Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 1224-1285 [2024-30852]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
1224
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
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: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This final rule amends 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 is
incorporating by reference the latest
version of the relevant industry
consensus test standard, AHRI 210/240–
2024 (I–P) for 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’’). DOE is incorporating by
reference the new industry consensus
test standard, AHRI 1600–2024 (I–P), for
a new test procedure (‘‘appendix M2’’)
for CAC/HPs that adopts 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 is amending certain provisions of
DOE’s regulations related to
representations and enforcement for
CAC/HPs.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
February 6, 2025. The amendments will
be mandatory for product testing
starting July 7, 2025. Manufacturers will
be required to use the amended test
procedure until the compliance date of
any final rule establishing amended
energy conservation standards based on
the newly established test procedure. At
such time, manufacturers will be
required to begin using the newly
established test procedure.
The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in this rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal
Register on February 6, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
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 those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure.
A link to 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.
For further information on how to
review the docket contact the Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program staff
at (202) 287–1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment, ANSI-approved June 25,
2009 (‘‘ASHRAE 37–2009’’).
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 116–2010,
Methods of Testing for Rating Seasonal
Efficiency of Unitary Air Conditioners
and Heat Pumps, ANSI approved
February 24, 2010 (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE
116–2010’’).
Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE 16,
ASHRAE 37–2009, and ANSI/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.N of this document for
further discussion of these standards.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Table of Contents
Dr. Pradeep Prathibha, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Office, EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (240) 255–0630. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
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) 586–4798. Email:
peter.cochran@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE
maintains previously approved
incorporations by reference and
incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into 10 CFR parts
429 and 430:
AHRI Standard 210/240–2024 (I–P),
Performance Rating of Unitary Airconditioning and Air-source Heat Pump
Equipment, copyright 2024 (‘‘AHRI 210/
240–2024’’).
AHRI Standard 1600–2024 (I–P),
Performance Rating of Unitary Airconditioning and Air-source Heat Pump
Equipment, copyright 2024 (‘‘AHRI
1600–2024’’).
Copies of AHRI 210/240–2024 and
AHRI 1600–2024 can be obtained from
the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2311
Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA
22201, (703) 524–8800, or online at:
www.ahrinet.org.
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’’).
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009,
Methods of Testing for Rating
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Updates to Industry Standards
1. AHRI 210/240–2024
2. AHRI 1600–2024
3. ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016
5. ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010
C. Revised CAC/HP Test Procedure
D. Efficiency Metrics
1. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M1
2. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M2
E. Near-Term Changes in the CAC/HP Test
Procedure
1. Controls Verification Procedure for
Variable Speed Systems
2. Low-Temperature Heating Performance
3. Cut-Out and Cut-In Temperature
Verification
4. Low-Static Single-Split Blower-Coil
System Definition and Testing
Provisions
5. Mandatory Constant Circulation Systems
6. Provisions for Outdoor Units With No
Match
7. Inlet and Outlet Duct Configurations
8. Heat Comfort Controllers
F. Long-Term Changes in the CAC Test
Procedure
1. Power Consumption of Auxiliary
Components
2. Impact of Defrost on Performance
3. Updates to Building Load Lines and
Temperature Bin Hours
4. Default Fan Power Coefficients for CoilOnly Systems
5. Air Flow Limits To Address Inadequate
Dehumidification
G. General Comments Received in
Response to the April 2024 NOPR
H. Represented Values
1. 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
I. Enforcement Provisions
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
1. Verifying Cut-Out and Cut-In
Temperatures
2. Controls Verification Procedure
J. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts
1. Appendix M1
2. Appendix M2
K. Effective and Compliance Dates
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866,
13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
1. Descriptions of Reasons for Action
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimate of Small
Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance
Requirements
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With
Other Rules and Regulations
1. Certification Statement
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. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by
Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
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 the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is
authorized to establish and amend
energy conservation standards and test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292 (a)(3))
DOE’s test procedure for CAC/HPs is
currently prescribed at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix M1 (‘‘appendix
M1’’). The following sections discuss
DOE’s authority to establish and amend
the test procedure for CAC/HPs and
relevant background information
regarding DOE’s consideration of the
test procedure for this product.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, Pub. L. 94–163, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate
the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which
reflects the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A–1 of EPCA.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6317, as codified) Title III, Part B of
EPCA 2 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
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 under EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making other
representations about the efficiency of
those products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)).
Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the
products comply with any 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 shall 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 (as determined by the
Secretary) or period of use and shall not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1225
EPCA also requires that, at least once
every seven 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.
DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 430.27
provide that any interested person may
seek a waiver from the test procedure
requirements if certain conditions are
met. A waiver requires manufacturers to
use an alternate test procedure in
situations in which the DOE test
procedure cannot be used to test the
product or equipment, or use of the DOE
test procedure would generate
unrepresentative results. 10 CFR
430.27(a)(1). DOE’s regulations at 10
CFR 430.27(l) require that as soon as
practicable after the granting of any
waiver, DOE will publish in the Federal
Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) to amend its
regulations so as to eliminate any need
for the continuation of such waiver. As
soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will
publish in the Federal Register a final
rule. 10 CFR 430.27(l).
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 into the overall energy
efficiency, energy consumption, or other
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1226
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
energy descriptor, unless the current
test procedure already incorporates the
standby mode and off-mode energy
consumption, or if such integration is
technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)(i)–(ii)) If an integrated
test procedure is technically infeasible,
DOE must prescribe separate standby
mode and off-mode energy use test
procedures for the covered product, if a
separate test is 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 3 and IEC Standard
62087 4 as applicable. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)) DOE is publishing this
final rule in satisfaction of the sevenyear review requirement specified in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
B. Background
On April 5, 2024, DOE published in
the Federal Register a notice of
proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) (‘‘April
2024 NOPR’’) proposing to update the
Federal test procedure for CAC/HPs by:
(1) incorporating by reference at
appendix M1 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’’). 89 FR 24206. Copies of the
AHRI drafts were added to the docket
for this rulemaking for review by
interested parties.5 6 As stated in the
April 2024 NOPR, if AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft
were to be finalized and formally
adopted, DOE’s intention would be to
reference the final published version of
AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 1600 in DOE’s
subsequent test procedure final rule. 89
FR 24206, 24209. DOE held a public
meeting webinar on April 25, 2024 to
discuss the proposed amendments to
the CAC/HP test procedure presented in
the April 2024 NOPR.
DOE received comments in response
to the April 2024 NOPR from the
interested parties listed in table I.1.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
TABLE I–1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE APRIL 2024 NOPR
Commenter(s)
Reference in this final
rule
Comment No.
in the docket
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ..................................
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and
Southern California Edison; collectively, the California Investor-Owned
Utilities.
Carrier Global Corporation ...........................................................................
Copeland LP .................................................................................................
Daikin Comfort Technologies North America Inc .........................................
GE Appliances ..............................................................................................
Heating, Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International ............
Johnson Controls .........................................................................................
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, National Consumer Law Center,
and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.
AHRI .............................
CA IOUs ........................
25 ...................
32 ...................
Trade Association.
Utilities.
Carrier ...........................
Copeland .......................
Daikin ............................
GE Appliances ..............
HARDI ...........................
JCI .................................
Joint Advocates ............
29
31
36
37
26
35
30
...................
...................
and 40 ......
...................
...................
...................
...................
Keith Rice .....................................................................................................
Lennox International Inc ...............................................................................
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc ...........................................................................
Mitsubishi Electric US ..................................................................................
National Comfort Products ...........................................................................
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ..........................................................
Rheem Manufacturing Company .................................................................
Keith Rice .....................
Lennox ..........................
LG .................................
Mitsubishi ......................
NCP ..............................
NEEA ............................
Rheem ..........................
33
24
38
28
27
39
34
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
...................
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Trade Association.
Manufacturer.
Efficiency Organization,
Consumer Advocacy
Organization, and
State Agency.
HVAC R&D Engineer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Efficiency Organization.
Manufacturer.
Commenter type
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.7 To the extent that
interested parties have provided written
comments that are substantively
consistent with any oral comments
provided during the April 25, 2024
public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this final rule.
DOE did not identify any oral comments
provided during the April 25, 2024,
public meeting that are not
substantively addressed by written
comments.
In May 2024, AHRI finalized AHRI
210/240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–
202X Draft without substantial change,
and published AHRI Standard 210/240–
2024, ‘‘Performance Rating of Unitary
Air-conditioning and Air-source Heat
Pump Equipment’’ (‘‘AHRI 210/240–
2024’’), and AHRI Standard 1600–2024,
‘‘Performance Rating of Unitary Airconditioning and Air-source Heat Pump
Equipment’’ (‘‘AHRI 1600–2024’’),
respectively.
3 IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances—
Measurement of standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011–
01).
4 IEC 62087, Audio, video and related
equipment—Methods of measurement for power
consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1–6: 2015, Part 7:
2018).
5 The AHRI 210/240–202X Draft test procedure is
available in the docket for this rulemaking at:
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2022-BT-TP0028-0017.
6 The AHRI 1600–202X Draft test procedure is
available in the docket for this rulemaking at:
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2022-BT-TP0028-0018.
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 at page of that
document).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE is updating its
regulations for CAC/HPs by: (1)
amending appendix M1 to incorporate
by reference the latest industry
standard, AHRI 210/240–2024, while
maintaining the current efficiency
metrics EER2, SEER2 and HSPF2; and
(2) establishing a new appendix M2 that
references the new industry test
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
procedure, AHRI 1600–2024, for
measuring new efficiency metrics, EER,
SCORE and SHORE. Appendix M2
would be 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
amending certain provisions within
DOE’s regulations for representation and
1227
enforcement consistent with the
proposed test procedure amendments.
Table II.1 summarizes the adopted
changes to the amended appendix M1
and the new appendix M2 test
procedures, as well as the reason for the
adopted change.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
TABLE II–1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN AMENDED APPENDIX M1 AND NEW APPENDIX M2 TEST PROCEDURES RELATIVE
TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE
DOE test procedure
prior to amendment
Appendix M1
test procedure
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
210/240–2024.
Maintains provisions for determining SEER2, HPSF2, EER2,
and PW,OFF.
Updates to the applicable industry
test procedures.
Updates to the applicable industry
test procedures.
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.
Incorporates by reference AHRI
1600–2024.
Includes provisions for determining SCORE and SHORE
and maintains provisions for determining EER (same as EER2).
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 determined that the
amendments to the CAC/HP test
procedures in appendix M1 and newly
established appendix M2 would not be
unduly burdensome to conduct.
Furthermore, DOE has determined that
the amendments to appendix M1 would
not alter the measured efficiency of
CAC/HPs or require retesting or
recertification solely as a result of DOE’s
adoption of the amendments to the test
procedure. Additionally, DOE has
determined that the amendments to
appendix M1 would not increase the
cost of testing. 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 determined, however, that
new appendix M2 would 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
determined that testing according to the
new appendix M2 would not increase
the cost of testing as compared to
appendix M1. Cost estimates are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
discussed in section III.J 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 amendments to representation
requirements in 10 CFR 429.16 would
not be required until 180 days after
publication in the Federal Register of
this final rule.
Discussion of DOE’s proposed actions
are addressed in further detail in section
III of this final rule.
III. Discussion
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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Improve representativeness of
test procedure.
Clarify how DOE will conduct enforcement testing.
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
(combination of both an indoor and an
outdoor unit). For all central air
conditioner and central air conditioning
heat pump-related definitions, see
appendix M or M1 of subpart B of this
part. 10 CFR 430.2.
Consistent with the April 2024 NOPR,
DOE is not proposing any changes to the
CAC/HP definition. However, DOE
notes that the last sentence in the CAC/
HP definition includes references to see
additional definitions in appendices M
and M1. As noted in section II, in this
final rule, DOE is incorporating by
reference the latest industry standards,
AHRI 210/240–2024 and AHRI 1600–
2024, including the relevant definitions
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1228
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
in these standards. Therefore, references
to appendices M and M1 are no longer
relevant in the CAC/HP definition. To
prevent confusion, DOE is removing the
last sentence in the definition that
contains these references. 10 CFR 430.2.
The current scope of the CACs/HP test
procedure includes:
(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.
See section 1.1 of appendix M1.
DOE is not amending the scope of
CACs/HPs covered by the test procedure
in appendix M1 or appendix M2.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
B. Updates to Industry Standards
DOE is incorporating by reference
AHRI 210/240–2024 and the relevant
standards it references as the basis for
the updated appendix M1 test
procedure. Similarly, DOE is
incorporating by reference AHRI 1600–
2024 and the relevant standards it
references as the basis for the new
appendix M2 test procedure.
Incorporating each industry standard in
full as the basis for each respective
appendix would enable DOE to better
harmonize with the industry standard
and eliminate manufacturer burden in
certifying with separate test procedures.
The following sections discuss the
referenced standards for appendices M1
and M2.
1. AHRI 210/240–2024
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted
that AHRI and other relevant
stakeholders, including DOE, worked to
develop a revised AHRI 210/240
standard, AHRI 210/240–202X Draft,
that included updates to address issues
pertaining to the CAC/HP test procedure
with broad stakeholder consensus. 89
FR 24206, 24211–24212. DOE proposed
to amend its test procedure for CAC/HPs
at appendix M1 by incorporating by
reference AHRI 210/240–202X Draft. Id.
Because AHRI 210/240–202X Draft was
in draft form at the time of the
publication of the April 2024 NOPR,
DOE noted that it intended to update its
incorporation by reference to the final
published version of AHRI 210/240–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
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. Id. In May
2024, AHRI published the finalized
AHRI 210/240 standard, AHRI 210/240–
2024, which did not include any
significant deviations from AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft.
AHRI, the CA IOUs, Carrier, Daikin,
GE Appliances, JCI, Lennox, and NEEA
were generally supportive of DOE‘s
proposal on updating appendix M1 by
adopting the finalized AHRI 210/240
standard. (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 3; Carrier,
No. 29 at p. 4; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p.
1; Daikin, No. 36 at p. 1; GE Appliances,
No. 37 at pp. 4–5; JCI, No. 35 at p. 1;
Lennox, No. 24 at p. 3; NEEA, No. 39
at p. 2) AHRI commented that it
supports the adoption of AHRI 210/240–
2024 as a revised appendix M1, but with
minimal additions and some exclusions,
and will be publishing an addendum to
AHRI 210/240–2024 that will include
the aforementioned minimal additions
that DOE established in the April 2024
NOPR, including revision to the
definition of outdoor unit with no
match. (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 3)
The Joint Advocates and CA IOUs
encouraged DOE to adopt AHRI 210/
240–2024 in the new CAC/HP test
procedure final rule as soon as possible.
(Joint Advocates, No. 30 at p. 1; CA
IOUs, No. 32 at p. 1) Carrier stated that
it supports the incorporation by
reference of AHRI 210/240–2024 into a
revised appendix M1, but with some
recommendations. (Carrier, No. 29 at p.
4) Rheem commented that even though
it supported the adoption of the
consensus AHRI 210/240–2024 in the
updated Appendix M1, it was
concerned that the new versions of
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009 8 and
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16–2016 9
with major changes, which are to be
published in the near future, are not
currently referenced in AHRI 210/240–
2024. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 3)
Specifically, Rheem pointed out that
once the new versions of the
aforementioned ASHRAE standards are
published, AHRI 210/240–2024 should
8 ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 provides a method of
test for many categories of air-conditioning and
heating products and equipment, including CAC/
HPs.
9 ANS/ASHRAE 16–2016 provides a method of
test for rating room air conditioners, packaged
terminal air conditioners, and packaged terminal
heat pumps.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
be revised to incorporate references to
the revised standards, and subsequently,
DOE should update appendix M1 to
incorporate the revised AHRI 210/240–
2024 by reference. (Id. at pp. 3–4)
Rheem further commented that since
AHRI 210/240–2024 cites sections of 10
CFR 429.16, and of appendix M1 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, it should
be revised to ensure that these
references to CFR are still appropriate,
since DOE has proposed major revisions
to these sections from the CFR. (Id.)
Rheem pointed to the newly introduced
enforcement provisions in 10 CFR
429.134(k), which require calculation of
average capacity (10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(iii)(A)(1) and (2)) or timeaveraged integrated (10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(iii)(A)(3)) capacity and
power consumption, and Rheem
suggested updates to appendix I of
AHRI 210/240–2024 to state that average
capacity, average power consumption,
time-averaged integrated capacity, and
time-integrated power consumption
should be calculated according to the
appropriate sections of AHRI 210/240–
2024 and ANSI/ASHRAE 16, as
applicable. (Id.) Rheem pointed out that
table 8 of AHRI 210/240–2024, which
lists the test conditions for CAC/HPs
under test, does not include the details
on how to measure the compressor
speed for cooling full-speed tests (A2
and B2), and cooling minimum-speed
tests (B1, F1, G1, and I1) for variablespeed compressor units, as currently
specified in section 3.2.4(a) of appendix
M1. (Id. at p. 4) Rheem commented that
the aforementioned details should be
added as notes under table 8 of AHRI
210/240–2024, after appropriate
translations of the test nomenclature.10
Id.
In response to Rheem’s comment,
DOE notes that in the April 2024 NOPR,
DOE proposed to incorporate by
reference AHRI 210/240–202X draft and
the AHRI 1600–202X draft, at revised
appendix M1 and new appendix M2,
respectively, while this final rule is
updating these references to the final
drafts, AHRI 210/240–2024 and AHRI
1600–2024. DOE has reviewed the
finalized standards, AHRI 210/240–2024
and AHRI 1600–2024, and has
concluded that all current references to
10 CFR 429.16 in the standards would
10 Currently, all full-speed cooling and heating
mode tests in appendix M1 are identified with ‘‘2’’
in the subscript of the relevant test, whereas AHRI
210/240–202X and AHRI 1600–202X identify them
with the ‘‘Full’’ subscript. Similarly, all minimumspeed cooling and heating mode tests in appendix
M1 are identified with ‘‘1’’ in the subscript of the
relevant test, whereas AHRI 210/240–202X and
AHRI 1600–202X identify them with the ‘‘Low’’
subscript.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
not require revision. Additionally, DOE
clarifies that any further updates to
appendix I of the AHRI 210/240 and
AHRI 1600 standards to add the
definitions of average capacity, average
power consumption, time-averaged
integrated capacity, and time-integrated
power consumption will have to be
initiated by AHRI, as part of an
addendum. DOE has determined that
additional definitions are not necessary
at this time and notes that an updated
appendix I to AHRI 210/240 and AHRI
1600 is not yet available for review;
therefore, DOE is not adopting
additional definitions as recommended
by Rheem at this time. Regarding
Rheem’s comment on table 8 of AHRI
210/240–2024 lacking language from
section 3.2.4 (a) of the current appendix
M1 for maintaining the same full
compressor speed for all full-speed
cooling tests, and the same minimum
compressor speed for all minimumspeed cooling tests, DOE is adding
provisions in section 2 of the revised
appendix M1 and section 2 of the new
appendix M2, consistent with the
existing requirement in appendix M1, as
follows:
For cooling mode tests of variable
capacity systems, the compressor shall
operate at the same cooling full speed,
measured by RPM of power input
frequency (Hz), for both AFull and BFull
tests. Additionally, the compressor shall
operate at the same cooling minimum
speed, measured by RPM or power
input frequency (Hz), for the BLow, FLow,
GLow, and ILow tests.
As noted, in May 2024, AHRI
published AHRI 210/240–2024, which
does not include any significant
deviations from AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft. As such, the adoption of AHRI
210/240–2024 in this final rule is
consistent with the proposal to
reference AHRI 210/240–202X Draft in
the April 2024 NOPR.
Therefore, DOE is amending its test
procedure for CAC/HPs by
incorporating by reference AHRI 210/
240–2024 for use in the new appendix
M1. Specifically, in the new test
procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M1,
DOE is adopting sections 3 (excluding
3.2.16, 3.2.20, 3.2.46, 3.2.51, 3.2.63,
3.2.78 and 3.2.79), 5 (excluding 5.1.6.2),
6.1–6.3, and 6.6, and Appendices D, E,
G, and K of AHRI 210/240–2024.11
11 DOE notes that the substance of these
provisions remains the same as those proposed in
the April 2024 NOPR, but AHRI did some
reorganization in moving from AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft to AHRI 210/240–2024. Consequently, the
adopted section numbers cited here differ from
those presented in DOE’s proposed rule. See 89 FR
24206, 24212.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
Additionally, as proposed in the April
2024 NOPR, DOE is making additions
and deletions to the incorporations by
reference for the CAC/HP Federal test
procedure (see 10 CFR 430.3) to align
with the references made within AHRI
210/240–2024. 89 FR 24206, 24212.
Currently, appendix M1 incorporates
by reference: AMCA 210–2007,12 AHRI
210/240–2008, AHRI 1230–2010,13
ASHRAE 23.1–2010,14 ANSI/ASHRAE
37–2009, and ASHRAE 116–2010. 10
CFR 430.3.
In the amended test procedure at
appendix M1, DOE is adding an
incorporation by reference to ANSI/
ASHRAE 16–2016 and removing
incorporations by reference to AMCA
210–2007, AHRI 210/240–2008, AHRI
1230–2010, and ASHRAE 23.1–2010.
Therefore, DOE is incorporating by
reference AHRI 210/240–2024, ANSI/
ASHRAE 16–2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37–
2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010, at
appendix M1.
2. AHRI 1600–2024
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).
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
proposed to establish a new test
procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M2
by incorporating by reference AHRI
1600–202X Draft (in its entirety). 89 FR
24206, 24212. DOE noted that it
intended 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
12 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.
13 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.
14 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 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1229
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. Id. In May
2024, AHRI published the finalized
AHRI 1600 standard, AHRI 1600–2024,
which did not include any significant
deviations from AHRI 1600–202X Draft.
Several stakeholders, namely Lennox,
AHRI, Mitsubishi, Copeland, the CA
IOUs, Rheem, Daikin, NEEA, and
Carrier, appreciated DOE’s efforts of
collaborating with the stakeholders to
develop the AHRI 1600 standard, and
supported its adoption at appendix M2.
(Lennox, No. 24 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 25
at p. 3; 15 Mitsubishi, No. 28 at p. 1;
Copeland, No. 31 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No.
32 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 34 at p. 4; Daikin,
No. 36 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 39 at p. 2;
Carrier, No. 29 at p. 4) Rheem
commented that in a similar vein to its
comment made on AHRI 210/240–2024
(see section III.B.1 of this document),
DOE should be aware that the revised
editions of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37
and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16 are
currently not referenced in AHRI
Standard 1600–2024. (Rheem, No. 34 at
p. 4) Rheem further pointed to DOE‘s
inclusion of the energy efficiency metric
energy efficiency ratio 2 (‘‘EER2) in 10
CFR 430.23(m)(2); several sections of 10
CFR 429.16 and 10 CFR 429.134(k)(4);
and sections 2, 4.1, and 4.2 of appendix
M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430,
which in turn incorporate AHRI 1600–
2024 by reference, which only includes
energy efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’) as the
efficiency metric, and not EER2. (Id. at
p. 5) Rheem stated that this mismatch
should be resolved by either DOE
revising its relevant references from
EER2 to EER, or that AHRI 1600–2024
should be revised to replace all
instances of EER with EER2. (Id.)
Further, Rheem pointed out that section
4.1 of the new appendix M2 references
10 CFR 431.97, in relation to
certification to the energy conservation
standards SCORE and SHORE, and
suggested this citation should be
changed to 10 CFR 430.32(c), which will
be amended to prescribe energy
conservation standards for CAC/HPs.
(Id.) Additionally, as noted in section
III.B.1 for AHRI 210/240–2024, Rheem
commented that table 8 of AHRI 1600–
2024 should contain sentences similar
to section 3.2.4(a) of appendix M1, to
15 While AHRI‘s comment noted support for the
adoption of the AHRI 1600 standard at appendix
M1, DOE surmises that this is a typographical error,
and AHRI intended to express support for adoption
at appendix M2 instead. As proposed in the April
2024 NOPR, appendix M1 references the draft AHRI
210/240 standard.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
1230
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
specify that for variable-speed
compressor systems, the cooling full
compressor speed for both A2 and B2
tests should be same, and the cooling
minimum compressor speed for the B1,
F1, G1, and I1 tests should remain the
same. (Id. at p. 4)
In response to Rheem’s comment
regarding AHRI 210/240–2024 retaining
the EER2 metric while AHRI 1600–2024
using the EER metric, DOE agrees with
Rheem that this mismatch has potential
to confuse users of the test procedure.
DOE notes that the EER2 metric in AHRI
210/240–2024 is identical to the EER
metric in AHRI 1600–2024. Both metrics
are evaluated at the same test conditions
and convey the same full-load efficiency
information. Therefore, for appendix
M1, which references AHRI 210/240–
2024, DOE is retaining the EER2 metric.
For appendix M2, which references
AHRI 1600–2024, DOE is including EER
as the full-load metric, with EER
evaluated the same way as EER2 per
appendix M1. DOE is making
appropriates changes in the regulatory
text at 10 CFR parts 429 and 430, and
appendix M2, to reflect this
clarification. In response to Rheem’s
comment for the citation of the SCORE
and SHORE energy conservation
standards in the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
agrees that the correct citation is to 10
CFR 430.32(c), and not 10 CFR 431.97.
Finally, as mentioned in section III.B.1
of this document, DOE is adding
language to section 2 of appendix M2 to
explicitly state that for variable-capacity
compressor systems, the cooling full
compressor speeds for both AFull and
BFull tests should be identical, and the
cooling minimum compressor speed for
the BLow, FLow, GLow, and ILow tests
should be identical.
As discussed, AHRI 1600–2024 does
not include any significant deviations
from AHRI 1600–202X Draft. As such,
the adoption of AHRI 1600–2024 in this
final rule is consistent with the proposal
to reference AHRI 1600–202X Draft in
the April 2024 NOPR.
DOE is amending its test procedure
for CAC/HPs by incorporating by
reference AHRI 1600–2024 for use in the
new appendix M2. Specifically, in the
new test procedure for CAC/HPs at
appendix M2, DOE is adopting sections
3 (excluding 3.2.16, 3.2.20, 3.2.45,
3.2.50, 3.2.63, 3.2.78, and 3.2.79), 5
(excluding 5.1.6.2), 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.
Additionally, consistent with the
April 2024 NOPR, DOE is also
incorporating by reference ANSI/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
ASHRAE 16–2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37–
2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010,
which are referenced within AHRI
1600–2024. Therefore, in total, DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference
AHRI 1600–2024, ANSI/ASHRAE 16–
2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, and
ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010, at appendix
M2.
3. ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 provides a
method of test for electrically driven
unitary air-conditioning and heat pump
equipment, which includes CAC/HPs.
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed
to incorporate by reference ANSI/
ASHRAE 37–2009 at both appendix M1
and appendix M2, since AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft
both reference test instructions in ANSI/
ASHRAE 37–2009. 89 FR 24206, 24212.
The finalized versions of these draft
standards, AHRI 210/240–2024 and the
AHRI 1600–2024, also reference ANSI/
ASHRAE 37–2009. More specifically,
sections 5, 6, 8, and 11 and appendices
C, D, E, I, and J of AHRI 210/240–2024
and AHRI 1600–2024 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 210/240–2024 Draft
references ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 for
several test instructions, DOE has
concluded, consistent with the April
2024 NOPR, that it is appropriate to
maintain the existing incorporation by
reference of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 in
appendix M1. Additionally, given that
AHRI 1600–2024 references ANSI/
ASHRAE 37–2009 for several test
instructions, DOE has concluded,
consistent with the April 2024 NOPR,
that it is appropriate to 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 the AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft and the AHRI 1600–
202X Draft. Consequently, in the April
2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to
incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE
16–2016 at both appendix M1 and
appendix M2. 89 FR 24206, 24213. The
finalized versions of the AHRI draft
standards, AHRI 210/240–2024 and
AHRI 1600–2024, also reference ANSI/
ASHRAE 16–2016. More specifically,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
section 5.1.1 of AHRI 210/240–2024 and
AHRI 1600–2024 refer to testing of nonducted 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 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
AHRI 210/240–2024 and AHRI 1600–
2024 refer to ANSI/ASHRAE 16–2016 as
an option for testing of non-ducted
CAC/HPs, and it does not impact
ratings, DOE has concluded, consistent
with the April 2024 NOPR, 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. Consequently,
in the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed
to incorporate by reference ANSI/
ASHRAE 116–2010 at both appendix
M1 and appendix M2. 89 FR 24206,
24213. The finalized versions of the
AHRI draft standards, AHRI 210/240–
2024 and AHRI 1600–2024, also
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010.
More specifically, sections 5, 6, 8, and
11 and appendices D and E of AHRI
210/240–2024 and AHRI 1600–2024
refer to methods of test in ANSI/
ASHRAE 116–2010.
Given that AHRI 210/240–2024
references ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010 for
several test instructions, DOE has
concluded, consistent with the April
2024 NOPR, that it is appropriate to
maintain the incorporation by reference
of ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010 in
appendix M1. Additionally, given that
the AHRI 1600–2024 Draft references
ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010 for several
test instructions, DOE has concluded,
consistent with the April 2024 NOPR,
that it is appropriate to incorporate by
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010 for
use with appendix M2.
C. Revised 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
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
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)(3))
In this final rule, DOE is maintaining
the current efficiency metrics, EER2,
SEER2 and HSPF2, at appendix M1 and
is referencing AHRI 210/240–2024 for
measuring the existing metrics. DOE has
determined that the amendments to
appendix M1 would not affect the
measured efficiency of CAC/HPs or
require retesting solely because of DOE’s
adoption of the amendments to the
appendix M1 test procedure. At
appendix M1, DOE is incorporating by
reference the following sections of the
AHRI 210/240–2024: sections 3 (with
certain exclusions 16), 5 (with one
exclusion 17), 6 (with certain
exclusions 18), 11, and 12, as well as
appendices D, E, G, K, and L.
Additionally, DOE is establishing a
new test procedure at appendix M2 that
adopts AHRI 1600–2024, including the
new SCORE and SHORE metrics.19 Use
of appendix M2 is not required until the
compliance date of any amended
standards denominated in terms of the
new metrics for appendix M2, should
such standards be adopted. At appendix
M2, DOE is referencing the following
sections of AHRI 1600–2024: sections 3
(with certain exclusions 20), 5 (with one
exclusion 21), 6 (with certain
16 DOE is not incorporating by reference the
following provisions in section 3 of AHRI 210/240–
2024 because the terms are either defined in
appendix M1, or are not needed for the DOE test
procedure: 3.2.16 (Double-duct System), 3.2.20
(Gross Capacity), 3.2.46 (Oil Recovery Mode), 3.2.51
(Published Rating), 3.2.63 (Standard Filter), 3.2.78
(Unitary Air-conditioner), and 3.2.79 (Unitary Heat
Pump).
17 DOE is not incorporating by reference the
following provision in section 5 of AHRI 210/240–
2024 because the term is defined in appendix M1:
5.1.6.2 (Outdoor Unit with No Match (OUWNM)).
18 DOE is not incorporating by reference the
following provisions in section 6 of AHRI 210/240–
2024 because the provisions are either defined in
10 CFR 429.16, or are not needed for the 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).
19 As explained in Section III.B.2, DOE will
replace EER2 in appendix M1 with EER in
appendix M2. However, EER will be calculated in
a manner identical to EER2, and both convey the
same full load test information.
20 DOE is not incorporating by reference the
following provisions in section 3 of AHRI 1600–
2024 because the terms are either defined in
appendix M1, or are not needed for the DOE test
procedure: 3.2.16 (Double-duct System), 3.2.20
(Gross Capacity), 3.2.45 (Oil Recovery Mode), 3.2.50
(Published Rating), 3.2.63 (Standard Filter), 3.2.78
(Unitary Air-conditioner), and 3.2.79 (Unitary Heat
Pump).
21 DOE is not incorporating by reference the
following provision in section 5 of AHRI 1600–2024
because the term is defined in appendix M2: 5.1.6.2
(Outdoor Unit with No Match (OUWNM)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
exclusions 22), 11, and 12 and
appendices D, E, G, K and L.
Further, at both appendix M1 and
appendix M2, DOE is incorporating by
reference the following: ANSI/ASHRAE
37–2009, except sections 1 (Purpose), 2
(Scope), and 4 (Classifications); ANSI/
ASHRAE 16–2016 except sections 1
(Purpose), 2 (Scope), and 4
(Classifications); and ANSI/ASHRAE
116–2010 except sections 1 (Purpose), 2
(Scope), 4 (Classifications), and 7
(Methods of Test).
D. Efficiency Metrics
As discussed, DOE is updating 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 210/240–2024. DOE is also
establishing a new Federal test
procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix M2, consistent with the
new industry consensus test procedure,
AHRI 1600–2024. Sections III.D.1 and
III.D.2 of this document discuss which
metrics are applicable for appendices
M1 and M2, respectively.
1. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M1
Consistent with the April 2024 NOPR,
appendix M1 maintains the current
energy efficiency metrics (i.e., EER2,
SEER2, and HSPF2), and includes a new
optional metric: the peak load
coefficient of performance (‘‘COPpeak’’),
applicable to central heat pumps
(‘‘CHPs’’). The amendments to appendix
M1 to align with AHRI 210/240–2024
maintain the existing energy efficiency
metrics, and DOE has determined that
testing under 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
The newly established appendix M2
introduces 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
integrated metrics that include off mode
power, PW,OFF. Hence, appendix M2 will
not require separate representations for
off mode power. Appendix M2 will
retain the full-load EER metric, with
EER evaluated in the same way as
22 DOE is not incorporating by reference the
following provisions in section 6 of AHRI 1600–
2024 D because the provisions are either defined in
10 CFR 429.16, or are not needed for the 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1231
appendix M1.23 Appendix M2 also
includes the optional metric COPpeak.
E. 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 required
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/
240–2024. DOE has reviewed AHRI 210/
240–2024 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)(3)) These near-term
amendments in appendix M1 do not
alter the measured efficiency of CAC/
HPs in terms of the current cooling and
heating test metrics, SEER2 and HSPF2,
or the current off mode metric, PW,OFF.
DOE clarifies that while all issues
discussed subsequently within this
section are near-term, they are also part
of the long-term CAC/HP test
procedure—i.e., these revisions are also
included in AHRI 1600–2024, which
DOE is incorporating by reference at
appendix M2. As such, when discussing
these near-term changes, DOE makes
references to both AHRI 210/240–2024
and AHRI 1600–2024.
1. Controls Verification Procedure for
Variable-Speed Systems
Appendix M1 uses a steady-state test
concept for variable-speed systems
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 a
fixed specified compressor speed and
airflow rate for each test point. As part
of the previous rulemaking, several
stakeholders encouraged DOE to review
ways to improve the representativeness
of the test procedures for CAC/HPs
(especially variable-speed systems),
particularly to consider test procedures
where the unit operates under its own
native controls in responding to
conditioning loads (i.e., load-based
testing).24
23 AHRI 1600–2024 replaced the EER2 and COP2
metrics from AHRI 210/240–2024 with EER and
COP. For consistency, appendix M2 will follow the
nomenclature in AHRI 1600–2024 and will hence
use EER as the full-load metric, while appendix M1
will use the EER2 metric.
24 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
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
Continued
07JAR2
1232
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
To review this topic in detail as part
of the current rulemaking, in an RFI
published on January 24, 2023, (the
‘‘January 2023 RFI’’), DOE requested
comments, information, and data
pertaining to the consideration of loadbased 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.
In the April 2024 NOPR, 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
load-based testing methods have
sufficient repeatability and
reproducibility to be the basis of direct
measurement of system performance—
DOE tentatively concluded that use for
direct measurement of performance for
regulatory purposes would not be
suitable at this time. 89 FR 24206,
24220. Instead, DOE tentatively
concluded that it would be appropriate
to continue to allow regulatory tests to
use fixed-speed settings for testing
variable-speed systems, while
developing a controls verification
procedure (‘‘CVP’’) that could be used
for audit, assessment, and enforcement
testing to ensure that the fixed-speed
settings are representative of native
(unfixed) control, in which the control
system may vary compressor speed and/
or indoor airflow. Id.
DOE noted that AHRI and other
relevant stakeholders, including DOE,
participated in the development of
revised AHRI test standards to address
several issues raised in the January 2023
RFI, including the representativeness of
fixed-speed testing for variable-speed
systems. 89 FR 24206, 24220. From
these discussions on the revised AHRI
test standards, consensus was
developed on using a CVP approach. Id.
In section III.F.1.e of the April 2024
NOPR, DOE provided a summary of the
CVP approach in Appendix I of AHRI
210/240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–
202X Draft. 89 FR 24206, 24220–24222.
DOE acknowledged that the CVP
approach outlined in appendix I of the
relevant AHRI drafts represented
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
industry consensus regarding: (1) the
verification of compliance of systems
with the variable capacity system
definition, and (2) verification of the
consistency of fixed-speed settings of
compressor and indoor fans with native
control operation as part of
enforcement. 89 FR 24206, 24222. DOE
considered that the CVP approach
presented a more representative test
procedure for variable-speed systems
operating in the field, because it
provided a tool to verify that the fixed
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 set point, i.e.,
indoor dry-bulb temperature. Id. For
these reasons, DOE proposed to
incorporate by reference appendix I of
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 AHRI 1600–202X Draft to
support enforcement associated with
testing conducted in accordance with
appendix M2. Id.
In response to DOE’s proposal, several
stakeholders, namely Lennox, the CA
IOUs, Rheem, Daikin, GE Appliances,
and Carrier, generally showed support
for DOE’s proposal on implementing the
CVP approach for certification of
variable-speed products. (Lennox, No.
24 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2;
Rheem, No. 34 at p. 5; Daikin, No. 36
at p. 3; GE Appliances, No. 37 at p. 4;
Carrier, No. 29 at p. 5)
The Joint Advocates commented that
even though it is not appropriate to
adopt load-based testing for measuring
the direct regulatory test performance of
CAC/HPs due to insufficient
information on repeatability and
reproducibility of load-based testing
methods, DOE should consider adopting
them as an integral part of the test
procedure in a future update to the
CAC/HP test procedure. (Joint
Advocates, No. 30 at pp. 3–4) Further,
the Joint Advocates commented that test
data that will better inform repeatability
and reproducibility of load-based tests
will be coming out in the near future.
(Id.) The Joint Advocates expressed
concern that since the CVP is only an
enforcement provision, manufacturers
are not required to conduct it while
rating their product, and hence,
adopting some version of load-based
testing will ensure that all certified
ratings are more representative of unit
performance in the field. (Id.)
In response to the Joint Advocates’
comment, DOE reiterates that it
explored the potential of adopting a
load-based method for direct
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
measurement of performance in the
April 2024 NOPR. However, as
discussed in the April 2024 NOPR, the
consensus of affected stakeholders was
to adopt a CVP approach instead of a
wholesale load-based method test
procedure. 89 FR 24206, 24222. DOE is
not aware of additional information,
such as new load-based test data,
available for review to assess the
feasibility of adopting load-based testing
as a mandatory part of the CAC/HP test
procedure. Even though the CVP is
primarily intended for use by DOE for
assessment and enforcement purposes,
it is expected that manufacturers will
preemptively utilize the CVP to evaluate
the fixed-speed settings used for
certification tests of their variable-speed
products to ensure consistency with
native-control operation.
AHRI 210/240–2024 and AHRI 1600–
2024, the industry standards DOE is
referencing in this final rule, finalized
the relevant test method for the CVP at
appendix I without any substantial
change as compared to their
corresponding drafts. Therefore,
consistent with the April 2024 NOPR,
DOE is incorporating by reference
appendix I of AHRI 210/240–2024 to
support enforcement associated with
testing conducted in accordance with
appendix M1, and to incorporate by
reference appendix I of AHRI 1600–
2024 to support enforcement associated
with testing conducted in accordance
with appendix M2. The enforcement
provisions are discussed in more detail
in section III.I.2 of this document.
2. Low-Temperature Heating
Performance
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
proposed to incorporate by reference
AHRI 210/240–202X and AHRI 1600–
202X Drafts and adopt several test
procedure provisions that pertained to
low-temperature heating performance.
89 FR 24206, 24222–24225. Specifically,
DOE proposed to (1) reference the
definition of ‘‘cold climate heat pump’’
(‘‘CCHP’’) contained in the AHRI drafts,
(2) reference the requirement for
products certified as a CCHP to conduct
the H4 heating test (either the H4, H4Full,
or H4Boost heating test, as applicable), (3)
retain the current size-for-cooling
approach, and (4) include COPpeak as an
optional representation for combined
heat pump and electric resistance heat
efficiency at 5 °F outdoor temperature
for CHPs, as outlined in appendix K of
AHRI 210/240–202X and AHRI 1600–
202X Drafts,25 at appendix M1 and
appendix M2, respectively.
25 In several instances of the April 2024 NOPR,
DOE incorrectly referred to appendix L of the
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding the aforementioned proposals
in the April 2024 NOPR. AHRI 210/240–
2024 and AHRI 1600–2024, the final
versions of the draft AHRI standards,
finalized the same low-temperature
heating performance provisions without
change. Therefore, consistent with the
April 2024 NOPR proposal, DOE is
incorporating by reference AHRI 210/
240–2024 and AHRI 1600–2024 and
adopting the low-temperature heating
performance provisions discussed in the
aforementioned paragraphs.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
3. Cut-Out and Cut-In Temperature
Verification
Appendix J of AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and also of AHRI 1600–202X Draft
includes a test applicable to all CHPs to
determine cut-out and cut-in
temperatures (i.e., Toff and Ton
respectively).26 In the April 2024 NOPR,
DOE proposed that during assessment
and enforcement testing of CHPs, DOE
may verify the cut-out and cut-in
temperatures using the test specified in
appendix J of AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft, when conducting assessment and
enforcement testing associated with
appendix M1, and the test specified in
appendix J of AHRI 1600–202X Draft,
when conducting assessment and
enforcement testing associated with
appendix M2. The proposal indicated
that, if conducting the appendix J cutout/cut-in verification, the tested values
determined for these temperatures
would be used as the Toff and Ton values
for the unit. 89 FR 24206, 24226.
AHRI 210/240–2024 and AHRI 1600–
2024, the industry standards DOE is
referencing in this final rule, finalized
the relevant test method for determining
cut-out and cut-in temperatures at
appendix J without any substantial
change as compared to their respective
drafts. Therefore, consistent with the
April 2024 NOPR, DOE is incorporating
by reference appendix J of AHRI 210/
240–2024 and AHRI 1600–2024 at
appendix M1 and appendix M2,
respectively.
As further discussed in section III.I.1
of this document, DOE may verify
respective AHRI 210/240–202X and AHRI 1600–
202X Drafts as the appendices regarding COPpeak.
(See 89 FR 24206, 24225). These were typographical
errors, since the appendices regarding COPpeak are
at appendix K of the respective AHRI 210/240–
202X and AHRI 1600–202X Drafts.
26 In several instances of the April 2024 NOPR,
DOE incorrectly referred to appendix K of the
respective AHRI 210/240–202X and AHRI 1600–
202X Drafts as the appendices regarding cut-out and
cut-in temperature verification. (See 89 FR 24206,
24226 and 89 FR 24206, 24243). These were
typographical errors, since the appendices
regarding cut-out and cut-in temperature
verification are at appendix J of the respective AHRI
210/240–202X and AHRI 1600–202X Drafts.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
certified cut-out and cut-in temperatures
using the test methods in appendix J 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 external static
pressure (‘‘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 inches
of water column (‘‘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.
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and AHRI
1600–202X Draft include a new
definition specific for low-static singlesplit 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 Specified
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 Specified with a blowercoil indoor unit tested with a minimum
0.5 in H2O ESP, otherwise it is
separately Specified with a coil-only
indoor unit; and
(3) The Indoor Unit is marketed for
and produces a maximum ESP less than
0.5 in H2O when operated at the
Specified cooling full-load airflow not
exceeding 400 scfm per Specified ton of
cooling.
Both drafts also include provisions
requiring low-static single-split blowercoil systems to be tested at their
specified airflow (not to exceed 400
standardized cubic feet per minute
(‘‘scfm’’) per specified ton of cooling
capacity) at their maximum airflow
setting. If the ESP achieved at the
specified airflow is less than 0.1 in. wc.,
the provisions require adjustment of the
airflow measurement apparatus fan to
reduce airflow and increase ESP until a
minimum of 0.1 in. wc. is achieved.
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
proposed to incorporate by reference the
new definition of low-static single-split
blower-coil system and associated
testing provisions, which would include
single-split systems that cannot
accommodate the 0.5 in. wc. required
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1233
for testing single-split blower-coil
systems in accordance with the current
DOE test procedure in appendix M1. 89
FR 24206, 24227.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding the aforementioned proposals
in the April 2024 NOPR. AHRI 210/240–
2024 and AHRI 1600–2024 finalized the
definition and testing provisions for
low-static single-split blower-coil
systems without substantial change as
compared with their respective drafts.
Therefore, consistent with the April
2024 NOPR proposals, DOE is
incorporating by reference AHRI 210/
240–2024 and AHRI 1600–2024, and
adopting the definition and testing
provisions for low-static single-split
blower-coil systems.
In advance of adopting these changes,
multiple manufacturers, including
Samsung HVAC America LLC
(‘‘Samsung’’),27 Mitsubishi,28 and
Hisense (Guangdong) Air Conditioning
Co. Ltd. (‘‘Hisense’’),29 petitioned DOE
for test procedure waivers pertaining to
low-static single-split blower-coil
systems. All petitions asserted nearly
identical circumstances and model
limitations—that it was impossible to
test certain basic models according to
appendix M1 because the models could
not operate at the conventional
minimum ESP requirement of 0.5 in.
wc. found in table 4 of appendix M1.
Subsequently, manufacturers could not
certify compliance for or sell these
products.
On June 5, 2023, DOE published a
notification of petition for waiver and
grant of an interim waiver that permits
Samsung to use an alternative test
procedure for the basic models subject
to its petition. 88 FR 36558. The
alternative test procedure allows
Samsung to test its basic models that are
designed for low-static, short-duct
applications at 0.1 in. wc. ESP and to
make proportional adjustments to fan
power and capacity such that the results
are equivalent to performance measured
at 0.5 in. wc. ESP. 88 FR 36558, 36561–
36563. DOE initially determined that
this alternate test procedure was
appropriate and allowed for the accurate
measurement of the energy efficiency of
the specified basic models, while
alleviating the testing problems cited in
implementing the DOE test procedure
for the models. Id.
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted
that, should the new definition of low27 See Samsung’s petition at www.regulations.gov/
docket/EERE-2023-BT-WAV-0010.
28 See Mitsubishi’s petition at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2023-BT-WAV0015.
29 See Hisense’s petition at www.regulations.gov/
docket/EERE-2023-BT-WAV-0011.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1234
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
static single-split blower-coil system
and the associated testing provisions be
adopted, DOE would terminate
Samsung’s interim waiver pending final
determination. 89 FR 24206, 24227. The
interim waiver was granted with the
understanding that it was impossible to
test the manufacturer’s specific basic
models according to the prescribed test
procedures in appendix M1. Given that
DOE is adopting provisions for lowstatic single-split blower-coil systems,
DOE concludes that this alternate test
procedure is no longer necessary.
Therefore, DOE is terminating the
aforementioned waiver for Samsung.
DOE notes that the ratings for the
subject Samsung basic models may
change when moving to the amended
appendix M1 test procedure outlined in
this final rule.
DOE has not published a notification
of petition for waiver or granted interim
waivers for either the Mitsubishi or
Hisense petitions. However, for the
same reasons that DOE is terminating
Samsung’s aforementioned waiver, DOE
concludes that an alternate test
procedure is no longer necessary. DOE
considers the petitions submitted by
Mitsubishi and Hisense to be addressed
sufficiently by the low-static single-split
blower-coil system definition and
testing provisions adopted in this final
rule.
5. Mandatory Constant Circulation
Systems
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Currently, nearly all CAC/HP
products are designed with R–410A as
the refrigerant. However, under global
warming potential (‘‘GWP’’) restrictions
enacted by an Environmental Protection
Agency (‘‘EPA’’) final rule published on
October 24, 2023 (‘‘October 2023 EPA
final rule’’), the use of R–410A is
scheduled to be phased out for CAC/HP
products.30 88 FR 73098. The EPA
Significant New Alternatives Policy
(‘‘SNAP’’) Program evaluates and
regulates substitutes for ozone-depleting
chemicals (such as CAC/HP refrigerants)
that are being phased out under the
stratospheric ozone protection
provisions of the Clean Air Act. (42
U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 31 Of interest to
CAC/HPs, the EPA SNAP Program’s list
of viable substitutes 32 includes a group
30 EPA published an interim final rule on
December 26, 2023 (‘‘EPA Technology Transition
Interim Final Rule’’) that allows 1 additional year,
until January 1, 2026, solely for the installation of
new CAC/HPs using components manufactured or
imported prior to January 1, 2025. 88 FR 88825.
31 Additional information regarding EPA’s SNAP
Program is available online at www.epa.gov/ozone/
snap/.
32 A list of EPA SNAP Program-approved
refrigerant substitutes is available at www.epa.gov/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
of refrigerants classified as A2L
refrigerants. While these refrigerants
have GWP levels meeting the
requirements of the October 2023 EPA
Final Rule, they face stricter safety
requirements than R–410A due to the
moderate flammability associated with
their ‘‘2L’’ ASHRAE safety
classification.33 Many of the safety
requirements specifically address
mitigation of ignition risk in case of
refrigerant leakage. One mitigation
option for refrigerant leakage is air
circulation, which can be initiated when
a leak is detected, or the system can use
‘‘constant circulation,’’ running the fan,
typically at a reduced speed, at all
times. This latter approach has energy
use implications, which are addressed
in the AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 1600
standards.34
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and AHRI
1600–202X Draft include a new
definition for ‘‘mandatory constant
circulation system’’ (‘‘MCCS’’). The
updated industry standard drafts also
include testing provisions for such
systems, specifically requiring that
CAC/HPs meeting the mandatory
constant circulation system definition
not use the default cooling and heating
degradation coefficients, but rather
evaluate these degradation coefficients
using the respective cyclic tests
specified by table 7 of AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft,
conducted in accordance with section
E12 of appendix E of AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft.
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed
to incorporate by reference the new
definition of MCCS and the
aforementioned testing provisions
outlined in AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
and AHRI 1600–202X Draft, at appendix
M1 and appendix M2, respectively. 89
FR 24206, 24228.
In response to DOE’s proposal, Carrier
expressed support for the MCCS testing
approach, but it commented that there
is ambiguity regarding the specific
snap/substitutes-residential-and-light-commercialair-conditioning-and-heat-pumps.
33 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).
34 DOE is aware that a refrigerant leakage
detection system may also draw power, which
would also be addressed in the AHRI 210/240 and
AHRI 1600 test standards. However it is DOE’s
understanding that the impact of this power is
much less than operation of the fan in constant
circulation mode.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
products to which the MCCS testing
approach applies. (Carrier, No. 29 at pp.
2–3) Carrier stated that for a CAC/HP
system with a charge quantity between
m1 and m2,35 the room size in which
the UL 60335–2–40 4th edition
refrigerant safety standard allows the
system to be installed (or the effective
volume into which refrigerant would be
dispersed in case of leakage) is limited.
Further, this limitation can be stricter if
the system does not employ air
circulation, either continuously or
initiated by a refrigerant leak detection
system (‘‘LDS’’). (Id.) Carrier requested
that DOE provide further specificity on
the testing approach for products that
might require air circulation as
mitigation in some installations but not
necessarily all installations. (Id.) Carrier
recommended that DOE require all
systems with a charge level greater than
m1 and less than or equal to m2 that do
not contain an LDS be tested as an
MCCS since how and where these
products are installed in the field are
outside the manufacturer’s control
(besides a label specifying the required
area). (Id.)
In a rebuttal, Daikin opposed Carrier’s
aforementioned recommendation, for
several reasons. (Daikin, No. 40 at p. 1)
First, Daikin commented that UL
60335–2–40 4th edition is clear in its
requirements for information that must
be provided in installation instructions,
including instructions regarding how to
install the product in accordance with
refrigerant safety codes, including how
to meet the minimum floor area
requirements. (Id.) Daikin specifically
pointed to Annex DD of UL 60335–2–40
4th edition, which specifies that an
original equipment manufacturer
(‘‘OEM’’) must include details of
minimum installation height, minimum
floor area, and other appropriate
information in installation instructions
to ensure safety requirements are met.
(Id.) Daikin also commented that CAC/
HPs using A2L refrigerant, in addition
to providing information in installation
instructions, must have adequate
warning labels (per Clause 7 of UL
60335–2–40 4th edition, Annex
101.DVF of UL 60335–2–40 4th edition,
and EPA SNAP Rule 25), such that the
installer will be well aware the product
being installed needs special attention.
(Id.)
Second, Daikin commented that the
minimum floor area required by
ASHRAE 15.2 (with which UL 60335–
2–40 requires compliance), for some
situations, does not depend on whether
35 UL 60335–2–40 fourth edition defines charge
quantities m1 and m2 based on the type of
refrigerant.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
the system employs circulation
(whether continuous or LDS initiated) to
meet mitigation requirements. (Daikin,
No. 40 at p. 2)
Third, Daikin commented that, if a
manufacturer chooses to use continuous
circulation airflow as the method of leak
mitigation, the manufacturer must
conduct additional safety verification of
that function, per Annex GG of UL
60335–2–40 4th edition (specifically,
Clause GG.2.2.2DV). (Daikin, No. 40 at
pp. 2–3) Annex GG of UL 60335–2–40
4th edition states that a product using
continuous circulation shall (1) run the
indoor fan continuously, except for
short periods of maintenance and
service; (2) detect or monitor
continuously if the airflow rate drops
below a specific level (Qmin); and (3) if
the airflow drops below the specified
level, provide an output signal that
airflow is reduced and disable
compressor operation unless the
compressor operation reduces the leak
rate or the total amount of refrigerant
released to the indoor space.
Consequently, Daikin commented that,
if the manufacturer chooses to rely on
continuous circulation as the mitigation
method, the OSHA-certified Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory
(‘‘NRTL’’) that certifies the product to
meet the safety standard UL 60335–2–40
must check by inspection that the
manufacturer runs the fan continuously.
(Id.)
Fourth, Daikin commented on the
DOE test procedure emphasis on
installation instructions. (Daikin, No. 40
at p. 3) The DOE test procedure
requirement to follow the OEM
installation instructions when installing
a system for testing is based on the
premise that the installation
instructions provide a setup
representative of field installation.
Thus, Daikin asserted it would be
logical for DOE to be consistent and also
assume that the installing contractor
would follow requirements related to
refrigerant safety that are laid out in
installation instructions. (Id.)
In response to the Carrier and Daikin
comments, it is DOE’s understanding (as
noted in Daikin’s comment) that use of
constant circulation as the method of
refrigerant leakage risk mitigation
requires that the CAC/HP product must
be inherently designed with this
feature—a contractor cannot be in
compliance with UL 60335–2–40 4th
edition requirements if the feature is
selected in the field for a system that
does not inherently already have it.
Specifically, an NRTL must certify upon
inspection that a product using constant
circulation for safety code compliance
indeed runs its indoor fan continuously.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
Thus, the circumstances ‘‘outside the
manufacturer’s control’’ involving
installation by a contractor using
constant circulation as the means of
mitigation of systems without LDS and
without MCCS that Carrier mentioned
in its comment are violations of
refrigerant safety codes. While such
violations may occur in the future, DOE
concludes that the seriousness of the
potential consequences would make
them infrequent, i.e., such
circumstances could not be considered
representative of the installation of such
systems. Therefore, DOE determines
that, for testing according to the DOE
test procedure, it is not appropriate to
require testing using constant
circulation for products with charge
between m1 and m2 that don’t have an
LDS and are not inherently an MCCS.
However, any product using constant
circulation to comply with refrigerant
safety codes that would meet the MCCS
definition in AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
and AHRI 1600–202X Draft could be
verified to have this status by powering
up the unit, and consequently will be
required to test as an MCCS.
AHRI 210/240–2024 and AHRI 1600–
2024 finalized the definition and testing
provisions for MCCS without
substantial change. DOE has determined
that the definition and approach
included in the finalized versions
provide a more representative measure
of CAC/HP efficiency for systems
utilizing mandatory constant circulation
as a means of refrigerant leakage
mitigation. Therefore, consistent with
the April 2024 NOPR proposals, DOE is
incorporating by reference AHRI 210/
240–2024 and AHRI 1600–2024 and
adopting the definition and testing
provisions for MCCS.
Daikin noted in its comment that the
certification aspects of the MCCS test
procedure changes were not included in
the April 2024 NOPR. (Daikin, No. 40 at
p. 3) Daikin recommended that DOE
include as mandatory certification a
declaration from the manufacturer
regarding whether the CAC/HP product
relies upon mandatory continuous
circulation or not. (Id.) Further, Daikin
suggested that whether a product uses
continuous circulation or not could be
validated by operation of the product
when it is powered up, as well as
validated by the safety agency (i.e.,
NRTL) certification report. (Id.)
In response to Daikin’s
recommendation, DOE notes that it will
consider certification requirements for
CAC/HPs, including a requirement to
certify whether the CAC/HP product
relies upon mandatory constant
circulation or not, in a separate
rulemaking. However, DOE may
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1235
validate whether a system utilizes
constant circulation when powered up
for the purposes of assessment or
enforcement testing.
6. Dual-Fuel Heat Pumps
Heat pumps generally have reduced
capacity and perform less efficiently at
low ambient outdoor temperatures than
they do at moderate ambient outdoor
temperatures. Most heat pumps require
some form of auxiliary heat when
outdoor temperature is low to satisfy
building load in excess of heat pump
capacity. DOE is aware of HPs that
combine the operation of a conventional
electric HP with back-up heat provided
by fuel, such as a gas fuel-fired furnace
or boiler. These are referred to as ‘‘dualfuel’’ 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.
The AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and
AHRI 1600–202X Draft included a new
definition for dual-fuel heat pump
systems. Additionally, the two AHRI
drafts introduced 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 according to the draft standards is
optional, requires no additional testing,
and is outlined in appendix L of both
standards.
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
tentatively determined that while the
definition and optional test approach
included in the draft industry standards
may provide a representative test
approach for dual-fuel heat pump
systems, DOE was at that time
continuing to evaluate whether to
include such provisions in its CAC/HP
test procedures. 89 FR 24206, 24229.
Therefore, DOE proposed to not
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. Id.
AHRI 210/240–2024 and AHRI 1600–
2024 finalized the definition and
optional seasonal efficiency metric,
DFUE, for dual-fuel heat pump without
substantial change. Based on DOE’s
continued evaluation of the dual-fuel
provisions in the two AHRI drafts, DOE
has concluded that such provisions are
not necessary in the CAC/HP test
procedures. Therefore, DOE is not
incorporating by reference the new
definition of dual-fuel heat pump and
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1236
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
the optional seasonal efficiency metric,
DFUE, outlined in the AHRI 210/240–
2024 and AHRI 1600–2024. However,
DOE recognizes that representations of
dual-fuel heat pump performance may
be useful to consumers. Therefore,
while DOE is not proposing provisions
for dual-fuel heat pumps, DOE would
allow manufacturers to make optional
representations of dual-fuel heat pump
performance consistent with available
AHRI industry test standards.
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—EER2, SEER2, HSPF2,
EER, SCORE and SHORE for CAC/HP,
and AFUE for consumer furnaces;
regardless of whether a manufacturer
chooses to rate their dual-fuel heat
pumps with the DFUE metric. DOE also
notes that the current representation
requirements at 10 CFR 429.16 require
representation of every individual heat
pump combination distributed in
commerce. As such, installing an
outdoor HP unit and an indoor coil with
an existing furnace (or other air mover)
that is not being replaced would
constitute distribution in commerce of a
coil-only heat pump combination for
which DOE requires a coil-only
representation.
7. Rating Individual Components of
Split Systems
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
(a) Background
DOE’s test procedure in appendix M1
and its rating and certification
requirements for central air conditioners
and heat pumps in 10 CFR 429.16 have
provisions that apply based on the
configurations in which these products
are distributed in commerce. This
includes provisions for outdoor units of
a split system that are not distributed in
commerce with any indoor units, which
DOE’s regulations refer to as an outdoor
unit with no match (‘‘OUWNM’’).
Specifically, 10 CFR 429.16(b)(2)
requires that the ratings for basic models
of split-system central air conditioners
or heat pumps distributed in commerce
as an OUWNM be based on the testing
of a model of coil-only indoor unit
meeting the requirements of section 2.2e
of appendix M1. Section 2.2.e of
appendix M1 requires that an OUWNM
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 inches, and
normalized gross indoor fin surface
(‘‘NGIFS,’’ gross indoor fin surface
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
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 OUWNMs 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.
In a final rule published on October
24, 2023 (‘‘October 2023 EPA final
rule’’), pursuant to provisions of the
American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act (‘‘AIM Act’’),
enacted on December 17, 2020 (42
U.S.C. 7675), EPA 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 ‘‘specified components’’
being installed were manufactured or
imported prior to January 1, 2025
(‘‘December 2023 EPA interim final
rule’’). 88 FR 88825.
Split-system CAC/HPs are included in
the scope of residential and light
commercial systems As such, new splitsystem 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
provides an exemption, permitting the
sales of specified components, to allow
consumers to service and repair existing
systems that are over the GWP limits
defined in the October 2023 EPA Final
Rule, provided the specified
components are used only to service
existing systems and are subject to
labeling and reporting requirements. 88
FR 73098, 73124–73125. This provides
an exemption for individual specified
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
components of R–410A based splitsystem CAC/HPs to be sold as
replacements, including condensing
units and evaporator units, similar to
the component exemption adopted by
the EPA when R–22 was phased out. 74
FR 66450, 66459–66460.
(b) NOPR Proposal
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted
that while the current 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. 89 FR 24206,
24230. DOE noted that the current
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. Id. DOE clarified
that per 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. Id. DOE
further noted that, similar to EPA
requirements for the R–22 ban, EPA is
allowing such an outdoor unit to be
installed as a replacement specified
component for an existing system but
not to be installed with indoor units for
installation as a complete split CAC/HP
system. Id.
DOE noted that appendix M1
currently does not explicitly define
outdoor units with no match and that
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. Id. 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
proposed not to incorporate the
definition by reference, and instead
proposed a clarifying definition that is
consistent with DOE’s intention in the
June 2016 Final Rule. Id.
DOE proposed the following
definition for OUWNM in the April
2024 NOPR for appendix M1:
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,
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
(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 2 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
percent 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.
DOE noted that 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. Id.
DOE tentatively concluded that the
proposed definition would further help
clarify that the existing test procedure
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. Id. As
proposed, the definition would apply to
all types of outdoor units (i.e., heat
pump, air conditioner, single-speed,
two-speed, variable-speed, etc.) and
outdoor units with no match would
continue to be tested with an indoor coil
having a 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). Id. DOE clarified that the
determination of represented values,
alternative efficiency determination
method (‘‘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. Id. DOE
noted that 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. Id. DOE noted that 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; however, the outdoor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
unit model could still be assigned the
same individual model number. Id.
(c) Interaction With EPA Regulations
In response to its April 2024 NOPR,
DOE received comments from
stakeholders on a variety of issues
related to compliance with DOE’s
regulations in the context of the October
2023 EPA Final Rule. These specific
comments are addressed in the next
section, but to ensure clarity this section
first summarizes the key elements of
compliance with DOE testing, rating,
and certification requirements for these
products during the period of
implementation of the EPA rules.
As specified in the October 2023 EPA
Final Rule, and modified in the
December 2023 EPA interim final rule,
installation of central air conditioner
and heat pump systems manufactured
or imported on or after January 1, 2025,
that use a refrigerant with a GWP higher
than 700 would be prohibited from
being installed beginning on January 1,
2025. A system comprised of ‘‘specified
components’’ manufactured or imported
prior to January 1, 2025, can still be
installed until January 1, 2026. The
EPA’s rule permits the continued
manufacture, distribution, and
installation of individual specified
components that use higher GWP
refrigerants on or after January 1, 2026,
only as replacements for components in
existing systems provided they are
labeled for this use as specified in the
EPA rule.
The DOE definition of the term
‘‘central air conditioner or central air
conditioning heat pump’’ in 10 CFR
430.2 specifies that 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.
Further, the DOE definition specifies
that 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). In addition, DOE’s
requirements in 10 CFR 429.16(a)
specify required representations based
on how the model is distributed in
commerce (i.e., as part of a matched
system, as an indoor unit only, or as an
outdoor unit with no match).
DOE’s rules for testing and rating
covered products to establish
compliance with energy conservation
standards apply to basic models as
distributed in commerce by the
manufacturer (or importer). Although
the deadlines for installation of
specified components under EPA’s rule
apply to certain products based on their
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1237
date of manufacture or import (i.e.,
depending on whether they were
manufactured prior to January 1, 2025),
DOE’s rules for how the manufacturer
must test, rate, and certify their
products apply based on the date of
manufacture (or importation) and on
how each basic model is distributed in
commerce (i.e., as part of a matched
system or as an OUWNM), with the
purpose being to ensure that each basic
model complies with the energy
conservation standard that applies to
that basic model. A manufacturer or
importer is not required to retest and/or
recertify a basic model unless the
manufacturer either makes a change to
that basic model that would make it a
new basic model under DOE’s definition
of that term in 10 CFR 430.2 or makes
a change to the configuration in which
it is being distributed in commerce such
that a different tested combination
requirement applies to it under 10 CFR
429.16. Stated within the context of the
EPA’s rule, a basic model of condensing
unit that previously had been rated and
certified to DOE in one or more
combinations would not have to be retested and rated under the OUWNM
provisions until such a time as the
manufacturer ceases distribution of that
basic model as part of a matched pair
and begins distributing it as an
OUWNM. At that point, the
manufacturer must test, rate, and certify
that condensing unit under the
OUWNM as a new basic model, as
under the basic model definition in 10
CFR 430.2 the model as an OUWNM
cannot be the same basic model as it
would have been in a combination.
For R–410A (or other refrigerant with
GWP above 700) outdoor units
manufactured (or imported) prior to
January 1, 2025, which under the EPA’s
rule can still be installed as a system
until January 1, 2026, the certifications
of those models based on their tested
combinations remain valid under DOE
regulations as long as manufacturers
continue to distribute them in
commerce as a system. However, if at
some point the manufacturer chooses to
distribute in commerce the unit alone
and not as a combination with any
indoor units (either before January 1,
2026 or after that date as a service-only
replacement component to comply with
EPA’s rule), the outdoor unit would
have to be tested, rated, and certified in
accordance with the OUWNM
provisions. This also applies for R–410A
(or other refrigerant with GWP above
700) outdoor units manufactured or
imported on or after January 1, 2025, as
DOE expects that manufacturers would
cease distribution of the outdoor units
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1238
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
as part of a combination, as these
systems could no longer be installed
anywhere in the U.S. This certification
as a new basic model must be made
prior to the date at which the
manufacturer begins distributing those
outdoor units as an OUWMN and would
be indicated to DOE in its certification
reports via a discontinued model filing
for the model as distributed in a
combination and certification as a new
basic model of OUWNM.
For an indoor unit intended only for
replacement in an existing system and
which is no longer distributed in
commerce for installation as a
combination, as would be the case for
an existing system that uses a refrigerant
banned by EPA, the requirement in 10
CFR 430.2 and table 1 of 10 CFR
429.16(a) for the indoor unit to be rated
as part of a system would still apply
even though the indoor unit is no longer
being distributed in commerce as part of
a combination. This rating requirement
would apply regardless of whether the
manufacturer of the indoor unit is an
ICM. If the indoor unit uses a refrigerant
allowed by EPA only for component
replacement (e.g., R–410A), the rating
for such a unit would be based on a
combination using that refrigerant, and
per EPA regulations could not be
distributed in commerce as a
combination. However, this does not
imply that the indoor unit cannot be
rated, nor that the entire system would
have to be replaced. DOE notes further
that any such rating for the indoor unit
must be compliant with current
standards, and that any indoor units
distributed in commerce for use in a
system that uses a refrigerant subject to
the EPA ban would need to have been
certified to DOE as compliant with the
applicable standards as part of a
combination before January 1, 2025 and
must have been tested and rated in
every combination with an outdoor unit
with which it has been previously
distributed in commerce.
(d) Comments Received
In their response to the NOPR, the
Joint Advocates and Lennox fully
supported the proposed provisions for
OUWNMs. The Joint Advocates agreed
that DOE’s clarifying definition for
OUWNM will help ensure
representative ratings and that the
proposed definition is consistent with
DOE’s intent in the June 2016 Final
Rule. (Joint Advocates, No. 30 at p. 3)
Lennox strongly supported the DOE
proposal that 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.
(Lennox, No. 24 at p. 2).
Several commenters requested more
clarity or expressed concerns on DOE’s
OUWNM provisions. These are
discussed in the following subsections.
(1) OUWNM Definition
AHRI commented that while the definition of"OUWNM" in AHRI 210/240-2024
and AHRI 1600-2024 is specifically focused on R-22 outdoor units, in line with the
current regulations in the DOE test procedure, AHRI is taking steps to update the
standards to ensure that OUWNM provisions are applicable to any outdoor units that are
distributed in commerce without an indoor matching pair, regardless of the refrigerant the
outdoor unit employs. (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 4) AHRI noted that it intends to expedite
revisions to AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 to reflect OUWNM definitions
adopted in the final rule. (Id.) AHRI suggested modification to part of the proposed
An Outdoor Unit that is not
distributed in commerce by the
manufacturer 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 a new
Indoor Unit as a system, according to
EPA regulations in 40 CFR chapter I,
subchapter C,
[provisions (b) and (c) unchanged]
Rheem requested that DOE consider
simplifying the proposed definition for
OUWNMs because some of the bullet
points may overlap or conflict with each
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
other. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 3) Rheem
noted that in SNAP Final Rule 237, EPA
has approved R–32, R–452B, R–454A,
R–454B, R–454C, and R–457A for use in
residential and light commercial airconditioning and heat pump end use,
which also includes CAC/HPs. (Id.)
Rheem commented that among these
substitutes, R–454C and R–457A have a
95 °F midpoint saturation absolute
pressure within 18 percent of the 95 °F
saturation absolute pressure for R–22,
thus meeting the provisions in 4.1(b)
and 3.1(b) of the proposed OUWNM
definition at appendix M1 and appendix
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
M2, respectively. (Id.) Rheem suggested
that DOE simplify the definition of
OUWNM to avoid confusion. (Id.)
DOE appreciates that AHRI is taking
steps to update AHRI 210/240–2024 and
AHRI 1600–2024 standards to broaden
the OUWNM provisions beyond R–22
outdoor units and make them applicable
to any outdoor units that are distributed
in commerce without an indoor
matching pair, regardless of the
refrigerant the outdoor unit employs.
Such an implementation would be
consistent with DOE’s proposed
definition of OUWNMs in the April
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ER07JA25.000</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
definition of OUWNMs (proposed additions italics and deletions in strikeout) as follows:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
2024 NOPR. DOE disagrees with the
addition of ‘‘by the manufacturer’’ in the
OUWNM definition to qualify
distribution in commerce, since under
EPCA the term ‘‘distribution in
commerce’’ also applies to subsequent
distribution after the initial offering by
the manufacturer. The proposed
addition would undercut the general
applicability of that term across the
distribution chain as established in
EPCA. As explained in DOE’s March 7,
2011, final rule that established the
certification provisions in Part 429,
application of the term ‘‘distribution in
commerce’’ would depend on a
particular manufacturer’s production
practices, business decisions, and the
facts and circumstances of a particular
case. 76 FR 12422, 12426. . However,
DOE agrees with the inclusion of the
term ‘‘new’’ to clarify that the EPA ban
specifically pertains to new system
installations, and for further
clarification is including the term
‘‘new’’ to describe both the indoor unit
with which the outdoor unit is paired
and the newly created system. In
addition, notwithstanding the broad
applicability of the term ‘‘distribute in
commerce,’’ DOE notes that under 10
CFR 429.102(a)(6) it is a prohibited act
for a manufacturer or private labeler to
distribute in commerce any new
covered product or covered equipment
that is not in compliance with an
applicable energy conservation standard
prescribed under the Act, and therefore
the obligation to certify that basic
models are in compliance with the
standards lies with the manufacturer
and importer. This is also the basis for
the requirement in 10 CFR 429.12(a)
that each manufacturer, before
distributing in commerce any basic
model of a covered product or covered
equipment subject to an applicable
energy conservation standard, certify
that the model meets the applicable
energy conservation standard.
DOE agrees with Rheem that certain
SNAP-approved refrigerants, for
example R–454C and R–457A, have
pressure-temperature relationship
characteristics similar to R–22 and
would meet provision (b) of the
proposed OUWNM definition. DOE
notes that both these refrigerants have
GWPs equal to or less than 150, and
thus could potentially be under
consideration for future reductions in
GWP as compared with refrigerants R–
454B and R–32, the primary near-term
candidates for transition from R–410A.
To ensure that these SNAP-approved
refrigerants would not be subject to
provision (b) of the proposed OUWNM
definition, DOE is qualifying provision
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
(b) with a GWP limit—specifically, only
refrigerants with GWP greater than 150
(per EPA’s measure) would be subject to
provision (b).
In summary, DOE is making minor
modifications to the OUWNM definition
as follows:
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 a new
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 and a global warming
potential greater than 150 per EPA
regulations in 40 CFR 84.64; or
(c) Is shipped without a specified
refrigerant from the point of
manufacture or is shipped such that
more than 2 pounds of refrigerant are
required to meet the charge per section
5.1.8 of AHRI 210/240–2024.36 This
shall not apply if either (a) the factory
charge is equal to or greater than 70
percent 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.
(2) Clarity on Interaction With EPA Rule
AHRI and Carrier requested further
clarity on how DOE’s OUWNM
provisions will interface with the
October 2023 EPA final rule,
particularly in terms of timing and
scope. (AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 2–4; Carrier,
No. 29 at p. 3)
AHRI appreciated DOE’s proposal to
expand the OUWNM definition to
include HFC refrigerants having a GWP
greater than 700, in line with EPA’s ban,
but noted that the interaction between
the EPA and DOE regulations are
complex and implementation questions
remain. (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 2) AHRI
cautioned that care must be taken to
ensure industry and downstream
distribution partners understand and
can remain compliant with applicable
regulations and that consumers who
recently installed products with R–410A
refrigerant have meaningful access to
service parts for the useful life of their
equipment. (Id.) AHRI noted that while
no date has been included with the
DOE-proposed OUWNM definition, the
NOPR preamble presents the proposed
36 For Appendix M2, the definition references
section 5.1.8 of AHRI 1600–2024.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1239
date of 2026. (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 3)
AHRI sought clarification that OUWNM
ratings would only be required for splitsystem outdoor units using HFC
refrigerants having a GWP greater than
700 manufactured after January 1, 2025.
(Id.) AHRI attached a spreadsheet
(Exhibit 1) that contained requests for
clarification from DOE on questions
regarding the prohibitions for
manufacture, distribution, and
installation of various product types.
(AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 5–6). Specifically,
AHRI requested clarification on whether
DOE’s proposal applies to split-system
CAC/HP products imported into the
United States, but which are not for sale
in the United States. (Id.)
Carrier appreciated DOE’s intent to
further clarify the OUWNM
requirements and noted that it is clear
that the OUWNM category is the
equivalent of EPA’s service-only
condenser allowance in the market.
(Carrier, No. 29 at p. 3) Carrier
commented that it supports DOE stating
the application of OUWNM
requirements to a service-only R–410A
condensing unit, but requested that DOE
provide additional clarity in the final
rule on certain aspects, including
effective date, which unit types
OUWNM applies to, and the indoor
airflow requirements. (Id.) In particular,
Carrier requested that DOE make the
following clarifications to better help
the regulated community in complying
with applicable efficiency and
refrigerant regulations: (1) R–410A
condensing units manufactured or
imported on or after January 1, 2025
would need to be tested and rated as an
OUWNM because EPA prohibits the
installation of those outdoor units with
a new indoor unit; (2) any R–410A
outdoor and indoor units manufactured
before January 1, 2025 could be sold and
installed utilizing the existing DOEcertified system rating, because EPA is
allowing installation; (3) since EPA
prohibits the sale and installation of any
R–410A outdoor and indoor units in
2026 regardless of production date, any
remaining pre-2025 inventory held by a
manufacturer would be required to be
recertified using the OUWNM
procedure when distributed in
commerce on or after January 1, 2026;
and (4) any pre-2025 R–410A air
conditioners in the Southeast or
Southwest regions could not be
installed without being recertified as an
OUWNM. (Carrier, No. 29 at p. 3)
In response to AHRI, DOE clarifies
that OUWNM ratings for split-system
outdoor units employing refrigerants
with GWP greater than 700 would be
required for units distributed in
commerce as service-only placement
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1240
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
components (i.e., not as a combination)
from the point of manufacture and thus
subject to DOE’s testing and rating
requirements for outdoor units with no
match in Appendix M1 and 10 CFR
429.16. As discussed in the previous
section of this notice, DOE expects that
manufacturers would need to make this
transition for units manufactured after
January 1, 2025, which it intends to
make available as service-only
replacement components for existing
systems. Regarding units that are
imported into the United States but not
distributed and sold for installation
within the United States, DOE notes that
its requirements specified in 10 CFR
parts 429, 430, and 431 shall not apply
to any covered product or covered
equipment if: (a) such covered product
or covered equipment is manufactured,
sold, or held for sale for export from the
United States or is imported for export;
(b) such covered product or covered
equipment or any container in which it
is enclosed, when distributed in
commerce, bears a stamp or label stating
‘‘NOT FOR SALE FOR USE IN THE
UNITED STATES’’; and (c) such
product is, in fact, not distributed in
commerce for use in the United States.
10 CFR 429.6.
DOE notes that the additional detail
provided in the preceding section of this
notice, and in the preceding paragraphs,
is largely consistent with Carrier’s
suggestions. However, DOE wishes to
correct two of Carrier’s clarifications: (1)
the recertification of remaining pre-2025
inventory would not be required
provided those basic models were
correctly certified based on how they
were distributed at the time of their
manufacture; and (2) the applicability of
these provisions for units to be installed
in the Southeast or Southwest do not
differ from products subject to
nationwide standards. The only
difference for installation in the
Southeast or Southwest is that the
regional energy conservation standards
would apply for such installations, as
would otherwise be the case per 10 CFR
430.32(c)(6), and the efficiency rating as
certified by the manufacturer must
indicate those basic models comply
with the applicable regional standards
and may be installed in the Southeast
and/or Southwest regions.
(3) Recertification of Units Already
Distributed in Commerce
Several commenters expressed
concern with the recertification as
OUWNMs of units already distributed
in commerce, when installed after
January 1, 2026.
AHRI sought clarification on the
intended meaning of the phrase
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
‘‘distributed in commerce.’’ (AHRI, No.
25 at p. 3) AHRI noted that the current
DOE regulation places no restrictions on
distribution of products if the product
was initially certified and regional
standards are not an issue for the
product and location. (AHRI, No. 25 at
p. 6) AHRI noted that DOE’s NOPR
proposal requires existing outdoor
models currently distributed in
commerce as part of a split-system basic
model that transition to a replacement
outdoor unit only to be tested, rated,
and recertified under the provisions in
10 CFR 429.16 for an outdoor unit with
no match. (Id.) AHRI noted that per
EPCA, ‘‘distribution in commerce’’
means ‘‘to sell in commerce, to import,
to introduce or deliver for introduction
into commerce, or to hold for sale or
distribution after introduction into
commerce,’’ and that ‘‘distribution in
commerce’’ applies to both the initial
offering for sale by the manufacturer
and the subsequent distribution by
downstream partners (i.e., sale by the
distributor to the contractor, or the
contractor to the homeowner). (Id.)
AHRI cautioned that without linking the
requirements to a manufacture/import
date, DOE’s proposal complicates the
distribution of outdoor units
manufactured pre-2025 that are no
longer in possession of the manufacturer
or private labeler. (Id.) AHRI questioned
how DOE will enforce the proposal on
products subject to national energy
efficiency standards. (Id.)
AHRI contended that for products
subject to national standards, DOE is
constrained by the application of the
base national standard, which ‘‘applies
to all products manufactured or
imported into the United States on and
after the effective date of the
standard.’’ 37 (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 6)
Therefore, AHRI asserted that spaceconstrained products; small-duct highvelocity, air conditioners in the North;
and heat pumps manufactured or
imported prior to January 1, 2025 that
were certified as compliant with the
base national standard can still be
installed in the United States until the
inventory is depleted. (Id.) AHRI
questioned how DOE could require
manufacturers, distributors, or
contractors to retroactively apply
testing, rating, or certification
requirements on outdoor units subject to
national standards that were distributed
in commerce and are no longer in the
manufacturer’s possession. (AHRI, No.
25 at pp. 6–7) AHRI requested for DOE
to link the OUWNM definition to a
manufacture/import date, as DOE’s
proposal complicates the distribution of
37 42
PO 00000
U.S.C. 6295(o)(6)(E).
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
outdoor units manufactured prior to
January 1, 2025 that are no longer in
possession of the manufacturer (or
private labeler). (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 7)
Similarly, for products subject to
regional standards, AHRI questioned
how DOE could require manufacturers,
distributors, or contractors to
retroactively apply testing, rating, or
certification for outdoor units
manufactured/imported in 2024 and no
longer in possession of the
manufacturer. (Id.) AHRI requested
clarification on whether DOE intended
that air conditioners slated for the
Southeast and Southwest regions,
manufactured/imported in 2024, and
still in possession of the manufacturer
be recertified as OUWNMs on January 1,
2025. (Id.)
AHRI noted that while the NOPR
preamble states that ‘‘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,’’ DOE has not
described in the proposed regulatory
text how the testing, rating, and
recertification for outdoor units
distributed in commerce by outdoor
unit manufacturers (‘‘OUMs’’) for a
former certified combination that
transitions to OUWNMs for replacement
will be completed. (AHRI, No. 25 at p.
6) AHRI expressed concern that this
may create logistical complications,
given that ‘‘distributed in commerce’’
applies to both the initial sale and the
subsequent sale of products that have
already entered commerce and are no
longer in the possession of the
manufacturer to be recertified. (Id.)
AHRI contended that certification of a
condensing unit as an OUWNM should
apply to products manufactured after
January 1, 2025. (Id.)
HARDI strongly opposed any
restriction on the ability of its members
to sell products already in inventory,
including install date regulations, such
as EPA’s transitions program and the
statutorily required install date in DOE’s
regional standards for split-system
central air conditioners. (HARDI, No. 26
at pp. 1–2) HARDI commented that it
believed install date requirements
hinder the ability of the heating,
ventilation, air-conditioning, and
refrigeration industry to move to more
energy-efficient or environmentally
friendly products and that install date
regulations that cause dead inventory
are ineffective because they create
waste, increase costs, and constitute a
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
regulatory taking.38 (Id.) HARDI
commented that it was its
understanding that the phrase
‘‘currently distributed in commerce’’
does not intend to include CAC/HP
equipment already in distributors’
warehouses, but it asserted that, just like
with the confusing compliance regime
caused by the install date associated
with regional standards for split-system
central air conditioners, if this phrase is
used in the final regulation, local
compliance officials will prevent repairs
to existing systems if the outdoor unit
does not have proof of meeting the
minimum efficiency standard. (HARDI,
No. 26 at p. 2) HARDI suggested that the
best course of action is to apply the
OUWNM testing and certification
requirements at the same date of
manufacture timeline as the EPA
requirement for outdoor condensing
units to be marked ‘‘For servicing
existing equipment only.’’ (Id.) HARDI
noted that for split-system CAC/HPs,
EPA requires anything manufactured
after January 1, 2025 to be marked ‘‘For
servicing existing equipment only.’’ (Id.)
HARDI further noted that while new
split-system CAC/HPs can be installed
until January 1, 2026 using R–410A or
other high-GWP refrigerants, EPA
requires those systems to be
manufactured before January 1, 2025,
and outdoor units manufactured after
January 1, 2025 can only be used as
components, thereby meeting the
proposed definition of OUWNMs. (Id.)
HARDI recommended that DOE limit
the need to test, rate, and recertify
equipment to only outdoor units
manufactured after January 1, 2025, as
this will ensure that equipment
intended to be installed as an OUWNM
does meet the minimum efficiency
requirements while not affecting
equipment originally sold for
installation as a matched system. (Id.)
JCI expressed concerns with DOE’s
proposal to require recertification of
units ‘‘currently distributed in
commerce’’ to meet the OUWNM
requirements, contending that requiring
recertification of a component as part of
a system that was previously certified as
compliant and has already entered
commerce, i.e., is no longer in the
possession of the original manufacturer,
is overly burdensome for manufacturers,
distributors, and contractors, and will
be problematic for DOE to enforce
without tying enforcement to the
manufacture/import date. (JCI, No. 35 at
38 HARDI notes that a regulatory taking is a
‘‘taking of property under the Fifth Amendment by
way of regulation that seriously restricts a property
owner’s rights,’’ Blacks Law Dictionary, 11th
Edition. (HARDI, No. 26 at p. 1).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
p. 2) JCI recommended that for outdoor
units that have entered commerce, the
‘‘date of manufacture’’ be used as the
enforcement mechanism. (Id.) JCI
commented that it was its
understanding that outdoor units
manufactured on or after January 1,
2025 would be required to meet DOE’s
OUWNM criteria if they were still in the
possession of the original manufacturer.
(Id.) JCI stated that clarifying that the
OUWNM requirements would take
effect on January 1, 2025, versus the
NOPR date of January 1, 2026, reduces
the amount of inventory in the channel
that would require recertification. (Id.)
Rheem also expressed concern about
language for OUWNMs applicable to
‘‘existing outdoor models currently
distributed in commerce,’’ where these
products would need to be recertified
and given a new basic model number in
the event that they are only eligible for
component replacement per EPA’s
Technology Transitions rule. (Rheem,
No. 34 at p. 3) Rheem asserted that the
notion of obtaining proof of new rating
and a different model number is
unreasonable to require once the
equipment has left manufacturer
warehouses, as the application of new
labels and rating certifications is
impractical to carry out at the
distributor and installer levels. (Id.)
Rheem commented that EPA appears to
recognize this impracticality and does
not require relabeling of equipment
made prior to January 1, 2025 to
indicate ‘‘for service only.’’ (Id.) Rheem
contended that a change in the test
procedure should not render obsolete a
product currently in commerce that was
compliant at the time of manufacture.
(Id.)
As indicated by AHRI, DOE notes that
per EPCA, the terms ‘‘to distribute in
commerce’’ and ‘‘distribution in
commerce’’ mean to ‘‘sell in commerce,
to import, to introduce or deliver for
introduction into commerce, or to hold
for sale or distribution after introduction
into commerce.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(16))
Under the statutory definition, this term
can apply to the initial offering of sale
by a manufacturer or by subsequent
distribution by downstream partners. As
was discussed in the previous section,
the December 2023 EPA Interim Final
Rule allows for a 1-year sell-through
period (until January 1, 2026) for any
CAC/HP system employing a refrigerant
with a GWP of 700 or greater, provided
the specified component is
manufactured or imported prior to
January 1, 2025 (see 40 CFR 84.54(c)(1)).
Since EPA prohibits the installation of
any specified CAC/HP components to
create a new system employing a
refrigerant with a GWP of 700 or greater
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1241
on or after January 1, 2026, irrespective
of the manufacturing date, any
remaining pre-2025 inventory (i.e.,
imported or manufactured before
January 1, 2025) held by any channel of
distribution (manufacturer or
distributor) could not be installed as a
system after January 1, 2026.
DOE’s rating and certification
requirements in 10 CFR 429.16 for
central air conditioners and heat pumps
apply based on how a manufacturer
distributes the models in commerce. If
the manufacturer ceases distribution in
commerce of a model of outdoor unit
that was previously part of a
combination and begins distributing it
only as an OUWNM to allow for use as
a service-only replacement under the
EPA’s rules for components of an R–
410A system, that model of outdoor unit
would need to be recertified under the
OUWNM requirements regardless of
when that transition occurs, since the
manufacturer (or private labeler) has an
obligation to ensure that any basic
model it distributes is compliant with
the applicable energy conservation
standard for the configuration (or
configurations) in which the
manufacturer distributes it. However,
the requirement to recertify those basic
models does not apply retroactively to
units of a basic model that were already
distributed in commerce as part of a
combination and had been correctly
certified according to DOE’s regulations.
Regarding AHRI’s concern about
enforcement of national standards, DOE
notes that no changes were proposed to
national standards in the April 2024
NOPR, and none are being finalized in
this rulemaking. The purpose of the
clarification provided in this
rulemaking is to ensure that
manufacturers have a clear
understanding of how to comply with
DOE’s certification requirements for
products that will be subject to EPA
regulations. DOE’s certification
provisions in 10 CFR 429.12(a) specify
that each manufacturer, before
distributing in commerce any basic
model of a covered product or covered
equipment subject to an applicable
energy conservation standard set forth
in parts 430 or 431, and annually
thereafter . . . shall submit a
certification report to DOE certifying
that each basic model meets the
applicable energy conservation
standard(s). To the extent that outdoor
units that were previously certified as
compliant as part of a matched system
begin being distributed in commerce as
outdoor units with no match, they are
being distributed as a new basic model,
and therefore, must certify compliance
with the applicable energy conservation
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
1242
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
standards. The application of the base
national standard, as referenced by
AHRI, still applies to the outdoor unit
based on its manufacture date, but
compliance with that standard must be
determined for the basic model
distributed in commerce (i.e., the
OUWNM).
DOE notes that the EPA regulations
include a 1-year sell-through period to
reduce inventory of units that may be in
danger of not complying with the EPA
rule. DOE’s rationale also applies to
AHRI’s concern on regional standards.
However, DOE notes that there is
confusion on the applicability of the
EPA dates on the regional level. DOE
clarifies, consistent with the national
application, that air conditioners
certified as able to be installed in the
Southeast and Southwest regions
manufactured or imported before
January 1, 2025, and that have already
been distributed in commerce, would
not need to be certified as OUWNMs on
January 1, 2025, provided the
manufacturer had already certified
compliance with the applicable energy
conservation standards. For units
intended for installation in the
Southeast or Southwest regions, this
would include a certification that they
comply with those applicable standards.
As previously explained in this notice,
the only distinction from CAC/HP
products that are not subject to regional
efficiency standards is that split-system
AC outdoor units certified as OUWNM
would have to meet the applicable
standards for the Southeast or
Southwest regions to be installed in
those regions.
DOE notes there may be confusion
regarding the applicability of the
compliance dates in the EPA rule and
how these dates affect DOE regional
standards requirements. To be clear, the
EPA rule has no effect on DOE
requirements. For certain split-system
central air conditioning systems or
certain OUWNMs to be installed in the
Southeast or Southwest region
consistent with DOE regional standards
requirements, the system/OUWNM
must be certified to DOE as compliant
with the applicable regional standard(s),
and the certification must indicate that
the model/combination can be installed
in the Southeast and/or Southwest
region. While the EPA rule may change
the approach a manufacture may take
with respect to testing and certifying a
particular model, it does not change
DOE requirements.
In response to AHRI’s concern that
DOE has not described in the proposed
regulatory text how the testing, rating,
and recertification for OUWNMs will be
completed, DOE notes that the testing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
requirements are laid out in section 4.2
of revised appendix M1 and section 3.2
of new appendix M2. Additionally, as
noted in the April 2024 NOPR, and
explained in the preceding section of
this notice, existing outdoor models
currently distributed in commerce as
part of a split-system basic model that
the manufacturer transitions to a
replacement outdoor unit only would
need to be tested, rated, and certified
under the provisions in 10 CFR 429.16
for an outdoor unit with no match. 89
FR 24206, 24231. As described
previously in this section, distribution
of such a model as an OUWNM
represents distribution in commerce of
a new basic model, and accordingly, the
basic model must be certified as
compliant with the applicable energy
conservation standards. DOE may
consider additional certification
requirements under a separate
rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification.
In response to HARDI, DOE clarifies
that the reporting obligations apply to
manufacturers, and importers, and thus
basic models previously distributed in
commerce by the manufacturer that
were certified by the manufacturer in
accordance with 10 CFR 429.12 do not
need to be recertified. Regarding
HARDI’s criticism of regulation based
on install date requirements, DOE
clarifies that, whereas the EPA rule is
based on the date of installation, the
application of the OUWNM provisions
are based on the configuration in which
the manufacturer (or importer)
distributed the basic model from the
point of manufacture (or import). It does
not depend upon distributor or retail
sales and offerings. DOE notes that the
EPA regulations include a 1-year sellthrough period for pre-2025 inventory to
provide time to reduce inventory. The
OUWNM provisions in this rulemaking
simply align with the EPA action
undertaken in the October 2023 EPA
rule. In response to HARDI’s
recommendation to limit the need to
test, rate, and recertify equipment to
only outdoor units manufactured after
January 1, 2025, DOE agrees that most
inventory manufactured prior to January
1, 2025, will likely be distributed in
commerce with indoor units and be
installed prior to January 1, 2026;
however, to the extent that any outdoor
units manufactured prior to January 1,
2025, continue to be distributed in
commerce by the manufacturer after
January 1, 2026, as OUWNM, the
manufacturer must test consistent with
the requirements applicable to
OUWNMs and certify the compliance of
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
such models with the applicable energy
conservation standard.
In response to JCI, DOE again stresses
that the timing for implementation of
the OUWNM provisions is tied to the
EPA rule. Specifically, an outdoor unit
no longer has a match when EPA
requirements no longer allow
installation with an indoor unit to create
a new system, and thus must be
certified to DOE as an OUWNM as it
continues to be distributed in
commerce. As discussed in III.E.7.c(2),
DOE clarifies that any outdoor CAC/HP
units manufactured or imported on or
after January 1, 2025 and employing
refrigerants with GWP greater than 700
(for example, R–410A), would need to
be tested and rated as an OUWNM,
consistent with the EPA requirement
that such models be used ‘‘for servicing
existing equipment only.’’ For units
manufactured or imported before
January 1, 2025 the existing DOEcertified system rating can be used,
provided the manufacturer does not
continue distribution of the outdoor
units alone, because the EPA regulations
permit installations of such systems
until January 1, 2026. However, if the
unit is distributed in commerce alone
and not as a combination with any
indoor units, as likely would be the case
for products intended for installation as
an individual replacement component
of an existing system, the outdoor unit
would have to be certified in accordance
with the OUWNM provisions prior to
the date at which the manufacturer
begins distributing those outdoor units
as an OUWMN, as indicated to DOE in
its certification reports via a
discontinued model filing for the model
as distributed in a combination and
certification as an OUWNM.
In response to Rheem’s claim that
EPA does not require relabeling of
equipment made prior to January 1,
2025 to indicate ‘‘for service only,’’ DOE
notes that the EPA labeling requirement
at 40 CFR 84.58(b) states, ‘‘Effective
upon the date listed for each subsector
in § 84.54(c) . . . any specified
component . . . that uses or is intended
to use any regulated substance, or blend
containing any regulated substance . . .
must have a permanent label compliant
with paragraph (c) 39 of this section
containing the information in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section. For specified
components that are intended for use
39 The reference is to paragraph (c) but should be
to paragraph (d), which specifies label design (e.g.,
English language, durable and printed/affixed to the
product exterior surface, readily visible and legible,
etc.). Paragraph (c) addresses products in the foam
or aerosol sector and is not relevant for the
refrigeration, air-conditioning, and heat pump
sector addressed in paragraph (b).
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
with a regulated substance or blends
containing a regulated substance that
exceed the applicable GWP limit or HFC
restriction, the label must state ‘‘For
servicing existing equipment only’’ in
addition to the other required labeling
elements.’’ (See 40 CFR 84.58(b)) 40
CFR 84.58(c) requires the label to list, at
a minimum, the refrigerant and the date
of manufacture. DOE is aware that there
are two dates listed in the relevant
paragraph for split-system CAC/HPs
under section § 84.54(c)—January 1,
2025 and January 1, 2026. As discussed
above and in the preceding section of
this notice the December 2023 EPA
Interim Final Rule pushed back the
restriction on R–410A and similar
refrigerants such that components
manufactured prior to January 1, 2025
could be installed as part of systems
prior to January 1, 2026, and thereafter
would be installable only for servicing
existing equipment. Thus, unless EPA
intended for the ‘‘for servicing existing
equipment only’’ words to be on
specified components starting January 1,
2025, when they would still be allowed
to be used for system installations, EPA
regulations effectively state that the
required label would have to be applied
or changed while the component is in
distribution, i.e., after leaving the
manufacturer but before installation.
However, DOE notes that these labeling
provisions are separate from its own
regulatory requirements and that
manufacturers seeking more specific
guidance on the implementation of
these provisions should consult EPA.
Regarding Rheem’s contention that a
change in the test procedure should not
render a currently compliant product
obsolete, DOE notes that it is the EPA
action, and not a change to the DOE test
procedure, that would prevent the
installation of a previously certified
CAC/HP system. In accordance with this
EPA action, DOE’s OUWNM provisions
in the test procedure provide a means
for manufacturers to assign an energy
efficiency rating to split-system outdoor
units after the EPA has banned them for
full-system installations. As discussed
earlier in this section and in the
preceding section, to the extent that the
manufacturer of the outdoor unit of a
previously certified CAC/HP system
begins distributing it in commerce as an
OUWNM, it would become a new basic
model and the manufacturer would
need to certify that it complies with the
applicable energy conservation
standard.
In a comment related to concerns
regarding recertification as OUWNM of
outdoor units already distributed in
commerce, GE Appliances indicated
that products currently in production
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
would need redesign to comply with
cut-out/cut-in temperature and CVP
enforcement testing. (GE Appliances,
No. 37 at p. 6) They commented that
since import and production of legacy
R–410A equipment will cease after
January 1, 2025, there will be no need
to redesign existing inventory, in order
to comply with the cut-out/cut-in
temperature and CVP enforcement test.
Id. They pointed out that most of DOE‘s
energy efficiency enforcements are
based on date of import or manufacture,
so exclusion of R–410A legacy
equipment from CVP and cut-out/cut-in
enforcement testing would be consistent
with this practice, and that failing to
exclude these products from such
enforcement would lead to stranded
inventory, resulting in the loss of
embodied carbon in the inventory, with
little/no energy efficiency saving. Id.
In response to the comment by GE
Appliances, certifications required to be
made by a manufacturer for the
compressor and indoor blower speed of
any variable capacity system at specific
test conditions must represent normal
operation. The CVP provisions
established in this final rule describe
how DOE would verify that certified
values are appropriate for the purposes
of DOE enforcement testing. Hence,
DOE would expect existing properlycertified variable speed CAC/HPs and
CHPs to pass the CVP enforcement with
minimal or no adjustment to existing
performance representations. Further,
DOE certainly would not expect changes
sufficient to call into question the
compliance of such models with DOE
efficiency standards. Similarly, although
cut-out and cut-in temperatures are not
currently required to be certified, DOE
would expect manufacturers to have
certified HSPF2 values that are
consistent with the actual cut-out/cut-in
characteristics of certified models.
Manufacturers are not required
themselves to conduct CVP testing. To
the extent that manufacturers are
correctly certifying performance of
existing models, there would be no need
to recertify or redesign such models in
response to DOE implementing CVP
testing for enforcement purposes.
Therefore, DOE disagrees with the
suggestion of GE Appliances, that there
should be specific exclusions for legacy
R–410A CAC/HPs from the CVP and
cut-out/cut-in temperature enforcement
provisions.
(4) Applicability to Multi-Head MiniSplits, Multi-Splits, and Multi-Circuit
Systems
AHRI and Carrier requested clarity on
whether the OUWNM provisions are
applicable to multi-head mini-split,
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1243
multi-split, or multi-circuit systems.
(AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 4–5; Carrier, No.
29 at pp. 3–4).
Carrier requested that DOE confirm
that the OUWNM certification
requirement is applicable to all splitsystem condensing units within the
scope of appendix M1, which includes
single-split, multi-head mini-split,
multi-split (including VRF), and multicircuit air conditioner and heat pump
systems. (Carrier, No. 29 at pp. 3–4)
Specifically, Carrier commented that it
believes multi-head mini-split and
multi-split systems should also require
the OUWNM certification. (Id.) Carrier
noted that while these systems are
generally intended to be installed with
multiple indoor units, they can be
installed with a single indoor unit,
which could be ducted or ductless, and
that multiple manufacturers have
combinations that utilize a mini-split
(traditionally known as a ‘‘ductless
outdoor unit’’) with a conventional
‘‘ducted’’ indoor unit and coil
combination. (Id.) Carrier further noted
that multi-split and mini-VRF outdoor
units are able to be rated, certified, and
used in combination with a single
indoor unit as well as the typical
multiple indoor units. (Id.) Carrier
expressed concern that if OUWNM
provisions are not required for these
systems that can be installed with a
single indoor unit, they could be used
to replace the condenser on a system
with an indoor unit that was never a
certified combination, yielding poor
system efficiencies. (Id.) Carrier
commented that it was its
understanding that EPA’s reasoning to
allow a service-only condenser was to
address the customer concern of
replacing their entire system upon a part
failure in the condenser. (Id.) Carrier
stated that in its experience, this does
not happen regularly in the market, and
if there is a premature part failure in the
condenser, the part (i.e., compressor,
expansion valve, motor, control board,
or coil) is replaced or repaired,
especially in the case of complex
outdoor units such as multi-split
condensers. (Id.) Carrier noted that in
the situation the condenser fails at end
of life, it is common practice to replace
the entire system. (Id.) For these
reasons, Carrier requested that DOE
clarify that all split-system condensing
units within the scope of appendix M1
that are manufactured beginning
January 1, 2025 with R–410A or any
banned refrigerant must be certified as
an OUWNM. (Id.).
AHRI noted that appendix M1 defines
the tested combination of a multi-head
mini-split, multi-split, or multi-circuit
system to consist of one outdoor unit
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
1244
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
with one or more compressors matched
with between two and five indoor units.
(AHRI, No. 25 at p. 4) AHRI further
noted that appendix M1 requires that
these indoor units must collectively
have a nominal cooling capacity greater
than or equal to 95 percent and less than
or equal to 105 percent of the nominal
cooling capacity of the outdoor unit.
(Id.) AHRI requested that DOE confirm
(1) if multi-head systems would test as
OUWNM with one or two indoor units
per appendix M1, section 2.2(e); and (2)
if the preference is for testing multihead systems with two (or more) indoor
units, whether the coil-only indoor unit
coil shall be split evenly between the
two, or in another configuration. (AHRI,
No. 25 at pp. 4–5).
DOE agrees with the reasons
presented by Carrier and clarifies that
the OUWNM provisions are applicable
to all split-system CAC/HPs within the
scope of appendix M1—including
single-split, multi-head mini-split,
multi-split (including VRF), and multicircuit air conditioner and heat pump
systems. As noted by AHRI, per
appendix M1, the tested combination of
a multi-head mini-split, multi-split, or
multi-circuit system requires between
two and five indoor units. However, the
indoor unit requirements (which are
based on the highest sales volume
family) are not explicitly applicable for
OUWNM testing. As indicated by
Carrier, multi-head systems can be
installed and are able to be rated with
either a single indoor unit or multiple
indoor units. To provide maximum
flexibility to manufacturers and to limit
test burden, DOE clarifies that, for
multi-head systems being certified
under the outdoor unit with no match
provisions, (1) multi-head systems
capable of being paired with a single
indoor coil shall be tested with a single
indoor coil; and (2) multi-head systems
incapable of being paired with a single
indoor coil shall be tested with the least
amount (between two to five) of
identical indoor coils. If testing with
two or more indoor coils, all coils shall
have the same dimensions. The current
testing instructions in section 2.2(e) of
appendix M1 40 are written for a single
indoor coil, but the same concept of the
NGIFS can be extended to two or more
identical indoor coils. Specifically,
when evaluating NGIFS with two or
more indoor coils, the total summation
of the fin surface area would include all
coils. DOE may consider certification
requirements to include whether one or
more indoor coils were used to evaluate
40 These instructions are also included in sections
5.1.6.2 and 5.1.6.3 of AHRI 210/240–2024 and AHRI
1600–2024.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
an OUWNM rating in a separate
rulemaking.
(5) Control Type and Communicating
System
Carrier also requested that DOE clarify
that OUWNM certification is required
for all condensing units, regardless of
the control type being used to generate
the system rating. (Carrier, No. 29 at p.
4) Carrier noted that many of the
communicating variable-speed
condensers on the market today also
have the capability to operate with a
conventional 24–V non-communicating
thermostat and that it would be
extremely difficult to exclude these
units from the OUWNM certification
and ensure they were actually being
matched with a certified communicating
indoor unit that was previously
installed. (Id.)
Conversely, GE Appliances
commented that multi-head ductless
split systems and VRF systems under
65k BTU, which are almost always
variable-speed communicating systems,
are unable to complete the existing test
procedure for an OUWNM listing, as
existing software does not support or
allow a coil-only match without
connection to a matched indoor unit.
(GE Appliances, No. 37 at p. 4) GE
asserted that the inability to provide
replacement outdoor units to service
existing communicating systems will
lead to significant harm for consumers,
the environment, and DOE’s goals for
heat pumps and variable-speed systems.
(Id.) GE Appliances requested that DOE
allow outdoor-unit-only listings for
variable-speed communicating systems
capable of supporting multiple indoor
coils based on the lowest-performing
system performance for the outdoor coil
for any previously listed system or
currently produced, compatible
communicating coil. (Id.) GE
Appliances asserted that because
outdoor units for communicating
systems can generally only work with
matched indoor units using the same
communications protocol, there is little
risk of improper combinations to create
systems that perform worse than
efficiency levels required by DOE. (Id.)
GE Appliances further commented that
listing OUWNM units for these systems
in this manner ensures accurate
consumer information about expected
product performance and also ensures
service components’ availability where
they would otherwise be restricted. (Id.)
Mitsubishi also asserted that while it
understands the broad industry support
for DOE to extend the definition of
OUWNM to R–410A outdoor units, the
proposed language does not take into
account the emergence and expansion of
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
communicating variable-speed
equipment. (Mitsubishi, No. 28 at p. 2)
Mitsubishi contended that like every
other inverter-driven variable-capacity
ductless OEM, Mitsubishi systems and
components are unable to test or operate
with any coil in a lab or in the field that
is not equipped with proprietary
communication protocol and firmware,
and that evaluating their outdoor units
as OUWNMs renders these controls and
advancements completely useless. (Id.)
Mitsubishi requested that either
communicating variable-speed systems
be exempted from the OUWNM
provisions, or that specific allowances
be considered to enable communicating
variable-capacity outdoor units to be
tested in a way that demonstrates
compliance with Federal efficiency
minimum standards. (Id.)
DOE clarifies that the OUWNM
requirements will apply to all splitsystem CAC/HPs units, whether they
use proprietary controls to communicate
conditioned-space temperature and/or
humidity, use a generic thermostat, or
allow either installation approach. Also,
DOE understands that many ductless
multi-split systems and VRF systems are
variable-speed systems that employ
software that requires the outdoor unit
to be paired with a recognized indoor
unit (i.e., a pairing confirming
system).41 Manufacturers of ductless
multi-split systems and VRF systems
may already have the means to test
these systems with a generic indoor unit
or may need to reprogram their outdoor
units to allow operation with a generic
indoor unit, for units using a refrigerant
with GWP greater than 700 that are
manufactured after January 1, 2025.
While the latter option may require
additional software rework, this
reprogramming would require limited
engineering hours to implement, such
that DOE does not consider it to be
burdensome to manufacturers. In
response to GE’s proposal to allow
outdoor-unit-only listings for such
systems based on the lowest-performing
system combination for the outdoor coil,
and Mitsubishi’s request for such
systems to be exempted from the
OUWNM provisions or given special
41 While the term used by commenters to refer to
such systems is ‘‘communicating,’’ DOE notes that
the current test procedure uses this term differently.
Specifically, ‘‘communicating,’’ per the current test
procedure, refers to the ability of the system to
communicate in-space temperature with both the
outdoor and indoor units, instead of
communication between the indoor and outdoor
units. DOE also notes that neither the AHRI test
standards (210/240 and 1600) nor the test procedure
being finalized in this rule use the term
‘‘communicating.’’ To prevent confusion, DOE is
referring to these systems as ‘‘pairing confirming
systems.’’
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
allowances, DOE notes that neither
approach provides confirmation that a
given outdoor unit could not be field
paired with a nonproprietary indoor
unit(s). Therefore, to maintain
consistency across all split-system CAC/
HPs, irrespective of the control type,
DOE is exempting neither pairing
confirming variable-speed systems nor
variable-speed communicating systems
from the OUWNM provisions, nor
allowing either category of outdoor
units to be rated based on its lowestperforming combination.
1245
(6) Service Coil Definition
GE Appliances and Mitsubishi
requested revision to the ‘‘service coil’’
definition (see 10 CFR appendix M1,
section 1.2) to also include integrated
indoor blowers within the definition’s
scope. (GE Appliances, No. 37 at pp. 1–
3; Mitsubishi, No. 28 at p. 2)
GE Appliances commented that mini-split, multi-split, and light VRF systems
("DFS systems") have become increasingly popular in the residential air-conditioning
market and that these products are significantly different from traditional ducted systems.
(GE Appliances, No. 37 at p. 2) GE Appliances noted that indoor units of such systems
typically focus on using the smallest space possible and are composed of a tightly
integrated blower fan, evaporator coil, and electronics package. (Id.) GE Appliances
contended that when the coils on these indoor units fail, by far the most cost-effective
means of repairing the system is to replace the entire indoor unit, which includes both the
coil and the fan. (Id.) GE Appliances noted that DOE currently allows for replacement
of indoor coils to repair an existing system without a listing of that indoor coil as a part of
a system through the service coil provisions of 10 CFR 430 appendix Ml, and that these
provisions allow service of existing systems using a legacy refrigerant where the system
as a whole has been delisted under OUWNM requirements of 10 CFR 429.16(a)(3). (GE
Appliances, No. 37 at pp. 1-2) However, GE Appliances noted that the service coil
definition explicitly excludes integrated indoor blowers (Id.) To account for more recent
prevalence of DFS systems in the market since the last refrigerant transition, GE
Appliances suggested that DOE amend the definition of "service coil" to include units
proposed the following definition for service coil (proposed additions italicized and
deletions in strikeout):
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ER07JA25.001</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
with integrated fans from the factory. (GE Appliances, No. 37 at p. 3) GE Appliances
1246
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
Service coil means an arrangement ofrefrigerant-to-air heat transfer coil(s),
condensate drain pan, sheet metal or plastic parts to direct/route airflow over the coil( s),
which may or may not include external cabinetry and/or a cooling mode expansion
device.,_, A service coil may also include a fan if that fan is integrated into the service coil
assembly at the factory. A service coil may be distributed in commerce solely for
replacing an uncased coil or cased coil that has already been placed into service, and that
has been must be labeled "for indoor coil replacement only" on the nameplate and in
manufacturer technical and product literature. The model number for any service coil
must include some mechanism (e.g., an additional letter or number) for differentiating a
GE Appliances contended that
revising the definition of service coil to
account for DFS systems is essential to
protect consumers who have recently
installed DFS systems using R–410A
refrigerant and that without these
revisions, indoor replacement units to
repair DFS systems during their
expected useful life may be limited, and
consumers may be required to replace
entire systems instead of merely
components. (Id.) GE further
commented that if DFS systems are not
able to have indoor coil replacements,
there is a risk of significant negative
consumer sentiment toward DFS
systems. (Id.)
Mitsubishi asserted that
circumstances where full replacement of
ductless indoor units would be
significantly less costly than field
replacement of individual parts would
needlessly impact the pocketbooks of
homeowners and consume scarce
technician labor hours. (Mitsubishi, No.
28 at p. 2) Mitsubishi recommended a
carve out or alteration of the current
definition of service coil to allow
ductless indoor units to be sold for
purposes of service, as it would remedy
this concern and be better aligned with
the EPA Technology Transitions rule
and guidance. (Id.)
DOE concurs with GE Appliances that
mini-split, multi-split, and VRF systems
have become more prevalent in the
residential air-conditioning market. As
noted by GE Appliances, the current
service coil definition does not include
indoor units that have integrated indoor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
blowers. DOE also notes that the service
coil definition in AHRI 210/240–2024
and AHRI 1600–2024, the industry
standards DOE is referencing in this
final rule, also do not include integrated
indoor blowers within the service coil
definition. Both appendix M1 (see
section 1.2 of appendix M1) and the
AHRI standards define ‘‘indoor unit’’,
which includes integrated blowers
within the definition’s scope. The
indoor unit definition in Appendix M1
also explicitly notes that a service coil
is not an indoor unit. In relevance to the
EPA rule, the labelling requirements at
40 CFR 84.58(b) clarify the installation
allowances of indoor units. Specifically,
40 CFR 84.58(b) notes that, after January
1, 2025, specified components intended
for use with banned refrigerants shall
have the label ‘‘For servicing existing
equipment only’’ attached. Any indoor
units that are intended to be used with
banned refrigerants (such as R–410A)
fall within the scope of specified
components and under the
aforementioned regulatory provisions
under the EPA’s rule would need to
have this label attached.
As was noted in the previous section
of this notice, the CAC/HP definition in
10 CFR 430.2 includes a requirement
that indoor units sold alone be rated as
part of a combination. Specifically, the
definition states ‘‘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.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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).’’ Such indoor units may
be distributed by indoor coil
manufacturers (‘‘ICMs’’) which, as
defined in Appendix M1, manufacture
indoor units but do not manufacture
single-package units or outdoor units.
They may also be distributed in
commerce alone and not as part of a
combination by non-ICMs for the
replacement market. For an indoor unit
intended only for replacement in an
existing system and which is no longer
distributed in commerce for installation
as a combination, as would be the case
for an existing system that uses a
refrigerant banned by EPA, the
requirement in table 1 of 10 CFR
429.16(a) for the indoor unit to be rated
as part of a system would still apply
even though the indoor unit is no longer
being distributed in commerce as part of
a combination. This rating requirement
would apply regardless of whether the
manufacturer of the indoor unit is an
ICM. If the indoor unit uses a refrigerant
allowed by EPA only for component
replacement (e.g., R–410A), the rating
for such a unit would be based on a
combination using that refrigerant, and
per EPA regulations could not be
distributed in commerce as a
combination. However, this does not
imply that the indoor unit cannot be
rated, nor that the entire system would
have to be replaced, as suggested by GE.
DOE notes further that any such rating
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ER07JA25.002</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
service coil from a coil intended for an indoor unit. (GE Appliances, No. 37 at p. 3)
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
for the indoor unit must be compliant
with current standards, and that any
indoor units distributed in commerce
for use in a system that uses a
refrigerant subject to the EPA ban would
need to have been certified to DOE as
compliant with the applicable standards
as part of a combination before January
1, 2025.
(7) Space-Constrained Systems
NCP commented that it performed
analysis, testing, and simulations of
through-the-wall space-constrained R–
410A systems to evaluate available
options to meet the proposed OUWNM
requirement for applicable outdoor
condensing units. (NCP, No. 27 at p. 2)
NCP contended that the results of this
testing 42 indicated that its spaceconstrained outdoor condensing units
would not meet applicable minimum
efficiency requirements when rated
using a generic indoor coil as specified
by the OUWNM requirements. (Id.) NCP
asserted that it was not aware of any
space-constrained outdoor condensing
units from other manufacturers that
could meet efficiency requirements
when rated as an OUWNM. (Id.) NCP
asserted that the OUWNM requirements
in DOE’s proposed rule would
effectively prohibit any spaceconstrained R–410A outdoor
condensing unit after January 1, 2026,
and leave manufacturers with stranded
inventory. (NCP, No. 27 at p. 2) NCP
contended that occupants of
multifamily housing units with recently
installed space-constrained R–410A
split systems would be left without
options for service replacement of their
outdoor condensing unit section,
beyond installation of the entire indoor
and outdoor split system. (Id.) To
provide relief from excessive cost
burdens, NCP suggested that DOE
should include language in the final
rule that coil-only ratings for spaceconstrained split-system outdoor units
with R–410A are permissible until
January 1, 2028, for units manufactured
before January 1, 2025. (Id.)
Alternatively, NCP suggested that DOE
should use its enforcement discretion to
provide additional 2-year sell through
before OUWNM ratings are required for
through-the-wall space-constrained R–
410A outdoor condensing units. (Id.)
DOE reviewed the confidential data
provided by NCP for select outdoor unit
models and agrees that the data suggests
that these models cannot meet
applicable minimum efficiency
requirements when tested as OUWNMs.
However, DOE notes that the data
42 NCP shared results of its analysis in
confidential exhibits A and B.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
provided does not include performance
data or estimates for designs with any
technology improvements, e.g., twostage or variable-speed compressors.
Thus it is not clear that compliance with
Federal standards is impossible for
space-constrained OUWNMs.
DOE further notes that NCP suggests
a delay of the OUWNM requirement
until January 1, 2028, but the need for
replacement outdoor units would still
exist after January 1, 2028, only 3 years
after EPA’s transition date for R–410A.
This would suggest that NCP believes
that space-constrained outdoor unit
designs can be developed to be
compliant with standards using the
OUWNM test requirements starting on
that date. Regarding stranded inventory,
as clarified earlier in section III.E.6.c.1,
DOE notes that the EPA rule includes a
1-year sell-through period that would
enable any accumulated inventory to be
distributed, beyond which any spaceconstrained CAC/HP outdoor units
using R–410A would need to certify as
OUWNMs. As discussed elsewhere in
this final rule, to the extent that units
are distributed in commerce as
OUWNMs, they would be distributed as
a different basic model as compared to
distribution in commerce when paired
with an indoor unit.
For these reasons, DOE has
determined that there is not sufficient
justification for delaying the OUWNM
requirements for R–410A spaceconstrained CAC/HP products.
Additionally, as discussed previously in
this section, the timing of permitted
installations of R–410A systems and
components is based on EPA’s
refrigerant regulations. DOE is clarifying
the applicability of the test procedure
requirements in this final rule to allow
for component installations consistent
with EPA’s requirements.
(8) Representativeness of Paired Indoor
Coil
Rheem questioned the
appropriateness of the indoor coil
specifications currently required for
OUWNM testing. (Rheem, No. 34 at pp.
2–3) Rheem provided historical
background of DOE’s OUWNM
provisions by citing language from past
rulemaking notices, noting some of the
following key points:
(1) DOE first proposed an NGIFS for
rating and certifying the performance of
outdoor units designed for R–22 in the
November 9, 2015 SNOPR, where DOE
proposed an upper limit on NGIFS
equal to 1.15. 80 FR 69278, 69404.
(2) DOE indicated that its analysis
supporting NGIFS values for OUWNM
testing was based on reverse-engineered
SEER 13 split systems (blower-coil
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1247
combinations) designed for R–22. 81 FR
36992, 37010.
(3) However, DOE set the upper limit
on NGIFS at 1.0 in the June 08, 2016
Final Rule, arguing that a lower NGIFS
better reflected the installed base of
indoor units, since the installed base
also included 10 SEER split systems. 81
FR 36992, 37010.
(4) In the August 24, 2016 SNOPR,
DOE acknowledged that legacy
(existing) indoor units matched with nomatch outdoor units would not always
be indoor units designed for R–22, and
that the NGIFS 1.0 upper limit did not
provide a good representation of the
heat transfer performance of indoor
coils with newer designs. 81 FR 58164.
Rheem also commented on the DOE
proposal in the August 8, 2016 SNOPR
to adopt a maximum NGIFS
requirement generally for testing of
single-split coil-only systems. Because
this proposal did not address OUWNM
outdoor units and because DOE did not
adopt the proposal, Rheem stated that it
is not relevant to the OUWNM
discussion. Based on the historical
context provided from prior rules,
Rheem requested DOE review the test
provisions for OUWNMs, the definition
of NGIFS, and its upper limit to
accurately represent the current
installed base of indoor coils with
which such condensing units would be
matched in the field. (Rheem, No. 34 at
p. 3)
DOE appreciates Rheem’s comment
charting the historical development of
the OUWNM testing provisions. As
noted earlier in section III.E.7 and
indicated by Rheem’s comment, the
current instruction at section 2.2.e of
appendix M1 requires that an OUWNM
be tested using a coil-only indoor unit
coil that has round tubes of outer
diameter no less than 0.375 inches and
NGIFS of no greater than 1.0 sq in/Btu/
hr. These indoor coil specifications
were initially finalized for appendix M
in the June 8, 2016 Final Rule and
extended to appendix M1 in the January
2017 Final Rule. 81 FR 36992, 82 FR
1426. DOE did not propose revision of
the requirements in the April 2024
NOPR.
In response to Rheem’s comment,
DOE reviewed historical data, starting
with shipments analysis supporting the
energy conservation standards direct
final rule published on January 6, 2017
(‘‘January 2017 DFR’’). 82 FR 1786. DOE
conducted analysis to determine
whether a substantial percentage of CAC
system replacements in 2025 would
occur in residences in which the indoor
unit would have been installed prior to
2010, i.e., when the representative
indoor unit would have been part of a
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1248
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
13 SEER R–22 system, consistent with
DOE’s initial analysis to establish the
NGIFS requirements. To conduct this
analysis, DOE used national impact
analysis results provided in the January
2017 DFR and its supporting documents
and spreadsheets. (See 82 FR 1786,
1822–1824) In this assessment, DOE
considered that a portion of system
replacements have been outdoor-unitonly installations, consistent with the
January 2017 DFR assumptions for the
percentage of installations involving just
an outdoor unit. This factor increases
the average age of an existing indoor
unit, since, for some portion of the
existing residences, the indoor unit
would not have been replaced during
the last outdoor unit replacement.
The results of this analysis indicate
that more than 60 percent of system
replacements in 2025 would involve a
residence where the indoor unit was
installed before 2010. DOE also
considered sensitivity of this analysis to
differences between shipment
projections made to support the January
2017 DFR and actual recent-year
shipments and found that an analysis
updated for recent shipment data would
suggest a slightly higher percentage for
pre-2010 indoor units. Thus, DOE
concludes that the NGIFS limit initially
established in the June 8, 2016 Final
Rule is still representative, and DOE is
not revising it in this final rule.
(9) Single Cooling Air Volume Rate
AHRI, the CA IOUs, Carrier, and
Daikin recommended that DOE retain
the requirement to test OUWNMs with
a single cooling air volume rate. (AHRI,
No. 25 at p. 5; CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp.
2–3; Carrier, No. 29 at p. 4; Daikin, No.
36 at p. 2)
AHRI recommended that the testing
instructions proposed for OUWNMs at
section 4.2 of appendix M1 also include
the current regulatory requirement that
the coil-only indoor unit has a ‘‘single
cooling air volume rate.’’ (AHRI, No. 25
at p. 5) The CA IOUs also recommended
that DOE retain the requirement for
testing OUWNMs with a ‘‘single cooling
air volume rate’’ in section 4.2 of the
proposed revision to appendix M1 and
include an identical requirement in
section 3.2 of appendix M2. (CA IOUs,
No. 32 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented
that they believe this specific
requirement of a single cooling air
volume rate was inadvertently left out of
the new AHRI standards. (Id.) The CA
IOUs reasoned that because OUWNMs
are compatible with any existing air
handler that continues to remain as the
primary air-moving system after the
originally paired outdoor unit is
replaced, DOE cannot guarantee that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
such systems will have controls capable
of varying airflow during operation and
should, therefore, continue to require a
single air volume rate. (Id.) Carrier also
noted that the current appendix M1
requirements for OUWNM testing
require a single cooling air volume rate,
and it recommended that DOE continue
to require a single cooling air volume
rate. (Carrier, No. 29 at p. 4) Daikin
strongly suggested that DOE maintain
the single airflow rate requirement for
all OUWNMs, reasoning that OUWNMs
do not include an indoor unit change
and would, therefore, not have any
enhancements, such as non-bleed
expansion valves or blower delays, to
improve cyclic performance. (Daikin,
No. 36 at p. 2)
The current requirements at section
2.2e of appendix M1 require that an
OUWNM be tested using a coil-only
indoor unit at a single cooling air
volume rate. DOE notes that this
requirement was inadvertently left out
of the April 2024 NOPR. DOE agrees
with the reasoning presented by
commenters advocating that this
requirement be retained. Therefore, DOE
is including language at section 4.2 of
revised appendix M1 and section 3.2 of
new appendix M2, requiring the use of
a single cooling air volume rate when
testing OUWNMs.
(10) Use of Default Degradation
Coefficient for OUWNM Testing
AHRI, the CA IOUs, and Daikin
recommended that DOE use the default
degradation coefficient of 0.25 for all
OUWNMs, for both heating and cooling
modes. (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 5; CA IOUs,
No. 32 at p. 3; Daikin, No. 36 at p. 2)
AHRI noted that the existing
provisions for OUWNMs for degradation
coefficient in enforcement is to use the
default value (0.25), whereas the
published versions of AHRI 210/240–
2024 and AHRI 1600–2024 allow for
testing of CD for OUWNMs. (AHRI, No.
25 at p. 5) AHRI strongly recommended
that DOE adopt the default degradation
coefficient of 0.25 for all OUWNMs, for
both heating and cooling modes. (Id.)
AHRI reasoned that a significant portion
of OUWNM units are applied in
multifamily apartment dwelling
situations, where the probability of
being properly paired with an indoor
product that can be retrofitted to have
a time delay, or having an indoor
product that is retrofitted with a nonbleed thermal expansion valve or an
electronic expansion valve is relatively
low (since many multifamily apartment
dwelling indoor systems are ceilingmount blower coil systems or wallmount blower coil systems). (Id.)
Therefore, AHRI contended that a
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
substantial portion of OUWNMs
installed in multifamily applications
would not have the lower CD in the real
world, as experienced in testing. (Id.)
The CA IOUs also suggested that the
cyclic degradation default values in
proposed appendices M1 and M2 align
with the current requirement in 10 CFR
part 429 for OUWNMs. (CA IOUs, No.
32 at p. 3) The CA IOUs noted that they
supported the use of default values
because the metering device, which is
unknown for an OUWNM, significantly
affects cyclic degradation. (Id.) Daikin
also suggested that the default value of
0.25 be used for both cooling and
heating degradation coefficients for
OUWNMs. (Daikin, No. 36 at p. 2)
As noted by commenters, the current
enforcement requirement at 10 CFR
429.134(k)(2)(ii) states that DOE will use
the default cooling and heating
degradation coefficients when testing
models of OUWNMs. DOE agrees with
the reasoning presented by commenters
and notes that this enforcement
requirement was put in place on the
basis of the same rationale.
Additionally, the requirement was
intended to be adopted broadly for
testing, not just for enforcement, as
indicated in the June 2016 Test
Procedure Final Rule. 81 FR 36992,
37011. To clarify that this requirement
also applies to testing, DOE is including
provisions at section 4.2 of revised
appendix M1 and section 3.2 of new
appendix M2 to require that testing of
OUWNMs only use the default
degradation coefficients (0.25) for both
cooling and heating modes.
8. Inlet and Outlet Duct Configurations
Both appendix D of the AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft and appendix D of the
AHRI 1600–202X Draft define lists of
clarifications/exceptions to their
referenced version of ASHRAE Test
Standard 37 (ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009).
These clarifications/exceptions have
been revised repeatedly throughout the
version history of the AHRI 210/240
standard. In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
noted that both appendix D of AHRI
210/240–202X Draft and appendix D of
AHRI 1600–202X Draft contain updates
regarding inlet and outlet duct
configurations, including the duct
revisions investigated in RP 1581 and
RP 1743 to accommodate smaller
environmental chambers. These updates
are consistent with the draft of an
update of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37
(‘‘May 2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft’’). DOE
surmised that the inclusion of these
May 2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft updates in
appendix D of the relevant AHRI drafts
represented industry consensus, and
DOE tentatively determined that the
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
updates are appropriate for CAC/HP
testing. 89 FR 24206, 24231.
Consequently, DOE proposed 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. Id.
DOE noted 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 had not yet been
finalized and published. Id. DOE further
noted 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. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding the aforementioned proposals
in the April 2024 NOPR. AHRI 210/240–
2024 and AHRI 1600–2024 finalized the
updates regarding inlet and outlet duct
configurations without substantial
change. Both standards continue to
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 since
the May 2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft has not
yet been finalized. Therefore, consistent
with the April 2024 NOPR proposal,
DOE is incorporating by reference
Appendix D of AHRI 210/240–2024 and
AHRI 1600–2024, at appendix M1 and
appendix M2, respectively. DOE is also
continuing to maintain reference to
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 since the May
2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft has not yet been
finalized.
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).
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted
that 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. 89 FR
24206, 24231. DOE noted that AHRI
210/240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–
202X Draft specify additional steps for
calculating the HSPF2 and SHORE of
heat pumps having a variable-capacity
compressor and a heat comfort
controller and that these additional
steps are similar to the additional steps
for calculating the HSPF2 and SHORE of
other system types having a heat
comfort controller. Id. DOE tentatively
determined that the inclusion of these
additional steps for calculating HSPF2
and SHORE is appropriate for heat
pumps having a variable-capacity
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
compressor and a heat comfort
controller, because these provisions
provide representative measures of unit
operation when installed with heat
comfort controllers. Id. Therefore, DOE
proposed to incorporate by reference the
additional steps for calculating the
HSPF2 of heat pumps having a variablecapacity compressor and a heat comfort
controller outlined in section 11.2.2.5 of
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft, at appendix
M1. Id. Likewise, DOE proposed 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.
Id.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding these proposals. AHRI 210/
240–2024 and AHRI 1600–2024
finalized the updates to the heat comfort
controller calculations without
substantial change. Therefore,
consistent with the April 2024 NOPR
proposals, DOE is incorporating by
reference section 11.2.2.5 of AHRI 210/
240–2024 and AHRI 1600–2024, at
appendix M1 and appendix M2,
respectively.
F. 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 in terms of the efficiency
metrics SCORE and SHORE in appendix
M2. As previously explained, these
long-term revisions would be
implemented at the new appendix M2
via incorporation by reference of the
relevant industry consensus test
procedure, AHRI 1600–2024. DOE has
reviewed AHRI 1600–2024 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)(3))
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.
1. Power Consumption of Auxiliary
Components
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 are seasonal
efficiency metrics that don’t include all
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1249
energy consumed by the systems, these
new metrics do address energy use of all
components and operational modes,
specifically including the standby and
off mode power consumption of
auxiliary components. These include
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.
SEER2 and HSPF2 are both ratio
metrics that include all calculated space
conditioning in the numerator and all
energy use associated with space
conditioning in the denominator. In
contrast, AHRI 1600–202X Draft
includes two new quantities—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 hours, as applicable), and 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 heatingseason shoulder hours, as applicable).
Table 14 and table 16 of AHRI 1600–
202X Draft outline instructions for
determining each component’s number
of standby power operating hours in
cooling mode and heating modes, and
appendix G of AHRI 1600–202X Draft 43
outlines instructions for determining the
average power of all auxiliary
components considered in the
calculations of either Es,c or Es,h.
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
tentatively concluded 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. 89 FR 24206, 24236. DOE
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.
Id. Therefore, DOE proposed to
incorporate by reference the new
cooling and heating performance
metrics, SCORE and SHORE, as
43 In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE incorrectly
referred to appendix H of AHRI 1600–202X Draft as
the appendix regarding the determination of
average power of auxiliary components (see 89 FR
24206, 24236). This was a typographical error, since
the appendix regarding the determination of
average power of auxiliary components is at
appendix G of AHRI 1600–202X Draft.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1250
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
included in AHRI 1600–202X Draft, and
the associated provisions regarding the
standby and off mode power
consumption of auxiliary components,
in appendix M2. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding this proposal. AHRI 1600–
2024 finalized the new cooling and
heating performance metrics, SCORE
and SHORE, and the associated
provisions regarding the standby and off
mode power consumption of auxiliary
components, without substantial
change. Therefore, consistent with the
April 2024 NOPR proposal, DOE is
incorporating by reference AHRI 1600–
2024, and adopting the SCORE and
SHORE metrics, and the associated
provisions regarding the standby and off
mode power consumption of auxiliary
components, at appendix M2.
2. Impact of Defrost on Performance
In order for HPs to undergo a defrost
cycle, which aims to remove the
moisture collected as frost on the
outdoor coil, an HP temporarily
switches to cooling mode operation.
This enables an HP to transfer heat from
the indoor coil to the outdoor coil, thus
providing the heat needed to warm the
coil above freezing temperature and
melt the frost.
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
explained how AHRI 1600–202X Draft
introduces two changes to the treatment
of defrost performance of CAC/HPs: (1)
it simplifies the demand defrost credit
by uniformly applying a 3-percent
increase to the SHORE rating for all HPs
equipped with demand defrost, and (2)
it accounts for the use of supplementary
heat during defrost using a new defrost
heat and defrost overrun debits. 89 FR
24206, 24236–24238. DOE surmised that
AHRI 1600–202X Draft’s introduction of
the simplified demand defrost credit in
AHRI 1600–202X Draft represented
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. 89 FR 24206, 24237. DOE
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.
Similarly, DOE tentatively determined
that the defrost heat and defrost overrun
debits associated with accounting for
use of supplementary heat during
defrost represented industry consensus
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
and that these debits result in more
representative CAC/HP efficiencies for
models with supplementary heat during
defrost. Therefore, DOE proposed to
incorporate by reference at appendix M2
the defrost-related provisions from
AHRI 1600–202X Draft.
In response to DOE’s proposal, the
Joint Advocates stated that they
acknowledge the improvements made to
the treatment of defrost in the proposed
appendix M2. (Joint Advocates, No. 30
at p. 4) However, the Joint Advocates
also commented that, by assigning the
defrost credit and debits based on a yes
or no framework, the proposed
appendix M2 does not capture the true
differentiation that exists between
defrost controls. (Id.) The Joint
Advocates encouraged DOE to collect
information about defrost mechanisms
and consider how defrost impact may be
better represented in a future update to
the CAC/HP Federal test procedures.
(Id.)
In response to the Joint Advocates,
DOE notes that it will continue to
review the defrost credit and debits and
may propose changes once more
information is made available. However,
since little or no information is
currently available and the defrost
credit and debits represent industry
consensus, DOE is adopting the defrost
credit and debits without modification,
as proposed.
DOE did not receive any other
comments regarding this proposal.
AHRI 1600–2024 finalized the defrost
related provisions discussed in the
aforementioned paragraphs, without
substantial change. Therefore,
consistent with the April 2024 NOPR
proposal, DOE is incorporating by
reference AHRI 1600–2024 and adopting
the defrost-related provisions at
appendix M2.
3. Updates to Building Load Lines and
Temperature Bin Hours
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
discussed several changes introduced in
AHRI 1600–202X Draft with regard to
the building load lines and temperature
bin hours used when determining the
new seasonal metrics, SCORE and
SHORE. 89 FR 24206, 24238–24239.
Specifically, DOE noted that (1) the new
metrics use total hours instead of
fractional hours; (2) total hours are split
into conditioning hours and shoulder
hours, with the cooling conditioning
hours and cooling-season shoulder
hours for each bin listed in table 15 of
AHRI 1600–202X Draft 44 and the
44 In the relevant April 2024 NOPR preamble
discussion, there were instances where DOE
mistakenly referred to section table 13 of AHRI
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
heating conditioning hours and heatingseason shoulder hours for each bin
listed in table 18 of AHRI 1600–202X
Draft; 45 and (3) the cooling and heating
building load lines were revised based
on PNNL EnergyPlus simulations. Id.
DOE surmised 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
represented industry consensus for
calculations of the new cooling and
heating performance metrics, SCORE
and SHORE. 89 FR 24206, 24239. DOE
proposed 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 AHRI
1600–202X Draft, at appendix M2. Id.
In response to DOE’s proposal,
Copeland asserted that, while a
differentiated load line for variablespeed systems is indeed consistent with
AHRI 1600–2024, it may no longer be
representative of how various
compressor-staging technologies are
sized and installed in the field by the
time ratings in terms of SCORE and
SHORE take effect. (Copeland, No. 31 at
pp. 2–3) Copeland pointed to a recent
(February 2024) revision of the capacity
range sizing recommendations for twostage systems in the third edition of Air
Conditioning Contractors of America’s
(‘‘ACCA’s’’) Manual S® 46 as the source
of its concern, remarking that these
revisions were not available when the
AHRI Standards Technical Committee
discussions regarding AHRI 210/240–
2024 and AHRI 1600–2024 took place.
(Id.)
Copeland also noted that the slope
factors used to differentiate the heating
building load line for variable-speed
HPs from single-stage and two-stage HPs
in the current appendix M1 (i.e., C and
CVS) were derived from an Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (‘‘ORNL’’)
analysis 47 and influenced by the
capacity range sizing recommendations
in the second edition of ACCA’s Manual
S. (Copeland, No. 31 at pp. 2–3)
Copeland commented that the second
1600–202X Draft. This has been corrected to table
15 of AHRI 1600–202X Draft in this final rule
preamble discussion.
45 In the relevant April 2024 NOPR preamble
discussion, there were instances where DOE
mistakenly referred to table 15 of AHRI 1600–202X
Draft. This has been corrected to table 18 of AHRI
1600–202X Draft in this final rule preamble
discussion.
46 To access the normative section of the third
edition of the ACCA Manual S, see www.acca.org/
standards/technical-manuals/manual-s.
47 See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2016-BT-TP-0029-0002.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
edition of ACCA’s Manual S allowed a
range of capacity from 0.9 to 1.15 for
single-stage and two-stage HPs and 0.9
to 1.3 for variable-speed HPs, which, if
used to calculate a size adjustment
factor for variable-speed HPs, equals
1.07 (by dividing (0.9 + 1.3) by (0.9 +
1.15)). (Id.) Taking this same approach
with the third edition of ACCA’s
Manual S, which allows oversizing for
two-stage HPs up to 1.25 and up to 1.3
for variable-speed HPs, Copeland stated
that the size adjustment factor for
variable-speed HPs would be 1.02 (by
dividing (0.9 + 1.3) by (0.9 + 1.25))
instead of 1.07. (Id.)
Rather than adjusting the values of C
and CVS, however, Copeland encouraged
DOE to consider eliminating the
differentiated load line altogether, since
a building’s load calculation is not
dependent on the compression
technology of a heating and/or cooling
system. (Copeland, No. 31 at pp. 2–3)
Copeland also commented that it could
not find any field data to support the
idea that technicians vary oversizing
practices based on compression
technologies. Copeland asserted it is
more likely that technicians calculate
the load of the building and then select
the next-larger capacity an OEM has
available in a good, better, best offering
when presenting quotes to homeowners.
(Id.)
In response to Copeland’s comment
encouraging DOE to consider
eliminating the differentiated load line
altogether, DOE notes that similar
concerns were raised and addressed in
the previous CAC/HP final rule,
published by DOE on January 5, 2017
(‘‘January 2017 Final Rule’’). 82 FR
1426. In the January 2017 Final Rule,
DOE noted that the incorporation of
differentiated slope factors does not
suggest any difference in building load
when using different technology. 82 FR
1426, 1456. Rather, the slope factor
simply represents the ratio of building
load to heat pump capacity. Id. DOE
acknowledged that variable-speed
products are slightly more oversized in
comparison to the building heating load
than are single-speed and two-stage
products. Id. Keeping the building load
constant and increasing the variablespeed HP capacity reduces the building
load/capacity ratio; hence DOE selected
a lower slope factor (i.e., CVS, equal to
1.07) for variable-speed HPs as
compared to the slope factor for singlestage and two-stage HPs (i.e., C, equal to
1.15). Id. In the absence of robust data
showing average load/capacity ratios for
different products, DOE based its
building load factors on ACCA’s Manual
S recommendations, at the time using
the second edition. The topic of a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
differentiated building load line for
variable-speed units was also discussed
during the development of the AHRI
210/240 and 1600 standards, and
consensus was formed that it was
appropriate to retain the differentiated
line. Notably, both AHRI 210/240–2024
and AHRI 1600–2024 include a
differentiated building load line for
variable-speed units.
In response to Copeland’s comment,
DOE notes that additional changes to
the capacity range sizing
recommendations were made in the
third edition of ACCA’s Manual S that
were not mentioned in Copeland’s
comment. Specifically, the minimum
capacity factor recommended for
variable-speed heat pumps was
increased from 0.9 in the second edition
of ACCA’s Manual S to 1.0 in the third
edition of ACCA’s Manual S.48
Incorporating this change into the
approach taken by Copeland (as
described in the preceding paragraphs),
the size adjustment factor for variablespeed HPs as compared with two-stage
heat pumps would remain 1.07 (by
dividing (1 + 1.3) by (0.9 + 1.25)). DOE
agrees that a future revisit of these
issues, taking into consideration the
revision to Manual S and any new data
that could be collected to shed light on
potential sizing differences, and
allowing for a robust discussion of the
issues among relevant stakeholders, may
be appropriate when the AHRI test
standards and DOE test procedure
undergo amendments in future.
However, DOE notes the committee
consensus for retaining the 1.07 factor
in the test standards, as reflected in
AHRI 1600–2024, and is finalizing the
DOE test procedure with this factor in
this document.
AHRI 1600–2024 finalized the
updates to the building load lines and
temperature bin hours, without
substantial change from AHRI 1600–
202X Draft. Therefore, consistent with
the April 2024 NOPR proposal, DOE is
incorporating by reference AHRI 1600–
2024 and adopting the associated
building load lines and temperature bin
hours, 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 18 of
AHRI 1600–2024 are optional.
48 See table N1.16.2.4 in the normative section of
the third edition of ACCA’s Manual S, available
here: www.acca.org/standards/technical-manuals/
manual-s.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1251
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/
HP combinations do not include a
designated air mover to circulate air, the
DOE test procedures prescribe default
values for power input and heat output
to represent the furnace fan with which
the indoor coil would be paired in a
field installation. The default values are
equal to the measured airflow rate (in
scfm) multiplied by a defined
coefficient (expressed in Watts (‘‘W’’)
per 1,000 scfm (‘‘W/1,000 scfm’’) for fan
power, and Btu/h per 1,000 scfm (‘‘Btu/
h/1,000 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).49
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/1,000 scfm and a
default fan heat coefficient of 1,385 Btu/
h/1,000 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-spaceconstrained) systems, appendix M1
defines a default fan power coefficient
of 441 W/1,000 scfm and a default fan
heat coefficient of 1,505 Btu/h/1,000
49 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
intended for mobile home and spaced-constrained
applications (see table 4 of appendix M1).
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
1252
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
scfm. See, e.g., appendix M1, section
3.3.e.
In addition to the aforementioned
default fan powers for single-stage coilonly systems, which reflect full-load
operation, appendix M1 defines lowerload default fan powers at a reduced air
volume rate of 75 percent for two-stage
and variable-speed coil-only systems.
Appendix M1 then uses these full-load
and lower-load default fan powers to
interpolate default fan power
coefficients and default fan heat
coefficients for the full-load and partload 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 variablespeed 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).
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted
that AHRI 1600–202X Draft defines
revised lower-load default fan powers at
a reduced air volume rate of 65 percent
(rather than 75 percent) for two-stage
and variable-speed coil-only systems
and 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).
89 FR 24206, 24239–24240. AHRI 1600–
202X Draft also moves mobile home
systems from the default fan power
coefficient equation for spaceconstrained systems to the equation for
‘‘conventional’’ non-space-constrained
systems, because insufficient evidence
was presented to the AHRI Standards
Technical Committee to justify that
default fan power coefficients for mobile
home systems should be different from
‘‘conventional’’ systems. Therefore,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
solely for space-constrained coil-only
systems, 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 (‘‘DFPCSC’’). 89
FR 24206, 24239–24240. 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 in the
default fan power coefficient
interpolation (‘‘DFPCNSC’’). Id. All
default fan powers are lower than those
used in the calculation of DFPCMHSC
and DFPCC in appendix M1.
DOE surmised 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
represented 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
paired in a field installation. Id. DOE
tentatively determined that the reduced
full-load and low-load default fan
powers more accurately reflected 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). Id. DOE
also tentatively determined that the
reduced air volume rate more accurately
reflected the average low-load air
volume rate of the currently installed
base for blowers paired with coil-only
CAC/HP installations. Id. Therefore,
DOE proposed 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. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding this proposal. AHRI 1600–
2024 finalized the changes to the default
fan power coefficients for coil-only
systems, without change. Therefore,
consistent with the April 2024 NOPR
proposal, DOE is incorporating by
reference AHRI 1600–2024 and the
associated provisions for default fan
power coefficients, at appendix M2.
5. Airflow Limits To Address
Inadequate Dehumidification
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
explained that, to address adequate
dehumidification in hot and warm,
humid climates, AHRI 1600–202X Draft
established new airflow limits for the
cooling mode tests to avoid high
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
sensible heat ratios. 89 FR 24206, 24240.
Specifically, section 6.1.5.2 of AHRI
1600–202X Draft sets a maximum
airflow limit at 37.5 scfm per 1000 Btu/
h (i.e., 450 cubic feet per minute (‘‘cfm’’)
per ton of capacity) for cooling full
airflow. Id. Additionally, section 6.1.5.3
of AHRI 1600–202X Draft sets a
maximum airflow limit at 50 scfm per
1,000 Btu/h (i.e., 600 cfm per ton of
capacity) for cooling low airflow. Id.
Should the cooling full airflow or
cooling low airflow specified by the
manufacturer exceed these limits, AHRI
1600–202X Draft requires that airflows
be reduced to meet these limits for
testing. Id.
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
surmised that the addition and selection
of specific cooling airflow limits in
AHRI 1600–202X Draft represented
industry consensus regarding the issue
of inadequate dehumidification. 89 FR
24206, 24240. DOE tentatively
determined that such airflow limits
were appropriate to ensure that CAC/
HPs provide adequate dehumidification
during cooling mode operation and,
therefore, DOE proposed to incorporate
by reference the cooling full airflow and
cooling low airflow limits specified in
the AHRI 1600–202X Draft, at appendix
M2. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding this proposal. AHRI 1600–
2024 finalized the cooling full airflow
and cooling low airflow limits without
change. Therefore, consistent with the
April 2024 NOPR, DOE is incorporating
by reference AHRI 1600–2024 and the
associated airflow limits at appendix
M2.
G. General Comments Received in
Response to the April 2024 NOPR
In response to the April 2024 NOPR,
DOE received several general comments
not specific to any one test procedure
provision. This section discusses those
general comments received.
The Joint Advocates commented that
before appendix M2 is enforced, DOE
should encourage manufacturers to
optionally rate their systems using
SCORE and SHORE, i.e., the appendix
M2 energy efficiency metrics. (Joint
Advocates, No. 30 at p. 1) The Joint
Advocates commented that such ratings
would allow DOE to do an appropriate
crosswalk from SEER2 to SCORE, and
HSPF2 to SHORE, to support the next
round of CAC/HP standards rulemaking.
(Id.) As discussed in section II of this
document, 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. However,
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
manufacturers may choose to make
optional representations based on the
metrics in appendix M2 and are
encouraged to provide any test data to
DOE to help support an analysis of the
crosswalk of the energy efficiency
metrics from appendix M1 to appendix
M2.
Additionally, the Joint Advocates
commented that the bin method used to
calculate HSPF2 and SHORE assumes
that an HP will provide as much
capacity as possible and resistance heat
will meet the remaining building load.
(Joint Advocates, No. 30 at p. 4)
However, the Joint Advocates asserted
that control logic will ultimately
determine the relative operation of these
heat sources, which may not fit with the
bin calculation method assumption
described. (Id.) The Joint Advocates
stated that, in the case that an HP uses
more resistance heat than assumed by
the bin calculation method, a lower
efficiency would be observed in the
field than the efficiency rated for an HP;
subsequently, the Joint Advocates
encouraged DOE to consider this aspect
of the CAC/HP Federal test procedure in
a future rulemaking. (Id.)
In response to the Joint Advocates’
comment, at this time DOE has not
determined an approach to account for
the controls of the heat pump working
in tandem with electric resistance heat,
and is not adopting such an approach in
this final rule. DOE notes that it may
consider such an approach in the future.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
H. Represented Values
In the following sections, DOE
discusses requirements regarding
represented values. To the extent that
DOE is amending the requirements
specified in 10 CFR part 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 this final rule. Prior
to 180 days after publication in the
Federal Register of this 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 this test procedure final rule.
1. 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/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
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), cooling capacities, and
estimates for cooling load hours
(‘‘CLH’’) and heating load hours
(‘‘HLH’’) in a year. CLH and HLH can be
thought of as the hours of run time at
full capacity required to provide
seasonal conditioning (in Btu) as
calculated in the test procedure to
determine seasonal efficiencies.
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.50
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
proposed to retain the current CLH and
HLH estimates in appendix M1, for use
in conjunction with SEER2 and HSPF2
representations. 89 FR 24206, 24242–
24243.
For appendix M2, DOE proposed new
estimates for CLH and HLH for use in
conjunction with the proposed
appendix M2 efficiency metrics, SCORE
and SHORE. 89 FR 24206, 24243. DOE
noted that 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. Id. Therefore, DOE tentatively
determined that the proposed appendix
M2 required new CLH and HLH values
for use by the FTC. Id. Specifically, DOE
proposed to use 1,457 and 972 hours as
estimates for CLH and HLH,
respectively, for use in conjunction with
SCORE and SHORE representations. Id.
DOE presented step-by-step derivations
of proposed appendix M2 CLH and HLH
values in a docketed white paper titled
‘‘Derivation of Proposed Appendix M2
Cooling Load Hours and Heating Load
Hours for the Federal Trade
Commission.’’ 51 Id.
In response to DOE’s proposal, Keith
Rice requested that the basis for these
revised cooling and heating load hours
(and the revised building load lines and
temperature bin hours, discussed in
section III.F.3 of this final rule) be well
documented in a published report.
(Keith Rice, No. 33 at p. 1) Keith Rice
commented that this is important
considering that the proposed CLH and
50 See table 21 of appendix M1 for the current
CLH and HLH estimates used for rating values.
51 See Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–TP–0028–
0019.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1253
HLH values for appendix M2 give a
much higher weighting to cooling
energy use performance relative to
heating. (Id.)
In response to Keith Rice, DOE notes
that the CLH and HLH values presented
in its docketed white paper were
derived from the building load lines and
temperature bin hours presented in
AHRI 1600–202X Draft. Therefore, the
report requested by Keith Rice (i.e., a
report detailing the basis for the revised
building load lines and temperature bin
hours in AHRI 1600–2024) would need
to be provided by AHRI. DOE
understands the value of publicizing the
weather analysis that forms the basis of
the building load lines and temperature
bin hours under appendix M2.
Subsequently, DOE is willing to support
AHRI in the process of publicizing a
weather analysis report, as requested by
Keith Rice.
DOE did not receive any other
comments regarding the proposal for
new CLH and HLH values under
appendix M2. Therefore, for the reasons
discussed in the preceding paragraphs
and the April 2024 NOPR, DOE is
adopting different CLH and HLH values
under appendix M2 than under the
current appendix M1, as proposed.
In response to DOE’s proposals for
CLH and HLH, Keith Rice also
commented on the proposed
calculations of annual operating costs in
the April 2024 NOPR. (Keith Rice, No.
33 at p. 1) Keith Rice noted that the
calculations of annual operating costs
for single- versus variable-speed HPs in
the current appendix M1 and proposed
appendix M2 give a 7-percent additional
energy savings benefit to variable-speed
systems when compared on an equal
rated capacity basis. (Id.) Keith Rice
recommended, reasoning that
consumers would expect that operating
cost comparisons would be on the basis
of equal house loads, that the existing
appendix M1 and proposed appendix
M2 operating cost calculation
approaches be modified to remove the
extra 7-percent benefit. (Id.) Keith Rice
commented that, in the current
appendix M1 and proposed appendix
M2, the seasonal energy performance
factors (i.e., SEER2 and HSPF2 for
appendix M1 and SCORE and SHORE
for appendix M2) for variable-speed
systems have already been boosted by
the assumption of lower cooling and
heating building loads for a given
cooling capacity. (Id. at pp. 1–2)
Subsequently, Keith Rice suggested that
the V-factor of 0.93 in cooling mode and
the lower 1.07 Cx factor in heating mode
be removed from the operating cost
calculations for energy labeling so as to
not result in a type of double counting
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1254
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
of energy savings benefits for variablespeed units. (Id.)
DOE appreciates Keith Rice’s
comments regarding the calculations of
annual operating costs and understands
that, if a variable-speed product is
compared with a single- or two-stage
product on an apples-to-apples basis
(i.e., if both products hypothetically had
the same represented cooling capacity
and same represented SEER2 or HSPF2
under appendix M1 or SCORE or
SHORE under appendix M2), the
calculations of annual operating costs
for a variable-speed product would
yield 7-percent lower results. However,
DOE notes that this 7-percent difference
has been used by FTC for some time—
since it was adopted in the January 2017
Final Rule. 82 FR 1426, 1473–1475.
Additionally, DOE notes that this 7percent difference in annual operating
costs is relatively marginal compared to
other factors of variability, such as
electricity rates, consumer usage
patterns, etc. For these reasons, DOE is
adopting the calculations of annual
operating costs as proposed in the April
2024 NOPR, which are unchanged from
the existing calculations of annual
operating costs.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
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. In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
proposed to incorporate by reference
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft at appendix
M1, and it noted that section 11.3 and
appendix G of AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft 52 include the same test
instructions to determine PW,OFF as are
present in the current appendix M1. 89
FR 24206, 24243. Therefore, DOE
proposed no changes in representation
requirement for off mode testing when
testing per appendix M1. Id.
For appendix M2, DOE noted that the
applicable metrics, SCORE and SHORE,
directly incorporate off mode power
consumption and as such, requiring
representation of PW,OFF would be
redundant for appendix M2. 89 FR
24206, 24243. Therefore, DOE proposed
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. Id.
52 In the April 2024 NOPR preamble discussion,
there were instances where DOE mistakenly
referred to section 11.2.3 and appendix H of AHRI
210/240–202X Draft. This has been corrected to
section 11.3 and appendix G of AHRI 210/240–
202X Draft in this final rule preamble discussion.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
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. In the
April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to
retain this flexibility for testing to
appendix M1. 89 FR 24206, 24243.
For appendix M2, DOE extended
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 to calculate the SCORE and
SHORE metrics when testing to
appendix M2. 89 FR 24206, 24243.
Specifically, DOE proposed 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). Id.
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. Id.
In response to the April 2024 NOPR,
Carrier, Lennox, and Rheem all
commented in support of DOE’s
proposal pertaining to off mode power.
(Carrier, No. 29 at p. 5; Lennox, No. 24
at p. 4; Rheem, No. 34 at p. 5) Therefore,
for the reasons discussed in the
preceding paragraph and the April 2024
NOPR, DOE is adopting these changes
as proposed.
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.
In the April 2024 NOPR, to maintain
consistency with the existing efficiency
metrics, DOE proposed to extend the
same tolerance requirement to the new
efficiency metrics measured per
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
appendix M2—EER, SCORE and
SHORE. 89 FR 24206, 24243.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding this proposal pertaining to
AEDM tolerances on the new metrics
and, therefore, DOE is adopting the
change as proposed.
4. Removal of the AEDM Exception for
Split-System CAC/HPs
Currently, the AEDM requirements at
10 CFR 429.70(e) 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
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).
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted
that since amendments proposed in the
NOPR are not expected to be finalized
and made effective before July 1, 2024,
the AEDM exception for non-spaceconstrained single-split-system CAC/
HPs would no longer apply at the time
this rulemaking finalizes. 89 FR 24206,
24243. As such, DOE proposed to
remove the date-based application of the
AEDM requirement and instead clarify
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. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments
regarding this proposal and is adopting
the change as proposed.
I. Enforcement Provisions
1. Verifying Cut-Out and Cut-In
Temperatures
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
proposed that for assessment and
enforcement testing of HP models, the
cut-out and cut-in temperatures may be
verified using the test method in
appendix J of AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
and AHRI 1600–202X Draft, 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. 89 FR 24206, 24243.
AHRI 210/240–2024 and AHRI 1600–
2024, the industry standards DOE is
referencing in this final rule, finalized
the relevant test method for determining
cut-out and cut-in temperatures in
appendix J without any substantial
change. Therefore, consistent with the
April 2024 NOPR, DOE is adding
product-specific provisions at 10 CFR
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
429.134(k)—specifically, DOE is adding
provisions that for assessment and
enforcement testing of HP models, the
cut-out and cut-in temperatures may be
verified using the method in appendix
J of AHRI 210/240–2024 or AHRI 1600–
2024, 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.
In response to the April 2024 NOPR,
the Joint Advocates encouraged DOE to
adopt a requirement for manufacturers
to report and certify cut-out and cut-in
temperatures for all HPs as part of a
separate rulemaking. (Joint Advocates,
No. 30 at p. 2) DOE maintains that it
will consider certification requirements
for CAC/HPs, including the potential
requirement for certification of cut-out
and cut-in temperatures, in a separate
rulemaking, as noted in the April 2024
NOPR. 89 FR 24206, 24243.
Additionally, the Joint Advocates
expressed uncertainty regarding
whether DOE intended to limit cut-out
and cut-in temperature verification to
CCHPs, specifically pointing to the
following sentence 53 of the April 2024
NOPR preamble: ‘‘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.’’ (Joint Advocates, No. 30 at
p. 2) DOE surmises that the Joint
Advocates’ uncertainty stems from the
use of the acronym ‘‘CHP’’ in this
sentence. DOE clarifies that ‘‘CHP’’
stands for ‘‘central heat pump,’’ not
‘‘cold climate heat pump,’’ and that the
cut-out and cut-in temperature
verification test in appendix J of the
respective AHRI Drafts applies to all
central heat pumps.
2. Controls Verification Procedure
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
(a) DOE’s Proposal
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
proposed to establish requirements for
DOE’s use of the CVP per appendix I of
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and AHRI
1600–202X Draft for the purposes of
assessment and enforcement testing. 89
FR 24206, 24243–24244.
DOE proposed that if after conducting
the CVP a unit is determined to be
either a variable-capacity compressor
system; variable-capacity certified,
single-capacity system; or variable53 See
89 FR 24206, 24243.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
capacity certified, two-capacity system,
and meets the tolerances on capacity
measurement (6 percent) and
efficiency 54 (10 percent) for the
applicable CVP load 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.
89 FR 24206, 24244. DOE clarified that
these tests will be conducted based on
the override instructions from the
manufacturer for setting the appropriate
compressor and fan speeds for each test.
Id.
However, if either of the full- or
minimum-load CVP intervals fail to
meet the required tolerances, and the
control device allows monitoring and
adjustment of the compressor and
indoor blower speeds, and is the same
control device used for certification and
CVP tests,55 DOE proposed that it will
conduct certification tests by setting the
speeds for the tests to the average values
observed during the corresponding
failed CVP interval.56 89 FR 24206,
24244. Alternatively, if either of the fullor 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 or is not the same
control device used for certification
tests, DOE proposed to use the 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
EER, for appendix M2. Id. For
certification tests that do not have a
corresponding CVP interval, DOE
proposed to calculate the corresponding
efficiency by adjusting the capacity and
power, by application of a ratio to the
corresponding CVP interval.57 Id.
54 EER2 and COP2 for cooling load intervals and
heating load intervals, respectively, when tested in
accordance with appendix M1, and EER and COP,
for cooling load intervals and heating load intervals,
respectively, when tested in accordance with
appendix M2.
55 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.
56 For tests that do not correspond to any load
intervals of the CVP, DOE proposed to adjust the
compressor speed as follows: the compressor
speeds for tests BFull, BLow, H3,low, and H0Low will
be set at the same speeds observed in the CVP load
intervals associated with the AFull, FLow, H3Full,
H4Full, and H1Low tests, respectively.
57 As an example per the proposal, the capacity
at BFull condition, QB,Full, will be calculated by the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1255
For CHPs determined to be a variablecapacity certified, single-capacity
system or variable-capacity certified,
two-capacity system that are certified/
marketed for use with only a proprietary
control device, DOE proposed to 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 H1Nom, H2Full, H2Low, and
H3Low, as applicable, using the certified
instructions, and for other certification
tests, calculate the corresponding
efficiency by adjusting the capacity and
efficiency, by application of a ratio to
the corresponding CVP interval.58 89 FR
24206, 24244. Otherwise, DOE proposed
that the same simulated thermostat lowvoltage signal that resulted in full-speed
compressor operation for the full-load
intervals shall be used for all
certification full-load tests (for variablecapacity 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 lowload tests (for variable-capacity
certified, two-capacity system). Id.
(b) Comments Received
In response to these proposals, DOE
received several comments related to
various aspects of the CVP’s adoption
for enforcement and assessment testing.
The comments are summarized in the
following subsections.
(1) General Feedback
Lennox, the CA IOUs, Rheem, and GE
Appliances all supported DOE’s
proposed CVP enforcement provisions
utilizing the methods in the AHRI 210/
240 and AHRI 1600 standards. (Lennox,
No. 24 at p. 5; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p.
2; Rheem, No. 34 at p. 5; GE Appliances,
No. 37 at p. 4) The CA IOUs commented
that the new provisions in AHRI 210/
240 will help consumers realize that
heat pumps are an efficient means for
space heating and cooling. (CA IOUs,
No. 32 at p. 2)
AHRI pointed out the differences
between the CVP outlined in AHRI 210/
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 fullload interval capacity in cooling mode, and
QA,Full,Certification is the capacity at Afull condition.
58 As an example, the capacity at HO
Low
condition, QH0,Low, will be calculated by the
following equation: QH0,Low = QH0,Low,Certification ×
QCVP,H1,Low/QH1,Low,Certification.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1256
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
240 and AHRI 1600, and the CVP
outlined in the ENERGY STAR® Version
6.1 (‘‘EPA Energy Star CVP’’)
Specifications for CACs and Air-Source
Heat Pumps (‘‘ASHPs’’),59 which are
shown in table III.1. (AHRI, No. 25 at
pp. 8–9)
TABLE III—1 SUMMARY OF CVP IN AHRI 210/240 AND THE EPA ENERGY STAR CVP
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
[AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 8–9]
Test type
Test
segments CAC
AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 1600—Appendix I ...............................................
EPA Energy Star CVP ................................................................................
3 .....................
None ..............
Similarly, LG commented that even
though the Energy Star CVP is used to
certify ENERGY STAR CCHPs, DOE’s
Cold Climate Heat Pump Technology
Challenge (‘‘DOE CCHP Tech
Challenge’’) 60 implemented a ‘‘Min/
Mild’’ CVP test.61 (LG, No. 38 at p. 3)
LG suggested that the presence of
multiple CVPs to certify identical
products would place undue test burden
on manufacturers, and DOE should
incorporate the ‘‘Min/Mild’’ CVP in
their CVP enforcement provisions,
rather than going with the CVP outlined
in the AHRI 210/240 and 1600
standards. (Id.)
In response to AHRI’s comment, DOE
notes that the scope of the ENERGY
STAR CVP only includes ENERGY
STAR CCHPs, specifically performance
at the 5 °F test condition. In contrast, the
CVP outlined in AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft is
applicable more broadly to all variablecapacity CAC/HPs. Because of the
increased scope of the latter CVP, more
heating test conditions are included,
resulting in increased heating tests, both
in number and duration. The CVP
outlined in appendix I of AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X
Draft also includes a 5 °F test for all
CHPs that report performance at the H4
conditions, and is functionally the same
test as the ENERGY STAR CVP.
In response to LG, DOE notes that
although the ‘‘Min/Mild’’ CVP is a loadbased method, it has a different method
of inducing the conditioning load on the
indoor psychrometric chamber as
opposed to the CVP outlined in AHRI
210/240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–
202X Draft. As DOE detailed in the
January 2023 RFI, the ‘‘Min/Mild’’ CVP
uses the test chamber-induced load
application scheme, where a fixed
cooling or heating load is applied to the
psychrometric chamber, and the unit
under test responds to the test chamberinduced load to maintain the desired set
point temperature. 88 FR 4091, 4094–
4095. In contrast, the CVP in AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X
Draft uses the virtual load approach,
where the load is varied to simulate the
building response if the capacity of the
unit under test does not match the
imposed load. Id. DOE notes that the
CVP outlined in appendix I of AHRI
210/240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–
202X Draft represents industry
consensus to ensure that fixed-speed
settings of variable-speed systems
would be achieved using native
(unfixed) control. 89 FR 24206, 24222.
Therefore, DOE considers that the CVP
in appendix I of AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and AHRI 1600–202X Draft is the
most suitable option to support
enforcement associated with testing
conducted in accordance with
appendices M1 and M2.
59 See: www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/
asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20
Version%206.1%20Central%20Air%20
Conditioner%20and%20
Heat%20Pump%20Final%20Specification%20%28
Rev.%20January%20%202022%29.pdf.
60 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 https://
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/cchp-technologychallenge-specifications.
61 The ‘‘Min/Mild’’ test is a load-based test
conducted at outdoor conditions of 47 °F dry bulb
temperature, and 43 °F wet bulb temperature, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
(2) Delaying CVP Compliance Due to
Uncertain CVP Tolerances
As noted in section III.E.1 of this
document, DOE proposed in the April
2024 NOPR that systems determined to
be variable-capacity compressor
systems; variable-capacity certified,
single-capacity systems; or variablecapacity certified, two-capacity systems
after conducting the CVP, must meet
tolerances of 6 percent and 10 percent
on capacity and energy efficiency,
respectively. 89 FR 24206, 24244.
Lennox commented that the proposed
tolerances appeared to be reasonable
from Lennox’s testing, but it noted that
DOE should ensure that the proposed
tolerances are not very stringent and
expressed its openness to talk with DOE
on the matter. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 5)
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Test
segments
CHP
Test
duration
for CAC
6
1
9–19 hours .....
None ..............
Test
duration
for CHP
18–38 hours.
Up to 2 hours.
The Joint Advocates also supported the
proposed tolerance values and
requested that DOE continue evaluating
appropriate values for the tolerances.
(Joint Advocates, No. 30 at p. 1).
AHRI, Carrier, Daikin, GE Appliances,
JCI, LG, and Rheem had several issues
with the aforementioned tolerances on
capacity and energy efficiency for the
CVP enforcement proposed by DOE, and
they requested that DOE delay the
compliance date CVP enforcement
testing. (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 8; Carrier,
No. 29 at p. 2; Daikin, No. 36 at pp. 3–
4; GE Appliances, No. 37 at p. 4; JCI, No.
35 at pp. 2–3; LG, No. 38 at p. 1; Rheem,
No. 34 at p. 5)
AHRI commented that even though
the tolerances proposed by DOE were
discussed with all stakeholders during
development of the AHRI 210/240 and
AHRI 1600 standards, AHRI is aiming to
conduct CVP testing during 2025,
analyze the proposed tolerances, and
provide the relevant information to DOE
by spring 2026, which will determine if
the proposed tolerances are supported
by test data. (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 8)
Therefore, AHRI requested that DOE
defer the effective date of CVP
enforcement provisions to July 2026 at
the earliest. (Id. at p. 9)
Carrier recommended that DOE delay
the compliance date of the CVP
enforcement to be 360 days after the
publication of the final rule and revisit
the proposed tolerances on capacity and
efficiency once the industry has test
data available to confirm appropriate
tolerance values. (Carrier, No. 29 at p. 2)
Carrier further commented that even
though the tolerances proposed by DOE
were discussed with stakeholders
during the Unitary Small Equipment
Standards Technical Committee (‘‘USE
STC’’) negotiations, the consensus was
indoor conditions of 70 °F dry bulb temperature and
60 °F wet bulb temperature, in order to validate the
minimum capacity (at 47 °F outdoor dry bulb
temperature) of CCHPs participating in the DOE
CCHP Tech Challenge.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
1257
to not specify any tolerances at that time
due to a lack of lab test data and
uncertainty in the CVP. (Id.) Carrier
expressed concern that the proposed
tolerances would result in inappropriate
characterization of system performance
and may require manufacturers to retest
and recertify products, thereby
increasing the cost of testing. (Id.)
Daikin commented that it does not
have sufficient test data from Daikin’s
own test laboratories to agree or disagree
with the tolerances proposed by DOE.
(Daikin, No. 36 at pp. 3–4) Daikin
requested that DOE be open to delay
CVP enforcement dates and changes to
the tolerances once stakeholders can
provide test data to either validate or
modify the current tolerances. (Id.)
GE Appliances commented that it
agrees with AHRI’s recommendation on
delaying CVP enforcement to no sooner
than July 2026. (GE Appliances, No. 37
at p. 4) GE Appliances further
commented that this will allow time for
lab testing to validate DOE’s proposed
tolerances, and for building additional
lab capacity for CVP testing, which
takes longer than some existing CVP
procedures, such as the ENERGY STAR
CVP. (Id. at pp. 4–5) GE Appliances
expressed concern that there are some
items 62 in the CVP in AHRI 210/240
that may require changes to the
tolerances proposed by DOE. (Id.) GE
Appliances pointed to a mismatch
between the text and the equations in 10
CFR 429.134(k)(4)(iii)(B), stating that the
language regarding capacity and
efficiency tolerances provide for a twosided tolerance, while the formulas only
allow for one side of the range. (Id. at
p. 5) GE Appliances recommended that
the capacity equations should be
modified to show a two-sided tolerance
(ensuring consistency with the text), but
since a one-sided tolerance seems
appropriate for efficiency, the text in
429.134(k)(4)(iii)(D) should be updated
to note that the equations are not
‘‘within’’ the specified tolerance and are
one sided. (Id.)
JCI commented that since the CVP
tests proposed in AHRI 210/240 are
complex and time consuming, it is
crucial for laboratories under the AHRI
audit program to put in place tolerances
that are achievable. (JCI, No. 35 at p. 3)
JCI requested that DOE delay CVP
enforcement testing until sufficient CVP
test data has been collected by labs to
establish such tolerances. (Id.)
LG commented that since the CVP is
a new and untried procedure, the
capacity and efficiency tolerances
proposed by DOE, of 6 percent and 10
percent respectively, should be
reevaluated before finalizing the CVP
enforcement. (LG, No. 38 at p. 1) LG
asserted that the proposed tolerances
may not be sufficient to compare a
certification test with the CVP test,
noting that the certification tests utilize
fixed compressor speed and airflow rate
while the CVP tests modulate
compressor speed and airflow rate to
optimize thermal comfort and system
performance. (Id.) Additionally, LG
commented that even though the CVP
would only be utilized during
enforcement testing, manufacturers
would need to verify CVP test values in
order to internally assess the products,
for which third-party testing may also
be required to obtain reliable test data.
(Id. at p. 3) LG asserted that while selfverification in the manufacturer’s
internal lab may be available, this
option also requires additional testing
time and cost. (Id.) Therefore, LG
requested that DOE align the
compliance date of the CVP
enforcement with appendix M2’s
effective date, since manufacturers will
have to do some retesting and
recertification with the advent of
appendix M2, and this would help
reduce their overall test burden. (Id.)
Similarly, Rheem questioned if there
was adequate test data available to
justify the tolerances on capacity and
energy efficiency proposed by DOE for
the full- and minimum-load intervals.
(Rheem, No. 34 at p. 5) Rheem requested
delaying the compliance data of the CVP
to July 2026 so that the CVP test data
collected by AHRI in 2025 may be
analyzed and help validate the proposed
tolerances. (Id.) Rheem referred to a
residential furnace fans final rule
published by DOE in the Federal
Register on July 3, 2014 (‘‘July 2014
Furnace Fan Final Rule’’), in which the
fan energy rating (‘‘FER’’) metric’s
enforcement was delayed by DOE. (Id. at
p. 6) Rheem commented that DOE
should utilize the aforementioned
flexibility in delaying enforcement
provisions, in order to delay
enforcement of the CVP. (Id.) Rheem
noted that section I5.1.5 from appendix
I of AHRI 210/240–2024 and AHRI
1600–2024—which prescribes a
maximum allowable variation in EER/
COP equal to 5 percent—is redundant,
given that all condition and operating
tolerances have already been prescribed
in section I5 and in the CVP
enforcement provisions by DOE at 10
CFR 429.134(k). (Id. at p. 7)
As noted by AHRI, the CVP tolerances
on capacity and efficiency, 6 percent
and 10 percent, respectively, were
discussed with the stakeholders during
the development of the AHRI standards.
During these discussions, DOE
presented unit capacity, compressor
speed, and efficiency data on 10
different variable-speed CHPs—five (5)
ducted split CHPs and five (5) ductless
mini-split CHPs. The CHP units were
from seven (7) different manufacturers
and had capacities ranging from 1.5 tons
to 3 tons. Regulatory cooling and
heating tests were conducted on these
units as per the existing appendix M1
procedure, and CVP tests were
conducted using the test chamberinduced load application scheme, as
explained in section III.I.2.b.(1) of this
document. The SEER2 and HSPF2
metrics were evaluated for the units
using both the regulatory test values and
those obtained from the CVP. Table III–
2 shows the comparison of the
regulatory and CVP capacities and
energy efficiency for each of the 10
units, for cooling full load, cooling low
load, heating full load, and heating low
load. The following can be observed, if
10% is the allowable tolerance for
capacity and efficiency, when
comparing the regulatory and CVP
values: (1) unit 1 was out of tolerance
on the cooling full load, and heating low
load capacity and efficiency, (2) unit 3
was out of tolerance on the cooling low
load capacity, and heating low load
capacity and efficiency, (3) unit 6 was
out of tolerance on the heating full load
and heating low load capacity and
efficiency, (4) unit 9 was out of
tolerance on the cooling low load and
heating low load efficiency, and (5) unit
10 was out of tolerance on the cooling
low load and heating low load capacity
and efficiency. For the aforementioned
units, the SEER2 values were
recalculated by use of the tested out of
tolerance CVP load intervals and
adjustment of the applicable load
intervals without a CVP for full load or
low load efficiencies and capacities,
using the following equations:
62 GE Appliances, in its example, pointed out that
the target sensible load for the full-load and low-
load tests were set at 97 percent and 103 percent
respectively, which may lead to unbalanced
bilateral tolerance.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1258
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
C/.cvP,A,Full
C/.B,Full
= C/.B,Full,Certification X Cf.A,Full,Certification
PB,Full
=
PB,Full,Certification X PA,Full,Certification
C/.B,Low
=
C/.B,Low,Certification X C/.F,Low,Certification
PB,Low
=
PB,Low,Certification X PF,Low,Certification
PcvP,A,Full
C/.cvP,F,Low
PcvP,F,Low
TABLE III–2—REGULATORY AND CVP CAPACITY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF 10 VARIABLE SPEED CHPS
Cooling Full ...........................................
Cooling Low ..........................................
Heating Full ..........................................
Heating Low ..........................................
Cooling Full ...........................................
Cooling Low ..........................................
Heating Full ..........................................
Heating Low ..........................................
Cooling Full ...........................................
Cooling Low ..........................................
Heating Full ..........................................
Heating Low ..........................................
Cooling Full ...........................................
Cooling Low ..........................................
Heating Full ..........................................
Heating Low ..........................................
Cooling Full ...........................................
Cooling Low ..........................................
Heating Full ..........................................
Heating Low ..........................................
Cooling Full ...........................................
Cooling Low ..........................................
Heating Full ..........................................
Heating Low ..........................................
Cooling Full ...........................................
Cooling Low ..........................................
Heating Full ..........................................
Heating Low ..........................................
Cooling Full ...........................................
Cooling Low ..........................................
Heating Full ..........................................
Heating Low ..........................................
Cooling Full ...........................................
Cooling Low ..........................................
Heating Full ..........................................
Heating Low ..........................................
Cooling Full ...........................................
Cooling Low ..........................................
Heating Full ..........................................
Heating Low ..........................................
2 ...................................
3 ...................................
4 ...................................
5 ...................................
6 ...................................
7 ...................................
8 ...................................
9 ...................................
10 .................................
22,515
6,521
18,853
10,138
18,614
11,444
10,787
9,837
33,062
16,969
19,038
16,373
34,439
13,196
18,707
9,880
22,655
6,373
19,415
10,092
21,668
11,124
12,992
9,197
33,470
12,503
17,430
9,871
35,324
20,254
37,690
20,128
22,515
6,521
18,853
10,138
15215
4,752
20,509
3,644
Certification
efficiency *
25,343
6,870
18,659
15,309
17,423
12,325
15,961
10,591
32,397
23,183
19,120
20,290
33,290
13,660
25,224
10,081
21,477
7,031
18,423
10,011
22,734
11,018
22,441
10,934
33,290
13,660
17,217
9,915
38,800
20,824
37,498
19,479
22,455
6,602
18,890
10,199
14969
5,497
18,824
4,998
CVP
efficiency *
13.2
23.6
2.0
4.4
15.0
17.6
2.3
3.7
12.7
19.1
2.0
4.9
13.0
24.2
2.1
4.1
13.5
24.0
2.1
4.5
12.7
20.8
2.6
5.2
12.7
23.9
2.0
4.4
13.7
19.9
2.4
4.5
13.2
23.6
2.0
4.4
14.1
30.3
2.2
6.1
11.6
22.5
2.0
3.8
15.2
15.8
2.1
2.5
12.7
18.2
2.1
4.3
12.7
24.5
1.9
4.1
13.8
23.3
2.0
3.8
12.1
18.8
1.9
4.5
12.7
24.5
2.0
4.3
13.4
19.1
2.4
4.4
13.4
18.3
2.0
3.9
13.3
27.3
2.1
5.1
%age
difference
in capacity
%age
difference
in efficiency
¥13
2
1
27
6
5
¥48
7
2
19
0
21
3
1
¥35
1
5
3
5
0
¥5
0
¥73
13
1
3
1
0
¥10
2
1
¥2
0
0
0
0
2
5
8
7
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
* EER2 for cooling tests (in Btu/hr/W), COP2 for heating tests.
The recalculated SEER2 for units 1, 3,
6, 9 and 10, are shown in table III–3,
indicating that the highest difference
between the recalculated (or adjusted)
SEER2 was no greater than 9.7%. Unit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
6 was in tolerance for both the full and
low load intervals and the reduction in
SEER2 using the adjusted values was
6.3%. Therefore, it was concluded that
a maximum energy efficiency tolerance
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of 10% would be appropriate for CVP
enforcement of variable capacity
compressor systems.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
12
5
0
14
¥2
10
11
32
0
5
¥3
13
3
¥1
11
1
¥2
3
3
16
5
9
26
13
0
¥2
¥1
2
3
4
0
2
¥2
22
1
12
6
10
6
17
ER07JA25.006</GPH>
1 ...................................
CVP
capacity
(Btu/hr)
ER07JA25.004</GPH> ER07JA25.005</GPH>
Test
ER07JA25.003</GPH>
Certification
capacity
(Btu/hr)
Unit No.
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
1259
TABLE III–3—COMPARISON OF RECALCULATED SEER2 WITH THE CERTIFIED SEER2 FOR UNITS THAT WERE OUT OF
TOLERANCE ON CAPACITY AND/OR EFFICIENCY
Unit No.
Certified SEER2
1 ...........................................................................................................................
3 ...........................................................................................................................
6 ...........................................................................................................................
9 ...........................................................................................................................
10 .........................................................................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
For capacity, the tolerance of 6% was
proposed in the April 2024 NOPR, as a
result of discussions with stakeholders
during development of appendix I of the
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and AHRI
1600–202X Draft. 89 FR 24206, 24243–
24244. In appendix I of the AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X
Draft, equations I2 and I3 show the
calculation of the cooling virtual
sensible load at outdoor conditions of
95 °F and 67 °F, respectively, and
equations I9, I10, and I11 show the
calculation of the heating virtual load at
outdoor conditions of 5 °F, 17 °F, and
47 °F, respectively. Each of these
equations provide a 3% factor on the
cooling and heating full load and low
load target virtual loads. Based on the
data presented above in table III–2 and
the discussions with relevant
stakeholders during the development of
appendix I of the AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft, DOE has determined 6% as an
appropriate tolerance for capacity
measurements during the CVP test.
During development of the AHRI
Standards, no counter data was
presented by any of the stakeholders to
suggest revising the tolerances of 6% on
unit capacity, and 10% on unit
efficiency, for CVP enforcement. DOE
has also not received any CVP test data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
17.50
17.02
18.88
17.51
23.84
in response to the April 2024 NOPR to
indicate that the proposed tolerances are
not appropriate. Therefore, DOE is
finalizing the aforementioned tolerances
as part of the CVP enforcement
provisions at 10 CFR 429.134(k).
Regarding delaying the CVP
enforcement date so that stakeholders
have sufficient time to conduct CVP
testing and for DOE to wait for AHRI’s
CVP testing in 2025 to help inform the
proposed capacity and efficiency
tolerances, DOE notes that the CVP is
not required as part of testing, and a
manufacturer is currently required to
certify the compressor and indoor
blower speed at settings that represent
normal operation for any variable
capacity system. Therefore, some form
of validation to determine the settings
for normal operation should already be
in place to allow the manufacturers to
properly certify these settings. The CVP
outlined in appendix I of AHRI 210/
240–202X Draft and AHRI 1600–202X
Draft is intended to standardize such a
procedure. Hence, even if manufacturers
wanted to prepare to conduct the CVP
on their products to prepare for
potential enforcement by DOE, the test
burden is limited.
Regarding Rheem’s comment on DOE
delaying the enforcement of the FER
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Adjusted SEER2
16.66
16.22
17.69
15.81
22.64
%age difference
between adjusted
and certified SEER2
¥4.9
¥4.7
¥6.3
¥9.7
¥5.0
metric for furnace fans, DOE clarifies
that the FER metric was established as
a regulatory metric, and is hence not
comparable to the CVP procedure in
appendix I of AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
and AHRI 1600–202X Draft, which DOE
intends to utilize only for the purposes
of assessment and enforcement testing
of variable-capacity compressor
systems. As discussed, the enforcement
provisions explain what DOE may do in
the case of enforcement testing for CAC/
HPs and are not a requirement for
manufacturer testing. As such, DOE
does not see reason to delay the CVP
enforcement provisions from their
current effective date, i.e., 180 days after
publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register.
DOE considers that the proposed
tolerances on capacity and energy
efficiency, of 6 percent and 10 percent,
respectively, are currently the most
appropriate values based on the
variable-speed test data analyzed by
DOE. At this time, no additional data is
available nor has been provided by
stakeholders and, therefore, DOE is
finalizing its proposals on the tolerances
and is not establishing a delayed
effective date for the CVP. DOE
welcomes any additional CVP test data
as it becomes available.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1260
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
DOE agrees with GE Appliances' comment on the mismatch between the text and
the equations in 10 CFR 429.134(k)(4)(iii)(B). (GE Appliances, No. 37 at p. 5) DOE's
intent was to maintain a one-sided tolerance on capacity and efficiency since the unit
under enforcement should not be penalized for better performance during the CVP load
interval, when compared to the corresponding certification test. Therefore, DOE is
maintaining the equations on capacity tolerance evaluation, but it is making corrections to
the text in 10 CFR 429.134(k)(4)(iii)(B) and 10 CFR 429.134(k)(4)(iii)(C) as follows
(additions shown in italics, deletions shown in strikethrough):
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
vritli tlie corresponding certification test 1.vitliin 6 percent be no more than 6 percent less
than the corresponding certification test capacity, as follows:
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
redundant, DOE clarifies that this
tolerance was incorporated in order to
determine if the variable-capacity
compressor system under test met the
stability requirements and subsequently
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
determines the appropriate CVP test
interval to be evaluated. Therefore, DOE
disagrees with Rheem that this tolerance
is redundant in the AHRI drafts.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ER07JA25.007</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
In response to Rheem’s comment
(Rheem, No. 34 at p. 5) regarding the
tolerances specified in section I5 in
appendix I of AHRI 210/240–202X Draft
and AHRI 1600–202X Draft being
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
1261
·.vith the eorrespmidiHg eertifiea-tioH test •.vithiH 6 pereeHt of the eooliHg or hea-tiHg mode
full load eertifiea-tioH test eapaeity be no more than 6 percent less than the corresponding
certification test capacity, as follows:
Similarly, DOE agrees with GE Appliances that a one-sided tolerance on
efficiency will be appropriate. Therefore, DOE is maintaining the equations on
efficiency tolerance evaluation, but it is making corrections to the text in 10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(iii)(D), as follows (additions shown in italics, deletions shown in
strik:ethrough):
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 vrith the eorrespoHdiHg eertifieatioH test withiH 10 pereeHt be no more than 10
percent less than the corresponding certification test efficiency, as follows:
(3) Clarification on Enforcement
Provisions
Several commenters requested more
clarity on the CVP enforcement
provisions and made their own
recommendations for some of the
calculations and provisions proposed by
DOE.
The Joint Advocates pointed to DOE’s
proposal for evaluation of CVP results
when tolerances on capacity and energy
efficiency are not met, and the control
used for conducting CVP does not
provide means for overriding
compressor and indoor blower speeds
(10 CFR 429.134(k)(4)(v)(B)) to adjust
power measurements. (Joint Advocates,
No. 30 at p. 2) In this case, the Joint
Advocates commented that DOE
proposed that power adjustment should
be done by multiplication with the ratio
of the efficiency measured during the
CVP test interval divided by efficiency
measured during the certification test
(for the corresponding CVP interval).
(Id.) The Joint Advocates noted that
because of the 6-percent tolerance
allowed for the full-load CVP intervalcapacity measurements, the capacity
ratio may not be equal to 1, and hence
it may not be appropriate to use the
ratio of efficiencies (EER2 or COP2, as
applicable). (Id.) The Joint Advocates
suggested that DOE consider adjusting
power by multiplying the ratio of
powers, as follows:
PcvP,A,Full
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
unit’s efficiency metrics. (Id. at p. 3) The
Joint Advocates expressed concern that
if the recalculated efficiency metric is
compliant, but is lower than the value
certified to DOE, this will result in a
misleading efficiency rating and average
energy cost printed on the FTC label.
(Id.) The Joint Advocates pointed
toward the rerate and recertify
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
provision 63 for VRF multi-split air
conditioners and heat pumps (‘‘VRF
63 In the October 2022 VRF Final Rule, DOE
specifies that if a manufacturer becomes aware that
any of the certified operational settings for the
critical parameters are determined to be invalid
according to the results of a CVP, whether that CVP
be performed by the manufacturer or another party,
the manufacturer would be required to recertify the
operational settings of those critical parameters for
all affected basic models, as well as rerate and
recertify the affected basic models.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ER07JA25.009</GPH>
Additionally, the Joint Advocates
pointed to the provisions in 10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(v)(A) and (B)—where DOE
proposed that for CVP tests for which
capacity and efficiency tolerances are
not met, the certification tests must be
conducted by using the compressor
speeds determined in the corresponding
CVP test (or certification test results
must be adjusted) and the certification
tests will be used for calculating the
= PB,Full,Certification X pA,Full,Certification
ER07JA25.008</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
PB,Full,
1262
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
exist, DOE did an analysis on an
example case for a variable-capacity
CAC unit. DOE assumed that for a
hypothetical variable-capacity
compressor 3-ton CAC unit, with a
certified EER2A,Full of 12, the capacity at
BFull condition was 40,000 Btu/hr, and
the EER2B,Full was 15. It was assumed
that after conducting the CVP on the
unit, the value of the EER2 measured
multi-split systems’’), which was
specified by DOE in a final rule on
October 20, 2022, suggesting that a
similar provision should be adopted for
CAC/HPs (‘‘October 2022 VRF Final
Rule’’). 87 FR 63894.
In response to the Joint Advocates’
comment on adjustment of power of
certification tests for which a
corresponding CVP interval did not
using the full-load CVP test dropped to
11.28, as shown in table III.4. DOE then
evaluated the capacity and power at the
BFull condition—the power was adjusted
by using the energy efficiency ratios
first, as proposed by DOE in the April
2022 CAC NOPR, and was separately
adjusted by using the power ratios, as
suggested by the Joint Advocates.
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
Table 111-4 Evaluating the Capacity and Power Measurement Adjustments for
Certifications Tests with No CVP Interval, in the Event that CVP Tolerances Are
Not Met
Certification test values
36,000 Btu/h
<J.A,Full,Certification
3,000 W
12.0 Btu/Wh
40,000 Btu/h
2,667 W
15.0 Btu/Wh
PA,Full,Certification
EER2A,Full,Certification
iJ. B,Full,Certification
PB,Full,Certification
EER2B,Full.Certification
CVP test values
33,840 Btu/h
3,000 W
PcvPAFull
11.28 Btu/Wh
EER2cvPAFull
Ad_justments of power and enernv efficiency using energy efficiency ratios
3,7600
<J.B,Full - <J.B.Full,Certification
.
<J.cvP.A,Full
X 100
= qB.Full.Certification X q·
Btu/hr
A,Full.Certification
iJ. B.Full,Certification
<J.cvPAFull
.
qB.Full
PB.Full
=
2,837
PB,Full,Certification
X
EER2
EER2cvP,A.Full
w
PB,Full -
PB,Full,Certification
X
100
-6.0%
-6.4%
PB,Full,Certification
EE R 2A,Full.Certi fication
B.Full -
13.25
<JR.Full
p
B.Full
EER2B.Full -
EER2B,Full.Certification
X
11.6%
EER2B.Full.Certification
100
Adjustments of power and energy efficiency using power ratios
=
.
qB.Full.Certification X q·
<J.cvP.A,Full
A,Full.Certification
PcvP,A,Full
PB,Full
=
PB,Full.Certification X p
A,Full,Certification
EER2
B.Full -
3,7600
Btu/hr
<J.B,Full -
2,667
PB,Full -
w
iJ. B.Full,Certification
PB,Full,Certification
w
EER2B.Full -
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
DOE observed that adjusting the
power using the energy efficiency ratios
resulted in the certification and CVP
values for energy efficiency being out of
tolerance, i.e., ¥11.6 percent, whereas
adjusting the power using the power
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
X
100
-6.0%
0.0%
-6.0%
EER2B.Full.Certification
ratios resulted in this difference being
¥6 percent. Additionally, DOE revisited
its analysis of the regulatory and CVP
test data of the 10 variable-speed CHPs
that was used to develop the 6-percent
tolerance on capacity and 10-percent
tolerance on efficiency, as explained in
PO 00000
100
EER2B,Full.Certification
X
BILLING CODE 6450–01–C
X
PB,Full,Certification
14.10
<JR.Full
p
B.Full
<J.B.Full,Certification
Sfmt 4700
100
section III.I.2.b.(2) of this document.
DOE observed that for one of the units,
the power ratio adjusted EER2B,Low
value was only 5.9 percent lower than
the actual EER2 for the Blow CVP test, ,
but the efficiency ratio adjusted
EER2B,Low was 26 percent higher than
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ER07JA25.010</GPH>
.
qB.Full
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
the . DOE realizes that using the
efficiency ratios to adjust power
measurements may result in inflated
energy efficiencies of the variablecapacity compressor units that DOE will
run a CVP on. Therefore, DOE is
adopting the proposed revision by the
Joint Advocates and modifying the
equations at 10 CFR 429.134(k)(4)(v)(B)
that are used to adjust the power
measurements for certification tests
requiring adjustment with no CVP
1263
interval (any required certification test
other than AFull, FLow, H1Low, H3Full, and
H4Full), as follows:
Cooling full power:
pCVP,A,Full
PB,Full
=
PB,Full,Certification X PA,Full,Certification
PB,Low
=
PB,Low,Certification X PF,Low,Certification
Cooling minimum power:
PcvP,F,Low
Heating minimum power:
PcvP,Hl,Low
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
PHO,Low,Certification X PHl,Low,Certification
of the heating CVP to be conducted at
both 17 °F and 5 °F for all heat pumps.
(Id.) Additionally, Rheem noted that in
10 CFR 429.134(k)(4)(i)(C), DOE
proposed that the CVP will be allowed
to be terminated without conducting the
minimum load interval if, according to
10 CFR 429.134(k) (4)(ii)(B), a system is
determined to be a variable-capacity
certified, single-capacity system. 89 FR
24206, 24258. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 6)
Rheem commented that it interprets this
provision to mean that in such a case,
capacity, and energy efficiency
tolerance at low-load intervals, as per 10
CFR 429.134(k)(4)(iii)(C) and (D), will
not be necessary. (Id.) In 10 CFR
429.134(k)(v)(B), Rheem noted that DOE
proposed to use the capacity slope
factor (‘‘CSF’’) and power slope factor
(‘‘PSF’’) for extrapolating an ‘‘adjusted’’
heating capacity and heating power
consumption at H3 (17 °F outdoor dry
bulb temperature) test condition when
the compressor is operating at low stage,
using the system‘s measured
performance during the heating mode
CVP’s low-load interval. (Id.) 89 FR
24206, 24260–24261. Rheem
commented that the values of CSF and
PSF will be adopted from AHRI 210/
240–2024 or from section 3.6.4.1(b) of
the current appendix M1, and it
questioned their accuracy for low-speed
compressor operation, since they were
derived for compressor operation at full
speed. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 6) In its
comment, Rheem also questioned the
extrapolation using these CSF and PSF
values for minimum-speed-limiting heat
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
pumps, as defined 64 in AHRI 210/240–
2024 and AHRI 1600–2024. (Id.) Finally,
Rheem pointed to a typographical error
in sections I4.3.1.4 of AHRI 210/240–
2024 and AHRI 1600–2024, and it made
suggestions for correcting it.65 (Id.)
Rheem commented that since no indoor
entering wet bulb temperature is
prescribed for any of the load and
transition intervals of the heating CVP,
corrections should be made in section
I5.1 and section I5.1.3 of AHRI 210/240–
2024 and AHRI 1600–2024 to reflect
that any tolerances on indoor entering
wet bulb temperatures should only be
applicable to the cooling mode CVP
tests. (Id. at p. 7)
In response to Rheem‘s comments,
DOE clarifies that since the CVP for
enforcement will be carried out as per
appendix I of the AHRI 210/240 and
AHRI 1600 standards, the full-load
interval of the heating mode CVP at 5 °F
will only be enforced for those CHPs
that have reported regulatory
64 Minimum-speed-limiting variable-speed HPs
are defined at section 3.2.32 of AHRI 210/240–202X
Draft and 3.2.31 of AHRI 1600–202X Draft as: A
heat pump for which the minimum compressor
speed (represented by revolutions per minute or
motor power input frequency) is higher than its
minimum value for operation in a 47 °F ambient
temperature for any bin temperature tj for which the
calculated heating load is less than the calculated
intermediate-speed capacity.
65 Rheem suggested that either the phrase ‘‘. . .
where the range of capacity does not vary by more
than 15 percent’’ should be deleted fully, or the
words ‘‘. . . does not vary’’ should be replaced with
the word ‘‘varies,’’ since the AHRI USE STC’s intent
when developing this requirement was to
encapsulate systems that cycle on/off, instead of
modulating between compressor speeds/stages.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ER07JA25.012</GPH> ER07JA25.013</GPH>
Regarding the Joint Advocates’
recommendation to establish a rerate
and recertify provision similar to the
one in the October 2022 VRF Final Rule
(see § 429.43(b)(5)), DOE notes that if a
variable-capacity compressor system
meets the minimum standards after the
CVP assessment or enforcement, but the
recalculated metric is lower than the
value certified to DOE, DOE may choose
to take enforcement action regarding
invalid certification of the basic model.
At this time, DOE is not adopting the
rerate and recertify provision but may
consider inclusion in a future
certification rulemaking.
In response to the CVP enforcement
provisions, Rheem requested several
clarifications and made its own
recommendations, including some
changes and corrections to the finalized
standards, AHRI 210/240–2024 and
AHRI 1600–2024.
Rheem requested clarification from
DOE on the provisions in 10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(iii)(B) and (D). 89 FR
24206, 24259. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 6)
Rheem noted that at 10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(iii)(B) and (D), DOE
proposed maximum allowable
tolerances between the heating capacity
and heating efficiency measured during
the full-load interval of the CVP and the
corresponding certification test. (Id.)
Rheem commented that the proposed
regulatory text in the section reads as if
the full-load interval of the heating
mode CVP must be conducted at both
17 °F and 5 °F, while section I4.2.1 of
AHRI 210/240–2024 and AHRI 1600–
2024 does not require full-load interval
=
ER07JA25.011</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
PHO,Low
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
1264
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
performance at the H4full test, while the
CVP at 17 °F will be carried out for all
CHPs, including units for which
performance at H4full conditions has not
been reported. Additionally, DOE
clarifies that for systems that are
determined to be variable-capacity
certified, single-capacity systems, as per
10 CFR 429.134(k) (4)(ii)(B), there will
be no need to conduct the minimum
load interval, and therefore, Rheem’s
understanding that capacity and energy
efficiency tolerance at low load
intervals, as per 10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(iii)(C) and (D), will not be
applicable, is correct. Regarding
Rheem’s comment on the use of CSF
and PSF values from the AHRI
standards, DOE notes that it has not
received any test data from stakeholders
that would indicate that the use of these
slope factors is inaccurate at low
compressor speed tests. In the absence
of any test data, DOE is maintaining the
CSF values of 0.0204/°F for split
systems and 0.0262/°F for singlepackage units, and PSF value of
0.00455/°F, as per the April 2024 NOPR,
to extrapolate an adjusted heating
capacity and heating power
consumption at H3 (17 °F) test
conditions when the compressor is
operating at low stage, using tested
system performance during the heating
CVP’s low load interval. The CSF and
PSF values are used for extrapolation at
the H3Low test condition capacity and
heating power consumption only for
Variable Capacity Certified, Two
Capacity Systems, when the control
device for conducting the CVP and
certification tests does not meet the
requirements of monitoring and
adjustment of the compressor speed and
indoor blower speed, as outlined in 10
CFR 429.134 (k)(4)(v)(A).
In response to Rheem’s comment on
questioning this extrapolation for
minimum-speed-limiting heat pumps,
no evidence has been provided by
Rheem to argue that the current CSF and
PSF values may be inexact for the
aforementioned extrapolation. However,
DOE recognizes the concern raised by
Rheem, and notes that systems
determined to be Variable Capacity
Certified, Two Capacity Systems, after
conducting the CVP, will not be subject
to extrapolation using the minimum
speed limiting heat pump adjustments,
as per equations 11.189 to 11.194 of
AHRI 210/240–2024 when tested in
accordance with appendix M1, and per
equations 11.199 to 11.204 of AHRI
1600–2024, when tested in accordance
with appendix M2. Additionally, DOE
clarifies that there are no typographical
errors in sections I4.3.1.4 of AHRI 210/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
240 and AHRI 1600—the phrase ‘‘. . .
where the range of capacity does not
vary by more than 15 percent’’ is
referring to the range of capacity the
unit can modulate from its high-/oncapacity value and is therefore
consistent with the intent of this
section. Regarding Rheem’s comment on
tolerances on indoor entering wet bulb
temperature and indoor leaving wet
bulb temperature (in sections I5.1 and
I5.1.3, respectively) in AHRI 210/240
and AHRI 1600, being applicable to
cooling mode CVP tests only, DOE
agrees, and it is making amendments at
10 CFR 429.134(k)(4)(iii)(A) as follows
(additions shown in italics):
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 210/240–2024
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix
M1); or of AHRI 1600–2024
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix
M2), with the exception that the indoor
entering wet bulb deviation in section
I5.1 and test operating tolerance in
section I5.1.3 are applicable only for
cooling mode CVP.
JCI also requested clarity on various
aspects of the CVP enforcement
provisions. (JCI, No. 35 at pp. 2–3). In
particular, JCI expressed concern about
systems that utilize variable-capacity
compressors rated as ‘‘coil only’’
systems and ‘‘certified’’ to DOE as
variable-capacity systems, but which are
rated and tested per two-speed test
procedures.66 (Id.) JCI asserted that its
concern stems from the broad definition
of variable-capacity systems in AHRI
210/240–2024.67 (Id.) JCI commented
66 In the October 2022 CAC Final Rule, DOE
defined ‘‘variable-speed communicating coil-only
central air conditioner or heat pump’’ and
‘‘variable-speed non-communicating coil-only
central air conditioner or heat pump.’’ 87 FR
64550,64589. DOE‘s understanding is that JCI is
referring to non-communicating variable-speed coilonly (‘‘VSCO’’) CAC/HPs in their comment, since
the October 2022 CAC Final Rule established a twostage test procedure for non-communicating VSCO
CAC/HPs. 87 FR 6450, 64591–64597. Such systems
will only be tested using an on-off control signal
and will not have any tests at intermediate speeds.
Id.
67 AHRI 210/240–2024 section 3.2.81 defines
Variable Capacity System (Variable Capacity Airconditioner or Variable Capacity Heat Pump): an
air-conditioner or heat pump that has either a) a
variable capacity compressor, or b) a digital
compressor, and that controls the system by
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
that according to its interpretation, if
such a system is certified to DOE as a
multi- or variable-stage design but is
tested to the coil-only two-stage test
procedure, then the system is subject to
CVP test requirements. (Id.)
In a similar vein, JCI requested
clarification on whether such systems,
classified as OUWNMs (since they are
sold in commerce without matching
indoor units), would be subject to rating
and testing per the CVP requirements.
(JCI, No. 35 at pp. 2–3) Finally, JCI
requested for clarification on whether
DOE-certified, two-stage systems that
have discrete fixed capacities and
airflow rates, but are equipped with
variable-capacity compressors, will be
subject to the CVP enforcement or not.
(Id. at p. 3)
In response to JCI’s comment
regarding the variable-speed coil-only
(‘‘VSCO’’) test provisions in the October
2022 CAC TP Final Rule, DOE clarifies
that once the revised appendix M1 and
the new appendix M2 are finalized, the
VSCO test provisions for noncommunicating and communicating
systems in the current appendix M1 will
be sunset. This is because these
provisions are not part of the AHRI 210/
240 and AHRI 1600 standards, which
are the basis of the revised appendix
M1, and new appendix M2,
respectively. Therefore, all VSCO
systems will be certified and tested as
variable-capacity compressor systems,
and DOE may conduct the CVP on such
units, to see if they comply with the
variable-speed definition. JCI’s question
regarding OUWNMs is unclear—
however, DOE clarifies that the CVP is
applicable to all variable-speed systems,
and therefore, if such systems are
certified as variable-speed systems, they
will be subject to CVP enforcement.
Finally, DOE clarifies that the CVP
enforcement is applicable only to
systems that are certified as variablecapacity compressor systems, as defined
in section 3.2.80 of AHRI 210/240–2024
and AHRI 1600–2024. Therefore, any
systems that are certified as twocapacity (or two-stage) systems, as
defined in section 3.2.76 of AHRI 210/
240–2024 and AHRI 1600–2024, will
not be subject to CVP enforcement by
DOE.
GE Appliances supported the addition
of a CVP for enforcement testing of
variable-speed systems, but it
commented that a number of lingering
issues require resolution before DOE
utilizes the CVP for enforcement testing.
monitoring system operation and automatically
modulating the compressor output, indoor airflow,
and other system parameters as required in order
to maintain the indoor room temperature.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
(GE Appliances, No. 37 at p. 4) GE
Appliances also commented that
additional test data is required for
validation of some provisions proposed
by DOE in the April 2024 NOPR. (Id.)
GE Appliances commented that the
AHRI 210/240 standard specifies that
the CVP tests should be done either
with a proprietary control or with a
simulated thermostat control, but it
requested that DOE clarify when a
control is considered proprietary, since
multiple types of control systems are
available, including those with hybrid
control capability.68 (Id. at pp. 5–6)
In response to GE Appliances, DOE
clarifies that the differences between a
proprietary control and simulated
(generic) thermostat were discussed in
detail with the stakeholders during the
development of the AHRI 210/240 and
AHRI 1600 standards. It is DOE’s
understanding and intent for
implementation of the CVP that the
‘‘control’’ is the device that senses
temperature in the conditioned space,
has a user interface that allows setting
of a desired space temperature (the ‘‘set
point’’), and provides a signal or
communication to the CAC or HP
system that initiates system operation
and/or steps or level of operation to
reduce the gap between the temperature
and the set point. Accordingly, as per
the example scenario presented by GE
Appliances in their comment, an
adapter 69 provided as part of the system
or specified for installation that allows
the basic model to connect with any
generic (non-proprietary) thermostat is
not the ‘‘control.’’ In the case in which
such an adapter allows a generic
thermostat to be installed in the
conditioned space, the generic
thermostat is the control, and the
simulation of the generic thermostat (as
described in section I3.1 of AHRI 210/
240–2024 and AHRI 1600–2024) would
be used. Only when the device
measuring the space temperature and
providing user input to adjust the set
point is proprietary would installation
of the proprietary device for the test be
used. Any system having a ‘‘hybrid’’
control approach that could use either a
generic or proprietary ‘‘control’’ would
be tested using the generic approach.
68 GE Appliances gave an example of hybrid
control where an adaptor can be connected to a 24–
V thermostat and variable-speed communicating
equipment. For such control systems, the
thermostat sends an on/off signal, and the adaptor
then decides the set point temperature during unit
operation.
69 DOE would like to clarify that if the adapter is
an integral part of every unit shipped without a
proprietary control that would otherwise not
operate, the adapter would be connected to the
simulated thermostat signal.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
LG also made several comments in
response to the CVP enforcements
proposed by DOE in the April 2024
NOPR. 89 FR 24206, 24258–24261. LG
pointed out that as per the CVP, the
indoor room‘s set point is controlled
according to the virtual load approach,
in which the range of temperature
difference between the thermostat set
point and the indoor room condition
during the proposed CVP test is 0–3 °F.
(LG, No. 38 at pp. 1–2) LG questioned
whether the virtual load is appropriate
for variable-capacity systems that do not
operate at minimum speed when the
indoor room temperature is not close to
the thermostat set point. (Id.) LG further
expressed concern that the term
‘‘certification’’ test was not fully
specified, as it could mean either (1) the
tested value of the certification test, or
(2) the value of the enforcement test
conducted under the same conditions as
the certification test. (Id. at p. 2) LG
commented that if the ‘‘certification’’
test was (1), it requests clarification if
this would be a mean value of the two
or more tested samples. (Id.) However,
if it was (2), then LG requested that DOE
provide more information on sample
size and election.70 (Id.) Finally, LG
recommended that due to existing
deviations during testing, instead of
comparing the CVP test values with the
certification test values during
enforcement, they should be compared
to values provided by the manufacturer
in the DOE database.71 (Id.)
In response to LG‘s comment, DOE
clarifies that the return air temperature
equation in appendix I of AHRI 210/
240–2024 is a function of the previous
return air temperature target,
RAT(t),time, the calculated virtual load
(VLs for cooling mode CVP, and VL for
heating mode CVP) at target outdoor
ambient dry-bulb temperature Tj,
measured unit capacity, and a thermal
mass constant, C. The difference
between the thermostat set-point and
indoor room dry-bulb temperature is
dependent on the unit control and
operation. The virtual load and return
air temperature equations ensure the
temperature difference between the
thermostat set-point and indoor room
dry-bulb temperature are within 1 °F for
systems that control the unit properly.
The difference between the thermostat
set-point and indoor room dry-bulb
temperature could reach 3 °F only if the
unit could not achieve the virtual load
target capacity at each test interval.
70 Currently, 10 CFR 429.16 (b)(3) describes the
sampling plan for enforcement of CAC/HPs.
71 DOE‘s interpretation is that LG is referring to
the Compliance Certification Database, available at
www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1265
Further, DOE clarifies that ‘‘the
corresponding certification test’’ refers
to an enforcement test conducted in
accordance with appendix M1 or
appendix M2, as applicable. The sample
size of the selected units will be in
accordance with provisions in 10 CFR
429.110. Finally, DOE clarifies that
during the CVP enforcement,
comparisons of the CVP full and
minimum load intervals will be made to
the certification test conducted just
before the CVP tests.
Carrier requested clarity from DOE on
determining variable-speed unit
operation when the intermediate tests
do not show satisfactory variable-speed
characteristics. (Carrier, No. 29 at p. 2)
Specifically, Carrier commented that it
was unclear on whether DOE‘s proposal
on a system‘s cycling between stages is
an accurate way of determining it is a
single-capacity versus a two-capacity
system, if the intermediate CVP
requirement is not met. (Id.)
In response to Carrier‘s comment,
DOE clarifies that 10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(C)(ii)(B) and (k)4)(C)(ii)(C)
state that after conducting the CVP
enforcement tests, the unit under test
will be determined to be a variablecapacity certified, single-capacity
system, or a variable-capacity certified,
two-capacity system, on the basis of the
test results as per appendix I of AHRI
210/240 and AHRI 1600 (see section
III.E.1 of this document for details). DOE
reiterates that this determination, on
whether a system is single capacity or
two capacity, on the basis of its cycling
between off and single-stage/capacity
level and cycling between more than
one stage/capacity level, respectively,
represents industry consensus on this
matter. This is because this
determination was discussed and agreed
upon with AHRI and all other
stakeholders, during development of
appendix I of the AHRI 210/240 and
AHRI 1600 standards.
J. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts
EPCA requires that test procedures
proposed by DOE not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3)) As discussed, DOE is
updating the current Federal test
procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M1
consistent with the relevant industry
consensus test procedure, AHRI 210/
240–2024. DOE is also establishing a
new Federal test procedure at 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix M2,
consistent with the new industry
consensus test procedure, AHRI 1600–
2024. Appendix M2 would not be
required for use until the compliance
date of amended standards for CAC/
HPs. DOE is also amending its
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1266
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
representation and enforcement
provisions for CAC/HPs.
1. Appendix M1
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
proposed to incorporate by reference
AHRI 210/240–202X Draft and relevant
industry standards referenced in AHRI
210/240–202X Draft at appendix M1. 89
FR 24206, 24244. DOE also proposed to
amend certain provisions for
representations and enforcement in 10
CFR part 429, consistent with the
changes proposed to the test procedure.
Id. DOE noted that the proposed
revisions to appendix M1 would retain
the current efficiency metrics (i.e.,
EER2, SEER2, and HSPF2). Id. DOE
walked through the anticipated
compliance costs associated with the
proposed test procedure at appendix M1
and tentatively determined that
proposed amendments would not result
in an increase in testing cost relative to
the current test procedure. Id. DOE also
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.
Id. DOE requested comment on these
tentative determinations under Issue 5
of the April 2024 NOPR. Id.
In response, Lennox was supportive
of DOE’s tentative determinations,
commenting that it believes the
proposed appendix M1 amendments in
the April 2024 NOPR should result in a
test procedure that is not unduly
burdensome to conduct, consistent with
EPCA statutory requirements. (Lennox,
No. 24 at p. 6) While less supportive
overall, Carrier commented that it agrees
the proposed amendments to appendix
M1 in the April 2024 NOPR would not
result in any retesting or any increase in
testing cost for a typical CAC/HP.
(Carrier, No. 29 at p. 5) In addition,
Carrier asserted that test costs and
burden would increase, however, for
certain products as a result of the
proposed CVP- and CCHP-related
provisions. (Id.)
In addition to Carrier, Rheem and LG
were also less supportive of DOE’s
tentative determinations, citing the
additional test costs and burden
associated with CVP testing. (Carrier,
No. 29 at p. 5; LG, No. 38 at p. 3; Rheem,
No. 34 at p. 7) More specifically, Rheem
commented that additional costs
associated with the proposed test
procedure will stem from modifications
to psychrometric test cells in order to
comply with the CVP. (Rheem, No. 34
at p. 7) LG commented that an extensive
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
amount of time and associated costs are
necessary to conduct CVP testing. (LG,
No. 38 at p. 3) LG asserted that, in
addition to 30 minutes of stabilization
time, it takes a minimum of 11.5 hours
and a maximum of 20.5 hours for the
cooling CVP test, and a minimum of
16.5 hours and a maximum of 28.5
hours for the CCHP heating CVP test,
resulting in third-party testing costs
between 13,000 and 24,000 U.S. dollars.
(Id.)
In response to the Carrier, Rheem, and
LG comments regarding additional test
costs and burden associated with the
CVP, DOE reiterates that the proposed
CVP for variable-capacity compressor
systems in appendix I of AHRI 210/240–
2024 is not mandatory for
manufacturers to perform. In the April
2024 NOPR, DOE also noted that, 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 CVP and
subsequently rerun the regulatory tests.
89 FR 24206, 24244–24245. However,
having no strong evidence to the
contrary, DOE noted it expects that
current variable-capacity certifications
are generally consistent with system
performance. Id. As such, DOE
concluded that any such cost to verify
performance and potentially retest is
negligible. Id.
In response to Carrier’s comment
regarding additional test costs and
burden associated with CCHP
provisions (i.e., the required H42 test for
products claimed as CCHPs), DOE
reiterates that a manufacturer’s claim of
CCHP status for its product is optional.
89 FR 24206, 24244–24245. DOE also
reiterates that it anticipates products
choosing to certify as CCHPs are most
likely to be already testing at the 5 °F
condition, and hence have no added
costs or test burden associated with
them. Id.
In this final rule, DOE is updating the
incorporation by reference to AHRI 210/
240–2024, the finalized version of AHRI
210/240–202X Draft. DOE is also
referencing the relevant industry
standards referenced in AHRI 210/240–
2024 at appendix M1. As noted earlier,
there are no substantial differences
between AHRI 210/240–2024 and AHRI
210/240–202X Draft. As such, DOE’s
assessment of test procedure costs for
appendix M1 are consistent with the
April 2024 NOPR.
DOE has determined that the
amendments to appendix M1 and the
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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
determined that the amendments would
not result in an increase in testing cost
from the current test procedure. The
revisions to the test procedure in
appendix M1 for measuring EER2,
SEER2, and HSPF2 per AHRI 210/240–
2024 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
concluded that the 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.72
2. Appendix M2
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
proposed to incorporate by reference
AHRI 1600–202X Draft and relevant
industry standards referenced in AHRI
1600–202X Draft at appendix M2. 89 FR
24206, 24245. DOE also proposed to
establish provisions for determining
SCORE and SHORE, the new efficiency
metrics applicable to appendix M2. Id.
DOE walked through the anticipated
compliance costs associated with the
proposed test procedure at appendix M2
and tentatively determined that
proposed amendments would not result
in an increase in testing cost relative to
the current test procedure. Id. DOE
tentatively concluded that the proposed
revisions to the test procedure in
appendix M2 would change efficiency
ratings for CAC/HPs—however, DOE
noted 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. Id. DOE requested comment
72 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.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
on these tentative determinations under
Issue 6 of the April 2024 NOPR. Id.
In response, Lennox was supportive
of DOE’s tentative determinations,
commenting that it believes the
proposed appendix M2 in the April
2024 NOPR should result in a test
procedure that is not unduly
burdensome to conduct, consistent with
EPCA statutory requirements. (Lennox,
No. 24 at p. 6) Carrier agreed that the
proposed appendix M2 in the April
2024 NOPR would not result in any
increase in testing cost for a typical
CAC/HP from the proposed appendix
M1. (Carrier, No. 29 at p. 6) Rheem
commented that it is not aware of
available data to support the use of a
different cost basis for appendix M2
testing. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 7)
In this final rule, DOE is updating the
incorporation by reference to AHRI
1600–2024, the finalized version of
AHRI 1600–202X Draft. DOE is also
referencing the relevant industry
standards referenced in AHRI 210/240–
2024 at appendix M1. As noted earlier,
there are no substantial differences
between AHRI 1600–2024 and AHRI
1600–202X Draft. As such, DOE’s
assessment of test procedure costs for
appendix M2 are consistent with the
April 2024 NOPR.
DOE has determined that the
amendments to appendix M2 and the
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
determined that the amendments would
not result in an increase in testing cost
from the current test procedure. The
revisions to the test procedure in
appendix M2 for measuring EER2,
SCORE, and SHORE per AHRI 1600–
2024 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 to range from $10,800 to $19,800,
depending on the configuration of the
CAC/HP (single-stage, two-stage,
variable-capacity). DOE has concluded
that the proposed revisions to the test
procedure in appendix M2 would
change efficiency ratings for CAC/HPs—
however, testing and recertification
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
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.
K. Effective, Compliance, and Other
Required Use Dates
The effective date for the adopted test
procedure amendment will be 30 days
after publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. EPCA prescribes that
all representations of energy efficiency
and energy use, including those made
on marketing materials and product
labels must be made in accordance with
an amended test procedure, beginning
180 days after publication of the final
rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C.
6293(c)(2)) However, CAC/HPs are not
required to be tested according to the
test procedure in appendix M2 (that
relies on the SCORE and SHORE
metrics) until the compliance date of
amended energy conservation standards
denominated in terms of SCORE and
SHORE, should DOE adopt such
standards.
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.) To the extent the
modified test procedure adopted in this
final rule is required only for the
evaluation and issuance of updated
efficiency standards, compliance with
the amended test procedure does not
require use of such modified test
procedure provisions until the
compliance date of updated standards.
Upon the compliance date of test
procedure provisions in this final rule
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 are
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
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1267
amendments adopted in this document
pertain to issues addressed by waiver
granted to Samsung (88 FR 36558, Case
No. 2022–009), as discussed in section
III.E.4 of this final rule. To the extent
that such interim waiver permits 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 adopted in
this final rule 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 variablespeed, 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.)
The 72-hour break-in period permitted
to the specific VSS systems listed in
JCI’s interim waiver is unique to the
CAC/HP market, and DOE continues to
assess whether there is a generalizable
need for an extended break-in period for
certain VSS systems beyond the specific
basic models subject to the interim
waiver granted to JCI. As such, DOE is
not amending the test procedure to
address the issues presented in the
interim waiver granted to JCI at this
time. 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.
Additionally, as discussed in section
III.E.7 of this final rule, DOE recognizes
that stakeholders have requested
clarification regarding the interaction of
EPA’s refrigerant regulations and DOE’s
certification and rating requirements for
CAC/HPs. See table III–5 for a
consolidated summary of the interaction
of DOE’s OUWNM certification and
rating requirements under the EPA
regulations timeline.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1268
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE III–5—SUMMARY OF CERTIFICATION AND RATING REQUIREMENT TIMELINES
Indoor or
outdoor unit
manufactured or
imported
Distributed as
Before 1/1/2025 ...........
Matched System ........
Per EPA, matched systems can be installed prior to January 1, 2026 as long as they were
manufactured prior January 1, 2025.
.....................................
Must be certified/rated in combinations with
indoor units as distributed in commerce before 1/1/2025 and the matched system
must comply with applicable standard; i.e.,
do not need to be certified/rated as
OUWNM.
Indoor Unit or Outdoor
Unit.
Per EPA, indoor and outdoor units can also be installed as replacement units on or after January 1, 2025.
Matched System ........
Per EPA, matched systems can no longer be installed on or after January 1, 2026.
Indoor Unit or Outdoor
Unit.
Per EPA, indoor and outdoor units can be installed only as replacement units on or after January 1, 2026.
On or after 1/1/2025 ....
Outdoor units with
>700 GWP refrigerant
Must be certified/rated and as OUWNM and
comply with the applicable standard. Recertification/rerating required if previous ratings were matched combinations. No new
certification of matched systems allowed.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
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 amended by E.O. 14094,
‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88
FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law,
to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation
only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor
regulations to impose the least burden
on society, consistent with obtaining
regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the
extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
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 this preamble, this final
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 final
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 a final regulatory flexibility analysis
(‘‘FRFA’’) for any final rule where the
agency was first required by law to
publish a proposed rule for public
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Indoor units with
>700 GWP refrigerant
Must be certified/rated in combinations with
outdoor units distributed in commerce before 1/1/2025 and the matched system
must comply with the applicable standard.
Must be certified/rated in combinations with
outdoor units distributed in commerce before 1/1/2025 and the matched system
must comply with the applicable standard.
No new certification of matched systems
allowed.
comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003 to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this final rule under
the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19,
2003. DOE has concluded that this
rulemaking will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Compliance with this test
procedure is not required unless and
until new energy conservation standards
are established for covered CAC/HPs—
accordingly, there are no compliance
costs stemming directly from this
rulemaking.
Still, although it is not required, DOE
has undertaken a review of CAC/HP
small business manufacturers and, in
the following, is presenting the costs
that those business may expect if testing
on the basis of this test procedure were
required in the future.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
1. Estimated Number of Small Entities
For the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
conducted a focused inquiry into small
business manufacturers of the products
covered by this rulemaking. DOE used
the SBA’s small business size standards
to determine whether any small entities
would be subject to the requirements of
the rule. The size standards are listed by
North American Industry Classification
System (‘‘NAICS’’) code as well as by
industry description and are available at
www.sba.gov/document/support-tablesize-standards. Manufacturing CAC/HPs
is classified under NAICS 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning 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
available public information to identify
potential small manufacturers. DOE
accessed the Compliance Certification
Database 73 (‘‘CCD’’), the Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System 74
(‘‘MAEDbS’’), and the National
Resources Canada database 75
(‘‘NRCan’’) to create a list of companies
that import or otherwise manufacture
the products covered by this final rule.
Once DOE created a list of potential
manufacturers, DOE used market
research tools to determine whether any
met the SBA’s definition of a small
entity—based on the total number of
employees for each company including
parent, subsidiary, and sister entities—
and gather annual revenue estimates.
Based on DOE’s analysis, DOE
identified 23 OEMs manufacturing
CAC/HPs covered by this test
procedure. DOE screened out companies
that do not meet the small entity
definition and, additionally, screened
out companies that are largely or
entirely foreign owned and operated. Of
the 23 OEMs identified OEMs, six were
identified as domestic small businesses.
DOE did not receive comments on the
April 2024 NOPR in regard to its
estimate of domestic small businesses.
2. Estimate of Small Business Testing
Costs
This final rule adopts updated
industry test standards for CAC/HPs.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
73 U.S.
Department of Energy Compliance
Certification Management System, available at
www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms (last accessed July
30, 2023).
74 California Energy Commission’s Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System, available at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Login.aspx. (Last
accessed Sept. 22, 2023).
75 Natural Resources Canada searchable product
list, available at oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/ (last
accessed Sept 19, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
DOE is updating the current Federal test
procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M1
consistent with the finalized version of
the relevant industry consensus test
procedure, AHRI 210/240–2024. DOE is
also proposing a new Federal test
procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix M2, consistent with the
finalized version of the industry
consensus test procedure, AHRI 1600–
2024. 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 is incorporating
by reference AHRI 210/240–2024 for
CAC/HPs and to amend certain
provisions for representations and
enforcement in 10 CFR part 429,
consistent with the changes to the test
procedure. 89 FR 24206, 24244. The
revisions to appendix M1 would retain
the previous test procedure’s efficiency
metrics—EER2, SEER2, and HSPF2. The
testing requirements in appendix M1 are
generally consistent with those in AHRI
210/240–2024, which in turn references
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, ANSI/
ASHRAE 16–2016, and ANSI/ASHRAE
116–2010. This 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
Controls Verification Procedure (‘‘CVP’’)
for variable-capacity compressor
systems in appendix I of AHRI 210/240–
2024 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 determination of
cut-in and cut-out temperatures in
appendix J of the AHRI 210/240–2024
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1269
DOE has concluded that the revisions
to the test procedure in appendix M1
would not change efficiency ratings for
CAC/HPs, and therefore would not
require retesting as a result of DOE’s
adoption of this amendment to the test
procedure.76 Further, the test procedure
in appendix M1 would not increase
third-party laboratory testing costs per
unit; DOE estimates that the costs for
physical testing prior to these
amendments would 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.
(b) Cost and Compliance Associated
With Appendix M2
In appendix M2, DOE is establishing
a new test procedure that references the
industry test procedure, AHRI 1600–
2024, for measuring new efficiency
metrics, SCORE and SHORE. 89 FR
24204, 23245. Appendix M2 will 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 testing
requirements in appendix M2 are
generally consistent with those in AHRI
1600–2024, which in turn references
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, ANSI/
ASHRAE 16–2016, and ASHRAE 116–
2010. This revision to the test procedure
in appendix M2 for measuring EER,
SCORE, and SHORE is not expected to
increase third-party laboratory testing
costs per unit relative to the prior DOE
test procedure. The standby and offmode power consumption of auxiliary
components is determined using
appendix G of AHRI 1600–2024 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 will not
result in increased testing costs as
compared to the previous test
procedure. The other amendments—
which include (a) building load lines
and temperature bin hours for
calculation of SCORE and SHORE, (b)
76 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.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1270
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
default fan power coefficients for coilonly systems, and (c) air flow limits to
address inadequate dehumidification—
also will not affect testing costs.
The overall testing cost is not
expected to increase with appendix M2.
DOE estimates the costs of physical
testing for the new metrics SCORE and
SHORE to range from $10,800 to
$19.800, depending on the configuration
of the CAC/HP (single-stage, two-stage,
variable-capacity). Additionally, DOE
allows the use of AEDMs. The use of an
AEDM is expected to be less costly than
physical testing of large numbers of
CAC/HP models; DOE estimates the cost
to develop an AEDM to be $19,383 per
AEDM for a basic model, which
includes the cost of physical testing
done at a third-party laboratory to
validate the AEDM.77 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 five minutes of an engineer’s time
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 1600–2024, the
industry test procedure DOE is
referencing 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
possible future energy conservation
standards rulemaking. Accordingly,
DOE has determined that the test
procedure amendments would not add
any additional testing burden to
manufacturers—including the six
domestic small manufacturers.
3. Certification Statement
Based on the de minimis cost impacts,
DOE certifies that this final rule does
not have a ‘‘significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
77 DOE
estimates that a mechanical engineer
would take 60 hours to create an AEDM. The fully
burdened wage of a mechanical engineer is 68.05
based on an unburdened median wage of $47.84
and on wages representing 70.3 percent of labor
costs. Average cost of third-party testing would be
$14,400 given the previously described range of
costs. See www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172141.htm
for the wage figure and www.bls.gov/news.release/
archives/ecec_06182024.pdf for the wage
percentage of labor costs figure.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
entities,’’ and determined that the
preparation of a FRFA is not warranted.
DOE will transmit a certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for
review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
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
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 amending the certification
or reporting requirements for CAC/HPs
in this final rule. Instead, DOE may
consider proposals to amend the
certification requirements and reporting
for CAC/HPs under a separate
rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification. DOE will
address changes to OMB Control
Number 1910–1400 at that time, as
necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE establishes test
procedure amendments that it expects
will be used to develop and implement
future energy conservation standards for
CAC/HPs. DOE has determined that this
rule falls into a class of actions that are
categorically excluded from review
under the National Environmental
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and DOE’s implementing
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, DOE has determined that
adopting test procedures for measuring
energy efficiency of consumer products
and industrial equipment is consistent
with activities identified in 10 CFR part
1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and
A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive order also requires agencies to
have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE examined this final rule
and determined that it will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for
the products that are the subject of this
final rule. States can petition DOE for
exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further
action is required by Executive Order
13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996),
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation, (3)
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
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, this final rule
meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
regulatory action resulting in a rule that
may cause the expenditure by State,
local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section
202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency
to publish a written statement that
estimates the resulting costs, benefits,
and other effects on the national
economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)–(b)) The
UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit
timely input by elected officers of State,
local, and Tribal governments on a
proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental
mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to potentially affected
small governments before establishing
any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820; also available at
www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this final rule
according to UMRA and its statement of
policy and determined that the rule
contains neither an intergovernmental
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
mandate, nor a mandate that may result
in the expenditure of $100 million or
more in any year, so these requirements
do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any
proposed rule or policy that may affect
family well-being. When developing a
Family Policymaking Assessment,
agencies must assess whether: (1) the
action strengthens or erodes the stability
or safety of the family and, particularly,
the marital commitment; (2) the action
strengthens or erodes the authority and
rights of parents in the education,
nurture, and supervision of their
children; (3) the action helps the family
perform its functions, or substitutes
governmental activity for the function;
(4) the action increases or decreases
disposable income or poverty of families
and children; (5) the proposed benefits
of the action justify the financial impact
on the family; (6) the action may be
carried out by State or local government
or by the family; and whether (7) the
action establishes an implicit or explicit
policy concerning the relationship
between the behavior and personal
responsibility of youth, and the norms
of society. In evaluating the above
factors, DOE has concluded that it is not
necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment as none of the
above factors are implicated. Further,
this determination would not have any
financial impact on families nor any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this regulation
will not result in any takings that might
require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1271
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%20
Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20
Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed
this final rule under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is
consistent with applicable policies in
those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
significant energy action. A ‘‘significant
energy action’’ is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgates 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 is
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (2) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant
energy action. For any significant energy
action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use if the
regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and
their expected benefits on energy
supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
would not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as
a significant energy action by the
Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is
not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (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
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1272
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
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 modifications to the test
procedure for CAC/HPs adopted in this
final rule incorporates testing methods
contained in certain sections of the
following commercial standards: AHRI
210/240–2024, AHRI 1600–2024, 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 they were
developed in a manner that fully
provides for public participation,
comment, and review.) DOE has
consulted with both the Attorney
General and the Chairman of the FTC
about the impact on competition of
using the methods contained in these
standards and has received no
comments objecting to their use.
ANSI/ASHRAE 16. 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.
ANSI/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 ASHRAE 37–2009, ANSI/
ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 116–
2010 are available on ASHRAE’s
website at www.ashrae.org.
The following standards were
previously approved for incorporation
by reference in the regulatory sections
where they appear, and no changes are
made: AHRI 210/240–2008, AHRI 1160,
and ANSI 1230–2010.
M. Congressional Notification
10 CFR Part 429
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of this rule before its effective date. The
report will state that it has been
determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Small
businesses.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
N. Description of Materials Incorporated
by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by
reference the following test standards:
AHRI 210/240–2024. This test
standard is an update to AHRI 210/240–
2023 (2020), an industry-accepted test
procedure for measuring the
performance of Unitary Air-source Airconditioners & Heat Pump Equipment.
The revised appendix M1 will be
consistent with provisions in AHRI 210/
240–2024.
AHRI 1600–2024. This test standard is
a major update to AHRI 210/240–2023
(2020), introducing new seasonal
cooling and heating efficiency metrics,
namely SCORE and SHORE. The new
appendix M2 will be consistent with
provisions in AHRI 210/240–2024.
Copies of AHRI 210/240–2024 and
AHRI 1600–2024 can be obtained from
AHRI, 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400,
Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524–8800, or
found online at www.ahrinet.org.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
List of Subjects
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 December 18,
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
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on December
19, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE amends 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. Revising paragraphs (a) and (c)
introductory text;
■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2)
through (7) as paragraphs (c)(3) through
(8); and
■ c. Adding new paragraph (c)(2) and
paragraph (c)(9).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 429.4 Materials incorporated by
reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this part with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
other than that specified in this section,
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
must publish a document in the Federal
Register and the material must be
available to the public. All approved
incorporation by reference (IBR)
material is available for inspection at
the Department of Energy (DOE) and at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). Contact DOE
at: The U.S. Department of Energy,
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121; (202) 586–9127;
Buildings@ee.doe.gov; www.energy.gov/
eere/buildings/appliance-andequipment-standards-program. For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, visit
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/
ibr-locations or email fr.inspection@
nara.gov. The material may be obtained
from the sources in the following
paragraphs of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute, 2311 Wilson
Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201,
(703) 524–8800, or go to:
www.ahrinet.org.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) AHRI Standard 210/240–2024 (I–
P), (‘‘AHRI 210/240–2024’’),
Performance Rating of Unitary Airconditioning and Air-source Heat Pump
Equipment, copyright 2024; IBR
approved for § 429.134.
*
*
*
*
*
(9) AHRI Standard 1600–2024 (I–P),
(‘‘AHRI 1600–2024’’), Performance
Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning and
Air-source Heat Pump Equipment,
copyright 2024; IBR approved for
§ 429.134.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Amend § 429.16 by revising
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (a)(3)(i), (b)(2),
(b)(3)(ii), (c)(1)(i)(B), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(3),
(d)(2), and (f) to read as follows:
■
1273
§ 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, EER,
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
Required represented values
Single-Package Unit ....................................................
Single-Package Air Conditioner (AC) (including
space-constrained).
Single-Package Heat Pump (HP) (including spaceconstrained).
Single-Split-System AC with Single-Stage or TwoStage Compressor (including Space-Constrained
and Small-Duct, High Velocity Systems (SDHV)).
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
coil-only 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 non-ducted ‘‘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.
Outdoor Unit and Indoor Unit (Distributed in Commerce by Outdoor Unit Manufacturer (OUM)).
Single-Split System AC with Other Than SingleStage 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).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Multi-Split, Multi-Circuit, or Multi-Head Mini-Split
Split System—SDHV.
Indoor Unit Only Distributed in Commerce by Independent Coil Manufacturer (ICM).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Single-Split-System Air Conditioner (including
Space-Constrained and SDHV).
Single-Split-System Heat Pump (including SpaceConstrained and SDHV).
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1274
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1)—Continued
Category
Equipment subcategory
Required represented values
Multi-Split, Multi-Circuit, or Multi-Head Mini-Split
Split System—SDHV.
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.
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/
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) * * *
(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 or ‘‘tested combinations’’). This
requirement may apply across the listed
categories in the table 1 to paragraph
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.
(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) Individual model/combination
selection for testing. (i) Table 2 to this
paragraph (b)(2)(i) 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 table 2, 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)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Category
Equipment subcategory
Single-Package Unit ..................
Single-Package AC (including
Space-Constrained).
Single-Package HP (including
Space-Constrained).
Outdoor Unit and Indoor Unit
(Distributed in Commerce by
OUM).
Single-Split-System AC with
Single-Stage or Two-Stage
Compressor (including
Space-Constrained and
Small-Duct, High Velocity
Systems (SDHV)).
Single-Split-System HP with
Single-Stage or Two-Stage
Compressor (including
Space-Constrained and
SDHV).
Single-Split System AC or HP
with Other Than SingleStage or Two-Stage Compressor having a coil-only individual combination (including Space-Constrained and
SDHV).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
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 10 CFR part
430).
or seasonal cooling and offmode rating.
efficiency (SCORE) (when testing.
in accordance with appendix
M2 to subpart..
B of 10 CFR part 430) .............
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 ........
A model of coil-only indoor unit.
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
N/A.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
1275
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(2)(i)—Continued
Indoor Unit Only (Distributed in
Commerce by ICM).
Equipment subcategory
Must test:
Single-Split System AC or HP
with Other Than SingleStage or Two-Stage Compressor without a coil-only individual combination (including Space-Constrained and
SDHV).
Multi-Split, Multi-Circuit, or
Multi-Head Mini-Split Split
System—non-SDHV (including Space-Constrained).
The model of outdoor unit ........
A model of indoor unit.
The model of outdoor unit ........
Multi-Split, Multi-Circuit, or
Multi-Head Mini-Split Split
System—SDHV.
Single-Split-System Air Conditioner (including Space-Constrained and SDHV).
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, mid-static, or low-static).
A ‘‘tested combination’’ composed entirely of SDHV indoor
units.
Single-Split-System Heat Pump
(including Space-Constrained
and SDHV).
Multi-Split, Multi-Circuit, or
Multi-Head Mini-Split Split
System—SDHV.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Outdoor Unit with No Match ......
...................................................
(ii) When testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430, each individual model/
combination (or ‘‘tested combination’’)
identified in table 2 to 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 10 CFR
part 430 and determining SCORE and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
With:
A model of indoor unit ..............
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 ........
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 10 CFR
part 430) or SCORE combination (when testing under appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR 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 10 CFR part 430) or SCORE (when testing
under appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430) represented value, the ICM may select one for testing purposes.
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 10 CFR part 430) or
SCORE combination (when testing under appendix M2 to
subpart B of 10 CFR 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 10 CFR part 430) or SCORE represented value (when testing under appendix M2 to subpart
B of 10 CFR 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 10 CFR part 430); or meeting the requirements of section 3 of appendix M2 (when testing under appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430).
SHORE, each individual model/
combination (or ‘‘tested combination’’)
identified in table 2 to 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 (offmode power in heating Season). 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
which P1 and P2 are the most
consumptive.
(3) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(ii) EER2, SEER2, HSPF2, SCORE,
EER, 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, x̄ is the sample mean; n is the
number of samples; and xi is the ith
sample; or,
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ER07JA25.014</GPH>
Category
1276
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
(B) The lower 90 percent confidence
limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by
0.95, where:
s
and x̄ is the sample mean; s is the
sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t0.90 is the
Student’s t-Distribution Value for a 90
percent one-tailed confidence interval
with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
appendix A to this subpart). Round
represented values of EER2, SEER2,
HSPF2, EER, 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 10 CFR
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:
(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 10 CFR
part 430, or appendix M2 to subpart B
of 10 CFR part 430, for basic models that
include additional varieties of ducted
indoor units (i.e., conventional, lowstatic, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
according to the requirements in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(ii) When testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430, or appendix M2 to subpart B
of 10 CFR 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 10 CFR
part 430, or appendix M2 to subpart B
of 10 CFR 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 10 CFR
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 § 429.70.
(d) * * *
(2) Energy efficiency. Any represented
value of the EER2, SEER2, HSPF2, EER,
SCORE and SHORE, or other measure of
energy efficiency of an individual
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 10 CFR 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 10 CFR 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
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ER07JA25.015</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
LCL = x - t_9o(_vn_)
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
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 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 10 CFR 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)(iii) 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 10 CFR 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)(iii) 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
(E) The representative average unit
cost of electricity in dollars per
kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to
section 323(b)(2) of the Act;
(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 10 CFR 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:
1277
pumps that provide both heating and
cooling as follows:
(i) When using appendix M1 to
subpart B of 10 CFR 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)
Climatic region
I .......................................
II ......................................
III .....................................
IV ....................................
V .....................................
VI ....................................
Regional cooling
load hours
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)(iii)(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)(iii) 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)(iii)
of this section;
(C) The adjustment factor of 1.15 (for
heat pumps that are not variable speed)
TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(4)(i)(B)
or 1.07 (for heat pumps that are variable
speed), which serves to adjust the
Regional cooling
Climatic region
calculated design heating requirement
load 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
(ii) When using appendix M2 to
kilowatts per watt; and
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, regional
(D) The representative average unit
annual operating cost for air-source heat
cost of electricity in dollars per
pumps that provide only heating or for
kilowatt-hour as provided pursuant to
the heating portion, does not apply.
section 323(b)(2) of the Act.
(6) Regional annual operating cost—
(ii) When using appendix M2 to
total. For air-source heat pumps that
subpart B of part 430, regional annual
provide both heating and cooling, the
operating cost for cooling-only units or
estimated regional annual operating cost
the cooling portion of the estimated
is the sum of the quantity determined in
regional annual operating cost airparagraph (f)(4) of this section added to
source heat pumps that provide both
the quantity determined in paragraph
heating and cooling, does not apply.
(f)(5) of this section.
(5) Regional annual operating cost—
heating. Determine the represented
(7) Annual operating cost—rounding.
value of estimated regional annual
Round any represented values of
operating cost for air-source heat pumps estimated annual operating cost
that provide only heating or for the
determined in paragraphs (f)(1) through
heating portion of the estimated regional (6) of this section to the nearest dollar
annual operating cost for air-source heat per year.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1278
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
4. Amend § 429.70 by revising
paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2)(i)(A) to read
as follows:
■
§ 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 (EER2,
SEER2, HSPF2, SCORE, EER, 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 (EER2,
SEER2, HSPF2, EER, 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.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Central air conditioners and heat
pumps. Before July 7, 2025, 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 July 7, 2025,
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
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 10 CFR part 430, or SCORE
or SHORE when testing in accordance
with appendix M2 to subpart B of 10
CFR 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 10 CFR
part 430, the CDc and/or CDh value will
be measured for each unit tested
pursuant to appendix M1 to subpart B
of 10 CFR 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–
2024 (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 10 CFR
part 430, the CDc and/or CDh value will
be measured for each unit tested
pursuant to appendix M2 to subpart B
of 10 CFR 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 1600–2024
(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 10 CFR part 430 or
appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR
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 10 CFR
part 430, the cut-out and cut-in
temperatures may be verified using the
method in appendix J of AHRI 210/240–
2024 (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 10 CFR
part 430, the cut-out and cut-in
temperatures may be verified using the
method in appendix J of AHRI 1600–
2024 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 429.4). If this method is conducted,
the tested TOFF,T and TON,T values
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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 (CVP). A 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 10 CFR part 430 or
appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR
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 10 CFR part 430 or, appendix M2 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, as
applicable.
(A) When testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430. The CVP will be conducted
per appendix I of AHRI 210/240–2024
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4).
(B) When testing in accordance with
appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430. The CVP will be conducted
per appendix I of AHRI 1600–2024
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4).
(C) Variable capacity certified, single
capacity systems. 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,
EER 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 (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,
EER as applicable) shall be determined
using the certification test applicable to
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
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 (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,
EER 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 (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 210/240–2024 (if
testing in accordance with appendix M1
to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4))
or of AHRI 1600–2024 (if testing in
accordance with appendix M2 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)),
with the exception that indoor entering
wet bulb deviation in I5.1 and test
operating tolerance in I5.1.3 is
applicable only for cooling mode CVP.
(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
Cooling full:
llA,Full- ilcvP,A,Full
X
1279
observed, where both the time averaged
integrated capacity and time averaged
integrated power of the two successive
test period sub-intervals 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 successive test period subintervals. 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 (2) of this section, the
time averaged integrated 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) Determine whether the measured
capacity for each full load interval, as
evaluated per the CVP conducted in
paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or (B) of this
section, is no more than 6% less than
the corresponding certification test
capacity, as follows:
100 :S 6.0
llA,Full
Where:
q̇A,Full = Certification test capacity at AFull
condition,
q̇CVP,A,Full = CVP test capacity at AFull
condition,
q̇H3,Full = Certification test capacity at H3Full
condition,
llH4,Ful'.- ilcvP,H4,Full
qH4,Full
qA,Full
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Heating minimum:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
X
ilcvP,Hl,_Low - ilm,Low
qH3,Full
X
X
(D) Determine whether the measured
efficiency for the full and minimum
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(C) Determine whether the measured
capacity for each minimum load
interval, as evaluated per the CVP
conducted in paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or
(B) of this section, is no more than 6%
less than the corresponding certification
test capacity, as follows:
100 :S 6.0
q̇CVP,H1,Low = CVP test capacity at H1Low
condition,
q̇H1,Low= Certification test capacity at H1Low
condition,
PO 00000
:S 6.0
100 :S 6.0
q̇CVP,H3,Full = CVP test capacity at H3Full
condition,
q̇H4,Full = Certification test capacity at H4Full
condition,
q̇CVP,H4,Full= CVP test capacity at H4Full
condition,
llCVP,F,Low- ilF,Low
Cooling minimum: ___;;_'--'---'--'--'-'----'---'-"'--
Where:
q̇CVP,F,Low= CVP test capacity at FLow
condition,
q̇F,Low = Certification test capacity at FLow
condition,
X 100
100 :S 6.0
load interval, as evaluated per the CVP
conducted in paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or
(B) of this section, is no more than 10%
less than the corresponding certification
test efficiency, as follows:
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ER07JA25.017</GPH>
Heating full (5oF):
llH3,Ful'.- ilcvP,H3,Full
qH3,Full
ER07JA25.016</GPH>
Heating full (17oF):
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
EER2A,Full- EER2cvP,A,Full
EER2A,Full
Cooling minimum:
Heating full (5oF):
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
(E) Cooling and heating efficiency
requirements are shown using EER2 and
COP2 to align with testing in
accordance with appendix M1 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. When
testing in accordance with appendix M2
to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, replace
EER2 with EER, and COP2 with COP.
(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)
through (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, EER 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) through (D) of this section,
the unit shall be tested per instructions
in paragraphs (k)(4)(v)(A) through (C) of
this section, as applicable. The
instructions in paragraphs (k)(4)(v)(A)
through (C) shall be followed, as
applicable, only for the certification
tests corresponding to the out of
tolerance compressor speed interval
based on the evaluations of paragraphs
(k)(4)(iii)(B) through (D). For all
compressor speed intervals for which
the capacity and EER2/COP2/EER/COP
are in tolerance as per paragraphs
(k)(4)(iii)(B) through (D), the
corresponding certification tests shall be
used without adjustments.
(A) The instructions of this paragraph
shall be applied to systems for which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
l00 ::S lO.0
EER2F,Low- EER2cvP,F,Low
EER2F,Low
X
100 ::S 10.0
COP2H4,Full- COP2cvP,H4,Full
COP2H4,Full
X
100 < 10.0
Heating full (17oF):
. m1mmum:
. .
Heat mg
X
COP2H3,Full- COP2cvP,H3,Full
COP2H3,Full
COP2H1 Low- COP2cvP Hl Low
'
COP2H1,Low
' '
-
X 100
X
the same control device used as per the
CVP conducted in paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A)
or (B) of this section is used as the
means for overriding the controls, and
both of the following are supported by
the control device: monitoring of the
compressor and indoor blower speed
during native-control operation without
otherwise impacting the control of the
system; and 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.
(1) The compressor and indoor blower
speed shall be monitored during the
CVP conducted in paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A)
or (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) of this section 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/
240–2024 (if testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430; (incorporated by reference, see
§ 429.4)) or of AHRI 1600–2024 (if
testing in accordance with appendix M2
to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)),
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
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
::S 10.0
l00 ::S l 0.0
that require the same speed, as
applicable, as detailed in table 1 to this
paragraph (k)(4)(v)(A). 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
(C) of this section are not met or the
efficiency tolerances of paragraph
(k)(4)(iii)(D) of this section 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.
(2) If required, the adjusted q̇H3,Full
and PH3,Full shall be used to calculate
q̇k=2hcalc(47) and Pk=2hcalc(47),
respectively, to represent performance
at 47 °F as described in section 11.2.2.4
of AHRI 210/240–2024 (if testing in
accordance with appendix M1 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4))
or of AHRI 1600–2024 (if testing in
accordance with appendix M2 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4))
and for use in calculating performance
at 35 °F. If required, the adjusted H1Low
and H3Low tests shall be used to
calculate q̇thi,H2,Low and PH2,Low,
respectively, as described in section
6.1.3.4 of AHRI 210/240–2024 (if testing
in accordance with appendix M1 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4))
or of AHRI 1600–2024 (if testing in
accordance with appendix M2 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)).
No adjustments are required for
intermediate or nominal compressor
speed tests or, if cyclic tests are
conducted, for the degradation
coefficient(s).
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ER07JA25.019</GPH>
Cooling full:
ER07JA25.018</GPH>
1280
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
1281
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
AFull ................................................
FLow ................................................
H1Low .............................................
H3Full ..............................................
H4Full ..............................................
Variable capacity certified, single
capacity system
Variable capacity certified,
two capacity system
AFull, BFull ......................................
N/A ................................................
N/A ................................................
H2Full, H3Full .................................
H4Full .............................................
AFull, BFull ......................................
BLow, FLow .....................................
H0Low, H1Low, H3Low ....................
H3Full .............................................
H4Full .............................................
(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 to paragraph (k)(4)(v)(A) of this
section for which either the capacity
tolerances of paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(B) or
(C) of this section are not met or the
efficiency tolerances of paragraph
(k)(4)(iii)(D) of this section 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.
(1) 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
(with no adjustment for tests having a
CVP interval). For the certification tests
requiring adjustment with no CVP
interval (any required certification test
in column 2, 3, or 4 of table 1 to
paragraph (k)(4)(v)(A) of this section
other than AFull, FLow, H1Low, H3Full and
H4Full for which the column 1 CVP
interval did not meet capacity or EER2/
Variable capacity system
AFull, BFull.
BLow, FLow.
H0Low, H1Low.
H3Full.
H4Full.
COP2/EER/COP tolerances), 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 power measured during the CVP
test interval divided by the power
measured during the certification test
(for the corresponding CVP interval), as
follows:
Cooling full capacity:
C/.cvP,A,Full
C/.B,Full
=
C/.B,Full,Certification X Cf.A,Full,Certification
PB,Full
=
PB,Full,Certification X PA,Full,Certification
C/.B,Low
=
C/.B,Low,Certification X C/.F,Low,Certification
PB,Low
=
PB,Low,Certification X PF,Low,Certification
Cooling full power:
pCVP,A,Full
Cooling minimum capacity:
C/.cvP,F,Low
Heating minimum capacity:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:24 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ER07JA25.020</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
PcvP,F,Low
ER07JA25.021</GPH> ER07JA25.022</GPH>
ER07JA25.023</GPH>
Cooling minimum power:
1282
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
C/.cvP,Hl,Low
Cf.HO,Low
=
C/.H3,Low
= (1 + 30 · CSF)
PHO,Low
=
Cf.HO,Low,Certification X C/.Hl,Low,Certification
C/.cvP,Hl,Low
Heating minimum power:
p CVP,Hl,Low
PHO,Low,Certification X PHl,Low,Certification
p CVP,Hl,Low
(2) If required, the measured QH3,Full
and EH3,Full from the CVP shall be used
to calculate q̇k=2hcalc(47) and
Pk=2hcalc(47), respectively, to represent
performance at 47 °F as described in
section 11.2.2.4 of AHRI 210/240–2024
(if testing in accordance with appendix
M1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4))
or of AHRI 1600–2024 (if testing in
accordance with appendix M2;
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)),
and for use in calculating performance
at 35 °F. If required, the measured H1Low
from the CVP and the adjusted H3Low
tests shall be used to calculate q̇thi,H2,Low
and PH2,Low, respectively, as described in
section 6.1.3.4 of AHRI 210/240–2024 (if
testing in accordance with appendix M1
to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4))
or of AHRI 1600–2024 (if testing in
accordance with appendix M2 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see § 429.4)).
No adjustments are required for
intermediate or nominal compressor
speed tests or, if cyclic tests are
conducted, the degradation
coefficient(s).
(C) 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
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 lowspeed compressor operation for the low
load intervals shall be used for all
certification low load tests.
*
*
*
*
*
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 § 430.2 by revising the
definition of ‘‘Central air conditioner or
central air conditioning heat pump’’ to
read as follows.
■
§ 430.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Central air conditioner or central air
conditioning heat pump means a
product, other than a packaged terminal
air conditioner, packaged terminal heat
pump, single-phase single-package
vertical air conditioner with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, singlephase 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 § 431.92 of this chapter,
which is powered by single phase
electric current, air cooled, rated below
65,000 Btu per hour, not contained
within the same cabinet as a furnace,
the rated capacity of which is above
225,000 Btu per hour, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
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).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. Amend § 430.3 by:
■ a. Removing ‘‘appendices M and M1’’
and adding in its place ‘‘appendix M’’
in paragraph (b)(4) introductory text;
■ b. Revising paragraphs (c) and (g)(1)
through (3);
■ c. Removing ‘‘appendices M and M1’’
and adding in its place ‘‘appendix M’’
in paragraphs (g)(4) introductory text
and (g)(21);
■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(22)
through (24) as paragraphs (g)(23)
through (25); and
■ e. Adding new paragraph (g)(22).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by
reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute, 2311 Wilson
Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201,
(703) 524–8800, or go to:
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;
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
ER07JA25.025</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
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
= (1 + 30 · PSF)
ER07JA25.024</GPH>
PH3,Low
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
(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 210/240–2024 (I–
P), (‘‘AHRI 210/240–2024’’),
Performance Rating of Unitary Airconditioning and Air-source Heat Pump
Equipment; 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);
(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 Standard 1600–2024 (I–P)
(‘‘AHRI 1600–2024’’), Performance
Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning and
Air-source Heat Pump Equipment; IBR
approved for appendix M2 to subpart B.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
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
CC, CC1, M1, and M2 to subpart B.
*
*
*
*
*
(22) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 116–
2010, (‘‘ANSI/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.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. 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 5 of appendix M1 to
this subpart or seasonal cooling and offmode rating efficiency (SCORE) as
described in sections 2 and 4 of
appendix M2 to this subpart, and round
off to the nearest 0.025 Btu/W-h.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1283
(3) Determine energy efficiency ratio 2
(EER2) as described in section 2 of
appendix M1 or energy efficiency ratio
(EER) as described in section 2 of
appendix M2 to this subpart and round
off to the nearest 0.025 Btu/W-h. EER2
(for appendix M1 to this subpart) or EER
(for appendix M2 to this subpart) is the
efficiency from the A or Afull test,
whichever applies.
(4) Determine heating seasonal
performance factor 2 (HSPF2) as
described in sections 2 and 5 of
appendix M1 to this subpart or seasonal
heating and off-mode rating efficiency
(SHORE) as described in sections 2 and
4 of appendix M2 to this subpart, and
round off to the nearest 0.025 Btu/W-h.
(5) Determine PW,OFF, average offmode 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.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Revise appendix M1 to subpart B
of part 430 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 July 7, 2025, 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 M1.
Beginning July 7, 2025, 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.
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
1284
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
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 210/240–2024,
ANSI/ASHRAE 16, ASHRAE 37–2009 and
ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010. However, certain
enumerated provisions of AHRI 210/240–
2024, ANSI/ASHRAE 16, 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 210/240–2024
(a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable,
(c) The following subsections of Section 3
Definitions are inapplicable: 3.2.16 (Doubleduct system), 3.2.20 (Gross capacity), 3.2.46
(Oil Recovery Mode), 3.2.51 (Published
Rating), 3.2.63 (Standard Filter), 3.2.78
(Unitary Air-conditioner), 3.2.79 (Unitary
Heat Pump),
(d) Section 4 Classifications is
inapplicable,
(e) The following subsection of Section 5
Test Requirements is inapplicable: 5.1.6.2
(Outdoor Unit with No Match (OUWNM)),
(f) The following subsections of Section 6
Rating Requirements are inapplicable: 6.1.8,
6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5
(g) Section 7 Minimum Data Requirements
for Published Ratings is inapplicable,
(h) Section 8 Operating Requirements is
inapplicable,
(i) Section 9 Marking and Nameplate Data
is inapplicable,
(j) Section 10 Conformance Conditions is
inapplicable,
(k) Appendix A References—Normative is
inapplicable,
(l) Appendix B References—Informative is
inapplicable,
(m) Appendix C Secondary Capacity Check
Requirements—Normative is inapplicable,
(n) Appendix F Unit Configurations for
Standard Efficiency Determination—
Normative is inapplicable,
(o) Appendix H Verification Testing—
Normative is inapplicable,
(p) Appendix I Controls Verification
Procedure—Normative is inapplicable, and
(q) 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
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 210/240–2024 and the applicable
provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 16, ASHRAE
37–2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010. The
AFull (cooling mode) and H1Full or H1Nom
(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. For
cooling mode tests of variable capacity
systems, the compressor shall operate at the
same cooling full speed, measured by RPM
of power input frequency (Hz), for both AFull
and BFull tests. Additionally, the compressor
shall operate at the same cooling minimum
speed, measured by RPM or power input
frequency (Hz), for the BLow, FLow, GLow, and
ILow tests.
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 210/240–2024,
ASHRAE 37–2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16 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 210/240–2024.
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 a new Indoor Unit to create
a new 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 and
global warming potential greater than 150 per
EPA regulations in 40 CFR 84.64, 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 210/240–2024. This
shall not apply if either:
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(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 at
a single cooling air volume rate 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/
240–2024). Tested values of CDc and/or CDh
are not permitted. The default value, 0.25,
shall be used for both cooling and heating
mode testing.
5. Test Conditions
5.1. Test Conditions for Certifying
Compliance with Standards. The following
conditions specified in AHRI 210/240–2024
apply when testing to certify to the SEER2
and HSPF2 energy conservation standards in
§ 430.32(c).
(a) For cooling mode, use the rating
conditions specified in table 8 of AHRI 210/
240–2024 and the fractional cooling bin
hours in table 15 of AHRI 210/240–2024 to
determine SEER2, and EER2 for models
subject to regional standards in terms of
EER2.
(b) For heat pump heating mode, use the
rating conditions specified in table 8 of AHRI
210/240–2024 and the fractional heating bin
hours specified for Region IV in table 16 of
AHRI 210/240–2024 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
210/240–2024 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 210/240–2024 and the fractional
heating hours specified for Regions other
than Region IV in table 16 of AHRI 210/240–
2024 are optional. Representations of COPpeak
made using appendix K are optional.
11. Add appendix M2 to subpart B of
part 430 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 July 7, 2025, 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 July 7, 2025, 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
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
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 § 430.3, DOE incorporated by reference
the entire standard for AHRI 1600–2024,
ANSI/ASHRAE 16, ASHRAE 37–2009, and
ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010. However, certain
enumerated provisions of AHRI 1600–2024,
ANSI/ASHRAE 16, 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 1600–2024
(a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable,
(c) The following sections of Section 3
Definitions are inapplicable: 3.2.16 (Doubleduct system), 3.2.20 (Gross capacity), 3.2.45
(Oil Recovery Mode), 3.2.50 (Published
Rating), 3.2.63 (Standard Filter), 3.2.78
(Unitary Air-conditioner), 3.2.79 (Unitary
Heat Pump),
(d) Section 4 Classifications is
inapplicable,
(e) The following subsection of Section 5
Test Requirements is inapplicable: 5.1.6.2
(Outdoor Unit with No Match (OUWNM)),
(f) The following subsections of Section 6
Rating Requirements are inapplicable: 6.1.8,
6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5
(g) Section 7 Minimum Data Requirements
for Published Ratings is inapplicable,
(h) Section 8 Operating Requirements is
inapplicable,
(i) Section 9 Marking and Nameplate Data
is inapplicable,
(j) Section 10 Conformance Conditions is
inapplicable,
(k) Appendix A References—Normative is
inapplicable,
(l) Appendix B References—Informative is
inapplicable,
(m) Appendix C Secondary Capacity Check
Requirements—Normative is inapplicable,
(n) Appendix F Unit Configurations for
Standard Efficiency Determination—
Normative is inapplicable,
(o) Appendix H Verification Testing—
Normative is inapplicable,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:54 Jan 06, 2025
Jkt 265001
(p) Appendix I Controls Verification
Procedure—Normative is inapplicable, and
(q) 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 applicable energy efficiency
metrics (SCORE, SHORE, and EER) in
accordance with the specified sections of
AHRI 1600–2024 and the applicable
provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 16, ASHRAE
37–2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116–2010. The
AFull (cooling mode) and H1Full or H1Nom
(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. For
cooling mode tests of variable capacity
systems, the compressor shall operate at the
same cooling full speed, measured by RPM
of power input frequency (Hz), for both AFull
and BFull tests. Additionally, the compressor
shall operate at the same cooling minimum
speed, measured by RPM or power input
frequency (Hz), for the BLow, FLow, GLow, and
ILow tests.
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 1600–2024, ASHRAE 37–
2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16, 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:
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
1285
(a) Is designed for use with a refrigerant
that makes the unit banned for installation
when paired with a new 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 and a
global warming potential greater than 150 per
EPA regulations in 40 CFR 84.64, 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 1600–2024. 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 at
a single cooling air volume rate 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–
2024). Tested values of CDc and/or CDh are
not permitted. The default value, 0.25, shall
be used for both cooling and heating mode
testing.
4. Test Conditions
4.1. Test Conditions for Certifying
Compliance with Standards. The following
conditions specified in AHRI 1600–2024
apply if testing to certify to the SCORE and
SHORE energy conservation standards in
§ 430.32(c).
(a) For cooling mode, use the rating
conditions specified in table 8 of AHRI 1600–
2024 and the ‘U.S. National Average’ cooling
conditioning hours and shoulder season
hours in table 15 of AHRI 1600–2024, to
determine SCORE, and EER for models
subject to regional standards in terms of EER.
(b) For heat pump heating mode, use the
rating conditions specified in table 8 of AHRI
1600–2024 and the ‘U.S. National Average’
heating conditioning hours and shoulder
season hours specified in table 18 of AHRI
1600–2024 to determine the heating
efficiency metric, SHORE.
4.2. Optional Representations.
Representations of EER made using the rating
conditions specified in table 8 of AHRI 1600–
2024 are optional for models not subject to
regional standards in terms of EER.
Representations of SHORE made using the
rating conditions specified in table 8 of AHRI
1600–2024 and the ‘Cold Climate Average’
heating conditioning hours and shoulder
season hours in table 18 of AHRI 1600–2024
are optional. Representations of COPpeak
made using appendix K are optional.
[FR Doc. 2024–30852 Filed 1–6–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\07JAR2.SGM
07JAR2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1224-1285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-30852]
[[Page 1223]]
Vol. 90
Tuesday,
No. 4
January 7, 2025
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Central Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 4 / Tuesday, January 7, 2025 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 1224]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends 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 is incorporating by reference the latest version of
the relevant industry consensus test standard, AHRI 210/240-2024 (I-P)
for 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''). DOE is incorporating by reference the new industry
consensus test standard, AHRI 1600-2024 (I-P), for a new test procedure
(``appendix M2'') for CAC/HPs that adopts 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 is amending certain provisions of DOE's
regulations related to representations and enforcement for CAC/HPs.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is February 6, 2025. The
amendments will be mandatory for product testing starting July 7, 2025.
Manufacturers will be required to use the amended test procedure until
the compliance date of any final rule establishing amended energy
conservation standards based on the newly established test procedure.
At such time, manufacturers will be required to begin using the newly
established test procedure.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on
February 6, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at 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 those containing information that is exempt from
public disclosure.
A link to 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.
For further information on how to review the docket contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Pradeep Prathibha, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(240) 255-0630. 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) 586-4798. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE maintains previously approved
incorporations by reference and incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into 10 CFR parts 429 and 430:
AHRI Standard 210/240-2024 (I-P), Performance Rating of Unitary
Air-conditioning and Air-source Heat Pump Equipment, copyright 2024
(``AHRI 210/240-2024'').
AHRI Standard 1600-2024 (I-P), Performance Rating of Unitary Air-
conditioning and Air-source Heat Pump Equipment, copyright 2024 (``AHRI
1600-2024'').
Copies of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 can be obtained from
the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2311
Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or online
at: www.ahrinet.org.
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'').
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, Methods of Testing for Rating
Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,
ANSI-approved June 25, 2009 (``ASHRAE 37-2009'').
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 116-2010, Methods of Testing for Rating
Seasonal Efficiency of Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, ANSI
approved February 24, 2010 (``ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010'').
Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE 16, ASHRAE 37-2009, and ANSI/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.N of this document for further discussion of these
standards.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Updates to Industry Standards
1. AHRI 210/240-2024
2. AHRI 1600-2024
3. ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016
5. ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010
C. Revised CAC/HP Test Procedure
D. Efficiency Metrics
1. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M1
2. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M2
E. Near-Term Changes in the CAC/HP Test Procedure
1. Controls Verification Procedure for Variable Speed Systems
2. Low-Temperature Heating Performance
3. Cut-Out and Cut-In Temperature Verification
4. Low-Static Single-Split Blower-Coil System Definition and
Testing Provisions
5. Mandatory Constant Circulation Systems
6. Provisions for Outdoor Units With No Match
7. Inlet and Outlet Duct Configurations
8. Heat Comfort Controllers
F. Long-Term Changes in the CAC Test Procedure
1. Power Consumption of Auxiliary Components
2. Impact of Defrost on Performance
3. Updates to Building Load Lines and Temperature Bin Hours
4. Default Fan Power Coefficients for Coil-Only Systems
5. Air Flow Limits To Address Inadequate Dehumidification
G. General Comments Received in Response to the April 2024 NOPR
H. Represented Values
1. 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
I. Enforcement Provisions
[[Page 1225]]
1. Verifying Cut-Out and Cut-In Temperatures
2. Controls Verification Procedure
J. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts
1. Appendix M1
2. Appendix M2
K. Effective and Compliance Dates
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Descriptions of Reasons for Action
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
1. Certification Statement
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. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. 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 the U.S. Department of Energy
(``DOE'') is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation
standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292 (a)(3)) DOE's test
procedure for CAC/HPs is currently prescribed at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix M1 (``appendix M1''). The following sections
discuss DOE's authority to establish and amend the test procedure for
CAC/HPs and relevant background information regarding DOE's
consideration of the test procedure for this product.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Pub. L. 94-163, as amended
(``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a
number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\
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))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflects the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part 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 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 under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2)
making other representations about the efficiency of those products (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to
determine whether the products comply with any 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 shall 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 (as determined by the Secretary) or period of use and shall not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every seven 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.
DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.27 provide that any interested
person may seek a waiver from the test procedure requirements if
certain conditions are met. A waiver requires manufacturers to use an
alternate test procedure in situations in which the DOE test procedure
cannot be used to test the product or equipment, or use of the DOE test
procedure would generate unrepresentative results. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1).
DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.27(l) require that as soon as
practicable after the granting of any waiver, DOE will publish in the
Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') to amend
its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of
such waiver. As soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish in the
Federal Register a final rule. 10 CFR 430.27(l).
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 into the overall energy efficiency, energy
consumption, or other
[[Page 1226]]
energy descriptor, unless the current test procedure already
incorporates the standby mode and off-mode energy consumption, or if
such integration is technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)(i)-(ii)) If an integrated test procedure is technically
infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and off-mode
energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a separate test
is 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 \3\ and IEC Standard
62087 \4\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) DOE is publishing
this final rule in satisfaction of the seven-year review requirement
specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\4\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015,
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Background
On April 5, 2024, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice of
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') (``April 2024 NOPR'') proposing to
update the Federal test procedure for CAC/HPs by: (1) incorporating by
reference at appendix M1 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''). 89 FR 24206. Copies of the AHRI drafts were
added to the docket for this rulemaking for review by interested
parties.5 6 As stated in the April 2024 NOPR, if AHRI 210/
240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft were to be finalized and
formally adopted, DOE's intention would be to reference the final
published version of AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 1600 in DOE's subsequent
test procedure final rule. 89 FR 24206, 24209. DOE held a public
meeting webinar on April 25, 2024 to discuss the proposed amendments to
the CAC/HP test procedure presented in the April 2024 NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The AHRI 210/240-202X Draft test procedure is available in
the docket for this rulemaking at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2022-BT-TP-0028-0017.
\6\ The AHRI 1600-202X Draft test procedure is available in the
docket for this rulemaking at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2022-BT-TP-0028-0018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received comments in response to the April 2024 NOPR from the
interested parties listed in table I.1.
Table I-1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the April 2024 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this
Commenter(s) final rule Comment No. in the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI.................. 25....................... Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San CA IOUs............... 32....................... Utilities.
Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern
California Edison; collectively, the
California Investor-Owned Utilities.
Carrier Global Corporation........... Carrier............... 29....................... Manufacturer.
Copeland LP.......................... Copeland.............. 31....................... Manufacturer.
Daikin Comfort Technologies North Daikin................ 36 and 40................ Manufacturer.
America Inc.
GE Appliances........................ GE Appliances......... 37....................... Manufacturer.
Heating, Air-conditioning & HARDI................. 26....................... Trade Association.
Refrigeration Distributors
International.
Johnson Controls..................... JCI................... 35....................... Manufacturer.
Appliance Standards Awareness Joint Advocates....... 30....................... Efficiency
Project, National Consumer Law Organization,
Center, and New York State Energy Consumer Advocacy
Research and Development Authority. Organization, and
State Agency.
Keith Rice........................... Keith Rice............ 33....................... HVAC R&D Engineer.
Lennox International Inc............. Lennox................ 24....................... Manufacturer.
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc........... LG.................... 38....................... Manufacturer.
Mitsubishi Electric US............... Mitsubishi............ 28....................... Manufacturer.
National Comfort Products............ NCP................... 27....................... Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. NEEA.................. 39....................... Efficiency
Organization.
Rheem Manufacturing Company.......... Rheem................. 34....................... Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\7\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the April 25, 2024 public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this final rule. DOE did not identify any oral
comments provided during the April 25, 2024, public meeting that are
not substantively addressed by written comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 at page of
that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2024, AHRI finalized AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-
202X Draft without substantial change, and published AHRI Standard 210/
240-2024, ``Performance Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning and Air-
source Heat Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 210/240-2024''), and AHRI Standard
1600-2024, ``Performance Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning and Air-
source Heat Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 1600-2024''), respectively.
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE is updating its regulations for CAC/HPs by:
(1) amending appendix M1 to incorporate by reference the latest
industry standard, AHRI 210/240-2024, while maintaining the current
efficiency metrics EER2, SEER2 and HSPF2; and (2) establishing a new
appendix M2 that references the new industry test
[[Page 1227]]
procedure, AHRI 1600-2024, for measuring new efficiency metrics, EER,
SCORE and SHORE. Appendix M2 would be 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
amending certain provisions within DOE's regulations for representation
and enforcement consistent with the proposed test procedure amendments.
Table II.1 summarizes the adopted changes to the amended appendix
M1 and the new appendix M2 test procedures, as well as the reason for
the adopted change.
Table II-1--Summary of Changes in Amended Appendix M1 and New Appendix M2 Test Procedures Relative to Current
Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix M1 test Appendix M2 test
DOE test procedure prior to amendment procedure 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
2024. 2024. 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 EER (same
as EER2).
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 determined that the amendments to the CAC/HP test
procedures in appendix M1 and newly established appendix M2 would not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. Furthermore, DOE has determined that
the amendments to appendix M1 would not alter the measured efficiency
of CAC/HPs or require retesting or recertification solely as a result
of DOE's adoption of the amendments to the test procedure.
Additionally, DOE has determined that the amendments to appendix M1
would not increase the cost of testing. 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 determined, however, that new appendix M2 would 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 determined that testing
according to the new appendix M2 would not increase the cost of testing
as compared to appendix M1. Cost estimates are discussed in section
III.J 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 amendments to representation requirements in 10 CFR 429.16
would not be required until 180 days after publication in the Federal
Register of this final rule.
Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are addressed in further
detail in section III of this final rule.
III. Discussion
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). For all central air conditioner and central air
conditioning heat pump-related definitions, see appendix M or M1 of
subpart B of this part. 10 CFR 430.2.
Consistent with the April 2024 NOPR, DOE is not proposing any
changes to the CAC/HP definition. However, DOE notes that the last
sentence in the CAC/HP definition includes references to see additional
definitions in appendices M and M1. As noted in section II, in this
final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference the latest industry
standards, AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024, including the relevant
definitions
[[Page 1228]]
in these standards. Therefore, references to appendices M and M1 are no
longer relevant in the CAC/HP definition. To prevent confusion, DOE is
removing the last sentence in the definition that contains these
references. 10 CFR 430.2.
The current scope of the CACs/HP test procedure includes:
(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.
See section 1.1 of appendix M1.
DOE is not amending the scope of CACs/HPs covered by the test
procedure in appendix M1 or appendix M2.
B. Updates to Industry Standards
DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI 210/240-2024 and the
relevant standards it references as the basis for the updated appendix
M1 test procedure. Similarly, DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI
1600-2024 and the relevant standards it references as the basis for the
new appendix M2 test procedure. Incorporating each industry standard in
full as the basis for each respective appendix would enable DOE to
better harmonize with the industry standard and eliminate manufacturer
burden in certifying with separate test procedures. The following
sections discuss the referenced standards for appendices M1 and M2.
1. AHRI 210/240-2024
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted that AHRI and other relevant
stakeholders, including DOE, worked to develop a revised AHRI 210/240
standard, AHRI 210/240-202X Draft, that included updates to address
issues pertaining to the CAC/HP test procedure with broad stakeholder
consensus. 89 FR 24206, 24211-24212. DOE proposed to amend its test
procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M1 by incorporating by reference AHRI
210/240-202X Draft. Id. Because AHRI 210/240-202X Draft was in draft
form at the time of the publication of the April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted
that it intended 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. Id. In May 2024, AHRI
published the finalized AHRI 210/240 standard, AHRI 210/240-2024, which
did not include any significant deviations from AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft.
AHRI, the CA IOUs, Carrier, Daikin, GE Appliances, JCI, Lennox, and
NEEA were generally supportive of DOE`s proposal on updating appendix
M1 by adopting the finalized AHRI 210/240 standard. (AHRI, No. 25 at p.
3; Carrier, No. 29 at p. 4; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 1; Daikin, No. 36 at
p. 1; GE Appliances, No. 37 at pp. 4-5; JCI, No. 35 at p. 1; Lennox,
No. 24 at p. 3; NEEA, No. 39 at p. 2) AHRI commented that it supports
the adoption of AHRI 210/240-2024 as a revised appendix M1, but with
minimal additions and some exclusions, and will be publishing an
addendum to AHRI 210/240-2024 that will include the aforementioned
minimal additions that DOE established in the April 2024 NOPR,
including revision to the definition of outdoor unit with no match.
(AHRI, No. 25 at p. 3)
The Joint Advocates and CA IOUs encouraged DOE to adopt AHRI 210/
240-2024 in the new CAC/HP test procedure final rule as soon as
possible. (Joint Advocates, No. 30 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 1)
Carrier stated that it supports the incorporation by reference of AHRI
210/240-2024 into a revised appendix M1, but with some recommendations.
(Carrier, No. 29 at p. 4) Rheem commented that even though it supported
the adoption of the consensus AHRI 210/240-2024 in the updated Appendix
M1, it was concerned that the new versions of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-
2009 \8\ and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-2016 \9\ with major changes, which
are to be published in the near future, are not currently referenced in
AHRI 210/240-2024. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 3) Specifically, Rheem pointed
out that once the new versions of the aforementioned ASHRAE standards
are published, AHRI 210/240-2024 should be revised to incorporate
references to the revised standards, and subsequently, DOE should
update appendix M1 to incorporate the revised AHRI 210/240-2024 by
reference. (Id. at pp. 3-4) Rheem further commented that since AHRI
210/240-2024 cites sections of 10 CFR 429.16, and of appendix M1 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, it should be revised to ensure that these
references to CFR are still appropriate, since DOE has proposed major
revisions to these sections from the CFR. (Id.) Rheem pointed to the
newly introduced enforcement provisions in 10 CFR 429.134(k), which
require calculation of average capacity (10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(iii)(A)(1) and (2)) or time-averaged integrated (10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(iii)(A)(3)) capacity and power consumption, and Rheem
suggested updates to appendix I of AHRI 210/240-2024 to state that
average capacity, average power consumption, time-averaged integrated
capacity, and time-integrated power consumption should be calculated
according to the appropriate sections of AHRI 210/240-2024 and ANSI/
ASHRAE 16, as applicable. (Id.) Rheem pointed out that table 8 of AHRI
210/240-2024, which lists the test conditions for CAC/HPs under test,
does not include the details on how to measure the compressor speed for
cooling full-speed tests (A2 and B2), and cooling minimum-speed tests
(B1, F1, G1, and I1) for variable-speed compressor units, as currently
specified in section 3.2.4(a) of appendix M1. (Id. at p. 4) Rheem
commented that the aforementioned details should be added as notes
under table 8 of AHRI 210/240-2024, after appropriate translations of
the test nomenclature.\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 provides a method of test for many
categories of air-conditioning and heating products and equipment,
including CAC/HPs.
\9\ ANS/ASHRAE 16-2016 provides a method of test for rating room
air conditioners, packaged terminal air conditioners, and packaged
terminal heat pumps.
\10\ Currently, all full-speed cooling and heating mode tests in
appendix M1 are identified with ``2'' in the subscript of the
relevant test, whereas AHRI 210/240-202X and AHRI 1600-202X identify
them with the ``Full'' subscript. Similarly, all minimum-speed
cooling and heating mode tests in appendix M1 are identified with
``1'' in the subscript of the relevant test, whereas AHRI 210/240-
202X and AHRI 1600-202X identify them with the ``Low'' subscript.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Rheem's comment, DOE notes that in the April 2024
NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference AHRI 210/240-202X draft
and the AHRI 1600-202X draft, at revised appendix M1 and new appendix
M2, respectively, while this final rule is updating these references to
the final drafts, AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024. DOE has
reviewed the finalized standards, AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024,
and has concluded that all current references to 10 CFR 429.16 in the
standards would
[[Page 1229]]
not require revision. Additionally, DOE clarifies that any further
updates to appendix I of the AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 1600 standards to
add the definitions of average capacity, average power consumption,
time-averaged integrated capacity, and time-integrated power
consumption will have to be initiated by AHRI, as part of an addendum.
DOE has determined that additional definitions are not necessary at
this time and notes that an updated appendix I to AHRI 210/240 and AHRI
1600 is not yet available for review; therefore, DOE is not adopting
additional definitions as recommended by Rheem at this time. Regarding
Rheem's comment on table 8 of AHRI 210/240-2024 lacking language from
section 3.2.4 (a) of the current appendix M1 for maintaining the same
full compressor speed for all full-speed cooling tests, and the same
minimum compressor speed for all minimum-speed cooling tests, DOE is
adding provisions in section 2 of the revised appendix M1 and section 2
of the new appendix M2, consistent with the existing requirement in
appendix M1, as follows:
For cooling mode tests of variable capacity systems, the compressor
shall operate at the same cooling full speed, measured by RPM of power
input frequency (Hz), for both AFull and BFull
tests. Additionally, the compressor shall operate at the same cooling
minimum speed, measured by RPM or power input frequency (Hz), for the
BLow, FLow, GLow, and ILow
tests.
As noted, in May 2024, AHRI published AHRI 210/240-2024, which does
not include any significant deviations from AHRI 210/240-202X Draft. As
such, the adoption of AHRI 210/240-2024 in this final rule is
consistent with the proposal to reference AHRI 210/240-202X Draft in
the April 2024 NOPR.
Therefore, DOE is amending its test procedure for CAC/HPs by
incorporating by reference AHRI 210/240-2024 for use in the new
appendix M1. Specifically, in the new test procedure for CAC/HPs at
appendix M1, DOE is adopting sections 3 (excluding 3.2.16, 3.2.20,
3.2.46, 3.2.51, 3.2.63, 3.2.78 and 3.2.79), 5 (excluding 5.1.6.2), 6.1-
6.3, and 6.6, and Appendices D, E, G, and K of AHRI 210/240-2024.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ DOE notes that the substance of these provisions remains
the same as those proposed in the April 2024 NOPR, but AHRI did some
reorganization in moving from AHRI 210/240-202X Draft to AHRI 210/
240-2024. Consequently, the adopted section numbers cited here
differ from those presented in DOE's proposed rule. See 89 FR 24206,
24212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, as proposed in the April 2024 NOPR, DOE is making
additions and deletions to the incorporations by reference for the CAC/
HP Federal test procedure (see 10 CFR 430.3) to align with the
references made within AHRI 210/240-2024. 89 FR 24206, 24212.
Currently, appendix M1 incorporates by reference: AMCA 210-
2007,\12\ AHRI 210/240-2008, AHRI 1230-2010,\13\ ASHRAE 23.1-2010,\14\
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and ASHRAE 116-2010. 10 CFR 430.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 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.
\13\ 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.
\14\ 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 amended test procedure at appendix M1, DOE is adding an
incorporation by reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016 and removing
incorporations by reference to AMCA 210-2007, AHRI 210/240-2008, AHRI
1230-2010, and ASHRAE 23.1-2010. Therefore, DOE is incorporating by
reference AHRI 210/240-2024, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009,
and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010, at appendix M1.
2. AHRI 1600-2024
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).
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to establish a new test
procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M2 by incorporating by reference AHRI
1600-202X Draft (in its entirety). 89 FR 24206, 24212. DOE noted that
it intended 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. Id. In May 2024, AHRI published
the finalized AHRI 1600 standard, AHRI 1600-2024, which did not include
any significant deviations from AHRI 1600-202X Draft.
Several stakeholders, namely Lennox, AHRI, Mitsubishi, Copeland,
the CA IOUs, Rheem, Daikin, NEEA, and Carrier, appreciated DOE's
efforts of collaborating with the stakeholders to develop the AHRI 1600
standard, and supported its adoption at appendix M2. (Lennox, No. 24 at
p. 4; AHRI, No. 25 at p. 3; \15\ Mitsubishi, No. 28 at p. 1; Copeland,
No. 31 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 34 at p. 4; Daikin,
No. 36 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 39 at p. 2; Carrier, No. 29 at p. 4) Rheem
commented that in a similar vein to its comment made on AHRI 210/240-
2024 (see section III.B.1 of this document), DOE should be aware that
the revised editions of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37 and ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 16 are currently not referenced in AHRI Standard 1600-2024.
(Rheem, No. 34 at p. 4) Rheem further pointed to DOE`s inclusion of the
energy efficiency metric energy efficiency ratio 2 (``EER2) in 10 CFR
430.23(m)(2); several sections of 10 CFR 429.16 and 10 CFR
429.134(k)(4); and sections 2, 4.1, and 4.2 of appendix M2 to subpart B
of 10 CFR part 430, which in turn incorporate AHRI 1600-2024 by
reference, which only includes energy efficiency ratio (``EER'') as the
efficiency metric, and not EER2. (Id. at p. 5) Rheem stated that this
mismatch should be resolved by either DOE revising its relevant
references from EER2 to EER, or that AHRI 1600-2024 should be revised
to replace all instances of EER with EER2. (Id.) Further, Rheem pointed
out that section 4.1 of the new appendix M2 references 10 CFR 431.97,
in relation to certification to the energy conservation standards SCORE
and SHORE, and suggested this citation should be changed to 10 CFR
430.32(c), which will be amended to prescribe energy conservation
standards for CAC/HPs. (Id.) Additionally, as noted in section III.B.1
for AHRI 210/240-2024, Rheem commented that table 8 of AHRI 1600-2024
should contain sentences similar to section 3.2.4(a) of appendix M1, to
[[Page 1230]]
specify that for variable-speed compressor systems, the cooling full
compressor speed for both A2 and B2 tests should be same, and the
cooling minimum compressor speed for the B1, F1, G1, and I1 tests
should remain the same. (Id. at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ While AHRI`s comment noted support for the adoption of the
AHRI 1600 standard at appendix M1, DOE surmises that this is a
typographical error, and AHRI intended to express support for
adoption at appendix M2 instead. As proposed in the April 2024 NOPR,
appendix M1 references the draft AHRI 210/240 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Rheem's comment regarding AHRI 210/240-2024
retaining the EER2 metric while AHRI 1600-2024 using the EER metric,
DOE agrees with Rheem that this mismatch has potential to confuse users
of the test procedure. DOE notes that the EER2 metric in AHRI 210/240-
2024 is identical to the EER metric in AHRI 1600-2024. Both metrics are
evaluated at the same test conditions and convey the same full-load
efficiency information. Therefore, for appendix M1, which references
AHRI 210/240-2024, DOE is retaining the EER2 metric. For appendix M2,
which references AHRI 1600-2024, DOE is including EER as the full-load
metric, with EER evaluated the same way as EER2 per appendix M1. DOE is
making appropriates changes in the regulatory text at 10 CFR parts 429
and 430, and appendix M2, to reflect this clarification. In response to
Rheem's comment for the citation of the SCORE and SHORE energy
conservation standards in the April 2024 NOPR, DOE agrees that the
correct citation is to 10 CFR 430.32(c), and not 10 CFR 431.97.
Finally, as mentioned in section III.B.1 of this document, DOE is
adding language to section 2 of appendix M2 to explicitly state that
for variable-capacity compressor systems, the cooling full compressor
speeds for both AFull and BFull tests should be
identical, and the cooling minimum compressor speed for the
BLow, FLow, GLow, and ILow
tests should be identical.
As discussed, AHRI 1600-2024 does not include any significant
deviations from AHRI 1600-202X Draft. As such, the adoption of AHRI
1600-2024 in this final rule is consistent with the proposal to
reference AHRI 1600-202X Draft in the April 2024 NOPR.
DOE is amending its test procedure for CAC/HPs by incorporating by
reference AHRI 1600-2024 for use in the new appendix M2. Specifically,
in the new test procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M2, DOE is adopting
sections 3 (excluding 3.2.16, 3.2.20, 3.2.45, 3.2.50, 3.2.63, 3.2.78,
and 3.2.79), 5 (excluding 5.1.6.2), 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.
Additionally, consistent with the April 2024 NOPR, DOE is also
incorporating by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009,
and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010, which are referenced within AHRI 1600-2024.
Therefore, in total, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI
1600-2024, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE
116-2010, at appendix M2.
3. ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 provides a method of test for electrically
driven unitary air-conditioning and heat pump equipment, which includes
CAC/HPs. In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 at both appendix M1 and appendix M2,
since AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft both reference
test instructions in ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. 89 FR 24206, 24212. The
finalized versions of these draft standards, AHRI 210/240-2024 and the
AHRI 1600-2024, also reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. More specifically,
sections 5, 6, 8, and 11 and appendices C, D, E, I, and J of AHRI 210/
240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 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 210/240-2024 Draft references ANSI/ASHRAE
37-2009 for several test instructions, DOE has concluded, consistent
with the April 2024 NOPR, that it is appropriate to maintain the
existing incorporation by reference of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 in appendix
M1. Additionally, given that AHRI 1600-2024 references ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
2009 for several test instructions, DOE has concluded, consistent with
the April 2024 NOPR, that it is appropriate to 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 the AHRI
210/240-202X Draft and the AHRI 1600-202X Draft. Consequently, in the
April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE
16-2016 at both appendix M1 and appendix M2. 89 FR 24206, 24213. The
finalized versions of the AHRI draft standards, AHRI 210/240-2024 and
AHRI 1600-2024, also reference ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016. More specifically,
section 5.1.1 of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 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 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 AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 refer
to ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016 as an option for testing of non-ducted CAC/HPs,
and it does not impact ratings, DOE has concluded, consistent with the
April 2024 NOPR, 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. Consequently, in the April 2024 NOPR,
DOE proposed to incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010 at both
appendix M1 and appendix M2. 89 FR 24206, 24213. The finalized versions
of the AHRI draft standards, AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024, also
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010. More specifically, sections 5, 6, 8,
and 11 and appendices D and E of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024
refer to methods of test in ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010.
Given that AHRI 210/240-2024 references ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010 for
several test instructions, DOE has concluded, consistent with the April
2024 NOPR, that it is appropriate to maintain the incorporation by
reference of ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010 in appendix M1. Additionally, given
that the AHRI 1600-2024 Draft references ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010 for
several test instructions, DOE has concluded, consistent with the April
2024 NOPR, that it is appropriate to incorporate by reference ANSI/
ASHRAE 116-2010 for use with appendix M2.
C. Revised 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
[[Page 1231]]
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)(3))
In this final rule, DOE is maintaining the current efficiency
metrics, EER2, SEER2 and HSPF2, at appendix M1 and is referencing AHRI
210/240-2024 for measuring the existing metrics. DOE has determined
that the amendments to appendix M1 would not affect the measured
efficiency of CAC/HPs or require retesting solely because of DOE's
adoption of the amendments to the appendix M1 test procedure. At
appendix M1, DOE is incorporating by reference the following sections
of the AHRI 210/240-2024: sections 3 (with certain exclusions \16\), 5
(with one exclusion \17\), 6 (with certain exclusions \18\), 11, and
12, as well as appendices D, E, G, K, and L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ DOE is not incorporating by reference the following
provisions in section 3 of AHRI 210/240-2024 because the terms are
either defined in appendix M1, or are not needed for the DOE test
procedure: 3.2.16 (Double-duct System), 3.2.20 (Gross Capacity),
3.2.46 (Oil Recovery Mode), 3.2.51 (Published Rating), 3.2.63
(Standard Filter), 3.2.78 (Unitary Air-conditioner), and 3.2.79
(Unitary Heat Pump).
\17\ DOE is not incorporating by reference the following
provision in section 5 of AHRI 210/240-2024 because the term is
defined in appendix M1: 5.1.6.2 (Outdoor Unit with No Match
(OUWNM)).
\18\ DOE is not incorporating by reference the following
provisions in section 6 of AHRI 210/240-2024 because the provisions
are either defined in 10 CFR 429.16, or are not needed for the 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DOE is establishing a new test procedure at appendix
M2 that adopts AHRI 1600-2024, including the new SCORE and SHORE
metrics.\19\ Use of appendix M2 is not required until the compliance
date of any amended standards denominated in terms of the new metrics
for appendix M2, should such standards be adopted. At appendix M2, DOE
is referencing the following sections of AHRI 1600-2024: sections 3
(with certain exclusions \20\), 5 (with one exclusion \21\), 6 (with
certain exclusions \22\), 11, and 12 and appendices D, E, G, K and L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ As explained in Section III.B.2, DOE will replace EER2 in
appendix M1 with EER in appendix M2. However, EER will be calculated
in a manner identical to EER2, and both convey the same full load
test information.
\20\ DOE is not incorporating by reference the following
provisions in section 3 of AHRI 1600-2024 because the terms are
either defined in appendix M1, or are not needed for the DOE test
procedure: 3.2.16 (Double-duct System), 3.2.20 (Gross Capacity),
3.2.45 (Oil Recovery Mode), 3.2.50 (Published Rating), 3.2.63
(Standard Filter), 3.2.78 (Unitary Air-conditioner), and 3.2.79
(Unitary Heat Pump).
\21\ DOE is not incorporating by reference the following
provision in section 5 of AHRI 1600-2024 because the term is defined
in appendix M2: 5.1.6.2 (Outdoor Unit with No Match (OUWNM)).
\22\ DOE is not incorporating by reference the following
provisions in section 6 of AHRI 1600-2024 D because the provisions
are either defined in 10 CFR 429.16, or are not needed for the 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 incorporating
by reference the following: ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, except sections 1
(Purpose), 2 (Scope), and 4 (Classifications); ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016
except sections 1 (Purpose), 2 (Scope), and 4 (Classifications); and
ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010 except sections 1 (Purpose), 2 (Scope), 4
(Classifications), and 7 (Methods of Test).
D. Efficiency Metrics
As discussed, DOE is updating 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/
240-2024. DOE is also establishing a new Federal test procedure at 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M2, consistent with the new industry
consensus test procedure, AHRI 1600-2024. Sections III.D.1 and III.D.2
of this document discuss which metrics are applicable for appendices M1
and M2, respectively.
1. Metrics Applicable to Appendix M1
Consistent with the April 2024 NOPR, appendix M1 maintains the
current energy efficiency metrics (i.e., EER2, SEER2, and HSPF2), and
includes a new optional metric: the peak load coefficient of
performance (``COPpeak''), applicable to central heat pumps
(``CHPs''). The amendments to appendix M1 to align with AHRI 210/240-
2024 maintain the existing energy efficiency metrics, and DOE has
determined that testing under 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
The newly established appendix M2 introduces 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 integrated metrics that
include off mode power, PW,OFF. Hence, appendix M2 will not
require separate representations for off mode power. Appendix M2 will
retain the full-load EER metric, with EER evaluated in the same way as
appendix M1.\23\ Appendix M2 also includes the optional metric
COPpeak.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ AHRI 1600-2024 replaced the EER2 and COP2 metrics from AHRI
210/240-2024 with EER and COP. For consistency, appendix M2 will
follow the nomenclature in AHRI 1600-2024 and will hence use EER as
the full-load metric, while appendix M1 will use the EER2 metric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. 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 required 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 210/240-2024.
DOE has reviewed AHRI 210/240-2024 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)(3)) These near-term amendments in appendix M1
do not alter the measured efficiency of CAC/HPs in terms of the current
cooling and heating test metrics, SEER2 and HSPF2, or the current off
mode metric, PW,OFF.
DOE clarifies that while all issues discussed subsequently within
this section are near-term, they are also part of the long-term CAC/HP
test procedure--i.e., these revisions are also included in AHRI 1600-
2024, which DOE is incorporating by reference at appendix M2. As such,
when discussing these near-term changes, DOE makes references to both
AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024.
1. Controls Verification Procedure for Variable-Speed Systems
Appendix M1 uses a steady-state test concept for variable-speed
systems 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 a fixed specified compressor speed and airflow
rate for each test point. As part of the previous rulemaking, several
stakeholders encouraged DOE to review ways to improve the
representativeness of the test procedures for CAC/HPs (especially
variable-speed systems), particularly to consider test procedures where
the unit operates under its own native controls in responding to
conditioning loads (i.e., load-based testing).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1232]]
To review this topic in detail as part of the current rulemaking,
in an RFI published on January 24, 2023, (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.
In the April 2024 NOPR, 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 load-based testing methods
have sufficient repeatability and reproducibility to be the basis of
direct measurement of system performance--DOE tentatively concluded
that use for direct measurement of performance for regulatory purposes
would not be suitable at this time. 89 FR 24206, 24220. Instead, DOE
tentatively concluded that it would be appropriate to continue to allow
regulatory tests to use fixed-speed settings for testing variable-speed
systems, while developing a controls verification procedure (``CVP'')
that could be used for audit, assessment, and enforcement testing to
ensure that the fixed-speed settings are representative of native
(unfixed) control, in which the control system may vary compressor
speed and/or indoor airflow. Id.
DOE noted that AHRI and other relevant stakeholders, including DOE,
participated in the development of revised AHRI test standards to
address several issues raised in the January 2023 RFI, including the
representativeness of fixed-speed testing for variable-speed systems.
89 FR 24206, 24220. From these discussions on the revised AHRI test
standards, consensus was developed on using a CVP approach. Id. In
section III.F.1.e of the April 2024 NOPR, DOE provided a summary of the
CVP approach in Appendix I of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-
202X Draft. 89 FR 24206, 24220-24222.
DOE acknowledged that the CVP approach outlined in appendix I of
the relevant AHRI drafts represented industry consensus regarding: (1)
the verification of compliance of systems with the variable capacity
system definition, and (2) verification of the consistency of fixed-
speed settings of compressor and indoor fans with native control
operation as part of enforcement. 89 FR 24206, 24222. DOE considered
that the CVP approach presented a more representative test procedure
for variable-speed systems operating in the field, because it provided
a tool to verify that the fixed 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 set
point, i.e., indoor dry-bulb temperature. Id. For these reasons, DOE
proposed to incorporate by reference appendix I of 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 AHRI 1600-202X Draft to support enforcement associated with testing
conducted in accordance with appendix M2. Id.
In response to DOE's proposal, several stakeholders, namely Lennox,
the CA IOUs, Rheem, Daikin, GE Appliances, and Carrier, generally
showed support for DOE's proposal on implementing the CVP approach for
certification of variable-speed products. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 2; CA
IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 34 at p. 5; Daikin, No. 36 at p. 3; GE
Appliances, No. 37 at p. 4; Carrier, No. 29 at p. 5)
The Joint Advocates commented that even though it is not
appropriate to adopt load-based testing for measuring the direct
regulatory test performance of CAC/HPs due to insufficient information
on repeatability and reproducibility of load-based testing methods, DOE
should consider adopting them as an integral part of the test procedure
in a future update to the CAC/HP test procedure. (Joint Advocates, No.
30 at pp. 3-4) Further, the Joint Advocates commented that test data
that will better inform repeatability and reproducibility of load-based
tests will be coming out in the near future. (Id.) The Joint Advocates
expressed concern that since the CVP is only an enforcement provision,
manufacturers are not required to conduct it while rating their
product, and hence, adopting some version of load-based testing will
ensure that all certified ratings are more representative of unit
performance in the field. (Id.)
In response to the Joint Advocates' comment, DOE reiterates that it
explored the potential of adopting a load-based method for direct
measurement of performance in the April 2024 NOPR. However, as
discussed in the April 2024 NOPR, the consensus of affected
stakeholders was to adopt a CVP approach instead of a wholesale load-
based method test procedure. 89 FR 24206, 24222. DOE is not aware of
additional information, such as new load-based test data, available for
review to assess the feasibility of adopting load-based testing as a
mandatory part of the CAC/HP test procedure. Even though the CVP is
primarily intended for use by DOE for assessment and enforcement
purposes, it is expected that manufacturers will preemptively utilize
the CVP to evaluate the fixed-speed settings used for certification
tests of their variable-speed products to ensure consistency with
native-control operation.
AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024, the industry standards DOE is
referencing in this final rule, finalized the relevant test method for
the CVP at appendix I without any substantial change as compared to
their corresponding drafts. Therefore, consistent with the April 2024
NOPR, DOE is incorporating by reference appendix I of AHRI 210/240-2024
to support enforcement associated with testing conducted in accordance
with appendix M1, and to incorporate by reference appendix I of AHRI
1600-2024 to support enforcement associated with testing conducted in
accordance with appendix M2. The enforcement provisions are discussed
in more detail in section III.I.2 of this document.
2. Low-Temperature Heating Performance
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference
AHRI 210/240-202X and AHRI 1600-202X Drafts and adopt several test
procedure provisions that pertained to low-temperature heating
performance. 89 FR 24206, 24222-24225. Specifically, DOE proposed to
(1) reference the definition of ``cold climate heat pump'' (``CCHP'')
contained in the AHRI drafts, (2) reference the requirement for
products certified as a CCHP to conduct the H4 heating test (either the
H4, H4Full, or H4Boost heating test, as
applicable), (3) retain the current size-for-cooling approach, and (4)
include COPpeak as an optional representation for combined
heat pump and electric resistance heat efficiency at 5 [deg]F outdoor
temperature for CHPs, as outlined in appendix K of AHRI 210/240-202X
and AHRI 1600-202X Drafts,\25\ at appendix M1 and appendix M2,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ In several instances of the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
incorrectly referred to appendix L of the respective AHRI 210/240-
202X and AHRI 1600-202X Drafts as the appendices regarding
COPpeak. (See 89 FR 24206, 24225). These were
typographical errors, since the appendices regarding
COPpeak are at appendix K of the respective AHRI 210/240-
202X and AHRI 1600-202X Drafts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 1233]]
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the aforementioned
proposals in the April 2024 NOPR. AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024,
the final versions of the draft AHRI standards, finalized the same low-
temperature heating performance provisions without change. Therefore,
consistent with the April 2024 NOPR proposal, DOE is incorporating by
reference AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 and adopting the low-
temperature heating performance provisions discussed in the
aforementioned paragraphs.
3. Cut-Out and Cut-In Temperature Verification
Appendix J of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and also of AHRI 1600-202X
Draft includes a test applicable to all CHPs to determine cut-out and
cut-in temperatures (i.e., Toff and Ton
respectively).\26\ In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed that during
assessment and enforcement testing of CHPs, DOE may verify the cut-out
and cut-in temperatures using the test specified in appendix J of AHRI
210/240-202X Draft, when conducting assessment and enforcement testing
associated with appendix M1, and the test specified in appendix J of
AHRI 1600-202X Draft, when conducting assessment and enforcement
testing associated with appendix M2. The proposal indicated that, if
conducting the appendix J cut-out/cut-in verification, the tested
values determined for these temperatures would be used as the
Toff and Ton values for the unit. 89 FR 24206,
24226.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ In several instances of the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
incorrectly referred to appendix K of the respective AHRI 210/240-
202X and AHRI 1600-202X Drafts as the appendices regarding cut-out
and cut-in temperature verification. (See 89 FR 24206, 24226 and 89
FR 24206, 24243). These were typographical errors, since the
appendices regarding cut-out and cut-in temperature verification are
at appendix J of the respective AHRI 210/240-202X and AHRI 1600-202X
Drafts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024, the industry standards DOE is
referencing in this final rule, finalized the relevant test method for
determining cut-out and cut-in temperatures at appendix J without any
substantial change as compared to their respective drafts. Therefore,
consistent with the April 2024 NOPR, DOE is incorporating by reference
appendix J of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 at appendix M1 and
appendix M2, respectively.
As further discussed in section III.I.1 of this document, DOE may
verify certified cut-out and cut-in temperatures using the test methods
in appendix J 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 external
static pressure (``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 inches of water column (``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.
AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft 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 Specified 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 Specified with a blower-coil indoor unit
tested with a minimum 0.5 in H2O ESP, otherwise it is separately
Specified with a coil-only indoor unit; and
(3) The Indoor Unit is marketed for and produces a maximum ESP less
than 0.5 in H2O when operated at the Specified cooling full-load
airflow not exceeding 400 scfm per Specified ton of cooling.
Both drafts also include provisions requiring low-static single-
split blower-coil systems to be tested at their specified airflow (not
to exceed 400 standardized cubic feet per minute (``scfm'') per
specified ton of cooling capacity) at their maximum airflow setting. If
the ESP achieved at the specified airflow is less than 0.1 in. wc., the
provisions require adjustment of the airflow measurement apparatus fan
to reduce airflow and increase ESP until a minimum of 0.1 in. wc. is
achieved.
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference
the new definition of low-static single-split blower-coil system and
associated testing provisions, which would include single-split systems
that cannot accommodate the 0.5 in. wc. required for testing single-
split blower-coil systems in accordance with the current DOE test
procedure in appendix M1. 89 FR 24206, 24227.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the aforementioned
proposals in the April 2024 NOPR. AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024
finalized the definition and testing provisions for low-static single-
split blower-coil systems without substantial change as compared with
their respective drafts. Therefore, consistent with the April 2024 NOPR
proposals, DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI
1600-2024, and adopting the definition and testing provisions for low-
static single-split blower-coil systems.
In advance of adopting these changes, multiple manufacturers,
including Samsung HVAC America LLC (``Samsung''),\27\ Mitsubishi,\28\
and Hisense (Guangdong) Air Conditioning Co. Ltd. (``Hisense''),\29\
petitioned DOE for test procedure waivers pertaining to low-static
single-split blower-coil systems. All petitions asserted nearly
identical circumstances and model limitations--that it was impossible
to test certain basic models according to appendix M1 because the
models could not operate at the conventional minimum ESP requirement of
0.5 in. wc. found in table 4 of appendix M1. Subsequently,
manufacturers could not certify compliance for or sell these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Samsung's petition at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2023-BT-WAV-0010.
\28\ See Mitsubishi's petition at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2023-BT-WAV-0015.
\29\ See Hisense's petition at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2023-BT-WAV-0011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 5, 2023, DOE published a notification of petition for
waiver and grant of an interim waiver that permits Samsung to use an
alternative test procedure for the basic models subject to its
petition. 88 FR 36558. The alternative test procedure allows Samsung to
test its basic models that are designed for low-static, short-duct
applications at 0.1 in. wc. ESP and to make proportional adjustments to
fan power and capacity such that the results are equivalent to
performance measured at 0.5 in. wc. ESP. 88 FR 36558, 36561-36563. DOE
initially determined that this alternate test procedure was appropriate
and allowed for the accurate measurement of the energy efficiency of
the specified basic models, while alleviating the testing problems
cited in implementing the DOE test procedure for the models. Id.
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted that, should the new definition
of low-
[[Page 1234]]
static single-split blower-coil system and the associated testing
provisions be adopted, DOE would terminate Samsung's interim waiver
pending final determination. 89 FR 24206, 24227. The interim waiver was
granted with the understanding that it was impossible to test the
manufacturer's specific basic models according to the prescribed test
procedures in appendix M1. Given that DOE is adopting provisions for
low-static single-split blower-coil systems, DOE concludes that this
alternate test procedure is no longer necessary. Therefore, DOE is
terminating the aforementioned waiver for Samsung. DOE notes that the
ratings for the subject Samsung basic models may change when moving to
the amended appendix M1 test procedure outlined in this final rule.
DOE has not published a notification of petition for waiver or
granted interim waivers for either the Mitsubishi or Hisense petitions.
However, for the same reasons that DOE is terminating Samsung's
aforementioned waiver, DOE concludes that an alternate test procedure
is no longer necessary. DOE considers the petitions submitted by
Mitsubishi and Hisense to be addressed sufficiently by the low-static
single-split blower-coil system definition and testing provisions
adopted in this final rule.
5. Mandatory Constant Circulation Systems
Currently, nearly all CAC/HP products are designed with R-410A as
the refrigerant. However, under global warming potential (``GWP'')
restrictions enacted by an Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'')
final rule published on October 24, 2023 (``October 2023 EPA final
rule''), the use of R-410A is scheduled to be phased out for CAC/HP
products.\30\ 88 FR 73098. The EPA Significant New Alternatives Policy
(``SNAP'') Program evaluates and regulates substitutes for ozone-
depleting chemicals (such as CAC/HP refrigerants) that are being phased
out under the stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the Clean
Air Act. (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) \31\ Of interest to CAC/HPs, the EPA
SNAP Program's list of viable substitutes \32\ includes a group of
refrigerants classified as A2L refrigerants. While these refrigerants
have GWP levels meeting the requirements of the October 2023 EPA Final
Rule, they face stricter safety requirements than R-410A due to the
moderate flammability associated with their ``2L'' ASHRAE safety
classification.\33\ Many of the safety requirements specifically
address mitigation of ignition risk in case of refrigerant leakage. One
mitigation option for refrigerant leakage is air circulation, which can
be initiated when a leak is detected, or the system can use ``constant
circulation,'' running the fan, typically at a reduced speed, at all
times. This latter approach has energy use implications, which are
addressed in the AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 1600 standards.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ EPA published an interim final rule on December 26, 2023
(``EPA Technology Transition Interim Final Rule'') that allows 1
additional year, until January 1, 2026, solely for the installation
of new CAC/HPs using components manufactured or imported prior to
January 1, 2025. 88 FR 88825.
\31\ Additional information regarding EPA's SNAP Program is
available online at www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/.
\32\ A 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.
\33\ 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).
\34\ DOE is aware that a refrigerant leakage detection system
may also draw power, which would also be addressed in the AHRI 210/
240 and AHRI 1600 test standards. However it is DOE's understanding
that the impact of this power is much less than operation of the fan
in constant circulation mode.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft include a new
definition for ``mandatory constant circulation system'' (``MCCS'').
The updated industry standard drafts also include testing provisions
for such systems, specifically requiring that CAC/HPs meeting the
mandatory constant circulation system definition not use the default
cooling and heating degradation coefficients, but rather evaluate these
degradation coefficients using the respective cyclic tests specified by
table 7 of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft, conducted
in accordance with section E12 of appendix E of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft
and AHRI 1600-202X Draft. In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to
incorporate by reference the new definition of MCCS and the
aforementioned testing provisions outlined in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft
and AHRI 1600-202X Draft, at appendix M1 and appendix M2, respectively.
89 FR 24206, 24228.
In response to DOE's proposal, Carrier expressed support for the
MCCS testing approach, but it commented that there is ambiguity
regarding the specific products to which the MCCS testing approach
applies. (Carrier, No. 29 at pp. 2-3) Carrier stated that for a CAC/HP
system with a charge quantity between m1 and m2,\35\ the room size in
which the UL 60335-2-40 4th edition refrigerant safety standard allows
the system to be installed (or the effective volume into which
refrigerant would be dispersed in case of leakage) is limited. Further,
this limitation can be stricter if the system does not employ air
circulation, either continuously or initiated by a refrigerant leak
detection system (``LDS''). (Id.) Carrier requested that DOE provide
further specificity on the testing approach for products that might
require air circulation as mitigation in some installations but not
necessarily all installations. (Id.) Carrier recommended that DOE
require all systems with a charge level greater than m1 and less than
or equal to m2 that do not contain an LDS be tested as an MCCS since
how and where these products are installed in the field are outside the
manufacturer's control (besides a label specifying the required area).
(Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ UL 60335-2-40 fourth edition defines charge quantities m1
and m2 based on the type of refrigerant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a rebuttal, Daikin opposed Carrier's aforementioned
recommendation, for several reasons. (Daikin, No. 40 at p. 1) First,
Daikin commented that UL 60335-2-40 4th edition is clear in its
requirements for information that must be provided in installation
instructions, including instructions regarding how to install the
product in accordance with refrigerant safety codes, including how to
meet the minimum floor area requirements. (Id.) Daikin specifically
pointed to Annex DD of UL 60335-2-40 4th edition, which specifies that
an original equipment manufacturer (``OEM'') must include details of
minimum installation height, minimum floor area, and other appropriate
information in installation instructions to ensure safety requirements
are met. (Id.) Daikin also commented that CAC/HPs using A2L
refrigerant, in addition to providing information in installation
instructions, must have adequate warning labels (per Clause 7 of UL
60335-2-40 4th edition, Annex 101.DVF of UL 60335-2-40 4th edition, and
EPA SNAP Rule 25), such that the installer will be well aware the
product being installed needs special attention. (Id.)
Second, Daikin commented that the minimum floor area required by
ASHRAE 15.2 (with which UL 60335-2-40 requires compliance), for some
situations, does not depend on whether
[[Page 1235]]
the system employs circulation (whether continuous or LDS initiated) to
meet mitigation requirements. (Daikin, No. 40 at p. 2)
Third, Daikin commented that, if a manufacturer chooses to use
continuous circulation airflow as the method of leak mitigation, the
manufacturer must conduct additional safety verification of that
function, per Annex GG of UL 60335-2-40 4th edition (specifically,
Clause GG.2.2.2DV). (Daikin, No. 40 at pp. 2-3) Annex GG of UL 60335-2-
40 4th edition states that a product using continuous circulation shall
(1) run the indoor fan continuously, except for short periods of
maintenance and service; (2) detect or monitor continuously if the
airflow rate drops below a specific level (Qmin); and (3) if
the airflow drops below the specified level, provide an output signal
that airflow is reduced and disable compressor operation unless the
compressor operation reduces the leak rate or the total amount of
refrigerant released to the indoor space. Consequently, Daikin
commented that, if the manufacturer chooses to rely on continuous
circulation as the mitigation method, the OSHA-certified Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (``NRTL'') that certifies the product to
meet the safety standard UL 60335-2-40 must check by inspection that
the manufacturer runs the fan continuously. (Id.)
Fourth, Daikin commented on the DOE test procedure emphasis on
installation instructions. (Daikin, No. 40 at p. 3) The DOE test
procedure requirement to follow the OEM installation instructions when
installing a system for testing is based on the premise that the
installation instructions provide a setup representative of field
installation. Thus, Daikin asserted it would be logical for DOE to be
consistent and also assume that the installing contractor would follow
requirements related to refrigerant safety that are laid out in
installation instructions. (Id.)
In response to the Carrier and Daikin comments, it is DOE's
understanding (as noted in Daikin's comment) that use of constant
circulation as the method of refrigerant leakage risk mitigation
requires that the CAC/HP product must be inherently designed with this
feature--a contractor cannot be in compliance with UL 60335-2-40 4th
edition requirements if the feature is selected in the field for a
system that does not inherently already have it. Specifically, an NRTL
must certify upon inspection that a product using constant circulation
for safety code compliance indeed runs its indoor fan continuously.
Thus, the circumstances ``outside the manufacturer's control''
involving installation by a contractor using constant circulation as
the means of mitigation of systems without LDS and without MCCS that
Carrier mentioned in its comment are violations of refrigerant safety
codes. While such violations may occur in the future, DOE concludes
that the seriousness of the potential consequences would make them
infrequent, i.e., such circumstances could not be considered
representative of the installation of such systems. Therefore, DOE
determines that, for testing according to the DOE test procedure, it is
not appropriate to require testing using constant circulation for
products with charge between m1 and m2 that don't have an LDS and are
not inherently an MCCS. However, any product using constant circulation
to comply with refrigerant safety codes that would meet the MCCS
definition in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft could be
verified to have this status by powering up the unit, and consequently
will be required to test as an MCCS.
AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 finalized the definition and
testing provisions for MCCS without substantial change. DOE has
determined that the definition and approach included in the finalized
versions provide a more representative measure of CAC/HP efficiency for
systems utilizing mandatory constant circulation as a means of
refrigerant leakage mitigation. Therefore, consistent with the April
2024 NOPR proposals, DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI 210/240-
2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 and adopting the definition and testing
provisions for MCCS.
Daikin noted in its comment that the certification aspects of the
MCCS test procedure changes were not included in the April 2024 NOPR.
(Daikin, No. 40 at p. 3) Daikin recommended that DOE include as
mandatory certification a declaration from the manufacturer regarding
whether the CAC/HP product relies upon mandatory continuous circulation
or not. (Id.) Further, Daikin suggested that whether a product uses
continuous circulation or not could be validated by operation of the
product when it is powered up, as well as validated by the safety
agency (i.e., NRTL) certification report. (Id.)
In response to Daikin's recommendation, DOE notes that it will
consider certification requirements for CAC/HPs, including a
requirement to certify whether the CAC/HP product relies upon mandatory
constant circulation or not, in a separate rulemaking. However, DOE may
validate whether a system utilizes constant circulation when powered up
for the purposes of assessment or enforcement testing.
6. Dual-Fuel Heat Pumps
Heat pumps generally have reduced capacity and perform less
efficiently at low ambient outdoor temperatures than they do at
moderate ambient outdoor temperatures. Most heat pumps require some
form of auxiliary heat when outdoor temperature is low to satisfy
building load in excess of heat pump capacity. DOE is aware of HPs that
combine the operation of a conventional electric HP with back-up heat
provided by fuel, such as a gas fuel-fired furnace or boiler. 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.
The AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft included a new
definition for dual-fuel heat pump systems. Additionally, the two AHRI
drafts introduced 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
according to the draft standards is optional, requires no additional
testing, and is outlined in appendix L of both standards.
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that while the
definition and optional test approach included in the draft industry
standards may provide a representative test approach for dual-fuel heat
pump systems, DOE was at that time continuing to evaluate whether to
include such provisions in its CAC/HP test procedures. 89 FR 24206,
24229. Therefore, DOE proposed to not 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. Id.
AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 finalized the definition and
optional seasonal efficiency metric, DFUE, for dual-fuel heat pump
without substantial change. Based on DOE's continued evaluation of the
dual-fuel provisions in the two AHRI drafts, DOE has concluded that
such provisions are not necessary in the CAC/HP test procedures.
Therefore, DOE is not incorporating by reference the new definition of
dual-fuel heat pump and
[[Page 1236]]
the optional seasonal efficiency metric, DFUE, outlined in the AHRI
210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024. However, DOE recognizes that
representations of dual-fuel heat pump performance may be useful to
consumers. Therefore, while DOE is not proposing provisions for dual-
fuel heat pumps, DOE would allow manufacturers to make optional
representations of dual-fuel heat pump performance consistent with
available AHRI industry test standards.
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--EER2, SEER2, HSPF2, EER, SCORE and SHORE for CAC/HP, and AFUE
for consumer furnaces; regardless of whether a manufacturer chooses to
rate their dual-fuel heat pumps with the DFUE metric. DOE also notes
that the current representation requirements at 10 CFR 429.16 require
representation of every individual heat pump combination distributed in
commerce. As such, installing an outdoor HP unit and an indoor coil
with an existing furnace (or other air mover) that is not being
replaced would constitute distribution in commerce of a coil-only heat
pump combination for which DOE requires a coil-only representation.
7. Rating Individual Components of Split Systems
(a) Background
DOE's test procedure in appendix M1 and its rating and
certification requirements for central air conditioners and heat pumps
in 10 CFR 429.16 have provisions that apply based on the configurations
in which these products are distributed in commerce. This includes
provisions for outdoor units of a split system that are not distributed
in commerce with any indoor units, which DOE's regulations refer to as
an outdoor unit with no match (``OUWNM'').
Specifically, 10 CFR 429.16(b)(2) requires that the ratings for
basic models of split-system central air conditioners or heat pumps
distributed in commerce as an OUWNM be based on the testing of a model
of coil-only indoor unit meeting the requirements of section 2.2e of
appendix M1. Section 2.2.e of appendix M1 requires that an OUWNM 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
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 OUWNMs 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.
In a final rule published on October 24, 2023 (``October 2023 EPA
final rule''), pursuant to provisions of the American Innovation and
Manufacturing Act (``AIM Act''), enacted on December 17, 2020 (42
U.S.C. 7675), EPA 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 ``specified components'' being
installed were manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2025
(``December 2023 EPA interim final rule''). 88 FR 88825.
Split-system CAC/HPs are included in the scope of residential and
light commercial systems As such, new 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 provides an exemption, permitting the sales of specified
components, to allow consumers to service and repair existing systems
that are over the GWP limits defined in the October 2023 EPA Final
Rule, provided the specified components are used only to service
existing systems and are subject to labeling and reporting
requirements. 88 FR 73098, 73124-73125. This provides an exemption for
individual specified components of R-410A based split-system CAC/HPs to
be sold as replacements, including condensing units and evaporator
units, similar to the component exemption adopted by the EPA when R-22
was phased out. 74 FR 66450, 66459-66460.
(b) NOPR Proposal
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted that while the current 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. 89 FR 24206, 24230. DOE noted that
the current 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. Id. DOE clarified that per
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. Id. DOE further noted that,
similar to EPA requirements for the R-22 ban, EPA is allowing such an
outdoor unit to be installed as a replacement specified component for
an existing system but not to be installed with indoor units for
installation as a complete split CAC/HP system. Id.
DOE noted that appendix M1 currently does not explicitly define
outdoor units with no match and that 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. Id. 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 proposed not to incorporate the definition by reference, and
instead proposed a clarifying definition that is consistent with DOE's
intention in the June 2016 Final Rule. Id.
DOE proposed the following definition for OUWNM in the April 2024
NOPR for appendix M1:
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,
[[Page 1237]]
(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 2 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 percent 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.
DOE noted that 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. Id.
DOE tentatively concluded that the proposed definition would
further help clarify that the existing test procedure 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. Id. As proposed, the definition would
apply to all types of outdoor units (i.e., heat pump, air conditioner,
single-speed, two-speed, variable-speed, etc.) and outdoor units with
no match would continue to be tested with an indoor coil having a
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). Id. DOE clarified that the determination of represented
values, alternative efficiency determination method (``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. Id. DOE noted that 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. Id. DOE noted that 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; however, the outdoor unit
model could still be assigned the same individual model number. Id.
(c) Interaction With EPA Regulations
In response to its April 2024 NOPR, DOE received comments from
stakeholders on a variety of issues related to compliance with DOE's
regulations in the context of the October 2023 EPA Final Rule. These
specific comments are addressed in the next section, but to ensure
clarity this section first summarizes the key elements of compliance
with DOE testing, rating, and certification requirements for these
products during the period of implementation of the EPA rules.
As specified in the October 2023 EPA Final Rule, and modified in
the December 2023 EPA interim final rule, installation of central air
conditioner and heat pump systems manufactured or imported on or after
January 1, 2025, that use a refrigerant with a GWP higher than 700
would be prohibited from being installed beginning on January 1, 2025.
A system comprised of ``specified components'' manufactured or imported
prior to January 1, 2025, can still be installed until January 1, 2026.
The EPA's rule permits the continued manufacture, distribution, and
installation of individual specified components that use higher GWP
refrigerants on or after January 1, 2026, only as replacements for
components in existing systems provided they are labeled for this use
as specified in the EPA rule.
The DOE definition of the term ``central air conditioner or central
air conditioning heat pump'' in 10 CFR 430.2 specifies that 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. Further, the DOE
definition specifies that 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). In
addition, DOE's requirements in 10 CFR 429.16(a) specify required
representations based on how the model is distributed in commerce
(i.e., as part of a matched system, as an indoor unit only, or as an
outdoor unit with no match).
DOE's rules for testing and rating covered products to establish
compliance with energy conservation standards apply to basic models as
distributed in commerce by the manufacturer (or importer). Although the
deadlines for installation of specified components under EPA's rule
apply to certain products based on their date of manufacture or import
(i.e., depending on whether they were manufactured prior to January 1,
2025), DOE's rules for how the manufacturer must test, rate, and
certify their products apply based on the date of manufacture (or
importation) and on how each basic model is distributed in commerce
(i.e., as part of a matched system or as an OUWNM), with the purpose
being to ensure that each basic model complies with the energy
conservation standard that applies to that basic model. A manufacturer
or importer is not required to retest and/or recertify a basic model
unless the manufacturer either makes a change to that basic model that
would make it a new basic model under DOE's definition of that term in
10 CFR 430.2 or makes a change to the configuration in which it is
being distributed in commerce such that a different tested combination
requirement applies to it under 10 CFR 429.16. Stated within the
context of the EPA's rule, a basic model of condensing unit that
previously had been rated and certified to DOE in one or more
combinations would not have to be re-tested and rated under the OUWNM
provisions until such a time as the manufacturer ceases distribution of
that basic model as part of a matched pair and begins distributing it
as an OUWNM. At that point, the manufacturer must test, rate, and
certify that condensing unit under the OUWNM as a new basic model, as
under the basic model definition in 10 CFR 430.2 the model as an OUWNM
cannot be the same basic model as it would have been in a combination.
For R-410A (or other refrigerant with GWP above 700) outdoor units
manufactured (or imported) prior to January 1, 2025, which under the
EPA's rule can still be installed as a system until January 1, 2026,
the certifications of those models based on their tested combinations
remain valid under DOE regulations as long as manufacturers continue to
distribute them in commerce as a system. However, if at some point the
manufacturer chooses to distribute in commerce the unit alone and not
as a combination with any indoor units (either before January 1, 2026
or after that date as a service-only replacement component to comply
with EPA's rule), the outdoor unit would have to be tested, rated, and
certified in accordance with the OUWNM provisions. This also applies
for R-410A (or other refrigerant with GWP above 700) outdoor units
manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2025, as DOE expects
that manufacturers would cease distribution of the outdoor units
[[Page 1238]]
as part of a combination, as these systems could no longer be installed
anywhere in the U.S. This certification as a new basic model must be
made prior to the date at which the manufacturer begins distributing
those outdoor units as an OUWMN and would be indicated to DOE in its
certification reports via a discontinued model filing for the model as
distributed in a combination and certification as a new basic model of
OUWNM.
For an indoor unit intended only for replacement in an existing
system and which is no longer distributed in commerce for installation
as a combination, as would be the case for an existing system that uses
a refrigerant banned by EPA, the requirement in 10 CFR 430.2 and table
1 of 10 CFR 429.16(a) for the indoor unit to be rated as part of a
system would still apply even though the indoor unit is no longer being
distributed in commerce as part of a combination. This rating
requirement would apply regardless of whether the manufacturer of the
indoor unit is an ICM. If the indoor unit uses a refrigerant allowed by
EPA only for component replacement (e.g., R-410A), the rating for such
a unit would be based on a combination using that refrigerant, and per
EPA regulations could not be distributed in commerce as a combination.
However, this does not imply that the indoor unit cannot be rated, nor
that the entire system would have to be replaced. DOE notes further
that any such rating for the indoor unit must be compliant with current
standards, and that any indoor units distributed in commerce for use in
a system that uses a refrigerant subject to the EPA ban would need to
have been certified to DOE as compliant with the applicable standards
as part of a combination before January 1, 2025 and must have been
tested and rated in every combination with an outdoor unit with which
it has been previously distributed in commerce.
(d) Comments Received
In their response to the NOPR, the Joint Advocates and Lennox fully
supported the proposed provisions for OUWNMs. The Joint Advocates
agreed that DOE's clarifying definition for OUWNM will help ensure
representative ratings and that the proposed definition is consistent
with DOE's intent in the June 2016 Final Rule. (Joint Advocates, No. 30
at p. 3) Lennox strongly supported the DOE proposal that 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.
(Lennox, No. 24 at p. 2).
Several commenters requested more clarity or expressed concerns on
DOE's OUWNM provisions. These are discussed in the following
subsections.
(1) OUWNM Definition
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.000
An Outdoor Unit that is not distributed in commerce by the
manufacturer 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 a new Indoor Unit as a system,
according to EPA regulations in 40 CFR chapter I, subchapter C,
[provisions (b) and (c) unchanged]
Rheem requested that DOE consider simplifying the proposed
definition for OUWNMs because some of the bullet points may overlap or
conflict with each other. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 3) Rheem noted that in
SNAP Final Rule 237, EPA has approved R-32, R-452B, R-454A, R-454B, R-
454C, and R-457A for use in residential and light commercial air-
conditioning and heat pump end use, which also includes CAC/HPs. (Id.)
Rheem commented that among these substitutes, R-454C and R-457A have a
95 [deg]F midpoint saturation absolute pressure within 18 percent of
the 95 [deg]F saturation absolute pressure for R-22, thus meeting the
provisions in 4.1(b) and 3.1(b) of the proposed OUWNM definition at
appendix M1 and appendix M2, respectively. (Id.) Rheem suggested that
DOE simplify the definition of OUWNM to avoid confusion. (Id.)
DOE appreciates that AHRI is taking steps to update AHRI 210/240-
2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 standards to broaden the OUWNM provisions
beyond R-22 outdoor units and make them applicable to any outdoor units
that are distributed in commerce without an indoor matching pair,
regardless of the refrigerant the outdoor unit employs. Such an
implementation would be consistent with DOE's proposed definition of
OUWNMs in the April
[[Page 1239]]
2024 NOPR. DOE disagrees with the addition of ``by the manufacturer''
in the OUWNM definition to qualify distribution in commerce, since
under EPCA the term ``distribution in commerce'' also applies to
subsequent distribution after the initial offering by the manufacturer.
The proposed addition would undercut the general applicability of that
term across the distribution chain as established in EPCA. As explained
in DOE's March 7, 2011, final rule that established the certification
provisions in Part 429, application of the term ``distribution in
commerce'' would depend on a particular manufacturer's production
practices, business decisions, and the facts and circumstances of a
particular case. 76 FR 12422, 12426. . However, DOE agrees with the
inclusion of the term ``new'' to clarify that the EPA ban specifically
pertains to new system installations, and for further clarification is
including the term ``new'' to describe both the indoor unit with which
the outdoor unit is paired and the newly created system. In addition,
notwithstanding the broad applicability of the term ``distribute in
commerce,'' DOE notes that under 10 CFR 429.102(a)(6) it is a
prohibited act for a manufacturer or private labeler to distribute in
commerce any new covered product or covered equipment that is not in
compliance with an applicable energy conservation standard prescribed
under the Act, and therefore the obligation to certify that basic
models are in compliance with the standards lies with the manufacturer
and importer. This is also the basis for the requirement in 10 CFR
429.12(a) that each manufacturer, before distributing in commerce any
basic model of a covered product or covered equipment subject to an
applicable energy conservation standard, certify that the model meets
the applicable energy conservation standard.
DOE agrees with Rheem that certain SNAP-approved refrigerants, for
example R-454C and R-457A, have pressure-temperature relationship
characteristics similar to R-22 and would meet provision (b) of the
proposed OUWNM definition. DOE notes that both these refrigerants have
GWPs equal to or less than 150, and thus could potentially be under
consideration for future reductions in GWP as compared with
refrigerants R-454B and R-32, the primary near-term candidates for
transition from R-410A. To ensure that these SNAP-approved refrigerants
would not be subject to provision (b) of the proposed OUWNM definition,
DOE is qualifying provision (b) with a GWP limit--specifically, only
refrigerants with GWP greater than 150 (per EPA's measure) would be
subject to provision (b).
In summary, DOE is making minor modifications to the OUWNM
definition as follows:
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 a new 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 and a global
warming potential greater than 150 per EPA regulations in 40 CFR 84.64;
or
(c) Is shipped without a specified refrigerant from the point of
manufacture or is shipped such that more than 2 pounds of refrigerant
are required to meet the charge per section 5.1.8 of AHRI 210/240-
2024.\36\ This shall not apply if either (a) the factory charge is
equal to or greater than 70 percent 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ For Appendix M2, the definition references section 5.1.8 of
AHRI 1600-2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Clarity on Interaction With EPA Rule
AHRI and Carrier requested further clarity on how DOE's OUWNM
provisions will interface with the October 2023 EPA final rule,
particularly in terms of timing and scope. (AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 2-4;
Carrier, No. 29 at p. 3)
AHRI appreciated DOE's proposal to expand the OUWNM definition to
include HFC refrigerants having a GWP greater than 700, in line with
EPA's ban, but noted that the interaction between the EPA and DOE
regulations are complex and implementation questions remain. (AHRI, No.
25 at p. 2) AHRI cautioned that care must be taken to ensure industry
and downstream distribution partners understand and can remain
compliant with applicable regulations and that consumers who recently
installed products with R-410A refrigerant have meaningful access to
service parts for the useful life of their equipment. (Id.) AHRI noted
that while no date has been included with the DOE-proposed OUWNM
definition, the NOPR preamble presents the proposed date of 2026.
(AHRI, No. 25 at p. 3) AHRI sought clarification that OUWNM ratings
would only be required for split-system outdoor units using HFC
refrigerants having a GWP greater than 700 manufactured after January
1, 2025. (Id.) AHRI attached a spreadsheet (Exhibit 1) that contained
requests for clarification from DOE on questions regarding the
prohibitions for manufacture, distribution, and installation of various
product types. (AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 5-6). Specifically, AHRI requested
clarification on whether DOE's proposal applies to split-system CAC/HP
products imported into the United States, but which are not for sale in
the United States. (Id.)
Carrier appreciated DOE's intent to further clarify the OUWNM
requirements and noted that it is clear that the OUWNM category is the
equivalent of EPA's service-only condenser allowance in the market.
(Carrier, No. 29 at p. 3) Carrier commented that it supports DOE
stating the application of OUWNM requirements to a service-only R-410A
condensing unit, but requested that DOE provide additional clarity in
the final rule on certain aspects, including effective date, which unit
types OUWNM applies to, and the indoor airflow requirements. (Id.) In
particular, Carrier requested that DOE make the following
clarifications to better help the regulated community in complying with
applicable efficiency and refrigerant regulations: (1) R-410A
condensing units manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2025
would need to be tested and rated as an OUWNM because EPA prohibits the
installation of those outdoor units with a new indoor unit; (2) any R-
410A outdoor and indoor units manufactured before January 1, 2025 could
be sold and installed utilizing the existing DOE-certified system
rating, because EPA is allowing installation; (3) since EPA prohibits
the sale and installation of any R-410A outdoor and indoor units in
2026 regardless of production date, any remaining pre-2025 inventory
held by a manufacturer would be required to be recertified using the
OUWNM procedure when distributed in commerce on or after January 1,
2026; and (4) any pre-2025 R-410A air conditioners in the Southeast or
Southwest regions could not be installed without being recertified as
an OUWNM. (Carrier, No. 29 at p. 3)
In response to AHRI, DOE clarifies that OUWNM ratings for split-
system outdoor units employing refrigerants with GWP greater than 700
would be required for units distributed in commerce as service-only
placement
[[Page 1240]]
components (i.e., not as a combination) from the point of manufacture
and thus subject to DOE's testing and rating requirements for outdoor
units with no match in Appendix M1 and 10 CFR 429.16. As discussed in
the previous section of this notice, DOE expects that manufacturers
would need to make this transition for units manufactured after January
1, 2025, which it intends to make available as service-only replacement
components for existing systems. Regarding units that are imported into
the United States but not distributed and sold for installation within
the United States, DOE notes that its requirements specified in 10 CFR
parts 429, 430, and 431 shall not apply to any covered product or
covered equipment if: (a) such covered product or covered equipment is
manufactured, sold, or held for sale for export from the United States
or is imported for export; (b) such covered product or covered
equipment or any container in which it is enclosed, when distributed in
commerce, bears a stamp or label stating ``NOT FOR SALE FOR USE IN THE
UNITED STATES''; and (c) such product is, in fact, not distributed in
commerce for use in the United States. 10 CFR 429.6.
DOE notes that the additional detail provided in the preceding
section of this notice, and in the preceding paragraphs, is largely
consistent with Carrier's suggestions. However, DOE wishes to correct
two of Carrier's clarifications: (1) the recertification of remaining
pre-2025 inventory would not be required provided those basic models
were correctly certified based on how they were distributed at the time
of their manufacture; and (2) the applicability of these provisions for
units to be installed in the Southeast or Southwest do not differ from
products subject to nationwide standards. The only difference for
installation in the Southeast or Southwest is that the regional energy
conservation standards would apply for such installations, as would
otherwise be the case per 10 CFR 430.32(c)(6), and the efficiency
rating as certified by the manufacturer must indicate those basic
models comply with the applicable regional standards and may be
installed in the Southeast and/or Southwest regions.
(3) Recertification of Units Already Distributed in Commerce
Several commenters expressed concern with the recertification as
OUWNMs of units already distributed in commerce, when installed after
January 1, 2026.
AHRI sought clarification on the intended meaning of the phrase
``distributed in commerce.'' (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 3) AHRI noted that the
current DOE regulation places no restrictions on distribution of
products if the product was initially certified and regional standards
are not an issue for the product and location. (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 6)
AHRI noted that DOE's NOPR proposal requires existing outdoor models
currently distributed in commerce as part of a split-system basic model
that transition to a replacement outdoor unit only to be tested, rated,
and recertified under the provisions in 10 CFR 429.16 for an outdoor
unit with no match. (Id.) AHRI noted that per EPCA, ``distribution in
commerce'' means ``to sell in commerce, to import, to introduce or
deliver for introduction into commerce, or to hold for sale or
distribution after introduction into commerce,'' and that
``distribution in commerce'' applies to both the initial offering for
sale by the manufacturer and the subsequent distribution by downstream
partners (i.e., sale by the distributor to the contractor, or the
contractor to the homeowner). (Id.) AHRI cautioned that without linking
the requirements to a manufacture/import date, DOE's proposal
complicates the distribution of outdoor units manufactured pre-2025
that are no longer in possession of the manufacturer or private
labeler. (Id.) AHRI questioned how DOE will enforce the proposal on
products subject to national energy efficiency standards. (Id.)
AHRI contended that for products subject to national standards, DOE
is constrained by the application of the base national standard, which
``applies to all products manufactured or imported into the United
States on and after the effective date of the standard.'' \37\ (AHRI,
No. 25 at p. 6) Therefore, AHRI asserted that space-constrained
products; small-duct high-velocity, air conditioners in the North; and
heat pumps manufactured or imported prior to January 1, 2025 that were
certified as compliant with the base national standard can still be
installed in the United States until the inventory is depleted. (Id.)
AHRI questioned how DOE could require manufacturers, distributors, or
contractors to retroactively apply testing, rating, or certification
requirements on outdoor units subject to national standards that were
distributed in commerce and are no longer in the manufacturer's
possession. (AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 6-7) AHRI requested for DOE to link
the OUWNM definition to a manufacture/import date, as DOE's proposal
complicates the distribution of outdoor units manufactured prior to
January 1, 2025 that are no longer in possession of the manufacturer
(or private labeler). (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 7) Similarly, for products
subject to regional standards, AHRI questioned how DOE could require
manufacturers, distributors, or contractors to retroactively apply
testing, rating, or certification for outdoor units manufactured/
imported in 2024 and no longer in possession of the manufacturer. (Id.)
AHRI requested clarification on whether DOE intended that air
conditioners slated for the Southeast and Southwest regions,
manufactured/imported in 2024, and still in possession of the
manufacturer be recertified as OUWNMs on January 1, 2025. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(6)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI noted that while the NOPR preamble states that ``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,'' DOE has not described
in the proposed regulatory text how the testing, rating, and
recertification for outdoor units distributed in commerce by outdoor
unit manufacturers (``OUMs'') for a former certified combination that
transitions to OUWNMs for replacement will be completed. (AHRI, No. 25
at p. 6) AHRI expressed concern that this may create logistical
complications, given that ``distributed in commerce'' applies to both
the initial sale and the subsequent sale of products that have already
entered commerce and are no longer in the possession of the
manufacturer to be recertified. (Id.) AHRI contended that certification
of a condensing unit as an OUWNM should apply to products manufactured
after January 1, 2025. (Id.)
HARDI strongly opposed any restriction on the ability of its
members to sell products already in inventory, including install date
regulations, such as EPA's transitions program and the statutorily
required install date in DOE's regional standards for split-system
central air conditioners. (HARDI, No. 26 at pp. 1-2) HARDI commented
that it believed install date requirements hinder the ability of the
heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration industry to
move to more energy-efficient or environmentally friendly products and
that install date regulations that cause dead inventory are ineffective
because they create waste, increase costs, and constitute a
[[Page 1241]]
regulatory taking.\38\ (Id.) HARDI commented that it was its
understanding that the phrase ``currently distributed in commerce''
does not intend to include CAC/HP equipment already in distributors'
warehouses, but it asserted that, just like with the confusing
compliance regime caused by the install date associated with regional
standards for split-system central air conditioners, if this phrase is
used in the final regulation, local compliance officials will prevent
repairs to existing systems if the outdoor unit does not have proof of
meeting the minimum efficiency standard. (HARDI, No. 26 at p. 2) HARDI
suggested that the best course of action is to apply the OUWNM testing
and certification requirements at the same date of manufacture timeline
as the EPA requirement for outdoor condensing units to be marked ``For
servicing existing equipment only.'' (Id.) HARDI noted that for split-
system CAC/HPs, EPA requires anything manufactured after January 1,
2025 to be marked ``For servicing existing equipment only.'' (Id.)
HARDI further noted that while new split-system CAC/HPs can be
installed until January 1, 2026 using R-410A or other high-GWP
refrigerants, EPA requires those systems to be manufactured before
January 1, 2025, and outdoor units manufactured after January 1, 2025
can only be used as components, thereby meeting the proposed definition
of OUWNMs. (Id.) HARDI recommended that DOE limit the need to test,
rate, and recertify equipment to only outdoor units manufactured after
January 1, 2025, as this will ensure that equipment intended to be
installed as an OUWNM does meet the minimum efficiency requirements
while not affecting equipment originally sold for installation as a
matched system. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ HARDI notes that a regulatory taking is a ``taking of
property under the Fifth Amendment by way of regulation that
seriously restricts a property owner's rights,'' Blacks Law
Dictionary, 11th Edition. (HARDI, No. 26 at p. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
JCI expressed concerns with DOE's proposal to require
recertification of units ``currently distributed in commerce'' to meet
the OUWNM requirements, contending that requiring recertification of a
component as part of a system that was previously certified as
compliant and has already entered commerce, i.e., is no longer in the
possession of the original manufacturer, is overly burdensome for
manufacturers, distributors, and contractors, and will be problematic
for DOE to enforce without tying enforcement to the manufacture/import
date. (JCI, No. 35 at p. 2) JCI recommended that for outdoor units that
have entered commerce, the ``date of manufacture'' be used as the
enforcement mechanism. (Id.) JCI commented that it was its
understanding that outdoor units manufactured on or after January 1,
2025 would be required to meet DOE's OUWNM criteria if they were still
in the possession of the original manufacturer. (Id.) JCI stated that
clarifying that the OUWNM requirements would take effect on January 1,
2025, versus the NOPR date of January 1, 2026, reduces the amount of
inventory in the channel that would require recertification. (Id.)
Rheem also expressed concern about language for OUWNMs applicable
to ``existing outdoor models currently distributed in commerce,'' where
these products would need to be recertified and given a new basic model
number in the event that they are only eligible for component
replacement per EPA's Technology Transitions rule. (Rheem, No. 34 at p.
3) Rheem asserted that the notion of obtaining proof of new rating and
a different model number is unreasonable to require once the equipment
has left manufacturer warehouses, as the application of new labels and
rating certifications is impractical to carry out at the distributor
and installer levels. (Id.) Rheem commented that EPA appears to
recognize this impracticality and does not require relabeling of
equipment made prior to January 1, 2025 to indicate ``for service
only.'' (Id.) Rheem contended that a change in the test procedure
should not render obsolete a product currently in commerce that was
compliant at the time of manufacture. (Id.)
As indicated by AHRI, DOE notes that per EPCA, the terms ``to
distribute in commerce'' and ``distribution in commerce'' mean to
``sell in commerce, to import, to introduce or deliver for introduction
into commerce, or to hold for sale or distribution after introduction
into commerce.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(16)) Under the statutory definition,
this term can apply to the initial offering of sale by a manufacturer
or by subsequent distribution by downstream partners. As was discussed
in the previous section, the December 2023 EPA Interim Final Rule
allows for a 1-year sell-through period (until January 1, 2026) for any
CAC/HP system employing a refrigerant with a GWP of 700 or greater,
provided the specified component is manufactured or imported prior to
January 1, 2025 (see 40 CFR 84.54(c)(1)). Since EPA prohibits the
installation of any specified CAC/HP components to create a new system
employing a refrigerant with a GWP of 700 or greater on or after
January 1, 2026, irrespective of the manufacturing date, any remaining
pre-2025 inventory (i.e., imported or manufactured before January 1,
2025) held by any channel of distribution (manufacturer or distributor)
could not be installed as a system after January 1, 2026.
DOE's rating and certification requirements in 10 CFR 429.16 for
central air conditioners and heat pumps apply based on how a
manufacturer distributes the models in commerce. If the manufacturer
ceases distribution in commerce of a model of outdoor unit that was
previously part of a combination and begins distributing it only as an
OUWNM to allow for use as a service-only replacement under the EPA's
rules for components of an R-410A system, that model of outdoor unit
would need to be recertified under the OUWNM requirements regardless of
when that transition occurs, since the manufacturer (or private
labeler) has an obligation to ensure that any basic model it
distributes is compliant with the applicable energy conservation
standard for the configuration (or configurations) in which the
manufacturer distributes it. However, the requirement to recertify
those basic models does not apply retroactively to units of a basic
model that were already distributed in commerce as part of a
combination and had been correctly certified according to DOE's
regulations.
Regarding AHRI's concern about enforcement of national standards,
DOE notes that no changes were proposed to national standards in the
April 2024 NOPR, and none are being finalized in this rulemaking. The
purpose of the clarification provided in this rulemaking is to ensure
that manufacturers have a clear understanding of how to comply with
DOE's certification requirements for products that will be subject to
EPA regulations. DOE's certification provisions in 10 CFR 429.12(a)
specify that each manufacturer, before distributing in commerce any
basic model of a covered product or covered equipment subject to an
applicable energy conservation standard set forth in parts 430 or 431,
and annually thereafter . . . shall submit a certification report to
DOE certifying that each basic model meets the applicable energy
conservation standard(s). To the extent that outdoor units that were
previously certified as compliant as part of a matched system begin
being distributed in commerce as outdoor units with no match, they are
being distributed as a new basic model, and therefore, must certify
compliance with the applicable energy conservation
[[Page 1242]]
standards. The application of the base national standard, as referenced
by AHRI, still applies to the outdoor unit based on its manufacture
date, but compliance with that standard must be determined for the
basic model distributed in commerce (i.e., the OUWNM).
DOE notes that the EPA regulations include a 1-year sell-through
period to reduce inventory of units that may be in danger of not
complying with the EPA rule. DOE's rationale also applies to AHRI's
concern on regional standards. However, DOE notes that there is
confusion on the applicability of the EPA dates on the regional level.
DOE clarifies, consistent with the national application, that air
conditioners certified as able to be installed in the Southeast and
Southwest regions manufactured or imported before January 1, 2025, and
that have already been distributed in commerce, would not need to be
certified as OUWNMs on January 1, 2025, provided the manufacturer had
already certified compliance with the applicable energy conservation
standards. For units intended for installation in the Southeast or
Southwest regions, this would include a certification that they comply
with those applicable standards. As previously explained in this
notice, the only distinction from CAC/HP products that are not subject
to regional efficiency standards is that split-system AC outdoor units
certified as OUWNM would have to meet the applicable standards for the
Southeast or Southwest regions to be installed in those regions.
DOE notes there may be confusion regarding the applicability of the
compliance dates in the EPA rule and how these dates affect DOE
regional standards requirements. To be clear, the EPA rule has no
effect on DOE requirements. For certain split-system central air
conditioning systems or certain OUWNMs to be installed in the Southeast
or Southwest region consistent with DOE regional standards
requirements, the system/OUWNM must be certified to DOE as compliant
with the applicable regional standard(s), and the certification must
indicate that the model/combination can be installed in the Southeast
and/or Southwest region. While the EPA rule may change the approach a
manufacture may take with respect to testing and certifying a
particular model, it does not change DOE requirements.
In response to AHRI's concern that DOE has not described in the
proposed regulatory text how the testing, rating, and recertification
for OUWNMs will be completed, DOE notes that the testing requirements
are laid out in section 4.2 of revised appendix M1 and section 3.2 of
new appendix M2. Additionally, as noted in the April 2024 NOPR, and
explained in the preceding section of this notice, existing outdoor
models currently distributed in commerce as part of a split-system
basic model that the manufacturer transitions to a replacement outdoor
unit only would need to be tested, rated, and certified under the
provisions in 10 CFR 429.16 for an outdoor unit with no match. 89 FR
24206, 24231. As described previously in this section, distribution of
such a model as an OUWNM represents distribution in commerce of a new
basic model, and accordingly, the basic model must be certified as
compliant with the applicable energy conservation standards. DOE may
consider additional certification requirements under a separate
rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification.
In response to HARDI, DOE clarifies that the reporting obligations
apply to manufacturers, and importers, and thus basic models previously
distributed in commerce by the manufacturer that were certified by the
manufacturer in accordance with 10 CFR 429.12 do not need to be
recertified. Regarding HARDI's criticism of regulation based on install
date requirements, DOE clarifies that, whereas the EPA rule is based on
the date of installation, the application of the OUWNM provisions are
based on the configuration in which the manufacturer (or importer)
distributed the basic model from the point of manufacture (or import).
It does not depend upon distributor or retail sales and offerings. DOE
notes that the EPA regulations include a 1-year sell-through period for
pre-2025 inventory to provide time to reduce inventory. The OUWNM
provisions in this rulemaking simply align with the EPA action
undertaken in the October 2023 EPA rule. In response to HARDI's
recommendation to limit the need to test, rate, and recertify equipment
to only outdoor units manufactured after January 1, 2025, DOE agrees
that most inventory manufactured prior to January 1, 2025, will likely
be distributed in commerce with indoor units and be installed prior to
January 1, 2026; however, to the extent that any outdoor units
manufactured prior to January 1, 2025, continue to be distributed in
commerce by the manufacturer after January 1, 2026, as OUWNM, the
manufacturer must test consistent with the requirements applicable to
OUWNMs and certify the compliance of such models with the applicable
energy conservation standard.
In response to JCI, DOE again stresses that the timing for
implementation of the OUWNM provisions is tied to the EPA rule.
Specifically, an outdoor unit no longer has a match when EPA
requirements no longer allow installation with an indoor unit to create
a new system, and thus must be certified to DOE as an OUWNM as it
continues to be distributed in commerce. As discussed in III.E.7.c(2),
DOE clarifies that any outdoor CAC/HP units manufactured or imported on
or after January 1, 2025 and employing refrigerants with GWP greater
than 700 (for example, R-410A), would need to be tested and rated as an
OUWNM, consistent with the EPA requirement that such models be used
``for servicing existing equipment only.'' For units manufactured or
imported before January 1, 2025 the existing DOE-certified system
rating can be used, provided the manufacturer does not continue
distribution of the outdoor units alone, because the EPA regulations
permit installations of such systems until January 1, 2026. However, if
the unit is distributed in commerce alone and not as a combination with
any indoor units, as likely would be the case for products intended for
installation as an individual replacement component of an existing
system, the outdoor unit would have to be certified in accordance with
the OUWNM provisions prior to the date at which the manufacturer begins
distributing those outdoor units as an OUWMN, as indicated to DOE in
its certification reports via a discontinued model filing for the model
as distributed in a combination and certification as an OUWNM.
In response to Rheem's claim that EPA does not require relabeling
of equipment made prior to January 1, 2025 to indicate ``for service
only,'' DOE notes that the EPA labeling requirement at 40 CFR 84.58(b)
states, ``Effective upon the date listed for each subsector in Sec.
84.54(c) . . . any specified component . . . that uses or is intended
to use any regulated substance, or blend containing any regulated
substance . . . must have a permanent label compliant with paragraph
(c) \39\ of this section containing the information in paragraph (a)(1)
of this section. For specified components that are intended for use
[[Page 1243]]
with a regulated substance or blends containing a regulated substance
that exceed the applicable GWP limit or HFC restriction, the label must
state ``For servicing existing equipment only'' in addition to the
other required labeling elements.'' (See 40 CFR 84.58(b)) 40 CFR
84.58(c) requires the label to list, at a minimum, the refrigerant and
the date of manufacture. DOE is aware that there are two dates listed
in the relevant paragraph for split-system CAC/HPs under section Sec.
84.54(c)--January 1, 2025 and January 1, 2026. As discussed above and
in the preceding section of this notice the December 2023 EPA Interim
Final Rule pushed back the restriction on R-410A and similar
refrigerants such that components manufactured prior to January 1, 2025
could be installed as part of systems prior to January 1, 2026, and
thereafter would be installable only for servicing existing equipment.
Thus, unless EPA intended for the ``for servicing existing equipment
only'' words to be on specified components starting January 1, 2025,
when they would still be allowed to be used for system installations,
EPA regulations effectively state that the required label would have to
be applied or changed while the component is in distribution, i.e.,
after leaving the manufacturer but before installation. However, DOE
notes that these labeling provisions are separate from its own
regulatory requirements and that manufacturers seeking more specific
guidance on the implementation of these provisions should consult EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The reference is to paragraph (c) but should be to
paragraph (d), which specifies label design (e.g., English language,
durable and printed/affixed to the product exterior surface, readily
visible and legible, etc.). Paragraph (c) addresses products in the
foam or aerosol sector and is not relevant for the refrigeration,
air-conditioning, and heat pump sector addressed in paragraph (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Rheem's contention that a change in the test procedure
should not render a currently compliant product obsolete, DOE notes
that it is the EPA action, and not a change to the DOE test procedure,
that would prevent the installation of a previously certified CAC/HP
system. In accordance with this EPA action, DOE's OUWNM provisions in
the test procedure provide a means for manufacturers to assign an
energy efficiency rating to split-system outdoor units after the EPA
has banned them for full-system installations. As discussed earlier in
this section and in the preceding section, to the extent that the
manufacturer of the outdoor unit of a previously certified CAC/HP
system begins distributing it in commerce as an OUWNM, it would become
a new basic model and the manufacturer would need to certify that it
complies with the applicable energy conservation standard.
In a comment related to concerns regarding recertification as OUWNM
of outdoor units already distributed in commerce, GE Appliances
indicated that products currently in production would need redesign to
comply with cut-out/cut-in temperature and CVP enforcement testing. (GE
Appliances, No. 37 at p. 6) They commented that since import and
production of legacy R-410A equipment will cease after January 1, 2025,
there will be no need to redesign existing inventory, in order to
comply with the cut-out/cut-in temperature and CVP enforcement test.
Id. They pointed out that most of DOE`s energy efficiency enforcements
are based on date of import or manufacture, so exclusion of R-410A
legacy equipment from CVP and cut-out/cut-in enforcement testing would
be consistent with this practice, and that failing to exclude these
products from such enforcement would lead to stranded inventory,
resulting in the loss of embodied carbon in the inventory, with little/
no energy efficiency saving. Id.
In response to the comment by GE Appliances, certifications
required to be made by a manufacturer for the compressor and indoor
blower speed of any variable capacity system at specific test
conditions must represent normal operation. The CVP provisions
established in this final rule describe how DOE would verify that
certified values are appropriate for the purposes of DOE enforcement
testing. Hence, DOE would expect existing properly-certified variable
speed CAC/HPs and CHPs to pass the CVP enforcement with minimal or no
adjustment to existing performance representations. Further, DOE
certainly would not expect changes sufficient to call into question the
compliance of such models with DOE efficiency standards. Similarly,
although cut-out and cut-in temperatures are not currently required to
be certified, DOE would expect manufacturers to have certified HSPF2
values that are consistent with the actual cut-out/cut-in
characteristics of certified models. Manufacturers are not required
themselves to conduct CVP testing. To the extent that manufacturers are
correctly certifying performance of existing models, there would be no
need to recertify or redesign such models in response to DOE
implementing CVP testing for enforcement purposes. Therefore, DOE
disagrees with the suggestion of GE Appliances, that there should be
specific exclusions for legacy R-410A CAC/HPs from the CVP and cut-out/
cut-in temperature enforcement provisions.
(4) Applicability to Multi-Head Mini-Splits, Multi-Splits, and Multi-
Circuit Systems
AHRI and Carrier requested clarity on whether the OUWNM provisions
are applicable to multi-head mini-split, multi-split, or multi-circuit
systems. (AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 4-5; Carrier, No. 29 at pp. 3-4).
Carrier requested that DOE confirm that the OUWNM certification
requirement is applicable to all split-system condensing units within
the scope of appendix M1, which includes single-split, multi-head mini-
split, multi-split (including VRF), and multi-circuit air conditioner
and heat pump systems. (Carrier, No. 29 at pp. 3-4) Specifically,
Carrier commented that it believes multi-head mini-split and multi-
split systems should also require the OUWNM certification. (Id.)
Carrier noted that while these systems are generally intended to be
installed with multiple indoor units, they can be installed with a
single indoor unit, which could be ducted or ductless, and that
multiple manufacturers have combinations that utilize a mini-split
(traditionally known as a ``ductless outdoor unit'') with a
conventional ``ducted'' indoor unit and coil combination. (Id.) Carrier
further noted that multi-split and mini-VRF outdoor units are able to
be rated, certified, and used in combination with a single indoor unit
as well as the typical multiple indoor units. (Id.) Carrier expressed
concern that if OUWNM provisions are not required for these systems
that can be installed with a single indoor unit, they could be used to
replace the condenser on a system with an indoor unit that was never a
certified combination, yielding poor system efficiencies. (Id.) Carrier
commented that it was its understanding that EPA's reasoning to allow a
service-only condenser was to address the customer concern of replacing
their entire system upon a part failure in the condenser. (Id.) Carrier
stated that in its experience, this does not happen regularly in the
market, and if there is a premature part failure in the condenser, the
part (i.e., compressor, expansion valve, motor, control board, or coil)
is replaced or repaired, especially in the case of complex outdoor
units such as multi-split condensers. (Id.) Carrier noted that in the
situation the condenser fails at end of life, it is common practice to
replace the entire system. (Id.) For these reasons, Carrier requested
that DOE clarify that all split-system condensing units within the
scope of appendix M1 that are manufactured beginning January 1, 2025
with R-410A or any banned refrigerant must be certified as an OUWNM.
(Id.).
AHRI noted that appendix M1 defines the tested combination of a
multi-head mini-split, multi-split, or multi-circuit system to consist
of one outdoor unit
[[Page 1244]]
with one or more compressors matched with between two and five indoor
units. (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 4) AHRI further noted that appendix M1
requires that these indoor units must collectively have a nominal
cooling capacity greater than or equal to 95 percent and less than or
equal to 105 percent of the nominal cooling capacity of the outdoor
unit. (Id.) AHRI requested that DOE confirm (1) if multi-head systems
would test as OUWNM with one or two indoor units per appendix M1,
section 2.2(e); and (2) if the preference is for testing multi-head
systems with two (or more) indoor units, whether the coil-only indoor
unit coil shall be split evenly between the two, or in another
configuration. (AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 4-5).
DOE agrees with the reasons presented by Carrier and clarifies that
the OUWNM provisions are applicable to all split-system CAC/HPs within
the scope of appendix M1--including single-split, multi-head mini-
split, multi-split (including VRF), and multi-circuit air conditioner
and heat pump systems. As noted by AHRI, per appendix M1, the tested
combination of a multi-head mini-split, multi-split, or multi-circuit
system requires between two and five indoor units. However, the indoor
unit requirements (which are based on the highest sales volume family)
are not explicitly applicable for OUWNM testing. As indicated by
Carrier, multi-head systems can be installed and are able to be rated
with either a single indoor unit or multiple indoor units. To provide
maximum flexibility to manufacturers and to limit test burden, DOE
clarifies that, for multi-head systems being certified under the
outdoor unit with no match provisions, (1) multi-head systems capable
of being paired with a single indoor coil shall be tested with a single
indoor coil; and (2) multi-head systems incapable of being paired with
a single indoor coil shall be tested with the least amount (between two
to five) of identical indoor coils. If testing with two or more indoor
coils, all coils shall have the same dimensions. The current testing
instructions in section 2.2(e) of appendix M1 \40\ are written for a
single indoor coil, but the same concept of the NGIFS can be extended
to two or more identical indoor coils. Specifically, when evaluating
NGIFS with two or more indoor coils, the total summation of the fin
surface area would include all coils. DOE may consider certification
requirements to include whether one or more indoor coils were used to
evaluate an OUWNM rating in a separate rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ These instructions are also included in sections 5.1.6.2
and 5.1.6.3 of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Control Type and Communicating System
Carrier also requested that DOE clarify that OUWNM certification is
required for all condensing units, regardless of the control type being
used to generate the system rating. (Carrier, No. 29 at p. 4) Carrier
noted that many of the communicating variable-speed condensers on the
market today also have the capability to operate with a conventional
24-V non-communicating thermostat and that it would be extremely
difficult to exclude these units from the OUWNM certification and
ensure they were actually being matched with a certified communicating
indoor unit that was previously installed. (Id.)
Conversely, GE Appliances commented that multi-head ductless split
systems and VRF systems under 65k BTU, which are almost always
variable-speed communicating systems, are unable to complete the
existing test procedure for an OUWNM listing, as existing software does
not support or allow a coil-only match without connection to a matched
indoor unit. (GE Appliances, No. 37 at p. 4) GE asserted that the
inability to provide replacement outdoor units to service existing
communicating systems will lead to significant harm for consumers, the
environment, and DOE's goals for heat pumps and variable-speed systems.
(Id.) GE Appliances requested that DOE allow outdoor-unit-only listings
for variable-speed communicating systems capable of supporting multiple
indoor coils based on the lowest-performing system performance for the
outdoor coil for any previously listed system or currently produced,
compatible communicating coil. (Id.) GE Appliances asserted that
because outdoor units for communicating systems can generally only work
with matched indoor units using the same communications protocol, there
is little risk of improper combinations to create systems that perform
worse than efficiency levels required by DOE. (Id.) GE Appliances
further commented that listing OUWNM units for these systems in this
manner ensures accurate consumer information about expected product
performance and also ensures service components' availability where
they would otherwise be restricted. (Id.)
Mitsubishi also asserted that while it understands the broad
industry support for DOE to extend the definition of OUWNM to R-410A
outdoor units, the proposed language does not take into account the
emergence and expansion of communicating variable-speed equipment.
(Mitsubishi, No. 28 at p. 2) Mitsubishi contended that like every other
inverter-driven variable-capacity ductless OEM, Mitsubishi systems and
components are unable to test or operate with any coil in a lab or in
the field that is not equipped with proprietary communication protocol
and firmware, and that evaluating their outdoor units as OUWNMs renders
these controls and advancements completely useless. (Id.) Mitsubishi
requested that either communicating variable-speed systems be exempted
from the OUWNM provisions, or that specific allowances be considered to
enable communicating variable-capacity outdoor units to be tested in a
way that demonstrates compliance with Federal efficiency minimum
standards. (Id.)
DOE clarifies that the OUWNM requirements will apply to all split-
system CAC/HPs units, whether they use proprietary controls to
communicate conditioned-space temperature and/or humidity, use a
generic thermostat, or allow either installation approach. Also, DOE
understands that many ductless multi-split systems and VRF systems are
variable-speed systems that employ software that requires the outdoor
unit to be paired with a recognized indoor unit (i.e., a pairing
confirming system).\41\ Manufacturers of ductless multi-split systems
and VRF systems may already have the means to test these systems with a
generic indoor unit or may need to reprogram their outdoor units to
allow operation with a generic indoor unit, for units using a
refrigerant with GWP greater than 700 that are manufactured after
January 1, 2025. While the latter option may require additional
software rework, this reprogramming would require limited engineering
hours to implement, such that DOE does not consider it to be burdensome
to manufacturers. In response to GE's proposal to allow outdoor-unit-
only listings for such systems based on the lowest-performing system
combination for the outdoor coil, and Mitsubishi's request for such
systems to be exempted from the OUWNM provisions or given special
[[Page 1245]]
allowances, DOE notes that neither approach provides confirmation that
a given outdoor unit could not be field paired with a nonproprietary
indoor unit(s). Therefore, to maintain consistency across all split-
system CAC/HPs, irrespective of the control type, DOE is exempting
neither pairing confirming variable-speed systems nor variable-speed
communicating systems from the OUWNM provisions, nor allowing either
category of outdoor units to be rated based on its lowest-performing
combination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ While the term used by commenters to refer to such systems
is ``communicating,'' DOE notes that the current test procedure uses
this term differently. Specifically, ``communicating,'' per the
current test procedure, refers to the ability of the system to
communicate in-space temperature with both the outdoor and indoor
units, instead of communication between the indoor and outdoor
units. DOE also notes that neither the AHRI test standards (210/240
and 1600) nor the test procedure being finalized in this rule use
the term ``communicating.'' To prevent confusion, DOE is referring
to these systems as ``pairing confirming systems.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6) Service Coil Definition
GE Appliances and Mitsubishi requested revision to the ``service
coil'' definition (see 10 CFR appendix M1, section 1.2) to also include
integrated indoor blowers within the definition's scope. (GE
Appliances, No. 37 at pp. 1-3; Mitsubishi, No. 28 at p. 2)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.001
[[Page 1246]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.002
GE Appliances contended that revising the definition of service
coil to account for DFS systems is essential to protect consumers who
have recently installed DFS systems using R-410A refrigerant and that
without these revisions, indoor replacement units to repair DFS systems
during their expected useful life may be limited, and consumers may be
required to replace entire systems instead of merely components. (Id.)
GE further commented that if DFS systems are not able to have indoor
coil replacements, there is a risk of significant negative consumer
sentiment toward DFS systems. (Id.)
Mitsubishi asserted that circumstances where full replacement of
ductless indoor units would be significantly less costly than field
replacement of individual parts would needlessly impact the pocketbooks
of homeowners and consume scarce technician labor hours. (Mitsubishi,
No. 28 at p. 2) Mitsubishi recommended a carve out or alteration of the
current definition of service coil to allow ductless indoor units to be
sold for purposes of service, as it would remedy this concern and be
better aligned with the EPA Technology Transitions rule and guidance.
(Id.)
DOE concurs with GE Appliances that mini-split, multi-split, and
VRF systems have become more prevalent in the residential air-
conditioning market. As noted by GE Appliances, the current service
coil definition does not include indoor units that have integrated
indoor blowers. DOE also notes that the service coil definition in AHRI
210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024, the industry standards DOE is
referencing in this final rule, also do not include integrated indoor
blowers within the service coil definition. Both appendix M1 (see
section 1.2 of appendix M1) and the AHRI standards define ``indoor
unit'', which includes integrated blowers within the definition's
scope. The indoor unit definition in Appendix M1 also explicitly notes
that a service coil is not an indoor unit. In relevance to the EPA
rule, the labelling requirements at 40 CFR 84.58(b) clarify the
installation allowances of indoor units. Specifically, 40 CFR 84.58(b)
notes that, after January 1, 2025, specified components intended for
use with banned refrigerants shall have the label ``For servicing
existing equipment only'' attached. Any indoor units that are intended
to be used with banned refrigerants (such as R-410A) fall within the
scope of specified components and under the aforementioned regulatory
provisions under the EPA's rule would need to have this label attached.
As was noted in the previous section of this notice, the CAC/HP
definition in 10 CFR 430.2 includes a requirement that indoor units
sold alone be rated as part of a combination. Specifically, the
definition states ``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).'' Such
indoor units may be distributed by indoor coil manufacturers (``ICMs'')
which, as defined in Appendix M1, manufacture indoor units but do not
manufacture single-package units or outdoor units. They may also be
distributed in commerce alone and not as part of a combination by non-
ICMs for the replacement market. For an indoor unit intended only for
replacement in an existing system and which is no longer distributed in
commerce for installation as a combination, as would be the case for an
existing system that uses a refrigerant banned by EPA, the requirement
in table 1 of 10 CFR 429.16(a) for the indoor unit to be rated as part
of a system would still apply even though the indoor unit is no longer
being distributed in commerce as part of a combination. This rating
requirement would apply regardless of whether the manufacturer of the
indoor unit is an ICM. If the indoor unit uses a refrigerant allowed by
EPA only for component replacement (e.g., R-410A), the rating for such
a unit would be based on a combination using that refrigerant, and per
EPA regulations could not be distributed in commerce as a combination.
However, this does not imply that the indoor unit cannot be rated, nor
that the entire system would have to be replaced, as suggested by GE.
DOE notes further that any such rating
[[Page 1247]]
for the indoor unit must be compliant with current standards, and that
any indoor units distributed in commerce for use in a system that uses
a refrigerant subject to the EPA ban would need to have been certified
to DOE as compliant with the applicable standards as part of a
combination before January 1, 2025.
(7) Space-Constrained Systems
NCP commented that it performed analysis, testing, and simulations
of through-the-wall space-constrained R-410A systems to evaluate
available options to meet the proposed OUWNM requirement for applicable
outdoor condensing units. (NCP, No. 27 at p. 2) NCP contended that the
results of this testing \42\ indicated that its space-constrained
outdoor condensing units would not meet applicable minimum efficiency
requirements when rated using a generic indoor coil as specified by the
OUWNM requirements. (Id.) NCP asserted that it was not aware of any
space-constrained outdoor condensing units from other manufacturers
that could meet efficiency requirements when rated as an OUWNM. (Id.)
NCP asserted that the OUWNM requirements in DOE's proposed rule would
effectively prohibit any space-constrained R-410A outdoor condensing
unit after January 1, 2026, and leave manufacturers with stranded
inventory. (NCP, No. 27 at p. 2) NCP contended that occupants of
multifamily housing units with recently installed space-constrained R-
410A split systems would be left without options for service
replacement of their outdoor condensing unit section, beyond
installation of the entire indoor and outdoor split system. (Id.) To
provide relief from excessive cost burdens, NCP suggested that DOE
should include language in the final rule that coil-only ratings for
space-constrained split-system outdoor units with R-410A are
permissible until January 1, 2028, for units manufactured before
January 1, 2025. (Id.) Alternatively, NCP suggested that DOE should use
its enforcement discretion to provide additional 2-year sell through
before OUWNM ratings are required for through-the-wall space-
constrained R-410A outdoor condensing units. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ NCP shared results of its analysis in confidential exhibits
A and B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE reviewed the confidential data provided by NCP for select
outdoor unit models and agrees that the data suggests that these models
cannot meet applicable minimum efficiency requirements when tested as
OUWNMs. However, DOE notes that the data provided does not include
performance data or estimates for designs with any technology
improvements, e.g., two-stage or variable-speed compressors. Thus it is
not clear that compliance with Federal standards is impossible for
space-constrained OUWNMs.
DOE further notes that NCP suggests a delay of the OUWNM
requirement until January 1, 2028, but the need for replacement outdoor
units would still exist after January 1, 2028, only 3 years after EPA's
transition date for R-410A. This would suggest that NCP believes that
space-constrained outdoor unit designs can be developed to be compliant
with standards using the OUWNM test requirements starting on that date.
Regarding stranded inventory, as clarified earlier in section
III.E.6.c.1, DOE notes that the EPA rule includes a 1-year sell-through
period that would enable any accumulated inventory to be distributed,
beyond which any space-constrained CAC/HP outdoor units using R-410A
would need to certify as OUWNMs. As discussed elsewhere in this final
rule, to the extent that units are distributed in commerce as OUWNMs,
they would be distributed as a different basic model as compared to
distribution in commerce when paired with an indoor unit.
For these reasons, DOE has determined that there is not sufficient
justification for delaying the OUWNM requirements for R-410A space-
constrained CAC/HP products. Additionally, as discussed previously in
this section, the timing of permitted installations of R-410A systems
and components is based on EPA's refrigerant regulations. DOE is
clarifying the applicability of the test procedure requirements in this
final rule to allow for component installations consistent with EPA's
requirements.
(8) Representativeness of Paired Indoor Coil
Rheem questioned the appropriateness of the indoor coil
specifications currently required for OUWNM testing. (Rheem, No. 34 at
pp. 2-3) Rheem provided historical background of DOE's OUWNM provisions
by citing language from past rulemaking notices, noting some of the
following key points:
(1) DOE first proposed an NGIFS for rating and certifying the
performance of outdoor units designed for R-22 in the November 9, 2015
SNOPR, where DOE proposed an upper limit on NGIFS equal to 1.15. 80 FR
69278, 69404.
(2) DOE indicated that its analysis supporting NGIFS values for
OUWNM testing was based on reverse-engineered SEER 13 split systems
(blower-coil combinations) designed for R-22. 81 FR 36992, 37010.
(3) However, DOE set the upper limit on NGIFS at 1.0 in the June
08, 2016 Final Rule, arguing that a lower NGIFS better reflected the
installed base of indoor units, since the installed base also included
10 SEER split systems. 81 FR 36992, 37010.
(4) In the August 24, 2016 SNOPR, DOE acknowledged that legacy
(existing) indoor units matched with no-match outdoor units would not
always be indoor units designed for R-22, and that the NGIFS 1.0 upper
limit did not provide a good representation of the heat transfer
performance of indoor coils with newer designs. 81 FR 58164.
Rheem also commented on the DOE proposal in the August 8, 2016
SNOPR to adopt a maximum NGIFS requirement generally for testing of
single-split coil-only systems. Because this proposal did not address
OUWNM outdoor units and because DOE did not adopt the proposal, Rheem
stated that it is not relevant to the OUWNM discussion. Based on the
historical context provided from prior rules, Rheem requested DOE
review the test provisions for OUWNMs, the definition of NGIFS, and its
upper limit to accurately represent the current installed base of
indoor coils with which such condensing units would be matched in the
field. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 3)
DOE appreciates Rheem's comment charting the historical development
of the OUWNM testing provisions. As noted earlier in section III.E.7
and indicated by Rheem's comment, the current instruction at section
2.2.e of appendix M1 requires that an OUWNM be tested using a coil-only
indoor unit coil that has round tubes of outer diameter no less than
0.375 inches and NGIFS of no greater than 1.0 sq in/Btu/hr. These
indoor coil specifications were initially finalized for appendix M in
the June 8, 2016 Final Rule and extended to appendix M1 in the January
2017 Final Rule. 81 FR 36992, 82 FR 1426. DOE did not propose revision
of the requirements in the April 2024 NOPR.
In response to Rheem's comment, DOE reviewed historical data,
starting with shipments analysis supporting the energy conservation
standards direct final rule published on January 6, 2017 (``January
2017 DFR''). 82 FR 1786. DOE conducted analysis to determine whether a
substantial percentage of CAC system replacements in 2025 would occur
in residences in which the indoor unit would have been installed prior
to 2010, i.e., when the representative indoor unit would have been part
of a
[[Page 1248]]
13 SEER R-22 system, consistent with DOE's initial analysis to
establish the NGIFS requirements. To conduct this analysis, DOE used
national impact analysis results provided in the January 2017 DFR and
its supporting documents and spreadsheets. (See 82 FR 1786, 1822-1824)
In this assessment, DOE considered that a portion of system
replacements have been outdoor-unit-only installations, consistent with
the January 2017 DFR assumptions for the percentage of installations
involving just an outdoor unit. This factor increases the average age
of an existing indoor unit, since, for some portion of the existing
residences, the indoor unit would not have been replaced during the
last outdoor unit replacement.
The results of this analysis indicate that more than 60 percent of
system replacements in 2025 would involve a residence where the indoor
unit was installed before 2010. DOE also considered sensitivity of this
analysis to differences between shipment projections made to support
the January 2017 DFR and actual recent-year shipments and found that an
analysis updated for recent shipment data would suggest a slightly
higher percentage for pre-2010 indoor units. Thus, DOE concludes that
the NGIFS limit initially established in the June 8, 2016 Final Rule is
still representative, and DOE is not revising it in this final rule.
(9) Single Cooling Air Volume Rate
AHRI, the CA IOUs, Carrier, and Daikin recommended that DOE retain
the requirement to test OUWNMs with a single cooling air volume rate.
(AHRI, No. 25 at p. 5; CA IOUs, No. 32 at pp. 2-3; Carrier, No. 29 at
p. 4; Daikin, No. 36 at p. 2)
AHRI recommended that the testing instructions proposed for OUWNMs
at section 4.2 of appendix M1 also include the current regulatory
requirement that the coil-only indoor unit has a ``single cooling air
volume rate.'' (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 5) The CA IOUs also recommended that
DOE retain the requirement for testing OUWNMs with a ``single cooling
air volume rate'' in section 4.2 of the proposed revision to appendix
M1 and include an identical requirement in section 3.2 of appendix M2.
(CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that they believe this
specific requirement of a single cooling air volume rate was
inadvertently left out of the new AHRI standards. (Id.) The CA IOUs
reasoned that because OUWNMs are compatible with any existing air
handler that continues to remain as the primary air-moving system after
the originally paired outdoor unit is replaced, DOE cannot guarantee
that such systems will have controls capable of varying airflow during
operation and should, therefore, continue to require a single air
volume rate. (Id.) Carrier also noted that the current appendix M1
requirements for OUWNM testing require a single cooling air volume
rate, and it recommended that DOE continue to require a single cooling
air volume rate. (Carrier, No. 29 at p. 4) Daikin strongly suggested
that DOE maintain the single airflow rate requirement for all OUWNMs,
reasoning that OUWNMs do not include an indoor unit change and would,
therefore, not have any enhancements, such as non-bleed expansion
valves or blower delays, to improve cyclic performance. (Daikin, No. 36
at p. 2)
The current requirements at section 2.2e of appendix M1 require
that an OUWNM be tested using a coil-only indoor unit at a single
cooling air volume rate. DOE notes that this requirement was
inadvertently left out of the April 2024 NOPR. DOE agrees with the
reasoning presented by commenters advocating that this requirement be
retained. Therefore, DOE is including language at section 4.2 of
revised appendix M1 and section 3.2 of new appendix M2, requiring the
use of a single cooling air volume rate when testing OUWNMs.
(10) Use of Default Degradation Coefficient for OUWNM Testing
AHRI, the CA IOUs, and Daikin recommended that DOE use the default
degradation coefficient of 0.25 for all OUWNMs, for both heating and
cooling modes. (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 5; CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 3; Daikin,
No. 36 at p. 2)
AHRI noted that the existing provisions for OUWNMs for degradation
coefficient in enforcement is to use the default value (0.25), whereas
the published versions of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 allow
for testing of CD for OUWNMs. (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 5) AHRI strongly
recommended that DOE adopt the default degradation coefficient of 0.25
for all OUWNMs, for both heating and cooling modes. (Id.) AHRI reasoned
that a significant portion of OUWNM units are applied in multifamily
apartment dwelling situations, where the probability of being properly
paired with an indoor product that can be retrofitted to have a time
delay, or having an indoor product that is retrofitted with a non-bleed
thermal expansion valve or an electronic expansion valve is relatively
low (since many multifamily apartment dwelling indoor systems are
ceiling-mount blower coil systems or wall-mount blower coil systems).
(Id.) Therefore, AHRI contended that a substantial portion of OUWNMs
installed in multifamily applications would not have the lower CD in
the real world, as experienced in testing. (Id.) The CA IOUs also
suggested that the cyclic degradation default values in proposed
appendices M1 and M2 align with the current requirement in 10 CFR part
429 for OUWNMs. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 3) The CA IOUs noted that they
supported the use of default values because the metering device, which
is unknown for an OUWNM, significantly affects cyclic degradation.
(Id.) Daikin also suggested that the default value of 0.25 be used for
both cooling and heating degradation coefficients for OUWNMs. (Daikin,
No. 36 at p. 2)
As noted by commenters, the current enforcement requirement at 10
CFR 429.134(k)(2)(ii) states that DOE will use the default cooling and
heating degradation coefficients when testing models of OUWNMs. DOE
agrees with the reasoning presented by commenters and notes that this
enforcement requirement was put in place on the basis of the same
rationale. Additionally, the requirement was intended to be adopted
broadly for testing, not just for enforcement, as indicated in the June
2016 Test Procedure Final Rule. 81 FR 36992, 37011. To clarify that
this requirement also applies to testing, DOE is including provisions
at section 4.2 of revised appendix M1 and section 3.2 of new appendix
M2 to require that testing of OUWNMs only use the default degradation
coefficients (0.25) for both cooling and heating modes.
8. Inlet and Outlet Duct Configurations
Both appendix D of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and appendix D of
the AHRI 1600-202X Draft define lists of clarifications/exceptions to
their referenced version of ASHRAE Test Standard 37 (ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
2009). These clarifications/exceptions have been revised repeatedly
throughout the version history of the AHRI 210/240 standard. In the
April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted that both appendix D of AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft and appendix D of AHRI 1600-202X Draft contain updates regarding
inlet and outlet duct configurations, including the duct revisions
investigated in RP 1581 and RP 1743 to accommodate smaller
environmental chambers. These updates are consistent with the draft of
an update of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37 (``May 2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft'').
DOE surmised that the inclusion of these May 2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft
updates in appendix D of the relevant AHRI drafts represented industry
consensus, and DOE tentatively determined that the
[[Page 1249]]
updates are appropriate for CAC/HP testing. 89 FR 24206, 24231.
Consequently, DOE proposed 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. Id.
DOE noted 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 had not yet been
finalized and published. Id. DOE further noted 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. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the aforementioned
proposals in the April 2024 NOPR. AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024
finalized the updates regarding inlet and outlet duct configurations
without substantial change. Both standards continue to reference ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009 since the May 2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft has not yet been
finalized. Therefore, consistent with the April 2024 NOPR proposal, DOE
is incorporating by reference Appendix D of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI
1600-2024, at appendix M1 and appendix M2, respectively. DOE is also
continuing to maintain reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 since the May
2023 ASHRAE 37 Draft has not yet been finalized.
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).
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted that 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. 89 FR 24206, 24231. DOE noted that AHRI 210/240-202X Draft
and AHRI 1600-202X Draft specify additional steps for calculating the
HSPF2 and SHORE of heat pumps having a variable-capacity compressor and
a heat comfort controller and that these additional steps are similar
to the additional steps for calculating the HSPF2 and SHORE of other
system types having a heat comfort controller. Id. DOE 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 representative measures of unit operation when
installed with heat comfort controllers. Id. Therefore, DOE proposed 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. Id. Likewise, DOE proposed 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. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding these proposals. AHRI
210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 finalized the updates to the heat
comfort controller calculations without substantial change. Therefore,
consistent with the April 2024 NOPR proposals, DOE is incorporating by
reference section 11.2.2.5 of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024, at
appendix M1 and appendix M2, respectively.
F. 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 in terms of the efficiency metrics SCORE
and SHORE in appendix M2. As previously explained, these long-term
revisions would be implemented at the new appendix M2 via incorporation
by reference of the relevant industry consensus test procedure, AHRI
1600-2024. DOE has reviewed AHRI 1600-2024 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)(3)) 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.
1. Power Consumption of Auxiliary Components
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 are seasonal efficiency metrics that don't include all
energy consumed by the systems, these new metrics do address energy use
of all components and operational modes, specifically including the
standby and off mode power consumption of auxiliary components. These
include 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.
SEER2 and HSPF2 are both ratio metrics that include all calculated
space conditioning in the numerator and all energy use associated with
space conditioning in the denominator. In contrast, AHRI 1600-202X
Draft includes two new quantities--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 hours, as applicable), and 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 hours, as applicable). Table 14 and table 16 of AHRI
1600-202X Draft outline instructions for determining each component's
number of standby power operating hours in cooling mode and heating
modes, and appendix G of AHRI 1600-202X Draft \43\ outlines
instructions for determining the average power of all auxiliary
components considered in the calculations of either Es,c or
Es,h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE incorrectly referred to
appendix H of AHRI 1600-202X Draft as the appendix regarding the
determination of average power of auxiliary components (see 89 FR
24206, 24236). This was a typographical error, since the appendix
regarding the determination of average power of auxiliary components
is at appendix G of AHRI 1600-202X Draft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded 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. 89 FR 24206, 24236. DOE 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. Id. Therefore, DOE proposed to incorporate by
reference the new cooling and heating performance metrics, SCORE and
SHORE, as
[[Page 1250]]
included in AHRI 1600-202X Draft, and the associated provisions
regarding the standby and off mode power consumption of auxiliary
components, in appendix M2. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal. AHRI
1600-2024 finalized the new cooling and heating performance metrics,
SCORE and SHORE, and the associated provisions regarding the standby
and off mode power consumption of auxiliary components, without
substantial change. Therefore, consistent with the April 2024 NOPR
proposal, DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI 1600-2024, and
adopting the SCORE and SHORE metrics, and the associated provisions
regarding the standby and off mode power consumption of auxiliary
components, at appendix M2.
2. Impact of Defrost on Performance
In order for HPs to undergo a defrost cycle, which aims to remove
the moisture collected as frost on the outdoor coil, an HP temporarily
switches to cooling mode operation. This enables an HP to transfer heat
from the indoor coil to the outdoor coil, thus providing the heat
needed to warm the coil above freezing temperature and melt the frost.
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE explained how AHRI 1600-202X Draft
introduces two changes to the treatment of defrost performance of CAC/
HPs: (1) it simplifies the demand defrost credit by uniformly applying
a 3-percent increase to the SHORE rating for all HPs equipped with
demand defrost, and (2) it accounts for the use of supplementary heat
during defrost using a new defrost heat and defrost overrun debits. 89
FR 24206, 24236-24238. DOE surmised that AHRI 1600-202X Draft's
introduction of the simplified demand defrost credit in AHRI 1600-202X
Draft represented 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. 89 FR 24206, 24237. DOE 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. Similarly, DOE tentatively
determined that the defrost heat and defrost overrun debits associated
with accounting for use of supplementary heat during defrost
represented industry consensus and that these debits result in more
representative CAC/HP efficiencies for models with supplementary heat
during defrost. Therefore, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference at
appendix M2 the defrost-related provisions from AHRI 1600-202X Draft.
In response to DOE's proposal, the Joint Advocates stated that they
acknowledge the improvements made to the treatment of defrost in the
proposed appendix M2. (Joint Advocates, No. 30 at p. 4) However, the
Joint Advocates also commented that, by assigning the defrost credit
and debits based on a yes or no framework, the proposed appendix M2
does not capture the true differentiation that exists between defrost
controls. (Id.) The Joint Advocates encouraged DOE to collect
information about defrost mechanisms and consider how defrost impact
may be better represented in a future update to the CAC/HP Federal test
procedures. (Id.)
In response to the Joint Advocates, DOE notes that it will continue
to review the defrost credit and debits and may propose changes once
more information is made available. However, since little or no
information is currently available and the defrost credit and debits
represent industry consensus, DOE is adopting the defrost credit and
debits without modification, as proposed.
DOE did not receive any other comments regarding this proposal.
AHRI 1600-2024 finalized the defrost related provisions discussed in
the aforementioned paragraphs, without substantial change. Therefore,
consistent with the April 2024 NOPR proposal, DOE is incorporating by
reference AHRI 1600-2024 and adopting the defrost-related provisions at
appendix M2.
3. Updates to Building Load Lines and Temperature Bin Hours
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE discussed several changes introduced in
AHRI 1600-202X Draft with regard to the building load lines and
temperature bin hours used when determining the new seasonal metrics,
SCORE and SHORE. 89 FR 24206, 24238-24239. Specifically, DOE noted that
(1) the new metrics use total hours instead of fractional hours; (2)
total hours are split into conditioning hours and shoulder hours, with
the cooling conditioning hours and cooling-season shoulder hours for
each bin listed in table 15 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft \44\ and the
heating conditioning hours and heating-season shoulder hours for each
bin listed in table 18 of AHRI 1600-202X Draft; \45\ and (3) the
cooling and heating building load lines were revised based on PNNL
EnergyPlus simulations. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ In the relevant April 2024 NOPR preamble discussion, there
were instances where DOE mistakenly referred to section table 13 of
AHRI 1600-202X Draft. This has been corrected to table 15 of AHRI
1600-202X Draft in this final rule preamble discussion.
\45\ In the relevant April 2024 NOPR preamble discussion, there
were instances where DOE mistakenly referred to table 15 of AHRI
1600-202X Draft. This has been corrected to table 18 of AHRI 1600-
202X Draft in this final rule preamble discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE surmised 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 represented industry
consensus for calculations of the new cooling and heating performance
metrics, SCORE and SHORE. 89 FR 24206, 24239. DOE proposed 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 AHRI
1600-202X Draft, at appendix M2. Id.
In response to DOE's proposal, Copeland asserted that, while a
differentiated load line for variable-speed systems is indeed
consistent with AHRI 1600-2024, it may no longer be representative of
how various compressor-staging technologies are sized and installed in
the field by the time ratings in terms of SCORE and SHORE take effect.
(Copeland, No. 31 at pp. 2-3) Copeland pointed to a recent (February
2024) revision of the capacity range sizing recommendations for two-
stage systems in the third edition of Air Conditioning Contractors of
America's (``ACCA's'') Manual S[supreg] \46\ as the source of its
concern, remarking that these revisions were not available when the
AHRI Standards Technical Committee discussions regarding AHRI 210/240-
2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 took place. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ To access the normative section of the third edition of the
ACCA Manual S, see www.acca.org/standards/technical-manuals/manual-s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copeland also noted that the slope factors used to differentiate
the heating building load line for variable-speed HPs from single-stage
and two-stage HPs in the current appendix M1 (i.e., C and
CVS) were derived from an Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(``ORNL'') analysis \47\ and influenced by the capacity range sizing
recommendations in the second edition of ACCA's Manual S. (Copeland,
No. 31 at pp. 2-3) Copeland commented that the second
[[Page 1251]]
edition of ACCA's Manual S allowed a range of capacity from 0.9 to 1.15
for single-stage and two-stage HPs and 0.9 to 1.3 for variable-speed
HPs, which, if used to calculate a size adjustment factor for variable-
speed HPs, equals 1.07 (by dividing (0.9 + 1.3) by (0.9 + 1.15)). (Id.)
Taking this same approach with the third edition of ACCA's Manual S,
which allows oversizing for two-stage HPs up to 1.25 and up to 1.3 for
variable-speed HPs, Copeland stated that the size adjustment factor for
variable-speed HPs would be 1.02 (by dividing (0.9 + 1.3) by (0.9 +
1.25)) instead of 1.07. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2016-BT-TP-0029-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than adjusting the values of C and CVS, however,
Copeland encouraged DOE to consider eliminating the differentiated load
line altogether, since a building's load calculation is not dependent
on the compression technology of a heating and/or cooling system.
(Copeland, No. 31 at pp. 2-3) Copeland also commented that it could not
find any field data to support the idea that technicians vary
oversizing practices based on compression technologies. Copeland
asserted it is more likely that technicians calculate the load of the
building and then select the next-larger capacity an OEM has available
in a good, better, best offering when presenting quotes to homeowners.
(Id.)
In response to Copeland's comment encouraging DOE to consider
eliminating the differentiated load line altogether, DOE notes that
similar concerns were raised and addressed in the previous CAC/HP final
rule, published by DOE on January 5, 2017 (``January 2017 Final
Rule''). 82 FR 1426. In the January 2017 Final Rule, DOE noted that the
incorporation of differentiated slope factors does not suggest any
difference in building load when using different technology. 82 FR
1426, 1456. Rather, the slope factor simply represents the ratio of
building load to heat pump capacity. Id. DOE acknowledged that
variable-speed products are slightly more oversized in comparison to
the building heating load than are single-speed and two-stage products.
Id. Keeping the building load constant and increasing the variable-
speed HP capacity reduces the building load/capacity ratio; hence DOE
selected a lower slope factor (i.e., CVS, equal to 1.07) for
variable-speed HPs as compared to the slope factor for single-stage and
two-stage HPs (i.e., C, equal to 1.15). Id. In the absence of robust
data showing average load/capacity ratios for different products, DOE
based its building load factors on ACCA's Manual S recommendations, at
the time using the second edition. The topic of a differentiated
building load line for variable-speed units was also discussed during
the development of the AHRI 210/240 and 1600 standards, and consensus
was formed that it was appropriate to retain the differentiated line.
Notably, both AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 include a
differentiated building load line for variable-speed units.
In response to Copeland's comment, DOE notes that additional
changes to the capacity range sizing recommendations were made in the
third edition of ACCA's Manual S that were not mentioned in Copeland's
comment. Specifically, the minimum capacity factor recommended for
variable-speed heat pumps was increased from 0.9 in the second edition
of ACCA's Manual S to 1.0 in the third edition of ACCA's Manual S.\48\
Incorporating this change into the approach taken by Copeland (as
described in the preceding paragraphs), the size adjustment factor for
variable-speed HPs as compared with two-stage heat pumps would remain
1.07 (by dividing (1 + 1.3) by (0.9 + 1.25)). DOE agrees that a future
revisit of these issues, taking into consideration the revision to
Manual S and any new data that could be collected to shed light on
potential sizing differences, and allowing for a robust discussion of
the issues among relevant stakeholders, may be appropriate when the
AHRI test standards and DOE test procedure undergo amendments in
future. However, DOE notes the committee consensus for retaining the
1.07 factor in the test standards, as reflected in AHRI 1600-2024, and
is finalizing the DOE test procedure with this factor in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See table N1.16.2.4 in the normative section of the third
edition of ACCA's Manual S, available here: www.acca.org/standards/technical-manuals/manual-s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI 1600-2024 finalized the updates to the building load lines and
temperature bin hours, without substantial change from AHRI 1600-202X
Draft. Therefore, consistent with the April 2024 NOPR proposal, DOE is
incorporating by reference AHRI 1600-2024 and adopting the associated
building load lines and temperature bin hours, 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 18 of AHRI 1600-2024 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/HP
combinations do not include a designated air mover to circulate air,
the DOE test procedures prescribe default values for power input and
heat output to represent the furnace fan with which the indoor coil
would be paired in a field installation. The default values are equal
to the measured airflow rate (in scfm) multiplied by a defined
coefficient (expressed in Watts (``W'') per 1,000 scfm (``W/1,000
scfm'') for fan power, and Btu/h per 1,000 scfm (``Btu/h/1,000 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).\49\ 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/1,000 scfm and a default fan heat coefficient of
1,385 Btu/h/1,000 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/1,000 scfm and a default fan
heat coefficient of 1,505 Btu/h/1,000
[[Page 1252]]
scfm. See, e.g., appendix M1, section 3.3.e.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the aforementioned default fan powers for single-
stage coil-only systems, which reflect full-load operation, appendix M1
defines lower-load default fan powers at a reduced air volume rate of
75 percent for two-stage and variable-speed coil-only systems. Appendix
M1 then uses these full-load and lower-load default fan powers to
interpolate 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).
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted that AHRI 1600-202X Draft defines
revised lower-load default fan powers at a reduced air volume rate of
65 percent (rather than 75 percent) for two-stage and variable-speed
coil-only systems and 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). 89 FR 24206, 24239-24240. AHRI 1600-202X
Draft also moves mobile home systems from the default fan power
coefficient equation for space-constrained systems to the equation for
``conventional'' non-space-constrained systems, because insufficient
evidence was presented to the AHRI Standards Technical Committee to
justify that default fan power coefficients for mobile home systems
should be different from ``conventional'' systems. Therefore, solely
for space-constrained coil-only systems, 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
(``DFPCSC''). 89 FR 24206, 24239-24240. 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
in the default fan power coefficient interpolation
(``DFPCNSC''). Id. All default fan powers are lower than
those used in the calculation of DFPCMHSC and
DFPCC in appendix M1.
DOE surmised 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
represented 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 paired in a field
installation. Id. DOE tentatively determined that the reduced full-load
and low-load default fan powers more accurately reflected 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). Id. DOE also tentatively determined that the
reduced air volume rate more accurately reflected the average low-load
air volume rate of the currently installed base for blowers paired with
coil-only CAC/HP installations. Id. Therefore, DOE proposed 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. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal. AHRI
1600-2024 finalized the changes to the default fan power coefficients
for coil-only systems, without change. Therefore, consistent with the
April 2024 NOPR proposal, DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI 1600-
2024 and the associated provisions for default fan power coefficients,
at appendix M2.
5. Airflow Limits To Address Inadequate Dehumidification
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE explained that, to address adequate
dehumidification in hot and warm, humid climates, AHRI 1600-202X Draft
established new airflow limits for the cooling mode tests to avoid high
sensible heat ratios. 89 FR 24206, 24240. Specifically, section 6.1.5.2
of AHRI 1600-202X Draft sets a maximum airflow limit at 37.5 scfm per
1000 Btu/h (i.e., 450 cubic feet per minute (``cfm'') per ton of
capacity) for cooling full airflow. Id. Additionally, section 6.1.5.3
of AHRI 1600-202X Draft sets a maximum airflow limit at 50 scfm per
1,000 Btu/h (i.e., 600 cfm per ton of capacity) for cooling low
airflow. Id. Should the cooling full airflow or cooling low airflow
specified by the manufacturer exceed these limits, AHRI 1600-202X Draft
requires that airflows be reduced to meet these limits for testing. Id.
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE surmised that the addition and
selection of specific cooling airflow limits in AHRI 1600-202X Draft
represented industry consensus regarding the issue of inadequate
dehumidification. 89 FR 24206, 24240. DOE tentatively determined that
such airflow limits were appropriate to ensure that CAC/HPs provide
adequate dehumidification during cooling mode operation and, therefore,
DOE proposed to incorporate by reference the cooling full airflow and
cooling low airflow limits specified in the AHRI 1600-202X Draft, at
appendix M2. Id.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal. AHRI
1600-2024 finalized the cooling full airflow and cooling low airflow
limits without change. Therefore, consistent with the April 2024 NOPR,
DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI 1600-2024 and the associated
airflow limits at appendix M2.
G. General Comments Received in Response to the April 2024 NOPR
In response to the April 2024 NOPR, DOE received several general
comments not specific to any one test procedure provision. This section
discusses those general comments received.
The Joint Advocates commented that before appendix M2 is enforced,
DOE should encourage manufacturers to optionally rate their systems
using SCORE and SHORE, i.e., the appendix M2 energy efficiency metrics.
(Joint Advocates, No. 30 at p. 1) The Joint Advocates commented that
such ratings would allow DOE to do an appropriate crosswalk from SEER2
to SCORE, and HSPF2 to SHORE, to support the next round of CAC/HP
standards rulemaking. (Id.) As discussed in section II of this
document, 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. However,
[[Page 1253]]
manufacturers may choose to make optional representations based on the
metrics in appendix M2 and are encouraged to provide any test data to
DOE to help support an analysis of the crosswalk of the energy
efficiency metrics from appendix M1 to appendix M2.
Additionally, the Joint Advocates commented that the bin method
used to calculate HSPF2 and SHORE assumes that an HP will provide as
much capacity as possible and resistance heat will meet the remaining
building load. (Joint Advocates, No. 30 at p. 4) However, the Joint
Advocates asserted that control logic will ultimately determine the
relative operation of these heat sources, which may not fit with the
bin calculation method assumption described. (Id.) The Joint Advocates
stated that, in the case that an HP uses more resistance heat than
assumed by the bin calculation method, a lower efficiency would be
observed in the field than the efficiency rated for an HP;
subsequently, the Joint Advocates encouraged DOE to consider this
aspect of the CAC/HP Federal test procedure in a future rulemaking.
(Id.)
In response to the Joint Advocates' comment, at this time DOE has
not determined an approach to account for the controls of the heat pump
working in tandem with electric resistance heat, and is not adopting
such an approach in this final rule. DOE notes that it may consider
such an approach in the future.
H. Represented Values
In the following sections, DOE discusses requirements regarding
represented values. To the extent that DOE is amending the requirements
specified in 10 CFR part 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 this
final rule. Prior to 180 days after publication in the Federal Register
of this 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 this test procedure final rule.
1. 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), cooling capacities, and estimates for cooling
load hours (``CLH'') and heating load hours (``HLH'') in a year. CLH
and HLH can be thought of as the hours of run time at full capacity
required to provide seasonal conditioning (in Btu) as calculated in the
test procedure to determine seasonal efficiencies. 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.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See table 21 of appendix M1 for the current CLH and HLH
estimates used for rating values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to retain the current CLH and
HLH estimates in appendix M1, for use in conjunction with SEER2 and
HSPF2 representations. 89 FR 24206, 24242-24243.
For appendix M2, DOE proposed new estimates for CLH and HLH for use
in conjunction with the proposed appendix M2 efficiency metrics, SCORE
and SHORE. 89 FR 24206, 24243. DOE noted that 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. Id. Therefore, DOE tentatively determined that the
proposed appendix M2 required new CLH and HLH values for use by the
FTC. Id. Specifically, DOE proposed to use 1,457 and 972 hours as
estimates for CLH and HLH, respectively, for use in conjunction with
SCORE and SHORE representations. Id. DOE presented step-by-step
derivations of proposed appendix M2 CLH and HLH values in a docketed
white paper titled ``Derivation of Proposed Appendix M2 Cooling Load
Hours and Heating Load Hours for the Federal Trade Commission.'' \51\
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-TP-0028-0019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to DOE's proposal, Keith Rice requested that the basis
for these revised cooling and heating load hours (and the revised
building load lines and temperature bin hours, discussed in section
III.F.3 of this final rule) be well documented in a published report.
(Keith Rice, No. 33 at p. 1) Keith Rice commented that this is
important considering that the proposed CLH and HLH values for appendix
M2 give a much higher weighting to cooling energy use performance
relative to heating. (Id.)
In response to Keith Rice, DOE notes that the CLH and HLH values
presented in its docketed white paper were derived from the building
load lines and temperature bin hours presented in AHRI 1600-202X Draft.
Therefore, the report requested by Keith Rice (i.e., a report detailing
the basis for the revised building load lines and temperature bin hours
in AHRI 1600-2024) would need to be provided by AHRI. DOE understands
the value of publicizing the weather analysis that forms the basis of
the building load lines and temperature bin hours under appendix M2.
Subsequently, DOE is willing to support AHRI in the process of
publicizing a weather analysis report, as requested by Keith Rice.
DOE did not receive any other comments regarding the proposal for
new CLH and HLH values under appendix M2. Therefore, for the reasons
discussed in the preceding paragraphs and the April 2024 NOPR, DOE is
adopting different CLH and HLH values under appendix M2 than under the
current appendix M1, as proposed.
In response to DOE's proposals for CLH and HLH, Keith Rice also
commented on the proposed calculations of annual operating costs in the
April 2024 NOPR. (Keith Rice, No. 33 at p. 1) Keith Rice noted that the
calculations of annual operating costs for single- versus variable-
speed HPs in the current appendix M1 and proposed appendix M2 give a 7-
percent additional energy savings benefit to variable-speed systems
when compared on an equal rated capacity basis. (Id.) Keith Rice
recommended, reasoning that consumers would expect that operating cost
comparisons would be on the basis of equal house loads, that the
existing appendix M1 and proposed appendix M2 operating cost
calculation approaches be modified to remove the extra 7-percent
benefit. (Id.) Keith Rice commented that, in the current appendix M1
and proposed appendix M2, the seasonal energy performance factors
(i.e., SEER2 and HSPF2 for appendix M1 and SCORE and SHORE for appendix
M2) for variable-speed systems have already been boosted by the
assumption of lower cooling and heating building loads for a given
cooling capacity. (Id. at pp. 1-2) Subsequently, Keith Rice suggested
that the V-factor of 0.93 in cooling mode and the lower 1.07
Cx factor in heating mode be removed from the operating cost
calculations for energy labeling so as to not result in a type of
double counting
[[Page 1254]]
of energy savings benefits for variable-speed units. (Id.)
DOE appreciates Keith Rice's comments regarding the calculations of
annual operating costs and understands that, if a variable-speed
product is compared with a single- or two-stage product on an apples-
to-apples basis (i.e., if both products hypothetically had the same
represented cooling capacity and same represented SEER2 or HSPF2 under
appendix M1 or SCORE or SHORE under appendix M2), the calculations of
annual operating costs for a variable-speed product would yield 7-
percent lower results. However, DOE notes that this 7-percent
difference has been used by FTC for some time--since it was adopted in
the January 2017 Final Rule. 82 FR 1426, 1473-1475. Additionally, DOE
notes that this 7-percent difference in annual operating costs is
relatively marginal compared to other factors of variability, such as
electricity rates, consumer usage patterns, etc. For these reasons, DOE
is adopting the calculations of annual operating costs as proposed in
the April 2024 NOPR, which are unchanged from the existing calculations
of annual operating costs.
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. In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
proposed to incorporate by reference AHRI 210/240-202X Draft at
appendix M1, and it noted that section 11.3 and appendix G of AHRI 210/
240-202X Draft \52\ include the same test instructions to determine
PW,OFF as are present in the current appendix M1. 89 FR
24206, 24243. Therefore, DOE proposed no changes in representation
requirement for off mode testing when testing per appendix M1. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ In the April 2024 NOPR preamble discussion, there were
instances where DOE mistakenly referred to section 11.2.3 and
appendix H of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft. This has been corrected to
section 11.3 and appendix G of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft in this final
rule preamble discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For appendix M2, DOE noted that the applicable metrics, SCORE and
SHORE, directly incorporate off mode power consumption and as such,
requiring representation of PW,OFF would be redundant for
appendix M2. 89 FR 24206, 24243. Therefore, DOE proposed 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. Id.
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. In
the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to retain this flexibility for
testing to appendix M1. 89 FR 24206, 24243.
For appendix M2, DOE extended 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 to
calculate the SCORE and SHORE metrics when testing to appendix M2. 89
FR 24206, 24243. Specifically, DOE proposed 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). Id. 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. Id.
In response to the April 2024 NOPR, Carrier, Lennox, and Rheem all
commented in support of DOE's proposal pertaining to off mode power.
(Carrier, No. 29 at p. 5; Lennox, No. 24 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 34 at p.
5) Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph and
the April 2024 NOPR, DOE is adopting these changes as proposed.
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.
In the April 2024 NOPR, to maintain consistency with the existing
efficiency metrics, DOE proposed to extend the same tolerance
requirement to the new efficiency metrics measured per appendix M2--
EER, SCORE and SHORE. 89 FR 24206, 24243.
DOE did not receive any comments regarding this proposal pertaining
to AEDM tolerances on the new metrics and, therefore, DOE is adopting
the change as proposed.
4. Removal of the AEDM Exception for Split-System CAC/HPs
Currently, the AEDM requirements at 10 CFR 429.70(e) 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).
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE noted that since amendments proposed in
the NOPR are not expected to be finalized and made effective before
July 1, 2024, the AEDM exception for non-space-constrained single-
split-system CAC/HPs would no longer apply at the time this rulemaking
finalizes. 89 FR 24206, 24243. As such, DOE proposed to remove the
date-based application of the AEDM requirement and instead clarify 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. Id. DOE did not receive any comments regarding this
proposal and is adopting the change as proposed.
I. Enforcement Provisions
1. Verifying Cut-Out and Cut-In Temperatures
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed that for assessment and
enforcement testing of HP models, the cut-out and cut-in temperatures
may be verified using the test method in appendix J of AHRI 210/240-
202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft, 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. 89 FR 24206, 24243.
AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024, the industry standards DOE is
referencing in this final rule, finalized the relevant test method for
determining cut-out and cut-in temperatures in appendix J without any
substantial change. Therefore, consistent with the April 2024 NOPR, DOE
is adding product-specific provisions at 10 CFR
[[Page 1255]]
429.134(k)--specifically, DOE is adding provisions that for assessment
and enforcement testing of HP models, the cut-out and cut-in
temperatures may be verified using the method in appendix J of AHRI
210/240-2024 or AHRI 1600-2024, 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.
In response to the April 2024 NOPR, the Joint Advocates encouraged
DOE to adopt a requirement for manufacturers to report and certify cut-
out and cut-in temperatures for all HPs as part of a separate
rulemaking. (Joint Advocates, No. 30 at p. 2) DOE maintains that it
will consider certification requirements for CAC/HPs, including the
potential requirement for certification of cut-out and cut-in
temperatures, in a separate rulemaking, as noted in the April 2024
NOPR. 89 FR 24206, 24243.
Additionally, the Joint Advocates expressed uncertainty regarding
whether DOE intended to limit cut-out and cut-in temperature
verification to CCHPs, specifically pointing to the following sentence
\53\ of the April 2024 NOPR preamble: ``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.'' (Joint Advocates, No. 30
at p. 2) DOE surmises that the Joint Advocates' uncertainty stems from
the use of the acronym ``CHP'' in this sentence. DOE clarifies that
``CHP'' stands for ``central heat pump,'' not ``cold climate heat
pump,'' and that the cut-out and cut-in temperature verification test
in appendix J of the respective AHRI Drafts applies to all central heat
pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See 89 FR 24206, 24243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Controls Verification Procedure
(a) DOE's Proposal
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to establish requirements for
DOE's use of the CVP per appendix I of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI
1600-202X Draft for the purposes of assessment and enforcement testing.
89 FR 24206, 24243-24244.
DOE proposed that if after conducting the CVP 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 \54\ (10 percent) for the applicable CVP load
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. 89 FR 24206, 24244. DOE clarified that
these tests will be conducted based on the override instructions from
the manufacturer for setting the appropriate compressor and fan speeds
for each test. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ EER2 and COP2 for cooling load intervals and heating load
intervals, respectively, when tested in accordance with appendix M1,
and EER and COP, for cooling load intervals and heating load
intervals, respectively, when tested in accordance with appendix M2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, if either of the full- or minimum-load CVP intervals fail
to meet the required tolerances, and the control device allows
monitoring and adjustment of the compressor and indoor blower speeds,
and is the same control device used for certification and CVP
tests,\55\ DOE proposed that it will conduct certification tests by
setting the speeds for the tests to the average values observed during
the corresponding failed CVP interval.\56\ 89 FR 24206, 24244.
Alternatively, 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 or is not
the same control device used for certification tests, DOE proposed to
use the 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 EER, for appendix M2. Id. For
certification tests that do not have a corresponding CVP interval, DOE
proposed to calculate the corresponding efficiency by adjusting the
capacity and power, by application of a ratio to the corresponding CVP
interval.\57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ 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.
\56\ For tests that do not correspond to any load intervals of
the CVP, DOE proposed to adjust the compressor speed as follows: the
compressor speeds for tests BFull, BLow,
H3,low, and H0Low will be set at the same
speeds observed in the CVP load intervals associated with the
AFull, FLow, H3Full,
H4Full, and H1Low tests, respectively.
\57\ As an example per the proposal, 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 a 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 proposed to 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
H1Nom, H2Full, H2Low, and
H3Low, as applicable, using the certified instructions, and
for other certification tests, calculate the corresponding efficiency
by adjusting the capacity and efficiency, by application of a ratio to
the corresponding CVP interval.\58\ 89 FR 24206, 24244. Otherwise, DOE
proposed that 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 (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). Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ As an example, the capacity at HOLow condition,
QH0,Low, will be calculated by the following equation:
QH0,Low = QH0,Low,Certification x
QCVP,H1,Low/QH1,Low,Certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Comments Received
In response to these proposals, DOE received several comments
related to various aspects of the CVP's adoption for enforcement and
assessment testing. The comments are summarized in the following
subsections.
(1) General Feedback
Lennox, the CA IOUs, Rheem, and GE Appliances all supported DOE's
proposed CVP enforcement provisions utilizing the methods in the AHRI
210/240 and AHRI 1600 standards. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 5; CA IOUs, No.
32 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 34 at p. 5; GE Appliances, No. 37 at p. 4) The
CA IOUs commented that the new provisions in AHRI 210/240 will help
consumers realize that heat pumps are an efficient means for space
heating and cooling. (CA IOUs, No. 32 at p. 2)
AHRI pointed out the differences between the CVP outlined in AHRI
210/
[[Page 1256]]
240 and AHRI 1600, and the CVP outlined in the ENERGY STAR[supreg]
Version 6.1 (``EPA Energy Star CVP'') Specifications for CACs and Air-
Source Heat Pumps (``ASHPs''),\59\ which are shown in table III.1.
(AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 8-9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See: www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY%20STAR%20Version%206.1%20Central%20Air%20Conditioner%20and%20Heat%20Pump%20Final%20Specification%20%28Rev.%20January%20%202022%29.pdf.
Table III--1 Summary of CVP in AHRI 210/240 and the EPA Energy Star CVP
[AHRI, No. 25 at pp. 8-9]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test segments Test duration for
Test type Test segments CAC CHP CAC Test duration for CHP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 1600-- 3................... 6 9-19 hours......... 18-38 hours.
Appendix I.
EPA Energy Star CVP........... None................ 1 None............... Up to 2 hours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, LG commented that even though the Energy Star CVP is
used to certify ENERGY STAR CCHPs, DOE's Cold Climate Heat Pump
Technology Challenge (``DOE CCHP Tech Challenge'') \60\ implemented a
``Min/Mild'' CVP test.\61\ (LG, No. 38 at p. 3) LG suggested that the
presence of multiple CVPs to certify identical products would place
undue test burden on manufacturers, and DOE should incorporate the
``Min/Mild'' CVP in their CVP enforcement provisions, rather than going
with the CVP outlined in the AHRI 210/240 and 1600 standards. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ 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 https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/cchp-technology-challenge-specifications.
\61\ The ``Min/Mild'' test is a load-based test conducted at
outdoor conditions of 47 [deg]F dry bulb temperature, and 43 [deg]F
wet bulb temperature, and indoor conditions of 70 [deg]F dry bulb
temperature and 60 [deg]F wet bulb temperature, in order to validate
the minimum capacity (at 47 [deg]F outdoor dry bulb temperature) of
CCHPs participating in the DOE CCHP Tech Challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to AHRI's comment, DOE notes that the scope of the
ENERGY STAR CVP only includes ENERGY STAR CCHPs, specifically
performance at the 5 [deg]F test condition. In contrast, the CVP
outlined in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft is
applicable more broadly to all variable-capacity CAC/HPs. Because of
the increased scope of the latter CVP, more heating test conditions are
included, resulting in increased heating tests, both in number and
duration. The CVP outlined in appendix I of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and
AHRI 1600-202X Draft also includes a 5 [deg]F test for all CHPs that
report performance at the H4 conditions, and is functionally the same
test as the ENERGY STAR CVP.
In response to LG, DOE notes that although the ``Min/Mild'' CVP is
a load-based method, it has a different method of inducing the
conditioning load on the indoor psychrometric chamber as opposed to the
CVP outlined in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft. As
DOE detailed in the January 2023 RFI, the ``Min/Mild'' CVP uses the
test chamber-induced load application scheme, where a fixed cooling or
heating load is applied to the psychrometric chamber, and the unit
under test responds to the test chamber-induced load to maintain the
desired set point temperature. 88 FR 4091, 4094-4095. In contrast, the
CVP in AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft uses the
virtual load approach, where the load is varied to simulate the
building response if the capacity of the unit under test does not match
the imposed load. Id. DOE notes that the CVP outlined in appendix I of
AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft represents industry
consensus to ensure that fixed-speed settings of variable-speed systems
would be achieved using native (unfixed) control. 89 FR 24206, 24222.
Therefore, DOE considers that the CVP in appendix I of AHRI 210/240-
202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft is the most suitable option to
support enforcement associated with testing conducted in accordance
with appendices M1 and M2.
(2) Delaying CVP Compliance Due to Uncertain CVP Tolerances
As noted in section III.E.1 of this document, DOE proposed in the
April 2024 NOPR that systems determined to be variable-capacity
compressor systems; variable-capacity certified, single-capacity
systems; or variable-capacity certified, two-capacity systems after
conducting the CVP, must meet tolerances of 6 percent and 10 percent on
capacity and energy efficiency, respectively. 89 FR 24206, 24244.
Lennox commented that the proposed tolerances appeared to be
reasonable from Lennox's testing, but it noted that DOE should ensure
that the proposed tolerances are not very stringent and expressed its
openness to talk with DOE on the matter. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 5) The
Joint Advocates also supported the proposed tolerance values and
requested that DOE continue evaluating appropriate values for the
tolerances. (Joint Advocates, No. 30 at p. 1).
AHRI, Carrier, Daikin, GE Appliances, JCI, LG, and Rheem had
several issues with the aforementioned tolerances on capacity and
energy efficiency for the CVP enforcement proposed by DOE, and they
requested that DOE delay the compliance date CVP enforcement testing.
(AHRI, No. 25 at p. 8; Carrier, No. 29 at p. 2; Daikin, No. 36 at pp.
3-4; GE Appliances, No. 37 at p. 4; JCI, No. 35 at pp. 2-3; LG, No. 38
at p. 1; Rheem, No. 34 at p. 5)
AHRI commented that even though the tolerances proposed by DOE were
discussed with all stakeholders during development of the AHRI 210/240
and AHRI 1600 standards, AHRI is aiming to conduct CVP testing during
2025, analyze the proposed tolerances, and provide the relevant
information to DOE by spring 2026, which will determine if the proposed
tolerances are supported by test data. (AHRI, No. 25 at p. 8)
Therefore, AHRI requested that DOE defer the effective date of CVP
enforcement provisions to July 2026 at the earliest. (Id. at p. 9)
Carrier recommended that DOE delay the compliance date of the CVP
enforcement to be 360 days after the publication of the final rule and
revisit the proposed tolerances on capacity and efficiency once the
industry has test data available to confirm appropriate tolerance
values. (Carrier, No. 29 at p. 2) Carrier further commented that even
though the tolerances proposed by DOE were discussed with stakeholders
during the Unitary Small Equipment Standards Technical Committee (``USE
STC'') negotiations, the consensus was
[[Page 1257]]
to not specify any tolerances at that time due to a lack of lab test
data and uncertainty in the CVP. (Id.) Carrier expressed concern that
the proposed tolerances would result in inappropriate characterization
of system performance and may require manufacturers to retest and
recertify products, thereby increasing the cost of testing. (Id.)
Daikin commented that it does not have sufficient test data from
Daikin's own test laboratories to agree or disagree with the tolerances
proposed by DOE. (Daikin, No. 36 at pp. 3-4) Daikin requested that DOE
be open to delay CVP enforcement dates and changes to the tolerances
once stakeholders can provide test data to either validate or modify
the current tolerances. (Id.)
GE Appliances commented that it agrees with AHRI's recommendation
on delaying CVP enforcement to no sooner than July 2026. (GE
Appliances, No. 37 at p. 4) GE Appliances further commented that this
will allow time for lab testing to validate DOE's proposed tolerances,
and for building additional lab capacity for CVP testing, which takes
longer than some existing CVP procedures, such as the ENERGY STAR CVP.
(Id. at pp. 4-5) GE Appliances expressed concern that there are some
items \62\ in the CVP in AHRI 210/240 that may require changes to the
tolerances proposed by DOE. (Id.) GE Appliances pointed to a mismatch
between the text and the equations in 10 CFR 429.134(k)(4)(iii)(B),
stating that the language regarding capacity and efficiency tolerances
provide for a two-sided tolerance, while the formulas only allow for
one side of the range. (Id. at p. 5) GE Appliances recommended that the
capacity equations should be modified to show a two-sided tolerance
(ensuring consistency with the text), but since a one-sided tolerance
seems appropriate for efficiency, the text in 429.134(k)(4)(iii)(D)
should be updated to note that the equations are not ``within'' the
specified tolerance and are one sided. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ GE Appliances, in its example, pointed out that the target
sensible load for the full-load and low-load tests were set at 97
percent and 103 percent respectively, which may lead to unbalanced
bilateral tolerance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
JCI commented that since the CVP tests proposed in AHRI 210/240 are
complex and time consuming, it is crucial for laboratories under the
AHRI audit program to put in place tolerances that are achievable.
(JCI, No. 35 at p. 3) JCI requested that DOE delay CVP enforcement
testing until sufficient CVP test data has been collected by labs to
establish such tolerances. (Id.)
LG commented that since the CVP is a new and untried procedure, the
capacity and efficiency tolerances proposed by DOE, of 6 percent and 10
percent respectively, should be reevaluated before finalizing the CVP
enforcement. (LG, No. 38 at p. 1) LG asserted that the proposed
tolerances may not be sufficient to compare a certification test with
the CVP test, noting that the certification tests utilize fixed
compressor speed and airflow rate while the CVP tests modulate
compressor speed and airflow rate to optimize thermal comfort and
system performance. (Id.) Additionally, LG commented that even though
the CVP would only be utilized during enforcement testing,
manufacturers would need to verify CVP test values in order to
internally assess the products, for which third-party testing may also
be required to obtain reliable test data. (Id. at p. 3) LG asserted
that while self-verification in the manufacturer's internal lab may be
available, this option also requires additional testing time and cost.
(Id.) Therefore, LG requested that DOE align the compliance date of the
CVP enforcement with appendix M2's effective date, since manufacturers
will have to do some retesting and recertification with the advent of
appendix M2, and this would help reduce their overall test burden.
(Id.)
Similarly, Rheem questioned if there was adequate test data
available to justify the tolerances on capacity and energy efficiency
proposed by DOE for the full- and minimum-load intervals. (Rheem, No.
34 at p. 5) Rheem requested delaying the compliance data of the CVP to
July 2026 so that the CVP test data collected by AHRI in 2025 may be
analyzed and help validate the proposed tolerances. (Id.) Rheem
referred to a residential furnace fans final rule published by DOE in
the Federal Register on July 3, 2014 (``July 2014 Furnace Fan Final
Rule''), in which the fan energy rating (``FER'') metric's enforcement
was delayed by DOE. (Id. at p. 6) Rheem commented that DOE should
utilize the aforementioned flexibility in delaying enforcement
provisions, in order to delay enforcement of the CVP. (Id.) Rheem noted
that section I5.1.5 from appendix I of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-
2024--which prescribes a maximum allowable variation in EER/COP equal
to 5 percent--is redundant, given that all condition and operating
tolerances have already been prescribed in section I5 and in the CVP
enforcement provisions by DOE at 10 CFR 429.134(k). (Id. at p. 7)
As noted by AHRI, the CVP tolerances on capacity and efficiency, 6
percent and 10 percent, respectively, were discussed with the
stakeholders during the development of the AHRI standards. During these
discussions, DOE presented unit capacity, compressor speed, and
efficiency data on 10 different variable-speed CHPs--five (5) ducted
split CHPs and five (5) ductless mini-split CHPs. The CHP units were
from seven (7) different manufacturers and had capacities ranging from
1.5 tons to 3 tons. Regulatory cooling and heating tests were conducted
on these units as per the existing appendix M1 procedure, and CVP tests
were conducted using the test chamber-induced load application scheme,
as explained in section III.I.2.b.(1) of this document. The SEER2 and
HSPF2 metrics were evaluated for the units using both the regulatory
test values and those obtained from the CVP. Table III-2 shows the
comparison of the regulatory and CVP capacities and energy efficiency
for each of the 10 units, for cooling full load, cooling low load,
heating full load, and heating low load. The following can be observed,
if 10% is the allowable tolerance for capacity and efficiency, when
comparing the regulatory and CVP values: (1) unit 1 was out of
tolerance on the cooling full load, and heating low load capacity and
efficiency, (2) unit 3 was out of tolerance on the cooling low load
capacity, and heating low load capacity and efficiency, (3) unit 6 was
out of tolerance on the heating full load and heating low load capacity
and efficiency, (4) unit 9 was out of tolerance on the cooling low load
and heating low load efficiency, and (5) unit 10 was out of tolerance
on the cooling low load and heating low load capacity and efficiency.
For the aforementioned units, the SEER2 values were recalculated by use
of the tested out of tolerance CVP load intervals and adjustment of the
applicable load intervals without a CVP for full load or low load
efficiencies and capacities, using the following equations:
[[Page 1258]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.006
Table III-2--Regulatory and CVP Capacity and Energy Efficiency of 10 Variable Speed CHPs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification CVP %age %age
Unit No. Test capacity (Btu/ capacity Certification CVP efficiency difference in difference in
hr) (Btu/hr) efficiency * * capacity efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................... Cooling Full.......... 22,515 25,343 13.2 11.6 -13 12
Cooling Low........... 6,521 6,870 23.6 22.5 2 5
Heating Full.......... 18,853 18,659 2.0 2.0 1 0
Heating Low........... 10,138 15,309 4.4 3.8 27 14
2................................... Cooling Full.......... 18,614 17,423 15.0 15.2 6 -2
Cooling Low........... 11,444 12,325 17.6 15.8 5 10
Heating Full.......... 10,787 15,961 2.3 2.1 -48 11
Heating Low........... 9,837 10,591 3.7 2.5 7 32
3................................... Cooling Full.......... 33,062 32,397 12.7 12.7 2 0
Cooling Low........... 16,969 23,183 19.1 18.2 19 5
Heating Full.......... 19,038 19,120 2.0 2.1 0 -3
Heating Low........... 16,373 20,290 4.9 4.3 21 13
4................................... Cooling Full.......... 34,439 33,290 13.0 12.7 3 3
Cooling Low........... 13,196 13,660 24.2 24.5 1 -1
Heating Full.......... 18,707 25,224 2.1 1.9 -35 11
Heating Low........... 9,880 10,081 4.1 4.1 1 1
5................................... Cooling Full.......... 22,655 21,477 13.5 13.8 5 -2
Cooling Low........... 6,373 7,031 24.0 23.3 3 3
Heating Full.......... 19,415 18,423 2.1 2.0 5 3
Heating Low........... 10,092 10,011 4.5 3.8 0 16
6................................... Cooling Full.......... 21,668 22,734 12.7 12.1 -5 5
Cooling Low........... 11,124 11,018 20.8 18.8 0 9
Heating Full.......... 12,992 22,441 2.6 1.9 -73 26
Heating Low........... 9,197 10,934 5.2 4.5 13 13
7................................... Cooling Full.......... 33,470 33,290 12.7 12.7 1 0
Cooling Low........... 12,503 13,660 23.9 24.5 3 -2
Heating Full.......... 17,430 17,217 2.0 2.0 1 -1
Heating Low........... 9,871 9,915 4.4 4.3 0 2
8................................... Cooling Full.......... 35,324 38,800 13.7 13.4 -10 3
Cooling Low........... 20,254 20,824 19.9 19.1 2 4
Heating Full.......... 37,690 37,498 2.4 2.4 1 0
Heating Low........... 20,128 19,479 4.5 4.4 -2 2
9................................... Cooling Full.......... 22,515 22,455 13.2 13.4 0 -2
Cooling Low........... 6,521 6,602 23.6 18.3 0 22
Heating Full.......... 18,853 18,890 2.0 2.0 0 1
Heating Low........... 10,138 10,199 4.4 3.9 0 12
10.................................. Cooling Full.......... 15215 14969 14.1 13.3 2 6
Cooling Low........... 4,752 5,497 30.3 27.3 5 10
Heating Full.......... 20,509 18,824 2.2 2.1 8 6
Heating Low........... 3,644 4,998 6.1 5.1 7 17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* EER2 for cooling tests (in Btu/hr/W), COP2 for heating tests.
The recalculated SEER2 for units 1, 3, 6, 9 and 10, are shown in
table III-3, indicating that the highest difference between the
recalculated (or adjusted) SEER2 was no greater than 9.7%. Unit 6 was
in tolerance for both the full and low load intervals and the reduction
in SEER2 using the adjusted values was 6.3%. Therefore, it was
concluded that a maximum energy efficiency tolerance of 10% would be
appropriate for CVP enforcement of variable capacity compressor
systems.
[[Page 1259]]
Table III-3--Comparison of Recalculated SEER2 With the Certified SEER2 for Units That Were Out of Tolerance on
Capacity and/or Efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%age difference
Unit No. Certified SEER2 Adjusted SEER2 between adjusted and
certified SEER2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................................... 17.50 16.66 -4.9
3................................................... 17.02 16.22 -4.7
6................................................... 18.88 17.69 -6.3
9................................................... 17.51 15.81 -9.7
10.................................................. 23.84 22.64 -5.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For capacity, the tolerance of 6% was proposed in the April 2024
NOPR, as a result of discussions with stakeholders during development
of appendix I of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft.
89 FR 24206, 24243-24244. In appendix I of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft
and AHRI 1600-202X Draft, equations I2 and I3 show the calculation of
the cooling virtual sensible load at outdoor conditions of 95 [deg]F
and 67 [deg]F, respectively, and equations I9, I10, and I11 show the
calculation of the heating virtual load at outdoor conditions of 5
[deg]F, 17 [deg]F, and 47 [deg]F, respectively. Each of these equations
provide a 3% factor on the cooling and heating full load and low load
target virtual loads. Based on the data presented above in table III-2
and the discussions with relevant stakeholders during the development
of appendix I of the AHRI 210/240-202X Draft, DOE has determined 6% as
an appropriate tolerance for capacity measurements during the CVP test.
During development of the AHRI Standards, no counter data was
presented by any of the stakeholders to suggest revising the tolerances
of 6% on unit capacity, and 10% on unit efficiency, for CVP
enforcement. DOE has also not received any CVP test data in response to
the April 2024 NOPR to indicate that the proposed tolerances are not
appropriate. Therefore, DOE is finalizing the aforementioned tolerances
as part of the CVP enforcement provisions at 10 CFR 429.134(k).
Regarding delaying the CVP enforcement date so that stakeholders
have sufficient time to conduct CVP testing and for DOE to wait for
AHRI's CVP testing in 2025 to help inform the proposed capacity and
efficiency tolerances, DOE notes that the CVP is not required as part
of testing, and a manufacturer is currently required to certify the
compressor and indoor blower speed at settings that represent normal
operation for any variable capacity system. Therefore, some form of
validation to determine the settings for normal operation should
already be in place to allow the manufacturers to properly certify
these settings. The CVP outlined in appendix I of AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft is intended to standardize such a
procedure. Hence, even if manufacturers wanted to prepare to conduct
the CVP on their products to prepare for potential enforcement by DOE,
the test burden is limited.
Regarding Rheem's comment on DOE delaying the enforcement of the
FER metric for furnace fans, DOE clarifies that the FER metric was
established as a regulatory metric, and is hence not comparable to the
CVP procedure in appendix I of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and AHRI 1600-
202X Draft, which DOE intends to utilize only for the purposes of
assessment and enforcement testing of variable-capacity compressor
systems. As discussed, the enforcement provisions explain what DOE may
do in the case of enforcement testing for CAC/HPs and are not a
requirement for manufacturer testing. As such, DOE does not see reason
to delay the CVP enforcement provisions from their current effective
date, i.e., 180 days after publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register.
DOE considers that the proposed tolerances on capacity and energy
efficiency, of 6 percent and 10 percent, respectively, are currently
the most appropriate values based on the variable-speed test data
analyzed by DOE. At this time, no additional data is available nor has
been provided by stakeholders and, therefore, DOE is finalizing its
proposals on the tolerances and is not establishing a delayed effective
date for the CVP. DOE welcomes any additional CVP test data as it
becomes available.
[[Page 1260]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.007
In response to Rheem's comment (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 5) regarding
the tolerances specified in section I5 in appendix I of AHRI 210/240-
202X Draft and AHRI 1600-202X Draft being redundant, DOE clarifies that
this tolerance was incorporated in order to determine if the variable-
capacity compressor system under test met the stability requirements
and subsequently determines the appropriate CVP test interval to be
evaluated. Therefore, DOE disagrees with Rheem that this tolerance is
redundant in the AHRI drafts.
[[Page 1261]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.008
(3) Clarification on Enforcement Provisions
Several commenters requested more clarity on the CVP enforcement
provisions and made their own recommendations for some of the
calculations and provisions proposed by DOE.
The Joint Advocates pointed to DOE's proposal for evaluation of CVP
results when tolerances on capacity and energy efficiency are not met,
and the control used for conducting CVP does not provide means for
overriding compressor and indoor blower speeds (10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(v)(B)) to adjust power measurements. (Joint Advocates,
No. 30 at p. 2) In this case, the Joint Advocates commented that DOE
proposed that power adjustment should be done by multiplication with
the ratio of the efficiency measured during the CVP test interval
divided by efficiency measured during the certification test (for the
corresponding CVP interval). (Id.) The Joint Advocates noted that
because of the 6-percent tolerance allowed for the full-load CVP
interval-capacity measurements, the capacity ratio may not be equal to
1, and hence it may not be appropriate to use the ratio of efficiencies
(EER2 or COP2, as applicable). (Id.) The Joint Advocates suggested that
DOE consider adjusting power by multiplying the ratio of powers, as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.009
Additionally, the Joint Advocates pointed to the provisions in 10
CFR 429.134(k)(4)(v)(A) and (B)--where DOE proposed that for CVP tests
for which capacity and efficiency tolerances are not met, the
certification tests must be conducted by using the compressor speeds
determined in the corresponding CVP test (or certification test results
must be adjusted) and the certification tests will be used for
calculating the unit's efficiency metrics. (Id. at p. 3) The Joint
Advocates expressed concern that if the recalculated efficiency metric
is compliant, but is lower than the value certified to DOE, this will
result in a misleading efficiency rating and average energy cost
printed on the FTC label. (Id.) The Joint Advocates pointed toward the
rerate and recertify provision \63\ for VRF multi-split air
conditioners and heat pumps (``VRF
[[Page 1262]]
multi-split systems''), which was specified by DOE in a final rule on
October 20, 2022, suggesting that a similar provision should be adopted
for CAC/HPs (``October 2022 VRF Final Rule''). 87 FR 63894.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ In the October 2022 VRF Final Rule, DOE specifies that if a
manufacturer becomes aware that any of the certified operational
settings for the critical parameters are determined to be invalid
according to the results of a CVP, whether that CVP be performed by
the manufacturer or another party, the manufacturer would be
required to recertify the operational settings of those critical
parameters for all affected basic models, as well as rerate and
recertify the affected basic models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the Joint Advocates' comment on adjustment of power
of certification tests for which a corresponding CVP interval did not
exist, DOE did an analysis on an example case for a variable-capacity
CAC unit. DOE assumed that for a hypothetical variable-capacity
compressor 3-ton CAC unit, with a certified EER2A,Full of
12, the capacity at BFull condition was 40,000 Btu/hr, and
the EER2B,Full was 15. It was assumed that after conducting
the CVP on the unit, the value of the EER2 measured using the full-load
CVP test dropped to 11.28, as shown in table III.4. DOE then evaluated
the capacity and power at the BFull condition--the power was
adjusted by using the energy efficiency ratios first, as proposed by
DOE in the April 2022 CAC NOPR, and was separately adjusted by using
the power ratios, as suggested by the Joint Advocates.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.010
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
DOE observed that adjusting the power using the energy efficiency
ratios resulted in the certification and CVP values for energy
efficiency being out of tolerance, i.e., -11.6 percent, whereas
adjusting the power using the power ratios resulted in this difference
being -6 percent. Additionally, DOE revisited its analysis of the
regulatory and CVP test data of the 10 variable-speed CHPs that was
used to develop the 6-percent tolerance on capacity and 10-percent
tolerance on efficiency, as explained in section III.I.2.b.(2) of this
document. DOE observed that for one of the units, the power ratio
adjusted EER2B,Low value was only 5.9 percent lower than the
actual EER2 for the Blow CVP test, , but the efficiency
ratio adjusted EER2B,Low was 26 percent higher than
[[Page 1263]]
the . DOE realizes that using the efficiency ratios to adjust power
measurements may result in inflated energy efficiencies of the
variable-capacity compressor units that DOE will run a CVP on.
Therefore, DOE is adopting the proposed revision by the Joint Advocates
and modifying the equations at 10 CFR 429.134(k)(4)(v)(B) that are used
to adjust the power measurements for certification tests requiring
adjustment with no CVP interval (any required certification test other
than AFull, FLow, H1Low,
H3Full, and H4Full), as follows:
Cooling full power:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.011
Cooling minimum power:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.012
Heating minimum power:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.013
Regarding the Joint Advocates' recommendation to establish a rerate
and recertify provision similar to the one in the October 2022 VRF
Final Rule (see Sec. 429.43(b)(5)), DOE notes that if a variable-
capacity compressor system meets the minimum standards after the CVP
assessment or enforcement, but the recalculated metric is lower than
the value certified to DOE, DOE may choose to take enforcement action
regarding invalid certification of the basic model. At this time, DOE
is not adopting the rerate and recertify provision but may consider
inclusion in a future certification rulemaking.
In response to the CVP enforcement provisions, Rheem requested
several clarifications and made its own recommendations, including some
changes and corrections to the finalized standards, AHRI 210/240-2024
and AHRI 1600-2024.
Rheem requested clarification from DOE on the provisions in 10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(iii)(B) and (D). 89 FR 24206, 24259. (Rheem, No. 34 at p.
6) Rheem noted that at 10 CFR 429.134(k)(4)(iii)(B) and (D), DOE
proposed maximum allowable tolerances between the heating capacity and
heating efficiency measured during the full-load interval of the CVP
and the corresponding certification test. (Id.) Rheem commented that
the proposed regulatory text in the section reads as if the full-load
interval of the heating mode CVP must be conducted at both 17 [deg]F
and 5 [deg]F, while section I4.2.1 of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-
2024 does not require full-load interval of the heating CVP to be
conducted at both 17 [deg]F and 5 [deg]F for all heat pumps. (Id.)
Additionally, Rheem noted that in 10 CFR 429.134(k)(4)(i)(C), DOE
proposed that the CVP will be allowed to be terminated without
conducting the minimum load interval if, according to 10 CFR 429.134(k)
(4)(ii)(B), a system is determined to be a variable-capacity certified,
single-capacity system. 89 FR 24206, 24258. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 6)
Rheem commented that it interprets this provision to mean that in such
a case, capacity, and energy efficiency tolerance at low-load
intervals, as per 10 CFR 429.134(k)(4)(iii)(C) and (D), will not be
necessary. (Id.) In 10 CFR 429.134(k)(v)(B), Rheem noted that DOE
proposed to use the capacity slope factor (``CSF'') and power slope
factor (``PSF'') for extrapolating an ``adjusted'' heating capacity and
heating power consumption at H3 (17 [deg]F outdoor dry bulb
temperature) test condition when the compressor is operating at low
stage, using the system`s measured performance during the heating mode
CVP's low-load interval. (Id.) 89 FR 24206, 24260-24261. Rheem
commented that the values of CSF and PSF will be adopted from AHRI 210/
240-2024 or from section 3.6.4.1(b) of the current appendix M1, and it
questioned their accuracy for low-speed compressor operation, since
they were derived for compressor operation at full speed. (Rheem, No.
34 at p. 6) In its comment, Rheem also questioned the extrapolation
using these CSF and PSF values for minimum-speed-limiting heat pumps,
as defined \64\ in AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024. (Id.) Finally,
Rheem pointed to a typographical error in sections I4.3.1.4 of AHRI
210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024, and it made suggestions for correcting
it.\65\ (Id.) Rheem commented that since no indoor entering wet bulb
temperature is prescribed for any of the load and transition intervals
of the heating CVP, corrections should be made in section I5.1 and
section I5.1.3 of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 to reflect that
any tolerances on indoor entering wet bulb temperatures should only be
applicable to the cooling mode CVP tests. (Id. at p. 7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Minimum-speed-limiting variable-speed HPs are defined at
section 3.2.32 of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and 3.2.31 of AHRI 1600-
202X Draft as: A heat pump for which the minimum compressor speed
(represented by revolutions per minute or motor power input
frequency) is higher than its minimum value for operation in a 47
[deg]F ambient temperature for any bin temperature tj for which the
calculated heating load is less than the calculated intermediate-
speed capacity.
\65\ Rheem suggested that either the phrase ``. . . where the
range of capacity does not vary by more than 15 percent'' should be
deleted fully, or the words ``. . . does not vary'' should be
replaced with the word ``varies,'' since the AHRI USE STC's intent
when developing this requirement was to encapsulate systems that
cycle on/off, instead of modulating between compressor speeds/
stages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Rheem`s comments, DOE clarifies that since the CVP
for enforcement will be carried out as per appendix I of the AHRI 210/
240 and AHRI 1600 standards, the full-load interval of the heating mode
CVP at 5 [deg]F will only be enforced for those CHPs that have reported
regulatory
[[Page 1264]]
performance at the H4full test, while the CVP at 17 [deg]F
will be carried out for all CHPs, including units for which performance
at H4full conditions has not been reported. Additionally,
DOE clarifies that for systems that are determined to be variable-
capacity certified, single-capacity systems, as per 10 CFR 429.134(k)
(4)(ii)(B), there will be no need to conduct the minimum load interval,
and therefore, Rheem's understanding that capacity and energy
efficiency tolerance at low load intervals, as per 10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(iii)(C) and (D), will not be applicable, is correct.
Regarding Rheem's comment on the use of CSF and PSF values from the
AHRI standards, DOE notes that it has not received any test data from
stakeholders that would indicate that the use of these slope factors is
inaccurate at low compressor speed tests. In the absence of any test
data, DOE is maintaining the CSF values of 0.0204/[deg]F for split
systems and 0.0262/[deg]F for single-package units, and PSF value of
0.00455/[deg]F, as per the April 2024 NOPR, to extrapolate an adjusted
heating capacity and heating power consumption at H3 (17 [deg]F) test
conditions when the compressor is operating at low stage, using tested
system performance during the heating CVP's low load interval. The CSF
and PSF values are used for extrapolation at the H3Low test
condition capacity and heating power consumption only for Variable
Capacity Certified, Two Capacity Systems, when the control device for
conducting the CVP and certification tests does not meet the
requirements of monitoring and adjustment of the compressor speed and
indoor blower speed, as outlined in 10 CFR 429.134 (k)(4)(v)(A).
In response to Rheem's comment on questioning this extrapolation
for minimum-speed-limiting heat pumps, no evidence has been provided by
Rheem to argue that the current CSF and PSF values may be inexact for
the aforementioned extrapolation. However, DOE recognizes the concern
raised by Rheem, and notes that systems determined to be Variable
Capacity Certified, Two Capacity Systems, after conducting the CVP,
will not be subject to extrapolation using the minimum speed limiting
heat pump adjustments, as per equations 11.189 to 11.194 of AHRI 210/
240-2024 when tested in accordance with appendix M1, and per equations
11.199 to 11.204 of AHRI 1600-2024, when tested in accordance with
appendix M2. Additionally, DOE clarifies that there are no
typographical errors in sections I4.3.1.4 of AHRI 210/240 and AHRI
1600--the phrase ``. . . where the range of capacity does not vary by
more than 15 percent'' is referring to the range of capacity the unit
can modulate from its high-/on-capacity value and is therefore
consistent with the intent of this section. Regarding Rheem's comment
on tolerances on indoor entering wet bulb temperature and indoor
leaving wet bulb temperature (in sections I5.1 and I5.1.3,
respectively) in AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 1600, being applicable to
cooling mode CVP tests only, DOE agrees, and it is making amendments at
10 CFR 429.134(k)(4)(iii)(A) as follows (additions shown in italics):
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 210/240-2024 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 429.4) (if testing in accordance with appendix
M1); or of AHRI 1600-2024 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4)
(if testing in accordance with appendix M2), with the exception that
the indoor entering wet bulb deviation in section I5.1 and test
operating tolerance in section I5.1.3 are applicable only for cooling
mode CVP.
JCI also requested clarity on various aspects of the CVP
enforcement provisions. (JCI, No. 35 at pp. 2-3). In particular, JCI
expressed concern about systems that utilize variable-capacity
compressors rated as ``coil only'' systems and ``certified'' to DOE as
variable-capacity systems, but which are rated and tested per two-speed
test procedures.\66\ (Id.) JCI asserted that its concern stems from the
broad definition of variable-capacity systems in AHRI 210/240-2024.\67\
(Id.) JCI commented that according to its interpretation, if such a
system is certified to DOE as a multi- or variable-stage design but is
tested to the coil-only two-stage test procedure, then the system is
subject to CVP test requirements. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ In the October 2022 CAC Final Rule, DOE defined ``variable-
speed communicating coil-only central air conditioner or heat pump''
and ``variable-speed non-communicating coil-only central air
conditioner or heat pump.'' 87 FR 64550,64589. DOE`s understanding
is that JCI is referring to non-communicating variable-speed coil-
only (``VSCO'') CAC/HPs in their comment, since the October 2022 CAC
Final Rule established a two-stage test procedure for non-
communicating VSCO CAC/HPs. 87 FR 6450, 64591-64597. Such systems
will only be tested using an on-off control signal and will not have
any tests at intermediate speeds. Id.
\67\ AHRI 210/240-2024 section 3.2.81 defines Variable Capacity
System (Variable Capacity Air-conditioner or Variable Capacity Heat
Pump): an air-conditioner or heat pump that has either a) a variable
capacity compressor, or b) a digital compressor, and that controls
the system by monitoring system operation and automatically
modulating the compressor output, indoor airflow, and other system
parameters as required in order to maintain the indoor room
temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a similar vein, JCI requested clarification on whether such
systems, classified as OUWNMs (since they are sold in commerce without
matching indoor units), would be subject to rating and testing per the
CVP requirements. (JCI, No. 35 at pp. 2-3) Finally, JCI requested for
clarification on whether DOE-certified, two-stage systems that have
discrete fixed capacities and airflow rates, but are equipped with
variable-capacity compressors, will be subject to the CVP enforcement
or not. (Id. at p. 3)
In response to JCI's comment regarding the variable-speed coil-only
(``VSCO'') test provisions in the October 2022 CAC TP Final Rule, DOE
clarifies that once the revised appendix M1 and the new appendix M2 are
finalized, the VSCO test provisions for non-communicating and
communicating systems in the current appendix M1 will be sunset. This
is because these provisions are not part of the AHRI 210/240 and AHRI
1600 standards, which are the basis of the revised appendix M1, and new
appendix M2, respectively. Therefore, all VSCO systems will be
certified and tested as variable-capacity compressor systems, and DOE
may conduct the CVP on such units, to see if they comply with the
variable-speed definition. JCI's question regarding OUWNMs is unclear--
however, DOE clarifies that the CVP is applicable to all variable-speed
systems, and therefore, if such systems are certified as variable-speed
systems, they will be subject to CVP enforcement. Finally, DOE
clarifies that the CVP enforcement is applicable only to systems that
are certified as variable-capacity compressor systems, as defined in
section 3.2.80 of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024. Therefore, any
systems that are certified as two-capacity (or two-stage) systems, as
defined in section 3.2.76 of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024, will
not be subject to CVP enforcement by DOE.
GE Appliances supported the addition of a CVP for enforcement
testing of variable-speed systems, but it commented that a number of
lingering issues require resolution before DOE utilizes the CVP for
enforcement testing.
[[Page 1265]]
(GE Appliances, No. 37 at p. 4) GE Appliances also commented that
additional test data is required for validation of some provisions
proposed by DOE in the April 2024 NOPR. (Id.) GE Appliances commented
that the AHRI 210/240 standard specifies that the CVP tests should be
done either with a proprietary control or with a simulated thermostat
control, but it requested that DOE clarify when a control is considered
proprietary, since multiple types of control systems are available,
including those with hybrid control capability.\68\ (Id. at pp. 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ GE Appliances gave an example of hybrid control where an
adaptor can be connected to a 24-V thermostat and variable-speed
communicating equipment. For such control systems, the thermostat
sends an on/off signal, and the adaptor then decides the set point
temperature during unit operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to GE Appliances, DOE clarifies that the differences
between a proprietary control and simulated (generic) thermostat were
discussed in detail with the stakeholders during the development of the
AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 1600 standards. It is DOE's understanding and
intent for implementation of the CVP that the ``control'' is the device
that senses temperature in the conditioned space, has a user interface
that allows setting of a desired space temperature (the ``set point''),
and provides a signal or communication to the CAC or HP system that
initiates system operation and/or steps or level of operation to reduce
the gap between the temperature and the set point. Accordingly, as per
the example scenario presented by GE Appliances in their comment, an
adapter \69\ provided as part of the system or specified for
installation that allows the basic model to connect with any generic
(non-proprietary) thermostat is not the ``control.'' In the case in
which such an adapter allows a generic thermostat to be installed in
the conditioned space, the generic thermostat is the control, and the
simulation of the generic thermostat (as described in section I3.1 of
AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024) would be used. Only when the
device measuring the space temperature and providing user input to
adjust the set point is proprietary would installation of the
proprietary device for the test be used. Any system having a ``hybrid''
control approach that could use either a generic or proprietary
``control'' would be tested using the generic approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ DOE would like to clarify that if the adapter is an
integral part of every unit shipped without a proprietary control
that would otherwise not operate, the adapter would be connected to
the simulated thermostat signal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LG also made several comments in response to the CVP enforcements
proposed by DOE in the April 2024 NOPR. 89 FR 24206, 24258-24261. LG
pointed out that as per the CVP, the indoor room`s set point is
controlled according to the virtual load approach, in which the range
of temperature difference between the thermostat set point and the
indoor room condition during the proposed CVP test is 0-3 [deg]F. (LG,
No. 38 at pp. 1-2) LG questioned whether the virtual load is
appropriate for variable-capacity systems that do not operate at
minimum speed when the indoor room temperature is not close to the
thermostat set point. (Id.) LG further expressed concern that the term
``certification'' test was not fully specified, as it could mean either
(1) the tested value of the certification test, or (2) the value of the
enforcement test conducted under the same conditions as the
certification test. (Id. at p. 2) LG commented that if the
``certification'' test was (1), it requests clarification if this would
be a mean value of the two or more tested samples. (Id.) However, if it
was (2), then LG requested that DOE provide more information on sample
size and election.\70\ (Id.) Finally, LG recommended that due to
existing deviations during testing, instead of comparing the CVP test
values with the certification test values during enforcement, they
should be compared to values provided by the manufacturer in the DOE
database.\71\ (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Currently, 10 CFR 429.16 (b)(3) describes the sampling plan
for enforcement of CAC/HPs.
\71\ DOE`s interpretation is that LG is referring to the
Compliance Certification Database, available at
www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to LG`s comment, DOE clarifies that the return air
temperature equation in appendix I of AHRI 210/240-2024 is a function
of the previous return air temperature target, RAT(t),time, the
calculated virtual load (VLs for cooling mode CVP, and VL
for heating mode CVP) at target outdoor ambient dry-bulb temperature
Tj, measured unit capacity, and a thermal mass constant, C.
The difference between the thermostat set-point and indoor room dry-
bulb temperature is dependent on the unit control and operation. The
virtual load and return air temperature equations ensure the
temperature difference between the thermostat set-point and indoor room
dry-bulb temperature are within 1 [deg]F for systems that control the
unit properly. The difference between the thermostat set-point and
indoor room dry-bulb temperature could reach 3 [deg]F only if the unit
could not achieve the virtual load target capacity at each test
interval. Further, DOE clarifies that ``the corresponding certification
test'' refers to an enforcement test conducted in accordance with
appendix M1 or appendix M2, as applicable. The sample size of the
selected units will be in accordance with provisions in 10 CFR 429.110.
Finally, DOE clarifies that during the CVP enforcement, comparisons of
the CVP full and minimum load intervals will be made to the
certification test conducted just before the CVP tests.
Carrier requested clarity from DOE on determining variable-speed
unit operation when the intermediate tests do not show satisfactory
variable-speed characteristics. (Carrier, No. 29 at p. 2) Specifically,
Carrier commented that it was unclear on whether DOE`s proposal on a
system`s cycling between stages is an accurate way of determining it is
a single-capacity versus a two-capacity system, if the intermediate CVP
requirement is not met. (Id.)
In response to Carrier`s comment, DOE clarifies that 10 CFR
429.134(k)(4)(C)(ii)(B) and (k)4)(C)(ii)(C) state that after conducting
the CVP enforcement tests, the unit under test will be determined to be
a variable-capacity certified, single-capacity system, or a variable-
capacity certified, two-capacity system, on the basis of the test
results as per appendix I of AHRI 210/240 and AHRI 1600 (see section
III.E.1 of this document for details). DOE reiterates that this
determination, on whether a system is single capacity or two capacity,
on the basis of its cycling between off and single-stage/capacity level
and cycling between more than one stage/capacity level, respectively,
represents industry consensus on this matter. This is because this
determination was discussed and agreed upon with AHRI and all other
stakeholders, during development of appendix I of the AHRI 210/240 and
AHRI 1600 standards.
J. Test Procedure Costs and Impacts
EPCA requires that test procedures proposed by DOE not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) As discussed, DOE is
updating the current Federal test procedure for CAC/HPs at appendix M1
consistent with the relevant industry consensus test procedure, AHRI
210/240-2024. DOE is also establishing a new Federal test procedure at
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M2, consistent with the new
industry consensus test procedure, AHRI 1600-2024. Appendix M2 would
not be required for use until the compliance date of amended standards
for CAC/HPs. DOE is also amending its
[[Page 1266]]
representation and enforcement provisions for CAC/HPs.
1. Appendix M1
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference
AHRI 210/240-202X Draft and relevant industry standards referenced in
AHRI 210/240-202X Draft at appendix M1. 89 FR 24206, 24244. DOE also
proposed to amend certain provisions for representations and
enforcement in 10 CFR part 429, consistent with the changes proposed to
the test procedure. Id. DOE noted that the proposed revisions to
appendix M1 would retain the current efficiency metrics (i.e., EER2,
SEER2, and HSPF2). Id. DOE walked through the anticipated compliance
costs associated with the proposed test procedure at appendix M1 and
tentatively determined that proposed amendments would not result in an
increase in testing cost relative to the current test procedure. Id.
DOE also 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. Id. DOE requested comment on these tentative
determinations under Issue 5 of the April 2024 NOPR. Id.
In response, Lennox was supportive of DOE's tentative
determinations, commenting that it believes the proposed appendix M1
amendments in the April 2024 NOPR should result in a test procedure
that is not unduly burdensome to conduct, consistent with EPCA
statutory requirements. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 6) While less supportive
overall, Carrier commented that it agrees the proposed amendments to
appendix M1 in the April 2024 NOPR would not result in any retesting or
any increase in testing cost for a typical CAC/HP. (Carrier, No. 29 at
p. 5) In addition, Carrier asserted that test costs and burden would
increase, however, for certain products as a result of the proposed
CVP- and CCHP-related provisions. (Id.)
In addition to Carrier, Rheem and LG were also less supportive of
DOE's tentative determinations, citing the additional test costs and
burden associated with CVP testing. (Carrier, No. 29 at p. 5; LG, No.
38 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 34 at p. 7) More specifically, Rheem commented
that additional costs associated with the proposed test procedure will
stem from modifications to psychrometric test cells in order to comply
with the CVP. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 7) LG commented that an extensive
amount of time and associated costs are necessary to conduct CVP
testing. (LG, No. 38 at p. 3) LG asserted that, in addition to 30
minutes of stabilization time, it takes a minimum of 11.5 hours and a
maximum of 20.5 hours for the cooling CVP test, and a minimum of 16.5
hours and a maximum of 28.5 hours for the CCHP heating CVP test,
resulting in third-party testing costs between 13,000 and 24,000 U.S.
dollars. (Id.)
In response to the Carrier, Rheem, and LG comments regarding
additional test costs and burden associated with the CVP, DOE
reiterates that the proposed CVP for variable-capacity compressor
systems in appendix I of AHRI 210/240-2024 is not mandatory for
manufacturers to perform. In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE also noted that,
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 CVP and
subsequently rerun the regulatory tests. 89 FR 24206, 24244-24245.
However, having no strong evidence to the contrary, DOE noted it
expects that current variable-capacity certifications are generally
consistent with system performance. Id. As such, DOE concluded that any
such cost to verify performance and potentially retest is negligible.
Id.
In response to Carrier's comment regarding additional test costs
and burden associated with CCHP provisions (i.e., the required
H42 test for products claimed as CCHPs), DOE reiterates that
a manufacturer's claim of CCHP status for its product is optional. 89
FR 24206, 24244-24245. DOE also reiterates that it anticipates products
choosing to certify as CCHPs are most likely to be already testing at
the 5 [deg]F condition, and hence have no added costs or test burden
associated with them. Id.
In this final rule, DOE is updating the incorporation by reference
to AHRI 210/240-2024, the finalized version of AHRI 210/240-202X Draft.
DOE is also referencing the relevant industry standards referenced in
AHRI 210/240-2024 at appendix M1. As noted earlier, there are no
substantial differences between AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 210/240-202X
Draft. As such, DOE's assessment of test procedure costs for appendix
M1 are consistent with the April 2024 NOPR.
DOE has determined that the amendments to appendix M1 and the
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 determined that the amendments would not result in an increase in
testing cost from the current test procedure. The revisions to the test
procedure in appendix M1 for measuring EER2, SEER2, and HSPF2 per AHRI
210/240-2024 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
concluded that the 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.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Appendix M2
In the April 2024 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference
AHRI 1600-202X Draft and relevant industry standards referenced in AHRI
1600-202X Draft at appendix M2. 89 FR 24206, 24245. DOE also proposed
to establish provisions for determining SCORE and SHORE, the new
efficiency metrics applicable to appendix M2. Id. DOE walked through
the anticipated compliance costs associated with the proposed test
procedure at appendix M2 and tentatively determined that proposed
amendments would not result in an increase in testing cost relative to
the current test procedure. Id. DOE tentatively concluded that the
proposed revisions to the test procedure in appendix M2 would change
efficiency ratings for CAC/HPs--however, DOE noted 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. Id. DOE requested
comment
[[Page 1267]]
on these tentative determinations under Issue 6 of the April 2024 NOPR.
Id.
In response, Lennox was supportive of DOE's tentative
determinations, commenting that it believes the proposed appendix M2 in
the April 2024 NOPR should result in a test procedure that is not
unduly burdensome to conduct, consistent with EPCA statutory
requirements. (Lennox, No. 24 at p. 6) Carrier agreed that the proposed
appendix M2 in the April 2024 NOPR would not result in any increase in
testing cost for a typical CAC/HP from the proposed appendix M1.
(Carrier, No. 29 at p. 6) Rheem commented that it is not aware of
available data to support the use of a different cost basis for
appendix M2 testing. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 7)
In this final rule, DOE is updating the incorporation by reference
to AHRI 1600-2024, the finalized version of AHRI 1600-202X Draft. DOE
is also referencing the relevant industry standards referenced in AHRI
210/240-2024 at appendix M1. As noted earlier, there are no substantial
differences between AHRI 1600-2024 and AHRI 1600-202X Draft. As such,
DOE's assessment of test procedure costs for appendix M2 are consistent
with the April 2024 NOPR.
DOE has determined that the amendments to appendix M2 and the
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 determined that the amendments would not result in an increase in
testing cost from the current test procedure. The revisions to the test
procedure in appendix M2 for measuring EER2, SCORE, and SHORE per AHRI
1600-2024 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 to range from $10,800 to $19,800,
depending on the configuration of the CAC/HP (single-stage, two-stage,
variable-capacity). DOE has 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.
K. Effective, Compliance, and Other Required Use Dates
The effective date for the adopted test procedure amendment will be
30 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.
EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and
energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product
labels must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure,
beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) However, CAC/HPs are not required to
be tested according to the test procedure in appendix M2 (that relies
on the SCORE and SHORE metrics) until the compliance date of amended
energy conservation standards denominated in terms of SCORE and SHORE,
should DOE adopt such standards.
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.) To
the extent the modified test procedure adopted in this final rule is
required only for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency
standards, compliance with the amended test procedure does not require
use of such modified test procedure provisions until the compliance
date of updated standards.
Upon the compliance date of test procedure provisions in this final
rule 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 are 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
adopted in this document pertain to issues addressed by waiver granted
to Samsung (88 FR 36558, Case No. 2022-009), as discussed in section
III.E.4 of this final rule. To the extent that such interim waiver
permits 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 adopted in this final rule 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.) The 72-hour break-in period permitted to the
specific VSS systems listed in JCI's interim waiver is unique to the
CAC/HP market, and DOE continues to assess whether there is a
generalizable need for an extended break-in period for certain VSS
systems beyond the specific basic models subject to the interim waiver
granted to JCI. As such, DOE is not amending the test procedure to
address the issues presented in the interim waiver granted to JCI at
this time. 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.
Additionally, as discussed in section III.E.7 of this final rule,
DOE recognizes that stakeholders have requested clarification regarding
the interaction of EPA's refrigerant regulations and DOE's
certification and rating requirements for CAC/HPs. See table III-5 for
a consolidated summary of the interaction of DOE's OUWNM certification
and rating requirements under the EPA regulations timeline.
[[Page 1268]]
Table III-5--Summary of Certification and Rating Requirement Timelines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor or outdoor unit Outdoor units with >700 GWP Indoor units with >700
manufactured or imported Distributed as refrigerant GWP refrigerant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before 1/1/2025................ Matched System.... Per EPA, matched systems can be installed prior to January
1, 2026 as long as they were manufactured prior January 1,
2025.
------------------------------------------------------------
.................. Must be certified/rated in Must be certified/
combinations with indoor units as rated in combinations
distributed in commerce before 1/1/ with outdoor units
2025 and the matched system must distributed in
comply with applicable standard; commerce before 1/1/
i.e., do not need to be certified/ 2025 and the matched
rated as OUWNM. system must comply
with the applicable
standard.
------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Unit or Per EPA, indoor and outdoor units can also be installed as
Outdoor Unit. replacement units on or after January 1, 2025.
------------------------------------------------------------
On or after 1/1/2025........... Matched System.... Per EPA, matched systems can no longer be installed on or
after January 1, 2026.
------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Unit or Per EPA, indoor and outdoor units can be installed only as
Outdoor Unit. replacement units on or after January 1, 2026.
------------------------------------------------------------
Must be certified/rated and as Must be certified/
OUWNM and comply with the rated in combinations
applicable standard. with outdoor units
Recertification/rerating required distributed in
if previous ratings were matched commerce before 1/1/
combinations. No new certification 2025 and the matched
of matched systems allowed. system must comply
with the applicable
standard. No new
certification of
matched systems
allowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
amended by E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 88 FR 21879
(April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law,
to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that
some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent
feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt;
and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of 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 this preamble, this final 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 final 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 a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for
any final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a
proposed rule for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,''
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available
on the Office of the General Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February
19, 2003. DOE has concluded that this rulemaking will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Compliance with this test procedure is not required unless and until
new energy conservation standards are established for covered CAC/HPs--
accordingly, there are no compliance costs stemming directly from this
rulemaking.
Still, although it is not required, DOE has undertaken a review of
CAC/HP small business manufacturers and, in the following, is
presenting the costs that those business may expect if testing on the
basis of this test procedure were required in the future.
[[Page 1269]]
1. Estimated Number of Small Entities
For the April 2024 NOPR, DOE conducted a focused inquiry into small
business manufacturers of the products covered by this rulemaking. DOE
used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any
small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. The
size standards are listed by North American Industry Classification
System (``NAICS'') code as well as by industry description and are
available at www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
Manufacturing CAC/HPs is classified under NAICS 333415, ``Air-
Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a
threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as
a small business for this category. DOE used available public
information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE accessed the
Compliance Certification Database \73\ (``CCD''), the Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System \74\ (``MAEDbS''), and the
National Resources Canada database \75\ (``NRCan'') to create a list of
companies that import or otherwise manufacture the products covered by
this final rule. Once DOE created a list of potential manufacturers,
DOE used market research tools to determine whether any met the SBA's
definition of a small entity--based on the total number of employees
for each company including parent, subsidiary, and sister entities--and
gather annual revenue estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification
Management System, available at www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms (last
accessed July 30, 2023).
\74\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System, available at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Login.aspx. (Last accessed Sept. 22,
2023).
\75\ Natural Resources Canada searchable product list, available
at oee.nrcan.gc.ca/pml-lmp/ (last accessed Sept 19, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on DOE's analysis, DOE identified 23 OEMs manufacturing CAC/
HPs covered by this test procedure. DOE screened out companies that do
not meet the small entity definition and, additionally, screened out
companies that are largely or entirely foreign owned and operated. Of
the 23 OEMs identified OEMs, six were identified as domestic small
businesses. DOE did not receive comments on the April 2024 NOPR in
regard to its estimate of domestic small businesses.
2. Estimate of Small Business Testing Costs
This final rule adopts updated industry test standards for CAC/HPs.
DOE is updating the current Federal test procedure for CAC/HPs at
appendix M1 consistent with the finalized version of the relevant
industry consensus test procedure, AHRI 210/240-2024. DOE is also
proposing a new Federal test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix M2, consistent with the finalized version of the industry
consensus test procedure, AHRI 1600-2024. 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 is incorporating by reference AHRI 210/240-2024
for CAC/HPs and to amend certain provisions for representations and
enforcement in 10 CFR part 429, consistent with the changes to the test
procedure. 89 FR 24206, 24244. The revisions to appendix M1 would
retain the previous test procedure's efficiency metrics--EER2, SEER2,
and HSPF2. The testing requirements in appendix M1 are generally
consistent with those in AHRI 210/240-2024, which in turn references
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010.
This 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 Controls
Verification Procedure (``CVP'') for variable-capacity compressor
systems in appendix I of AHRI 210/240-2024 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 determination of cut-in and cut-out temperatures in
appendix J of the AHRI 210/240-2024 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 concluded that the revisions to the test procedure in
appendix M1 would not change efficiency ratings for CAC/HPs, and
therefore would not require retesting as a result of DOE's adoption of
this amendment to the test procedure.\76\ Further, the test procedure
in appendix M1 would not increase third-party laboratory testing costs
per unit; DOE estimates that the costs for physical testing prior to
these amendments would 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 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 is establishing a new test procedure that
references the industry test procedure, AHRI 1600-2024, for measuring
new efficiency metrics, SCORE and SHORE. 89 FR 24204, 23245. Appendix
M2 will 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 testing requirements in appendix M2 are generally
consistent with those in AHRI 1600-2024, which in turn references ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, and ASHRAE 116-2010. This revision
to the test procedure in appendix M2 for measuring EER, SCORE, and
SHORE is not expected to increase third-party laboratory testing costs
per unit relative to the prior DOE test procedure. The standby and off-
mode power consumption of auxiliary components is determined using
appendix G of AHRI 1600-2024 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 will not result in increased testing costs as compared
to the previous test procedure. The other amendments--which include (a)
building load lines and temperature bin hours for calculation of SCORE
and SHORE, (b)
[[Page 1270]]
default fan power coefficients for coil-only systems, and (c) air flow
limits to address inadequate dehumidification--also will not affect
testing costs.
The overall testing cost is not expected to increase with appendix
M2. DOE estimates the costs of physical testing for the new metrics
SCORE and SHORE to range from $10,800 to $19.800, depending on the
configuration of the CAC/HP (single-stage, two-stage, variable-
capacity). Additionally, DOE allows the use of AEDMs. The use of an
AEDM is expected to be less costly than physical testing of large
numbers of CAC/HP models; DOE estimates the cost to develop an AEDM to
be $19,383 per AEDM for a basic model, which includes the cost of
physical testing done at a third-party laboratory to validate the
AEDM.\77\ 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 five minutes of an
engineer's time to determine efficiency for each individual model
within a basic model using the AEDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ DOE estimates that a mechanical engineer would take 60
hours to create an AEDM. The fully burdened wage of a mechanical
engineer is 68.05 based on an unburdened median wage of $47.84 and
on wages representing 70.3 percent of labor costs. Average cost of
third-party testing would be $14,400 given the previously described
range of costs. See www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172141.htm for the
wage figure and www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06182024.pdf
for the wage percentage of labor costs figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE understands all manufacturers currently certifying in the AHRI
Directory (including small businesses) will be testing their models in
accordance with AHRI 1600-2024, the industry test procedure DOE is
referencing 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 possible future energy conservation standards rulemaking.
Accordingly, DOE has determined that the test procedure amendments
would not add any additional testing burden to manufacturers--including
the six domestic small manufacturers.
3. Certification Statement
Based on the de minimis cost impacts, DOE certifies that this final
rule does not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities,'' and determined that the preparation of a
FRFA is not warranted. DOE will transmit a certification and supporting
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
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
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 amending the certification or reporting requirements for
CAC/HPs in this final rule. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to
amend the certification requirements and reporting for CAC/HPs under a
separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification.
DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time,
as necessary.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE establishes test procedure amendments that
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for CAC/HPs. DOE has determined that this rule
falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from
review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test procedures for
measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and industrial
equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021,
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4,
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification
[[Page 1271]]
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,
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a)-(b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year,
so these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any proposed rule or policy that may affect
family well-being. When developing a Family Policymaking Assessment,
agencies must assess whether: (1) the action strengthens or erodes the
stability or safety of the family and, particularly, the marital
commitment; (2) the action strengthens or erodes the authority and
rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their
children; (3) the action helps the family perform its functions, or
substitutes governmental activity for the function; (4) the action
increases or decreases disposable income or poverty of families and
children; (5) the proposed benefits of the action justify the financial
impact on the family; (6) the action may be carried out by State or
local government or by the family; and whether (7) the action
establishes an implicit or explicit policy concerning the relationship
between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth, and the
norms of society. In evaluating the above factors, DOE has concluded
that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment as
none of the above factors are implicated. Further, this determination
would not have any financial impact on families nor any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (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 final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates 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 is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (2) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(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
[[Page 1272]]
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 modifications to the test procedure for CAC/HPs adopted in this
final rule incorporates testing methods contained in certain sections
of the following commercial standards: AHRI 210/240-2024, AHRI 1600-
2024, 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 they were developed in a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both the
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on
competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has
received no comments objecting to their use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the following
test standards:
AHRI 210/240-2024. This test standard is an update to AHRI 210/240-
2023 (2020), an industry-accepted test procedure for measuring the
performance of Unitary Air-source Air-conditioners & Heat Pump
Equipment. The revised appendix M1 will be consistent with provisions
in AHRI 210/240-2024.
AHRI 1600-2024. This test standard is a major update to AHRI 210/
240-2023 (2020), introducing new seasonal cooling and heating
efficiency metrics, namely SCORE and SHORE. The new appendix M2 will be
consistent with provisions in AHRI 210/240-2024.
Copies of AHRI 210/240-2024 and AHRI 1600-2024 can be obtained from
AHRI, 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-
8800, or found online at www.ahrinet.org.
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. 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.
ANSI/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 ASHRAE 37-2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010
are available on ASHRAE's website at www.ashrae.org.
The following standards were previously approved for incorporation
by reference in the regulatory sections where they appear, and no
changes are made: AHRI 210/240-2008, AHRI 1160, and ANSI 1230-2010.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
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 December
18, 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 December 19, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends 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. Revising paragraphs (a) and (c) introductory text;
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2) through (7) as paragraphs (c)(3)
through (8); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (c)(2) and paragraph (c)(9).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 429.4 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) must
publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must be
available to the public. All approved incorporation by reference (IBR)
material is available for inspection at the Department of Energy (DOE)
and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact
DOE at: The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121; (202) 586-9127;
[email protected]; www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-and-equipment-standards-program. For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email [email protected]. The material may be obtained
from the sources in the following paragraphs of this section.
* * * * *
[[Page 1273]]
(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or
go to: www.ahrinet.org.
* * * * *
(2) AHRI Standard 210/240-2024 (I-P), (``AHRI 210/240-2024''),
Performance Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning and Air-source Heat Pump
Equipment, copyright 2024; IBR approved for Sec. 429.134.
* * * * *
(9) AHRI Standard 1600-2024 (I-P), (``AHRI 1600-2024''),
Performance Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning and Air-source Heat Pump
Equipment, copyright 2024; IBR approved for Sec. 429.134.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 429.16 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), (a)(3)(i),
(b)(2), (b)(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, EER, 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
Category subcategory represented values
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-Package Unit............. Single-Package Air Every individual
Conditioner (AC) model distributed
(including space- in commerce.
constrained).
Single-Package Every individual
Heat Pump (HP) model distributed
(including space- in commerce.
constrained).
Outdoor Unit and Indoor Unit Single-Split- Every individual
(Distributed in Commerce by System AC with combination
Outdoor Unit Manufacturer Single-Stage or distributed in
(OUM)). Two-Stage commerce. Each
Compressor model of outdoor
(including Space- unit must include
Constrained and a represented
Small-Duct, High value for at
Velocity Systems least one coil-
(SDHV)). 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 Every individual
System AC with combination
Other Than Single- distributed in
Stage or Two- commerce,
Stage Compressor including all
(including Space- coil-only and
Constrained and blower-coil
SDHV). combinations.
Single-Split- Every individual
System HP combination
(including Space- distributed in
Constrained and commerce.
SDHV).
Multi-Split, Multi- For each model of
Circuit, or Multi- outdoor unit, at
Head Mini-Split a minimum, a non-
Split System--non- ducted ``tested
SDHV (including combination.''
Space- For any model of
Constrained). 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-- combination.''
SDHV. Additional
representations
are allowed, as
described in
paragraph
(c)(3)(iii) of
this section.
Indoor Unit Only Distributed in Single-Split- Every individual
Commerce by Independent Coil System Air combination
Manufacturer (ICM). Conditioner distributed in
(including Space- commerce.
Constrained and
SDHV).
Single-Split-
System Heat Pump
(including Space-
Constrained and
SDHV).
[[Page 1274]]
Multi-Split, Multi- For a model of
Circuit, or Multi- indoor unit
Head Mini-Split within each basic
Split System-- model, an SDHV
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) * * *
(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 or ``tested combinations''). This requirement may apply across
the listed categories in the table 1 to 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) Individual model/combination selection for testing. (i) Table 2
to this paragraph (b)(2)(i) 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 table 2, 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.
Single-Package HP energy efficiency
(including Space- ratio 2 (SEER2).
Constrained). (when testing in
accordance with
appendix M1.
to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430).
or seasonal cooling
and off-mode rating.
efficiency (SCORE)
(when testing.
in accordance with
appendix M2 to
subpart..
B of 10 CFR part 430).
Outdoor Unit and Indoor Unit Single-Split-System AC The model of outdoor A model of coil-only indoor
(Distributed in Commerce by OUM). with Single-Stage or unit. unit.
Two-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 unit.
Two-Stage Compressor
(including Space-
Constrained and SDHV).
Single-Split System AC The model of outdoor A model of coil-only indoor
or HP with Other Than unit. unit.
Single-Stage or Two-
Stage Compressor
having a coil-only
individual
combination
(including Space-
Constrained and SDHV).
[[Page 1275]]
Single-Split System AC The model of outdoor A model of indoor unit.
or 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- unit. combination'' composed
Head Mini-Split Split entirely of non-ducted
System--non-SDHV indoor units. For any
(including Space- models of outdoor units
Constrained). 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- unit. composed entirely of SDHV
Head Mini-Split Split indoor units.
System--SDHV.
Indoor Unit Only (Distributed in Single-Split-System A model of indoor unit The least efficient model
Commerce by ICM). Air Conditioner of outdoor unit with which
(including Space- it will be paired where
Constrained and SDHV). 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 10 CFR part
430) or SCORE combination
(when testing under
appendix M2 to subpart B
of 10 CFR 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 10 CFR
part 430) or SCORE (when
testing under appendix M2
to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430) represented
value, the ICM may select
one for testing purposes.
Single-Split-System Nothing, as long as an ...........................
Heat Pump (including equivalent air
Space-Constrained and conditioner basic
SDHV). 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- composed entirely of SDHV
Head Mini-Split Split indoor units, where the
System--SDHV. 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 10 CFR
part 430) or SCORE
combination (when testing
under appendix M2 to
subpart B of 10 CFR 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 10 CFR
part 430) or SCORE
represented value (when
testing under appendix M2
to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430), the ICM may
select one for testing
purposes.
Outdoor Unit with No Match......... ...................... The model of outdoor A model of coil-only indoor
unit. unit meeting the
requirements of section 4
of appendix M1 (when
testing under appendix M1
to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430); or meeting the
requirements of section 3
of appendix M2 (when
testing under appendix M2
to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) When testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of 10
CFR part 430, each individual model/combination (or ``tested
combination'') identified in table 2 to 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
10 CFR part 430 and determining SCORE and SHORE, each individual model/
combination (or ``tested combination'') identified in table 2 to
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) EER2, SEER2, HSPF2, SCORE, EER, 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] TR07JA25.014
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample; or,
[[Page 1276]]
(B) The lower 90 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.015
and x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t0.90 is the Student's t-Distribution
Value for a 90 percent one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees
of freedom (from appendix A to this subpart). Round represented values
of EER2, SEER2, HSPF2, EER, 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 10
CFR 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:
(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 10
CFR part 430, or appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR 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 10
CFR part 430, or appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR 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
10 CFR part 430, or appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR 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 10
CFR 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 EER2, SEER2,
HSPF2, EER, SCORE and 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 10 CFR 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 10 CFR 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
[[Page 1277]]
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 10 CFR 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)(iii) 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 10 CFR 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)(iii) 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;
(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 10 CFR 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 cooling
Climatic region 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 10 CFR 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 cooling
Climatic region 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)(iii)(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)(iii) 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)(iii) 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 10 CFR 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.
[[Page 1278]]
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 (EER2, SEER2, HSPF2, SCORE, EER, 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 (EER2, SEER2, HSPF2, EER, 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 July 7, 2025,
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 July 7, 2025, 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
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 10 CFR part 430, or SCORE
or SHORE when testing in accordance with appendix M2 to subpart B of 10
CFR 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 10
CFR 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 10 CFR 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 210/240-2024
(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 10
CFR 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 10 CFR 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 1600-2024
(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 10 CFR part 430 or appendix M2 to subpart B of 10
CFR 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 10 CFR part 430, the cut-out and cut-in temperatures may be
verified using the method in appendix J of AHRI 210/240-2024
(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 10
CFR part 430, the cut-out and cut-in temperatures may be verified using
the method in appendix J of AHRI 1600-2024 (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 (CVP). A 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
10 CFR part 430 or appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR 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 10
CFR part 430 or, appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, as
applicable.
(A) When testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of 10
CFR part 430. The CVP will be conducted per appendix I of AHRI 210/240-
2024 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4).
(B) When testing in accordance with appendix M2 to subpart B of 10
CFR part 430. The CVP will be conducted per appendix I of AHRI 1600-
2024 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4).
(C) Variable capacity certified, single capacity systems. 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, EER 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 (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, EER
as applicable) shall be determined using the certification test
applicable to
[[Page 1279]]
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 (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, EER
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 (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 210/240-2024 (if testing in accordance with appendix
M1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430; (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 429.4)) or of AHRI 1600-2024 (if testing in accordance with
appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430; (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 429.4)), with the exception that indoor entering
wet bulb deviation in I5.1 and test operating tolerance in I5.1.3 is
applicable only for cooling mode CVP.
(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 of the two successive test period sub-intervals 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 successive test period 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 (2) of this
section, the time averaged integrated 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) Determine whether the measured capacity for each full load
interval, as evaluated per the CVP conducted in paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A)
or (B) of this section, is no more than 6% less than the corresponding
certification test capacity, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.016
Where:
qA,Full = Certification test capacity at AFull condition,
qCVP,A,Full = CVP test capacity at AFull condition,
qH3,Full = Certification test capacity at H3Full
condition,
qCVP,H3,Full = CVP test capacity at H3Full condition,
qH4,Full = Certification test capacity at H4Full
condition,
qCVP,H4,Full= CVP test capacity at H4Full condition,
(C) Determine whether the measured capacity for each minimum load
interval, as evaluated per the CVP conducted in paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A)
or (B) of this section, is no more than 6% less than the corresponding
certification test capacity, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.017
Where:
qCVP,F,Low= CVP test capacity at FLow condition,
qF,Low = Certification test capacity at FLow condition,
qCVP,H1,Low = CVP test capacity at H1Low condition,
qH1,Low= Certification test capacity at H1Low condition,
(D) Determine whether the measured efficiency for the full and
minimum load interval, as evaluated per the CVP conducted in paragraph
(k)(4)(i)(A) or (B) of this section, is no more than 10% less than the
corresponding certification test efficiency, as follows:
[[Page 1280]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.019
(E) Cooling and heating efficiency requirements are shown using
EER2 and COP2 to align with testing in accordance with appendix M1 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. When testing in accordance with appendix
M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, replace EER2 with EER, and COP2
with COP.
(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) through (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,
EER 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)
through (D) of this section, the unit shall be tested per instructions
in paragraphs (k)(4)(v)(A) through (C) of this section, as applicable.
The instructions in paragraphs (k)(4)(v)(A) through (C) shall be
followed, as applicable, only for the certification tests corresponding
to the out of tolerance compressor speed interval based on the
evaluations of paragraphs (k)(4)(iii)(B) through (D). For all
compressor speed intervals for which the capacity and EER2/COP2/EER/COP
are in tolerance as per paragraphs (k)(4)(iii)(B) through (D), 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 (B) of this section is used as the means for
overriding the controls, and both of the following are supported by the
control device: monitoring of the compressor and indoor blower speed
during native-control operation without otherwise impacting the control
of the system; and 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.
(1) The compressor and indoor blower speed shall be monitored
during the CVP conducted in paragraph (k)(4)(i)(A) or (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) of this section 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 210/240-2024 (if
testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4)) or of AHRI 1600-2024 (if
testing in accordance with appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4)), 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 table 1 to this paragraph
(k)(4)(v)(A). 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 (C) of this section are not met or the efficiency
tolerances of paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(D) of this section 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.
(2) If required, the adjusted qH3,Full and PH3,Full shall be used
to calculate qk=2hcalc(47) and Pk=2hcalc(47), respectively, to
represent performance at 47 [deg]F as described in section 11.2.2.4 of
AHRI 210/240-2024 (if testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart
B of 10 CFR part 430; (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4)) or
of AHRI 1600-2024 (if testing in accordance with appendix M2 to subpart
B of 10 CFR part 430; (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4)) and
for use in calculating performance at 35 [deg]F. If required, the
adjusted H1Low and H3Low tests shall be used to calculate qthi,H2,Low
and PH2,Low, respectively, as described in section 6.1.3.4 of AHRI 210/
240-2024 (if testing in accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of 10
CFR part 430; (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4)) or of AHRI
1600-2024 (if testing in accordance with appendix M2 to subpart B of 10
CFR part 430; (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4)). No
adjustments are required for intermediate or nominal compressor speed
tests or, if cyclic tests are conducted, for the degradation
coefficient(s).
[[Page 1281]]
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 capacity Variable capacity
capacity system system system
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFull................................ AFull, BFull........... AFull, BFull........... AFull, BFull.
FLow................................. N/A.................... BLow, FLow............. BLow, FLow.
H1Low................................ N/A.................... H0Low, H1Low, H3Low.... H0Low, H1Low.
H3Full............................... H2Full, H3Full......... H3Full................. H3Full.
H4Full............................... H4Full................. H4Full................. H4Full.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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 to paragraph
(k)(4)(v)(A) of this section for which either the capacity tolerances
of paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(B) or (C) of this section are not met or the
efficiency tolerances of paragraph (k)(4)(iii)(D) of this section 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.
(1) 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 (with no adjustment for tests having a CVP interval). For
the certification tests requiring adjustment with no CVP interval (any
required certification test in column 2, 3, or 4 of table 1 to
paragraph (k)(4)(v)(A) of this section other than AFull,
FLow, H1Low, H3Full and
H4Full for which the column 1 CVP interval did not meet
capacity or EER2/COP2/EER/COP tolerances), 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
power measured during the CVP test interval divided by the power
measured during the certification test (for the corresponding CVP
interval), as follows:
Cooling full capacity:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.020
Cooling full power:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.021
Cooling minimum capacity:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.022
Cooling minimum power:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.023
Heating minimum capacity:
[[Page 1282]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.024
Heating minimum power:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR07JA25.025
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
(2) If required, the measured QH3,Full and EH3,Full from the CVP
shall be used to calculate qk=2hcalc(47) and Pk=2hcalc(47),
respectively, to represent performance at 47 [deg]F as described in
section 11.2.2.4 of AHRI 210/240-2024 (if testing in accordance with
appendix M1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430; (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 429.4)) or of AHRI 1600-2024 (if testing in
accordance with appendix M2; (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
429.4)), and for use in calculating performance at 35 [deg]F. If
required, the measured H1Low from the CVP and the adjusted H3Low tests
shall be used to calculate qthi,H2,Low and PH2,Low, respectively, as
described in section 6.1.3.4 of AHRI 210/240-2024 (if testing in
accordance with appendix M1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4)) or of AHRI 1600-2024 (if
testing in accordance with appendix M2 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430;
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4)). No adjustments are
required for intermediate or nominal compressor speed tests or, if
cyclic tests are conducted, the degradation coefficient(s).
(C) 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 and is not certified or marketed for use with only a
proprietary control device 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. 430.2 by revising the definition of ``Central air
conditioner or central air conditioning heat pump'' to read as follows.
Sec. 430.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Central air conditioner or central air conditioning heat pump means
a product, other than a packaged terminal air conditioner, packaged
terminal heat pump, single-phase single-package vertical air
conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 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 Sec.
431.92 of this chapter, which is powered by single phase electric
current, air cooled, rated below 65,000 Btu per hour, not contained
within the same cabinet as a furnace, the rated capacity of which is
above 225,000 Btu per hour, 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).
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 430.3 by:
0
a. Removing ``appendices M and M1'' and adding in its place ``appendix
M'' in paragraph (b)(4) introductory text;
0
b. Revising paragraphs (c) and (g)(1) through (3);
0
c. Removing ``appendices M and M1'' and adding in its place ``appendix
M'' in paragraphs (g)(4) introductory text and (g)(21);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(22) through (24) as paragraphs (g)(23)
through (25); and
0
e. Adding new paragraph (g)(22).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or
go to: 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;
[[Page 1283]]
(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 210/240-2024 (I-P), (``AHRI 210/240-2024''),
Performance Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning and Air-source Heat Pump
Equipment; 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 Standard 1600-2024 (I-P) (``AHRI 1600-2024''), Performance
Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning and Air-source Heat Pump Equipment;
IBR approved for appendix M2 to subpart B.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(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 CC, CC1, M1, and M2 to subpart B.
* * * * *
(22) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 116-2010, (``ANSI/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.
* * * * *
0
9. 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 5 of appendix M1 to this subpart or
seasonal cooling and off-mode rating efficiency (SCORE) as described in
sections 2 and 4 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 energy efficiency ratio (EER) as described
in section 2 of appendix M2 to this subpart and round off to the
nearest 0.025 Btu/W-h. EER2 (for appendix M1 to this subpart) or EER
(for appendix M2 to this subpart) is the efficiency from the A or
Afull test, whichever applies.
(4) Determine heating seasonal performance factor 2 (HSPF2) as
described in sections 2 and 5 of appendix M1 to this subpart or
seasonal heating and off-mode rating efficiency (SHORE) as described in
sections 2 and 4 of appendix M2 to this subpart, and round off to the
nearest 0.025 Btu/W-h.
(5) Determine PW,OFF, 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
10. Revise appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430 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 July 7, 2025, 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 M1.
Beginning July 7, 2025, 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.
[[Page 1284]]
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 210/240-2024, ANSI/ASHRAE 16, ASHRAE 37-2009 and
ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010. However, certain enumerated provisions of AHRI
210/240-2024, ANSI/ASHRAE 16, 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 210/240-2024
(a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable,
(c) The following subsections of Section 3 Definitions are
inapplicable: 3.2.16 (Double-duct system), 3.2.20 (Gross capacity),
3.2.46 (Oil Recovery Mode), 3.2.51 (Published Rating), 3.2.63
(Standard Filter), 3.2.78 (Unitary Air-conditioner), 3.2.79 (Unitary
Heat Pump),
(d) Section 4 Classifications is inapplicable,
(e) The following subsection of Section 5 Test Requirements is
inapplicable: 5.1.6.2 (Outdoor Unit with No Match (OUWNM)),
(f) The following subsections of Section 6 Rating Requirements
are inapplicable: 6.1.8, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5
(g) Section 7 Minimum Data Requirements for Published Ratings is
inapplicable,
(h) Section 8 Operating Requirements is inapplicable,
(i) Section 9 Marking and Nameplate Data is inapplicable,
(j) Section 10 Conformance Conditions is inapplicable,
(k) Appendix A References--Normative is inapplicable,
(l) Appendix B References--Informative is inapplicable,
(m) Appendix C Secondary Capacity Check Requirements--Normative
is inapplicable,
(n) Appendix F Unit Configurations for Standard Efficiency
Determination--Normative is inapplicable,
(o) Appendix H Verification Testing--Normative is inapplicable,
(p) Appendix I Controls Verification Procedure--Normative is
inapplicable, and
(q) 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 210/240-2024 and the applicable
provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 16, ASHRAE 37-2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-
2010. The AFull (cooling mode) and H1Full or
H1Nom (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. For
cooling mode tests of variable capacity systems, the compressor
shall operate at the same cooling full speed, measured by RPM of
power input frequency (Hz), for both AFull and
BFull tests. Additionally, the compressor shall operate
at the same cooling minimum speed, measured by RPM or power input
frequency (Hz), for the BLow, FLow,
GLow, and ILow tests.
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 210/240-2024, ASHRAE 37-2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16 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 210/240-2024.
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 a new Indoor Unit to create
a new 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 and global
warming potential greater than 150 per EPA regulations in 40 CFR
84.64, 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 210/240-2024. 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 at a single cooling air
volume rate 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 210/240-2024). Tested values of CD\c\ and/or CD\h\
are not permitted. The default value, 0.25, shall be used for both
cooling and heating mode testing.
5. Test Conditions
5.1. Test Conditions for Certifying Compliance with Standards.
The following conditions specified in AHRI 210/240-2024 apply when
testing to certify to the SEER2 and HSPF2 energy conservation
standards in Sec. 430.32(c).
(a) For cooling mode, use the rating conditions specified in
table 8 of AHRI 210/240-2024 and the fractional cooling bin hours in
table 15 of AHRI 210/240-2024 to determine SEER2, and EER2 for
models subject to regional standards in terms of EER2.
(b) For heat pump heating mode, use the rating conditions
specified in table 8 of AHRI 210/240-2024 and the fractional heating
bin hours specified for Region IV in table 16 of AHRI 210/240-2024
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-
2024 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 210/240-2024 and the
fractional heating hours specified for Regions other than Region IV
in table 16 of AHRI 210/240-2024 are optional. Representations of
COPpeak made using appendix K are optional.
0
11. Add appendix M2 to subpart B of part 430 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 July 7, 2025, 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 July 7, 2025, 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
[[Page 1285]]
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 1600-2024, ANSI/ASHRAE 16, ASHRAE 37-2009, and
ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010. However, certain enumerated provisions of AHRI
1600-2024, ANSI/ASHRAE 16, 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 1600-2024
(a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable,
(b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable,
(c) The following sections of Section 3 Definitions are
inapplicable: 3.2.16 (Double-duct system), 3.2.20 (Gross capacity),
3.2.45 (Oil Recovery Mode), 3.2.50 (Published Rating), 3.2.63
(Standard Filter), 3.2.78 (Unitary Air-conditioner), 3.2.79 (Unitary
Heat Pump),
(d) Section 4 Classifications is inapplicable,
(e) The following subsection of Section 5 Test Requirements is
inapplicable: 5.1.6.2 (Outdoor Unit with No Match (OUWNM)),
(f) The following subsections of Section 6 Rating Requirements
are inapplicable: 6.1.8, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5
(g) Section 7 Minimum Data Requirements for Published Ratings is
inapplicable,
(h) Section 8 Operating Requirements is inapplicable,
(i) Section 9 Marking and Nameplate Data is inapplicable,
(j) Section 10 Conformance Conditions is inapplicable,
(k) Appendix A References--Normative is inapplicable,
(l) Appendix B References--Informative is inapplicable,
(m) Appendix C Secondary Capacity Check Requirements--Normative
is inapplicable,
(n) Appendix F Unit Configurations for Standard Efficiency
Determination--Normative is inapplicable,
(o) Appendix H Verification Testing--Normative is inapplicable,
(p) Appendix I Controls Verification Procedure--Normative is
inapplicable, and
(q) 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 applicable energy efficiency metrics (SCORE,
SHORE, and EER) in accordance with the specified sections of AHRI
1600-2024 and the applicable provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 16, ASHRAE
37-2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 116-2010. The AFull (cooling
mode) and H1Full or H1Nom (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. For cooling mode tests of variable capacity systems,
the compressor shall operate at the same cooling full speed,
measured by RPM of power input frequency (Hz), for both
AFull and BFull tests. Additionally, the
compressor shall operate at the same cooling minimum speed, measured
by RPM or power input frequency (Hz), for the BLow,
FLow, GLow, and ILow tests.
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 1600-2024, ASHRAE 37-2009, ANSI/ASHRAE 16, 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 a new 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 and a global
warming potential greater than 150 per EPA regulations in 40 CFR
84.64, 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 1600-2024. 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 at a single cooling air
volume rate 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 1600-2024). Tested values of CD\c\ and/or CD\h\ are
not permitted. The default value, 0.25, shall be used for both
cooling and heating mode testing.
4. Test Conditions
4.1. Test Conditions for Certifying Compliance with Standards.
The following conditions specified in AHRI 1600-2024 apply if
testing to certify to the SCORE and SHORE energy conservation
standards in Sec. 430.32(c).
(a) For cooling mode, use the rating conditions specified in
table 8 of AHRI 1600-2024 and the `U.S. National Average' cooling
conditioning hours and shoulder season hours in table 15 of AHRI
1600-2024, to determine SCORE, and EER for models subject to
regional standards in terms of EER.
(b) For heat pump heating mode, use the rating conditions
specified in table 8 of AHRI 1600-2024 and the `U.S. National
Average' heating conditioning hours and shoulder season hours
specified in table 18 of AHRI 1600-2024 to determine the heating
efficiency metric, SHORE.
4.2. Optional Representations. Representations of EER made using
the rating conditions specified in table 8 of AHRI 1600-2024 are
optional for models not subject to regional standards in terms of
EER. Representations of SHORE made using the rating conditions
specified in table 8 of AHRI 1600-2024 and the `Cold Climate
Average' heating conditioning hours and shoulder season hours in
table 18 of AHRI 1600-2024 are optional. Representations of
COPpeak made using appendix K are optional.
[FR Doc. 2024-30852 Filed 1-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
