2490 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes to amend its 

test procedures for single package 

vertical air conditioners and single 

package vertical heat pumps. DOE is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the most recent version of the relevant 

industry test standard, AHRI 390–2021, 

and to amend certain provisions for 

representations for the subject 

equipment. DOE is also proposing 

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.’’ The 

proposed definitions would explicitly 

define this equipment as subsets of the 

broader single package vertical air 

conditioner and single package vertical 

heat pump equipment categories, and 

further distinguish such equipment 

from certain residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps. DOE 

seeks comment from interested parties 

on this proposal. 

DATES: 

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this proposal no later than 

March 15, 2022. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for details. 

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on 

Wednesday, February 9th, 2022, from 

1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–TP–0020, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: To 

SPVACandHeatPumps2017TP0020@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2017–BT–TP–0020 in the subject 

line of the message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this 

document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier, the 

Department has found it necessary to 

make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing COVID–19 pandemic. DOE 

is currently suspending receipt of public 

comments via postal mail and hand 

delivery/courier. If a commenter finds 

that this change poses an undue 

hardship, please contact Appliance 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

1445 to discuss the need for alternative 

arrangements. Once the COVID–19 

pandemic health emergency is resolved, 

DOE anticipates resuming all of its 

regular options for public comment 

submission, including postal mail and 

hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public 

meeting/webinar attendee lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

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=EERE2017-BT-TP-0020. The docket web page 

contains instructions on how to access 

all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for information 

on how to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

7335. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–5827. Email: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in a public meeting/webinar, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

proposes to maintain a previously 

approved incorporation by reference 

and incorporate by reference the 

following industry standards into parts 

429 and 431: 

AHRI Standard 390–2021 

‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package 

Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps,’’ dated 2021. 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009, 

‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment,’’ ASHRAE approved June 

24, 2009. 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2–1987 

(RA 92), ‘‘Standard Methods For 

Laboratory Airflow Measurement,’’ 

ASHRAE approved October 1, 1987. 

Copies of AHRI Standard 390–2021 

can be obtained from the Airconditioning, 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 Standard 

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 

https://www.ashrae.org/. 

See section IV.M for a further 

discussion of these standards. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. Scope of Applicability 

B. Updates to Industry Standards 

1. Updates to AHRI 390 

2. ASHRAE 37 

C. Proposed Organization of the SPVU Test 

Procedure 

D. Energy Efficiency Descriptor 

1. Efficiency Metrics 

2. Test Conditions Used for Efficiency 

Metrics 

3. Fan Energy Use 

E. Test Method 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2491 

1All 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). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

1. Unit Set-Up 

2. Air Temperature Measurements 

3. Defrost Energy Use 

4. Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method 

F. Configuration of Unit Under Test 

1. Specific Components 

G. Represented Values 

1. Multiple Refrigerants 

2. Cooling Capacity 

H. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

I. Reserved Appendices for Test Procedures 

for Commercial Air Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment 

J. Compliance Dates 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. 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. 

Accordingly, SPVUs are included in the 

list of ‘‘covered equipment’’ for which 

DOE is authorized to establish and 

amend energy conservation standards 

and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(1)(B)–(D)) DOE’s energy 

conservation standards and test 

procedures for SPVUs are currently 

prescribed at title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) section 97 

to subpart F of part 431 and section 96 

to subpart F of part 431, respectively. 

The following sections discuss DOE’s 

authority to establish test procedures for 

SPVUs and relevant background 

information regarding DOE’s 

consideration of test procedures for 

SPVUs. 

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 small, large, and 

very large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment, 

including SPVUs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)– 

(D)) 

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 representations about the 

efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 

6314(d)). DOE also uses these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

equipment complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE 

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions of 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d); 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 be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use and 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314 (a)(2)) 

As discussed earlier in this document, 

SPVUs are a category of commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment. EPCA requires that the test 

procedures for commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment be 

those generally accepted industry 

testing procedures or rating procedures 

developed or recognized by the AirConditioning, 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)) Further, if such 

an industry test procedure is amended, 

DOE must amend its test procedure to 

be consistent with the amended 

industry test procedure, unless DOE 

determines, by rule published in the 

Federal Register and supported by clear 

and convincing evidence, that such 

amended test procedure would not meet 

the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) 

and (3) related to representative use and 

test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) 

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE must evaluate the 

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)(A)) 

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)) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2492 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to amend the test procedures for SPVUs 

(Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–TP–0020, which is 

maintained at www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020). The 

references are arranged as follows: (Commenter 

name, comment docket ID number, page of that 

document). 

DOE is publishing this NOPR in 

satisfaction of its obligations under 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B); 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 standard referenced in the 

edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

current at that time. 

On July 20, 2018, DOE published a 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’) in the 

Federal Register to collect information 

and data to consider amendments to 

DOE’s test procedures for SPVUs. 83 FR 

34499 (‘‘July 2018 RFI’’). As part of the 

July 2018 RFI, DOE identified and 

requested comment on several issues 

associated with the currently applicable 

Federal test procedures, in particular 

concerning incorporation by reference 

of the most recent version of the 

relevant industry standard; efficiency 

metrics and calculations; and 

clarification of test methods. Id. at 83 FR 

3449. DOE also sought comment on any 

additional topics that may inform DOE’s 

decisions in a future test procedure 

rulemaking, including methods to 

reduce regulatory burden while 

ensuring the test procedures’ accuracy. 

Id. 

DOE received a number of comments 

from interested parties in response to 

the July 2018 RFI. Table I–1 lists each 

commenter and the abbreviation for 

each used in this document. DOE 

considered these comments in the 

preparation of this NOPR. Discussion of 

the relevant comments, as well as DOE’s 

responses, are provided in the 

appropriate sections of this document. 

TABLE I–1—INTERESTED PARTIES PROVIDING COMMENT ON THE JULY 2018 RFI 

Commenter(s) Abbreviation Commenter type 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ..................................................................... AHRI ................................. IR. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.ASAP, NRDC, and 

ACEEE.

EA. 

GE Appliances, a Haier Company .................................................................................................. GE ..................................... M. 

Lennox International Inc .................................................................................................................. Lennox .............................. M. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council .............. NEEA and NWPCC .......... EA and Interstate Compact Agency. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE); collectively the California Investor-Owned Utilities.CA IOUs ........................... U. 

EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; IR: Industry Representative; M: Manufacturer; U: Utility. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.3

On June 24, 2021, AHRI published 

updates to its test procedure for SPVUs 

as AHRI Standard 390–2021, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package 

Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps’’ (‘‘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. 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

amend the test procedures for SPVUs to 

incorporate by reference AHRI 390– 

2021. DOE proposes 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 is also proposing 

add a new appendix G1 that would 

include the relevant test procedure 

requirements for SPVUs for measuring 

with updated efficiency metrics: (1) 

IEER for cooling mode and (2) COP for 

heating mode. Appendix G1 would 

provide the test procedure for 

representations based on IEER and 

would 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. 

Additionally, DOE is proposing 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 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. 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 CAC and subject to the 

applicable consumer products energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE is proposing to establish 

appendices for the relevant test 

procedures for SPVUs to better 

differentiate the specific testing 

requirements. Currently, the test 

requirements for all types of commercial 

air conditioners and heat pumps, 

including SPVUs, are codified at 10 CFR 

431.96. In conjunction, DOE proposes to 

amend Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96 to 

identify the newly added Appendices G 

and G1 as the applicable test procedures 

for testing SPVUs. 

DOE’s proposed actions are 

summarized in Table II–1 and addressed 

in detail in section III of this document. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2493 

4 ‘‘Packaged terminal air conditioner’’ is defined 

in 10 CFR 430.92 as a wall sleeve and a separate 

un-encased combination of heating and cooling 

assemblies specified by the builder and intended 

for mounting through the wall, and that is 

industrial equipment. It includes a prime source of 

refrigeration, separable outdoor louvers, forced 

ventilation, and heating availability by builder’s 

choice of hot water, steam, or electricity. 

TABLE II–1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURE RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE

Current DOE TP Proposed TP Attribution 

Incorporates by reference ANSI/ 

AHRI 390–2003 (excluding 

section 6.4).

Incorporates by reference AHRI 390–2021, which includes the following changes ........................

—Includes a new energy efficiency descriptor, IEER, which incorporates part-load performance.

Adopt industry test procedure. 

—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 the 

equipment categories; ‘‘Single 

Package Vertical Air Conditioner’’ and ‘‘Single Package 

Vertical Heat Pump’’.

Includes additional definitions: ‘‘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’’.

Explicitly delineate SPVUs from 

other covered products. 

Does not include provisions for 

certain components.

Includes provisions for testing when certain components are present ............................................ Establish provisions for testing 

with certain components. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments would not be 

unduly burdensome. Furthermore, DOE 

has tentatively determined that the 

proposed amendments described in 

section III of this NOPR would not alter 

the measured efficiency of SPVUs or 

require retesting solely as a result of 

DOE’s adoption of the proposed 

amendments to the test procedure, if 

made final. Use of the updated industry 

test procedure provisions as proposed in 

Appendix G1 and the related proposed 

amendments to representation 

requirements in 10 CFR 429.43 would 

not be required until the compliance 

date of any amended standards 

denominated in terms of IEER. 

Additionally, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the proposed 

amendments, if made final, would not 

increase the cost of testing. Discussion 

of DOE’s proposed actions are addressed 

in detail in section III of this NOPR. 

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, these units can be singleor 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. DOE codified 

the statutory definitions into its 

regulations at 10 CFR 431.92. 

Additionally, EPCA established initial 

equipment classes for SPVUs 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 singleor 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)) 

DOE is proposing 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 delineate such equipment 

from certain covered consumer 

products, such as central air 

conditioners, based on design 

characteristics. On April 24, 2020, DOE 

published in the Federal Register a 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’) with 

regards to SPVU energy conservation 

standards (85 FR 22958). In response to 

this RFI, Lennox commented that 

misunderstanding the distinction 

between CACs and SPVUs remains an 

outstanding issue on which DOE should 

take action. (Docket No. EERE–2019– 

BT–STD–0033–0008 at pp. 1–2)) 

EPCA defines a ‘‘central air 

conditioner’’ as a product, other than a 

packaged terminal air conditioner,4

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)) 

DOE has incorporated this definition in 

10 CFR 430.2. 

Reading the two definitions of SPVUs 

and CACs in isolation, certain singlephase air conditioners and heat pumps 

with cooling capacity less than 65,000 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2494 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

5ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2019 details ventilation 

standards for a variety of commercial building 

spaces, including educational spaces, which are the 

primary market for floor-mounted, single-phase 

SPVUs. Specifically, for standard classrooms 

occupied with persons between the ages of 5 and 

8, 10 CFM of outdoor air flow per person is required 

at a default occupancy of 25 individuals per 1,000 

square feet. This translates to a requirement of 250 

CFM per 1,000 square feet under default occupancy. 

For standard classrooms occupied by persons 9 

years and older, 10 CFM of outdoor air per person 

is required at a default occupancy of 35 individuals 

per 1,000 square feet. This translates to a 

requirement of 350 CFM per 1,000 square feet under 

default occupancy. For specialty classrooms 

(lecture rooms, art, science, college laboratories, 

wood/metal shops, computer labs, media centers, 

music/theater/dance), specific outdoor air 

requirements range from 250 CFM to 350 CFM per 

1,000 square feet under default occupancy. (For 

further details, see ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1– 

2019, Table 6–1.) 

6For the multi-family applications of hotels, 

motels, resorts, and dormitories, ASHRAE Standard 

62.1–2019 requires outdoor air flow rates of 5 CFM 

per person at a default occupancy of 10 individuals 

per 1,000 square feet. This translates to a 

requirement of 50 CFM per 1,000 square feet under 

default occupancy. (For further details, see ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2019, Table 6–1.) 

7 Ventilation in high-rise multi-family apartment 

buildings is typically achieved using a combination 

of natural and mechanical ventilation. The 

preferred mechanical ventilation method is a 

central system, which uses ventilation ducts 

oriented vertically through stacks of apartments, 

with make-up air sourced from air conditioning/ 

heating units located on the roof and supplied via 

vertical ducts. For more information see: A Guide 

to Energy Efficient Ventilation in Apartment 

Buildings. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE/EE– 

0196). 1999 (Available at: eetd.lbl.gov/node/50537). 

8Table N1104.2 of the ‘‘Minnesota Rules, Chapter 

1322 Residential Energy Code’’ specifies ventilation 

rates for residences based on a range of square 

footages and numbers of bedrooms. For residences 

with a conditioned space between 1,000 and 1,500 

square feet in area, ventilation rates are similar to 

those listed in ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2013 per 

1,000 square feet for the multi-family applications 

of hotels, motels, resorts, and dormitories. 

Specifically, for residences with a conditioned 

space between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet in area, 

total ventilation rates range from 60 CFM (for a 

single-bedroom residence) to 135 CFM (for a sixbedroom residence). 

Btu/h and with their components 

arranged vertically could be understood 

to be SPVUs, as opposed to CACs. DOE 

has previously explained that the 

definitions of SPVUs and CACs must be 

read in the context of DOE’s authority 

to regulate certain consumer products 

(i.e., covered products) and certain 

industrial equipment (i.e., covered 

equipment). 79 FR 78614, 78625 (April 

11, 2014). Industrial equipment under 

EPCA generally excludes ‘‘covered 

products.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(A)(iii)) 

‘‘Covered products’’ are certain 

consumer products explicitly set forth 

in the statute, as well as consumer 

products which 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)) CACs are covered products. 

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. 79 FR 78614, 

78625 (April 11, 2014). 

To clarify the distinction between 

SPVUs as industrial equipment and 

CACs as covered consumer products, 

DOE proposes 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.’’ The current 

definitions of SPVAC and SPVHP at 10 

CFR 431.92 allow for both wallmounted and floor-mounted units, and 

either may use single-phase or threephase power. DOE proposes to include 

certain characteristics as part of these 

definitions that will evidence that these 

equipment would likely not be 

distributed to any significant extent in 

commerce for personal use or 

consumption by individuals. These 

characteristics would distinguish SPVU 

equipment from CACs, which are 

consumer products. 

DOE has identified specific technical 

features that differentiate floormounted, single-phase units intended 

only for commercial applications (i.e., 

meaning they are SPVUs) from ones 

intended for consumer applications, 

such as multi-family type floormounted, single-phase units (i.e., 

meaning they are CACs). DOE has 

preliminarily determined that, in order 

to meet commercial building ventilation 

requirements 5 (an indication that a unit 

is industrial equipment and not a 

consumer product), floor-mounted, 

single-phase units on the market have 

the ability for outdoor air intake. This is 

evidenced by the existence of outdoor 

air intake dampers and associated 

controls. These ventilation air 

provisions make the unit capable of 

drawing in and conditioning outdoor air 

for delivery to the conditioned space 

(with or without first mixing the 

outdoor air with return air). Technical 

specifications for these floor-mounted, 

single-phase units detail both the 

incremental and maximum outdoor air 

flow rates available to meet the specific 

indoor air quality needs of building 

occupants. Of the maximum outdoor air 

flow rates that DOE identified for each 

unit on the market, the unit with the 

lowest maximum outdoor air flow rate 

identified was capable of providing a 

maximum of 400 cubic feet per minute 

(‘‘CFM’’) of outdoor air, 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 10 CFR 

429.43(b)(4)(xi)). 

Conversely, DOE preliminarily has 

found that the multi-family type floormounted, single-phase units that are 

consumer products because they are 

distributed in commerce for personal 

use or consumption by individuals (i.e., 

CACs) have little to no ability to provide 

outdoor air to the conditioned space. 

Based on DOE’s review of manufacturer 

literature, for those consumer products 

that do provide outdoor air, none could 

provide more than 120 CFM of outdoor 

air to the conditioned space. Building 

ventilation codes may require specific 

levels of outdoor air flow for multifamily type structures, but the outdoor 

ventilation airflow requirements for 

such living spaces are substantially 

lower than those for the spaces 

generally served by the market for floormounted, single-phase SPVUs.6 Thus, 

DOE initially has determined that, at the 

present time and in most cases, these 

outdoor ventilation airflow 

requirements are adequately met using 

ventilation techniques other than the 

outdoor air provisions incorporated in 

single-package units.7 In addition, DOE 

notes that in other applications in areas 

where ventilation standards exist 

specifically for residences, the required 

outdoor air flow levels for these 

structures are similar to those for multifamily type structures.8

Based on the discussion in the prior 

paragraphs, DOE has preliminarily 

determined that a key physical 

characteristic demonstrating that floormounted, single-phase SPVUs are not 

‘‘of a type’’ distributed in commerce for 

personal use or consumption by 

individuals is the ability to provide 

outdoor air sufficient for commercial 

applications. Equipment with the ability 

to provide 400 CFM or greater of 

outdoor air, which significantly exceeds 

the outdoor air requirements for 

residences and multi-family 

applications, would likely not be 

distributed to any significant extent in 

commerce for personal use or 

consumption by individuals and, 

therefore, is not a consumer product. 

(See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) 

DOE’s review of the market for wallmounted configurations did not find 

that there was a threshold capability of 

providing outdoor air to distinguish 

between wall-mounted, single-phase 

units for use in commercial applications 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2495 

(SPVUs) and multi-family-type floormounted, single-phase units (CACs). 

However, based on DOE’s review, all 

wall-mounted units marketed for 

commercial applications identified by 

DOE were weatherized (i.e., designed 

for outdoor use) and denoted on their 

nameplate that they are for ‘‘Outdoor 

Use’’ or ‘‘Suitable for Outdoor Use.’’ 

Conversely, all units marketed for multifamily-type floor-mounted applications 

identified by DOE were nonweatherized units. Based on this review, 

DOE also proposes that whether a model 

is weatherized or non-weatherized is a 

criterion for distinguishing between 

single-phase SPVUs and consumer 

CACs. 

Therefore, DOE proposes 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 

SPVACs and SPVHPs, respectively, that 

are either (1) weatherized, or (2) nonweatherized and have the ability to 

provide a minimum of 400 CFM of 

outdoor air. Single-phase single package 

products with cooling capacity less than 

65,000 Btu/h not meeting these 

definitions would be properly classified 

as CACs, not SPVUs. 

DOE recognizes that the confusion 

with the appropriate classification of 

CACs and SPVUs may have been 

compounded by DOE’s definition of 

‘‘space-constrained’’ CACs and 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1’s definition of 

‘‘nonweatherized space constrained 

single-package vertical unit.’’ 

Nonetheless, because a spaceconstrained product is a central air 

conditioner or heat pump, it is properly 

classified as a consumer product. In 10 

CFR 430.2, DOE defines ‘‘space 

constrained product’’ as a central air 

conditioner or heat pump with certain 

characteristics including rated cooling 

capacity no greater than 30,000 Btu/hr 

and an outdoor or indoor unit with 

dimensions or displacement 

substantially smaller than those of other 

units and that if increased would 

increase installation cost or reduce 

utility, and which was available for 

purchase in the United States as of 

December 1, 2000. As with CACs more 

broadly, if a unit meets DOE’s definition 

of ‘‘space constrained product,’’ it is not 

an SPVU. 

In contrast, ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2013 created a new equipment class for 

SPVACs and SPVHPs used in spaceconstrained applications, with a 

definition for ‘‘nonweatherized space 

constrained single-package vertical 

unit’’ and specified efficiency standards 

for the associated equipment class. In a 

Notice of Data Availability addressing 

energy conservation standards for 

certain commercial heating, air 

conditioning, and water heating 

equipment, including SPVUs, published 

in the Federal Register on April 11, 

2014, DOE explicitly addressed 

‘‘nonweatherized space constrained 

single-package vertical units’’ and 

tentatively concluded that there was no 

need to establish a separate spaceconstrained class for SPVUs. 79 FR 

20114, 20123. In that document, DOE 

stated that certain models currently 

listed by manufacturers as SPVUs, most 

of which would have met the ASHRAE 

space-constrained definition, were being 

misclassified and should be classified as 

central air conditioners (in most cases, 

space-constrained central air 

conditioners). Id. DOE reaffirmed this 

position in a NOPR addressing energy 

conservation standards for SPVUs, 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 30, 2014, emphasizing that a 

product can only be considered 

commercial/industrial equipment under 

EPCA if it does not meet the definition 

of a consumer product. 79 FR 78614, 

78625. In the subsequent final rule 

addressing energy conversation 

standards for SPVUs, DOE did not adopt 

definitions in response to this issue and 

stated it would consider the matter in a 

subsequent rulemaking. 80 FR 57438, 

57448 (Sept. 23, 2015). 

DOE has now tentatively determined 

that the characteristics included in the 

proposed definitions earlier in this 

section of ‘‘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’’ appropriately 

distinguish such equipment from 

consumer products and address any 

potential confusion as to the application 

of the DOE definition of ‘‘space 

constrained products’’ to SPVUs. 

In regard to determining if a unit is 

capable of providing 400 CFM of 

outdoor air, DOE is proposing to include 

provisions in 10 CFR 429.134 that 

specify the method of measurement of 

the maximum outdoor ventilation 

airflow rate. DOE is proposing 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 notes that 

the proposed method for measuring 

outdoor ventilation airflow is generally 

consistent with the test methods 

specified in AHRI 390–2021 (i.e., AHRI 

390–2021 incorporates by reference 

ASHRAE 37–2009, including Section 

6.4, which in turn incorporates by 

reference ASHRAE 41.2–1987, which 

specify the method of airflow 

measurement.) DOE is proposing 

additional specifications in this NOPR 

to clarify how these provisions are 

applied to measure the outdoor 

ventilation airflow rate. First, DOE is 

proposing to specify that all references 

to the inlet in ASHRAE 41.2–1987 and 

Section 6.4 of ASHRAE 37–2009 refer to 

the outdoor air inlet. Second, DOE is 

proposing to specify that the 

measurement should take place at the 

conditions specified for Full Load 

Standard Rating Capacity Test, Cooling 

in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021, except for 

the minimum external static pressure 

(ESP). The minimum ESP for all 

validations shall be 0.00 in. H2O 

measured from inlet to outlet, with a 

tolerance of ¥0.00/+0.05 in. H2O. 

Finally, DOE is proposing that 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. These additional 

provisions would improve the 

representativeness, repeatability, and 

reproducibility of the test methods for 

validating the outdoor ventilation 

airflow rate. 

Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal 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 

subsets of the broader SPVAC and 

SPVHP equipment category. DOE 

requests feedback on the proposed 

characteristics that would distinguish 

this equipment as SPVUs (i.e., 

‘‘weatherized’’ or capable of utilizing a 

maximum of 400 CFM of outdoor air). 

Additionally, DOE requests comment on 

the proposed method to validate that a 

unit is capable of providing 400 CFM of 

outdoor air. 

B. Updates to Industry Standards 

1. Updates to AHRI 390 

As described in section I.A of this 

NOPR, with respect to SPVUs, EPCA 

directs DOE to use industry test 

methods developed or recognized by 

AHRI or ASHRAE, as referenced in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry test 

procedure is amended, EPCA requires 

that DOE amend its test procedure as 

necessary to be consistent with the 

amended industry test method unless 

DOE determines, by rule published in 

the Federal Register and supported by 

clear and convincing evidence, that the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2496 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

9A notation in the form ‘‘GE, No. 3 at p. 1’’ 

identifies a written comment: (1) Made by GE; (2) 

recorded in document number 3 that is filed in the 

docket of the SPVU test procedure rulemaking 

(Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–TP–0020) and 

available for review at www.regulations.gov; and (3) 

that appears on page 1 of document number 3. 

amended test procedure would be 

unduly burdensome to conduct or 

would not produce test results that 

reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, 

and estimated operating costs of that 

equipment during a representative 

average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(4)(B)) 

As mentioned, the DOE test procedure 

at 10 CFR 431.96 references ANSI/AHRI 

390–2003 (excluding Section 6.4) for 

testing SPVUs, and ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 references this same industry test 

standard. In response to the July 2018 

RFI, GE commented that DOE should 

continue to incorporate by reference the 

ASHRAE, ANSI, and AHRI test 

procedures for SPVUs, including new 

editions when published by the 

standards-setting bodies. (GE, No. 3 at p. 

1) 9 AHRI and Lennox encouraged 

DOE’s continued participation in the 

process to revise AHRI 390. (AHRI, No. 

5 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 6 at pp. 1–2) AHRI 

and Lennox recommended that DOE 

adopt the revised industry test standard 

as the DOE test procedure. (AHRI, No. 

5 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 1) 

On June 24, 2021, AHRI published 

AHRI 390–2021, which supersedes 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003. AHRI 390–2021, 

which was developed as part of an 

industry consensus process, includes 

revisions that DOE has initially 

determined improve the 

representativeness, repeatability, and 

reproducibility of the test methods. 

These revisions include, among other 

things, the following: (1) A new energy 

efficiency descriptor, IEER, which 

incorporates part-load cooling 

performance; (2) additional 

specification to the testing requirements 

for ducted and non-ducted units; (3) 

refrigerant charging instructions for 

cases where they are not provided by 

the manufacturer; (4) additional 

specification for setting the airflow rates 

and external static pressure for testing; 

(5) additional specification for the 

measurement of air conditions; (6) 

additional specification for the 

secondary capacity measurement using 

the outdoor air enthalpy method; (7) 

guidance on the filter to be used during 

test; (8) specification of a maximum 

compressor break-in period; (9) further 

specificity for atmospheric pressure 

measurement requirements; (10) 

additional detail regarding the 

installation of outdoor air-side 

attachments; (11) additional direction 

on the use of applicable manufacturer 

instructions; and (12) a list of 

components that must be present for 

testing. DOE carefully reviewed the 

changes in AHRI 390–2021 in 

consideration of this NOPR. In this 

NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by 

reference the latest version of the 

industry test procedure for SPVUs, 

AHRI 390–2021, per 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(4)(A) and (B). 

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 is proposing to incorporate 

by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 in 

its test procedure for SPVUs. 

Specifically, in Section 1.2 of the 

proposed test procedure for SPVUs in 

the proposed Appendices G and G1 of 

subpart F of 10 CFR part 431, DOE is 

proposing to utilize the applicable 

sections of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009—all 

sections except sections 1, 2 and 4. DOE 

also is proposing 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. 

C. Proposed Organization of the SPVU 

Test Procedure 

DOE is proposing to relocate and 

centralize the current test procedure for 

SPVUs to a new Appendix G to subpart 

F of part 431. Appendix G will 

incorporate by reference AHRI 390– 

2021, but DOE will exclude from use 

those sections pertaining to the 

calculation of IEER (section 6.2). 

Correspondingly, DOE is proposing to 

update the existing incorporation by 

reference of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 at 10 

CFR 431.95 so that the incorporation by 

reference applies to Appendix G rather 

than 10 CFR 431.96. As proposed, 

SPVUs would be tested according to 

Appendix G unless and until DOE 

adopts an amended energy conservation 

standard that relies on the IEER metric. 

DOE also is proposing to amend the 

test procedure for SPVUs by adopting 

the updated version of AHRI 390–2021, 

including use of the sections pertaining 

to IEER (section 6.2) in a new Appendix 

G1 to subpart F of part 431, as discussed 

in the following sections. As proposed, 

SPVUs would not be required to test 

according to the test procedure in 

proposed Appendix G1 unless and until 

DOE adopts an amended energy 

conservation standard that relies on the 

IEER metric. 

D. Energy Efficiency Descriptor 

For SPVUs, DOE currently prescribes 

EER as the cooling mode metric and 

COP as the heating mode metric. 10 CFR 

431.96. These energy efficiency 

descriptors are consistent with those 

included in ASHRAE 90.1–2019 for 

SPVUs. 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. COP is the ratio of the 

produced heating effect of the SPVU to 

its net work input, expressed in W/W, 

and measured at standard rating 

conditions. 

1. Efficiency Metrics 

EER measures efficiency at full-load 

conditions. DOE’s current test 

procedure for SPVUs does not include 

a seasonal metric that measures partload performance. A seasonal metric is 

a weighted average of the performance 

of cooling or heating systems at different 

rating points intended to represent 

average efficiency over a full cooling or 

heating season. 

DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that 

several other categories of commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment are rated using a seasonal 

metric, such as IEER for air-cooled 

commercial unitary air conditioners 

(‘‘CUACs’’), as presented in Section 6.2 

of AHRI 340/360–2019, ‘‘Performance 

Rating of Commercial and Industrial 

Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment.’’ 83 FR 34499, 34503 

(July 20, 2018). IEER is a weighted 

average of efficiency at the four load 

levels representing 100, 75, 50, and 25 

percent of full-load capacity, each 

measured at an outdoor air condition 

representative of field operation at the 

given load level. 

DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 includes a 

seasonal part-load metric for SPVUs 

(i.e., integrated part-load value 

(‘‘IPLV’’)). 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 

2018). IPLV integrates unit performance 

at each capacity step provided by the 

refrigeration system. The IPLV tests are 

conducted at constant outdoor air 

conditions of 80 °F dry-bulb temperature 

and 67 °F wet-bulb temperature. Id. DOE 

is aware that some manufacturers make 

representations of part-load 

performance of SPVUs in product 

literature using IPLV. DOE has noted 

that IPLV was formerly used for rating 

CUACs but has since been removed 

from AHRI 340/360 in favor of IEER. Id. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2497 

10Based on EnergyPlus analysis developed for the 

previous energy conservation standards rulemaking 

for SPVUs. 80 FR 57438, 57462 (Sept. 23, 2015). 

EnergyPlus is a whole building energy simulation 

program (Available at: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/energyplus/). 

As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE 

requested comment on whether it 

should consider adopting for SPVUs a 

cooling-mode metric that integrates 

part-load performance to better 

represent full-season efficiency, and 

whether a part-load metric such as IEER 

or IPLV would be appropriate for 

SPVUs. 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 

2018). 

AHRI and GE both commented that 

DOE should not consider adopting a 

part-load cooling metric at this time, 

stating that doing so would increase test 

burden for a specialized product sold in 

a comparatively small market. (AHRI, 

No. 5 at p. 6; GE, No. 3 at p. 2) GE noted 

that for SPVUs with single-speed 

compressors, the EER test method 

requires only a single test with an 

average of 8 hours to complete and 

validate test data, whereas an IEER test 

method would require four tests, which 

entails additional testing time and cost. 

(GE, No. 3 at p. 2) GE stated that for 

dual-voltage units, the IEER test method 

would increase test time to 

approximately 64 hours per unit, and 

that the time to test 3 units for a given 

model would increase testing time from 

48 hours to 192 hours under the IEER 

test method. Id. 

AHRI commented that a part-load 

metric may be appropriate for some 

equipment, such as two-stage or 

variable-capacity SPVUs, but only for 

certain applications. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 

6) AHRI and Lennox commented that as 

part of the revisions to AHRI 390, 

industry is assessing whether IEER or 

IPLV would better represent part-load 

performance for units other than singlestage products. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6; 

Lennox. No. 6 at p. 5) Lennox 

commented that while a part-load 

metric may be a favorable option for 

SPVUs in the long term, there was not 

sufficient data at that time to evaluate 

the impacts on performance and the 

increase in test burden versus potential 

consumer benefits of optimized partload performance. (Lennox. No. 6 at p. 

5) 

The CA IOUs commented that the 

IEER metric was developed for CUACs 

with greater than 65,000 Btu/h cooling 

capacity using office, retail, and larger 

permanent school space loads as the 

basis for the part-load weighting factors. 

(CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 3) They noted that 

SPVUs are generally used in smaller 

settings, such as electronic sheds and 

relatively small relocatable classrooms. 

Id. The CA IOUs stated that, while there 

may be some shortcomings with the 

IEER metric, it results in ratings more 

reflective of annual energy efficiency 

than those produced by IPLV. Id. The 

CA IOUs commented that IPLV, on the 

other hand, has a strong potential to 

misrepresent efficiency ratings because 

it does not rate all units at identical 

capacity points, leading to a difference 

in the weighting factors used for various 

equipment. Id. In addition, the CA IOUs 

commented that all part-load ratings are 

measured at an ambient outdoor 

temperature of 80 °F. Id. The CA IOUs 

asserted that these two factors often 

cause tested units with fewer capacity 

reduction stages to have higher 

measured efficiencies than those with 

more stages, whereas in reality, units 

with more stages tend to be more 

efficient. Id. 

The CA IOUs stated that while the 

IEER metric provides a valuable 

measure of annual efficiency, the EER 

metric is important for achieving 

reductions in peak loads. (CA IOUs, No. 

2 at p. 3) The CA IOUs stated that 

because the IEER metric uses a low 

weighting (i.e., 2 percent) of the fullload condition, a standard based only 

on the IEER metric would incentive 

manufacturers to optimize equipment at 

the part-load conditions and could 

potentially result in equipment that is 

designed with lower full-load EERs than 

the current standards for this 

equipment. Id. The CA IOUs supported 

using both the IEER metric that 

measures part-load efficiencies in 

conjunction with the currently regulated 

full-load EER metric as a means to 

prevent poor equipment performance at 

full-load conditions. Id. 

ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented 

that DOE should develop a new cooling 

efficiency metric for SPVUs that reflects 

annual energy consumption, including 

part-load operation. (ASAP, NRDC, and 

ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 1–2) They stated that 

the current EER metric reflects only fullload, steady-state operation, but that 

SPVUs rarely operate at full-load in the 

field. Id. at 1. In addition, ASAP, NRDC, 

and ACEEE stated that the current 

metric is not able to demonstrate 

potential improved efficiency of SPVUs 

with variable-speed or thermostatic and 

electronic expansion valve technologies. 

Id. 

ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE also 

commented that the IEER metric is not 

representative of locations and usage 

patterns for SPVUs and encouraged DOE 

to investigate a part-load performance 

metric that better reflects SPVU usage. 

(ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at pp. 

1–2) They commented that DOE should 

consider its analysis from the most 

recent SPVU standards rulemaking, 

which included building simulation 

models for modular classrooms, 

modular offices, and telecommunication 

shelters, to inform the development of 

load points and weightings for a partload metric. Id. at 2. 

In response, DOE recognizes that 

SPVUs often operate at part-load (i.e., 

less than designed full-load capacity) in 

the field, depending on the application 

and location. As discussed in section 

III.B, AHRI 390–2021 includes a new 

part-load cooling metric, IEER. To the 

extent that AHRI expressed concerns 

regarding the IEER test method in 

response to the July 2018 TP RFI, DOE 

presumes that AHRI’s original position 

on this issue changed during the course 

of developing AHRI 390–2021. The test 

conditions and weighting factors for this 

IEER metric in AHRI 390–2021 were 

developed specifically for SPVUs based 

on an annual building load analysis and 

temperature data for buildings 

representative of SPVU installations, 

including modular classrooms, modular 

offices, and telecommunication 

shelters.10 The test conditions and 

weighting factors for the four load levels 

representing 100, 75, 50, and 25 percent 

of full-load capacity are different than 

those used in the IEER metric in AHRI 

340/360–2019, which were developed 

based on CUAC building types. As a 

result, DOE considers the IEER metric 

representative of the cooling efficiency 

for SPVUs on an annual basis, and more 

representative than the current EER 

metric. 

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference AHRI 390– 

2021, which maintains the existing fullload cooling mode metric, EER, and 

adds the IEER metric for SPVUs. More 

specifically, DOE is proposing 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. 

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to adopt the test methods 

specified in AHRI 390–2021 for 

calculating IEER for SPVUs. 

As discussed, DOE’s current 

standards for SPVUs at 10 CFR 431.97 

specify minimum efficiency 

requirements based on the full-load 

cooling metric, EER, and the heating 

metric, COP. The current DOE standards 

levels are the same as those specified in 

the current version of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE 90.1–2019). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2498 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Issue 3: DOE requests comment and 

data on ratings under the current EER 

metric specified in 10 CFR 431.97 and 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 based on ANSI/ 

AHRI 390–2003, as compared to ratings 

using the IEER metric under AHRI 390– 

2021. 

ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, as well as 

NEEA and NWPCC, commented in 

response to the July 2018 RFI that DOE 

should consider a dynamic, load-based 

test procedure to measure both cooling 

and heating efficiency of SPVUs, similar 

to the test procedure for residential 

central air conditioners developed by 

the Canadian Standards Association 

(‘‘CSA’’) Group. (ASAP, NRDC, and 

ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 2; NEEA and 

NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 3) NEEA and 

NWPCC commented that a load-based 

test procedure, such as the CSA test 

procedure, could measure energy use of 

the equipment at 25, 50, 75 and 100- 

percent load without overriding 

equipment controls, as opposed to the 

current IEER test specified in AHRI 340/ 

360 for CUACs that locks equipment 

controls to 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent 

of capacity. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 

at p. 3) They commented that a loadbased test would allow manufacturers to 

design equipment controls and 

thermostats that would reduce 

unnecessary cycling and improve 

humidity control. Id. According to 

NEEA and NWPCC, the current IEER 

test method specified in AHRI 340/360 

uses an artificially low maximum 

cycling loss that does not provide 

incentive for manufacturers to reduce 

cycling losses. Id. ASAP, NRDC, and 

ACEEE, as well as NEEA and NWPCC, 

commented that a load-based test would 

better capture how SPVUs perform in 

the field under varying loads, including 

capturing the impact of cycling losses, 

the potential benefits of variable-speed 

operation, and the importance of control 

strategies. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, 

No. 4 at p. 2; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 

7 at p. 3) 

DOE is currently not aware of data 

showing that any dynamic load-based 

test procedure produces repeatable and 

reproducible test results. Furthermore, 

DOE is not aware of data showing that 

the CSA test procedure recommended 

by NEEA and NWPCC produces 

repeatable and reproducible results for 

central air conditioners (‘‘CACs’’) and 

heat pumps, and that procedure has not 

yet been evaluated for SPVUs. 

Therefore, DOE is not proposing any 

dynamic load-based test procedures at 

this time. 

2. Test Conditions Used for Efficiency 

Metrics 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1), EPCA 

requires that representations with 

respect to the energy consumption of 

SPVUs must be based on the DOE test 

procedure. DOE notes that the heating 

mode test used to calculate COP and 

determine compliance with standards 

for SPVHPs is conducted at 47 °F 

outdoor air dry-bulb temperature and 

43 °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. DOE is 

proposing to also utilize Table 3 of 

AHRI 390–2021, which includes an 

optional ‘‘Low Temperature Operation’’ 

heating application rating test that 

manufacturers may use to make 

representations of energy consumption 

for SPVUs. That test is based on an 

outdoor air dry-bulb temperature of 

17 °F and outdoor air wet-bulb 

temperature of 15 °F. 

To allow manufacturers to make 

voluntary representations at the lower 

temperature condition, DOE is 

proposing 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 would 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. 

Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to clarify that COP 

representations using the ‘‘Low 

Temperature Operation, Heating’’ 

conditions in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021 

are optional. 

3. Fan Energy Use 

As part of the July 2018 RFI, 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 (July 20, 2018). 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 earlier 

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 in order to include the 

energy consumption 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 response to the 2018 RFI, ASAP, 

NRDC, and ACEEE, as well as NEEA 

and NWPCC, commented that DOE 

should amend the test procedure to 

account for fan energy use outside of 

mechanical cooling and heating for fans 

in regulated equipment to more fully 

capture fan energy use. (ASAP, NRDC, 

and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 1; NEEA and 

NWPCC, No. 7 at pp. 1–3) ASAP, NRDC, 

and ACEEE asserted that by failing to 

capture fan operation for economizing, 

ventilation, and other functions outside 

of cooling mode, the test procedure may 

be significantly underestimating fan 

energy consumption. (ASAP, NRDC, 

and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 1) NEEA and 

NWPCC added that these amendments 

would encourage the adoption of 

features such as variable-speed fans, 

which provide additional control and 

flexibility for building owners and 

operators in addition to reducing energy 

waste. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 2) 

NEEA and NWPCC commented that 

the commercial prototype building 

models used in the analysis in support 

of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 include 

information on the operation of fans in 

ventilation mode and economizer mode, 

and these models could be used to 

develop national average fan operating 

hours outside of heating and cooling 

modes. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at 

p. 4) NEEA and NWPCC commented 

that the vast majority of SPVUs are 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2499 

installed in commercial buildings 

requiring a building permit and that the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirements 

are reflective of building code 

requirements. Id. NEEA and NWPCC 

stated that, as a result, the energy 

models used in support of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 are representative of how 

the equipment is installed and used 

across the United States. Id. 

NEEA and NWPCC commented that 

one potential approach to represent fan 

energy use in regulated equipment more 

accurately would be to use IEER to 

assess the efficiency of the refrigeration 

cycle of SPVUs, and to use an 

alternative metric to assess the 

performance of embedded fans in 

SPVUs. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at 

pp. 3–4) NEEA and NWPCC suggested 

that ANSI/AMCA 208–18, ‘‘Calculation 

of the Fan Energy Index,’’ provides a 

potential way to measure embedded fan 

performance in SPVUs by using the fan 

energy index (‘‘FEI’’). Id. NEEA and 

NWPCC stated that DOE could, 

therefore, develop a revised IEER-type 

metric that weights together cooling 

performance based on the traditional 

IEER test and an FEI-based metric for 

fan efficiency. Id. NEEA and NWPCC 

stated that accounting for the energy use 

of fan operation in SPVUs does not need 

to alter measured efficiency, and that 

DOE could align the FEI and IEER 

metrics such that manufacturers would 

have multiple viable design option 

pathways to achieve the minimum IEER 

efficiency standard without improving 

the embedded fan efficiency above the 

minimum FEI efficiency standard. Id. 

AHRI and Lennox commented that 

the current metrics for SPVUs (EER and 

COP) account for fan power and that 

there is no need to double count fan 

contribution, asserting that standards 

based on these metrics will likely 

already require the need for improved 

fan motor efficiency. (AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 

6, 7; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 6) AHRI 

commented that adding a requirement 

to measure fan energy use during 

economizing or electric heating would 

increase testing burden. (AHRI, No. 5 at 

p. 6) 

AHRI and Lennox further commented 

that while most SPVUs can provide 

some level of ventilation, their primary 

function is cooling and heating. (AHRI, 

No. 5 at p. 7; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 6) 

AHRI asserted that DOE is limited to 

one metric per covered product, and, 

therefore, the representative average use 

cycle for SPVUs should concentrate on 

the bulk of energy used during cooling 

and heating, rather than the occasional 

and ancillary fan-only ventilation 

utility. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 7) In addition, 

AHRI asserted that a key goal in 

prohibiting separate component 

standards was to allow the manufacturer 

to innovate to meet energy use 

standards. Id. 

AHRI commented that DOE has the 

authority to include certain fans and 

blowers, by rule, as ‘‘covered 

equipment’’ if such products meet all 

the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6311(2), 

but the commenter stated that it would 

not be appropriate to apply such 

standard to fans embedded in regulated 

equipment. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 8) AHRI 

asserted that 42 U.S.C. 6312 limits 

DOE’s authority to regulate as covered 

industrial equipment certain articles 

that are also components of consumer 

products. Id. AHRI commented that 

because the fans in SPVUs are built only 

for the product and cannot be purchased 

on the open market and applied as 

‘‘stand alone fans,’’ the fans in SPVUs 

are protected from double-regulation 

under EPCA. Id. AHRI also commented 

that DOE’s authority under 42 U.S.C. 

6312(b) and (c) to regulate components 

is based on necessity, and that adding 

a fan metric to the current EER 

requirement is not necessary because 

SPVUs already have an overall energy 

efficiency requirement. Id. AHRI and 

Lennox commented that the fact that 

Congress was compelled to grant a 

specific provision of authority for a 

consumer furnace ventilation metric 

affirms that DOE lacks general authority 

to create overlapping ventilation 

requirements for other regulated 

products. (AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 8–9; 

Lennox, No. 6 at p. 6) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

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 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 ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 and 

have not been included in the updated 

industry consensus standard, AHRI 

390–2021. Further, DOE lacks 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, which the 

Department would need to determine 

whether such testing would be 

appropriate for SPVUs and/or to 

develop a metric representing the 

national average fan operating hours for 

SPVUs. DOE notes further that the 

commercial prototype building models 

used in the analysis in support of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that NEEA and 

NWPCC recommended do not include 

information on building types typical to 

SPVU installations (i.e., modular and 

telecommunications). 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 subsequent 

rulemaking proceeding. With regards to 

comments concerning fan energy use 

metrics and regulation of fan energy use 

being double-counting, DOE will 

consider its authority under EPCA when 

and if developing such test procedures. 

E. Test Method 

This section discusses the various 

issues that DOE identified in the test 

methods for SPVUs, including those 

raised in the July 2018 RFI and 

considered as part of DOE’s review of 

AHRI 390–2021. These issues include: 

(1) Provisions for testing ducted and 

non-ducted units; (2) outdoor air-side 

airflow rate; (3) refrigerant charging 

instructions; (4) voltage requirements; 

(5) filter requirements; (6) airflow and 

external static pressure requirements; 

(7) air temperature measurements; (8) 

defrost energy use; and (9) provisions 

for the outdoor air enthalpy method. 

In addition, in DOE’s existing 

regulations, Table 1 to 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 NOPR, DOE is proposing 

to reorganize 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 proposes that Table 1 to 10 

CFR 431.96 identify only the applicable 

appendix to use for testing SPVUs 

(Appendix G or G1) and that 10 CFR 

431.96 would no longer include any 

additional test requirements for SPVUs. 

1. Unit Set-Up 

a. Testing Ducted and Non-Ducted Units 

DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 specifies different 

ESP requirements for ducted and nonducted units. 83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 

20, 2018). Specifically, Section 5.2.2 of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2500 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

11Section 3.8.2 of AHRI 390–2021 specifies that 

the supplemental testing instructions shall include 

no instructions that deviate from the manufacturer’s 

installation instructions unless necessary to comply 

with steady-state requirements (in which case the 

steady operation must match, to the extent possible, 

the average performance obtained without deviating 

from the manufacturer’s installation instructions). 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 requires that nonducted units be tested at zero ESP, and 

it specifies ESP requirements in Table 4 

of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 for ducted 

equipment. However, whether an SPVU 

is ducted may depend on the 

installation rather than the model. A 

given SPVU model could be installed 

either with or without a duct, thereby 

resulting in its status as ducted or nonducted being determined in the field. In 

the July 2018 RFI, DOE stated that it is 

not aware of physical characteristics 

that would readily distinguish SPVUs as 

either ducted or non-ducted models and 

that several models advertise the 

capability for use in both ducted and 

non-ducted installations. DOE noted 

that ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 does not 

specify how to determine whether an 

SPVU model is to be tested using the 

ducted or non-ducted provisions. As 

part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on characteristics for 

determining whether SPVU models 

would be installed as ducted or nonducted and on how equipment sold for 

both configurations are currently tested. 

83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). 

AHRI commented that many, if not 

all, SPVUs on the market allow for 

installation with or without a duct, and 

that it is standard practice to test all 

SPVUs in the ducted configuration. 

(AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 2) AHRI stated that 

the (then-draft) revised version of AHRI 

390 sought to standardize industry 

practice by defining a non-ducted unit 

as an air conditioner or heat pump that 

is not designed and marketed to deliver 

conditioned air to the indoor space 

through a duct(s), and that a factoryinstalled wall sleeve(s) would not be 

considered as a duct. (AHRI, No. 5 at 

pp. 2–3) AHRI also noted that the draft 

version of AHRI 390 specified that if a 

duct cannot be attached and the unit is 

marketed as non-ducted only, then 

testing would be performed in the nonducted configuration, and that all other 

units would be tested as ducted. Id. 

Lennox commented that any model 

marketed for ducted applications should 

be tested in a ducted configuration, and 

that testing in a non-ducted 

configuration would be appropriate if a 

model does not provide provisions for 

duct attachment and the unit is 

marketed as non-ducted only. (Lennox, 

No. 6 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that the draft definition 

and provisions referenced by AHRI are 

included in AHRI 390–2021, along with 

a definition for ducted units. DOE 

preliminarily agrees that the definition 

of a non-ducted unit and associated 

provisions included in AHRI 390–2021 

provide additional specification for 

testing ducted and non-ducted SPVUs. 

DOE understands that these definitions 

and provisions are consistent with how 

units are currently classified by industry 

and tested, as indicated by AHRI’s 

comments and the inclusion in AHRI 

390–2021. DOE is proposing to adopt 

these definitions found in Sections 3.4 

and 3.10 of AHRI 390–2021 and 

associated provisions specified in 

section 5.7 of AHRI 390–2021, as 

enumerated in section 0 of the proposed 

Appendix G and in section 0 of the 

proposed Appendix G1. 

b. Outdoor Air-Side Airflow Rate 

The current DOE test procedure for 

SPVUs requires that the unit be set up 

for test in accordance with the 

manufacturer installation and operation 

manuals. 10 CFR 431.96(e). In addition, 

Section 5.2.3 of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 

specifies that for SPVUs with an 

outdoor air-side fan drive that is 

adjustable, standard ratings are 

determined at the outdoor-side airflow 

rate specified by the manufacturer. 

Section 5.2.3 of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 

also specifies that, where the outdoor 

air-side fan drive is non-adjustable, 

standard ratings are determined at the 

outdoor airflow rate inherent to the 

equipment when operated with all of 

the resistance elements associated with 

inlets, louvers, and any ductwork and 

attachments considered by the 

manufacturer as normal installation 

practice. 

However, Section 5.2.3 of ANSI/AHRI 

390–2003 does not further specify what 

attachments the manufacturer considers 

‘‘normal installation practice.’’ For 

externally-mounted SPVUs, provisions 

for transferring outdoor air through an 

external wall are not necessary, but it 

may be possible that alternative 

‘‘resistance elements’’ could be offered 

as options (i.e., louvers instead of grills). 

Furthermore, for internally-mounted 

SPVUs, there may be multiple options 

for the specific geometry for external 

wall pass-through, as well as the option 

for louvers instead of grills. 

As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE 

requested comments on the variations in 

outdoor air-side attachments (e.g., grills, 

louvers, wall sleeve) that could affect 

performance during testing and test 

procedure provisions to standardize 

outdoor air flow for both externally and 

internally mounted SPVUs. 83 FR 

34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). On this 

topic, ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE 

commented that DOE should 

standardize which resistive elements 

should be present for testing to ensure 

that the test is representative of field 

installations and to improve 

repeatability and reproducibility of test 

results. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 

4 at p. 3) AHRI stated that options for 

different outdoor air-side attachments 

do exist and could impact the 

performance during testing. (AHRI, No. 

5 at p. 3) AHRI and Lennox commented 

that, to mitigate this issue, the 

attachments to be used for testing 

should be specified by the manufacturer 

in the supplemental testing instructions 

submitted to DOE. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3; 

Lennox, No. 6 at p. 2) AHRI added that 

information regarding the installation of 

plenums, grills, or other outdoor air-side 

attachments is provided by 

manufacturers for testing conducted as 

part of the AHRI certification program. 

(AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3) 

DOE notes that Section 5.8.4 of AHRI 

390–2021 explicitly specifies use of the 

outdoor air-side attachments specified 

in the manufacturer’s supplemental 

testing instructions. DOE expects this 

practice would improve the 

representativeness in that the unit is 

tested in a configuration more similar to 

that of the unit as installed in the 

field.11 DOE also expects that the more 

specific test set-up instruction would 

improve the reproducibility of test 

results by reducing potential variation 

in the configuration of the unit when 

tested. DOE understands that some 

equipment may be offered for sale with 

multiple outdoor air-side attachment 

options, including an option to ship the 

unit without any attachments. Based on 

its review of manufacturer materials, 

DOE has found that in such cases most 

manufacturer’s instructions or 

marketing materials indicate that use of 

outdoor air-side attachments are 

recommended or necessary for 

installation. Based on the manufacturer 

instructions, use of outdoor air-side 

attachments is standard practice in field 

use for units for which they are offered 

for sale. 

AHRI 390–2021 states that if a unit 

includes multiple outdoor air-side 

attachment options, including an option 

for the unit to ship without any 

attachments, an outdoor air-side 

attachment must be specified in the 

supplemental testing instructions. DOE 

would expect that this instruction helps 

ensure testing is representative of how 

a unit would be installed and operated 

in the field. DOE is proposing to adopt 

these provisions regarding the outdoor 

air-side attachments, as specified in 

Section 5.8.4 of AHRI 390–2021, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2501 

enumerated in section 0 of the proposed 

Appendix G and section 0 of the 

proposed Appendix G1. 

c. Refrigerant Charging Instructions 

The amount of refrigerant can have a 

significant impact on the system 

performance of air conditioners and 

heat pumps. DOE’s current test 

procedures for commercial package air 

conditioners and heat pumps, including 

the test procedures for SPVUs, require 

that units be set up for test in 

accordance with the manufacturer 

installation and operation manuals. 10 

CFR 431.96(e). In addition, the current 

DOE test procedures state that if the 

manufacturer specifies a range of 

superheat, sub-cooling, and/or 

refrigerant pressures in the installation 

and operation manual, any value within 

that range may be used to determine 

refrigerant charge, unless the 

manufacturer clearly specifies a rating 

value in its installation or operation 

manual, in which case the specified 

value shall be used. 10 CFR 431.96(e)(1). 

However, the current DOE test 

procedures do not provide charging 

instructions to be used if the 

manufacturer does not provide 

instructions in the manual that is 

shipped with the unit or if the provided 

instructions are unclear or incomplete. 

DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 does not provide 

any specific guidance on setting and 

verifying the refrigerant charge of a unit. 

83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). DOE 

also noted in the July 2018 RFI that the 

test procedure final rule for central air 

conditioners and heat pumps (‘‘CAC/ 

HPs’’) published in the Federal Register 

on June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36992; ‘‘June 

2016 CAC TP final rule’’) established a 

comprehensive approach for refrigerant 

charging to improve test reproducibility. 

Id. The approach specifies which set of 

installation instructions to use for 

charging, explains what to do if there 

are no instructions, specifies that target 

values of parameters are the centers of 

the ranges allowed by installation 

instructions, and specifies tolerances for 

the measured values. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix M, section 2.2.5. 

This approach also requires that 

refrigerant line pressure gauges be 

installed for single-package units, unless 

otherwise specified in manufacturer 

instructions. Id. 

As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE 

sought comment on whether it would be 

appropriate to adopt an approach for 

charging requirements for SPVUs 

similar to the approach adopted in the 

June 2016 CAC TP final rule. 83 FR 

34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). DOE also 

requested data demonstrating how 

sensitive the performance of an SPVU is 

to changes in the various charge 

indicators used for different charging 

methods, specifically the method based 

on sub-cooling. Id. 

ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented 

that while most manufacturers appear to 

ship SPVUs with the refrigerant already 

charged, DOE should still develop 

consistent and comprehensive charging 

instructions to ensure repeatable and 

reproducible test results, and to account 

for the possibility of products offering 

different charging instructions in the 

future. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 

4 at p. 3) NEEA and NWPCC 

commented that DOE should review 

how often SPVUs are charged with 

refrigerant at the site when installed, 

and that if refrigerant charge is often 

modified at installation, they support 

adopting charging requirements 

consistent with the June 2016 CAC TP 

final rule. (NEEA, NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 

2) 

AHRI commented that the charging 

requirements adopted in the June 2016 

CAC TP final rule are not appropriate 

for SPVUs. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3) AHRI 

stated that SPVUs are shipped charged 

with refrigerant and no charging should 

be required. Id. AHRI added that many 

units do not have service ports, and 

those that do are charged by weight to 

the specification on the unit’s 

nameplate. Id. Lennox stated that all of 

its models are shipped with a full 

refrigerant charge, and no further charge 

adjustments are required. (Lennox, No. 

6 at p. 3) Lennox also stated that if there 

is any discrepancy regarding charge 

quantity, the unit should be charged by 

weight to the specification on the unit 

nameplate. Id. Similarly, the CA IOUs 

commented that because SPVUs are 

factory-sealed, package units, many 

charging requirements that were 

adopted in the June 2016 CAC TP final 

rule would not apply to SPVUs. (CA 

IOUs, No. 2 at p. 1) The CA IOUs did 

state that some language from the June 

2016 CAC TP final rule would be 

beneficial to adopt; in particular, 

provisions related to pressure gauges for 

single-package units and language 

banning refrigerant charge adjustment 

during testing. (Id. at pp. 1–2) 

Based on a review of equipment 

available on the market, DOE finds that 

SPVUs are typically shipped from the 

factory charged with refrigerant, 

consistent with comments received. 

DOE observed that while the majority of 

units are charged by weight, at least one 

manufacturer’s instructions specified 

that if the refrigerant charge needs to be 

adjusted (e.g., due to leaks), the charge 

should be adjusted based on the 

manufacturer’s specified values for subcooling and superheat. 

Section 5.6 of AHRI 390–2021 

includes instructions for charging to be 

used if sufficient information is not 

provided in the manufacturer’s 

installation instructions, similar to the 

provisions for CACs adopted in the June 

2016 CAC TP final rule. Specifically, 

AHRI 390–2021 directs that charging be 

performed at the conditions specified in 

the manufacturer’s installation 

instructions or, if not specified, at the 

full-load cooling Standard Rating 

Conditions. AHRI 390–2021 directs that 

if the manufacturer’s installation 

instructions specify a range for 

superheat, sub-cooling, or refrigerant 

pressure, the average of the range is 

used to determine the refrigerant charge. 

AHRI 390–2021 also specifies a 

hierarchy of charging parameters to 

follow (with charge weight being the 

highest priority) if different 

requirements provided in the 

manufacturer’s installation instructions 

cannot be simultaneously met. DOE 

proposes to adopt section 5.6 in AHRI 

390–2021 for refrigerant charging, as 

enumerated in section 0 of the proposed 

Appendix G and in section 0 of the 

proposed Appendix G1. 

The proposed refrigerant charging 

instructions provide additional 

specification to the Federal test method 

that would produce more repeatable and 

reproducible results. DOE notes that as 

proposed, these refrigerant charging 

provisions would only apply if the 

manufacturer installation instructions 

do not provide sufficient guidance 

regarding refrigerant charging. As a 

result, these provisions would not 

restrict the flexibility that manufacturers 

currently have in providing refrigerant 

charging instructions, so long as the 

provided instructions are sufficient. 

d. Voltage Requirements 

In the July 2018 RFI, DOE noted that 

Section 5.2.1 of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 

requires that, for units rated with 208/ 

230 dual nameplate voltages, the test be 

performed at 230 volts (V). 83 FR 34499, 

34501 (July 20, 2018). For all other dual 

nameplate voltage units, the test 

standard requires that the test be 

performed at both voltages, or at the 

lower voltage if only a single rating is 

to be published. Id. DOE also noted that 

voltage can affect the measured 

efficiency of air conditioners, and 

requested data demonstrating the effect 

of voltage on air conditioning 

equipment. Id. DOE requested comment 

on whether certain voltages within 

common dual nameplate voltage ratings 

(e.g., 208/230 V) are more representative 

of a typical field installation. Id. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2502 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Lennox commented that the voltage 

requirements specified in ANSI/AHRI 

390–2003 are consistent with other 

similar industry test procedures and are 

appropriate for this equipment. 

(Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3) AHRI 

acknowledged that voltage can affect the 

measured efficiency of air conditioners, 

but it stated that these variations tend to 

be insignificant and do not correlate to 

a specific voltage. (AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 

2–3) AHRI also commented that the 

majority of SPVUs are applied at 230 V, 

and, therefore, the current test 

procedure is appropriate. Id. 

In response, DOE first points out that 

Section 5.8.1 of AHRI 390–2021 

maintains the same voltage 

requirements for SPVUs as specified in 

the current DOE test procedure and in 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003. DOE notes that 

these voltage requirements are generally 

consistent with industry test procedures 

for other commercial air conditioning 

and heat pump equipment. Accordingly, 

DOE is proposing to adopt the voltage 

requirements in Section 5.8.1 AHRI 

390–2021, consistent with the existing 

voltage requirements, as enumerated in 

section 0 of the proposed Appendix G 

and in section 0 of the proposed 

Appendix G1. 

e. Filter Requirements 

DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that 

Section 5.2.2.a of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 

requires that non-filtered ducted 

equipment be tested at the minimum 

ESP specified in Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 

390–2003 plus an additional 0.08 inches 

of water column (‘‘in H2O’’) of ESP. 83 

FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). DOE 

further noted that ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 

does not define ‘‘non-filtered 

equipment.’’ Id. As part of the July 2018 

RFI, DOE requested comment on 

whether any SPVUs are designed to be 

installed without a filter. Id. at 83 FR 

34499, 34502. DOE also requested 

comment on the typical effectiveness 

(i.e., minimum efficiency reporting 

value (‘‘MERV’’) rating) of filters 

provided with SPVUs. Id. DOE 

requested comment on whether nonducted SPVUs intended for installation 

with a filter are ever tested without a 

filter installed and, if so, how such 

testing has accounted for the filter 

pressure drop to better represent actual 

performance. Id. 

AHRI and Lennox commented that all 

SPVUs on the market are designed to be 

installed with a filter, are shipped with 

a filter, and should be tested with the 

supplied filter. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4; 

Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3) AHRI added that 

the effectiveness of the filter can vary 

based on application. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 

4) AHRI also stated that all SPVUs on 

the market are tested with a filter. Id. 

NEEA and NWPCC commented that 

SPVUs are used primarily in 

commercial buildings, and that 

ASHRAE Standard 52.2, ‘‘Method of 

Testing General Ventilation AirCleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency 

by Particle Size,’’ recommends MERV 8 

filters for commercial buildings. 

Consequently, NEEA and NWPCC 

recommended that SPVUs be tested 

with a MERV 8 filter rating to be 

representative of equipment use in the 

field. (NEEA, NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 2) GE 

commented that any test procedure 

change requiring the addition of a filter 

would increase test burden and product 

development cost. (GE, No. 3 at p. 2) GE 

stated that filter types, sometimes 

specified by local or State requirements, 

differ and that there is a risk of 

unintended test variation depending 

upon the filter specified. Id. GE stated 

that such variation could result in 

erroneous enforcement test results. Id. 

GE also commented that it opposes any 

test procedure change that potentially 

could dictate product design 

requirements, such as filter selection. Id. 

Section 3.19 of AHRI 390–2021 

includes a definition for the term 

‘‘Standard Filter’’ and requires that an 

SPVU must be tested with the filter 

designated by the manufacturer in the 

marketing materials for the model as the 

‘‘default’’ or ‘‘standard’’ filter in Table 2, 

and does not allow for testing without 

a filter. Section 5.7.3.1 of AHRI 390– 

2021 states that if the manufacturer does 

not specify a ‘‘default’’ or ‘‘standard’’ 

filter option, then the Standard Filter is 

the filter with the lowest level of 

filtration, as specified in the marketing 

materials for the model. If the marketing 

materials do not specify a Standard 

Filter, or do not specify which filter 

option has the lowest filtration level, 

then the Standard Filter is any filter 

shipped by the manufacturer for that 

model. 

In light of the above, DOE 

preliminarily concludes that a 0.08 in 

H2O increase in the minimum ESP for 

units tested without a filter is not 

necessary in the SPVU test procedure 

because, based on a review of 

equipment on the market and supported 

by the comments from AHRI and 

Lennox, DOE finds that all SPVUs are 

designed to be installed with a filter, are 

shipped with a filter, and are tested 

with a filter. In response to NEEA and 

NWPCC, DOE identified many SPVUs 

that offered filters with lower filtration 

than MERV 8 filters, so requiring them 

may not be representative of all field 

applications. In addition, based on a 

review of equipment on the market, 

different manufacturers might specify 

different filters as ‘‘standard’’ (i.e., there 

is not a single filter type recognized as 

‘‘standard’’ by the industry). 

Manufacturers might also market an 

SPVU with multiple filter options from 

which the consumer can choose. 

DOE has, therefore, initially 

determined that the requirement to test 

with a filter and the provisions on filter 

selection would provide more 

representative results by testing with a 

filter that is more likely to be used by 

a consumer in the field and is consistent 

with how manufacturers are currently 

testing. In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

adopt the provisions in Section 3.19 and 

Table 2 in AHRI 390–2021 for testing 

with the Standard Filter, as enumerated 

in section 0 of the proposed Appendix 

G and section 0 of the proposed 

Appendix G1. 

f. External Static Pressure and Airflow 

Requirements 

SPVUs include fans that circulate 

indoor air over a heat exchanger and 

provides heating or cooling either 

through ductwork or directly to the 

conditioned space. To deliver sufficient 

conditioned air to the intended space, 

the airflow provided by the unit must 

overcome pressure losses throughout 

duct work (if present), and to a smaller 

degree, within the unit itself. Pressure 

losses are the result of directional 

changes in the ductwork, friction 

between the moving air and surfaces of 

the ductwork, and possible 

appurtenances in the airflow path. 

Further, different modes of operation 

may require different amounts of 

airflow. Therefore, indoor fan speed is 

typically adjustable to assure that the 

provided airflow rate is appropriate for 

the field-installed ductwork system 

serving the building in which the unit 

is installed. The performance of an 

SPVU can be significantly affected by 

variation in ESP or operation with an 

indoor airflow that is different from the 

intended or designed airflow. To ensure 

that a test procedure provides results 

that are representative of an average-use 

cycle, appropriate airflow settings for 

testing and ESP requirements are 

needed to reflect the typical pressure 

losses. Such specifications would also 

contribute to the repeatability of the test 

procedure. 

i. External Static Pressure 

As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE 

noted that Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 390– 

2003 specifies the minimum ESP 

required for testing ducted SPVUs based 

on capacity range. DOE sought 

comments on whether the minimum 

ESP requirements in ANSI/AHRI 390– 

2003 are representative of field 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2503 

operation for ducted SPVUs, and if not, 

comment and data on what 

representative minimum ESP levels 

would be. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 

2018). 

The CA IOUs, as well as ASAP, 

NRDC, and ACEEE, commented that the 

minimum ESP requirements in the test 

procedure may be significantly lower 

than typical ESPs in the field, which 

would significantly underestimate fan 

power consumption. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at 

pp. 2–3; ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 

4 at p. 3) ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE 

commented that DOE should ensure that 

the minimum ESP requirements 

specified in the SPVU test procedure 

adequately reflect conditions in the 

field. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 

at p. 3) NEEA and NWPCC added that 

the ASRAC Working Group for 

commercial package air conditioners 

recommended that DOE develop 

minimum ESP requirements for SPVUs 

that adequately represent performance 

in the field and that provide accurate 

information to consumers to make 

purchasing decisions. (NEEA and 

NWPCC, No. 7 at pp. 1–2) 

NEEA and NWPCC stated that for 

CUACs, there is inconsistency between 

the range of ESPs specified in the test 

procedure (0.2 to 0.75 in H2O) compared 

to the range of ESPs used for the 

analysis for the standards rulemaking 

(0.75 and 1.25 in H2O). (NEEA and 

NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 2) NEEA and 

NWPCC stated that if the ESP 

requirements in the test procedure are 

lower than those typically found in the 

field, the ratings of SPVUs will provide 

neither an adequate representation of 

actual efficiency nor accurate 

information to consumers. Id. NEEA and 

NWPCC added that the ESP 

requirements should have no impact on 

test burden since there would be no 

change to how the test is conducted. Id. 

The CA IOUs referenced the 

minimum ESP requirement of 0.5 in 

H2O for residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps with 

capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h, as 

specified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix M1, ‘‘Uniform Test Method 

for Measuring the Energy Consumption 

of Central Air Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps,’’ and commented that DOE 

should align all other heating, 

ventilating, and air conditioning 

(‘‘HVAC’’) equipment, including SPVUs, 

with the values specified in Appendix 

M1, which increase in ESP based on 

corresponding increases in cooling 

capacity. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at pp. 2–3) 

AHRI commented that based on 

conversations with company 

application engineers, the minimum 

ESP requirements specified in ANSI/ 

AHRI 390–2003 are representative of 

field operation for ducted SPVUs 

installed with 10 feet of ductwork or 

less. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) Lennox also 

stated that the current ESP requirements 

are representative of field operation for 

ducted SPVUs. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4) 

No commenter provided data as to the 

ESPs experienced in field operation. 

In response, DOE notes the range of 

comments received as to the appropriate 

ESP for testing. AHRI 390–2021 

maintained the same minimum ESP 

requirements as specified in ANSI/AHRI 

390–2003. DOE does not have data 

indicating that these minimum ESP 

requirements are unrepresentative of 

field operation for ducted SPVUs. DOE 

also recognizes that SPVUs are typically 

installed in smaller modular buildings 

with different duct configurations. As a 

result, DOE notes that minimum ESP 

requirements for other equipment (e.g., 

CACs, CUACs) may not be relevant for 

SPVUs. DOE also notes that in the 

previous standards rulemaking the ESP 

values were aligned with the values 

used in the test procedure. As a result, 

DOE does not expect there to be 

inconsistency between the test 

procedure and the analysis conducted 

for the standards rulemaking. Based on 

this, DOE is tentatively not proposing to 

revise the ESP requirements in the DOE 

test procedure for SPVUs but to instead 

remain consistent with AHRI 390–2021. 

Issue 5: DOE welcomes data and 

information on ESP conditions 

experienced in field operation of ducted 

SPVUs. 

ii. Airflow Rate 

Full-Load Cooling Test 

DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 does not specify 

tolerances on achieving the rated 

airflow or the minimum ESP during 

testing. As discussed previously, the 

performance of an air conditioner or 

heat pump can be affected by variations 

in airflow and ESP. In the July 2018 RFI, 

DOE noted that the current DOE test 

procedure for CUACs requires that the 

indoor airflow for the full-load cooling 

test be within ±3 percent of the rated 

airflow and specifies a tolerance of 

¥0.00/+0.05 in H2O for the ESP 

requirements. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 

20, 2018). DOE also noted that in DOE’s 

test procedure for CAC/HPs, the method 

for setting indoor air volume rate for 

ducted units without variable-speed 

constant-air-volume-rate indoor fans is a 

multi-step process that addresses the 

discrete-step fan speed control of these 

units. Id. In this method, (a) the air 

volume rate during testing may not be 

higher than the certified air volume rate, 

but may be up to 10 percent less, and 

(b) the ESP during testing may not be 

lower than the minimum specified ESP, 

but may be higher than the minimum if 

this is required to avoid having the air 

volume rate overshoot its certified 

value. 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix M, section 3.1.4.2.a. As part of 

the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested 

information on the different types of 

indoor air fan drive systems that are 

used for SPVUs and information on 

appropriate tolerances for setting 

airflow and ESP. 83 FR 34499, 34502 

(July 20, 2018). 

On this topic, AHRI stated that SPVUs 

use permanent split-capacitor motors 

with discrete speed settings or 

electronically-commutated motors with 

variable speed settings; and that in 

either case, the unit leaves the factory 

with the fan and motor set at a specific 

speed to provide the rated performance. 

(AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) Lennox 

commented that its equipment uses 

motors and controls with speed/airflow 

settings developed for each specific 

product and mode of operation, which 

are factory pre-set to optimize 

performance. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4) 

Lennox stated that for its equipment, the 

manufacturer-specified airflow setting 

should allow the ability to set the 

airflow to the specified value while 

meeting the ESP requirements for 

testing. Id. Lennox further commented 

that the manufacturer settings should be 

used for testing. Id. Lennox stated that 

if the minimum ESP cannot be 

maintained, the airflow should be set to 

the maximum airflow while maintaining 

the required ESP. Id. 

AHRI commented that the then-draft 

version of AHRI 390 directed use of the 

manufacturer-specified fan control 

settings for all tests for which they are 

provided. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) AHRI 

also commented that the draft version of 

AHRI 390 directed use of the full-load 

cooling fan control settings specified by 

the manufacturer for all tests for which 

fan control settings are specified, and if 

there are no specified fan control 

settings for any tests, use the as-shipped 

fan control settings for all tests. Id. 

AHRI added that for testing, the priority 

is setting the correct airflow speed, and 

the ESP is adjusted to match the 

required airflow. Id. AHRI noted that 

the draft version of AHRI 390 provided 

that the airflow-measuring apparatus 

should be adjusted to maintain ESP 

within ¥0/+0.05 in H2O of the required 

minimum ESP and to maintain the 

airflow within ±3 percent of the 

manufacturer-specified full-load cooling 

airflow. Id. 

DOE notes that AHRI 390–2021 

specifies an airflow tolerance of ±3 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2504 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

percent of the full-load cooling airflow. 

This would be consistent with the test 

procedure for other commercial air 

conditioning and heat pump equipment, 

and it would ensure that the rated 

airflow remains representative of field 

use during testing. Therefore, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the ±3 

percent airflow tolerance included in 

AHRI 390–2021 is appropriate for 

testing SPVUs. Accordingly, DOE 

proposes to adopt the full-load cooling 

airflow tolerance specified in Section 

5.7 of AHRI 390–2021. 

AHRI 390–2021 also includes 

additional instructions for how to set 

indoor airflow if the airflow and ESP 

tolerances cannot be maintained 

simultaneously. For non-ducted units, 

ducting is not installed in the field; 

therefore, increasing ESP (which 

simulates the resistance to airflow from 

longer duct length in the field) beyond 

the specified tolerance of ¥0/+0.05 in 

H2O during testing would not be 

representative of field application. 

Consequently, if both the ESP and 

airflow cannot be maintained within 

tolerance during the test, Section 

5.7.3.3.4 of AHRI 390–2021 specifies 

that the ESP be maintained within the 

required tolerance and an airflow as 

close to the certified value as possible 

be used. 

For ducted units, if ESP and/or 

airflow are higher than the tolerance 

range at the lowest fan control setting 

(e.g., lowest fan speed), maintaining 

airflow within tolerance should take 

precedence over maintaining ESP 

within tolerance. This is because 

operating with an airflow higher than 

the certified value would likely result in 

an airflow (and thus measured 

efficiency) that is unrepresentative of 

field operation. Section 5.7.3.4.1.2 of 

AHRI 390–2021 specifies that the 

airflow-measuring apparatus be adjusted 

to maintain airflow within tolerance and 

to operate with the lowest possible ESP 

that meets the minimum requirement. If 

ESP or airflow are lower than the 

tolerance range at the maximum fan 

control setting (e.g., highest fan speed), 

maintaining ESP at or above the 

minimum value should take precedence 

over maintaining airflow within 

tolerance because operating with an ESP 

lower than the minimum value does not 

reflect typical duct lengths (or measured 

efficiency) in field application. In such 

a case, Section 5.7.3.4.1.3 of AHRI 390– 

2021 specifies that the airflowmeasuring apparatus be adjusted to 

maintain ESP within tolerance and to 

operate with an airflow as close as 

possible to the certified value. 

DOE understands the provisions 

regarding tolerances and priority for 

adjustment of fan speed and ESP in 

AHRI 390–2021 are consistent with the 

methodology in the draft version of 

AHRI 390, as evidenced by the excerpt 

provided in AHRI’s comments (AHRI, 

No. 5 at p. 5). DOE preliminarily finds 

that these provisions would not conflict 

with any provisions in the current DOE 

test procedure, and would improve test 

repeatability and provide test conditions 

that are more representative of those 

during operation in the field. Based on 

this, DOE is proposing to adopt the 

provisions specified in Section 5.7.3 of 

AHRI 390–2021 for setting indoor 

airflow if the airflow and ESP tolerances 

cannot be maintained simultaneously, 

as enumerated in section 0 of the 

proposed Appendix G and section 0 of 

the proposed Appendix G1. 

Heating Test 

DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 does not 

distinguish between cooling and heating 

airflow rates required for testing. 83 FR 

34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). For 

SPVHPs with multiple-speed or 

variable-speed indoor fans, the indoor 

airflow rate in heating operation could 

be different from that in cooling 

operation. Id. Different airflow rates 

may be used for heating and cooling 

operation because of different indoor 

comfort needs in the heating season, 

and there may be a minimum heating 

airflow rate for electrical resistance 

heating safety that exceeds the cooling 

airflow rate. Id. DOE also noted in the 

July 2018 RFI that, for CUAC heat 

pumps, DOE’s current test procedure 

requires that indoor airflow and ESP 

first be established within required 

tolerances for the full-load cooling test 

condition by adjusting both the unit 

under test and the test facility’s airflowmeasuring apparatus (see 10 CFR part 

431, subpart F, appendix A, section 

6(ii)). 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 

2018)) The CUAC test procedure further 

provides that, unless the unit is 

designed to operate at different airflow 

rates for cooling and heating modes, if 

necessary, the airflow-measuring 

apparatus (but not the unit under test) 

may be adjusted to achieve an airflow in 

heating mode equal to the cooling fullload airflow rate within the specified 

tolerance, without regard to changes in 

ESP (see 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, 

appendix A, section 6(ii)). 83 FR 34499, 

34502 (July 20, 2018). 

As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE 

requested comment on whether 

provisions similar to those required for 

CUACs would be appropriate for 

determining airflow rate and minimum 

ESP for heating mode tests for SPVHPs. 

83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). 

NEEA and NWPCC commented that if 

SPVHPs operate at different airflow 

speeds for heating and cooling, then 

SPVUs should be tested similar to 

CUACs, for which the heating efficiency 

is evaluated at the unique heating 

airflow rate. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 

at p. 3) Lennox commented that SPVHP 

airflow rates for heating and cooling are 

generally the same, but that the test 

procedure should not preclude using 

different airflow rates that could 

provide benefits in performance. 

(Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4) AHRI added that 

the draft version of AHRI 390 included 

procedures that provide for a difference 

in the manufacturer-specified heating 

airflow and full-load cooling airflow. 

(AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 4–5) 

In response, DOE notes that AHRI 

390–2021 includes provisions for setting 

the heating airflow rate that are 

consistent with the excerpt of the draft 

version of AHRI 390 provided in AHRI’s 

comments, (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 5), which 

allows for testing with a manufacturerspecified heating airflow that is 

different than the full-load cooling 

airflow. These provisions reflect that 

units may be designed to operate in the 

field at a different heating airflow rate 

as compared to the cooling airflow rate. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt 

Sections 5.7.2.3 and 5.7.3.4.2 of AHRI 

390–2021 with regards to setting the 

airflow and ESP for heating tests (as 

applicable), as enumerated in section 0 

of the proposed Appendix G and section 

0 of proposed Appendix G1. 

2. Air Temperature Measurements 

Measurement of air conditions is a 

critical aspect of performance testing for 

air-conditioning and heat pump 

equipment generally. The air conditions 

affect performance (both capacity and 

power input), and the primary methods 

for determination of capacity rely on 

measurements of air temperature and 

humidity. ANSI/ASHRAE 390–2003 

references ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37– 

1988, ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment’’ (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 

37–1988’’) for methods of testing 

SPVUs. As relevant here, ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 37–1988 provides 

specifications for temperature sensors 

(section 5.1), as well as for ensuring 

measurement uniformity (section 8.5). 

DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that, 

for air-cooled and evaporatively-cooled 

CUACs, AHRI 340/360–2015 provides 

more extensive direction for condenser 

air temperature measurement in its 

Appendix C, including specifications to 

use air sampling trees and 

psychrometers, temperature 

measurement accuracy requirements, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2505 

and other specifications to ensure that 

the measured conditions are 

representative of average condenser air 

inlet conditions. 83 FR 34499, 34503 

(July 20, 2018). In the July 2018 RFI, 

DOE requested comment on whether 

requirements similar to AHRI 340/360– 

2015 should be adopted for testing 

SPVUs. Id. 

DOE also noted in the July 2018 RFI 

that while Appendix C of AHRI 340/ 

360–2015 provides detailed direction 

for measurement of entering outdoor air 

temperature, it provides no such 

direction for measurement of entering 

indoor air temperature, indoor leaving 

air temperature, or outdoor leaving air 

temperature. 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 

20, 2018). However, these parameters 

have a significant impact on 

performance of an SPVU as measured by 

the indoor air enthalpy method and the 

outdoor air enthalpy method. Id. 

Therefore, in the July 2018 RFI, DOE 

also requested comment on whether the 

requirements contained in Appendix C 

of AHRI 340/360–2015 would be 

appropriate for measurement of these 

parameters when testing SPVUs. Id. 

The CA IOUs, NEEA and NWPCC 

supported using provisions similar to 

Appendix C of AHRI 340/360–2015 to 

measure indoor air entering and leaving 

temperatures, as well as outdoor air 

entering and leaving temperatures. (CA 

IOUs, No. 2 at p. 2; NEEA and NWPCC, 

No. 7 at p. 3) NEEA and NWPCC added 

that this would result in the most 

accurate and repeatable test 

measurement. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 

7 at p. 3) AHRI commented that adding 

measurement requirements for indoor 

air entering and leaving temperatures, as 

well as outdoor air entering and leaving 

temperatures for water slinger systems 

(i.e., units that use condensate from the 

evaporator to enhance condenser 

cooling), similar to those in Appendix C 

of AHRI Standard 340/360–2015 would 

be appropriate. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6) 

Lennox commented that further 

evaluation of various SPVU 

configurations is needed to determine 

appropriateness of the provisions in 

Appendix C of AHRI 340/360–2015. 

(Lennox, No. 6 at p. 5) 

In the interim, AHRI 390–2021 has 

addressed this issue. Specifically, 

Appendix D of AHRI 390–2021 includes 

a comprehensive set of provisions to 

measure air temperatures, including the 

measurement of entering indoor 

temperature, indoor leaving 

temperature, entering outdoor 

temperature, and outdoor leaving 

temperature. DOE notes that these 

additional requirements were also 

included in the revised AHRI 340/360– 

2019. Specifically, AHRI 390–2021 

includes the following requirements: 

• Measurements of indoor and 

outdoor air entering dry-bulb 

temperatures and water vapor 

conditions. In addition, measurement of 

the indoor air leaving dry-bulb 

temperatures and water vapor 

conditions if the indoor air enthalpy 

method is used, and outdoor air leaving 

dry-bulb temperatures and water vapor 

conditions if the outdoor air enthalpy 

method is used; 

• Temperature measurement 

accuracies and display resolutions for 

dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures, as 

well as thermopile temperatures; 

• Methods of water vapor 

measurement using either an aspirating 

psychrometer or a dew point 

hygrometer; 

• Air sampling tree specifications, 

including construction provisions, hole 

density requirements, average air 

velocity of the flow area, and thermopile 

arrangement; 

• Description of the test set-up for air 

sampling trees, which includes defining 

the arrangement of the face area, the 

number of aspirating psychrometers per 

unit side, the location of the air 

sampling trees and their coverage of the 

entrance to the unit, and the number of 

sampling trees per aspirating 

psychrometer; 

• Dry-bulb temperature measurement 

using psychrometer dry-bulb sensors; 

• Wet-bulb or dew point temperature 

measurements to determine air water 

vapor content using psychrometers or 

hygrometers; 

• Measurements of temperature 

change and pressure drop across the 

conduit used to transfer air from air 

samplers to psychrometers and, if 

certain thresholds are exceeded, 

provisions for determining dry-bulb 

temperature and atmospheric pressure 

(used to calculate humidity ratio); 

• Specifications for dry-bulb and wetbulb temperature uniformity; 

• Additional specifications for 

measuring air conditions entering the 

indoor coil, including provisions for 

returning sampled air to the room, 

conditions for temperature uniformity 

specifications, and directions if air is 

sampled within a duct; and 

• Additional specifications for 

measuring both indoor coil and outdoor 

coil leaving air conditions, including 

conditions for temperature uniformity 

requirements, provisions for returning 

sampled air to the duct leaving the coil, 

provisions if the coil has a blow-through 

fan, and additional requirements for the 

air sampling tree. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the air measurement provisions of AHRI 

390–2021 in Appendix D address the 

lack of specificity in the current DOE 

test procedure for SPVUs, improve 

temperature uniformity and ensure 

accurate and repeatable temperature 

measurements for SPVUs, and ensure 

that representative conditions are 

maintained during testing. Therefore, 

DOE is proposing to adopt the 

provisions for measurement of air 

conditions in Appendix D of AHRI 390– 

2021 both into section 1 of the proposed 

Appendix G and into section 1 of the 

proposed Appendix G1. Inclusion in 

AHRI 390–2021 and AHRI’s comments 

in support indicate that the proposed air 

measurement specifications are 

considered best practice by industry and 

reflect current industry practice. As 

such, DOE would expect that adoption 

of the air measurement specifications in 

AHRI 390–2021 would present minimal, 

if any, increase in test burden for 

manufacturers. 

3. Defrost Energy Use 

In the July 2018 RFI, DOE noted that 

SPVHPs generally include a defrost 

cycle to periodically defrost the outdoor 

coil when operating in outdoor ambient 

conditions in which frost collects on it 

during heating operation. 83 FR 34499, 

34504 (July 20, 2018). Based on 

preliminary DOE review of product 

literature, the time between defrost 

cycles can be between 30 and 90 

minutes, and typical defrost cycle 

duration is approximately 10 minutes. 

Id. During the defrost cycle, the SPVHP 

is consuming energy but is not 

providing heat to the conditioned space, 

unless it also energizes auxiliary heat 

during defrost. Id. 

The current Federal test procedure for 

SPVUs is based on testing in outdoor air 

conditions for which defrost is not 

necessary (i.e., 47 °F outdoor air drybulb temperature). This means that any 

differences in defrost cycle performance 

between different SPVHP models is not 

reflected in the heating mode metric 

(i.e., COP). DOE noted in the July 2018 

RFI that the DOE test procedure for 

CACs/HPs includes measurement of 

average delivered heat and total energy 

use (including for defrost cycles) during 

operation in outdoor conditions for 

which frost forms on the outdoor coil. 

Id. In contrast, DOE’s test procedures for 

commercial heat pumps do not include 

consideration of defrost. Id. In the July 

2018 RFI, DOE requested information 

regarding the types of buildings most 

commonly served by SPVHPs, as well as 

the annual heating and cooling loads for 

such buildings. Id. DOE also requested 

information on the impact on heating 

mode efficiency associated with the 

defrost cycle for SPVHPs, including 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2506 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

12The CA Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) 

building prototype for relocation classrooms is 

available as part of the CPUC’s Database for Energy 

Efficiency Resources, available at: http://

www.deeresources.com/. 

13Selkowitz, Stephen, High Performance 

Commercial Building Systems. Prepared by the 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for the 

California Energy Commission. LBNL–53538 

(October 2003) (Available at: https://www.osti.gov/ 

servlets/purl/821762). 

impacts associated with the potential 

use of resistance heating during defrost. 

Id. 

On this topic, the CA IOUs stated that 

relocatable classrooms commonly 

utilize SPVUs. The CA IOUs suggested 

that DOE should consider the CA Public 

Utilities Commission building prototype 

for relocatable classrooms.12 This 

prototype provides typical dimensions, 

plug loads, lighting, occupancy 

schedule, envelope characteristics, and 

thermostat set points of relocatable 

classrooms which allows for the 

modeling of annual cooling and heating 

loads. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 4) The CA 

IOUs stated that this building prototype 

was based on the Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory study titled ‘‘HighPerformance Commercial Buildings 

Project’’ from 2003.13 Id. 

ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented 

that DOE should incorporate defrost and 

performance at lower ambient 

temperatures in the heating efficiency 

metric. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 

4 at p. 2) ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE 

stated that incorporating defrost would 

allow the test procedure to better reflect 

actual heating capacity and efficiency in 

the field, thereby providing better 

information to consumers and 

encouraging manufacturers to develop 

innovative defrost strategies. Id. ASAP, 

NRDC, and ACEEE also encouraged 

DOE to incorporate performance at 

lower ambient temperatures into the 

metric for heating efficiency. Id. 

SPVHPs typically include back-up 

electric resistance heating, which is 

used when the heat pump cannot meet 

the heating load. ASAP, NRDC, and 

ACEEE stated that because the test 

procedure only requires testing SPVHPs 

at 47 °F outdoor air dry-bulb 

temperature for heating mode, it does 

not differentiate the ability of 

equipment to maintain good heating 

capacity using the heat pump cycle at 

low ambient temperatures, as opposed 

to shutting the heat pump cycle off and 

switching to electric resistance heating. 

Id. According to ASAP, NRDC, and 

ACEEE, incorporating performance at 

lower ambient temperatures in the 

heating efficiency metric would 

encourage equipment designs that 

maintain efficiency performance at low 

ambient temperatures, which will 

ultimately benefit consumers. Id. 

NEEA and NWPCC commented that 

the frequency of defrost cycles varies 

between manufacturers and that the 

defrost cycle typically stays on for 

approximately 10 minutes. (NEEA and 

NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 4) NEEA and 

NWPCC recommended decreasing the 

efficiency rating by a given increment 

based on average annual defrost energy 

use for the default defrost cycle 

frequency setting. Id. NEEA and 

NWPCC stated that this would likely 

lead to manufacturers reducing the 

frequency of their default defrost cycles, 

which would result in energy savings 

for building applications that do not 

need frequent defrost cycles. Id. 

AHRI and Lennox commented that 

they respectively estimated that fewer 

than 30 and 20 percent of SPVUs are 

heat pumps, and they argued that DOE’s 

proposal to include provisions to 

measure the average delivered heat and 

total energy use, including for defrost 

cycles, during operation in outdoor 

conditions for which frost forms on the 

outdoor coil is not necessary for this 

equipment. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 9; 

Lennox, No. 6 at p. 6) AHRI added that 

the electric heat used during defrost is 

small in comparison to electric heat use 

when the heat pump cannot keep up to 

meet the heating load. (AHRI, No. 5 at 

p. 9) 

DOE notes 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 is 

not proposing to include provisions for 

including the defrost energy of SPVHPs. 

DOE notes that the study the CA IOUs 

cited only monitored relocatable 

classrooms within the State of California 

and does not encompass the different 

types of SPVU installations or operating 

conditions. At this time, DOE lacks 

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, 

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. 

Issue 6: DOE requests 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 requests data on the 

frequency of operation of defrost cycles 

and representative low ambient 

conditions for those buildings and 

installations. 

4. Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method 

As discussed previously, the current 

DOE test procedure, which incorporates 

by reference ANSI/AHRI 390–2003, also 

references ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 for 

methods of testing SPVUs. Section 7.2 

of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 specifies 

primary and secondary capacity 

measurements for equipment with 

cooling capacities less than 135,000 

Btu/h. Specifically, the indoor air 

enthalpy method must be used as the 

primary method for capacity 

measurement, and Table 3 of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 37–1988 specifies the 

applicable options for selecting a 

secondary method. The two test 

methods must agree within 6 percent 

(see Section 10.1.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 

37–1988). 

DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that 

the outdoor air enthalpy test method is 

commonly used as the secondary test 

method for determining capacity for 

SPVUs. 83 FR 34499, 34502–34503 (July 

20, 2018). The outdoor air enthalpy 

method specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 37– 

1988 specified the use of an air-side test 

apparatus that is connected to the unit 

under test. However, the airflow and 

operating conditions achieved with the 

outdoor air-side test apparatus 

connected may differ from those 

achieved without the apparatus 

connected. Therefore, Section 8.5 of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 (which is 

referenced by ANSI/AHRI 390–2003) 

specifies testing both with and without 

the air-side test apparatus connected. Id. 

at 83 FR 34503. ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 

specifies first conducting a one-hour 

preliminary test without the outdoor airside test apparatus connected, followed 

by a second one-hour test with the 

outdoor air-side test apparatus 

connected. Id. The second test (with the 

outdoor air-side test apparatus 

connected) serves as the official test. Id. 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 further 

provides that there must be agreement 

of the evaporating and condensing 

temperatures between the two tests for 

a valid test. Id. 

DOE further noted in the July 2018 

RFI that in a test procedure final rule for 

CACs/HPs (82 FR 1426 (Jan. 5, 2017)), 

DOE amended its test procedure 

requirements for use of the outdoor air 

enthalpy method as the secondary test 

method for capacity measurement for 

CAC/HPs. 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 

2018). DOE’s test procedure for CAC/ 

HPs had previously included provisions 

similar to those in ANSI/ASHRAE 37– 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2507 

14 In 2013, ASRAC formed the Commercial HVAC 

Working Group to engage in a negotiated 

rulemaking effort regarding the certification of 

certain commercial HVAC equipment, including 

SPVUs. The Commercial HVAC Working Group’s 

recommendations are available at 

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. EERE–2013– 

BT–NOC–0023–0052. 

15Available at www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023-0052. 

1988: The preliminary test was 

conducted without the outdoor air-side 

test apparatus connected, and the 

official test was conducted with the 

outdoor air-side test apparatus 

connected, with a requirement to 

achieve agreement of the evaporating 

and condensing temperatures between 

the two tests. For CAC/HPs, DOE 

determined that testing with the outdoor 

air-side test apparatus connected 

introduced more variability to the test 

results when compared to testing 

without the apparatus connected, and 

that test variability could be reduced by 

shifting to an approach in which the 

official test is the one without the 

apparatus connected. See 82 FR 1426, 

1508–1509 (Jan. 5. 2017). As part of the 

July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment 

on whether modifications to the 

requirements for using the outdoor air 

enthalpy method as the secondary 

method for testing SPVUs (similar to 

those made for CAC/HPs) would be 

appropriate, including that the official 

test be conducted without the outdoor 

air-side test apparatus connected. 83 FR 

34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018). 

The CA IOUs commented that the 

outdoor air enthalpy method should be 

used as the secondary method for 

testing SPVUs and agreed that the 

official test should be conducted 

without the outdoor air-side test 

apparatus connected. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at 

p. 2) AHRI commented that the AHRI 

390 committee was reviewing the 

secondary capacity measurement 

methods. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6) AHRI 

stated that after that evaluation is 

complete, it would recommend 

conducting the official test without the 

outdoor air-side test apparatus 

connected. Id. Lennox commented that 

further evaluation of the secondary 

capacity measurements is needed, but it 

stated that secondary methods using 

refrigerant flow require altering the 

system to place the flowmeter into the 

refrigerant system and, therefore, could 

significantly alter performance. 

(Lennox, No. 6 at p. 5) 

Since the time of the July 2018 RFI, 

AHRI 390–2021 was adopted, and that 

test method includes provisions in 

Section E5 consistent with those 

adopted in the January 2017 CAC/HP TP 

final rule. More specifically, AHRI 390– 

2021 requires that the official test be the 

one in which the outdoor air side test 

apparatus is not connected. For the 

same reasons DOE presented in the 

January 2017 CAC/HP TP final rule and 

discussed previously, DOE has 

preliminarily determined that the 

provisions in AHRI 390–2021 would 

better represent field use of SPVUs and 

improve test repeatability and 

reproducibility. For these reasons, DOE 

proposes to adopt the capacity 

measurements specified in Section E5 of 

AHRI 390–2021, into section 1 of the 

proposed Appendix G and into section 

1 of the proposed Appendix G1. DOE 

has tentatively determined that this 

proposal would impose only minimal 

additional burden to manufacturers and 

would not require retesting of units 

because the existing test results contain 

the data necessary for the capacity 

measurements as specified in Section E5 

of AHRI 390–2021. 

F. Configuration of Unit Under Test 

1. Specific Components 

An ASRAC working group for certain 

commercial heating, ventilating, and air 

conditioning (‘‘HVAC’’) equipment 

(‘‘Commercial HVAC Working 

Group’’),14 which included SPVUs, 

submitted a term sheet (‘‘Commercial 

HVAC Term Sheet’’) providing the 

Commercial HVAC Working Group’s 

recommendations. (Docket No. EERE– 

2013–BT–NOC–0023, No. 52) 15 The 

Commercial HVAC Working Group 

recommended that DOE issue guidance 

under current regulations on how to test 

certain equipment features when 

included in a basic model, until such 

time as the testing of such features can 

be addressed through a test procedure 

rulemaking. The Commercial HVAC 

Term Sheet listed the subject features 

under the heading ‘‘Equipment Features 

Requiring Test Procedure Action.’’ (Id at 

pp. 3–9) The Commercial HVAC 

Working Group also recommended that 

DOE issue an enforcement policy stating 

that DOE would exclude certain 

equipment with specified features from 

Departmental testing, but only when the 

manufacturer offers for sale at all times 

a model that is identical in all other 

features; otherwise, the model with that 

feature would be eligible for 

Departmental testing. These features 

were listed under the heading 

‘‘Equipment Features Subject to 

Enforcement Policy.’’ (Id. at pp. 9–15) 

On January 30, 2015, DOE issued a 

Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy 

addressing the treatment of specific 

features during Departmental testing of 

commercial HVAC equipment. (See 

www.energy.gov/gc/downloads/ 

commercial-equipment-testingenforcement-policies.) The Commercial 

HVAC Enforcement Policy stated that— 

for the purposes of assessment testing 

pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104, verification 

testing pursuant to 10 CFR 429.70(c)(5), 

and enforcement testing pursuant to 10 

CFR 429.110—DOE would not test a 

unit with one of the optional features 

listed for a specified equipment type if 

a manufacturer distributes in commerce 

an otherwise identical unit that does not 

include one of the optional features. (Id 

at p. 1) The objective of the Commercial 

HVAC Enforcement Policy is to ensure 

that each basic model has a 

commercially-available version eligible 

for DOE testing, meaning that each basic 

model includes either a model without 

the optional feature(s) or a model with 

the optional features that is eligible for 

testing. Id. The features in the 

Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy 

for SPVUs (Id. at pp. 3–4) align with the 

Commercial HVAC Term Sheet’s list 

designated ‘‘Equipment Features Subject 

to Enforcement Policy.’’ 

AHRI 390–2021 includes Appendix F, 

‘‘Unit Configuration for Standard 

Efficiency Determination—Informative.’’ 

Section F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021 includes 

a list of features that are optional for 

testing. Section F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021 

further specifies the following general 

provisions regarding testing of units 

with optional features: 

• If an otherwise identical model 

(within the basic model) without the 

feature is not distributed in commerce, 

conduct tests with the feature according 

to the individual provisions specified in 

Section F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021. 

• For each optional feature, Section 

F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021 includes 

explicit instructions on how to conduct 

testing for equipment with the optional 

feature present. 

The optional features provisions in 

AHRI 390–2021 are generally consistent 

with DOE’s Commercial HVAC 

Enforcement Policy, but the optional 

features in Section F1.3 of AHRI 390– 

2021 do not entirely align with the list 

of features included for SPVUs in the 

Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy. 

The list of optional features in section 

F1.3 includes five features that are not 

present in the Commercial HVAC 

Enforcement Policy for SPVUs: (1) Fresh 

air dampers; (2) barometric relief 

dampers; (3) power correction 

capacitors; (4) hail guards, and (5) UV 

lights. All five of these features in 

Section F1.3 are included for SPVUs in 

the ‘‘Equipment Features Requiring Test 

Procedure Action’’ section of the 

Commercial HVAC Term Sheet. 

Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that their inclusion as 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2508 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

16For the following components listed in Section 

F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that there is not a neutralizing test 

procedure action specified in Section F1.3 of AHRI 

390–2021 for testing a unit with the component 

present, and is, therefore, not proposing to include 

test procedure actions specific to these components 

in Appendix G1: Powered Exhaust/Powered Return 

Air Fans and Hot Gas Bypass. 

17 DOE has tentatively concluded that for the 

following features included in Section F1.3 of AHRI 

390–2021, testing a unit with these components in 

accordance with the proposed test provisions 

would not result in differences in ratings compared 

to testing a unit without these components; 

therefore, DOE is not proposing to include these 

features in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(4): UV lights, Power 

Correction Capacitors, Hail Guards, Barometric 

Relief Dampers, and Fresh Air Dampers. 

optional features for SPVUs is 

appropriate. 

DOE notes that the list of features and 

provisions in Section F1.3 of Appendix 

F of AHRI 390–2021 conflates features 

that can be addressed by testing 

provisions with features that warrant 

enforcement relief (i.e., features that, if 

present on a unit under test, could have 

a substantive impact on test results and 

that cannot be disabled or otherwise 

mitigated). This differentiation was 

central to the Commercial HVAC Term 

Sheet, which as noted previously, 

included separate lists for ‘‘Equipment 

Features Requiring Test Procedure 

Action’’ and ‘‘Equipment Features 

Subject to Enforcement Policy,’’ and 

remains central to providing clarity in 

DOE’s regulations. Further, provisions 

more explicit than included in Section 

F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021 are warranted to 

clarify the differences between how 

specific components must be treated 

when manufacturers are making 

representations as opposed to when 

DOE is conducting enforcement testing. 

In order to provide clarity between 

test procedure provisions (i.e., how to 

test a specific unit) and certification and 

enforcement provisions (e.g., which 

model to test), DOE is not proposing to 

adopt Appendix F of AHRI 390–2021 

and instead is proposing related 

provisions in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 

429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, subpart 

F, Appendix G1. Specifically, in 

Appendix G1, DOE proposes test 

provisions for specific components, 

including all of the components listed 

in Section F1.3 which there is a 

neutralizing test procedure action (i.e., 

test procedure provisions specific to the 

component that are not addressed by 

general provisions in AHRI 390–2021 

that negates the components impact on 

performance).16 These provisions would 

specify how to test a unit with such a 

component—i.e., for a unit with hail 

guards, remove hail guards for testing. 

These proposed test provisions are 

consistent with the provision in Section 

F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021, but include 

revisions for further clarity and 

specificity (e.g., adding clarifying 

provisions for how to test units with 

modular economizers as opposed to 

units shipped with economizers 

installed). 

Consistent with the Commercial 

HVAC Term Sheet and the Commercial 

HVAC Enforcement Policy, DOE is 

proposing provisions that would allow 

determination of represented values of a 

model equipped with a particular 

component to be based on an individual 

model distributed in commerce without 

the component in specific cases. The 

provisions apply to certain components 

for which the test provisions for testing 

a unit with the component may result in 

differences in ratings compared to 

testing a unit without the component.17

For these such components, DOE 

proposes in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(4) that: 

• If a basic model includes only 

individual models distributed in 

commerce with a specific component, or 

does not include any otherwise 

identical individual models without the 

specific component, the manufacturer 

must determine represented values for 

the basic model based on performance 

of an individual model with the 

component present (and consistent with 

any relevant proposed test procedure 

provisions in Appendix G1). 

• If a basic model includes both 

individual models distributed in 

commerce with a specific component 

and otherwise identical individual 

models without the specific component, 

the manufacturer may determine 

represented values for the basic model 

based on performance of an individual 

model either with the component 

present (and consistent with any 

relevant proposed test procedure 

provisions in Appendix G1) or without 

the component present. 

DOE notes that in some cases, 

individual models may include more 

than one of the specified components 

(i.e., both an economizer and 

dehumidification components) or there 

may be individual models within a 

basic model that include various 

dehumidification components that 

result in more or less energy use. In 

these cases, the represented values of 

performance must be representative of 

the lowest efficiency found within the 

basic model. 

Also consistent with the Commercial 

HVAC Term Sheet and the Commercial 

HVAC Enforcement Policy, DOE is 

proposing provisions in 10 CFR 

429.134(s)(1) regarding how DOE would 

assess compliance for basic models that 

include individual models distributed 

in commerce with air economizers or 

dehumidification components. 

Specifically: 

• If a basic model includes only 

individual models distributed in 

commerce with a specific component, or 

does not include any otherwise 

identical individual models without the 

specific component, DOE may assess 

compliance for the basic model based 

on testing an individual model with the 

component present (and consistent with 

any relevant proposed test procedure 

provisions in Appendix G1). 

• If a basic model includes both 

individual models distributed in 

commerce with a specific component 

and otherwise identical individual 

models without the specific component, 

DOE will assess compliance for the 

basic model based on testing of an 

otherwise identical model within the 

basic model that does not include the 

component; except if DOE is not able to 

obtain such a model for testing. In such 

a case, DOE will assess compliance for 

the basic model based on testing of an 

individual model with the specific 

component present (and consistent with 

any relevant proposed test procedure 

provisions in Appendix G1). 

Were DOE to adopt the provisions in 

10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 

CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix G1 as 

proposed, DOE would rescind the 

Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy 

to the extent it is applicable to SPVUs. 

In a separate certification rulemaking, 

DOE may consider certification 

reporting requirements such that 

manufacturers would be required to 

certify which otherwise identical 

models are used for making 

representations of basic models that 

include individual models with specific 

components. 

Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal regarding specific components 

in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 

10 CFR part 431, subpart F, Appendices 

G and G1. 

G. Represented Values 

1. Multiple Refrigerants 

DOE recognizes that some commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment may be sold with more than 

one refrigerant option (e.g., R–410A or 

R–407C). Typically, manufacturers 

specify a single refrigerant in their 

literature for each unique model, but in 

its review, DOE has identified at least 

one commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment 

manufacturer that provides two 

refrigerant options under the same 

model number. The refrigerant chosen 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2509 

by the customer in the field installation 

may impact the energy efficiency of a 

unit. For this reason, DOE is proposing 

representation requirements specific for 

models approved for use with multiple 

refrigerants. So that the proposals in this 

NOPR would only require 

manufacturers to update representations 

once, DOE proposes to align the 

compliance date for these representation 

requirements with the proposed metric 

change (i.e., these proposals would only 

be required when certifying to amended 

standards denominated in terms of 

IEER, if adopted). 

Use of a refrigerant (such as R–407C 

as compared to R–410A) that requires 

different hardware (i.e., compressors, 

heat exchangers, or air moving systems 

that are not the same or comparably 

performing) would represent a different 

basic model, and according to the 

current CFR, separate representations of 

energy efficiency are required for each 

basic model. 10 CFR 429.43(a). On the 

other hand, 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, per DOE’s current definition for 

‘‘basic model at 10 CFR 431.92. In the 

latter case of an SPVU with multiple 

refrigerant options that do not require 

different hardware, DOE proposes that a 

manufacturer determine the represented 

values (for example, IEER, COP, and 

cooling capacity) based on the 

refrigerant(s)—among all refrigerants 

listed on the unit’s nameplate—that 

results in the lowest cooling efficiency. 

These represented values would apply 

to the basic model with the use of all 

refrigerants specified by the 

manufacturer. 

Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal regarding representations for 

SPVU models approved for use with 

multiple refrigerants. 

2. Cooling Capacity 

For SPVUs, cooling capacity 

determines equipment class, which in 

turn determines the applicable energy 

conservation standard. 10 CFR 431.97. 

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. 

In contrast, at paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and 

(a)(2)(ii) of 10 CFR 429.43 and 

paragraph (g) of 10 CFR 429.134, DOE 

specifies such provisions regarding the 

cooling capacity for air-cooled CUACs. 

Again, because energy conservation 

standards for SPVUs are dependent on 

cooling capacity, inconsistent 

approaches to the application of cooling 

capacity between basic models could 

result in inconsistent determinations of 

equipment class and, in turn, 

inconsistent applications of the energy 

conservation standards. 

For these reasons, DOE is proposing 

to add to its regulations the following 

provisions regarding 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. 

First, DOE proposes to require in 10 

CFR 429.43(a)(3)(v)(B) that the 

represented value of cooling capacity 

must be between 95 percent and 100 

percent of the mean of the cooling 

capacity values measured for the units 

in the sample (if determined through 

testing), or between 95 percent and 100 

percent of the cooling capacity output 

simulated by an AEDM. This tolerance 

would help to ensure that equipment is 

capable of performing at the cooling 

capacity for which it is represented to 

commercial consumers, while also 

enabling manufacturers to 

conservatively rate the cooling capacity 

to allow for minor variations in the 

capacity measurements from different 

units tested at different laboratories. 

Second, DOE is proposing in its 

product-specific enforcement provisions 

at 10 CFR 429.134(s)(1) that the cooling 

capacity of each tested unit of the basic 

model will be measured pursuant to the 

test requirements of part 431 and that 

the mean of the measurement(s) will be 

used to determine the applicable 

standard with which the model must 

comply. 

As discussed in this section, 

applicable energy conservation 

standards for SPVUs are dependent on 

the rated cooling capacity. DOE has 

tentatively concluded that these 

proposals would result in more accurate 

ratings of cooling capacity, and ensure 

appropriate application of the energy 

conservation standards, while still 

providing flexibility for manufacturers 

to conservatively rate cooling capacity 

so that they can be confident the 

equipment is capable of delivering the 

cooling capacity represented to 

commercial consumers. 

Issue 9: DOE requests comment on its 

proposals related to represented values 

and verification testing of cooling 

capacity for SPVUs. 

H. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

As stated, EPCA requires that the test 

procedures for commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment, 

which includes SPVUs, 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)) 

Further, if such an industry test 

procedure is amended, DOE must 

amend its test procedure to be 

consistent with the amended industry 

test procedure, unless DOE determines, 

by rule published in the Federal 

Register and supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, that such 

amended test procedure would not meet 

the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) 

and (3) related to representative use and 

test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

the existing test procedure for SPVUs 

by: (1) Incorporating by reference the 

updated version of the applicable 

industry test method, AHRI 390–2021, 

including the energy efficiency 

descriptors; (2) 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’’ 

to clarify which single-phase equipment 

with cooling capacity less than 65,000 

Btu/h are properly classified as SPVU 

rather than CAC; (3) specifying 

provisions for specific components; and 

(4) further specifying the requirements 

for determination of represented values 

for cooling capacity and for models 

approved for use with multiple 

refrigerants. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

these proposed amended test 

procedures would be representative of 

an average use cycle and would not be 

unduly burdensome for manufacturers 

to conduct. Based on review of AHRI 

390–2021, DOE expects 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, 

which DOE estimates to be $3,100 for 

SPVACs and $3,700 for SPVHPs per 

unit for third-party lab testing. DOE 

estimates that the cost for third-party lab 

testing according to the proposed 

Appendix G1 for measuring IEER and 

COP to be $4,900 for SPVACs and 

$5,500 for SPVHPs per unit. 

DOE further notes that manufacturers 

are not required to perform laboratory 

testing on all basic models. In 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2510 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

18 DOE estimated initial costs to validate an 

AEDM assuming 80 hours of general time to 

develop an AEDM based on existing simulation 

tools and 16 hours to validate two basic models 

within that AEDM at the cost of an engineering 

technician wage of $50 per hour plus the cost of 

third-party physical testing of two units per 

validation class (as required in 10 CFR 

429.70(c)(2)(iv)). DOE estimated the additional per 

basic model cost to determine efficiency using an 

AEDM assuming 1 hour per basic model at the cost 

of an engineering technician wage of $50 per hour. 

accordance with 10 CFR 429.70 of 

DOE’s regulations, SPVU manufacturers 

may elect to use AEDMs. An AEDM is 

a computer modeling or mathematical 

tool that predicts the performance of 

non-tested basic models. These 

computer modeling and mathematical 

tools, when properly developed, can 

provide a means to predict the energy 

usage or efficiency characteristics of a 

basic model of a given covered product 

or equipment and reduce the burden 

and cost associated with testing. DOE 

estimates the per-manufacturer cost to 

develop and validate an AEDM for 

SPVU equipment to be $15,800. DOE 

estimates an additional cost of 

approximately $50 per basic model 18

for determining energy efficiency using 

the validated AEDM. 

As discussed in section II of this 

NOPR, the proposed test procedure 

provisions regarding IEER 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 that was 

established for use in AHRI’s 

certification program (which DOE 

presumes will be updated to include 

IEER), DOE expects that manufacturers 

will already be testing using the IEER 

test method. Based on this, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the 

proposed test procedure amendments 

would not be expected to increase the 

testing burden on most SPVU 

manufacturers. Additionally, DOE has 

tentatively 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. 

Issue 10: DOE requests comment on 

its understanding of the impact of the 

test procedure proposals in this NOPR, 

specifically DOE’s initial conclusion 

that the proposed DOE test procedure 

amendments, if finalized, would not 

increase testing burden on SPVU 

manufacturers, as compared to current 

industry practice indicated by AHRI 

390–2021. 

I. Reserved Appendices for Test 

Procedures for Commercial Air 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment 

DOE proposes to amend its test 

procedures for SPVUs and to relocate 

those test procedures to new Appendix 

G and Appendix G1 to 10 CFR part 431, 

subpart F. This proposed reorganization 

of the SPVU test procedures would be 

consistent with the organization of the 

test procedures for other covered 

equipment and covered products. DOE 

has tentatively concluded that providing 

the test procedures for specific 

equipment in a designated appendix 

would improve the readability of the 

test procedure. Further, DOE proposes 

to make the provisions currently in 10 

CFR 431.96(c) and (e) specific to SPVUs 

in 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, 

Appendices G and G1, thereby 

eliminating the references to test 

procedures for other equipment. To 

provide for future consideration of a 

similar reorganization for other 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment test procedures, 

DOE is proposing to reserve Appendices 

B through F under 10 CFR part 431, 

subpart F. The reserved appendices are 

presented to facilitate any future 

reorganization of the regulations and are 

not an indication of any substantive 

changes to the respective test 

procedures at this time. Any such 

reorganization of test procedures for the 

equipment identified in the proposed 

reserved appendices would be 

addressed in separate rulemakings. 

J. Compliance Dates 

EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends 

its test procedure for covered 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment (including 

SPVUs), all representations of energy 

efficiency and energy use, including 

those made on marketing materials and 

product labels, must be made in 

accordance with that amended test 

procedure, beginning 360 days after 

publication of such a test procedure 

final rule in the Federal Register. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) has determined that this test 

procedure rulemaking does not 

constitute ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ under section 3(f) of Executive 

Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 

4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was 

not subject to review under the 

Executive order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in OMB. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed 

this proposed rule to amend the test 

procedures for SPVUs under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the policies and procedures 

published on February 19, 2003. 

The following sections detail DOE’s 

IRFA for this test procedure rulemaking. 

1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is 

Being Considered 

DOE is proposing to amend the 

existing DOE test procedures for SPVUs. 

DOE must update the Federal test 

procedures to be consistent with the 

updated industry consensus test 

procedure, unless DOE determines by 

rule published in the Federal Register 

and supported by clear and convincing 

evidence, that the industry update 

would not be representative of an 

average use cycle or would be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(4)(B)) 

2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 

EPCA, as amended, requires that the 

test procedures for commercial package 

air conditioning and heating equipment, 

which includes SPVUs, 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)) 

Further, if such an industry test 

procedure is amended, DOE must 

amend its test procedure to be 

consistent with the amended industry 

test procedure, unless DOE determines, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2511 

19Available at: www.sba.gov/document/supporttable-size-standards. 

20 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is 

available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms (last 

accessed September 1, 2021). 

21California Energy Commission’s MAEDbS is 

available at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ 

ApplianceSearch.aspx (last accessed September 1, 

2021). 

22 Dun & Bradstreet reports are available at: 

app.dnbhoovers.comI (last access September 1, 

2021). 

23 In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70. 

24 $4,800 (AEDM development and validation 

costs) + $5,500 (per-unit physical testing costs) × 

(units required for physical testing per validation 

class) = $15,800. AEDM development ad validation 

costs are based on 96 hours of development and 

testing using an engineering technician wage of $50 

per hour. This estimate utilizes the more costly 

SPVHP testing cost of $5,500 per unit. 

by rule published in the Federal 

Register and supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, that such 

amended test procedure would not meet 

the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) 

and (3) related to representative use and 

test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) 

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE must 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. 614(a)(1)(A)) 

Once completed, the current 

rulemaking will satisfy both of these 

legal requirements of EPCA. 

3. Description and Estimate of Small 

Entities Regulated 

DOE uses the Small Business 

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) small business 

size standards to determine whether 

manufacturers qualify as ‘‘small 

businesses,’’ which are listed by the 

North American Industry Classification 

System (‘‘NAICS’’).19 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 reviewed the test procedures 

proposed in this NOPR under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 

published on February 19, 2003. The 

Department conducted a focused 

inquiry into small business 

manufacturers of the equipment covered 

by this rulemaking. DOE used publicly 

available information to identify 

potential small businesses that 

manufacture SPVUs domestically. DOE 

identified manufacturers using DOE’s 

Compliance Certification Database 

(‘‘CCD’’),20 the California Energy 

Commission’s Modernized Appliance 

Efficiency Database System 

(‘‘MAEDbS’’),21 and prior rulemakings. 

Additionally, DOE used publiclyavailable information and subscriptionbased market research tools (e.g., reports 

from Dun & Bradstreet 22). As a result of 

this inquiry, DOE identified a total of 

eight companies that are manufacturers 

or private labelers of SPVUs in the 

United States. DOE screened out 

companies that do not meet the 

definition of a ‘‘small business’’ or are 

foreign-owned and operated. Of these 

eight SPVU manufacturers or private 

labelers, DOE identified three potential 

small businesses. 

Two of the three small businesses are 

original equipment manufacturers 

(‘‘OEM’’) of the SPVUs each small 

business sells. The third small business 

is not an OEM of the SPVUs they sell. 

Instead, it rebrands its SPVU models 

which are supplied by a different OEM 

(i.e., making the small business a private 

labeler). Of the two OEM small 

businesses, one is a member of AHRI 

and the other is not a member of AHRI. 

The private labeler small business is not 

a member of AHRI. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

DOE assumed each small business 

would have different potential 

regulatory costs depending on if they 

are an OEM and if they are a member 

of AHRI. DOE assumed all AHRI 

members, including small businesses, 

will be testing their SPVU models in 

accordance with AHRI 390–2021, the 

industry test procedure DOE is 

proposing to reference, and using 

AHRI’s certification program, which 

DOE presumes will be updated to 

include the IEER metric. Therefore, the 

proposed test procedure amendments 

would not add testing burden to SPVU 

manufacturers that are or will be using 

the AHRI 390–2021 test procedure for 

their SPVU models, including one of the 

identified small businesses. 

DOE assumed the small business that 

is not an OEM of the SPVU models they 

sell (i.e., the private labeler) does not 

pay for the testing costs for the 

rebranded SPVU models they sell 

because the test performance of the 

rebranded SPVU models is identical to 

the SPVU models the OEM sells. 

Therefore, DOE does not anticipate that 

any non-OEMs, including this small 

business, incur any testing burden to 

sell rebranded SPVU models. 

Lastly, while DOE assumed that all 

SPVU manufacturers will be using the 

industry test procedure, AHRI 390– 

2021, DOE estimated the potential 

testing costs for the small business that 

is an OEM but is not an AHRI member. 

This small business would only incur 

additional testing costs if that small 

business will not be using the AHRI 

390–2021 to test their SPVU models. 

This one small business manufactures 

six SPVU basic models. 

As previously stated in section III.H of 

this NOPR, DOE estimated that the cost 

for third-party lab testing according to 

the proposed appendix G1 for 

measuring IEER and COP to be $4,900 

for SPVACs and $5,500 for SPVHPs per 

unit. If SPVU manufacturers conduct 

physical testing to certify a SPVU basic 

model, two units are required to be 

tested per basic model. However, 

manufacturers are not required to 

perform laboratory testing on all basic 

models, as SPVU manufacturers may 

elect to use AEDMs.23 An AEDM is a 

computer modeling or mathematical 

tool that predicts the performance of 

non-tested basic models. These 

computer modeling and mathematical 

tools, when properly developed, can 

provide a means to predict the energy 

usage or efficiency characteristics of a 

basic model of a given covered product 

or equipment and reduce the burden 

and cost associated with testing. 

When developing cost estimates, DOE 

considered the cost to develop an 

AEDM, the costs to validate the AEDM 

through physical testing, and the cost 

per model to determine ratings using the 

AEDM. DOE estimated the cost to 

develop and validate an AEDM for 

SPVUs to be approximately $15,800, 

which includes physical testing of two 

models per validation class.24

Additionally, DOE estimated a cost of 

approximately $50 per basic model for 

determining energy efficiency using the 

validated AEDM. In the case of the 

single small, non-AHRI member, the 

estimated cost to rate the remaining four 

basic models with the AEDM would be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2512 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

25 $50 (per-unit rating cost) × 4 (remaining units) 

= $200. 26 $16,000 (costs) ÷ $1,300,000 (annual revenue) 

= 1.2% of annual revenue. 27 $5,500 (per-unit test cost) × 2 (units tested per 

model) × 6 (number of SPVU models) = $66,000. 

This estimate utilizes the more costly SPVHP 

testing cost of $5,500 per unit. 

$200.25 Based on these estimates, the 

small SPVU manufacturer that is an 

OEM and not a member of AHRI would 

incur $16,000 to test and rate all six of 

its SPVU models. 

Market research tools report that 

company’s annual revenue to be 

approximately $1.3 million. The cost to 

re-rate all model would be 

approximately 1.2 percent of annual 

revenue for that small manufacturer.26

Issue 11: DOE requests comment on 

the number of small businesses DOE 

identified. DOE also requests comment 

on the potential cost estimates for each 

small business identified, compared to 

current industry practice, as indicated 

by AHRI 390–2021. 

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being considered. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

DOE proposes to reduce burden on 

manufacturers, including small 

businesses, by allowing AEDMs in lieu 

of physically testing all basic models. 

The use of AEDMs is less costly than 

physical testing for SPVUs. Without 

AEDMs, the cost for the small, nonAHRI-member to rate all basic models 

would increase to $66,000.27

Additionally, DOE considered 

alternative test methods and 

modifications to the AHRI 390–2021 test 

procedure for SPVUs. However, DOE 

has tentatively determined that there are 

no better alternatives than the existing 

industry test procedures, in terms of 

both meeting the agency’s objectives 

and reducing burden on manufacturers. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to amend 

the existing DOE test procedure for 

SPVUs through incorporation by 

reference of AHRI 390–2021. 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

Manufacturers subject to DOE’s energy 

efficiency standards may apply to DOE’s 

Office of Hearings and Appeals for 

exception relief under certain 

circumstances. Manufacturers should 

refer to 10 CFR part 1003 for additional 

details. 

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 

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 

DOE is analyzing this proposed 

regulation in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for rulemakings 

interpreting or amending an existing 

rule or regulation that does not change 

the environmental effect of the rule or 

regulation being amended. 10 CFR part 

1021, subpart D, appendix A5. DOE 

anticipates that this rulemaking 

qualifies for categorical exclusion A5 

because it is an interpretive rulemaking 

that does not change the environmental 

effects of the rule and otherwise meets 

the requirements for application of a 

categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 

1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA 

review before issuing the final rule. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements for agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 

rule and has determined that it would 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

proposed rule. States can petition DOE 

for exemption from such preemption to 

the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No 

further action is required by Executive 

Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard, and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms, and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2513 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this proposed 

rule according to UMRA and its 

statement of policy and determined that 

the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this proposed 

regulation would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB 

Memorandum M–19–15, Improving 

Implementation of the Information 

Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 

published updated guidelines which are 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final

%20Updated%20IQA%

20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. 

DOE has reviewed this proposed rule 

under the OMB and DOE guidelines and 

has concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

The proposed regulatory action to 

amend the test procedure for measuring 

the energy efficiency of SPVUs is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed amendments to the 

Federal test procedure for SPVUs are 

primarily in response to modifications 

to the applicable industry consensus 

test standards (i.e., AHRI 390–2021 and 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009). DOE has 

evaluated these standards and is unable 

to conclude whether they fully comply 

with the requirements of section 32(b) of 

the FEAA (i.e., whether it was 

developed in a manner that fully 

provides for public participation, 

comment, and review).DOE will consult 

with both the Attorney General and the 

Chairman of the FTC concerning the 

impact of these test procedures on 

competition, prior to prescribing a final 

rule. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference the test 

standard published by AHRI, titled 

‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package 

Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps,’’ AHRI Standard 390–2021. 

Specifically, the Federal test procedure 

proposed in this NOPR would adopt 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2514 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

test procedure for measuring the 

performance of SPVUs. AHRI Standard 

390–2021 is available online at 

www.ahrinet.org/search-standards.aspx. 

In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to 

incorporate by reference the test 

standard published by ASHRAE, titled 

‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment,’’ ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

37–2009. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37– 

2009 is an industry-accepted test 

procedure for measuring the 

performance of electrically driven 

unitary air-conditioning and heat pump 

equipment. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

37–2009 is available on ANSI’s website 

at https://webstore.ansi.org/ 

RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%

2FASHRAE+Standard+37-2009. 

In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to 

incorporate by reference the test 

standard published by ASHRAE, titled 

‘‘Standard Methods For Laboratory 

Airflow Measurement,’’ ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 41.2–1987 (RA 92). ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 41.2–1987 (RA 92) 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 Standard 

41.2–1987 (RA 92) is available on 

ANSI’s website at https://webstore.

ansi.org/Standards/ASHRAE/ 

ANSIASHRAE411987RA92. 

The following standards, which 

appear in the regulatory text, were 

previously approved for IBR and no 

changes are proposed: AHRI 210/240– 

2008, AHRI 340/360–2007, AHRI 1230– 

2010, ASHRAE 127–2007, and ISO 

Standard 13256–1 (1998). 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar are 

listed in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this document. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

website: www.energy.gov/eere/ 

buildings/public-meetings-andcomment-deadlines. Participants are 

responsible for ensuring their systems 

are compatible with the webinar 

software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this notice, or who 

is representative of a group or class of 

persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the 

webinar/public meeting. Such persons 

may submit requests to speak via email 

to the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program at: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and the 

topics they wish to discuss. Such 

persons should also provide a daytime 

telephone number where they can be 

reached. 

DOE requests persons selected to 

make an oral presentation to submit an 

advance copy of their statements at least 

two weeks before the webinar/public 

meeting. At its discretion, DOE may 

permit persons who cannot supply an 

advance copy of their statement to 

participate, if those persons have made 

advance alternative arrangements with 

the Building Technologies Office. As 

necessary, requests to give an oral 

presentation should ask for such 

alternative arrangements. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar/public meeting 

and may also use a professional 

facilitator to aid discussion. The 

meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but 

DOE will conduct it in accordance with 

section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A 

court reporter will be present to record 

the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. DOE reserves the right to 

schedule the order of presentations and 

to establish the procedures governing 

the conduct of the webinar/public 

meeting. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public 

meeting and until the end of the 

comment period, interested parties may 

submit further comments on the 

proceedings and any aspect of the 

rulemaking. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present summaries of comments 

received before the webinar/public 

meeting, allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions posed by DOE and by 

other participants concerning these 

issues. DOE representatives may also 

ask questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

webinar/public meeting will accept 

additional comments or questions from 

those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar/public meeting. 

A transcript of the webinar/public 

meeting will be included in the docket, 

which can be viewed as described in the 

Docket section at the beginning of this 

document. In addition, any person may 

buy a copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this 

document. 

DOE has historically provided a 75- 

day comment period for test procedure 

NOPRs pursuant to the North American 

Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-CanadaMexico (‘‘NAFTA’’), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 

I.L.M. 289 (1993); the North American 

Free Trade Agreement Implementation 

Act, Public Law 103–182, 107 Stat. 2057 

(1993) (codified as amended at 10 

U.S.C.A. 2576) (1993) (‘‘NAFTA 

Implementation Act’’); and Executive 

Order 12889, ‘‘Implementation of the 

North American Free Trade 

Agreement,’’ 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 

1993). However, on July 1, 2020, the 

Agreement between the United States of 

America, the United Mexican States, 

and the United Canadian States 

(‘‘USMCA’’), Nov. 30, 2018, 134 Stat. 11 

(i.e., the successor to NAFTA), went into 

effect, and Congress’s action in 

replacing NAFTA through the USMCA 

Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4501 et 

seq. (2020), implies the repeal of E.O. 

12889 and its 75-day comment period 

requirement for technical regulations. 

Thus, the controlling laws are EPCA and 

the USMCA Implementation Act. 

Consistent with EPCA’s public comment 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2515 

period requirements for consumer 

products, the USMCA only requires a 

minimum comment period of 60 days. 

Consequently, DOE now provides a 60- 

day public comment period for test 

procedure NOPRs. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English, and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption, and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal 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 

subsets of the broader SPVAC and 

SPVHP equipment category. DOE 

requests feedback on the proposed 

characteristics that would distinguish 

this equipment as SPVUs (i.e., 

‘‘weatherized’’ or capable of utilizing a 

maximum of 400 CFM of outdoor air). 

Additionally, DOE requests comment on 

the proposed method to validate that a 

unit is capable of providing 400 CFM of 

outdoor air. 

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to adopt the test methods 

specified in AHRI 390–2021 for 

calculating IEER for SPVUs. 

Issue 3: DOE requests comment and 

data on ratings under the current EER 

metric specified in 10 CFR 431.97 and 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 based on ANSI/ 

AHRI 390–2003 as compared to ratings 

using the IEER metric under AHRI 390– 

2021. 

Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to clarify that COP 

representations using the ‘‘Low 

Temperature Operation, Heating’’ 

conditions in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021 

are optional. 

Issue 5: DOE welcomes data and 

information on ESP conditions 

experienced in field operation of ducted 

SPVUs. 

Issue 6: DOE requests 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 requests data on the 

frequency of operation of defrost cycles 

and representative low ambient 

conditions for those buildings and 

installations. 

Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal regarding specific components 

in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 

10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendices 

G and G1. 

Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its 

proposal regarding representations for 

SPVU models approved for use with 

multiple refrigerants. 

Issue 9: DOE requests comment on its 

proposals related to represented values 

and verification testing of cooling 

capacity for SPVUs. 

Issue 10: DOE requests comment on 

its understanding of the impact of the 

test procedure proposals in this NOPR, 

specifically DOE’s initial conclusion 

that the proposed DOE test procedure 

amendments, if finalized, would not 

increase testing burden on SPVU 

manufacturers, as compared to current 

industry practice indicated by AHRI 

390–2021. 

Issue 11: DOE requests comment on 

the number of small businesses DOE 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2516 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

identified. DOE also requests comment 

on the potential cost estimates for each 

small business identified, compared to 

current industry practice, as indicated 

by AHRI 390–2021. 

DOE also seeks comment on any other 

matter concerning the proposed test 

procedures for SPVUs not already 

addressed by the specific areas 

identified in this document. DOE 

particularly seeks information that 

would ensure that the test procedure 

measures energy efficiency during a 

representative average use cycle, as well 

as information that would help DOE 

create a procedure that is not unduly 

burdensome to conduct. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed 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, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on December 28, 

2021, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 

from the Secretary of Energy. That 

document with the original signature 

and date is maintained by DOE. For 

administrative purposes only, and in 

compliance with requirements of the 

Office of the Federal Register, the 

undersigned DOE Federal Register 

Liaison Officer has been authorized to 

sign and submit the document in 

electronic format for publication, as an 

official document of the Department of 

Energy. This administrative process in 

no way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on December 

30, 2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II of Title 

10, Code of Federal Regulations as set 

forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Amend § 429.4 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as 

paragraph (c)(3); 

■ c. Adding new paragraph (c)(2); 

■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (d), (e), 

and (f) as paragraphs (e), (f), and (g); and 

■ e. Adding new paragraph (d). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows. 

§ 429.4 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, DOE must publish a 

document in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, Sixth 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–9127, 

Buildings@ee.doe.gov, https://

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

building-technologies-office, and may be 

obtained from the other sources in this 

section. It is also available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, email: fr.inspection@

nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) AHRI Standard 390–2021, (‘‘AHRI 

390–2021’’), 2021 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Single Package 

Vertical Air-conditioners and Heat 

Pumps, IBR approved for § 429.134. 

* * * * * 

(d) ASHRAE. The American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers. 180 

Technology Parkway NW, Peachtree 

Corners, GA 30092, (404) 636–8400, 

https://www.ashrae.org. 

(1) ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, 

‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment’’, ASHRAE approved June 

24, 2009. IBR approved for § 429.134. 

(2) ANSI/ASHRAE 41.2–1987 (RA 92), 

‘‘Standard Methods For Laboratory 

Airflow Measurement’’, ASHRAE 

approved October 1, 1987. IBR approved 

for § 429.134. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 429.43 by adding 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating, 

air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Product-specific provisions for 

determination of represented values. 

(i)–(vi) [Reserved] 

(vii) Single Package Vertical Units. 

When certifying to standards in terms of 

IEER, the following provisions apply. 

(A) If a basic model is distributed in 

commerce and approved for use with 

multiple refrigerants, a manufacturer 

must determine all represented values 

for that basic model (for example, IEER, 

COP and cooling capacity) based on the 

refrigerant that results in the lowest 

cooling efficiency. A refrigerant is 

considered approved for use if it is 

listed on the nameplate of the outdoor 

unit. Per the definition of basic model 

in 10 CFR 431.92 of this chapter, use of 

a refrigerant that requires different 

hardware (i.e., compressors, heat 

exchangers, or air moving systems that 

are not the same or comparably 

performing), would represent a different 

basic model, and separate 

representations would be required for 

each basic model. 

(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 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 3 of appendix G1 to subpart F 

of part 431 of this chapter. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2517 

(4) Determination of represented 

values for individual models with 

specific components for SPVUs. 

(i) If a manufacturer distributes in 

commerce individual models with one 

of the components listed in the 

following table, determination of 

represented values is dependent on the 

selected grouping of individual models 

into a basic model, as indicated in 

paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) through (a)(4)(v) of 

this section. For the purposes of this 

paragraph, ‘‘otherwise identical’’ means 

differing only in the presence of specific 

components listed in table 1 to this 

paragraph (a)(4)(i). 

TABLE 1—TO PARAGRAPH (a)(4)(i) 

Component Description 

Desiccant Dehumidification Components ........... An assembly that reduces the 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 (VERS) .... An assembly that preconditions 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 Fans ...... A powered exhaust fan is a fan that 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. 

(ii) If a basic model includes only 

individual models distributed in 

commerce without a specific component 

listed in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this 

section, the manufacturer must 

determine represented values for the 

basic model based on performance of an 

individual model distributed in 

commerce without the component. 

(iii) If a basic model includes only 

individual models distributed in 

commerce with a specific component 

listed in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this 

section, the manufacturer must 

determine represented values for the 

basic model based on performance of an 

individual model with the component 

present (and consistent with any 

component-specific test provisions 

specified in section 3 of appendix G1 to 

subpart F of part 431 of this chapter). 

(iv) If a basic model includes both 

individual models distributed in 

commerce with a specific component 

listed in paragraph (4)(i) of this section 

and individual models distributed in 

commerce without that specific 

component, and none of the individual 

models distributed in commerce 

without the specific component are 

otherwise identical to any individual 

model distributed in commerce with the 

specific component, the manufacturer 

must consider the performance of 

individual models with the component 

present when determining represented 

values for the basic model (and 

consistent with any component-specific 

test provisions specified in section 3 of 

appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 of 

this chapter). 

(v) If a basic model includes both 

individual models distributed in 

commerce with a specific component 

listed in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this 

section and individual models 

distributed in commerce without that 

specific component, and at least one of 

the individual models distributed in 

commerce without the specific 

component is otherwise identical to any 

given individual model distributed in 

commerce with the specific component, 

the manufacturer may determine 

represented values for the basic model 

either: 

(A) Based on performance of an 

individual model distributed in 

commerce without the specific 

component, or 

(B) Based on performance of an 

individual model with the specific 

component present (and consistent with 

any component-specific test provisions 

specified in section 3 of appendix G1 to 

subpart F of part 431 of this chapter). 

(vi) In any of the cases specified in 

paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) through (a)(4)(v) of 

this section, the represented values for 

a basic model must be determined 

through either testing (paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section) or an AEDM 

(paragraph(a)(2) of this section). 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 429.134 by adding 

paragraph (s) to read as follows: 

§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement 

provisions. 

* * * * * 

(s) 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 part 431 of 

this chapter. The mean of the 

measurement(s) will be used to 

determine the applicable standards for 

purposes of compliance. 

(2) Specific Components. For basic 

models that include individual models 

distributed in commerce with any of the 

specific components listed at 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2518 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

§ 429.43(a)(4)(i), the following 

provisions apply. For the purposes of 

this paragraph, ‘‘otherwise identical’’ 

means differing only in the presence of 

specific components listed at 

§ 429.43(a)(4)(i). 

(i) If the basic model includes only 

individual models distributed in 

commerce with a specific component, or 

does not include any otherwise 

identical individual models without the 

specific component, DOE may assess 

compliance for the basic model based 

on testing of an individual model with 

the component present (and consistent 

with any component-specific test 

provisions specified in section 3 of 

appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 of 

this chapter). 

(ii) If the basic model includes both 

individual models distributed in 

commerce with a specific component 

and otherwise identical individual 

models without the specific component, 

DOE will assess compliance for the 

basic model based on testing an 

otherwise identical model within the 

basic model that does not include the 

component, unless DOE is not able to 

obtain an individual model for testing 

that does not include the component. In 

such a situation, DOE will assess 

compliance for the basic model based 

on testing of an individual model with 

the specific component present (and 

consistent with any component-specific 

test provisions specified in section 3 of 

appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 of 

this chapter). 

(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 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 429.4) and Section 6.4 of ASHRAE 

37–2009. 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 § 429.4), Full Load Standard Rating 

Capacity Test, Cooling, except for the 

following: 

(A) 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. 

(B) Reserved. 

(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 

■ 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. 

■ 6. Amend § 431.92 by: 

■ a. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Single 

package vertical air conditioner’’ and 

‘‘Single package vertical heat pump.’’ 

■ b. Adding the definitions of ‘‘Singlephase 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; and 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 431.92 Definitions concerning 

commercial air conditioners and 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; 

(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 of a single package 

vertical air conditioner; that is singlephase; 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 § 429.134(s)(3), 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 § 429.43(b)(4)(xi)). 

Single-phase single package vertical 

heat pump 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 (ii) 

of the definition of a single package 

vertical heat pump; 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 § 429.134(s)(3), 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 § 429.43(b)(4)(xii)). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 431.95 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (b)(5) and (c)(2) to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.95 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this part with the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2519 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, DOE must publish a 

document in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, Sixth 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–9127, 

Buildings@ee.doe.gov, https://

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

building-technologies-office, and may be 

obtained from the other sources in this 

section. It is also available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, email: fr.inspection@

nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

(b) * * * 

(5) AHRI Standard 390–2021, ‘‘2021 

Standard for Performance Rating of 

Single Package Vertical AirConditioners and Heat Pumps,’’ dated 

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 § 431.96 

and appendices A, G, and G1 to this 

subpart. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 431.96 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1), table 1 to § 431.96, and 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 431.96 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy efficiency of 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 

* * * * * 

(b) Testing and calculations. (1) 

Determine the energy efficiency and 

capacity of each category of covered 

equipment by conducting the test 

procedure(s) listed in Table 1 of 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. 

(2) * * * 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(2)—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Equipment type Category Cooling capacity Energy efficiency 

descriptor 

Use tests, conditions, 

and procedures 1 in 

Additional test procedure 

provisions as indicated in 

the listed paragraphs of 

this section 

Small Commercial Package Air-Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment.

Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, AC 

and HP.

<65,000 Btu/h ................. SEER and HSPF ............ AHRI 210/240–2008 

(omit section 6.5).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

Air-Cooled AC and HP ... ≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

EER, IEER, and COP .... Appendix A to this subpart.None. 

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC.<65,000 Btu/h ................. EER ................................ AHRI 210/240–2008 

(omit section 6.5).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

EER ................................ AHRI 340/360–2007 

(omit section 6.3).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

Water-Source HP ........... <135,000 Btu/h ............... EER and COP ................ ISO Standard 13256–1 

(1998).

Paragraph (e). 

Large Commercial Package Air-Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment.

Air-Cooled AC and HP ...

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC.

≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

EER, IEER and COP .....

EER ................................

Appendix A to this subpart.

AHRI 340/360–2007 

(omit section 6.3).

None. 

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

Very Large Commercial 

Package Air-Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment.

Air-Cooled AC and HP ...

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC.

≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

EER, IEER and COP .....

EER ................................

Appendix A to this subpart.

AHRI 340/360–2007 

(omit section 6.3).

None. 

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

Packaged Terminal Air 

Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps.

AC and HP ..................... <760,000 Btu/h ............... EER and COP ................ Paragraph (g) of this section.Paragraphs (c), (e), and 

(g). 

Computer Room Air Conditioners.AC ................................... <65,000 Btu/h ................. SCOP ............................. ASHRAE 127–2007 (omit 

section 5.11).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

SCOP ............................. ASHRAE 127–2007 (omit 

section 5.11).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

Variable Refrigerant Flow 

Multi-split Systems.

AC ................................... <65,000 Btu/h (3-phase) SEER .............................. AHRI 1230–2010 (omit 

sections 5.1.2 and 6.6).

Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), 

and (f). 

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

EER ................................ AHRI 1230–2010 (omit 

sections 5.1.2 and 6.6).

Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), 

and (f). 

Variable Refrigerant Flow 

Multi-split Systems, Aircooled.

HP ................................... <65,000 Btu/h (3-phase) SEER and HSPF ............ AHRI 1230–2010 (omit 

sections 5.1.2 and 6.6).

Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), 

and (f). 

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

EER and COP ................ AHRI 1230–2010 (omit 

sections 5.1.2 and 6.6).

Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), 

and (f). 

Variable Refrigerant Flow 

Multi-split Systems, 

Water-source.

HP ................................... <760,000 Btu/h ............... EER and COP ................ AHRI 1230–2010 (omit 

sections 5.1.2 and 6.6).

Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), 

and (f). 

Single Package Vertical 

Air Conditioners and 

Single Package Vertical 

Heat Pumps.

AC and HP ..................... <760,000 Btu/h ............... EER and COP ................

EER, IEER, and COP ....

Appendix G to this subpart 2.

Appendix G1 to this subpart 2.

None. 

None. 

1 Incorporated by reference; see § 431.95. 

2For 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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2520 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

(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, AHRI 1230–2010, 

or ASHRAE 127–2007 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 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 B to Subpart F of Part 431 

[Reserved] 

■ 9. Add and reserve appendix B to 

subpart F of part 431. 

Appendix C to Subpart F of Part 431 

[Reserved] 

■ 10. Add and reserve appendix C to 

subpart F of part 431. 

Appendix D to Subpart F of Part 431 

[Reserved] 

■ 11. Add and reserve appendix D to 

subpart F of part 431. 

Appendix E to Subpart F of Part 431 

[Reserved] 

■ 12. Add and reserve appendix E to 

subpart F of part 431. 

Appendix F to Subpart F of Part 431 

[Reserved] 

■ 13. Add and reserve appendix F to 

subpart F of part 431. 

■ 14. 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 [DATE 360 DAYS AFTER 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] 

manufacturers must use the results of testing 

under either this appendix or § 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 § 431.97 as that standard 

appeared in the January 1, 2021 edition of 10 

CFR parts 200–499. On or after [date 360 

days after date of publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register] manufacturers must 

use the results of testing generated under this 

appendix to demonstrate compliance with 

the relevant standard from § 431.97 as that 

standard appeared in the January 1, 2021 

edition of 10 CFR parts 200–499. 

Beginning [DATE 360 DAYS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 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 of 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 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. 

0. DOE incorporated by reference the entire 

standard for AHRI 390–2021 and ASHRAE 

37–2009 in § 431.95. However, only 

enumerated provisions of AHRI 390–2021 

and ASHRAE 37–2009 apply to this 

appendix, as follows: 

0.1 AHRI 390–2021: 

(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 6.2 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’’ 

0.2 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 

1. 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 ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Single Package Vertical Air-conditioners And 

Heat Pumps’’ and the specified sections of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 ‘‘Methods of Testing 

for Rating Electronically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat-Pump Equipment’’. 

Only enumerated provisions of AHRI 390– 

2021 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 are 

applicable, as set forth in section 0 of this 

appendix. 

In addition, the instructions in section 2 of 

this appendix apply to determining EER and 

COP. In cases where there is a conflict, the 

language of this appendix takes highest 

precedence, followed by AHRI 390–2021, 

followed by ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009. 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. Material is incorporated 

as it exists on the date of the approval, and 

a notice of any change in the incorporation 

will be published in the Federal Register. 

2. 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 AHRI 390–2021 shall be used. 

2.1 Optional Representations. 

Representations of COP for single package 

vertical heat pumps made using the ‘‘Low 

Temperature Operation, Heating’’ condition 

specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021 are 

optional and are determined according to the 

applicable provisions in section 1 of this 

appendix. 

■ 15. 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 [DATE 360 DAYS AFTER 

DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 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 § 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 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. 

0. DOE incorporated by reference the entire 

standard for AHRI 390–2021 and ASHRAE 

37–2009 in § 431.95. However, only 

enumerated provisions of AHRI 390–2021 

and ASHRAE 37–2009 apply to this 

appendix, as follows: 

0.1 AHRI 390–2021: 

(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’’ 

0.2 All provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 37– 

2009 apply except for the following 

provisions: 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 2521 

(a) Section 1—Purpose 

(b) Section 2—Scope 

(c) Section 4—Classifications 

1. 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 390–2021 

‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package 

Vertical Air-conditioners And Heat Pumps’’ 

and the specified sections of ANSI/ASHRAE 

37–2009 ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Electronically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat-Pump Equipment’’. 

Only enumerated provisions of AHRI 390– 

2021 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 are 

applicable, as set forth in section 0 of this 

appendix. 

In addition, the instructions in section 2 of 

this appendix apply to determining IEER and 

COP. In cases where there is a conflict, the 

language of this appendix takes highest 

precedence, followed by AHRI 390–2021, 

followed by ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009. 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. Material is incorporated 

as it exists on the date of the approval, and 

a notice of any change in the incorporation 

will be published in the Federal Register. 

2. 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 AHRI 390–2021 shall be used. 

2.1 Optional Representations. 

Representations of COP for single package 

vertical heat pumps made using the ‘‘Low 

Temperature Operation, Heating’’ condition 

specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021 are 

optional and are determined according to the 

applicable provisions in section 1 of this 

appendix. 

3. Set-Up and Test Provisions for Specific 

Components. When testing an SPVU that 

includes any of the features listed in Table 

3.1 of this appendix, test in accordance with 

the set-up and test provisions specified in 

Table 3.1. 

TABLE 3.1—TEST PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC COMPONENTS

Component Description Test provisions 

Desiccant Dehumidification 

Components.

An assembly that reduces the moisture content of the 

supply air through moisture transfer with solid or liquid desiccants.

Disable desiccant dehumidification components for testing. 

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.

For any air economizer that is factory-installed, place 

the economizer in the 100% return position and close 

and seal the outside air dampers for testing. For any 

modular air economizer shipped with the unit but not 

factory-installed, do not install the economizer for 

testing. 

Fresh Air Dampers ............... An assembly with dampers and means to set the 

damper position in a closed and one open position to 

allow air to be drawn into the equipment when the indoor fan is operating.

For any fresh air dampers that are factory-installed, 

close and seal the dampers for testing. For any modular fresh air dampers shipped with the unit but not 

factory-installed, do not install the dampers for testing. 

Hail Guards .......................... A grille or similar structure mounted to the outside of 

the unit covering the outdoor coil to protect the coil 

from hail, flying debris and damage from large objects.

Remove hail guards for testing. 

Power Correction Capacitors A capacitor that increases the power factor measured 

at the line connection to the equipment.

Remove power correction capacitors for testing. 

Ventilation Energy Recovery 

System (VERS).

An assembly that preconditions 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.

For any VERS that is factory-installed, place the VERS 

in the 100% return position and close and seal the 

outside air dampers and exhaust air dampers for 

testing, and do not energize any VERS subcomponents (e.g., energy recovery wheel motors). For any 

VERS module shipped with the unit but not factoryinstalled, do not install the VERS for testing. 

Barometric Relief Dampers .. An assembly with dampers and means to automatically 

set the damper position in a closed position and one 

or more open positions to allow venting 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.

For any barometric relief dampers that are factory-installed, close and seal the dampers for testing. For 

any modular barometric relief dampers shipped with 

the unit but not factory-installed, do not install the 

dampers for testing. 

UV Lights ............................. A lighting fixture and lamp mounted 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.

Turn off UV lights for testing. 

Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils .. Coils used to provide supplemental heating ................... Test with steam/hydronic heat coils in place but providing no heat. 

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.

De-activate refrigerant reheat coils for testing so as to 

provide the minimum (none if possible) reheat 

achievable by the system controls. 

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.

Removable sound traps/sound attenuators shall be removed for testing. Otherwise, test with sound traps/ 

attenuators in place. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2522 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3.1—TEST PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC COMPONENTS—Continued 

Component Description Test provisions 

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.

For any fire/smoke/isolation dampers that are factoryinstalled, set the dampers in the fully open position 

for 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. 2021–28553 Filed 1–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2