[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 23, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79655-79671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31906]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-TP-0015]
RIN 1904-AD54


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Small, Large, 
and Very Large Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and 
Heating Equipment

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
reaffirms that the currently prescribed test procedure, with certain 
amendments adopted in this rulemaking, must be used when measuring the 
energy efficiency of certain categories of small, large, and very large 
air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment. 
The final rule, in addition to satisfying the agency's obligation to 
periodically review its test procedures for covered equipment, also 
clarifies specific certification, compliance, and enforcement 
provisions related to this equipment. The final rule limits the 
incorporation by reference of the industry test procedure ANSI/AHRI 
Standard 340/360-2007, ``2007 Standard for Performance Rating of 
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 
Equipment,'' to certain sections and addenda; clarifies indoor airflow 
tolerance and adjustment specifications when meeting other rating 
conditions; clarifies requirements for condenser head pressure 
controls; clarifies units of measurement for airflow; establishes a 
tolerance on part-load rating points and specifies the ambient 
temperatures used for the part-load rating points; and defines the 
term, ``integrated energy efficiency ratio.''

[[Page 79656]]


DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 22, 2016. The final 
rule changes will be mandatory for testing starting December 19, 2016. 
The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule 
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 22, 
2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2015-BT-TP-0015-0001. This 
Web page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the 
regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9590, or email 
[email protected].
    For legal issues, please contact Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. 
Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE intends to incorporate by reference the 
following industry standard into part 429 and appendix A to subpart F 
of part 431: ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-2007, (``AHRI 340/360-2007''), 
``2007 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial 
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' with Addenda 1 and 
2, approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011. This industry standard 
provides guidance regarding a variety of different elements related to 
the testing of commercial and industrial unitary air-conditioning and 
heat pump equipment, including definitions, classifications, as well as 
testing, rating, data, and operating requirements. ANSI/AHRI Standard 
340/360-2007 is readily available from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, 
and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, 
VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or go to: http://www.ahrinet.org.
    DOE intends to incorporate by reference the following industry 
standard into appendix A to subpart F of part 431: ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 
37-2009, (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37''), ``Methods of Testing for Rating 
Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' 
approved by ASHRAE on June 20, 2009. This testing standard details test 
methods for the equipment addressed by this rulemaking. Copies of this 
testing standard are readily available from the American Society of 
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie 
Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, (800) 527-4723, or through its Web site 
at https://www.ashrae.org.
    These standards are described further in section IV.M.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Clarifications to the Current DOE Test Procedure
    1. Sections of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 Incorporated by Reference
    2. Indoor Airflow Adjustment and Reporting
    3. Condenser Head Pressure Controls
    4. Unit of Measurement for Airflow
    5. Tolerance on Percent Load for IEER Part-Load Tests
    6. Definition of IEER
    7. Additional Test Procedure Provisions
    B. Certification and Enforcement Issues and Compliance Dates
    1. Measuring Cooling Capacity for Purposes of Certification, 
Assessment, and Enforcement
    2. Compliance Dates of the Certification, Reporting, and Test 
Procedure Amendments
    C. Future Test Procedure Rulemakings
    D. Regulatory Text Language
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
    N. Congressional Notification
    O. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to 
EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the 
Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 
2015).) Part C of Title III, which for editorial reasons was 
redesignated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), establishes the Energy Conservation 
Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment. Among the 
equipment covered under this statutory framework are small, large, and 
very large air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment--which are referred to in this notice as commercial unitary 
air conditioners (CUACs) and commercial unitary heat pumps (CUHPs). 
These equipment are the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 
6311(1)(B)-(D))
    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of 
covered equipment must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that 
their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation 
standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the 
efficiency of that equipment. Similarly, DOE must use these test 
procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with any 
relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
    DOE's test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs is codified at Title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Sec.  431.96. The current 
regulations require that manufacturers use ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007, 
``2007 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial 
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (ANSI/AHRI 340/360-
2007), when measuring the efficiency of a given CUAC or CUHP and 
certifying that equipment as compliant with the applicable

[[Page 79657]]

standard.\1\ 77 FR 28928, 28990 (May 16, 2012) (final rule specifying 
applicable energy conservation standards and test procedures for 
various commercial and industrial equipment, including CUACs and 
CUHPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DOE notes that for purposes of this notice, all references 
to ANSI/ASHRAE 340/360-2007 include Addenda 1 and 2 to this 
industry-based standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 1, 2013, DOE published a request for information and 
notice of document availability regarding the potential amendment of 
the energy conservation standards for CUACs and CUHPs. 78 FR 7296. DOE 
solicited information from the public to help determine whether 
national standards more stringent than the current ones would result in 
a significant amount of additional energy savings and whether those 
national standards would be technologically feasible and economically 
justified. DOE also sought information from the public on the merits of 
adopting the integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER) as the energy 
efficiency descriptor for small, large, and very large air-cooled 
commercial air conditioners and heat pumps, and which includes 
provisions to measure equipment performance under partial-load 
operating conditions. Currently, manufacturers must measure the energy 
efficiency of their equipment using the energy efficiency ratio (EER), 
which measures the full-load efficiency of a given unit. The procedure 
to follow when measuring and calculating that value, like the proposed 
IEER metric, is found in ANSI/ASHRAE 340/360-2007. See ANSI/ASHRAE 340/
360-2007, sec. 6. Comments received on the topic of IEER are discussed 
in a related notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) published September 
30, 2014, which sought to amend the CUAC and CUHP energy conservation 
standards. 79 FR 58948.
    Subsequently, on April 1, 2015, DOE issued a notice of intent to 
establish the Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps and 
Commercial Warm Air Furnaces Working Group to negotiate potential 
amendments to the energy conservation standards for this equipment. 80 
FR 17363. This Working Group was established under the Appliance 
Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in 
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated 
Rulemaking Act. See 5 U.S.C. Appendix--Federal Advisory Committee Act 
and 5 U.S.C. 561-570a. The Working Group, which consisted of 17 
members, including one member from ASRAC and one DOE representative, 
met six times (five times in person and once by teleconference). The 
meetings were held on April 28, May 11-12, May 20-21, June 1-2, June 9-
10, and June 15, 2015. The Working Group successfully reached consensus 
on energy conservation standards for CUACs, CUHPs, and commercial warm 
air furnaces, which the Working Group provided as recommendations as 
part of a Term Sheet for submission to ASRAC. The group also chose to 
provide test procedure and metric-related recommendations to the ASRAC. 
ASRAC voted unanimously to approve the Working Group's recommendations 
on June 17, 2015. Participants in the Working Group consisted of the 
following entities aside from DOE:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Acronym,
         Organization              Abbreviation         Affiliation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Conditioning Contractors    ACCA.............  Contractor/Installer
 of America.                                        Group.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and  AHRI.............  HVAC Manufacturers
 Refrigeration Institute.                           Group.
American Council for an Energy  ACEEE............  Energy Efficiency
 Efficient Economy.                                 Advocacy Group.
Appliance Standards Awareness   ASAP.............  Energy Efficiency
 Project.                                           Advocacy Group.
Emerson Climate Technologies..  Emerson..........  Manufacturer.
Goodman Manufacturing.........  Goodman..........  Manufacturer.
Lennox International..........  Lennox...........  Manufacturer.
Mitsubishi Electric...........  Mitsubishi.......  Manufacturer.
Natural Resources Defense       NRDC.............  Energy Efficiency
 Council.                                           Advocacy Group.
Northwest Energy Efficiency     NEEA.............  Energy Efficiency
 Alliance.                                          Advocacy Group.
Pacific Gas & Electric          Cal. IOUs........  Investor-Owned
 Company, San Diego Gas &                           Utilities.
 Electric Company, Southern
 California Edison, and
 Southern California Gas
 Company.
Rheem Manufacturing Company...  Rheem............  Manufacturer.
Sheet Metal and Air             SMACCNA..........  Contractor/Installer
 Conditioning Contractors                           Group.
 National Association, Inc..
Trane/Ingersoll Rand..........  Trane............  Manufacturer.
United Technologies             Carrier..........  Manufacturer.
 Corporation (Carrier).
Underwriters Laboratories.....  UL...............  Test Lab.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE initiated a rulemaking to amend the test procedure and 
associated certification requirements for CUACs and CUHPs to implement 
certain of the Working Group's recommendations regarding the metric and 
test procedure. On August 6, 2015, DOE published a NOPR (August 2015 
NOPR), 80 FR 46870, in which DOE proposed to clarify aspects of the 
CUAC and CUHP test procedure. These clarifications include, among other 
things, limiting the incorporation by reference of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-
2007 to certain sections and addenda, specifying requirements for 
indoor airflow adjustment and reporting, clarifying requirements for 
condenser head pressure controls, clarifying the unit of measurement 
for airflow, establishing a tolerance on percent load for IEER part-
load tests, and defining the term IEER. In this final rule, DOE 
responds to comments received from stakeholders in response to the 
NOPR.

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    EPCA sets forth the general criteria and procedures DOE must follow 
when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. See 
generally 42 U.S.C. 6314. EPCA provides in relevant part that any test 
procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that measure the energy efficiency, 
energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered

[[Page 79658]]

product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and 
must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In 
addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer an 
opportunity for the public to present oral and written comments. (42 
U.S.C. 6314(b))
    EPCA also requires DOE to evaluate its test procedures at least 
once every 7 years for each class of covered equipment (including CUACs 
and CUHPs) to determine if an amended test procedure would more 
accurately or fully comply with the requirement to be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, 
energy use, and operating costs during a representative average use 
cycle. DOE must either prescribe amended test procedures or publish a 
notice in the Federal Register regarding its determination not to amend 
test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)-(2))
    DOE considers the activity associated with this rulemaking 
sufficient to satisfy this review requirement.

II. Synopsis of the Final Rule

    This final rule clarifies aspects of DOE's test procedure for CUACs 
and CUHPs to improve the consistency and accuracy of the results 
generated when using that procedure. The rule clarifies how to test for 
compliance with the current energy conservation standards along with 
those standards that DOE anticipates adopting consistent with the 
Working Group's Term Sheet. The rule also amends certain certification, 
compliance, and enforcement provisions. DOE has determined that this 
final rule will not change the measured energy efficiency of CUACs and 
CUHPs when compared to the current test procedure.

III. Discussion

    This final rule amends the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs in 
appendix A to subpart F of part 431 and adds new equipment-specific 
certification and enforcement provisions in 10 CFR 429.43 and 429.134. 
With respect to the latter of these changes, a new Sec.  429.134(g) 
would be added to the pre-existing provisions already contained in 
Sec.  429.134(a)-(f). The rule also amends certain definitions found in 
10 CFR 431.92 and updates certain materials incorporated by reference 
in 10 CFR 431.95.
    In response to the August 2015 NOPR, six interested parties 
submitted written comments: Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration 
Institute (AHRI); United Technologies Corporation (Carrier), Ingersoll 
Rand, the California Investor-Owned Utilities (Cal. IOUs), Goodman 
Manufacturing Company (Goodman), and Lennox International Inc. 
(Lennox). Interested parties commented on a range of issues, including 
those DOE identified in the August 2015 NOPR, as well as several other 
pertinent issues related to DOE's proposal. Commenters also offered 
thoughts on further opportunities to improve the clarity of the test 
procedure. These issues, as well as DOE's responses to them and the 
resulting changes to DOE's proposal, are discussed in the subsequent 
sections.

A. Clarifications to the Current DOE Test Procedure

    In response to the August 2015 NOPR, DOE received input on a 
variety of test procedure issues, including: (1) sections of ANSI/AHRI 
340/360-2007 incorporated by reference; (2) indoor airflow adjustment 
and reporting; (3) condenser head pressure controls; (4) the unit of 
measurement for airflow; (5) the tolerance on percent load for IEER 
part-load tests; (6) the definition of IEER; and (7) additional 
provisions in the current test procedure. DOE's treatment of these 
issues is addressed below.
1. Sections of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 Incorporated by Reference
    As noted previously, DOE intends to incorporate by reference ANSI/
AHRI Standard 340/360-2007, (``AHRI 340/360-2007''), ``2007 Standard 
for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' which was approved by ANSI on 
October 27, 2011, and updated by addendum 1 in December 2010 and 
addendum 2 in June 2011. This industry standard provides guidance 
regarding a variety of different elements related to the testing of 
commercial and industrial unitary air-conditioning and heat pump 
equipment, including definitions, classifications, as well as testing, 
rating, data, and operating requirements. (ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-
2007 is readily available from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 
Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 
22201, (703) 524-8800, or go to: http://www.ahrinet.org.)
    In its August 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that when testing 
CUACs and CUHPs for the EER, coefficient of performance (COP), and IEER 
metrics, only certain sections of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 would be 
required--specifically, sections 3, 4, and 6 (omitting section 6.3)--
rather than applying the entirety of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007. DOE also 
proposed not to incorporate section 5 of that testing standard, and to 
incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, which was previously 
incorporated by reference through section 5 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007. 
80 FR at 46873.
    Responding to this aspect of DOE's proposal, AHRI, Carrier, 
Ingersoll Rand, Goodman, and Lennox commented that DOE should reference 
ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-2015 after its final version is released. 
(AHRI, No. 8 at p. 1; Carrier, No. 11 at p. 2; Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at 
p. 13; Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 2, 6) They 
commented that this revised testing standard addresses the issues that 
DOE raised in the NOPR and additional items identified by industry to 
improve the test procedure. In addition, Lennox noted that EPCA 
requires DOE to use those test procedures that are generally accepted 
by industry. (Lennox No. 13 at pp. 2, 6) See also 42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(4)(A) (indicating that the test procedures for commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment shall be those 
``generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures'' 
developed or recognized by AHRI or ASHRAE ``as referenced in ASHRAE/IES 
Standard 90.1 and in effect on June 30, 1992''). Additionally, AHRI 
commented that sections 6.5 and 6.6 of the soon-to-be-released version 
of AHRI 340/360-2015, which address verification testing uncertainty 
and uncertainty allowances, respectively, should be referenced as well. 
AHRI commented that doing so will help the user of the standard more 
fully understand the causes of why measured capacity and efficiency may 
vary, which, in its view, will be helpful to laboratories performing 
tests to complete the uncertainty analyses required by ISO 17025.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ISO 17025 is a test facility standard that provides general 
requirements for standard operating procedures for accuracy of 
laboratory measurements and tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHRI agreed with DOE's proposal to incorporate by reference ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 2) AHRI noted that ANSI/AHRI 340/
360-2015 has updated the reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and that 
section 5 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 addresses items related to unit 
setup and operating conditions that are not currently covered by ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009.
    Carrier commented that ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 requires that 
corrections be made for the impact of atmospheric pressure changes and 
resulting air density changes. Carrier requested that DOE adopt 
Appendix D of ANSI/AHRI

[[Page 79659]]

340/360-2015 to better account for changes in atmospheric pressure and 
altitude changes of test laboratories. (Carrier No. 11 at p. 3)
    AHRI and Carrier commented that DOE uses a confidence level of 95 
percent in the sampling requirements given in 10 CFR 429.43, whereas 
section 6.4 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 uses a confidence level of 90 
percent. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 2; Carrier No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI and Carrier 
noted that commercial equipment has as much, if not more, uncertainty 
and variability in testing than residential equipment, and that 90 
percent is an appropriate confidence level.
    After reviewing the comments from the August 2015 NOPR, DOE agrees 
that many of the raised issues are addressed in the draft version of 
ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015. However, DOE is still investigating whether 
certain provisions in the draft ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 will change 
measured efficiency. Furthermore, a final version of the new standard 
was not available during the preparation of this final rule. For these 
reasons, DOE declines to adopt ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 in whole or in 
part at this time. In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure to 
reference sections 3, 4, and 6 (omitting section 6.3) of ANSI/AHRI 340/
360-2007. DOE may, however, consider incorporating the final version of 
ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015, or additional provisions within it, in a future 
test procedure rulemaking, as discussed in section III.C. With respect 
to ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, DOE already incorporates by reference this 
testing standard in part 431.
    In the NOPR, DOE did not make any proposals regarding the 
confidence level in its certification and enforcement provisions. 
Accordingly, DOE declines to adopt provisions on this issue without 
holding further public comment. While DOE is open to considering 
changes to its confidence level in the future, manufacturers or other 
parties with access to relevant data should provide data regarding the 
variability of units in production and testing to enable DOE to 
facilitate its efforts to make any necessary adjustments in an 
appropriate future rulemaking proceeding.
2. Indoor Airflow Adjustment and Reporting
    In the August 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed that equipment must be tested 
using the motor and drive assembly and settings specified in the 
certification report (supplemental testing instruction PDF), and that 
the external static pressure (ESP) during testing remain within the 
tolerances set forth in Section 6.1.3.2 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 with 
the indoor airflow rate staying within +/-5 percent of the 
manufacturer-rated full-load indoor airflow rate. DOE proposed that the 
unit and/or test facility be adjusted to set up the unit such that both 
the airflow and ESP are within the required tolerances. See 80 FR at 
46873 (noting situations in which a test facility's equipment may need 
adjusting to maintain the proposed tolerances).
    ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007, section 6.1.3.2.e, specifies that the full-
load cooling airflow rate (in SCFM) must be employed, irrespective of 
resulting ESP, for all situations other than full-load cooling in which 
full-load airflow is used (e.g., full-load heating). DOE proposed that 
the +/-5 percent tolerance for airflow rate must be applied for these 
other conditions as well. DOE also indicated that it interpreted this 
section to mean that a test facility adjustment can be made to obtain 
the proper airflow (i.e. to maintain airflow within the proposed 
tolerance), but that the unit under test itself cannot be adjusted, and 
that there is no ESP requirement for this part of the test. 80 FR at 
46873.
    In addition, DOE proposed that in cases where a unit is designed to 
operate with a different indoor airflow rate for cooling and heating 
modes, manufacturers would report the individual indoor airflow rates 
in cooling and heating modes. DOE also proposed that a manufacturer 
must include in its certification report the adjusted indoor airflow at 
each part-load condition. 80 FR at 46873.
    Responding to the NOPR, AHRI and Carrier agreed that the tester 
must use the same motor and drive kit that was used to determine the 
certified rating, as specified in the manufacturer's certification 
information. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5; Carrier No. 11 at p. 4) AHRI, 
Carrier, Goodman, and Lennox agreed that a tolerance for indoor airflow 
is needed to ensure that it closely approximates the manufacturer's 
rated full-load indoor airflow rate. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5; Carrier No. 
11 at p. 4; Goodman, No. 14 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 4) However, 
these commenters indicated that a 5 percent tolerance would result in 
too much variation in EER and cooling capacity. The commenters 
recommended that the airflow should be allowed to vary by +/-3 percent 
of the rated full-load indoor airflow rate to reduce test uncertainty 
and to ensure the variations in EER and cooling capacity are at 
acceptable levels. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5; Carrier No. 11 at p. 4; 
Goodman, No. 14 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 4)
    In contrast, AHRI commented that no adjustments should be made to 
the airflow or the ESP during the heating test after it is set during 
the cooling test. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5). Goodman generally agreed with 
this view. (Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2) DOE's proposal would require 
adjustments to the test facility's equipment (but not the tested unit's 
fan settings) to maintain the full-load airflow rate when switching 
from the cooling test to the heating test, without regard to the 
resulting ESP. The method AHRI described is inconsistent with DOE's 
proposed method, because it would prohibit making adjustments to the 
ESP when switching from the cooling test to the heating test, whereas 
the proposal would allow the ESP to change between the cooling and 
heating tests as long as the full-load airflow rate is maintained. 
Lennox agreed with DOE's proposed approach to maintain the full-load 
airflow rate when switching from the cooling test to the heating test 
by making adjustments to the test facility's equipment--and not to the 
tested unit's fan settings--without regard to the resulting ESP. Lennox 
suggested that a +/-3 percent tolerance should apply to the full-load 
indoor airflow rate during the heating test. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 5) 
Carrier also supported making adjustments to the test facility's 
equipment, but not to the unit's fan settings, to maintain proper 
airflow. Carrier also commented that the proposed ANSI/AHRI 340/360-
2015 includes a requirement to manually adjust fan speed during the 
heating cycle if the unit is equipped with automatic controls that 
control the fan speed in heating mode. (Carrier No. 11 at pp. 4-5)
    AHRI, Carrier, Goodman, and Lennox agreed with DOE that indoor 
airflow should be reported in both cooling and heating mode if they are 
different. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 6; Carrier, No. 11 at p. 5; Goodman, No. 
14 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 5) AHRI and Carrier are not aware of 
any equipment that has a different airflow for heating and cooling but 
believe that it could be an option in the future.
    After reviewing the comments on the NOPR, DOE agrees that a 5-
percent tolerance on the rated full-load indoor airflow rate would 
allow more variation than desired in the EER and cooling capacity. Test 
results provided by manufacturers regarding the range of potential 
variation are greater than the estimates DOE initially made, which 
supported the 5 percent proposal. Based on the additional information 
provided

[[Page 79660]]

by manufacturers, DOE is revising its proposed tolerance level on the 
rated full-load indoor airflow rate from 5 percent to 3 percent. 
Additionally, given the generally positive feedback received in 
response to its proposed approach, DOE is also adopting its proposal 
that full-load airflow rate be maintained when switching from cooling 
mode to heating mode by adjusting the test facility (but not the unit 
under test) without regard to the resulting ESP. In addition, DOE is 
adopting its proposed certification and reporting requirements with 
minor clarifications. Specifically, a manufacturer must include in its 
certification report the adjusted indoor airflow at each part-load 
condition for both cooling and heating modes. In cases where a model is 
designed to operate with the same indoor airflow rate for cooling and 
heating modes, the reported numbers may be the same for each mode.
3. Condenser Head Pressure Controls
    In the August 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that condenser 
head pressure controls, if included with the unit, must be active 
during testing. DOE proposed that if a unit with condenser head 
pressure controls cannot achieve steady-state operation with the 
controls active, and thus cannot be tested, the manufacturer would have 
to request a waiver. DOE also requested comment on whether there are 
any units on the market with condenser head pressure controls that 
would prevent the unit from achieving steady-state under the test 
conditions, and if so, how should DOE address these kinds of units for 
testing purposes. 80 FR at 46873-46874.
    In response, AHRI, Carrier, Ingersoll Rand, Goodman, and Lennox 
agreed with DOE's proposal to keep the head pressure controls active in 
automatic mode if present. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 6; Carrier, No. 11 at p. 
5; Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at p. 31; Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 
13 at p. 5) AHRI, Carrier, Goodman, and Lennox also commented that the 
current draft of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 clarifies the requirements for 
running the head pressure control in automatic mode and also provides a 
new test procedure to determine the rating performance when head 
pressure control results in unstable operation.
    After reviewing the comments, DOE is clarifying the current test 
procedure to specify that condenser head pressure controls, if included 
with the unit, must be active during testing, as proposed in the NOPR. 
As noted previously, AHRI 340/360-2015 is still a draft document, and 
DOE is not incorporating it by reference in this rule. In addition, DOE 
declines at this time to adopt a test method like that in AHRI 340/360-
2015 regarding rating performance when head pressure control results in 
unstable operation. DOE will continue to review this industry testing 
standard and may consider adopting a method to address this issue in 
the future after a full public comment process.
4. Unit of Measurement for Airflow
    DOE also proposed that all instances of CFM as a unit of airflow 
must be interpreted to mean SCFM where they appear in the sections of 
ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007, incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 431, 
subpart F. 80 FR at 46874.
    In response, AHRI, Carrier and Ingersoll Rand agreed with this 
approach. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 4; Carrier No. 11 at p. 3; Ingersoll Rand 
No. 9 at p. 14) Each of these commenters recommended adopting ANSI/AHRI 
340/360-2015, which would provide clear instructions to ensure that 
airflow is measured in SCFM for testing. AHRI noted that this issue is 
already addressed in ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 through the reference to 
ASHRAE 37-2009, which defines the unit of airflow as standard CFM.
    As noted in section III.A.1, DOE declines to reference ANSI/AHRI 
340/360-2015 at this time. Further, although section 7.7.2.3 of ASHRAE 
37-2009 may be interpreted as an indication that airflow rate is to be 
expressed in terms of standard air in all test standards that 
incorporate it by reference, this interpretation may not be 
sufficiently clear from the relevant text of the current test 
procedure, which refers to both CFM and SCFM in various locations. 
Hence, DOE is clarifying the test procedure to indicate that all 
instances of CFM as a unit of airflow must be interpreted to mean SCFM 
where they appear in the sections of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 
incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 431, subpart F.
5. Tolerance on Percent Load for IEER Part-Load Tests
    DOE proposed applying a +/-3-percent tolerance to each part-load 
test point in the IEER calculation, and formally requested comment on 
the appropriateness of establishing such a tolerance level. See 80 FR 
at 46878-46879 (request for comment) and 80 FR at 46874 (discussing 
DOE's +/-3-percent tolerance proposal). Specifically, if the measured 
load fraction is within 3 percent of the target load fraction, the 
measured EER would not have to be adjusted using interpolation or 
application of the degradation factor for cyclic operation.
    Responding to this aspect of the proposal, AHRI, Goodman, and 
Lennox agreed in principle with setting a tolerance on the part-load 
percent load when the unit cannot run at precisely 75-percent, 50-
percent, and 25-percent part-load capacities. The commenters also 
agreed with DOE's tolerance level of 3 percent. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 6; 
Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6)
    However, AHRI and Carrier commented that implementing the 3-percent 
tolerance without also adopting some other provisions of ANSI/AHRI 340/
360-2015 would vary IEER results by as much as 5 percent, a magnitude 
they considered inappropriate. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 6; Carrier No. 11 at 
p. 3) AHRI stated that this variation could be reduced significantly by 
changing the condenser air inlet temperature used for each given part-
load point. Specifically, AHRI 340/360-2007 relies on condenser air 
inlet temperatures as a function of percent load, while AHRI 340/360-
2015 specifies condenser air inlet temperatures that are fixed for each 
rating point percent load. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 6) The relationship 
between condenser air inlet temperature and percent load is provided in 
section 6.2.2 of AHRI 340/360-2007. AHRI stated that adopting the 
proposed 3-percent tolerance for part-load tests with the current 
approach would result in an IEER variation of -4.6 percent to +4.8 
percent. However, if the condenser air entering temperature is fixed to 
the target percent load, then IEER variations would be reduced to 1.5 
or 1.6 percent. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 33-36) 
AHRI and Carrier, as well as Goodman and Lennox, proposed that DOE 
reference ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 (section 6.2) which includes the +/- 
3-percent load fraction tolerance along with the other revisions to the 
IEER testing procedures. (AHRI, No. 8 at pp. 6-7; Carrier, No. 11 at p. 
3; Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6)
    After reviewing the comments on the appropriateness of establishing 
a 3-percent tolerance on each part-load test point, as proposed in the 
NOPR, DOE is adopting the 3-percent part-load test point tolerance, and 
is also adopting the suggestion from several commenters for setting the 
condenser inlet air temperature for the test, which commenters viewed 
as being linked to the revised 3-percent tolerance level. DOE is 
adopting this suggestion in response to stakeholders' comments that a 
3-percent tolerance on part-load testing would not be appropriate 
unless the condenser air entering temperature is fixed at the 
temperature for the target

[[Page 79661]]

part-load point. Adopting this suggested approach will help reduce the 
variability in test results for variations in percent load within 3-
percent of the target part-load point. AHRI supported this approach 
with data demonstrating how implementing this requirement for setting 
the condenser air entering temperature would reduce the variability in 
test results. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 18) In addition, this change has the 
potential to significantly reduce test burden, since the current test 
procedure requirement, by specifying condenser inlet air temperature as 
a function of the measured load fraction, can lead to multiple 
repetitions of the test if the measured load fraction is different than 
the load fraction used to calculate the air temperature used for the 
test. Also, the suggested approach from the commenters is more 
consistent with the way a unit would actually operate in the field. 
Specifically, when a unit cycles between operating levels to satisfy an 
average load represented by the target load fraction, the ambient 
temperature remains constant. DOE investigated potential changes in 
measurement associated with this test procedure change and found that 
it would not change the measurement unless the interpolation method is 
used to determine one or more of the part-load EER levels and for which 
one of the measurements used for the interpolation(s) has a measured 
percent load less than 44.4 percent. Also, for typical units that fit 
this description, the change in the measurement is less than one 
percent. With respect to IEER, DOE concludes this is a de minimis 
change, the extent of which would not impact a model's ability to 
comply with a given IEER standard or alter the measured energy 
efficiency of the covered equipment.
    DOE has elected to implement the additional change regarding 
condenser air inlet temperature by noting this difference with respect 
to AHRI 340/360-2007 within the regulatory language in the CFR rather 
than incorporating by reference the 2015 version of the standard--DOE's 
decision not to incorporation AHRI 340/360-2015 by reference is 
discussed in section III.A.1.
6. Definition of IEER
    DOE proposed to define IEER (i.e. integrated energy efficiency 
ratio) as meaning ``a single number part-load efficiency based on 
weighting of EER at various load capacities, as measured in appendix A 
to subpart F of part 431, expressed in Btu/watt-hour.'' (80 FR at 
46880)
    In response to this proposed definition, AHRI and Carrier agreed 
that the definition of IEER must be improved and clarified. (AHRI, No. 
8 at p. 4; Carrier, No. 11 at pp. 3-4) However, AHRI and Carrier 
commented that DOE's definition does not account for the operating 
conditions and rating conditions required to accurately rate IEER. They 
commented that this is a significant aspect of the IEER metric and it 
should be mentioned in the definition to avoid any misrepresentation. 
AHRI and Carrier further commented that the DOE definition also 
proposes to reference the new DOE appendix A, which does not directly 
address the requirements for IEER and refers back to AHRI 340/360. AHRI 
and Carrier suggested as an alternative that DOE use the IEER 
definition in ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 4; Carrier, 
No. 11 at pp. 3-4)
    The draft version of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 section 3.11 defines 
IEER as ``a weighted calculation of mechanical cooling EERs at full-
load and part-load Standard Rating Conditions, defined in Section 6.2, 
expressed in Btu/Wh.''
    Ingersoll Rand suggested a different definition for IEER: 
``Integrated energy efficiency ratio, or IEER, means the cooling energy 
efficiency descriptor for packaged air-conditioning and heating 
equipment (air-cooled with a rated cooling capacity >=65,000 Btu/h), 
determined as a single number part-load efficiency based on weighting 
of EER at various load capacities, as measured in appendix A to subpart 
F of part 431, expressed in Btu/watt-hour.'' (Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at 
p. 2) Ingersoll Rand made this suggestion to clarify that: (1) IEER is 
the only cooling efficiency descriptor for CUAC and CUHP and (2) IEER 
is specific to CUAC and CUHP and does not apply to other commercial 
package air-conditioning and heating equipment. (Id.)
    DOE agrees that the rating conditions for IEER could be 
acknowledged in the definition. However, DOE declines to reference AHRI 
340/360 directly, as all representations of IEER must be made based on 
DOE's test procedure, which contains additional provisions beyond those 
in the referenced industry standard. Therefore, DOE is adopting a 
modified definition for IEER that references rating conditions rather 
than load capacities, but still specifies that measurements be made in 
accordance with appendix A. DOE also declines to include equipment 
references at this time. In the future, DOE may adopt energy 
conservation standards based on IEER for equipment other than CUAC and 
CUHP. Hence, DOE declines to specify or otherwise limit what equipment 
uses this metric. DOE addresses Ingersoll Rand's concern regarding the 
efficiency descriptor in section III.D.
    DOE does agree that the IEER is intended to measure cooling 
provided by the refrigeration system, i.e. ``mechanical cooling'', and 
does not address other modes of cooling that the equipment might 
provide. As an example, CUAC and CUHP equipment may provide economizer 
cooling, which involves use of cool outdoor air during cool weather to 
cool the interior of a building without the use of refrigeration system 
operation.
    For these reasons, DOE is adopting the following definition for 
IEER:
    Integrated energy efficiency ratio, or IEER, means a weighted 
average calculation of mechanical cooling EERs determined for four load 
levels and corresponding rating conditions, as measured in appendix A 
to subpart F of part 431, expressed in Btu/watt-hour.
7. Additional Test Procedure Provisions
    Current DOE regulations include provisions for refrigerant charging 
and airflow rate relevant to multiple equipment categories, including 
CUACs and CUHPs. (10 CFR 431.96(e)) DOE proposed adding these 
provisions to the proposed appendix A, section (5) for CUACs and CUHPs, 
while maintaining the original provision in 431.96(e) for the other 
relevant equipment categories. 80 FR at 46881. These provisions require 
that if a manufacturer specifies a range (rather than a specific rating 
value) of superheat, sub-cooling, and/or refrigerant charge pressure in 
its installation and operation manual, any value within that range may 
be used to determine refrigerant charge or mass of refrigerant.
    In response to the NOPR, Goodman stated that manufacturers 
typically specify a broader range of superheat or subcooling for field 
charging than would be accepted in the laboratory (because field 
measurement equipment is not as accurate as laboratory measurement 
equipment). Goodman further added that the AHRI certification program 
has a policy of adjusting charge to the middle of the range, which 
makes the test more accurate. (Goodman, No. 14 at p. 3)
    DOE notes that the refrigerant charge, superheat, and subcooling 
values are interrelated such that DOE does not believe Goodman's 
suggestion of hitting the midpoint of all of the ranges can be achieved 
in all cases. Consequently, DOE is not requiring that the test be 
performed at the midpoint of each of the ranges. Instead, DOE is 
clarifying that test labs should only be adjusting charge

[[Page 79662]]

once for both the cooling and heating test and a test lab should aim 
for the middle of the subheat or subcool range. However, DOE emphasizes 
that any point in the range is still acceptable at this point in time. 
Should industry believe additional specificity regarding these 
provisions would improve repeatability or reproducibility, DOE may 
consider further amendments in a future rulemaking. For consistency in 
testing, DOE will follow the approach of attempting to achieve the 
midpoint of one of the values, which it considers to be a best 
practice.
    In regards to airflow, DOE currently requires that the airflow rate 
used for testing must be in the installation and operations manual 
shipped with the basic model and clearly identified as the value used 
to generate DOE performance ratings; otherwise, a value of 400 SCFM per 
ton is used. See 10 CFR 431.96(e). Responding to DOE's proposal to 
include this set of requirements as part of appendix A, Goodman noted 
that manufacturers who certify through AHRI have the full-load cooling 
capacity shown in the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance, 
and that the value in that directory should be used as opposed to using 
400 SCFM per ton. (Goodman, No. 14 at p. 3)
    DOE notes that for commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment, manufacturers are currently required to certify rated 
airflow in SCFM for each fan coil. See 10 CFR 429.43(b)(4)(i)-(ii) 
(specifying certification report contents for commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment). As noted earlier, DOE is 
clarifying this requirement as described in section III.A.2. DOE 
expects the certified airflow values to be consistent with those in the 
installation manual and reported to AHRI, because the airflow used in 
tests (whether for certifying performance to DOE or as used by AHRI) 
should be the same airflow that installers would use when setting up 
the unit based on the installation instructions. However, in the event 
a manufacturer fails to report airflow to DOE, the specified value of 
400 SCFM per ton prescribed by 10 CFR 431.96(e) will continue to apply.

B. Certification and Enforcement Issues and Compliance Dates

    In addition to addressing various aspects related to the testing of 
CUACs and CUHPs, DOE also proposed various certification and 
enforcement-related provisions with respect to this equipment. 
Additionally, DOE proposed including provisions related to the 
reporting of IEER values for certification and compliance purposes once 
the compliance dates for the standards recommended by the Working Group 
are reached. These issues are addressed in the following sections.
1. Measuring Cooling Capacity for Purposes of Certification, 
Assessment, and Enforcement
    DOE proposed that the cooling capacity represented and subsequently 
certified to DOE for a given basic model must be the average of the 
capacities measured for the sample of units tested to certify that 
basic model, rounded according to the multiples in Table 4 in ANSI/AHRI 
340/360-2007. DOE also proposed that when conducting assessment and 
enforcement testing, it would measure the total cooling capacity 
pursuant to the test requirements of 10 CFR 431.96 for each unit 
tested, and the results of the measurement(s) would be compared to the 
value of cooling capacity certified by the manufacturer. The 
manufacturer-certified cooling capacity will be considered valid if the 
cooling capacity determined through DOE testing is within 5 percent of 
the certified cooling capacity. (80 FR at 46874)
    With respect to the certification requirements, Lennox disagreed 
with DOE's proposal to require that the certified cooling capacity be 
the average of the capacities measured for the sample of units tested. 
(Lennox, No. 13 at p. 3) Lennox stated that conservative capacity 
ratings subject equipment to more stringent efficiency standards. 
Lennox further commented that if forced to reclassify equipment into 
higher-capacity classes, manufacturers could face unduly burdensome 
administrative and procedural obligations without any benefit to energy 
efficiency. Lennox also stated that if conservatively-rated equipment 
is categorized into a larger equipment class, it can change the test 
conditions (i.e. ESP), resulting in a further change from the designed 
capacity and IEER level of the product. Lennox added that in the past, 
DOE has allowed manufacturers to conservatively rate products, such as 
in the final rule establishing AEDMs for commercial air-conditioning 
and refrigeration equipment and walk-in coolers and freezers. (Lennox, 
No. 13 at pp. 3-4)
    Ingersoll Rand commented that, while DOE's certification 
regulations typically require manufacturers to report capacity, DOE 
does not specify that manufacturers determine capacity through testing 
specified by DOE, and that DOE has not found that capacity is a measure 
of energy consumption as defined by EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6291(8). 
(Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at p. 13) Ingersoll Rand also noted that DOE had 
not demonstrated why such a proposal is necessary. (Id.)
    With respect to the enforcement testing provisions, AHRI, Ingersoll 
Rand, and Goodman commented that a tolerance of 5 percent should not be 
applied to capacity because there are many factors that can affect 
measured capacity and performance, including variance in airflow, 
refrigerant charge levels, ambient conditions, test labs, and test 
setup. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 3; Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at p. 14; Goodman, 
No. 14 at p. 3) Goodman commented that a 5-percent tolerance is too low 
because, due to a number of variables, the true uncertainty of the test 
is probably at least 8 percent. (Goodman, No. 14 at p. 3)
    AHRI commented that in the event that a verification test for its 
certification program shows that the cooling capacity is less than 95 
percent of its rated value, the manufacturer fails the test and is then 
subject to stiff penalties, which are, in its view, strong incentives 
to discourage manufacturers from over-rating cooling capacity and 
energy efficiency. AHRI recommended that DOE base the equipment 
classification on the rated capacity only. However, in the event that 
DOE feels compelled to move forward with its proposal, AHRI requested 
that the proposed requirement apply only when the tested cooling 
capacity is less than 95 percent of the certified value, and not when 
the tested cooling capacity is greater than 105 percent of the 
certified value. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3) Carrier agreed that any 
tolerance should be a one-sided tolerance, allowing manufacturers to 
choose to rate products conservatively. (Carrier, No. 11 at p.3)
    Trane commented that, in common practice, a tolerance on capacity 
becomes an issue at 240,000 Btu/h, which is a break between equipment 
classes as well as a nominal equipment tonnage. However, manufacturers 
do not always hit this design point, which puts them on one side or the 
other of the equipment class dividing line. For this reason, they tend 
to rate conservatively to avoid risk. (Trane, NOPR public meeting 
transcript, No. 15 at pp. 54-55) Carrier added that the need to 
conservatively rate will increase with the change in refrigerants, and 
that the current AHRI statistics show that they exceed 105 percent on 
many tests. (Carrier, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 15 at pp. 55-
56)
    DOE notes that the August 2015 NOPR proposed to add a provision 
that the represented value of cooling capacity must be the average of 
the

[[Page 79663]]

capacities measured for the units in the sample selected for testing or 
the output of the AEDM when simulating results rounded according to the 
multiples in Table 4 in ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007. DOE further proposed to 
add enforcement provisions for verifying the rated cooling capacity, as 
the rated cooling capacity determines both the equipment class and 
which testing conditions apply. See 80 FR at 46874 (discussing proposed 
clarification) and 46879 (presenting detailed regulatory text). Without 
reporting and enforcement provisions for cooling capacity, 
manufacturers may choose to over- or under-rate cooling capacity 
intentionally in order to achieve more favorable testing conditions or 
less stringent efficiency standards. DOE does not believe industry 
intended to suggest a regulatory approach where a manufacturer would 
self-declare its rating conditions and standards, as that approach 
could cause unintended consequences such as inequitable ratings due to 
differences in self-declarations. Many in industry, including 
commenters who participate in the AHRI Certification Program, saw the 
importance of including provisions surrounding cooling capacity since 
there is a verification tolerance reflected in that program, as AHRI 
noted. Consequently, in DOE's view, provisions regarding the 
determination of represented cooling capacity along the lines of the 
August 2015 proposal are needed.
    While DOE acknowledges that multiple factors may affect the 
measurement of cooling capacity, DOE maintains that capacity-related 
provisions are necessary to ensure the reliability and consistency of 
the reported ratings because, as commenters pointed out, DOE expects 
there to be variation in the capacity measurement from different units 
being tested at different laboratories. Consequently, DOE is modifying 
its proposal for determining represented cooling capacity based on the 
comments received to allow for conservative rating declared according 
to the multiples in Table 4 in ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 but is not less 
than 95% of the mean values of the two or more units in the sample for 
certification testing or the output from the AEDM. DOE believes this is 
consistent with that currently used in the industry, including the 
certified ratings program approach developed by AHRI. In the industry 
program, this tolerance serves as the basis for penalizing 
manufacturers if the tested cooling capacity is lower than 95% of the 
rated cooling capacity of that equipment. This tolerance will help to 
ensure that equipment is capable of performing at the cooling capacity 
for which it is represented to consumers. At this time, DOE is 
declining to adopt specific capacity-related enforcement provisions and 
will evaluate compliance with standards based on the testing results 
from the enforcement sample. DOE believes it is important that products 
comply with the applicable standards based on actual tested performance 
rather than based on a manufacturer self-declaration.
2. Compliance Dates of the Certification, Reporting, and Test Procedure 
Amendments
    In the August 2015 NOPR, DOE indicated that its proposal would be 
unlikely to alter the measured efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs. DOE 
proposed to require the reporting of IEER and indoor part-load airflow 
rates used in the IEER calculation when certifying compliance with the 
2018 or 2023 standards. DOE also proposed to apply a +/-3-percent 
tolerance to each part-load test point for manufacturers to use when 
developing the IEER ratings for a given basic model. This clarification 
would be required when testing to determine EER for part-load rating 
points. See 80 FR at 46879-82.
    DOE stated that its proposed amendments that were not specifically 
related to IEER would clarify how to test a given unit. The proposals, 
if adopted, would result in no procedural changes related to how 
testing would be performed. The proposed amendments, if adopted, would 
become effective 30 days after publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6314(d), DOE proposed that 
any representations of energy consumption or efficiency of CUACs and 
CUHPs must be based on any final amended test procedures 360 days after 
the publication of the test procedure final rule. 80 FR at 46874-46875.
    Ingersoll Rand disagreed with DOE's assertion that the proposed 
clarifications and amendments would not result in any changes to the 
energy efficiency of current equipment. While Ingersoll Rand agreed 
that the proposed changes would likely not affect the measure of EER 
for air-cooled commercial package air conditioning equipment, the 
proposed changes would add the IEER metric, which, in Ingersoll Rand's 
view, is a significant change to the measure of energy efficiency of 
current equipment. Ingersoll Rand commented that the proposed 
amendments to the test procedures will change the measure of energy 
itself, and, as DOE's proposal would require re-rating units within 360 
days of publication of the final rule, that this would be a ``change in 
the representations of the energy efficiency of current equipment.'' 
(Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at p. 12)
    Ingersoll Rand also noted that while many manufacturers, including 
itself, already include an IEER rating in the AHRI Directory of 
Certified Product Performance, that information is not based on testing 
units in accordance with the sampling plan contained in the proposed 
Sec.  429.43, but is often based on testing a single unit. Therefore, 
to comply with the proposed rule, manufacturers would be required to 
perform a substantial amount of additional testing. Furthermore, since 
the testing requirements would go into effect before the compliance 
date of the energy conservation standards proposed by the ASRAC 
Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces 
Working Group, those units currently offered for sale but not meeting 
the January 2018 standards proposed by the Working Group would still 
need to be tested in order for manufacturers to make IEER 
representations on which builders would rely for purposes of meeting 
the provisions contained in ASHRAE 90.1.2013. (That industry-based 
standard sets a minimum level of efficiency for CUAC and CUHP equipment 
and includes a minimum rating level based on IEER.) In its view, the 
proposal's impact will be far more than modest and must be addressed by 
DOE or accounted for in its estimates under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at pp. 10-11)
    For these reasons, Ingersoll Rand recommended that the effective 
date of compliance with the test procedure amendments with respect to 
testing, representations, and reporting of IEER be made to coincide 
with the effective date of the amended standard setting the initial 
IEER standard. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at p. 12)
    DOE has carefully considered Ingersoll Rand's comments. DOE is 
adopting its proposal that reporting of IEER and indoor part-load 
airflow rates used in the IEER calculation will be required when 
certifying compliance with any amended standards and finds that this 
approach is consistent with Ingersoll Rand's comments. However, DOE 
also maintains that, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6314(d), any 
representations of energy consumption or efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs 
must be based on any final amended test procedures 360 days after the 
publication of the test procedure final rule. See 80 FR at 46874-46875.

[[Page 79664]]

Although Ingersoll Rand argued that this amendment would subject units 
that will not meet the recommended January 2018 standards to the 
testing requirements to demonstrate that the units meet the IEER levels 
of ASHRAE 90.1-2013 that many builders require, those units were 
already subject to those testing requirements. DOE recognizes that 
manufacturers currently do not need to certify their equipment to meet 
IEER. Manufacturers must, however, follow the applicable test procedure 
requirements when making representations of energy efficiency, 
including those aspects of the test procedure that apply to another 
metric should they decide to report the efficiency of their equipment 
using that metric. DOE's current test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs 
already includes a test method for measuring IEER. See 10 CFR 
431.96(b)(2) (incorporating, through Table 2, various test procedures 
used for assessing compliance, including the procedures specified by 
AHRI 340/360-2007, which contains testing methods for measuring IEER). 
EPCA restricts representations of efficiency where DOE has prescribed a 
test method. Specifically, any representation of efficiency for a CUAC 
or CUHP must fairly disclose the results of testing in accordance with 
the DOE test procedure within 360 days of DOE having prescribed the 
test procedure. Therefore, all existing representations of IEER for 
this equipment would have already been made in accordance with DOE's 
regulations regarding test procedures and sampling plans, even though 
submission of a certification report for that metric is not required. 
As discussed in section III.A.5, DOE has determined that the amended 
requirements on part-load test points will produce only a de minimis 
change and not impact a model's ability to comply with an IEER standard 
or alter the measured and rated energy efficiency of the covered 
equipment. For these reasons, DOE does not anticipate that 
manufacturers will require additional time to comply with pre-existing 
requirements that they already must meet.
    Furthermore, with respect to Ingersoll Rand's claim that 
significant additional testing will be required to meet the sampling 
requirements, based on manufacturer compliance certifications, most 
CUAC and CUHP manufacturers use alternative efficiency determination 
methods (``AEDMs'') to rate the majority of their equipment for EER. 
Ingersoll Rand states that manufacturers have been testing for IEER and 
have single tests of a wide variety of basic models, so manufacturers 
already have sufficient test data to develop and support an AEDM, even 
if they have not yet developed AEDMs to simulate IEER. Therefore, even 
if a manufacturer is not currently making representations in accordance 
with the DOE test procedure (as it is already required to do), DOE 
believes a 360-day compliance period provides sufficient time for such 
a manufacturer to do so, particularly if the manufacturer already has a 
collection of existing test data for its equipment.
    Finally, DOE disagrees that the information collection approved by 
the Office of Management and Budget requires modification as a result 
of this rule. This rule does not change the test burden or record 
retention requirements that are reflected in the existing approval. 
Furthermore, although the metric reported to DOE will change from EER 
to IEER, there will be no increase in burden. DOE will revise its 
certification information collection to reflect the metric change prior 
to the reporting change in 2018.

C. Future Test Procedure Rulemakings

    The California IOUs encouraged DOE to initiate a more expansive 
test procedure rulemaking before January 1, 2016, as recommended by the 
ASRAC Working Group. (California IOUs, No. 10 at p. 1) The California 
IOUs commented that a new, more representative, metric is needed.
    The California IOUs also suggested that DOE research the impact of 
fan energy on equipment ratings, specifically the external static 
pressure settings for equipment and whether it reflects field 
conditions. (California IOUs, No. 10 at p. 2) The IOUs further noted 
that the IEER test procedure proposed for inclusion by DOE in its 
regulations specified ESP ratings that are unrealistically low in the 
four test points, which results in measured fan energy consumption 
during testing conditions being lower than that found in actual 
operating conditions, which artificially inflates the IEER ratings. The 
California IOUs also encouraged DOE to create a test procedure that 
accounts for economizer energy consumption, as this aspect is omitted 
in the current proposed test procedure. See id.
    The California IOUs suggested further that DOE should investigate 
the impact of requiring an additional higher temperature test point 
rating, such as 105 [deg]F or 115 [deg]F, to better reflect operating 
conditions experienced in hotter climates. (California IOUs, No. 10 at 
p. 2) The California IOUs noted that the current efficiency rating 
measures equipment at a maximum outside dry bulb air temperature of 95 
[deg]F. In their collective view, while this value is appropriate for 
much of the United States, it does not reflect peak values often 
experienced in parts of the desert southwest.
    DOE notes that the Working Group recommended that a rulemaking to 
amend the test procedure shall be initiated no later than January 1, 
2016, with the final rule issued no later than January 1, 2019. That 
rulemaking, based on the Working Group's recommendation, would be to 
focus on better representing the total fan energy use by considering 
(a) alternative external static pressures and (b) operation for other 
than mechanical cooling and heating. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0093, ASRAC 
Working Group Term Sheet (recommending a series of actions for DOE to 
take with respect to CUAC and CUHP standards and testing). DOE plans to 
initiate an additional test procedure rulemaking focused on revising 
the IEER metric consistent with this recommendation. DOE may consider 
additional test procedure revisions at that time.

D. Regulatory Text Language

    Ingersoll Rand asserted that the proposed IEER definition and the 
test procedure table (Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96) are inconsistent with 
the terms of the ASRAC Working Group Term Sheet because they add IEER 
as a cooling metric but keep EER. Ingersoll Rand stated that the 
Working Group agreed that, subsequent to the effective date of the 
January 2018 energy conservation standard, IEER would be the sole DOE 
measure of cooling efficiency required to be reported to DOE. 
(Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at pp. 1-2)
    Ingersoll Rand added that it believed that DOE proposed amending 10 
CFR 431.96 in order to make it easier for the user to follow, but 
without consideration of the Working Group recommendation to initiate a 
rulemaking to amend the test procedure for small, large, and very large 
air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. 
In its view, Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96 could be confusing to the user if 
it included a distinction between the different measures of energy 
consumption and the two different test procedures before and after the 
expected effective date of the IEER standards. Ingersoll Rand commented 
that it would be clearer and simpler for DOE to return to the earlier 
format of section 431.96 and add the test procedure and energy 
descriptor updates in separate tables with their effective dates. It 
offered alternative tables for DOE to consider. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 
at pp. 3-8)

[[Page 79665]]

    DOE notes that that the primary purpose of the test procedure 
tables in 10 CFR 431.96 is to describe the test procedure relevant to 
each equipment category. The metrics required to be reported to DOE can 
be found in 10 CFR 429.43. As proposed (and amended by this rule), 10 
CFR 429.43 will not require EER to be reported to DOE when certifying 
compliance with any IEER standards. However, consistent with DOE's 
incorporation of AHRI 340/360-2007, the test procedure itself will 
still include EER, which manufacturers are required to use when making 
EER-based representations when they choose to do so, independent of 
their representations required under DOE's compliance requirements.
    Ingersoll Rand also criticized DOE's proposed reference to the 
``January 1, 2018 and January 1, 2023 standards'' that would be added 
to 10 CFR 429.43(b)(2)(i)(B), as being vague, particularly in light of 
the changes made to the standards table in 10 CFR 431.97(b) by the July 
17, 2015 final rule regarding energy conservation standards for small 
three-phase commercial air-cooled air conditioners. 80 FR 42614. 
Ingersoll Rand suggested that DOE consider the format of 10 CFR 
429.43(b)(2)(i) and 10 CFR 431.97 that will result from both the test 
procedure and energy conservation standards rulemakings in completing 
this test procedure rulemaking, rather than waiting for the standards 
rulemaking. Ingersoll Rand suggested wording for 10 CFR 429.43(b)(2)(i) 
and recommended that DOE insert two new tables (as Tables 4 and 5) that 
would accommodate the 2018 and 2023 standards and would be reserved 
until DOE completes the energy conservation standards rulemakings. 
(Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at pp. 9-10)
    Ingersoll Rand also disagreed with the proposed language in Sec.  
429.43(b)(4) that lists certification report requirements (including 
the rated airflow for part-load operation which is needed for testing 
to measure IEER), and which refers to the ``January 1, 2018 or the 
January 1, 2023 energy conservation standards.'' Ingersoll Rand 
indicated that such references are vague and could lead to 
misinterpretations regarding DOE's regulations, recommending instead 
that DOE refer in these sections specifically to the appropriate 
standards listed in specific tables of Sec.  431.97. (Ingersoll Rand, 
No. 9 at p. 12)
    DOE acknowledges the potential for misinterpretation. Therefore, 
DOE has revised the language in Sec.  429.43 to refer to compliance 
with EER standards or IEER standards rather than making a reference to 
future 2018 or 2023 standards that have not been finalized.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003. This final rule prescribes clarifications to DOE's already-
existing test procedures that will be used to test compliance with 
energy conservation standards for the equipment that are the subject of 
this rulemaking. DOE has concluded that the final rule would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    For manufacturers of small, large, and very large air-cooled CUAC 
and CUHP, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size 
threshold, which defines those entities classified as ``small 
businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small 
business size standards to determine whether any small entities would 
be subject to the requirements of the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 
2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 
13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North American 
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description 
and are available at http://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/contracting/contracting-officials/small-business-size-standards. 
Manufacturing of small, large, and very large air-cooled CUAC and CUHP 
is classified under NAICS 333415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air 
Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or less for 
an entity to be considered as a small business for this category. DOE 
initially identified 13 potential manufacturers of commercial packaged 
air conditioners sold in the U.S. DOE then determined that 10 were 
large manufacturers, manufacturers that are foreign-owned and -
operated, or manufacturers that do not produce equipment covered by 
this rulemaking. DOE was able to determine that the other three 
companies met the SBA's definition of a small business and sell CUAC/
CUHP products.
    The first small company specialized in manufacturing double-duct 
CUAC/CUHP products, which would not subject to the amended IEER 
standards recommended by the Working Group formed to negotiate the 
CUAC/CUHP standards.\3\ This manufacturer did not produce any equipment 
that would be covered under the recommended IEER standards. The second 
small company did not own any production assets for CUAC/CUHP 
equipment. This company outsourced the design and manufacture of 
equipment to a supplier. The third small company manufactured covered 
equipment that are subject to the amended test procedures. Based on 
DOE's research, this small manufacturer has three product platforms 
with 11 models that would potentially be subject to testing to 
determine IEER, and no IEER ratings have been published for these 
units. Based on literature reviews, this small manufacturer specializes 
in custom and semi-custom products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0093. DOE must 
effectuate such change in metric through the rulemaking process and 
in a manner consistent with all applicable statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE expects the impact of the final rule on manufacturers, 
including small businesses, to be minimal. The final rule amends DOE's 
certification requirements to specify additional reporting requirements 
and add enforcement provisions for verifying cooling capacity. The 
final rule also clarifies or amends DOE's test procedures to amend 
ANSI/AHRI 340/

[[Page 79666]]

360-2007, ``2007 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and 
Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' to 
incorporate certain sections by reference, specify requirements for 
airflow adjustment and tolerance to meet other rating conditions, 
require units with condenser head pressure controls to be tested with 
those controls active, clarify the unit of measurement for airflow, and 
establish a tolerance on part-load rating points.
    The amended energy conservation standards for CUAC/CUHP recommended 
by the Working Group would be based on IEER rather than EER. DOE 
expects the impact on test burden to be modest. AHRI ratings already 
include IEER, indicating that many manufacturers, representing a large 
portion of the market, already determine IEER for their units. ANSI/
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013, ``Energy Standard for Buildings Except 
Low-Rise Residential Buildings'' (ASHRAE 90.1-2013), has adopted an 
IEER requirement, which makes reporting of IEER necessary for shipment 
to those states and localities that will adopt that standard in 
building codes. Current procedures relating to alternative efficiency 
determination methods (AEDMs), including procedures for certifying 
IEER, require a limited amount of testing to be conducted when 
validating an AEDM for CUACs and CUHPs. 10 CFR 429.70(c)(2)(iv) 
(detailing the minimum number of distinct basic models required to be 
test for purposes of AEDM validation for different equipment types and 
classes). DOE expects that most CUAC and CUHP ratings will be based on 
results obtained from AEDMs. Although DOE recognizes that some ratings 
will be based on testing, DOE expects these ratings to comprise a small 
minority of products.
    For these reasons, DOE certifies that this final rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility 
analysis for this rulemaking. DOE will transmit the certification and 
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of CUACs and CUHPs must certify to DOE that their 
equipment comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In 
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their equipment 
according to the DOE test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs, including any 
amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established 
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for 
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including CUACs 
and CUHPs. 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. The collection-of-information 
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to 
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
    In the Certification of Commercial Equipment Final Rule published 
in May 2014, DOE amended existing regulations governing compliance 
certification for a variety of commercial equipment covered by EPCA, 
which affected CUAC and CUHP manufacturers. 79 FR 25486, 25502 (May 5, 
2014). DOE amends its certification requirements to specify additional 
reporting requirements. DOE does not believe that these additions to 
the certification requirements constitute a significant additional 
burden upon respondents, as they require minimal additional information 
over what manufacturers must already report in their certification 
reports. DOE believes that the Certification of Commercial Equipment 
Final Rule provides an accurate estimate of the existing burden on 
respondents and would continue to apply to the relevant aspects of the 
proposed amendments. 79 FR 25496-25498 (detailing burden estimates and 
indicating an average burden of approximately 30 hours per company on 
an annual basis). OMB has approved the revised information collection 
for DOE's certification and recordkeeping requirements. 80 FR 5099 
(January 30, 2015).
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for CUACs and 
CUHPs. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions 
that are categorically excluded from review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's 
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule 
amends an existing rule without affecting the amount, quality or 
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any 
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical 
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any 
rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing 
the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final 
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect 
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal 
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the 
equipment that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition 
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on 
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is 
required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the

[[Page 79667]]

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) 
clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine 
whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. 
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the 
extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards 
of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), 
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE 
has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 
U.S.C. 7101, DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy 
Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy 
Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 
32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule 
authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    While this final rule does not require use of any commercial 
standards not already incorporated by reference for the relevant 
section of the code of federal regulations, DOE consulted with both DOJ 
and FTC and received no comments.

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference ANSI/AHRI 
Standard 340/360-2007, ``2007 Standard for Performance Rating of 
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 
Equipment'' (including Addenda 1 and 2) into part 429 and appendix A to 
subpart F of part 431. This testing standard details various provisions 
regarding the testing and calculation of results for the equipment 
addressed by this rulemaking. The adoption of these provisions are 
necessary to ensure consistent and repeatable test results. Copies of 
this testing standard are readily available from the Air-Conditioning, 
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, 
Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or through its Web site at http://www.ahrinet.org.

[[Page 79668]]

    DOE is also incorporating by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-
2009, ``Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' into appendix A to subpart F of 
part 431. This testing standard details test methods for the equipment 
addressed by this rulemaking. The adoption of these provisions are 
necessary to ensure consistent and repeatable test results. Copies of 
this testing standard are readily available from the American Society 
of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie 
Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, (800) 527-4723, or through its Web site 
at https://www.ashrae.org.

N. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

O. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

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

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Commercial equipment, Confidential business information, Energy 
conservation, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Commercial equipment, 
Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 11, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 
431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 the Code of Federal 
Regulations as set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:


    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
2. Amend Sec.  429.4 by redesignating paragraph (c) as (d) and adding 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.4  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or 
go to: http://www.ahrinet.org.
    (1) ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-2007, (``AHRI-340/360-2007''), 2007 
Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary 
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment, with Addenda 1 and 2, ANSI 
approved October 27, 2011, IBR approved for Sec.  429.43.
    (2) [Reserved]
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  429.43 by adding paragraph (a)(1)(iv) and revising 
paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(2)(i) and (ii), and (b)(4)(i) and (ii) to read 
as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) For air-cooled commercial package air-conditioning and heating 
equipment, the represented value of cooling capacity must be a self-
declared value corresponding to the nearest appropriate Btu/h multiple 
according to Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  429.4) that is no less than 95 percent of the mean 
of the capacities measured for the units in the sample selected as 
described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. (i) In lieu of 
testing, a represented value of efficiency or consumption for a basic 
model of commercial HVAC equipment must be determined through the 
application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  429.70 and 
the provisions of this section, where:
    (A) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of 
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower 
values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM and 
less than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model; and
    (B) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of the AEDM and 
greater than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model.
    (ii) For air-cooled commercial package air-conditioning and heating 
equipment, the represented value of cooling capacity must be the 
cooling capacity output simulated by the AEDM as described in paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section.
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Commercial package air-conditioning equipment (except 
commercial package air conditioning equipment that is air-cooled with a 
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h):
    (A) When certifying compliance with an EER standard: the energy 
efficiency ratio (EER in British thermal units per Watt-hour (Btu/Wh)), 
the rated cooling capacity in British thermal units per hour (Btu/h), 
and the type(s) of heating used by the basic model (e.g., electric, 
gas, hydronic, none).
    (B) When certifying compliance with an IEER standard: the 
integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER in British thermal units per 
Watt-hour (Btu/Wh)), the rated cooling capacity in British thermal 
units per hour (Btu/h), and the type(s) of heating used by the basic 
model (e.g., electric, gas, hydronic, none).
    (ii) Commercial package heating equipment (except commercial 
package heating equipment that is air-cooled with a cooling capacity 
less than 65,000 Btu/h):
    (A) When certifying compliance with an EER standard: the energy 
efficiency ratio (EER in British thermal units per Watt-hour (Btu/Wh)), 
the coefficient of performance (COP), the rated cooling capacity in 
British thermal units per hour (Btu/h), and the type(s) of heating used 
by the basic model (e.g., electric, gas, hydronic, none).
    (B) When certifying compliance an IEER standard: the integrated 
energy efficiency ratio (IEER in British thermal units per Watt-hour 
(Btu/Wh)), the coefficient of performance (COP), the rated cooling 
capacity in British thermal units per hour (Btu/h), and the type(s) of 
heating used by the basic model (e.g., electric, gas, hydronic, none).
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Commercial package air-conditioning equipment (except 
commercial package air conditioning equipment that is air-cooled with a 
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h): rated indoor airflow in 
standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) for each fan coil; water flow 
rate in gallons per minute (gpm) for water-cooled units only; rated 
external static pressure in inches of water; frequency or control set

[[Page 79669]]

points for variable speed components (e.g., compressors, VFDs); 
required dip switch/control settings for step or variable components; a 
statement whether the model will operate at test conditions without 
manufacturer programming; any additional testing instructions, if 
applicable; and if a variety of motors/drive kits are offered for sale 
as options in the basic model to account for varying installation 
requirements, the model number and specifications of the motor (to 
include efficiency, horsepower, open/closed, and number of poles) and 
the drive kit, including settings, associated with that specific motor 
that were used to determine the certified rating. When certifying 
compliance with an IEER standard, rated indoor airflow in SCFM for each 
part-load point used in the IEER calculation and any special 
instructions required to obtain operation at each part-load point, such 
as frequency or control set points for variable speed components (e.g., 
compressors, VFDs), dip switch/control settings for step or variable 
components, or any additional applicable testing instructions, are also 
required.
    (ii) Commercial package heating equipment (except commercial 
package heating equipment that is air-cooled with a cooling capacity 
less than 65,000 Btu/h): The rated heating capacity in British thermal 
units per hour (Btu/h); rated indoor airflow in standard cubic feet per 
minute (SCFM) for each fan coil (in cooling mode); rated airflow in 
SCFM for each fan coil in heating mode if the unit is designed to 
operate with different airflow rates for cooling and heating mode; 
water flow rate in gallons per minute (gpm) for water cooled units 
only; rated external static pressure in inches of water; frequency or 
control set points for variable speed components (e.g., compressors, 
VFDs); required dip switch/control settings for step or variable 
components; a statement whether the model will operate at test 
conditions without manufacturer programming; any additional testing 
instructions, if applicable; and if a variety of motors/drive kits are 
offered for sale as options in the basic model to account for varying 
installation requirements, the model number and specifications of the 
motor (to include efficiency, horsepower, open/closed, and number of 
poles) and the drive kit, including settings, associated with that 
specific motor that were used to determine the certified rating. When 
certifying compliance with an IEER standard, rated indoor airflow in 
SCFM for each part-load point used in the IEER calculation and any 
special instructions required to obtain operation at each part-load 
point, such as frequency or control set points for variable speed 
components (e.g., compressors, VFDs), dip switch/control settings for 
step or variable components, or any additional applicable testing 
instructions, are also required.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  429.134 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.134  Product-specific enforcement provisions.

* * * * *
    (g) Air-cooled small (=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h), 
large (=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h), and very large 
(=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h) commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment--verification of cooling capacity. 
The cooling capacity of each tested unit of the basic model will be 
measured pursuant to the test requirements of part 431 of this chapter. 
The mean of the measurement(s) will be used to determine the applicable 
standards for purposes of compliance.

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

0
5. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
6. Amend Sec.  431.92 by adding a definition of ``Integrated energy 
efficiency ratio, or IEER,'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    Integrated energy efficiency ratio, or IEER, means a weighted 
average calculation of mechanical cooling EERs determined for four load 
levels and corresponding rating conditions, as measured in appendix A 
of this subpart, expressed in Btu/watt-hour.
* * * * *


Sec.  431.95  [Amended]

0
7. Amend Sec.  431.95 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (b)(4);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(5) through (8) as (b)(4) through (7), 
respectively; and
0
c. Adding ``and appendix A of this subpart'' to the end of newly 
redesignated paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(2).


0
8. Amend Sec.  431.96 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) and Table 1 
to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Determine the energy efficiency of each type of covered 
equipment by conducting the test procedure(s) listed in Table 1 of this 
section along with any additional testing provisions set forth in 
paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section and appendix A to this 
subpart, that apply to the energy efficiency descriptor for that 
equipment, category, and cooling capacity. The omitted sections of the 
test procedures listed in Table 1 of this section must not be used.
* * * * *

                                Table 1 to Sec.   431.96--Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                      Additional test
                                                                                                                  Use tests,        procedure provisions
           Equipment type                   Category            Cooling capacity       Energy efficiency       conditions, and      as indicated in the
                                                                                           descriptor         procedures \1\ in     listed paragraphs of
                                                                                                                                        this section
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Package Air-        Air-Cooled, 3-Phase,    <65,000 Btu/h.........  SEER and HSPF........  AHRI 210/240-2008      Paragraphs (c) and
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment.  AC and HP.                                                             (omit section 6.5).    (e).
                                     Air-Cooled AC and HP..  >=65,000 Btu/h and      EER, IEER, and COP...  Appendix A to this     None.
                                                              <135,000 Btu/h.                                subpart.
                                     Water-Cooled and        <65,000 Btu/h.........  EER..................  AHRI 210/240-2008      Paragraphs (c) and
                                      Evaporatively-Cooled                                                   (omit section 6.5).    (e).
                                      AC.

[[Page 79670]]

 
                                                             >=65,000 Btu/h and      EER..................  AHRI 340/360-2007      Paragraphs (c) and
                                                              <135,000 Btu/h.                                (omit section 6.3).    (e).
                                     Water-Source HP.......  <135,000 Btu/h........  EER and COP..........  ISO Standard 13256-1   Paragraph (e).
                                                                                                             (1998).
Large Commercial Package Air-        Air-Cooled AC and HP..  >=135,000 Btu/h and     EER, IEER and COP....  Appendix A to this     None.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment.                          <240,000 Btu/h.                                subpart.
                                     Water-Cooled and        >=135,000 Btu/h and     EER..................  AHRI 340/360-2007      Paragraphs (c) and
                                      Evaporatively-Cooled    <240,000 Btu/h.                                (omit section 6.3).    (e).
                                      AC.
Very Large Commercial Package Air-   Air-Cooled AC and HP..  >=240,000 Btu/h and     EER, IEER and COP....  Appendix A to this     None.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment.                          <760,000 Btu/h.                                subpart.
                                     Water-Cooled and        >=240,000 Btu/h and     EER..................  AHRI 340/360-2007      Paragraphs (c) and
                                      Evaporatively-Cooled    <760,000 Btu/h.                                (omit section 6.3).    (e).
                                      AC.
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners   AC and HP.............  <760,000 Btu/h........  EER and COP..........  Paragraph (g) of this  Paragraphs (c), (e),
 and Heat Pumps.                                                                                             section.               and (g).
Computer Room Air Conditioners.....  AC....................  <65,000 Btu/h.........  SCOP.................  ASHRAE 127-2007 (omit  Paragraphs (c) and
                                                                                                             section 5.11).         (e).
                                                             >=65,000 Btu/h and      SCOP.................  ASHRAE 127-2007 (omit  Paragraphs (c) and
                                                              <760,000 Btu/h.                                section 5.11).         (e).
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-     AC....................  <65,000 Btu/h (3-       SEER.................  AHRI 1230-2010 (omit   Paragraphs (c), (d),
 split Systems.                                               phase).                                        sections 5.1.2 and     (e), and (f).
                                                                                                             6.6).
                                                             >=65,000 Btu/h and      EER..................  AHRI 1230-2010 (omit   Paragraphs (c), (d),
                                                              <760,000 Btu/h.                                sections 5.1.2 and     (e), and (f).
                                                                                                             6.6).
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-     HP....................  <65,000 Btu/h (3-       SEER and HSPF........  AHRI 1230-2010 (omit   Paragraphs (c), (d),
 split Systems, Air-cooled.                                   phase).                                        sections 5.1.2 and     (e), and (f).
                                                                                                             6.6).
                                                             >=65,000 Btu/h and      EER and COP..........  AHRI 1230-2010 (omit   Paragraphs (c), (d),
                                                              <760,000 Btu/h.                                sections 5.1.2 and     (e), and (f).
                                                                                                             6.6).
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-     HP....................  <760,000 Btu/h........  EER and COP..........  AHRI 1230-2010 (omit   Paragraphs (c), (d),
 split Systems, Water-source.                                                                                sections 5.1.2 and     (e), and (f).
                                                                                                             6.6).
Single Package Vertical Air          AC and HP.............  <760,000 Btu/h........  EER and COP..........  AHRI 390-2003 (omit    Paragraphs (c) and
 Conditioners and Single Package                                                                             section 6.4).          (e).
 Vertical Heat Pumps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference; see Sec.   431.95.

    (c) Optional break-in period for tests conducted using AHRI 210/
240-2008, AHRI 390-2003, AHRI 1230-2010, and ASHRAE 127-2007. 
Manufacturers may optionally specify a ``break-in'' period, not to 
exceed 20 hours, to operate the equipment under test prior to 
conducting the test method specified by AHRI 210/240-2008, AHRI 390-
2003, AHRI 1230-2010, or ASHRAE 127-2007 (incorporated by reference; 
see Sec.  431.95). A manufacturer who elects to use an optional 
compressor break-in period in its certification testing should record 
this information (including the duration) in the test data underlying 
the certified ratings that is required to be maintained under 10 CFR 
429.71.
* * * * *

0
9. Add appendix A to subpart F of part 431 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart F of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the 
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Air-Cooled Small (>=65,000 Btu/h), 
Large, and Very Large Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating 
Equipment

    Note: Prior to December 19, 2016, representations with respect 
to the energy use or efficiency of air-cooled small, large, and very 
large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, 
including compliance certifications, must be based on testing 
conducted in accordance with either Table 1 to Sec.  431.96 as it 
now appears or Table 1 to Sec.  431.96 as it appeared in subpart F 
of this part, in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as 
of January 1, 2015. After December 19, 2016, representations with 
respect to energy use or efficiency of air-cooled small, large, and 
very large commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment, including compliance certifications, must be based on 
testing conducted in accordance with Table 1 to Sec.  431.96 as it 
now appears.
    (1) Cooling mode test method. The test method for cooling mode 
consists of the methods and conditions in AHRI 340/360-2007 sections 
3, 4, and 6 (omitting section

[[Page 79671]]

6.3) (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  431.95), and in ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  431.95). In 
case of a conflict between AHRI 340/360-2007 or ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 
and the CFR, the CFR provisions control.
    (2) Heating mode test method. The test method for heating mode 
consists of the methods and conditions in AHRI 340/360-2007 sections 
3, 4, and 6 (omitting section 6.3) (incorporated by reference; see 
Sec.  431.95), and in ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  431.95). In case of a conflict between AHRI 
340/360-2007 or ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 and the CFR, the CFR provisions 
control.
    (3) Minimum external static pressure. Use the certified cooling 
capacity for the basic model to choose the minimum external static 
pressure found in table 5 of section 6 of AHRI 340/360-2007 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  431.95) for testing.
    (4) Optional break-in period. Manufacturers may optionally 
specify a ``break-in'' period, not to exceed 20 hours, to operate 
the equipment under test prior to conducting the test method in 
appendix A of this part. A manufacturer who elects to use an 
optional compressor break-in period in its certification testing 
must record this information (including the duration) as part of the 
information in the supplemental testing instructions under 10 CFR 
429.43.
    (5) Additional provisions for equipment set-up. The only 
additional specifications that may be used in setting up a unit for 
test are those set forth in the installation and operation manual 
shipped with the unit. Each unit should be set up for test in 
accordance with the manufacturer installation and operation manuals. 
Paragraphs (5)(i) through (ii) of this section provide 
specifications for addressing key information typically found in the 
installation and operation manuals.
    (i) If a manufacturer specifies a range of superheat, sub-
cooling, and/or refrigerant pressure in its installation and 
operation manual for a given basic model, any value(s) within that 
range may be used to determine refrigerant charge or mass of 
refrigerant, unless the manufacturer clearly specifies a rating 
value in its installation and operation manual, in which case the 
specified rating value shall be used.
    (ii) The airflow rate used for testing must be that set forth in 
the installation and operation manuals being shipped to the customer 
with the basic model and clearly identified as that used to generate 
the DOE performance ratings. If a certified airflow value for 
testing is not clearly identified, a value of 400 standard cubic 
feet per minute (scfm) per ton shall be used.
    (6) Indoor airflow testing and adjustment. (i) When testing 
full-capacity cooling operation at the required external static 
pressure condition, the full-load indoor airflow rate must be within 
+/- 3 percent of the certified-rated airflow at full-capacity 
cooling operation. If the indoor airflow rate at the required 
minimum external pressure is outside the +/- 3-percent tolerance, 
the unit and/or test setup must be adjusted such that both the 
airflow and ESP are within the required tolerances. This process may 
include, but is not limited to, adjusting any adjustable motor 
sheaves, adjusting variable drive settings, or adjusting the code 
tester fan.
    (ii) When testing other than full-capacity cooling operation 
using the full-load indoor airflow rate (e.g., full-load heating), 
the full-load indoor airflow rate must be within +/- 3 percent of 
the certified-rated full-load cooling airflow (without regard to the 
resulting external static pressure), unless the unit is designed to 
operate at a different airflow for cooling and heating mode. If 
necessary, a test facility setup may be made in order to maintain 
airflow within the required tolerance; however, no adjustments to 
the unit under test may be made.
    (7) Condenser head pressure controls. Condenser head pressure 
controls, if typically shipped with units of the basic model by the 
manufacturer or available as an option to the basic model, must be 
active during testing.
    (8) Standard CFM. In the referenced sections of AHRI 340/360-
2007 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  431.95), all instances of 
CFM refer to standard CFM (SCFM). Likewise, all references to 
airflow or air quantity refer to standard airflow and standard air 
quantity.
    (9) Capacity rating at part-load. When testing to determine EER 
for the part-load rating points (i.e. 75-percent load, 50-percent 
load, and 25-percent load), if the measured capacity expressed as a 
percent of full-load capacity for a given part-load test is within 
three percent above or below the target part-load percentage, the 
EER calculated for the test may be used without any interpolation to 
determine IEER.
    (10) Condenser air inlet temperature for part-load testing. When 
testing to determine EER for the part-load rating points (i.e. 75-
percent load, 50-percent load, and 25-percent load), the condenser 
air inlet temperature shall be calculated (using the equation in 
Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2007; incorporated by reference; see Sec.  
431.95) for the target percent load rather than for the percent load 
measured in the test. Table 1 of this appendix shows the condenser 
air inlet temperature corresponding with each target percent load, 
as calculated using the equation in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2007.

   Table 1 to Appendix A to Subpart F of Part 431--Condenser Air Inlet
                    Temperatures for Part-Load Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Condenser air
                                                              inlet
                Target percent load (%)                    temperature
                                                             ([deg]F)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25.....................................................             65
50.....................................................             68
75.....................................................             81.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[FR Doc. 2015-31906 Filed 12-22-15; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P