includes optional tests to improve the
representativeness of products marketed as a CCHP. (Carrier, No. 5 at
p. 1)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders, including
DOE, discussed several issues raised in the January 2023 RFI when
considering updated versions of industry standards, including the topic
of test methods that accurately measure the cold climate heating
performance of HPs. The information provided in the aforementioned
comments was discussed in detail in the development of the AHRI 210/
240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft, which add a new test method in
appendix L to measure the heating performance of HPs at low ambient
temperatures. Rather than designate Region V HSPF2 as the relevant
``cold climate'' heating metric of interest or requiring a separate
test procedure for CCHPs, appendix L of the AHRI 210/240-202X and AHRI
1600-202X Drafts include the calculation steps for a new heating
performance metric, the peak load coefficient of performance
(``COPpeak''), intended to provide an indication of total
heating efficiency as applied under peak heating load conditions.
Specifically, COPpeak conveys the total energy consumed by
both the HP and supplemental heat when meeting the building load at 5
[deg]F, calculated using the equation below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.051
and BL(5) is the building load at 5 [deg]F, is the electrical power
consumption of the heat pump during the H4Full test, and
Full is the space heating capacity of the heat pump during the
H4Full test.
COPpeak provides the opportunity for manufacturers to
make optional representations of their HPs, regardless of whether they
are CCHPs, and is distinct from COP at the H4 testing conditions as it
accounts for the additional resistance heat required to meet the
building load under peak conditions. As such, COPpeak would
be less than the tested COP at 5 [deg]F but greater than 1, for any HP
with COP greater than 1 at 5 [deg]F.
DOE surmises that the inclusion of COPpeak in the
relevant AHRI drafts represents industry consensus regarding
improvements to representations of HP performance at low ambient
temperatures. DOE has tentatively determined that inclusion of
COPpeak would allow for representative characterizations of
HP performance at low ambient temperatures. Therefore, DOE is proposing
to incorporate by reference COPpeak as an optional
representation for manufacturers hoping to advertise their HPs' peak
load performance, as outlined in appendix L of the AHRI 210/240-202X
and AHRI 1600-202X Drafts, at appendix M1 and appendix M2,
respectively.
3. Cut-Out and Cut-In Temperature Certification
The calculation of HSPF2 in appendix M1 requires values for cut-out
\62\ and cut-in \63\ temperatures (see, e.g., equation 4.2.1-3 in
section 4.2 of appendix M1). For CAC/HPs that do not include the cut-
out and cut-in temperatures in their installation manuals, the
manufacturer (or DOE, in the case of compliance testing) must provide
the test lab with this information. In the January 2023 RFI, DOE
explained that, based on lab testing, it has found manufacturers often
use cut-out and cut-in temperatures in their HSPF2 calculations that
are much lower than can be reasonably expected in the field--in some
instances as low as -40 [deg]F. 88 FR 4091, 4105. DOE expressed concern
in this finding because of a review of product literature for scroll
compressors with model numbers Copeland ZP*3KE and ZP*5KE R-410A
(typically used in CAC/HPs) that shows the lowest refrigerant
evaporating temperature of these systems is no lower than -10
[deg]F.\64\ (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Cut-out temperature refers to the outdoor temperature at
which the unit compressor stops (cuts out) operation.
\63\ Cut-in temperature refers to the outdoor temperature at
which the unit compressor restarts (cuts in) operation.
\64\ Figure 7 in the operating bulletin of the Copeland ZP*3KE
and ZP*5KE R-410A scroll compressors shows their evaporating
envelope, clearly indicating that they should not be used below
saturated suction temperatures of -10 [deg]F, implying that this
should be set as the cut-out temperature. The bulletin is available
at climate.emerson.com/documents/ae-1331-zp16-to-zp44k3e-zp14-to-zp61k5e-r-410a-1-5-to-5-ton-copeland-scroll-compressors-en-us-1571048.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE also shared findings, in testing, that
the ambient temperatures at which a unit's control cuts out and cuts in
may significantly differ from the control's specified temperatures. 88
FR 4091, 4105. DOE acknowledged that this can be due to control
component manufacturing variation. (Id.) However, DOE also explained
that it can be due to sensors being located where
[[Page 24226]]
temperature deviates from that of the ambient air (e.g., downstream of
the outdoor coil, which absorbs heat from the ambient air during heat
pump operation). (Id.) As such, in the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested
information on the range of cut-out temperatures for compressor
operation of CAC/HPs. (Id.)
In response, Rheem commented that a sufficient hysteresis, or
difference between cut-in and cut-out temperatures, is necessary for
reliable compressor operation and in some cases is prescribed by the
compressor drive manufacturer. (Rheem, No. 12 at p. 8) The CA IOUs
concurred with DOE's observation that the controls and sensors can
significantly impact actual cut-in and cut-out temperatures and
commented in support of DOE's investigation of cut-out and cut-in
temperature certification, stating that the CA IOUs had observed
similar discrepancies between cut-out temperatures listed in
manufacturer installation/operations materials relative to those seen
under native controls in laboratory testing of packaged terminal heat
pumps. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 4) The Joint Advocates encouraged DOE to
consider adopting a cut-in and cut-out temperature validation test
(instead of relying on manufacturer-provided values), if DOE determines
that the discrepancies regarding cut-out and cut-in temperatures
described earlier contributes to unrepresentative ratings of seasonal
heating performance. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3)
NYSERDA also supported an approach to certify cut-out and cut-in
temperatures and proposed that DOE consider recommendation 10 of the
2022 ASRAC CUAC and CUHP WG TP term sheet. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 12-
13) Recommendation 10 suggests requiring manufacturers to certify cut-
out and cut-in temperatures to DOE or the absence thereof, and
prescribes that DOE adopt a product-specific enforcement provision that
includes a verification test based on the following method:
Outdoor air temperature (``OAT'') is measured using an
outdoor coil air sampler.
Start at an OAT above but close to cut-out temperature.
Ramp down OAT temperature at 1 [deg]F per 5 minutes.
Wait for 5 minutes once unit shuts off. Cut-out
temperature is the measured temperature with the unit turned off.
Reverse temperature ramp and increase the temperature by 1
[deg]F per 5 minutes.
Wait for 5 minutes once the unit turns on. Cut-in
temperature is the measured temperature with the unit turned on.
NYSERDA further commented that recommendation 10 could be adapted
for HPs in a manner that allows adjustment to the low temperature cut-
out factor specified in equation 4.2.1-3 of appendix M1, if DOE deems
during its enforcement test that the measured cut-out and cut-in
temperatures significantly deviate from manufacturer-certified values,
thereby impacting the calculated HSPF2 value during the enforcement
testing process. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 12-13)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders, including
DOE, discussed several issues raised in the January 2023 RFI, including
the topic of cut-out and cut-in temperature certification, when
considering updated versions of industry standards. The information
provided in the aforementioned comments was discussed in detail in the
development of the AHRI 210/240-202X and AHRI 1600-202X Drafts, which,
in the appendix K of their respective drafts, include a test applicable
to all HPs to determine cut-out and cut-in temperatures (i.e.,
Toff and Ton respectively). Appendix K follows
recommendation 10 of the 2022 ASRAC CUAC and CUHP WG TP term sheet and
includes an accommodation for those test facilities incapable of
reaching OATs below -22 [deg]F. For units with cut-out temperatures
below -22 [deg]F tested in facilities that are incapable of reaching
OATs below -22 [deg]F, appendix K instructs to (alternatively) end the
test 5 minutes after the average outdoor coil air inlet temperature
reaches and maintains the coldest achievable temperature below -22
[deg]F, and to record Toff as this coldest achievable
temperature below -22 [deg]F. DOE surmises that this approach provided
in appendix K of the relevant AHRI drafts represents industry consensus
regarding a test to verify cut-out and cut-in temperatures for HPs. DOE
has tentatively determined that this approach is appropriate while
accounting for the capability limitations of certain test facilities.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to require appendix K of the AHRI 210/240-
202X Draft to support enforcement associated with testing conducted in
accordance with appendix M1, and to require appendix K of the AHRI
1600-202X Draft to support enforcement associated with testing
conducted in accordance with appendix M2. As further discussed in
section III.J.1 of this document, DOE may verify certified cut-out and
cut-in temperatures using the test methods in appendix K of the
relevant AHRI drafts for the purposes of assessment and enforcement
testing.
4. Low-Static Single-Split Blower-Coil System Definition and Testing
Provisions
Section 3.1.4.1.1 of appendix M1 defines the minimum ESP for ducted
blower-coil systems in Table 4. For conventional blower-coil systems
(i.e., all CAC/HPs that are not classified as ceiling-mount, wall-
mount, mobile home, low-static, mid-static, small-duct high-velocity
(``SDHV''), or space-constrained), the minimum ESP is specified as 0.5
in. wc. The definition for low-static blower-coil systems includes only
multi-split and multi-head mini-split systems--it does not include
single-split systems.
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE explained that, during the previous
rulemaking cycle that culminated in the October 2022 Final Rule,
stakeholders requested that the low-static blower-coil system
definition be expanded to include products, such as single-split
systems, that cannot accommodate the 0.5 in. wc. necessary for testing.
88 FR 4091, 4105-4106. However, in the October 2022 Final Rule, DOE did
not revise the definition for low-static blower-coil systems, nor did
it include any new test provisions to accommodate these system types.
87 FR 64550, 64575-64576. DOE believed that revising the definition of
low-static blower-coil systems would conflict with the intent of
comments made by stakeholders when establishing appendix M1, and could
potentially create an unfair competitive advantage for these system
types by allowing more lenient testing conditions (and thus
comparatively higher ratings) as compared to conventional centrally
ducted systems tested at minimum ESPs exceeding 0.5 in. wc. (Id.)
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE considered it appropriate to revisit
the issue of extending the definition of low-static blower-coil systems
to single-split systems, rather than grant test procedure waivers to
allow such models to test using lower ESPs.\65\ 88 FR 4091, 4106. As
such, DOE requested comment from stakeholders on whether the low-static
blower-coil system definition should be extended to single-split
systems, and if extended, how these low-static blower-
[[Page 24227]]
coil systems should be differentiated from conventional systems. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ In the time since the January 2023 RFI, DOE has granted an
interim waiver pending final determinations that allow testing for
certain basic models of single-split low-static ducted blower-coil
systems (which are incapable of meeting the conventional minimum ESP
requirement of 0.5 in. wc. found in Table 4 of appendix M1). This
interim waiver was granted to Samsung on June 5, 2023 (see 88 FR
36558).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, Daikin commented in support of developing a definition
with stakeholders. (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 11) Similar to the existing
``wall-mount'' and ``ceiling-mount'' blower-coil systems defined in
appendix M1, Daikin commented that low-static blower-coil systems have
physical and operational characteristics that could be defined such
that it would not be possible for a common residential ducted blower-
coil to `cheat' the system and test at a lower ESP. (Id.) Daikin
suggested this could be accomplished by defining physical dimensions
(in a similar fashion to ``ceiling-mount'') as well as applying an
appropriate maximum airflow rate per capacity (cfm per ton) at a
relatively low ESP. (Id.)
AHRI also commented in support of the addition of a definition for
single-split low-static blower-coil systems, as low static single-zone
\66\ units cannot accommodate the minimum 0.5 in. wc. ESP necessary to
be tested using appendix M1. (AHRI No. 14 at pp. 14-15) AHRI proposed
the following amended definition of a low-static blower-coil system
(addition is in italic):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ The comments used the term ``single-zone'', which is
addressed by the term ``single-split'' in appendix M1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low static blower-coil system means (a) a ducted multi split or
multi head mini split system for which all indoor units produce \67\
greater than 0.01 in. wc. and a maximum of 0.35 in. wc. external static
pressure when operated at the cooling full load air volume rate not
exceeding 400 cfm per rated ton of cooling, or (b) a ducted single zone
mini split for which the indoor unit produces a maximum of 0.25 in. wc.
external static pressure not exceeding 350 cfm/ton when operated at the
highest possible air flow rate and has a rated heating or cooling
capacity less than 24,500 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ The proposed alternate definition for ``Low-Static Blower-
Coil System'' in AHRI's response uses the language ``the indoor unit
produce.'' (AHRI No. 14 at p. 14) DOE surmises that this is a
typographical error and that AHRI meant to write ``all indoor units
produce'' as is in appendix M1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Samsung agreed with AHRI's proposed definition and requested its
adoption. (Samsung, No. 11 at p. 2)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders, including
DOE, considered several issues raised in the January 2023 RFI,
including the topic of extending the definition of low-static blower-
coil systems, when considering updated versions of industry test
standards. The information provided in the aforementioned comments was
discussed in detail in the development of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft
and AHRI 1600-202X Draft, which, rather than amend the current low-
static blower-coil system definition, include a new definition specific
for low-static single-split blower-coil systems as shown below.
Low-static single-split blower-coil system means a ducted single-
split system air conditioner or heat pump for which all of the
following apply:
(1) The Outdoor Unit has a certified cooling capacity less than or
equal to 24,000 Btu/h;
(2) If the Outdoor Unit is a heat pump or a variable capacity air
conditioner, it is separately certified with a blower-coil indoor unit
tested with a minimum 0.5 in. wc. ESP, otherwise it is separately
certified with a coil-only indoor unit; and
(3) The Indoor Unit is marketed for and produces a maximum ESP less
than 0.5 in. wc. when operated at the certified cooling full-load air
volume rate not exceeding 400 scfm per rated ton of cooling.
Both AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft also include
provisions instructing low-static single-split blower-coil systems to
be tested at their certified airflow (not to exceed 400 scfm per rated
ton of cooling capacity) at their maximum airflow setting. If the ESP
achieved at the rated airflow is less than 0.1 in. wc., the provisions
instruct adjustment of the airflow measurement apparatus fan to reduce
airflow and increase ESP until a minimum of 0.1 in. wc. is achieved.
DOE surmises that the new definition of low-static single-split
blower-coil system and associated testing provisions provided in the
relevant AHRI drafts represent industry consensus regarding the issue
of expanding the low-static blower-coil system definition to include
products, such as single-split systems, that cannot accommodate the 0.5
in. wc. necessary for testing in appendix M1. DOE considers the new
definition of low-static single-split blower-coil systems and the
corresponding test requirements to be appropriate as they allow for
testing of system combinations including indoor units that cannot meet
the minimum ESP of 0.5 in. w.c. This approach would also require the
outdoor unit to be rated when operating with a 0.5 in w.c. (or blower-
coil) indoor unit, thus ensuring that the outdoor units of low-static
combinations do not gain an unfair advantage due to being allowed to
test with an indoor unit at a lower ESP. Therefore, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the new definition of low-static single-split
blower-coil system and the aforementioned testing provisions outlined
in the AHRI 210/240-202X and AHRI 1600-202X Drafts, at appendix M1 and
appendix M2, respectively.
Should the new definition of low-static single-split blower-coil
system and the associated testing provisions be adopted, DOE would
terminate an interim waiver pending final determination, which allows
testing for certain basic models of low-static single-split ducted
blower-coil systems that are incapable of meeting the conventional
minimum ESP requirement of 0.5 in. wc. found in Table 4 of appendix M1.
The interim waiver was granted to Samsung on June 5, 2023 (see 88 FR
36558). The interim waiver granted an alternate test procedure, which
instructs the manufacturer to test their specific basic models at 0.1
in. wc. ESP but to adjust the fan power \68\ to reflect operation at
0.5 in. wc. ESP, consistent with the requirements of appendix M1. The
alternate test procedure also instructed to adjust heating and cooling
capacities \69\ to account for increased fan heat. The interim waiver
was granted with the understanding that it was impossible to test the
manufacturers' specific basic models according to the prescribed test
procedures in appendix M1, DOE surmises that this alternate test
procedure would no longer be necessary should appendix M1 be amended to
enable testing of the manufacturers' specific basic models. Therefore,
DOE is proposing to terminate the aforementioned waiver for Samsung,
should the new definition of low-static single-split blower-coil system
and associated testing provisions provided in the AHRI 210/240-202X and
AHRI 1600-202X Drafts be adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ In all sections of appendix M1 where total cooling
capacity, total heating capacity, sensible cooling capacity, and
electrical power consumption are calculated, the alternate test
procedure requires the measured indoor fan power to be increased by
87 watts per 1000 scfm. (see 88 FR 36558).
\69\ The alternate test procedure requires that, for all tests,
cooling capacity be decreased by the Btu/h equivalent of the fan
power adjustment (i.e., 297 Btu/h per 1000 scfm); likewise, for all
tests, the heating capacity be increased by the same Btu/h
equivalent. (see 88 FR 36558).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Mandatory Constant Circulation Systems
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE noted that there is a potential for
increased use of indoor fan constant circulation in systems that employ
new refrigerants to mitigate flammability risks. 88 FR 4091, 4102.
Currently, nearly all CAC/HP products are designed with R-410A as the
refrigerant. The EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy (``SNAP'')
Program evaluates and regulates substitutes for ozone-depleting
chemicals (such as CAC/HP refrigerants)
[[Page 24228]]
that are being phased out under the stratospheric ozone protection
provisions of the Clean Air Act. (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) \70\ Of
interest to CAC/HPs, the EPA SNAP Program's list of viable substitutes
\71\ includes a group of refrigerants classified as A2L refrigerants.
A2L refrigerants receive high attention for their low GWP in addition
to their minimal to zero ozone depletion potential. However, A2L
refrigerants also face stricter safety requirements than most due to
the flammability concerns associated with their ``2L'' ASHRAE safety
classification.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Additional information regarding EPA's SNAP Program is
available online at: www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/.
\71\ List of EPA SNAP program-approved refrigerant substitutes
is available at www.epa.gov/snap/substitutes-residential-and-light-commercial-air-conditioning-and-heat-pumps.
\72\ ASHRAE assigns safety classification to refrigerants based
on toxicity and flammability data. The capital letter designates a
toxicity class based on allowable exposure and the numeral denotes
flammability. For toxicity, Class A denotes refrigerants of lower
toxicity, and Class B denotes refrigerants of higher toxicity. For
flammability, class 1 denotes refrigerants that do not propagate a
flame when tested as per the standard; classes 2 and 2L denote
refrigerants of lower flammability; and class 3 denotes highly
flammable refrigerants (such as hydrocarbons).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering A2L flammability concerns and the large push toward
their increased use in design, UL published updated safety standards
\73\ for electrical heat pumps, air-conditioners, and dehumidifiers
that include the CAC/HP products at issue in this document. One safety
risk these standards address is refrigerant leakage, which can be
especially hazardous with A2Ls involved. In satisfaction of new UL
safety requirements, manufacturers may need to adjust CAC/HP product
design to include refrigerant leak detection systems that use sensors
and control logic to detect a loss of pressure, activate the evaporator
fan, and use circulated air to quickly disperse and dilute refrigerant
in the event of a leakage. In the January 2023 RFI, DOE acknowledged
that a subsequent need may exist for the constant circulation of
refrigerant or circulation based on leak detection to accommodate these
refrigerant leak detection and mitigation strategies in CAC/HP product
design. 88 FR 4091, 4102. As such, DOE requested comment on whether UL
safety requirements for A2L refrigerants will require some level of
circulation on a continuous basis from a unit's indoor fan, or whether
circulation to disperse refrigerant will only be required when sensors
detect a leak. Id. DOE also expressed interest to know of any other
techniques that manufacturers will use for dispersing the A2L
refrigerant in the event of a refrigerant leak. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ On November 1, 2019, UL published an updated 3rd edition of
UL 60335-2-40 that includes safety requirements regarding the use
A2L refrigerants in CAC/HP product design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, AHRI, Rheem, and Samsung all commented that constant
circulation is a permitted option for A2L mitigation, but is not
required. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 12; Rheem, No. 12 at p. 6; Samsung, No.
11 at p. 2) Daikin specifically noted that UL/CSA 60335-2-40 will only
require circulation in the event of detection of a refrigerant leak,
which is abnormal operation, and thus not a ``typical use cycle.''
(Daikin, No. 16 at p. 8) For alternative methods of A2L mitigation,
Rheem pointed to ASHRAE Standard 15-2016, Safety Standard for
Refrigeration Systems (``ASHRAE 15-2016''),\74\ which prescribes
several methods to disperse/diffuse leaked refrigerant and allows
selection of one or more methods to comply with safety standards.
(Rheem, No. 12 at p. 6) Related to this topic, the CA IOUs commented
that leak detection systems (which only activate the fan when required
to disperse fugitive refrigerant) likely reduce a unit's energy
consumption. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ ASHRAE 15-2016 is available for purchase at
www.techstreet.com/ashrae/standards/ashrae-15-2016-packaged-w-34-2016?product_id=1938420.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While constant circulation may not be a required option, DOE notes
that CAC/HPs may increasingly incorporate constant circulation systems
in future design. As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders,
including DOE, discussed several issues raised in the January 2023 RFI,
including the topic of mandatory constant circulation systems, when
considering updated versions of industry standards. The information
provided in the aforementioned comments was discussed in detail in the
development of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft, for
which stakeholders agreed to include a new definition for ``mandatory
constant circulation system,'' shown below.
Mandatory constant circulation system means an air conditioner or
heat pump that operates the indoor fan continuously when power is
applied to the unit regardless of control settings.
The updated industry standard drafts also include testing
provisions for such systems, outlined in sections 5.1.1, 6.1.3.1.1, and
6.1.3.2.1 as well as Table 7 of both AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI
1600-202X Draft.\75\ These provisions require CAC/HPs meeting the
mandatory constant circulation system definition not to use the default
cooling and heating degradation coefficients, but rather to evaluate
these degradation coefficients using the respective cyclic tests
specified by Table 7, conducted in accordance with section E12 of
appendix E of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft. DOE
surmises that the new definition of mandatory constant circulation
system and the aforementioned testing provisions provided in the
relevant AHRI drafts represent industry consensus regarding
representative testing of those CAC/HPs that may use constant
circulation to meet the safety requirements for A2L refrigerants. DOE
has tentatively determined that the definition and approach included in
the draft industry standards provides a more representative measure of
CAC/HP efficiency for units with mandatory constant circulation
systems. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the
new definition of mandatory constant circulation system and the
aforementioned testing provisions outlined in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft
and AHRI 1600-202X Draft, at appendix M1 and appendix M2, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ DOE notes that additional testing provisions for mandatory
constant circulation systems are included in the AHRI 1600-202X
Draft, which are separately discussed and proposed to be adopted in
section III.F.1.e) of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Dual-Fuel Systems
Heat pumps generally perform less efficiently at low ambient
outdoor temperatures than they do at moderate ambient outdoor
temperatures. In the January 2023 RFI, DOE expressed awareness of HPs
that combine the operation of a conventional electric HP with a back-up
heating source, such as a fuel-fired furnace or boiler. 88 FR 4091,
4106. These are referred to as ``dual-fuel'' systems or hybrid heat
pumps (``HHPs'') and provide an alternative to heat pumps specifically
designed to perform in cold climates (i.e., cold climate heat pumps).
Dual-fuel systems rely on heat pump operation at milder ambient
temperatures, but switch to the back-up heating source at low ambient
temperatures.
Currently, the HSPF2 calculation at appendix M1 does not differ for
a dual-fuel system and a HP that relies solely on vapor-compression or
electric resistance auxiliary heating. However, in the January 2023
RFI, DOE explained that this may not be representative of HHP field
operation since the back-up heating source takes over for much of the
coldest conditions when HP efficiency would be lower. 88 FR 4091, 4106.
DOE also noted that, while the focus of test procedures for cold
climate heat pumps has been on evaluation of performance at colder
temperatures
[[Page 24229]]
(e.g., the optional 5 [deg]F test condition) to incentivize improved
cold-temperature performance, incentivizing efficiency improvement for
HHPs might more appropriately focus on warmer conditions, potentially
temperatures warmer than 17 [deg]F. (Id.)
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested information on the
prevalence of HHP systems (including shipment numbers and shipment
breakdown among single-stage, two-stage and variable-capacity) and the
climates they are most used in. 88 FR 4091, 4106. Additionally, DOE
requested information on how the controls for HHPs are generally set up
to provide dual functionality--specifically, whether the furnace is
just set at a higher stage, or whether there is a crossover temperature
below which the HP isn't used; if so, the range of crossover
temperatures and whether these systems have electric resistance
auxiliary heaters. (Id.) DOE also requested feedback on whether it is
more appropriate to adjust the HSPF2 to address actual operation of the
heat pump or just to emphasize performance only in heat pump mode
(i.e., when the back-up source is not operating). (Id.)
In response, AHRI and Daikin both suggested that a proper
definition and scope for HHP products should be developed if
modifications to appendix M1 are made to address HHPs. (AHRI, No. 14 at
pp. 3-4; Daikin, No. 16 at p. 11) Daikin commented that, while the most
common HHPs, dual-fuel systems, have a temperature-based changeover
where the heat pump stops operating and the gas furnace takes over,
other HHPs may not always follow that model and may operate the gas
furnace simultaneously with the heat pump under certain conditions.
(Daikin, No. 16 at p. 11) Similarly, AHRI commented that, in most
cases, accessory control tries to satisfy the set point temperature
with the heat pump by itself, and, when unable to satisfy the set
point, it will turn off the heat pump and turn on the furnace. (AHRI,
No. 14 at p. 15) AHRI also noted that the heat pump lock-out
temperature is typically set by the homeowner in the accessory control.
(Id.)
AHRI and Rheem both commented in support of a credit for dual-fuel
systems in the HSPF2 calculation and noted that dual-fuel systems do
not typically have electric resistance heaters. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 15;
Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 8-9) AHRI commented that dual-fuel heat pumps and
HHPs offer a lower carbon heating solution that may pose other benefits
as well. (AHRI, No. 14 at pp. 3-4) AHRI commented that electrification
with fuel backup provides resiliency to the energy grid, particularly
in locations where the grid is designed to accommodate summer peaking
loads. (Id.) AHRI also commented that moving the thermal load from gas
to electric results in a significant increase in peak electric demand
in winter. (Id.)
NYSERDA commented against including a credit for HHPs in the HSPF2
calculation, noting that an HSPF2 credit adjustment would serve to
encourage the use of switch-over controls that operate at a higher
outdoor ambient temperature, which is at odds with maximizing heat pump
performance and limits the decarbonization potential of heat pumps.
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 13) NYSERDA suggested a certification approach,
which would incentivize an integrated control that optimally locks out
auxiliary heating options (electric or gas) until it is no longer
feasible for the HP to heat the space via only the vapor-compression
cycle. (Id.) NYSERDA also recommended that DOE work to encourage lower
temperature settings for the switchover device of a HHP whenever
possible in the structure of the test procedure. (Id.) NYSERDA
suggested that certification of cut-in and cut-out temperatures may
help address some aspects of the issues presented in the January 2023
RFI regarding HHPs. (Id.) However, NYSERDA also stated that it has
found manufacturer's lowest catalogued temperature (``LCT'') in the
engineering tables may be more important in practice than the cut-out
and cut-in temperatures, which are often quite low. (Id.) While it
acknowledged that cut-out and cut-in temperatures are useful for
planning equipment applications and should be accounted for in bin
model calculations of HSPF2, NYSERDA recommended using the LCT, the
lowest temperature at which a manufacturer will stand behind its
capacity and that DOE require the HSPF2 bin model always attribute a
COP of 1 for any bin temperature below the LCT of a tested product.
(Id.)
NEEA recommended that DOE continue to explore HHP ratings that
focus on maximizing time spent in electric heat pump mode before
switching over to supplemental heating and suggested that on-board
controls, which learn and adjust the crossover temperature based on
performance, could earn a higher efficiency rating. (NEEA, No. 13 at p.
8)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders, including
DOE, discussed several issues raised in the January 2023 RFI, including
the topic of dual-fuel systems, when considering updated versions of
industry standards. The information provided in the aforementioned
comments was discussed in detail in the development of AHRI 210/240-
202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft, which include a new definition for
``dual-fuel heat pump,'' shown below.
Dual-fuel heat pump means A central air conditioning heat pump
consisting of (a) a rated combination of outdoor heat pump unit, of any
type covered within this standard, (b) an indoor coil and (c) a furnace
certified to DOE as an air mover and backup heat source.
Additionally, AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft
introduce a new seasonal efficiency metric, Dual Fuel Utilization
Efficiency (``DFUE''), meant to capture the heating efficiency of such
dual-fuel heat pump systems. Calculation of DFUE is optional, requires
no additional testing, and is outlined in appendix L of both AHRI 210/
240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft.
DOE has tentatively determined that the definition and optional
test approach included in the draft industry standards may provide a
representative test approach for dual-fuel heat pump systems, but DOE
is continuing to evaluate whether to include such provisions in its
CAC/HP test procedures. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to incorporate
by reference the new definition of dual-fuel heat pump and the optional
seasonal efficiency metric, DFUE, outlined in the AHRI 210/240-202X and
AHRI 1600-202X Drafts at this time.
DOE notes that since dual-fuel heat pump systems are comprised of
two covered products currently subject to energy conservations
standards (i.e., a heat pump and a furnace), DOE would continue to
require reporting of the relevant CAC/HP and consumer furnace heating
metrics--HSPF2 and SHORE for CAC/HP, and AFUE for consumer furnaces--
but recognizes that representations of dual-fuel heat pump performance
may be useful to consumers. DOE is not proposing provisions for dual-
fuel heat pumps, but would allow manufacturers to make optional
representations of dual-fuel heat pump performance consistent with
available industry test standards.
7. Provisions for Outdoor Units With No Match
For split-system CAC/HPs, section 2.2.e of appendix M1 requires
that an outdoor unit with no match (``OUWNM'') (i.e., outdoor units
that are not distributed in commerce with any indoor units) be tested
using a coil-only indoor unit with a single cooling air volume rate
whose coil has round tubes of outer diameter no less than 0.375
[[Page 24230]]
inches, and normalized gross indoor fin surface (``NGIFS'', gross
indoor fin surface divided by the measured cooling capacity) no greater
than 1.0 square inch per British thermal unit per hour (sq. in./Btu/
hr). (10 CFR 429.16 (b)(2)(i) and appendix M1, section 2.2.e) These
provisions were introduced in a final rule regarding CAC/HP test
procedures published on June 8, 2016 (``June 2016 Final Rule''), to
address outdoor-unit-only replacements of old R-22 outdoor units. 81 FR
36992, 37008-37012. Effective January 1, 2010, EPA banned sales and
distribution of CAC/HPs designed to use R-22, a hydrochlorofluorocarbon
(``HCFC'') refrigerant, that causes ozone depletion. 74 FR 66450 (Dec.
15, 2009). However, EPA continued to allow sale and distribution of
``components'' of CAC/HP systems for repair purposes, such as outdoor
units. Id. at 74 FR 66452. In the June 2016 Final Rule, DOE introduced
the testing provisions for OUWNM to ensure that performance ratings for
such installations would be representative of the replacement of
outdoor units originally designed for R-22 and using the original
indoor units. See 81 FR 36992, 37008-37011.
While these OUWNM provisions were precipitated by EPA's ruling on
R-22 units, DOE's intention was to apply them more broadly to any case
where an outdoor unit is sold without an indoor unit. In the June 2016
Final Rule, DOE noted that its test provisions were introduced to
ensure that an unmatched outdoor unit would be compliant when tested
with an indoor unit that is representative of indoor units in the field
with which the outdoor unit could be paired. 81 FR 36992, 37009. DOE
designed these requirements to meet the statutory requirement that the
test procedure measure a representative average use cycle. Id. DOE
noted that the indoor unit specifications represent lower-efficiency
indoor units that would be paired with a given outdoor unit with no
match. Id. DOE believed this approach was consistent with the
requirement that the represented value for a basic model reflect the
performance of the poorest-performing model that is part of the basic
model. Id.
In a final rule published on October 24, 2023 (``October 2023 EPA
Final Rule''), EPA, pursuant to provisions of the American Innovation
and Manufacturing Act, enacted on December 17, 2020 (42 U.S.C. 7675),
restricted the installation of residential and light commercial systems
that are designed for hydrofluorocarbon (``HFC'') refrigerants having a
GWP greater than 700, starting January 1, 2025. 88 FR 73098. On
December 26, 2023, EPA published an amendment to the October 2023 EPA
Final Rule that extended the installation deadline to January 1, 2026
as long as the components being installed were manufactured or imported
prior to January 1, 2025. 88 FR 88825. Split-system CAC/HPs are
included in the scope of residential and light commercial systems. As
such, split-system CAC/HPs designed for use with R-410A and sold as a
combination of an outdoor and indoor unit, would be banned for
installation per the October 2023 EPA Final Rule. However, EPA allows
consumers and businesses to replace, retrofit, and service components
of existing systems that are over the GWP limits defined in the October
2023 EPA Final Rule to ensure that new equipment with lower-GWP
refrigerants is phased in only when all components of the older
equipment reach the end of their functional life. 88 FR 73089, 73202.
Hence, this provides an exemption for individual components of R-410A
based split-system CAC/HP to be sold as replacements, similar to the
component exemption adopted when R-22 was phased out. 74 FR 66450,
66459-66460.
As noted, DOE's OUWNM provisions apply for any outdoor units that
are distributed in commerce without an indoor matching pair, regardless
of the refrigerant the outdoor unit employs. Therefore, DOE clarifies
that because of the October 2023 EPA Final Rule, any outdoor unit
designed for R-410A or any banned refrigerant as per EPA regulations,
when distributed in commerce without an indoor unit on or after January
1, 2026, would be deemed an outdoor unit with no match, precisely
because the October 2023 EPA Final Rule allows installation of such
outdoor units only as no-match replacements. As EPA provided for after
the R-22 ban, such outdoor units may be installed as a replacement
component for an existing system but may not be sold with indoor units
for installation as a complete split CAC/HP system.
Although the current provisions for an outdoor unit with no match
in appendix M1, 10 CFR 429.16, and 10 CFR 429.70 were finalized in the
June 2016 Final Rule, DOE notes that appendix M1 currently does not
explicitly define outdoor units with no match. While AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft define outdoor units with no match, the
definition applies explicitly only to R-22 replacement outdoor units
and outdoor units using refrigerants with properties similar to R-22.
This was because the initial establishment of the outdoor unit with no
match provisions occurred in the wake of the R-22 ban. In light of the
October 2023 EPA Final Rule, DOE is clarifying that similar treatment
is applicable to replacement outdoor units designed for use with R-
410A, and any other refrigerants banned by EPA for full system
installations. Because the definition of outdoor unit with no match in
AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft is specifically
focused on R-22 outdoor units, DOE is not incorporating the definition
by reference, and is instead proposing a clarifying definition that is
consistent with DOE's intention in the June 2016 Final Rule. The
proposed definition for appendix M1 is as follows:
Outdoor Unit with No Match (OUWNM). An Outdoor Unit that is not
distributed in commerce with any indoor units, and that meets any of
the following criteria:
(a) is designed for use with a refrigerant that makes the unit
banned for installation when paired with an Indoor Unit as a system,
according to EPA regulations in 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter C,
(b) is designed for use with a refrigerant that has a 95 [deg]F
midpoint saturation absolute pressure that is 18 percent of
the 95 [deg]F saturation absolute pressure for R-22, or
(c) is shipped without a specified refrigerant from the point of
manufacture or is shipped such that more than two pounds of refrigerant
are required to meet the charge per section 5.1.8 of AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft. This shall not apply if either (a) the factory charge is equal
to or greater than 70% of the outdoor unit internal volume times the
liquid density of refrigerant at 95 [deg]F or (b) an A2L refrigerant is
approved for use and listed in the certification report.
The proposed definition of OUWNM for appendix M2 is the same as
that for appendix M1, except that the reference in part (c) of the
definition is to section 5.1.8 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft.
DOE is proposing separate definitions in appendix M1 and appendix
M2 because part of the definitions refer to sections of the relevant
AHRI standards that are incorporated by reference (i.e., AHRI 210/240-
202X Draft for appendix M1, and AHRI 1600-202X Draft for appendix M2).
Additionally, since the terms ``outdoor unit'' and ``indoor unit''
appear in the definition of outdoor unit with no match, DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference the definitions for them from AHRI 210/240-
202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft.
DOE tentatively concludes that the above definitions would further
help clarify that the existing test procedure
[[Page 24231]]
and rating requirements for outdoor units with no match are applicable
to R-410A based systems, and any other refrigerants banned by EPA
regulations from January 1, 2026, as they have been previously, for R-
22 and any other ozone depleting refrigerants. The proposed definitions
would apply to all types of outdoor units (i.e., heat pump, air
conditioner, single-speed, two-speed, variable-speed, etc.). Outdoor
units with no match would continue to be tested with an indoor coil
having nominal tube diameter of 0.375 in and an NGIFS of 1.0 or less
(as determined in section 5.1.6.3 of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI
1600-202X Draft). The determination of represented values, AEDM
requirements, combinations selected for testing, and certification
report requirements applicable to outdoor units with no match would
remain the same as those specified in Table 1 to paragraph (a)(1),
paragraph (c)(2), Table 2 to paragraph (b)(2)(i), and paragraph (e)(3),
respectively in 10 CFR 429.16. Existing outdoor models currently
distributed in commerce as part of a split system basic model that
transition to a replacement outdoor unit only would need to be tested,
rated, and recertified under the provisions in 10 CFR 429.16 for an
outdoor unit with no match. The basic model number would need to change
to reflect that the outdoor unit is no longer part of a combination as
previously certified, but rather as an outdoor unit with no match, but
the outdoor unit model could still be assigned the same individual
model number.
8. Inlet and Outlet Duct Configurations
In the June 2016 Final Rule, DOE made the following amendments
regarding inlet and outlet duct configurations: clarified indoor unit
air inlet geometry; ensured that the inlet plenum is not installed
upstream of the airflow prevention device; and specified that the
minimum lengths of inlet plenum, locations of static-pressure taps, and
minimum cross-sectional dimensions are consistent with ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
2009. 81 FR 36992, 37037. DOE also clarified that when an inlet plenum
is not used, then the length of straight duct upstream of the unit's
inlet within the airflow prevention device must still adhere to the
inlet plenum length requirements as illustrated in ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009,
Figures 7b, 7c, and 8. (Id.)
In response, as discussed in the January 2017 Final Rule,
stakeholders commented that DOE's clarification of inlet plenum may
result in the overall height of unit setup exceeding the current height
limit of many existing psychrometric rooms. 82 FR 1426, 1463. These
stakeholders proposed that DOE consider allowing the approach included
in ASHRAE's Research Project (``RP'') 1581, requesting DOE to approve
the use of the 6'' skirt coupled with the 90[deg] square vane elbow,
along with the appropriate outlet duct. Id.
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE sought test data that shows testing
done using reduced overall height of the unit setup (similar to that
proposed in ASHRAE RP 1581) and compared against the baseline duct
designs in ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 Figures 7b and 7c for blower-coil indoor
units, and Figure 8 for coil-only indoor units. 88 FR 4091, 4105. DOE
also requested information that could help inform the existing CAC/HP
test procedures to allow testing in smaller environmental chambers, or
to incorporate adjustments to the test setup that might reduce test
burden. (Id.) DOE did not receive any such test data in responses to
the January 2023 RFI. However, AHRI, Daikin, and Rheem all commented in
support of including updates from the newest draft version of ASHRAE
Standard 37 into the test procedure, which includes revisions
investigated in RP 1581. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 14; Daikin, No. 16 at p.
10; Rheem, No. 12 at p. 8) Stakeholders also commented in support of
including revisions investigated in RP 1743, which explored reduced-
length, alternative inlet duct configurations. (Id.)
In May 2023, ASHRAE released for public review its first draft of a
new version of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37 (``May 2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft''),
which includes both RP 1581 and RP 1743 updates in section 6.4 of the
standard. Subsequently, AHRI and other stakeholders, including DOE,
worked to include these updates in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI
1600-202X Draft. Both appendix D of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and
appendix D of the AHRI 1600-202X Draft contain May 2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft
updates regarding inlet and outlet duct configurations, including the
duct revisions investigated in RP 1581 and RP 1743 to accommodate
smaller environmental chambers. DOE surmises that the inclusion of
these May 2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft updates in appendix D of the relevant
AHRI drafts represents industry consensus regarding inlet and outlet
duct configurations. Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that
the updates included in the May 2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft are appropriate
for CAC/HP testing while limiting testing burden. Consequently, DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference appendix D of AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft at appendix M1 and to incorporate by reference appendix D of AHRI
1600-202X Draft at appendix M2.
DOE notes that AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft
reference the current version of ASHRAE Test Standard 37, ANSI/ASHRAE
37-2009, because the May 2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft has not yet been
finalized and published. DOE notes that it may choose to update its
incorporation by reference to the final published version of the May
2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft in a future rulemaking.
9. Heat Comfort Controllers
A heat comfort controller enables a heat pump to regulate the
operation of the electric resistance elements such that the air
temperature leaving the indoor section does not fall below a specified
temperature (see section 1.2 of appendix M1).
Section 3.6.5 of appendix M1 includes test instructions for testing
heat pumps having a heat comfort controller. Section 4.2.5 of appendix
M1 includes additional steps for calculating the HSPF2 of heat pumps
having a heat comfort controller, and covers the following system
types:
(1) heat pumps having a single-speed compressor and either a fixed-
speed indoor blower or a constant-air-volume-rate indoor blower
installed;
(2) single-speed coil-only system heat pumps;
(3) heat pumps having a single-speed compressor and a variable-
speed, variable-air-volume-rate indoor blower;
(4) heat pumps having a two-capacity compressor;
Unlike the other aforementioned system types having a heat comfort
controller, appendix M1 does not currently specify additional steps for
calculating the HSPF2 of heat pumps having a heat comfort controller
and having a variable-speed compressor. However, section 4.2.5.4 of
appendix M1 is reserved for potential additional steps for calculating
HSPF2 for this system type. This section was initially reserved in
appendix M in the CAC/HP test procedure final rule published on October
11, 2005. 70 FR 59122 (``October 2005 Final Rule'').
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested information on the
prevalence of HP systems that include heat comfort controllers. 88 FR
4091, 4105. DOE also requested feedback on whether the heat comfort
controller test approach in appendix M1 is utilized by manufacturers,
and if yes, whether it needs to be updated. (Id.)
In response, Rheem commented that heat comfort controllers are
typically
[[Page 24232]]
found on premium CAC/HPs, many of which are variable-speed. (Rheem, No.
12 at p. 8) However, Rheem also noted that since no additional steps
for calculating the HSPF2 of heat pumps having a variable-speed
compressor and a heat comfort controller are specified in the appendix
M1 test procedure, there is limited utilization of the heat comfort
controller test approach in appendix M1. (Id.) AHRI commented that it
was unable to provide information regarding the current prevalence of
heat comfort controllers due to time constraints but suggested that DOE
require manufacturers notify consumers of the additional impacts to
power consumption that come with the purchase of a heat comfort
controller. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 14)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders, including
DOE, considered several issues raised in the January 2023 RFI,
including the topic of heat comfort controller provisions, when
considering updated versions of industry test standards. The
information provided in the aforementioned comments was discussed in
detail in the development of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X
Draft. Neither the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft nor the AHRI 1600-202X Draft
include any changes to the heat comfort controller testing provisions
for the following system types:
(1) heat pumps having a single-speed compressor and either a fixed-
speed indoor blower or a constant-air-volume-rate indoor blower
installed;
(2) single-speed coil-only system heat pumps;
(3) heat pumps having a single-speed compressor and a variable-
speed, variable-air-volume-rate indoor blower;
(4) and heat pumps having a two-capacity compressor.
However, AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft now
specify additional steps for calculating the HSPF2 and SHORE of heat
pumps having a variable-capacity compressor and a heat comfort
controller. These additional steps are similar to the additional steps
for calculating the HSPF2 and SHORE of other system types having a heat
comfort controller. DOE has tentatively determined that the inclusion
of these additional steps for calculating HSPF2 and SHORE is
appropriate for heat pumps having a variable-capacity compressor and a
heat comfort controller because these provisions provide a
representative measures of unit operation when installed with heat
comfort controllers. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by
reference the additional steps for calculating the HSPF2 of heat pumps
having a variable-capacity compressor and a heat comfort controller
outlined in section 11.2.2.5 of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft, at appendix
M1. Likewise, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the
additional steps for calculating the SHORE of heat pumps having a
variable-capacity compressor and a heat comfort controller outlined in
section 11.2.2.5 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft, at appendix M2.
G. Long-Term Changes in the CAC Test Procedure
The following sections discuss issues that affect the CAC/HP test
procedure in the long-term--i.e., they will be effective when new CAC/
HP standards are established denominated in terms of the metrics in
appendix M2, SCORE, and SHORE. As previously explained, these long-term
revisions would be implemented at appendix M2 via incorporation by
reference of the relevant industry consensus test procedure, AHRI 1600-
202X Draft. DOE has reviewed the AHRI 1600-202X Draft in relevance to
its proposed to incorporate the standard by reference at appendix M2,
and has tentatively concluded that it satisfies the EPCA requirement
that test procedures should not be unduly burdensome to conduct and
should be representative of an average use cycle. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)) These long-term amendments in appendix M2 would alter
the measured efficiency of CAC/HPs and would require representations in
terms of new cooling and heating test metrics, SCORE and SHORE,
respectively.
Additionally, DOE clarifies that all proposals related to near-term
issues discussed in section III.F of this document also apply to
appendix M2.
1. Power Consumption of Auxiliary Components
In the January 2023 RFI, discussed consideration of reflecting the
power consumption of auxiliary components in the SEER2 and HSPF2
efficiency metrics for CAC/HPs, at the recommendation of a comment made
by the CA IOUs during the limited scope rulemaking that culminated in
the October 2022 Final Rule. 88 FR 4091, 4102-4103. To help DOE further
assess whether its test procedure adequately addresses crankcase heater
(and other auxiliary component) energy use, DOE requested information
and data from stakeholders regarding the power consumption of crankcase
heaters and other auxiliary components in the January 2023 RFI. 88 FR
4091, 4102-4103. The sections below address a range of topics
associated with power consumption of auxiliary components.
In addition, in the January 2023 RFI, DOE also requested
information and available field data on any auxiliary components other
than crankcase heaters that come equipped with CAC/HPs that use energy
or affect systems energy use. 88 FR 4091, 4103. In response, Rheem
commented that the off-mode power measurement per appendix M1 would
account for leak sensor power consumption if leak sensors are required
to be installed in the system during testing. (Rheem, No. 12 at p. 7)
Additionally, Rheem commented that base pan heaters can only be
installed by the factory, while other accessories, such as UV lights
and electrostatic filters, are typically field installed. (Id.)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders, including
DOE, discussed several topics included in the January 2023 RFI,
including the topic of accounting for auxiliary components' power
consumption, when considering updated versions of industry standards.
The information provided by stakeholders in comments, summarized in the
following subsections, was discussed in detail in the development of
the AHRI 1600-202X Draft, which accounts for crankcase heater, base pan
heater, and constant circulation fan energy consumption (as applicable)
in the calculations of the new cooling and heating performance metrics,
SCORE and SHORE. As part of the proceedings to develop the AHRI 1600-
202X Draft, manufacturers provided survey data regarding auxiliary
components, their prevalence and their wattages, and the group
conducted analysis to determine which auxiliary components not yet
addressed in the current DOE test procedure should be considered.
(a) General Comments About Standby and Off Mode Power Consumption
In response to the January 2023 RFI, the CA IOUs and NYSERDA both
requested that DOE revisit the issue of accounting for the standby mode
energy consumption of auxiliary components in appendix M1. (CA IOUs,
No. 10 at p. 2; NYSERDA No. 9 at p. 7) NYSERDA requested elaboration on
the justification for DOE's conclusion in the January 2023 RFI that
standby mode energy consumption is addressed in the off-mode power
consumption calculations in section 4.3 of appendix M1. (NYSERDA, No. 9
at p. 7) NYSERDA commented that it seeks this clarification because DOE
had previously summarized that standby mode is addressed in the part
load SEER and HSPF metrics in both the August
[[Page 24233]]
2016 SNOPR \76\ and the June 2016 Final Rule.\77\ (Id.) Further,
NYSERDA noted that, in the June 2016 Final Rule, DOE previously
reviewed IEC Standard 62301 and determined that the procedures
contained therein are not sufficient to properly measure off mode power
for the unique characteristics of the components that contribute to
off-mode power for CAC/HP products (i.e., the crankcase heaters).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See 81 FR 58163, 58165. DOE noted, ``for CAC/HP, standby
mode is incorporated into the SEER and HSPF metrics, while off mode
power consumption is separately regulated. This SNOPR includes
proposals relevant to the determination of both SEER and HSPF
(including standby mode) and off mode power consumption.''
\77\ See 81 FR 36992, 36994. DOE noted, ``for central air
conditioners and heat pumps, standby mode is incorporated into the
SEER metric, while off mode power consumption is separately
regulated. This final rule includes modifications relevant to the
determination of both SEER (including standby mode) and off mode
power consumption.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daikin commented that, in line with the general principle floated
in the recent commercial unitary air conditioner (``CUAC'') and
commercial unitary heat pump (``CUHP'') (collectively, ``CUAC/HP'')
rulemaking,\78\ a seasonal metric should measure all capacity delivered
divided by all power consumed; and there should be a single seasonal
metric for cooling and a single seasonal metric for heating to
encompass all energy consumption, eliminating secondary metrics such as
energy efficiency ratio (``EER'') and off-mode power
(``PW,OFF''). (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ See 88 FR 56392 for the most recent NOPR regarding CUAC/HPs
published on August 17, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYSERDA commented that, while further consideration to off-mode
energy consumption may not be strictly necessary for CAC/HPs (because
appendix M1 already includes off-mode provisions), it urges DOE to
consider a more comprehensive approach to standby mode. (NYSERDA, No. 9
at pp. 7-8) NYSERDA recommended the inclusion of crankcase heater power
in seasonal efficiency ratings that include shoulder periods. (Id.)
DOE notes that, while IEC Standard 62301 and EPCA (see 42 U.S.C.
(gg)(1)) define both standby mode and off mode for energy-using
products such as air-conditioners and heat pumps, DOE defined only
``off mode'' in its test procedures for CAC/HPs. ``Off mode power
consumption'' is defined as the power consumption when the unit is
connected to its main power source but is neither providing cooling nor
heating to the building it serves. Thus, off-mode power consumption can
be considered to include power consumption associated with any system
components (e.g., crankcase heaters, fans, controls, base pan heaters,
etc.) during any times that neither cooling nor heating are being
provided, including shoulder season, heating season for a cooling-only
air-conditioner, and times when the compressor is not operating (e.g.,
during an off-cycle during a cooling or heating season). While some of
the system modes during these times could be seen as complying with the
EPCA definition for standby mode, the appendix M1 test procedure uses
the single term ``off mode'' to refer to all of these modes. Discussion
about these modes for central air conditioner and heat pumps has often
used both the terms ``standby'' and ``off,'' even though they are both,
per appendix M1, defined as ``off mode.''
Thus, in response to NYSERDA, DOE clarifies that standby power
consumption (per appendix M1, ``off-mode'' power consumption) is indeed
incorporated to an extent in the SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics, and that some
of the off-mode power consumption is separately regulated by the off-
mode power metric, PW,OFF. As noted in a footnote of the
January 2023 RFI, some energy use associated with crankcase heaters may
be measured in the cyclic cooling test (for non-temperature dependent
crankcase heaters) and cyclic heating test in appendix M1. 88 FR 4091,
4102. The energy use of auxiliary components such as control boards,
reversing valves, and electronic expansion valves would also be
captured during the off cycle during cyclic testing. Hence, some off
mode energy consumption is captured in the SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics.
However, DOE acknowledges that not all off mode energy consumption is
captured by the SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics because the calculations for
these metrics do not account for all the hours in a year. Specifically,
shoulder-season energy use of auxiliary components is not captured
consistent with the number of hours that such components may be
energized (e.g., for hours representing outdoor temperatures between
54.5 [deg]F and 64.5 [deg]F). In response, as detailed in section
III.F.1.e of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference
the AHRI 1600-202X Draft at appendix M2, which addresses additional
standby and off-mode power consumption in the SCORE and SHORE metrics,
including base pan heaters and indoor fans that are required to operate
in constant circulation mode to address A2L refrigerant requirements.
The test standard also provides a more comprehensive way to include all
significant standby and off-mode energy use, including that of
crankcase heaters, in the efficiency metrics, in a way that is similar
to the approach described in recommendation 13 of the 2022 ASRAC CUAC
and CUHP WG TP term sheet.\79\ Specifically, the SCORE and SHORE
efficiency metrics both represent conditioning provided during the
cooling or heating season, respectively, divided by relevant energy use
associated with all components that contribute significantly to energy
use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Recommendation 13 of the 2022 ASRAC CUAC and CUHP WG TP
term sheet requires manufacturers to certify crank case heat watts
for each heater in the certified CUAC/CUHP, where each of the
certified wattages must be within 10% of the maximum heater wattage
determined according to the CUAC/CUHP TP at the tested nameplate
voltage
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Adjustment of Off Mode Power Consumption for Number of Compressors,
System Capacity, and Variable Speed and Weighting of Off-Mode Test
Power Measurements
In response to the January 2023 RFI, the CA IOUs requested that DOE
consider removing the adjustment factors for off-mode power
consumption, and, instead, change the requirement for off-mode power
consumption to a maximum allowed power consumption table based on
system capacity, number of compressors, and stages. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at
pp. 2-3)
The CA IOUs also recommended that the P1 and
P2 components of PW,OFF be weighted based on the
population-weighted number of hours where the outdoor temperature is
less than 70 \0\F, instead of simply averaged. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p.
3) Aligning with the data presented in Table 2 of their response,\80\
the CA IOUs stated that this approach would change the weighting from
50-percent P1 and 50-percent P2 (a simple
average) to 30-percent P1 and 70-percent P2.
(Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Table 2 of the CA IOUs response to the January 2023 RFI
includes data taken from ASHRAE Standard 169-2021, Climatic Data for
Building Design Standard, and the United States Census Bureau, with
additional analysis performed by CA IOUs. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the modified approach for off-mode energy
consumption in AHRI 1600-202X Draft, which DOE proposes to incorporate
by reference, addresses both of these points, as discussed in section
III.G.1.e of this NOPR.
(c) Crankcase Heaters
Regarding crankcase heaters, in the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested
information as to what percentage of units on the market (split
separately
[[Page 24234]]
between air conditioners and heat pumps) are shipped from the factory
with crankcase heaters; what percentage have crankcase heaters
installed in the field (e.g., by contractors); and the percentage
breakdown of controls used with units (both factory- and field-
installed)--by those that are energized at full power during the
compressor off cycle, those that also have an ambient thermostat to
prevent use when temperature is high, and those that are self-
regulating. 88 FR 4091, 4102-4103.
In response, Daikin commented that the majority (shipment volume)
of air conditioners do not have crankcase heaters, while nearly all
heat pumps do have crankcase heaters. (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 8) Daikin
stated that the use of crankcase heaters typically correlates with
higher refrigerant charge quantities, and that, as a result, higher
efficiency AC units, with higher refrigerant charge quantities, are
more likely to have crankcase heaters than lower efficiency ones. (Id.)
Further, Daikin commented that long-line set applications, such as
multi-story apartment buildings, would be the most common applications
of field-installed crankcase heaters--again due primarily to the
additional refrigerant charge required in those applications. (Id.)
Rheem estimated that less than 10 percent of factory units have
crankcase heaters and commented that it believes field installations
for crankcase heaters to be infrequent, but depends on the length of
refrigerant line set for a given installation. (Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 6-
7)
The CA IOUs, NEEA, and NYSERDA all recommended that DOE account for
crankcase heater energy use by aligning with recommendation 13 of the
2022 ASRAC CUAC and CUHP WG TP term sheet. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 2;
NEEA, No. 13 at p. 8; NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 10-12) Recommendation 13 of
the 2022 ASRAC CUAC and CUHP WG TP term sheet suggests that DOE require
manufacturers to certify crankcase heater wattage for each heater, and
that each wattage certified be within 10 percent of the maximum wattage
for that heater as determined in accordance with the test procedure at
the tested nameplate voltage. Further, equipment that does not employ
crankcase heating shall certify a value of zero.
In response, DOE notes that accounting for crankcase heater energy
use for CUAC/CUHPs differs from such accounting for CAC/HPs in two
fundamental ways that make recommendation 13 of the CUAC/CUHP WG TP
term sheet inappropriate for this test procedure. First, CUACs and
CUHPs generally have more than one compressor, often three or four
compressors, whereas nearly every CAC/HP has just one. Second, control
of crankcase heaters in CUACs and CUHPs, as discussed in the WG
discussions is much more straightforward than for CAC/HPs.
Specifically, the crankcase heaters for CUACs and CUHPs are nearly
exclusively controlled to be on when the compressor is off and off when
the compressor is on, with no consideration of shutoff for warm
temperatures, and no significant use of self-regulating heater designs.
Thus, it is both possible and necessary to conduct testing to
understand CAC/HP crankcase energy use--possible because of the single
compressor (and crankcase heater), and necessary to understand the
control. The certification of crankcase heater wattages, as was adopted
CUACs and CUHPs to avoid the additional test burden to testing multiple
heaters, would not reduce the need for testing in the case of CAC/HPs.
Although this rulemaking does not specifically address certification,
DOE may consider certification requirements for crankcase heater
wattages in a separate rulemaking.
Similar to ratings in SPE07, NYSERDA suggested that crankcase
heaters and drain pan heaters (if present) could be included in the
test procedure as separate tests and appropriately attributed to
efficiency metrics depending on their specific control strategy.
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 8) NYSERDA suggested this approach, commenting it
could be employed in the DOE procedure without causing a wholesale
change in operating test procedures. (Id.)
DOE responds that the test procedure as included in AHRI 1600-202X
Draft, which DOE proposes to incorporate by reference in the CAC/HP
test procedure, addresses crankcase heaters (and base pan heaters if
present) in a way that is consistent with the approach recommended by
NYSERDA. The information provided in the aforementioned comments was
discussed in detail in the development of the AHRI 1600-202X Draft,
which accounts for crankcase heater power consumption in the new
cooling and heating metrics, SCORE and SHORE. The AHRI 1600-202X Draft
provisions that account for crankcase heater power consumption are
detailed in section III.G.1.e of this NOPR.
In the August 2016 SNOPR, DOE revised the off-mode test procedure
by imposing time delays to allow self-regulating crankcase heaters to
approach equilibrium. 81 FR 58163, 58173-58174. Specifically, DOE
proposed a 4-hour time delay for units without compressor sound
blankets and an 8-hour time delay for units with compressor sound
blankets. (Id.) DOE proposed these time delays based on testing of a 5-
ton residential condensing unit. (Id.) In response to stakeholder
comments regarding the aforementioned time delays, DOE decided in the
January 2017 Final Rule to adopt the proposed time delays for
measurements of off-mode power in appendix M1 for units with self-
regulating crankcase heaters or heater systems in which the crankcase
heater control is affected by the heater's heat. 82 FR 1426, 1438.
Nevertheless, in the January 2023 RFI, DOE acknowledged that with more
test procedure development time, an approach could potentially be
developed that would allow for accurate projections of self-regulating
crankcase heater energy use to be determined in reduced time and
requested comment on this possibility. 88 FR 4091, 4103.
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested test data that would
indicate if and how the 4-hour time delay (for compressors without
sound blankets) and 8-hour time delay (for compressors with sound
blankets) may be reduced for units with self-regulating crankcase
heaters without compromising the accuracy of the off-mode power
consumption measurement. 88 FR 4091, 4103. In response, Rheem commented
that more study would be needed to understand the effects of delay
reductions on both the accuracy of off-mode power consumption as well
as on reliability of the compressor and crankcase heater. (Rheem, No.
12 at p. 7) No other stakeholders commented on this issue. Hence, DOE
is proposing no changes to the 4- or 8-hour test duration for self-
regulating crankcase heaters.
(d) Shoulder-Season Fan Power Consumption
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested comments on fan-only
operation during the shoulder season, constant circulation controls,
current use of constant circulation among CAC/HP products, the
potential of increased future fan use (considering the transition to
low-GWP refrigerants), and whether a need exists to account for
constant circulation mode in the measurement of SEER2 and HSPF2. 88 FR
4091, 4101-4102. Additionally, DOE requested information on the typical
fan power for constant circulation mode for blower-coil systems (or as
a fraction of cooling or heating fan power), the percentage of people
that use this mode and the associated hours per year on average the
system would be in this mode, whether constant circulation mode is a
default or user configurable
[[Page 24235]]
setting for these systems, whether the measurement of SEER2 and/or
HSPF2 should take into consideration that a certain fraction of systems
will use constant circulation mode rather than turn off the fan during
the compressor off mode, and whether manufacturers could use constant
circulation as part of their mitigation strategy for refrigerant
leakage. (Id.)
In response, AHRI, Daikin, and Samsung all commented that constant
circulation mode is a user configurable setting; and Samsung elaborated
that the default constant circulation mode setting for its products is
``OFF.'' (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 11; Daikin, No. 16 at p. 7; Samsung, No.
11 at p. 2) AHRI and Daikin commented that only a small portion of
consumers use constant circulation mode, citing the January 2023 RFI's
reference to DOE's furnace fan efficiency rulemaking that suggests it
is only used by 9 percent of consumers.\81\ (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 11;
Daikin, No. 16 at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See 77 FR 28674, 28682-28683 for the survey data used to
estimate this value in a furnace fan NOPR published on May 15, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI and Rheem commented that it is impossible to predict how
widespread the use of constant circulation will be as a potential
mitigation for A2L refrigerants. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 11; Rheem No. 12
at pp. 5-6) Rheem explained that, for systems containing group A2L
refrigerants and utilizing continuous circulation airflow as a
mitigation strategy, the required circulation airflow rate is defined
in safety standards as a function of system charge and refrigerant
lower flammability limit. (Rheem No. 12 at pp. 5-6) Rheem noted that
airflow rates (and associated blower motor power consumption) in
continuous airflow mode for systems designed today--which contain group
A1 refrigerants--are unlikely to be the same as the minimum circulation
airflow rate defined in safety standards, and that, therefore, using
data from systems sold today is unlikely to be representative of
systems sold in the future. (Id.) Rheem asserted that it is difficult
to predict whether manufacturers will redesign blower-coil systems to
match the minimum circulation airflow as calculated from equations
prescribed by safety standards, or choose an existing airflow tap that
gives an airflow rate greater than the required minimum when utilizing
continuous circulation airflow as the mitigation action. (Id.)
AHRI, Daikin, Rheem, and Samsung all were opposed to accounting for
constant circulation mode in the test procedure and efficiency metrics
for CAC/HPs, reasoning that, as described earlier, constant circulation
airflow is utilized by only a small portion of all consumers and only
occurs due to consumer selection. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 12; Daikin, No.
16 at pp. 7-8; Rheem, No. 12 at p. 6; Samsung, No. 11 at p. 2)
Conversely, the CA IOUs and NYSERDA both recommended that DOE consider
addressing the energy consumption of fans in constant circulation mode
for all products in either the CAC/HP test procedure or furnace fan
test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 10 at p. 4; NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 12) To
back its position, NYSERDA pointed to its evaluation of heat pump
programs that found fan energy is not adequately accounted for in
reported data and can be widely variable. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 12)
Further, NYSERDA suggested that, when a manufacturer's standard
equipment settings include a continuous or intermittent fan-on mode of
operation (for example, to sample the air temperature) as the default,
constant fan-on energy should be incorporated in the standby power
measurement, along with the bin-hour attribution of standby to SEER2
and HSPF2. (Id.)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and stakeholders, including DOE,
considered several topics raised in the January 2023 RFI, including
shoulder-season fan power consumption, when considering updated
versions of industry standards. The information provided in the
aforementioned comments was discussed in detail in the development of
AHRI 1600-202X Draft. The draft industry test standards do not include
constant circulation fan energy consumption in the efficiency metrics
due to the use of this mode by the minority of consumers which are
understood to select it, for systems for which the mode is user-
selectable. However, for systems that require constant circulation at
all times as a refrigerant leakage mitigation strategy, the constant
circulation is considered as part of the standby and off mode energy
use in the SCORE and SHORE metrics of AHRI 1600-202X Draft, and also in
the cyclic degradation coefficient for both test standards. The AHRI
1600-202X Draft provisions that account for shoulder-season fan power
consumption are detailed in section III.F.1.e of this NOPR.
(e) Accounting for Auxiliary Components' Power Consumption
The information provided by stakeholders in comments, summarized in
the previous subsections, was discussed in detail in the development of
AHRI 1600-202X Draft, which accounts for crankcase heater, base pan
heater, and constant circulation fan energy consumption (as applicable)
in the calculations of the new cooling and heating performance metrics,
SCORE and SHORE. AHRI 1600-202X Draft introduces SCORE and SHORE as
replacements for the current cooling and heating performance metrics,
SEER2 and HSPF2, used to determine the measured efficiency of CAC/HPs.
Unlike SEER2 and HSPF2, which DOE previously noted are only seasonal
descriptors, these new metrics account for the standby and off-mode
power consumption of auxiliary components, including those components
discussed previously (i.e., crankcase heaters and indoor fans utilizing
constant-circulation) for both SCORE and SHORE; and, additionally, base
pan heaters for SHORE.
AHRI 1600-202X Draft includes a new quantity, Es,c
(measured in watt-hours), added to the denominator of the calculation
for SCORE, meant to represent all auxiliary component energy usage
during cooling mode (i.e., during both cooling conditioning hours and
cooling-season shoulder-season hours, as applicable). Outlined in
section 11.2.1.4 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft, Es,c is the
summation of each component's average power multiplied by each
component's number of hours of standby operation during cooling mode,
as follows:
Es,c = (P1 * N1 + P2 * N2)
+ (PCCF * NCCF)
Table 14 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft outlines instructions for
determining each component's number of standby power operating hours in
cooling mode (N1 and N2 for the crankcase heater
and NCCF for the constant circulation fan). In the case of
crankcase heaters, calculations for N1 and N2
depend on the type of crankcase heater controls used by the CAC/HP
system.
AHRI 1600-202X Draft also includes a new quantity, Es,h
(also measured in watt-hours), added to the denominator of the
calculation for SHORE, that is meant to represent all auxiliary
component energy usage during heating mode (i.e., during both heating
conditioning hours and heating-season shoulder-season hours, as
applicable). Outlined in section 11.2.1.4 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft,
Es,c is the summation of each component's average power
multiplied by each component's number of hours of standby operation
during heating mode, as follows:
Es,h = (P1 * N1 + P2 * N2)
+ (PBPH * NBPH)
Table 16 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft outlines instructions for
determining each component's number of standby power operating hours in
heating mode (N1 and N2 for the crankcase heater,
[[Page 24236]]
NCCF for the constant circulation fan, and NBPH
for the base pan heater). In the case of crankcase heaters,
calculations for N1 and N2 depend on the type of
crankcase heater controls used by the CAC/HP system. Similarly, the
calculation of NBPH depends on the type of base pan heater
controls used by the system.
Appendix H of AHRI 1600-202X Draft outlines instructions for
determining the average power (P1 and P2 for the
crankcase heater, PCCF for the constant circulation fan, and
PBPH for the base pan heater) of all auxiliary components
considered in the calculations of either Es,c or
Es,h.
DOE surmises that the respective inclusions of Es,c and
Es,h into the calculations of the new cooling and heating
performance metrics, SCORE and SHORE, represent industry consensus
regarding whether to reflect the power consumption of auxiliary
components in the efficiency metrics for CAC/HPs. DOE has tentatively
determined that inclusion of the energy consumed by auxiliary
components in the efficiency metrics for CAC/HPs would result in more
representative measures of efficiency. Therefore, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the new cooling and heating performance
metrics, SCORE and SHORE, as included in AHRI 1600-202X Draft, and the
associated provisions regarding the standby and off-mode power
consumption of auxiliary components, in appendix M2.
2. Impact of Defrost on Performance
When operating in moderate to low outdoor ambient temperatures, the
outdoor coil surface temperature of a HP is sufficiently low to freeze
over, and frost collects on the coil. To combat the collection of ice
on the outdoor coil, a HP must undergo a defrost cycle, where the HP
temporarily switches to cooling mode operation. Temporarily switching
to cooling mode operation enables a HP to transfer heat from the indoor
coil to the outdoor coil, thus providing the heat needed to warm the
coil and melt the frost. During defrost, different control strategies
are applied to maintain comfort level inside the house. For example,
the indoor fan may or may not be operated during defrost, and (if the
indoor fan is operated) the auxiliary resistance heater may or may not
be energized to warm the indoor air while the system is temporarily in
defrost mode. Defrost initiation can be based on time (clock time or
time of compressor operation), or the need for defrost can be
determined based on temperature and pressure or other measurements that
provide an indication of the need for defrost.\82\ Currently, appendix
M1 defines a demand-defrost control system as a system that defrosts
the HP outdoor coil only when measuring a predetermined degradation of
performance. When frequent defrost occurrences are not needed (e.g.,
when there is insufficient moisture in the outdoor air to build up a
significant frost layer on the outdoor coil), demand defrost can save
energy by delaying defrost initiation. Defrost cycles are terminated
when there is indication that defrost has been long enough for frost to
be eliminated from the coil (e.g., when a coil temperature sensor
indicates the coil is well above 32[deg]F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Some examples of parameters monitored for demand-defrost
control systems are coil to air differential temperature, coil
differential air pressure, outdoor fan power or current, optical
sensors. Note that systems that vary defrost intervals according to
outdoor dry-bulb temperature are not demand-defrost systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Demand Defrost Credit
For CAC/HPs equipped with demand defrost, appendix M1 includes a
term called the demand defrost credit (``Fdef'') in the
HSPF2 calculation to provide nominal credit for HPs with a demand-
defrost control system,\83\ reflecting the relative improvement in
heating mode efficiency due to use of demand defrost rather than
defrosts with fixed periodicity. The credit equation has remained
unchanged in its current form in the test procedure since at least
January 22, 2001, when DOE published a NOPR regarding CAC/HP test
procedures. 66 FR 6767. In the January 2023 RFI, based on test results
of several CAC/HPs in various programs, DOE noted that it is aware of a
range of defrost operation sequences and a range of approaches to
defrost initiation for demand defrost. 88 FR 4091, 4104. Based on these
observations, DOE acknowledged that the demand defrost credit may no
longer accurately reflect the benefits of demand defrost. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ The demand-defrost credit, first introduced in a March 14,
1988 rulemaking (53 FR 8304, 8319), is calculated by the following
equation in section 3.9.2 of appendix M1: Fdef = 1 + 0.03[1-
[Delta][tau]def-1.5/[Delta][tau]max-1.5], where [Delta][tau]def =
time between defrost terminations (in hours) or 1.5, whichever is
greater. [Delta][tau]def is assigned a value of 6 if this limit is
reached during a frost accumulation test and the heat pump has not
completed a defrost cycle, and [Delta][tau]max = maximum time
between defrosts as allowed by the controls (in hours) or 12,
whichever is less, as provided in the certification report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE sought information on the operation of
demand-defrost control systems, specifically any information that would
indicate whether the demand-defrost credit outlined in the calculation
in section 3.9.2 of appendix M1 is representative of the improvement in
seasonal heating efficiency in field operation. 88 FR 4091, 4104. DOE
also requested comment on whether any specific change in the credit
equation could improve its accuracy. Id.
In response, AHRI, Daikin, and Rheem all commented that they would
support an effort by stakeholders to establish a new demand defrost
credit that incentivizes advanced defrost strategies and more
accurately reflects the current state of defrost technology. (AHRI, No.
14 at p. 13; Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 9-10; Rheem, No. 12 at pp. 7-8)
Similarly, the Joint Advocates encouraged DOE to provide a more
sophisticated calculation of the credit, if a revised test procedure
maintains the treatment of defrost separately (as a separate test).
(Joint Advocates, No. 8 at pp. 3-4)
Daikin and the Joint Advocates commented that the current defrost
credit is overly dependent on timing between defrosts and suggested
that the current defrost credit calculation methodology should be
modified to recognize, differentiate, and incentivize other advanced
defrost strategies and their controls. (Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 9-10;
Joint Advocates, No. 8 at pp. 3-4) Daikin specifically pointed out that
appendix M1 currently only recognizes a 3-percent maximum credit during
defrost for a defrost cycle of 91 minutes (even though modern equipment
in some cases can go significantly longer than 91 minutes before
performance degradation necessitates a defrost) and suggested that the
current procedure be modified so that it no longer incentivizes the 91-
minute cycle regardless of whether equipment needs to defrost at that
time. (Daikin, No. 16 at pp. 9-10) The Joint Advocates noted that, in
the definition of demand defrost control system, DOE acknowledges the
different types of controls including parameters that vary with the
amount of frost accumulated on the outdoor coil (e.g., coil to air
differential temperature, coil differential air pressure, outdoor fan
power or current, or optical sensors) and suggested that these
parameters be included in the calculation methodology of a new demand
defrost credit. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at pp. 3-4)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders, including
DOE, discussed several issues raised in the January 2023 RFI, including
the topic of the demand defrost credit, when considering updated
versions of industry standards. The information provided in the
aforementioned comments was discussed in detail in the development of
AHRI 1600-202X Draft, which includes a simplified demand
[[Page 24237]]
defrost credit that uniformly applies a 3% increase to the SHORE rating
for all HPs. As such, Fdef no longer depends on the amount
of time between defrost initiations (e.g., Tdef and
Tmax in appendix M1), and can be either one of two values:
1.03 (for systems equipped with a demand defrost control system) or 1
(for all other systems). DOE surmises that the simplified demand
defrost credit in AHRI 1600-202X Draft represents industry consensus
regarding improvements to the accuracy of the credit, incentives for
more efficient defrost control strategies, and more accurate
representations of modern defrost control technologies in the test
procedure. DOE has tentatively determined that a simplified demand
defrost credit would disincentivize unnecessary early defrosts (90
minutes after the termination of the prior defrost cycle), accurately
represent defrost energy use while limiting test burden, and
consequently allow for more advanced and efficient defrost control
strategies. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the
simplified demand defrost credit in AHRI 1600-202X Draft, at appendix
M2.
(b) Supplementary Heat Usage
Appendix M1 requires that HPs undergo a test at 35 [ordm]F dry-bulb
temperature and 33 [deg]F wet-bulb temperature, a condition for which
frost accumulation is rapid, generally affecting performance before a
30-minute steady-state test can be completed. For this condition, the
test procedure prescribes use of a transient test, including a frost
accumulation period followed by defrost. Capacity and power input for
the test are averaged for a full cycle of heating followed by defrost.
At this condition, appendix M1 estimates the average capacity is at
least 10 percent lower than it would be if there were no frost
accumulation, while average power may be just slightly lower, thus
reducing efficiency. At temperatures between 17 [deg]F and 45 [deg]F,
the performance calculations prescribed in the test procedure call for
representing capacity as a linear function of temperature based on the
tests conducted at 17 [deg]F and 35 [deg]F--likewise for power input.
Hence, the frost/defrost impact is built into the HSPF2 calculation for
temperatures in this range. The DOE test procedure requires use of the
35 [deg]F test for single-stage and two-stage HPs for all capacity
levels. However, for variable speed HPs, the test procedure requires
the defrost test be conducted only at intermediate compressor speed,
and performance is estimated using default degradation factors at full
capacity (see section 3.6.4.1.c of appendix M1).
In the January 2023 RFI, DOE noted that it has observed variations
in testing among HP models regarding defrost control (e.g., time
durations of the defrost can vary significantly for different models,
and the indoor unit fan shuts off during defrost for some units but not
all). 88 FR 4091, 4104. In addition, as part of testing systems with
electric resistance heaters for the DOE CCHP Tech Challenge, DOE noted
that it has observed that resistance heater operation during defrost
can vary significantly for different models. (Id.) DOE acknowledged
that this varying behavior clearly affects energy use, and, while some
aspects of resistance heater operation may be captured by the current
appendix M1 test procedure, others may not be.
As a result, in the January 2023 RFI, DOE requested information
regarding defrost impact on heating capacity and power input over a
range of temperatures to inform evaluation of whether the approach used
in the DOE test procedure to account for this impact is accurate or
whether it could be improved.
In response, Daikin commented that it believes the current appendix
M1 test conditions represent the worst-case scenario and adequately
capture performance during frosting and defrosting operation. (Daikin,
No. 16 at pp. 9-10) As such, Daikin asserted that additional test
points would provide little benefit. (Id.) Similarly, neither AHRI nor
Rheem had any concerns with the current testing approach. (AHRI, No. 14
at p. 13; Rheem, No. 12 at p. 8)
However, Daikin, the Joint Advocates, and NEEA all suggested that
DOE somehow include auxiliary resistance heat during defrost as part of
the defrost test, claiming it would be more representative to include
this power. (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 12; Joint Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3;
NEEA, No. 13 at p. 8) Currently, the appendix M1 test procedure
specifies that electric heat is not to be powered during the defrost
test, regardless of whether a unit may do so in the field. To try and
estimate the change in efficiency that comes with including auxiliary
resistance heat, the Joint Advocates cited a recent Purdue study of a
3-ton, single-stage heat pump, which calculated a COP at 34 [deg]F that
was 10-percent lower when the auxiliary heat was allowed to operate in
defrost.\84\ (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3) Acknowledging that many
test facilities are not designed to handle the power required for
auxiliary heat operation, Daikin suggested that power be added to the
defrost test energy consumption and capacity as a calculation only,
based on the maximum allowable power for a given HP system. (Daikin,
No. 16 at p. 12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3475&context=iracc at p. 6. The 34 [deg]F
outdoor ambient test condition is taken from EXP07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYSERDA and the Joint Advocates both noted that as a load-based
test, SPE07 would inherently address defrost impacts, including power
input and capacity loss, and require no separate test. (Joint
Advocates, No. 8 at pp. 3-4; NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 10-11)
As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders, including
DOE, discussed several topics raised in the January 2023 RFI, including
the topic of accounting for supplementary heat usage (e.g., auxiliary
resistance heat) in the CAC/HP efficiency metrics, when considering
updated versions of industry standards. The information provided in the
aforementioned comments was discussed in detail in the development of
AHRI 1600-202X Draft, which accounts for use of supplementary heat
during defrost. The AHRI 1600-202X Draft approach reduces the
efficiency ratings of such systems, depending on: (1) whether the HP
uses what is defined as defrost heat mode; (2) whether the HP meets
what is defined as the lockout limitation criteria; and (3) the time
period for which the HP operates in what is defined as defrost overrun
mode. The definitions for defrost heat mode, lockout limitation, and
defrost overrun mode in AHRI 1600-202X Draft are shown below.
Defrost Heat Mode means a mode of operation in which an indoor
heating source controlled by any component of the rated combination
(e.g., by the heat pump, heat pump controls, blower controls, or
thermostat) operates for any period of time while the system is
defrosting. Heat pump systems that have the ability to operate the
indoor blower during defrost, whether or not that ability is the
manufacturer default, are considered to have a Defrost Heat Mode.
Defrost Overrun Mode means a mode of operation in which a rated
individual combination that has been operating in a Defrost Heat Mode,
continues to operate for a period of time following the termination of
a defrost. In order to qualify as having a Defrost Overrun Mode, rated
individual combinations must first have a Defrost Heat Mode.
Lockout Limitation means rated individual combinations that lock
out the operation of all non-heat pump indoor heating sources under the
control of the rated individual
[[Page 24238]]
combination during defrost do not have a Defrost Heat Mode. Locking out
means preventing those heating sources from operating in all cases,
with no configuration option to change this behavior.
AHRI 1600-202X Draft introduces two new debits, multiplied to the
new heating metric, SHORE, in the same manner as the demand defrost
credit, to penalize the efficiency ratings of HPs that use defrost heat
mode (unless they meet the lockout limitation criteria) or spend a
period of time greater than or equal to 60 seconds in defrost overrun
mode. One such debit is the defrost heat debit (``FH''),
which is meant to reflect the reduction in efficiency experienced by
HPs that use defrost heat mode and can be either one of two values:
0.98 (for systems with a defrost heat mode) or 1 (for systems that meet
the lockout limitation criteria). The second debit is the defrost
overrun debit (``FO''), which is meant to reflect the
reduction in efficiency experienced by HPs that spend longer time
periods in defrost overrun mode and can be either one of two values:
0.98 (for systems with a defrost overrun mode greater than or equal to
60 seconds) or 1.00 (for systems with a defrost overrun mode less than
60 seconds, or systems that meet the lockout limitation criteria).
DOE surmises that the AHRI 1600-202X Draft's introductions of the
defrost heat debit, the defrost overrun debit, and the associated
definitions for defrost heat mode, lockout limitation, and defrost
overrun mode represent industry consensus regarding whether and how to
include the additional power consumption required by supplementary heat
(e.g., auxiliary resistance heat) in the defrost test. DOE has
tentatively determined that these provisions result in more
representative CAC/HP efficiencies for models with supplementary heat
during defrost. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference
at appendix M2 the defrost heat debit, the defrost overrun debit, and
the associated definitions for defrost heat mode, lockout limitation,
and defrost overrun mode in AHRI 1600-202X Draft.
3. Updates to Building Load Lines and Temperature Bin Hours
In the current CAC/HP test procedure at appendix M1, the cooling
efficiency metric, SEER2, is calculated by evaluating the ratio of the
heating removed from the conditioned space to the energy use of the
refrigeration cycle during the cooling season. For CHPs, the heating
efficiency metric, HSPF2, is calculated by evaluating the ratio of the
heating provided to the conditioned space to the space energy usage of
both the CHP unit (reverse refrigeration cycle) and the resistive heat
component, during the heating season. For the evaluation of SEER2 and
HSPF2, the respective ratios are summed over a temperature range, which
is split into 5-degree ``bins,'' and an average temperature and
fractional hours are assigned to each bin, denoted by n(j)/N. The
cooling season fractional hours, used in the evaluation of SEER2, are
set forth at Table 19 of appendix M1. The heating season fractional
hours, used in the evaluation of HSPF2, are set forth at Table 20 of
appendix M1. The HSPF2 rating is calculated using the fractional hours
particular to Region IV. The amount of cooling and/or heating delivered
are driven by the building cooling and heating loads,
BL(Tj).\85\ For the current test procedure, the building
cooling and heating loads are both proportional to the nominal cooling
capacity at 95 [deg]F outdoor temperature, Qc(95 [deg]F), except for
heating-only heat pumps, for which the heating load is directly
proportional to the nominal heating capacity at 47 [deg]F outdoor
temperature, Qh(47 [deg]F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ The building cooling load and building heating load are
calculated by Equations 4.1-2, and 4.2-2, respectively, in appendix
M1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the January 2023 RFI, NYSERDA encouraged DOE to
reevaluate the fractional cooling bin hours used for calculating SEER2.
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 9-10) NYSERDA pointed out that these fractional
cooling bin hours were originally developed in 1978 specifically for
units with a two-speed compressor and units equipped with two
compressors. (Id.) NYSERDA suggested that these hours should be
recalculated using more recent Typical Meteorological Year (``TMY'')
data, and also consider the improvements in CAC/HP technology since
1978. (Id. at p. 10)
As previously mentioned, AHRI 1600-202X Draft includes new cooling
and heating metrics for namely SCORE and SHORE. These new metrics use
total hours instead of fractional hours. This change is consistent with
the recent approach of having metrics that represent total conditioning
delivered divided by all power consumed. Total hours are split into
conditioning hours and shoulder hours--conditioning hours are hours
when conditioning (cooling/heating) is required and shoulder hours are
hours when conditioning (cooling/heating) is not required (i.e., there
is no conditioning load). For the cooling season, the total hours are
split into cooling conditioning hours and cooling season shoulder
hours. For the heating season, the total hours are split into heating
conditioning hours and heating season shoulder hours. The cooling
conditioning hours and cooling season shoulder hours for each bin are
listed in Table 13 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft, and the heating
conditioning hours and heating season shoulder hours for each bin are
listed in Table 15 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft.
The total hours for the cooling and heating seasons were calculated
using TMYx:2007-2021 data (``TMYx''), which is a specific set of
weather data from years 2007 to 2021. Because SCORE and SHORE are
intended to be national efficiency standards, the total hours for each
season were population-weighted. Multiple cities were selected, based
on their population, from each climate zone specified in ASHRAE 169-
2021,\86\ for capturing the variations in climate along those zones. To
determine the appropriate split between conditioning hours (i.e., when
cooling/heating is required) and shoulder hours (i.e., when cooling/
heating is not required), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
(``PNNL'') performed a series of building load analyses using
EnergyPlus version 9.6 on a prototype single-family detached house
based on the 2009 IECC code, located in representative cities in ASHRAE
climate zones 1-8. The inputs for the EnergyPlus simulations were
selected to largely mirror those that had been previously used in
informing the January 2017 Final Rule, but with appropriate updates to
the weather data and the IECC code.\87\ The underlying weather data was
updated to TMYx and the IECC building code was updated to the 2009
version. The data from each individual EnergyPlus simulation output was
binned and yielded the cooling conditioning hours, cooling season
shoulder hours, heating conditioning hours, and heating season shoulder
hours for each climate zone, which were then population-weighted to
arrive at the national numbers in Table 13 and Table 15 of AHRI 1600-
202X Draft. Additionally, for CAC/HPs
[[Page 24239]]
located in cold climates, Table 15 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft also
includes the ``Cold Climate Average'' heating conditioning hours and
heating shoulder hours. These were calculated by a population-weighted
average of the data from EnergyPlus simulations for the colder climate
ASHRAE zones 5-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ ASHRAE 169-2021 ``Climatic Data for Building Design
Standards'' provides a variety of climatic information used mainly
the design, planning and sizing of buildings' energy systems and
equipment. Available for purchase at www.ashrae.org/technical-
resources/bookstore/weather-data-
center#:~:text=Standard%20169%2D2021%2C%20Climatic%20Data,the%202021%
20ASHRAE%20Handbook%E2%80%94Fundamentals.
\87\ For the January 2017 Final Rule, the building load analysis
done by ORNL using EnergyPlus is summarized in the following report:
ORNL, Rice, C. Keith, Bo Shen, and Som S. Shrestha, 2015. An
Analysis of Representative Heating Load Lines for Residential HSPF
Ratings, ORNL/TM-2015/281, July. (Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0004-
0046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding updates to the building load lines, the PNNL EnergyPlus
simulations also yielded the average cooling and average heating loads
for each climate zone, binned by temperature intervals of 5 [deg]F. The
results obtained were largely consistent with the building load lines
(BL(Tj)) in the current appendix M1, barring the minor
flattening of the building load near the zero-load points. As such, the
equations used for calculating the building loads were `split' into two
sections in AHRI 1600-202X Draft. The cooling building load line for
outdoor temperatures at and above 72.5 [deg]F was maintained consistent
with current appendix M1, but with one change--requiring that the
multiplier `V' in the cooling building load line apply to all variable-
capacity compressor systems instead of just variable-capacity heat
pumps.
For outdoor temperatures above 72.5 [deg]F, the cooling building
load line was modified, given by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.052
Where BL(47.5) is the cooling building load at 72.5 [deg]F.
Similarly, the heating building load line for outdoor temperatures
at and below 47.5 [deg]F was maintained consistent with current
appendix M1, but with one change--requiring that the slope (adjustment)
factor,Cx, be set to 1.07 for variable-capacity compressor systems, and
1.15 otherwise, regardless of climate zone.
For outdoor temperatures above 47.5 [deg]F, the heating building
load line was modified, given by:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.053
Where BL(47.5) is the heating building load at 72.5 [deg]F.
DOE surmises that the switch from fractional hours to total hours,
the associated values of the conditioning hours and shoulder hours, and
changes in the building load line equations represent industry
consensus for calculations of the new cooling and heating performance
metrics, SCORE and SHORE. DOE has tentatively determined that this
approach best represents CAC/HP operation over a representative period
of use. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the new
cooling conditioning hours, cooling season shoulder hours, heating
conditioning hours, heating season shoulder hours, and the updated
building load line equations in the AHRI 1600-202X Draft, at appendix
M2. DOE is also clarifying that representations of SHORE made using the
`Cold Climate Average' heating conditioning hours and shoulder season
hours in Table 15 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft are optional.
4. Default Fan Power Coefficients for Coil-Only Systems
Coil-only air conditioners are matched split systems consisting of
a condensing unit and indoor coil that are distributed in commerce
without an indoor blower or separate designated air mover. Such systems
installed in the field rely on a separately installed furnace or a
modular blower for indoor air movement. Because coil-only CAC/HPs do
not include their own indoor fan to circulate air, the DOE test
procedures prescribe equations that are used to calculate the assumed
(i.e., ``default'') power input and heat output of an average furnace
fan with which the test procedure assumes the indoor coil is paired in
a field installation. In each equation, the measured airflow rate (in
cubic feet per minute of standard air (``scfm'')) is multiplied by a
defined coefficient (expressed in Watts (``W'') per 1000 scfm (``W/1000
scfm'') for fan power, and Btu/h per 1000 scfm (``Btu/h/1000 scfm'')
for fan heat), hereafter referred to as the ``default fan power
coefficient'' and ``default fan heat coefficient.'' The resulting fan
power input value is added to the electrical power consumption measured
during testing. The resulting fan heat output value is subtracted from
the measured cooling capacity of the CAC/HP for cooling mode tests and
added to the measured heating capacity for heating mode tests.
In appendix M1, separate fan power and fan heat equations are
provided for different types of coil-only systems (e.g., the equations
for mobile home or space-constrained are different than for
``conventional'' non-mobile home and non-space-constrained, and the
equations for single-stage are different than for two-stage and
variable speed).\88\ See, e.g., appendix M1, section 3.3. For single-
stage coil-only units installed in mobile homes and for single-stage
space-constrained systems, appendix M1 defines a default fan power
coefficient of 406 W/1000 scfm and a default fan heat coefficient of
1385 Btu/h/1000 scfm. See, e.g., appendix M1, section 3.3.d. For
single-stage coil-only units installed in ``conventional'' (i.e., non-
mobile-home and non-space-constrained) systems, appendix M1 defines a
default fan power coefficient of 441 W/1000 scfm and a default fan heat
coefficient of 1505 Btu/h/1000 scfm. See, e.g., appendix M1, section
3.3.e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ The different default fan power and default fan heat
coefficients for mobile-home and space-constrained systems as
compared to conventional systems reflect the lower duct pressure
drop expected for such systems in field operation--the lower values
are consistent with the lower ESP levels required in testing of
blower-coil systems intended for mobile home and spaced-constrained
applications (see Table 4 of appendix M1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For two-stage and variable speed coil-only systems, appendix M1
defines equations to interpolate different default fan power
coefficients and default fan heat coefficients for the full-load and
part-load tests, depending on the air volume rate used for each test
expressed as a percentage of the cooling full-load air volume rate
(``%FLAVR''). See, e.g., appendix M1, section 3.3, equations for
DFPCMHSC and DFPCC. Appendix M1 interpolates the
default fan power coefficient for two-stage and variable speed coil-
only units installed in mobile homes and for two-stage and variable
speed space-constrained coil-only systems (``DFPCMHSC'')
using assumptions for full-load default fan power at 406 W (i.e., the
same as for single-stage systems) and a lower-load default fan power at
a reduced air volume rate of 75 percent, at 308 W. For ``conventional''
non-mobile-home and non-space-constrained two-stage and variable speed
systems, appendix M1 interpolates the default fan power coefficient
(``DFPCC'') using assumptions for full-load default fan
power at 441 W (i.e., the same as for single-stage systems) and a
lower-load default fan power at a reduced air volume rate of 75
percent, at 335 W. The default fan power values used in the
determination of the default fan power coefficients were a result of
empirical analysis presented by DOE in the October 2022 Final Rule.
(See 87 FR 64550, 64555-64559).
As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders, including
DOE, considered several topics, including the topic of default fan
power coefficients for coil-only systems, when developing updated
versions of industry standards. AHRI 1600-202X Draft updates the
default fan power values used in each interpolation to better reflect
the fan power values used by coil-only systems today (on average) and
changes the equations for default fan power
[[Page 24240]]
coefficients to use lower-load default fan powers at a reduced air
volume rate of 65 percent, rather than 75 percent as in appendix M1.
For space-constrained coil-only systems, the AHRI 1600-202X Draft uses
a full-load default fan power of 293 W and a lower-load default fan
power of 135 W in the default fan power coefficient interpolation. For
non-space-constrained coil-only systems, AHRI 1600-202X Draft uses a
full-load default fan power of 346 W and a lower-load default fan power
of 159 W. All default fan powers are lower than those used in the
calculation of DFPCMHSC and DFPCC in appendix M1.
DOE surmises that the new equations for default fan power coefficients
and default fan heat coefficients (and their reduced full-load default
fan powers and their reduced lower-load default fan powers at a reduced
air volume rate of 65 percent) in AHRI 1600-202X Draft represent
industry consensus regarding the assumed power input and heat output of
an average furnace fan or modular blower with which the test procedure
assumes the indoor coil is pared in a field installation. DOE has
tentatively determined that the reduced full-load and low-load default
fan powers more accurately reflect the average design of the current
installed base for blowers paired with coil-only CAC/HP installations,
which increasingly use more efficient fan motors (with lower wattages).
DOE has also tentatively determined that the reduced air volume rate
more accurately reflects the average low-load air volume rate of the
current installed base for blowers paired with coil-only CAC/HP
installations. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference
the default fan power coefficient equations and default fan heat
coefficient equations, and associated default fan powers used to
interpolate such coefficients, in AHRI 1600-202X Draft, at appendix M2.
5. Indoor Ambient Test Conditions for Cooling Mode Tests
Currently, appendix M1 prescribes test conditions for CAC/HPs in
Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8 that require all cooling mode tests to be
performed under air entering indoor unit temperatures of 80 [deg]F
(dry-bulb temperature)/67 [deg]F (wet-bulb temperature), with some wet-
bulb temperature exceptions.
In response to the January 2023 RFI, DOE received several comments
regarding these indoor ambient test conditions. As mentioned previously
in this NOPR, the Joint Advocates encouraged DOE to choose more
representative indoor air temperatures for the cooling mode tests.
(Joint Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3) Specifically, the Joint Advocates
referred to an ACEEE paper \89\ that suggests indoor temperatures of 75
[deg]F/63 [deg]F would be more representative than the 80 [deg]F/67
[deg]F conditions currently used in appendix M1. (Id.) The Joint
Advocates also referred to recommendation 4 of the 2022 ASRAC CUAC and
CUHP WG TP term sheet, which recommends return air temperature
(``RAT'') test conditions for cooling at 77 [deg]F/64 [deg]F, not 80
[deg]F/67 [deg]F, to calculate seasonal performance metrics. (Id.)
Similarly, NYSERDA also recommended that DOE consider revising the air
entering indoor unit temperature conditions in the cooling mode tests,
asserting that the conditions are not representative of actual
setpoints in the field, per 2020 RECS data.\90\ (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p.
9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2006/data/papers/SS06_Panel1_Paper24.pdf.
\90\ See www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2020/hc/pdf/HC%207.1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comments regarding the comparison of appendix M1 test
conditions to those test conditions used by SPE07, Daikin pointed out
that changing the indoor dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperature conditions
would significantly alter the numerical value of resultant efficiency
metrics. (Daikin, No. 16 at p. 5) Specifically, Daikin estimated that
changing the indoor ambient test conditions from 80 [deg]F/67 [deg]F to
75 [deg]F/63 [deg]F alone would result in an approximate 9-percent
reduction in capacity (and therefore efficiency), although Daikin could
not share its data to back this estimate. (Id.) If the indoor ambient
test conditions were to change, Daikin stated that the numerical shift
should not affect the ranking order of CAC/HPs by measured
efficiencies. (Id.) Daikin also noted that requiring additional testing
at different test conditions would increase time burden, costs, and
trouble for manufacturers. (Id.)
The information provided in the aforementioned comments was
discussed in detail in the development of the AHRI 1600-202X Draft,
which maintained the existing indoor ambient test conditions for
cooling tests. DOE surmises that this absence of change tentatively
represents industry consensus regarding whether the existing 80 [deg]F/
67 [deg]F indoor ambient test conditions require amendments at this
time. DOE has tentatively determined that the potential benefits of
such a change would not outweigh the resulting consumer confusion and
oversizing issues stemming from a change to the nominal ratings of
systems. Therefore, DOE is proposing no change to the current indoor
ambient test conditions for the cooling mode tests.
6. Air Flow Limits To Address Inadequate Dehumidification
During the development of AHRI 1600-202X Draft, AHRI and other
stakeholders, including DOE, considered a variety of topics regarding
CAC/HPs, including topics that were not explicitly raised by issues
presented in the January 2023 RFI. Among those topics was how to
address issues relating to the dehumidification inadequacy of some CAC/
HPs. Some CAC/HPs have sensible heat ratios (``SHRs'') too high to meet
consumer needs for dehumidification, especially in hot and warm, humid
climates.
To ensure that CAC/HPs ratings account for adequate
dehumidification in these climates, the AHRI 1600-202X Draft
establishes new airflow limits for the cooling mode tests to avoid high
SHRs. Specifically, section 6.1.5.2 of the AHRI 1600-202X Draft sets a
maximum airflow limit at 37.5 scfm per 1000 Btu/h (i.e., 450 cfm per
ton of capacity) for cooling full airflow. Additionally, section
6.1.5.3 of the AHRI 1600-202X Draft sets a maximum airflow limit at 50
scfm per 1000 Btu/h (i.e., 600 cfm per ton of capacity) for cooling low
airflow. Should the cooling full airflow or cooling low airflow
specified by the manufacturer exceed these limits, the AHRI 1600-202X
Draft requires that airflows be reduced to meet these limits for
testing.
DOE surmises that the addition and selection of specific cooling
airflow limits in the AHRI 1600-202X Draft represent industry consensus
regarding the issue of inadequate dehumidification. DOE has tentatively
determined that such airflow limits are appropriate to ensure that CAC/
HPs provide adequate dehumidification during cooling mode operation.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the cooling
full airflow and cooling low airflow limits specified in the AHRI 1600-
202X Draft, at appendix M2.
H. General Comments Received in Response to the January 2023 RFI
In response to the January 2023 RFI, DOE received several general
comments not specific to any one test procedure provision. This section
discusses those general comments received.
Both AHRI and NCP commented that the requirement to test according
to appendix M1 (effective January 1, 2023), specifically the change to
SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics, caused considerable confusion in the
marketplace. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 4; NCP, No. 7 at p. 2) As
[[Page 24241]]
a result of the metrics change (and lower values for efficiency for
SEER2 and HSPF2), AHRI and NCP explained that they and other
manufacturers worked together to develop educational resources for
dealers, contractors, code officials, and end-users in an effort to
quell confusion. (Id.) However, AHRI stated that distributing such
resources was difficult considering the large number of contractors and
installers in jurisdictions across the nation. (Id.) Both AHRI and NCP
commented that the burden associated with the previous metrics change
to SEER2 and HSPF2 was not well accounted for in the last test
procedure rulemaking. (Id.) Subsequently, NCP stated that DOE should
allow time to measure the overall impact of the new appendix M1 ratings
and assess any actual benefit before undertaking additional steps to
amend the procedure in this test procedure rulemaking. (NCP, No. 7 at
p. 2)
As noted earlier, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference
industry standards at appendix M1 and appendix M2, which were developed
with the broad consensus of several stakeholders, including AHRI and
NCP. It is DOE's hope that incorporating each industry standard in full
as the basis for each respective appendix would enable DOE to limit
manufacturer burden that would have otherwise arisen solely due to
certifying to a standalone Federal test procedure. DOE has tentatively
determined that the revisions proposed at appendix M1 would not result
in changes in the SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics, and notes that use of
appendix M2 would not be required until the compliance date of any
amended standards denominated in terms of the new metrics, SCORE and
SHORE. Additionally, DOE has assessed the test procedure costs and
impacts in section III.M of this NOPR and has provided an opportunity
to comment.
Lennox stated that DOE should fully consider the impacts of
transitioning to lower GWP refrigerants as part of the test procedure
rulemaking process. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 2) Lennox commented that HVACR
manufactures will be investing millions of dollars in product
development and capital investment to facilitate a transition across
the entire HVACR product portfolio of residential and commercial
equipment and that these impacts must be considered in this test
procedure rulemaking. (Id.)
DOE notes that Lennox did not identify any specific impacts related
to transitioning to low GWP refrigerants. As discussed in section
III.F.5, DOE has considered that with the use of low GWP refrigerants,
particularly A2L refrigerants, a subsequent need may exist for the
constant circulation of air or circulation based on leak detection to
accommodate the refrigerant leak detection and mitigation strategies in
CAC/HP product design. Both the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-
202X Draft include provisions for such systems, which DOE is
incorporating by reference at appendix M1 and appendix M2,
respectively. Lennox was involved in the development of these industry
standards and DOE surmises that Lennox's concerns pertaining to impacts
of lower GWP refrigerants have been appropriately addressed.
Lennox also stated that DOE should exercise caution as it proceeds
with test procedure amendments for CAC/HP products to ensure the
impacts and timing of test procedure amendments are fully considered,
particularly so that manufacturers may fully evaluate any test
procedure impacts before DOE assesses potentially amending energy
conservation standards. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 2)
In response to Lennox, DOE notes that both test procedures and
energy conservation standards actions are subject to the requirements
of EPCA. As discussed, EPCA states that the Secretary shall review test
procedures for all covered products, including CAC/HPs, at least once
every 7 years. (see 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(a)) The most recent CAC/HP
test procedure rulemaking completed in satisfaction of EPCA's 7-year
review requirement concluded with the January 2017 Final Rule. (See 82
FR 1426). Similarly, EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years
after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a
standard, DOE evaluate the energy conservation standards for each type
of covered product, including CAC/HPs, and publish either a
notification of determination that the standards do not need to be
amended, or a NOPR that includes new proposed energy conservation
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (See 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)) The most recent CAC/HP energy conservation standards
rulemaking completed in satisfaction of EPCA's 6-year review
requirement concluded with a direct final rule published on January 6,
2017 (``January 2017 ECS DFR''). (See 82 FR 1786). As noted, revisions
proposed at appendix M1 would not result in changes in the SEER2 and
HSPF2 metrics, and use of appendix M2 would not be required until the
compliance date of any amended standards denominated in terms of the
new metrics, SCORE and SHORE. DOE has tentatively determined that this
proposed test procedure structure would provide sufficient time to
assess new metrics when considering any future amended energy
conservation standards.
While Lennox stated it supports test procedure changes to improve
the representativeness of the CAC/HP test procedures, it also
emphasized that such changes must not be unduly burdensome. (Lennox,
No. 6 at p. 4) Similarly, NCP stated that DOE should avoid amendments
to the test procedure that increase burden and noted that EPCA requires
test procedures to not be unduly burdensome. (NCP, No. 7 at p. 2)
Specifically, NCP stated that DOE should avoid amendments to the test
procedure that increase burden for space-constrained AC and HP
products, as it has found no significant benefits to be attained by
test procedure changes to this type of product at this time. (Id.)
As discussed previously, EPCA requires test procedures proposed by
DOE not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE
discusses the estimated costs and impact of the proposed test
procedures at appendix M1 and appendix M2 in section III.M of this
NOPR. As noted earlier, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference
industry standards at appendix M1 and appendix M2 that were developed
with the broad consensus of several stakeholders, including Lennox and
NCP. DOE has tentatively determined that incorporating each industry
standard in full as the basis for each respective appendix would limit
manufacturer burden.
AHRI requested that DOE parse test procedure changes into separate
groupings, so stakeholders can understand those changes that would
substantively impact the ratings and, if possible, the extent of their
impact. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 4)
In response, DOE notes that it has categorized the proposed test
procedures by topic and timing of changes (i.e., near-term changes at
appendix M1 versus long-term changes at appendix M2) to assist in
manufacturers' understandings of the changes themselves and the impacts
they may pose.
The Joint Advocates encouraged DOE to consider additional reporting
requirements in a test procedure rulemaking. (Joint Advocates, No. 8 at
p. 4) Specifically, the Joint Advocates asserted that the ability for
various stakeholders to calculate performance in any climate will
likely be very important for the adoption of heat pumps in coming
years. (Id.) Subsequently, the Joint Advocates
[[Page 24242]]
encouraged DOE to engage stakeholders to determine which additional
performance reporting requirements would be beneficial (e.g., capacity
maintenance or COP at various temperatures) in a test procedure
rulemaking. (Id.)
In response, DOE notes that it will consider certification
requirements for CAC/HPs, including additional reporting requirements
mentioned by the Joint Advocates, in a separate rulemaking for
certification, compliance, and enforcement.
NYSERDA recommended that DOE consider approaches in the test
procedure that address both demand response-enabled and thermal storage
performance features of CAC/HPs. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 14) To highlight
the potential opportunities for load curtailment using demand response,
NYSERDA stated that it evaluated outdoor temperatures greater than or
equal to 95 [deg]F for certain U.S.-based cities. (NYSERDA, No. 9 at p.
14) NYSERDA stated that it then developed charge and discharge pattern
estimates using renewable portfolio standards (``RPS'') as a pathway to
generation while relying on the energy storage perspectives offered in
a California Independent System Operator Corporation (``CAISO'') report
on California and Europe.\91\ (Id.) NYSERDA stated that these estimates
are summarized in Figure 1 of NYSERDA's response to the January 2023
RFI. (Id.) NYSERDA commented that several high outdoor temperatures
within Figure 1 fall within the charge zone associated with lower-price
periods and high generation and contended that the small percentage of
outdoor temperatures within the discharge zone (i.e., higher price
periods with peak demand) could be managed using the general
curtailment and critical curtailment approaches specified in AHRI
Standard 1380-2019. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See www.caiso.com/Documents/EnergyStorage-PerspectivesFromCalifornia-Europe.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, NYSERDA noted that specifications issued by EPA and
the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (``CEE'') prescribe connected
criteria for demand response-enabled products, and that energy
efficiency program administrators may consider offering incentives on
connected criteria to strategically manage peak load outside of solely
focusing on performance metrics such as SEER2, HSPF2, and EER2.
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at p. 14) NYSERDA recommended that DOE account for such
demand response-enabled features in the revised test procedure, for
example, by down-weighting or eliminating the bin hours from the SEER2
rating above a typical curtailment threshold. (Id.) NYSERDA stated that
this could be provided as a secondary metric so that users who choose
not to participate in demand-response programs would still have access
to the ``normal'' SEER2 rating for comparison. (Id.)
Neither AHRI 210/240-202X Draft nor AHRI 1600-202X Draft include
any provisions regarding demand response-enabled products. In the
absence of discussion or changes to the AHRI test procedures, DOE
surmises that no changes need to be made regarding demand response-
enabled CAC/HP products in the test procedures at this time. Therefore,
DOE is proposing no provisions to address demand response-enabled CAC/
HP products in the test procedures at either appendix M1 or appendix
M2. DOE will continue to evaluate demand response functions in CAC/HPs
and consider whether such functions should be accounted for in a future
DOE test procedure. While DOE is not proposing changes to the Federal
test procedures, DOE does note that the ENERGY STAR Spec V6.1 includes
requirements for demand response capability and provides a means for
product differentiation.
NYSERDA also commented that it has been working with heat pump
technologies that incorporate thermal storage,\92\ and suggested that
this technology would fit under DOE's CAC/HP test procedure rulemaking.
(NYSERDA, No. 9 at pp. 14-15) NYSERDA recommended that DOE consider if
this technology may make sense to be a standalone product category or
otherwise consider the potential growth of this technology and how it
would fit into the scope of CAC/HPs. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ In its simplest form, thermal storage involves using excess
energy to heat/cool, melt or vaporize a material so that this stored
energy can be recovered later. Heat pumps with thermal energy
storage can store energy during times when electricity prices are
low and release it during peak demand hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, AHRI and other stakeholders, including
DOE, considered a variety of topics regarding CAC/HPs. However, the
topic of heat pump technologies that incorporate thermal storage was
not brought up as a topic for discussion, and neither AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft nor AHRI 1600-202X Draft include any provisions regarding such
technologies. Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that heat
pumps with thermal storage are a niche application, and DOE currently
does not have enough information to include test provisions for such
systems within CAC/HP test procedure. DOE also has not received any
petitions for test procedure waivers to date that would address this
technology. In the absence of discussion or changes to the AHRI test
procedures, DOE has tentatively determined that no provisions are
currently necessary regarding heat pump technologies that incorporate
thermal storage in the test procedures at either appendix M1 or
appendix M2. However, DOE may consider the topic of heat pump
technologies that incorporate thermal storage in a future rulemaking.
I. Represented Values
In the following sections, DOE discusses requirements regarding
represented values. To the extent that DOE is proposing changes to the
requirements specified in 10 CFR 429 regarding representations of CAC/
HPs, such amendments to 10 CFR part 429, if made final, would be
required starting 180 days after publication in the Federal Register of
the test procedure final rule. Prior to 180 days after publication in
the Federal Register of the test procedure final rule, the current
requirements would apply. However, manufacturers would be permitted to
choose between using the current or new requirements for a period
between 30 days and 180 days after publication in the Federal Register
of the test procedure final rule.
1. Calculating Represented Values for the Federal Trade Commission
As described in a final rule regarding EnergyGuide labels published
on October 12, 2022, the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'') is
responsible for periodical updates to energy labeling for major home
appliances and other consumer products, including CAC/HPs, to help
consumers compare competing models. 87 FR 61465, 61466. Among other
disclosures, EnergyGuide labels for CAC/HPs include estimated annual
energy costs for both cooling and heating, which are based on the
represented values for each basic model's efficiencies (SEER2 and
HSPF2, as applicable) and cooling capacities and estimates for cooling
load hours (``CLH'') and heating load hours (``HLH'') in a year.
Currently, the FTC uses 1,000 and 1,572 hours as estimates for CLH and
HLH, respectively, for all ratings of CAC/HP basic models.\93\ In this
NOPR, DOE is proposing to retain the current CLH and HLH estimates in
appendix M1, for use in conjunction
[[Page 24243]]
with SEER2 and HSPF2 representations. However, DOE is also proposing
new estimates for CLH and HLH for use in conjunction with the proposed
appendix M2 efficiency metrics, SCORE and SHORE. Specifically, DOE is
proposing to use 1,457 and 972 hours as estimates for CLH and HLH,
respectively, for use in conjunction with SCORE and SHORE
representations. Unlike SEER2 and HSPF2, SCORE and SHORE are integrated
metrics (that include off-mode and standby power) and use updated
weather data for the United States' average number of conditioning and
shoulder-season hours per temperature bin. Given the different metrics,
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed appendix M2 requires
new CLH and HLH values for use by the FTC. Step-by-step derivations of
proposed appendix M2 CLH and HLH values are presented in a docketed
white paper titled ``Derivation of Proposed Appendix M2 Cooling Load
Hours and Heating Load Hours for the Federal Trade Commission.'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See Table 21 of appendix M1 for the current CLH and HLH
estimates used for rating values.
\94\ This paper is available for reference in Docket No. EERE-
2022-BT-TP-0028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Off-Mode Power
Off-mode power, PW,OFF, is a required represented value
for all CAC/HPs, as specified in 10 CFR 429.16(a)(1). Currently,
section 3.13 of appendix M1 includes testing instructions to determine
off mode power ratings for CAC/HPs. As discussed in section III.F.1,
the revised appendix M1 incorporates by reference AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft. Section 11.2.3 and appendix H of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft include
the same test instructions to determine PW,OFF as are
present in the current appendix M1 and therefore no changes are
required when representation are made per appendix M1.
However, as discussed in section III.F.1 of this NOPR, the metrics
applicable to appendix M2, SCORE and SHORE, incorporate off-mode power
consumption, unlike the current cooling and heating metrics SEER2 and
HSPF2, respectively. As such, requiring representation of
PW,OFF would be redundant for appendix M2. Therefore, DOE is
proposing to clarify at 10 CFR 429.16(a)(2) that represented values of
PW,OFF are only required when testing in accordance with
appendix M1.
Additionally, 10 CFR 429.16(b)(2)(ii) currently allows flexibility
for manufacturers to not test each individual model/combination (or
tested combination) for PW,OFF, but at a minimum, test at
least one individual model/combination for PW,OFF among
individual models/combinations with similar off-mode construction. DOE
is retaining this flexibility for testing to appendix M1. DOE is also
extending similar flexibility for determining off-mode power values
P1 (off-mode power in shoulder season) and P2
(off-mode power in heating season), which are used in the calculation
of the SCORE and SHORE metrics when testing to appendix M2, but for
which DOE is not proposing to require represented values.
Specifically, DOE is proposing at 10 CFR 429.16(b)(2)(iii) that
when testing in accordance with appendix M2 and determining SCORE and
SHORE, each individual model/combination is not required to be tested
for values of P1 (off-mode power in shoulder season) and
P2 (off-mode power in heating season). Instead, at a
minimum, among individual models/combinations with similar off-mode
construction (even spanning different models of outdoor units), a
manufacturer must test at least one individual model/combination, for
which P1 and P2 are the most consumptive.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its proposal at 10 CFR
429.16(b)(2)(iii) to extend testing flexibility to P1 (off-mode power
in shoulder season) and P2 (off-mode power in heating season) when
determining SCORE and SHORE, such that each individual model/
combination is not required to be tested for values of P1 and P2.
3. AEDM Tolerance for SCORE and SHORE
DOE's existing regulations allow the use of an AEDM, in lieu of
testing, to simulate the efficiency of CAC/HPs. 10 CFR 429.16(d). For
models certified with an AEDM, results from DOE verification tests are
subject to certain tolerances when compared to certified ratings. 10
CFR 429.70(e)(5)(v). The current tolerance specified for efficiency
metrics for CAC/HPs (i.e., SEER2, HSPF2, and EER2) requires that the
result from the DOE verification test must be greater than or equal to
0.95 multiplied by the certified represented value. To maintain
consistency with the existing efficiency metrics, DOE is proposing to
extend the same tolerance requirement to the new efficiency metrics
measured per appendix M2--SCORE and SHORE.
4. Removal of the AEDM Exception for Split-System CAC/HPs
Currently, the AEDM requirements at 10 CFR 429.70[euro] allow that,
until July 1, 2024, non-space-constrained single-split-system CAC/HPs
rated based on testing in accordance with appendix M1 are allowed to
test a single-unit sample from 20 percent of the basic models
distributed in commerce to validate the AEDM. On or after July 1, 2024,
validation of the AEDM has to be based on complete testing of each
basic model. See 10 CFR 429.70(e)(2)(i)(A). Corresponding provisions
are also included at 10 CFR 429.16, paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and
(c)(1)(i)(B).
Since amendments proposed in this NOPR are not expected to be
finalized and made effective before July 1, 2024, the aforementioned
AEDM exception for non-space-constrained single-split-system CAC/HPs
would no longer apply at the time this rulemaking finalizes. As such,
DOE is proposing to remove the date-based application of the AEDM
requirement and instead clarifies that AEDM validation for all CAC/HPs,
including non-space-constrained single-split-system CAC/HPs, must be
based on complete testing of each basic model.
J. Enforcement Provisions
1. Verifying Cut-Out and Cut-In Temperatures
As discussed in section III.E.3 of this NOPR, appendix J of AHRI
210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft--which DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference--includes a test to determine cut-out and cut-
in temperatures (i.e., Toff and Ton respectively)
that is applicable to all HPs. To enable DOE to verify certified cut-
out and cut-in temperatures using the test methods in appendix K of the
AHRI drafts, DOE is proposing product-specific provisions at 10 CFR
429.134(k)--specifically, DOE is proposing that for assessment and
enforcement testing of CHP models, the cut-out and cut-in temperatures
may be verified using the method in appendix J and that if this method
is conducted, the cut-in and cut-out temperatures determined using this
method will be used to calculate the relevant heating metric for
purposes of compliance.
DOE will consider certification requirements for CAC/HPs, including
the potential requirement for certification of cut-out and cut-in
temperatures, in a separate rulemaking.
2. Controls Verification Procedure
As discussed in section III.E.1.d of this NOPR, appendix I of AHRI
210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft--which DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference--includes a CVP to verify compliance of system
operation with the variable-capacity compressor system definition and
consistency of fixed-position settings for the compressor and indoor
fan used in
[[Page 24244]]
steady-state tests with native control operation.
DOE is proposing provisions at 10 CFR 429.134(k) to establish
requirements for DOE's use of the CVP for the purposes of assessment
and enforcement testing. DOE is proposing that after conducting the
CVP, which itself would be performed after an assessment or enforcement
test using the DOE test procedure (i.e., a certification test using
Appendix M1 or Appendix M2, as applicable), if a unit is determined to
be either a variable-capacity compressor system, variable capacity
certified, single-capacity system, or variable capacity certified, two-
capacity system, and meets the tolerances on capacity measurement (+/-6
percent) and efficiency \95\ (+/-10 percent) for the full and minimum
load CVP intervals, the efficiency metrics for the unit will be
evaluated by conducting the prescribed DOE rating tests per Appendix M1
or Appendix M2 applicable to that system. These tests will be conducted
based on the override instructions from the manufacturer for setting
the appropriate compressor and fan speeds for each test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ EER2 for cooling load intervals, and COP2 for heating load
intervals
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, if either of the full or minimum load CVP intervals fail
to meet the required tolerances, and the control device allows
adjustment of the compressor and indoor blower speeds,\96\ DOE will
conduct certification tests by setting the speeds for the tests to the
average values observed during the corresponding failed CVP
interval.\97\ If either of the full or minimum load CVP intervals fail
to meet the required tolerances, and the control device does not allow
adjustment of the compressor and indoor blower speeds, DOE will use
average capacity and power(s) or, for CVP intervals that do not meet
the operating tolerances and condition tolerances, time averaged
integrated capacity and time averaged integrated power(s), measured
during the CVP, in order to calculate SEER2, HSPF2 and EER2 for
appendix M1, and SCORE, SHORE and EER2, for appendix M2. For
certification tests that do not have a corresponding CVP interval, the
corresponding efficiency will be calculated by adjusting the capacity
and efficiency, by application of a ratio to the corresponding CVP
interval.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ For the purpose of the CVP, ``adjustment'' means that the
control device has the ability to make discrete adjustments, as
required, to the compressor and indoor blower speeds without the
need of any additional hardware or non-publicly available software.
\97\ For tests that do not correspond to any load intervals of
the CVP, DOE will adjust the compressor speed as follows: the
compressor speeds for tests Bfull, Blow,
H1,full, H2,full, H2,low and
H0,low, will be set at the same speeds observed in the
CVP load intervals associated with the Afull,
Flow, H3,full, H3,full, and
H1,low tests, respectively.
\98\ As an example, the capacity at Bfull condition,
QB,Full, will be calculated by the following equation: QB,Full, =
QB,Full,Certification x QCVP,A,Full/QA,Full,Certification, where
QB,Full,Certification is the capacity at Bfull condition,
QCVP,A,Full is the full load interval capacity in cooling mode, and
QA,Full,Certification is the capacity at Afull condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For CHPs determined to be variable capacity certified, single
capacity system, or variable capacity certified, two capacity system
that are certified/marketed for use with only a proprietary control
device, DOE may utilize two options, (1) contact the manufacturer to
provide override control instructions consistent with the full and, if
applicable, minimum speed operation observed during the CVP, to enable
tests without a corresponding CVP interval to be conducted at the
appropriate speeds, or (2) conduct the tests for H1,Nom,
H2,Full, H2,Low and H3,Low, as
applicable, using the certified instructions, and for other
certification tests, the corresponding efficiency will be calculated by
adjusting the capacity and efficiency, by application of a ratio to the
corresponding CVP interval.\99\ Otherwise, the same simulated
thermostat low voltage signal that resulted in in full speed compressor
operation for the full load intervals shall be used for all
certification full load tests (for variable capacity certified, single
capacity system, or variable capacity certified, two capacity systems),
and the same simulated thermostat low voltage signal that resulted in
low speed compressor operation for the low load intervals, shall be
used for all certification low load tests (for variable capacity
certified, two capacity system).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ As an example, the capacity at HOLow condition,
QH0,Low, will be calculated by the following equation: QHO,Low, =
QH0,Low,Certification x QCVP,H1,Low/QH,Low,,Certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE will address any associated certification requirements for the
CVP in a separate rulemaking.
Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its proposals related to
enforcement provisions when conducting the CVP.
K. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
EPCA requires that test procedures proposed by DOE not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) As discussed, DOE
proposes to update the current Federal test procedure for CAC/HPs at
appendix M1 consistent with the most recent draft version of the
relevant industry consensus test procedure, AHRI 210/240-202X Draft.
DOE is also proposing a new Federal test procedure at 10 CFR 430,
subpart B, appendix M2, consistent with the draft version of the
industry consensus test procedure, AHRI 1600-202X Draft. Appendix M2
would not be required for use until the compliance date of amended
standards for CAC/HPs. DOE also proposes to amend its representation
and enforcement provisions for CAC/HPs.
1. Appendix M1
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update its regulations at 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix M1 by incorporating by reference AHRI 210/240-
202X Draft and relevant industry standards referenced in AHRI 210/240-
202X Draft (ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, and ANSI/ASHRAE
116-2010), and amending certain provisions for representations and
enforcement in 10 CFR part 429, consistent with the changes proposed to
the test procedure. The proposed revisions to appendix M1 would retain
the current efficiency metrics (i.e., EER2, SEER2, and HSPF2). The
proposed testing requirements in appendix M1 are those in AHRI 210/240-
202X Draft, which in turn references ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, ANSI/ASHRAE
16-2016, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to
appendix M1 and the proposed representation and enforcement provisions
would improve the representativeness, accuracy, and reproducibility of
the test results and would not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers
to conduct. DOE has also tentatively determined that the proposed
amendments would not result in an increase in testing cost from the
current test procedure. The proposed revisions to the test procedure in
appendix M1 for measuring EER2, SEER2, and HSPF2 per AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft would not increase third-party laboratory testing costs per unit
relative to the current DOE test procedure. DOE estimates the current
costs for physical testing, including off-mode testing, to range from
$10,800 to $19,800, depending on the configuration of the CAC/HP
(single-stage, two-stage, variable-capacity). Further, DOE has
tentatively concluded that the proposed revisions to the test procedure
in appendix M1 would not change efficiency ratings for CAC/HPs, and
therefore would not require retesting or redesign solely as a result of
DOE's adoption of the proposed amendments to the DOE test procedure, if
made final.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Manufacturers are not required to perform laboratory
testing on all basic models. In accordance with 10 CFR 429.16, CAC/
HP 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 24245]]
As discussed in section III.E.1.(d) of this NOPR, DOE proposes to
include a CVP in its enforcement regulations to validate whether
override of modulating components in regulatory tests for variable-
capacity compressor systems is consistent with native control
operation. The proposed CVP for variable-capacity compressor systems in
appendix I of AHRI 210/240-202X is not mandatory for manufacturers to
perform, therefore, the proposed inclusion of this provision in DOE's
enforcement regulations clarifies the approach DOE would follow for
potential enforcement testing. To the extent that a manufacturer has
not already verified the appropriateness of the fixed performance
during regulatory tests as compared to native control operation (i.e.,
the system may currently be improperly certified), a manufacturer may
need to adjust fixed-speed overrides used in regulatory tests in
accordance with the proposed CVP and subsequently re-run the regulatory
tests. However, having no strong evidence to the contrary, DOE expects
that current variable-capacity certifications are generally consistent
with system performance. Thus, DOE concludes that any such cost to
verify performance and potentially retest is negligible.
As explained in section III.E.2 of this NOPR, a new definition for
CCHPs is introduced in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft, for which the
H4full test (outdoor dry-bulb temperature of 5 [deg]F) will
be mandatory, which is otherwise optional for CHPs. However, this test
and claim of CCHP status is optional. Also, DOE anticipates that units
that will certify as CCHPs are most likely to be already testing at the
5 [deg]F condition, and hence no added costs or test burden are
expected to be associated with them.
The proposal for determination of cut-in and cut-out temperatures
in DOE's enforcement provisions, as laid out in appendix J of the AHRI
210/240-202X Draft, would not be required for manufacturer testing.
Thus, it will not cause manufacturers to incur any additional costs or
burden.
As explained in section III.F.5 of this NOPR, AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft introduced a definition for mandatory circulation systems. DOE is
currently unaware of any CAC/HPs equipped with these systems, and they
are anticipated to become more commonplace once A2L refrigerant
regulations are enforced. CAC/HPs equipped with mandatory circulation
systems will need to have their cyclic degradation coefficients
evaluated using the respective cyclic tests, which are otherwise
optional. Since cyclic tests are already often conducted by
manufacturers to improve upon the default cyclic degradation
coefficients, and because it is unclear whether any systems having such
mandatory circulation will be introduced, DOE considers that there will
be no significant increase in cost or test burden associated with the
requirement for CAC/HPs equipped with mandatory circulation systems to
conduct cyclic tests.
Issue 5: DOE requests comment on its tentative determination that
the proposed amended appendix M1 would not require re-testing or result
in any increase in test cost as compared to the existing appendix M1.
2. Appendix M2
As explained previously, DOE proposes to establish new regulations
at 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix M2 as follows: (1) incorporate by
reference AHRI 1600-202X Draft, and relevant industry standards
referenced in AHRI 1600-202X Draft (ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, ANSI/ASHRAE
16-2016, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010); and (2) establish provisions for
determining SCORE and SHORE for CAC/HPs. Appendix M2 would not be
required for testing until the compliance date of any future new
standards for CAC/HPs based on the SCORE and SHORE metrics proposed in
appendix M2. The proposed testing requirements in appendix M2 are those
in AHRI 1600-202X Draft, which in turn references ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009,
ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments in
appendix M2 would be representative of average use cycle, not be unduly
burdensome for manufacturers to conduct, and not result in increased
testing cost as compared to the current test procedure. The proposed
revisions to the test procedure in appendix M2 for measuring EER2,
SCORE, and SHORE per AHRI 1600-202X Draft would not increase third-
party laboratory testing costs per unit relative to the current DOE
test procedure. DOE estimates the costs of physical testing, for the
new metrics SCORE and SHORE to range from $10,800 to $19,800, same as
that for appendix M1, depending on the configuration of the CAC/HP
(e.g., single-stage, two-stage, variable-capacity). DOE has tentatively
concluded that the proposed revisions to the test procedure in appendix
M2 would change efficiency ratings for CAC/HPs--however, testing and
recertification based on appendix M2 would not be required until DOE
adopts any amended CAC/HP standards in terms of the new metrics in a
future energy conservation standards rulemaking.
As previously mentioned in this NOPR, the AHRI 1600-202X Draft
introduces new cooling and heating performance metrics, SCORE and
SHORE, as replacements for the current cooling, heating, and off-mode
performance metrics, SEER2, HSPF2, and PW,OFF, used to
determine the measured efficiency of CAC/HPs. Unlike SEER2 and HSPF2,
these new metrics account for the off-mode power consumption of
auxiliary components, including crankcase heaters and indoor fans
utilizing constant circulation for both SCORE and SHORE, as well as
base pan heaters for SHORE.\101\ The off-mode power consumption of
auxiliary components is determined using appendix G of the AHRI 1600-
202X Draft. This appendix includes measurement of power for base pan
heaters and constant circulation fans, which are not included in the
current test procedure measurements to determine off-mode power. The
measurements are otherwise identical to those required by the current
test, although the calculations used to determine off-mode power are
different. Measurements of base pan heater power and constant
circulation power may require separate power measurement
instrumentation to be applied for the base pan heater, and may require
a brief power measurement test period for constant circulation, both
test method additions which represent minor test burden increase and
would be applicable only for a minority of models. Hence, adoption of
the new cooling and heating metric would not result in significant
increase in testing costs as compared to the current test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ As described in section III.F.1.a of this NOPR, the off-
mode power consumption definition in appendix M1 includes energy use
for all operating modes not associated with times that the system is
providing cooling or heating. Thus, off-mode in the context of the
CAC/HP test procedure includes operating modes that would be
interpreted as standby or active modes under IEC 62301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The other proposed amendments mainly affect calculations and, other
than potentially imposing limits on airflow settings (item (e) in this
paragraph), will not affect testing. The proposed amendments are (a)
revising
[[Page 24246]]
the demand defrost credit for CHPs equipped with demand defrost
systems; (b) accounting for the additional power use from supplementary
heat during defrost by introducing defrost heat debit and the defrost
overrun mode; (c) updating the building load lines and temperature bin
hours for calculation of the new seasonal metrics SCORE and SHORE; (d)
revising the default fan power coefficients for coil-only systems; and
(e) imposing air flow limits to address inadequate dehumidification.
Thus, DOE does not anticipate these additional amendments will cause
any increased test procedure costs.
Issue 6: 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 M2. DOE also requests comment on the cost of
testing CAC/HPs in accordance with AHRI 1600-202X Draft compared to
DOE's estimated appendix M2 testing costs for physical testing ranging
from $10,800 to $18,000, which are unchanged from the appendix M1
testing costs.
L. Compliance Date and Waivers
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 180 days after
publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) 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 standards. Section 8(e) of appendix A 10 CFR part 430
subpart C.
If DOE were to publish an amended test procedure, EPCA provides an
allowance for individual manufacturers to petition DOE for an extension
of the 180-day period if the manufacturer may experience undue hardship
in meeting the deadline. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) To receive such an
extension, petitions must be filed with DOE no later than 60 days
before the end of the 180-day period and must detail how the
manufacturer will experience undue hardship. (Id.)
Upon the compliance date of test procedure provisions of an amended
test procedure, should DOE issue a such an amendment, any waivers that
had been previously issued and are in effect that pertain to issues
addressed by such provisions are terminated. 10 CFR 430.27(h)(3).
Recipients of any such waivers would be required to test the products
subject to the waiver according to the amended test procedure as of the
compliance date of the amended test procedure. The amendments proposed
in this document pertain to issues addressed by the interim waiver
granted to Samsung HVAC America LLC (88 FR 36558, Case No. 2022-009).
To the extent that such an interim waiver permit the petitioner to test
according to an alternate test procedure to appendix M1, the interim
waiver will terminate on the date the amendments to the appendix M1
test procedure take effect (i.e., 180 days after publication of the
test procedure final rule in the Federal Register).
Notably, the amendments proposed in this document do not pertain to
issues addressed by the interim waiver granted to Johnson Controls Inc.
(``JCI'') (88 FR 72449, Case No. 2023-005). This interim waiver permits
JCI to test certain basic models of CAC/HPs that use variable speed,
oil-injected scroll compressors (``VSS systems'') with a 72-hour break-
in period, in lieu of the 20-hour break-in limit prescribed in appendix
M1. (Id.) Because the 72-hour break-in period permitted to VSS systems
listed in JCI's petition is unique to the CAC/HP market, DOE surmises
that amendments to address this issue do not belong in either of the
proposed Federal test procedures for CAC/HPs (i.e., appendix M1 or
appendix M2). However, DOE notes that JCI may continue to request a
waiver to extend the allowable break-in period for its VSS systems. To
the extent the interim waiver permits JCI to test according to an
alternate test procedure to appendix M1, the interim waiver will
terminate on the date testing is required according to appendix M2,
which will occur on the compliance date for updated efficiency
standards. DOE notes that JCI may petition for another waiver at the
time testing is required according to appendix M2.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and E.O.
14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023),
requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are
difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives,
taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable,
the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities
must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to
direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage
the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or
providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action
is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19,
[[Page 24247]]
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 proposes to update the current Federal test procedure for CAC/
HPs at appendix M1 consistent with the most recent draft version of the
relevant industry consensus test procedure, AHRI 210/240-202X Draft.
DOE is also proposing a new Federal test procedure at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix M2, consistent with the draft version of the
industry consensus test procedure, AHRI 1600-202X Draft. Appendix M2
would not be effective until new standards are established for CAC/HPs
that rely on metrics present in appendix M2. In this NOPR, DOE is
proposing amendments to the test procedure for CAC/HPs in satisfaction
of the 7-year review statutory requirement specified in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6292(a)(3) and 6293(b)(1)(A))
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE review
test procedures for all type of covered products, including CAC/HPs, to
determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements that the test procedures are: (1)
reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle or period of use; and (2) not unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
DOE is publishing this NOPR proposing amendments to the test
procedure for CAC/HPs in satisfaction of the aforementioned obligations
under EPCA.
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of CAC/HPs, 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,\102\ ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' The
SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to be
considered as a small business for this category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ 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 Sept. 22, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE used publicly available information to identify potential small
businesses that manufacture CAC/HPs. DOE identified manufacturers using
DOE's Compliance Certification Database (``CCD'') \103\ and the prior
CAC/HP rulemakings. DOE used the publicly available information and
subscription-based market research tools (e.g., reports from Dun &
Bradstreet) \104\ to identify 22 original equipment manufacturers
(``OEMs'') of the covered equipment. Of the 22 OEMs, DOE identified
five domestic manufacturers of CAC/HPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at
www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms (last accessed Sept. 19, 2023).
\104\ Dun & Bradstreet login available at https://app.dnbhoovers.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE expects manufacturers that certify to AHRI Directory of
Certified Product Performance (``AHRI Directory'') \105\ to have
different potential regulatory costs from manufacturers that do not
certify to the AHRI Directory. All five small OEMs certify their CAC/
HPs to the AHRI Directory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ The AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance is
available at www.ahridirectory.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
This NOPR proposes to adopt updated industry test standards for
CAC/HPs. DOE proposes to update the current Federal test procedure for
CAC/HPs at appendix M1, consistent with the most recent draft version
of the relevant industry consensus test procedure, AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft. DOE is also proposing a new Federal test procedure at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix M2, consistent with the draft version of
the industry consensus test procedure, AHRI 1600-202X Draft. More
specific amendments to the DOE test procedure are summarized in the
following subsections.
(a) Cost and Compliance Associated With Appendix M1
In appendix M1, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference AHRI 210/
240-202X Draft for CAC/HPs and to amend certain provisions for
representations and enforcement in 10 CFR part 429, consistent with the
changes proposed to the test procedure. The proposed revisions to
appendix M1 would retain the current efficiency metrics--EER2, SEER2,
and HSPF2. The proposed testing requirements in appendix M1 are
generally consistent with those in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft, which in
turn references ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, and ASHRAE
116-2010. This proposed revision to the test procedure in appendix M1
for measuring EER2, SEER2, and HSPF2 would not increase third-party
laboratory testing costs per unit relative to the current DOE test
procedure. The proposed CVP'' for variable-capacity compressor systems
in appendix I of AHRI 210/240-202X is not mandatory for manufacturers
to perform, and DOE considers these developmental costs to be
negligible and not burdensome to manufacturers. The H4full
test (outdoor dry-bulb temperature of 5 [deg]F) will be mandatory, but
DOE anticipates no added costs as units that will certify as CCHPs are
likely currently testing at the 5 [deg]F condition. The proposal for
determination of cut-in and cut-out temperatures in appendix J of the
AHRI 210/240-202X Draft would be included in DOE's enforcement
provisions and would not be mandatory for manufacturer testing, and
thus manufacturers will not incur additional costs. Additionally, CAC/
HPs equipped with mandatory circulation systems will have their cyclic
degradation coefficients evaluated using respective cyclic tests, but
DOE anticipates no added costs to manufacturers since cyclic tests are
already often conducted on CAC/HPs (regardless of whether they are
equipped with a mandatory constant circulation system) to improve the
default cyclic degradation coefficients.
DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed revisions to the
test procedure in appendix M1 would not change efficiency ratings for
CAC/HPs,
[[Page 24248]]
and therefore would not require retesting or redesign solely as a
result of DOE's adoption of this proposed amendment to the DOE test
procedure, if made final.\106\ Further, the proposed test procedure in
appendix M1 would not increase third-part laboratory testing costs per
unit; DOE estimates current costs for physical testing to range from
$10,800 to $19,800, depending on the configuration of the CAC/HP
(single-stage, two-stage, variable-capacity). Therefore, DOE does not
expect that the test procedure amendments in appendix M1 would result
in manufacturers, including small manufacturers, incurring additional
testing costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Manufacturers are not required to perform laboratory
testing on all basic models. In accordance with 10 CFR 429.16, CAC/
HP 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Cost and Compliance Associated With Appendix M2
In appendix M2, DOE proposes to establish a new test procedure that
references the draft industry test procedure, AHRI 1600-202X Draft, for
measuring new efficiency metrics, SCORE and SHORE. Appendix M2 would
not be effective until new standards are established for CAC/HPs that
rely on metrics present in appendix M2, should DOE adopt such
standards. The proposed testing requirements in appendix M2 are
generally consistent with those in AHRI 1600-202X Draft, which in turn
references ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, and ASHRAE 116-
2010. This proposed revision to the test procedure in appendix M2 for
measuring EER2, SCORE, and SHORE would not increase third-party
laboratory testing costs per unit relative to the current DOE test
procedure. The standby and off-mode power consumption of auxiliary
components is determined using appendix G of the AHRI 1600-202X Draft
and does not differ substantially from the process to determine off-
mode power from the current version of appendix M1, in section 3.13.
The adoption of the new cooling and heating metric would not result in
increased testing costs as compared to the current test procedure.
Other proposed amendments will not affect testing cost, which include
(a) building load lines and temperature bin hours for calculation of
SCORE and SHORE, (b) default fan power coefficients for coil-only
systems, and (c) air flow limits to address inadequate
dehumidification.
The testing cost will not increase with appendix M2. DOE estimates
the costs of physical testing for the new metrics SCORE and SHORE to
range from $10,800 to $18,000, depending on the configuration of the
CAC/HP (single-stage, two-stage, variable-capacity). Additionally, DOE
allows the use of AEDMs in lieu of physically testing all basic models.
The use of an AEDM is less costly than physical testing of CAC/HP
models; DOE estimates the cost to develop an AEDM to be $16,860 per
AEDM for a basic model, which includes the cost of physical testing
done at a third-party laboratory to validate the AEDM.\107\ The
development of the AEDM would reduce the need for physical testing on
the part of manufacturers. Once the AEDM is developed, DOE estimates
that it would take 5 minutes of an engineer's time \108\ to determine
efficiency for each individual model within a basic model using the
AEDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ AEDM = physical testing cost + (time to develop AEDM *
engineering technician wage) = $14,400 + (60 hours * $41/hour).
\108\ DOE estimates a fully-burdened wage rate of $41 per hour
for an engineering technician based on Bureau of Labor Statistics
median wage data for mechanical engineering technicians and benefits
data for the private sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE understands all manufacturers currently certifying in the AHRI
Directory (including small businesses) will be testing their models in
accordance with AHRI 1600-202X Draft, the industry test procedure DOE
is proposing to reference at appendix M2. As stated, testing and
certification of the SCORE and SHORE metrics will not be required until
the compliance date of any future energy conservation standards based
on these metrics; however, DOE anticipates manufacturers will need to
re-test their models to rate them in terms of the SCORE and SHORE
metrics to comply with the AHRI certification program, and the re-
rating will occur prior to a future energy conservation standards
rulemaking. As a result, DOE has tentatively determined that the
proposed test procedure amendments would not add any additional testing
burden to manufacturers. Therefore, the proposed test procedure
amendments in appendix M2 would not add any additional testing burden
to the five small domestic manufacturers who certify in the AHRI
database.
Issue 7: DOE requests comment on the number of small business OEMs
of CAC/HPs, their participation in the AHRI Directory, and associated
compliance costs.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
DOE proposes to amend the CAC/HPs test procedure in reference to
industry standards in both appendices M1 and M2. DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and the subsequent
relevant standards it references (ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
2009, and ASHRAE 116-2010) as the basis for the updated appendix M1
test procedure. Similarly, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference
AHRI 1600-202X Draft and the subsequent relevant standards it
references (ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and ASHRAE 116-
2010) as the basis for the new appendix M2 test procedure. DOE
considered alternative test methods and modifications to the proposed
test procedures in appendices M1 and M2 for CAC/HPs. However,
alternatives deviating from the industry standard would burden
manufacturers with additional costs for separate test procedures. 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. Adoption of
alternatives that do not incorporate the consensus industry test
procedures would increase testing costs on small manufacturers.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE test procedure
for CAC/HPs through incorporation by reference of AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft with the additional modifications as
discussed throughout this NOPR.
In addition, individual manufacturers may petition for a waiver of
the applicable test procedure. 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 CAC/HPs must certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify
[[Page 24249]]
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 CAC/HPs. (See
generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement
for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and
approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This
requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-
1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to
average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
DOE is not proposing to amend the certification or reporting
requirements for CAC/HPs in this NOPR. DOE will address certification
requirements for CAC/HPs in a separate rulemaking for certification,
compliance, and enforcement. 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 will be
used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for
CAC/HPs. 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 Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further
action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction,
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines
key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at 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
[[Page 24250]]
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for
measuring the energy efficiency of CAC/HPs is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or
industry standards on competition.
The proposed modifications to the test procedure for CAC/HPs would
specifically reference testing methods contained in certain sections of
the following commercial standards: AHRI 210/240-202X Draft, ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, and ASHRAE 116-2010. DOE has
evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully
comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e.,
whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review). DOE will consult with both the
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of
these test procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a final
rule.
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the
following test standards:
AHRI Standard 210/240-202X Draft. This test standard is an update
to AHRI 210/240-2023 (2020), and is a draft industry test procedure for
measuring the heating and cooling capacity and efficiency of unitary
air-source air conditioners and heat pumps with capacities less than
65,000 Btu/hour. The revised appendix M1 will be consistent with
provisions in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft.
AHRI 1600-202X Draft. This test standard is a major update to AHRI
210/240-2023 (2020), and is a draft industry test procedure for
measuring the heating and cooling capacity and efficiency of unitary
air-source air conditioners and heat pumps with capacities less than
65,000 Btu/hour, including new seasonal cooling and heating efficiency
metrics, namely SCORE and SHORE. The new appendix M2 will be consistent
with provisions in AHRI 1600-202X Draft.
Copies of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft can be
obtained from AHRI, 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201,
(703) 524-8800, or found online at: www.ahrinet.org. Copies of the AHRI
210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft are also available in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking.
If finalized versions of AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 1600 are not
published before the test procedure final rule, or if there are
substantive changes between the drafts and published versions of the
standards that are not supported by stakeholder comments in response to
this NOPR, DOE may adopt the substance of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft
and AHRI 1600-202X Draft or provide additional opportunity for comment
on the final version of that industry consensus standard.
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.
ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016. This test standard is an industry-accepted
test procedure that provides a method of test for room air
conditioners, packaged terminal air conditioners, and packaged terminal
heat pumps.
ASHRAE 116-2010. This test standard is an industry-accepted test
procedure that provides a method of test for electrically driven,
residential air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps with cooling
capacity of 65,000 Btu/hr. and less.
Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016 and ASHRAE 116-
2010 are available on ASHRAE's website at www.ashrae.org.
[[Page 24251]]
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar are listed in the DATES section at
the beginning of this document. Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=48&action=viewlive. 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 plans to present a prepared general statement
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred),
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to
the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this document. The request and advance copy of statements must be
received at least one week before the public meeting and are to be
emailed. Please include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make
follow-up contact, if needed.
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6306) A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of
the public meeting. There shall not be discussion of proprietary
information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters
regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the public meeting, interested
parties may submit further comments on the proceedings, as well as on
any aspect of the rulemaking, until the end of the comment period.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal conference
style. DOE will present 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 allow, 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 questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed
rulemaking. The official conducting the public meeting will accept
additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits.
The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or
modification of the previous procedures that may be needed for the
proper conduct of the public meeting.
A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket,
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning
of this document and will be accessible on the DOE website. 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.\109\ Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ DOE has historically provided a 75-day comment period for
test procedure NOPRs pursuant to the North American Free Trade
Agreement, U.S.-Canada-Mexico (``NAFTA''), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M.
289 (1993); the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation
Act, Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended
at 10 U.S.C.A. 2576) (1993) (``NAFTA Implementation Act''); and
Executive Order 12889, ``Implementation of the North American Free
Trade Agreement,'' 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on July 1,
2020, the Agreement between the United States of America, the United
Mexican States, and the United Canadian States (``USMCA''), Nov. 30,
2018, 134 Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA), went into effect,
and Congress's action in replacing NAFTA through the USMCA
Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4501 et seq. (2020), implies the
repeal of E.O. 12889 and its 75-day comment period requirement for
technical regulations. Thus, the controlling laws are EPCA and the
USMCA Implementation Act. Consistent with EPCA's public comment
period requirements for consumer products, the USMCA only requires a
minimum comment period of 60 days. Consequently, DOE now provides a
60-day public comment period for test procedure NOPRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself 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
[[Page 24252]]
contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last
names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address.
The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not
include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. 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, 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 requests feedback on its proposal to revise appendix
M1 by making it consistent with the latest version of AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft, for measuring the existing metrics, SEER2 and HSPF2.
Issue 2: DOE requests feedback on its proposal to establish a new
appendix M2, to be consistent with the latest version of AHRI 1600-202X
Draft, and to adopt the SCORE and SHORE metrics as determined under
AHRI 1600-202X Draft in appendix M2 of the Federal test procedure for
CAC/HPs.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on its proposal to extend testing
flexibility to P1 (off-mode power in shoulder season) and
P2 (off-mode power in heating season) when determining SCORE
and SHORE.
Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its proposals related to
enforcement provisions when conducting the CVP.
Issue 5: 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 revised appendix M1.
Issue 6: 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 M2. DOE also requests comment on the cost of
testing CAC/HPs in accordance with AHRI 1600-202X Draft compared to
DOE's estimated appendix M2 testing costs for physical testing ranging
from $10,800 to $18,000, which are unchanged from the appendix M1
testing costs.
Issue 7: DOE requests comment on the number of small business OEMs
of CAC/HPs and their participation in the AHRI Directory.
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be 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 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February
27, 2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on March 1, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
parts 429 and 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 429.4 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(7) as paragraphs (c)(3)
through (c)(8); and
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(9).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 429.4 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) AHRI Standard 210/240-202X, 202X Standard for Performance
Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment,
[version
[[Page 24253]]
and date TBD]; IBR approved for Sec. 429.134.
* * * * *
(9) AHRI 1600-202X, 202X Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary
Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment, [version and date
TBD]; IBR approved for Sec. 429.134.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 429.16 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (3)(i),
(b)(2), and (3)(ii), (c)(1)(i)(B), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(3), (d)(2), and (f)
to read as follows:
Sec. 429.16 Central air conditioners and central air conditioning
heat pumps.
(a) * * *
(1) Required represented values. Determine the represented values
(including as applicable, SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, PW,OFF, SCORE,
SHORE, cooling capacity, and heating capacity) for the individual
models/combinations (or ``tested combinations'') specified in the
following table.
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Required represented
Category subcategory values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-Package Unit......... Single-Package Air Every individual
Conditioner (AC) model distributed
(including space- in commerce.
constrained).
Single-Package Heat Every individual
Pump (HP) model distributed
(including space- in commerce.
constrained).
Outdoor Unit and Indoor Unit Single-Split-System Every individual
(Distributed in Commerce by AC with Single- combination
Outdoor Unit Manufacturer Stage or Two-Stage distributed in
(OUM)). Compressor commerce. Each
(including Space- model of outdoor
Constrained and unit must include a
Small-Duct, High represented value
Velocity Systems for at least one
(SDHV)). coil-only
individual
combination that is
distributed in
commerce and which
is representative
of the least
efficient
combination
distributed in
commerce with that
particular model of
outdoor unit. For
that particular
model of outdoor
unit, additional
represented values
for coil-only and
blower-coil
individual
combinations are
allowed, if
distributed in
commerce.
Single-Split System Every individual
AC with Other Than combination
Single-Stage or Two- distributed in
Stage Compressor commerce, including
(including Space- all coil-only and
Constrained and blower-coil
SDHV). combinations.
Single-Split-System Every individual
HP (including Space- combination
Constrained and distributed in
SDHV). commerce.
Multi-Split, Multi- For each model of
Circuit, or Multi- outdoor unit, at a
Head Mini-Split minimum, a non-
Split System--non- ducted ``tested
SDHV (including combination.'' For
Space-Constrained). any model of
outdoor unit also
sold with models of
ducted indoor
units, a ducted
``tested
combination.'' The
ducted ``tested
combination'' must
comprise the
highest static
variety of ducted
indoor unit
distributed in
commerce (i.e.,
conventional, mid-
static, or low-
static). Additional
representations are
allowed, as
described in
paragraphs
(c)(3)(i) and (ii)
of this section,
respectively.
Multi-Split, Multi- For each model of
Circuit, or Multi- outdoor unit, an
Head Mini-Split SDHV ``tested
Split System--SDHV. combination.''
Additional
representations are
allowed, as
described in
paragraph
(c)(3)(iii) of this
section.
Indoor Unit Only Distributed Single-Split-System Every individual
in Commerce by Independent Air Conditioner combination
Coil Manufacturer (ICM). (including Space- distributed in
Constrained and commerce.
SDHV).
Single-Split-System
Heat Pump
(including Space-
Constrained and
SDHV).
Multi-Split, Multi- For a model of
Circuit, or Multi- indoor unit within
Head Mini-Split each basic model,
Split System--SDHV. an SDHV ``tested
combination.''
Additional
representations are
allowed, as
described in
paragraph
(c)(3)(iii) of this
section.
---------------------------------------------------
Outdoor Unit with no Match........................ Every model of
outdoor unit
distributed in
commerce (tested
with a model of
coil-only indoor
unit as specified
in paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of this
section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) PW,OFF. Represented values of PW,OFF are only
required when determining represented values in accordance with 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix M1. If individual models of single-
package systems or individual combinations (or ``tested combinations'')
of split systems that are otherwise identical are offered with multiple
options for off mode-related components, determine the represented
value for the individual model/combination with the crankcase heater
and controls that are the most consumptive. A manufacturer may also
determine represented values for individual models/combinations with
less consumptive off mode options; however, all such options must be
identified with different model numbers for single-package systems or
for outdoor units (in the case of split systems).
(3) Refrigerants. (i) If a model of outdoor unit (used in a single-
split, multi-split, multi-circuit, multi-head mini-split, and/or
outdoor unit with no match system) is distributed in commerce and
approved for use with multiple refrigerants, a manufacturer must
determine all represented values for that model using each refrigerant
that can be used in an individual combination of the basic model
(including outdoor units with no match
[[Page 24254]]
or ``tested combinations''). This requirement may apply across the
listed categories in the table in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. A
refrigerant is considered approved for use if it is listed on the
nameplate of the outdoor unit.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The table identifies the minimum testing requirements for each
basic model that includes multiple individual models/combinations; if a
basic model spans multiple categories or subcategories listed in the
table, multiple testing requirements apply. For each basic model that
includes only one individual model/combination, test that individual
model/combination.
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)(2)(i)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Equipment subcategory Must test: With:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-Package Unit.............. Single-Package AC The individual model N/A.
(including Space- with the lowest
Constrained). seasonal energy
Single-Package HP efficiency ratio 2
(including Space- (SEER2) (when testing
Constrained). in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart
B of part 430) or SCORE
(when testing in
accordance with
appendix M2 to subpart
B of part 430).
Outdoor Unit and Indoor Unit Single-Split-System AC The model of outdoor A model of coil-only
(Distributed in Commerce by OUM). with Single-Stage or Two- unit. indoor unit.
Stage Compressor
(including Space-
Constrained and Small-
Duct, High Velocity
Systems (SDHV)).
Single-Split-System HP The model of outdoor A model of indoor unit.
with Single-Stage or Two- unit.
Stage Compressor
(including Space-
Constrained and SDHV).
Single-Split System AC or The model of outdoor A model of coil-only
HP with Other Than unit. indoor unit.
Single-Stage or Two-
Stage Compressor having
a coil-only individual
combination (including
Space-Constrained and
SDHV).
Single-Split System AC or The model of outdoor A model of indoor unit.
HP with Other Than unit.
Single-Stage or Two-
Stage Compressor without
a coil-only individual
combination (including
Space-Constrained and
SDHV).
Multi-Split, Multi- The model of outdoor At a minimum, a ``tested
Circuit, or Multi-Head unit. combination'' composed
Mini-Split Split System-- entirely of non-ducted
non-SDHV (including indoor units. For any
Space-Constrained). models of outdoor units
also sold with models
of ducted indoor units,
test a second ``tested
combination'' composed
entirely of ducted
indoor units (in
addition to the non-
ducted combination).
The ducted ``tested
combination'' must
comprise the highest
static variety of
ducted indoor unit
distributed in commerce
(i.e., conventional,
mid-static, or low-
static).
Multi-Split, Multi- The model of outdoor A ``tested combination''
Circuit, or Multi-Head unit. composed entirely of
Mini-Split Split System-- SDHV indoor units.
SDHV.
Indoor Unit Only (Distributed in Single-Split-System Air A model of indoor unit.. The least efficient
Commerce by ICM). Conditioner (including model of outdoor unit
Space-Constrained and with which it will be
SDHV). paired where the least
efficient model of
outdoor unit is the
model of outdoor unit
in the lowest SEER2
combination (when
testing under appendix
M1 to subpart B of part
430) or SCORE
combination (when
testing under appendix
M2 to subpart B of part
430) as certified by
the OUM. If there are
multiple models of
outdoor unit with the
same lowest SEER2 (when
testing under appendix
M1 to subpart B of part
430) or SCORE (when
testing under appendix
M2 to subpart B of part
430) represented value,
the ICM may select one
for testing purposes.
[[Page 24255]]
Single-Split-System Heat Nothing, as long as an ........................
Pump (including Space- equivalent air
Constrained and SDHV). conditioner basic model
has been tested. If an
equivalent air
conditioner basic model
has not been tested,
must test a model of
indoor unit.
Multi-Split, Multi- A model of indoor unit.. A ``tested combination''
Circuit, or Multi-Head composed entirely of
Mini-Split Split System-- SDHV indoor units,
SDHV. where the outdoor unit
is the least efficient
model of outdoor unit
with which the SDHV
indoor unit will be
paired. The least
efficient model of
outdoor unit is the
model of outdoor unit
in the lowest SEER2
combination (when
testing under appendix
M1 to subpart B of part
430) or SCORE
combination (when
testing under appendix
M2 to subpart B of part
430) as certified by
the OUM. If there are
multiple models of
outdoor unit with the
same lowest SEER2
represented value (when
testing under appendix
M1 to subpart B of part
430) or SCORE
represented value (when
testing under appendix
M2 to subpart B of part
430), the ICM may
select one for testing
purposes.
Outdoor Unit with No Match....... ......................... The model of outdoor A model of coil-only
unit. indoor unit meeting the
requirements of section
4 of appendix M1 (when
testing under appendix
M1 to subpart B of part
430); or meeting the
requirements of section
3 of appendix M2 (when
testing under appendix
M2 to subpart B of part
430).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) When testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of
part 430, each individual model/combination (or ``tested combination'')
identified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is not required to be
tested for PW,OFF. Instead, at a minimum, among individual
models/combinations with similar off-mode construction (even spanning
different models of outdoor units), a manufacturer must test at least
one individual model/combination for PW,OFF.
(iii) When testing in accordance with appendix M2 to subpart B of
part 430 and determining SCORE and SHORE, each individual model/
combination (or ``tested combination'') identified in paragraph
(b)(2)(i) of this section is not required to be tested for values of
P1 (off-mode power in shoulder season) and P2
(off-mode power in heating Season). Instead, at a minimum, among
individual models/combinations with similar off-mode construction (even
spanning different models of outdoor units), a manufacturer must test
at least one individual model/combination, for which P1 and
P2 are the most consumptive.
(3) * * *
(ii) SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, SCORE and SHORE. Any represented value of
the energy efficiency or other measure of energy consumption for which
consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the
lower of:
(A) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.054
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample; or,
(B) The lower 90 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.055
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.90 is the t statistic for a 90
percent one-tailed confidence interval with n - 1 degrees of freedom
(from appendix D). Round represented values of EER2, SEER2, HSPF2,
SCORE and SHORE to the nearest 0.05.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) The represented values of the measures of energy efficiency or
energy consumption through the application of an AEDM in accordance
with paragraph (d) of this section and Sec. 429.70. An AEDM may only
be used to determine represented values for individual models or
combinations in a basic model (or separate approved refrigerants within
an individual combination) other than the individual model or
combination(s) required for mandatory testing under paragraph (b)(2) of
this section.
(ii) When testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of
part 430, for every individual model/combination within a basic model
tested pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, but for which
Pw,off testing was not conducted, the represented value of
Pw,off may be assigned through, either:
[[Page 24256]]
(A) The testing result from an individual model/combination of
similar off-mode construction; or
(B) The application of an AEDM in accordance with paragraph (d) of
this section and Sec. 429.70.
* * * * *
(3) For multi-split systems, multi-circuit systems, and multi-head
mini-split systems. The following applies:
(i) When testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of
part 430, or appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430, for basic models
that include additional varieties of ducted indoor units (i.e.,
conventional, low-static, or mid-static) other than the one for which
representation is required in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, if a
manufacturer chooses to make a representation, the manufacturer must
conduct testing of a tested combination according to the requirements
in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(ii) When testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of
part 430, or appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430, for basic models
that include mixed combinations of indoor units (any two kinds of non-
ducted, low-static, mid-static, and conventional ducted indoor units),
the represented value for the mixed combination is the mean of the
represented values for the individual component combinations as
determined in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(iii) When testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of
part 430, or appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430, for basic models
including mixed combinations of SDHV and another kind of indoor unit
(any of non-ducted, low-static, mid-static, and conventional ducted),
the represented value for the mixed SDHV/other combination is the mean
of the represented values for the SDHV and other tested combination as
determined in accordance with paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(iv) All other individual combinations of models of indoor units
for the same model of outdoor unit for which the manufacturer chooses
to make representations must be rated as separate basic models, and the
provisions of paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) and (c)(3)(i) through (iii)
of this section apply.
(v) When testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of
part 430, and with respect to Pw,off only, for every
individual combination (or ``tested combination'') within a basic model
tested pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section, but for which
Pw,off testing was not conducted, the representative values
of Pw,off may be assigned through either:
(A) The testing result from an individual model or combination of
similar off-mode construction, or
(B) Application of an AEDM in accordance with paragraph (d) of this
section and Sec. 429.70.
(d) * * *
(2) Energy efficiency. Any represented value of the SEER2, EER2,
HSPF2, SCORE, SHORE or other measure of energy efficiency of an
individual model/combination for which consumers would favor higher
values must be less than or equal to the output of the AEDM but no less
than the standard.
* * * * *
(f) Represented values for the Federal Trade Commission. Use the
following represented value determinations to meet the requirements of
the Federal Trade Commission.
(1) Annual Operating Cost--Cooling. Determine the represented value
of estimated annual operating cost for cooling-only units or the
cooling portion of the estimated annual operating cost for air-source
heat pumps that provide both heating and cooling, as follows:
(i) When using appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430, the product
of:
(A) The quotient of the represented value of cooling capacity, in
Btu's per hour as determined in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section,
and multiplied by 0.93 for variable speed heat pumps only, divided by
the represented value of SEER2, in Btu's per watt-hour, as determined
in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
(B) The representative average use cycle for cooling of 1,000 hours
per year;
(C) A conversion factor of 0.001 kilowatt per watt; and
(D) The representative average unit cost of electricity in dollars
per kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act.
(ii) When using appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430, the product
of:
(A) The quotient of the represented value of cooling capacity, in
Btu's per hour as determined in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section,
and multiplied by 0.93 for variable speed heat pumps only, divided by
the represented value of SCORE, in Btu's per watt-hour, as determined
in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section.
(B) The representative average use cycle for cooling of 1,457 hours
per year;
(C) A conversion factor of 0.001 kilowatt per watt; and
(D) The representative average unit cost of electricity in dollars
per kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act.
(2) Annual Operating Cost--Heating. Determine the represented value
of estimated annual operating cost for air-source heat pumps that
provide only heating or for the heating portion of the estimated annual
operating cost for air-source heat pumps that provide both heating and
cooling, as follows:
(i) When using appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430, the product
of:
(A) The quotient of the represented value of cooling capacity (for
air-source heat pumps that provide both cooling and heating) in Btu's
per hour, as determined in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section, or
the represented value of heating capacity (for air-source heat pumps
that provide only heating), as determined in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(D) of
this section, divided by the represented value of HSPF2, in Btu's per
watt-hour, calculated for Region IV, as determined in paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) of this section;
(B) The representative average use cycle for heating of 1,572 hours
per year;
(C) The adjustment factor of 1.15 (for heat pumps that are not
variable speed) or 1.07 (for heat pumps that are variable speed), which
serves to adjust the calculated design heating requirement and heating
load hours to the actual load experienced by a heating system;
(D) A conversion factor of 0.001 kilowatt per watt; and
(E) The representative average unit cost of electricity in dollars
per kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act;
(ii) When using appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430, the product
of:
(A) The quotient of the represented value of cooling capacity (for
air-source heat pumps that provide both cooling and heating) in Btu's
per hour, as determined in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section, or
the represented value of heating capacity (for air-source heat pumps
that provide only heating), as determined in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(D) of
this section, divided by the represented value of SHORE, in Btu's per
watt-hour, as determined in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section;
(B) The representative average use cycle for heating of 972 hours
per year;
(C) The adjustment factor of 1.15 (for heat pumps that are not
variable speed) or 1.07 (for heat pumps that are variable speed), which
serves to adjust the calculated design heating requirement and heating
load hours to the actual load experienced by a heating system;
(D) A conversion factor of 0.001 kilowatt per watt; and
(E) The representative average unit cost of electricity in dollars
per kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act;
[[Page 24257]]
(3) Annual Operating Cost--Total. Determine the represented value
of estimated annual operating cost for air-source heat pumps that
provide both heating and cooling by calculating the sum of the quantity
determined in paragraph (f)(1) of this section added to the quantity
determined in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(4) Regional Annual Operating Cost--Cooling. Determine the
represented value of estimated regional annual operating cost for
cooling-only units or the cooling portion of the estimated regional
annual operating cost for air-source heat pumps that provide both
heating and cooling as follows:
(i) When using appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430, the product
of:
(A) The quotient of the represented value of cooling capacity, in
Btu's per hour as determined in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section,
and multiplied by 0.93 for variable speed heat pumps only, divided by
the represented value of SEER2, in Btu's per watt-hour, as determined
in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section;
(B) The estimated number of regional cooling load hours per year
determined from the following table:
Table 4 to Paragraph (f)(4)(i)(B)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional
Climatic region cooling
load hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.......................................................... 2,400
II......................................................... 1,800
III........................................................ 1,200
IV......................................................... 800
V.......................................................... 400
VI......................................................... 200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) A conversion factor of 0.001 kilowatts per watt; and
(D) The representative average unit cost of electricity in dollars
per kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act.
(ii) When using appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430, regional
annual operating cost for cooling-only units or the cooling portion of
the estimated regional annual operating cost air-source heat pumps that
provide both heating and cooling, does not apply.
(5) Regional Annual Operating Cost--Heating. Determine the
represented value of estimated regional annual operating cost for air-
source heat pumps that provide only heating or for the heating portion
of the estimated regional annual operating cost for air-source heat
pumps that provide both heating and cooling as follows:
(i) When using appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430, the product
of:
(A) The estimated number of regional heating load hours per year
determined from the following table:
Table 5 to Paragraph (f)(5)(i)(A)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional
Climatic region heating
load hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.......................................................... 493
II......................................................... 857
III........................................................ 1,247
IV......................................................... 1,701
V.......................................................... 2,202
VI......................................................... 1,842
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) The quotient of the represented value of cooling capacity (for
air-source heat pumps that provide both cooling and heating) in Btu's
per hour, as determined in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(C) of this section, or
the represented value of heating capacity (for air-source heat pumps
that provide only heating), as determined in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(D) of
this section, divided by the represented value of HSPF2, in Btu's per
watt-hour, calculated for the appropriate generalized climatic region
of interest, and determined in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B) of this section;
(C) The adjustment factor of 1.15 (for heat pumps that are not
variable speed) or 1.07 (for heat pumps that are variable speed), which
serves to adjust the calculated design heating requirement and heating
load hours to the actual load experienced by a heating system;
(D) A conversion factor of 0.001 kilowatts per watt; and
(E) The representative average unit cost of electricity in dollars
per kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to section 323(b)(2) of the Act.
(ii) When using appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430, regional
annual operating cost for air-source heat pumps that provide only
heating or for the heating portion, does not apply.
(6) Regional Annual Operating Cost--Total. For air-source heat
pumps that provide both heating and cooling, the estimated regional
annual operating cost is the sum of the quantity determined in
paragraph (f)(4) of this section added to the quantity determined in
paragraph (f)(5) of this section.
(7) Annual Operating Cost--Rounding. Round any represented values
of estimated annual operating cost determined in paragraphs (f)(1)
through (6) of this section to the nearest dollar per year.
0
4. Amend Sec. 429.70 by revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i)(A) to
read as follows:
Sec. 429.70 Alternative methods for determining energy efficiency and
energy use.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Criteria an AEDM must satisfy. A manufacturer may not apply an
AEDM to an individual model/combination to determine its represented
values (SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, SCORE, SHORE and/or PW,OFF)
pursuant to this section unless authorized pursuant to Sec. 429.16(d)
and:
(i) The AEDM is derived from a mathematical model that estimates
the energy efficiency or energy consumption characteristics of the
individual model or combination (SEER2, EER2, HSPF2, SCORE, SHORE and/
or PW,OFF) as measured by the applicable DOE test procedure;
and
(ii) The manufacturer has validated the AEDM in accordance with
paragraph (e)(2) of this section.
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) Minimum testing. The manufacturer must test each basic model as
required under Sec. 429.16(b)(2).
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 429.134 by revising paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.134 Product-specific enforcement provisions.
* * * * *
(k) Central air conditioners and heat pumps--Before [Date 180 days
after 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 180 days after 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 individual model (for single-package systems) or
individual combination (for split systems) will be measured pursuant to
the test requirements of Sec. 430.23(m) of this chapter. The mean of
the measurement(s) (either the measured cooling capacity for a single
unit sample or the average of the measured cooling capacities for a
multiple unit sample) will be used to determine the applicable
standards for purposes of compliance.
(2) Verification of CD value. (i) For central air conditioners and
heat pumps other than models of outdoor units with no match, if
manufacturers certify that they did not conduct the optional tests to
determine the CD\c\ and/or CD\h\ value for an
individual model (for single-package systems) or individual
[[Page 24258]]
combination (for split systems), as applicable, for each unit tested,
the default CD\c\ and/or CD\h\ value will be used
as the basis for the calculation of SEER2 or HSPF2 when testing in
accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430, or SCORE or SHORE
when testing in accordance with appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430.
If manufacturers certify that they conducted the optional tests to
determine the CD\c\ and/or CD\h\ value for an
individual model (for single-package systems) or individual combination
(for split systems), as applicable, the following provisions apply.
(A) If testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of part
430, the CD\c\ and/or CD\h\ value will be
measured for each unit tested pursuant to appendix M1 to subpart B of
part 430 and the result for each unit tested (either the tested value
or the default value, as selected according to the criteria for the
cyclic test in section E17 of AHRI 210/240-202X (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 429.4)) will be used as the basis for calculation
of SEER2 or HSPF2.
(B) If testing in accordance with appendix M2 to subpart B of part
430, the CD\c\ and/or CD\h\ value will be
measured for each unit tested pursuant to appendix M2 to subpart B of
part 430 and the result for each unit tested (either the tested value
or the default value, as selected according to the criteria for the
cyclic test in section E17 of AHRI 1600-202X (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 429.4)) will be used as the basis for calculation
of SCORE or SHORE.
(ii) For models of outdoor units with no match, DOE will use the
default CD\c\ and/or CD\h\ pursuant to appendix
M1 to subpart B of part 430 or appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430, as
applicable.
(3) Verification of cut-out and cut-in temperatures for central
heat pumps. (i) When testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart
B of part 430, the cut-out and cut-in temperatures may be verified
using the method in appendix J of AHRI 210/240-202X (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 429.4). If this method is conducted, the tested
TOFF,T and TON,T values determined in the test
shall be used as the cut-out and cut-in temperatures, respectively, to
calculate HSPF2.
(ii) When testing in accordance with appendix M2 to subpart B of
part 430, the cut-out and cut-in temperatures may be verified using the
method in appendix J of AHRI 1600-202X (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 429.4). If this method is conducted, the tested TOFF,T
and TON,T values determined in the test shall be used as the
cut-out and cut-in temperatures, respectively, to calculate SHORE.
(4) Verification of Variable Capacity Operation and of Fixed
Settings for the Compressor and the Indoor Fan when Testing Variable
Capacity Compressor Systems--(i) Conducting the Controls Verification
Procedure. A controls verification procedure (CVP) may be performed for
any model certified as a variable capacity compressor system for the
purposes of assessment or enforcement testing conducted according to
appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430 or appendix M2 to subpart B of
part 430 (i.e., the certification tests), as applicable. For a heat
pump, either a cooling mode CVP, a heating mode CVP, or both may be
conducted, as elected by DOE. If a CVP is not conducted, the override
instructions for the compressor and indoor fan, as specified by the
manufacturer, will be used to conduct the tests per appendix M1 to
subpart B of part 430 or, appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430, as
applicable.
(A) When testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of
part 430. The CVP will be conducted per appendix I of AHRI 210/240-202X
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4).
(B) When testing in accordance with appendix M2 to subpart B of
part 430. The CVP will be conducted per appendix I of AHRI 1600-202X
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4).
(C) For systems determined to be variable capacity certified,
single capacity systems as described in paragraph (k)(4)(ii)(B) of this
section, the CVP cooling and heating minimum intervals may be omitted.
(ii) Variable Capacity Determination.(A) If the unit tested does
meet the definition of a variable capacity compressor system based on
performance of the CVP per paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or paragraph
(k)(4)(i)(B) of this section, the efficiency metrics (SEER2, HSPF2,
EER2, SCORE, SHORE, as applicable) shall be determined using the
certification test applicable to variable capacity compressor systems.
(B) If the unit tested does not meet the definition of a variable
capacity compressor system based on performance of the CVP per
paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or paragraph (k)(4)(i)(B) of this section, and
the tested unit is instead determined to be a variable capacity
certified, single capacity system, the efficiency metrics (SEER2,
HSPF2, EER2, SCORE, SHORE, as applicable) shall be determined using the
certification test applicable to variable capacity certified, single
capacity systems.
(C) If the unit tested does not meet the definition of a variable
capacity compressor system based on performance of the CVP per
paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or paragraph (k)(4)(i)(B) of this section, and
the tested unit is instead determined to be a variable capacity
certified, two capacity system, the efficiency metrics (SEER2, HSPF2,
EER2, SCORE, SHORE, as applicable) shall be determined using the
certification test applicable to variable capacity certified, two
capacity systems.
(D) If, for a heat pump, a CVP is conducted for just one of the
operating modes (heating or cooling), the system classifications for
both modes will be based on the results of the one CVP conducted.
(iii) CVP Tolerance Evaluation for Full and Minimum Load Intervals.
(A) The data collected in the CVP per paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or
paragraph (k)(4)(i)(B) of this section shall be evaluated for the
duration of the individual CVP full or minimum load interval excluding
the preliminary 30 minutes of equilibrium data, to determine compliance
with test condition tolerances and test operating tolerances listed in
section I5.1 of appendix I of AHRI 210/240-202X (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 429.4) (if testing in accordance with appendix
M1); or of AHRI 1600-202X (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix M2).
(1) If the specified tolerances are met under system operation for
60 minutes, the average capacity and average power measured over this
60-minute test interval shall be recorded.
(2) If the four-hour time limit is reached by the system without
maintaining the tolerances for a 60-minute period, but two successive
test period sub-intervals are identified, each a minimum of 30 minutes,
and comprised of a whole number of compressor cycles (either compressor
on-off cycles or speed/capacity cycles) or in which minimal
fluctuations of the compressor speed/capacity level are observed, where
both the time averaged integrated capacity and time averaged integrated
power for the full 60 minutes of the two periods are observed to be
within two percent of each other, a single capacity average and a
single power average shall be recorded, both averaged over compressor-
on periods of the two 60-minute sub-intervals. These average capacity
and power values shall be considered the capacity and power values
recorded for the test interval.
(3) If the four-hour time limit is reached by the system without
complying with either paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(A)(1) or (k)(4)(iii)(B)(2)
of this section, the time averaged integrated
[[Page 24259]]
capacity and time averaged integrated power shall be recorded for only
the compressor-on periods over the final 120 minutes of the test
interval.
(B) The measured capacity for each full load interval, as evaluated
per the CVP conducted in paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or paragraph
(k)(4)(i)(B) of this section, shall agree with the corresponding
certification test within 6%, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.058
(C) The measured capacity for each minimum load interval, as
evaluated per the CVP conducted in paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or paragraph
(k)(4)(i)(B) of this section, shall agree with the corresponding
certification test within 6% of the cooling or heating mode full load
certification test capacity, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.060
(D) The measured efficiency for the full and minimum load interval,
as evaluated per the CVP conducted in paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or
paragraph (k)(4)(i)(B) of this section, shall agree with the
corresponding certification test within 10%, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.062
(iv) Evaluation of results when CVP tolerances are met. If the
tolerances for capacity and efficiency are met by the applicable full
and minimum load intervals as per paragraphs (k)(4)(iii)(B),
(k)(4)(iii)(C) and (k)(4)(iii)(D) of this section, the certified
override instructions for the compressor and indoor fan, as specified
by the manufacturer, shall be deemed valid, and the efficiency metrics
(SEER2, HSPF2, EER2, SCORE, SHORE, as applicable), shall be determined
based on these certification tests with no adjustments determined based
on the CVP results.
(v) Evaluation of results when CVP tolerances are not met. If the
tolerances for capacity and efficiency are not met by the applicable
full and minimum load intervals as per paragraphs (k)(4)(iii)(B),
(k)(4)(iii)(C) and (k)(4)(iii)(D) of this section, the unit shall be
tested per instructions in paragraphs (k)(4)(v)(A) to (k)(4)(v)(C) of
this section, as applicable. The instructions in paragraphs
(k)(4)(v)(A) to (k)(4)(v)(C) of this section shall be followed, as
applicable, only for the certification tests corresponding to the
[[Page 24260]]
failed compressor speed interval based on the evaluations of paragraphs
(k)(4)(iii)(B), (k)(4)(iii)(C) and (k)(4)(iii)(D) of this section. For
all compressor speed intervals for which the capacity and EER/COP are
in tolerance as per paragraphs (k)(4)(iii)(B), (k)(4)(iii)(C) and
(k)(4)(iii)(D) of this section, the corresponding certification tests
shall be used without adjustments.
(A) The instructions of this paragraph shall be applied to systems
for which the same control device used as per the CVP conducted in
paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or paragraph (k)(4)(i)(B) of this section is
used as the means for overriding the controls, and both (a) monitoring
of the compressor and indoor blower speed during native-control
operation without otherwise impacting the control of the system, and
(b) monitoring and adjustment of the compressor and indoor blower speed
during certification tests, where monitoring and adjustment means the
control device has the ability to display and make discrete
adjustments, as required, to the compressor and indoor blower speeds
without additional hardware or non-publicly available software, is
supported by the control device. The compressor and indoor blower speed
shall be monitored during the CVP conducted in paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A)
or paragraph (k)(4)(i)(B) of this section. The average compressor and
indoor blower speeds and indoor air volume rate shall be evaluated for
the same time period(s) used as described in paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(A)
to determine average capacity and power for the CVP test. The
compressor speed for the certification test shall be set at this
average value observed during the corresponding CVP test interval. The
indoor blower speed shall be set as described in section 6.1.5 of AHRI
210/240-202X (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4) (if testing
in accordance with appendix M1); or of AHRI 1600-202X (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 429.4) (if testing in accordance with appendix
M2), except the ``specified airflow'' shall be set as the average value
observed during the corresponding CVP test interval. The same adjusted
compressor speed shall be used for the other certification tests that
require the same speed, as applicable, as detailed in the following
table. Specifically, for each of the CVP tests listed in the first
column for which either the capacity tolerances of paragraph
(k)(4)(iii)(B) or paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(C) of this section are not met
or the efficiency tolerances of paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(D) are not met,
the certification tests to be conducted again using the compressor
speed determined in the corresponding CVP test are listed in the last
three columns of the table, depending on which of the three kinds of
system the model is designated. If required, the adjusted qH3,Full and
PH3,Full shall be used to calculate qk=2 hcalc (47) and P k=2 hcalc
(47), respectively, to represent performance at 47 [deg]F as described
in section 11.2.2.4 of AHRI 210/240-202X (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 429.4) (if testing in accordance with appendix M1), or of
AHRI 1600-202X (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4) (if testing
in accordance with appendix M2), and for use in calculating performance
at 35 [deg]F. If required, the adjusted H1,Low and
H3,Low tests shall be used to calculate qthi,H2,Low and
PH2,Low, respectively, as described in section 6.1.3.4 of AHRI 210/240-
202X (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4) (if testing in
accordance with appendix M1), or of AHRI 1600-202X (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 429.4) (if testing in accordance with appendix
M2). No adjustments are required for intermediate or nominal compressor
speed tests or, if cyclic tests are conducted, for the degradation
coefficient(s).
Table 1 to Paragraph (k)(4)(v)(A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification Tests that use the Indicated CVP Test Compressor Speed or
would have certification test results adjusted per Paragraph (k)(4)(v)(B)
of this section, if the CVP Test is out of Capacity or EER/COP Tolerance
per Paragraph (k)(4)(iii) of this section
CVP Test --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable capacity Variable capacity
certified, single certified, two Variable capacity
capacity system capacity system system
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afull................................ AFull, BFull........... AFull, BFull........... AFull, BFull.
Flow................................. N/A.................... BLow, FLow............. BLow, FLow.
H1,low............................... N/A.................... H0,Low, H1,Low, H3,Low. H0,Low, H1,Low.
H3,full.............................. H2,Full, H3,Full....... H3,Full................ H3,Full.
H4,Full.............................. H4,Full................ H4,Full................ H4,Full.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) The instructions of this paragraph shall be applied to systems
for which the means for overriding the compressor and indoor blower
speed as discussed in paragraph (k)(4)(v)(A) of this section is not
provided by the control used for conducting the CVP. For each of the
CVP tests listed in the first column of Table 1 of this section for
which either the capacity tolerances of paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(B) or
paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(C) of this section are not met or the efficiency
tolerances of paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(D) are not met, depending on which
of the three kinds of system the model is designated, the certification
test results to be adjusted based on the results of the CVP test are
indicated by the last three columns of the table for each CVP test
listed in the first column. The average capacities and power(s)
measured during the CVP time period(s) described in paragraph
(k)(4)(iii)(A) of this section shall be used. For the certification
tests requiring adjustment with no CVP interval (any required
certification test other than Afull, Flow,
H1low, H3full and H4full), the
capacity and power shall be adjusted. The capacity shall be adjusted by
applying the ratio of the capacity measured during the CVP test
interval divided by the capacity measured during the certification test
(for the corresponding CVP interval). The power shall be adjusted by
applying the ratio of the efficiency measured during the CVP test
interval divided by the efficiency measured during the certification
test (for the corresponding CVP interval), as follows:
Cooling full capacity:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.063
[[Page 24261]]
Cooling full power:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.064
Cooling minimum capacity:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.065
Cooling minimum power:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.066
Heating minimum capacity:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.067
Heating minimum power:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AP24.069
Where:
CSF = 0.0204/[deg]F, capacity slope factor for Split Systems
CSF = 0.0262/[deg]F, capacity slope factor for Single Package Units
PSF = 0.00455/[deg]F, power slope factor for all products
(C) If required, the measured QH3,Full and EH3,Full from the CVP
shall be used to calculate qk=2 hcalc(47) and Pk=2 hcalc (47),
respectively, to represent performance at 47 [deg]F as described in
section 11.2.2.4 of AHRI 210/240-202X (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 429.4) (if testing in accordance with appendix M1), or of AHRI
1600-202X (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4) (if testing in
accordance with appendix M2), and for use in calculating performance at
35 [deg]F. If required, the measured H1,Low from the CVP and
the adjusted H3,Low tests shall be used to calculate
qthi,H2,Low and PH2,Low, respectively, as described in section 6.1.3.4
of AHRI 210/240-202X (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4) (if
testing in accordance with appendix M1) or of AHRI 1600-202X
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4) (if testing in accordance
with appendix M2). No adjustments are required for intermediate or
nominal compressor speed tests or, if cyclic tests are conducted, the
degradation coefficient(s).
(D) If the test unit is determined to be variable capacity
certified, single capacity system, or variable capacity certified, two
capacity system and is not certified or marketed for use with only a
proprietary control device, the same simulated thermostat low voltage
signal that resulted in full speed compressor operation for the full
load intervals shall be used for all certification full load tests. If
the test unit is determined to be variable capacity certified, two
capacity system, the same simulated thermostat low voltage signal that
resulted in low-speed compressor operation for the low load intervals
shall be used for all certification low load tests.
* * * * *
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
6. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
7. Amend Sec. 430.3 by revising paragraphs (b)(4), (c) and (g) to read
as follows:
Sec. 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) ANSI/AMCA 210-07, ANSI/ASHRAE 51-07 (``AMCA 210-2007''),
Laboratory Methods of Testing Fans for Certified Aerodynamic
Performance
[[Page 24262]]
Rating, ANSI approved August 17, 2007, Section 8--Report and Results of
Test, Section 8.2--Performance graphical representation of test
results, IBR approved for appendix M to subpart B, as follows:
(i) Figure 2A--Static Pressure Tap, and
(ii) Figure 12--Outlet Chamber Setup--Multiple Nozzles in Chamber.
* * * * *
(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, 703-524-8800, or go
to https://www.ahrinet.org.
(1) ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008 with Addenda 1 and 2 (''AHRI 210/240-
2008''), 2008 Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary Air-
Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment, ANSI approved October
27, 2011 (Addendum 1 dated June 2011 and Addendum 2 dated March 2012),
IBR approved for appendix M to subpart B, as follows:
(i) Section 6--Rating Requirements, Section 6.1--Standard Ratings,
6.1.3--Standard Rating Tests, 6.1.3.2--Electrical Conditions;
(ii) Section 6--Rating Requirements, Section 6.1--Standard Ratings,
6.1.3--Standard Rating Tests, 6.1.3.4--Outdoor-Coil Airflow Rate;
(iii) Section 6--Rating Requirements, Section 6.1--Standard
Ratings, 6.1.3--Standard Rating Tests, 6.1.3.5--Requirements for
Separated Assemblies;
(iv) Figure D1--Tunnel Air Enthalpy Test Method Arrangement;
(v) Figure D2--Loop Air Enthalpy Test Method Arrangement; and
(vi) Figure D4--Room Air Enthalpy Test Method Arrangement.
(2) AHRI Standard 210/240-202X (``AHRI 210/240-202X''), 202X
Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-
Source Heat Pump Equipment [version and date TBD]; IBR approved for
appendix M1 to subpart B.
(3) AHRI Standard 1160-2009 (``AHRI 1160''), Performance Rating of
Heat Pump Pool Heaters, 2009, IBR approved for appendix P to subpart B.
(4) ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010 with Addendum 2 (``AHRI 1230-2010''), 2010
Standard for Performance Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF)
Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (including
Addendum 1 dated March 2011), ANSI approved August 2, 2010 (Addendum 2
dated June 2014), IBR approved for appendix M to subpart B, as follows:
(i) Section 3--Definitions (except 3.8, 3.9, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15,
3.16, 3.23, 3.24, 3.26, 3.27, 3.28, 3.29, 3.30, and 3.31);
(ii) Section 5--Test Requirements, Section 5.1 (untitled), 5.1.3-
5.1.4;
(iii) Section 6--Rating Requirements, Section 6.1--Standard
Ratings, 6.1.5--Airflow Requirements for Systems with Capacities
<65,000 Btu/h [19,000 W];
(iv) Section 6--Rating Requirements, Section 6.1--Standard Ratings,
6.1.6--Outdoor-Coil Airflow Rate (Applies to all Air-to-Air Systems);
(v) Section 6--Rating Requirements, Section 6.2--Conditions for
Standard Rating Test for Air-cooled Systems < 65,000 Btu/h [19,000W]
(except Table 8); and
(vi) Table 4--Refrigerant Line Length Correction Factors.
(5) AHRI 1600-202X (``AHRI 1600-202X''), 202X Standard for
Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
Equipment, [version and date TBD]; IBR approved for appendix M2 to
subpart B.
* * * * *
(g) ASHRAE. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 180 Technology Parkway NW, Peachtree
Corners, GA 30092; (800) 527-4723 or (404) 636-8400; www.ashrae.org.
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-2016 (``ANSI/ASHRAE 16''), Method of
Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners, Packaged Terminal Air
Conditioners, and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps for Cooling and Heating
Capacity, ANSI approved November 1, 2016; IBR approved for appendices
F, M1, and M2 to subpart B.
(2) ANSI/ASHRAE 23.1-2010, (``ASHRAE 23.1-2010''), Methods of
Testing for Rating the Performance of Positive Displacement Refrigerant
Compressors and Condensing Units that Operate at Subcritical
Temperatures of the Refrigerant, ANSI approved January 28, 2010, IBR
approved for appendix M to subpart B, as follows:
(i) Section 5--Requirements;
(ii) Section 6--Instruments;
(iii) Section 7--Methods of Testing; and
(iv) Section 8--Compressor Testing.
(3) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, (``ASHRAE 37-2009''), Methods of
Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and
Heat Pump Equipment, ANSI approved June 25, 2009, IBR approved for
appendices M1, M2, AA, CC, and CC1 to subpart B.
(4) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009''),
Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment, ANSI approved June 25, 2009, IBR
approved for appendix M to subpart B, as follows:
(i) Section 5--Instruments, Section 5.1--Temperature Measuring
Instruments: 5.1.1;
(ii) Section 5--Instruments, Section 5.2--Refrigerant, Liquid, and
Barometric Pressure Measuring Instruments;
(iii) Section 5--Instruments, Section 5.5--Volatile Refrigerant
Flow Measurement;
(iv) Section 6--Airflow and Air Differential Pressure Measurement
Apparatus, Section 6.1--Enthalpy Apparatus (Excluding Figure 3): 6.1.1-
6.1.2 and 6.1.4;
(v) Section 6--Airflow and Air Differential Pressure Measurement
Apparatus, Section 6.2--Nozzle Airflow Measuring Apparatus (Excluding
Figure 5);
(vi) Section 6--Airflow and Air Differential Pressure Measurement
Apparatus, Section 6.3--Nozzles (Excluding Figure 6);
(vii) Section 6--Airflow and Air Differential Pressure Measurement
Apparatus, Section 6.4--External Static Pressure Measurements;
(viii) Section 6--Airflow and Air Differential Pressure Measurement
Apparatus, Section 6.5--Recommended Practices for Static Pressure
Measurements;
(ix) Section 7--Methods of Testing and Calculation, Section 7.3--
Indoor and Outdoor Air Enthalpy Methods (Excluding Table 1);
(x) Section 7--Methods of Testing and Calculation, Section 7.4--
Compressor Calibration Method;
(xi) Section 7--Methods of Testing and Calculation, Section 7.5--
Refrigerant Enthalpy Method;
(xii) Section 7--Methods of Testing and Calculation, Section 7.7--
Airflow Rate Measurement, Section 7.7.2--Calculations--Nozzle Airflow
Measuring Apparatus (Excluding Figure 10), 7.7.2.1-7.7.2.2;
(xiii) Section 8--Test Procedures, Section 8.1--Test Room
Requirements: 8.1.2-8.1.3;
(xiv) Section 8--Test Procedures, Section 8.2--Equipment
Installation;
(xv) Section 8--Test Procedures, Section 8.6--Additional
Requirements for the Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method, Section 8.6.2;
(xvii) Section 8--Test Procedures, Section 8.6--Additional
Requirements for the Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method, Table 2a--Test
Tolerances (SI Units), and
(xviii) Section 8--Test Procedures, Section 8.6--Additional
Requirements for the Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method, Table 2b--Test
Tolerances (I-P Units);
(xix) Section 9--Data to be Recorded, Section 9.2--Test Tolerances;
and
(xx) Section 9--Data to be Recorded, Table 3--Data to be Recorded.
[[Page 24263]]
(5) ASHRAE 41.1-1986 (Reaffirmed 2006) (``ASHRAE 41.1-1986''),
Standard Method for Temperature Measurement, approved February 18,
1987; IBR approved for appendices AA, CC, and CC1 to subpart B.
(6) ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1-2013 (``ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1''), Standard Method
for Temperature Measurement, ANSI approved January 30, 2013; IBR
approved for appendices F and X1 to subpart B.
(7) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.1-2013, (``ANSI/ASHRAE 41.1-2013''),
Standard Method for Temperature Measurement, ANSI approved January 30,
2013, IBR approved for appendix M to subpart B, as follows:
(i) Section 4--Classifications;
(ii) Section 5--Requirements, Section 5.3--Airstream Temperature
Measurements;
(iii) Section 6--Instruments; and
(iv) Section 7--Temperature Test Methods (Informative).
(8) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.1-2020 (``ASHRAE 41.1-2020''), Standard
Methods for Temperature Measurement, ANSI-approved June 30, 2020; IBR
approved for appendix E to subpart B.
(9) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2-1987 (RA 92), (``ASHRAE 41.2-1987 (RA
1992)''), Standard Methods for Laboratory Airflow Measurement, ANSI
reaffirmed April 20, 1992; IBR approved for appendix F to subpart B.
(10) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2-1987 (RA 1992), (``ASHRAE 41.2-1987
(RA 1992)''), Standard Methods for Laboratory Airflow Measurement, ANSI
reaffirmed April 20, 1992, Section 5--Section of Airflow-Measuring
Equipment and Systems, IBR approved for appendix M to subpart B, as
follows:
(i) Section 5.2--Test Ducts, Section 5.2.2--Mixers, 5.2.2.1--
Performance of Mixers (excluding Figures 11 and 12 and Table 1); and
(ii) Figure 14--Outlet Chamber Setup for Multiple Nozzles in
Chamber.
(11) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.3-2014, (``ASHRAE 41.3-2014''),
Standard Methods for Pressure Measurement, ANSI approved July 3, 2014;
IBR approved for appendix F to subpart B.
(12) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.6-1994 (RA 2006) (``ASHRAE 41.6-
1994''), Standard Method for Measurement of Moist Air Properties, ANSI-
reaffirmed January 27, 2006; IBR approved for appendices CC and CC1 to
subpart B.
(13) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.6-2014, (``ASHRAE 41.6-2014''),
Standard Method for Humidity Measurement, ANSI approved July 3, 2014;
IBR approved for appendices E, F, and EE to subpart B.
(14) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.6-2014, (``ASHRAE 41.6-2014''),
Standard Method for Humidity Measurement, ANSI approved July 3, 2014,
IBR approved for appendix M to subpart B, as follows:
(i) Section 4--Classifications;
(ii) Section 5--Requirements;
(iii) Section 6--Instruments and Calibration; and
(iv) Section 7--Humidity Measurement Methods.
(15) ANSI/ASHRAE 41.9-2011, (``ASHRAE 41.9-2011''), Standard
Methods for Volatile-Refrigerant Mass Flow Measurements Using
Calorimeters, ANSI approved February 3, 2011, IBR approved for appendix
M to subpart B, as follows:
(i) Section 5--Requirements;
(ii) Section 6--Instruments;
(iii) Section 7--Secondary Refrigerant Calorimeter Method;
(iv) Section 8--Secondary Fluid Calorimeter Method;
(v) Section 9--Primary Refrigerant Calorimeter Method; and
(vi) Section 11--Lubrication Circulation Measurements.
(16) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.11-2014, (``ASHRAE 41.11-2014''),
Standard Methods for Power Measurement, ANSI approved July 3, 2014; IBR
approved for appendix F to subpart B.
(17) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-1993, (``ASHRAE 103-1993''), Methods
of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential
Central Furnaces and Boilers, (with Errata of October 24, 1996), except
for sections 7.1, 7.2.2.2, 7.2.2.5, 7.2.3.1, 7.8, 8.2.1.3, 8.3.3.1,
8.4.1.1, 8.4.1.1.2, 8.4.1.2, 8.4.2.1.4, 8.4.2.1.6, 8.6.1.1, 8.7.2,
8.8.3, 9.1.2.2.1, 9.1.2.2.2, 9.5.1.1, 9.5.1.2.1, 9.5.1.2.2, 9.5.2.1,
9.7.1, 9.7.4, 9.7.6, 9.10, 11.5.11.1, 11.5.11.2 and appendices B and C,
approved October 4, 1993; IBR approved for Sec. 430.23 and appendix N
to subpart B.
(18) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007 (``ASHRAE 103-2007''), Method of
Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central
Furnaces and Boilers, ANSI-approved March 25, 2008; IBR approved for
appendix AA to subpart B.
(19) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2017 (``ASHRAE 103-2017''), Method of
Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central
Furnaces and Boilers, ANSI-approved July 3, 2017; IBR approved for
Sec. 430.23 and appendices O and EE to subpart B.
(20) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 116-2010, (``ASHRAE 116-2010''), Methods
of Testing for Rating Seasonal Efficiency of Unitary Air Conditioners
and Heat Pumps, ANSI approved February 24, 2010, Section 7--Methods of
Test, Section 7.4--Air Enthalpy Method--Indoor Side (Primary Method),
Section 7.4.3--Measurements, Section 7.4.3.4--Temperature, Section
7.4.3.4.5, IBR approved for appendix M to subpart B.
(21) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 116-2010, (``ASHRAE 116-2010''), Methods
of Testing for Rating Seasonal Efficiency of Unitary Air Conditioners
and Heat Pumps, ANSI approved February 24, 2010; IBR approved for
appendices M1 and M2 to subpart B.
(22) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 118.2-2022 (``ASHRAE 118.2-2022''),
Method of Testing for Rating Residential Water Heaters and Residential-
Duty Commercial Water Heaters, ANSI-approved March 1, 2022; IBR
approved for appendix E to subpart B.
(23) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 146-2011 (``ASHRAE 146''), Method of
Testing and Rating Pool Heaters, ASHRAE approved February 2, 2011; IBR
approved for appendix P to subpart B.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 430.23 by revising paragraph (m) to read as follows:
Sec. 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water
consumption.
* * * * *
(m) Central air conditioners and heat pumps. See the note at the
beginning of appendices M1 and M2 to this subpart to determine the
appropriate test method. Determine all values discussed in this section
using a single appendix.
(1) Determine cooling capacity from the steady-state wet-coil test
(A or Afull Test), as per instructions in section 2 of
appendix M1 or M2 to this subpart, and rounded off to the nearest:
(i) To the nearest 50 Btu/h if cooling capacity is less than 20,000
Btu/h;
(ii) To the nearest 100 Btu/h if cooling capacity is greater than
or equal to 20,000 Btu/h but less than 38,000 Btu/h; and
(iii) To the nearest 250 Btu/h if cooling capacity is greater than
or equal to 38,000 Btu/h and less than 65,000 Btu/h.
(2) Determine seasonal energy efficiency ratio 2 (SEER2) as
described in sections 2 and 4 of appendix M1 to this subpart or
seasonal cooling and off-mode rating efficiency (SCORE) as described in
sections 2 and 3 of appendix M2 to this subpart, and round off to the
nearest 0.025 Btu/W-h.
(3) Determine energy efficiency ratio 2 (EER2) as described in
section 2 of appendix M1 or M2 to this subpart, and round off to the
nearest 0.025 Btu/W-h. EER2 is the efficiency from the A or
Afull test, whichever applies.
(4) Determine heating seasonal performance factor 2 (HSPF2) as
[[Page 24264]]
described in sections 2 and 4 of appendix M1 to this subpart or
seasonal heating and off-mode rating efficiency (SHORE) as described in
sections 2 and 3 of appendix M2 to this subpart, and round off to the
nearest 0.025 Btu/W-h.
(5) Determine average off mode power consumption as described in
section 3 of appendix M1 to this subpart, and round off to the nearest
0.5 W. Average off mode power consumption is not required when testing
in accordance with appendix M2 to this subpart.
(6) Determine all other measures of energy efficiency or
consumption or other useful measures of performance using appendix M1
or M2 of this subpart.
* * * * *
0
9. Appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix M1 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
Note: Prior to [Date 180 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register], representations with respect to the
energy use or efficiency of central air conditioners and heat pumps,
including compliance certifications, must be based on testing
conducted in accordance with:
(a) Appendix M1 to this subpart, in the 10 CFR parts 200 through
499 edition revised as of January 1, 2023; or
(b) This appendix.
Beginning [Date 180 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register], and prior to the compliance date of amended
standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps based on
Seasonal Cooling and Off-mode Rating Efficiency (SCORE) and Seasonal
Heating and Off-mode Rating Efficiency (SHORE), representations with
respect to energy use or efficiency of central air conditioners and
heat pumps, including compliance certifications, must be based on
testing conducted in accordance with this appendix.
Beginning on the compliance date of amended standards for
central air conditioners and heat pumps based on SCORE and SHORE,
representations with respect to energy use or efficiency of central
air conditioners and heat pumps, including compliance
certifications, must be based on testing conducted in accordance
with appendix M2 to this subpart.
Manufacturers may also certify compliance with any amended
energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat
pumps based on SCORE or SHORE prior to the applicable compliance
date for those standards, and those compliance certifications must
be based on testing in accordance with appendix M2 to this subpart.
1. Incorporation by Reference
In Sec. 430.3, DOE incorporated by reference the entire
standard for AHRI 210/240-202X, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
2009 and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010. However, certain enumerated
provisions of AHRI 210/240-202X, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, ANSI/ASHRAE
37-2009 and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010, as set forth in sections 1.1
through 1.4 of this appendix, 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 210/240-202X
(a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable,
(c) The following subsections of Section 3 Definitions are
inapplicable: 3.2.15 (Double-duct system), 3.2.19 (Gross capacity),
3.2.47 (Oil Recovery Mode), 3.2.52 (Published Rating), 3.2.64
(Standard Filter), 3.2.79 (Unitary Air-conditioner), 3.2.80 (Unitary
Heat Pump),
(d) Section 4 Classifications is inapplicable,
(e) The following subsections of Section 6 Rating Requirements
are inapplicable: 6.1.8, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5,
(f) Section 7 Minimum Data Requirements for Published Ratings is
inapplicable,
(g) Section 8 Operating Requirements is inapplicable,
(h) Section 9 Marking and Nameplate Data is inapplicable,
(i) Section 10 Conformance Conditions is inapplicable,
(j) Appendix A References--Normative is inapplicable,
(k) Appendix B References--Informative is inapplicable,
(l) Appendix C Secondary Capacity Check Requirements--Normative
is inapplicable,
(m) Appendix F Unit Configurations for Standard Efficiency
Determination--Normative is inapplicable,
(n) Appendix H Verification Testing--Normative is inapplicable,
(o) Appendix I Controls Verification Procedure--Normative is
inapplicable, and
(p) Appendix J Determination of Cut in and Cut out
temperatures--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.
1.3 ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016
(a) Section 1--Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2--Scope is inapplicable, and
(c) Section 4--Classification is inapplicable.
1.4 ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010
(a) Section 1--Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2--Scope is inapplicable,
(c) Section 4--Classification is inapplicable,
(d) Section 7--Methods of Test is inapplicable,
(e) References is inapplicable,
(f) Appendix A--Example Bin Calculations is inapplicable, and
(g) Appendix B--Bibliography is inapplicable.
2. General
Determine the cooling capacity, heating capacity, and applicable
energy efficiency metrics (SEER2, HSPF2, and EER2) in accordance
with the specified sections of AHRI 210/240-202X and the applicable
provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and ANSI/
ASHRAE 116-2010. The AFull (cooling mode) and
H1, Full or H1, Nom (heating mode, if
applicable) shall have a secondary capacity check completed. For all
other tests in each mode, it is permissible to not use a secondary
capacity check.
Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this appendix provide additional
instructions for testing. In cases where there is a conflict, the
language of this appendix takes highest precedence, followed, in
order, by: AHRI 210/240-202X, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-
2016 and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010. 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. Off-Mode Power
Determine off-mode power, PW, OFF, in accordance with
section 11.3 and appendix G of AHRI 210/240-202X.
4. Outdoor Units With No Match (OUWNM)
4.1 Definition
An Outdoor Unit that is not distributed in commerce with any
indoor units, that meets any of the following criteria:
(a) Is designed for use with a refrigerant that makes the unit
banned for installation when paired with an Indoor Unit as a system,
according to EPA regulations in 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter C,
(b) Is designed for use with a refrigerant that has a 95 [deg]F
midpoint saturation absolute pressure that is 18 percent
of the 95 [deg]F saturation absolute pressure for R-22, or
(c) Is shipped without a specified refrigerant from the point of
manufacture or is shipped such that more than two pounds of
refrigerant are required to meet the charge per section 5.1.8 of
AHRI 210/240-202X. This shall not apply if either:
(1) The factory charge is equal to or greater than 70% of the
outdoor unit internal volume times the liquid density of refrigerant
at 95 [deg]F, or
(2) An A2L refrigerant is approved for use and listed in the
certification report.
4.2 Testing
An OUWNM shall be tested with an indoor coil having nominal tube
diameter of 0.375 in and an NGIFS of 1.0 or less (as determined in
section 5.1.6.3 of AHRI 210/240-202X).
5. Test Conditions
5.1 Test Conditions for Certifying Compliance With Standards
The following conditions specified in AHRI 210/240-202X apply
when testing to certify to the SEER2 and HSPF2 energy conservation
standards in Sec. 430.32(c).
[[Page 24265]]
For cooling mode, use the rating conditions specified in table 8
of AHRI 210/240-202X and the fractional cooling bin hours in table
15 of AHRI 210/240-202X to determine SEER2, and EER2 for models
subject to regional standards in terms of EER2.
For heat pump heating mode, use the rating conditions specified
in table 8 of AHRI 210/240-202X and the fractional heating bin hours
specified for Region IV in table 16 of AHRI 210/240-202X to
determine the heating efficiency metric, HSPF2.
5.2 Optional Representations
Representations of EER2 made using the rating conditions
specified in Table 8 of AHRI 210/240-202X are optional for models
not subject to regional standards in terms of EER2. Representations
of HSPF2 made using the rating conditions specified in table 8 of
AHRI 210/240-202X and the fractional heating hours specified for
Regions other than Region IV in Table 14 AHRI 210/240-202X are
optional. Representations of COPpeak made using appendix
K are optional.
0
10. Appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430 is added to read as follows:
Appendix M2 to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
Note: Prior to [Date 180 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register], representations with respect to the
energy use or efficiency of central air conditioners and heat pumps,
including compliance certifications, must be based on testing
conducted in accordance with:
(a) Appendix M1 to this subpart, in the 10 CFR parts 200 through
499 edition revised as of January 1, 2023; or
(b) Appendix M1 to this subpart.
Beginning [Date 180 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register], and prior to the compliance date of amended
standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps based on
Seasonal Cooling and Off-mode Rating Efficiency (SCORE) and Seasonal
Heating and Off-mode Rating Efficiency (SHORE), representations with
respect to energy use or efficiency of central air conditioners and
heat pumps, including compliance certifications, must be based on
testing conducted in accordance with appendix M1 to this subpart.
Beginning on the compliance date of amended standards for
central air conditioners and heat pumps based on SCORE and SHORE,
representations with respect to energy use or efficiency of central
air conditioners and heat pumps, 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 central air conditioners and heat
pumps based on SCORE or SHORE 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
In Sec. 430.3, DOE incorporated by reference the entire
standard for AHRI 1600-202X, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010. However, certain enumerated
provisions of AHRI 1600-202X, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010, as set forth in sections 1.1 through
1.4 of this appendix, 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 1600-202X
(a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable,
(c) The following subsections of Section 3 Definitions are
inapplicable: 3.1.15 (Double-duct system), 3.1.19 (Gross capacity),
3.1.47 (Oil Recovery Mode), 3.1.52 (Published Rating), 3.1.65
(Standard Filter), 3.1.80 (Unitary Air-conditioner), 3.1.81 (Unitary
Heat Pump),
(d) Section 4 Classifications is inapplicable,
(e) The following subsections of Section 6 Rating Requirements
are inapplicable: 6.1.8, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5
(f) Section 7 Minimum Data Requirements for Published Ratings is
inapplicable,
(g) Section 8 Operating Requirements is inapplicable,
(h) Section 9 Marking and Nameplate Data is inapplicable,
(i) Section 10 Conformance Conditions is inapplicable,
(j) Appendix A References--Normative is inapplicable,
(k) Appendix B References--Informative is inapplicable,
(l) Appendix C Secondary Capacity Check Requirements--Normative
is inapplicable,
(m) Appendix F Unit Configurations for Standard Efficiency
Determination--Normative is inapplicable,
(n) Appendix H Verification Testing--Normative is inapplicable,
(o) Appendix I Controls Verification Procedure--Normative is
inapplicable,
(p) Appendix J Determination of Cut in and Cut out
temperatures--Normative is inapplicable, and
(q) Appendix M Outdoor Temperature Bin Hours--Informative 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.
1.3. ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016
(a) Section 1--Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2--Scope is inapplicable, and
(c) Section 4--Classification is inapplicable.
1.4. 1.4. ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010
(a) Section 1--Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2--Scope is inapplicable,
(c) Section 4--Classification is inapplicable,
(d) Section 7--Methods of Test is inapplicable,
(e) References is inapplicable,
(f) Appendix A--Example Bin Calculations is inapplicable, and
(g) Appendix B--Bibliography is inapplicable.
2. General
Determine the applicable energy efficiency metrics (SCORE,
SHORE, and EER2) in accordance with the specified sections of AHRI
1600-202X and the applicable provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016,
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010. The AFull
(cooling mode) and H1, Full or H1, Nom
(heating mode, if applicable) shall have a secondary capacity check
completed. For all other tests in each mode, it is permissible to
not use a secondary capacity check. 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, in order, by: AHRI 1600-202X, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010. 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. Outdoor Units With No Match (OUWNM)
3.1 Definition
An Outdoor Unit that is not distributed in commerce with any
indoor units, that meets any of the following criteria:
(a) Is designed for use with a refrigerant that makes the unit
banned for installation when paired with an Indoor Unit as a system,
according to EPA regulations in 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter C,
(b) Is designed for use with a refrigerant that has a 95 [deg]F
midpoint saturation absolute pressure that is 18 percent
of the 95 [deg]F saturation absolute pressure for R-22, or
(c) Is shipped without a specified refrigerant from the point of
manufacture or is shipped such that more than two pounds of
refrigerant are required to meet the charge per section 5.1.8 of
AHRI 1600-202X. This shall not apply if either:
(1) The factory charge is equal to or greater than 70% of the
outdoor unit internal volume times the liquid density of refrigerant
at 95 [deg]F or,
(2) An A2L refrigerant is approved for use and listed in the
certification report.
3.2 Testing
An OUWNM shall be tested with an indoor coil having nominal tube
diameter of 0.375 in and an NGIFS of 1.0 or less (as determined in
section 5.1.6.3 of AHRI 1600-202X).
4. Test Conditions
4.1 Test Conditions for Certifying Compliance With Standards
The following conditions specified in AHRI 1600-202X apply when
testing to certify to the SCORE and SHORE energy conservation
standards, in Sec. 431.97.
For cooling mode, use the rating conditions specified in table 8
of AHRI 1600-202X and
[[Page 24266]]
the `U.S. National Average' cooling conditioning hours and shoulder
season hours in Table 15 of AHRI 1600-202X, to determine SCORE, and
EER2 for models subject to regional standards in terms of EER2.
For heat pump heating mode, use the rating conditions specified
in Table 8 of AHRI 1600-202X and the `U.S. National Average' heating
conditioning hours and shoulder season hours specified in Table 18
of AHRI 1600-202X to determine the heating efficiency metric, SHORE.
4.2 Optional Representations
Representations of EER2 made using the rating conditions
specified in Table 8 of AHRI 1600-202X are optional for models not
subject to regional standards in terms of EER2. Representations of
SHORE made using the rating conditions specified in Table 8 of AHRI
1600-202X and the `Cold Climate Average' heating conditioning hours
and shoulder season hours in Table 18 of AHRI 1600-202X are
optional. Representations of COPpeak made using appendix
K are optional.
[FR Doc. 2024-04784 Filed 4-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
