[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31743-31754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10911]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 31743]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015]


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures and Energy 
Conservation Standards for Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Heat 
Pumps

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is considering 
potential amendments to the test procedures for air-cooled commercial 
package air conditioners and heat pumps with a rated cooling capacity 
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h, evaporatively-cooled commercial 
package air conditioners, and water-cooled commercial package air 
conditioners. DOE is also considering whether to amend the current 
energy conservation standards for air-cooled commercial package air 
conditioners and heat pumps with a rated cooling capacity greater than 
or equal to 65,000 Btu/h. Through this request for information 
(``RFI''), DOE seeks data and information regarding issues pertinent to 
whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply 
with the requirement that the test procedure produces results that 
measure energy use during a representative average use cycle for the 
equipment without being unduly burdensome to conduct, or reduce testing 
burden. DOE also welcomes written comments from the public on any 
subject within the scope of this document (including those topics not 
specifically raised), as well as the submission of data and other 
relevant information.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be 
accepted on or before June 24, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov,under docket 
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, 
identified by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015, by any of the 
following methods:
    (1) Email: [email protected]. Include the 
docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015 in the subject line of the message.
    (2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    (3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case 
it is not necessary to include printed copies. Include docket number 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015 in the subject line of the message.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section III of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some 
documents listed in the index, such as those containing information 
that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit 
comments through www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-7335. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. 
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other 
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Test Procedure
    2. Standards
    C. Standards Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
    A. Test Procedure
    1. External Static Pressure Levels
    2. Heating Mode
    3. Potential Revisions to IEER Metric
    4. Power Consumption of Heat Rejection Components for WCUACs
    B. Energy Conservation Standards
    1. Alternative Refrigerants
    2. Shipments
III. Submission of Comments

I. Introduction

    Commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment is 
included in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which DOE is 
authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and 
test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D)) This equipment includes 
air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners with a rated cooling 
capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 British thermal units per hour 
(``Btu/h'') (``ACUACs''), air-cooled commercial unitary heat pumps with 
a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h 
(``ACUHPs''), evaporatively-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners 
(``ECUACs''), and water-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners 
(``WCUACs''), which are

[[Page 31744]]

all the subject of this RFI.\1\ (ACUACs, ACUHPs, ECUACs, and WCUACs are 
referred to collectively as ``CUACs and CUHPs'' in this document). The 
current DOE test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs are codified in Table 1 
at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, 
subpart F, section 96. See 10 CFR 431.96. The current Federal energy 
conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs are established at 10 CFR 
431.97(b). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish 
and amend test procedures and energy conservation standards for CUACs 
and CUHPs, as well as relevant background information regarding DOE's 
considerations of test procedures and standards for this equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While ACUACs with a rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 
Btu/h are included in the broader category of CUACs, they are not 
addressed in this RFI. The test procedure and standards for those 
smaller capacity ACUACs are being addressed in separate rulemakings. 
See Docket Nos. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0031 and EERE-2022-BT-STD-0008, 
respectively. All references to CUACs and CUHPs made in this 
document exclude these lower capacity ACUACs.
    Additionally, double-duct air conditioners and heat pumps (i.e., 
double-duct systems) are included in the broader category of ACUACs. 
While the test procedure for double-duct systems is addressed in 
this document, the standards for them are not. DOE will address 
standards for double-duct systems in a future rulemaking. 
Accordingly, all references to standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs 
appearing in this document exclude double-duct systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\2\ 
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of 
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \3\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title 
IV, Sec.  441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for 
Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions 
designed to improve energy efficiency. This covered equipment includes 
small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and 
heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D)) Commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment includes CUACs and CUHPs, which are 
the subject of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant 
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test 
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), 
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to 
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
    The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that 
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) 
Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable 
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making representations about the 
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses 
these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with 
relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(b)(2)(D))
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA also sets forth the general criteria and 
procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test 
procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedure 
prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to 
produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or 
estimated operating cost of covered equipment during a representative 
average use cycle and requires that test procedures not be unduly 
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
    EPCA requires that the test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs be those 
generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures 
developed or recognized by the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 
Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') or by the American Society of 
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE''), as 
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings 
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings'' (``ASHRAE Standard 90.1''). (42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry test procedure is amended, 
DOE must update its test procedure to be consistent with the amended 
industry test procedure, unless DOE determines, by rule published in 
the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, 
that the amended test procedure would not meet the requirements in 42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to representative use and test 
burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C))
    EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate 
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including CUACs and 
CUHPs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more 
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test 
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy 
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use 
cycle. (42 U.S.C 6314(a)(1))
    In addition, if the Secretary determines that a test procedure 
amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test 
procedures in the Federal Register, and afford interested persons an 
opportunity (of not less than 45 days' duration) to present oral and 
written data, views, and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42 
U.S.C 6314(b)) If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not 
appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test 
procedures. (42 U.S.C 6314(a)(1))
    In EPCA, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPAct'') 
(Pub. L. 102-486), Congress initially set mandatory energy conservation 
standards for certain types of commercial heating, air-conditioning, 
and water-heating equipment. (106 Stat. 2776, 2810-2814) Specifically, 
the statute set standards for small, large, and very large commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment, packaged terminal air 
conditioners (``PTACs'') and packaged terminal heat pumps (``PTHPs''), 
warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters, 
instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks. Id. 
In initially establishing Federal energy conservation standards, the 
EPAct amendments to EPCA prescribed standards at levels that generally 
corresponded to the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as in effect on 
October 24, 1992 (i.e., the 1989 edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1), for 
each type of covered equipment listed.
    In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy 
efficiency benefits, Congress further directed DOE through EPCA to 
consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation standard for 
each type of covered equipment listed, each time ASHRAE amends Standard 
90.1 with respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) When 
triggered in this manner, DOE must undertake and

[[Page 31745]]

publish an analysis of the energy savings potential of amended energy 
efficiency standards, and amend the Federal standards to establish a 
uniform national standard at the minimum level specified in the amended 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines that there is clear and 
convincing evidence to support a determination that a more-stringent 
standard level as a national standard would produce significant 
additional energy savings and be technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)-(ii)) If DOE 
decides to adopt as a national standard the minimum efficiency levels 
specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such 
standard not later than 18 months after publication of the amended 
industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE 
determines, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that a more-
stringent uniform national standard would result in significant 
additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and 
economically justified, then DOE must establish such more-stringent 
uniform national standard not later than 30 months after publication of 
the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and 
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B))
    Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term ``amended'' in 
the context of what type of revision to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would 
trigger DOE's obligation, DOE's longstanding interpretation has been 
that the statutory trigger is an amendment to the standard applicable 
to that equipment under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that increases the energy 
efficiency level for that equipment. See 72 FR 10038, 10042 (March 7, 
2007). In other words, if the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the 
energy efficiency level unchanged (or lowers the energy efficiency 
level), as compared to the energy efficiency level specified by the 
uniform national standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, regardless of the 
other amendments made to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirement (e.g., 
the inclusion of an additional metric), DOE has stated that it does not 
have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to consider a higher 
standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). See 74 
FR 36312, 36313 (July 22, 2009) and 77 FR 28928, 28937 (May 16, 2012). 
However, DOE notes that Congress adopted amendments to these provisions 
related to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 equipment under the American Energy 
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 
2012)) (``AEMTCA''). In relevant part, DOE is prompted to act whenever 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to ``the standard levels 
or design requirements applicable under that standard'' to any of the 
enumerated types of commercial air conditioning, heating, or water 
heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i))
    EPCA does not detail the exact type of amendment that serves as a 
triggering event. However, DOE has considered whether its obligation is 
triggered in the context of whether the specific ASHRAE Standard 90.1 
requirement on which the most current Federal requirement is based is 
amended (i.e., the regulatory metric or design requirement). For 
example, if an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 changed the metric for 
the standard on which the Federal requirement was based, DOE would 
perform a crosswalk analysis to determine whether the amended metric 
under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 resulted in an energy efficiency level that 
was more stringent than the current DOE standard. Conversely, if an 
amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 were to add an additional metric by 
which a class of equipment is to be evaluated, but did not amend the 
requirement that is in terms of the metric on which the Federal 
requirement was based, DOE would not consider its obligation triggered.
    In those situations where ASHRAE has not acted to amend the levels 
in Standard 90.1 for the equipment types enumerated in the statute, 
EPCA also provides for a 6-year-lookback to consider the potential for 
amending the uniform national standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) 
Specifically, pursuant to the amendments to EPCA under AEMTCA, DOE is 
required to conduct an evaluation of each class of covered equipment in 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 ``every 6 years'' to determine whether the 
applicable energy conservation standards need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE must publish either a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (``NOPR'') to propose amended standards or a notification of 
determination that existing standards do not need to be amended. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) In proposing new standards under the 6- year 
review, DOE must undertake the same considerations as if it were 
adopting a standard that is more stringent than an amendment to ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II)) This is a separate 
statutory review obligation, as differentiated from the obligation 
triggered by an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment. While the statute 
continues to defer to ASHRAE's lead on covered equipment subject to 
Standard 90.1, it does allow for a comprehensive review of all such 
equipment and the potential for adopting more-stringent standards, 
where supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence. That 
is, DOE interprets ASHRAE's not amending Standard 90.1 with respect to 
a product or equipment type as ASHRAE's determination that the standard 
applicable to that product or equipment type is already at an 
appropriate level of stringency, and DOE will not amend that standard 
unless there is clear and convincing evidence that a more stringent 
level is justified. As a preliminary step in the process of reviewing 
the changes to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA directs DOE to publish in the 
Federal Register for public comment an analysis of the energy savings 
potential of amended standards within 180 days after ASHRAE Standard 
90.1 is amended with respect to any of the covered equipment specified 
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))

B. Background

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

[[Page 31746]]

test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity of 
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/ h specified in 10 CFR 431.96 
incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 (excluding Section 6.3 
of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 and including paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 
CFR 431.96). The DOE test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated 
cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ h incorporates by reference 
ANSI/AHRI Standard 210/240-2008, ``2008 Standard for Performance Rating 
of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment,'' 
approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011, and updated by addendum 1 in June 
2011 and addendum 2 in March 2012 (``ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008'').
    On October 26, 2016, ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016, 
which included updates to the test procedure references for CUACs and 
CUHPs (excluding ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity less 
than 65,000 Btu/h) to reference AHRI Standard 340/360-2015, ``2015 
Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary 
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 340/360-2015''). On 
July 25, 2017, DOE published an RFI (``July 2017 TP RFI'') to collect 
information and data to consider amendments to DOE's test procedures 
for certain categories of commercial package air conditioning and 
heating equipment, including CUACs and CUHPs. 82 FR 34427. As part of 
the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE identified several aspects of the currently 
applicable Federal test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs that might 
warrant modifications, in particular: Incorporation by reference of the 
most recent version of the relevant industry standard(s); efficiency 
metrics and calculations; and clarification of test methods. 82 FR 
34427, 34439-34448. DOE also requested comment on any additional topics 
that may inform DOE's decisions in a future test procedure rulemaking, 
including methods to reduce regulatory burden while ensuring the 
procedures' accuracies. 82 FR 34427, 34448.
    On October 24, 2019, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2019, which 
updated the AHRI Standard 340/360 reference to the 2019 edition, ``2019 
Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary 
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 340/360-2019''). On 
January 25, 2022, AHRI approved an updated version of its test method 
for CUACs and CUHPs, with the publication of AHRI Standard 340/360-
2022, ``2022 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and 
Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 
340/360-2022'').
    For ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE 90.1-2016 references ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008. After 
the publication of the July 2017 TP RFI, AHRI published AHRI Standard 
210/240-2017, ``2017 Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary Air-
conditioning & Air-source Heat Pump Equipment,'' (``AHRI 210/240-
2017''). ASHRAE 90.1-2019 references AHRI 210/240-2017 as the test 
procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs. After the publication of AHRI 210/240-
2017, AHRI released two updates to the industry standard: (1) AHRI 
Standard 210/240-2017 with Addendum 1, ``2017 Standard for Performance 
Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning & Air-source Heat Pump Equipment,'' 
(``AHRI 210/240-2017 with Addendum 1''), which was published in April 
2019; and (2) AHRI Standard 210/240-2023, ``2023 Standard for 
Performance Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning & Air-source Heat Pump 
Equipment,'' (``AHRI 210/240-2023''), which was published in May 2020.
    Notably, ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h were removed from the scope of AHRI 210/240-2023. ECUACs 
and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h were 
instead included in the scope of AHRI 340/360-2022.
    The updates in AHRI 340/360-2022, AHRI 210/240-2023, as well as 
comments received in the interim that relate to the CUAC and CUHP test 
procedure have prompted DOE to publish this RFI to investigate 
additional aspects of the CUAC and CUHP test procedure. Upon further 
evaluation, DOE has identified several issues that would benefit from 
further comment. DOE discusses these topics in section II.A of this 
document.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In this RFI, DOE only summarizes comments received in 
response to the July 2017 TP RFI that relate to the topics of 
interest within this document. All other comments, which relate to 
different topics, will be summarized in a subsequent document that 
follows this RFI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Standards
    In a direct final rule published on January 15, 2016, (``January 
2016 direct final rule''), DOE adopted amended standards for ACUACs, 
and ACUHPs. 81 FR 2420. For ACUACs and ACUHPs, DOE adopted two tiers of 
amended standards with staggered compliance dates and changed the 
regulated cooling metric from energy efficiency ratio (``EER'') to 
integrated energy efficiency ratio (``IEER'').\5\ 81 FR 2420, 2531-
2532. The first tier of amended standards--with a compliance date of 
January 1, 2018--are equivalent to the IEER minimum efficiency levels 
for ACUACs and ACUHPs in ASHRAE 90.1-2016. The second tier of amended 
standards--with a compliance date of January 1, 2023--are more 
stringent than the levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EER metric only accounts for the efficiency of the 
equipment operating at full load. The IEER metric factors in the 
efficiency of operating at part loads of 75 percent, 50 percent, and 
25 percent of capacity, as well as the efficiency at full load. This 
is accomplished by weighting the full-load and part-load 
efficiencies with the average amount of time operating at each 
loading point. Additionally, IEER incorporates reduced condenser 
temperatures (i.e., reduced outdoor ambient temperatures) for part-
load operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current energy conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs are 
codified in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.97.
    Since publication of the January 2016 direct final rule, ASHRAE 
published an updated version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (``ASHRAE 90.1-
2019''), which updated the minimum efficiency levels for ACUACs and 
ACUHPs to align with those adopted by DOE in the January 2016 direct 
final rule (i.e., specifying two tiers of minimum levels for ACUACs and 
ACUHPs, with a 2023 compliance date for the second tier).
    As a preliminary step in the process of reviewing the standards for 
ACUACs and ACUHPs, DOE published an RFI on May 12, 2020 (``May 2020 ECS 
RFI'') to request data and information pursuant to its 6-year-lookback 
review. 85 FR 27941. The May 2020 ECS RFI sought information to help 
DOE inform its decisions, consistent with its obligations under EPCA. 
DOE received multiple comments from stakeholders in response to the May 
2020 ECS RFI that prompted DOE to publish this RFI to investigate 
additional aspects of the ACUAC and ACUHP standards. Upon further 
evaluation, DOE has identified several issues that would benefit from 
further comment. DOE discusses these topics (including any comments 
received in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI that are related to these 
topics) in section II.B of this document. DOE also received comments in 
response to the May 2020 ECS RFI that relate to the CUAC and CUHP test 
procedure, which are addressed in section in section II.A of this 
document.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In this RFI, DOE only summarizes comments received in 
response to the May 2020 ECS RFI that relate to the topics of 
interest within this RFI. All other comments received, which relate 
to different topics, will be summarized and addressed in a 
subsequent document that follows this RFI.

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

[[Page 31747]]

C. Standards Rulemaking Process

    As discussed, DOE is required to conduct an evaluation of each 
class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 every six years. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) In making a determination of whether standards 
for such equipment need to be amended, DOE must follow specific 
statutory criteria. DOE must evaluate whether amended Federal standards 
would result in significant additional conservation of energy and are 
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(C)(i) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended 
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of 
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\7\ For 
example, the United States has now rejoined the Paris Agreement on 
February 19, 2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has 
committed to reducing greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions in order to 
limit the rise in mean global temperature.\8\ As such, energy savings 
that reduce GHG emission have taken on greater importance. 
Additionally, some covered products and equipment have most of their 
energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The 
impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more 
pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating 
the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in 
primary energy and full-fuel cycle (``FFC'') effects for different 
covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings 
are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy 
consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in 
distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and 
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), 
and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy 
conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of 
energy savings on a case-by-case basis. To determine whether a standard 
is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the 
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the 
greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration 
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures 
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR 
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
    \8\ See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021) 
(``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and 
consumers of the affected products;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or 
maintenance expenses;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products 
likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
    DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting 
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows 
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the 
requirements within EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 
22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay 
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction 
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a 
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is 
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's 
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other 
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that 
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying 
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse 
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize 
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of 
further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach 
prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where 
appropriate and permissible by law.

                           Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           EPCA requirement                                    Corresponding DOE analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings............   Shipments Analysis.
                                         National Impact Analysis.
                                         Energy and Water Use Determination.
Technological Feasibility.............   Market and Technology Assessment.
                                         Screening Analysis.
                                         Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
    1. 1. Economic Impact on             Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
     Manufacturers and Consumers.        Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
                                         Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis.
                                         Shipments Analysis.
    2. 2. Lifetime Operating Cost        Markups for Product Price Determination.
     Savings Compared to Increased       Energy and Water Use Determination.
     Cost for the Product.               Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
    3. 3. Total Projected Energy         Shipments Analysis.
     Savings.                            National Impact Analysis.
    4. 4. Impact on Utility or           Screening Analysis.
     Performance.                        Engineering Analysis.
    5. 5. Impact of Any Lessening of     Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
     Competition.
    6. 6. Need for National Energy and   Shipments Analysis.
     Water Conservation.                 National Impact Analysis.
    7. 7. Other Factors the Secretary    Employment Impact Analysis.
     Considers Relevant.                 Utility Impact Analysis.
                                         Emissions Analysis.
                                         Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.\9\

[[Page 31748]]

 
                                         Regulatory Impact Analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document 
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the 
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely 
to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for ACUACs 
and ACUHPs.

II. Request for Information and Comments

A. Test Procedure

    In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues 
on which it seeks input to determine whether, and if so how, amended 
test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs would (1) more accurately or fully 
comply with the requirements in EPCA that test procedures be reasonably 
designed to produce test results which reflect energy use during a 
representative average use cycle, without being unduly burdensome to 
conduct (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)); or (2) reduce testing burden.
1. External Static Pressure Levels
    ESP requirements simulate the resistance that the indoor fan must 
overcome from the air distribution system when installed in the field. 
The indoor ESP requirements for CUACs and CUHPs in the current DOE test 
procedure, through reference to AHRI 210/240-2008 and AHRI 340/360-
2007, are shown in Table II.1 of this document. These indoor ESP 
requirements align with those in Table 7 of AHRI 340/360-2022, the most 
up to date industry test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 
Btu/h were removed from the scope of the most recent version of AHRI 
210/240, AHRI 210/240-2023, and were instead included in AHRI 340/
360-2022.

Table II.1--Indoor ESP Requirements for CUACs and CUHPs per AHRI 210/240-
                       2008 and AHRI 340/360-2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               ESP (in
              Rated cooling capacity (kBtu/h)                    H2O)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 28.8 *................................................         0.10
29 to 42.5 *...............................................         0.15
43 to 64.5 *...............................................         0.20
65 to 70...................................................         0.20
71 to 105..................................................         0.25
106 to 134.................................................         0.30
135 to 210.................................................         0.35
211 to 280.................................................         0.40
281 to 350.................................................         0.45
351 to 400.................................................         0.55
401 to 500.................................................         0.65
501 and greater............................................         0.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Only applicable for evaporatively and water-cooled units.

    In 2015, the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory 
Committee (``ASRAC'') working group for commercial package air 
conditioners (``Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group'') 
agreed that the energy use analysis conducted for the January 2016 
direct final rule should use higher ESPs than those specified in the 
DOE test procedure to help better simulate field applications. 81 FR 
2420, 2470. Specifically, the Commercial Package Air Conditioners 
Working Group recommended ESPs of 0.75 and 1.25 in H2O, 
which corresponded to the ESPs used in modified building simulations of 
the cooling load. Id. The ESP values recommended by the Commercial 
Package Air Conditioners Working Group did not vary with capacity. The 
Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group also developed a term 
sheet of recommendations as part of the negotiated rulemaking that led 
to the January 2016 direct final rule. (EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0093) The 
term sheet included recommendations for DOE to address in a future test 
procedure rulemaking. Consistent with the Commercial Package Air 
Conditioners Working Group's acknowledgement that higher ESPs would 
better represent field applications, Recommendation #2 of the term 
sheet recommended that DOE amend the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs 
to better represent the total fan energy use by considering alternative 
ESPs. (Id. at p. 2) Higher ESPs would result in higher fan power 
measured during testing and would therefore result in fan energy use 
comprising a larger fraction of total energy use measured during the 
test.
    In this RFI, DOE is further considering the Commercial Package Air 
Conditioners Working Group's recommendation to incorporate higher ESPs 
in the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs to better represent fan 
energy use. There are several further indications that higher ESPs 
might be more representative of field conditions. As described in the 
following paragraphs, these include comments that DOE has received in 
response to the July 2017 TP RFI and May 2020 ECS RFI, and ESP values 
in the most recent version of AHRI 210/240.
    In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE recognized that DOE had previously 
received comment on the possibility that ESPs as measured in the field 
may be higher than those found in the industry test standards. 82 FR 
34427, 34440. DOE also requested comment on the typical field ESPs for 
ECUACs and WCUACs, whether field-installed ESPs typically vary with 
capacity, and whether the field applications of ECUACs and WCUACs are 
different from ACUACs with regards to the typical ducting installed on 
the system. Id.
    In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE received comments from 
several interested parties asserting that ESPs for ECUACs and WCUACs 
are the same as those for ACUACs, because ESP is determined by building 
and ducting types, and not the method for rejecting heat.\11\ Goodman 
commented that ducting does not vary much among ECUACs, WCUACs, and 
ACUACs, but that variable air volume (``VAV'') ductwork has different 
ESPs than constant air volume and single-zone ductwork, and that ECUACs 
are commonly installed with VAV ductwork.\12\ (Goodman, EERE-2017-BT-
TP-0018-0014 at p. 4) DOE also received comments from Carrier and 
Goodman indicating that ESP increases

[[Page 31749]]

with capacity, because larger units serve larger areas, have longer 
ducts, and have higher airflows. (Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at 
p. 10; Goodman, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0014 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 23; Appliance 
Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to Save Energy, American 
Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy, Northwest Energy 
Efficiency Alliance, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council 
(referred to collectively as ``Joint Advocates''), EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0009 at p. 5; California Investor-owned Utilities (``CA 
IOUs''), EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0007 at p. 3; Carrier Corporation 
(``Carrier''), EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 10.
    \12\ A VAV HVAC system controls the dry-bulb temperature within 
a space by varying the volumetric flow of heated or cooled supply 
air to the space. In contrast, a constant air volume HVAC system 
always provides the same volumetric flow of air to the space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received several comments on representative ESP values in 
response to the July 2017 TP RFI. AHRI and Carrier commented that 
higher static pressures than prescribed in AHRI 340/360 may exist in 
field installations due to poor practice of ductwork installation. 
(AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 23; Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0006 at p. 9) Carrier indicated that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 includes 
overall fan power allowances with ductwork pressure drops and other 
system losses. (Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at pp. 9-10) Carrier 
recommended that DOE conduct a field survey, stating that field ESP 
values can vary from very low numbers with concentric ducts to values 
up to 1.5 in H2O for smaller systems. (Id. at p. 9) Carrier 
also indicated that field ESP values for VAV systems can range from 1 
in H2O to 2.5 in H2O. (Id. at p. 10)
    The Joint Advocates stated that the ESP requirements specified for 
ACUACs and ACUHPs should be no lower than the two values of 0.75 and 
1.25 in H2O that were used in the standards analysis 
conducted for the January 2016 direct final rule. (Joint Advocates, 
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0009 at p. 5) The CA IOUs suggested that DOE use 
Title 24, Part 6 2016 Alternative Calculation Method (``ACM'') 
Reference Manual as a resource for developing more field-representative 
ESP requirements, because it contains static pressure set points that 
were developed based on actual field conditions. (CA IOUs, EERE-2017-
BT-TP-0018-0007 at p. 3) DOE reviewed the standard design supply fan 
static pressures specified on page 5-123 of the Title 24, Part 6 2016 
ACM Reference Manual, and the specified values appear to be total 
static pressure (i.e., the sum of ESP and internal static pressure), 
although it is not explicitly clear. Further, the values do not appear 
to be specific to CUACs and CUHPs; rather they apply to various kinds 
of commercial heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (``HVAC'') 
equipment. The values range from 2.5 in H2O to 4.5 in 
H2O, increasing with airflow rate, the number of HVAC 
zones,\13\ and the number of stories in a building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ An HVAC zone is a space or group of spaces, within a 
building with heating, cooling, and ventilating requirements, that 
are sufficiently similar so that desired conditions (e.g., 
temperature) can be maintained throughout using a single sensor 
(e.g., thermostat or temperature sensor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, DOE received comments on ESP in response to the May 
2020 ECS RFI. Verified stated that the ESPs in AHRI 340/360 are too 
low, and they referenced a research report in which they tested air 
conditioners with ESPs more representative of field conditions. 
(Verified, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0011 at p. 5) That report indicated 
that typical field ESPs are 0.5 in H2O for a CUAC with a 
capacity of 36,000 Btu/h and 1.2 in H2O for a CUAC with a 
capacity of 90,000 Btu/h.\14\ The CA IOUs reiterated their 
recommendation that DOE increase the ESP requirements for CUACs and 
CUHPs, and provided ESP data from two survey studies they conducted. 
(CA IOUs, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0020 at pp. 3-4) Table II.2 contains 
the ESP values and number of units for each survey study, sorted by 
cooling capacity. The test, adjust, balance study used field data from 
a commissioning agent, and the permit review study used permit 
documents submitted to an online database. Both of these studies 
indicate median ESPs considerably higher than the ESPs required in AHRI 
340/360-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Page 40 of R. Mowris, E. Jones, R. Eshom, K. Carlson, P. 
Jacobs, J. Hill. 2016. Laboratory Test Results of Commercial 
Packaged HVAC Maintenance Faults. Prepared for the California Public 
Utilities Commission. Prepared by Robert Mowris & Associates, Inc. 
Available at: www.calmac.org/publications/RMA_Laboratory_Test_Report_2012-15_v3.pdf. The report refers to air 
conditioner sizes using tons of refrigeration, where 1 ton of 
refrigeration is equivalent to 12,000 Btu/h.

                                   Table II.2--ESP Survey Results From CA IOUs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Test, adjust, balance study         Permit review study
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
           Cooling capacity  (Btu/hr)                Number of    Median ESP (in     Number of    Median ESP (in
                                                       CUACs           H2O)            CUACs           H2O)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
71,000 to 105,000...............................              26            0.84              59            0.75
106,000 to 134,000..............................              10            1.16              14            0.88
135,000 to 210,000..............................              20           1.705              33            0.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The discussion in the previous paragraphs has outlined the 
indications suggesting that ESPs higher than those in AHRI 340/360-2022 
might be more representative of CUAC operation. Comments from Carrier 
indicate that ESPs for CUACs can be as high as 2.5 in H2O, 
and survey results from CA IOUs suggest that representative ESPs for 
units with capacities of 65,000 Btu/ h to 210,000 Btu/h might range 
from 0.75 in H2O to 1.7 in H2O. Comments also 
suggest that ESP varies with building and duct type, but not with the 
heat rejection mechanism of CUACs, and that ESP might increase with 
capacity. DOE is considering revisions to the ESP requirements for 
testing CUACs and CUHPs. While the data on field ESPs that have been 
provided to DOE are informative, DOE is seeking further comments and 
data on field ESPs that would inform potential revisions to ESP 
requirements in the DOE test procedure.
    Issue 1: DOE seeks further field data on the ESPs of CUACs and 
CUHPs with capacities of 65,000 Btu/h to 210,000 Btu/h. DOE is also 
seeking comment as to the most representative ESP values for these 
capacities, and whether the ESP values previously mentioned in 
stakeholder comments would be more representative.
    Issue 2: DOE seeks field data on the ESPs of CUACs and CUHPs with 
sizes greater than 210,000 Btu/h (for which commenters have not yet 
included ESP data in their comments).
    As discussed, the current DOE test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs 
with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h references ANSI/AHRI 
210/240-2008. Table 11 of ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008 specifies ESP 
requirements that depend on capacity and range from 0.10 to 0.20 in 
H2O for units with a rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 
Btu/h. These ESP requirements align with those specified for ECUACs and 
WCUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h in Table 7 of 
AHRI 340/360-2022. However, AHRI 210/240-2023 specifies higher ESP 
requirements for three-phase ACUACs with a cooling capacity of less

[[Page 31750]]

than 65,000 Btu/h. Specifically, Table 10 of AHRI 210/240-2023 
specifies an ESP requirement of 0.5 in H2O for conventional 
units.\15\ These ESP requirements in AHRI 210/240-2023 align with those 
specified in DOE's updated test procedure for central air conditioners 
and heat pumps (``CAC/HPs'') at table 4 of appendix M1 to subpart B of 
10 CFR part 430 (``appendix M1'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Table 10 of AHRI 210/240-2023 indicates that conventional 
units are central air conditioners and heat pumps other than the 
following categories: Ceiling-mount and wall-mount blower-coil 
systems, mobile home blower-coil systems, low-static blower-coil 
systems, mid-static blower-coil systems, small-duct high-velocity, 
and space-constrained product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For WCUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE's 
preliminary analysis shows that these units may typically be installed 
above dropped ceilings in commercial buildings. For ECUACs with a 
cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE's preliminary analysis 
shows that these units are primarily marketed for residential 
applications, which suggests that it may be appropriate to align the 
ESP requirements for ECUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 
Btu/ h with those specified for CAC/HPs in appendix M1 (i.e., 0.5 in 
H2O for conventional units). Therefore, DOE is considering 
whether it is appropriate for the same ESP requirements to be applied 
for both WCUACs and ECUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 
Btu/h.
    Issue 3: DOE seeks comment and field data on ESPs for ECUACs and 
WCUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h, and whether 
the ESPs typically differ between ECUACs and WCUACs. For both ECUACs 
and WCUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE 
specifically requests feedback on whether representative ESPs would be 
0.5 in H2O (from AHRI 210/240-2023), the range of 0.10 to 0.20 in H2O 
(from AHRI 340/360-2022), or alternate values.
2. Heating Mode
    For heating mode tests of CUHPs, Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2022 
includes ``Standard Rating Conditions'' for both a ``High Temperature 
Steady-state Test for Heating'' and a ``Low Temperature Steady-state 
Test for Heating'' (conducted at 47 [deg]F and 17 [deg]F outdoor air 
dry-bulb temperatures, respectively). The relevant conditions for COP 
testing in the current DOE test procedure are high temperature standard 
rating conditions (i.e., 47 [deg]F outdoor air dry-bulb temperature). 
The DOE test procedure does not require CUHPs to be tested at the low 
temperature standard rating conditions and does not account for 
performance at conditions lower than 47 [deg]F outdoor air dry-bulb 
temperature. DOE is considering whether incorporating heating 
performance at temperatures lower than 47 [deg]F would improve the 
representativeness of the DOE test procedure for CUHPs by reflecting a 
wider range of operating conditions. As part of this examination, DOE 
is further considering how such performance would differ between CUHPs 
with different types of supplementary heat (e.g., electric resistance 
heat and furnaces) and the climate regions in which CUHPs are typically 
installed.
    Issue 4: DOE requests data on the shipments of CUHPs by region. In 
particular, DOE is interested in determining whether CUHPs are 
predominantly installed in specific regions of the U.S.
    Issue 5: DOE requests data on the distribution of supplementary 
heating types (e.g., furnace, electric resistance, and none) shipped 
with CUHPs, and if that distribution has changed over time or is 
expected to change in the future.
    Issue 6: DOE seeks comment and data as to the lowest outdoor 
temperatures at which CUHPs typically operate in mechanical heating 
mode (i.e., what are typical compressor cut-out temperatures for CUHPs) 
and the extent to which the cut-out temperatures vary depending on the 
type of supplementary heating installed with the CUHP (e.g., electric 
resistance heat or furnace).
3. Potential Revisions to IEER Metric
a. Fan Operation in Modes Other Than Mechanical Cooling
    The weighting factors for the IEER metric account for the hours of 
operation when mechanical cooling \16\ is active; this includes 
mechanical-only cooling and integrated economizer/mechanical cooling 
operation \17\ in climate zones that require economizers to be 
installed. The IEER metric does not account for economizer-only 
cooling. The current DOE test procedure also requires that for units 
that are unable to reduce their capacity at least as low as one of the 
part load rating points, the EER for that rating point is calculated 
using a cyclic degradation coefficient. The cyclic degradation equation 
accounts for supply fan operation continuously running when the 
compressor is cycling on and off to meet the required load and assumes 
that the supply fan continues to run at the same speed as it would at 
the lowest stage of compression.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Mechanical cooling'' and ``mechanical heating'' refer to 
a CUAC and CUHP using the refrigeration cycle to cool or heat the 
indoor space, and do not refer to other forms of unit operation 
(e.g., economizing, ventilation, or supplemental heating).
    \17\ Integrated economizer/mechanical cooling operation occurs 
when the use of economizing provides additional cooling but is not 
sufficient to meet the cooling load, and simultaneous use of 
mechanical cooling is also needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group term sheet 
included recommendation #2, which recommended that DOE initiate a 
rulemaking with a primary focus of better representing total fan energy 
use in the field to better represent the total fan energy use, 
including consideration of fan operation for operating modes other than 
mechanical cooling and heating. (EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0093 at p. 2) 
Similarly, the ASRAC Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers Working 
Group \18\ (``CIFB Working Group'') term sheet included recommendation 
#3, which identified a need for DOE's test procedures and related 
efficiency metrics for CUACs and CUHPs to more fully account for the 
energy consumption of supply and condenser fans embedded in regulated 
commercial air-conditioning equipment. (EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0179 at 
pp. 3-4) The CIFB Working Group recommended that in the next round of 
test procedure rulemakings, DOE should consider revising efficiency 
metrics that include energy use of supply and condenser fans to include 
the energy consumption during all relevant operating modes (e.g., 
auxiliary heating mode, ventilation mode, and part-load operation). 
(Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In 2015, DOE initiated the CIFB Working Group to engage in 
a negotiated rulemaking effort on the scope, test procedure, and 
standards for fans and blowers. 80 FR 17359 (April 1, 2015). The 
CIFB Working Group developed recommendations regarding the energy 
conservation standards, test procedures, and efficiency metrics for 
commercial and industrial fans and blowers in a term sheet (EERE-
2013-BT-STD-0006-0179).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment and data on 
the operation of CUAC and CUHP supply fans when there is no demand for 
heating and cooling, as well as the impact of ancillary functions 
(e.g., primary heating, auxiliary heating, and economizers) on the use 
and operation of the supply fan. 82 FR 34427, 34440. DOE received 
comments in response to this request in the July 2017 TP RFI and also 
received comments on this topic in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI.
    Multiple commenters expressed support for DOE to adopt a test 
procedure for total fan energy consumption per recommendation #2 of the 
Commercial Package Air

[[Page 31751]]

Conditioners Working Group term sheet. Several commenters recommended 
evaluating energy use during operating modes other than mechanical 
cooling and heating (e.g., economizing, ventilation, and supplemental 
heating), including the frequency in which units operate in modes other 
than mechanical cooling or heating, in an effort to improve the 
representativeness of the test procedure. Commenters also indicated 
that additional data on field installation and use would likely be 
needed for further consideration of fan use in CUACs and CUHPs beyond 
that captured in the current DOE test procedure.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at pp. 22-23; Joint 
Advocates, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0009 at pp. 1 and 5; Appliance 
Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy 
Efficiency Economy, California Energy Commission, Natural Resources 
Defense Council, and Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships 
(collectively referred to as ``Joint Commenters''), EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0042-0023 at pp. 2-3; CA IOUs EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0007 at p. 3 
and EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0020 at pp. 2-4; Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0006 at p. 9; Goodman, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0014 at pp. 3-4; 
Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at pp. 2-3; Northwest Energy 
Efficiency Alliance (``NEEA''), EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0024 at pp. 2-
3; Verified Inc., EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0022 at pp. 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carrier stated that ASHRAE 90.1 and IECC require a minimum of two-
speed fan operation so that the fan runs at low speed during 
ventilation and some of the economizer operation. (Carrier, EERE-2017-
BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 9) Carrier stated that fan power is typically 
reduced by around 70 percent, as it varies to the cube of the fan 
speed. (Id.) AHRI and Lennox stated that dual- or multi-speed fans are 
used to reduce energy consumption by operating at low speed during 
periods of ventilation or air circulation. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-
0011 at pp. 22-23; Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at pp. 2-3)
    Based on the comments received, DOE recognizes a need to further 
investigate fan operation during ventilation or air circulation/
filtration and economizing. Specifically, while comments received 
indicate the prevalence of multi-speed fans that reduce fan speed in 
these operating modes, the commenters did not indicate how the fan 
speed in these operating modes typically compares to fan speed when 
operating at the lowest stage of compressor cooling.
    Issue 7: DOE seeks feedback on whether the supply airflow or fan 
power for both variable air volume and staged air volume fans at the 
lowest stage of compression is typically the same supply airflow or fan 
power that would be seen during periods of ventilation, air 
circulation, and economizer-only cooling. If not, DOE seeks feedback on 
how the airflow or fan power during ventilation, air circulation, and 
economizer-only cooling modes typically compares to those at the lowest 
stage of compression.
    DOE also recognizes a need to further investigate prevalence and 
operating hours of economizers. Section 6.5.1 of ASHRAE 90.1-2019 
specifies the use of economizers for cooling systems with a cooling 
capacity greater than or equal to 54,000 Btu/h in all climate zones 
within the U.S. except for climate zone 1A, which consists of southern 
Florida, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.\20\ 
However, at the time IEER was developed in 2007, ASHRAE 90.1 did not 
specify the use of economizers in climate zones 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A (see 
ASHRAE 90.1-2007). Climate zones 2A, 3A, and 4A represent 52 percent of 
new commercial building construction according to a June 2020 report by 
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (``June 2020 PNNL report'') that 
developed updated weighting factors for new construction buildings.\21\ 
Additionally, Carrier stated in response to the July 2017 TP RFI that 
80 to 90 percent of CUAC units are built with economizers. (Carrier, 
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 9) Given the large increase in 
commercial buildings for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1 specifies the use 
of economizers, DOE is interested in current data about economizers and 
ACUACs and CUHPs. DOE is also considering revisions to how economizer 
operating hours are accounted for in the IEER metric, particularly as 
DOE considers inclusion of operating hours corresponding to economizer-
only cooling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ASHRAE 90.1-2019 does not require economizers in cooling 
systems for which the rated efficiency exceeds the minimum cooling 
efficiency by more than the corresponding factor specified in Table 
6.5.1-2 of ASHRAE 90.1-2019, which specifies different factors for 
each climate zone.
    \21\ Lei, X., J.B. Butzbaugh, Y. Chen, J. Zhang, and M.I. 
Rosenberg. 2020. Development of National New Construction Weighting 
Factors for the Commercial Building Prototype Analyses (2003-2018). 
PNNL-29787, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 8: DOE requests data on the fraction of CUACs and CUHPs 
installed with economizers for each climate zone.
    Issue 9: DOE requests data on the typical annual operating hours of 
economizer-only cooling (i.e., no mechanical cooling) by building type 
and climate zone.
    Issue 10: DOE requests comments or data on the method that was used 
to determine operating hours in each cooling mode (i.e., mechanical 
cooling only mode, integrated economizing mode, and economizer-only 
cooling mode) during development of the current IEER metric. DOE is 
particularly interested in any aspects of that method that would be 
important to incorporate when revising the IEER metric.
b. Building Types
    DOE understands that the current IEER metric was developed using 
the cooling loads for three building types (offices, retail, and 
schools), the shipment-weighted market shares for those three building 
types, and weather data from 15 representative cities, which each 
represented one of the 15 International Energy Conservation Code 
(``IECC'') climates zones in the United States. These data were used to 
develop weighting factors at four different load conditions (100, 75, 
50, and 25 percent) to represent the average load profile of an ACUAC 
or CUHP in the U.S. While DOE understands that offices, retail, and 
schools are large markets for ACUACs and CUHPs, there are other 
building types that have large volumes of ACUAC and CUHP installations. 
The DOE commercial reference buildings \22\ and the ASHRAE building 
prototypes \23\ assign a packaged rooftop air conditioner as the 
default HVAC equipment to the prototypes for full-service restaurants, 
quick-service restaurants, and non-refrigerated warehouses. The updated 
weighting factors for new construction building prototypes in the June 
2020 PNNL report \24\ show that full-service restaurants, quick-service 
restaurants, and non-refrigerated warehouses \25\ represent over 14 
percent of new construction buildings. Therefore, DOE is considering 
revisions to the IEER metric to include additional building types 
beyond offices, retail, and schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Available at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/commercial-reference-buildings.
    \23\ Available at www.energycodes.gov/prototype-building-models.
    \24\ Lei, X., J.B. Butzbaugh, Y. Chen, J. Zhang, and M.I. 
Rosenberg. 2020. Development of National New Construction Weighting 
Factors for the Commercial Building Prototype Analyses (2003-2018). 
PNNL-29787, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
    \25\ DOE notes that a typical warehouse has three zones and not 
all are conditioned by a CUAC or CUHP, only the fine storage area 
(i.e., area for storing fine art, antiques, and other items that are 
temperature-sensitive). The bulk storage area is not air-
conditioned. The warehouse office is small enough that it would use 
a smaller capacity unit than a CUAC or CUHP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 11: DOE requests the shipment-weighted market share by 
building type for CUACs and CUHPs.
    Issue 12: DOE requests comment or data on the supporting basis and 
method used to determine hourly cooling loads (for each building type

[[Page 31752]]

and by building location) in developing the current IEER metric. DOE is 
particularly interested in any aspects of that method that would be 
important to incorporate if it should decide to revise the IEER metric.
4. Power Consumption of Heat Rejection Components for WCUACs
    WCUACs are typically installed in the field with separate heat 
rejection components that reject heat from the water loop to outdoor 
ambient air, but these separate heat rejection components are not 
included in testing of WCUACs. These heat rejection components 
typically consist of a circulating water pump (or pumps) and a cooling 
tower. To account for the power that would be consumed by these 
components in field installations, Section 6.1.1.7 of AHRI 340/360-2022 
specifies that WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h 
shall add 10.0 W to the total power of the unit for every 1,000 Btu/h 
of cooling capacity.
    The industry test procedure for dedicated outdoor air systems 
(``DOASes'')--AHRI 920-2020, ``2020 Standard for Performance Rating of 
Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air System Units''--includes a 
different method to account for the additional power consumption of 
water pumps, with a pump power adder referred to as the ``water pump 
effect'' being added to the calculated total unit power. Specifically, 
Section 6.1.6 of AHRI 920-2020 specifies that the water pump effect is 
calculated with an equation dependent on the water flow rate and liquid 
pressure drop across the heat exchanger, including a term that assumes 
a liquid ESP of 20 feet of water column. DOE is considering whether the 
AHRI 920-2020 approach would also be representative for WCUACs.
    Issue 13: DOE seeks comment on the representativeness of the AHRI 
920-2020 approach to account for power consumption of external heat 
rejection components in WCUACs, as compared to the approach in AHRI 
340/360-2022.
    Water-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps rely on pumps to 
circulate the water that transfers heat to or from refrigerant in the 
water-to-refrigerant coil. Most water-cooled units rely on external 
circulating water pumps; however, some water-cooled units in other 
equipment categories (e.g., water-source heat pumps and DOASes) have 
integral pumps included within the unit that provide this function. For 
such units with integral pumps, test provisions are warranted to 
specify how to test with the integral pump--e.g., provisions specifying 
the liquid ESP at which to operate the integral pump. AHRI 340/360-2022 
does not contain provisions specific to testing WCUACs with integral 
pumps. In contrast, DOE recently proposed to require that water-source 
DOASes with integral pumps be tested with a liquid ESP of 20 ft of 
water column (consistent with the liquid ESP assumed in the 
aforementioned water pump effect calculation specified in AHRI 920-2020 
for DOASes). 86 FR 36018, 36060. DOE is not aware of any WCUACs on the 
market that contain integral pumps, but if such units exist, then 
additional test provisions may be warranted.
    Issue 14: DOE seeks comment on the prevalence of WCUACs with 
integral pumps. If such units exist, DOE seeks comment on what liquid 
ESP would be representative for testing.

B. Energy Conservation Standards

    In the following sections, DOE has identified several issues on 
which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and 
economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for ACUACs and 
ACUHPs may be warranted.
    DOE is considering amended energy conservation standards for ACUACs 
and ACUHPs (excluding double-duct systems). In the May 2020 ECS RFI, 
DOE sought comment regarding the various analyses that DOE routinely 
uses to analyze more stringent standards. 85 FR 27941. DOE received 
feedback from interested parties in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI 
indicating that it was premature to consider amended standards before 
the 2023 compliance date for the second tier of amended standards 
adopted in the January 2016 direct final rule.\26\ At the present time, 
DOE recognizes that the ACUAC and ACUHP market is much closer to the 
2023 compliance date than the market observed at the time of the May 
2020 ECS RFI. Therefore, DOE welcomes any additional feedback in 
response to the questions posed in the May 2020 ECS RFI that may have 
changed since the publication of the May 2020 ECS RFI, particularly to 
the extent that ACUAC and ACUHP markets and technologies have changed 
in the last two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ AHRI, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0014 at p. 3; Trane, EERE-2019-
BT-STD-0042-0016 at p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, DOE is seeking specific feedback on alternative 
refrigerants (as raised by interested parties) and shipments in the 
following subsections.
1. Alternative Refrigerants
    In the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE presented the technology options 
screened out in the January 2016 direct final rule, which included 
alternative refrigerants, and requested comment generally on whether 
these technology options would continue to be screened out. 85 FR 
27941, 27947. Several stakeholders provided feedback on the topic of 
alternative refrigerants.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ AHRI, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0042-0014 at pp. 2, 4-7; Joint 
Commenters, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0023 at pp. 3-4; CA IOUs, EERE-
2019-BT-STD-0042-0020 at p. 5; Carrier, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0013 
at pp. 5, 7-8, 10; Goodman, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0017 at p. 3; 
NEEA, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0024 at p. 9; Trane, EERE-2019-BT-STD-
0042-0016 at pp. 4-5, 7, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHRI and Carrier recommended that DOE not consider alternative 
refrigerants as a technology option on the bases of technological 
feasibility and practicability to manufacture, install, and service. 
(AHRI, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0014 at p. 5; Carrier, EERE-2019-BT-STD-
0042-0013 at p. 7) The Joint Commenters suggested that DOE consider 
alternative refrigerants as a technology option for ACUACs and ACUHPs. 
(Joint Commenters, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0023 at pp. 3-4) The Joint 
Commenters referenced testing conducted by Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory and Trane that found using R-452B as a replacement for R-
410A improves efficiency by 5 percent. (Id.) NEEA and Trane recommended 
that DOE consider the effect of new low global warming potential 
(``GWP'') refrigerants on efficiency, cost, design, and size of the 
units. (NEEA, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0024 at p. 9; Trane, EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0042-0016 at p. 7)
    Several commenters stated that the use of low-GWP refrigerants with 
A2L categorization (i.e., mildly flammable) would require new 
compressors, additional refrigerant detection sensors, enhanced leak 
testing for coils, and would result in increased manufacturing and 
channel distribution complexity. (AHRI, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0014 at 
p. 6; Carrier, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0013 at p. 5; Goodman, EERE-2019-
BT-STD-0042-0017 at p. 3; Trane, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0016 at p. 5) 
AHRI stated that the combined costs to add sensors, controls, and other 
components for these new refrigerants and the costs of those 
refrigerants will increase cost 10 to 15 percent over the minimum 
designs for the 2018 standards. (AHRI, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0014 at p. 
7)
    DOE recognizes the transition away from the use of R-410A 
refrigerant in ACUACs and ACUHPs and the multiple drivers of this 
transition, including state \28\ and ongoing Environmental

[[Page 31753]]

Protection Agency (``EPA'') regulations.\29\ DOE understands that the 
implementation of mildly flammable refrigerants at the quantities that 
would be typically required for installation in commercial buildings 
requires an allowance under state and local building codes. Further, 
DOE is aware that multiple manufacturers of ACUACs and ACUHPs have 
already announced plans to transition to a specific low-GWP refrigerant 
for their ACUAC and ACUHP models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For example, California has implemented regulations that 
limit the use of high-GWP refrigerants. Beginning January 1, 2025, 
California will prohibit the use of refrigerants with a GWP greater 
than 750 in CUACs and CUHPs. See California Code of Regulations, 
Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 10 Climate Change, 
Article 4, Subarticle 5, section 95374(c).
    \29\ EPA completed a rulemaking to phase down production and 
consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (``HFCs'') through an allowance 
allocation on October 5, 2021 (86 FR 55116) and set allowances for 
2022 on October 7, 2021 (86 FR 55841). Additionally, EPA published a 
notice of its intent to conduct a traditional (i.e., non-negotiated) 
rulemaking on December 29, 2021, with regard to restricting, fully, 
partially, or on a graduated schedule, the use of regulated 
substances, which includes high-GWP refrigerants, in a sector or 
subsector in which the regulated substance is used. 86 FR 74080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that the earliest possible compliance date for amended 
standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs, barring any amendment of standards by 
ASHRAE 90.1, would be January 1, 2029. 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv) 
Given the timelines of both enacted and potential state and Federal 
regulatory changes regarding the phasedown of high-GWP refrigerants, 
DOE understands low-GWP refrigerants may be used in ACUACs and ACUHPs 
in the U.S. by the time potential amended standards could take effect. 
As such, to inform an engineering analysis to evaluate more stringent 
standards, DOE is interested in the effects of the implementation of 
low-GWP refrigerants on efficiency and cost of ACUACs and ACUHPs.
    Issue 15: DOE requests data on the impact of low-GWP refrigerants 
as replacements for R-410A on (1) the cooling and heating capacities 
and compressor power of ACUACs and ACUHPs at various temperature 
conditions, including, but not limited to, the temperatures currently 
included in the IEER metric; and (2) the size and design of heat 
exchangers and compressors used in ACUACs and ACUHPs.
    Issue 16: DOE seeks any additional data and feedback on the cost of 
implementing low-GWP refrigerants in ACUACs and ACUHPs beyond the 
comments received in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI.
2. Shipments
    DOE develops shipments forecasts of CUACs and CUHPs to calculate 
the national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards 
on energy consumption, net present value, and future manufacturer cash 
flows. DOE shipments projections are based on available historical data 
broken out by equipment class and capacity. Current shipments estimates 
allow for a more accurate model that captures recent trends in the 
market and inform the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. 
The national impact of a higher efficiency level is measured relative 
to the distribution of efficiency levels in the no-new-standards case. 
Therefore, the development of a no-new-standards case efficiency 
distribution has a significant impact on the national energy savings 
and new present value calculation in the national impact analysis. DOE 
received shipments data for years 2014 and earlier as part of the 
rulemaking for the January 2016 direct final rule, but DOE has no 
shipments data for years 2015 to the present. A time series of 
shipments is useful for projecting shipments accurately in the future 
because historical shipments are important for predicting the future 
market. A time series also enables DOE to better forecast trends in 
shipments by efficiency level in the national impact analysis.
    In the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested shipments data for ACUACs 
and ACUHPs but received none. 85 FR 27941, 27953. Given the importance 
of shipments data and the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution 
to the national impact analysis, DOE is again requesting current data 
on shipments and efficiency for ACUACs and ACUHPs.
    Issue 17: DOE requests current shipments data for ACUACs and ACUHPs 
by equipment class, capacity, and efficiency level. If available, DOE 
requests historical shipments data going back to 2015. If disaggregated 
fractions of annual shipments are not available at the equipment class 
level by equipment size and efficiency level, DOE requests more 
aggregated fractions of annual shipments at the equipment category 
level.

III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date 
specified in the DATES section of this document, comments and 
information on matters addressed in this document and on other matters 
relevant to DOE's consideration of amended test procedures for CUACs 
and CUHPs and amended energy conservations standards for ACUACs and 
ACUHPs (excluding double-duct systems). After the close of the comment 
period, DOE will review the public comments received and may begin 
collecting data and conducting the analyses discussed in this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will 
not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, 
organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). 
If your comment is not processed properly because of technical 
difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your 
comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will 
see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence 
containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.

[[Page 31754]]

    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If 
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No faxes will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. 
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked 
confidential including all the information believed to be confidential, 
and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' with the 
information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own 
determination about the confidential status of the information and 
treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively 
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the 
comment period in this process. Interactions with and between members 
of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist 
DOE. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive 
future notices and information about this process or would like to 
request a public meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at 
[email protected].

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 16, 
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated 
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original 
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes 
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal 
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been 
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for 
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This 
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this 
document upon publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on May 17, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-10911 Filed 5-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P