This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

14186 

Vol. 79, No. 49 

Thursday, March 13, 2014 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–0032] 

RIN 1904–AD19 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Packaged Terminal Air 

Conditioners and Packaged Terminal 

Heat Pumps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR), the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to 

revise its test procedures established 

under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) for packaged 

terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and 

packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs). 

The proposed amendments would 

specify an optional break-in period, 

explicitly require that wall sleeves be 

sealed, allow for the pre-filling of the 

condensate drain pan, require that 

ASHRAE Standard 16 be the sole 

method of test when measuring the 

cooling capacity for PTACs and PTHPs 

under ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380– 

2004, and require testing with 14-inch 

deep wall sleeves and the filter option 

most representative of a typical 

installation. These updates fulfill DOE’s 

obligation under EPCA to review its test 

procedures for covered equipment at 

least once every 7 years and either 

amend the applicable test procedures or 

publish a determination in the Federal 

Register not to amend them. DOE will 

hold a public meeting to discuss and 

receive comments on the issues 

presented in this notice. 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

on April 28, 2014, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

in Washington, DC. The meeting will 

also be broadcast as a webinar. See 

section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for 

webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and 

after the public meeting, but no later 

than May 27, 2014. See section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. For more information, 

refer to the Public Participation section 

near the end of this notice. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR for Test Procedures 

for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 

and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps, 

and provide docket number EERE– 

2012–BT–TP–0032 and/or regulatory 

information number (RIN) number 

1904–AD19. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: PTAC-2012TP0032@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2012–BT–TP–0032 and/or RIN 

1904–AD19 in the subject line of the 

message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD. It is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD. It is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ 

near the end of this document. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

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

!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP0032. This Web page contains a link to 

the docket for this notice on the 

regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 

Web page contains instructions on how 

to access all documents, including 

public comments, in the docket. See 

section V for information on how to 

submit comments through 

regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9590, or email 

PTACs@ee.doe.gov. 

Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6111. Email: 

Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. Break-In Duration 

B. Wall Sleeve Sealing 

C. Pre-Filling Condensate Drain Pan 

D. Barometric Pressure Correction 

E. ASHRAE Standard 16 vs. ASHRAE 

Standard 37 

F. Part-Load Efficiency Metric and Varying 

Ambient Conditions 

G. Wall Sleeve Size and Filter 

Requirements for Testing 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14187 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 

6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or, ‘‘the Act’’) sets 

forth a variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. (All 

references to EPCA refer to the statute 

as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical 

Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 

112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012).) Part C of Title 

III, which for editorial reasons was 

redesignated as Part A–1 upon 

incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 

U.S.C. 6311–6317, as codified), 

establishes the Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment. This equipment 

includes packaged terminal air 

conditioners (PTACs) and packaged 

terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), the 

subjects of today’s notice. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(1)(I)) 

Under EPCA, the energy conservation 

program consists essentially of four 

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

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. The testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use as the basis for (1) certifying 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) 

making representations about the 

efficiency of the equipment. Similarly, 

DOE must use these test procedures to 

determine whether the equipment 

complies with any relevant standards 

promulgated under EPCA. 

General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

In 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the 

general criteria and procedures DOE 

must follow when prescribing or 

amending test procedures for covered 

equipment. EPCA provides in relevant 

part that any test procedures prescribed 

or amended under this section shall be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use and shall not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In addition, if DOE 

determines that a test procedure 

amendment is warranted, it must 

publish proposed test procedures and 

offer the public an opportunity to 

present oral and written comments on 

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

DOE is also required by EPCA to 

conduct an evaluation of test procedures 

every seven years for each class of 

covered equipment (including PTACs 

and PTHPs) to determine if an amended 

test procedure would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirement to be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect the energy efficiency, 

energy use, and operating costs during 

a representative average use cycle. DOE 

must either prescribe amended test 

procedures or publish a notice in the 

Federal Register regarding its 

determination not to amend test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)–(2)) 

Background 

DOE’s test procedure for PTACs and 

PTHPs is codified at Title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 

431.96. The test procedure was 

established on December 8, 2006, in a 

final rule that incorporated by reference 

the American National Standards 

Institute’s (ANSI) and Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute’s 

(AHRI) Standard 310/380–2004, 

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

AHRI Standard 310/380). 71 FR 71340, 

71371. ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380– 

2004 is incorporated by reference at 10 

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

the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 16–1999 

(RA2009), ‘‘Method of Testing for Rating 

Room Air Conditioners and Packaged 

Terminal Air Conditioners’’ (ASHRAE 

Standard 16); (2) ASHRAE Standard 58– 

1986 (RA2009), ‘‘Method of Testing for 

Rating Room Air Conditioner and 

Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner 

Heating Capacity’’ (ASHRAE Standard 

58); and (3) ASHRAE Standard 37–1988, 

‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment’’ (ASHRAE Standard 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 

procedure for PTACs and PTHPs. These 

amendments incorporated a number of 

sections of ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/

380 by reference. 77 FR 28928, 28990. 

In today’s rulemaking, DOE is 

evaluating test procedures for PTACs 

and PTHPs as required by 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(1). 

On February 22, 2013, DOE published 

a notice of public meeting and 

availability of framework document to 

consider energy conservations standards 

rulemaking for PTACs and PTHPs. 78 

FR 12252. In the framework document, 

DOE sought comments on issues 

pertaining to the test procedure for 

PTACs and PTHPs, including 

equipment break-in, wall sleeve sealing, 

pre-filling the condensate drain pan, 

barometric pressure correction, and 

differences between the test methods of 

ASHRAE Standard 16 and ASHRAE 

Standard 37. Comments received on 

these topics are discussed in section III. 

On February 26, 2013, members of the 

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking 

Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) 

unanimously decided to form a working 

group to engage in a negotiated 

rulemaking effort on the certification of 

commercial heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning (HVAC) equipment (10 

CFR part 431, subparts D, E and F), 

water heating (WH) equipment (10 CFR 

part 431, subpart G), and refrigeration 

equipment (10 CFR part 431, subpart C) 

(Working Group). A notice of intent to 

form the Commercial Certification 

Working Group was published in the 

Federal Register on March 12, 2013, 

following which DOE received 35 

nominations. 78 FR 15653. On April 16, 

2013, the Department published a notice 

of open meeting that announced the first 

meeting and listed the 22 nominated 

individuals that were selected to serve 

as members of the Working Group, in 

addition to two members from ASRAC, 

and one DOE representative. 78 FR 

22431. Following the meeting, the 

Working Group published a set of 

recommendations, and DOE issued the 

Certification of Commercial HVAC, WH, 

and Refrigeration Equipment NOPR 

(Certification of Commercial Equipment 

NOPR) on February 7, 2014, 

summarizing the Working Group’s 

recommendations. 79 FR 8886. The 

group proposed a number of test 

procedure items for PTACs and PTHPs, 

including proposals for (1) a 

standardized wall sleeve to be used 

during testing and (2) a standardized 

filter to be used during testing, both of 

which are discussed in today’s NOPR. 

DOE considers the activity initiated 

by this proposed rule sufficient to 

satisfy the statutory requirement that 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14188 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1A notation in this form provides a reference for 

information that is in the docket of DOE’s ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain Commercial and 

Industrial Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and 

Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps’’ (Docket No. 

EERE–2012–BT–STD–0029), which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov. This notation (AHRI, No. 11 

at p. 2) indicates that the statement preceding the 

reference is found in document number 11 in the 

docket for the packaged terminal air conditioner 

and packaged terminal heat pump test procedure 

rulemaking, and appears at page 2 of that 

document. 

DOE must review its test procedures for 

all covered equipment, including 

PTACs and PTHPs, at least once every 

7 years and either amend the applicable 

test procedures or publish a 

determination in the Federal Register 

not to amend them. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(1)) 

II. Summary of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

the test procedures for PTACs and 

PTHPs in 10 CFR 431, Subpart F, to 

specify an optional break-in period, 

explicitly require that wall sleeves be 

sealed, allow for the pre-filling of the 

condensate drain pan, require that the 

cooling capacity for PTACs and PTHPs 

be determined by testing pursuant to 

ASHRAE Standard 16, and require 

testing with 14-inch deep wall sleeves 

and the filter option most representative 

of a typical installation. 

The proposed amendments would 

explicitly allow PTAC and PTHP 

manufacturers the option of using a 

break-in period (up to 20 hours) before 

conducting the test procedure. In this 

regard, DOE proposes adding ANSI/

AHRI Standard 310/380–2004 to the list 

of commercial air-conditioner standards 

at 10 CFR 431.96(c), which currently 

provides an optional break-in period of 

up to 20 hours for other commercial airconditioner equipment types. The 

proposal would also require any PTAC 

or PTHP manufacturer that elects to use 

a break-in period to certify the duration 

of the break-in period it used for each 

basic model. DOE proposes that, as part 

of the set-up for testing, testers seal gaps 

between wall sleeves and the test 

facility dividing wall. This would 

require the PTAC or PTHP wall sleeve 

to be sealed per manufacturer 

specifications or a standard sealing 

method. 

DOE proposes to allow the pre-filling 

of the condensate drain pan with water 

before running the DOE test procedure. 

This proposed amendment would allow 

the unit to reach steady state more 

quickly, which would decrease the 

burden and cost of testing. 

DOE proposes to modify the test 

procedure to require ASHRAE Standard 

16 as the test method for measuring the 

cooling capacity of PTACs and PTHPs. 

DOE would remove all references to 

ASHRAE Standard 37 as an allowable 

method of test. 

DOE proposes to require testing using 

a 14-inch deep wall sleeve and only one 

filter option, which would be the most 

typical filter option that is shipped with 

the tested unit. These proposed 

amendments would remove testing 

variability resulting from the use of nonstandard equipment. 

DOE does not believe that these 

proposed changes to the PTAC and 

PTHP test procedure would result in 

any additional burden to manufacturers 

or result in any changes to the energy 

efficiency of current equipment. Rather, 

the proposed changes would provide 

additional clarification regarding how 

the DOE test procedure should be 

conducted. 

III. Discussion 

A. Break-In Duration 

Break-in, also called run-in, refers to 

the operation of equipment prior to 

testing to cause preliminary wear, 

which may improve measured 

performance. DOE understands that 

many labs commonly incorporate a 

break-in period before the start of 

efficiency tests for air conditioning 

equipment. DOE’s May 16, 2012 final 

rule for Small, Large, and Very Large 

Commercial Package Air Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps (ASHRAE equipment), 

77 FR 28928, 28991, added a 

specification in the test procedure that 

allows an optional break-in period of up 

to 20 hours for many types of 

commercial air conditioning and 

heating equipment and requires that 

manufacturers record the duration of the 

break-in period. However, these 

amendments do not apply to PTACs or 

PTHPs. 

DOE is aware that the time required 

to achieve sufficient break-in (for 

stabilizing equipment performance) may 

depend on ambient temperature. 

Generally, the break-in process is 

conducted outside the test chamber at 

room temperature conditions (i.e., 65– 

85 °F). However, conducting break-in in 

the test chamber at elevated ambient 

temperatures (i.e., 95 °F outdoor/80 °F 

indoor) may reduce the time required to 

achieve break-in. Using the test chamber 

for break-in would likely increase the 

expense of testing significantly because 

it would increase the amount of time 

that a test unit is in the test chamber. 

DOE asked for comment on this issue in 

the framework document published on 

February 22, 2013. 78 FR 12252. 

In response, AHRI and Goodman 

stated that DOE should allow for an 

optional break-in period at nonspecified ambient conditions for PTAC 

and PTHP testing, but did not specify a 

maximum duration. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 

2; Goodman, No. 13 at p. 1) 1 The 

California Investor-Owned Utilities (CA 

IOUs, which consists of the Pacific Gas 

and Electric Company (PG&E), the 

Southern California Gas Company 

(SCGC), the San Diego Gas and Electric 

(SDG&E), and Southern California 

Edison (SCE)) stated that DOE should 

allow an optional break-in period with 

a maximum duration of 20 hours, as 

allowed in the ASHRAE equipment 

final rule. (CA IOUs, No. 12 at pp. 1– 

2) AHRI and Goodman stated that they 

do not have any data to show how the 

length of break-in time specifically 

affects PTAC or PTHP performance; 

however, Goodman did state that it has 

test data for residential air conditioning 

systems that indicate that system 

performance can improve by ‘‘several 

percentage points over a 72 hour 

period.’’ AHRI and Goodman further 

stated that any manufacturer that elects 

to use the optional break-in period for 

AHRI’s certification testing must cover 

the cost of the break-in period. (AHRI, 

No. 11 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 13 at p. 

1) AHRI also stated that breaking-in the 

equipment in the testing lab may cost 

around $1500 per 8-hr shift, whereas the 

only cost of break-in outside the test lab 

is the labor required for set-up and the 

electricity needed to operate the 

equipment. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) 

DOE has concluded that allowing for 

an optional break-in period will provide 

manufacturers more flexibility to 

produce test results that more accurately 

reflect energy efficiency of basic models 

in a manner that is representative of 

their performance without adding 

significant testing costs and burdens on 

the manufacturers. DOE understands 

that using a break-in period will 

generally improve the measured 

efficiency of a product by allowing 

moving parts (such as compressor 

mating surfaces) to wear-in to improve 

efficiency. DOE also concludes that the 

use of a break-in period should be at the 

manufacturer’s discretion. Therefore, 

DOE proposes adding ANSI/AHRI 

Standard 310/380 to the list of 

commercial air-conditioner standards at 

10 CFR 431.96(c), which would provide 

an optional break-in period of up to 20 

hours. DOE already allows 

manufacturers of other commercial airconditioner equipment the option of a 

break-in period not to exceed 20 hours, 

and this change would extend this 

allowance to manufacturers of PTACs 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14189 

2A notation in the form ‘‘Scotsman, Public 

Meeting Transcript at p. 26’’ identifies a comment 

that DOE has received during a public meeting and 

has included in the docket of this rulemaking. This 

particular notation refers to a comment: (1) 

Submitted by Scotsman; (2) transcribed from the 

public meeting; and (3) appearing on page 26 of that 

document. 

and PTHPs. DOE has not found 

evidence that break-in periods 

exceeding 20 hours provide additional 

efficiency improvements for a PTAC or 

PTHP. 

In addition, DOE is proposing a 

reporting requirement so that 

manufacturers would certify the 

duration of the break-in period used 

during that testing conducted to support 

the development of the certified ratings. 

As such, DOE is proposing to modify 

the certification requirements for PTACs 

and PTHPs that were proposed on 

February 14, 2014, 79 FR 8886, 8900, to 

require the manufacturer to include the 

break-in period in the certification 

report. DOE seeks comment on this 

proposal. Please note that a 

manufacturer must maintain records 

underlying its certified rating, which 

would reflect this optional break-in 

period duration pursuant to 10 CFR 

429.71. DOE also notes that ratings 

derived from an alternative efficiency 

determination method (AEDM) would 

include a break-in period only if the test 

data underlying the AEDM also 

included a run-in period. As 

background. AEDMs are computer 

modeling or mathematical tools that 

predict the performance of non-tested 

basic models. They are derived from 

mathematical models and engineering 

principles that govern the energy 

efficiency and energy consumption 

characteristics of a type of covered 

equipment. 

If commenters support longer break-in 

times, DOE requests data demonstrating 

that break-in periods longer than 20 

hours make a significant impact on 

efficiency measurements for this 

equipment type. This is identified as 

issue 1 in section V.E, ‘‘Issues on Which 

DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

B. Wall Sleeve Sealing 

PTACs and PTHPs are tested in a 

testing facility incorporating rooms, 

simulating indoor and outdoor ambient 

test conditions, that are separated by a 

dividing wall with an opening in which 

the test sample is mounted. In most 

cases, the test sample is placed in the 

opening, and any remaining gaps 

between the dividing wall and the wall 

sleeve around the unit are filled with 

insulating material. The gap between 

the test sample and the insulating 

material may also be sealed with duct 

tape. 

ASHRAE Standard 16 states, ‘‘The air 

conditioner shall be installed in a 

manner similar to its normal 

installation’’ (Section 4.2.2). In normal 

practice, PTACs and PTHPs are 

installed within wall sleeves that are 

permanently installed and sealed to the 

external wall of a building. However, 

the set-up of the DOE test procedure 

does not allow for the permanent 

installation of the wall sleeves in the 

partition cavity. Thus, during testing, 

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

normal installation in the field. Air 

leakage between the outdoor and indoor 

rooms through gaps between the wall 

sleeve and the dividing wall can reduce 

the measured capacity and efficiency, 

which would contribute to test results 

unrepresentative of field operation. DOE 

asked for comment on this issue in the 

framework document. 78 FR 12252 (Feb. 

22, 2013). 

Goodman responded that it will 

always be a proponent of anything that 

is done to the test procedure to 

minimize the variability of testing 

among laboratories, including sealing 

the wall sleeve. (Goodman, Framework 

Public Meeting Transcript at p. 24) 2

Goodman noted that adding wall sleeve 

sealing requirements to the test 

procedure would reduce the variability 

of measured performance from one lab 

to another. (Goodman, No. 13 at p. 2) 

Goodman added that sealing the wall 

sleeve leaks would not add a significant 

amount of time to the total testing to be 

done. (Goodman, Framework Public 

Meeting Transcript at p. 24) The CA 

IOUs pointed to section 4.2.2 of 

ASHRAE Standard 16 (mentioned 

above), which they believe can be 

interpreted as a requirement for wall 

sleeves to be sealed with the test facility 

dividing wall. They also pointed out 

that guidance as to the level of sealing 

necessary for the wall sleeve can be 

found in section 7.7.4 of ANSI/AHRI 

Standard 310/380, which states, 

‘‘During the entire test, the measured air 

flow rate, L/s (ft3/min), leaking into the 

indoor portion shall be considered to be 

the infiltration rate through the 

equipment and shall not exceed 3.1 

L/(s•m) (2 ft3/(min•ft)) at the perimeter 

of the wall sleeve where it normally 

projects through the wall.’’ (CA IOUs, 

No. 12 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees with Goodman’s 

comments that sealing the wall sleeve 

would reduce the variability of testing 

among laboratories and would help 

produce test results that more accurately 

reflect the energy efficiency of PTACs 

and PTHPs. DOE notes that section 4.2.2 

of ASHRAE Standard 16 does not 

specifically require the wall sleeve to be 

sealed to the wall. Section 7.7.4 of 

ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380, as the 

CA IOUs pointed out, deals with air 

infiltration testing, both through the 

unit and around the unit (i.e., between 

the wall sleeve and the opening). 

Although this air flow is generally 

measured during tests, the DOE test 

procedure for PTACs and PTHPs does 

not require its measurement and 

reporting. Furthermore, this air flow 

includes infiltration both through the 

unit and between the wall sleeve and 

the test facility dividing wall opening, 

so it is not necessarily a good indicator 

of whether the wall sleeve seal is tight. 

To improve the repeatability of PTAC 

and PTHP testing, DOE proposes to 

require that test facilities, when 

installing PTACs and PTHPs in the test 

chamber, seal all potential leakage gaps 

between the wall sleeve and the 

dividing wall. DOE seeks comments on 

the sealing of PTAC and PTHP wall 

sleeves to the test facility dividing wall, 

including whether the type or method of 

sealing (e.g., duct tape) should be 

specified, and whether a test could be 

developed that, with reasonably low test 

burden, could be performed to verify an 

adequate seal. This is identified as issue 

2 in section V.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ 

C. Pre-Filling Condensate Drain Pan 

Most PTACs and PTHPs transfer the 

condensate that forms on the evaporator 

to a condensate pan in the unit’s 

outdoor-side where the outdoor fan 

distributes the water over the air-inlet 

side of the condenser. This process 

results in evaporative cooling that 

enhances the cooling of the outdoor coil 

in air-conditioning mode. At the 

beginning of a test, there may be no 

water in the condensate pan. As the test 

progresses and the unit approaches an 

equilibrium state of operation, the 

condensate level in the drip pan will fill 

and stabilize at a constant level. It can 

take several hours to reach this steady 

state. 

To accelerate the testing process, test 

facilities typically add water to the 

condensate pan at the beginning of the 

test rather than waiting for the unit to 

generate sufficient condensate to 

stabilize. The current test procedure 

does not indicate whether this practice 

is allowed during efficiency testing. 

DOE sought comment on this issue in 

the framework document. 78 FR 12252 

(Feb. 22, 2013). 

AHRI and Goodman recommended 

that the condensate pan be pre-filled 

with water prior to testing, and stated 

that any type of water would be 

acceptable for pre-filling. (AHRI, No. 11 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14190 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

at p. 3; Goodman, No. 13 at p. 2) AHRI 

stated that achieving steady state 

conditions with a pre-filled pan takes 

2–4 hours, with actual testing taking an 

additional 2 hours. If the pan is not 

prefilled, then the set-up and 

stabilization period will take 

approximately twice as long. (AHRI, No. 

11 at p. 3) Goodman estimated that 

roughly 1 to 2 hours would be saved 

from pre-filling the condensate pan. 

Goodman added that the lab should 

document how much water was added 

to the pan, the water-source, and its 

temperature. Goodman also suggested 

that the water added be approximately 

50 °F to optimize the time to reach 

equilibrium. (Goodman, No. 13 at p. 2) 

The CA IOUs stated that distilled 

water should be used (as opposed to city 

water) because distilled water is similar 

in mineral content to the condensate 

that would normally fill the drain pan. 

(CA IOUs, No. 12 at p.3) They also 

indicated that section 7.6.3 of ANSI/

AHRI Standard 310/380 (condensate 

disposal test section) provides guidance 

for pre-filling the condensate drain pan: 

‘‘After establishment of the specified 

temperature conditions, the equipment 

shall be started with its condensate 

collection pan filled to the overflowing 

point and shall be operated 

continuously for 4 h after the 

condensate level has reached 

equilibrium.’’ (CA IOUs, No. 12 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees that pre-filling the 

condensate pan would not alter the 

measured results as compared with not 

pre-filling the condensate pan. DOE also 

recognizes that pre-filling the 

condensate pan may reduce the time for 

the unit to achieve steady-state by 

approximately 1–4 hours, which would 

reduce test lab expenses because the 

PTAC or PTHP would spend less time 

in the test chamber. While DOE 

understands that regular tap water may 

have minerals and dissolved solids that 

could affect the thermodynamic 

properties of the condensate, which 

could then affect the steady-state 

behavior of the PTAC or PTHP, DOE 

does not have information to indicate 

whether use of non-distilled water will 

have a measurable impact on the 

performance of the PTAC or PTHP 

during testing. Therefore, DOE’s 

proposal does not include requirements 

that a specific water type be used to fill 

the pan. 

Additionally, DOE does not have 

information to indicate whether the 

temperature of the water used to prefill 

the pan will impact the test result, but 

acknowledges that the condensate water 

temperature of the test will stabilize due 

to the equilibrium tolerance 

requirements in section 6.1.5 of 

ASHRAE Standard 16. Therefore, DOE’s 

proposal does not include requirements 

that water at a specific temperature be 

used to fill the pan. 

Section 7.6.3 of ANSI/AHRI Standard 

310/380, which the CA IOUs cited as 

providing guidance for pre-filling the 

condensate pan, is part of the procedure 

for the condensate disposal test 

designed to ensure that condensate does 

not overflow the drain pan. This section 

is not part of the general cooling 

capacity test for PTACs and PTHPs, and 

does not contain guidance for 

condensate temperatures or water types. 

DOE proposes to add a provision in 

its test procedures at 10 CFR 431.96 to 

allow manufacturers the option of prefilling the condensate drain pan before 

starting the efficiency test. As indicated 

above, the provision would not set 

requirements regarding the water purity 

or the water temperature that is to be 

used. DOE seeks comments on prefilling the condensate drain pan, 

including whether the type and/or 

temperature of the water used should be 

specified in the test procedure and/or 

recorded in the test data underlying the 

results. This is identified as issue 3 in 

section V.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ 

D. ASHRAE Standard 16 vs. ASHRAE 

Standard 37 

ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380 

indicates that either ASHRAE Standard 

16–1999 (a calorimeter-based method) 

or ASHRAE Standard 37–1988 (a 

psychrometric-based method) may be 

used to determine cooling efficiency. 

The two test methods have significant 

differences that may influence test 

results, including whether outgoing 

evaporator air is allowed to recirculate 

back into the evaporator. Testing 

consistency of PTACs and PTHPs may 

be improved by requiring all efficiency 

tests to be conducted using only one of 

the two ASHRAE standards. On the 

other hand, such an approach may 

increase test burden, particularly for 

those manufacturers that currently use 

one particular test method (e.g., 

manufacturers who do not have access 

to a calorimeter test chamber needed to 

conduct testing according to ASHRAE 

Standard 16). DOE asked for comment 

on this issue in the framework 

document. 78 FR 12252 (Feb. 22, 2013). 

Goodman and AHRI both stated that 

there is an ongoing process to revise 

ASHRAE Standard 16 that will 

incorporate aspects of ASHRAE 

Standard 37. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2; 

Goodman, Framework Public Meeting 

Transcript at p. 29) Goodman stated that 

it uses both psychrometric and 

calorimeter methods for its performance 

testing. (Goodman, No. 13 at p. 2) AHRI 

stated that it conducts its cooling 

verification testing for PTACs and 

PTHPs only in calorimeter rooms in 

accordance with ASHRAE Standard 16. 

AHRI also stated that, despite the 

differences between the two test 

methods, the test results between the 

two methods correlate. (AHRI, No. 11 at 

p. 2) AHRI noted that ASHRAE 

Standard 16 is currently being revised, 

and the upcoming release of the 

standards would likely include both 

psychrometric and calorimeter testing 

methods. AHRI stated that, upon release 

of updated ASHRAE Standard 16, 

ANSI/AHRI Standard 310/380 will 

likely use ASHRAE Standard 16 as the 

sole test standard for cooling capacity. 

(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2; AHRI, Framework 

Public Meeting Transcript at p. 28) 

Goodman also encouraged DOE to adopt 

the future revised version of ASHRAE 

Standard 16 as soon as it is completed, 

and when this occurs, remove 

references to ASHRAE Standard 37 from 

the DOE test procedure. (Goodman, No. 

13 at p. 2) AHRI recommended that DOE 

specify either ASHRAE Standard 16 or 

ASHRAE 37 as the sole method for 

conducting cooling capacity tests. 

(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) 

To investigate potential differences in 

results between the ASHRAE Standard 

16 and ASHRAE Standard 37 test 

methods, DOE conducted some 

experimental testing on this issue using 

three PTAC units, one each from three 

distinct manufacturers. DOE tested all 

three units at a third-party testing lab 

under both ASHRAE Standard 16 and 

ASHRAE Standard 37, and the results 

can be directly compared since both 

standards allow for testing of the energy 

efficiency ratio (EER) at peak-load 

conditions. The test results showed that 

differences in the calculated EER 

between ASHRAE Standard 16 and 

ASHRAE Standard 37 ranged from 0.4 

to1.0 Btu/h-W, depending on the unit. 

These results do not support a 

conclusion that the two methods of test 

generate consistent results. 

DOE understands that there is an 

ongoing process to revise ASHRAE 

Standard 16 to incorporate 

psychrometric testing currently detailed 

in ASHRAE Standard 37. Upon release 

of the updated standard, DOE may 

consider updates to the DOE test 

procedure to reference the new 

standard, as recommended by AHRI and 

Goodman. 

To standardize the testing of PTACs 

and PTHPs, DOE is proposing to require 

that only ASHRAE Standard 16 be used 

when conducting a cooling mode test 

for PTACs and PTHPs. DOE seeks 

comment on its proposal to designate 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14191 

ASHRAE Standard 16 as the sole test 

method for determining cooling 

efficiency. Specifically, DOE is 

interested in the test burden on 

manufacturers of this designation, 

particularly given that all AHRI 

certification program testing is 

conducted using ASHRAE Standard 16. 

DOE also seeks information on whether 

there are PTAC or PTHP manufacturers 

that conduct a significant number of 

tests using ASHRAE Standard 37. This 

is identified as issue 5 in section V.E, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

E. Wall Sleeve Size and Filter 

Requirements for Testing 

Wall Sleeve Size 

The DOE test procedure provides 

limited guidance on the type of wall 

sleeve that should be used during 

testing. Wall sleeves are used in PTAC 

and PTHP testing to provide an outer 

case for the main refrigeration 

components. In the field, the wall 

sleeves are often installed in the 

building, and the cooling/heating 

assembly slides into and out of this 

case. For standard size PTACs and 

PTHPs, the wall sleeve measures 42 

inches wide and 16 inches high; 

however, there is no standardized 

depth. 

Some manufacturers offer extended 

wall sleeves in a variety of depths (up 

to 31 inches) that can be used with any 

of their standard size PTACs or PTHPs. 

DOE believes that the use of varying test 

sleeve depths can affect measured test 

results, due to the differences in airflow 

and fan performance. DOE’s test 

procedure, in section 4.3 of ANSI/AHRI 

Standard 310/380, provides some 

limited guidance about the wall sleeve 

that should be used during testing; it 

states that ‘‘standard equipment shall be 

in place during all tests, unless 

otherwise specified in the 

manufacturer’s instructions to the user.’’ 

However, there currently is no guidance 

for units where multiple test sleeves 

might be acceptable. 

DOE’s survey of wall sleeve sizes on 

the market showed that the most 

common wall sleeve depth is 14 inches. 

While DOE has no data indicating the 

impact of testing with a 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 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023, 

No. 53, pg. 17). Based on this 

information, DOE proposes to add a 

provision to 10 CFR 431.96 to require 

testing using a wall sleeve with a depth 

of 14 inches (or the wall sleeve option 

that is closest to 14 inches in depth that 

is available for the basic model being 

tested). This is consistent with the 

recommendation by the Working Group. 

Filter Requirements 

The DOE test procedure provides 

limited guidance on the type of filter 

that should be used during testing, and 

DOE has investigated the issue of testing 

with standard filters versus highefficiency filters. PTACs or PTHPs 

generally ship with a filter to remove 

particulates from the indoor airstream. 

There is currently no description in the 

DOE test procedure of the type of filter 

to be used during testing. While some 

PTACs and PTHPs only have one filter 

option, some PTACs and PTHPs are 

shipped with either a standard filter or 

a high efficiency filter. A high efficiency 

filter will impose more air flow 

restriction, which can incrementally 

decrease air flow and the capacity or 

efficiency of the unit. 

DOE considered whether to specify a 

particular MERV filter efficiency for use 

with the test, such as MERV–2 or 

MERV–3 levels of filtration. However, 

DOE noted that the filter efficiencies 

offered in PTACs and PTHPs are 

generally not specified using a standard 

metric. Furthermore, some PTACs are 

sold with higher-efficiency ‘‘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 procedure, all of which would 

impose additional burden. The Working 

Group was also aware of this issue, and 

also discussed the issue of varying air 

filter efficiency. The Working Group 

voted to adopt the position that units 

should be tested ‘‘as shipped’’ with 

respect to selecting a filter option 

(Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023, 

No. 53, pg. 16). 

Consistent with the Working Group’s 

recommendations, DOE proposes to add 

a provision to 10 CFR 431.96 to require 

testing using the standard or default 

filter option that is shipped with most 

units. For those models that are not 

shipped with a filter, DOE proposes to 

require the use of an off-the-shelf 

MERV–3 (minimum efficiency reporting 

value) filter for testing. 

DOE seeks comment on these 

proposals and whether there are any 

PTACs or PTHPs that cannot be tested 

using a 14 inch deep wall sleeve. DOE 

also seeks comment on whether a 

MERV–3 filter is appropriate for testing 

PTACs and PTHPs that do not ship with 

filters. These have are identified as 

issues 7 and 8 in section V.E, ‘‘Issues on 

Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

F. Barometric Pressure Correction 

The DOE test procedure, in Section 

6.1.3 of referenced ASHRAE Standard 

16, allows for adjustment of the capacity 

measurement based on the tested 

barometric pressure: ‘‘The capacity may 

be increased 0.8% for each in. Hg below 

29.92 in. Hg.’’ Theoretically, air is less 

dense at higher altitudes where the 

barometric pressure is lower. As a 

result, air mass flow generated by fans 

and blowers is less at higher altitudes, 

which may decrease the measured 

cooling capacity due to reduced air flow 

over the coils. However, there are other 

competing effects that may negate this 

decrease. DOE requested detailed test 

data showing the relationship of 

capacity to barometric pressure in the 

framework document. 78 FR 12252 (Feb. 

22, 2013). 

Goodman stated that it did not have 

data showing the relationship between 

barometric pressure and cooling 

capacity but mentioned that AHRI 

Standard 550–2011 (‘‘Performance 

Rating of Water-Chilling and Heat Pump 

Water-Heating Packages Using the 

Vapor Compression Cycle’’) has a 

normative appendix (Appendix F) that 

uses a barometric pressure adjustment 

and that the ASHRAE Standard Project 

Committee is considering adopting the 

AHRI 550 calculation in the revised 

ASHRAE Standard 16. Goodman also 

commented that barometric pressure 

should be used in performing capacity 

calculations for PTACs and PTHPs. 

(Goodman, No. 13 at p. 2) 

Because DOE has not received any 

data to support the removal of the 

barometric pressure correction from the 

DOE test procedure, DOE is not 

proposing to amend or remove this 

provision. DOE seeks comments or data 

on the barometric pressure correction 

specifically used for PTACs and PTHPs. 

This is identified as issue 4 in section 

V.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

G. Part-Load Efficiency Metric and 

Varying Ambient Conditions 

The current DOE test procedure for 

PTACs and PTHPs measures cooling 

and heating efficiency in terms of EER 

and coefficient of performance (COP), 

respectively. Both of these metrics 

measure the efficiency of the unit 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14192 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3The IEER metric was developed by the 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air 

Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) for Standard 

90.1–2007. In Addenda from the 2008 Supplement 

to Standard 90.1–2007, ASHRAE replaced the 

integrated part load value (IPLV) metric for 

commercial unitary air conditioners and 

commercial unitary heat pumps with the IEER 

metric, effective January 1, 2010. 

running steadily at the maximum 

cooling or heating output settings. 

The Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP) raised the issue that 

current efficiency metrics do not 

capture part load performance and, for 

that reason, do not properly reflect the 

benefits of technologies such as variable 

speed compressors that could save 

significant energy in the field due to 

improvement in part load efficiency. 

(ASAP, Framework Public Meeting 

Transcript at p. 35) ASAP and the 

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE) jointly 

encouraged DOE to develop a test 

procedure that captures part-load 

efficiency in order to better represent 

the energy efficiency in the field. They 

suggested that DOE adopt a metric 

similar to integrated energy efficiency 

ratio (IEER), which measures efficiency 

at different compressor load points 

(100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% of full 

capacity).3 (ASAP and ACEEE, No. 14 at 

p. 1) AHRI commented that PTACs and 

PTHPs are generally operated at full 

load most of the time and that it is not 

common practice in the field to operate 

the units at part load. (AHRI, 

Framework Public Meeting Transcript at 

p. 36) 

The CA IOUs stated that the DOE test 

procedure should require the 

measurement and reporting of the 

performance of PTACs and PTHPs in a 

variety of ambient conditions to 

represent varying climate zones. (CA 

IOUs, No. 12 at p. 3) Southern Company 

Services (SCS) commented that if DOE 

starts looking into part-load efficiency 

metrics for PTACs and PTHPs, then 

DOE would need to consider climate 

issues in the metric, which would be a 

complex issue. (SCS, Framework Public 

Meeting Transcript at p. 37) 

DOE is unaware of any data showing 

the time PTACs and PTHPs spend 

operating in part-load conditions versus 

full-load conditions. Likewise, DOE is 

unaware of any information that shows 

the amount of time that PTACs and/or 

PTHPs spend cycling their compressors 

when operating in conditions not 

requiring their full load. Likewise, DOE 

is not aware of any data showing the 

amount of time that PTHPs with defrost 

capabilities spend at different outdoor 

temperatures, specifically at 17 °F 

compared with that at 47 °F. These data 

would be needed to incorporate the 

lower temperatures into a part-load 

metric, as noted by the CA IOUs. Such 

data would be necessary as inputs to a 

part-load metric for PTACs and/or 

PTHPs. 

DOE believes that the existing EER 

(full load) metric accurately reflects 

equipment efficiency during the year. 

However, DOE recognizes the 

importance of conducting the data 

collection outlined above to establish 

whether a part load metric is needed 

and to provide the necessary basis for 

developing such a metric. DOE will 

consider gathering relevant data to assist 

in a future test procedure rulemaking. 

However, DOE does not have sufficient 

information regarding part-load 

operation to establish such a test 

procedure at this time. 

The CA IOUs also stated that the 

heating mode test method should 

include defrost mode operation and 

testing at both 47 °F and 17 °F to capture 

the effects of electric resistance heat. 

(CA IOUs, No. 12 at p. 3) 

DOE notes that ASHRAE Standard 58 

includes a test of the defrost operation 

for units that experience defrost during 

the standard rating test at the specified 

test conditions. This test is not currently 

included as part of the DOE test 

procedure. As stated above regarding 

part-load metrics, DOE will consider 

such testing to assist in a future test 

procedure rulemaking. 

Ice Air, LLC (Ice Air) commented that 

DOE’s current energy conservation 

standards fail to account for the 

economic, environmental, and energy 

impact of using electric heat in PTACs 

and PTHPs. It also stated that there 

should be a standardized methodology 

for measuring the impact of alternate 

heat sources (e.g., hydronic or gas heat), 

and that the energy-efficiency impact of 

such heat sources should be accounted 

for in the DOE test procedure. (Ice Air, 

No. 9 at p. 1) 

DOE notes that the heating coefficient 

of performance calculated using ANSI/ 

AHRI Standard 310/380 does not 

include any energy consumed by 

supplementary heating sources at times 

when low outdoor temperatures require 

its use. It also does not include energy 

consumed by supplementary hydronic 

or gas heating. To incorporate the 

energy consumed by supplementary 

resistance heat would require changing 

the metric to a seasonal metric, which 

would require knowledge of national 

average heating load patterns for PTHPs 

as a function of ambient temperature– 

information which DOE does not have 

at this time. 

DOE is not proposing to adopt either 

a part-load or seasonal efficiency metric 

for the cooling mode that considers partload performance, or a seasonal 

efficiency metric for the heating mode 

that considers electric resistance heating 

for PTACs or PTHPs. DOE seeks 

comments regarding this conclusion, 

including any information regarding 

seasonal load patterns for PTACs and 

PTHPs in both cooling and heating 

modes. This is identified as issue 6 in 

section V.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ 

H. Compliance Date of the Test 

Procedure Amendments 

In amending a test procedure, EPCA 

directs DOE to determine to what 

extent, if any, the test procedure would 

alter the measured energy efficiency or 

measured energy use of a covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)) If the 

amended test procedure alters the 

measured energy efficiency or measured 

energy use, the Secretary must amend 

the applicable energy conservation 

standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)) 

The proposed test procedure 

amendments for PTACs and PTHPS do 

not contain changes that would 

materially alter the measured energy 

efficiency of equipment. Rather, most of 

the proposed changes represent 

clarifications that would improve the 

uniform application of the test 

procedures for this equipment. Any 

change in the rated efficiency that might 

be associated with these clarifications is 

expected to be de minimis. 

DOE’s test procedure proposals being 

considered in this notice would be 

effective 30 days after publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register. 

Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6314(d), any 

representations of energy consumption 

of PTACs and PTHPs must be based on 

any final amended test procedures 360 

days after the publication of the test 

procedure final rule. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14193 

4A searchable database of certified small 

businesses is available online at: http://

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IFRA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE reviewed today’s proposed rule 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. This proposed rule prescribes test 

procedures that will be used to test 

compliance with energy conservation 

standards for the products that are the 

subject of this rulemaking. DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the proposed 

rule would not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) considers an entity to be a small 

business if, together with its affiliates, it 

employs less than a threshold number of 

workers specified in 13 CFR part 121, 

which relies on size standards and 

codes established by the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS). The threshold number 

for NAICS classification for 333415, 

which applies to air conditioning and 

warm air heating equipment and 

commercial and industrial refrigeration 

equipment, is 750. Searches of the SBA 

Web site 4 to identify manufacturers 

within these NAICS codes that 

manufacture PTACs and/or PTHPs did 

not identify any small entities that 

could be affected by this test procedure 

modification. 

DOE expects the impact of the 

proposed rule to be minimal. The 

proposed rule would amend DOE’s test 

procedures to specify an optional breakin period, explicitly require that wall 

sleeves be sealed to prevent air leakage, 

allow for the pre-filling of the 

condensate drain pan, require that the 

cooling mode be tested using only 

ASHRAE Standard 16, and require 

testing with 14-inch deep wall sleeves 

and the filter option most representative 

of a typical installation. These tests can 

be conducted in the same facilities used 

for the current energy testing of these 

products and do not require testing in 

addition to what is currently required. 

The break-in period is optional and may 

result in improved energy efficiency of 

the unit; the break-in is also generally 

conducted outside of the balancedambient calorimeter facility. DOE 

expects that manufacturers will require 

minimal time to plug in and run the 

PTACs and PTHPs, and will only incur 

the additional time for the break-in step 

if it is beneficial to testing. In this case, 

the cost will be minimal due to the 

nature of the testing and the fact that it 

is not conducted within the facility. 

Material costs are expected to be 

negligible, as air sealing the wall sleeves 

can be accomplished with typically 

available lab materials, and there are no 

additional costs from specifying a 

particular wall sleeve and/or filter that 

typically comes with the unit. In 

addition, pre-filling of the condensate 

pan is expected to reduce test time by 

2–4 hours, which would reduce testing 

costs by approximately $375–750 per 

test. DOE also believes that most 

manufacturers are already using 

ASHRAE Standard 16 because all AHRI 

testing is conducted using this method. 

Thus, such requirements for equipment 

and time to conduct tests (if necessary 

to recertify using ASHRAE Standard 16) 

would not be expected to impose a 

significant economic impact. 

For these reasons, DOE certifies that 

the proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE will transmit the 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA for review under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of packaged terminal 

air conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps must certify to DOE that 

their equipment complies with any 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their 

equipment according to the DOE test 

procedures for packaged terminal air 

conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps, including any amendments 

adopted for those test procedures. DOE 

has established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including packaged terminal air 

conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps. 76 FR 12422 (Mar. 7, 2011). 

The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). 

In the Certification of Commercial 

Equipment NOPR issued on February 7, 

2014, DOE proposed to revise and 

expand its existing regulations 

governing compliance certification for 

commercial HVAC, WH, and CRE 

equipment covered by EPCA. 79 FR 

8886. Requirements for PTAC and PTHP 

manufacturers were included in the 

Certification of Commercial Equipment 

NOPR, and DOE sought comment on 

this proposed expansion of the existing 

information collection. 79 FR 8886. In 

today’s NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

include the break-in period and the wall 

sleeve dimensions under the current 

certification requirements listed in 10 

CFR 429.43. DOE does not believe that 

these additions to the certification 

requirements constitute a significant 

additional burden upon respondents, as 

they require the addition of two 

additional pieces of information on the 

existing certification report. DOE 

believes that the Certification of 

Commercial Equipment NOPR provides 

an accurate estimate of the existing 

burden on respondents. 79 FR 8886. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this proposed rule, DOE proposes 

test procedure amendments that it 

expects will be used to develop and 

implement future energy conservation 

standards for packaged terminal air 

conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps. DOE has determined that 

this rule falls into a class of actions that 

are categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, this proposed rule would 

amend the existing test procedures 

without affecting the amount, quality or 

distribution of energy usage, and, 

therefore, would not result in any 

environmental impacts. Thus, this 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14194 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

rulemaking is covered by Categorical 

Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D, which applies to any 

rulemaking that interprets or amends an 

existing rule without changing the 

environmental effect of that rule. 

Accordingly, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental 

impact statement is required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this proposed rule and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the equipment that is the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) No further action is required by 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

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

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

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

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

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

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

http://energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined today’s 

proposed rule according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

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

today’s proposed rule under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14195 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action to amend 

the test procedure for measuring the 

energy efficiency of packaged terminal 

air conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as a significant energy 

action by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Therefore, it is not a significant energy 

action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

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

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

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

788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed rule incorporates 

testing methods contained in the 

following commercial standards: ANSI/ 

AHRI Standard 310/380–2004 and 

ASHRAE Standard 16–1983 (RA 2009). 

The Department has evaluated these 

standards and is unable to conclude 

whether they fully comply with the 

requirements of section 32(b) of the 

FEAA, (i.e., that they were developed in 

a manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review). 

DOE will consult with the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact of these test 

procedures on competition, prior to 

prescribing a final rule. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

The time, date and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this document. If you plan to attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. Please 

note that foreign nationals visiting DOE 

Headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. Any 

foreign national wishing to participate 

in the meeting should advise DOE as 

soon as possible by contacting Ms. 

Edwards to initiate the necessary 

procedures. Please also note that those 

wishing to bring laptops into the 

Forrestal Building will be required to 

obtain a property pass. Visitors should 

avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 

45 minutes. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=89. Participants 

are responsible for ensuring their 

systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who plans to present a 

prepared general statement may request 

that copies of his or her statement be 

made available at the public meeting. 

Such persons may submit requests, 

along with an advance electronic copy 

of their statement in PDF (preferred), 

Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, 

or text (ASCII) file format, to the 

appropriate address shown in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this notice. The request and advance 

copy of statements must be received at 

least one week before the public 

meeting and may be emailed, handdelivered, or sent by mail. DOE prefers 

to receive requests and advance copies 

via email. Please include a telephone 

number to enable DOE staff to make a 

follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. After the public meeting 

and until the end of the comment 

period, interested parties may submit 

further comments on the proceedings 

and any aspect of the rulemaking. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this notice. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14196 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

regulations.gov. If you do not want your 

personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery, please 

provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It 

is not necessary to submit printed 

copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via email, postal mail, or 

hand delivery two well-marked copies: 

One copy of the document marked 

confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. DOE seeks comment on its proposal 

to add an optional break-in period to the 

test procedure (up to 20 hours) for 

PTACs and PTHPs, and whether the 

duration of the proposed break-in 

period is appropriate. If commenters 

support longer break-in times, DOE also 

requests data showing that break-in 

periods longer than 20 hours make a 

significant impact on efficiency 

measurements for this equipment type. 

2. DOE seeks comments on the sealing 

of PTAC and PTHP wall sleeves to the 

test facility dividing wall, including 

whether the type or method of sealing 

should be specified in the test 

procedure, and whether a test has been 

developed that could be performed to 

verify that adequate elimination of air 

leakage has been achieved. 

3. DOE seeks comments on its 

proposal to permit the pre-filling of the 

condensate drain pan, including 

whether the mineral content of the 

water or temperature of the water used 

would affect the measurement and/or 

whether these data should be recorded 

and documented as part of the test 

records underlying certification. 

4. DOE seeks comments on its 

proposal to require testing using 14-inch 

deep wall sleeves and standard filters. 

DOE is also interested in whether there 

are any PTACs or PTHPs that cannot be 

tested with a 14-inch deep wall sleeve. 

5. DOE also seeks comment on its 

proposal to require the use of MERV–3 

filter for testing PTACs and PTHPs that 

do not ship with filters. 

6. DOE seeks comments or data on the 

need for a barometric pressure 

correction for PTACs and PTHPs. 

7. DOE seeks comments on its 

proposal to designate ASHRAE 

Standard 16 as the sole test method for 

measuring cooling efficiency for PTACs 

and PTHPs. Specifically, DOE is 

interested in the test burden on 

manufacturers resulting from this 

proposed requirement, and whether 

there are PTAC or PTHP manufacturers 

that currently conduct a significant 

number of tests using ASHRAE 

Standard 37. 

8. DOE seeks comments on its 

proposal not to develop seasonal 

efficiency metrics that would evaluate 

part-load operation of PTACs and 

PTHPs or the impact of electric 

resistance heating in low ambient 

temperatures for PTHPs. DOE also seeks 

any information regarding seasonal load 

patterns for PTACs and PTHPs in both 

cooling and heating modes. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14197 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Confidential business information, 

Energy conservation, Household 

appliances, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 6, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II, 

Subchapter D, of Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Amend § 429.43 by: 

■ a. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii); 

■ b. Removing in paragraph (b)(2) 

introductory text the word ‘‘shall’’ and 

adding in its place the word ‘‘must’’; 

and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and 

(iv). 

The addition and revisions 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 units in 

the sample selected as described in 

paragraph (ii) of this section, rounded to 

the nearest 100 Btu/h. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) Package terminal air conditioners: 

The energy efficiency ratio (EER in 

British thermal units per Watt-hour 

(Btu/Wh)), the rated cooling capacity in 

British thermal units per hour (Btu/h), 

the wall sleeve dimensions in inches 

(in), and the duration of the break-in 

period (hours). 

(iv) Package terminal heat pumps: The 

energy efficiency ratio (EER in British 

thermal units per Watt-hour (Btu/W–h)), 

the coefficient of performance (COP), 

the rated cooling capacity in British 

thermal units per hour (Btu/h), the wall 

sleeve dimensions in inches (in), and 

the duration of the break-in period 

(hours). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add § 429.134 to read as follows: 

§ 429.134 Product-specific Enforcement 

Provisions. 

(a)–(d) [Reserved]. 

(e) Package terminal air conditioners 

and heat pumps. (1) Verification of 

cooling capacity. The total cooling 

capacity of the basic model will be 

measured pursuant to the test 

requirements of part 431 for each unit 

tested. The results of the 

measurement(s) will be averaged and 

compared to the value of cooling 

capacity certified by the manufacturer. 

The certified cooling capacity will be 

considered valid only if the 

measurement is within five percent of 

the certified cooling capacity. 

(i) If the certified cooling capacity is 

found to be valid, that cooling capacity 

will be used as the basis for calculation 

of the EER and, if applicable, the COP 

energy conservation standard that 

applies to the given basic model. 

(ii) If the certified cooling capacity is 

found to be invalid, the average 

measured cooling capacity will serve as 

the basis for calculation of the EER and, 

if applicable, COP energy conservation 

standard that applies to the given basic 

model. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 5. Amend § 431.95 by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraph (c)(1) as 

(c)(3); and 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 431.95 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) ASHRAE 16–1999, ‘‘Method of 

Testing for Rating Room Air 

Conditioners and Packaged Terminal 

Air Conditioners,’’ IBR approved for 

§ 431.96. 

(2) ASHRAE 58–1999, ‘‘Method of 

Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioner 

and Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner 

Heating Capacity,’’ IBR approved for 

§ 431.96. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. 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) Determine the energy efficiency of 

each type of covered equipment by 

conducting the test procedure(s) listed 

in the rightmost column of Table 1 of 

this section along with any additional 

testing provisions set forth in this 

section, that apply to the energy 

efficiency descriptor for that equipment, 

category, and cooling capacity. The 

omitted sections of the test procedures 

listed in the rightmost column of Table 

1 of this section shall not be used. 

(3) After [date 360 days after date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register], any representations 

made with respect to the energy use or 

efficiency of packaged terminal air 

conditioners and heat pumps (PTACs 

and PHTPs) must be made in 

accordance with the results of testing 

pursuant to this section. Manufacturers 

conducting tests of PTACs and PTHPs 

after [date 30 days after date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] and prior to [date 360 

days after date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register], must 

conduct such test in accordance with 

either this table or § 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
14198 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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.

Air-Cooled AC and HP 

<65,000 Btu/h ...............

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h. 

SEER and HSPF ..........

EER and COP 

AHRI 210/240–2008 

(omit section 6.5).

AHRI 340/360–2007 

(omit section 6.3). 

Paragraphs (c) and (e). 

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC.<65,000 Btu/h ...............

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h 

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

EER 

AHRI 210/240–2008 

(omit section 6.5).

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 .........

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h. 

EER and COP ...............

EER 

AHRI 340/360–2007 

(omit section 6.3).

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 .........

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h. 

EER and COP ...............

EER 

AHRI 340/360–2007 

(omit section 6.3).

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 ...............

<65,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h 

SCOP ............................

SCOP 

ASHRAE 127–2007 

(omit section 5.11).

ASHRAE 127–2007 

(omit section 5.11). 

Paragraphs (c), and (e). 

Variable Refrigerant Flow 

Multi-split Systems.

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

sections 5.1.2 and 

6.6).

Paragraphs (c), (e), and 

(f). 

Variable Refrigerant Flow 

Multi-split Systems, Aircooled.

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 

Multi-split 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 

Multi-split 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 

cited in Table 1. 

* * * * * 

(g) Test Procedures for Packaged 

Terminal Air Conditioners and 

Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps. (1) The 

test method for testing packaged 

terminal air conditioners and packaged 

terminal heat pumps in cooling mode 

shall consist of application of the 

methods and conditions in AHRI 310/

380–2004 sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 

4.4 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 431.95), and in ANSI/ASHRAE 16 

(incorporated by reference; see 

§ 431.95). Where definitions provided in 

AHRI 310/380–2004 overlap with the 

definitions provided in 10 CFR 431.92, 

the 10 CFR 431.92 definitions shall be 

used. 

(2) The test method for testing 

packaged terminal heat pumps in 

heating mode shall consist of 

application of the methods and 

conditions in AHRI 310/380–2004 

sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 

(incorporated by reference; see 

§ 431.95), and in ANSI/ASHRAE 58 

(incorporated by reference; see 

§ 431.95). Where definitions provided in 

AHRI 310/380–2004 overlap with the 

definitions provided in 10 CFR 431.92, 

the 10 CFR 431.92 definitions shall be 

used. 

(3) Wall sleeves. For packaged 

terminal air conditioners and packaged 

terminal heat pumps, the unit must be 

installed in a wall sleeve with a 14 inch 

depth if available. If a 14 inch deep wall 

sleeve is not available, use the available 

wall sleeve option closest to 14 inches 

in depth. The area(s) between the wall 

sleeve and the insulated partition 

between the indoor and outdoor rooms 

must be sealed to eliminate all air 

leakage through this area. 

(4) Optional pre-filling of the 

condensate drain pan. For packaged 

terminal air conditioners and packaged 

terminal heat pumps, test facilities may 

add water to the condensate drain pan 

of the equipment under test (until the 

water drains out due to overflow 

devices or until the pan is full) prior to 

conducting the test method specified by 

AHRI 310/380–2004 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.95). No specific 

level of water mineral content or water 

temperature is required for the water 

added to the condensate drain pan. 

(5) Test Method for Standard Cooling 

Ratings. For packaged terminal air 

conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps, the ANSI/ASHRAE test 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 14199 

1http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/regreview/index.shtml. 

method used in tests shall be ANSI/

ASHRAE 16 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.95). 

(6) Filter selection. For packaged 

terminal air conditioners and packaged 

terminal heat pumps, the indoor filter 

used during testing shall be the standard 

or default filter option shipped with the 

model with the model. If a particular 

model is shipped without a filter, the 

unit must be tested with a level MERV– 

3 filter. 

[FR Doc. 2014–05366 Filed 3–12–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Chapter I 

Modified 10-Year Regulatory Review 

Schedule 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to request 

public comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its ongoing, 

systematic review of all Federal Trade 

Commission rules and guides, the 

Commission announces a modified tenyear regulatory review schedule. No 

Commission determination on the need 

for, or the substance of, the rules and 

guides listed below should be inferred 

from the notice of intent to publish 

requests for comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Further details about particular rules or 

guides may be obtained from the contact 

person listed below for the rule or 

guide. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To ensure 

that its rules and industry guides remain 

relevant and are not unduly 

burdensome, the Commission reviews 

them on a ten-year schedule. Each year 

the Commission publishes its review 

schedule, with adjustments made in 

response to public input, changes in the 

marketplace, and resource demands. 

When the Commission reviews a rule 

or guide, it publishes a notice in the 

Federal Register seeking public 

comment on the continuing need for the 

rule or guide as well as the rule’s or 

guide’s costs and benefits to consumers 

and businesses. Based on this feedback, 

the Commission may modify or repeal 

the rule or guide to address public 

concerns or changed conditions, or to 

reduce undue regulatory burden. 

The Commission posts information 

about its review schedule on its Web 

site 1 to facilitate comment about rules 

and guides. This Web site provides links 

in one location to Federal Register 

notices requesting comments, comment 

forms, and comments for rules and 

guides that are currently under review. 

The Web site also contains a 

continuously updated review schedule, 

a list of rules and guides previously 

eliminated in the regulatory review 

process, and the Commission’s 

regulatory review plan. 

Modified Ten-Year Schedule for 

Review of FTC Rules and Guides 

For 2014, the Commission intends to 

initiate reviews of, and solicit public 

comments on, the following rules: 

(1) Rules and Regulations under the 

Hobby Protection Act, 16 CFR Part 304. 

Agency Contact: Joshua Millard, (202) 

326–2454, Federal Trade Commission, 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, 

Division of Enforcement, 600 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20580. 

(2) Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 CFR 

Part 310. Agency Contact: Craig 

Tregillus, (202) 326–2970, Federal Trade 

Commission, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection, Division of Marketing 

Practices, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. 

(3) Standards for Safeguarding 

Customer Information, 16 CFR Part 314, 

which implements Sections 501 and 

505(b)(2) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 

Act. Agency Contact: David Lincicum, 

(202) 326–2773, Federal Trade 

Commission, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection, Division of Privacy and 

Identity Protection, 600 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580. 

The Commission is currently 

reviewing 25 of the 65 rules and guides 

within its jurisdiction. The Commission 

is postponing review of the Preservation 

of Consumers’ Claims and Defenses 

[Holder in Due Course Rule], 16 CFR 

Part 433, from 2014 as previously 

scheduled until 2015. 

A copy of the Commission’s modified 

regulatory review schedule for 2014 

through 2024 is appended. The 

Commission, in its discretion, may 

modify or reorder the schedule in the 

future to incorporate new rules, or to 

respond to external factors (such as 

changes in the law) or other 

considerations. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41–58. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

Appendix 

REGULATORY REVIEW

[Modified ten-year schedule] 

16 CFR part Topic Year to review 

20 ....................... Guides for the Rebuilt, Reconditioned and Other Used Automobile Parts Industry ....................... Currently Under Review. 

23 ....................... Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries .................................................... Currently Under Review. 

239 ..................... Guides for the Advertising of Warranties and Guarantees .............................................................. Currently Under Review. 

240 ..................... Guides for Advertising Allowances and Other Merchandising Payments and Services [Fred 

Meyer Guides].

Currently Under Review. 

259 ..................... Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles .............................................. Currently Under Review. 

300 ..................... Rules and Regulations under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 ......................................... Currently Under Review. 

301 ..................... Rules and Regulations under Fur Products Labeling Act ............................................................... Currently Under Review. 

303 ..................... Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act .................................... Currently Under Review. 

305 ..................... Appliance Labeling Rule .................................................................................................................. Currently Under Review. 

306 ..................... Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting ........................................................................ Currently Under Review. 

308 ..................... Trade Regulation Rule Pursuant to the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute Resolution Act of 

1992 [Pay Per Call Rule].

Currently Under Review. 

423 ..................... Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods ............................................. Currently Under Review. 

424 ..................... Retail Food Store Advertising and Marketing Practices [Unavailability Rule] ................................. Currently Under Review. 

425 ..................... Use of Prenotification Negative Option Plans .................................................................................. Currently Under Review. 

429 ..................... Rule Concerning Cooling-Off Period for Sales Made at Homes or at Certain Other Locations ..... Currently Under Review. 

435 ..................... Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise ............................................................................................ Currently Under Review. 

455 ..................... Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule .................................................................................... Currently Under Review. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS