[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 7, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75144-75171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25747]
[[Page 75143]]
Vol. 87
Wednesday,
No. 234
December 7, 2022
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Single Package Vertical
Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 7, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 75144]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020]
RIN 1904-AD94
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Single Package
Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is publishing a final
rule to amend its test procedures for single package vertical air
conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, collectively
referred to as single package vertical units (``SPVUs''). DOE is
incorporating by reference the most recent version of the relevant
industry test standard, AHRI 390-2021, and amending certain provisions
for representations for SPVUs. DOE is also establishing definitions for
``single-phase single package vertical air conditioners with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' and for ``single-phase single package
vertical heat pumps with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' to
distinguish such equipment from certain residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 6, 2023. The final
rule changes will be mandatory for product testing starting December 4,
2023. The incorporation by reference of certain materials listed in the
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on January 6,
2023.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov
under docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020. 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/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-7335. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Nolan Brickwood, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4498. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE maintains a previously approved
incorporation by reference and incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into parts 429 and 431:
AHRI Standard 390 (I-P)-2021 ``Performance Rating of Single Package
Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' copyright 2021 (AHRI 390-
2021).
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, ``Methods of Testing for Rating
Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,''
ASHRAE approved June 24, 2009 (ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009).
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2-1987 (RA 92), ``Standard Methods For
Laboratory Airflow Measurement,'' ANSI-reaffirmed April 22, 1992.
Copies of AHRI 390-2021 can be obtained from the Air-conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite
400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or by going to
www.ahrinet.org/search-standards.aspx. Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
37-2009 and ANSI/ASHRAE 41.2-1987 (RA 92) can be obtained from the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE), 180 Technology Parkway NW, Peachtree Corners, GA
30092, (404) 636-8400, or by going to www.ashrae.org/. (ASHRAE
standards co-published with American National Standards Institute
(ANSI).)
See section IV.N of this document for a further discussion of these
standards.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Updates to Industry Standards
1. AHRI 390
2. ASHRAE 37
C. Energy Efficiency Descriptor
1. Efficiency Metrics
2. Low Temperature Heating Test
3. Fan Energy Use
D. Test Method
1. External Static Pressures
2. Defrost Energy Use
E. Configuration of Unit Under Test
1. Background
2. Approach for Exclusion of Certain Components
3. Specific Components for Exclusion
F. Represented Values
1. Multiple Refrigerants
2. Cooling Capacity
G. Effective and Compliance Dates
H. Test Procedure Costs
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
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. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Single package vertical air conditioners (``SPVACs'') and single
package vertical heat pumps (``SPVHPs''), collectively referred to as
single package vertical units (``SPVUs''), are a category of small,
large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10))
Accordingly, SPVUs are included in the list of ``covered equipment''
for which the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is authorized to
establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D)) DOE's energy conservation standards and test
procedures for SPVUs are currently prescribed at title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') subpart F of part 431, Sec. Sec.
431.97 and 431.96, respectively. The following sections discuss DOE's
authority to establish test procedures for SPVUs and relevant
background information
[[Page 75145]]
regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title
IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes SPVUs,
the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part 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 specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291; 42
U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295; 42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6296; 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 other 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 42 U.S.C. 6316(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 sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary) and
requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including SPVUs, 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)(A)(ii))
The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is also undertaking this
rulemaking in part in response to updates to the relevant industry
standard. As discussed earlier in this document, SPVUs are a category
of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. EPCA
requires the DOE test procedures for commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment to be the generally accepted
industry testing procedure 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)) EPCA further requires that
each time the referenced industry test procedure is amended in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE must amend its test procedure to be consistent with
the industry update, unless DOE determines in a rulemaking that there
is clear and convincing evidence that the updated update industry test
procedure would not be representative of an average use cycle or would
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)(C)) While
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 itself has not been updated, the test procedure
referenced in 90.1 for SPVUs, AHRI Standard 390-2021, ``Performance
Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps''
(``AHRI 390-2021''), has been updated. DOE is considering the updated
AHRI 390-2021 under its lookback review.
DOE is publishing this final rule in satisfaction of the 7-year
review requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A))
B. Background
DOE's existing test procedures for SPVUs are set forth at 10 CFR
431.96. The Federal test procedure currently incorporates ANSI/AHRI
Standard 390-2003 (``ANSI/AHRI 390-2003''), ``Performance Rating of
Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' (omitting
section 6.4), and it also includes additional provisions in paragraphs
(c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 that provide for an optional break-in
period and additional provisions for equipment set-up, respectively.
DOE established its test procedure for SPVUs in a final rule for
commercial heating, air conditioning, and water heating equipment
published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2012. 77 FR 28928, 28932.
ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 was the SPVU test procedure referenced in the
edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 current at that time; ANSI/AHRI 390-
2003 remains the test procedure referenced by ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
On June 24, 2021, AHRI published updates to its test procedure for
SPVUs as AHRI 390-2021. Among other things, AHRI 390-2021 maintains the
existing efficiency metrics--energy efficiency ratio (``EER'') for
cooling mode and coefficient of performance (``COP'') for heating
mode--but it also added a seasonal metric that includes part-load
cooling performance--the integrated energy efficiency ratio (``IEER'')
metric. AHRI 390-2021 also includes additional specifications regarding
the test methods and conditions.
DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') on January
14, 2022, presenting DOE's proposals to amend the SPVU test procedure
(``January 2022 NOPR''). 87 FR 2490. In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed to amend the test procedures for SPVUs to incorporate by
reference AHRI 390-
[[Page 75146]]
2021. DOE proposed to add a new appendix G, ``Uniform test method for
measuring the energy consumption of single package vertical air
conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps,'' (``appendix G'')
that would include the relevant test procedure requirements for SPVUs
for measuring the existing efficiency metrics: (1) EER for cooling mode
and (2) COP for heating mode. DOE also proposed to add a new appendix
G1 that would include the relevant test procedure requirements for
SPVUs for measuring with the updated efficiency metrics: (1) IEER for
cooling mode and (2) COP for heating mode. 87 FR 2490, 2492.
Additionally, DOE proposed to define in 10 CFR 431.92 ``single-
phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h'' and ``single-phase single package vertical
heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' as subsets of
the broader SPVAC and SPVHP equipment category, in order to clarify
what kind of single-phase equipment with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h was contemplated in the broader definitions of SPVAC and
SPVHP established by Congress and what classifies as a consumer product
instead. Single-phase equipment meeting these definitions would be
subject to the applicable commercial equipment energy conservation
standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs, while single-phase products not
meeting these definitions would properly be classified as a central air
conditioner (``CAC'') and subject to the applicable consumer products
energy conservation standards. 87 FR 2490, 2492.
DOE held a public meeting related to the January 2022 NOPR on
February 9, 2022 (``NOPR public meeting''). DOE received comments in
response to the January 2022 NOPR from the interested parties listed in
Table II.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ AHRI's comment was received 6 days after the comment
submission deadline. DOE will generally not consider late-filed
comments, but if DOE considers one late comment, it will consider
all late comments. DOE considered the late comment in this case
primarily because of the short duration between the comment's filing
and the close of the comment period.
Table II.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the January 2022 NOPR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document No.
Commenter(s) Reference in this Final Rule in Docket Commenter type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Efficiency Advocates.. 14 Efficiency/Environmental Advocate.
American Council for an Energy-
Efficiency Economy, New York State
Energy Research and Development
Authority, and the Natural Resources
Defense Council.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San CA IOUs..................... 13 Utility.
Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern
California Edison; collectively, the
California Investor-Owned Utilities.
Lennox International..................... Lennox...................... 12 Manufacturer.
GE Appliances, a Haier Company........... GE.......................... 15 Manufacturer.
Friedrich Air Conditioning............... Friedrich................... 18 Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance..... NEEA........................ 16 Efficiency/Environmental Advocate.
Air-Conditioning Heating and AHRI........................ 17 Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute \3\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for SPVUs. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020, which
is maintained at www.regulations.gov) The references are arranged as
follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE is amending the test procedure for SPVUs to
incorporate by reference AHRI 390-2021. DOE is establishing a new
appendix G that includes the relevant test procedure requirements for
SPVUs for measuring the existing efficiency metrics: (1) EER for
cooling mode and (2) COP for heating mode. DOE is also establishing a
new appendix G1 that includes the relevant test procedure requirements
for SPVUs for measuring the updated efficiency metrics, (1) IEER for
cooling mode and (2) COP for heating mode. Appendix G1 provides the
test procedure for representations based on IEER and will be mandatory
only at such time as compliance is required with amended energy
conservation standards based on IEER should DOE adopt standards using
such metrics. In conjunction, DOE is amending table 1 to paragraph (b)
10 CFR 431.96 to identify the newly added appendices G and G1 as the
applicable test procedures for testing SPVUs.
Additionally, DOE is defining ``single-phase single package
vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h''
and ``single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' as subsets of the broader SPVAC and
SPVHP equipment category. Single-phase equipment meeting these
definitions are subject to the applicable energy conservation standards
for SPVACs and SPVHPs, whereas single-phase products not meeting these
definitions would properly be classified as central air conditioners
(``CACs'') and subject to the applicable energy conservation standards
for CACs.
The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
test procedure provision prior to the amendment, as well as the reason
for the adopted change.
Table II.1--Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current DOE TP Amended TP Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporates by reference ANSI/ Incorporates by Adopt industry
AHRI 390-2003 (excluding reference AHRI 390- test procedure.
section 6.4). 2021, which includes
the following changes.
--Includes a new
energy efficiency
descriptor, IEER,
which incorporates
part-load performance.
[[Page 75147]]
--Provides direction ................
and accompanying
definitions for
determining whether a
unit is tested as a
ducted or non-ducted
unit.
--Directs that the ................
outdoor air-side
attachments used for
testing must be
specified by the
manufacturer in the
supplemental testing
instructions.
--Includes refrigerant ................
charging instructions
for cases where they
are not provided by
the manufacturer.
--Specifies tolerances ................
for achieving the
rated airflow and/or
minimum external
static pressure
(``ESP'') during
testing and specifies
how to set indoor
airflow if airflow
and ESP tolerances
cannot be
simultaneously met.
>--Incorporates ................
specifications for
measuring outdoor air
conditions.
--Requires data be ................
recorded at equal
intervals of 5
minutes or less over
a 30-minute
measurement period.
--Clarifies that test ................
results for outdoor
air enthalpy method
are based on results
without test
apparatus connected.
--Defines the term ................
``manufacturer's
installation
instructions'' and
includes hierarchy of
precedence if
multiple instructions
are included.
Only includes definitions for Includes additional Explicitly
the equipment categories; definitions: ``single- delineate SPVUs
``Single Package Vertical Air phase single package from other
Conditioner'' and ``Single vertical air covered
Package Vertical Heat Pump''. conditioner with products.
cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h''
and ``single-phase
single package
vertical heat pump
with cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/
h''.
Does not include provisions Provides instructions Establish
for certain components. for testing SPVUs provisions for
with certain specific testing with
components. This certain
includes: components.
--a list of specific ................
components that must
be present for
testing, specified in
10 CFR 429.43;
--provisions for ................
testing units with
certain specific
components, specified
in appendix G1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has determined that the amendments would not be unduly
burdensome. Furthermore, DOE has determined that the amended test
procedure in appendix G as described in section III of this final rule
would not alter the measured efficiency of SPVUs or require retesting
solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the amendments to the test
procedure. Use of the updated industry test procedure provisions in
appendix G1 and the related amendments to representation requirements
in 10 CFR 429.43 will not be required until the compliance date of any
amended standards denominated in terms of IEER. Additionally, DOE has
determined that the amendments would not increase the cost of testing.
Discussion of DOE's actions are addressed in detail in section III of
this final rule.
The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this
final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register. Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be
based on testing in accordance with the amended test procedures
beginning 360 days after the publication of this final rule.
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
EPCA, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007), defines
``single package vertical air conditioner'' and ``single package
vertical heat pump'' at 42 U.S.C. 6311(22) and (23), respectively. In
particular, single package vertical air conditioners can be single- or
three-phase; must have major components arranged vertically; must be an
encased combination of components; and must be intended for exterior
mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall. Single
package vertical heat pumps are single package vertical air
conditioners that use reverse cycle refrigeration as their primary heat
source and may include secondary supplemental heating by means of
electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or gas. DOE codified the
statutory definitions into its regulations at 10 CFR 431.92.
Additionally, EPCA established initial equipment classes for SPVUs,
including those with a capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h based on phase.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(A)(i)-(ii) and (v)-(vi))
DOE currently defines an SPVAC as air-cooled commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment that: (1) is factory-assembled as a
single package that: (i) has major components that are arranged
vertically; (ii) is an encased combination of cooling and optional
heating components; and (iii) is intended for exterior mounting on,
adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall; (2) is powered by a
single-or 3-phase current; (3) may contain 1 or more separate indoor
grilles, outdoor louvers, various ventilation options, indoor free air
discharges, ductwork, well plenum, or sleeves; and (4) has heating
components that may include electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or
gas, but may not include reverse cycle refrigeration as a heating
means. 10 CFR 431.92. Additionally, DOE defines an SPVHP as a single
package vertical air conditioner that: (1) uses reverse cycle
refrigeration as its primary heat source; and (2) may include secondary
supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance, steam, hot
water, or gas. Id. The Federal test procedures are applicable to SPVUs
with a cooling capacity less than 760,000 Btu/h. (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)(D)(ii))
In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE explained that reading the
definitions of SPVUs and CACs \5\ in isolation, certain single-phase
air conditioners and heat pumps with cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h and with their components arranged vertically could be understood
to be SPVUs, as opposed to CACs. 87 FR
[[Page 75148]]
2490, 2493-2494. However, DOE had previously explained that the
definitions of SPVUs and CACs under EPCA must be read in the context of
DOE's authority to regulate certain consumer products (covered
products) and certain industrial equipment (covered equipment); under
EPCA a product cannot be both covered equipment and a covered product
as the definition of covered equipment excludes covered products. 79 FR
78613, 78625 (Dec. 30, 2014). ``Covered products'' are certain consumer
products explicitly set forth in the statute, as well as consumer
products that have been classified as a covered product under 42 U.S.C.
6292(b). EPCA defines ``consumer product,'' in part, as an article
which, to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for
personal use or consumption by individuals. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(B)) As
discussed in the January 2022 NOPR, CACs are covered products, and a
product can only be classified as an SPVU, and, therefore, industrial
equipment under EPCA, if it does not meet the definition of any covered
product, including CACs. 87 FR 2490, 2494.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPCA defines a ``central air conditioner'' as a product,
other than a packaged terminal air conditioner, which is powered by
single-phase electric current, air-cooled, rated below 65,000 Btu
per hour, is not contained within the same cabinet as a furnace with
a rated capacity above 225,000 Btu per hour, and is a heat pump or a
cooling only unit. (42 U.S.C. 6291(21))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To clarify the distinction between SPVUs as industrial equipment
and CACs as covered consumer products, DOE proposed in the January 2022
NOPR to add specific definitions for ``single-phase single package
vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h''
and ``single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' to explicitly identify those design
characteristics specific to models that are not of a type distributed
in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals, and
therefore are not consumer products or CACs. The current definitions of
SPVAC and SPVHP at 10 CFR 431.92 allow for both wall-mounted and floor-
mounted units, and either may use single-phase or three-phase power.
DOE proposed in the January 2022 NOPR to include certain
characteristics as part of these definitions in order to evidence that
this equipment should be properly classified as covered equipment and
SPVUs rather than covered products and CACs, and that they would likely
not be of a type distributed to any significant extent in commerce for
personal use or consumption by individuals. Specifically, DOE
preliminarily determined that weatherization, or in the case of non-
weatherized units, the presence of optional air ventilation provisions,
represent key design characteristics that indicate use in commercial
applications. DOE did not identify any products intended for consumer
applications with these design characteristics. 87 FR 2490, 2493-2495.
DOE proposed to define ``single-phase single package vertical air
conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' and
``single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h'' as SPVACs and SPVHPs, respectively, that are
either (1) weatherized, determined by a model being denoted for
``Outdoor Use'' or marked as ``Suitable for Outdoor Use'' on the
equipment nameplate; or (2) non-weatherized and have optional
ventilation air provisions available with the ability to draw in and
condition a minimum of 400 CFM of outdoor air. 87 FR 2490, 2495.
DOE also proposed to amend the definitions of ``single package
vertical air conditioner'' and ``single package vertical heat pump'' to
state that those definitions include the equipment within the newly
proposed definitions of SPVACs and SPVHPs, respectively, with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. 87 FR 2490, 2495.
In regard to determining if a unit is capable of providing 400
cubic feet per minute (``CFM'') of outdoor air, DOE proposed to include
provisions in 10 CFR 429.134 that specify the method of measurement of
the maximum outdoor ventilation airflow rate. DOE proposed to specify
that the outdoor ventilation airflow rate should be set up and measured
in accordance with ASHRAE 41.2-1987, ``Standard Methods for Laboratory
Airflow Measurement,'' and Section 6.4 of ASHRAE 37-2009. DOE also
proposed specifications to clarify how these provisions are applied to
measure the outdoor ventilation airflow rate. 87 FR 2490, 2495. As
discussed in the January 2022 NOPR, DOE preliminarily determined that
units for commercial applications provide sufficient ventilation
airflow to meet commercial building ventilation requirements and
specify ventilation airflow as low as 400 CFM. DOE preliminarily
determined that units for consumer applications, including multi-family
applications, typically have little or no capability for ventilation,
with ventilation airflow only as high as 120 CFM. Therefore, DOE
proposed 400 CFM as the characteristic applicable to SPVUs. 87 FR 2490,
2494-2495. For models meeting the proposed amended SPVU definitions,
DOE is able to conclude from these characteristics that such units are
properly categorized as SPVUs and that they are unlikely to serve or be
distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption as covered
products.
In response to the proposed definitions in the January 2022 NOPR,
Lennox commented that a critical factor for them and the heating,
ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC) industry is to ensure current
products and new entries into the market are classified consistently
across manufacturers. Lennox stated they generally supported DOE's
effort to ensure current equipment and new entries into the market are
classified consistently across manufacturers, and generally supported
the distinguishing definitions proposed in the January 2022 NOPR.
(Lennox, No. 12, p. 1) Furthermore, they stated that the distinguishing
characteristics of outdoor ventilation airflow rate in CFM and
weatherization are conceptually acceptable as long as characteristics
like CFM thresholds are reasonably set and appropriately characterize
the equipment. (Lennox, No. 12, p. 2)
The CA IOUs commented that they agreed with DOE's conclusion that
certain single-phase products currently classified as SPVUs satisfy the
regulatory definition of consumer CAC, and supported the clarification
that those products should be rated as CACs. The CA IOUs commented that
manufacturer literature and website review confirms the installation of
such products in consumer applications such as apartments,
condominiums, and student and senior housing, and that these
applications are no different from the installations for space-
constrained consumer products. CA IOUs stated that DOE's proposed
approach facilitates consistency in the treatment of products intended
for residential use. (CA IOUs, No. 13, pp. 1-2) CA IOUs also supported
DOE's proposal to designate certain single-phase equipment as
commercial and industrial equipment, but urged DOE to test such
equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h using AHRI
Standard 210/240-2023. (CA IOUs, No. 13, p. 2) They stated that the
proposed definitions would otherwise be inconsistent with DOE's
treatment of other single-package consumer products with a cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h that are optionally capable of
providing commercial levels of ventilation air or are weatherized, and
urged DOE to follow DOE precedents and use AHRI Standard 210/240-2023.
They recognized that energy conservation standards set for this
equipment in a subsequent rulemaking may need to be different than
other equipment, but noted that using the same test procedure for all
products that compete in the market would enable consumer
[[Page 75149]]
comparison of the efficiency metrics. (CA IOUs, No. 13, p. 2)
Friedrich opposed DOE's proposed definitions requirement that units
must have the ability to provide a minimum of 400 CFM of outdoor air to
qualify as an SPVU. (Friedrich, No. 18, p. 1) Friedrich commented that
it is their understanding that this proposed requirement is
irrespective of whether the unit is weatherized or non-weatherized.
Friedrich commented that the proposed 400 CFM outdoor air requirement
would be between 61 to 114 percent of the application supply airflow
for their equipment, and that conditioning outdoor air that makes up
such a large portion of the supply air will lead to higher energy
consumption for those commercial sites, a decrease in occupancy
comfort, and possibly humidity issues. Friedrich opposed DOE's
statement that it identified each unit on the market as meeting this
outdoor ventilation airflow requirement, noting that one of their
specific product lines was not considered. (Friedrich, No. 18, pp. 1-2)
Friedrich stated that their affected units have been tested according
to AHRI 390 since 2005. They commented that their units are installed
in hotels and other commercial locations within a closet, and that
these installations typically have short discharge ducts, which is
different from CACs. They stated that the exterior wall is designed
with a large cutout area for the heat exchangers of these equipment.
(Friedrich, No. 18, p. 2) Friedrich commented that this change will
result in a change in minimum efficiency, and the current installed
base will be left without a replacement option. They stated that this
would necessitate a substantial change to building infrastructure
because SPVAC and SPVHP replacements' unit size and method are designed
into the building, and these substantial changes may compromise the
integrity of building structure. (Friedrich, No. 18, p. 3)
Friedrich also opposed DOE's classification of the primary market
for SPVUs in its review of the ventilation requirements specified in
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2019, ``Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air
Quality,'' as excluding hotels and motels. Friedrich stated that one of
its model lines is installed in hotels, hospitality, and other light
commercial lodging locations in conjunction with Dedicated Outdoor Air
Systems (``DOAS'') to meet ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2019 ventilation
requirements. (Friedrich, No. 18, p. 2)
AHRI questioned the proposed outdoor ventilation airflow
requirement, noting that some standards (including California's Title
24 and ASHRAE 90.1) are looking to lower the threshold of economizing
requirements for exterior-mounted products installed in buildings that
are three stories or higher to 33,000 Btu/h. (Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 11, p. 13) The CA IOUs commented that Title 24 does not
require equipment that serves dwelling units to include an economizer,
noting that requirements for multifamily buildings have been moved to
Subchapter 11 Multifamily Buildings--Performance and Prescriptive
Compliance Approaches and provides an exception for systems serving
dwelling units. They further commented that Draft Addendum to ASHRAE
90.1-2019 will not require indoor equipment with a cooling capacity of
less than 54,000 Btu/h to include an economizer. This proposal reduces
the system cooling capacity threshold for economizing to 33,000 Btu/h
from 54,000 Btu/h, but only for ``fan-cooling units located outside the
building.'' (CA IOUs, No. 13, p. 4)
GE stated that DOE has neither the authority nor the justification
to redefine the SPVU product class, and that DOE cannot and should not
create a separate product class for SPVUs with cooling capacity below
65,000 Btu/h. (GE, No. 15, p. 2) Further, GE commented that the
definition of SPVU is set by statute and that DOE has identified no
authority that permits it to modify this statutory definition through
regulation. GE also commented that the definition of SPVUs is included
in ASHRAE 90.1 which is recognized by EPCA as the industry standard for
commercial products. They noted that the presence of SPVUs in ASHRAE
90.1 strongly indicates SPVUs are commercial, not consumer products. GE
also commented that SPVUs with cooling capacity under 65,000 BTU/hr are
marketed and sold as commercial products into commercial buildings,
including hotels, dormitories, nursing homes and other medical care
facilities, and senior housing communities. GE provided marketing
material for their equipment and stated that it demonstrates that these
products are marketed for commercial use. (GE, No. 15, p. 2) GE also
commented that DOE should not change a product class definition through
a test procedure rulemaking. GE stated that should DOE make the change
it is proposing, it should do so only through a standards rulemaking
and that to do otherwise, DOE would be effectively establishing new
efficiency standards for existing products without EPCA's statutorily
mandated 5-year compliance period. (GE, No. 15, p. 2)
AHRI characterized DOE's proposal as to define single-phase SPVAC
and SPVHPs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h as one
reclassifying single-phase SPVAC and SPVHPs as space constrained
consumer central air conditioners and heat pumps, and disagreed with
this proposal because SPVUs are classified as a type of commercial air
conditioner under EPCA. (AHRI, No. 17, p. 5) AHRI noted that EPCA
defines industrial equipment as any article of equipment of certain
specified types that consumes, or is designed to consume, energy, which
is distributed to any significant extent for industrial and commercial
use, and which is not a covered product as defined, without regard to
whether such article is in fact distributed in commerce for industrial
or commercial use. AHRI said that the definition for SPVUs created by
Congress in 2007 was the definition in AHRI 390-2003, and that Congress
in choosing this definition meant to adopt AHRI's definition as it was
implemented by AHRI in testing and certifying SPVU models under AHRI
390-2003. (AHRI, No. 17, pp. 5-6) AHRI further contended that DOE
should recognize that the models AHRI lists in its directory are SPVUs
as they have their components arranged vertically and meet the
definition of AHRI 390-2003, and that they are not consumer products or
CACs. (AHRI, No. 17, p. 6)
AHRI asserted that SPVUs fall squarely within the purview of ASHRAE
90.1, which did not amend the definition to exclude any subset of the
broader SPVAC and SPVHP categories. (AHRI, No. 17, p. 6) AHRI noted
that what it calls smaller SPVUs are often designed to be installed
through-the-wall in hotels, apartments, dormitories, and multi-family
residential buildings, but disagreed that these applications could lead
to these units being classified as consumer products. AHRI commented
that the scope of ASHRAE 90.1, which is the minimum energy code for
commercial buildings, covers multifamily structures of more than three
stories as well as hotels and dormitories. AHRI stated that it is to be
expected that certain SPVUs and other HVAC products listed in ASHRAE
90.1 would be used in these commercial applications covered by ASHRAE
90.1. AHRI noted that many SPVUs are sold in the same applications as
packaged terminal equipment and DOE is not now questioning the use of
package terminal equipment in these commercial applications. They
further stated that a key distinction between SPVUs and residential
products is that they are not
[[Page 75150]]
sold directly to consumers, and that SPVUs are incorporated into the
design of the building and usable spaces therein. AHRI continued that
SPVUs are sold to commercial entities that build, own, or operate the
building, and that these entities also own and maintain the products.
AHRI said that consumers are not directly involved in the selection of
the units or in the sale transactions, which would be the case for a
``consumer product.'' (AHRI, No. 17, p. 7)
AHRI contended that the products in question listed in its
Directory meet the EPCA definition of SPVUs and AHRI maintains that DOE
cannot recategorize a subset of products on assertions that those may
be occasionally misapplied in the field. AHRI commented that DOE has
not provided evidence of what AHRI categorizes as SPVUs being applied
in any substantial number in single-family homes, or multi-family homes
below three stories. AHRI also stated that for products marketed toward
multifamily buildings over three stories, some manufacturers have
chosen to rate certain product lines to AHRI Standard 210/240 because
these product lines appear to have multi-stage compressors that do not
benefit from efficiency distinction using a full-load performance
method, such as AHRI Standard 390-2003. AHRI stated that now that AHRI
390-2021 has published and includes a part-load efficiency metric, they
expect manufacturers to no longer have reason to use the part-load
performance of another industry test standard to market products
effectively. (AHRI, No. 17, pp. 7-8)
AHRI commented that the definition of ``space constrained product''
at 10 CFR 430.2 cannot accommodate the full range of units at issue due
to the definition's maximum capacity cap of 30,000 Btu/h. Therefore,
AHRI stated that DOE's proposal would split product lines into part
residential and part commercial. AHRI noted that these proposed
definitions would subject products between 30,000 and 65,000 Btu/h to
the substantially higher efficiencies and regional standards of CACs.
AHRI commented that definitionally, space-constrained residential
products must be, ``currently usually installed in single-family
homes,'' but that no one contends that these products are installed in
single family homes. Further, AHRI questioned how SPVUs, which were
established as a commercial category in 2007, would meet the portion of
the space-constrained products definition that limits inclusion to
product types that were available for purchase in the United States as
of December 1, 2000. (AHRI, No. 17, pp. 8-9)
DOE presents the relevant history here in support of DOE's
determination regarding the differentiation between CACs and SPVUs.
In an energy conservation standards NOPR for CACs, DOE stated that
it understood that SPVUs are not distributed for personal use or
consumption by individuals, and therefore are commercial equipment. 65
FR 59589, 59610 (Oct. 5, 2000). As a result, this equipment would have
been subject to standards for commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment. Id. In the subsequent final rule published on
January 22, 2001, DOE established a separate CAC class for space-
constrained products, which included through-the-wall (``TTW'')
products but did not establish standards for them, and announced an
intent to go through a rulemaking for space-constrained products. 66 FR
7169, 7196-7197. In 2004, DOE amended the CAC standards, establishing
separate standards for space constrained products and TTW products,
with the standards specific for TTW products applicable only to
products manufactured prior to January 23, 2010. For products
manufactured after January 23, 2010, the standards for space
constrained products applied to these TTW air conditioners and heat
pumps. 69 FR 50997, 50998 (Aug. 17, 2004).
Beginning in 2002, ASHRAE first classified SPVU as a separate
equipment class, through addendum ``d'' to ASHRAE 90.1-2001 and, later,
addendum ``b'' to ASHRAE 90.1-2004. DOE reviewed these changes but took
no action because SPVU equipment was subject to standards for
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, and Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) had limited DOE's authority for
this equipment. 72 FR 10038, 10046-10047 (Mar. 7, 2007). In 2007,
Congress established definitions and equipment classes specific for
SPVUs (through the EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110-140), which DOE codified in
2009. (74 FR 12058 (Mar. 23, 2009)) Compliance with these SPVU
standards was required starting January 1, 2010.
In early 2011, ASHRAE put forward proposed addendum ``i'' to ASHRAE
90.1-2010 to increase its efficiency standards for SPVU while
establishing separate equipment classes with less-stringent efficiency
levels for nonweatherized space constrained single-package vertical
units. This proposal was formally incorporated into ASHRAE 90.1-2013.
In an April 2014 Notice of Data Availability (``April 2014 NODA'') for
certain industrial equipment including SPVUs, DOE, upon its review of
the market of what ASHRAE Standard 90.1 classified in a new equipment
class for SPVUs used in space-constrained applications as
``nonweatherized space constrained single-package vertical unit[s],''
identified certain models of SPVUs in the AHRI Directory categorized as
``space constrained'' that were previously classified by DOE as TTW
CAC. 79 FR 20114, 20122-23 (April 11, 2014). DOE noted that it is in
this TTW CAC product class that DOE expressly contemplated residential
space-constrained units, including those models previously classified
as TTW that manufacturers were then attempting to classify as SPVUs.
Id. The re-classification of these models by manufacturers was made
despite no apparent changes in technology or features, or any other
indication that would demonstrate that commercial classification became
more appropriate than residential classification. Id. DOE explained
that to the extent that a unit meets the definition of ``central air
conditioner'' (see 42 U.S.C. 6291(21); 10 CFR 430.2), a consumer
product, it is excluded from the definition of industrial equipment
(see 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(A)(iii)), and therefore cannot be covered
equipment. 79 FR 20114, 20123. DOE concluded that allowing models of a
product type sold for personal use to instead be classified as
commercial equipment simply because it is also of a type sold for
commercial or industrial uses would allow those products to evade DOE's
standards for consumer products and be contrary to EPCA. Id.
DOE defined and established standards for space constrained CACs,
including TTW units, prior to EISA 2007, which established standards
specific to SPVU. 69 FR 50997, 50998. There is no indication that the
SPVU provisions in EISA 2007's amendments to EPCA reclassified or were
intended to reclassify products that were previously covered as covered
products (i.e., space constrained and TTW CAC) as commercial equipment;
instead, the new provisions intended to establish a new class for a
different type of commercial equipment.
In response to GE's and Friedrich's assertions that the product
lines referenced in their comments are commercial equipment, and AHRI's
comments regarding the differentiation between commercial equipment and
consumer products, DOE reiterates that EPCA defines ``consumer
product'' and ``industrial equipment'' as mutually exclusive.
Specially, EPCA defines
[[Page 75151]]
``industrial equipment'' as any article of equipment of certain
specified types that consumes or is designed to consume energy, which
is distributed in commerce to any significant extent for industrial and
commercial use, and which is not a covered product as defined in 42
U.S.C. 6291(2), without regard to whether such article is in fact
distributed in commerce for industrial or commercial use. (42 U.S.C.
6311(2)(A) (emphasis added)) A covered product is a consumer product of
a type specified in 42 U.S.C. 6292. EPCA defines ``consumer product''
as any article: (1) of a type that consumes or is designed to consume
energy, and, to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for
personal use or consumption by individuals, (2) without regard to
whether such article of such type is in fact distributed in commerce
for personal use or consumption by an individual. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1))
EPCA specifies that CACs are covered consumer products. (42 U.S.C.
6292(3))
As noted, the definition of ``consumer product'' is not limited to
products used in single-family homes, and instead covers products that,
in part, are distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by
individuals. Id. (emphasis added). As discussed in the January 2022
NOPR, products serving a household, including a household in a multi-
family building, are for personal use by individuals and are serving
consumer applications rather than commercial or industrial
applications. 87 FR 2490, 2494.
In addition, based on the similarities between units distributed
for use in multi-family applications and those units distributed for
commercial lodging applications referenced by GE and Friedrich, DOE
finds that such units may still be of a type distributed in commerce
for personal or individual use and therefore may be regulated as
consumer products. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(B)) These products are only
offered in single-phase electrical configurations, are non-weatherized,
serve individual rooms, and are designed to be installed in closets or
other enclosures through an opening in the exterior wall, with supply
air ducts to distribute conditioned air to the occupied space. These
products meet the definition of CACs, and have characteristics too
similar to other CACs to allow clear distinction between commercial and
consumer use. They are therefore of a type distributed in commerce for
personal or individual use, and such products are consumer products.
DOE also recognizes that the definition of space constrained products
specifies, in part, that such products are substantially smaller than
those of other units that are currently usually installed in site-built
single-family homes and of a similar cooling capacity, and, if a heat
pump, heating capacity. 10 CFR 430.2. The definition, however, does not
require space constrained products to be installed in single-family
homes, but references products installed in such applications for
comparative purposes.
Additionally, based on review of product literature, DOE identified
multiple model lines with similar design as equipment cited by GE that
included installation instructions for townhouse type applications or
model lines with marketing literature \6\ showing three-story multi-
family apartment buildings in addition to commercial lodging
applications.\7\ In addition, DOE noted that the marketing literature
for the Friedrich Vert-I-Pak model line cited in their comments also
indicates that it is intended for both commercial lodging and multi-
family apartment building applications. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0020-0019) The use and marketing of these units for townhomes and
multifamily housing indicates that these products are used for
individual households' use and consumption. DOE considers this
information to be evidence that these products are distributed in
commerce to a significant extent for personal use or consumption by
individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020-0021, Docket No. EERE-
2017-BT-TP-0020-0022, Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020-0023, and
Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020-0024 for examples of products that
were previously incorrectly certified but are now correctly
certified. See Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020-0019 and Docket No.
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020-0020 for Friedrich and GE literature showing
similar marketing literature as these products.
\7\ DOE notes that ASHRAE 90.1-2019 defines ``low-rise
residential buildings'' as single-family houses, multifamily
structures of three stories or fewer above grade, manufactured
houses (mobile homes), and manufactured houses (modular).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to Friedrich's understanding of the requirement for 400
CFM of outdoor ventilation air applying to both weatherized and non-
weatherized SPVUs, DOE notes that the outdoor air ventilation
requirement would only apply to non-weatherized units. DOE does not
agree with Friedrich's assertion that DOE did not consider all SPVUs
available on the market to determine the 400 CFM outdoor ventilation
air requirement. As discussed, DOE reviewed the product literature for
Friedrich's Vert-I-Pak model line and considers these to be CACs, as
they meet the definitions of consumer product and CAC.
DOE also disagrees with Friedrich's assertion that CACs are not
installed with unducted intake and short discharge duct lengths, and
that DOE's revised definition of SPVU would leave the market without
replacement options. DOE has identified several units from multiple
manufacturers with similar design to Friedrich's Vert-I-Pak model line
(and GE's Zoneline model line, referenced in their comments) and that
are marketed towards multi-family, hotel, and hospitality; that are
correctly certified as a space-constrained CAC using DOE's appendix M
and AHRI Standard 210/240-2023 (``AHRI 210/240-2023''), ``Performance
Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning & Air-source Heat Pump Equipment.''
(See Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020-0021, Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0020-0022, Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020-0023, and Docket No. EERE-
2017-BT-TP-0020-0024)
AHRI commented that making this change through the test procedure
rulemaking is inappropriate. (AHRI, No. 17, p. 8) AHRI stated that the
economic impacts to manufacturers and their customers that would ensue
from this proposed change to the method of determination for
represented efficiency would be enormous, and a complete rulemaking
analysis under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p) is first required to assess
technological feasibility and economic justification. (AHRI, No. 17, p.
8) AHRI also commented that the proposed test method for validating the
outdoor testing ventilation airflow has not been vetted, and time to
research this method or other options was not afforded to stakeholders
given the comment period's length and the significant number of
overlapping rulemakings impacting manufacturers of air conditioning
products. AHRI characterized DOE's proposal as a significant
recategorization that should occur over a longer timeframe than under a
test procedure NOPR and its comment period. Additionally, AHRI
commented that an SPVU's primary function is cooling and heating and
AHRI is not aware of any field applications where an SPVU is used
primarily for ventilation. (AHRI, No. 17, p. 8-9)
In regards to AHRI's and GE's comment that the definition change
should be done through the standards rulemaking, DOE notes that it is
not re-categorizing any existing equipment. DOE is re-iterating its
long-standing application of the space constrained product definition,
the CAC definition, and the SPVU definition, and codifying additional
SPVU definitions to better clarify the application of these
definitions. The new definitions do not reclassify any products; DOE
has
[[Page 75152]]
concluded that any products not meeting the definition finalized by
this rule should have previously been properly classified, and would
continue to be classified, as consumer products because they are
distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption. As a result,
an energy conservation standards rulemaking is not required to adopt
these definitions.
With regards to AHRI's concern about the impact of changes to
California's Title 24 and ASHRAE 90.1, DOE notes, consistent with the
CA IOU comments, that the revised requirements for economizing apply
only to outdoor mounted units. As a result, DOE does not expect this
design requirement to impact the products it considers to be CACs. The
provisions would require indoor equipment with a cooling capacity of
less than 54,000 Btu/h to include an economizer and that the proposal
reducing the system cooling capacity threshold for economizing to
33,000 Btu/h from 54,000 Btu/h only applies to ``fan-cooling units
located outside the building.'' Therefore, DOE believes that the
outdoor ventilation airflow threshold remains a distinguishing
characteristic to distinguish SPVUs from consumer products.
In regards to AHRI's comment that some manufacturers have chosen to
rate certain product lines marketed toward multifamily buildings over
three stories to AHRI 210/240-2023 and DOE's appendix M because they
incorporate multi-stage compressors, DOE first notes that, in addition
to making representations using these test standards, manufacturers are
certifying compliance for these products as space-constrained CACs. As
discussed, these products that are being correctly certified as space-
constrained CACs are similar in design to the products currently being
misclassified as SPVUs. DOE also notes that the definitions of SPVU and
CAC and applicable test procedures are not dependent on technology
options for improving efficiency of the product. Products are
explicitly categorized based on the definitions provided in 10 CFR
parts 430 and 431, and not based on the test procedures that provide
the most benefit.
In response to AHRI's comment that SPVUs are not primarily used for
ventilation, DOE recognizes that the primary function of an SPVU is for
cooling and/or heating. The proposed definition identifies
characteristics of equipment intended to distinguish SPVU from consumer
products, but does not change the application of the equipment.
Further, DOE has found that all SPVUs available on the market that
include an outdoor ventilation option publish ventilation airflow
rates, so DOE anticipates this is common industry practice.
For the reasons previously discussed, DOE has determined that the
definitions proposed in the January 2022 NOPR for ``single-phase single
package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h'' and ``single-phase single package vertical heat pump with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' are appropriate to explicitly
delineate such equipment from certain covered consumer products. These
definitions will not reclassify any existing products, and are intended
to prevent the misclassification of consumer products as industrial
equipment, specifically SPVUs. In addition, the methods proposed in the
January 2022 NOPR for determining if a unit is capable of providing 400
CFM of outdoor air are based on the industry standard test methods for
measuring airflow and DOE considers them to be consistent with industry
practice. As a result, DOE is adopting these definitions in 10 CFR
431.92 and provisions for determining the outdoor ventilation airflow
rate in 10 CFR 429.134 in this final rule.
B. Updates to Industry Standards
1. AHRI 390
In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference
AHRI 390-2021, which maintains the existing full-load cooling mode
metric, EER, and adds the seasonal cooling metric, IEER. More
specifically, DOE proposed to add a new appendix G that would include
the relevant test procedure requirements for SPVUs for measuring
efficiency using the existing efficiency metrics (i.e., EER for cooling
mode and COP for heating mode) and to add a new appendix G1 that would
incorporate the provisions for measuring efficiency using IEER and COP.
87 FR 2496.
In response to the NOPR, Lennox and NEEA commented that they
support the incorporation of AHRI 390-2021. (Lennox, No. 11, p. 2;
NEEA, No. 16, pp. 1-2) The CA IOUs urged DOE to follow its precedent
for other commercial and industrial equipment by requiring testing to
AHRI 210/240-2023 on all SPVUs with a cooling capacity of less than
65,000 Btu/h. They stated that using the same test procedure for all
products that compete in the market would enable consumer comparison of
the efficiency metrics. CA IOUs commented that this path would also
benefit manufacturers, since using AHRI Standard 210/240-2023 would
reduce the testing burden for manufacturers of single-speed products,
as the basic models would be subject to two cooling tests instead of
four. Furthermore, they stated it will allow manufacturers to provide
cold-climate heat pump data if they offer products that can operate as
heat pumps at 5 [deg]F. (CA IOUs, No. 13, pp. 2-3)
AHRI commented that AHRI 390-2021 is a solid test procedure and
supported its use for calculating IEER. (AHRI, No. 17, p. 10) In the
public meeting AHRI noted that the new industry test procedure
incorporates part-load performance, which they stated is a necessary
step for regulation due to developments in these products. (Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 11, p. 16) In the public meeting AHRI stated
that they did not dispute DOE's authority to consider test procedure
changes under the lookback provisions in EPCA, but noted that if there
is a deviation between the test procedure cited in ASHRAE 90.1 and the
DOE test procedure, it would create challenges and confusion in the
marketplace with different efficiency metrics and test procedures.
(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, pp. 17-19) AHRI stated in their
comment however that DOE must follow the statutorily mandated process
and only adopt a revised test method after it has been adopted by
ASHRAE 90.1. (AHRI, No. 17, p. 3) Further, AHRI commented that DOE
lacks the authority to adopt a test procedure edition not cited in
ASHARE 90.1. Id. AHRI stated that waiting to harmonize will establish
consistent energy efficiency levels and design requirements between
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the Federal requirements as well as comparable
metrics. Id. AHRI further asserted that in order for DOE to deviate
from ANSI/AHRI 390-2003, the Department would need to propose and
justify by clear and convincing evidence each amendment made to arrive
at a test procedure equivalent to AHRI 390-2021, which AHRI conceded
would be unnecessarily onerous. (AHRI, No. 17, pp. 3-4, 8-10)
During the public meeting, AHRI noted that they are working to
evaluate a crosswalk between EER and IEER, but that there is no
consistent correlation between the metrics. AHRI also noted that they
are also evaluating the impact of the new test procedure on the heating
metric, COP. AHRI noted that this work is being conducted in support of
the ASHRAE 90.1 process. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, pp. 17-19)
In response to AHRI, DOE has the authority to adopt AHRI 390-2021
in this rulemaking under the authority and in satisfaction of EPCA's 7-
year-lookback review requirement for test
[[Page 75153]]
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) With respect to small, large, and
very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment
(of which SPVUs are a category), EPCA directs that the test procedures
shall typically be those generally accepted industry testing procedures
or rating procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or by ASHRAE, as
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) But if
the industry test procedure referenced in Standard 90.1 is determined
by DOE to not meet the representativeness and undue burden requirements
in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) by clear and convincing evidence, DOE
must then establish an amended test procedure that meets EPCA's
requirements. However, the industry test procedure currently referenced
in Standard 90.1 is AHRI 390-2003, because Standard 90.1 has not yet
been updated to reference AHRI 390-2021. The 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)
review has not been triggered. Therefore, DOE is not undertaking this
rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4) but under its lookback review
duty in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)
Under its 7-year-lookback review DOE must also ensure that test
procedures established are reasonably designed to produce test results
which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating
costs during a representative average use cycle and are not unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) DOE is directed during
its 7-year-lookback review to evaluate whether an amended test
procedure would more accurately or fully comply with those
requirements, and if DOE determines an amended test procedure would do
so, then DOE is required to prescribe such test procedures for the
product class. 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A). A test procedure may not be
reasonably representative because more representative test procedures
are available. And a test procedure that was reasonably representative
in the past may become unreasonably representative when newly available
test procedures allow for better, more complete measurements. DOE's
lookback review ensures that DOE is not bound to an industry test
procedure that has gone without updating for too long and is no longer
representative of current equipment. While AHRI acknowledged DOE's
lookback review authority in the public meeting, their submitted
comment does not mention DOE's lookback review and therefore only
engaged with the review process under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A). AHRI
stated in its written comment that DOE is mandated to adopt an industry
test procedure only after that test procedure is adopted in Standard
90.1, but identified no such mandate within the statute itself. And the
lookback review language at issue here was added to EPCA in EISA 2007,
well after the relevant Standard 90.1 test procedure language was added
in 1992. Compare sec. 302 of EISA 2007, Public Law 110-140, 121 Stat.
1552 (Dec. 19, 2007) with sec. 121 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992,
Public Law 106-486, 106 Stat. 2808 (Oct. 24, 1992). Therefore, the most
natural reading of the two together is that Congress intended to add
the lookback review to those triggers for review of test procedures
that already existed. The language of the lookback review applies
generally, to all covered equipment. Rather than tie DOE's hands to an
outdated test procedure in the manner the industry commenters suggest,
EPCA compels DOE to use due diligence to review the totality of
relevant and available information before settling on appropriate
energy conservation standards and test procedures. DOE finds here that
AHRI 390-2003 no longer meets EPCA's requirements because AHRI 390-2021
is more representative without incurring undue burden, as discussed.
In this instance, the industry test procedure referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, AHRI 390-2003, has since been superseded. DOE
acknowledges that DOE has previously stated that it will only consider
an update to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that modifies the referenced industry
test procedure to be a trigger under that provision of the statute, as
opposed to an update of just the industry test procedure itself. (See,
e.g., 86 FR 35668, 35676 (July 7, 2021)) DOE stands by that position
regarding what constitutes a triggering event in the context of ASHRAE
equipment and does not consider the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)
to have been triggered. However, that does not preclude DOE from
considering the updated version of the industry test procedure (i.e.,
AHRI 390-2021) when reviewing DOE's test procedures under EPCA's
lookback provision. Not only does DOE have discretion to do so, but it
has a statutory duty to do so, in order to ensure that its test
procedures produce results that are representative of an average use
cycle and are not unduly burdensome to conduct.
DOE agrees also that the approach envisioned by AHRI, where for a
90.1 test procedure found to not meet EPCA's requirements DOE must go
amendment-by-amendment and presumably line-by-line to alter to make it
meet EPCA's requirements, would lead to an overly onerous process. It
would be far too difficult to compile clear and convincing evidence for
every minute adjustment in isolation of the test procedure as a whole.
However, DOE does not agree with AHRI that EPCA requires this
unreasonable approach and instead interprets EPCA as allowing DOE to
amend a TP in a more reasonable manner considering the whole of the
test procedure in order to best meet the requirements of EPCA where
industry has failed to do so. DOE also notes that AHRI contemplated the
process through which DOE is reviewing updates to an industry test
procedure under Standard 90.1, but in this final rule DOE is proceeding
under its lookback review.
As supported by many of the comments that DOE received, including
from AHRI itself, DOE has determined that the test methods specified in
AHRI 390-2021 would produce test results that better reflect energy
efficiency of SPVUs during a representative average use cycle than the
current DOE test procedure and AHRI 390-2003. As discussed in section
III.C and in the January 2022 NOPR, DOE notes that the IEER metric
included in AHRI 390-2021 is representative of the cooling efficiency
for SPVUs on an annual basis and is more representative than the
current EER metric, which only captures the system performance at a
single, full-load operating point. DOE also notes that the other test
procedure changes incorporated in this final rule better ensure
accurate and repeatable measurements, and ensure that representative
test conditions are maintained during testing. These changes include:
Providing direction for determining whether a unit is tested as a
ducted or non-ducted unit.
Directing that the outdoor air-side attachments used for testing
must be specified by the manufacturer in the supplemental testing
instructions.
Including refrigerant charging instructions for cases where they
are not provided by the manufacturer.
Specifying tolerances for achieving the rated airflow and/or
minimum external static pressure (``ESP'') during testing and specifies
how to set indoor airflow if airflow and ESP tolerances cannot be
simultaneously met.
Incorporating specifications for measuring outdoor air conditions.
Clarifying that test results for outdoor air enthalpy method are
based on results without test apparatus connected.
Defining the term ``manufacturer's installation instructions'' and
including hierarchy of precedence if multiple
[[Page 75154]]
manufacturer installation instructions are included.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, DOE is incorporating by
reference AHRI 390-2021 into the DOE test procedure for SPVUs.
DOE recognizes that adopting AHRI 390-2021 as the Federal test
procedure for SPVUs may create some disharmony between the Federal test
procedure and the test procedure currently specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1 for a period of time. However, such disharmony is likely to be
brief given the anticipated adoption of AHRI 390-2021 in the near
future noted by commenters. Such a situation is preferable to the
alternative where DOE would need to reinitiate another rulemaking once
Standard 90.1's reference is updated, which would be after this
statutorily-required lookback proceeding, in order to amend the Federal
test procedure to adopt AHRI 390-2021--precisely the same test
procedure available for consideration now. Because DOE is able to
consider and adopt AHRI 390-2021 under its lookback provision, this
situation and potential waste of resources is avoided and a more stable
regulatory environment is created.
DOE notes that commenters' concern regarding a crosswalk and
potential market confusion from having Federal standards rely on
different metrics than the efficiency levels specified in the current
version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 relate to the energy conservation
standards for SPVUs, which DOE is addressing in a separate standards
rulemaking. Finally, DOE notes that manufacturers are not required to
use the IEER test method outlined in appendix G1 to make
representations until 360 days after issuance of this final rule, and
they are not required to use the test procedure to certify compliance
with any energy conservation standards for SPVUs based on IEER until
the compliance date established for such standards. Until the time that
IEER is required for compliance, appendix G, which retains the EER
metric, will be required to determine compliance with current standards
for SPVUs.
With regards to the CA IOUs recommendation that DOE incorporate by
reference AHRI 210/240-2023 for SPVUs <65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity,
DOE notes that AHRI 390-2021 was explicitly developed to represent the
energy use of SPVU equipment, including efficiency metrics that are
based on operating conditions specific to SPVU applications (i.e.,
modular classrooms, modular offices, and telecommunication shelters)
while AHRI 210/240-2023 was not. Because AHRI 390-2021 more accurately
represents installations of SPVUs and is therefore more representative
for determining the energy use of SPVUs, DOE is not incorporating by
reference AHRI 210/240-2023 as the test procedure for SPVUs.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, DOE is incorporating by
reference AHRI 390-2021 into the Federal test procedure SPVUs because
it is reasonably designed to produce results that are representative of
the energy efficiency of that covered equipment during an average use
cycle and is not unduly burdensome to conduct.
2. ASHRAE 37
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, a method of test for many categories of air
conditioning and heating equipment, is referenced by AHRI 390-2021 for
testing SPVUs. In particular, Appendix E of AHRI 390-2021 specifies the
method of test for SPVUs, including the use of specified provisions of
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. Consistent with AHRI 390-2021, DOE proposed in the
January 2022 NOPR to incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 in
its test procedure for SPVUs. Specifically, DOE proposed to utilize the
applicable sections of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009--all sections except
sections 1, 2, and 4. DOE also proposed that in the event of any
conflicts between the DOE test procedure, AHRI 390-2021, and ASHRAE 37-
2009, the DOE test procedure takes highest precedence, followed by AHRI
390-2021, followed by ASHRAE 37-2009. 87 FR 2490, 2496. DOE did not
receive any comments regarding this proposal. For the reasons
discussed, DOE is incorporating by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 in
this final rule along with the provisions regarding the order of
precedence in the event of conflicts between the DOE test procedure,
AHRI 390-2021, and ASHRAE 37-2009.
C. Energy Efficiency Descriptor
1. Efficiency Metrics
In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference
AHRI 390-2021, which maintains the existing full-load cooling mode
metric, EER,\8\ and heating mode metric, COP,\9\ and adds the seasonal
cooling metric, IEER. Specifically, DOE proposed to add a new appendix
G that would include the relevant test procedure requirements for SPVUs
for measuring efficiency using the existing efficiency metrics (i.e.,
EER for cooling mode and COP for heating mode) and to add a new
appendix G1 that would incorporate the provisions for measuring
efficiency using IEER and COP. In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE stated
that it considers the IEER metric, which includes test conditions and
weighting factors for the four load levels representing 100, 75, 50,
and 25 percent of full-load capacity, representative of the cooling
efficiency for SPVUs on an annual basis, and more representative than
the current EER metric. DOE requested comment on its proposal to adopt
IEER for SPVUs. 87 FR 2490, 2497-2498.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EER is the ratio of the produced cooling effect of the SPVU
to its net work input, expressed in Btu/watt-hour, and measured at
standard rating conditions.
\9\ COP is the ratio of the produced heating effect of the SPVU
to its net work input, when both are expressed in identical units of
measurement, and measured at standard rating conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox supported using AHRI 390-2021 for calculating IEER. They
also stated that IEER is more representative of an average use cycle
and how products operate in field applications, because EER only
considers full load operation while IEER considers four load levels
including part load operation. (Lennox, No. 11, p. 2) NEEA supported
DOE's proposed adoption of IEER as a regulated metric as it provides a
more accurate representation of total energy consumption than EER
alone, because it measures part load energy consumption, but noted the
limitations of the IEER metric--it does not capture energy consumption
during other modes of operation such as ventilation or economizing.
(NEEA No. 16, p. 2)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates supported adopting IEER as the
efficiency metric in appendix G1. However, they expressed concern that
the weighting factors in the calculation of IEER may underweight
performance at higher outdoor temperatures and urged DOE to ensure that
the calculation adequately represents seasonal efficiency. The Joint
Efficiency Advocates commented that calculating the weighting factors
solely based on operating hours does not take into account that an hour
of operation at a higher outdoor temperature is providing more cooling
and consuming more energy than an hour of operation at a lower outdoor
temperature. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 14, pp. 1-2) The Joint
Efficiency Advocates also stated that SPVU product literature indicates
installations in hotels, multifamily dwellings, and permanent
classrooms, and encouraged DOE to investigate whether the weighting
factors are representative of SPVU installations. (Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 14, p. 2)
Regarding the test conditions and weighting factors, DOE notes that
the test conditions for each of the Standard
[[Page 75155]]
Rating Conditions in AHRI 390-2021 were developed in a similar manor as
AHRI Standard 340/360-2022 (``AHRI 340/360-2022''), ``Performance
Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat
Pump Equipment,'' and was based on modeling buildings in which SPVUs
are installed (modular schools, modular office, and telecommunication
shelters), utilizing weather data from 15 climate zones. DOE finds
these building types appropriate and will not consider additional
building types at this time, as per the Joint Efficiency Advocates
comments, because applications such as hotels and multi-family homes
are common for the CAC products that are currently being misclassified
as SPVUs as discussed in section III.A. of this document.
Additionally, the weighting factors in AHRI 390-2021 were developed
to represent the number of hours per year spent at each test condition.
AHRI 390-2021 requires that a unit is tested at each of the four
Standard Rating Conditions when determining the IEER metric, and that
the performance of the unit at each test point (including part-load) is
incorporated into the IEER metric. While individual equipment
performance at part-load may vary between different model lines, each
unit is tested under the same Standard Rating Conditions that produce
results of SPVU efficiency during operation under representative
conditions. DOE notes that this aligns with the approach taken for
other small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment (e.g., the IEER metric specified in AHRI 340/
360).
AHRI commented that no correlation has been established between the
EER and IEER metrics. AHRI stated they plan to collect one year of AHRI
certification data and will submit a proposed addendum to ASHRAE 90.1
using IEER. AHRI commented their support the adoption of AHRI 390-2021
and the use of IEER as the federally regulated metric only after ASHRAE
90.1 adopts the new procedure and new efficiency metrics. Additionally,
they stated no testing was conducted to analyze the impact of test
procedure changes on the heating metric, COP. (AHRI, No. 17, pp. 3, 10)
Per AHRI's comments that they support the adoption of AHRI 390-2021
and the use of IEER as the federally regulated metric only after ASHRAE
90.1 adopts the new procedure and new efficiency metrics, DOE notes the
discussion in section III.B.I of this document. Any future energy
conservation standards based on IEER would evaluate differences in the
measured energy efficiency based on the IEER metric relative to EER
(i.e., by developing an appropriate ``crosswalk,'' as necessary), and
would consider data and/or analysis that compares the ratings of SPVUs
under the two metrics. DOE would also welcome any data showing
differences in testing of the heating metrics, but is not aware that
any of the changes made in AHRI 390-2021 would cause a change to the
heating rating of SPVUs.
For the reasons previously discussed, DOE has determined that at
this time, the test conditions and weighting factors represent the
industry consensus standard are appropriate for determining the
representative performance of SVPU units, and that the resulting IEER
values are based on up-to-date weather data and operation hours. DOE
recognizes that comments provided by the Joint Efficiency Advocates are
informative and may suggest the need for DOE to investigate further the
approach used to calculate SPVU performance in a future rulemaking.
However, without further information, DOE continues to conclude that
the test conditions and weighting factors in AHRI 390-2021 produce
results reflecting the energy efficiency of SPVUs during a
representative average use cycle. Therefore, DOE is adopting the test
conditions and weighting factors in AHRI 390-2021.
The CA IOUs recommended that DOE reconsider the name IEER to avoid
confusion for consumers because the IEER weighting factors in AHRI
Standard 390-2021 are different from other commercial equipment,
specifically AHRI Standard 340/360-2007, ``Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment'', and AHRI Standard 1230-2010, ``Performance Rating of
Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat
Pump Equipment''. The CA IOUs recommended DOE consider renaming the
part-load cooling efficiency metric for SPVUs to ``SPVU annual cooling
efficiency.'' They stated that this change would allow end-users to
compare and select equipment based on regulated efficiency metrics and
remove any added ambiguity on weighting factors. (CA IOUs, No. 13, p.
3)
Regarding CA IOU's comment on renaming the IEER metric, the
differences in IEER metrics between AHRI 390-2021 as compared to AHRI
340/360-2022 or AHRI 1230-2021 better reflect typical operation and
performance of SPVUs. In particular, the weighting factors and
temperature conditions were developed specifically to represent SPVU
applications. DOE notes that AHRI 390-2021 maintains the IEER name and
that changing the name from ``IEER'' might spawn unnecessary confusion
by suggesting that there is some significant difference as to how that
term is used in the context of the amended Federal test procedure as
compared to AHRI 390-2021. DOE also notes that there is no significant
overlap in the applications of CUACs or VRFs and SPVUs such that there
would be confusion to potential customers. Therefore, DOE concludes
that there is not a need to deviate from the metric name ``IEER''
specified in AHRI 390-2021. Consequently, DOE is adopting the IEER
metric measured per AHRI 390-2021 in the Federal test procedure for
SPVUs, as proposed. Further, DOE is adopting the proposed revisions to
the definition for IEER at 10 CFR 431.92 to distinguish between the
test procedures for ACUACs and VRFs and SPVUs.
2. Low Temperature Heating Test
In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE noted that the heating mode test used
to calculate COP and determine compliance with standards for SPVHPs is
conducted at 47 [deg]F outdoor air dry-bulb temperature and 43 [deg]F
outdoor air wet-bulb temperature, and is designated as the ``Full Load
Standard Rating Capacity Test, Heating'' in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021.
87 FR 2490, 2498. In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to allow
manufacturers to make voluntary representations at the optional ``Low
Temperature Operation'' condition in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021. That
test is based on an outdoor air dry-bulb temperature of 17 [deg]F and
outdoor air wet-bulb temperature of 15 [deg]F. DOE proposed to specify
in appendices G and G1 that the low temperature operation heating mode
test conditions specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021 are optional.
This addition was made to clarify that additional representations for
SPVHPs at a lower temperature condition are optional, but that if such
representations are made, they must be based on testing conducted in
accordance with the DOE test procedure using the specified low
temperature operation heating mode test conditions in addition to those
made at the full-load standard heating conditions. DOE requested
comment from interested parties on this proposal. 87 FR 2490, 2498.
In response to the January 2022 NOPR, Lennox, the Joint Efficiency
Advocates, and AHRI supported allowing optional representations of
[[Page 75156]]
the low temperature condition. (Lennox, No. 12, p. 2; Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 14, p. 1; AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, p.
19) Lennox commented that COP representations at low temperatures are
important performance characteristic, and stated the representations
are already being made by manufacturers. (Lennox, No. 12, pp. 2-3)
The CA IOUs and NEEA recommended that DOE require the testing and
reporting of heating COP at the Low Temperature Operation test
condition. (CA IOUs, No. 13, p. 3; NEEA, No. 16, p. 3) NEEA commented
that both AHRI 210/240-2023 and AHRI 340/360-2022 require heating mode
testing at multiple conditions for all heat pump units. (NEEA, No. 16,
pp. 3-4) NEEA noted that requiring this optional test would provide
additional information on cold weather performance for consumers, and
that the market share of SPVHPs at 20-30 percent was significant enough
to investigate low ambient temperature test condition, despite AHRI's
conclusion to the contrary. Further, the CA IOUs suggested that if the
unit is not tested at 17 [deg]F to assign a default COP of 1.0 to the
SVPHP basic model. The CA IOUs commented that DOE should publish the
value in DOE's compliance certification database (``CCD'') for SPVUs to
account for auxiliary energy solely supplied by an electric resistance
element. (CA IOUs, No. 13, p. 3)
The CA IOUs and the Joint Efficiency Advocates both commented that
DOE should create an additional optional heating test at 5 [deg]F
outdoor dry bulb/3 [deg]F outdoor wet bulb. (CA IOUs, No. 13, p. 3;
Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 14, p. 3) The CA IOUs commented that
this would allow manufacturers to certify cold-climate SPVHPs, which
are already distributed in commerce, to meet existing cold climate
specifications in the Northeast region. They commented this test would
be consistent with the H4 heating mode tests outlined in appendix M1 to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 (i.e., the test procedure for CACs) and is
consistent with the optional heating mode test for single phase SPVUs
less than 65,000 Btu/h deemed by DOE to be consumer products in the
NOPR. (CA IOUs, No. 13, p. 3) The Joint Efficiency Advocates commented
that Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (``NEEP'') has published
a cold climate SPVHP specification that sets a minimum COP at 5 [deg]F,
and it is reasonable to expect that an increasing number of
manufacturers will test and report cold climate performance. Further,
they stated that adding an optional 5 [deg]F test point to the SPVU
test procedure will help ensure that any representations that
manufacturers make about low-temperature performance will be based on a
standardized test procedure. They encouraged DOE to allow both optional
COP values at 17 [deg]F and 5 [deg]F to be reported and made available
in the public DOE CCD for SPVUs. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 14,
p. 3)
In response to requests for an optional 5 [deg]F heating test, DOE
understands this test to be common for other cold-climate equipment.
DOE notes that no such test is included in the industry test procedure,
AHRI 390-2021. At this time, DOE is not aware of any cold-climate
SPVUs. Based on DOE's review, all units that have reported to the NEEP
specification discussed by commenters meet the definition of consumer
products and are therefore currently misclassified as SPVUs. Through a
review of SPVU market literature, DOE was unable to find any cold-
climate units available on the market. For these reasons, DOE is not
including an optional 5 [deg]F heating test at this time.
In response to comments requesting that DOE make the 17 [deg]F test
required, DOE first notes that AHRI 390-2021 only requires testing at
the full-load heating test condition of 47 [deg]F and that DOE's
current heating mode standards for SPVUs are based on this full-load
heating test condition. AHRI 390-2021 includes the low temperature
heating test as an optional test. DOE notes that this is the same
approach used in AHRI 340/360-2021. Any required representations for
other test conditions would necessitate the establishment of standards
for said representations. DOE is not proposing to regulate the COP
measured at the 17 [deg]F test at this time and, consistent with AHRI
390-2021, is adopting this as an optional test in this final rule.
In response to comments that the low temperature heating
performance should be made available in the CCD, because DOE is not
proposing to regulate COP measured at 17F, requiring reporting of
performance for low temperature heating performance is not necessary.
DOE will address any amended reporting requirements as necessary based
on optional representations of low temperature performance for SPVUs
through a separate rulemaking.
3. Fan Energy Use
As part of a request for information published on July 20, 2018,
DOE requested comment on whether changes to the SPVU test procedure are
needed to properly characterize a representative average use cycle,
including changes to more accurately represent fan energy use in field
applications. 83 FR 34499, 34503. DOE also requested information as to
the extent that accounting for the energy use of fans in commercial
equipment such as SPVUs would be additive of other existing accountings
of fan energy use. Id. The Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal
Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') Commercial and Industrial Fans and
Blowers Working Group (``Working Group'') had previously provided
recommendations regarding the energy conservation standards, test
procedures, and efficiency metrics for commercial and industrial fans
and blowers in a term sheet. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0179 at
p. 1) Specifically, recommendation #3 discussed the need for DOE's test
procedures and related efficiency metrics to account more fully for the
energy consumption of fan use in regulated commercial air-conditioning
equipment. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0179 at pp. 3-4) The
Working Group recommended that DOE consider revising efficiency metrics
that include energy use of supply and condenser fans to include the
full energy consumption of those fans during all relevant operating
modes, including ventilation and part-load operation, in the next round
of test procedure rulemakings. The Working Group included SPVUs in its
list of regulated equipment for which fan energy use should be
considered. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0179 at pp. 3-4, 16)
In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE preliminarily concluded that it did
not have sufficient information regarding the operation of fans outside
of mechanical heating and cooling during an average use cycle (e.g.,
economizing, ventilation) specific to SPVU installations as would allow
it to consider changing the existing efficiency metric(s) to include
this aspect of energy use. DOE stated also that it lacked sufficient
information on the number of units capable of operating in these modes,
total energy use in these operating modes, and information regarding
the frequency of operation of these modes during field conditions. 87
FR 2490, 2499.
In response to the January 2022 NOPR, NEEA commented that IEER for
SPVUs does not capture energy consumption during other modes of
operation, such as ventilation or economizing. They stated that DOE's
previous market analysis assumed that 65 percent of these units are
installed in spaces that require regular ventilation (e.g., modular
offices and classrooms).
[[Page 75157]]
NEEA noted that some SPVU equipment is promoted for use in buildings
that require significant ventilation, and that prior DOE analyses have
found that most SPVUs are installed in spaces requiring regular
ventilation. NEEA noted that their previous research has shown that
commercial HVAC units can spend up to 30 percent of operating time in
ventilation-only modes. They stated that DOE should continue
researching ways to account for energy consumption during ventilation-
only modes in an occupied space. Otherwise, they asserted, the metrics
do not capture the full energy saving potential of features such as
efficient fans and economizers. (NEEA, No. 16, p. 2)
The Joint Efficiency Advocates similarly urged DOE to more fully
capture fan energy use in the SPVU test procedure. They expressed
concern that by not capturing fan energy use outside of cooling for ACs
or heating and cooling for heat pumps (e.g., for ventilation or
supplementary heating), the test procedure may significantly
underestimate fan energy consumption. The Joint Efficiency Advocates
noted as an example that EPA recommends that outdoor air be supplied
continuously during occupied hours to maintain good indoor air quality
in portable classrooms. The Joint Efficiency Advocates also commented
that failing to capture fan energy use in these additional operational
modes could result in inaccurate relative rankings of equipment.
Therefore, they urged DOE to capture fan energy use outside of cooling
mode for ACs and outside heating and cooling modes for heat pumps to
ensure the test procedures are representative of an average energy use
cycle. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 14, pp. 2-3)
DOE maintains that it does not have sufficient information at this
time regarding the operation of fans outside of mechanical heating and
cooling during an average use cycle (e.g., economizing, ventilation)
specific to SPVU installations as would allow it to consider changing
the existing efficiency metric(s) to include this aspect of energy use.
DOE notes that NEEA's research was not specific to SPVUs, so the
conclusions with regards to how much HVAC equipment operate in fan only
modes may not be relevant. In particular, NEEA's research revolved
around furnaces installed in retail stores and warehouses located in
Winnipeg, Montreal, and Toronto, while SPVUs are installed in smaller
modular buildings and in more diverse climate profiles. Therefore,
energy consumption modeling specific to SPVUs and in climate regions
more representative of SPVU installations would likely be significantly
different. Per NEEA's comment, DOE's previous analysis acknowledges
that SPVUs are commonly installed in locations requiring ventilation
(i.e., modular offices and classrooms), and DOE maintains that is the
case. DOE recognizes that the current metrics for SPVUs do not include
fan energy use during all relevant operation modes. Provisions to
measure fan energy use when there is no heating or cooling being
provided, and when performing ancillary functions (e.g., economizing,
ventilation, filtration, and auxiliary heat), are not included in the
industry test standard, AHRI 390-2021. However, DOE's previous analysis
did not include sufficient information on the number of units capable
of operating in these modes, total energy use in these operating modes,
and information regarding the frequency of operation of these modes
during field conditions and DOE maintains that it still lacks this
information, which the Department would need to be able to determine
whether such testing would be appropriate for SPVUs and to develop a
metric representing the national average fan operating hours for SPVUs.
If additional information becomes available as would allow DOE to
consider incorporation of fan energy use during other relevant SPVU
operating modes for all relevant building types into the test method
and metric for SPVUs, DOE may consider such information in a future
rulemaking.
D. Test Method
In DOE's existing regulations, table 1 to paragraph (b) of 10 CFR
431.96 specifies the applicable industry test procedure for each
category of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment,
and it identifies additional testing requirements that also apply. In
this final rule, DOE is reorganizing subpart F to 10 CFR part 431 so
that the test procedure requirements for SPVUs are included in separate
appendices (appendix G and G1). DOE is also amending table 1 to
paragraph (b) of 10 CFR 431.96 to identify only the applicable appendix
to use for testing SPVUs (appendix G or G1), and as an additional
consequence of this change 10 CFR 431.96 would no longer include any
additional test requirements for SPVUs.
1. External Static Pressures
In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE noted that AHRI 390-2021 maintained
the same minimum ESP requirements as specified in ANSI/AHRI 390-2003.
DOE stated that it does not have data indicating that these minimum ESP
requirements are unrepresentative of field operation for ducted SPVUs.
DOE also noted that SPVUs are typically installed in smaller modular
buildings with different duct configurations than other equipment
(e.g., CACs, other categories of commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment). Based on this, DOE proposed not to revise the
ESP requirements in the DOE test procedure for SPVUs but to instead
remain consistent with AHRI 390-2021. 87 FR 2490, 2503.
In response to the NOPR, the Joint Efficiency Advocates commented
that by maintaining the existing ESP requirements (which were unchanged
in the update from AHRI 390-2003 to AHRI 390-2021) the proposed test
procedures may significantly underestimate fan energy consumption by
specifying ESP requirements that are too low and not representative of
field installations. They stated that virtually all ducted SPVUs are
tested at a minimum ESP between 0.1 and 0.2 inches of water column
(``in. w.c.''). Further, they commented that while the duct runs may
typically be short in SPVU installations, testing any ducted unit at an
ESP of 0.1 is unrealistic. They noted that DOE found that for CACs
filter foulant and evaporator coil fouling alone contribute 0.2 in.
w.c. of ESP. Therefore, they asserted that the proposed test procedure
would likely underestimate fan power consumption and that DOE should
investigate more representative ESP values. (Joint Efficiency
Advocates, No. 14, pp. 1-2)
NEEA commented that DOE and efficiency advocates had previously
acknowledged inconsistencies among the various minimum ESP values used
for testing across different HVAC equipment. NEEA also pointed out that
DOE's analysis of field CAC installations showed that filter and
evaporator coil foulant alone contributed 0.2 in. w.c. of ESP,
regardless of the installed ductwork. NEEA asserted that no in-field
operation data was provided to support the current ESP values that are
maintained in AHRI 390-2021. NEEA supported DOE's request for
additional ESP data and recommended pursuing further research to
validate whether the ESP values in AHRI 390-2021 and proposed in the
NOPR are representative of average field installations. NEEA also
encouraged DOE to continue evaluating other components known to affect
energy consumption in these units. (NEEA, No. 16, pp. 2-3)
AHRI commented that they agreed that with DOE's statement that
SPVUs are typically installed in smaller
[[Page 75158]]
modular buildings with different duct configurations. AHRI also agreed
that minimum ESP requirements for other equipment may not be relevant
for SPVUs. They stated the majority of this equipment is not used in
ducted applications and that Table 2 of AHRI 390-2021 ESPs are
representative of the short duct runs that are occasionally applied and
are very conservative for those products applied without supply ducts.
AHRI commented that these products are installed adjacent to exterior
walls, so discharge ductwork is very short. AHRI supported DOE's
tentative proposal to not revise the ESP requirements. (AHRI, No. 17,
p. 11)
In response to NEEA and the Joint Efficiency Advocates, DOE
maintains that it does not have data indicating that these minimum ESP
requirements are unrepresentative of field operation for ducted SPVUs.
DOE notes that minimum ESP requirements and studies of field
installations for other equipment (e.g., CACs) may not be relevant for
SPVUs. Particularly, this research was used in a February 2017 CAC test
procedure final rule to help determine the representative minimum
statics for CACs. 82 FR 1426, 1447. DOE notes that for conventional
equipment generally installed in single family homes with significant
ductwork, the representative minimum ESP was determined to be 0.5 in.
H2O. However, in the same NOPR, DOE also determined that
certain types of CACs with short ducts (i.e., low static CACs) had
different representative minimum statics, 0.1 in. H2O, so
filters and evaporator foulant do not account for 0.2 in.
H2O in all circumstances, per NEEA's suggestion. Id. DOE
maintains that SPVUs are typically installed in smaller modular
buildings with different duct configurations than other types of
equipment (i.e., conventional CACs), and would therefore necessitate a
similar field research study to determine if the current minimum
statics are unrepresentative for SPVUs. Based on this, DOE is not
revising the ESP requirements in the DOE test procedure for SPVUs and
is instead maintaining the ESP requirements consistent with AHRI 390-
2021 at this time.
2. Defrost Energy Use
In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE noted that AHRI 390-2021 does not
include provisions for measuring defrost energy for SPVHPs. Consistent
with ANSI/AHRI 390-2003, AHRI 390-2021, and DOE's test procedures for
other commercial heat pumps, DOE did not propose to include provisions
for including the defrost energy of SPVHPs. DOE noted that it lacked
sufficient information on the number of SPVHP installations by building
type and geographical region, as well as information regarding the
frequency of operation of defrost cycles or representative low ambient
conditions during field use and the annual heating and cooling loads in
those installations. That information would be needed to determine
whether such testing conditions would be appropriate for SPVUs and to
develop a metric representing the national average for SPVUs. DOE
requested comment and data on the number of SPVHP installations by
building type and geographical region and the annual heating and
cooling loads for such buildings. DOE also requested data on the
frequency of operation of defrost cycles and representative low ambient
conditions for those buildings and installations. 87 FR 2490, 2505.
AHRI commented that the Guidehouse presentation \10\ includes
detailed information regarding building types and climate zones
analyzed to determine the appropriate IEER coefficients for this
equipment which could be extrapolated to determine installations by
building types. AHRI noted that certain applications will require
defrost, but not all, and that defrost is an operation cycle to protect
the outdoor coil. They continued that the cycle is only triggered
during heating season, and the frequency and time of the defrost cycle
is generally programmed at the factory. Further, they noted that
defrost cycling is a function of both outside coil temperature and
compressor pressure: (1) if outdoor coil temperature is sensed below a
set temperature (typically 32 [deg]F) for a set time period (60 minutes
is typical factory default), the defrost cycle is triggered; or (2)
when the low pressure setpoint threshold for refrigerant entering the
compressor is crossed due to frost on the coils, the defrost cycle will
also be triggered. They stated the cycle for defrost operation starts
with the compressor operation switching from heating to cooling to heat
outside coil for defrosting, and that this cycle is typically run for
approximately 10 minutes. Finally, AHRI commented that the return to
normal heat pump operation after defrost operation will typically cease
when the outdoor coil temperature rises above the thaw temperature
setpoint or when the set time period has expired, whichever comes
first. (AHRI, No. 17, pp. 11-12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Guidehouse presentation is included in an appendix to
AHRI's comment and was presented during the AHRI 390 working group
developing the new industry standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEEA supported DOE's continued research around defrost energy
consumption.(NEEA, No. 16, pp. 2-3) While DOE appreciates further
insight into the process of defrost cycles provided by AHRI, DOE did
not receive any additional information on defrost energy use and
therefore DOE maintains that it lacks sufficient information at this
time on the number of SPVHP installations by building type and
geographical region, as well as information regarding the frequency of
operation of defrost cycles or representative low ambient conditions
during field use and the annual heating and cooling loads in those
installations, which would be needed to determine whether such testing
conditions would be appropriate for SPVUs and to develop a metric
representing the national average for SPVUs. Given the lack of data and
that the industry test procedure, AHRI 390-2021, does not include
provisions for measuring defrost energy for SPVHPs, DOE is not
including provisions for measuring the defrost energy of SPVHPs in the
DOE test procedure at this time.
E. Configuration of Unit Under Test
1. Background and Summary
SPVUs are sold with a wide variety of components, including many
that can optionally be installed on or within the unit both in the
factory and in the field. In all cases, these components are
distributed in commerce with the SPVU, but can be packaged or shipped
in different ways from the point of manufacturer for ease of
transportation. Some optional components may affect a model's measured
efficiency when tested to the DOE test procedure adopted in this final
rule, and others may not. DOE is handling SPVU components in two
distinct ways in this final rule to help manufacturers better
understand their options for developing representations for their
differing product offerings.
First, the treatment of some components is specified by the test
procedure to limit their impact on measured efficiency. For example, a
fresh air damper must be set in the closed position and sealed during
testing, resulting in a measured efficiency that would be similar or
identical to the measured efficiency for a unit without a fresh air
damper.
Second, for certain components not directly addressed in the DOE
test procedure, this final rule provides more specific instructions on
how each component should be handled for the
[[Page 75159]]
purposes of making representations in part 429. Specifically, these
instructions provide manufacturers clarity on how components should be
treated and how to group individual models with and without optional
components for the purposes of representations, in order to reduce
burden. DOE is adopting these provisions in part 429 to allow for
testing of certain individual models that can be used as a proxy to
represent the performance of equipment with multiple combinations of
components. DOE is adopting provisions expressly allowing certain
models to be grouped together for the purposes of making
representations and allowing the performance of a model without certain
optional components to be used as a proxy for models with any
combinations of the specified components, even if such components would
impact the measured efficiency of a model. Steam/hydronic heat coils
are an example of such a component. The efficiency representation for a
model with a steam/hydronic heat coil is based on the measured
performance of the SPVU as tested without the component installed
because the steam/hydronic heat coil is not easily removed from the
SPVU for testing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Note that in certain cases, as explained further in section
III.E.2.d, the representation may have to be based on an individual
model with a steam/hydronic coil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Approach for Exclusion of Certain Components
a. Proposals
Appendix F of AHRI 390-2021 provides discussion of components which
would not be considered in representations, and provides instructions,
either to neutralize their impact during testing, or for determining
representations for individual models with such components based on
other individual models that do not include them.
Instead of referencing Appendix F of AHRI 390-2021, DOE tentatively
determined in the January 2022 NOPR that it would be necessary to
include related provisions in the proposed appendix G1 test procedure
and in the proposed representation requirements at 10 CFR 429.43. 87 FR
2490, 2508. DOE noted that this revised approach would provide more
detailed direction and clarity between test procedure provisions (i.e.,
how to test a specific unit) and certification and enforcement
provisions (e.g., which model to test). Specifically, DOE proposed to
include provisions for certain specific components to limit their
impact on measured efficiency during testing. 87 FR 2490, 2507-2508.
Additionally, DOE proposed representation requirements in 10 CFR
429.43(a)(4) that explicitly allowed representations for individual
models with certain components to be based on testing for individual
models without those components--the proposal included a table listing
the components for which these provisions would apply (Desiccant
Dehumidification Components, Air Economizers, Ventilation Energy
Recovery System (``VERS''), Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils, Hot Gas Reheat,
Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers, Powered Exhaust/Powered Return Air Fans,
Hot Gas Bypass). 87 FR 2490, 2507-2508, 2517. Finally, DOE proposed
specific product enforcement provisions in 10 CFR 429.134 indicating
that DOE would conduct enforcement testing on individual models that
don't include the components listed in the aforementioned table, except
in certain circumstances. 87 FR 2490, 2507-2508.
b. General Comments
In response to the January 2022 NOPR, Lennox supported DOE's
proposal, noting that the approach would allow testing a unit without
one of the listed optional features if a manufacturer distributes in
commerce an otherwise identical unit without the optional feature.
(Lennox, No. 12, p. 3)
AHRI commented their support of the proposed set up and test
provisions for specific components. (AHRI, No. 17, p. 12) AHRI also
recommended that the DOE Enforcement Policy be modified to exclude
SPVUs to prevent confusion (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11,
pg. 25 -26) AHRI noted that the STI may need to include instructions
for the component. They asserted that it would be important to indicate
that efficiency ratings were developed without specific components, if
also offered for sale by the manufacturer, even if it is included as a
factory-installed option. (AHRI, No. 17, pp. 12-13) No comments
received specifically addressed the general restructuring of the
provisions in the regulations.
In this final rule, DOE is adopting its proposals in the January
2022 NOPR for exclusion of certain components, with some additional
simplifications to further improve clarity. The different aspects of
the provisions are described in the following sections.
c. Test Provisions of 10 CFR Part 431, Appendix G1
DOE is adopting test provisions at 10 CFR part 431, appendix G1,
section 4, to prescribe how certain components must be configured for
testing, as proposed in the January 2022 NOPR. Specifically, DOE is
requiring in appendix G1 that steps be taken during unit setup and
testing to limit the impacts on the measurement of these components:
Desiccant Dehumidification Components
Air Economizers
Fresh Air Dampers
Hail Guards
Power Correction Capacitors
Ventilation Energy Recovery System (VERS)
Barometric Relief Dampers
UV Lights
Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils
Hot Gas Reheat
Sound Traps/Sound Attenuators
Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers
The components are listed and described in table 4.1 in section 4
of the new appendix G1, and test provisions for them are provided in
the table.
d. Representation Provisions of 10 CFR 429.43
As discussed, in the January 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed representation
requirements in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(4) that explicitly allowed
representations for individual models with certain components to be
based on testing for individual models without those components--the
proposal included a table \12\ listing the components for which these
provisions would apply (Desiccant Dehumidification Components, Air
Economizers, Ventilation Energy Recovery System (VERS), Steam Hydronic
Heat Coils, Hot Gas Reheat, Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers, Powered
Exhaust/Powered Return Air Fans, Sound Traps/Sound Attenuators, Hot Gas
Bypass). 87 FR 2490, 2507-2508, 2517. In this final rule, DOE is making
two clarifications to the representation requirements as proposed in
the January 2022 NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In the January 2022 NOPR, this table was referred to as
``Table 1'', but due to the publication of other test procedure
actions, from this point forward, it will be referred to as ``table
4 to paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of 10 CFR 429.43''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, DOE is specifying that the basic model representation must
be based on the least-efficient individual model that is a part of the
basic model, and clarifying how this long-standing basic model
provision interacts with the component treatment in Sec. 429.43 that
this final rule adopts. Adoption of this clarification in the
regulatory text is consistent with the January 2022 NOPR, in which DOE
noted that in some cases, individual models may include more than one
of the specified components or there may be individual models within a
basic model that include various
[[Page 75160]]
dehumidification components that result in more or less energy use. 87
FR 2490, 2507-2508. In such cases, DOE stated that the represented
values of performance must be representative of the individual model
with the lowest efficiency found within the basic model. Id. DOE
believes regulated entities may benefit from clarity in the regulatory
text as to how the least efficient individual model within a basic
model provision works with the component treatment for SPVUs. The
amendments in this final rule explicitly state that the exclusion of
the specified components from consideration in determining basic model
efficiency in certain scenarios is an exception to basing
representations on the least efficient individual model within a basic
model. In other words, the components listed in Sec. 429.43 are not
being considered as part of the representation under DOE's regulatory
framework if certain conditions are met as discussed in the following
paragraphs and thus, their impact on efficiency is not reflected in the
representation. In this case, the basic model's representation is
generally determined by applying the testing and sampling provisions to
the least efficient individual model in the basic model that does not
have a component listed in Sec. 429.43.
Second, DOE is also clarifying instructions for instances where
individual models within a basic model may have more than one of the
specified components and there may be no individual model without any
of the specified components. DOE is adopting the concept of an
``otherwise comparable model group'' (``OCMG'') instead of using the
proposed ``otherwise identical'' provisions. DOE relies on the term
``comparable'' as opposed to ``identical'' to indicate that components
that impact energy consumption as measured by the applicable test
procedure are the relevant components to consider for the purpose of
representations. Differences such as unit color and presence of utility
outlets would therefore not warrant separate OCMGs. DOE developed a
document of examples to illustrate the approach proposed in this NOPR
for determining represented values for SPVUs with specific components,
and in particular the OCMG concept. See EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020.
An OCMG is a group of individual models within the basic model that
do not differ in components that affect energy consumption as measured
according to the applicable test procedure other than the specific
components listed in table 4 to paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of Sec.
429.43. An OCMG may include individual models with any combination of
such specified components, including no specified components, and an
OCMG can be one individual model. Because every model within each OCMG
is within the definition of the basic model, a basic model can be
composed of multiple OCMGs. Each OCMG represents a unique combination
of components that affect energy consumption, as measured according to
the applicable test procedure, other than the specified components
listed in table 4 to paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of Sec. 429.43--this
means that a new combination of such components requires the creation
of a new OCMG. For example, a manufacturer might include two tiers of
control system within the same basic model, in which one of the control
systems has sophisticated diagnostics capabilities that require a more
powerful control board with a higher wattage input. SPVU individual
models with the ``standard'' control system would be part of OCMG A,
while individual models with the ``premium'' control system would be
part of a different OCMG B, since the control system is a component
that affects energy consumption and is not one of the specified exempt
components listed in table 4 to paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of Sec.
429.43. However, OCMG A and OCMG B both may include individual models
with different combinations of steam/hydronic coils, sound traps, and
VERS preheat. Both OCMGs may include any combination of characteristics
that do not affect the efficiency measurement, such as paint color.
The OCMG is used to identify which individual models are used to
determine a represented value for the basic model. Specifically, only
the individual model(s) with the least number (which could be zero) of
the specific components listed in table 4 to paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A)
of Sec. 429.43 is considered when identifying the individual model.
This clarifies which individual models are exempted from consideration
for determination of represented values in the case of an OCMG with
multiple specified components and no individual models with zero
specific components listed in table 4 to paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of
Sec. 429.43. Models with a number of specific components listed in
table 4 to paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A) of Sec. 429.43 greater than the
model(s) with the least number in the OCMG are exempted from
consideration. In the case that the OCMG includes an individual model
with no specific components listed in table 4 to paragraph
(a)(3)(iii)(A) of Sec. 429.43, then all individual models in the OCMG
with any specified components would be exempted from consideration.
Among the remaining non-exempted models, the least efficient individual
model across the OCMGs would be used to determine the representation of
the basic model. In the case where there are multiple individual models
within a single OCMG with the same non-zero least number of specified
components, the least efficient of these would be considered.
The use of the OCMG concept results in representations being based
on the same individual models as the approach proposed in the January
2022 NOPR, i.e., the represented values of performance are
representative of the individual model(s) with the lowest efficiency
found within the basic model, excluding certain individual models with
the specific components listed in table 4 to paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A)
of Sec. 429.43. However, the approach as adopted in this final rule is
structured to more explicitly address individual models with more than
one of the specific components listed in table 4 to paragraph
(a)(3)(iii)(A) of Sec. 429.43, as well as instances in which there is
no comparable model without any of the specified components.
AHRI commented in response to the NOPR that one item already
included in the DOE Enforcement Policy for Small, Large, and Very
Large, Air[hyphen]Cooled, Water[hyphen]Cooled, and
Evaporatively[hyphen]Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners and
Heat Pumps that should be considered for inclusion is coated coils.
They stated that the description of this component in the DOE
Enforcement Policy is adequate, but that coated coils should not be
specified for test units, as units are always available without
coating. (AHRI, No. 17, p. 12)
In response to AHRI's comment that coated coils should be included,
DOE is excluding coated coils from the specific components list
specified in 10 CFR 429.43 because DOE has tentatively concluded that
the presence of coated coils does not result in a significant impact to
performance of SPVUs, and, therefore, models with coated coils should
be rated based on performance of models with coated coils present
(rather than based on performance of an individual model within an OCMG
without coated coils).
e. Enforcement Provisions of 10 CFR 429.134
In the January 2022 NOPR DOE sought to address SPVUs that include
specified excluded components both in
[[Page 75161]]
the requirements for representation (i.e., 10 CFR 429.43) and in the
equipment specific enforcement provisions for assessing compliance
(i.e., 10 CFR 429.134). 87 FR 2490, 2507-2508.
Instruction on which units to test for the purpose of
representations are addressed in 10 CFR 429.43. DOE has determined that
including parallel enforcement provisions in 10 CFR 429.134 would be
redundant and potentially cause confusion because DOE would select for
enforcement only those individual models that are the basis for making
basic model representations as specified in 10 CFR 429.43. Therefore,
in this final rule DOE is providing the requirements for making
representations of SPVU that include the specified components in 10 CFR
429.43, and is not including parallel direction in the enforcement
provisions of 10 CFR 429.134 established in this final rule. However,
DOE is finalizing the provision that allows enforcement testing of
alternative individual models with specific components, if DOE cannot
obtain for test the individual models without the components that are
the basis of representation.
F. Represented Values
1. Multiple Refrigerants
In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE noted that some commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment may be sold with more than one
refrigerant option, and that DOE has identified at least one commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment manufacturer that
provides two refrigerant options under the same model number. 87 FR
2490, 2508-2509. DOE noted that the use of a refrigerant that requires
different hardware (such as R-407C as compared to R-410A) would
represent a different basic model, and according to the current CFR,
separate representations of energy efficiency are required for each
basic model. DOE also noted that some refrigerants (such as R-422D and
R-427A) would not require different hardware, and a manufacturer may
consider them to be the same basic model. In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE
requested comment on a proposal to specify that a manufacturer must
determine the represented values for that basic model based on the
refrigerant(s)--among all refrigerants listed on the unit's nameplate--
that result in the lowest cooling efficiency. Id.
In response to the NOPR, Lennox and AHRI supported DOE's proposal.
(Lennox, No. 12, p. 3; AHRI, No. 17, p. 13) The CA IOUs commented that
they support the multiple refrigerants proposal. They asserted that
this would provide the marketplace with the most conservative
assessment of equipment performance, while limiting test and reporting
burden for manufacturers. However, they urged DOE to allow optional
representations for more efficient refrigerants. The CA IOUs commented
that DOE should allow manufacturers the option to publish additional
ratings for equipment with different refrigerants and highlight
equipment with similar components that can reliably operate with
better-performing refrigerants. They commented that the ratings for
commercial refrigeration equipment include more than one refrigerant.
Finally, they suggested listing each refrigerant's global warming
potential alongside the performance information. (CA IOUs, No. 13, p.
4)
In response to the CA IOUs comment concerning optional
representations for an SPVU basic model that would reflect individual
models using more-efficient refrigerants, the basic model definition
for an SPVU requires the same or comparably performing compressor(s) in
order for two units to be considered the same basic model. 10 CFR
431.92(3). Therefore, if a manufacturer offers individual models that
have different refrigerants necessitating different compressors, then
the manufacturer must certify each model that uses a different
refrigerant as a distinct basic model number and must determine
separate represented values for each basic model. As discussed in the
January 2022 NOPR, DOE identified at least one commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment manufacturer that provides two
refrigerant options under the same model number. 87 FR 2490, 2508.
However, DOE understands that SPVUs are typically designed for use with
only a single type of refrigerant and are incompatible with other
refrigerants. DOE is not aware of any cases of SPVUs that are designed
to operate with interchangeable refrigerants, and the CA IOUs did not
identify the existence of any such systems in their comment.
As discussed in section III.E.2 of this final rule, DOE is
generally clarifying in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(iii)(A) that
representations for a SPVU basic model must be based on the least
efficient individual model(s) distributed in commerce within the basic
model (with the exception specified in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(iii)(A) for
certain individual models with the components listed in table 4 to
Sec. 429.43(a)(3)(iii)(A); this list does not include different
refrigerants). Therefore, upon further consideration, DOE has
determined that the content of the proposal in the January 2022 NOPR
regarding multiple refrigerants is included and clarified in the
provision adopted at 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(iii)(A), and that the
refrigerant-specific provisions proposed in the January 2022 NOPR at 10
CFR 429.43(a)(3) would be redundant. As such, in this final rule, DOE
is not adopting the refrigerant specific language proposed in the
January 2022 NOPR.
In regard to the CA IOUs' suggestion that the global warming
potential (``GWP'') of each refrigerant be listed along with the
performance information, it is unclear whether this suggestion was
intended to propose changes to DOE's representation or certification
requirements for SPVUs, or whether this suggestion was directed at
manufacturers for inclusion in their marketing materials. The GWP
values for refrigerants are determined by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and are publicly available.\13\ Further, the CA IOUs did not
provide any rationale for DOE to include refrigerant GWP in its
regulations for SPVUs. Therefore, DOE is not making any changes to the
representation or certification requirements for SPVUs related to
refrigerant GWP values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The IPCC periodically conducts assessment reports that can
impact the numerical values of GWP for each refrigerant. Also, the
IPCC provides GWP values over different time horizons (i.e., 50,
100, and 500 years) to reflect the relative warming potential of
refrigerants compared to CO2 for the same time spans. The
GWP values provided by the fourth assessment report and for the 100-
year time horizon ``AR4-100yr'' GWP values are most commonly used in
international and inter-agency processes, such as the Kigali
Amendment to the Montreal Protocol and the American Innovation and
Manufacturing ``AIM'' Act. GWP values from the fourth assessment
report can be found at https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Cooling Capacity
For SPVUs, cooling capacity determines equipment class, which in
turn determines the applicable energy conservation standard. 10 CFR
431.97. In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE noted that while cooling capacity
is a required represented value for SPVUs, DOE does not currently
specify provisions for SPVUs regarding how close the represented value
of cooling capacity must be to the tested or alternative energy-
efficiency determination method (``AEDM'') simulated cooling capacity,
or whether DOE will use measured or certified cooling capacity to
determine equipment class for enforcement testing. DOE proposed to add
to its regulations the following provisions regarding
[[Page 75162]]
cooling capacity for SPVUs: (1) a requirement that the represented
cooling capacity be between 95 percent and 100 percent of the tested or
AEDM-simulated cooling capacity; and (2) an enforcement provision
stating that DOE would use the mean of measured cooling capacity values
from testing, rather than the certified cooling capacity, to determine
the applicable standards. 87 FR 2490, 2509.
AHRI supported DOE's proposal that the represented cooling capacity
be between 95 percent and 100 percent of the tested or AEDM-simulated
cooling capacity. However, AHRI commented that DOE's proposed
enforcement provision of using the mean of measured cooling capacity
values from testing to determine the applicable standards, rather than
the certified cooling capacity, is different from other commercial
equipment. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11, p. 31)
AHRI recommended DOE apply enforcement provisions similar to those
for the enforcement provisions for packaged terminal air conditioners
(``PTACs''), which specifies in paragraph (e) of 10 CFR 429.134 that if
the certified cooling capacity is found to be ``valid'' based on the 5
percent allowance to the tested mean, the reported certified value of
cooling capacity is used in the next steps of decision making rather
than just the mean itself. AHRI noted that this five percent allowance
is also present today for portable air conditioners, water heaters, and
dehumidifiers. AHRI stated that using just the mean of the
measurement(s) to determine the applicable standard with which the
model must comply is too restrictive and does not follow precedence set
by similar products. (AHRI, No. 17, p. 13)
DOE acknowledges the enforcement provisions for PTACs specified in
paragraph (e) of 10 CFR 429.134 are different than the enforcement
provisions for commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment. DOE notes that the efficiency standards for PTACs are
linearly variable with capacity (i.e., a change in PTAC capacity
changes the minimum efficiency required). This is significantly
different than for SPVUs, which has standards based on equipment
classes that are differentiated based on fixed capacity thresholds. DOE
notes that the provisions proposed in the January 2022 NOPR are
consistent with the current enforcement provisions for commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment (see paragraph (g) of 10
CFR 429.134), which have similar capacity thresholds for equipment
classes and also have fixed efficiency standards within each class. To
maintain consistency with the approach used for other commercial air
conditioning and heating equipment with equipment classes based on
fixed capacity thresholds, DOE is adopting the enforcement provisions
specifying that DOE would use the mean of measured cooling capacity
values from testing to determine the applicable standards.
G. Effective and Compliance Dates
The effective date for the adopted test procedure amendment will be
30 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.
EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and
energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product
labels, must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure,
beginning 360 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) To the extent the modified test
procedure adopted in this final rule is required only for the
evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, compliance
with the amended test procedure does not require use of such modified
test procedure provisions until the compliance date of updated
standards.
H. Test Procedure Costs
In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that the
proposed amended test procedures for SPVUs would be representative of
an average use cycle and would not be unduly burdensome for
manufacturers to conduct. DOE noted that the proposed test procedure in
appendix G for measuring EER and COP would not increase testing costs
per unit compared to the current DOE test procedure. 87 FR 2490, 2509.
DOE also noted in the January 2022 NOPR that the proposed test
procedure provisions regarding IEER in appendix G1 would not be
mandatory unless and until DOE adopts energy conservation standards
that specify IEER as the regulatory metric and compliance with such
standards is required. Given that most SPVU manufacturers are AHRI
members and that DOE is referencing the prevailing industry test
procedure, DOE stated that it expects manufacturers will already be
testing using the IEER test method. Based on this, DOE determined that
the proposed test procedure amendments would not be expected to
increase the testing burden on most SPVU manufacturers. Additionally,
DOE determined that the test procedure amendments, if finalized, would
not require manufacturers to redesign any of the covered equipment,
would not require changes to how the equipment is manufactured, and
would not impact the utility of the equipment. 87 FR 2490, 2509-2510.
In the January 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its
understanding of the impact the test procedure proposals in the NOPR,
specifically on DOE's conclusion that manufacturers would not increase
testing burden on SPVU manufacturers. 87 FR 2490, 2510. Lennox noted
that industry was preparing to transition to AHRI 390-2021, and agreed
that the proposed test procedure would not unduly increase test burden
as compared to AHRI 390-2021 when fully implemented. (Lennox, No. 12 at
p. 3)
Consistent with what DOE determined in the January 2022 NOPR, DOE
has determined that by incorporating by reference the revised industry
test standard, AHRI 390-2021, the test procedure DOE is establishing
(appendices G and G1) is consistent with the industry standard and will
not add undue industry test burden or incur any additional tests costs.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to
[[Page 75163]]
use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and
future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance,
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the
Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such
techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this final
regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any
final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a
proposed rule for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the
rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,''
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on
small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking
process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available
on the Office of the General Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February
19, 2003.
For manufacturers of SPVU equipment, the SBA considers a business
entity to be small business if, together with its affiliates, it
employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR
part 121. SPVU manufacturers, who produce the equipment covered by this
rule, are classified under NAICS code 333415, ``Air-Conditioning and
Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration
Equipment Manufacturing.'' In 13 CFR 121.201, the SBA sets a threshold
of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category. This employee threshold includes all
employees in a business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.
DOE identified manufacturers using DOE's CCD for SPVUs,\14\ the
California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database
System (``MAEDbS''),\15\ and prior rulemakings. Additionally, DOE used
publicly-available information and subscription-based market research
tools (e.g., reports from Dun & Bradstreet \16\) to determine
headcount, revenue, and geographic presence of the small businesses.
DOE screened out companies that do not meet the definition of ``small
business'' or are foreign-owned and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at:
www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms (last accessed April 29, 2022).
\15\ California Energy Commission's MAEDbS is available at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx (last
accessed April 29, 2022).
\16\ Dun & Bradstreet reports are available at:
app.dnbhoovers.com (last access April 29, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the January 2022 NOPR, DOE initially identified a total
of eight companies that manufacture or private label SPVUs in the
United States. Of these eight companies, DOE identified two as domestic
small businesses. 87 FR 2490, 2511. Based on further analysis, DOE
revised its count to five manufacturers of SPVUs, of which one was
identified as a domestic small business.
DOE received a comment from AHRI that the following companies could
be small business SPVU manufacturers: Bard Manufacturing Company,
Marvair, Systemair, Temspec, and United CoolAir. (AHRI, No. 17, pg. 14)
DOE identified Bard Manufacturing Company as a domestic small business
in its Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The remaining companies listed
by AHRI were not considered in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis due
to the headcount of their business's parent company and any other
subsidiaries, due to foreign ownership, or due to the fact that they do
not offer equipment that meet the definition of a SPVU.
In this final rule, DOE (1) incorporates by reference AHRI 390-
2021, (2) establishes the definitions for single-phase single package
vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h''
and ``single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h,'' and (3) includes provisions for
testing when certain components are present.
Based on review of AHRI 390-2021, DOE determined that the proposed
test procedure in appendix G for measuring EER and COP would not
increase testing costs per unit compared to the current DOE test
procedure. Additionally, DOE determined that the proposed test
procedure in appendix G1 for measuring IEER and COP would be unlikely
to significantly increase burden, given that most SPVU manufacturers
are AHRI members, and that DOE is referencing the prevailing industry
test procedure that was established for use in AHRI's certification
program. Furthermore, the sole identified small business that
manufacturers SPVUs is an AHRI member. Lastly, DOE determined that the
amended test procedure would not require manufacturers to redesign any
of the covered equipment, would not require changes to how the
equipment is manufactured, and would not impact the utility of the
equipment.
While DOE assumed that all SPVU manufacturers will be using the
industry test procedure, AHRI 390-2021, DOE determined the potential
re-rating cost for the small business. This small business would only
incur re-rating costs if not using the AHRI 390-2021 test procedure to
test their SPVU models. DOE estimated the cost for this small business
to re-rate all models to be $30,200 while making use of an AEDM. DOE
estimates this to be less than 1 percent of revenue for the small
manufacturer.
As noted, DOE has determined that manufacturers would only incur
additional testing burden should they not already be testing to current
industry practice indicated by AHRI 390-2021. Should the sole small
business not be testing to AHRI 390-2021, DOE determined the potential
cost impacts on the small business to represent less than 1 percent of
annual revenue. Therefore, on the basis of the de minimis compliance
burden, DOE certifies that this final rule does not have a
``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and that the preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. DOE
will transmit a certification and supporting statement of factual basis
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of SPVUs must certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify
compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their
products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments
adopted for those test
[[Page 75164]]
procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and
recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and
commercial equipment, including SPVUs. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.)
The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by
OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE establishes test procedure amendments that
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for SPVUs. DOE has determined that this rule
falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from
review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test procedures for
measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and industrial
equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021,
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4,
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year,
so these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any 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
[[Page 75165]]
will not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that 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
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or
industry standards on competition.
The modifications to the test procedure for SPVUs adopted in this
final rule incorporates testing methods contained in certain sections
of the following commercial standards: AHRI 390-2021, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 41.2-1987 (RA 92). DOE has evaluated these
standards and is unable to conclude whether it fully complies with the
requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether it was
developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation,
comment, and review). DOE has consulted with both the Attorney General
and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on competition of using
the methods contained in these standards and has received no comments
objecting to their use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
DOE incorporates by reference the following standards:
AHRI 390-2021. Specifically, the test procedure codified by this
final rule references sections 3 (except 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.12, and
3.15), 5 (except section 5.8.5), 6 (except 6.1.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and
6.5), appendices A, D, and E of the industry test method. AHRI 390-
2021 is an industry-accepted test procedure for measuring the
performance of SPVUs. AHRI 390-2021 is available online at
www.ahrinet.org/search-standards.aspx.
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. This is an industry-accepted test procedure for
measuring the performance of electrically driven unitary air-
conditioning and heat pump equipment. ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 is
available on ANSI's website at https://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2FASHRAE+Standard+37-2009.
ANSI/ASHRAE 41.2-1987 (RA 92). This is an industry-accepted test
procedure for consistent measurement procedures for use in the
preparation of other ASHRAE standards. Procedures described are used
in testing air-moving, air-handling, and air-distribution equipment
and components. ANSI/ASHRAE 41.2-1987 (RA 92) is available on ANSI's
website at https://webstore.ansi.org/Standards/ASHRAE/ANSIASHRAE411987RA92.
The following standards were previously approved for incorporation
by reference in the locations where they appear in the regulatory text:
AHRI 210/240-2008, AHRI 340/360-2007, AHRI 1230-2010, AHRAE 127-2007,
and ISO Standard 13256-1.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by
reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on November
21, 2022, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters
[[Page 75166]]
the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal
Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on November 21, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends 10 CFR parts 429
and 431 as set forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 429.4 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) as paragraphs (c)(3) and
(4);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (c)(2);
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (d) through (f) as paragraphs (e) through
(g); and
0
d. Adding new paragraph (d).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 429.4 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) AHRI Standard 390 (I-P)-2021, (``AHRI 390-2021''), 2021
Standard for Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-
conditioners And Heat Pumps, IBR approved for Sec. 429.134.
* * * * *
(d) ASHRAE. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers. 180 Technology Parkway NW, Peachtree Corners,
GA 30092; (404) 636-8400, www.ashrae.org.
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009 (``ASHRAE 37-2009''), Methods of
Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and
Heat Pump Equipment, ASHRAE approved June 24, 2009; IBR approved for
Sec. 429.134.
(2) ANSI/ASHRAE 41.2-1987 (RA 92) (``ASHRAE 41.2-1987''), Standard
Methods For Laboratory Airflow Measurement, ANSI reaffirmed April 22,
1992; IBR approved for Sec. 429.134.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 429.43 by adding paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC)
equipment.
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Single package vertical units. When certifying to standards
in terms of IEER, the following provisions apply.
(A) For individual model selection:
(1) Representations for a basic model must be based on the least
efficient individual model(s) distributed in commerce among all
otherwise comparable model groups comprising the basic model, except as
provided in paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A)(2) of this section for individual
models that include components listed in table 4 to this paragraph
(a)(3)(iii)(A). For the purpose of this paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A)(1),
``otherwise comparable model group'' means a group of individual models
distributed in commerce within the basic model that do not differ in
components that affect energy consumption as measured according to the
applicable test procedure specified at 10 CFR 431.96 other than those
listed in table 4 to this paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A). An otherwise
comparable model group may include individual models distributed in
commerce with any combination of the components listed in table 4 (or
none of the components listed in table 4). An otherwise comparable
model group may consist of only one individual model.
(2) For a basic model that includes individual models distributed
in commerce with components listed in table 4 to this paragraph
(a)(3)(iii)(A), the requirements for determining representations apply
only to the individual model(s) of a specific otherwise comparable
model group distributed in commerce with the least number (which could
be zero) of components listed in table 4 included in individual models
of the group. Testing under this paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A)(2) shall be
consistent with any component-specific test provisions specified in
section 4 of appendix G1 to subpart F of 10 CFR part 431.
Table 4 to Paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(A)--Specific Components for Single
Package Vertical Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desiccant Dehumidification An assembly that reduces the
Components. moisture content of the supply air
through moisture transfer with
solid or liquid desiccants.
Air Economizers................... An automatic system that enables a
cooling system to supply outdoor
air to reduce or eliminate the need
for mechanical cooling during mid
or cold weather.
Ventilation Energy Recovery System An assembly that preconditions
(VERS). outdoor air entering the equipment
through direct or indirect thermal
and/or moisture exchange with the
exhaust air, which is defined as
the building air being exhausted to
the outside from the equipment.
Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils......... Coils used to provide supplemental
heating.
Hot Gas Reheat.................... A heat exchanger located downstream
of the indoor coil that heats the
Supply Air during cooling operation
using high pressure refrigerant in
order to increase the ratio of
moisture removal to Cooling
Capacity provided by the equipment.
Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers...... A damper assembly including means to
open and close the damper mounted
at the supply or return duct
opening of the equipment.
Powered Exhaust/Powered Return Air A powered exhaust fan is a fan that
Fans. transfers directly to the outside a
portion of the building air that is
returning to the unit, rather than
allowing it to recirculate to the
indoor coil and back to the
building. A powered return fan is a
fan that draws building air into
the equipment.
Sound Traps/Sound Attenuators..... An assembly of structures through
which the supply air passes before
leaving the equipment or through
which the return air from the
building passes immediately after
entering the equipment for which
the sound insertion loss is at
least 6 dB for the 125 Hz octave
band frequency range.
Hot Gas Bypass.................... A method to adjust the cooling
delivered by the equipment in which
some portion of the hot high-
pressure refrigerant from the
discharge of the compressor(s) is
diverted from its normal flow to
the outdoor coil and is instead
allowed to enter the indoor coil to
modulate the capacity of a
refrigeration circuit or to prevent
evaporator coil freezing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 75167]]
(B) The represented value of cooling capacity must be between 95
percent and 100 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, or between 95 percent and 100 percent of the net sensible
cooling capacity output simulated by the alternative energy-efficiency
determination method (AEDM) as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(C) Represented values must be based on performance (either through
testing or by applying an AEDM) of individual models with components
and features that are selected in accordance with section 4 of appendix
G1 to subpart F of 10 CFR part 431.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 429.134 by adding paragraph (x) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.134 Product-specific enforcement provisions.
* * * * *
(x) Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps. The
following provisions apply for assessment and enforcement testing of
models subject to standards in terms of IEER.
(1) Verification of cooling capacity. The cooling capacity of each
tested unit of the basic model will be measured pursuant to the test
requirements of appendix G1 to subpart F of 10 CFR part 431. The mean
of the measurement(s) will be used to determine the applicable
standards for purposes of compliance.
(2) Specific components. If a basic model includes individual
models with components listed at table 4 to Sec. 429.43(a)(3)(iii)(A)
and DOE is not able to obtain an individual model with the least number
(which could be zero) of those components within an otherwise
comparable model group (as defined in Sec. 429.43(a)(3)(iii)(A)(1)),
DOE may test any individual model within the otherwise comparable model
group.
(3) Validation of outdoor ventilation airflow rate. The outdoor
ventilation airflow rate in cubic feet per minute (``CFM'') of the
basic model will be measured in accordance with ASHRAE 41.2-1987 and
Section 6.4 of ASHRAE 37-2009 (both incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 429.4). All references to the inlet shall be determined to mean
the outdoor air inlet.
(i) The outdoor ventilation airflow rate validation shall be
conducted at the conditions specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 429.4), Full Load Standard Rating
Capacity Test, Cooling, except for the following:
The outdoor ventilation airflow rate shall be determined at 0 in.
H2O external static pressure with a tolerance of -0.00/+0.05
in. H2O.
(ii) When validating the outdoor ventilation airflow rate, the
outdoor air inlet pressure shall be 0.00 in. H2O, with a
tolerance of -0.00/+0.05 in. H2O when measured against the
room ambient pressure.
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; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
6. Amend Sec. 431.92 by:
0
a. Revising the definitions for ``Integrated energy efficiency ratio,
or IEER'', ``Single package vertical air conditioner'', and ``Single
package vertical heat pump''; and
0
b. Adding definitions for ``Single-phase single package vertical air
conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' and
``Single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h'' in alphabetical order.
The revisions and additions 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, expressed in Btu/watt-hour.
IEER is measured per appendix A to this subpart for air-cooled small
(>=65,000 Btu/h), large, and very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment, measured per appendix D1 to this
subpart for variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and
heat pumps (other than air-cooled with rated cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h), and measured per appendix G1 to this subpart for single
package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat
pumps.
* * * * *
Single package vertical air conditioner means:
(1) Air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment that--
(i) Is factory-assembled as a single package that--
(A) Has major components that are arranged vertically;
(B) Is an encased combination of cooling and optional heating
components; and
(C) Is intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or
through an outside wall;
(ii) Is powered by a single-or 3-phase current;
(iii) May contain 1 or more separate indoor grilles, outdoor
louvers, various ventilation options, indoor free air discharges,
ductwork, well plenum, or sleeves; and
(iv) Has heating components that may include electrical resistance,
steam, hot water, or gas, but may not include reverse-cycle
refrigeration as a heating means; and
(2) Includes single-phase single package vertical air conditioner
with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, as defined in this
section.
Single package vertical heat pump means:
(1) A single package vertical air conditioner that--
(i) Uses reverse-cycle refrigeration as its primary heat source;
and
(ii) May include secondary supplemental heating by means of
electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or gas; and
(2) Includes single-phase single package vertical heat pump with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, as defined in this section.
Single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h means air-cooled commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment that meets the criteria in
paragraphs (1)(i) through (iv) of the definition for a single package
vertical air conditioner in this section; that is single-phase; has a
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, and that:
(1) Is weatherized, determined by a model being denoted for
``Outdoor Use'' or marked as ``Suitable for Outdoor Use'' on the
equipment nameplate; or
(2) Is non-weatherized and is a model that has optional ventilation
air provisions available. When such ventilation air provisions are
present on the unit, the unit must be capable of drawing in and
conditioning outdoor air for delivery to the conditioned space at a
rate of at least 400 cubic feet per minute, as determined in accordance
with Sec. 429.134(x)(3) of this chapter, while the equipment is
operating with the same drive kit and motor settings used to determine
the certified efficiency rating of the equipment (as required for
submittal to DOE by Sec. 429.43(b)(4)(xi) of this chapter).
Single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling
capacity less
[[Page 75168]]
than 65,000 Btu/h means air-cooled commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment that meets the criteria in paragraphs (1)(i) and
(ii) of the definition for a single package vertical heat pump in this
section; that is single-phase; has a cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h, and that:
(1) Is weatherized, determined by a model being denoted for
``Outdoor Use'' or marked as ``Suitable for Outdoor Use'' on the
equipment nameplate; or
(2) Is non-weatherized and is a model that has optional ventilation
air provisions available. When such ventilation air provisions are
present on the unit, the unit must be capable of drawing in and
conditioning outdoor air for delivery to the conditioned space at a
rate of at least 400 cubic feet per minute, as determined in accordance
with Sec. 429.134(x)(3) of this chapter, while the equipment is
operating with the same drive kit and motor settings used to determine
the certified efficiency rating of the equipment (as required for
submittal to DOE by Sec. 429.43(b)(4)(xii) of this chapter).
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 431.95 by revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(2) to read
as follows:
Sec. 431.95 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) AHRI Standard 390(I-P)-2021 (``AHRI 390-2021''), 2021 Standard
for Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and
Heat Pumps, copyright 2021; (AHRI 390-2021), IBR approved for
appendices G and G1 to this subpart.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009 (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009''), Methods
of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and
Heat Pump Equipment, ASHRAE approved June 24, 2009, IBR approved for
Sec. 431.96 and appendices A, B, D1, G, and G1 to this subpart.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 431.96 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
b. Revising table 1 to paragraph (b); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (c).
The revisions 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 and capacity of each category
of covered equipment by conducting the test procedure(s) listed in
table 1 to this paragraph (b) along with any additional testing
provisions set forth in paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section and
appendices A through G1 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
must not be used. For equipment with multiple appendices listed in
table 1, consult the notes at the beginning of those appendices to
determine the applicable appendix to use for testing.
* * * * *
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)--Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional test
Cooling capacity or Use tests, procedure provisions
Equipment type Category moisture removal Energy efficiency conditions, and as indicated in the
capacity \2\ 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 None.
Conditioning and Heating Equipment. AC and HP. (omit section 6.5).
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................. Paragraphs (c) and
Evaporatively-Cooled 210/240-2008 (omit (e).
AC. section 6.5).
>=65,000 Btu/h and EER.................. AHRI................. Paragraphs (c) and
<135,000 Btu/h. 340/360-2007 (omit (e).
section 6.3).
Water-Source HP....... <135,000 Btu/h........ EER and COP.......... ISO Standard 13256-1. Paragraph (e).
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................. Paragraphs (c) and
Evaporatively-Cooled <240,000 Btu/h. 340/360-2007 (omit (e).
AC. section 6.3).
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................. Paragraphs (c) and
Evaporatively-Cooled <760,000 Btu/h. 340/360-2007 (omit (e).
AC. section 6.3).
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).
[[Page 75169]]
>=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................. HRI 1230-2010 (omit Paragraphs (c), (d),
split Systems. phase). 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).
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi- AC and HP............. >=65,000 Btu/h and EER and COP.......... Appendix D to this None.
split Systems, Air-cooled. <760,000 Btu/h. subpart \3\.
>=65,000 Btu/h and IEER and COP......... Appendix D1 to this None.
<760,000 Btu/h. subpart \3\.
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi- HP.................... <760,000 Btu/h........ EER and COP.......... Appendix D to this None.
split Systems, Water-source. subpart \3\.
<760,000 Btu/h........ IEER and COP......... Appendix D1 to this None.
subpart \2\.
Single Package Vertical Air AC and HP............. <760,000 Btu/h........ EER and COP.......... Appendix G to this None.
Conditioners and Single Package subpart \3\.
Vertical Heat Pumps.
EER, IEER, and COP... Appendix G1 to this None.
subpart \3\.
Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor All................... <324 lbs. of moisture ISMRE2 and ISCOP2.... Appendix B to this None.
Air Systems. removal/hr. subpart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.95.
\2\ Moisture removal capacity applies only to direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air systems.
\3\ For equipment with multiple appendices listed in this table 1, consult the notes at the beginning of those appendices to determine the applicable
appendix to use for testing.
(c) Optional break-in period for tests conducted using AHRI 210/
240-2008, 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 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.
* * * * *
Appendix E to Subpart F of Part 431 [Added and Reserved]
0
9. Add reserved appendix E to subpart F of part 431.
Appendix F to Subpart F of Part 431 [Added and Reserved]
0
10. Add reserved appendix F to subpart F of part 431.
0
11. Add appendix G to subpart F of part 431 to read as follows:
Appendix G to Subpart F of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and
Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps
Note: Prior to December 4, 2023, manufacturers must use the
results of testing under either this appendix or Sec. 431.96 as it
appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200-499 edition revised as of January
1, 2021, to determine compliance with the relevant standard from
Sec. 431.97 as that standard appeared in the January 1, 2021,
edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499. On or after December 4, 2023,
manufacturers must use the results of testing generated under this
appendix to demonstrate compliance with the relevant standard from
Sec. 431.97 as that standard appeared in the January 1, 2021,
edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499.
Beginning December 4, 2023, if manufacturers make voluntary
representations with respect to the integrated energy efficiency
ratio (IEER) of single packaged vertical air conditioners and single
package vertical heat pumps, such representations must be based on
testing conducted in accordance with appendix G1 to this subpart.
For any amended standards for single packaged vertical air
conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps based on IEER
published after January 1, 2021, manufacturers must use the results
of testing under appendix G1 to this subpart to determine
compliance. Representations related to energy consumption must be
made in accordance with the appropriate appendix that applies (i.e.,
this appendix or appendix G1) when determining compliance with the
relevant standard. Manufacturers may also use appendix G1 to certify
compliance with any amended standards prior to the applicable
compliance date for those standards.
1. Incorporation by Reference.
DOE incorporated by reference in Sec. 431.95 the entire
standard for AHRI 390-2021 and ASHRAE 37-2009. However, only certain
enumerated provisions of AHRI 390-2021 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 are
required or excluded as listed in this section 1. To the extent
there is a conflict between the terms or provisions of a referenced
industry standard and this appendix, the appendix provisions
control, followed by AHRI 390-2021, followed by ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009.
1.1. Only the following provisions of AHRI 390-2021 apply:
(a) Section 3--Definitions (omitting sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.12,
and 3.15)
[[Page 75170]]
(b) Section 5--Test Requirements (omitting section 5.8.5)
(c) Section 6--Rating Requirements (omitting sections 6.1.1 and 6.2
through 6.5)
(d) Appendix A. ``References--Normative''
(e) Appendix D. ``Indoor and Outdoor Air Condition Measurement--
Normative''
(f) Appendix E. ``Method of Testing Single Package Vertical Units--
Normative''
1.2. All provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 apply except for the
following provisions:
(a) Section 1--Purpose
(b) Section 2--Scope
(c) Section 4--Classifications
2. General. Determine cooling capacity (Btu/h) and energy
efficiency ratio (EER) for all single package vertical air
conditioners and heat pumps and coefficient of performance (COP) for
all single package vertical heat pumps, in accordance with the
specified sections of AHRI 390-2021 and the specified sections of
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. Only identified provisions of AHRI 390-2021 are
applicable and certain sections of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 are
inapplicable, as set forth in section 1 of this appendix. In
addition, the instructions in section 3 of this appendix apply to
determining EER and COP. Any subsequent amendment to a referenced
document by a standard-setting organization will not affect the test
procedure in this appendix, unless and until the test procedure is
amended by DOE.
3. Test Conditions. The ``Standard Rating Full Load Capacity
Test, Cooling'' conditions for cooling mode tests and ``Standard
Rating Full Load Capacity Test, Heating'' conditions for heat pump
heating mode tests specified in Table 3 of section 5.8.3 of AHRI
390-2021 shall be used.
3.1. Optional Representations. Representations of COP for single
package vertical heat pumps made using the ``Low Temperature
Operation, Heating'' condition specified in Table 3 of section 5.8.3
of AHRI 390-2021 are optional and are determined according to the
applicable provisions in section 1 of this appendix.
3.2. [Reserved]
0
12. Add appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 to read as follows:
Appendix G1 to Subpart F of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and
Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps
Note: Beginning December 4, 2023, if manufacturers make
voluntary representations with respect to the integrated energy
efficiency ratio (IEER) of single packaged vertical air conditioners
and single package vertical heat pumps, such representations must be
based on testing conducted in accordance with this appendix.
Manufacturers must use the results of testing under this
appendix to determine compliance with any amended standards for
single packaged vertical air conditioners and single package
vertical heat pumps based on IEER provided in Sec. 431.97 that are
published after January 1, 2021. Representations related to energy
consumption must be made in accordance with the appropriate appendix
that applies (i.e., appendix G to this subpart or this appendix)
when determining compliance with the relevant standard.
Manufacturers may also use this appendix to certify compliance with
any amended standards prior to the applicable compliance date for
those standards.
1. Incorporation by Reference
DOE incorporated by reference in Sec. 431.95 the entire
standard for AHRI 390-2021 and ASHRAE 37-2009. However, only certain
enumerated provisions of AHRI 390-2021 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 are
required or excluded as listed in this section 1. To the extent
there is a conflict between the terms or provisions of a referenced
industry standard and this appendix, the appendix provisions
control, followed by AHRI 390-2021, followed by ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009.
1.1. Only the following provisions of AHRI 390-2021 apply:
(a) Section 3--Definitions (omitting sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.12,
and 3.15)
(b) Section 5--Test Requirements (omitting section 5.8.5)
c) Section 6--Rating Requirements (omitting sections 6.1.1 and 6.3
through 6.5)
(d) Appendix A. ``References--Normative''
(e) Appendix D. ``Indoor and Outdoor Air Condition Measurement--
Normative''
(f) Appendix E. ``Method of Testing Single Package Vertical Units--
Normative''
1.2. All provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 apply except for the
following provisions:
(a) Section 1--Purpose
(b) Section 2--Scope
(c) Section 4--Classifications
2. General. Determine cooling capacity (Btu/h) and integrated
energy efficiency ratio (IEER) for all single package vertical air
conditioners and heat pumps and coefficient of performance (COP) for
all single package vertical heat pumps, in accordance with the
specified sections of AHRI 390-2021and the specified sections of
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. Only identified provisions of AHRI 390-2021 and
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 are applicable, as set forth in section 1 of
this appendix. In addition, the instructions in section 4 of this
appendix apply to determining IEER and COP. Any subsequent amendment
to a referenced document by a standard-setting organization will not
affect the test procedure in this appendix, unless and until the
test procedure is amended by DOE.
3. Test Conditions. The ``Part-Load Standard Rating Conditions''
conditions for cooling mode tests and ``Standard Rating Full Load
Capacity Test, Heating'' conditions for heat pump heating mode tests
specified in Table 3 of section 5.8.3 of AHRI 390-2021 shall be
used.
3.1. Optional Representations. Representations of COP for single
package vertical heat pumps made using the ``Low Temperature
Operation, Heating'' condition specified in Table 3 of section 5.8.3
of AHRI 390-2021 are optional and are determined according to the
applicable provisions in section 1.1 of this appendix.
4. Set-Up and Test Provisions for Specific Components. When
testing a single package vertical unit (SPVU) that includes any of
the features listed in table 4.1 to this appendix, test in
accordance with the set-up and test provisions specified in table
4.1 to this appendix.
Table 4.1--Test Provisions for Specific Components
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component Description Test provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desiccant Dehumidification An assembly that Disable desiccant
Components. reduces the dehumidification
moisture content components for
of the supply air testing.
through moisture
transfer with
solid or liquid
desiccants.
Air Economizers................. An automatic For any air
system that economizer that
enables a cooling is factory-
system to supply installed, place
outdoor air to the economizer in
reduce or the 100% return
eliminate the position and
need for close and seal
mechanical the outside air
cooling during dampers for
mid or cold testing. For any
weather. modular air
economizer
shipped with the
unit but not
factory-
installed, do not
install the
economizer for
testing.
Fresh Air Dampers............... An assembly with For any fresh air
dampers and means dampers that are
to set the damper factory-
position in a installed, close
closed and one and seal the
open position to dampers for
allow air to be testing. For any
drawn into the modular fresh air
equipment when dampers shipped
the indoor fan is with the unit but
operating. not factory-
installed, do not
install the
dampers for
testing.
Hail Guards..................... A grille or Remove hail guards
similar structure for testing.
mounted to the
outside of the
unit covering the
outdoor coil to
protect the coil
from hail, flying
debris and damage
from large
objects.
[[Page 75171]]
Power Correction Capacitors..... A capacitor that Remove power
increases the correction
power factor capacitors for
measured at the testing.
line connection
to the equipment.
Ventilation Energy Recovery An assembly that For any VERS that
System (VERS). preconditions is factory-
outdoor air installed, place
entering the the VERS in the
equipment through 100% return
direct or position and
indirect thermal close and seal
and/or moisture the outside air
exchange with the dampers and
exhaust air, exhaust air
which is defined dampers for
as the building testing, and do
air being not energize any
exhausted to the VERS
outside from the subcomponents
equipment. (e.g., energy
recovery wheel
motors). For any
VERS module
shipped with the
unit but not
factory-
installed, do not
install the VERS
for testing.
Barometric Relief Dampers....... An assembly with For any barometric
dampers and means relief dampers
to automatically that are factory-
set the damper installed, close
position in a and seal the
closed position dampers for
and one or more testing. For any
open positions to modular
allow venting barometric relief
directly to the dampers shipped
outside a portion with the unit but
of the building not factory-
air that is installed, do not
returning to the install the
unit, rather than dampers for
allowing it to testing.
recirculate to
the indoor coil
and back to the
building.
UV Lights....................... A lighting fixture Turn off UV lights
and lamp mounted for testing.
so that it shines
light on the
indoor coil, that
emits ultraviolet
light to inhibit
growth of
organisms on the
indoor coil
surfaces, the
condensate drip
pan, and/other
locations within
the equipment.
Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils....... Coils used to Test with steam/
provide hydronic heat
supplemental coils in place
heating. but providing no
heat.
Hot Gas Reheat.................. A heat exchanger De-activate
located refrigerant
downstream of the reheat coils for
indoor coil that testing so as to
heats the Supply provide the
Air during minimum (none if
cooling operation possible) reheat
using high achievable by the
pressure system controls.
refrigerant in
order to increase
the ratio of
moisture removal
to Cooling
Capacity provided
by the equipment.
Sound Traps/Sound Attenuators... An assembly of Removable sound
structures traps/sound
through which the attenuators shall
Supply Air passes be removed for
before leaving testing.
the equipment or Otherwise, test
through which the with sound traps/
return air from attenuators in
the building place.
passes
immediately after
entering the
equipment for
which the sound
insertion loss is
at least 6 dB for
the 125 Hz octave
band frequency
range.
Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers.... A damper assembly For any fire/smoke/
including means isolation dampers
to open and close that are factory-
the damper installed, set
mounted at the the dampers in
supply or return the fully open
duct opening of position for
the equipment. testing. For any
modular fire/
smoke/isolation
dampers shipped
with the unit but
not factory-
installed, do not
install the
dampers for
testing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2022-25747 Filed 12-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P