Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26639 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10689 Filed 5–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–TP–0014] 

RIN 1904–AD22 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedure 

for Portable Air Conditioners 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability; 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: In a notice of proposed 

determination (NOPD) published on 

July 5, 2013, the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) tentatively determined 

that portable air conditioners (ACs) 

qualify as a covered product under Part 

B of Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended. 

To assist in a final determination and to 

consider approaches for a future DOE 

test procedure for these products, 

should DOE determine that portable 

ACs are covered products, DOE 

conducted investigative testing to 

evaluate industry test procedures that 

could be used to measure cooling 

capacity and energy use for portable 

ACs. In today’s notice, DOE discusses 

various industry test procedures and 

presents results from its investigative 

testing that evaluated existing 

methodologies and alternate approaches 

adapted from these methodologies for 

portable ACs. DOE requests comment 

and additional information regarding 

the testing and results presented in this 

NODA. DOE also encourages interested 

parties to provide comment on any 

alternate approaches for testing portable 

ACs and information that may improve 

the analysis. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this notice of 

data availability (NODA) submitted no 

later than June 9, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the Notice of Data 

Availability for Portable Air 

Conditioners, and provide docket 

number EERE–2014–BT–TP–0014 and/

or RIN 1904–AD22. 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: PortableAC2014TP0014@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket EERE–2014– 

BT–TP–0014 and/or RIN 1904–AD22 in 

the subject line of the message. 

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

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–5B, 

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: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

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 www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

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

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-TP0014. This Web page contains a link to 

the docket for this notice on the 

www.regulations.gov site. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page contains 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586–2945 or email: Brenda.Edwards@

ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Building Technology 

Office, EE–5B, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW., Room 603, Washington, DC 

20585–0121. Telephone: 202–586– 

0371. Email: Bryan.Berringer@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mailstop GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Telephone: 202–586–2902; 

Email: Sarah.Butler@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Discussion 

A. Test Units 

B. Baseline Testing 

C. Investigative Testing 

1. Calorimeter Approach 

2. Duct Heat Loss and Leakage 

3. Infiltration Air 

a. Infiltration Air Flowrate 

b. Effect of Infiltration Air Temperature 

4. Mixing Between the Condenser Inlet and 

Exhaust for Dual-Duct Portable Air 

Conditioners 

D. Alternate Testing Approach 

E. Additional Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment 

III. Public Participation 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

Public Law 94–163, (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309, as codified), sets forth a variety of 

provisions designed to improve energy 

efficiency and established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles, a 

program covering most major household 

appliances (hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘covered products’’).2 In addition to 

specifying a list of covered products, 

EPCA contains provisions that enable 

the Secretary of Energy to classify 

additional types of consumer products 

as covered products. For a given 

product to be classified as a covered 

product, the Secretary must determine 

that: 

(1) Classifying the product as a 

covered product is necessary for the 

purposes of EPCA; and 

(2) The average annual per-household 

energy use by products of such type is 

likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours 

(kWh) per year. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1)). 

In order to prescribe an energy 

conservation standard pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) for covered 

products added pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6292(b)(1), the Secretary must also 

determine that: 

(1) The average household energy use 

of the products has exceeded 150 kWh 

per household for any 12-month period 

ending before such determination; 

(2) The aggregate household energy 

use of the products has exceeded 4.2 

terawatt-hours (TWh) for any such 12- 

month period; 

(3) Substantial improvement in energy 

efficiency is technologically feasible; 

and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

26640 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3A notation in the form ‘‘Consumer Reports, No. 

2 at p. 2’’ identifies a written comment: (1) Made 

by Consumer Reports; (2) recorded in document 

number 2 that is filed in the docket of the portable 

AC determination of coverage rulemaking (Docket 

No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0033) and available for 

review at www.regulations.gov; and (3) which 

appears on page 2 of document number 2. 

4ANSI/AHAM test procedures are available for 

purchase online at: www.aham.org. 

5ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37 was updated in 

2009. DOE reviewed the 2005 and 2009 versions 

and concluded there would be no measurable 

difference in portable AC results obtained from 

each. Therefore, DOE utilized ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 37–2009 when testing according to ANSI/ 

AHAM PAC–1–2009. ANSI/ASHRAE test 

procedures are available for purchase online at: 

www.techstreet.com. 

6CSA test procedures are available for purchase 

online at: www.csagroup.org. 

(4) Application of a labeling rule 

under 42 U.S.C. 6294 is not likely to be 

sufficient to induce manufacturers to 

produce, and consumers and other 

persons to purchase, covered products 

of such type (or class) that achieve the 

maximum energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(l)(1)). 

On July 5, 2013, DOE issued a notice 

of proposed determination (NOPD) of 

coverage (hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘July 2013 NOPD’’), in which DOE 

announced that it tentatively 

determined that portable ACs meet the 

criteria for covered products. In 

reaching this tentative determination, 

DOE found that classifying products of 

such type as covered products is 

necessary or appropriate to carry out the 

purposes of EPCA, and the average U.S. 

household energy use for portable ACs 

is likely to exceed 100 kWh per year. 78 

FR 40403–07. 

In response to the July 2013 NOPD, 

DOE received comments from interested 

parties on several topics, including 

appropriate test procedures for portable 

ACs that DOE should consider if it 

issues a final determination that 

classifies portable ACs as covered 

products. Consumer Reports 

recommended that portable ACs be 

tested similar to, and performance 

compared with, room ACs because they 

are seen by consumers as comparable 

products that perform nearly identical 

functions. (Consumer Reports, No. 2 at 

p. 2).3 In addition, the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), 

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE), Consumers 

Union (CU), Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC), and Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), (hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Joint Commenters’’), 

commented that any portable AC test 

procedure must facilitate a realistic 

comparison with room ACs, and that a 

portable AC test procedure must reflect 

actual installation and operation to 

determine a meaningful and applicable 

cooling capacity and Energy Efficiency 

Ratio (EER). (Joint Commenters, No. 4 at 

p. 2). 

The Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(PG&E), Southern California Gas 

Company (SCGC), San Diego Gas and 

Electric (SDG&E), and Southern 

California Edison (SCE), (hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘California IOUs’’), 

commented that based on Consumer 

Reports’ testing, the published ratings 

for portable ACs may underestimate 

actual performance in the field by 

approximately 50 percent. The 

California IOUs recommended 

establishing a standardized test 

procedure to ensure that representations 

of portable AC energy use would better 

reflect actual usage and be more 

meaningful for consumers making 

purchasing decisions. (California IOUs, 

No. 5 at p. 3) 

The Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) commented that 

a DOE test procedure would ensure that 

all manufacturers test and rate their 

products according to the same test 

procedure. AHAM also suggested that 

DOE incorporate current test procedures 

by reference, particularly the version of 

AHAM’s portable AC test procedure 

which is currently under development 

to harmonize with the Canadian 

Standards Association (CSA) test 

procedure. AHAM commented that DOE 

should work with Natural Resources 

Canada (NRCan) and CSA to harmonize 

the U.S. and Canadian test procedures 

for portable ACs. (AHAM, No. 6 at pp. 

2–4) 

DOE agrees that a DOE test procedure 

for portable ACs would provide 

consistency and clarity for 

representations of energy use of these 

products. DOE is evaluating available 

industry test procedures to determine 

whether their methodologies are 

suitable for incorporation in a future 

DOE test procedure, should DOE 

determine that portable ACs are a 

covered product. 

II. Discussion 

In the July 2013 NOPD, DOE proposed 

defining a portable AC as ‘‘a consumer 

product, other than a ‘packaged terminal 

air conditioner,’ which is powered by a 

single-phase electric current and which 

is an encased assembly designed as a 

portable unit that may rest on the floor 

or other elevated surface for the purpose 

of providing delivery of conditioned air 

to an enclosed space. It includes a prime 

source of refrigeration and may include 

a means for ventilating and heating.’’ 78 

FR 40403, 40404 (Jul. 5, 2013). The most 

common type of portable AC 

configuration in the United States 

utilizes a single condenser air exhaust 

duct that removes heat to the 

unconditioned space. Other 

configurations include dual-duct, which 

intakes and exhausts unconditioned air 

to cool the condenser and remove 

moisture, and spot coolers, which have 

no ducting on the condenser side and 

may utilize small directional ducts on 

the evaporator exhaust. 

In response to comments from 

interested parties, DOE conducted 

testing to determine typical portable AC 

cooling capacities and energy 

efficiencies based on the existing 

industry test methods and to investigate 

their applicability to a possible DOE test 

procedure for portable ACs. DOE is 

aware of three test procedures that 

measure portable AC performance and 

that are applicable to products sold in 

North America. 

(1) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI)/AHAM PAC–1–2009 

‘‘Portable Air Conditioners’’ 4 (ANSI/

AHAM PAC–1–2009) specifies cooling 

mode testing conducted in accordance 

with ANSI/American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 37–2005 ‘‘Methods of Testing 

for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary 

Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment’’ (ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

37–2005).5 The metrics incorporated in 

ANSI/AHAM PAC–1–2009 include 

cooling capacity and EER for the 

following configurations: Single-Duct, 

Dual-Duct, Spot Cooling, and Water 

Cooled Condenser. 

(2) CSA C370–2013 ‘‘Cooling 

Performance of Portable Air 

Conditioners’’ 6 (CSA C370) is 

harmonized with ANSI/AHAM PAC–1– 

2009, and thus also incorporates testing 

provisions from ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 37, although it specifies the 

later 2009 version. 

(3) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 128– 

2011 ‘‘Method of Rating Unitary Spot 

Air Conditioners’’ (ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 128–2011) is adapted from the 

previous 2009 version of CSA C370. It 

too references ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

37–2009. The previous version of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 128, published in 

2001, is required by California 

regulations to be used to certify spot 

cooler performance for such products 

sold in that State. A key difference 

between ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 128– 

2011 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 128– 

2001 is that the older version specifies 

a higher indoor ambient testing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26641 

7Both versions of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37 are 

available for purchase online at: 

www.techstreet.com. 

8Consumer Reports, Buying Advice: Portable Air 

Conditioners, June 20, 2008. Available online at: 

www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2008/06/

buying-advice-portable-air-conditioners/index.htm. 

temperature, which increases measured 

cooling capacity and EER. 

DOE found no significant differences 

that would provide varying results 

among the AHAM, CSA, and ASHRAE 

test procedures. In reviewing the current 

versions of these test procedures, DOE 

observed that each measures cooling 

capacity and EER based on an air 

enthalpy approach that measures the 

airflow rate, dry-bulb temperature, and 

water vapor content of air at the inlet 

and outlet of the indoor (evaporator) 

side. In addition, for air-cooled portable 

ACs with cooling capacities less than 

135,000 British thermal units per hour 

(Btu/h), which include the products that 

are the subject of today’s notice, the 

indoor air enthalpy results must be 

validated by additionally measuring 

cooling capacity by either an outdoor air 

enthalpy method or a compressor 

calibration method. In its testing, DOE 

selected the outdoor air enthalpy 

method to minimize its test burden 

because that approach only requires 

additional metering components, 

similar to those used for the indoor air 

enthalpy method. The compressor 

calibration method requires monitoring 

refrigerant conditions with additional 

equipment that was not available at the 

time in the test laboratory. DOE expects 

that using either approach would 

produce equivalent results because the 

compressor calibration approach 

measures the heat transferred to the 

refrigerant from the evaporator side and 

the outdoor air enthalpy approach 

measures that same heat when it is 

transferred from the refrigerant and 

rejected at the condenser side. 

DOE conducted initial testing 

according to ANSI/AHAM PAC–1–2009 

to establish baseline cooling capacities 

and efficiencies of the test units 

according to the existing industry test 

procedures. As noted previously, 

although ANSI/AHAM PAC–1–2009 

references ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37– 

2005, DOE determined there were no 

differences in the relevant provisions 

between this version and the current 

version, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37– 

2009.7 DOE, therefore, used ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 37–2009 for all 

testing according to ANSI/AHAM PAC– 

1–2009. 

In addition, DOE reviewed 

information suggesting that certain 

operational factors not addressed in 

existing test procedures could have a 

significant effect on portable AC 

performance. For example, a Consumer 

Reports buying guide indicates that 

units tested as part of a field study 

delivered only half of the rated cooling 

capacity.8 DOE observed that when 

condenser air is drawn from the 

conditioned space and exhausted to the 

unconditioned space, a pressure 

gradient is created that results in 

replacement air infiltrating into the 

conditioned space. If this infiltration air 

is drawn from unconditioned locations, 

including possibly directly from 

outdoors through leaky windows or 

mounting brackets, the net cooling 

capacity and EER of the portable AC 

would be reduced. DOE notes that this 

air infiltration likely has the largest 

effect on the performance of single-duct 

units because these units intake all 

condenser air from the conditioned 

space. Dual-duct units may intake a 

portion of condenser air from the 

conditioned space; the remainder, 

which may be all of the condenser air, 

is drawn from outdoors through the 

condenser inlet duct. If air infiltration is 

not accounted for, testing may suggest 

that a single-duct unit would perform 

better than a dual-duct unit with 

comparable components. Single-duct 

units utilize lower-temperature air from 

the conditioned space to cool the 

condenser and it would appear that 

these units are able to operate more 

efficiently than equivalent dual-duct 

units. 

Portable AC performance may also be 

reduced due to the heat transfer to the 

room through leaks in the product case 

and manufacturer-provided ducting that 

is not addressed in current test 

procedures. The portable AC and all 

associated equipment are located in the 

conditioned space and the ducting is 

typically flexible plastic with no 

additional insulation. Further, the 

connection between the duct and the 

case and the connection between the 

duct and the manufacturer-supplied 

window fixture may not be tightly 

sealed, allowing some condenser-side 

air to leak into the room. Finally, DOE 

observed that mixing may occur 

between the condenser air exhaust and 

intake for dual-duct units because the 

window fixtures typically locate the air 

intake and exhaust connections adjacent 

to one another, allowing some of the 

hotter exhaust air to potentially shortcircuit and enter the intake duct. 

To investigate the contribution of 

these operational factors on the 

apparent reduction in cooling capacity 

observed for units in the field, DOE 

compared the results of ANSI/AHAM 

PAC–1–2009 testing with the results of 

additional testing using a test room 

calorimeter approach based on ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 16–1983 (RA 99), 

‘‘Method of Testing for Rating Room Air 

Conditioners and Packaged Terminal 

Air Conditioners’’ (ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 16–1983), with certain 

modifications as explained below to 

allow testing of portable ACs. The room 

calorimeter approach would allow DOE 

to determine the cooling capacity and 

associated EER of a portable AC that 

accounts for any air infiltration effects 

and heat transfer to the conditioned 

space through gaps in the product case 

and seams in the duct connections. 

Values of these performance metrics 

measured accordingly may more 

accurately reflect real-world portable 

AC operation. In this test series, DOE 

also investigated cooling capacity and 

EER as a function of the infiltration air 

temperature for single-duct and dualduct units, and the effect of condenser 

exhaust air entrainment at the intake for 

dual-duct portable ACs. 

The following sections detail the units 

in DOE’s test sample, the baseline test 

results obtained using ANSI/AHAM 

PAC–1–2009, and the results from the 

investigative tests using the modified 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16–1983 to 

estimate the effects of infiltration air, 

case and duct heat transfer, and 

condenser duct air mixing. 

A. Test Units 

For its portable AC testing, DOE 

selected a sample of units that are 

representative of products and 

configurations currently available on the 

U.S. market. The test sample included 

four single-duct, two dual-duct, and two 

spot-cooling portable ACs, covering a 

range of rated cooling capacities (8,000– 

13,500 Btu/h) and EERs (7.0–11.2 Btu 

per watt-hour (Btu/Wh)). Because DOE 

does not currently require 

manufacturers to certify portable ACs to 

any energy conservation standards, 

manufacturers may advertise or market 

their products using any available test 

procedure. For models that are included 

in the California Energy Commission 

(CEC) product database and that are sold 

in California, however, manufacturers 

must report cooling capacity and EER 

according to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

128–2001. DOE notes that the cooling 

capacities and EERs obtained from using 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 128–2001 are 

higher than those obtained using the 

current ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 128– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

26642 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 128–2011 specifies 

80.6 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) dry-bulb temperature 

and 66.2 °F wet-bulb temperature for the standard 

rating conditions for the evaporator inlet of dualduct portable ACs and both the evaporator and 

condenser inlets of single-duct units. It also 

specifies standard rating conditions of 95 °F drybulb temperature and 75.2 °F wet-bulb temperature 

for the condenser inlet side of dual-duct portable 

ACs and both the evaporator and condenser inlets 

of spot coolers. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 128–2001 

specified 95 °F dry-bulb temperature and 83 °F wetbulb temperature for the standard rating conditions 

for both the evaporator and condenser inlets of all 

portable ACs, including spot coolers. 

10Table 3 of ANSI/AHAM PAC–1–2009, which 

specifies standard rating conditions, lists a dry-bulb 

temperature of 94 °F and a wet-bulb temperature of 

75 °F for single-duct and dual-duct portable ACs. 

DOE expects this to be a typographical error, and 

that the correct dry-bulb temperature is 95 °F. 

2011, primarily due to higher 

temperature evaporator inlet air.9

Due to the consistent method of 

reporting, DOE selected units for its test 

sample largely from cooling capacities 

and EERs listed in the CEC product 

database. Where values were not 

available in the CEC product database, 

DOE utilized information from 

manufacturer literature to inform its 

selection. However, due to the 

difference in testing temperature, DOE 

expected that these values would differ 

from the cooling capacities and EERs 

that would be obtained using any one of 

the three industry test methods. The 

eight test units and their key features are 

presented in Table II.1, with cooling 

capacity expressed in Btu/h and EER 

expressed in Btu/Wh. DOE included 

two spot coolers in the test sample that, 

unlike the majority of spot coolers 

which are designed for commercial 

applications, have supply power 

requirements that would allow them to 

be used in residential applications. 

TABLE II.1—PORTABLE AIR CONDITIONER TEST UNITS AND FEATURES

Test unit Duct type 

Rated cooling 

capacity 

(Btu/h) 

Rated EER 

(Btu/Wh) 

SD1 ........................................................................... Single ........................................................................ 8,000 7.0 

SD2 ........................................................................... Single ........................................................................ 9,500 9.6 

SD3 ........................................................................... Single ........................................................................ 12,000 8.7 

SD4 ........................................................................... Single ........................................................................ 13,000 9.7 

DD1 ........................................................................... Dual .......................................................................... 9,500 9.4 

DD2 ........................................................................... Dual .......................................................................... 13,000 8.9 

SC1 ........................................................................... Spot Cooler .............................................................. 10,000 10.1 

SC2 ........................................................................... Spot Cooler .............................................................. 13,500 11.2 

B. Baseline Testing 

DOE performed testing according to 

ANSI/AHAM PAC–1–2009 to determine 

baseline performance when using the 

industry standards. ANSI/AHAM PAC– 

1–2009 requires two-chamber air 

enthalpy testing for single-duct and 

dual-duct units, and a single-chamber 

setup for spot coolers. For each ducted 

configuration, the portable AC and any 

associated ducting is located entirely 

within a chamber held at ‘‘indoor’’ 

standard rating conditions at the 

evaporator inlet of 80 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F) dry-bulb temperature 

and 67 °F wet-bulb temperature, which 

correspond to 51-percent relative 

humidity. For the condenser side 

exhaust on single-duct and dual-duct 

units, the manufacturer-supplied or 

manufacturer-specified flexible ducting 

connects the unit under test to a 

separate test chamber maintained at 

‘‘outdoor’’ standard rating conditions. 

The outdoor conditions specify 95 °F 

dry-bulb temperature 10 and 75 °F wetbulb temperature (40-percent relative 

humidity) at the condenser inlet for 

dual-duct units. The outdoor conditions 

for single-duct units, however, are not 

explicitly specified. ANSI/AHAM PAC– 

1–2009 only requires that the condenser 

inlet conditions, which would be set by 

air intake from the indoor side chamber, 

be maintained at 80 °F dry-bulb 

temperature and 67 °F wet-bulb 

temperature. Because the single-duct 

condenser air is discharged to the 

outdoor side with no intake air from 

that location, DOE does not believe that 

the results obtained using ANSI/AHAM 

PAC–1–2009 would be measurably 

affected by the conditions in the 

outdoor side chamber. Nonetheless, for 

consistency with the testing of dualduct units, DOE chose to maintain the 

outdoor side conditions, measured near 

to the condenser exhaust but not close 

enough to be affected by that airflow, at 

95 °F dry-bulb temperature and 75 °F 

wet-bulb temperature. For spot coolers, 

ANSI/AHAM PAC–1–2009 specifies 

testing the unit in a chamber maintained 

at the outdoor standard rating 

conditions of 95 °F dry-bulb 

temperature and 75 °F wet-bulb 

temperature. 

Section 6.1 of ANSI/AHAM PAC–1– 

2009, ‘‘Method of Test,’’ instructs that 

the details of testing are as specified in 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2005, with 

references in Section 8.5.1 of ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 37–2005 to the 

indoor side (the cooling, or evaporator, 

side) of the portable AC under test and 

references to the outdoor side (the heat 

rejection, or condenser, side). No 

additional instructions regarding the 

specific provisions to use in ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 37–2005 are 

included. As discussed previously, DOE 

utilized the latest version of ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 37, published in 

2009. The following paragraphs describe 

the clauses from ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 37–2009 that DOE decided 

were appropriate for conducting its 

baseline tests. 

The test apparatus (i.e., ducts, air 

flow-measurement nozzle, and 

additional instrumentation) were 

adjusted according to Section 8.6, 

‘‘Additional Requirements for the 

Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method,’’ of 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009, 

which ensures that air flow rate and 

static pressure in the condenser exhaust 

air stream, and condenser inlet air 

stream for dual-duct units, are 

representative of actual installations. 

The test room conditioning apparatus 

and the units under test were then 

operated until steady-state performance 

was achieved according to the specified 

test tolerances in Section 8.7, ‘‘Test 

Procedure for Cooling Capacity Tests,’’ 

of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009. 

Airflow rate, dry-bulb temperature, and 

water vapor content were recorded to 

evaluate cooling capacity at equal 

intervals that spanned five minutes or 

less until readings over one-half hour 

were within the same tolerances, as 

required by that section. 

These collected data were then used 

to calculate total, sensible, and latent 

indoor cooling capacity based on the 

equations in Section 7.3.3, ‘‘Cooling 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26643 

Calculations,’’ of ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 37–2009. This section 

provides calculations to determine 

indoor cooling capacity based on both 

the indoor and outdoor air enthalpy 

methods. As described in Section 

7.3.3.3 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37– 

2009, the indoor air enthalpy cooling 

capacity calculation was adjusted for 

heat transferred from the surface of the 

duct(s) to the conditioned space. DOE 

estimated a convective heat transfer 

coefficient of 4 Btu/h per square foot per 

°F, based on a midpoint of values for 

forced convection and free convection 

as recommended by the test laboratory 

for this specific test and setup. Four 

thermocouples were placed in a grid on 

the surface of the condenser duct(s). The 

heat transfer was determined by 

multiplying the estimated heat transfer 

coefficient by the surface area of each 

component and by the average 

temperature difference between the duct 

surface and test chamber air. 

Although ANSI/AHAM PAC–1–2009 

specifies that the evaporator circulating 

fan heat shall be included in the total 

cooling capacity, DOE did not meter the 

fan power for testing. Rather, for ducted 

units, DOE estimated the heat 

transferred to the conditioned space 

based on the temperature differential 

between the case surfaces and the 

indoor room, with measurements and 

calculations similar to those used for the 

ducts. This estimate was made by 

placing four thermocouples on each 

surface of the case and measuring the 

surface area to determine the heat 

transfer. This approach directly 

estimates the heating contribution of all 

internal components within the case to 

the cooling capacity, while making no 

assumption regarding whether the heat 

from individual components is 

transferred to the cooling or heat 

rejection side. Although ANSI/AHAM 

PAC–1–2009 requires the evaporator 

circulating fan heat be addressed in the 

cooling capacity for all portable ACs 

including spot coolers, DOE decided not 

to include case heat transfer for spot 

coolers because these units reject all 

heat directly to the space where the unit 

sits. That rejected heat does not impact 

the cooling provided by the unit to the 

specific conditioned spot. 

Section 10.1.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 37–2009 requires that the 

calculated indoor cooling capacities 

from each method shall agree within 6.0 

percent for a valid test. From the 

calculated cooling capacity, DOE 

determined the associated EER 

consistent with the definitions in 

Sections 3.8 to 3.10 and ratings 

requirements in Sections 5.3 to 5.5 of 

ANSI/AHAM PAC–1–2009. Table II.2 

shows the results of the baseline testing 

for all test units according to ANSI/

AHAM PAC–1–2009. 

TABLE II.2—BASELINE TEST RESULTS

Test unit 

Cooling capacity (Btu/h) EER (Btu/Wh) 

Rated Baseline Reduction 

(%) Rated Baseline Reduction (%) 

SD1 ................................ 8,000 5,842.7 27 .0 7.0 6.84 2.3 

SD2 ................................ 9,500 6,599.8 30 .5 9.6 7.41 22.8 

SD3 ................................ 12,000 10,947.6 8 .8 8.7 7.47 14.1 

SD4 ................................ 13,000 9,505.6 26 .9 9.7 6.59 32.0 

DD1 ................................ 9,500 8,597.2 9 .5 9.4 7.41 21.2 

DD2 ................................ 13,000 7,211.2 44 .5 8.9 5.50 38.2 

SC1 ................................ 10,000 10,225.7 ¥2 .3 10.1 9.62 4.7 

SC2 ................................ 13,500 10,774.7 20 .19 11.2 6.72 39.9 

For all units, the tested cooling 

capacity and EER were on average 19 

percent and 21 percent lower, 

respectively, when compared with the 

rated values. However, the difference 

between tested and rated cooling 

capacity ranged from an increase of 2.3 

percent to a decrease of over 44 percent, 

while the tested EERs showed a 

reduction from 2.3 to 40 percent 

compared to the rated values. DOE notes 

that cooling capacity and EER for singleduct units were lower on average than 

the rated values by 23 and 18 percent, 

respectively; the cooling capacity and 

EER for dual-duct units were lower on 

average by 27 and 30 percent, 

respectively; and the cooling capacity 

and EER for spot coolers were lower on 

average by 9 and 22 percent, 

respectively. Although the results were 

generally consistent for the different 

product types, DOE notes that these data 

are based on a small sample of test 

units, and a larger sample may provide 

more representative trends for each 

configuration. 

Due to lack of information available 

regarding typical spot cooler operating 

locations and conditions, DOE also 

tested the two spot coolers at reduced 

ambient conditions consistent with the 

‘‘indoor’’ conditions for single-duct and 

dual-duct units, at 80 °F dry-bulb 

temperature and 67 °F wet-bulb 

temperature. The test results at both 

conditions and percent reductions in 

cooling capacity and EER at the indoor 

conditions are shown in Table II.3. 

TABLE II.3—BASELINE SPOT COOLER PERFORMANCE AT REDUCED CONDITIONS

Test unit 

Cooling capacity (Btu/h) EER (Btu/Wh) 

Baseline 

95/75 °F 

Indoor 

80/67 °F 

Reduction 

(%) 

Baseline 

95/75 °F 

Indoor 

80/67 °F 

Reduction 

(%) 

SC1 .................................. 10,225.7 10,061.9 1.60 9.62 10.80 ¥12.28 

SC2 .................................. 10,774.7 9,557.5 11.30 6.72 6.68 0.64 

DOE notes that the SC1 test unit 

tested within 3 percent of its rated 

cooling capacity and within 7 percent of 

its rated EER for both tests. The tested 

cooling capacity and EER for the SC2 

test unit were within 12 percent of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

26644 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

tested values at the baseline test 

conditions, but still roughly 30 percent 

and 40 percent, respectively, below the 

rated values. 

Issue 1. DOE seeks comment on the 

suitability of current industry standards 

for a potential DOE portable AC test 

procedure; specifically: 

(1) ANSI/AHAM PAC–1–2009; 

(2) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 128– 

2001, which although not current is 

required for reporting in California; 

(3) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 128– 

2011; and 

(4) CSA C370–13. 

Issue 2. DOE seeks comment on 

whether the metrics for cooling capacity 

and EER as determined in these 

industry test procedures measure 

representative performance of the 

different portable AC product types (i.e., 

single-duct, dual-duct, and spot cooler). 

Issue 3. DOE seeks comment on the 

approach used to estimate case and duct 

heat transfer to the conditioned space. 

C. Investigative Testing 

1. Calorimeter Approach 

In response to the comments 

mentioned previously, suggesting a 

testing approach for portable ACs 

comparable to that for room ACs, and to 

further investigate heat transfer effects 

not currently captured in available 

portable AC test procedures, DOE 

conducted testing according to a room 

calorimeter approach adapted from 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16–1983. DOE 

tested all of the single-duct and dualduct units in its test sample by this 

approach, which used two test 

chambers, one maintained at the indoor 

conditions and the other adjusted to 

maintain the outdoor conditions as 

specified below. Rather than installing 

the test unit in the wall between the 

indoor and outdoor test rooms, as for a 

room AC, the portable AC under test 

was located within the indoor test room 

with the condenser duct(s) interfacing 

with the outdoor test room by means of 

the manufacturer-supplied or 

manufacturer-recommended mounting 

fixture. Unless otherwise noted, no 

sealing other than that recommended in 

manufacturer instructions was made at 

the duct connections or around the 

mounting fixture during the tests. 

DOE used a pressure-equalizing 

device placed between the indoor 

chamber and outdoor chamber to 

maintain a static pressure differential of 

less than 0.005 inches of water between 

the chambers throughout testing, as 

specified in Section 4.2.3 of ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 16–1983. Consistent 

with the ambient conditions required by 

ANSI/AHAM PAC–1–2009, DOE 

maintained the indoor conditions at 80 

°F dry-bulb and 67 °F wet-bulb (51- 

percent relative humidity) and the 

outdoor conditions at 95 °F dry-bulb 

and 75 °F wet-bulb (40-percent relative 

humidity). For some units, significant 

infiltration air flow from the outdoor 

chamber to the indoor chamber was 

required to maintain the required static 

pressure differential between the two 

test chambers. The calorimeter approach 

consisted of monitoring all energy 

consumed by the indoor chamber 

components to maintain the required 

ambient conditions while the portable 

AC under test operated continuously at 

its maximum fan speed. Following a 

period of no less than 1 hour with 

stabilized conditions under continuous 

portable AC operation, the data of a 

subsequent 1-hour stable period were 

analyzed to sum all heating and cooling 

contributions to the indoor chamber, 

including: Chamber cooling, heat 

transferred through the chamber wall, 

air circulation fans, dehumidifiers, 

humidifiers, and scales. These 

instruments, conditioning equipment, 

and heat transfer components were all 

necessary to maintain the indoor 

chamber conditions throughout testing. 

The net indoor chamber cooling was 

recorded as the portable AC’s cooling 

capacity. This approach encompasses 

all cooling and heating effects generated 

by the portable AC, including air 

infiltration effects that are not captured 

or estimated by the air enthalpy 

approach. 

For the first set of calorimeter tests, 

the test units were installed with the 

manufacturer-provided ducting, duct 

attachment collar, and mounting fixture. 

This was done in order to include the 

impacts of heat transfer from the ducts 

and air leaks in the duct connections 

and mounting fixture, in addition to 

heat leakage through the case and 

infiltration air. Table II.4 shows the 

measured net cooling capacities and 

EERs for single-duct and dual-duct units 

tested according to the calorimeter 

approach when the infiltration air drybulb temperature was 95 °F. The results 

are compared to rated values. 

TABLE II.4—CALORIMETER APPROACH RESULTS

Test unit 

Cooling capacity (Btu/h) EER (Btu/Wh) 

Rated Calorimeter Reduction 

(%) Rated Calorimeter Reduction (%) 

SD1 .................................. 8,000 ¥470.8 105.9 7.0 ¥0.54 107.7 

SD2 .................................. 9,500 ¥641.4 106.8 9.6 ¥0.70 107.3 

SD3 .................................. 12,000 3475.5 71.0 8.7 2.30 73.5 

SD4 .................................. 13,000 1841.4 85.8 9.7 1.34 86.2 

DD1 .................................. 9,500 3379.9 64.4 9.4 2.89 69.2 

DD2 .................................. 13,000 3442.4 73.5 8.9 2.60 70.8 

DOE notes the significant difference 

between the rated cooling capacity and 

the results measured according to the 

calorimeter approach for both singleduct and dual-duct units. As expected, 

due to the larger effect of air infiltration, 

the difference was greater for singleduct units than for dual-duct ones. On 

average for single-duct units, cooling 

capacity was reduced by 92.4 percent 

and EER was reduced by 93.7 percent. 

For single-duct units SD1 and SD2, 

however, the net effects captured by the 

calorimeter approach resulted in 

negative cooling capacities; that is, there 

was overall heating in the indoor-side 

chamber. For dual-duct units, the 

average reductions in cooling capacity 

and EER were 69 percent and 70 

percent, respectively. 

As discussed previously, the 

calorimeter approach requires 

monitoring the energy consumption of 

all heating and cooling components 

required to maintain stable chamber 

conditions, while accounting for the 

heat transferred between the indoor and 

outdoor chambers. To quantify the 

combined impact of the heat transfer 

from leaks in the case and ducts and the 

enthalpy added from the infiltration air, 

DOE compared these calorimeter test 

results with the baseline results, as 

shown in Table II.5. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26645 

TABLE II.5—COMPARISON OF BASELINE RESULTS AND CALORIMETER APPROACH RESULTS

Test unit 

Cooling Capacity (Btu/h) EER (Btu/Wh) 

Baseline Calorimeter Reduction 

(%) Baseline Calorimeter Reduction (%) 

SD1 .................................. 5,842.7 ¥470.8 108.1 6.84 ¥0.54 107.9 

SD2 .................................. 6,599.8 ¥641.4 109.7 7.41 ¥0.70 109.4 

SD3 .................................. 10,947.6 3475.5 68.3 7.47 2.30 69.2 

SD4 .................................. 9,505.6 1841.4 80.6 6.59 1.34 79.7 

DD1 .................................. 8,597.2 3379.9 60.7 7.41 2.89 60.9 

DD2 .................................. 7,211.2 3442.4 52.3 5.50 2.60 52.7 

The percent reduction from baseline 

results to those measured using the 

calorimeter approach range from 52 

percent to over 100 percent for both 

cooling capacity and EER. 

Issue 4. DOE requests feedback on the 

applicability of the calorimeter 

approach for measuring the performance 

of portable ACs, and the associated 

testing burden. 

Issue 5. DOE seeks comment on other 

possible testing methods or alternate 

approaches to measure representative 

portable AC performance. 

DOE performed additional 

investigative testing to quantify the 

individual impacts on performance due 

to each of the factors discussed 

previously in this section of today’s 

notice. The test setup, approach, and 

data collected for each of these 

investigations is presented below. 

2. Duct Heat Loss and Leakage 

To quantify the heat transfer to the 

conditioned space through the 

minimally insulated condenser duct(s) 

and from any leaks at the duct 

connections or mounting fixture, DOE 

repeated the calorimeter testing with 

insulation surrounding the condenser 

ducts to benchmark results without this 

heat transfer. DOE used insulation 

having a nominal R value of 6 (in units 

of hours-°F-square feet per Btu), with 

seams around the duct, adapter, and 

mounting bracket sealed with tape to 

minimize air leakage. To determine duct 

losses and air leakage effects, DOE 

compared results from these tests to the 

results from the initial calorimeter 

approach tests with no insulation, as 

shown in Table II.6. 

TABLE II.6—DUCT LOSS AND AIR LEAKAGE EFFECTS

Test unit 

Cooling capacity (Btu/h) EER (Btu/Wh) 

Uninsulated Insulated Change* Uninsulated Insulated Change* 

SD1 .................................. ¥470.8 ¥5.0 465.8 ¥0.54 ¥0.006 0.54 

SD2 .................................. ¥641.4 ¥32.3 609.0 ¥0.70 ¥0.035 0.66 

SD3 .................................. 3475.5 4,091.8 616.3 2.30 2.723 0.42 

SD4 .................................. 1841.4 3,024.8 1,183.4 1.34 2.17 0.83 

DD1 .................................. 3379.9 4,682.0 1,302.1 2.89 3.94 1.04 

DD2 .................................. 3442.4 4,209.4 767.0 2.60 3.14 0.53 

* Change in performance in the table above may not align with the performance values listed due to rounding considerations. 

For all units in the test sample, 

insulating the ducts and sealing any 

potential leak locations improved the 

measured cooling capacity and EER 

results; however, the magnitude of the 

change varied from unit to unit. 

Issue 6. DOE requests feedback on the 

potential performance impacts related to 

all components of duct heat losses, and 

whether and how a test procedure 

should account for them. 

3. Infiltration Air 

DOE investigated the impacts of air 

infiltration from outside the conditioned 

space in which the portable AC is 

located due to the negative pressure 

induced as condenser air is exhausted to 

the outdoor space. Although this effect 

is most pronounced for single-duct 

units, which draw all of their condenser 

air from within the conditioned space, 

dual-duct units may also draw a portion 

of their condenser air from the 

conditioned space. 

a. Infiltration Air Flowrate 

DOE estimated the infiltration air flow 

rate as equal to the condenser exhaust 

flow rate to the outdoor chamber minus 

any condenser intake flow rate from the 

outdoor chamber. DOE concluded, 

based on review of the test chamber 

configurations, that air leakage from the 

outdoor chamber to locations other than 

the indoor chamber was negligible. The 

net flow rate into the outdoor chamber 

was thus estimated to entirely be 

transferred into the indoor chamber 

through the pressure regulating 

apparatus during calorimeter testing. 

For accurate measurement of condenser 

air flow rates, the inlet and outlet air 

flow rates were measured during 

baseline testing using the duct 

instrumentation necessary for the air 

enthalpy method. 

For a single-duct unit, the air balance 

equation results in the infiltration air 

flow rate being equal to the condenser 

exhaust air flow rate. For dual-duct 

units, the condenser exhaust duct flow 

rate may be higher than the inlet duct 

flow rate. This is due to some intake air 

being drawn from the indoor chamber 

via louvers or leakage through the case, 

duct connections, or between the 

evaporator and condenser sections. The 

estimated infiltration air flow rate for all 

single-duct and dual-duct units in 

DOE’s test sample are presented in 

Table II.7. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

26646 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11The lowest maintainable temperature varied 

depending upon the test unit’s capacity and air flow 

configuration. The 78 °F dry-bulb test condition was selected as the lowest maintainable condition 

for all units in the test sample. 

TABLE II.7—INFILTRATION AIR FLOW RATE

Test unit 

Condenser outlet 

air flow rate 

(CFM) 

Condenser inlet air 

flow rate 

(CFM) * 

Net Infiltration air 

flow rate 

(CFM) 

SD1 ...................................................................................................................... 268.0 N/A 268.0 

SD2 ...................................................................................................................... 262.6 N/A 262.6 

SD3 ...................................................................................................................... 285.5 N/A 285.5 

SD4 ...................................................................................................................... 254.3 N/A 254.3 

DD1 ...................................................................................................................... 271.9 170.8 101.1 

DD2 ...................................................................................................................... 214.8 128.1 86.8 

* Condenser inlet air flow rate is only applicable for dual-duct units. 

b. Effect of Infiltration Air Temperature 

In its initial calorimeter test, DOE 

maintained the outdoor test chamber 

conditions at 95 °F dry-bulb 

temperature and 75 °F wet-bulb 

temperature. Infiltration air was 

provided by means of a pressureregulated connection between the 

outdoor and indoor test chambers, 

thereby resulting in infiltration air at 

those temperatures. Such conditions 

would be representative of outdoor air 

being drawn directly into the 

conditioned space to replace any 

condenser inlet air from that same 

conditioned space. However, it is 

possible that some or all of the 

replacement air is drawn from a location 

other than the outdoors directly, such as 

a basement, attic, garage, or a space that 

is conditioned by other equipment. 

Because varying infiltration air 

temperature would have a significant 

impact on cooling capacity and EER 

when using the calorimeter test method, 

and because DOE was unable to identify 

information on a representative 

infiltration air temperature and relative 

humidity, DOE performed calorimeter 

testing over a range of dry-bulb 

temperatures for the infiltration air that 

spanned 78 °F to 95 °F, all at the 40- 

percent relative humidity specified at 

the 95 °F condition. DOE selected 

conditions at 87 °F and 82 °F dry-bulb 

temperature based on outdoor test 

conditions among those specified for 

cooling mode tests in the ANSI/AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI) Standard 210/240– 

2008, ‘‘Performance Rating of Unitary 

Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat 

Pump Equipment.’’ The 78 °F test 

condition was selected based on the 

lowest temperature maintainable by the 

third-party test laboratory conducting 

testing.11 Dual-duct units were not 

tested at this lowest-temperature test 

condition because DOE estimated that 

infiltration effects are not as significant 

for dual-duct units as they are for singleduct units and therefore did not warrant 

additional testing. 

DOE tested two single-duct and two 

dual-duct units at the infiltration air 

conditions shown in Table II.8. 

TABLE II.8—INFILTRATION AIR TEMPERATURE TEST SERIES

Infiltration 

air test series 

Infiltration air temperature 

(dry/wet bulb) Single-duct Dual-duct 

Test 1 .............................................................. 95 °F/75 °F ............................................ SD2, SD4 ............................................... DD1, DD2 

Test 2 .............................................................. 87 °F/69 °F ............................................ SD2, SD4 ............................................... DD1, DD2 

Test 3 .............................................................. 82 °F/65 °F ............................................ SD2, SD4 ............................................... DD1, DD2 

Test 4 .............................................................. 78 °F/62 °F ............................................ SD2, SD4 ............................................... N/A 

Infiltration air conditions at the lower 

end of the tested temperature range 

were similar to the ambient conditions 

being maintained in the indoor test 

chamber, and therefore would result in 

the smallest air infiltration effect on the 

measurement of cooling capacity and 

EER. Test results obtained under those 

conditions could potentially be similar 

to those obtained by the use of the 

current industry test procedures, after 

accounting for case and duct heat losses. 

Table II.9 shows the cooling capacity 

and EER results for single-duct and 

dual-duct units at the various 

infiltration temperatures. 

TABLE II.9—COOLING CAPACITY AND EER AT VARYING INFILTRATION AIR TEMPERATURE

Test unit 

Cooling capacity (Btu/h) EER (Btu/Wh) 

Test 1 

(95/75 °F) 

Test 2 

(87/69 °F) 

Test 3 

(82/65 °F) 

Test 4 

(78/62 °F) 

Test 1 

(95/75 °F) 

Test 2 

(87/69 °F) 

Test 3 

(82/65 °F) 

Test 4 

(78/62 °F) 

SD2 .................. ¥614.4 4,048.3 7,039.5 9,584.0 ¥0.70 4.51 7.88 10.66 

SD4 .................. 1,841.4 7,808.2 10,468.9 12,247.4 1.34 5.47 7.51 9.00 

DD1 .................. 3,379.9 6,268.8 7,801.0 N/A 2.89 5.53 7.07 N/A 

DD2 .................. 3,442.4 6,396.1 8,147.3 N/A 2.60 4.99 6.40 N/A 

These results confirm that single-duct 

unit performance as determined using 

the calorimeter approach is highly 

dependent on infiltration air 

temperature. The dual-duct units tested 

also showed significant variation of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26647 

performance with infiltration air 

temperature because of the portion of 

condenser air that is drawn from the 

indoor chamber. Table II.10 lists the 

calorimeter test results at each 

infiltration air temperature as a 

percentage of the results obtained 

during baseline testing. At temperatures 

representative of many likely real-world 

infiltration air temperatures, it can be 

seen that the actual performance of 

portable ACs may be substantially lower 

than values obtained using the air 

enthalpy method would suggest. 

TABLE II.10—COMPARISON OF BASELINE AND CALORIMETER TESTING FOR VARYING INFILTRATION AIR

Test unit 

Calorimeter cooling capacity as a percentage of baseline 

capacity (%) 

Calorimeter EER as a percentage of baseline EER 

(%) 

Test 1 

(95/75 °F) 

Test 2 

(87/69 °F) 

Test 3 

(82/65 °F) 

Test 4 

(78/62 °F) 

Test 1 

(95/75 °F) 

Test 2 

(87/69 °F) 

Test 3 

(82/65 °F) 

Test 4 

(78/62 °F) 

SD2 .................. ¥9.7 61.30 106.7 145.2 ¥9.4 60.9 106.3 143.8 

SD4 .................. 19.4 82.1 110.1 128.8 20.3 83.0 113.9 136.5 

DD1 .................. 39.3 72.9 90.7 N/A 39.1 74.7 95.4 N/A 

DD2 .................. 47.7 88.7 113.0 N/A 47.3 90.6 116.2 N/A 

DOE notes that the test results with 

infiltration air at 82 °F dry-bulb 

temperature and 65 °F wet-bulb 

temperature were most similar to the 

baseline tests conducted according to 

the air enthalpy method. 

DOE next quantified the total heat 

added to the room by the infiltration air 

at each reduced temperature test. DOE 

used the following equation to calculate 

the sensible heat contribution of the 

infiltration air as: 

Where: 

Qs is the sensible heat added to the room by 

infiltration air, in Btu/h, 

V is the volumetric flow rate of infiltration 

air, in cubic feet per minute (cfm), 

d is the density of the air mixture, in pounds 

mass per cubic feet (lbm/ft3), 

cp_da is the specific heat of dry air, in Btu/ 

lbm-°F, 

w is the humidity ratio, in pounds mass of 

water vapor per pounds of dry air, 

cp_wv is the specific heat of water vapor, in 

Btu/lbm-°F, 

60 is the conversion factor from minutes to 

hours, and 

DT is the difference between the infiltration 

air and indoor chamber dry-bulb 

temperatures, in °F. 

DOE used the following equation for 

the latent heat contribution of the 

infiltration air: 

Where: 

Ql is the latent heat added to the room by 

infiltration air, in Btu/h, 

V is the volumetric flow rate of infiltration 

air, in cfm, 

d is the density of the air mixture, in lbm/ft3, 

w is the humidity ratio, in pounds mass of 

water vapor per pounds of dry air, 

60 is the conversion factor from minutes to 

hours, and 

hfg is the latent heat of vaporization for water 

vapor, in Btu/lbm. 

The total heat contribution of the 

infiltration air is the sum of the sensible 

and latent heat. Table II.11 presents 

results for the total heat input from the 

infiltration air at various temperatures 

for each test unit, along with a 

comparison to the baseline cooling 

capacity. 

TABLE II.11—HEAT INPUT FROM INFILTRATION AIR

Test unit 

Total heat transferred (Btu/h) Heat transferred as a percentage of baseline 

cooling capacity (%) 

Test 1 

(95/75 °F) 

Test 2 

(87/69 °F) 

Test 3* 

(82/65 °F) Test 1 

(95/75 °F) 

Test 2 

(87/69 °F) 

Test 3 

(82/65 °F) 

SD2 .......................................................... 6,391.6 885.7 ¥2,294.0 96.8 13.4 ¥34.8 

SD4 .......................................................... 5,523.5 587.0 ¥2,263.9 58.1 6.2 ¥23.8 

DD1 .......................................................... 2,070.5 327.0 ¥679.9 24.1 3.8 ¥7.9 

DD2 .......................................................... 1,707.4 259.5 ¥576.8 23.7 3.6 ¥8.0 

*DOE notes that at an infiltration air dry-bulb temperature slightly higher than the indoor 80 °F dry-bulb standard test condition, a net cooling 

effect is achieved because the latent heat of the infiltration air is less than the latent heat of the indoor test condition. 

Table II.11 shows that infiltration air 

heat input is significant, almost 97 

percent for one single-duct unit, when 

compared with the overall cooling 

capacity measured with current 

industry test procedures that do not 

address this heating effect. As expected, 

infiltration air at higher temperatures 

has a larger impact on performance than 

at lower temperatures, and is therefore 

a larger percentage of the baseline 

cooling capacity. 

Issue 7. DOE seeks comment on 

whether infiltration air should be 

accounted for as part of a future DOE 

test procedure for portable ACs, should 

DOE determine to include portable ACs 

as a covered product, and if so, what 

test method would be appropriate to 

account for the infiltration air. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP09MY14.000</GPH> EP09MY14.001</GPH>
26648 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Issue 8. DOE seeks comment and 

information on whether the current 

industry standard outdoor air 

conditions of 95 °F dry-bulb 

temperature and 75 °F wet-bulb 

temperature are representative for realworld infiltration air, and if not, on 

what would be representative 

infiltration air temperatures. 

Issue 9. DOE requests feedback on the 

effects of heat input from infiltration air 

and the performance differences that are 

observed between the results of testing 

according to the air enthalpy approach 

and the calorimeter approach. 

4. Mixing Between the Condenser Inlet 

and Exhaust for Dual-Duct Portable Air 

Conditioners 

The current industry test procedures 

specify the condenser inlet conditions 

for single-duct and dual-duct portable 

ACs, but do not address potential air 

mixing between the condenser inlet and 

exhaust air streams for the dual-duct 

configuration. Manufacturers typically 

provide a single mounting fixture for 

both the condenser inlet and exhaust 

ducts to minimize installation time and 

optimize the use of window space. 

However, this approach typically 

positions the condenser inlet and 

exhaust directly adjacent to one another. 

During operation when installed in the 

field, short-circuiting may occur 

between some of the condenser exhaust 

air (typically above 110 °F) and the 

outdoor ambient air (95 °F according to 

current industry test procedures). 

Elevated condenser inlet air temperature 

reduces the efficiency of the 

refrigeration system because it limits the 

ability of the condenser to reject heat 

from the conditioned space. 

To investigate the effects of potential 

condenser inlet and exhaust mixing, 

DOE tested both dual-duct units 

according to two different approaches 

for maintaining the outdoor room 

conditions. The first approach was to 

maintain the overall outdoor chamber 

conditions at 95 °F dry-bulb 

temperature and 75 °F wet-bulb 

temperature as measured at the 

infiltration air inlet, allowing for mixing 

of condenser inlet and outlet air and 

thereby possibly increasing the 

condenser inlet temperature. 

Additionally, DOE notes that test 

chamber dimensions resulted in the 

duct fixture being located 

approximately four feet from the 

opposite wall of the outdoor chamber, 

which would likely be a worst-case 

configuration in terms of condenser air 

mixing for real-world installations. 

The second approach was to monitor 

the condenser inlet dry-bulb and wetbulb temperatures and adjust the 

chamber conditions to maintain the 

95 °F/75 °F conditions at that location. 

Condenser exhaust and inlet air mixing 

would result in a lower temperature 

being maintained in the outdoor 

chamber. 

Table II.12 shows the condenser inlet 

air and infiltration air dry-bulb 

temperatures when testing the two dualduct units according to both test 

approaches. DOE tested each unit in two 

different configurations, once with 

manufacturer provided ducting and the 

second time with sealed and insulated 

ducts as described in section II.C.2 of 

today’s notice. 

TABLE II.12—CONDENSER MIXING EFFECTS ON AIR FLOW TEMPERATURES

Test units 

Infiltration air at 95 °F Condenser 

inlet air at 95 °F 

Condenser 

inlet (°F) 

Infiltration 

air (°F) Condenser 

inlet (°F) 

Infiltration 

air (°F) 

DD1 Uninsulated .............................................................. 95.5 95.1 94.8 94.3 

DD1 Insulated .................................................................. 95.9 95.0 95.0 94.1 

DD2 Uninsulated .............................................................. 95.1 95.1 95.0 95.0 

DD2 Insulated .................................................................. 95.0 94.6 95.3 95.0 

As shown in Table II.12 the difference 

between the condenser inlet air 

temperature and infiltration air 

temperature for both test approaches is 

at most 0.9 °F, regardless of duct heat 

losses. These results indicated that there 

was minimal mixing between the 

condenser exhaust and inlet air flows. 

Further confirming this observation 

were data for cooling capacity and EER 

shown in Table II.13, also showing that 

the difference between the two test 

approaches was minimal. 

TABLE II.13—CONDENSER MIXING EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE

Test units 

Infiltration air at 95 °F Condenser inlet air at 95 °F Percent change 

Cooling 

capacity 

(Btu/h) 

EER 

(Btu/Wh) 

Cooling 

capacity 

(Btu/h) 

EER 

(Btu/Wh) 

Cooling 

capacity 

(%) 

EER 

(%) 

DD1 Uninsulated ...................................... 3,379.9 2.89 3,447.7 2.96 2.01 2.18 

DD1 Insulated .......................................... 4,682.0 3.94 4,640.1 3.93 ¥0.90 ¥0.23 

DD2 Uninsulated ...................................... 3,442.4 2.60 3,413.8 2.58 ¥0.83 ¥1.02 

DD2 Insulated .......................................... 4,209.4 3.14 4,242.5 3.16 0.79 0.90 

* Percent reduction in the table above may not align with the performance values listed due to rounding considerations. 

Issue 10. DOE requests feedback 

regarding measures that should be 

considered in a portable AC test 

procedure to address any condenser 

exhaust air and inlet air mixing in dualduct units. 

D. Alternate Testing Approach 

Based on the investigative testing, 

DOE considered whether another 

approach that utilizes the existing test 

procedures with numerical adjustments 

for infiltration air would accurately 

reflect portable AC performance. As 

described above in section II.C.3.b of 

this notice, DOE calculated the 

infiltration heat effects from the air flow 

rate and humidity ratio of the 

infiltration air. Subtracting the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 26649 

infiltration air heat from the cooling 

capacity as determined by the baseline 

test could be close enough to results 

obtained from the calorimeter method to 

provide a representative measure of 

portable AC performance. Table II.14 

displays the cooling capacity as 

determined by combining the estimated 

infiltration air heat transfer with the 

baseline results, and the cooling 

capacity as determined by the 

calorimeter method. 

TABLE II.14—ALTERNATE TESTING APPROACH PERFORMANCE

Test Unit 

Cooling capacity 

(Btu/h) 

EER (Btu/Wh) 

Calorimeter 

Baseline— 

infiltration 

air 

Increase 

(%) 

Calorimeter 

Baseline— 

infiltration 

air 

Increase 

(%) 

SD1 .......................................................... ¥470.8 ¥878.4 ¥86.6 ¥0.54 ¥1.03 ¥90.0 

SD2 .......................................................... ¥641.4 208.2 132.5 ¥0.70 0.23 133.5 

SD3 .......................................................... 3475.5 4,032.9 16.0 2.30 2.75 19.5 

SD4 .......................................................... 1841.4 3,982.1 116.3 1.34 2.76 106.1 

DD1 .......................................................... 3379.9 6,526.7 93.1 2.89 5.62 94.3 

DD2 .......................................................... 3442.4 5,503.8 59.9 2.60 4.20 61.5 

The data in Table II.14 indicate that 

there is no consistent difference 

between the two test approaches. The 

increase in cooling capacity from the 

calorimeter approach to the alternate 

approach for single-duct units ranged 

between negative 87 percent and over 

133 percent, while the two dual-duct 

units in the test sample had a smaller 

range in cooling capacity change, from 

60 to 93 percent. A larger sample size 

may further show the trends for 

difference unit configurations. 

Issue 11. DOE welcomes comment on 

this alternate testing approach, and in 

particular on the testing burden 

associated with it. 

E. Additional Issues On Which DOE 

Seeks Comment 

Should DOE issue a final 

determination that portable ACs are a 

covered product, DOE may prescribe 

test procedures and energy conservation 

standards for portable ACs. As part of 

that effort, DOE may propose a new 

portable AC test procedure. In addition 

to the specific issues discussed above 

for which DOE is seeking comment, 

DOE welcomes comment on any aspect 

of this NODA and is also interested in 

receiving comments and views from 

interested parties on the following 

issues: 

Issue 12. DOE welcomes general 

comments about the various 

investigative test approaches DOE 

conducted as discussed and presented 

above in this notice, including whether 

any of these approaches are currently 

utilized by manufacturers and test 

facilities. DOE also welcomes comment 

on any testing methodologies 

appropriate for consideration as an 

alternative to the industry accepted 

methodologies and those performed by 

DOE. 

Issue 13. DOE requests data on the 

repeatability and reproducibility of such 

testing methods. DOE also welcomes 

additional data on the repeatability and 

reproducibility of testing results using 

the test methods presented in this 

notice. 

The purpose of this NODA is to solicit 

feedback from industry, manufacturers, 

academia, consumer groups, efficiency 

advocates, government agencies, and 

other interested parties on issues related 

to a potential DOE portable AC test 

procedure. DOE is specifically 

interested in information and additional 

data on the current industry test 

procedures for portable ACs and 

alternate test approaches discussed in 

today’s notice. Respondents are advised 

that DOE is under no obligation to 

acknowledge receipt of the information 

received or provide feedback to 

respondents with respect to any 

information submitted under this 

NODA. Responses to this NODA do not 

bind DOE to any further actions related 

to this topic. 

III. Public Participation 

DOE is interested in receiving 

comments on all aspects of the data and 

analysis presented in the NODA and 

supporting documentation that can be 

found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

product.aspx/productid/79. 

Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this notice no 

later than the date provided in the DATES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

Interested parties may submit 

comments, data, and other information 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

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 itself 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. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

26650 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 90 / Friday, May 9, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information 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/

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible, in which case 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, that are written in English, and 

that are 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 two well-marked copies: One 

copy of the document marked 

‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

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). 

Issued in Washington, DC on May 5, 2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10692 Filed 5–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039] 

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking 

Federal Advisory Committee: Notice of 

Open Teleconference/Webinar for the 

Commercial and Industrial Pumps 

Working Group 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open Teleconference/ 

Webinar. 

SUMMARY: This document announces an 

open teleconference/webinar of the 

Commercial and Industrial Pumps 

Working Group (Pumps Working 

Group). The purpose of the Pumps 

Working Group is to discuss and, if 

possible, reach consensus on a proposed 

rule for the energy efficiency of 

commercial and industrial pumps, as 

authorized by the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended. 

DATES: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 from 

1:00 p.m.–3:00 p.m. (EDT). 

ADDRESSES: You may register for the 

webinar at https:// 

www1.gotomeeting.com/register/ 

956419984. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Cymbalsky, ASRAC Designated Federal 

Officer, Program Manager for Appliance 

Standards and Building Codes, U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE), Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Email: 

asrac@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Meeting: To update 

members of the Pumps Working Group 

on analysis conducted in support of 

negotiations on potential energy 

efficiency standards for commercial and 

industrial pumps and to gather 

comments from the working group 

members and from the public. 

Tentative Agenda: 

• Update on energy efficiency 

standards economic and engineering 

analysis. 

• Discussion of potential 

measurement metric. 

Public Participation: Members of the 

public are welcome to observe the 

business of the webinar and, if time 

allows, may make oral statements 

during the specified period for public 

comment. To participate in the webinar 

and/or to make oral statements 

regarding any of the items on the 

agenda, email asrac@ee.doe.gov. In the 

email, please indicate your name, 

organization (if appropriate), 

citizenship, and contact information. 

Members of the public will be heard in 

the order in which they sign up for the 

Public Comment Period. Time allotted 

per speaker will depend on the number 

of individuals who wish to speak but 

will not exceed five minutes. 

Reasonable provision will be made to 

include the scheduled oral statements 

on the agenda. The co-chairs of the 

Committee will make every effort to 

hear the views of all interested parties 

and to facilitate the orderly conduct of 

business. 

Participation in the webinar is not a 

prerequisite for submission of written 

comments. ASRAC invites written 

comments from all interested parties. 

Any comments submitted must identify 

the ASRAC, and provide docket number 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0039. 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: ASRAC@ee.doe.gov. Include 

docket number EERE–2013–BT–NOC– 

0039 in the subject line of the message. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS