[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 49 (Thursday, March 13, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14186-14199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05366]


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

  Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 14186]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0032]
RIN 1904-AD19


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Packaged 
Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to revise its test procedures 
established under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) for 
packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged terminal heat 
pumps (PTHPs). The proposed amendments would specify an optional break-
in period, explicitly require that wall sleeves be sealed, allow for 
the pre-filling of the condensate drain pan, require that ASHRAE 
Standard 16 be the sole method of test when measuring the cooling 
capacity for PTACs and PTHPs under ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380-2004, and 
require testing with 14-inch deep wall sleeves and the filter option 
most representative of a typical installation. These updates fulfill 
DOE's obligation under EPCA to review its test procedures for covered 
equipment at least once every 7 years and either amend the applicable 
test procedures or publish a determination in the Federal Register not 
to amend them. DOE will hold a public meeting to discuss and receive 
comments on the issues presented in this notice.

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on April 28, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 
4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a 
webinar. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the public 
meeting, but no later than May 27, 2014. See section V, ``Public 
Participation,'' for details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945. For more information, refer to the Public Participation 
section near the end of this notice.
    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Test Procedures 
for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat 
Pumps, and provide docket number EERE-2012-BT-TP-0032 and/or regulatory 
information number (RIN) number 1904-AD19. Comments may be submitted 
using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number 
EERE-2012-BT-TP-0032 and/or RIN 1904-AD19 in the subject line of the 
message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed 
copies.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section V, ``Public 
Participation,'' near the end of this document.
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0032. This Web 
page contains a link to the docket for this notice on the 
regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section V for information on how to submit comments 
through regulations.gov.
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Ashley Armstrong, 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) 586-9590, or email [email protected].
    Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
    A. Break-In Duration
    B. Wall Sleeve Sealing
    C. Pre-Filling Condensate Drain Pan
    D. Barometric Pressure Correction
    E. ASHRAE Standard 16 vs. ASHRAE Standard 37
    F. Part-Load Efficiency Metric and Varying Ambient Conditions
    G. Wall Sleeve Size and Filter Requirements for Testing
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

[[Page 14187]]

    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
V. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to 
EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy 
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 
(Dec. 18, 2012).) Part C of Title III, which for editorial reasons was 
redesignated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), establishes the Energy Conservation 
Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment. This equipment 
includes packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged 
terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), the subjects of today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 
6311(1)(I))
    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of 
covered equipment must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that 
their equipment complies with applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency 
of the equipment. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to 
determine whether the equipment complies with any relevant standards 
promulgated under EPCA.

General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    In 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the general criteria and 
procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures 
for covered equipment. EPCA provides in relevant part that any test 
procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall 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 shall 
not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In 
addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the 
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 
U.S.C. 6314(b))
    DOE is also required by EPCA to conduct an evaluation of test 
procedures every seven years for each class of covered equipment 
(including PTACs and PTHPs) to determine if an amended test procedure 
would more accurately or fully comply with the requirement to be 
reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect the energy 
efficiency, energy use, and operating costs during a representative 
average use cycle. DOE must either prescribe amended test procedures or 
publish a notice in the Federal Register regarding its determination 
not to amend test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)-(2))

Background

    DOE's test procedure for PTACs and PTHPs is codified at Title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 431.96. The test 
procedure was established on December 8, 2006, in a final rule that 
incorporated by reference the American National Standards Institute's 
(ANSI) and Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute's 
(AHRI) Standard 310/380-2004, ``Standard for Packaged Terminal Air-
Conditioners and Heat Pumps'' (ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380). 71 FR 
71340, 71371. ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380-2004 is incorporated by 
reference at 10 CFR 431.95(a)(3) and it references (1) the American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 
(ASHRAE) Standard 16-1999 (RA2009), ``Method of Testing for Rating Room 
Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners'' (ASHRAE 
Standard 16); (2) ASHRAE Standard 58-1986 (RA2009), ``Method of Testing 
for Rating Room Air Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner 
Heating Capacity'' (ASHRAE Standard 58); and (3) ASHRAE Standard 37-
1988, ``Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (ASHRAE Standard 37).
    On May 16, 2012, DOE published a final rule for commercial heating, 
air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment (ASHRAE equipment), which 
included amendments to the test procedure for PTACs and PTHPs. These 
amendments incorporated a number of sections of ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/
380 by reference. 77 FR 28928, 28990. In today's rulemaking, DOE is 
evaluating test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs as required by 42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(1).
    On February 22, 2013, DOE published a notice of public meeting and 
availability of framework document to consider energy conservations 
standards rulemaking for PTACs and PTHPs. 78 FR 12252. In the framework 
document, DOE sought comments on issues pertaining to the test 
procedure for PTACs and PTHPs, including equipment break-in, wall 
sleeve sealing, pre-filling the condensate drain pan, barometric 
pressure correction, and differences between the test methods of ASHRAE 
Standard 16 and ASHRAE Standard 37. Comments received on these topics 
are discussed in section III.
    On February 26, 2013, members of the Appliance Standards and 
Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) unanimously decided to 
form a working group to engage in a negotiated rulemaking effort on the 
certification of commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 
(HVAC) equipment (10 CFR part 431, subparts D, E and F), water heating 
(WH) equipment (10 CFR part 431, subpart G), and refrigeration 
equipment (10 CFR part 431, subpart C) (Working Group). A notice of 
intent to form the Commercial Certification Working Group was published 
in the Federal Register on March 12, 2013, following which DOE received 
35 nominations. 78 FR 15653. On April 16, 2013, the Department 
published a notice of open meeting that announced the first meeting and 
listed the 22 nominated individuals that were selected to serve as 
members of the Working Group, in addition to two members from ASRAC, 
and one DOE representative. 78 FR 22431. Following the meeting, the 
Working Group published a set of recommendations, and DOE issued the 
Certification of Commercial HVAC, WH, and Refrigeration Equipment NOPR 
(Certification of Commercial Equipment NOPR) on February 7, 2014, 
summarizing the Working Group's recommendations. 79 FR 8886. The group 
proposed a number of test procedure items for PTACs and PTHPs, 
including proposals for (1) a standardized wall sleeve to be used 
during testing and (2) a standardized filter to be used during testing, 
both of which are discussed in today's NOPR.
    DOE considers the activity initiated by this proposed rule 
sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement that

[[Page 14188]]

DOE must review its test procedures for all covered equipment, 
including PTACs and PTHPs, at least once every 7 years and either amend 
the applicable test procedures or publish a determination in the 
Federal Register not to amend them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the test procedures for PTACs 
and PTHPs in 10 CFR 431, Subpart F, to specify an optional break-in 
period, explicitly require that wall sleeves be sealed, allow for the 
pre-filling of the condensate drain pan, require that the cooling 
capacity for PTACs and PTHPs be determined by testing pursuant to 
ASHRAE Standard 16, and require testing with 14-inch deep wall sleeves 
and the filter option most representative of a typical installation.
    The proposed amendments would explicitly allow PTAC and PTHP 
manufacturers the option of using a break-in period (up to 20 hours) 
before conducting the test procedure. In this regard, DOE proposes 
adding ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380-2004 to the list of commercial air-
conditioner standards at 10 CFR 431.96(c), which currently provides an 
optional break-in period of up to 20 hours for other commercial air-
conditioner equipment types. The proposal would also require any PTAC 
or PTHP manufacturer that elects to use a break-in period to certify 
the duration of the break-in period it used for each basic model. DOE 
proposes that, as part of the set-up for testing, testers seal gaps 
between wall sleeves and the test facility dividing wall. This would 
require the PTAC or PTHP wall sleeve to be sealed per manufacturer 
specifications or a standard sealing method.
    DOE proposes to allow the pre-filling of the condensate drain pan 
with water before running the DOE test procedure. This proposed 
amendment would allow the unit to reach steady state more quickly, 
which would decrease the burden and cost of testing.
    DOE proposes to modify the test procedure to require ASHRAE 
Standard 16 as the test method for measuring the cooling capacity of 
PTACs and PTHPs. DOE would remove all references to ASHRAE Standard 37 
as an allowable method of test.
    DOE proposes to require testing using a 14-inch deep wall sleeve 
and only one filter option, which would be the most typical filter 
option that is shipped with the tested unit. These proposed amendments 
would remove testing variability resulting from the use of non-standard 
equipment.
    DOE does not believe that these proposed changes to the PTAC and 
PTHP test procedure would result in any additional burden to 
manufacturers or result in any changes to the energy efficiency of 
current equipment. Rather, the proposed changes would provide 
additional clarification regarding how the DOE test procedure should be 
conducted.

III. Discussion

A. Break-In Duration

    Break-in, also called run-in, refers to the operation of equipment 
prior to testing to cause preliminary wear, which may improve measured 
performance. DOE understands that many labs commonly incorporate a 
break-in period before the start of efficiency tests for air 
conditioning equipment. DOE's May 16, 2012 final rule for Small, Large, 
and Very Large Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 
(ASHRAE equipment), 77 FR 28928, 28991, added a specification in the 
test procedure that allows an optional break-in period of up to 20 
hours for many types of commercial air conditioning and heating 
equipment and requires that manufacturers record the duration of the 
break-in period. However, these amendments do not apply to PTACs or 
PTHPs.
    DOE is aware that the time required to achieve sufficient break-in 
(for stabilizing equipment performance) may depend on ambient 
temperature. Generally, the break-in process is conducted outside the 
test chamber at room temperature conditions (i.e., 65-85 [deg]F). 
However, conducting break-in in the test chamber at elevated ambient 
temperatures (i.e., 95 [deg]F outdoor/80 [deg]F indoor) may reduce the 
time required to achieve break-in. Using the test chamber for break-in 
would likely increase the expense of testing significantly because it 
would increase the amount of time that a test unit is in the test 
chamber. DOE asked for comment on this issue in the framework document 
published on February 22, 2013. 78 FR 12252.
    In response, AHRI and Goodman stated that DOE should allow for an 
optional break-in period at non-specified ambient conditions for PTAC 
and PTHP testing, but did not specify a maximum duration. (AHRI, No. 11 
at p. 2; Goodman, No. 13 at p. 1) \1\ The California Investor-Owned 
Utilities (CA IOUs, which consists of the Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company (PG&E), the Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), the San 
Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE)) 
stated that DOE should allow an optional break-in period with a maximum 
duration of 20 hours, as allowed in the ASHRAE equipment final rule. 
(CA IOUs, No. 12 at pp. 1-2) AHRI and Goodman stated that they do not 
have any data to show how the length of break-in time specifically 
affects PTAC or PTHP performance; however, Goodman did state that it 
has test data for residential air conditioning systems that indicate 
that system performance can improve by ``several percentage points over 
a 72 hour period.'' AHRI and Goodman further stated that any 
manufacturer that elects to use the optional break-in period for AHRI's 
certification testing must cover the cost of the break-in period. 
(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 13 at p. 1) AHRI also stated that 
breaking-in the equipment in the testing lab may cost around $1500 per 
8-hr shift, whereas the only cost of break-in outside the test lab is 
the labor required for set-up and the electricity needed to operate the 
equipment. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information 
that is in the docket of DOE's ``Energy Conservation Program for 
Certain Commercial and Industrial Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 
and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps'' (Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-STD-
0029), which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. This notation 
(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) indicates that the statement preceding the 
reference is found in document number 11 in the docket for the 
packaged terminal air conditioner and packaged terminal heat pump 
test procedure rulemaking, and appears at page 2 of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has concluded that allowing for an optional break-in period 
will provide manufacturers more flexibility to produce test results 
that more accurately reflect energy efficiency of basic models in a 
manner that is representative of their performance without adding 
significant testing costs and burdens on the manufacturers. DOE 
understands that using a break-in period will generally improve the 
measured efficiency of a product by allowing moving parts (such as 
compressor mating surfaces) to wear-in to improve efficiency. DOE also 
concludes that the use of a break-in period should be at the 
manufacturer's discretion. Therefore, DOE proposes adding ANSI/AHRI 
Standard 310/380 to the list of commercial air-conditioner standards at 
10 CFR 431.96(c), which would provide an optional break-in period of up 
to 20 hours. DOE already allows manufacturers of other commercial air-
conditioner equipment the option of a break-in period not to exceed 20 
hours, and this change would extend this allowance to manufacturers of 
PTACs

[[Page 14189]]

and PTHPs. DOE has not found evidence that break-in periods exceeding 
20 hours provide additional efficiency improvements for a PTAC or PTHP.
    In addition, DOE is proposing a reporting requirement so that 
manufacturers would certify the duration of the break-in period used 
during that testing conducted to support the development of the 
certified ratings. As such, DOE is proposing to modify the 
certification requirements for PTACs and PTHPs that were proposed on 
February 14, 2014, 79 FR 8886, 8900, to require the manufacturer to 
include the break-in period in the certification report. DOE seeks 
comment on this proposal. Please note that a manufacturer must maintain 
records underlying its certified rating, which would reflect this 
optional break-in period duration pursuant to 10 CFR 429.71. DOE also 
notes that ratings derived from an alternative efficiency determination 
method (AEDM) would include a break-in period only if the test data 
underlying the AEDM also included a run-in period. As background. AEDMs 
are computer modeling or mathematical tools that predict the 
performance of non-tested basic models. They are derived from 
mathematical models and engineering principles that govern the energy 
efficiency and energy consumption characteristics of a type of covered 
equipment.
    If commenters support longer break-in times, DOE requests data 
demonstrating that break-in periods longer than 20 hours make a 
significant impact on efficiency measurements for this equipment type. 
This is identified as issue 1 in section V.E, ``Issues on Which DOE 
Seeks Comment.''

B. Wall Sleeve Sealing

    PTACs and PTHPs are tested in a testing facility incorporating 
rooms, simulating indoor and outdoor ambient test conditions, that are 
separated by a dividing wall with an opening in which the test sample 
is mounted. In most cases, the test sample is placed in the opening, 
and any remaining gaps between the dividing wall and the wall sleeve 
around the unit are filled with insulating material. The gap between 
the test sample and the insulating material may also be sealed with 
duct tape.
    ASHRAE Standard 16 states, ``The air conditioner shall be installed 
in a manner similar to its normal installation'' (Section 4.2.2). In 
normal practice, PTACs and PTHPs are installed within wall sleeves that 
are permanently installed and sealed to the external wall of a 
building. However, the set-up of the DOE test procedure does not allow 
for the permanent installation of the wall sleeves in the partition 
cavity. Thus, during testing, the wall sleeve is not necessarily air-
sealed to the wall as it would be in a normal installation in the 
field. Air leakage between the outdoor and indoor rooms through gaps 
between the wall sleeve and the dividing wall can reduce the measured 
capacity and efficiency, which would contribute to test results 
unrepresentative of field operation. DOE asked for comment on this 
issue in the framework document. 78 FR 12252 (Feb. 22, 2013).
    Goodman responded that it will always be a proponent of anything 
that is done to the test procedure to minimize the variability of 
testing among laboratories, including sealing the wall sleeve. 
(Goodman, Framework Public Meeting Transcript at p. 24) \2\ Goodman 
noted that adding wall sleeve sealing requirements to the test 
procedure would reduce the variability of measured performance from one 
lab to another. (Goodman, No. 13 at p. 2) Goodman added that sealing 
the wall sleeve leaks would not add a significant amount of time to the 
total testing to be done. (Goodman, Framework Public Meeting Transcript 
at p. 24) The CA IOUs pointed to section 4.2.2 of ASHRAE Standard 16 
(mentioned above), which they believe can be interpreted as a 
requirement for wall sleeves to be sealed with the test facility 
dividing wall. They also pointed out that guidance as to the level of 
sealing necessary for the wall sleeve can be found in section 7.7.4 of 
ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380, which states, ``During the entire test, the 
measured air flow rate, L/s (ft3/min), leaking into the indoor portion 
shall be considered to be the infiltration rate through the equipment 
and shall not exceed 3.1 L/(sm) (2 ft3/(minft)) at the 
perimeter of the wall sleeve where it normally projects through the 
wall.'' (CA IOUs, No. 12 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A notation in the form ``Scotsman, Public Meeting Transcript 
at p. 26'' identifies a comment that DOE has received during a 
public meeting and has included in the docket of this rulemaking. 
This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by 
Scotsman; (2) transcribed from the public meeting; and (3) appearing 
on page 26 of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE agrees with Goodman's comments that sealing the wall sleeve 
would reduce the variability of testing among laboratories and would 
help produce test results that more accurately reflect the energy 
efficiency of PTACs and PTHPs. DOE notes that section 4.2.2 of ASHRAE 
Standard 16 does not specifically require the wall sleeve to be sealed 
to the wall. Section 7.7.4 of ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380, as the CA 
IOUs pointed out, deals with air infiltration testing, both through the 
unit and around the unit (i.e., between the wall sleeve and the 
opening). Although this air flow is generally measured during tests, 
the DOE test procedure for PTACs and PTHPs does not require its 
measurement and reporting. Furthermore, this air flow includes 
infiltration both through the unit and between the wall sleeve and the 
test facility dividing wall opening, so it is not necessarily a good 
indicator of whether the wall sleeve seal is tight.
    To improve the repeatability of PTAC and PTHP testing, DOE proposes 
to require that test facilities, when installing PTACs and PTHPs in the 
test chamber, seal all potential leakage gaps between the wall sleeve 
and the dividing wall. DOE seeks comments on the sealing of PTAC and 
PTHP wall sleeves to the test facility dividing wall, including whether 
the type or method of sealing (e.g., duct tape) should be specified, 
and whether a test could be developed that, with reasonably low test 
burden, could be performed to verify an adequate seal. This is 
identified as issue 2 in section V.E, ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks 
Comment.''

C. Pre-Filling Condensate Drain Pan

    Most PTACs and PTHPs transfer the condensate that forms on the 
evaporator to a condensate pan in the unit's outdoor-side where the 
outdoor fan distributes the water over the air-inlet side of the 
condenser. This process results in evaporative cooling that enhances 
the cooling of the outdoor coil in air-conditioning mode. At the 
beginning of a test, there may be no water in the condensate pan. As 
the test progresses and the unit approaches an equilibrium state of 
operation, the condensate level in the drip pan will fill and stabilize 
at a constant level. It can take several hours to reach this steady 
state.
    To accelerate the testing process, test facilities typically add 
water to the condensate pan at the beginning of the test rather than 
waiting for the unit to generate sufficient condensate to stabilize. 
The current test procedure does not indicate whether this practice is 
allowed during efficiency testing. DOE sought comment on this issue in 
the framework document. 78 FR 12252 (Feb. 22, 2013).
    AHRI and Goodman recommended that the condensate pan be pre-filled 
with water prior to testing, and stated that any type of water would be 
acceptable for pre-filling. (AHRI, No. 11

[[Page 14190]]

at p. 3; Goodman, No. 13 at p. 2) AHRI stated that achieving steady 
state conditions with a pre-filled pan takes 2-4 hours, with actual 
testing taking an additional 2 hours. If the pan is not prefilled, then 
the set-up and stabilization period will take approximately twice as 
long. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3) Goodman estimated that roughly 1 to 2 
hours would be saved from pre-filling the condensate pan. Goodman added 
that the lab should document how much water was added to the pan, the 
water-source, and its temperature. Goodman also suggested that the 
water added be approximately 50 [deg]F to optimize the time to reach 
equilibrium. (Goodman, No. 13 at p. 2)
    The CA IOUs stated that distilled water should be used (as opposed 
to city water) because distilled water is similar in mineral content to 
the condensate that would normally fill the drain pan. (CA IOUs, No. 12 
at p.3) They also indicated that section 7.6.3 of ANSI/AHRI Standard 
310/380 (condensate disposal test section) provides guidance for pre-
filling the condensate drain pan: ``After establishment of the 
specified temperature conditions, the equipment shall be started with 
its condensate collection pan filled to the overflowing point and shall 
be operated continuously for 4 h after the condensate level has reached 
equilibrium.'' (CA IOUs, No. 12 at p. 2)
    DOE agrees that pre-filling the condensate pan would not alter the 
measured results as compared with not pre-filling the condensate pan. 
DOE also recognizes that pre-filling the condensate pan may reduce the 
time for the unit to achieve steady-state by approximately 1-4 hours, 
which would reduce test lab expenses because the PTAC or PTHP would 
spend less time in the test chamber. While DOE understands that regular 
tap water may have minerals and dissolved solids that could affect the 
thermodynamic properties of the condensate, which could then affect the 
steady-state behavior of the PTAC or PTHP, DOE does not have 
information to indicate whether use of non-distilled water will have a 
measurable impact on the performance of the PTAC or PTHP during 
testing. Therefore, DOE's proposal does not include requirements that a 
specific water type be used to fill the pan.
    Additionally, DOE does not have information to indicate whether the 
temperature of the water used to prefill the pan will impact the test 
result, but acknowledges that the condensate water temperature of the 
test will stabilize due to the equilibrium tolerance requirements in 
section 6.1.5 of ASHRAE Standard 16. Therefore, DOE's proposal does not 
include requirements that water at a specific temperature be used to 
fill the pan.
    Section 7.6.3 of ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380, which the CA IOUs 
cited as providing guidance for pre-filling the condensate pan, is part 
of the procedure for the condensate disposal test designed to ensure 
that condensate does not overflow the drain pan. This section is not 
part of the general cooling capacity test for PTACs and PTHPs, and does 
not contain guidance for condensate temperatures or water types.
    DOE proposes to add a provision in its test procedures at 10 CFR 
431.96 to allow manufacturers the option of pre-filling the condensate 
drain pan before starting the efficiency test. As indicated above, the 
provision would not set requirements regarding the water purity or the 
water temperature that is to be used. DOE seeks comments on pre-filling 
the condensate drain pan, including whether the type and/or temperature 
of the water used should be specified in the test procedure and/or 
recorded in the test data underlying the results. This is identified as 
issue 3 in section V.E, ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.''

D. ASHRAE Standard 16 vs. ASHRAE Standard 37

    ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380 indicates that either ASHRAE Standard 
16-1999 (a calorimeter-based method) or ASHRAE Standard 37-1988 (a 
psychrometric-based method) may be used to determine cooling 
efficiency. The two test methods have significant differences that may 
influence test results, including whether outgoing evaporator air is 
allowed to recirculate back into the evaporator. Testing consistency of 
PTACs and PTHPs may be improved by requiring all efficiency tests to be 
conducted using only one of the two ASHRAE standards. On the other 
hand, such an approach may increase test burden, particularly for those 
manufacturers that currently use one particular test method (e.g., 
manufacturers who do not have access to a calorimeter test chamber 
needed to conduct testing according to ASHRAE Standard 16). DOE asked 
for comment on this issue in the framework document. 78 FR 12252 (Feb. 
22, 2013).
    Goodman and AHRI both stated that there is an ongoing process to 
revise ASHRAE Standard 16 that will incorporate aspects of ASHRAE 
Standard 37. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2; Goodman, Framework Public Meeting 
Transcript at p. 29) Goodman stated that it uses both psychrometric and 
calorimeter methods for its performance testing. (Goodman, No. 13 at p. 
2) AHRI stated that it conducts its cooling verification testing for 
PTACs and PTHPs only in calorimeter rooms in accordance with ASHRAE 
Standard 16. AHRI also stated that, despite the differences between the 
two test methods, the test results between the two methods correlate. 
(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI noted that ASHRAE Standard 16 is currently 
being revised, and the upcoming release of the standards would likely 
include both psychrometric and calorimeter testing methods. AHRI stated 
that, upon release of updated ASHRAE Standard 16, ANSI/AHRI Standard 
310/380 will likely use ASHRAE Standard 16 as the sole test standard 
for cooling capacity. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2; AHRI, Framework Public 
Meeting Transcript at p. 28) Goodman also encouraged DOE to adopt the 
future revised version of ASHRAE Standard 16 as soon as it is 
completed, and when this occurs, remove references to ASHRAE Standard 
37 from the DOE test procedure. (Goodman, No. 13 at p. 2) AHRI 
recommended that DOE specify either ASHRAE Standard 16 or ASHRAE 37 as 
the sole method for conducting cooling capacity tests. (AHRI, No. 11 at 
p. 2)
    To investigate potential differences in results between the ASHRAE 
Standard 16 and ASHRAE Standard 37 test methods, DOE conducted some 
experimental testing on this issue using three PTAC units, one each 
from three distinct manufacturers. DOE tested all three units at a 
third-party testing lab under both ASHRAE Standard 16 and ASHRAE 
Standard 37, and the results can be directly compared since both 
standards allow for testing of the energy efficiency ratio (EER) at 
peak-load conditions. The test results showed that differences in the 
calculated EER between ASHRAE Standard 16 and ASHRAE Standard 37 ranged 
from 0.4 to1.0 Btu/h-W, depending on the unit. These results do not 
support a conclusion that the two methods of test generate consistent 
results.
    DOE understands that there is an ongoing process to revise ASHRAE 
Standard 16 to incorporate psychrometric testing currently detailed in 
ASHRAE Standard 37. Upon release of the updated standard, DOE may 
consider updates to the DOE test procedure to reference the new 
standard, as recommended by AHRI and Goodman.
    To standardize the testing of PTACs and PTHPs, DOE is proposing to 
require that only ASHRAE Standard 16 be used when conducting a cooling 
mode test for PTACs and PTHPs. DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 
designate

[[Page 14191]]

ASHRAE Standard 16 as the sole test method for determining cooling 
efficiency. Specifically, DOE is interested in the test burden on 
manufacturers of this designation, particularly given that all AHRI 
certification program testing is conducted using ASHRAE Standard 16. 
DOE also seeks information on whether there are PTAC or PTHP 
manufacturers that conduct a significant number of tests using ASHRAE 
Standard 37. This is identified as issue 5 in section V.E, ``Issues on 
Which DOE Seeks Comment.''

E. Wall Sleeve Size and Filter Requirements for Testing

Wall Sleeve Size
    The DOE test procedure provides limited guidance on the type of 
wall sleeve that should be used during testing. Wall sleeves are used 
in PTAC and PTHP testing to provide an outer case for the main 
refrigeration components. In the field, the wall sleeves are often 
installed in the building, and the cooling/heating assembly slides into 
and out of this case. For standard size PTACs and PTHPs, the wall 
sleeve measures 42 inches wide and 16 inches high; however, there is no 
standardized depth.
    Some manufacturers offer extended wall sleeves in a variety of 
depths (up to 31 inches) that can be used with any of their standard 
size PTACs or PTHPs. DOE believes that the use of varying test sleeve 
depths can affect measured test results, due to the differences in 
airflow and fan performance. DOE's test procedure, in section 4.3 of 
ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380, provides some limited guidance about the 
wall sleeve that should be used during testing; it states that 
``standard equipment shall be in place during all tests, unless 
otherwise specified in the manufacturer's instructions to the user.'' 
However, there currently is no guidance for units where multiple test 
sleeves might be acceptable.
    DOE's survey of wall sleeve sizes on the market showed that the 
most common wall sleeve depth is 14 inches. While DOE has no data 
indicating the impact of testing with a maximum-depth sleeve as opposed 
to a standard-depth sleeve, DOE expects that there may be an 
incremental reduction in efficiency associated with use of a sleeve as 
deep as 31 inches. The Working Group discussed the issue of varying 
wall sleeve sizes and voted to adopt the position that units should be 
tested using a standard 14 inch sleeve (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-
0023, No. 53, pg. 17). Based on this information, DOE proposes to add a 
provision to 10 CFR 431.96 to require testing using a wall sleeve with 
a depth of 14 inches (or the wall sleeve option that is closest to 14 
inches in depth that is available for the basic model being tested). 
This is consistent with the recommendation by the Working Group.
Filter Requirements
    The DOE test procedure provides limited guidance on the type of 
filter that should be used during testing, and DOE has investigated the 
issue of testing with standard filters versus high-efficiency filters. 
PTACs or PTHPs generally ship with a filter to remove particulates from 
the indoor airstream. There is currently no description in the DOE test 
procedure of the type of filter to be used during testing. While some 
PTACs and PTHPs only have one filter option, some PTACs and PTHPs are 
shipped with either a standard filter or a high efficiency filter. A 
high efficiency filter will impose more air flow restriction, which can 
incrementally decrease air flow and the capacity or efficiency of the 
unit.
    DOE considered whether to specify a particular MERV filter 
efficiency for use with the test, such as MERV-2 or MERV-3 levels of 
filtration. However, DOE noted that the filter efficiencies offered in 
PTACs and PTHPs are generally not specified using a standard metric. 
Furthermore, some PTACs are sold with higher-efficiency ``standard-
option'' filters than others. Moreover, verification that the filter 
used in the test complies with any such requirement would not be 
possible without implementation of standardized requirements for 
labeling of filters and reporting of filter efficiencies and/or 
adopting a filter efficiency test as part of the test procedure, all of 
which would impose additional burden. The Working Group was also aware 
of this issue, and also discussed the issue of varying air filter 
efficiency. The Working Group voted to adopt the position that units 
should be tested ``as shipped'' with respect to selecting a filter 
option (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023, No. 53, pg. 16).
    Consistent with the Working Group's recommendations, DOE proposes 
to add a provision to 10 CFR 431.96 to require testing using the 
standard or default filter option that is shipped with most units. For 
those models that are not shipped with a filter, DOE proposes to 
require the use of an off-the-shelf MERV-3 (minimum efficiency 
reporting value) filter for testing.
    DOE seeks comment on these proposals and whether there are any 
PTACs or PTHPs that cannot be tested using a 14 inch deep wall sleeve. 
DOE also seeks comment on whether a MERV-3 filter is appropriate for 
testing PTACs and PTHPs that do not ship with filters. These have are 
identified as issues 7 and 8 in section V.E, ``Issues on Which DOE 
Seeks Comment.''

F. Barometric Pressure Correction

    The DOE test procedure, in Section 6.1.3 of referenced ASHRAE 
Standard 16, allows for adjustment of the capacity measurement based on 
the tested barometric pressure: ``The capacity may be increased 0.8% 
for each in. Hg below 29.92 in. Hg.'' Theoretically, air is less dense 
at higher altitudes where the barometric pressure is lower. As a 
result, air mass flow generated by fans and blowers is less at higher 
altitudes, which may decrease the measured cooling capacity due to 
reduced air flow over the coils. However, there are other competing 
effects that may negate this decrease. DOE requested detailed test data 
showing the relationship of capacity to barometric pressure in the 
framework document. 78 FR 12252 (Feb. 22, 2013).
    Goodman stated that it did not have data showing the relationship 
between barometric pressure and cooling capacity but mentioned that 
AHRI Standard 550-2011 (``Performance Rating of Water-Chilling and Heat 
Pump Water-Heating Packages Using the Vapor Compression Cycle'') has a 
normative appendix (Appendix F) that uses a barometric pressure 
adjustment and that the ASHRAE Standard Project Committee is 
considering adopting the AHRI 550 calculation in the revised ASHRAE 
Standard 16. Goodman also commented that barometric pressure should be 
used in performing capacity calculations for PTACs and PTHPs. (Goodman, 
No. 13 at p. 2)
    Because DOE has not received any data to support the removal of the 
barometric pressure correction from the DOE test procedure, DOE is not 
proposing to amend or remove this provision. DOE seeks comments or data 
on the barometric pressure correction specifically used for PTACs and 
PTHPs. This is identified as issue 4 in section V.E, ``Issues on Which 
DOE Seeks Comment.''

G. Part-Load Efficiency Metric and Varying Ambient Conditions

    The current DOE test procedure for PTACs and PTHPs measures cooling 
and heating efficiency in terms of EER and coefficient of performance 
(COP), respectively. Both of these metrics measure the efficiency of 
the unit

[[Page 14192]]

running steadily at the maximum cooling or heating output settings.
    The Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) raised the issue 
that current efficiency metrics do not capture part load performance 
and, for that reason, do not properly reflect the benefits of 
technologies such as variable speed compressors that could save 
significant energy in the field due to improvement in part load 
efficiency. (ASAP, Framework Public Meeting Transcript at p. 35) ASAP 
and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) 
jointly encouraged DOE to develop a test procedure that captures part-
load efficiency in order to better represent the energy efficiency in 
the field. They suggested that DOE adopt a metric similar to integrated 
energy efficiency ratio (IEER), which measures efficiency at different 
compressor load points (100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% of full capacity).\3\ 
(ASAP and ACEEE, No. 14 at p. 1) AHRI commented that PTACs and PTHPs 
are generally operated at full load most of the time and that it is not 
common practice in the field to operate the units at part load. (AHRI, 
Framework Public Meeting Transcript at p. 36)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The IEER metric was developed by the American Society of 
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) for 
Standard 90.1-2007. In Addenda from the 2008 Supplement to Standard 
90.1-2007, ASHRAE replaced the integrated part load value (IPLV) 
metric for commercial unitary air conditioners and commercial 
unitary heat pumps with the IEER metric, effective January 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs stated that the DOE test procedure should require the 
measurement and reporting of the performance of PTACs and PTHPs in a 
variety of ambient conditions to represent varying climate zones. (CA 
IOUs, No. 12 at p. 3) Southern Company Services (SCS) commented that if 
DOE starts looking into part-load efficiency metrics for PTACs and 
PTHPs, then DOE would need to consider climate issues in the metric, 
which would be a complex issue. (SCS, Framework Public Meeting 
Transcript at p. 37)
    DOE is unaware of any data showing the time PTACs and PTHPs spend 
operating in part-load conditions versus full-load conditions. 
Likewise, DOE is unaware of any information that shows the amount of 
time that PTACs and/or PTHPs spend cycling their compressors when 
operating in conditions not requiring their full load. Likewise, DOE is 
not aware of any data showing the amount of time that PTHPs with 
defrost capabilities spend at different outdoor temperatures, 
specifically at 17 [deg]F compared with that at 47 [deg]F. These data 
would be needed to incorporate the lower temperatures into a part-load 
metric, as noted by the CA IOUs. Such data would be necessary as inputs 
to a part-load metric for PTACs and/or PTHPs.
    DOE believes that the existing EER (full load) metric accurately 
reflects equipment efficiency during the year. However, DOE recognizes 
the importance of conducting the data collection outlined above to 
establish whether a part load metric is needed and to provide the 
necessary basis for developing such a metric. DOE will consider 
gathering relevant data to assist in a future test procedure 
rulemaking. However, DOE does not have sufficient information regarding 
part-load operation to establish such a test procedure at this time.
    The CA IOUs also stated that the heating mode test method should 
include defrost mode operation and testing at both 47 [deg]F and 17 
[deg]F to capture the effects of electric resistance heat. (CA IOUs, 
No. 12 at p. 3)
    DOE notes that ASHRAE Standard 58 includes a test of the defrost 
operation for units that experience defrost during the standard rating 
test at the specified test conditions. This test is not currently 
included as part of the DOE test procedure. As stated above regarding 
part-load metrics, DOE will consider such testing to assist in a future 
test procedure rulemaking.
    Ice Air, LLC (Ice Air) commented that DOE's current energy 
conservation standards fail to account for the economic, environmental, 
and energy impact of using electric heat in PTACs and PTHPs. It also 
stated that there should be a standardized methodology for measuring 
the impact of alternate heat sources (e.g., hydronic or gas heat), and 
that the energy-efficiency impact of such heat sources should be 
accounted for in the DOE test procedure. (Ice Air, No. 9 at p. 1)
    DOE notes that the heating coefficient of performance calculated 
using ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380 does not include any energy consumed 
by supplementary heating sources at times when low outdoor temperatures 
require its use. It also does not include energy consumed by 
supplementary hydronic or gas heating. To incorporate the energy 
consumed by supplementary resistance heat would require changing the 
metric to a seasonal metric, which would require knowledge of national 
average heating load patterns for PTHPs as a function of ambient 
temperature-information which DOE does not have at this time.
    DOE is not proposing to adopt either a part-load or seasonal 
efficiency metric for the cooling mode that considers part-load 
performance, or a seasonal efficiency metric for the heating mode that 
considers electric resistance heating for PTACs or PTHPs. DOE seeks 
comments regarding this conclusion, including any information regarding 
seasonal load patterns for PTACs and PTHPs in both cooling and heating 
modes. This is identified as issue 6 in section V.E, ``Issues on Which 
DOE Seeks Comment.''

H. Compliance Date of the Test Procedure Amendments

    In amending a test procedure, EPCA directs DOE to determine to what 
extent, if any, the test procedure would alter the measured energy 
efficiency or measured energy use of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(6)) If the amended test procedure alters the measured energy 
efficiency or measured energy use, the Secretary must amend the 
applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(6))
    The proposed test procedure amendments for PTACs and PTHPS do not 
contain changes that would materially alter the measured energy 
efficiency of equipment. Rather, most of the proposed changes represent 
clarifications that would improve the uniform application of the test 
procedures for this equipment. Any change in the rated efficiency that 
might be associated with these clarifications is expected to be de 
minimis.
    DOE's test procedure proposals being considered in this notice 
would be effective 30 days after publication of the final rule in the 
Federal Register. Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6314(d), any 
representations of energy consumption of PTACs and PTHPs must be based 
on any final amended test procedures 360 days after the publication of 
the test procedure final rule.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

[[Page 14193]]

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed today's proposed rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 
February 19, 2003. This proposed rule prescribes test procedures that 
will be used to test compliance with energy conservation standards for 
the products that are the subject of this rulemaking. DOE has 
tentatively concluded that the proposed rule would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers an entity to be a 
small business if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a 
threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121, which relies 
on size standards and codes established by the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS). The threshold number for NAICS 
classification for 333415, which applies to air conditioning and warm 
air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration 
equipment, is 750. Searches of the SBA Web site \4\ to identify 
manufacturers within these NAICS codes that manufacture PTACs and/or 
PTHPs did not identify any small entities that could be affected by 
this test procedure modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A searchable database of certified small businesses is 
available online at: http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE expects the impact of the proposed rule to be minimal. The 
proposed rule would amend DOE's test procedures to specify an optional 
break-in period, explicitly require that wall sleeves be sealed to 
prevent air leakage, allow for the pre-filling of the condensate drain 
pan, require that the cooling mode be tested using only ASHRAE Standard 
16, and require testing with 14-inch deep wall sleeves and the filter 
option most representative of a typical installation. These tests can 
be conducted in the same facilities used for the current energy testing 
of these products and do not require testing in addition to what is 
currently required. The break-in period is optional and may result in 
improved energy efficiency of the unit; the break-in is also generally 
conducted outside of the balanced-ambient calorimeter facility. DOE 
expects that manufacturers will require minimal time to plug in and run 
the PTACs and PTHPs, and will only incur the additional time for the 
break-in step if it is beneficial to testing. In this case, the cost 
will be minimal due to the nature of the testing and the fact that it 
is not conducted within the facility.
    Material costs are expected to be negligible, as air sealing the 
wall sleeves can be accomplished with typically available lab 
materials, and there are no additional costs from specifying a 
particular wall sleeve and/or filter that typically comes with the 
unit. In addition, pre-filling of the condensate pan is expected to 
reduce test time by 2-4 hours, which would reduce testing costs by 
approximately $375-750 per test. DOE also believes that most 
manufacturers are already using ASHRAE Standard 16 because all AHRI 
testing is conducted using this method. Thus, such requirements for 
equipment and time to conduct tests (if necessary to recertify using 
ASHRAE Standard 16) would not be expected to impose a significant 
economic impact.
    For these reasons, DOE certifies that the proposed rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility 
analysis for this rulemaking. DOE will transmit the certification and 
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged 
terminal heat pumps must certify to DOE that their equipment complies 
with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying 
compliance, manufacturers must test their equipment according to the 
DOE test procedures for packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged 
terminal heat pumps, 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 packaged terminal air conditioners and 
packaged terminal heat pumps. 76 FR 12422 (Mar. 7, 2011). The 
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and 
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
    In the Certification of Commercial Equipment NOPR issued on 
February 7, 2014, DOE proposed to revise and expand its existing 
regulations governing compliance certification for commercial HVAC, WH, 
and CRE equipment covered by EPCA. 79 FR 8886. Requirements for PTAC 
and PTHP manufacturers were included in the Certification of Commercial 
Equipment NOPR, and DOE sought comment on this proposed expansion of 
the existing information collection. 79 FR 8886. In today's NOPR, DOE 
is proposing to include the break-in period and the wall sleeve 
dimensions under the current certification requirements listed in 10 
CFR 429.43. DOE does not believe that these additions to the 
certification requirements constitute a significant additional burden 
upon respondents, as they require the addition of two additional pieces 
of information on the existing certification report. DOE believes that 
the Certification of Commercial Equipment NOPR provides an accurate 
estimate of the existing burden on respondents. 79 FR 8886.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this proposed rule, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that 
it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy 
conservation standards for packaged terminal air conditioners and 
packaged terminal heat pumps. DOE has determined that this rule falls 
into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review 
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 
Specifically, this proposed rule would amend the existing test 
procedures without affecting the amount, quality or distribution of 
energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental 
impacts. Thus, this

[[Page 14194]]

rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 
1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or 
amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of 
that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an 
environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE 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 
equipment that is the subject of today's 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 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 http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined today's 
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 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 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). DOE has 
reviewed today's 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

[[Page 14195]]

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.
    Today's regulatory action to amend the test procedure for measuring 
the energy efficiency of packaged terminal air conditioners and 
packaged terminal heat pumps 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 rule incorporates testing methods contained in the 
following commercial standards: ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380-2004 and 
ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 2009). The Department 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., that they were 
developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, 
comment, and review). DOE will consult with the Attorney General and 
the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of these test procedures 
on competition, prior to prescribing a final rule.

V. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

    The time, date and location of the public meeting are listed in the 
DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If you 
plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945 or [email protected]. Please note that foreign 
nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security 
screening procedures. Any foreign national wishing to participate in 
the meeting should advise DOE as soon as possible by contacting Ms. 
Edwards to initiate the necessary procedures. Please also note that 
those wishing to bring laptops into the Forrestal Building will be 
required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing 
laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes.
    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be 
published on DOE's Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=89. 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 plans to present a prepared general statement may 
request that copies of his or her statement be made available at the 
public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an advance 
electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word 
or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate 
address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice. 
The request and advance copy of statements must be received at least 
one week before the public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, 
or sent by mail. DOE prefers to receive requests and advance copies via 
email. Please include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make a 
follow-up contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the 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 public meeting. After the 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 public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference 
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the 
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 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 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 public meeting.
    A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, 
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning 
of this notice. 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 before or after the public meeting, but 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 notice.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The 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

[[Page 14196]]

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 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 regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site 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 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 regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be 
posted to 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 mail or hand 
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not 
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (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. According 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, postal mail, or hand delivery 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. 
Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    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:
    1. DOE seeks comment on its proposal to add an optional break-in 
period to the test procedure (up to 20 hours) for PTACs and PTHPs, and 
whether the duration of the proposed break-in period is appropriate. If 
commenters support longer break-in times, DOE also requests data 
showing that break-in periods longer than 20 hours make a significant 
impact on efficiency measurements for this equipment type.
    2. DOE seeks comments on the sealing of PTAC and PTHP wall sleeves 
to the test facility dividing wall, including whether the type or 
method of sealing should be specified in the test procedure, and 
whether a test has been developed that could be performed to verify 
that adequate elimination of air leakage has been achieved.
    3. DOE seeks comments on its proposal to permit the pre-filling of 
the condensate drain pan, including whether the mineral content of the 
water or temperature of the water used would affect the measurement 
and/or whether these data should be recorded and documented as part of 
the test records underlying certification.
    4. DOE seeks comments on its proposal to require testing using 14-
inch deep wall sleeves and standard filters. DOE is also interested in 
whether there are any PTACs or PTHPs that cannot be tested with a 14-
inch deep wall sleeve.
    5. DOE also seeks comment on its proposal to require the use of 
MERV-3 filter for testing PTACs and PTHPs that do not ship with 
filters.
    6. DOE seeks comments or data on the need for a barometric pressure 
correction for PTACs and PTHPs.
    7. DOE seeks comments on its proposal to designate ASHRAE Standard 
16 as the sole test method for measuring cooling efficiency for PTACs 
and PTHPs. Specifically, DOE is interested in the test burden on 
manufacturers resulting from this proposed requirement, and whether 
there are PTAC or PTHP manufacturers that currently conduct a 
significant number of tests using ASHRAE Standard 37.
    8. DOE seeks comments on its proposal not to develop seasonal 
efficiency metrics that would evaluate part-load operation of PTACs and 
PTHPs or the impact of electric resistance heating in low ambient 
temperatures for PTHPs. DOE also seeks any information regarding 
seasonal load patterns for PTACs and PTHPs in both cooling and heating 
modes.

[[Page 14197]]

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

    Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household 
appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 431

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 6, 2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 
parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

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

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  429.43 by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii);
0
b. Removing in paragraph (b)(2) introductory text the word ``shall'' 
and adding in its place the word ``must''; and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (iv).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) For packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal 
heat pumps, the represented value of cooling capacity shall be the 
average of the capacities measured for the units in the sample selected 
as described in paragraph (ii) of this section, rounded to the nearest 
100 Btu/h.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Package terminal air conditioners: The energy efficiency 
ratio (EER in British thermal units per Watt-hour (Btu/Wh)), the rated 
cooling capacity in British thermal units per hour (Btu/h), the wall 
sleeve dimensions in inches (in), and the duration of the break-in 
period (hours).
    (iv) Package terminal heat pumps: The energy efficiency ratio (EER 
in British thermal units per Watt-hour (Btu/W-h)), the coefficient of 
performance (COP), the rated cooling capacity in British thermal units 
per hour (Btu/h), the wall sleeve dimensions in inches (in), and the 
duration of the break-in period (hours).
* * * * *
0
3. Add Sec.  429.134 to read as follows:


Sec.  429.134  Product-specific Enforcement Provisions.

    (a)-(d) [Reserved].
    (e) Package terminal air conditioners and heat pumps. (1) 
Verification of cooling capacity. The total cooling capacity of the 
basic model will be measured pursuant to the test requirements of part 
431 for each unit tested. The results of the measurement(s) will be 
averaged and compared to the value of cooling capacity certified by the 
manufacturer. The certified cooling capacity will be considered valid 
only if the measurement is within five percent of the certified cooling 
capacity.
    (i) If the certified cooling capacity is found to be valid, that 
cooling capacity will be used as the basis for calculation of the EER 
and, if applicable, the COP energy conservation standard that applies 
to the given basic model.
    (ii) If the certified cooling capacity is found to be invalid, the 
average measured cooling capacity will serve as the basis for 
calculation of the EER and, if applicable, COP energy conservation 
standard that applies to the given basic model.
    (2) [Reserved].

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

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

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

0
5. Amend Sec.  431.95 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (c)(1) as (c)(3); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to read as follows:


Sec.  431.95  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) ASHRAE 16-1999, ``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air 
Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners,'' IBR approved for 
Sec.  431.96.
    (2) ASHRAE 58-1999, ``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air 
Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner Heating Capacity,'' 
IBR approved for Sec.  431.96.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  431.96 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) and adding 
paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  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 
of each type of covered equipment by conducting the test procedure(s) 
listed in the fifth column of Table 1 of this section along with any 
additional testing provisions set forth in paragraphs (c) through (g) 
of this section, that apply to the energy efficiency descriptor for 
that equipment, category, and cooling capacity. The omitted sections of 
the test procedures listed in the fifth column of Table 1 of this 
section shall not be used.
    (2) Determine the energy efficiency of each type of covered 
equipment by conducting the test procedure(s) listed in the rightmost 
column of Table 1 of this section along with any additional testing 
provisions set forth in this section, that apply to the energy 
efficiency descriptor for that equipment, category, and cooling 
capacity. The omitted sections of the test procedures listed in the 
rightmost column of Table 1 of this section shall not be used.
    (3) After [date 360 days after date of publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register], any representations made with respect to 
the energy use or efficiency of packaged terminal air conditioners and 
heat pumps (PTACs and PHTPs) must be made in accordance with the 
results of testing pursuant to this section. Manufacturers conducting 
tests of PTACs and PTHPs after [date 30 days after date of publication 
of the final rule in the Federal Register] and prior to [date 360 days 
after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], 
must conduct such test in accordance with either this table or Sec.  
431.96 as it appeared at 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, in the 10 CFR 
parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2014. Any 
representations made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of 
such

[[Page 14198]]

packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps must be in accordance 
with whichever version is selected.

                                Table 1 to Sec.   431.96--Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                      Additional test
                                                                                                                  Use tests,        procedure provisions
           Equipment type                   Category            Cooling capacity       Energy efficiency       conditions, and      as  indicated in the
                                                                                           descriptor         procedures \1\ in    listed paragraphs  of
                                                                                                                                        this section
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air-       Air-Cooled, 3-Phase,    <65,000 Btu/h.........  SEER and HSPF........  AHRI 210/240-2008      Paragraphs (c) and
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment.  AC and HP.             >=65,000 Btu/h and      EER and COP..........   (omit section 6.5).    (e).
                                     Air-Cooled AC and HP..   <135,000 Btu/h..                              AHRI 340/360-2007
                                                                                                             (omit section 6.3)..
                                     Water-Cooled and        <65,000 Btu/h.........  EER..................  AHRI 210/240-2008      Paragraphs (c) and
                                      Evaporatively-Cooled   >=65,000 Btu/h and      EER..................   (omit section 6.5).    (e).
                                      AC.                     <135,000 Btu/h.                               AHRI 340/360-2007
                                                                                                             (omit section 6.3)..
                                     Water-Source HP.......  <135,000 Btu/h........  EER and COP..........  ISO Standard 13256-1   Paragraph (e).
                                                                                                             (1998).
Large Commercial Packaged Air-       Air-Cooled AC and HP..  >=135,000 Btu/h and     EER and COP..........  AHRI 340/360-2007      Paragraphs (c) and
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment. Water-Cooled and         <240,000 Btu/h.        EER..................   (omit section 6.3).    (e).
                                      Evaporatively-Cooled   >=135,000 Btu/h and                            AHRI 340/360-2007
                                      AC..                    <240,000 Btu/h..                               (omit section 6.3)..
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air-  Air-Cooled AC and HP..  >=240,000 Btu/h and     EER and COP..........  AHRI 340/360-2007      Paragraphs (c) and
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment. Water-Cooled and         <760,000 Btu/h.        EER..................   (omit section 6.3).    (e).
                                      Evaporatively-Cooled   >=240,000 Btu/h and                            AHRI 340/360-2007
                                      AC..                    <760,000 Btu/h..                               (omit section 6.3)..
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners   AC and HP.............  <760,000 Btu/h........  EER and COP..........  See paragraph (g) of   Paragraphs (c), (e),
 and Heat Pumps.                                                                                             this section.          and (g).
Computer Room Air Conditioners.....  AC....................  <65,000 Btu/h.........  SCOP.................  ASHRAE 127-2007 (omit  Paragraphs (c), and
                                                             <65,000 Btu/h and       SCOP.................   section 5.11).         (e).
                                                              <760,000 Btu/h.                               ASHRAE 127-2007 (omit
                                                                                                             section 5.11)..
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-     AC....................  <760,000 Btu/h........  EER and COP..........  AHRI 1230-2010 (omit   Paragraphs (c), (e),
 split Systems.                                                                                              sections 5.1.2 and     and (f).
                                                                                                             6.6).
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-     HP....................  <760,000 Btu/h........  EER and COP..........  AHRI 1230-2010 (omit   Paragraphs (c), (d),
 split Systems, Air-cooled.                                                                                  sections 5.1.2 and     (e), and (f).
                                                                                                             6.6).
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-     HP....................  <17,000 Btu/h.........  EER and COP..........  AHRI 1230-2010 (omit   Paragraphs (c), (d),
 split Systems, Water-source.                                                                                sections 5.1.2 and     (e), and (f).
                                                                                                             6.6).
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-     HP....................  >=17,000 Btu/h and      EER and COP..........  AHRI 1230-2010 (omit   Paragraphs (c), (d),
 split Systems, Water-source.                                 <760,000 Btu/h.                                sections 5.1.2 and     (e), and (f).
                                                                                                             6.6).
Single Package Vertical Air          AC and HP.............  <760,000 Btu/h........  EER and COP..........  AHRI 390-2003 (omit    Paragraphs (c) and
 Conditioners and Single Package                                                                             section 6.4).          (e).
 Vertical Heat Pumps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   431.95.

    (c) Optional break-in period. 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 cited in Table 1.
* * * * *
    (g) Test Procedures for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and 
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps. (1) The test method for testing packaged 
terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps in cooling 
mode shall consist of application of the methods and conditions in AHRI 
310/380-2004 sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  431.95), and in ANSI/ASHRAE 16 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  431.95). Where definitions provided in AHRI 310/
380-2004 overlap with the definitions provided in 10 CFR 431.92, the 10 
CFR 431.92 definitions shall be used.
    (2) The test method for testing packaged terminal heat pumps in 
heating mode shall consist of application of the methods and conditions 
in AHRI 310/380-2004 sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 (incorporated 
by reference; see Sec.  431.95), and in ANSI/ASHRAE 58 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  431.95). Where definitions provided in AHRI 310/
380-2004 overlap with the definitions provided in 10 CFR 431.92, the 10 
CFR 431.92 definitions shall be used.
    (3) Wall sleeves. For packaged terminal air conditioners and 
packaged terminal heat pumps, the unit must be installed in a wall 
sleeve with a 14 inch depth if available. If a 14 inch deep wall sleeve 
is not available, use the available wall sleeve option closest to 14 
inches in depth. The area(s) between the wall sleeve and the insulated 
partition between the indoor and outdoor rooms must be sealed to 
eliminate all air leakage through this area.
    (4) Optional pre-filling of the condensate drain pan. For packaged 
terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps, test 
facilities may add water to the condensate drain pan of the equipment 
under test (until the water drains out due to overflow devices or until 
the pan is full) prior to conducting the test method specified by AHRI 
310/380-2004 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.95). No specific 
level of water mineral content or water temperature is required for the 
water added to the condensate drain pan.
    (5) Test Method for Standard Cooling Ratings. For packaged terminal 
air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps, the ANSI/ASHRAE test

[[Page 14199]]

method used in tests shall be ANSI/ASHRAE 16 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.95).
    (6) Filter selection. For packaged terminal air conditioners and 
packaged terminal heat pumps, the indoor filter used during testing 
shall be the standard or default filter option shipped with the model 
with the model. If a particular model is shipped without a filter, the 
unit must be tested with a level MERV-3 filter.

[FR Doc. 2014-05366 Filed 3-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P