37136 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Age of separated employee at 

birthday before death Multiplier 

49 .............................................. .4485 

50 .............................................. .4812 

51 .............................................. .5164 

52 .............................................. .5545 

53 .............................................. .5955 

54 .............................................. .6400 

55 .............................................. .6881 

56 .............................................. .7404 

57 .............................................. .7972 

58 .............................................. .8590 

59 .............................................. .9264 

With at least 30 years of creditable 

service— 

Age of separated employee at birthday before death 

Multiplier by separated employee’s 

year of birth 

After 

1966 

From 

1950 

through 

1966 

46 .................................. .4561 .4910 

47 .................................. .4889 .5264 

48 .................................. .5244 .5646 

49 .................................. .5624 .6055 

50 .................................. .6035 .6497 

51 .................................. .6476 .6973 

52 .................................. .6954 .7487 

53 .................................. .7469 .8042 

54 .................................. .8027 .8643 

55 .................................. .8631 .9294 

56 .................................. .9287 1.0000 

[FR Doc. 2015–15992 Filed 6–29–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–38–P 

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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On March 13, 2014, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

to amend the test procedures for 

packaged terminal air conditioners 

(PTACs) and packaged terminal heat 

pumps (PTHPs). That NOPR serves as 

the basis for this final rule regarding the 

test method for PTACs and PTHPs. The 

amendments adopted here do not affect 

measured energy use. These changes 

incorporate by reference certain sections 

of the latest versions of industry test 

procedures AHRI Standard 310/380– 

2014, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16–1983 

(RA 2014), ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37– 

2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58– 

1986 (RA 2014), and specify additional 

testing provisions that must be followed 

including an optional break-in period, 

require that cooling capacity tests be 

conducted using electricity measuring 

instruments accurate to +/¥ 0.5% of 

reading, explicitly require that wall 

sleeves be sealed, allow for the prefilling of the condensate drain pan, and 

require testing with 14-inch deep wall 

sleeves and the filter option most 

representative of a typical installation. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

July 30, 2015. The final rule changes 

will be mandatory for representations 

starting June 24, 2016. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in this rule was 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of July 30, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, some documents listed in the 

index, such as those containing 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure, may not be publicly 

available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP0032. This Web page will contain a link 

to the docket for this notice on the 

regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 

Web page will contain simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ronald Majette, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7935. Email: 

PTACs@ee.doe.gov. 

Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6111. Email: 

Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule incorporates by reference into Part 

431 the following industry standards: 

(1) AHRI Standard 310/380–2014 

(‘‘AHRI 310/380–2014’’), (Supersedes 

ANSI/AHRI 310/380–2004), ‘‘Standard 

for Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps,’’ published February 

2014. 

(2) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16–1983 

(RA 2014), (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 16’’), 

‘‘Method of Testing for Rating Room Air 

Conditioners and Packaged Terminal 

Air Conditioners,’’ ASHRAE reaffirmed 

July 3, 2014. 

(3) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58–1986 

(RA 2014), (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 58’’), 

‘‘Method of Testing for Rating Room 

Air-Conditioner and Packaged Terminal 

Air-Conditioner Heating Capacity,’’ 

ASHRAE reaffirmed July 3, 2014. 

(4) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009, 

(‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 37’’) (Supersedes 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2005), 

‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment,’’ ASHRAE approved June 

20, 2009; ANSI approved June 25, 2009. 

You can obtain copies of AHRI 

standards from the Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 

2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, 

Arlington, VA 22201, 703–524–8800, or 

www.ahrinet.org. You can obtain copies 

of ASHRAE standards from the 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, 1791 Tullie Circle, NE. 

Atlanta, GA 30329, 404–636–8400, or 

www.ashrae.org. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

B. DOE PTAC and PTHP Test Procedures 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Break-In Duration 

B. Wall Sleeve Sealing 

C. Pre-Filling Condensate Drain Pan 

D. ANSI/ASHRAE 16 vs. ANSI/ASHRAE 

37 

E. AHRI Standard 310/380–2014 and 

Reaffirmed ASHRAE Standards 

F. Wall Sleeve Size and Filter 

Requirements for Testing 

G. Barometric Pressure Correction 

H. Part-Load Efficiency Metric and Varying 

Ambient Conditions 

I. Cooling Capacity Verification 

J. Additional Comments 

K. Compliance Date of the Test Procedure 

Amendments 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37137 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

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

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

N. Congressional Notification 

O. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III, Part C1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

‘‘the Act’’), Public Law 94–163 (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified), added 

by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section 

441(a), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment.2 This equipment 

includes packaged terminal air 

conditioners (PTACs) and packaged 

terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), the 

subjects of this document. 

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 products must 

use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE 

that their products comply with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) 

making representations about the 

efficiency of those products. Similarly, 

DOE must use these test procedures to 

determine whether the products comply 

with any relevant standards 

promulgated under EPCA. 

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

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

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered equipment. 

EPCA provides that any test procedure 

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 

industrial equipment (or class thereof) 

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 a proposed test 

procedure and offer the public an 

opportunity to present oral and written 

comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) 

Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a 

test procedure, DOE must determine to 

what extent, if any, the proposed test 

procedure would alter the measured 

energy efficiency of any covered 

equipment as determined under the 

existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(4)) 

B. DOE PTAC and PTHP Test 

Procedures 

DOE’s test procedures for PTACs and 

PTHPs are codified at Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

section 431.96. The test procedures 

were established on December 8, 2006, 

in a final rule that incorporated by 

reference the American National 

Standards Institute’s (ANSI) and AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute’s (AHRI) Standard 310/380– 

2004, ‘‘Standard for Packaged Terminal 

Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps’’ 

(‘‘ANSI/AHRI 310/380–2004’’). 71 FR 

71340, 71371. ANSI/AHRI 310/380– 

2004 is incorporated by reference at 10 

CFR 431.95(a)(3) and it references (1) 

the ANSI and American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 16–1983 (RA 99), ‘‘Method of 

Testing for Rating Room Air 

Conditioners and Packaged Terminal 

Air Conditioners’’ (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 

16’’); (2) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58– 

1986 (RA 99), ‘‘Method of Testing for 

Rating Room Air-Conditioner and 

Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioner 

Heating Capacity’’ (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 

58’’); and (3) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

37–1988, ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment’’ (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 37’’). 

On May 16, 2012, DOE published a 

final rule for commercial heating, airconditioning, and water-heating 

equipment (‘‘ASHRAE equipment’’), 

which included amendments to the test 

procedures for PTACs and PTHPs. 

These amendments incorporated a 

number of sections of ANSI/AHRI 310/ 

380–2004 by reference. 77 FR 28928, 

28990. 

On February 22, 2013, DOE published 

a notice of public meeting and 

availability of framework document to 

consider potential amendment of energy 

conservation standards for PTACs and 

PTHPs (‘‘February 2013 Framework 

Document’’). 78 FR 12252. In the 

February 2013 Framework Document, 

DOE sought comments on issues 

pertaining to the test procedures 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 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 

37. In response to the February 2013 

Framework Document, interested 

parties provided comments responding 

to the requests for comment regarding 

test procedure issues. 

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). 

A notice of intent to form the 

Commercial Certification Working 

Group (‘‘Working Group’’) was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 12, 2013. DOE received 35 

nominations for the Working Group. 78 

FR 15653. On April 16, 2013, the 

Department published a notice of open 

meeting that announced the first 

meeting and listed the 22 nominees 

DOE selected to serve as members of the 

Working Group along with two 

members from ASRAC and one DOE 

representative. 78 FR 22431. Following 

a series of open meetings, 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 14, 

2014 summarizing the Working Group’s 

recommendations for certification 

requirements. 79 FR 8886. The group 

recommended a number of test 

procedure items related to PTACs and 

PTHPs that were not proposed in the 

Certification of Commercial Equipment 

NOPR, including 1) a proposal for a 

standardized wall sleeve to be used 

during testing, and 2) a proposal for a 

standardized filter for testing, both of 

which are discussed in this final rule. 

In February 2014, AHRI published 

AHRI Standard 310/380–2014, 

‘‘Standard for Packaged Terminal AirConditioners and Heat Pumps,’’ (‘‘AHRI 

310/380–2014’’), which updates and 

supersedes the ANSI/AHRI 310/380– 

2004 referenced by the current test 

procedure. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37138 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

On March 13, 2014, DOE published a 

NOPR (‘‘March 2014 NOPR’’) proposing 

amendments to the DOE PTAC and 

PTHP test procedures (10 CFR 431, 

Subpart F), specifically 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 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16, and require testing 

with 14-inch deep wall sleeves and the 

filter option most representative of a 

typical installation. 79 FR 14186. DOE 

held a public meeting on April 28, 2014, 

to hear oral comments on and solicit 

information relevant to the March 2014 

NOPR. 

On July 3, 2014, ASHRAE reaffirmed 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 

58 and republished the standards to 

correct errata that existed in previous 

versions. These errata corrections do not 

change the procedures. The reaffirmed 

2014 versions of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and 

ANSI/ASHRAE 58 are not referenced by 

the updated AHRI Standard 310/380– 

2014 test procedure published in 

February 2014. 

With respect to this rulemaking, DOE 

determined that none of the adopted 

amendments change the measured 

energy use of PTACs and PTHPs when 

compared to the current test procedures. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4); 10 CFR 431.96) 

This final rule fulfills DOE’s 

obligation to periodically 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 Final Rule 

In this final rule, DOE amends the test 

procedures for PTACs and PTHPs in 10 

CFR 431, Subpart F, to reference certain 

sections of the industry test procedures 

AHRI 310/380–2014, ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 16–1983 (RA 2014), ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 37–2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 

58–1986 (RA 2014), and 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 

measurements of cooling capacity be 

conducted using electrical instruments 

accurate to +/¥0.5% of reading, and 

require testing with 14-inch deep wall 

sleeves and the filter option most 

representative of a typical installation. 

The amendments explicitly allow 

PTAC and PTHP manufacturers the 

option of using a break-in period (up to 

20 hours) before conducting the test 

procedures. In this regard, DOE adds 

AHRI 310/380–2014 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 airconditioner equipment types. Any 

PTAC or PTHP manufacturer that elects 

to use a break-in period must certify the 

duration of the break-in period it used 

for each basic model in the certification 

report for such basic models. DOE will 

use the same break-in period for any 

DOE-initiated testing as the 

manufacturer used in its certified 

ratings. In the case an alternate 

efficiency determination method 

(AEDM) is used to develop the certified 

ratings, DOE will use the maximum 20- 

hour break-in period, which will 

provide the unit sufficient time to 

stabilize and achieve optimal 

performance. 

The amended test method requires 

that, as part of the set-up for testing, 

testers seal gaps between wall sleeves 

and the test facility dividing wall. This 

requires the PTAC or PTHP wall sleeve 

to be sealed per manufacturer 

specifications as provided in the 

installation manual or, if none, by using 

a standard sealing method. 

The amended test method allows prefilling of the condensate drain pan with 

water before running the DOE test 

procedures. This amendment allows the 

unit to reach steady state more quickly, 

which may decrease the burden and 

cost of testing. 

In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to modify the test procedures 

to require ANSI/ASHRAE 16 as the test 

method for measuring the cooling 

capacity of PTACs and PTHPs. 79 FR at 

14190–91 (March 13, 2014). The 

proposal would have disallowed testing 

to determine cooling capacity by 

psychrometric testing in accordance 

with ANSI/ASHRAE 37, which is 

currently allowed by the DOE test 

procedures. Interested parties 

commented that the differences in test 

results between ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37 are small, and 

provided data to support their claims. 

Interested parties also commented that 

the requirement of a calorimetric test 

using ANSI/ASHRAE 16 places 

additional burdens on manufacturers in 

the form of significant capital 

expenditures to construct test facilities 

compliant with ANSI/ASHRAE 16. 

Based on these comments, DOE 

determined that disallowing 

psychrometric testing (such as that 

conducted using ANSI/ASHRAE 37) 

would place additional burden on 

manufacturers. As a result, in this final 

rule, DOE does not require the use of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16 as the sole test 

method acceptable for measuring the 

cooling capacity of PTACs and PTHPs. 

The amended test method requires 

that measurements of cooling capacity 

be conducted using electricity 

measuring instruments accurate to +/¥ 

0.5% of reading. DOE believes this 

tighter requirement for electricity 

measurement accuracy will help to 

ensure consistency between tests 

conducted using ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37, which have differing 

requirements for electrical 

instrumentation accuracy. Section 5.4.2 

of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 requires that 

instruments for measuring electrical 

inputs be accurate to +/¥ 0.5% of the 

quantity measured, while section 5.4.2 

of ANSI/ASHRAE 37 requires accuracy 

to +/¥ 2.0% of the quantity measured, 

which represents allowing up to 1.5% 

greater uncertainty in measurements of 

input power and efficiency. The 

amendment requiring +/¥ 0.5% 

accuracy is consistent with the March 

2014 NOPR proposal to require use of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16 as the sole test 

method acceptable for measuring the 

cooling capacity of equipment. 

The amended test method requires 

testing using a 14-inch deep wall sleeve 

and the air filter that is shipped with the 

tested unit. If no filter is supplied with 

the unit, the amended test procedures 

require testing using an off-the-shelf 

filter rated at Minimum Efficiency 

Reporting Value (MERV)-1. These 

amendments remove testing variability 

resulting from the use of non-standard 

accessories. 

DOE prefers to reference the most 

recent industry standards, where 

possible. Therefore, this final rule 

updates the DOE test procedures for 

PTACs and PTHPs to reference AHRI 

310/380–2014 instead of the superseded 

ANSI/AHRI 310/380–2004. DOE also 

incorporates by reference the recently 

updated ANSI/ASHRAE 16–1983 (RA 

2014) and ANSI/ASHRAE 58–1986 (RA 

2014), as well as the 2009 version of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37. The amended test 

procedure directly incorporates by 

reference these three ASHRAE 

standards, allowing use of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 16–2014 or ANSI–ASHRAE 

37–2009 for determination of cooling 

mode ratings and ANSI/ASHRAE 58– 

2014 for determination of heating mode 

ratings. 

DOE determined that these changes to 

the PTAC and PTHP test procedures do 

not result in any additional burden to 

manufacturers or result in any changes 

to the current measured energy 

efficiency of covered equipment. Rather, 

the changes provide additional 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37139 

3A notation in the form ‘‘AHRI, No. 8 at p. 1’’ 

identifies a written comment that DOE received and 

has included in the docket of DOE’s ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Test Procedures for Packaged 

Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal 

Heat Pumps’’ (Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP– 

0032), which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. 

This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) 

Submitted by AHRI; (2) filed as document number 

8 of the docket, and (3) appearing on page 1 of that 

document. 

4The CA IOUs are comprised of Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company, Southern California Gas 

Company, Southern California Edison, and San 

Diego Gas and Electric Company. 

5A notation in the form ‘‘CA IOUs, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 17’’ identifies a 

comment that DOE received during a public 

meeting and has included in the docket of DOE’s 

‘‘Energy Conservation Test Procedures for Packaged 

Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal 

Heat Pumps’’ (Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP– 

0032). This particular notation refers to a comment: 

(1) Submitted by the CA IOUs; (2) transcribed from 

the public meeting in document number 5 of the 

docket, and (3) appearing on page 17 of that 

document. 

6Sundaresan, S. G., ‘‘Evaluation of Lubricants for 

R410A/R407C Applications in Scroll Compressor’’ 

(1998). International Compressor Engineering 

Conference. Paper 1210. Available at: http:// 

docs.lib.purdue.edu/icec/1210. 

7 Khalifa, H. E., ‘‘Break-in Behavior of Scroll 

Compressors’’ (1996). International Compressor 

Engineering Conference. Paper 1145. Available at: 

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/icec/1145. 

8 Ibid. p. 444. 

clarification regarding how to conduct 

the DOE test procedures. 

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 in the 

compressor, 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 ASHRAE equipment 

added a specification in the test 

procedures for several types of 

commercial air conditioning and 

heating equipment that allows an 

optional break-in period of up to 20 

hours and requires that manufacturers 

record the duration of the break-in 

period. The May 16, 2012 final rule 

included amendments to the test 

procedures for PTACs and PTHPs. 

However, DOE did not apply this 

optional break-in period provision to 

PTACs or PTHPs in the May 16, 2012 

final rule. 77 FR 28928, 28991. 

In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to allow an optional break-in 

period of up to 20 hours applicable to 

testing of PTACs and PTHPs. DOE also 

proposed to add a certification reporting 

requirement to indicate the duration of 

the break-in period for tests used to 

support certification. DOE requested 

comments on these proposals and, if 

commenters supported longer break-in 

periods, data demonstrating that longer 

break-in periods make a significant 

impact on efficiency measurements for 

this equipment. 79 FR at 14188–89 

(March 13, 2014). 

In response, AHRI commented that a 

break-in period is necessary, but 

recommended that the break-in period 

be a minimum of 24 hours and a 

maximum of 72 hours to provide for 

more consistent and accurate efficiency 

measurements. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 1) 3

The California Investor Owned 

Utilities 4 (CA IOUs) supported DOE’s 

proposal to amend the DOE test 

procedures to include an optional breakin period. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 3) The 

CA IOUs indicated that they would 

support AHRI in using a longer break in 

period if it would provide a better 

indication of equipment’s steady state 

performance. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 5 at p. 17) 5 Goodman 

Manufacturing Company (Goodman) 

requested that DOE allow a break-in 

time of up to 72 hours (instead of up to 

20 hours, as DOE proposed) and cited 

two research papers describing the 

break-in behavior of scroll compressors 

in support of its request.6 7 DOE 

examined these papers and observed 

that the conclusions presented in the 

papers comparing the changes in unit 

efficiency (as measured by the energy 

efficiency ratio, or EER) to break-in time 

are based on analytical models of 

compressor wear rather than actual test 

data. DOE notes that the conference 

paper authored by H.E. Khalifa 7

provides a caveat alongside its data, 

stating that it is not advisable to apply 

the data to compare different families of 

compressors (e.g., scroll compressors 

versus rotary compressors) or different 

designs of equipment.8 As Goodman 

noted in its comment presenting these 

studies, the data in this conference 

paper pertain to scroll compressors, 

which are not used in PTAC and PTHP 

applications. As such, DOE does not 

view the papers as evidence that breakin periods exceeding 20 hours provide 

additional efficiency improvements for 

PTAC or PTHP equipment. DOE has not 

found evidence that break-in periods 

exceeding 20 hours increase the tested 

efficiency measurements for a PTAC or 

PTHP. A maximum break-in period of 

20 hours will align the break-in 

provision for PTAC and PTHP 

equipment with other commercial air 

conditioners and heat pumps. DOE does 

not believe that the request for a 72-hour 

break-in period has been adequately 

justified with data showing the effect of 

a longer break-in period on PTAC and 

PTHP equipment. 

Therefore, in this final rule, DOE adds 

PTACs and PTHPs to the list of 

commercial air-conditioning and 

heating equipment for which a break-in 

period of up to 20 hours prior to testing 

is allowed. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

its related proposal to add a certification 

reporting requirement to indicate the 

duration of the break-in period. Thus, 

DOE requires manufacturers to provide 

the duration of the break-in period used 

during testing to support the 

development of the certified ratings in 

the certification report. As such, DOE 

modifies 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 notes that 

manufacturers must maintain records 

underlying their certified rating, which 

must reflect this optional break-in 

period duration pursuant to 10 CFR 

429.71. 

B. Wall Sleeve Sealing 

PTACs and PTHPs are tested in a 

testing facility incorporating a room 

simulating indoor conditions and a 

room simulating outdoor ambient 

conditions. The rooms are separated by 

a dividing wall with an opening through 

which a wall sleeve is mounted to hold 

the test sample. In most cases, the wall 

sleeve and test sample are placed in the 

opening, and any remaining gaps 

between the dividing wall and the wall 

sleeve around the unit are filled with 

insulating material. Under the current 

test procedures, the gaps between the 

wall sleeve and the dividing wall may 

also be sealed with duct tape. Regarding 

sealing for air leakage, ANSI/ASHRAE 

16 states, ‘‘Interior surfaces of the 

calorimeter compartments shall be of 

nonporous material with all joints 

sealed against air and moisture 

leakage.’’ (Section 4.2.8). This statement 

does not explicitly require that gaps 

between the wall and the test sample’s 

wall sleeve be sealed. 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16 also 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 procedures 

does not allow for the permanent 

installation of wall sleeves in the 

partition cavity. Thus, during testing, 

the wall sleeve is not necessarily airsealed to the wall as it would be in a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37140 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 

contributing to test results 

unrepresentative of field operation. 

In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE 

proposed 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 sought 

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. 79 

FR at 14189 (March 13, 2014) 

In response, Goodman agreed with the 

proposed clarification that any gaps or 

area between wall sleeves and walls 

should be sealed, and stated that the 

method of sealing should not be 

specified. (Goodman, No. 7 at p. 2) 

AHRI recommended that the wall sleeve 

be sealed to the test facility dividing 

wall in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s installation instructions 

and, if not possible to seal in accordance 

with the provided instructions, the test 

procedures should specify that adhesive 

tape, such as duct tape or brown 

packaging tape, be used to seal the 

entire perimeter of the wall sleeve to the 

test facility diving wall. (AHRI, No. 8 at 

p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that 

sealing the test chamber is good 

practice, but that it is not important to 

prescribe how sealing is accomplished. 

(CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 21) DOE notes that 

field instructions for sealing the sleeve 

to the building are inconsistent with 

equipment testing, because field 

installation involves permanently 

sealing the sleeve to the building 

penetration, whereas the tested unit and 

its sleeve are intended to be removed 

after testing. Furthermore, DOE did not 

propose a particular sealing method 

such as adhesive tape, since methods 

other than use of adhesive tape may be 

just as effective for providing a 

temporary seal. 

In this final rule, DOE requires that 

any 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, but DOE does not 

specify the method used to achieve the 

seal. 

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 a water slinger 

integrated with 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 

rise 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 wait for the unit to 

generate sufficient condensate to 

stabilize. The current test procedures do 

not indicate whether this practice is 

allowed during efficiency testing. 

In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE 

proposed 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. The proposed 

provision did not specify requirements 

regarding the water purity or the water 

temperature that is to be used. DOE 

sought 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 procedures and/or recorded in 

the test data underlying the results. 79 

FR at 14189–14190 (March 13, 2014). 

In response, the CA IOUs and 

Goodman supported DOE’s proposal to 

adopt test procedure amendments that 

allow pre-filling of the condensate pan. 

(CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 

7 at p. 2) 

AHRI recommended that DOE specify 

in the test procedures that the 

condensate pan be filled with distilled 

water between 70 °F and 85 °F and that 

the condensate pan water temperature at 

steady state operation be documented in 

the test reports underlying the 

certification. However, AHRI also stated 

in their comment that the mineral 

content of the water is not a concern 

because the short test period would not 

allow for scaling to build up. (AHRI, No. 

8 at p. 2) AHRI did not provide data 

showing that the temperature of the 

water used to prefill the pan will impact 

the test results. Also, if, as AHRI 

acknowledges, the mineral content of 

the water used to initially fill the pan is 

not a concern, it is unclear why using 

distilled water as opposed to tap water 

would make any difference to the 

measurement. 

Private citizen Mike Haag commented 

that assisting the unit with achieving 

steady state might mask issues with the 

cooling of the system. (Mike Haag, No. 

2 at p. 1) DOE notes that the DOE test 

procedures measure cooling efficiency 

at steady state conditions, and test 

reports do not record the amount of time 

taken to achieve steady state. Thus, prefilling the condensate pan with water to 

accelerate the achievement of steady 

state conditions would not mask any 

issues that would otherwise be 

identified by the test procedures. 

In this final rule, DOE adds the 

proposed 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. This provision does 

not include requirements regarding the 

purity or temperature of the water used 

to fill the pan. 

D. ANSI/ASHRAE 16 vs. ANSI/ASHRAE 

37 

In February 2014, AHRI published 

AHRI 310/380–2014 superseding ANSI/ 

AHRI 310/380–2004, which is 

referenced by the current DOE test 

procedure. ANSI/AHRI 310/380–2004 

and AHRI 310/380–2014 both indicate 

that either ANSI/ASHRAE 16 or ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 37 may be used to determine 

cooling capacity. 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16 specifies a 

calorimetric test method involving 

measurement of the electric resistance 

heater power input needed to exactly 

balance a test sample’s cooling capacity. 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37 specifies a 

psychrometric test method which 

calculates capacity based on the air flow 

rate and the air inlet and outlet 

conditions on the indoor side of the test 

sample. The two test methods have 

differences that could influence test 

results, particularly for units for which 

outgoing evaporator air can recirculate 

back to the evaporator air inlet. When 

using ANSI/ASHRAE 37, the air leaving 

the evaporator section is collected in a 

duct that transfers the air to 

instrumentation for measuring its 

temperature, moisture content, and flow 

rate (see, e.g., Figure 1 of ANSI/

ASHRAE 37). Such collection of the air 

can prevent recirculation to the air inlet, 

thus potentially eliminating an 

equipment inefficiency and resulting in 

a measurement indicating higher 

efficiency. 

Another difference between ANSI/

ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37 is 

that the two methods have different 

requirements for electrical 

instrumentation accuracy. Section 5.4.2 

of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 requires that 

instruments for measuring electrical 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37141 

inputs be accurate to +/– 0.5% of the 

quantity measured. Section 5.4.2 of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37 requires that 

instruments for measuring electrical 

inputs be accurate to +/¥2.0% of the 

quantity measured. The consistency of 

PTAC and PTHP testing 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. 

In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE 

described experimental testing 

conducted using three PTAC units. DOE 

tested all three units at a third-party 

testing lab under both ANSI/ASHRAE 

16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37. The test 

results showed that differences in the 

calculated EER between ANSI/ASHRAE 

16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37 ranged from 

0.4 to 1.0 Btu/h-W, depending on the 

unit. These values represent differences 

in the calculated EER between ANSI/

ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37 

ranging from 4.1 percent to 9.7 percent 

of the lower EER value calculated by the 

two test methods. DOE stated in the 

March 2014 NOPR that these results did 

not support a conclusion that the two 

methods of test generate consistent 

results. 79 FR at 14190 (March 13, 

2014). Based in part on these results, 

DOE proposed in the March 2014 NOPR 

to require that only ANSI/ASHRAE 16 

be used when conducting a cooling 

mode test for PTACs and PTHPs. DOE 

sought comment on its proposal to 

designate ANSI/ASHRAE 16 as the sole 

test method for determining cooling 

capacity. Specifically, DOE was 

interested in the potential test burden 

on manufacturers. DOE also sought 

information on whether there are PTAC 

or PTHP manufacturers that conduct a 

significant number of tests using ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 37. 79 FR at 14190–91 (March 

13, 2014). 

In response, neither AHRI nor 

Goodman supported the removal of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37 from the DOE test 

procedures. Both AHRI and Goodman 

disagreed with DOE’s assessment of the 

differences between test results 

achieved using ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 3; 

Goodman, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 5 at p. 27) AHRI stated that it has 

observed good correlation in testing 

between calorimetric and psychrometric 

rooms for the purposes of rating PTAC 

and PTHP equipment. (AHRI, No. 8 at 

p. 3) Goodman stated that it has not 

observed large differences in test results 

between ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/

ASHRAE 37. (Goodman, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 5 at p. 27) Goodman 

presented data from trial tests 

comparing (1) three units tested in 

Goodman’s calorimetric chamber and 

then tested in Goodman’s psychrometric 

chamber, and (2) five units tested in a 

third party calorimetric test chamber 

and then tested in Goodman’s 

psychrometric test facility. For these 

eight units, the maximum variation in 

measured EER between the calorimetric 

test and the psychrometric test was 

2.5%. (Goodman, No. 7 at p. 3–6). These 

data provided by Goodman suggest that 

the potential discrepancies between 

calorimetric and psychrometric tests are 

much smaller than suggested by the 

NOPR-stage DOE testing described 

above. DOE agrees that Goodman’s test 

results provide an indication that 

calorimetric and psychrometric tests can 

provide consistent results. DOE notes 

that Goodman used a larger sample size 

of eight units in its experimentation 

compared to the sample size of three 

units that DOE used in its NOPR-stage 

experiments described above. 

Both AHRI and Goodman commented 

that the requirement of a calorimetric 

test places additional burdens on 

manufacturers. AHRI commented that it 

is an additional burden to build a 

calorimeter room and to re-test units 

that were previously tested 

psychrometrically. (AHRI, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 34) 

Goodman believes the elimination of 

psychrometric testing would place an 

additional burden on manufacturers in 

the form of significant capital 

expenditure requirements, as well as a 

significant testing burden increase. 

Goodman commented that new test 

facilities often cost up to $750,000 and 

have construction lead times of a year 

or more, and that calorimetric tests may 

take 2.5 times as long as psychrometric 

tests. (Goodman, No. 7 at p. 6) 

DOE acknowledges that it 

underestimated the burden that would 

be imposed on manufacturers by 

eliminating psychrometric testing from 

the PTAC and PTHP test procedures. In 

response to the comments above, DOE 

accepts that it would be burdensome to 

manufacturers if DOE required use of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16 for all PTAC and 

PTHP testing. Further, the additional 

data provided by Goodman show that 

discrepancies between the calorimetric 

and psychrometric test methods are less 

pronounced than DOE’s NOPR-stage test 

data suggested. Hence, this final rule 

does not eliminate the optional use of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37 to determine cooling 

capacity. 

As noted above, ANSI/ASHRAE 16 

and ANSI/ASHRAE 37 have different 

requirements for electrical 

instrumentation accuracy. A single 

requirement for electricity measurement 

accuracy is necessary to maintain 

consistency between tests conducted 

using ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/

ASHRAE 37. In the March 2014 NOPR, 

DOE proposed to require ANSI/

ASHRAE 16 as the sole test method 

acceptable for measuring the cooling 

capacity of equipment. If this proposal 

were adopted, it would have imposed a 

requirement that electricity 

measurement instrumentation used in 

cooling capacity tests be accurate to +/ 

¥0.5% of reading, since +/– 0.5% of 

reading is the requirement specified in 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16. As described above, 

stakeholders opposed the proposed 

requirement of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 as the 

sole test method for cooling capacity 

tests based on the burden of 

constructing calorimetric test chambers. 

None of the stakeholder comments 

raised concerns regarding the more 

stringent electrical measurement 

accuracy requirements of ANSI/

ASHRAE 16. In this final rule, DOE does 

not eliminate testing using ANSI/

ASHRAE 37, but DOE retains the more 

stringent electrical measurement 

accuracy requirement. Specifically, the 

final rule adds this requirement in the 

DOE regulatory language, indicating that 

tests be conducted using electricity 

measuring instruments accurate to +/– 

0.5% of reading in spite of the 

incorporation by reference of other 

portions of ANSI/ASHRAE 37. DOE 

does not expect this requirement to pose 

additional test burden since electrical 

meters that achieve this level of 

accuracy are readily available and are 

already in use at many test facilities. 

This requirement does not represent a 

change that would alter the 

measurements as compared with the 

current DOE test procedure; rather, it 

ensures the accuracy of measurements. 

E. AHRI Standard 310/380–2014 and 

Reaffirmed ASHRAE Standards 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt 

only those parts of ANSI/AHRI 310/

380–2004 relevant for the DOE test 

procedure, specifically sections 3, 4.1, 

4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. Additionally, DOE 

proposed to directly incorporate by 

reference those industry test methods 

that were previously incorporated via 

ANSI/AHRI 310/380–2004, such as 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16–1999 and ASHRAE 

58–1999. 

In response to the NOPR, Goodman 

commented that DOE should consider 

updated versions of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 

and ANSI/ASHRAE 37. Goodman 

conceded that it was unlikely ANSI/

ASHRAE 37 would be updated in time 

to be incorporated in this Final Rule, 

but encouraged DOE to accommodate 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37142 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16 which Goodman 

expected would be finalized in 2014. 

(Goodman, No. 7 at p. 7) DOE agrees 

that, when possible, it should include 

the most up to date version of industry 

test methods. 

In July 2014, ASHRAE reaffirmed 

both ANSI/ASHRAE 16, a test method 

for measuring cooling performance of 

PTACs and PTHPs, and ANSI/ASHRAE 

58, a test method for measuring heating 

performance of PTHPs. While Goodman 

commented that it expected some 

changes in ANSI/ASHRAE 16 

(Goodman, No. 7 at p. 7), DOE reviewed 

the reaffirmed standard and did not 

discern substantive differences between 

the 2009 and 2014 versions. The test 

methods described in the 2014 

reaffirmations of both ANSI/ASHRAE 

16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 58 are identical 

to their 1999 and 2009 versions—the 

later reaffirmed versions correct errata 

that existed in previous versions of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 

58. These corrections do not change the 

test procedures. 

Further, in February 2014 AHRI 

published AHRI 310/380–2014, which 

supersedes ANSI/AHRI 310/380–2004. 

In an effort stay current with industry 

testing methodologies, DOE is updating 

its referenced industry standard. In 

alignment with the NOPR, DOE is only 

adopting the sections of AHRI 310/380– 

2014 relevant for the DOE test 

procedure. For cooling performance, 

this includes sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 

and 4.4. For measurement of heating 

performance, DOE is adopting section 3, 

4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 except for 

subsection 4.2.1.2(b), which allows 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37 as an optional 

method for verifying the standard 

heating rating of equipment. The March 

2014 NOPR did not propose the use of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37 as a method for 

verifying the standard heating rating of 

equipment and thus, DOE is excluding 

this provision in this final rule. Where 

this final rule refers to the sections of 

AHRI 310/380–2014 to be used for 

measurement of heating performance, it 

omits section 4.2.1.2(b) so as not to 

allow the use of ANSI/ASHRAE 37 for 

verifying the standard heating rating of 

equipment. 

Finally, AHRI 310/380–2014 

references the 2009 versions of ANSI/

ASHRAE 16, ANSI/ASHRAE 58, and 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37. As previously 

stated, DOE is directly incorporating by 

reference those industry test methods 

that were previously referenced in 

ANSI/AHRI 310/380—ANSI/ASHRAE 

16, ANSI/ASHRAE 58, and ANSI/

ASHRAE 37 . Therefore, in this final 

rule, DOE is incorporating by reference 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, which is 

referenced in AHRI 310/380–2014 for 

measuring cooling performance. 

Although DOE’s previous test method, 

ANSI/AHRI 310/380–2004, incorporated 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988, DOE’s review 

of the two editions of ANSI/ASHRAE 37 

confirmed that, for the purposes of 

measuring cooling performance for 

PTACs and PTHPs, the test methods are 

essentially identical. Also, rather than 

incorporating by reference the 1999 

reaffirmations of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and 

ANSI/ASHRAE 58, this final rule 

amends the test procedure to 

incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 

16–1983 (RA 2014) and ANSI/ASHRAE 

58–1986 (RA 2014)—as mentioned 

above, these more recent versions of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 

58 prescribe test procedures identical to 

the older 2009 and 1999 versions. 

F. Wall Sleeve Size and Filter 

Requirements for Testing 

Wall Sleeve Size 

The DOE test procedures provide 

limited guidance on the type of wall 

sleeve that should be used during 

testing. The wall sleeve is technically 

part of the PTAC or PTHP (see, e.g., the 

definition of PTAC in 10 CFR 431.92), 

and it provides an outer case for the 

main refrigeration and air-moving 

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, wall sleeves come in a range 

of depths. 

Some manufacturers offer extended 

wall sleeves up to 31 inches deep 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 

effect the sleeve depth has on airflow 

and fan performance. DOE’s test 

procedures, in section 4.3 of ANSI/

AHRI 310/380–2004, provide some 

limited guidance about the wall sleeve 

that should be used during testing; 

section 4.3 of ANSI/AHRI 310/380–2004 

states that ‘‘standard equipment shall be 

in place during all tests, unless 

otherwise specified in the 

manufacturer’s instructions to the user.’’ 

Section 4.3 of the updated AHRI 310/

380–2014 provides the same limited 

guidance. However, there currently is 

no guidance for units for which 

installation instructions allow sleeves of 

different depths. 

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 maximumdepth sleeve as opposed to a standarddepth 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. 

(ASRAC to Negotiate Certification 

Requirements for Commercial HVAC, 

WH, and Refrigeration Equipment, 

Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023, 

No. 53 at pg. 17) 

In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE 

proposed 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). 79 FR at 

14191 (March 13, 2014). This final rule 

adopts the Working Group 

recommendation. DOE sought comment 

on whether there are any PTACs or 

PTHPs that cannot be tested using a 14 

inch deep wall sleeve. Id. AHRI and 

Goodman supported the proposal to 

require testing using 14-inch deep wall 

sleeves. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 2; Goodman, 

No. 7 at p. 3) DOE did not receive any 

comments describing units that cannot 

be tested with 14-inch deep wall 

sleeves. 

In this final rule, DOE adopts its 

proposal 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). 

Filter Requirements 

The DOE test procedures provide 

limited guidance on the type of air filter 

that should be used during testing. 

PTACs or PTHPs generally ship with an 

air filter to remove particulates from the 

indoor airstream. There is currently no 

description in the DOE test procedures 

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 

thus the capacity and/or efficiency of 

the unit. 

DOE considered whether to specify 

filters with a particular MERV rating 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 generally 

are not specified using a standard 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37143 

metric. Furthermore, some PTACs are 

sold with higher-efficiency ‘‘standardoption’’ 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 procedures, 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 

(Appliance Standards and Rulemaking 

Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) 

to Negotiate Certification Requirements 

for Commercial HVAC, WH, and 

Refrigeration Equipment, Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023, No. 53 at p. 

16). 

In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to add a provision to 10 CFR 

431.96 to require testing using the 

standard or default filter option that is 

packaged and shipped with the PTAC or 

PTHP unit being tested. 79 FR at 14191 

(March 13, 2014). This proposal was 

consistent with the Working Group’s 

recommendations. For those models 

that are not shipped with a filter, DOE 

proposed to require the use of an offthe-shelf MERV–3 filter for testing. DOE 

sought comment on whether a MERV– 

3 filter is appropriate for testing PTACs 

and PTHPs that do not ship with filters. 

79 FR at 14191 (March 13, 2014). 

In response, Goodman recommended 

that DOE specify a MERV rating lower 

than MERV–3 because MERV–3 filters 

may significantly reduce airflow. 

(Goodman, No. 7 at p. 3) AHRI 

commented that MERV–1 filters, which 

are electrostatic, self-charging woven 

panel filters, may be more 

representative of filters found in PTACs 

or PTHPs. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 2) DOE 

accepts this feedback and will reduce 

the MERV rating for filters to be used 

when testing units shipped without a 

filter. 

In this final rule, DOE adds a 

provision to 10 CFR 431.96 to require 

testing using the standard or default 

filter option that is shipped with most 

units of a given basic model. For those 

models that are not shipped with a 

filter, DOE requires the use of an off-theshelf MERV–1 filter for testing. 

G. Barometric Pressure Correction 

The DOE test procedures, in Section 

6.1.3 of referenced ANSI/ASHRAE 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 when barometric pressure is 

lower, such as at higher altitudes. As a 

result, air mass flow generated by fans 

and blowers may be less at higher 

altitudes, which may affect the 

measured cooling performance. 

However, there are other competing 

effects that may negate this decrease and 

DOE has not seen data that definitively 

demonstrate the impact of barometric 

pressure on measurements of the 

cooling performance of PTACs or 

PTHPs. 

In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE did 

not propose to amend or remove the 

barometric pressure provision. DOE 

sought comments or data on the 

barometric pressure correction 

specifically used for PTACs and PTHPs. 

79 FR at 14191 (March 13, 2014). 

Goodman and AHRI responded in 

support of DOE’s position to retain the 

barometric pressure correction. 

(Goodman, No.7 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 8 at 

p. 2) DOE received no comments 

providing data that either supported or 

refuted the validity of the barometric 

pressure correction. 

In this final rule, DOE does not amend 

or remove the provision allowing for 

adjustment of the capacity measurement 

based on the tested barometric pressure. 

H. Part-Load Efficiency Metric and 

Varying Ambient Conditions 

The current DOE test procedures for 

PTACs and PTHPs measure cooling 

efficiency and heating efficiency in 

terms of EER and coefficient of 

performance (COP), respectively. Both 

of these metrics measure the efficiency 

of the unit running steadily at maximum 

cooling or heating output settings. 

In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE did 

not propose 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 sought 

comments regarding this proposal, 

including any information regarding 

seasonal load patterns for PTACs and 

PTHPs in both cooling and heating 

modes. 79 FR at 14192 (March 13, 

2014). 

In response, Goodman and AHRI 

supported DOE’s proposal to not 

develop seasonal efficiency metrics. 

(Goodman, No. 7 at p. 6; AHRI, No. 8 

at p. 3) AHRI commented that a partload performance metric would not be 

representative of PTAC and PTHP 

equipment operating cycles. (AHRI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 

46) The CA IOUs commented that they 

would like the test procedures to 

characterize performance at full-load 

and part-load. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 5 at p. 7) The CA IOUs 

commented that they are content with 

using a single metric for the purposes of 

rating equipment, but that they would 

like additional test conditions to be 

measured and reported according to a 

standard test procedure. The CA IOUs 

commented that this additional 

information would help them to 

distinguish new equipment models with 

good low-temperature performance that 

are becoming available. (CA IOUs, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at 

p. 43) 

DOE believes that the existing EER 

and COP metrics, both for full-load 

operation, provide an adequate 

indication of PTAC and PTHP 

efficiency. DOE does not currently have 

information indicating the magnitude of 

energy that might be saved if part-load 

or full-season metrics were developed. 

ASAP and ACEEE encouraged DOE to 

begin a collaboration with AHRI to 

develop a test method to measure the 

part-load performance of PTACs and 

PTHPs. (ASAP & ACEEE, No. 6 at p. 1) 

DOE may consider support and/or 

development of such test methods in the 

future. 

In this final rule, DOE has not 

adopted seasonal efficiency metrics for 

cooling or heating performance for 

PTACs or PTHPs. 

I. Cooling Capacity Verification 

The Federal energy conservation 

standard levels for PTAC and PTHP 

equipment are calculated based on the 

certified cooling capacity of the 

equipment. (10 CFR 431.97(c)) The DOE 

test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs 

specifies the methods that may be used 

to determine the cooling capacity and 

energy efficiency of PTACs and PTHPs. 

(10 CFR 431.96(b)) Testing conducted 

for assessment and enforcement 

measures the cooling capacity of test 

units pursuant to the test requirements 

of 10 CFR part 431, and uses the 

measured cooling capacity as the basis 

for calculation of EER for the test units. 

The minimum allowed EER (and the 

minimum allowed COP for PTHP units) 

of a test unit is calculated using the 

certified cooling capacity of the test unit 

as the basis for calculation. For various 

reasons, the measured cooling capacity 

of equipment may deviate from the 

certified cooling capacity of the 

equipment. Small deviations of the 

measured cooling capacity from the 

certified cooling capacity are expected 

due to variability in manufacturing 

conditions. However, large deviations 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37144 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

9The power factor of an alternating current (AC) 

electrical power system is defined as the ratio of the 

real power flowing to the load, to the apparent 

power in the circuit. A load with a low power factor 

draws more electrical current than a load with a 

high power factor for the same amount of useful 

power transferred. The higher currents associated 

with low power factor loads increase the amount of 

energy lost in the electricity distribution system. 

from the certified cooling capacity 

indicate that the certified cooling 

capacity and, by extension, the 

minimum allowed efficiency that is 

calculated based on the certified cooling 

capacity, do not accurately represent the 

unit being tested. In cases where the 

measured cooling capacity of a test unit 

deviates outside of an acceptable 

tolerance, it is appropriate to recalculate 

the minimum efficiency for the test unit 

based on the measured cooling capacity 

of the test unit (or the average of the 

measured cooling capacities of the 

samples tested, if more than one is 

tested). 

In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE 

proposed regulatory text amendments 

describing how DOE will select the 

cooling capacity values that are used to 

calculate the minimum allowable EER 

for a basic model. The proposed 

amendments to 10 CFR 429.134 would 

establish a provision requiring use of 

the certified cooling capacity as the 

basis for calculation of minimum 

allowed EER if the average measured 

cooling capacity is within five percent 

of the certified cooling capacity. The 

proposed amendments would require 

use of the average measured cooling 

capacity as the basis for calculation of 

minimum allowed EER if the average 

measured cooling capacity is not within 

five percent of the certified cooling 

capacity. 79 FR at 14197 (March 13, 

2014). 

In response to the proposed 

amendments, AHRI questioned whether 

the five percent allowance between 

tested and rated values is a two-sided 

tolerance. (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 5 at p. 54) Goodman 

agreed in concept with the proposed 

requirement that measured cooling 

capacity be within five percent of the 

certified cooling capacity, but Goodman 

suggested that the requirement be 

one-sided, such that the certified 

cooling capacity would be used to 

determine the minimum efficiency 

unless the measured cooling capacity is 

less than 95% of the certified cooling 

capacity, in which event the measured 

cooling capacity would be used to 

determine the minimum efficiency 

level. (Goodman, No. 7 at p. 6) 

DOE clarifies that the proposed five 

percent allowance between tested and 

rated values is a two-sided tolerance. 

This means that units with average 

measured cooling capacity below 95% 

or above 105% of the certified cooling 

capacity would require use of the 

average measured cooling capacity as 

the basis for calculation of minimum 

allowed EER. 

DOE notes that if the proposed 

provision used a one-sided tolerance as 

Goodman suggested, then units with a 

measured cooling capacity above their 

certified cooling capacity would be held 

to an efficiency standard determined by 

their certified cooling capacity. With a 

one-sided tolerance, units having a 

measured cooling capacity that is above 

105% of their certified cooling capacity 

would be held to a calculated minimum 

EER that is more stringent than the 

minimum EER calculated using a twosided tolerance as DOE proposed. DOE 

does not seek to impose more stringent 

standards on units that exceed their 

certified cooling capacity. 

In this final rule, DOE adopts its 

proposal to add a provision to 10 CFR 

429.134 that requires assessment and 

enforcement testing to measure the total 

cooling capacity of the basic model 

pursuant to the test requirements of 10 

CFR part 431 for each unit tested. The 

provision requires that results of the 

measurement(s) be averaged and 

compared to the value of cooling 

capacity certified by the manufacturer. 

The adopted provision considers the 

certified cooling capacity to be valid 

only if the measurement is within five 

percent of the certified cooling capacity. 

If the certified cooling capacity is valid, 

that cooling capacity will be used as the 

basis for calculation of minimum 

allowed EER for the basic model. If the 

certified cooling capacity is not valid, 

the average measured cooling capacity 

will be used as the basis for calculation 

of minimum allowed EER for the basic 

model. 

J. Additional Comments 

DOE received additional comments 

that are not classified in the discussion 

sections above. Responses to these 

additional comments are provided 

below. 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

require the reporting of power factor 9

for all operating modes (i.e., active, 

standby, and off) at every temperature 

point for which EER and COP are rated. 

(CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 2–3) The DOE test 

procedures do not address the 

measurement of performance during 

standby mode and off mode. The DOE 

test procedures also do not describe the 

measurement of the power factor of 

PTAC and PTHP equipment. Therefore, 

DOE is not adopting this reporting 

requirement. 

The CA IOUs commented that they 

would like DOE to explore adding test 

procedure specifications for units 

containing gas-fired components, since 

ANSI/AHRI 310/380–2004 excludes 

such units. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 1–2) 

DOE notes that EPCA defines a 

‘‘packaged terminal air conditioner’’ as 

‘‘a wall sleeve and a separate unencased 

combination of heating and cooling 

assemblies specified by the builder and 

intended for mounting through the wall. 

It includes a prime source of 

refrigeration, separable outdoor louvers, 

forced ventilation, and heating 

availability by builder’s choice of hot 

water, steam, or electricity.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6311(10)(A)) EPCA defines a ‘‘packaged 

terminal heat pump’’ as ‘‘a packaged 

terminal air conditioner that utilizes 

reverse cycle refrigeration as its prime 

heat source and should have 

supplementary heat source available to 

builders with the choice of hot water, 

steam, or electric resistant heat.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6311(10)(B)) These definitions 

include units with heating provided by 

hot water, steam, or electric resistant 

heat, but they do not include units 

containing gas-fired components. As 

such, DOE does not have the authority 

to regulate units with gas-fired 

components. 

K. 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)(4)) The test 

procedure amendments for PTACs and 

PTHPs incorporated by this final rule do 

not contain changes that will materially 

alter the measured energy efficiency of 

equipment. DOE did not receive any 

comments suggesting that the test 

procedure amendments will alter the 

measured energy efficiency of 

equipment. Rather, most of the 

proposed changes represent 

clarifications that will improve the 

uniform application of the test 

procedures for this equipment. Any 

change in the rated efficiency associated 

with these clarifications, if any, is 

expected to be de minimis. 

DOE’s test procedure amendments 

incorporated by this final rule are 

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 

procedures final rule. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37145 

10A searchable database of certified small 

businesses is available online at: http://

dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm. 

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 OMB. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment 

and a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) for any rule that an agency 

adopts as a final rule, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis 

examines the impact of the rule on 

small entities and considers alternative 

ways of reducing negative effects. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 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 this final rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. This 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 

concluded that the rule will 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 10 to identify manufacturers 

within these NAICS codes that 

manufacture PTACs and/or PTHPs did 

not identify any small entities that 

could be affected by the test procedure 

modifications adopted in the final rule. 

For the reasons explained below, DOE 

has concluded that the test procedure 

amendments contained in this final will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on any manufacturer, including small 

manufacturers. The rule amends 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, 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 typically is 

conducted outside of the balancedambient calorimeter facility. DOE 

expects that manufacturers will require 

minimal time to set the PTACs and 

PTHPs up for break-in, which requires 

that the units simply be plugged in and 

powered on. Further, manufacturers 

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 breakin procedure and the fact that it is not 

typically conducted within the test 

chamber. 

Material costs associated with the test 

procedure amendments adopted in this 

final rule are expected to be negligible, 

as air sealing the wall sleeves can be 

accomplished with typically available 

lab materials. Further, DOE expects that 

manufacturers typically seal the wall 

sleeves in their current testing, because 

not doing so could result in 

measurements indicating a lower 

efficiency. Also, there are no additional 

costs associated with the requirement to 

use a 14-inch wall sleeve and/or the 

standard 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. Thus, DOE 

determined that the test procedure 

amendments adopted by this final rule 

will not impose a significant economic 

impact on manufacturers. 

This notice adds one additional item 

to the certification report requirements 

for PTACs and PTHPs: The duration of 

the break-in period. However, providing 

this additional item in certification 

reports is not expected to impose a 

significant economic impact. 

For these reasons, DOE concludes and 

certifies that this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, so 

DOE has not prepared a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. 

DOE has provided its 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 PTACs and PTHPs 

must certify to DOE that their products 

comply with any applicable energy 

conservation standards. In certifying 

compliance, manufacturers must test 

their products according to the DOE test 

procedures for PTACs and PTHPs, 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures on the date that 

compliance is required. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including PTACs and PTHPs. See 10 

CFR part 429. The collection-ofinformation requirement for the 

certification and recordkeeping is 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 30 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this final rule, DOE amends its test 

procedures for PTACs and PTHPs. 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37146 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, this rule amends an 

existing rule without affecting the 

amount, quality or distribution of 

energy usage, and, therefore, will not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Thus, this 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 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE 

examined this final rule and determined 

that it will not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of this final rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

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

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this final rule 

meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

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

regulatory action resulting in a rule that 

may cause the expenditure by State, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates the resulting costs, benefits, 

and other effects on the national 

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

UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 

develop an effective process to permit 

timely input by elected officers of State, 

local, and Tribal governments on a 

proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820; also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE examined this final rule according 

to UMRA and its statement of policy 

and determined that the rule contains 

neither an intergovernmental mandate, 

nor a mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

final rule will not have any impact on 

the autonomy or integrity of the family 

as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

will not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

this final rule under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgated or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37147 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy; or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use if the 

regulation is implemented, and of 

reasonable alternatives to the action and 

their expected benefits on energy 

supply, distribution, and use. 

This regulatory action to amend the 

test procedures for measuring the energy 

efficiency of PTACs and PTHPs is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

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

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

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

788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The modifications to the test 

procedures addressed by this action 

incorporate testing methods contained 

in the following commercial standards: 

AHRI 310/380–2014, ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 16–1983 (RA 2014), ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 37–2009, and ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 58–1986 (RA 2014). 

DOE has evaluated these standards and 

is unable to conclude whether they fully 

comply with the requirements of section 

32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether they 

were developed in a manner that fully 

provides for public participation, 

comment, and review.) DOE has 

consulted with both the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

about the impact on competition of 

using the methods contained in these 

standards and has received no 

comments objecting to their use. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

In this final rule, DOE is incorporating 

by reference four industry standards 

related to the testing of packaged 

terminal air conditioners and heat 

pumps. These industry standards 

include AHRI Standard 310/380–2014, 

‘‘Standard for Packaged Terminal AirConditioners and Heat Pumps;’’ ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 16–1983 (RA 2014), 

‘‘Method of Testing for Rating Room Air 

Conditioners and Packaged Terminal 

Air Conditioners;’’ ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 37–2009, ‘‘Methods of Testing 

for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary 

Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment;’’ and ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 58–1986 (RA 2014) ‘‘Method 

of Testing for Rating Room AirConditioner and Packaged Terminal AirConditioner Heating Capacity.’’ 

AHRI Standard 310/380–2014 is an 

industry accepted test standard that 

specifies definitions and general testing 

requirements for packaged terminal air 

conditioners and heat pumps. AHRI 

Standard 310/380–2014 references 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16, ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 37, and ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 58 for the detailed 

testing methodologies. AHRI Standard 

310/380–2014 is readily available on 

AHRI’s Web site at http:// 

www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/ 

files/standards%20pdfs/ 

ANSI%20standards%20pdfs/ 

AHRI_310_380-2014-CSA_C744-4.PDF. 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16–1983 

(RA 2014) and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

37–2009 specify methods for 

determining the cooling performance of 

packaged terminal air conditioners. 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16–1983 (RA 

2014) specifies a calorimetric test 

method involving measurement of the 

electric resistance heater power input 

needed to exactly balance a test 

sample’s cooling capacity. ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 37–2009 specifies a 

psychrometric test method which 

calculates capacity based on the air flow 

rate and the air inlet and outlet 

conditions on the indoor side of the test 

sample. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16– 

1983 (RA 2014) is readily available at 

ASHRAE’s Web site at: http:// 

www.techstreet.com/ashrae/products/ 

1881836. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37– 

2009 is also readily available on 

ASHRAE’s Web site at: http:// 

www.techstreet.com/ashrae/products/ 

1650947. 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58–1986 

(RA 2014) specifies a test method for 

measuring heating performance of 

packaged terminal heat pumps. ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 58–1986 (RA 2014) 

is readily available on ASHRAE’s Web 

site at: http://www.techstreet.com/ 

ashrae/products/1650947. 

N. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this final rule before its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

O. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Energy conservation, Imports, 

Measurement standards, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Energy conservation, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Measurement standards, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 8, 2015. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 

431 of Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title 

10 the Code of Federal Regulations as 

set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Amend § 429.43 by adding 

paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and revising 

paragraphs (b)(2)(v) and (vi) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 sample 

selected as described in (a)(1)(ii) of this 

section, rounded to the nearest 100 Btu/ 

h. 

* * * * * 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
37148 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(v) Packaged terminal air 

conditioners: The energy efficiency ratio 

(EER in British thermal units per Watthour (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). 

(vi) Packaged 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). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 429.134 by revising 

paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (e) 

to read as follows: 

§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement 

provisions. 

(a) General. The following provisions 

apply to assessment and enforcement 

testing of the relevant products and 

equipment. 

* * * * * 

(e) Packaged terminal air conditioners 

and packaged terminal heat pumps—(1) 

Verification of cooling capacity. The 

total cooling capacity of the basic model 

will be measured pursuant to the test 

requirements of 10 CFR 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 average 

measured cooling capacity 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 minimum allowed EER (and 

minimum allowed COP for PTHP 

models) for the 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 minimum 

allowed EER (and minimum allowed 

COP for PTHP models) for the tested 

basic model. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 5. Amend § 431.95 by revising 

paragraph (b)(3), redesignating 

paragraph (c)(1) as (c)(4), and adding 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.95 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) AHRI Standard 310/380–2014, 

(‘‘AHRI 310/380–2014’’), ‘‘Standard for 

Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps,’’ February 2014, IBR 

approved for § 431.96. 

(c) * * * 

(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16–1983 

(RA 2014), (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 16’’), 

‘‘Method of Testing for Rating Room Air 

Conditioners and Packaged Terminal 

Air Conditioners,’’ ASHRAE reaffirmed 

July 3, 2014, IBR approved for § 431.96. 

(2) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009, 

(‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 37’’), ‘‘Methods of 

Testing for Rating Electrically Driven 

Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment,’’ ASHRAE approved 

June 24, 2009, IBR approved for 

§ 431.96. 

(3) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58–1986 

(RA 2014), (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 58’’), 

‘‘Method of Testing for Rating Room 

Air-Conditioner and Packaged Terminal 

Air-Conditioner Heating Capacity,’’ 

ASHRAE reaffirmed July 3, 2014, IBR 

approved for § 431.96. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 431.96 by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (c) and adding 

paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 431.96 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy efficiency of 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 

* * * * * 

(b) Testing and calculations. (1) 

Determine the energy efficiency 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) After June 24, 2016, any 

representations made with respect to the 

energy use or efficiency of packaged 

terminal air conditioners and heat 

pumps (PTACs and PTHPs) must be 

made in accordance with the results of 

testing pursuant to this section. 

Manufacturers conducting tests of 

PTACs and PTHPs after July 30, 2015 

and prior to June 24, 2016, must 

conduct such test in accordance with 

either table 1 to this section or § 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 packaged terminal air conditioners 

and heat pumps must be in accordance 

with whichever version is selected. 

TABLE 1 TO § 431.96—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Equipment type Category Cooling capacity Energy efficiency 

descriptor 

Use tests, conditions, 

and procedures 1 in 

Additional test procedure provisions as indicated in the listed 

paragraphs of this section 

Small Commercial Packaged 

Air-Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment.

Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, 

AC and HP.

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

(omit section 6.5).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

Air-Cooled AC and 

HP.

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

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

(omit section 6.3).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

Water-Cooled and 

EvaporativelyCooled AC.

<65,000 Btu/h .......... EER ................................ AHRI 210/240–2008 

(omit section 6.5).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

.................................. ≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

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

(omit section 6.3).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

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

13256–1 (1998).

Paragraph (e). 

Large Commercial Packaged 

Air-Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment.

Air-Cooled AC and 

HP.

≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

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

(omit section 6.3).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 125 / Tuesday, June 30, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 37149 

TABLE 1 TO § 431.96—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS—Continued 

Equipment type Category Cooling capacity Energy efficiency 

descriptor 

Use tests, conditions, 

and procedures 1 in 

Additional test procedure provisions as indicated in the listed 

paragraphs of this section 

Water-Cooled and 

EvaporativelyCooled AC.

≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

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

(omit section 6.3).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment.

Air-Cooled AC and 

HP.

≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

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

(omit section 6.3).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

Water-Cooled and 

EvaporativelyCooled AC.

≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

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

(omit section 6.3)..

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps.AC and HP ............... <760,000 Btu/h ........ EER and COP ................ See paragraph (g) of 

this section.

Paragraphs (c), (e), and (g). 

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

(omit section 5.11).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

SCOP ............................. ASHRAE 127–2007 

(omit section 5.11).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

Variable Refrigerant Flow Multisplit Systems.AC ............................ <760,000 Btu/h ........ EER and COP ................ AHRI 1230–2010 

(omit sections 

5.1.2 and 6.6).

Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f). 

Variable Refrigerant Flow Multisplit Systems, Air-cooled.HP ............................ <760,000 Btu/h ........ EER and COP ................ AHRI 1230–2010 

(omit sections 

5.1.2 and 6.6).

Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f). 

Variable Refrigerant Flow Multisplit Systems, Water-source.HP ............................ <17,000 Btu/h .......... EER and COP ................ AHRI 1230–2010 

(omit sections 

5.1.2 and 6.6).

Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f). 

Variable Refrigerant Flow Multisplit Systems, Water-source.HP ............................ ≥17,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

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

(omit sections 

5.1.2 and 6.6).

Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f). 

Single Package Vertical Air 

Conditioners and Single 

Package Vertical Heat Pumps.

AC and HP ............... <760,000 Btu/h ........ EER and COP ................ AHRI 390–2003 

(omit section 6.4).

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

1 Incorporated by reference, see § 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 

specified by AHRI 210/240–2008, AHRI 

310/380–2014, AHRI 340/360–2007, 

AHRI 390–2003, AHRI 1230–2010, or 

ASHRAE 127–2007 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.95). A manufacturer 

who elects to use an optional break-in 

period in its certification testing should 

record this information (including the 

duration) in the test data underlying the 

certified ratings that is required to be 

maintained under 10 CFR 429.71. 

* * * * * 

(g) Test Procedures for Packaged 

Terminal Air Conditioners and 

Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps—(1) 

Cooling mode testing. 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 310/380–2014 

sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 

(incorporated by reference; see 

§ 431.95), and in ANSI/ASHRAE 16 

(incorporated by reference; see § 431.95) 

or ANSI/ASHRAE 37 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 431.95), except that 

instruments used for measuring 

electricity input shall be accurate to 

within ±0.5 percent of the quantity 

measured. Where definitions provided 

in AHRI 310/380–2014, ANSI/ASHRAE 

16, and/or ANSI/ASHRAE 37 conflict 

with the definitions provided in 10 CFR 

431.92, the 10 CFR 431.92 definitions 

shall be used. Where AHRI 310/380– 

2014 makes reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 

16, it is interpreted as reference to 

ANSI/ASHRAE 16–1983 (RA 2014). 

(2) Heating mode testing. The test 

method for testing packaged terminal 

heat pumps in heating mode shall 

consist of application of the methods 

and conditions in AHRI 310/380–2014 

sections 3, 4.1, 4.2 (except the section 

4.2.1.2(b) reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 

37), 4.3, and 4.4 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 431.95), and in ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 58 (incorporated by reference; 

see § 431.95). Where definitions 

provided in AHRI 310/380–2014 or 

ANSI/ASHRAE 58 conflict with the 

definitions provided in 10 CFR 431.92, 

the 10 CFR 431.92 definitions shall be 

used. Where AHRI 310/380–2014 makes 

reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 58, it is 

interpreted as reference to ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 58–1986 (RA 2014). 

(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 310/380–2014 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.95). No specific 

level of water mineral content or water 

temperature is required for the water 

added to the condensate drain pan. 

(5) 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. If a particular model is shipped 

without a filter, the unit must be tested 

with a MERV–1 filter sized 

appropriately for the filter slot. 

[FR Doc. 2015–15885 Filed 6–29–15; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES