Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34499 

DOE staff to make a follow-up contact, 

if needed. 

Conduct of Public Meeting 

ASRAC’s Designated Federal Officer 

will 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. A transcript of the 

public meeting will be included on 

DOE’s website: https://energy.gov/eere/ 

buildings/appliance-standards-andrulemaking-federal-advisory-committee. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. Public comment and 

statements will be allowed prior to the 

close of the meeting. 

Docket 

The docket is available for review at 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=EERE-2018-BT-STD-0003, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendee lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, not 

all documents listed in the index may 

be publically available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on June 28, 

2018. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15579 Filed 7–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–TP–0020] 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Single Package Vertical 

Air Conditioners and Single Package 

Vertical Heat Pumps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is initiating a data 

collection process through this request 

for information (‘‘RFI’’) to consider 

whether to amend DOE’s test procedure 

for single package vertical air 

conditioners (‘‘SPVACs’’) and single 

package vertical heat pumps 

(‘‘SPVHPs’’), collectively referred to as 

single package vertical units (‘‘SPVUs’’). 

To inform interested parties and to 

facilitate the process, DOE has gathered 

data, identifying several issues 

associated with the currently applicable 

test procedure on which DOE is 

interested in receiving comment. The 

issues outlined in this document mainly 

concern: Incorporation by reference of 

the applicable industry standard; 

efficiency metrics; clarification of test 

methods; and any additional topics that 

may inform DOE’s decisions in a future 

test procedure rulemaking, including 

methods to reduce regulatory burden 

while ensuring the procedure’s 

accuracy. DOE welcomes written 

comments from the public on any of 

subject within the scope of this 

document (including topics not raised 

in this RFI). 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before September 4, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments by any 

of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: SPVACandHeatPumps2017

TP0020@ee.doe.gov. Include docket 

number EERE–2017–BT–TP–0020 in the 

subject line of the message. 

3. Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

Test Procedure RFI for Single Package 

Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps, Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–TP– 

0020, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. 

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

please submit all items on a CD, in 

which case it is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section III of this document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at http://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020. The 

docket web page contains instructions 

on how to access all documents, 

including public comments, in the 

docket. See section III for information 

on how to submit comments through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

7335. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

(202) 586–9507. Email: Eric.Stas@

hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority and Background 

B. Rulemaking History 

II. Request for Information 

A. Scope and Definitions 

B. Test Procedure 

1. Test Set-Up 

2. Airflow and External Static Pressure 

3. Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method 

4. Air Temperature Measurements 

C. Energy Efficiency Descriptor 

D. Other Test Procedure Topics 

III. Submission of Comments 

I. Introduction 

SPVACs and SPVHPs are included in 

the list of ‘‘covered equipment’’ for 

which DOE is authorized to establish 

and amend energy efficiency standards 

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

6311(1)(B)–(D)) DOE’s test procedure for 

SPVACs and SPVHPs is prescribed in 

title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’), appendix A to 

subpart F of part 431. The following 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
34500 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy 

Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015 (EEIA 2015), 

Public Law 114–11 (April 30, 2015). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

sections discuss DOE’s authority to 

establish and amend test procedures for 

SPVACs and SPVHPs, as well as 

relevant background information 

regarding DOE’s consideration of test 

procedures for this equipment. 

A. Authority and Background 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’),1

Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317, as codified), among other things, 

authorizes DOE to regulate the energy 

efficiency of a number of consumer 

products and industrial equipment. 

Title III, Part C2 of the Act, added by 

Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section 

441(a), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. This 

equipment includes small, large, and 

very large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment, 

which includes the SPVACs and 

SPVHPs (referred to collectively as 

single package vertical units (‘‘SPVUs’’)) 

that are the subject of this RFI. (42 

U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(D)) 

Under EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) 

labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 

standards, and (4) certification and 

enforcement procedures. Relevant 

provisions of the Act include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test 

procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling 

provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6316). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

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

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

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions of 

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

The Federal testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

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

making representations about the 

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

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

procedures to determine whether the 

equipment complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. 

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

the criteria and procedures DOE is 

required to follow when prescribing or 

amending test procedures for covered 

equipment. EPCA requires that any test 

procedures prescribed or amended 

under this section must be reasonably 

designed to produce test results which 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of 

covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use and requires that test 

procedures 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)) 

As discussed, SPVUs are a category of 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment. EPCA requires 

that the test procedures for commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment be those generally accepted 

industry testing procedures or rating 

procedures developed or recognized by 

the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) or by the 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE), as referenced in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ‘‘Energy 

Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise 

Residential Buildings’’ (ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) 

Further, if such an industry test 

procedure is amended, DOE must 

update its test procedure to be 

consistent with the amended test 

procedure, unless DOE determines, by 

rule published in the Federal Register 

and supported by clear and convincing 

evidence, that the amended test 

procedure would not meet the 

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

and (3) related to representative use and 

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

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

equipment including SPVUs, to 

determine whether amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements for 

the test procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

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

addition, if DOE determines that a test 

procedure amendment is warranted, it 

must publish a proposed test procedures 

and offer the public an opportunity to 

present oral and written comments on 

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

determines that test procedure revisions 

are not appropriate, DOE must publish 

its determination not to amend the test 

procedures. DOE is publishing this RFI 

to collect data and information to 

inform its decision in satisfaction of the 

7-year review requirement specified in 

EPCA. 

B. Rulemaking History 

DOE’s current test procedures for 

SPVUs with a cooling capacity less than 

760,000 Btu/h are set forth at 10 CFR 

part 431, subpart F, appendix A 

(‘‘Appendix A’’). The test procedure 

currently incorporates by reference 

ANSI/AHRI Standard 390–2003 (‘‘ANSI/ 

AHRI 390–2003’’), ‘‘Performance Rating 

of Single Package Vertical AirConditioners and Heat Pumps,’’ 

(omitting section 6.4) and includes 

additional provisions in paragraphs (c) 

and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96. ANSI/AHRI 

390–2003 is the SPVU test standard 

referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

Paragraph (c) of 10 CFR 431.96 provides 

the method for an optional break-in 

period. Paragraph (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 

provides specifications for addressing 

key information typically found in the 

installation and operation manuals. 

DOE established its test procedure for 

SPVUs in a final rule for commercial 

heating, air conditioning, and water 

heating equipment published on May 

16, 2012. 77 FR 28928. 

II. Request for Information 

In the following sections, DOE has 

identified a variety of issues on which 

it seeks input to aid in the development 

of the technical and economic analyses 

regarding whether amended test 

procedures for SPVUs may be 

warranted. Specifically, DOE is 

requesting comment on any 

opportunities to streamline and simplify 

testing requirements for SPVUs. 

Additionally, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this process that may not 

specifically be identified in this 

document. In particular, DOE notes that 

under Executive Order 13771, 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs,’’ Executive Branch 

agencies such as DOE are directed to 

manage the costs associated with the 

imposition of expenditures required to 

comply with Federal regulations. See 82 

FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Pursuant to that 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34501 

Executive Order, DOE encourages the 

public to provide input on measures 

DOE could take to lower the cost of its 

regulations applicable to SPVUs 

consistent with the requirements of 

EPCA. 

A. Scope and Definitions 

DOE defines an SPVAC as air-cooled 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment that: (1) Is 

factory-assembled as a single package 

that: (i) Has major components that are 

arranged vertically; (ii) is an encased 

combination of cooling and optional 

heating components; and (iii) is 

intended for exterior mounting on, 

adjacent interior to, or through an 

outside wall; (2) is powered by a singleor 3-phase current; (3) may contain 1 or 

more separate indoor grilles, outdoor 

louvers, various ventilation options, 

indoor free air discharges, ductwork, 

well plenum, or sleeves; and (4) has 

heating components that may include 

electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or 

gas, but may not include reverse cycle 

refrigeration as a heating means. 10 CFR 

431.92. Additionally, DOE defines an 

SPVHP as a single package vertical air 

conditioner that: (1) Uses reverse cycle 

refrigeration as its primary heat source; 

and (2) may include secondary 

supplemental heating by means of 

electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or 

gas. Id. 

B. Test Procedure 

1. Test Set-Up 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 provides 

different test provisions, such as 

minimum external static pressure 

(‘‘ESP’’), based on whether the model is 

ducted or non-ducted. However, 

whether an SPVU is ducted may be 

more a characteristic of installation than 

the equipment itself. A given SPVU 

model could potentially be installed 

either with or without a duct. DOE’s 

preliminary research has not revealed 

that SPVUs have physical 

characteristics that clearly distinguish 

them as ducted or non-ducted models, 

and DOE has identified several models 

that advertise the capability for use in 

both ducted and non-ducted 

installations. ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 

does not specify how to determine 

whether an SPVU model is to be tested 

using the ducted or non-ducted 

provisions. 

Issue 1: DOE requests comment on 

what, if any, equipment characteristics 

can be used to determine whether SPVU 

models would be installed (and hence 

should be tested) as ducted or nonducted models. DOE also requests 

comments on whether individual SPVU 

models that are sold for both ducted and 

non-ducted applications are currently 

tested using both ducted and nonducted standard rating conditions. 

Section 5.2.3 of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 

requires that for SPVUs with an 

outdoor-side fan drive that is nonadjustable, standard ratings shall be 

determined at the outdoor-side airflow 

rate inherent to the equipment when 

operated with all of the resistance 

elements associated with inlets, louvers, 

and any ductwork and attachments 

considered by the manufacturer as 

normal installation practice. However, it 

is not clear from DOE’s initial review of 

manufacturer literature which resistance 

elements should be used during the test 

to be consistent with what 

manufacturers consider as ‘‘normal 

installation practice.’’ For externallymounted SPVUs, provisions for 

transferring outdoor air through an 

external wall are not necessary, but it 

may be possible that alternative 

‘‘resistance elements’’ could be offered 

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

In addition, for internally-mounted 

SPVUs, there may be multiple options 

for the specific geometry for external 

wall pass-through, as well as the option 

for louvers instead of grills. 

Issue 2: DOE requests comments on 

the variations in outdoor air-side 

attachments (e.g., grills, louvers, wall 

sleeve) that could affect performance 

during testing. DOE seeks comment on 

what, if any, provisions should be 

considered for addition to the test 

procedure to standardize outdoor air 

flow for both externally and internally 

mounted SPVUs, including 

considerations regarding grills or 

louvers, geometry of wall pass-through 

sleeves, and a representative wall 

thickness. 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 does not 

provide any specific guidance on setting 

and verifying the refrigerant charge of a 

unit. In a test procedure final rule for 

central air conditioners (CACs) 

published on June 8, 2016 (‘‘June 2016 

CAC TP final rule’’), DOE established a 

comprehensive approach for refrigerant 

charging that improves test 

reproducibility. 81 FR 36992, 37030– 

37031. The approach indicates which 

set of installation instructions to use for 

charging, explains what to do if there 

are no instructions, specifies that target 

values of parameters are the centers of 

the ranges allowed by installation 

instructions, and specifies tolerances for 

the measured values. The approach also 

requires that refrigerant line pressure 

gauges be installed for single-package 

units, unless otherwise specified in 

manufacturer instructions. Id. These 

methods provide general refrigerant 

charging instructions and guidelines 

that DOE believes should be applied to 

air conditioners and heat pumps across 

a range of capacities, including 

commercial equipment such as SPVUs. 

Issue 3: DOE seeks comment on 

whether it would be appropriate to 

adopt an approach for charging 

requirements for SPVUs similar or 

identical to the approach adopted in the 

June 2016 CAC TP final rule. DOE seeks 

comments regarding which parts of the 

approach should or should not be 

considered for adoption, and for what 

reasons those provisions might or might 

not be suitable for application to SPVUs. 

DOE is also interested in receiving data 

that demonstrate how sensitive the 

performance of a SPVU is relative to 

changes in the various charge indicators 

used for different charging methods, 

specifically the method based on subcooling. 

Section 5.2.1 of ANSI/AHRI 390– 

2003, requires that, for units rated with 

208/230 dual nameplate voltages, the 

test be performed at 230 V. For all other 

dual nameplate voltage units, the test 

standard requires that the test be 

performed at both voltages or at the 

lower voltage if only a single rating is 

to be published. DOE understands that 

voltage can affect the measured 

efficiency of air conditioners and may, 

therefore, consider adding provisions to 

its test procedure that specify at which 

nameplate voltage to conduct the test for 

dual nameplate voltage units. 

Issue 4: DOE requests data and 

information demonstrating the effect of 

voltage on air conditioning equipment 

(including, but not limited to, SPVUs). 

Specifically, DOE seeks comment on 

whether there is a consistent 

relationship between voltage and 

efficiency, and if so, whether testing at 

a lower voltage will typically result in 

a higher or lower tested efficiency. 

Further, DOE requests feedback on 

whether certain voltages within 

common dual nameplate voltage ratings 

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

of typical field installation. 

Section 5.2.2.a of ANSI/AHRI 390– 

2003 requires that non-filtered ducted 

equipment be tested at the minimum 

ESP specified in Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 

390–2003 plus an additional 0.08 in 

H2O of ESP. However, ANSI/AHRI 390– 

2003 does not define ‘‘non-filtered 

equipment.’’ It is possible that an SPVU 

may be designed so as not to be 

installed with a filter. For SPVUs 

designed to be installed with a filter, a 

filter may not be shipped with the unit 

(i.e., the filter would not be present 

during the test, requiring an increase in 

the minimum ESP to account for the 

pressure drop of the filter if one were 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
34502 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

present, as it is expected to be in the 

field). 

Issue 5: DOE requests comments on 

whether there are any SPVUs that are 

not designed to be installed with a filter. 

Further, DOE requests comment on 

what the typical effectiveness (i.e., 

minimum efficiency reporting value 

(MERV) rating) is of filters provided or 

installed with SPVUs, which will 

impact the pressure drop across the 

filter. Finally, DOE requests comment 

on whether non-ducted SPVUs intended 

for installation with a filter are ever 

tested without a filter installed, and, if 

so, how such testing has accounted for 

the filter pressure drop to better 

represent actual performance. 

2. Airflow and External Static Pressure 

Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 

specifies the minimum ESP required for 

testing ducted SPVUs based on capacity 

range. DOE is considering whether the 

minimum ESP levels in ANSI/AHRI 

390–2003 are representative of field 

operation for ducted SPVUs. 

Issue 6: DOE seeks comments on 

whether the minimum ESP 

requirements in Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 

390–2003 are representative of field 

operation for ducted SPVUs, and if not, 

comment and data on what 

representative minimum ESP levels 

would be. 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 does not 

specify tolerances on achieving the 

rated airflow and/or the minimum ESP 

during testing. The performance of any 

air conditioner or heat pump can be 

affected by variations in airflow and 

ESP. Consequently, rated performance 

could vary from field performance if 

airflow and ESP during testing are 

different than that intended for field 

operation. How to control an SPVU to 

achieve a specified airflow at a specified 

ESP and how closely an SPVU can 

achieve the specified airflow and ESP 

depends on the type of fan drive system. 

There are two common types used in 

SPVUs: One is multi-speed drive, which 

provides discrete airflow settings (or 

motor speeds), each typically associated 

with certain functions and operating 

conditions (e.g., high or low static 

operation); the other is variable-speed 

drive, which can be adjusted 

continuously within a range of speeds. 

The type of fan drive system is 

determined by the type of fan motor 

(e.g., multi-speed motor, variable-speed 

motor), the type of drives (e.g., directdrive, belt-drive), and whether there is 

any external control (e.g., variablefrequency drive). When a multi-speed 

drive system is required to meet the 

specified ESP, a certain deviation in 

airflow is expected because of limited 

speed options; whereas, for variablespeed drive systems, a smaller deviation 

is expected because of the capability to 

be adjusted continuously. 

To address the tolerances for variablespeed fan drive systems, which are 

common in air-cooled commercial 

unitary air-conditioners (‘‘ACUACs’’) 

with capacity greater than or equal to 

65,000 Btu/h, DOE established a 

requirement for ACUACs that the fullload indoor airflow rate must be within 

±3 percent of the certified airflow. 

Section 6 of Appendix A. In addition, 

the tolerance for ESP for testing 

ACUACs in DOE’s current test 

procedure is ¥0.00/+0.05 in H2O (see 

section 3 of Appendix A, which 

incorporates by reference Table 5 of 

ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360–2007, 

‘‘2007 Standard for Performance Rating 

of Commercial and Industrial Unitary 

Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment’’ (‘‘ANSI/AHRI 340/360– 

2007’’)). In contrast, in DOE’s test 

procedure for central air conditioners 

and heat pumps (‘‘CAC/HPs’’), the 

method for setting indoor air volume 

rate for ducted units without variablespeed constant-air-volume-rate indoor 

fans is a multi-step process that 

addresses the discrete-step fan speed 

control of these units. In this method, 

(a) the air volume rate during testing 

may not be higher than the certified air 

volume rate, but may be up to 10 

percent less, and (b) the ESP during 

testing may not be lower than the 

minimum specified ESP, but may be 

higher than the minimum if this is 

required to avoid having the air volume 

rate overshoot its certified value. See 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, 

section 3.1.4.2.a. 

Issue 7: DOE seeks more information 

on the different types of indoor air fan 

drive systems that are used for SPVUs. 

For example, are fans with multi-speed 

motors provided with variablefrequency drive or belt drives with 

variable-pitch sheaves to allow 

continuous variation of fan speed? Are 

direct-drive fans provided with variablespeed motors for which the installer can 

only select limited speeds? 

Issue 8: DOE seeks information on 

how closely the rated airflow and 

specified ESP are achieved in laboratory 

testing of SPVUs. For indoor fans that 

are adjustable in discrete steps, is the 

specified ESP typically exceeded in 

order to match the certified airflow? 

Additionally, DOE seeks comments on 

whether the tolerances for setting 

airflow of ACUACs or of CACs would be 

appropriate for all SPVUs or if separate 

tolerances should be provided based on 

fan motor type. If neither of the 

tolerances would be appropriate, DOE 

requests information or data on what 

tolerances would be appropriate for 

airflow and ESP. 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 does not 

distinguish between cooling and heating 

airflow rates required for testing. For 

SPVHPs with multiple-speed or 

variable-speed indoor fans, the indoor 

airflow rate in heating operation could 

be different from that in cooling 

operation. Different airflow rates may be 

used for heating and cooling operation 

because of different indoor comfort 

needs in the heating season, and there 

may be a minimum heating airflow rate 

for electrical resistance heating safety 

that exceeds the cooling airflow rate. 

For ACUAC heat pumps, DOE’s current 

test procedure requires that indoor 

airflow and ESP first be set up within 

required tolerances for the full-load 

cooling test condition, by adjusting both 

the unit under test and the test facility’s 

airflow-measuring apparatus (see 

Section 6(i) of Appendix A). The DOE 

test procedure further requires that, 

unless the unit is designed to operate at 

different airflow rates for cooling and 

heating modes, the airflow-measuring 

apparatus (but not the unit under test) 

be adjusted to achieve an airflow in 

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

tolerance, without regard to changes in 

ESP (see Section 6(ii), Appendix A). 

Issue 9: DOE requests comments on 

whether there are SPVHPs for which the 

heating airflow rate is designed to be 

different from the cooling airflow rate. 

If so, DOE seeks comments on whether 

provisions similar to those required for 

ACUACs would be appropriate for 

determining airflow rate and minimum 

ESP for heating mode tests for SPVHPs. 

3. Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 references 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–1988, 

‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Unitary 

Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment’’ (‘‘ANSI/AHRI 37–1988’’) 

for methods of testing SPVUs. Section 

7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 specifies 

that for equipment with cooling 

capacity less than 135,000 Btu/h, 

primary and secondary capacity 

measurements are required. 

Specifically, the indoor air enthalpy 

method must be used as the primary 

method for capacity measurement, and 

Table 3 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 

specifies the applicable options for 

selecting a secondary method. Section 

10.1.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 then 

requires that the two test methods agree 

within 6 percent. DOE understands that 

the outdoor air enthalpy test method is 

commonly used as a secondary test 

method for determining capacity for 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34503 

SPVUs. The outdoor air enthalpy 

method requires the use of an air-side 

test apparatus that is connected to the 

unit under test. Due to concerns about 

the impact of the air-side test apparatus 

on performance as compared to 

performance in the field without the airside test apparatus connected, section 

8.5 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 (which is 

referenced by ANSI/AHRI 390–2003) 

specifies testing with and without the 

air-side test apparatus connected. First, 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 requires a onehour preliminary test be conducted 

without the outdoor air-side test 

apparatus connected. Then, ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 37–1988 specifies a one-hour 

test be conducted with the outdoor airside test apparatus connected, which 

will serve as the official test. ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 37–1988 requires agreement 

between evaporating and condensing 

temperatures between the two tests for 

a valid test. In a test procedure final rule 

for CACs/HPs, DOE amended its 

requirements when using the outdoor 

air enthalpy method as the secondary 

test method for capacity measurement 

for CAC/HPs. 82 FR 1426, 1508–1509 

(Jan. 5, 2017). Specifically, DOE’s 

amended test procedure requires that a 

30-minute official test be conducted 

without the outdoor air-side test 

apparatus connected, then a 30-minute 

test with the air-side test apparatus be 

conducted, the results of which are 

compared to the official, no air-side 

apparatus test. DOE is considering 

whether similar changes (i.e., requiring 

that the official test be conducted 

without the outdoor air-side test 

apparatus connected) would be 

appropriate for the test procedure for 

SPVUs. DOE expects that such a change 

would make the test more representative 

of field use and would improve the 

repeatability of the test. 

Issue 10: DOE seeks comment on 

whether modifications to the 

requirements for using the outdoor air 

enthalpy method as the secondary 

method for testing SPVUs (similar to 

those made for CAC/HPs) would be 

appropriate, including that the official 

test be conducted without the outdoor 

air-side test apparatus connected. 

4. Air Temperature Measurements 

Outdoor air temperature and 

humidity are key parameters that affect 

SPVU performance, and for this reason, 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 requires accurate 

outdoor air condition measurements. 

However, DOE is considering whether 

the method set forth in ANSI/AHRI 

390–2003 would benefit from additional 

specification as to outdoor air 

temperature measurement. For aircooled and evaporatively cooled 

commercial unitary air conditioners, 

Appendix C of AHRI Standard 340/360– 

2015, ‘‘2015 Standard for Performance 

Rating of Commercial and Industrial 

Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment,’’ (‘‘AHRI 340/360– 

2015’’) provides details on entering 

outdoor air temperature measurement, 

including air sampling tree and 

aspirating psychrometer requirements. 

DOE is considering whether similar 

requirements should be adopted for 

testing SPVUs. However, DOE notes that 

in such case, some of the requirements 

may have to be revised for application 

to SPVUs. For example, the requirement 

in section C3 of Appendix C of AHRI 

340/360–2015 that ‘‘multiple individual 

reading thermocouples be installed 

around the unit air discharge perimeter 

so that they are below the plane of 

condenser fan exhaust and just above 

the top of the condenser coil’’ may not 

be appropriate for SPVUs, because the 

units typically exhaust outdoor air 

horizontally, instead of vertically as is 

the case for ACUACs. 

While Appendix C of AHRI 340/360– 

2015 provides detailed requirements for 

measurement of entering outdoor air 

temperature, it provides no such 

requirements for measurement of 

entering indoor air temperature, leaving 

indoor air temperature, or leaving 

outdoor air temperature. These 

parameters have a significant impact on 

performance of an SPVU as measured by 

the indoor air enthalpy method and the 

outdoor air enthalpy method. Therefore, 

DOE is also considering whether the 

requirements contained in Appendix C 

of AHRI 340/360–2015 would be 

appropriate for measurement of these 

parameters for testing SPVUs. 

Issue 11: DOE seeks comments 

regarding which, if any, requirements 

for outdoor air temperature 

measurement in Appendix C of AHRI 

Standard 340/360–2015 may or may not 

be appropriate for testing SPVUs. 

Specifically, DOE requests comment on 

whether any requirements in Appendix 

C of AHRI Standard 340/360–2015 

would be appropriate for measurement 

of indoor air entering and leaving 

temperatures, as well as outdoor air 

entering and leaving temperatures. 

C. Energy Efficiency Descriptor 

EPCA requires that test procedures 

produce test results that reflect 

efficiency of equipment during a 

representative average use cycle. (42 

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

energy efficiency ratio (EER) as the 

cooling mode metric and coefficient of 

performance (COP) as the heating mode 

metric for SPVUs. 10 CFR 431.96. 

Correspondingly, ASHRAE 90.1–2016 

only includes minimum efficiency 

levels in terms of the full-load metrics 

of EER and COP for SPVUs. In contrast, 

ASHRAE 90.1–2016 includes minimum 

cooling mode efficiency levels for 

CUACs and for variable refrigerant flow 

multi-split air conditioners and heat 

pumps in terms of both the full-load 

metric EER and the integrated energy 

efficiency ratio (IEER), which integrates 

the performance of the equipment when 

operating at part-load. IEER provides an 

indication of seasonal performance by 

integrating test results from four 

different load points with varying 

outdoor conditions and load levels 

(lower load for cooler conditions) in 

order to represent the equipment’s 

average efficiency throughout the 

cooling season. ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 

includes a part-load metric, integrated 

part-load value (IPLV) that integrates 

unit performance at each capacity step 

provided by the refrigeration system. 

However, the IPLV tests are all 

conducted at constant outdoor air 

conditions of 80 °F dry bulb 

temperature and 67 °F wet bulb 

temperature. DOE notes that some 

manufacturers make representations of 

part-load performance of SPVUs in 

product literature using IPLV, indicating 

a potential value in ratings that integrate 

performance of part-load operation. 

However, DOE also notes that IPLV was 

once used for rating CUACs but has 

since been removed from AHRI 340/360 

in favor of IEER. 

Issue 12: DOE requests comments on 

whether DOE should consider adopting 

for SPVUs a cooling-mode metric that 

integrates part-load performance to 

better represent full-season efficiency. If 

so, DOE requests comment on whether 

a part-load metric such as IEER or the 

current IPLV would be appropriate for 

SPVUs, and which of these would better 

represent actual performance. 

DOE is aware that the energy use of 

field-installed fans will vary based on 

the use of the fan for various functions 

(e.g., economizing, ventilation, 

filtration, and auxiliary heat). 

Consequently, DOE is investigating 

whether changes to the SPVU test 

procedure are needed to properly 

characterize a representative average use 

cycle, including changes to more 

accurately represent fan energy use in 

field applications. DOE also seeks 

comment on any anticipated burdens 

associated with such potential changes 

to the SPVUs test procedure. DOE also 

requests information as to the extent 

that accounting for the energy use of 

fans in commercial equipment such as 

SPVUs would be additive of other 

existing accountings of fan energy use. 

DOE also seeks information as to 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
34504 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

whether accounting for the energy use 

of fan operation in SPVUs would alter 

measured efficiency, and if so, to what 

extent. 

Issue 13: DOE seeks information, 

including any available data, on how 

frequently SPVU supply fans are 

operated when there is no demand for 

heating or cooling (i.e., for fresh air 

ventilation or air circulation/filtration), 

and what the typical operating 

schedules or duty cycles are for this 

function. Additionally, DOE requests 

data or information regarding how 

frequently auxiliary heating is installed 

with SPVUs and whether its operation 

is dependent on the supply fan of the 

SPVU. DOE requests data or information 

regarding how frequently the systems 

are used with economizers, how the 

economizers are integrated with the 

systems, and what control logic is 

typically used on the economizers. DOE 

further seeks comment as to whether or 

what portion of such fan operation is 

part of a ‘‘representative average use 

cycle.’’ DOE also seeks information as to 

whether accounting for the energy use 

of fan operation in SPVUs would alter 

measured efficiency, and if so, to what 

extent. 

Issue 14: Assuming DOE has authority 

to address fans embedded in other 

commercial equipment such as SPVUs 

(a conclusion the agency has not yet 

reached), DOE is interested in receiving 

comment and other information on this 

topic. DOE requests comment on 

whether any of the issues considered in 

this section would result in double 

regulation of the energy use of fans in 

SPVUs, and if so, how. 

SPVHPs generally include a defrost 

cycle to periodically defrost the outdoor 

coil when operating in outdoor ambient 

conditions in which frost collects on it 

during heating operation. Based on 

preliminary DOE review of product 

literature, the time between defrost 

cycles can be between 30–90 minutes, 

and defrost cycle duration may be 

roughly 10 minutes. During the defrost 

cycle, the SPVHP is consuming energy 

but not providing heat, unless it also 

energizes auxiliary heat during defrost. 

DOE’s test procedure for SPVUs is based 

on testing in outdoor air conditions for 

which defrost is not necessary (i.e., 

47 °F outdoor air dry-bulb temperature). 

Hence, any differences in defrost cycle 

performance between different SPVHP 

models is not reflected in the heating 

mode metric, COP. DOE’s test procedure 

for CACs/HPs includes measurement of 

average delivered heat and total energy 

use, including for defrost cycles, during 

operation in outdoor conditions for 

which frost forms on the outdoor coil. 

In contrast, DOE’s test procedures for 

commercial heat pumps do not include 

consideration of defrost. 

Issue 15: DOE seeks information 

regarding the types of buildings most 

commonly served by SPVHPs and the 

annual heating and cooling loads for 

such buildings, including information 

or data for SPVHP cooling and heating 

seasonal energy use therein. DOE also 

seeks information on the impact on 

heating mode efficiency associated with 

the defrost cycle for SPVHPs, including 

impacts associated with the potential 

use of resistance heating during defrost. 

D. Other Test Procedure Topics 

In addition to the issues identified 

earlier in this document, DOE welcomes 

comment on any other aspect of the 

existing test procedure for SPVUs not 

already addressed by the specific areas 

identified in this document. DOE 

particularly seeks information that 

would improve the repeatability, 

reproducibility, and consumer 

representativeness of the test 

procedures. DOE also requests 

information that would help DOE create 

a procedure that would limit 

manufacturer test burden through 

streamlining or simplifying testing 

requirements. Comments regarding the 

repeatability and reproducibility are 

also welcome. DOE also requests 

comment on the benefits and burdens of 

adopting any industry based or other 

appropriate test procedure, without 

modification. 

DOE also requests feedback on any 

potential amendments to the existing 

test procedure that could be considered 

to address impacts on manufacturers, 

including small businesses. Regarding 

the Federal test method, DOE seeks 

comment on the degree to which the 

DOE test procedure should consider and 

be harmonized with the most recent 

relevant industry standards for SPVUs 

and whether there are any changes to 

the Federal test method that would 

provide additional benefits to the 

public. DOE also requests comment on 

the benefits and burdens of adopting 

any industry/voluntary consensus-based 

or other appropriate test procedure, 

without modification. As discussed, the 

Federal test procedure for SPVUs 

currently incorporates by reference 

ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 (omitting section 

6.4) and includes additional provisions 

to provide the method for an optional 

break-in period and to provide 

specifications for addressing key 

information typically found in the 

installation and operation manuals. 

Section 6.4 of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 

specifies the maximum deviation of 

published efficiency ratings from 

measured test results; therefore, this 

section is omitted from DOE’s current 

test procedure because it conflicts with 

DOE’s certification, compliance, and 

enforcement regulations at 10 CFR part 

429. 

Additionally, DOE requests comment 

on whether the existing test procedure 

limits a manufacturer’s ability to 

provide additional features to 

consumers of SPVUs. DOE particularly 

seeks information on how the test 

procedures could be amended to reduce 

the cost of new or additional features 

and make it more likely that such 

features are included on SPVUs. 

III. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by September 4, 2018, 

comments and information on matters 

addressed in this notice and on other 

matters relevant to DOE’s consideration 

of an amended test procedure for 

SPVACs and SPVHPs. These comments 

and information will aid in the 

development of a test procedure notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for 

SPVACs and SPVHPs if DOE determines 

that an amended test procedure may be 

appropriate for this equipment. 

Submitting comments via http://

www.regulations.gov. The http://

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to http://

www.regulations.gov information for 

which disclosure is restricted by statute, 

such as trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information (hereinafter 

referred to as Confidential Business 

Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 140 / Friday, July 20, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34505 

submitted through http://

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through http://www.regulations.gov 

before posting. Normally, comments 

will be posted within a few days of 

being submitted. However, if large 

volumes of comments are being 

processed simultaneously, your 

comment may not be viewable for up to 

several weeks. Please keep the comment 

tracking number that http://

www.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 

http://www.regulations.gov. If you do 

not want your personal contact 

information to be publicly viewable, do 

not include it in your comment or any 

accompanying documents. Instead, 

provide your contact information in a 

cover letter. Include your first and last 

names, email address, telephone 

number, and optional mailing address. 

The cover letter will not be publicly 

viewable as long as it does not include 

any comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. 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 telefacsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English, and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email, 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). 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing test procedures and 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

actively encourages the participation 

and interaction of the public during the 

comment period in each stage of this 

process. Interactions with and between 

members of the public provide a 

balanced discussion of the issues and 

assist DOE in the process. Anyone who 

wishes to be added to the DOE mailing 

list to receive future notices and 

information about this process should 

contact Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or via email at 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on July 12, 

2018. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15584 Filed 7–19–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

New Mailing Standards for Mailpieces 

Containing Liquids: Extension of 

Comment Period 

AGENCY: Postal Service TM. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: On July 9, 2018, the United 

States Postal Service (USPS®) published 

a Federal Register proposed rule titled, 

‘‘New Mailing Standards for Mailpieces 

Containing Liquids.’’ The USPS has 

received several requests to extend the 

comment period for this proposed rule 

and is, accordingly, extending the 

comment period scheduled to close on 

August 8, 2018, until September 30, 

2018. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

September 30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver written 

comments to the manager, Product 

Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 

L’Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, 

Washington, DC 20260–5015. If sending 

comments by email, include the name 

and address of the commenter and send 

to ProductClassification@usps.gov, with 

a subject line of ‘‘New Standards for 

Liquids.’’ Faxed comments are not 

accepted. 

You may inspect and photocopy all 

written comments, by appointment 

only, at USPS Headquarters Library, 475 

L’Enfant Plaza SW, 11th Floor North, 

Washington, DC 20260. These records 

are available for review on Monday 

through Friday, 9 a.m.–4 p.m., by 

calling 202–268–2906. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Direct questions to Wm. Kevin Gunther 

at wkgunther@uspis.gov or phone at 

(202) 268–7208, or Michelle Lassiter at 

michelle.d.lassiter@usps.gov or phone at 

(202) 268–2914. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document extends the public comment 

period for the proposed rule entitled 

‘‘New Mailing Standards for Mailpieces 

Containing Liquids,’’ published in the 

Federal Register On July 9, 2018. USPS 

is extending the comment period to 

ensure that the public has sufficient 

time to review and comment on the 

proposal. USPS is proposing this rule 

under the authorities listed in the July 

9th document. Further information on 

this proposal may be found in the USPS 

notice published in the Federal Register 

on July 9, 2018 (83 FR 31712). 

USPS solicits comments on all aspects 

of the proposal and specifically on 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS