This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

31743 

Vol. 87, No. 101 

Wednesday, May 25, 2022 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015] 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures and Energy Conservation 

Standards for Commercial Package Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is considering potential 

amendments to the test procedures for 

air-cooled commercial package air 

conditioners and heat pumps with a 

rated cooling capacity greater than or 

equal to 65,000 Btu/h, evaporativelycooled commercial package air 

conditioners, and water-cooled 

commercial package air conditioners. 

DOE is also considering whether to 

amend the current energy conservation 

standards for air-cooled commercial 

package air conditioners and heat 

pumps with a rated cooling capacity 

greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h. 

Through this request for information 

(‘‘RFI’’), DOE seeks data and 

information regarding issues pertinent 

to whether amended test procedures 

would more accurately or fully comply 

with the requirement that the test 

procedure produces results that measure 

energy use during a representative 

average use cycle for the equipment 

without being unduly burdensome to 

conduct, or reduce testing burden. DOE 

also welcomes written comments from 

the public on any subject within the 

scope of this document (including those 

topics not specifically raised), as well as 

the submission of data and other 

relevant information. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before June 24, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov,under docket 

number EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. Alternatively, interested 

persons may submit comments, 

identified by docket number EERE– 

2022–BT–STD–0015, by any of the 

following methods: 

(1) Email: CommPkgACHP2022STD 

andTP0015@ee.doe.gov. Include the 

docket number EERE–2022–BT–STD– 

0015 in the subject line of the message. 

(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a compact 

disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a CD, in 

which case it is not necessary to include 

printed copies. Include docket number 

EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015 in the 

subject line of the message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

III of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2022-BT-STD0015. The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section III for 

information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

7335. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

(202) 586–8145. Email: Michael.Kido@

hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, or review other 

public comments and the docket contact 

the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Test Procedure 

2. Standards 

C. Standards Rulemaking Process 

II. Request for Information and Comments 

A. Test Procedure 

1. External Static Pressure Levels 

2. Heating Mode 

3. Potential Revisions to IEER Metric 

4. Power Consumption of Heat Rejection 

Components for WCUACs 

B. Energy Conservation Standards 

1. Alternative Refrigerants 

2. Shipments 

III. Submission of Comments 

I. Introduction 

Commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment is included in 

the list of ‘‘covered equipment’’ for 

which DOE is authorized to establish 

and amend energy conservation 

standards and test procedures. (42 

U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(D)) This equipment 

includes air-cooled commercial unitary 

air conditioners with a rated cooling 

capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 

British thermal units per hour (‘‘Btu/h’’) 

(‘‘ACUACs’’), air-cooled commercial 

unitary heat pumps with a rated cooling 

capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 

Btu/h (‘‘ACUHPs’’), evaporativelycooled commercial unitary air 

conditioners (‘‘ECUACs’’), and watercooled commercial unitary air 

conditioners (‘‘WCUACs’’), which are 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31744 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1While ACUACs with a rated cooling capacity 

less than 65,000 Btu/h are included in the broader 

category of CUACs, they are not addressed in this 

RFI. The test procedure and standards for those 

smaller capacity ACUACs are being addressed in 

separate rulemakings. See Docket Nos. EERE–2017– 

BT–TP–0031 and EERE–2022–BT–STD–0008, 

respectively. All references to CUACs and CUHPs 

made in this document exclude these lower 

capacity ACUACs. 

Additionally, double-duct air conditioners and 

heat pumps (i.e., double-duct systems) are included 

in the broader category of ACUACs. While the test 

procedure for double-duct systems is addressed in 

this document, the standards for them are not. DOE 

will address standards for double-duct systems in 

a future rulemaking. Accordingly, all references to 

standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs appearing in 

this document exclude double-duct systems. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

3For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

all the subject of this RFI.1 (ACUACs, 

ACUHPs, ECUACs, and WCUACs are 

referred to collectively as ‘‘CUACs and 

CUHPs’’ in this document). The current 

DOE test procedures for CUACs and 

CUHPs are codified in Table 1 at title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(‘‘CFR’’) part 431, subpart F, section 96. 

See 10 CFR 431.96. The current Federal 

energy conservation standards for 

ACUACs and ACUHPs are established at 

10 CFR 431.97(b). The following 

sections discuss DOE’s authority to 

establish and amend test procedures 

and energy conservation standards for 

CUACs and CUHPs, as well as relevant 

background information regarding 

DOE’s considerations of test procedures 

and standards for this equipment. 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),2 authorizes 

DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 

a number of consumer products and 

certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6317) Title III, Part C 3 of EPCA, 

added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, 

§ 441(a), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. This covered 

equipment includes small, large, and 

very large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment. 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(D)) Commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment includes CUACs and CUHPs, 

which are the subject of this NOPR. 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 

6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), 

labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), 

energy conservation standards (42 

U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to 

require information and reports from 

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316). 

The Federal testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) 

making representations about the 

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

6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

equipment complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

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

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

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions of 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D)) 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA also sets 

forth the general criteria and procedures 

DOE is required to follow when 

prescribing or amending test procedures 

for covered equipment. EPCA requires 

that any test procedure prescribed or 

amended under this section must be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, or estimated operating cost 

of covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle and 

requires that test procedures not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

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

EPCA requires that the test 

procedures for CUACs and CUHPs be 

those generally accepted industry 

testing procedures or rating procedures 

developed or recognized by the 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)) If such an 

industry test procedure is amended, 

DOE must update its test procedure to 

be consistent with the amended 

industry test procedure, unless DOE 

determines, by rule published in the 

Federal Register and supported by clear 

and convincing evidence, that the 

amended test procedure would not meet 

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

and (3) related to representative use and 

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

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C)) 

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

equipment, including CUACs and 

CUHPs, to determine whether amended 

test procedures would more accurately 

or fully comply with the requirements 

for the test procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle. (42 U.S.C 6314(a)(1)) 

In addition, if the Secretary 

determines that a test procedure 

amendment is warranted, the Secretary 

must publish proposed test procedures 

in the Federal Register, and afford 

interested persons an opportunity (of 

not less than 45 days’ duration) to 

present oral and written data, views, 

and arguments on the proposed test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C 6314(b)) If DOE 

determines that test procedure revisions 

are not appropriate, DOE must publish 

its determination not to amend the test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C 6314(a)(1)) 

In EPCA, as amended by the Energy 

Policy Act of 1992 (‘‘EPAct’’) (Pub. L. 

102–486), Congress initially set 

mandatory energy conservation 

standards for certain types of 

commercial heating, air-conditioning, 

and water-heating equipment. (106 Stat. 

2776, 2810–2814) Specifically, the 

statute set standards for small, large, 

and very large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment, 

packaged terminal air conditioners 

(‘‘PTACs’’) and packaged terminal heat 

pumps (‘‘PTHPs’’), warm-air furnaces, 

packaged boilers, storage water heaters, 

instantaneous water heaters, and 

unfired hot water storage tanks. Id. In 

initially establishing Federal energy 

conservation standards, the EPAct 

amendments to EPCA prescribed 

standards at levels that generally 

corresponded to the levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, as in effect on October 

24, 1992 (i.e., the 1989 edition of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1), for each type 

of covered equipment listed. 

In acknowledgement of technological 

changes that yield energy efficiency 

benefits, Congress further directed DOE 

through EPCA to consider amending the 

existing Federal energy conservation 

standard for each type of covered 

equipment listed, each time ASHRAE 

amends Standard 90.1 with respect to 

such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)) When triggered in this 

manner, DOE must undertake and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31745 

publish an analysis of the energy 

savings potential of amended energy 

efficiency standards, and amend the 

Federal standards to establish a uniform 

national standard at the minimum level 

specified in the amended ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines 

that there is clear and convincing 

evidence to support a determination 

that a more-stringent standard level as a 

national standard would produce 

significant additional energy savings 

and be technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(i)–(ii)) If DOE decides to 

adopt as a national standard the 

minimum efficiency levels specified in 

the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

DOE must establish such standard not 

later than 18 months after publication of 

the amended industry standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if 

DOE determines, supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, that a morestringent uniform national standard 

would result in significant additional 

conservation of energy and is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, then DOE must 

establish such more-stringent uniform 

national standard not later than 30 

months after publication of the 

amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)) 

Although EPCA does not explicitly 

define the term ‘‘amended’’ in the 

context of what type of revision to 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would trigger 

DOE’s obligation, DOE’s longstanding 

interpretation has been that the 

statutory trigger is an amendment to the 

standard applicable to that equipment 

under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that 

increases the energy efficiency level for 

that equipment. See 72 FR 10038, 10042 

(March 7, 2007). In other words, if the 

revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves 

the energy efficiency level unchanged 

(or lowers the energy efficiency level), 

as compared to the energy efficiency 

level specified by the uniform national 

standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, 

regardless of the other amendments 

made to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

requirement (e.g., the inclusion of an 

additional metric), DOE has stated that 

it does not have the authority to conduct 

a rulemaking to consider a higher 

standard for that equipment pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). See 74 FR 

36312, 36313 (July 22, 2009) and 77 FR 

28928, 28937 (May 16, 2012). However, 

DOE notes that Congress adopted 

amendments to these provisions related 

to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 equipment 

under the American Energy 

Manufacturing Technical Corrections 

Act (Pub. L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012)) 

(‘‘AEMTCA’’). In relevant part, DOE is 

prompted to act whenever ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 is amended with respect 

to ‘‘the standard levels or design 

requirements applicable under that 

standard’’ to any of the enumerated 

types of commercial air conditioning, 

heating, or water heating equipment. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) 

EPCA does not detail the exact type 

of amendment that serves as a triggering 

event. However, DOE has considered 

whether its obligation is triggered in the 

context of whether the specific ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 requirement on which the 

most current Federal requirement is 

based is amended (i.e., the regulatory 

metric or design requirement). For 

example, if an amendment to ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 changed the metric for 

the standard on which the Federal 

requirement was based, DOE would 

perform a crosswalk analysis to 

determine whether the amended metric 

under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 resulted 

in an energy efficiency level that was 

more stringent than the current DOE 

standard. Conversely, if an amendment 

to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 were to add 

an additional metric by which a class of 

equipment is to be evaluated, but did 

not amend the requirement that is in 

terms of the metric on which the 

Federal requirement was based, DOE 

would not consider its obligation 

triggered. 

In those situations where ASHRAE 

has not acted to amend the levels in 

Standard 90.1 for the equipment types 

enumerated in the statute, EPCA also 

provides for a 6-year-lookback to 

consider the potential for amending the 

uniform national standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)) Specifically, pursuant to 

the amendments to EPCA under 

AEMTCA, DOE is required to conduct 

an evaluation of each class of covered 

equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

‘‘every 6 years’’ to determine whether 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards need to be amended. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE must 

publish either a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) to propose 

amended standards or a notification of 

determination that existing standards do 

not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)) In proposing new 

standards under the 6- year review, DOE 

must undertake the same considerations 

as if it were adopting a standard that is 

more stringent than an amendment to 

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

6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II)) This is a separate 

statutory review obligation, as 

differentiated from the obligation 

triggered by an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

amendment. While the statute continues 

to defer to ASHRAE’s lead on covered 

equipment subject to Standard 90.1, it 

does allow for a comprehensive review 

of all such equipment and the potential 

for adopting more-stringent standards, 

where supported by the requisite clear 

and convincing evidence. That is, DOE 

interprets ASHRAE’s not amending 

Standard 90.1 with respect to a product 

or equipment type as ASHRAE’s 

determination that the standard 

applicable to that product or equipment 

type is already at an appropriate level of 

stringency, and DOE will not amend 

that standard unless there is clear and 

convincing evidence that a more 

stringent level is justified. As a 

preliminary step in the process of 

reviewing the changes to ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, EPCA directs DOE to 

publish in the Federal Register for 

public comment an analysis of the 

energy savings potential of amended 

standards within 180 days after 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended 

with respect to any of the covered 

equipment specified under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) 

B. Background 

1. Test Procedure 

DOE’s existing test procedure for 

CUACs and CUHPs appears at 10 CFR 

431.96 (‘‘Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy efficiency of 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps’’). The test procedure for 

ACUACs and ACUHPs specified in 10 

CFR 431.96 references appendix A to 

subpart F of part 431, ‘‘Uniform Test 

Method for the Measurement of Energy 

Consumption of Air-Cooled Small 

(≥65,000 Btu/h), Large, and Very Large 

Commercial Package Air Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment’’ (‘‘appendix 

A’’). Appendix A references certain 

sections of ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/ 

360–2007, ‘‘2007 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Commercial and 

Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and 

Heat Pump Equipment,’’ approved by 

ANSI on October 27, 2011, and updated 

by addendum 1 in December 2010 and 

addendum 2 in June 2011 (‘‘ANSI/AHRI 

340/360–2007’’); ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 37–2009, ‘‘Methods of Testing 

for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary 

Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment’’ (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 37– 

2009’’); and specifies other test 

procedure requirements related to 

minimum external static pressure 

(‘‘ESP’’), optional break-in period, 

refrigerant charging, setting indoor 

airflow, condenser head pressure 

controls, tolerance on capacity at partload test points, and condenser air inlet 

temperature for part-load tests. The DOE 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31746 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

4 In this RFI, DOE only summarizes comments 

received in response to the July 2017 TP RFI that 

relate to the topics of interest within this document. 

All other comments, which relate to different 

topics, will be summarized in a subsequent 

document that follows this RFI. 

5The EER metric only accounts for the efficiency 

of the equipment operating at full load. The IEER 

metric factors in the efficiency of operating at part 

loads of 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of 

capacity, as well as the efficiency at full load. This 

is accomplished by weighting the full-load and 

part-load efficiencies with the average amount of 

time operating at each loading point. Additionally, 

IEER incorporates reduced condenser temperatures 

(i.e., reduced outdoor ambient temperatures) for 

part-load operation. 

6 In this RFI, DOE only summarizes comments 

received in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI that 

relate to the topics of interest within this RFI. All 

other comments received, which relate to different 

topics, will be summarized and addressed in a 

subsequent document that follows this RFI. 

test procedure for ECUACs and 

WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity 

of greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/ 

h specified in 10 CFR 431.96 

incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 

340/360–2007 (excluding Section 6.3 of 

ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 and 

including paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 

CFR 431.96). The DOE test procedure 

for ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated 

cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ 

h incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 

Standard 210/240–2008, ‘‘2008 

Standard for Performance Rating of 

Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source 

Heat Pump Equipment,’’ approved by 

ANSI on October 27, 2011, and updated 

by addendum 1 in June 2011 and 

addendum 2 in March 2012 (‘‘ANSI/ 

AHRI 210/240–2008’’). 

On October 26, 2016, ASHRAE 

published ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2016, which included updates to the 

test procedure references for CUACs and 

CUHPs (excluding ECUACs and 

WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity 

less than 65,000 Btu/h) to reference 

AHRI Standard 340/360–2015, ‘‘2015 

Standard for Performance Rating of 

Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment’’ (‘‘AHRI 340/360–2015’’). 

On July 25, 2017, DOE published an RFI 

(‘‘July 2017 TP RFI’’) to collect 

information and data to consider 

amendments to DOE’s test procedures 

for certain categories of commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment, including CUACs and 

CUHPs. 82 FR 34427. As part of the July 

2017 TP RFI, DOE identified several 

aspects of the currently applicable 

Federal test procedures for CUACs and 

CUHPs that might warrant 

modifications, in particular: 

Incorporation by reference of the most 

recent version of the relevant industry 

standard(s); efficiency metrics and 

calculations; and clarification of test 

methods. 82 FR 34427, 34439–34448. 

DOE also requested comment on any 

additional topics that may inform DOE’s 

decisions in a future test procedure 

rulemaking, including methods to 

reduce regulatory burden while 

ensuring the procedures’ accuracies. 82 

FR 34427, 34448. 

On October 24, 2019, ASHRAE 

published ASHRAE 90.1–2019, which 

updated the AHRI Standard 340/360 

reference to the 2019 edition, ‘‘2019 

Standard for Performance Rating of 

Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment’’ (‘‘AHRI 340/360–2019’’). 

On January 25, 2022, AHRI approved an 

updated version of its test method for 

CUACs and CUHPs, with the 

publication of AHRI Standard 340/360– 

2022, ‘‘2022 Standard for Performance 

Rating of Commercial and Industrial 

Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment’’ (‘‘AHRI 340/360– 

2022’’). 

For ECUACs and WCUACs with a 

rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 

Btu/h, ASHRAE 90.1–2016 references 

ANSI/AHRI 210/240–2008. After the 

publication of the July 2017 TP RFI, 

AHRI published AHRI Standard 210/ 

240–2017, ‘‘2017 Standard for 

Performance Rating of Unitary Airconditioning & Air-source Heat Pump 

Equipment,’’ (‘‘AHRI 210/240–2017’’). 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 references AHRI 

210/240–2017 as the test procedure for 

ECUACs and WCUACs. After the 

publication of AHRI 210/240–2017, 

AHRI released two updates to the 

industry standard: (1) AHRI Standard 

210/240–2017 with Addendum 1, ‘‘2017 

Standard for Performance Rating of 

Unitary Air-conditioning & Air-source 

Heat Pump Equipment,’’ (‘‘AHRI 210/ 

240–2017 with Addendum 1’’), which 

was published in April 2019; and (2) 

AHRI Standard 210/240–2023, ‘‘2023 

Standard for Performance Rating of 

Unitary Air-conditioning & Air-source 

Heat Pump Equipment,’’ (‘‘AHRI 210/ 

240–2023’’), which was published in 

May 2020. 

Notably, ECUACs and WCUACs with 

a rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 

Btu/h were removed from the scope of 

AHRI 210/240–2023. ECUACs and 

WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity 

less than 65,000 Btu/h were instead 

included in the scope of AHRI 340/360– 

2022. 

The updates in AHRI 340/360–2022, 

AHRI 210/240–2023, as well as 

comments received in the interim that 

relate to the CUAC and CUHP test 

procedure have prompted DOE to 

publish this RFI to investigate 

additional aspects of the CUAC and 

CUHP test procedure. Upon further 

evaluation, DOE has identified several 

issues that would benefit from further 

comment. DOE discusses these topics in 

section II.A of this document.4

2. Standards 

In a direct final rule published on 

January 15, 2016, (‘‘January 2016 direct 

final rule’’), DOE adopted amended 

standards for ACUACs, and ACUHPs. 81 

FR 2420. For ACUACs and ACUHPs, 

DOE adopted two tiers of amended 

standards with staggered compliance 

dates and changed the regulated cooling 

metric from energy efficiency ratio 

(‘‘EER’’) to integrated energy efficiency 

ratio (‘‘IEER’’).5 81 FR 2420, 2531–2532. 

The first tier of amended standards— 

with a compliance date of January 1, 

2018—are equivalent to the IEER 

minimum efficiency levels for ACUACs 

and ACUHPs in ASHRAE 90.1–2016. 

The second tier of amended standards— 

with a compliance date of January 1, 

2023—are more stringent than the levels 

in ASHRAE 90.1–2016. 

The current energy conservation 

standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs are 

codified in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 

431.97. 

Since publication of the January 2016 

direct final rule, ASHRAE published an 

updated version of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 (‘‘ASHRAE 90.1–2019’’), which 

updated the minimum efficiency levels 

for ACUACs and ACUHPs to align with 

those adopted by DOE in the January 

2016 direct final rule (i.e., specifying 

two tiers of minimum levels for 

ACUACs and ACUHPs, with a 2023 

compliance date for the second tier). 

As a preliminary step in the process 

of reviewing the standards for ACUACs 

and ACUHPs, DOE published an RFI on 

May 12, 2020 (‘‘May 2020 ECS RFI’’) to 

request data and information pursuant 

to its 6-year-lookback review. 85 FR 

27941. The May 2020 ECS RFI sought 

information to help DOE inform its 

decisions, consistent with its obligations 

under EPCA. DOE received multiple 

comments from stakeholders in 

response to the May 2020 ECS RFI that 

prompted DOE to publish this RFI to 

investigate additional aspects of the 

ACUAC and ACUHP standards. Upon 

further evaluation, DOE has identified 

several issues that would benefit from 

further comment. DOE discusses these 

topics (including any comments 

received in response to the May 2020 

ECS RFI that are related to these topics) 

in section II.B of this document. DOE 

also received comments in response to 

the May 2020 ECS RFI that relate to the 

CUAC and CUHP test procedure, which 

are addressed in section in section II.A 

of this document.6


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31747 

7Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 8See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 

2021) (‘‘Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 

Abroad’’). 

9On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the Federal 

government’s emergency motion for stay pending 

appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary 

injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21–cv– 

1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth 

Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no 

longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal 

government’s appeal of that injunction or a further 

court order. Among other things, the preliminary 

injunction enjoined the defendants in that case 

from ‘‘adopting, employing, treating as binding, or 

relying upon’’ the interim estimates of the social 

cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the 

Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to 

monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. In the absence of further intervening 

court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior 

to the injunction and present monetized benefits 

where appropriate and permissible by law. 

C. Standards Rulemaking Process 

As discussed, DOE is required to 

conduct an evaluation of each class of 

covered equipment in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 every six years. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) In making a 

determination of whether standards for 

such equipment need to be amended, 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria. DOE must evaluate whether 

amended Federal standards would 

result in significant additional 

conservation of energy and are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(i) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)) 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.7 For example, the 

United States has now rejoined the Paris 

Agreement on February 19, 2021. As 

part of that agreement, the United States 

has committed to reducing greenhouse 

gas (‘‘GHG’’) emissions in order to limit 

the rise in mean global temperature.8 As 

such, energy savings that reduce GHG 

emission have taken on greater 

importance. Additionally, some covered 

products and equipment have most of 

their energy consumption occur during 

periods of peak energy demand. The 

impacts of these products on the energy 

infrastructure can be more pronounced 

than products with relatively constant 

demand. In evaluating the significance 

of energy savings, DOE considers 

differences in primary energy and fullfuel cycle (‘‘FFC’’) effects for different 

covered products and equipment when 

determining whether energy savings are 

significant. Primary energy and FFC 

effects include the energy consumed in 

electricity production (depending on 

load shape), in distribution and 

transmission, and in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 

fuels), and thus present a more complete 

picture of the impacts of energy 

conservation standards. Accordingly, 

DOE evaluates the significance of energy 

savings on a case-by-case basis. To 

determine whether a standard is 

economically justified, EPCA requires 

that DOE determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens by considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, the following seven 

factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on the manufacturers and 

consumers of the affected products; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the product compared to any increases 

in the initial cost, or maintenance 

expenses; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy and water (if applicable) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the products likely to 

result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–(VII)) 

DOE fulfills these and other 

applicable requirements by conducting 

a series of analyses throughout the 

rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the 

individual analyses that are performed 

to satisfy each of the requirements 

within EPCA. 

TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS

EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis 

Significant Energy Savings .................................................................................................... • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

• Energy and Water Use Determination. 

Technological Feasibility ........................................................................................................ • Market and Technology Assessment. 

• Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

Economic Justification: 

1. 1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers ............................................ • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis. 

• Shipments Analysis. 

2. 2. Lifetime Operating Cost Savings Compared to Increased Cost for the Product ... • Markups for Product Price Determination. 

• Energy and Water Use Determination. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

3. 3. Total Projected Energy Savings ............................................................................. • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

4. 4. Impact on Utility or Performance ............................................................................ • Screening Analysis. 

• Engineering Analysis. 

5. 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition ............................................................... • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

6. 6. Need for National Energy and Water Conservation ............................................... • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

7. 7. Other Factors the Secretary Considers Relevant .................................................. • Employment Impact Analysis. 

• Utility Impact Analysis. 

• Emissions Analysis. 

• Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.9


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31748 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

10ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities 

less than 65,000 Btu/h were removed from the 

scope of the most recent version of AHRI 210/240, 

AHRI 210/240–2023, and were instead included in 

AHRI 340/360–2022. 

11AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 23; 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to 

Save Energy, American Council for an Energy 

Efficiency Economy, Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance, and Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (referred to collectively as ‘‘Joint 

Advocates’’), EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0009 at p. 

5; California Investor-owned Utilities (‘‘CA IOUs’’), 

EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0007 at p. 3; Carrier 

Corporation (‘‘Carrier’’), EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018– 

0006 at p. 10. 

12A VAV HVAC system controls the dry-bulb 

temperature within a space by varying the 

volumetric flow of heated or cooled supply air to 

the space. In contrast, a constant air volume HVAC 

system always provides the same volumetric flow 

of air to the space. 

TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS—Continued 

EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis 

• Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE 

is publishing this document seeking 

input and data from interested parties to 

aid in the development of the technical 

analyses on which DOE will ultimately 

rely to determine whether (and if so, 

how) to amend the standards for 

ACUACs and ACUHPs. 

II. Request for Information and 

Comments 

A. Test Procedure 

In the following sections, DOE has 

identified a variety of issues on which 

it seeks input to determine whether, and 

if so how, amended test procedures for 

CUACs and CUHPs would (1) more 

accurately or fully comply with the 

requirements in EPCA that test 

procedures be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which reflect energy 

use during a representative average use 

cycle, without being unduly 

burdensome to conduct (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(2)); or (2) reduce testing burden. 

1. External Static Pressure Levels 

ESP requirements simulate the 

resistance that the indoor fan must 

overcome from the air distribution 

system when installed in the field. The 

indoor ESP requirements for CUACs and 

CUHPs in the current DOE test 

procedure, through reference to AHRI 

210/240–2008 and AHRI 340/360–2007, 

are shown in Table II.1 of this 

document. These indoor ESP 

requirements align with those in Table 

7 of AHRI 340/360–2022, the most up to 

date industry test procedure for CUACs 

and CUHPs.10

TABLE II.1—INDOOR ESP REQUIREMENTS FOR CUACS AND CUHPS

PER AHRI 210/240–2008 AND

AHRI 340/360–2007 

Rated cooling capacity 

(kBtu/h) 

ESP 

(in H2O) 

0 to 28.8 * ................................. 0.10 

29 to 42.5 * ............................... 0.15 

43 to 64.5 * ............................... 0.20 

65 to 70 .................................... 0.20 

71 to 105 .................................. 0.25 

106 to 134 ................................ 0.30 

135 to 210 ................................ 0.35 

TABLE II.1—INDOOR ESP REQUIREMENTS FOR CUACS AND CUHPS

PER AHRI 210/240–2008 AND

AHRI 340/360–2007—Continued 

Rated cooling capacity 

(kBtu/h) 

ESP 

(in H2O) 

211 to 280 ................................ 0.40 

281 to 350 ................................ 0.45 

351 to 400 ................................ 0.55 

401 to 500 ................................ 0.65 

501 and greater ........................ 0.75 

* Only applicable for evaporatively and 

water-cooled units. 

In 2015, the Appliance Standards and 

Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) working group 

for commercial package air conditioners 

(‘‘Commercial Package Air Conditioners 

Working Group’’) agreed that the energy 

use analysis conducted for the January 

2016 direct final rule should use higher 

ESPs than those specified in the DOE 

test procedure to help better simulate 

field applications. 81 FR 2420, 2470. 

Specifically, the Commercial Package 

Air Conditioners Working Group 

recommended ESPs of 0.75 and 1.25 in 

H2O, which corresponded to the ESPs 

used in modified building simulations 

of the cooling load. Id. The ESP values 

recommended by the Commercial 

Package Air Conditioners Working 

Group did not vary with capacity. The 

Commercial Package Air Conditioners 

Working Group also developed a term 

sheet of recommendations as part of the 

negotiated rulemaking that led to the 

January 2016 direct final rule. (EERE– 

2013–BT–STD–0007–0093) The term 

sheet included recommendations for 

DOE to address in a future test 

procedure rulemaking. Consistent with 

the Commercial Package Air 

Conditioners Working Group’s 

acknowledgement that higher ESPs 

would better represent field 

applications, Recommendation #2 of the 

term sheet recommended that DOE 

amend the test procedure for CUACs 

and CUHPs to better represent the total 

fan energy use by considering 

alternative ESPs. (Id. at p. 2) Higher 

ESPs would result in higher fan power 

measured during testing and would 

therefore result in fan energy use 

comprising a larger fraction of total 

energy use measured during the test. 

In this RFI, DOE is further considering 

the Commercial Package Air 

Conditioners Working Group’s 

recommendation to incorporate higher 

ESPs in the test procedure for CUACs 

and CUHPs to better represent fan 

energy use. There are several further 

indications that higher ESPs might be 

more representative of field conditions. 

As described in the following 

paragraphs, these include comments 

that DOE has received in response to the 

July 2017 TP RFI and May 2020 ECS 

RFI, and ESP values in the most recent 

version of AHRI 210/240. 

In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE 

recognized that DOE had previously 

received comment on the possibility 

that ESPs as measured in the field may 

be higher than those found in the 

industry test standards. 82 FR 34427, 

34440. DOE also requested comment on 

the typical field ESPs for ECUACs and 

WCUACs, whether field-installed ESPs 

typically vary with capacity, and 

whether the field applications of 

ECUACs and WCUACs are different 

from ACUACs with regards to the 

typical ducting installed on the system. 

Id. 

In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, 

DOE received comments from several 

interested parties asserting that ESPs for 

ECUACs and WCUACs are the same as 

those for ACUACs, because ESP is 

determined by building and ducting 

types, and not the method for rejecting 

heat.11 Goodman commented that 

ducting does not vary much among 

ECUACs, WCUACs, and ACUACs, but 

that variable air volume (‘‘VAV’’) 

ductwork has different ESPs than 

constant air volume and single-zone 

ductwork, and that ECUACs are 

commonly installed with VAV 

ductwork.12 (Goodman, EERE–2017– 

BT–TP–0018–0014 at p. 4) DOE also 

received comments from Carrier and 

Goodman indicating that ESP increases 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31749 

13An HVAC zone is a space or group of spaces, 

within a building with heating, cooling, and 

ventilating requirements, that are sufficiently 

similar so that desired conditions (e.g., temperature) 

can be maintained throughout using a single sensor 

(e.g., thermostat or temperature sensor). 

14Page 40 of R. Mowris, E. Jones, R. Eshom, K. 

Carlson, P. Jacobs, J. Hill. 2016. Laboratory Test 

Results of Commercial Packaged HVAC 

Maintenance Faults. Prepared for the California 

Public Utilities Commission. Prepared by Robert 

Mowris & Associates, Inc. Available at: 

www.calmac.org/publications/RMA_Laboratory_

Test_Report_2012–15_v3.pdf. The report refers to 

air conditioner sizes using tons of refrigeration, 

where 1 ton of refrigeration is equivalent to 12,000 

Btu/h. 

with capacity, because larger units serve 

larger areas, have longer ducts, and have 

higher airflows. (Carrier, EERE–2017– 

BT–TP–0018–0006 at p. 10; Goodman, 

EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0014 at p. 4) 

DOE received several comments on 

representative ESP values in response to 

the July 2017 TP RFI. AHRI and Carrier 

commented that higher static pressures 

than prescribed in AHRI 340/360 may 

exist in field installations due to poor 

practice of ductwork installation. 

(AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 

at p. 23; Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 

0018–0006 at p. 9) Carrier indicated that 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 includes overall 

fan power allowances with ductwork 

pressure drops and other system losses. 

(Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0006 

at pp. 9–10) Carrier recommended that 

DOE conduct a field survey, stating that 

field ESP values can vary from very low 

numbers with concentric ducts to values 

up to 1.5 in H2O for smaller systems. 

(Id. at p. 9) Carrier also indicated that 

field ESP values for VAV systems can 

range from 1 in H2O to 2.5 in H2O. (Id. 

at p. 10) 

The Joint Advocates stated that the 

ESP requirements specified for ACUACs 

and ACUHPs should be no lower than 

the two values of 0.75 and 1.25 in H2O 

that were used in the standards analysis 

conducted for the January 2016 direct 

final rule. (Joint Advocates, EERE– 

2017–BT–TP–0018–0009 at p. 5) The 

CA IOUs suggested that DOE use Title 

24, Part 6 2016 Alternative Calculation 

Method (‘‘ACM’’) Reference Manual as a 

resource for developing more fieldrepresentative ESP requirements, 

because it contains static pressure set 

points that were developed based on 

actual field conditions. (CA IOUs, 

EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0007 at p. 3) 

DOE reviewed the standard design 

supply fan static pressures specified on 

page 5–123 of the Title 24, Part 6 2016 

ACM Reference Manual, and the 

specified values appear to be total static 

pressure (i.e., the sum of ESP and 

internal static pressure), although it is 

not explicitly clear. Further, the values 

do not appear to be specific to CUACs 

and CUHPs; rather they apply to various 

kinds of commercial heating, 

ventilation, and air-conditioning 

(‘‘HVAC’’) equipment. The values range 

from 2.5 in H2O to 4.5 in H2O, 

increasing with airflow rate, the number 

of HVAC zones,13 and the number of 

stories in a building. 

Additionally, DOE received 

comments on ESP in response to the 

May 2020 ECS RFI. Verified stated that 

the ESPs in AHRI 340/360 are too low, 

and they referenced a research report in 

which they tested air conditioners with 

ESPs more representative of field 

conditions. (Verified, EERE–2019–BT– 

STD–0042–0011 at p. 5) That report 

indicated that typical field ESPs are 0.5 

in H2O for a CUAC with a capacity of 

36,000 Btu/h and 1.2 in H2O for a CUAC 

with a capacity of 90,000 Btu/h.14 The 

CA IOUs reiterated their 

recommendation that DOE increase the 

ESP requirements for CUACs and 

CUHPs, and provided ESP data from 

two survey studies they conducted. (CA 

IOUs, EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042–0020 

at pp. 3–4) Table II.2 contains the ESP 

values and number of units for each 

survey study, sorted by cooling 

capacity. The test, adjust, balance study 

used field data from a commissioning 

agent, and the permit review study used 

permit documents submitted to an 

online database. Both of these studies 

indicate median ESPs considerably 

higher than the ESPs required in AHRI 

340/360–2022. 

TABLE II.2—ESP SURVEY RESULTS FROM CA IOUS

Cooling capacity 

(Btu/hr) 

Test, adjust, balance study Permit review study 

Number of 

CUACs 

Median ESP 

(in H2O) 

Number of 

CUACs 

Median ESP 

(in H2O) 

71,000 to 105,000 ............................................................................................ 26 0.84 59 0.75 

106,000 to 134,000 .......................................................................................... 10 1.16 14 0.88 

135,000 to 210,000 .......................................................................................... 20 1.705 33 0.80 

The discussion in the previous 

paragraphs has outlined the indications 

suggesting that ESPs higher than those 

in AHRI 340/360–2022 might be more 

representative of CUAC operation. 

Comments from Carrier indicate that 

ESPs for CUACs can be as high as 2.5 

in H2O, and survey results from CA 

IOUs suggest that representative ESPs 

for units with capacities of 65,000 Btu/ 

h to 210,000 Btu/h might range from 

0.75 in H2O to 1.7 in H2O. Comments 

also suggest that ESP varies with 

building and duct type, but not with the 

heat rejection mechanism of CUACs, 

and that ESP might increase with 

capacity. DOE is considering revisions 

to the ESP requirements for testing 

CUACs and CUHPs. While the data on 

field ESPs that have been provided to 

DOE are informative, DOE is seeking 

further comments and data on field 

ESPs that would inform potential 

revisions to ESP requirements in the 

DOE test procedure. 

Issue 1: DOE seeks further field data 

on the ESPs of CUACs and CUHPs with 

capacities of 65,000 Btu/h to 210,000 

Btu/h. DOE is also seeking comment as 

to the most representative ESP values 

for these capacities, and whether the 

ESP values previously mentioned in 

stakeholder comments would be more 

representative. 

Issue 2: DOE seeks field data on the 

ESPs of CUACs and CUHPs with sizes 

greater than 210,000 Btu/h (for which 

commenters have not yet included ESP 

data in their comments). 

As discussed, the current DOE test 

procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs 

with a cooling capacity of less than 

65,000 Btu/h references ANSI/AHRI 

210/240–2008. Table 11 of ANSI/AHRI 

210/240–2008 specifies ESP 

requirements that depend on capacity 

and range from 0.10 to 0.20 in H2O for 

units with a rated cooling capacity less 

than 65,000 Btu/h. These ESP 

requirements align with those specified 

for ECUACs and WCUACs with a 

cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ 

h in Table 7 of AHRI 340/360–2022. 

However, AHRI 210/240–2023 specifies 

higher ESP requirements for three-phase 

ACUACs with a cooling capacity of less 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31750 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

15Table 10 of AHRI 210/240–2023 indicates that 

conventional units are central air conditioners and 

heat pumps other than the following categories: 

Ceiling-mount and wall-mount blower-coil systems, 

mobile home blower-coil systems, low-static 

blower-coil systems, mid-static blower-coil systems, 

small-duct high-velocity, and space-constrained 

product. 

16 ‘‘Mechanical cooling’’ and ‘‘mechanical 

heating’’ refer to a CUAC and CUHP using the 

refrigeration cycle to cool or heat the indoor space, 

and do not refer to other forms of unit operation 

(e.g., economizing, ventilation, or supplemental 

heating). 

17 Integrated economizer/mechanical cooling 

operation occurs when the use of economizing 

provides additional cooling but is not sufficient to 

meet the cooling load, and simultaneous use of 

mechanical cooling is also needed. 

18 In 2015, DOE initiated the CIFB Working Group 

to engage in a negotiated rulemaking effort on the 

scope, test procedure, and standards for fans and 

blowers. 80 FR 17359 (April 1, 2015). The CIFB 

Working Group developed recommendations 

regarding the energy conservation standards, test 

procedures, and efficiency metrics for commercial 

and industrial fans and blowers in a term sheet 

(EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006–0179). 

than 65,000 Btu/h. Specifically, Table 

10 of AHRI 210/240–2023 specifies an 

ESP requirement of 0.5 in H2O for 

conventional units.15 These ESP 

requirements in AHRI 210/240–2023 

align with those specified in DOE’s 

updated test procedure for central air 

conditioners and heat pumps (‘‘CAC/ 

HPs’’) at table 4 of appendix M1 to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 

(‘‘appendix M1’’). 

For WCUACs with a cooling capacity 

of less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE’s 

preliminary analysis shows that these 

units may typically be installed above 

dropped ceilings in commercial 

buildings. For ECUACs with a cooling 

capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h, 

DOE’s preliminary analysis shows that 

these units are primarily marketed for 

residential applications, which suggests 

that it may be appropriate to align the 

ESP requirements for ECUACs with a 

cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ 

h with those specified for CAC/HPs in 

appendix M1 (i.e., 0.5 in H2O for 

conventional units). Therefore, DOE is 

considering whether it is appropriate for 

the same ESP requirements to be 

applied for both WCUACs and ECUACs 

with a cooling capacity of less than 

65,000 Btu/h. 

Issue 3: DOE seeks comment and field 

data on ESPs for ECUACs and WCUACs 

with a cooling capacity of less than 

65,000 Btu/h, and whether the ESPs 

typically differ between ECUACs and 

WCUACs. For both ECUACs and 

WCUACs with a cooling capacity of less 

than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE specifically 

requests feedback on whether 

representative ESPs would be 0.5 in 

H2O (from AHRI 210/240–2023), the 

range of 0.10 to 0.20 in H2O (from AHRI 

340/360–2022), or alternate values. 

2. Heating Mode 

For heating mode tests of CUHPs, 

Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2022 includes 

‘‘Standard Rating Conditions’’ for both a 

‘‘High Temperature Steady-state Test for 

Heating’’ and a ‘‘Low Temperature 

Steady-state Test for Heating’’ 

(conducted at 47 °F and 17 °F outdoor 

air dry-bulb temperatures, respectively). 

The relevant conditions for COP testing 

in the current DOE test procedure are 

high temperature standard rating 

conditions (i.e., 47 °F outdoor air drybulb temperature). The DOE test 

procedure does not require CUHPs to be 

tested at the low temperature standard 

rating conditions and does not account 

for performance at conditions lower 

than 47 °F outdoor air dry-bulb 

temperature. DOE is considering 

whether incorporating heating 

performance at temperatures lower than 

47 °F would improve the 

representativeness of the DOE test 

procedure for CUHPs by reflecting a 

wider range of operating conditions. As 

part of this examination, DOE is further 

considering how such performance 

would differ between CUHPs with 

different types of supplementary heat 

(e.g., electric resistance heat and 

furnaces) and the climate regions in 

which CUHPs are typically installed. 

Issue 4: DOE requests data on the 

shipments of CUHPs by region. In 

particular, DOE is interested in 

determining whether CUHPs are 

predominantly installed in specific 

regions of the U.S. 

Issue 5: DOE requests data on the 

distribution of supplementary heating 

types (e.g., furnace, electric resistance, 

and none) shipped with CUHPs, and if 

that distribution has changed over time 

or is expected to change in the future. 

Issue 6: DOE seeks comment and data 

as to the lowest outdoor temperatures at 

which CUHPs typically operate in 

mechanical heating mode (i.e., what are 

typical compressor cut-out temperatures 

for CUHPs) and the extent to which the 

cut-out temperatures vary depending on 

the type of supplementary heating 

installed with the CUHP (e.g., electric 

resistance heat or furnace). 

3. Potential Revisions to IEER Metric 

a. Fan Operation in Modes Other Than 

Mechanical Cooling 

The weighting factors for the IEER 

metric account for the hours of 

operation when mechanical cooling 16 is 

active; this includes mechanical-only 

cooling and integrated economizer/ 

mechanical cooling operation 17 in 

climate zones that require economizers 

to be installed. The IEER metric does 

not account for economizer-only 

cooling. The current DOE test procedure 

also requires that for units that are 

unable to reduce their capacity at least 

as low as one of the part load rating 

points, the EER for that rating point is 

calculated using a cyclic degradation 

coefficient. The cyclic degradation 

equation accounts for supply fan 

operation continuously running when 

the compressor is cycling on and off to 

meet the required load and assumes that 

the supply fan continues to run at the 

same speed as it would at the lowest 

stage of compression. 

The Commercial Package Air 

Conditioners Working Group term sheet 

included recommendation #2, which 

recommended that DOE initiate a 

rulemaking with a primary focus of 

better representing total fan energy use 

in the field to better represent the total 

fan energy use, including consideration 

of fan operation for operating modes 

other than mechanical cooling and 

heating. (EERE–2013–BT–STD–0007– 

0093 at p. 2) Similarly, the ASRAC 

Commercial and Industrial Fans and 

Blowers Working Group 18 (‘‘CIFB 

Working Group’’) term sheet included 

recommendation #3, which identified a 

need for DOE’s test procedures and 

related efficiency metrics for CUACs 

and CUHPs to more fully account for the 

energy consumption of supply and 

condenser fans embedded in regulated 

commercial air-conditioning equipment. 

(EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006–0179 at pp. 

3–4) The CIFB Working Group 

recommended that in the next round of 

test procedure rulemakings, DOE should 

consider revising efficiency metrics that 

include energy use of supply and 

condenser fans to include the energy 

consumption during all relevant 

operating modes (e.g., auxiliary heating 

mode, ventilation mode, and part-load 

operation). (Id.) 

As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE 

requested comment and data on the 

operation of CUAC and CUHP supply 

fans when there is no demand for 

heating and cooling, as well as the 

impact of ancillary functions (e.g., 

primary heating, auxiliary heating, and 

economizers) on the use and operation 

of the supply fan. 82 FR 34427, 34440. 

DOE received comments in response to 

this request in the July 2017 TP RFI and 

also received comments on this topic in 

response to the May 2020 ECS RFI. 

Multiple commenters expressed 

support for DOE to adopt a test 

procedure for total fan energy 

consumption per recommendation #2 of 

the Commercial Package Air 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31751 

19AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at pp. 

22–23; Joint Advocates, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018– 

0009 at pp. 1 and 5; Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy 

Efficiency Economy, California Energy Commission, 

Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northeast 

Energy Efficiency Partnerships (collectively referred 

to as ‘‘Joint Commenters’’), EERE–2019–BT–STD– 

0042–0023 at pp. 2–3; CA IOUs EERE–2017–BT– 

TP–0018–0007 at p. 3 and EERE–2019–BT–STD– 

0042–0020 at pp. 2–4; Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 

0018–0006 at p. 9; Goodman, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 

0018–0014 at pp. 3–4; Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 

0018–0008 at pp. 2–3; Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance (‘‘NEEA’’), EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042– 

0024 at pp. 2–3; Verified Inc., EERE–2019–BT– 

STD–0042–0022 at pp. 13–14. 

20ASHRAE 90.1–2019 does not require 

economizers in cooling systems for which the rated 

efficiency exceeds the minimum cooling efficiency 

by more than the corresponding factor specified in 

Table 6.5.1–2 of ASHRAE 90.1–2019, which 

specifies different factors for each climate zone. 

21Lei, X., J.B. Butzbaugh, Y. Chen, J. Zhang, and 

M.I. Rosenberg. 2020. Development of National 

New Construction Weighting Factors for the 

Commercial Building Prototype Analyses (2003– 

2018). PNNL–29787, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory, Richland, WA. 

22Available at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

commercial-reference-buildings. 

23Available at www.energycodes.gov/prototypebuilding-models. 

24Lei, X., J.B. Butzbaugh, Y. Chen, J. Zhang, and 

M.I. Rosenberg. 2020. Development of National 

New Construction Weighting Factors for the 

Commercial Building Prototype Analyses (2003– 

2018). PNNL–29787, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory, Richland, WA. 

25 DOE notes that a typical warehouse has three 

zones and not all are conditioned by a CUAC or 

CUHP, only the fine storage area (i.e., area for 

storing fine art, antiques, and other items that are 

temperature-sensitive). The bulk storage area is not 

air-conditioned. The warehouse office is small 

enough that it would use a smaller capacity unit 

than a CUAC or CUHP. 

Conditioners Working Group term sheet. 

Several commenters recommended 

evaluating energy use during operating 

modes other than mechanical cooling 

and heating (e.g., economizing, 

ventilation, and supplemental heating), 

including the frequency in which units 

operate in modes other than mechanical 

cooling or heating, in an effort to 

improve the representativeness of the 

test procedure. Commenters also 

indicated that additional data on field 

installation and use would likely be 

needed for further consideration of fan 

use in CUACs and CUHPs beyond that 

captured in the current DOE test 

procedure.19

Carrier stated that ASHRAE 90.1 and 

IECC require a minimum of two-speed 

fan operation so that the fan runs at low 

speed during ventilation and some of 

the economizer operation. (Carrier, 

EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0006 at p. 9) 

Carrier stated that fan power is typically 

reduced by around 70 percent, as it 

varies to the cube of the fan speed. (Id.) 

AHRI and Lennox stated that dual- or 

multi-speed fans are used to reduce 

energy consumption by operating at low 

speed during periods of ventilation or 

air circulation. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT– 

TP–0018–0011 at pp. 22–23; Lennox, 

EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0008 at pp. 

2–3) 

Based on the comments received, 

DOE recognizes a need to further 

investigate fan operation during 

ventilation or air circulation/filtration 

and economizing. Specifically, while 

comments received indicate the 

prevalence of multi-speed fans that 

reduce fan speed in these operating 

modes, the commenters did not indicate 

how the fan speed in these operating 

modes typically compares to fan speed 

when operating at the lowest stage of 

compressor cooling. 

Issue 7: DOE seeks feedback on 

whether the supply airflow or fan power 

for both variable air volume and staged 

air volume fans at the lowest stage of 

compression is typically the same 

supply airflow or fan power that would 

be seen during periods of ventilation, air 

circulation, and economizer-only 

cooling. If not, DOE seeks feedback on 

how the airflow or fan power during 

ventilation, air circulation, and 

economizer-only cooling modes 

typically compares to those at the 

lowest stage of compression. 

DOE also recognizes a need to further 

investigate prevalence and operating 

hours of economizers. Section 6.5.1 of 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019 specifies the use of 

economizers for cooling systems with a 

cooling capacity greater than or equal to 

54,000 Btu/h in all climate zones within 

the U.S. except for climate zone 1A, 

which consists of southern Florida, 

Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands.20 However, at the time 

IEER was developed in 2007, ASHRAE 

90.1 did not specify the use of 

economizers in climate zones 1A, 2A, 

3A, and 4A (see ASHRAE 90.1–2007). 

Climate zones 2A, 3A, and 4A represent 

52 percent of new commercial building 

construction according to a June 2020 

report by Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (‘‘June 2020 PNNL report’’) 

that developed updated weighting 

factors for new construction buildings.21

Additionally, Carrier stated in response 

to the July 2017 TP RFI that 80 to 90 

percent of CUAC units are built with 

economizers. (Carrier, EERE–2017–BT– 

TP–0018–0006 at p. 9) Given the large 

increase in commercial buildings for 

which ASHRAE Standard 90.1 specifies 

the use of economizers, DOE is 

interested in current data about 

economizers and ACUACs and CUHPs. 

DOE is also considering revisions to 

how economizer operating hours are 

accounted for in the IEER metric, 

particularly as DOE considers inclusion 

of operating hours corresponding to 

economizer-only cooling. 

Issue 8: DOE requests data on the 

fraction of CUACs and CUHPs installed 

with economizers for each climate zone. 

Issue 9: DOE requests data on the 

typical annual operating hours of 

economizer-only cooling (i.e., no 

mechanical cooling) by building type 

and climate zone. 

Issue 10: DOE requests comments or 

data on the method that was used to 

determine operating hours in each 

cooling mode (i.e., mechanical cooling 

only mode, integrated economizing 

mode, and economizer-only cooling 

mode) during development of the 

current IEER metric. DOE is particularly 

interested in any aspects of that method 

that would be important to incorporate 

when revising the IEER metric. 

b. Building Types 

DOE understands that the current 

IEER metric was developed using the 

cooling loads for three building types 

(offices, retail, and schools), the 

shipment-weighted market shares for 

those three building types, and weather 

data from 15 representative cities, 

which each represented one of the 15 

International Energy Conservation Code 

(‘‘IECC’’) climates zones in the United 

States. These data were used to develop 

weighting factors at four different load 

conditions (100, 75, 50, and 25 percent) 

to represent the average load profile of 

an ACUAC or CUHP in the U.S. While 

DOE understands that offices, retail, and 

schools are large markets for ACUACs 

and CUHPs, there are other building 

types that have large volumes of 

ACUAC and CUHP installations. The 

DOE commercial reference buildings 22

and the ASHRAE building prototypes 23

assign a packaged rooftop air 

conditioner as the default HVAC 

equipment to the prototypes for fullservice restaurants, quick-service 

restaurants, and non-refrigerated 

warehouses. The updated weighting 

factors for new construction building 

prototypes in the June 2020 PNNL 

report 24 show that full-service 

restaurants, quick-service restaurants, 

and non-refrigerated warehouses 25

represent over 14 percent of new 

construction buildings. Therefore, DOE 

is considering revisions to the IEER 

metric to include additional building 

types beyond offices, retail, and schools. 

Issue 11: DOE requests the shipmentweighted market share by building type 

for CUACs and CUHPs. 

Issue 12: DOE requests comment or 

data on the supporting basis and 

method used to determine hourly 

cooling loads (for each building type 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31752 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

26AHRI, EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042–0014 at p. 3; 

Trane, EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042–0016 at p. 2. 

27AHRI, EERE–2010–BT–STD–0042–0014 at pp. 

2, 4–7; Joint Commenters, EERE–2019–BT–STD– 

0042–0023 at pp. 3–4; CA IOUs, EERE–2019–BT– 

STD–0042–0020 at p. 5; Carrier, EERE–2019–BT– 

STD–0042–0013 at pp. 5, 7–8, 10; Goodman, EERE– 

2019–BT–STD–0042–0017 at p. 3; NEEA, EERE– 

2019–BT–STD–0042–0024 at p. 9; Trane, EERE– 

2019–BT–STD–0042–0016 at pp. 4–5, 7, 10. 

28For example, California has implemented 

regulations that limit the use of high-GWP 

and by building location) in developing 

the current IEER metric. DOE is 

particularly interested in any aspects of 

that method that would be important to 

incorporate if it should decide to revise 

the IEER metric. 

4. Power Consumption of Heat Rejection 

Components for WCUACs 

WCUACs are typically installed in the 

field with separate heat rejection 

components that reject heat from the 

water loop to outdoor ambient air, but 

these separate heat rejection 

components are not included in testing 

of WCUACs. These heat rejection 

components typically consist of a 

circulating water pump (or pumps) and 

a cooling tower. To account for the 

power that would be consumed by these 

components in field installations, 

Section 6.1.1.7 of AHRI 340/360–2022 

specifies that WCUACs with cooling 

capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h shall 

add 10.0 W to the total power of the unit 

for every 1,000 Btu/h of cooling 

capacity. 

The industry test procedure for 

dedicated outdoor air systems 

(‘‘DOASes’’)—AHRI 920–2020, ‘‘2020 

Standard for Performance Rating of 

Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor 

Air System Units’’—includes a different 

method to account for the additional 

power consumption of water pumps, 

with a pump power adder referred to as 

the ‘‘water pump effect’’ being added to 

the calculated total unit power. 

Specifically, Section 6.1.6 of AHRI 920– 

2020 specifies that the water pump 

effect is calculated with an equation 

dependent on the water flow rate and 

liquid pressure drop across the heat 

exchanger, including a term that 

assumes a liquid ESP of 20 feet of water 

column. DOE is considering whether the 

AHRI 920–2020 approach would also be 

representative for WCUACs. 

Issue 13: DOE seeks comment on the 

representativeness of the AHRI 920– 

2020 approach to account for power 

consumption of external heat rejection 

components in WCUACs, as compared 

to the approach in AHRI 340/360–2022. 

Water-cooled air conditioners and 

heat pumps rely on pumps to circulate 

the water that transfers heat to or from 

refrigerant in the water-to-refrigerant 

coil. Most water-cooled units rely on 

external circulating water pumps; 

however, some water-cooled units in 

other equipment categories (e.g., watersource heat pumps and DOASes) have 

integral pumps included within the unit 

that provide this function. For such 

units with integral pumps, test 

provisions are warranted to specify how 

to test with the integral pump—e.g., 

provisions specifying the liquid ESP at 

which to operate the integral pump. 

AHRI 340/360–2022 does not contain 

provisions specific to testing WCUACs 

with integral pumps. In contrast, DOE 

recently proposed to require that watersource DOASes with integral pumps be 

tested with a liquid ESP of 20 ft of water 

column (consistent with the liquid ESP 

assumed in the aforementioned water 

pump effect calculation specified in 

AHRI 920–2020 for DOASes). 86 FR 

36018, 36060. DOE is not aware of any 

WCUACs on the market that contain 

integral pumps, but if such units exist, 

then additional test provisions may be 

warranted. 

Issue 14: DOE seeks comment on the 

prevalence of WCUACs with integral 

pumps. If such units exist, DOE seeks 

comment on what liquid ESP would be 

representative for testing. 

B. Energy Conservation Standards 

In the following sections, DOE has 

identified several issues on which it 

seeks input to aid in the development of 

the technical and economic analyses 

regarding whether amended standards 

for ACUACs and ACUHPs may be 

warranted. 

DOE is considering amended energy 

conservation standards for ACUACs and 

ACUHPs (excluding double-duct 

systems). In the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

sought comment regarding the various 

analyses that DOE routinely uses to 

analyze more stringent standards. 85 FR 

27941. DOE received feedback from 

interested parties in response to the May 

2020 ECS RFI indicating that it was 

premature to consider amended 

standards before the 2023 compliance 

date for the second tier of amended 

standards adopted in the January 2016 

direct final rule.26 At the present time, 

DOE recognizes that the ACUAC and 

ACUHP market is much closer to the 

2023 compliance date than the market 

observed at the time of the May 2020 

ECS RFI. Therefore, DOE welcomes any 

additional feedback in response to the 

questions posed in the May 2020 ECS 

RFI that may have changed since the 

publication of the May 2020 ECS RFI, 

particularly to the extent that ACUAC 

and ACUHP markets and technologies 

have changed in the last two years. 

Additionally, DOE is seeking specific 

feedback on alternative refrigerants (as 

raised by interested parties) and 

shipments in the following subsections. 

1. Alternative Refrigerants 

In the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

presented the technology options 

screened out in the January 2016 direct 

final rule, which included alternative 

refrigerants, and requested comment 

generally on whether these technology 

options would continue to be screened 

out. 85 FR 27941, 27947. Several 

stakeholders provided feedback on the 

topic of alternative refrigerants.27

AHRI and Carrier recommended that 

DOE not consider alternative 

refrigerants as a technology option on 

the bases of technological feasibility and 

practicability to manufacture, install, 

and service. (AHRI, EERE–2019–BT– 

STD–0042–0014 at p. 5; Carrier, EERE– 

2019–BT–STD–0042–0013 at p. 7) The 

Joint Commenters suggested that DOE 

consider alternative refrigerants as a 

technology option for ACUACs and 

ACUHPs. (Joint Commenters, EERE– 

2019–BT–STD–0042–0023 at pp. 3–4) 

The Joint Commenters referenced 

testing conducted by Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory and Trane that 

found using R–452B as a replacement 

for R–410A improves efficiency by 5 

percent. (Id.) NEEA and Trane 

recommended that DOE consider the 

effect of new low global warming 

potential (‘‘GWP’’) refrigerants on 

efficiency, cost, design, and size of the 

units. (NEEA, EERE–2019–BT–STD– 

0042–0024 at p. 9; Trane, EERE–2019– 

BT–STD–0042–0016 at p. 7) 

Several commenters stated that the 

use of low-GWP refrigerants with A2L 

categorization (i.e., mildly flammable) 

would require new compressors, 

additional refrigerant detection sensors, 

enhanced leak testing for coils, and 

would result in increased 

manufacturing and channel distribution 

complexity. (AHRI, EERE–2019–BT– 

STD–0042–0014 at p. 6; Carrier, EERE– 

2019–BT–STD–0042–0013 at p. 5; 

Goodman, EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042– 

0017 at p. 3; Trane, EERE–2019–BT– 

STD–0042–0016 at p. 5) AHRI stated 

that the combined costs to add sensors, 

controls, and other components for 

these new refrigerants and the costs of 

those refrigerants will increase cost 10 

to 15 percent over the minimum designs 

for the 2018 standards. (AHRI, EERE– 

2019–BT–STD–0042–0014 at p. 7) 

DOE recognizes the transition away 

from the use of R–410A refrigerant in 

ACUACs and ACUHPs and the multiple 

drivers of this transition, including 

state 28 and ongoing Environmental 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 31753 

refrigerants. Beginning January 1, 2025, California 

will prohibit the use of refrigerants with a GWP 

greater than 750 in CUACs and CUHPs. See 

California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 3, 

Chapter 1, Subchapter 10 Climate Change, Article 

4, Subarticle 5, section 95374(c). 

29EPA completed a rulemaking to phase down 

production and consumption of hydrofluorocarbons 

(‘‘HFCs’’) through an allowance allocation on 

October 5, 2021 (86 FR 55116) and set allowances 

for 2022 on October 7, 2021 (86 FR 55841). 

Additionally, EPA published a notice of its intent 

to conduct a traditional (i.e., non-negotiated) 

rulemaking on December 29, 2021, with regard to 

restricting, fully, partially, or on a graduated 

schedule, the use of regulated substances, which 

includes high-GWP refrigerants, in a sector or 

subsector in which the regulated substance is used. 

86 FR 74080. 

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) 

regulations.29 DOE understands that the 

implementation of mildly flammable 

refrigerants at the quantities that would 

be typically required for installation in 

commercial buildings requires an 

allowance under state and local 

building codes. Further, DOE is aware 

that multiple manufacturers of ACUACs 

and ACUHPs have already announced 

plans to transition to a specific lowGWP refrigerant for their ACUAC and 

ACUHP models. 

DOE notes that the earliest possible 

compliance date for amended standards 

for ACUACs and ACUHPs, barring any 

amendment of standards by ASHRAE 

90.1, would be January 1, 2029. 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv) Given the 

timelines of both enacted and potential 

state and Federal regulatory changes 

regarding the phasedown of high-GWP 

refrigerants, DOE understands low-GWP 

refrigerants may be used in ACUACs 

and ACUHPs in the U.S. by the time 

potential amended standards could take 

effect. As such, to inform an engineering 

analysis to evaluate more stringent 

standards, DOE is interested in the 

effects of the implementation of lowGWP refrigerants on efficiency and cost 

of ACUACs and ACUHPs. 

Issue 15: DOE requests data on the 

impact of low-GWP refrigerants as 

replacements for R–410A on (1) the 

cooling and heating capacities and 

compressor power of ACUACs and 

ACUHPs at various temperature 

conditions, including, but not limited 

to, the temperatures currently included 

in the IEER metric; and (2) the size and 

design of heat exchangers and 

compressors used in ACUACs and 

ACUHPs. 

Issue 16: DOE seeks any additional 

data and feedback on the cost of 

implementing low-GWP refrigerants in 

ACUACs and ACUHPs beyond the 

comments received in response to the 

May 2020 ECS RFI. 

2. Shipments 

DOE develops shipments forecasts of 

CUACs and CUHPs to calculate the 

national impacts of potential amended 

energy conservation standards on 

energy consumption, net present value, 

and future manufacturer cash flows. 

DOE shipments projections are based on 

available historical data broken out by 

equipment class and capacity. Current 

shipments estimates allow for a more 

accurate model that captures recent 

trends in the market and inform the nonew-standards case efficiency 

distribution. The national impact of a 

higher efficiency level is measured 

relative to the distribution of efficiency 

levels in the no-new-standards case. 

Therefore, the development of a nonew-standards case efficiency 

distribution has a significant impact on 

the national energy savings and new 

present value calculation in the national 

impact analysis. DOE received 

shipments data for years 2014 and 

earlier as part of the rulemaking for the 

January 2016 direct final rule, but DOE 

has no shipments data for years 2015 to 

the present. A time series of shipments 

is useful for projecting shipments 

accurately in the future because 

historical shipments are important for 

predicting the future market. A time 

series also enables DOE to better 

forecast trends in shipments by 

efficiency level in the national impact 

analysis. 

In the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

requested shipments data for ACUACs 

and ACUHPs but received none. 85 FR 

27941, 27953. Given the importance of 

shipments data and the no-newstandards case efficiency distribution to 

the national impact analysis, DOE is 

again requesting current data on 

shipments and efficiency for ACUACs 

and ACUHPs. 

Issue 17: DOE requests current 

shipments data for ACUACs and 

ACUHPs by equipment class, capacity, 

and efficiency level. If available, DOE 

requests historical shipments data going 

back to 2015. If disaggregated fractions 

of annual shipments are not available at 

the equipment class level by equipment 

size and efficiency level, DOE requests 

more aggregated fractions of annual 

shipments at the equipment category 

level. 

III. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by the date specified 

in the DATES section of this document, 

comments and information on matters 

addressed in this document and on 

other matters relevant to DOE’s 

consideration of amended test 

procedures for CUACs and CUHPs and 

amended energy conservations 

standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs 

(excluding double-duct systems). After 

the close of the comment period, DOE 

will review the public comments 

received and may begin collecting data 

and conducting the analyses discussed 

in this document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page requires 

you to provide your name and contact 

information. Your contact information 

will be viewable to DOE Building 

Technologies Office staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. If 

this instruction is followed, persons 

viewing comments will see only first 

and last names, organization names, 

correspondence containing comments, 

and any documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

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

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
31754 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1 44 FR 66466 (Nov. 19, 1979). 

2 42 U.S.C. 6294. EPCA also requires the 

Department of Energy (DOE) to develop test 

procedures that measure how much energy 

appliances use, and to determine the representative 

average cost a consumer pays for different types of 

energy. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or postal mail. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email, hand delivery/courier, or 

postal mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ 

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not 

necessary to submit printed copies. No 

faxes will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing energy conservation 

standards. DOE actively encourages the 

participation and interaction of the 

public during the comment period in 

this process. Interactions with and 

between members of the public provide 

a balanced discussion of the issues and 

assist DOE. Anyone who wishes to be 

added to the DOE mailing list to receive 

future notices and information about 

this process or would like to request a 

public meeting should contact 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or via 

email at 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on May 16, 2022, by 

Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on May 17, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10911 Filed 5–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 305 

[3084–AB15] 

Energy Labeling Rule 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

proposes routine updates to 

comparability range information on 

EnergyGuide labels for televisions, 

refrigerators and freezers, dishwashers, 

water heaters, room air conditioners 

(ranges only), clothes washers, furnaces, 

and pool heaters in the Energy Labeling 

Rule (‘‘Rule’’). The proposed 

amendments also contain a minor, 

clarifying change to requirements for 

determining room air conditioner 

capacity. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

July 11, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘Range Updates, Matter 

No. R611004’’ on your comment, and 

file your comment online at https://

www.regulations.gov/, by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Mail Stop H–144, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hampton Newsome, (202) 326–2889, 

Attorney, Division of Enforcement, 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal 

Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Commission issued the Energy 

Labeling Rule (‘‘Rule’’) in 1979,1

pursuant to the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’).2

The Rule requires energy labeling for 

major home appliances and other 

consumer products to help consumers 

compare competing models. It also 

contains labeling requirements for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

freezers, dishwashers, water heaters, 

clothes washers, room air conditioners, 

furnaces, central air conditioners, heat 

pumps, plumbing products, lighting 

products, ceiling fans, and televisions. 

The Rule requires manufacturers to 

attach yellow EnergyGuide labels to 

many covered products and prohibits 

retailers from removing these labels or 

rendering them illegible. In addition, it 

directs sellers, including retailers, to 

post label information on websites and 

in paper catalogs from which consumers 

can order products. EnergyGuide labels 

for most covered products contain three 

key disclosures: Estimated annual 

energy cost, a product’s energy 

consumption or energy efficiency rating 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1