Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps, 37136-37149 [2015-15885]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37136-37149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15885]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

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


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

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On March 13, 2014, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued 
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the test procedures for 
packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged terminal heat 
pumps (PTHPs). That NOPR serves as the basis for this final rule 
regarding the test method for PTACs and PTHPs. The amendments adopted 
here do not affect measured energy use. These changes incorporate by 
reference certain sections of the latest versions of industry test 
procedures AHRI Standard 310/380-2014, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 
2014), ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58-1986 
(RA 2014), and specify additional testing provisions that must be 
followed including an optional break-in period, require that cooling 
capacity tests be conducted using electricity measuring instruments 
accurate to +/- 0.5% of reading, explicitly require that wall sleeves 
be sealed, allow for the pre-filling of the condensate drain pan, and 
require testing with 14-inch deep wall sleeves and the filter option 
most representative of a typical installation.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is July 30, 2015. The final rule 
changes will be mandatory for representations starting June 24, 2016. 
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this 
rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of July 
30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. 
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov 
index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those 
containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not 
be publicly available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0032. This Web 
page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the 
regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Majette, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7935. Email: PTACs@ee.doe.gov.
    Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. Email: Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference 
into Part 431 the following industry standards:
    (1) AHRI Standard 310/380-2014 (``AHRI 310/380-2014''), (Supersedes 
ANSI/AHRI 310/380-2004), ``Standard for Packaged Terminal Air-
Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' published February 2014.
    (2) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 2014), (``ANSI/ASHRAE 16''), 
``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners and Packaged 
Terminal Air Conditioners,'' ASHRAE reaffirmed July 3, 2014.
    (3) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58-1986 (RA 2014), (``ANSI/ASHRAE 58''), 
``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air-Conditioner and Packaged 
Terminal Air-Conditioner Heating Capacity,'' ASHRAE reaffirmed July 3, 
2014.
    (4) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37'') (Supersedes 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2005), ``Methods of Testing for Rating 
Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' 
ASHRAE approved June 20, 2009; ANSI approved June 25, 2009.
    You can obtain copies of AHRI standards from the Air-Conditioning, 
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, 
Arlington, VA 22201, 703-524-8800, or www.ahrinet.org. You can obtain 
copies of ASHRAE standards from the American Society of Heating, 
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie Circle, NE. 
Atlanta, GA 30329, 404-636-8400, or www.ashrae.org.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
    B. DOE PTAC and PTHP Test Procedures
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Break-In Duration
    B. Wall Sleeve Sealing
    C. Pre-Filling Condensate Drain Pan
    D. ANSI/ASHRAE 16 vs. ANSI/ASHRAE 37
    E. AHRI Standard 310/380-2014 and Reaffirmed ASHRAE Standards
    F. Wall Sleeve Size and Filter Requirements for Testing
    G. Barometric Pressure Correction
    H. Part-Load Efficiency Metric and Varying Ambient Conditions
    I. Cooling Capacity Verification
    J. Additional Comments
    K. Compliance Date of the Test Procedure Amendments
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

[[Page 37137]]

    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
    N. Congressional Notification
    O. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III, Part C \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975 (EPCA or ``the Act''), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as 
codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial 
Equipment.\2\ This equipment includes packaged terminal air 
conditioners (PTACs) and packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), the 
subjects of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical 
Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of 
covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that 
their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards 
adopted under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the efficiency 
of those products. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to 
determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards 
promulgated under EPCA.

A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered equipment. EPCA provides that any test procedure prescribed or 
amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test 
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual 
operating cost of industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a 
representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be 
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, it must publish a proposed test procedure and offer the 
public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 
U.S.C. 6314(b)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, 
DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure 
would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered equipment as 
determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4))

B. DOE PTAC and PTHP Test Procedures

    DOE's test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs are codified at Title 10 
of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 431.96. The test 
procedures were established on December 8, 2006, in a final rule that 
incorporated by reference the American National Standards Institute's 
(ANSI) and Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute's 
(AHRI) Standard 310/380-2004, ``Standard for Packaged Terminal Air-
Conditioners and Heat Pumps'' (``ANSI/AHRI 310/380-2004''). 71 FR 
71340, 71371. ANSI/AHRI 310/380-2004 is incorporated by reference at 10 
CFR 431.95(a)(3) and it references (1) the ANSI and American Society of 
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 
16-1983 (RA 99), ``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners 
and Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 16''); (2) 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58-1986 (RA 99), ``Method of Testing for Rating 
Room Air-Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioner Heating 
Capacity'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 58''); and (3) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-1988, 
``Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37'').
    On May 16, 2012, DOE published a final rule for commercial heating, 
air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment (``ASHRAE equipment''), 
which included amendments to the test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs. 
These amendments incorporated a number of sections of ANSI/AHRI 310/
380-2004 by reference. 77 FR 28928, 28990.
    On February 22, 2013, DOE published a notice of public meeting and 
availability of framework document to consider potential amendment of 
energy conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs (``February 2013 
Framework Document''). 78 FR 12252. In the February 2013 Framework 
Document, DOE sought comments on issues pertaining to the test 
procedures for PTACs and PTHPs, including equipment break-in, wall 
sleeve sealing, pre-filling the condensate drain pan, barometric 
pressure correction, and differences between the test methods of ANSI/
ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37. In response to the February 2013 
Framework Document, interested parties provided comments responding to 
the requests for comment regarding test procedure issues.
    On February 26, 2013, members of the Appliance Standards and 
Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) unanimously decided to 
form a working group to engage in a negotiated rulemaking effort on the 
certification of commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 
(HVAC) equipment (10 CFR part 431, subparts D, E and F), water heating 
(WH) equipment (10 CFR part 431, subpart G), and refrigeration 
equipment (10 CFR part 431, subpart C). A notice of intent to form the 
Commercial Certification Working Group (``Working Group'') was 
published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2013. DOE received 35 
nominations for the Working Group. 78 FR 15653. On April 16, 2013, the 
Department published a notice of open meeting that announced the first 
meeting and listed the 22 nominees DOE selected to serve as members of 
the Working Group along with two members from ASRAC and one DOE 
representative. 78 FR 22431. Following a series of open meetings, the 
Working Group published a set of recommendations, and DOE issued the 
Certification of Commercial HVAC, WH, and Refrigeration Equipment NOPR 
(``Certification of Commercial Equipment NOPR'') on February 14, 2014 
summarizing the Working Group's recommendations for certification 
requirements. 79 FR 8886. The group recommended a number of test 
procedure items related to PTACs and PTHPs that were not proposed in 
the Certification of Commercial Equipment NOPR, including 1) a proposal 
for a standardized wall sleeve to be used during testing, and 2) a 
proposal for a standardized filter for testing, both of which are 
discussed in this final rule.
    In February 2014, AHRI published AHRI Standard 310/380-2014, 
``Standard for Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' 
(``AHRI 310/380-2014''), which updates and supersedes the ANSI/AHRI 
310/380-2004 referenced by the current test procedure.

[[Page 37138]]

    On March 13, 2014, DOE published a NOPR (``March 2014 NOPR'') 
proposing amendments to the DOE PTAC and PTHP test procedures (10 CFR 
431, Subpart F), specifically to specify an optional break-in period, 
explicitly require that wall sleeves be sealed, allow for the pre-
filling of the condensate drain pan, require that the cooling capacity 
for PTACs and PTHPs be determined by testing pursuant to ANSI/ASHRAE 
16, and require testing with 14-inch deep wall sleeves and the filter 
option most representative of a typical installation. 79 FR 14186. DOE 
held a public meeting on April 28, 2014, to hear oral comments on and 
solicit information relevant to the March 2014 NOPR.
    On July 3, 2014, ASHRAE reaffirmed ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 
58 and republished the standards to correct errata that existed in 
previous versions. These errata corrections do not change the 
procedures. The reaffirmed 2014 versions of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/
ASHRAE 58 are not referenced by the updated AHRI Standard 310/380-2014 
test procedure published in February 2014.
    With respect to this rulemaking, DOE determined that none of the 
adopted amendments change the measured energy use of PTACs and PTHPs 
when compared to the current test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4); 10 
CFR 431.96)
    This final rule fulfills DOE's obligation to periodically review 
its test procedures for all covered equipment, including PTACs and 
PTHPs, at least once every 7 years and either amend the applicable test 
procedures or publish a determination in the Federal Register not to 
amend them. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE amends the test procedures for PTACs and 
PTHPs in 10 CFR 431, Subpart F, to reference certain sections of the 
industry test procedures AHRI 310/380-2014, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-
1983 (RA 2014), ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE 58-1986 (RA 2014), 
and to specify an optional break-in period, explicitly require that 
wall sleeves be sealed, allow for the pre-filling of the condensate 
drain pan, require that measurements of cooling capacity be conducted 
using electrical instruments accurate to +/-0.5% of reading, and 
require testing with 14-inch deep wall sleeves and the filter option 
most representative of a typical installation.
    The amendments explicitly allow PTAC and PTHP manufacturers the 
option of using a break-in period (up to 20 hours) before conducting 
the test procedures. In this regard, DOE adds AHRI 310/380-2014 to the 
list of commercial air-conditioner standards at 10 CFR 431.96(c), which 
currently provides an optional break-in period of up to 20 hours for 
other commercial air-conditioner equipment types. Any PTAC or PTHP 
manufacturer that elects to use a break-in period must certify the 
duration of the break-in period it used for each basic model in the 
certification report for such basic models. DOE will use the same 
break-in period for any DOE-initiated testing as the manufacturer used 
in its certified ratings. In the case an alternate efficiency 
determination method (AEDM) is used to develop the certified ratings, 
DOE will use the maximum 20-hour break-in period, which will provide 
the unit sufficient time to stabilize and achieve optimal performance.
    The amended test method requires that, as part of the set-up for 
testing, testers seal gaps between wall sleeves and the test facility 
dividing wall. This requires the PTAC or PTHP wall sleeve to be sealed 
per manufacturer specifications as provided in the installation manual 
or, if none, by using a standard sealing method.
    The amended test method allows pre-filling of the condensate drain 
pan with water before running the DOE test procedures. This amendment 
allows the unit to reach steady state more quickly, which may decrease 
the burden and cost of testing.
    In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to modify the test procedures 
to require ANSI/ASHRAE 16 as the test method for measuring the cooling 
capacity of PTACs and PTHPs. 79 FR at 14190-91 (March 13, 2014). The 
proposal would have disallowed testing to determine cooling capacity by 
psychrometric testing in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE 37, which is 
currently allowed by the DOE test procedures. Interested parties 
commented that the differences in test results between ANSI/ASHRAE 16 
and ANSI/ASHRAE 37 are small, and provided data to support their 
claims. Interested parties also commented that the requirement of a 
calorimetric test using ANSI/ASHRAE 16 places additional burdens on 
manufacturers in the form of significant capital expenditures to 
construct test facilities compliant with ANSI/ASHRAE 16. Based on these 
comments, DOE determined that disallowing psychrometric testing (such 
as that conducted using ANSI/ASHRAE 37) would place additional burden 
on manufacturers. As a result, in this final rule, DOE does not require 
the use of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 as the sole test method acceptable for 
measuring the cooling capacity of PTACs and PTHPs.
    The amended test method requires that measurements of cooling 
capacity be conducted using electricity measuring instruments accurate 
to +/- 0.5% of reading. DOE believes this tighter requirement for 
electricity measurement accuracy will help to ensure consistency 
between tests conducted using ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37, which 
have differing requirements for electrical instrumentation accuracy. 
Section 5.4.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 requires that instruments for measuring 
electrical inputs be accurate to +/- 0.5% of the quantity measured, 
while section 5.4.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37 requires accuracy to +/- 2.0% of 
the quantity measured, which represents allowing up to 1.5% greater 
uncertainty in measurements of input power and efficiency. The 
amendment requiring +/- 0.5% accuracy is consistent with the March 2014 
NOPR proposal to require use of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 as the sole test method 
acceptable for measuring the cooling capacity of equipment.
    The amended test method requires testing using a 14-inch deep wall 
sleeve and the air filter that is shipped with the tested unit. If no 
filter is supplied with the unit, the amended test procedures require 
testing using an off-the-shelf filter rated at Minimum Efficiency 
Reporting Value (MERV)-1. These amendments remove testing variability 
resulting from the use of non-standard accessories.
    DOE prefers to reference the most recent industry standards, where 
possible. Therefore, this final rule updates the DOE test procedures 
for PTACs and PTHPs to reference AHRI 310/380-2014 instead of the 
superseded ANSI/AHRI 310/380-2004. DOE also incorporates by reference 
the recently updated ANSI/ASHRAE 16-1983 (RA 2014) and ANSI/ASHRAE 58-
1986 (RA 2014), as well as the 2009 version of ANSI/ASHRAE 37. The 
amended test procedure directly incorporates by reference these three 
ASHRAE standards, allowing use of ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2014 or ANSI-ASHRAE 
37-2009 for determination of cooling mode ratings and ANSI/ASHRAE 58-
2014 for determination of heating mode ratings.
    DOE determined that these changes to the PTAC and PTHP test 
procedures do not result in any additional burden to manufacturers or 
result in any changes to the current measured energy efficiency of 
covered equipment. Rather, the changes provide additional

[[Page 37139]]

clarification regarding how to conduct the DOE test procedures.

III. Discussion

A. Break-In Duration

    Break-in, also called run-in, refers to the operation of equipment 
prior to testing to cause preliminary wear in the compressor, which may 
improve measured performance. DOE understands that many labs commonly 
incorporate a break-in period before the start of efficiency tests for 
air conditioning equipment. DOE's May 16, 2012 final rule for ASHRAE 
equipment added a specification in the test procedures for several 
types of commercial air conditioning and heating equipment that allows 
an optional break-in period of up to 20 hours and requires that 
manufacturers record the duration of the break-in period. The May 16, 
2012 final rule included amendments to the test procedures for PTACs 
and PTHPs. However, DOE did not apply this optional break-in period 
provision to PTACs or PTHPs in the May 16, 2012 final rule. 77 FR 
28928, 28991.
    In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to allow an optional break-in 
period of up to 20 hours applicable to testing of PTACs and PTHPs. DOE 
also proposed to add a certification reporting requirement to indicate 
the duration of the break-in period for tests used to support 
certification. DOE requested comments on these proposals and, if 
commenters supported longer break-in periods, data demonstrating that 
longer break-in periods make a significant impact on efficiency 
measurements for this equipment. 79 FR at 14188-89 (March 13, 2014).
    In response, AHRI commented that a break-in period is necessary, 
but recommended that the break-in period be a minimum of 24 hours and a 
maximum of 72 hours to provide for more consistent and accurate 
efficiency measurements. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 1) \3\ The California 
Investor Owned Utilities \4\ (CA IOUs) supported DOE's proposal to 
amend the DOE test procedures to include an optional break-in period. 
(CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 3) The CA IOUs indicated that they would support 
AHRI in using a longer break in period if it would provide a better 
indication of equipment's steady state performance. (CA IOUs, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 17) \5\ Goodman Manufacturing Company 
(Goodman) requested that DOE allow a break-in time of up to 72 hours 
(instead of up to 20 hours, as DOE proposed) and cited two research 
papers describing the break-in behavior of scroll compressors in 
support of its request.6 7 DOE examined these papers and 
observed that the conclusions presented in the papers comparing the 
changes in unit efficiency (as measured by the energy efficiency ratio, 
or EER) to break-in time are based on analytical models of compressor 
wear rather than actual test data. DOE notes that the conference paper 
authored by H.E. Khalifa \7\ provides a caveat alongside its data, 
stating that it is not advisable to apply the data to compare different 
families of compressors (e.g., scroll compressors versus rotary 
compressors) or different designs of equipment.\8\ As Goodman noted in 
its comment presenting these studies, the data in this conference paper 
pertain to scroll compressors, which are not used in PTAC and PTHP 
applications. As such, DOE does not view the papers as evidence that 
break-in periods exceeding 20 hours provide additional efficiency 
improvements for PTAC or PTHP equipment. DOE has not found evidence 
that break-in periods exceeding 20 hours increase the tested efficiency 
measurements for a PTAC or PTHP. A maximum break-in period of 20 hours 
will align the break-in provision for PTAC and PTHP equipment with 
other commercial air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE does not believe 
that the request for a 72-hour break-in period has been adequately 
justified with data showing the effect of a longer break-in period on 
PTAC and PTHP equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A notation in the form ``AHRI, No. 8 at p. 1'' identifies a 
written comment that DOE received and has included in the docket of 
DOE's ``Energy Conservation Test Procedures for Packaged Terminal 
Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps'' (Docket No. 
EERE-2012-BT-TP-0032), which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. 
This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by AHRI; 
(2) filed as document number 8 of the docket, and (3) appearing on 
page 1 of that document.
    \4\ The CA IOUs are comprised of Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California 
Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric Company.
    \5\ A notation in the form ``CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, 
No. 5 at p. 17'' identifies a comment that DOE received during a 
public meeting and has included in the docket of DOE's ``Energy 
Conservation Test Procedures for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 
and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps'' (Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-
0032). This particular notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted 
by the CA IOUs; (2) transcribed from the public meeting in document 
number 5 of the docket, and (3) appearing on page 17 of that 
document.
    \6\ Sundaresan, S. G., ``Evaluation of Lubricants for R410A/
R407C Applications in Scroll Compressor'' (1998). International 
Compressor Engineering Conference. Paper 1210. Available at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/icec/1210.
    \7\ Khalifa, H. E., ``Break-in Behavior of Scroll Compressors'' 
(1996). International Compressor Engineering Conference. Paper 1145. 
Available at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/icec/1145.
    \8\ Ibid. p. 444.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, in this final rule, DOE adds PTACs and PTHPs to the list 
of commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment for which a break-
in period of up to 20 hours prior to testing is allowed.
    DOE did not receive any comments on its related proposal to add a 
certification reporting requirement to indicate the duration of the 
break-in period. Thus, DOE requires manufacturers to provide the 
duration of the break-in period used during testing to support the 
development of the certified ratings in the certification report. As 
such, DOE modifies the certification requirements for PTACs and PTHPs 
that were proposed on February 14, 2014 (79 FR 8886, 8900) to require 
the manufacturer to include the break-in period in the certification 
report. DOE notes that manufacturers must maintain records underlying 
their certified rating, which must reflect this optional break-in 
period duration pursuant to 10 CFR 429.71.

B. Wall Sleeve Sealing

    PTACs and PTHPs are tested in a testing facility incorporating a 
room simulating indoor conditions and a room simulating outdoor ambient 
conditions. The rooms are separated by a dividing wall with an opening 
through which a wall sleeve is mounted to hold the test sample. In most 
cases, the wall sleeve and test sample are placed in the opening, and 
any remaining gaps between the dividing wall and the wall sleeve around 
the unit are filled with insulating material. Under the current test 
procedures, the gaps between the wall sleeve and the dividing wall may 
also be sealed with duct tape. Regarding sealing for air leakage, ANSI/
ASHRAE 16 states, ``Interior surfaces of the calorimeter compartments 
shall be of nonporous material with all joints sealed against air and 
moisture leakage.'' (Section 4.2.8). This statement does not explicitly 
require that gaps between the wall and the test sample's wall sleeve be 
sealed.
    ANSI/ASHRAE 16 also states, ``The air conditioner shall be 
installed in a manner similar to its normal installation'' (Section 
4.2.2). In normal practice, PTACs and PTHPs are installed within wall 
sleeves that are permanently installed and sealed to the external wall 
of a building. However, the set-up of the DOE test procedures does not 
allow for the permanent installation of wall sleeves in the partition 
cavity. Thus, during testing, the wall sleeve is not necessarily air-
sealed to the wall as it would be in a

[[Page 37140]]

normal installation in the field. Air leakage between the outdoor and 
indoor rooms through gaps between the wall sleeve and the dividing wall 
can reduce the measured capacity and efficiency, contributing to test 
results unrepresentative of field operation.
    In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to require that test 
facilities, when installing PTACs and PTHPs in the test chamber, seal 
all potential leakage gaps between the wall sleeve and the dividing 
wall. DOE sought comments on the sealing of PTAC and PTHP wall sleeves 
to the test facility dividing wall, including whether the type or 
method of sealing (e.g., duct tape) should be specified, and whether a 
test could be developed that, with reasonably low test burden, could be 
performed to verify an adequate seal. 79 FR at 14189 (March 13, 2014)
    In response, Goodman agreed with the proposed clarification that 
any gaps or area between wall sleeves and walls should be sealed, and 
stated that the method of sealing should not be specified. (Goodman, 
No. 7 at p. 2) AHRI recommended that the wall sleeve be sealed to the 
test facility dividing wall in accordance with the manufacturer's 
installation instructions and, if not possible to seal in accordance 
with the provided instructions, the test procedures should specify that 
adhesive tape, such as duct tape or brown packaging tape, be used to 
seal the entire perimeter of the wall sleeve to the test facility 
diving wall. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 2) The CA IOUs commented that sealing 
the test chamber is good practice, but that it is not important to 
prescribe how sealing is accomplished. (CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 21) DOE 
notes that field instructions for sealing the sleeve to the building 
are inconsistent with equipment testing, because field installation 
involves permanently sealing the sleeve to the building penetration, 
whereas the tested unit and its sleeve are intended to be removed after 
testing. Furthermore, DOE did not propose a particular sealing method 
such as adhesive tape, since methods other than use of adhesive tape 
may be just as effective for providing a temporary seal.
    In this final rule, DOE requires that any area(s) between the wall 
sleeve and the insulated partition between the indoor and outdoor rooms 
must be sealed to eliminate all air leakage through this area, but DOE 
does not specify the method used to achieve the seal.

C. Pre-Filling Condensate Drain Pan

    Most PTACs and PTHPs transfer the condensate that forms on the 
evaporator to a condensate pan in the unit's outdoor-side where a water 
slinger integrated with the outdoor fan distributes the water over the 
air-inlet side of the condenser. This process results in evaporative 
cooling that enhances the cooling of the outdoor coil in air-
conditioning mode. At the beginning of a test, there may be no water in 
the condensate pan. As the test progresses and the unit approaches an 
equilibrium state of operation, the condensate level in the drip pan 
will rise and stabilize at a constant level. It can take several hours 
to reach this steady state.
    To accelerate the testing process, test facilities typically add 
water to the condensate pan at the beginning of the test rather than 
wait for the unit to generate sufficient condensate to stabilize. The 
current test procedures do not indicate whether this practice is 
allowed during efficiency testing.
    In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to add a provision in its test 
procedures at 10 CFR 431.96 to allow manufacturers the option of pre-
filling the condensate drain pan before starting the efficiency test. 
The proposed provision did not specify requirements regarding the water 
purity or the water temperature that is to be used. DOE sought comments 
on pre-filling the condensate drain pan, including whether the type 
and/or temperature of the water used should be specified in the test 
procedures and/or recorded in the test data underlying the results. 79 
FR at 14189-14190 (March 13, 2014).
    In response, the CA IOUs and Goodman supported DOE's proposal to 
adopt test procedure amendments that allow pre-filling of the 
condensate pan. (CA IOUs, No. 9 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 7 at p. 2)
    AHRI recommended that DOE specify in the test procedures that the 
condensate pan be filled with distilled water between 70[emsp14][deg]F 
and 85[emsp14][deg]F and that the condensate pan water temperature at 
steady state operation be documented in the test reports underlying the 
certification. However, AHRI also stated in their comment that the 
mineral content of the water is not a concern because the short test 
period would not allow for scaling to build up. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 2) 
AHRI did not provide data showing that the temperature of the water 
used to prefill the pan will impact the test results. Also, if, as AHRI 
acknowledges, the mineral content of the water used to initially fill 
the pan is not a concern, it is unclear why using distilled water as 
opposed to tap water would make any difference to the measurement.
    Private citizen Mike Haag commented that assisting the unit with 
achieving steady state might mask issues with the cooling of the 
system. (Mike Haag, No. 2 at p. 1) DOE notes that the DOE test 
procedures measure cooling efficiency at steady state conditions, and 
test reports do not record the amount of time taken to achieve steady 
state. Thus, pre-filling the condensate pan with water to accelerate 
the achievement of steady state conditions would not mask any issues 
that would otherwise be identified by the test procedures.
    In this final rule, DOE adds the proposed provision in its test 
procedures at 10 CFR 431.96 to allow manufacturers the option of pre-
filling the condensate drain pan before starting the efficiency test. 
This provision does not include requirements regarding the purity or 
temperature of the water used to fill the pan.

D. ANSI/ASHRAE 16 vs. ANSI/ASHRAE 37

    In February 2014, AHRI published AHRI 310/380-2014 superseding 
ANSI/AHRI 310/380-2004, which is referenced by the current DOE test 
procedure. ANSI/AHRI 310/380-2004 and AHRI 310/380-2014 both indicate 
that either ANSI/ASHRAE 16 or ANSI/ASHRAE 37 may be used to determine 
cooling capacity.
    ANSI/ASHRAE 16 specifies a calorimetric test method involving 
measurement of the electric resistance heater power input needed to 
exactly balance a test sample's cooling capacity. ANSI/ASHRAE 37 
specifies a psychrometric test method which calculates capacity based 
on the air flow rate and the air inlet and outlet conditions on the 
indoor side of the test sample. The two test methods have differences 
that could influence test results, particularly for units for which 
outgoing evaporator air can recirculate back to the evaporator air 
inlet. When using ANSI/ASHRAE 37, the air leaving the evaporator 
section is collected in a duct that transfers the air to 
instrumentation for measuring its temperature, moisture content, and 
flow rate (see, e.g., Figure 1 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37). Such collection of 
the air can prevent recirculation to the air inlet, thus potentially 
eliminating an equipment inefficiency and resulting in a measurement 
indicating higher efficiency.
    Another difference between ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37 is 
that the two methods have different requirements for electrical 
instrumentation accuracy. Section 5.4.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 requires that 
instruments for measuring electrical

[[Page 37141]]

inputs be accurate to +/- 0.5% of the quantity measured. Section 5.4.2 
of ANSI/ASHRAE 37 requires that instruments for measuring electrical 
inputs be accurate to +/-2.0% of the quantity measured. The consistency 
of PTAC and PTHP testing may be improved by requiring all efficiency 
tests to be conducted using only one of the two ASHRAE standards. On 
the other hand, such an approach may increase test burden, particularly 
for those manufacturers that currently use one particular test method.
    In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE described experimental testing 
conducted using three PTAC units. DOE tested all three units at a 
third-party testing lab under both ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37. 
The test results showed that differences in the calculated EER between 
ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37 ranged from 0.4 to 1.0 Btu/h-W, 
depending on the unit. These values represent differences in the 
calculated EER between ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37 ranging from 
4.1 percent to 9.7 percent of the lower EER value calculated by the two 
test methods. DOE stated in the March 2014 NOPR that these results did 
not support a conclusion that the two methods of test generate 
consistent results. 79 FR at 14190 (March 13, 2014). Based in part on 
these results, DOE proposed in the March 2014 NOPR to require that only 
ANSI/ASHRAE 16 be used when conducting a cooling mode test for PTACs 
and PTHPs. DOE sought comment on its proposal to designate ANSI/ASHRAE 
16 as the sole test method for determining cooling capacity. 
Specifically, DOE was interested in the potential test burden on 
manufacturers. DOE also sought information on whether there are PTAC or 
PTHP manufacturers that conduct a significant number of tests using 
ANSI/ASHRAE 37. 79 FR at 14190-91 (March 13, 2014).
    In response, neither AHRI nor Goodman supported the removal of 
ANSI/ASHRAE 37 from the DOE test procedures. Both AHRI and Goodman 
disagreed with DOE's assessment of the differences between test results 
achieved using ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 3; 
Goodman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 27) AHRI stated that it 
has observed good correlation in testing between calorimetric and 
psychrometric rooms for the purposes of rating PTAC and PTHP equipment. 
(AHRI, No. 8 at p. 3) Goodman stated that it has not observed large 
differences in test results between ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37. 
(Goodman, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 27) Goodman presented 
data from trial tests comparing (1) three units tested in Goodman's 
calorimetric chamber and then tested in Goodman's psychrometric 
chamber, and (2) five units tested in a third party calorimetric test 
chamber and then tested in Goodman's psychrometric test facility. For 
these eight units, the maximum variation in measured EER between the 
calorimetric test and the psychrometric test was 2.5%. (Goodman, No. 7 
at p. 3-6). These data provided by Goodman suggest that the potential 
discrepancies between calorimetric and psychrometric tests are much 
smaller than suggested by the NOPR-stage DOE testing described above. 
DOE agrees that Goodman's test results provide an indication that 
calorimetric and psychrometric tests can provide consistent results. 
DOE notes that Goodman used a larger sample size of eight units in its 
experimentation compared to the sample size of three units that DOE 
used in its NOPR-stage experiments described above.
    Both AHRI and Goodman commented that the requirement of a 
calorimetric test places additional burdens on manufacturers. AHRI 
commented that it is an additional burden to build a calorimeter room 
and to re-test units that were previously tested psychrometrically. 
(AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 34) Goodman believes the 
elimination of psychrometric testing would place an additional burden 
on manufacturers in the form of significant capital expenditure 
requirements, as well as a significant testing burden increase. Goodman 
commented that new test facilities often cost up to $750,000 and have 
construction lead times of a year or more, and that calorimetric tests 
may take 2.5 times as long as psychrometric tests. (Goodman, No. 7 at 
p. 6)
    DOE acknowledges that it underestimated the burden that would be 
imposed on manufacturers by eliminating psychrometric testing from the 
PTAC and PTHP test procedures. In response to the comments above, DOE 
accepts that it would be burdensome to manufacturers if DOE required 
use of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 for all PTAC and PTHP testing. Further, the 
additional data provided by Goodman show that discrepancies between the 
calorimetric and psychrometric test methods are less pronounced than 
DOE's NOPR-stage test data suggested. Hence, this final rule does not 
eliminate the optional use of ANSI/ASHRAE 37 to determine cooling 
capacity.
    As noted above, ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37 have different 
requirements for electrical instrumentation accuracy. A single 
requirement for electricity measurement accuracy is necessary to 
maintain consistency between tests conducted using ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and 
ANSI/ASHRAE 37. In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to require ANSI/
ASHRAE 16 as the sole test method acceptable for measuring the cooling 
capacity of equipment. If this proposal were adopted, it would have 
imposed a requirement that electricity measurement instrumentation used 
in cooling capacity tests be accurate to +/-0.5% of reading, since +/- 
0.5% of reading is the requirement specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 16. As 
described above, stakeholders opposed the proposed requirement of ANSI/
ASHRAE 16 as the sole test method for cooling capacity tests based on 
the burden of constructing calorimetric test chambers. None of the 
stakeholder comments raised concerns regarding the more stringent 
electrical measurement accuracy requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE 16. In this 
final rule, DOE does not eliminate testing using ANSI/ASHRAE 37, but 
DOE retains the more stringent electrical measurement accuracy 
requirement. Specifically, the final rule adds this requirement in the 
DOE regulatory language, indicating that tests be conducted using 
electricity measuring instruments accurate to +/- 0.5% of reading in 
spite of the incorporation by reference of other portions of ANSI/
ASHRAE 37. DOE does not expect this requirement to pose additional test 
burden since electrical meters that achieve this level of accuracy are 
readily available and are already in use at many test facilities. This 
requirement does not represent a change that would alter the 
measurements as compared with the current DOE test procedure; rather, 
it ensures the accuracy of measurements.

E. AHRI Standard 310/380-2014 and Reaffirmed ASHRAE Standards

    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt only those parts of ANSI/AHRI 
310/380-2004 relevant for the DOE test procedure, specifically sections 
3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. Additionally, DOE proposed to directly 
incorporate by reference those industry test methods that were 
previously incorporated via ANSI/AHRI 310/380-2004, such as ANSI/ASHRAE 
16-1999 and ASHRAE 58-1999.
    In response to the NOPR, Goodman commented that DOE should consider 
updated versions of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37. Goodman conceded 
that it was unlikely ANSI/ASHRAE 37 would be updated in time to be 
incorporated in this Final Rule, but encouraged DOE to accommodate

[[Page 37142]]

ANSI/ASHRAE 16 which Goodman expected would be finalized in 2014. 
(Goodman, No. 7 at p. 7) DOE agrees that, when possible, it should 
include the most up to date version of industry test methods.
    In July 2014, ASHRAE reaffirmed both ANSI/ASHRAE 16, a test method 
for measuring cooling performance of PTACs and PTHPs, and ANSI/ASHRAE 
58, a test method for measuring heating performance of PTHPs. While 
Goodman commented that it expected some changes in ANSI/ASHRAE 16 
(Goodman, No. 7 at p. 7), DOE reviewed the reaffirmed standard and did 
not discern substantive differences between the 2009 and 2014 versions. 
The test methods described in the 2014 reaffirmations of both ANSI/
ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 58 are identical to their 1999 and 2009 
versions--the later reaffirmed versions correct errata that existed in 
previous versions of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 58. These 
corrections do not change the test procedures.
    Further, in February 2014 AHRI published AHRI 310/380-2014, which 
supersedes ANSI/AHRI 310/380-2004. In an effort stay current with 
industry testing methodologies, DOE is updating its referenced industry 
standard. In alignment with the NOPR, DOE is only adopting the sections 
of AHRI 310/380-2014 relevant for the DOE test procedure. For cooling 
performance, this includes sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. For 
measurement of heating performance, DOE is adopting section 3, 4.1, 
4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 except for subsection 4.2.1.2(b), which allows ANSI/
ASHRAE 37 as an optional method for verifying the standard heating 
rating of equipment. The March 2014 NOPR did not propose the use of 
ANSI/ASHRAE 37 as a method for verifying the standard heating rating of 
equipment and thus, DOE is excluding this provision in this final rule. 
Where this final rule refers to the sections of AHRI 310/380-2014 to be 
used for measurement of heating performance, it omits section 
4.2.1.2(b) so as not to allow the use of ANSI/ASHRAE 37 for verifying 
the standard heating rating of equipment.
    Finally, AHRI 310/380-2014 references the 2009 versions of ANSI/
ASHRAE 16, ANSI/ASHRAE 58, and ANSI/ASHRAE 37. As previously stated, 
DOE is directly incorporating by reference those industry test methods 
that were previously referenced in ANSI/AHRI 310/380--ANSI/ASHRAE 16, 
ANSI/ASHRAE 58, and ANSI/ASHRAE 37 . Therefore, in this final rule, DOE 
is incorporating by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, which is referenced 
in AHRI 310/380-2014 for measuring cooling performance. Although DOE's 
previous test method, ANSI/AHRI 310/380-2004, incorporated ANSI/ASHRAE 
37-1988, DOE's review of the two editions of ANSI/ASHRAE 37 confirmed 
that, for the purposes of measuring cooling performance for PTACs and 
PTHPs, the test methods are essentially identical. Also, rather than 
incorporating by reference the 1999 reaffirmations of ANSI/ASHRAE 16 
and ANSI/ASHRAE 58, this final rule amends the test procedure to 
incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 16-1983 (RA 2014) and ANSI/ASHRAE 
58-1986 (RA 2014)--as mentioned above, these more recent versions of 
ANSI/ASHRAE 16 and ANSI/ASHRAE 58 prescribe test procedures identical 
to the older 2009 and 1999 versions.

F. Wall Sleeve Size and Filter Requirements for Testing

Wall Sleeve Size
    The DOE test procedures provide limited guidance on the type of 
wall sleeve that should be used during testing. The wall sleeve is 
technically part of the PTAC or PTHP (see, e.g., the definition of PTAC 
in 10 CFR 431.92), and it provides an outer case for the main 
refrigeration and air-moving components. In the field, the wall sleeves 
are often installed in the building, and the cooling/heating assembly 
slides into and out of this case. For standard size PTACs and PTHPs, 
the wall sleeve measures 42 inches wide and 16 inches high; however, 
wall sleeves come in a range of depths.
    Some manufacturers offer extended wall sleeves up to 31 inches deep 
that can be used with any of their standard size PTACs or PTHPs. DOE 
believes that the use of varying test sleeve depths can affect measured 
test results, due to the effect the sleeve depth has on airflow and fan 
performance. DOE's test procedures, in section 4.3 of ANSI/AHRI 310/
380-2004, provide some limited guidance about the wall sleeve that 
should be used during testing; section 4.3 of ANSI/AHRI 310/380-2004 
states that ``standard equipment shall be in place during all tests, 
unless otherwise specified in the manufacturer's instructions to the 
user.'' Section 4.3 of the updated AHRI 310/380-2014 provides the same 
limited guidance. However, there currently is no guidance for units for 
which installation instructions allow sleeves of different depths.
    DOE's survey of wall sleeve sizes on the market showed that the 
most common wall sleeve depth is 14 inches. While DOE has no data 
indicating the impact of testing with a maximum-depth sleeve as opposed 
to a standard-depth sleeve, DOE expects that there may be an 
incremental reduction in efficiency associated with use of a sleeve as 
deep as 31 inches. The Working Group discussed the issue of varying 
wall sleeve sizes and voted to adopt the position that units should be 
tested using a standard 14 inch sleeve. (ASRAC to Negotiate 
Certification Requirements for Commercial HVAC, WH, and Refrigeration 
Equipment, Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023, No. 53 at pg. 17)
    In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to add a provision to 10 CFR 
431.96 to require testing using a wall sleeve with a depth of 14 inches 
(or the wall sleeve option that is closest to 14 inches in depth that 
is available for the basic model being tested). 79 FR at 14191 (March 
13, 2014). This final rule adopts the Working Group recommendation. DOE 
sought comment on whether there are any PTACs or PTHPs that cannot be 
tested using a 14 inch deep wall sleeve. Id. AHRI and Goodman supported 
the proposal to require testing using 14-inch deep wall sleeves. (AHRI, 
No. 8 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 7 at p. 3) DOE did not receive any comments 
describing units that cannot be tested with 14-inch deep wall sleeves.
    In this final rule, DOE adopts its proposal to add a provision to 
10 CFR 431.96 to require testing using a wall sleeve with a depth of 14 
inches (or the wall sleeve option that is closest to 14 inches in depth 
that is available for the basic model being tested).
Filter Requirements
    The DOE test procedures provide limited guidance on the type of air 
filter that should be used during testing. PTACs or PTHPs generally 
ship with an air filter to remove particulates from the indoor 
airstream. There is currently no description in the DOE test procedures 
of the type of filter to be used during testing. While some PTACs and 
PTHPs only have one filter option, some PTACs and PTHPs are shipped 
with either a standard filter or a high efficiency filter. A high 
efficiency filter will impose more air flow restriction, which can 
incrementally decrease air flow and thus the capacity and/or efficiency 
of the unit.
    DOE considered whether to specify filters with a particular MERV 
rating for use with the test, such as MERV-2 or MERV-3 levels of 
filtration. However, DOE noted that the filter efficiencies offered in 
PTACs and PTHPs generally are not specified using a standard

[[Page 37143]]

metric. Furthermore, some PTACs are sold with higher-efficiency 
``standard-option'' filters than others. Moreover, verification that 
the filter used in the test complies with any such requirement would 
not be possible without implementation of standardized requirements for 
labeling of filters and reporting of filter efficiencies and/or 
adopting a filter efficiency test as part of the test procedures, all 
of which would impose additional burden. The Working Group was also 
aware of this issue, and also discussed the issue of varying air filter 
efficiency. The Working Group voted to adopt the position that units 
should be tested ``as shipped'' with respect to selecting a filter 
option (Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee 
(ASRAC) to Negotiate Certification Requirements for Commercial HVAC, 
WH, and Refrigeration Equipment, Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023, No. 
53 at p. 16).
    In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed to add a provision to 10 CFR 
431.96 to require testing using the standard or default filter option 
that is packaged and shipped with the PTAC or PTHP unit being tested. 
79 FR at 14191 (March 13, 2014). This proposal was consistent with the 
Working Group's recommendations. For those models that are not shipped 
with a filter, DOE proposed to require the use of an off-the-shelf 
MERV-3 filter for testing. DOE sought comment on whether a MERV-3 
filter is appropriate for testing PTACs and PTHPs that do not ship with 
filters. 79 FR at 14191 (March 13, 2014).
    In response, Goodman recommended that DOE specify a MERV rating 
lower than MERV-3 because MERV-3 filters may significantly reduce 
airflow. (Goodman, No. 7 at p. 3) AHRI commented that MERV-1 filters, 
which are electrostatic, self-charging woven panel filters, may be more 
representative of filters found in PTACs or PTHPs. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 
2) DOE accepts this feedback and will reduce the MERV rating for 
filters to be used when testing units shipped without a filter.
    In this final rule, DOE adds a provision to 10 CFR 431.96 to 
require testing using the standard or default filter option that is 
shipped with most units of a given basic model. For those models that 
are not shipped with a filter, DOE requires the use of an off-the-shelf 
MERV-1 filter for testing.

G. Barometric Pressure Correction

    The DOE test procedures, in Section 6.1.3 of referenced ANSI/ASHRAE 
16, allows for adjustment of the capacity measurement based on the 
tested barometric pressure: ``The capacity may be increased 0.8% for 
each in. Hg below 29.92 in. Hg.'' Theoretically, air is less dense when 
barometric pressure is lower, such as at higher altitudes. As a result, 
air mass flow generated by fans and blowers may be less at higher 
altitudes, which may affect the measured cooling performance. However, 
there are other competing effects that may negate this decrease and DOE 
has not seen data that definitively demonstrate the impact of 
barometric pressure on measurements of the cooling performance of PTACs 
or PTHPs.
    In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE did not propose to amend or remove the 
barometric pressure provision. DOE sought comments or data on the 
barometric pressure correction specifically used for PTACs and PTHPs. 
79 FR at 14191 (March 13, 2014). Goodman and AHRI responded in support 
of DOE's position to retain the barometric pressure correction. 
(Goodman, No.7 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 8 at p. 2) DOE received no comments 
providing data that either supported or refuted the validity of the 
barometric pressure correction.
    In this final rule, DOE does not amend or remove the provision 
allowing for adjustment of the capacity measurement based on the tested 
barometric pressure.

H. Part-Load Efficiency Metric and Varying Ambient Conditions

    The current DOE test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs measure cooling 
efficiency and heating efficiency in terms of EER and coefficient of 
performance (COP), respectively. Both of these metrics measure the 
efficiency of the unit running steadily at maximum cooling or heating 
output settings.
    In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE did not propose to adopt either a part-
load or seasonal efficiency metric for the cooling mode that considers 
part-load performance, or a seasonal efficiency metric for the heating 
mode that considers electric resistance heating for PTACs or PTHPs. DOE 
sought comments regarding this proposal, including any information 
regarding seasonal load patterns for PTACs and PTHPs in both cooling 
and heating modes. 79 FR at 14192 (March 13, 2014).
    In response, Goodman and AHRI supported DOE's proposal to not 
develop seasonal efficiency metrics. (Goodman, No. 7 at p. 6; AHRI, No. 
8 at p. 3) AHRI commented that a part-load performance metric would not 
be representative of PTAC and PTHP equipment operating cycles. (AHRI, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 46) The CA IOUs commented that 
they would like the test procedures to characterize performance at 
full-load and part-load. (CA IOUs, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at 
p. 7) The CA IOUs commented that they are content with using a single 
metric for the purposes of rating equipment, but that they would like 
additional test conditions to be measured and reported according to a 
standard test procedure. The CA IOUs commented that this additional 
information would help them to distinguish new equipment models with 
good low-temperature performance that are becoming available. (CA IOUs, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 43)
    DOE believes that the existing EER and COP metrics, both for full-
load operation, provide an adequate indication of PTAC and PTHP 
efficiency. DOE does not currently have information indicating the 
magnitude of energy that might be saved if part-load or full-season 
metrics were developed. ASAP and ACEEE encouraged DOE to begin a 
collaboration with AHRI to develop a test method to measure the part-
load performance of PTACs and PTHPs. (ASAP & ACEEE, No. 6 at p. 1) DOE 
may consider support and/or development of such test methods in the 
future.
    In this final rule, DOE has not adopted seasonal efficiency metrics 
for cooling or heating performance for PTACs or PTHPs.

I. Cooling Capacity Verification

    The Federal energy conservation standard levels for PTAC and PTHP 
equipment are calculated based on the certified cooling capacity of the 
equipment. (10 CFR 431.97(c)) The DOE test procedures for PTACs and 
PTHPs specifies the methods that may be used to determine the cooling 
capacity and energy efficiency of PTACs and PTHPs. (10 CFR 431.96(b)) 
Testing conducted for assessment and enforcement measures the cooling 
capacity of test units pursuant to the test requirements of 10 CFR part 
431, and uses the measured cooling capacity as the basis for 
calculation of EER for the test units. The minimum allowed EER (and the 
minimum allowed COP for PTHP units) of a test unit is calculated using 
the certified cooling capacity of the test unit as the basis for 
calculation. For various reasons, the measured cooling capacity of 
equipment may deviate from the certified cooling capacity of the 
equipment. Small deviations of the measured cooling capacity from the 
certified cooling capacity are expected due to variability in 
manufacturing conditions. However, large deviations

[[Page 37144]]

from the certified cooling capacity indicate that the certified cooling 
capacity and, by extension, the minimum allowed efficiency that is 
calculated based on the certified cooling capacity, do not accurately 
represent the unit being tested. In cases where the measured cooling 
capacity of a test unit deviates outside of an acceptable tolerance, it 
is appropriate to recalculate the minimum efficiency for the test unit 
based on the measured cooling capacity of the test unit (or the average 
of the measured cooling capacities of the samples tested, if more than 
one is tested).
    In the March 2014 NOPR, DOE proposed regulatory text amendments 
describing how DOE will select the cooling capacity values that are 
used to calculate the minimum allowable EER for a basic model. The 
proposed amendments to 10 CFR 429.134 would establish a provision 
requiring use of the certified cooling capacity as the basis for 
calculation of minimum allowed EER if the average measured cooling 
capacity is within five percent of the certified cooling capacity. The 
proposed amendments would require use of the average measured cooling 
capacity as the basis for calculation of minimum allowed EER if the 
average measured cooling capacity is not within five percent of the 
certified cooling capacity. 79 FR at 14197 (March 13, 2014).
    In response to the proposed amendments, AHRI questioned whether the 
five percent allowance between tested and rated values is a two-sided 
tolerance. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 54) Goodman 
agreed in concept with the proposed requirement that measured cooling 
capacity be within five percent of the certified cooling capacity, but 
Goodman suggested that the requirement be one[hyphen]sided, such that 
the certified cooling capacity would be used to determine the minimum 
efficiency unless the measured cooling capacity is less than 95% of the 
certified cooling capacity, in which event the measured cooling 
capacity would be used to determine the minimum efficiency level. 
(Goodman, No. 7 at p. 6)
    DOE clarifies that the proposed five percent allowance between 
tested and rated values is a two-sided tolerance. This means that units 
with average measured cooling capacity below 95% or above 105% of the 
certified cooling capacity would require use of the average measured 
cooling capacity as the basis for calculation of minimum allowed EER.
    DOE notes that if the proposed provision used a one-sided tolerance 
as Goodman suggested, then units with a measured cooling capacity above 
their certified cooling capacity would be held to an efficiency 
standard determined by their certified cooling capacity. With a one-
sided tolerance, units having a measured cooling capacity that is above 
105% of their certified cooling capacity would be held to a calculated 
minimum EER that is more stringent than the minimum EER calculated 
using a two-sided tolerance as DOE proposed. DOE does not seek to 
impose more stringent standards on units that exceed their certified 
cooling capacity.
    In this final rule, DOE adopts its proposal to add a provision to 
10 CFR 429.134 that requires assessment and enforcement testing to 
measure the total cooling capacity of the basic model pursuant to the 
test requirements of 10 CFR part 431 for each unit tested. The 
provision requires that results of the measurement(s) be averaged and 
compared to the value of cooling capacity certified by the 
manufacturer. The adopted provision considers the certified cooling 
capacity to be valid only if the measurement is within five percent of 
the certified cooling capacity. If the certified cooling capacity is 
valid, that cooling capacity will be used as the basis for calculation 
of minimum allowed EER for the basic model. If the certified cooling 
capacity is not valid, the average measured cooling capacity will be 
used as the basis for calculation of minimum allowed EER for the basic 
model.

J. Additional Comments

    DOE received additional comments that are not classified in the 
discussion sections above. Responses to these additional comments are 
provided below.
    The CA IOUs recommended that DOE require the reporting of power 
factor \9\ for all operating modes (i.e., active, standby, and off) at 
every temperature point for which EER and COP are rated. (CA IOUs, No. 
9 at p. 2-3) The DOE test procedures do not address the measurement of 
performance during standby mode and off mode. The DOE test procedures 
also do not describe the measurement of the power factor of PTAC and 
PTHP equipment. Therefore, DOE is not adopting this reporting 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The power factor of an alternating current (AC) electrical 
power system is defined as the ratio of the real power flowing to 
the load, to the apparent power in the circuit. A load with a low 
power factor draws more electrical current than a load with a high 
power factor for the same amount of useful power transferred. The 
higher currents associated with low power factor loads increase the 
amount of energy lost in the electricity distribution system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs commented that they would like DOE to explore adding 
test procedure specifications for units containing gas-fired 
components, since ANSI/AHRI 310/380-2004 excludes such units. (CA IOUs, 
No. 9 at p. 1-2) DOE notes that EPCA defines a ``packaged terminal air 
conditioner'' as ``a wall sleeve and a separate unencased combination 
of heating and cooling assemblies specified by the builder and intended 
for mounting through the wall. It includes a prime source of 
refrigeration, separable outdoor louvers, forced ventilation, and 
heating availability by builder's choice of hot water, steam, or 
electricity.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(10)(A)) EPCA defines a ``packaged 
terminal heat pump'' as ``a packaged terminal air conditioner that 
utilizes reverse cycle refrigeration as its prime heat source and 
should have supplementary heat source available to builders with the 
choice of hot water, steam, or electric resistant heat.'' (42 U.S.C. 
6311(10)(B)) These definitions include units with heating provided by 
hot water, steam, or electric resistant heat, but they do not include 
units containing gas-fired components. As such, DOE does not have the 
authority to regulate units with gas-fired components.

K. Compliance Date of the Test Procedure Amendments

    In amending a test procedure, EPCA directs DOE to determine to what 
extent, if any, the test procedure would alter the measured energy 
efficiency or measured energy use of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(4)) The test procedure amendments for PTACs and PTHPs 
incorporated by this final rule do not contain changes that will 
materially alter the measured energy efficiency of equipment. DOE did 
not receive any comments suggesting that the test procedure amendments 
will alter the measured energy efficiency of equipment. Rather, most of 
the proposed changes represent clarifications that will improve the 
uniform application of the test procedures for this equipment. Any 
change in the rated efficiency associated with these clarifications, if 
any, is expected to be de minimis.
    DOE's test procedure amendments incorporated by this final rule are 
effective 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal 
Register. Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6314(d), any representations of 
energy consumption of PTACs and PTHPs must be based on any final 
amended test procedures 360 days after the publication of the test 
procedures final rule.

[[Page 37145]]

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment and a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any rule that an agency 
adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis 
examines the impact of the rule on small entities and considers 
alternative ways of reducing negative effects. As required by Executive 
Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and 
policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of 
its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE 
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and 
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: 
https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003. This rule prescribes test procedures that will be used to 
test compliance with energy conservation standards for the products 
that are the subject of this rulemaking. DOE has concluded that the 
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers an entity to be a 
small business if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a 
threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121, which relies 
on size standards and codes established by the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS). The threshold number for NAICS 
classification for 333415, which applies to air conditioning and warm 
air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration 
equipment, is 750. Searches of the SBA Web site \10\ to identify 
manufacturers within these NAICS codes that manufacture PTACs and/or 
PTHPs did not identify any small entities that could be affected by the 
test procedure modifications adopted in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A searchable database of certified small businesses is 
available online at: https://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons explained below, DOE has concluded that the test 
procedure amendments contained in this final will not have a 
significant economic impact on any manufacturer, including small 
manufacturers. The rule amends DOE's test procedures to specify an 
optional break-in period, explicitly require that wall sleeves be 
sealed to prevent air leakage, allow for the pre-filling of the 
condensate drain pan, and require testing with 14-inch deep wall 
sleeves and the filter option most representative of a typical 
installation. These tests can be conducted in the same facilities used 
for the current energy testing of these products and do not require 
testing in addition to what is currently required. The break-in period 
is optional and may result in improved energy efficiency of the unit; 
the break-in typically is conducted outside of the balanced-ambient 
calorimeter facility. DOE expects that manufacturers will require 
minimal time to set the PTACs and PTHPs up for break-in, which requires 
that the units simply be plugged in and powered on. Further, 
manufacturers will only incur the additional time for the break-in step 
if it is beneficial to testing. In this case, the cost will be minimal 
due to the nature of the break-in procedure and the fact that it is not 
typically conducted within the test chamber.
    Material costs associated with the test procedure amendments 
adopted in this final rule are expected to be negligible, as air 
sealing the wall sleeves can be accomplished with typically available 
lab materials. Further, DOE expects that manufacturers typically seal 
the wall sleeves in their current testing, because not doing so could 
result in measurements indicating a lower efficiency. Also, there are 
no additional costs associated with the requirement to use a 14-inch 
wall sleeve and/or the standard filter that typically comes with the 
unit. In addition, pre-filling of the condensate pan is expected to 
reduce test time by 2-4 hours, which would reduce testing costs by 
approximately $375-750 per test. Thus, DOE determined that the test 
procedure amendments adopted by this final rule will not impose a 
significant economic impact on manufacturers.
    This notice adds one additional item to the certification report 
requirements for PTACs and PTHPs: The duration of the break-in period. 
However, providing this additional item in certification reports is not 
expected to impose a significant economic impact.
    For these reasons, DOE concludes and certifies that this final rule 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities, so DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility 
analysis for this rulemaking. DOE has provided its certification and 
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of PTACs and PTHPs must certify to DOE that their 
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In 
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according 
to the DOE test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs, including any 
amendments adopted for those test procedures on the date that 
compliance is required. DOE has established regulations for the 
certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer 
products and commercial equipment, including PTACs and PTHPs. See 10 
CFR part 429. The collection-of-information requirement for the 
certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by 
OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been 
approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting 
burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 hours per 
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedures for PTACs and 
PTHPs. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions 
that are categorically excluded from review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of

[[Page 37146]]

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 
CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule amends an existing rule without 
affecting the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, 
therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this 
rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 
1021, subpart D, which applies to any rulemaking that interprets or 
amends an existing rule without changing the environmental effect of 
that rule. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an 
environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined 
that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State 
regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the 
subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from 
such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive 
Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final 
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that 
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate 
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, 
so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity 
of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 
is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2)

[[Page 37147]]

is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the 
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any 
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of 
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the 
regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action 
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    This regulatory action to amend the test procedures for measuring 
the energy efficiency of PTACs and PTHPs is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by 
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy 
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The modifications to the test procedures addressed by this action 
incorporate testing methods contained in the following commercial 
standards: AHRI 310/380-2014, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 2014), 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58-1986 (RA 
2014). DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude 
whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the 
FEAA (i.e., whether they were developed in a manner that fully provides 
for public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with 
both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact 
on competition of using the methods contained in these standards and 
has received no comments objecting to their use.

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference four industry 
standards related to the testing of packaged terminal air conditioners 
and heat pumps. These industry standards include AHRI Standard 310/380-
2014, ``Standard for Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and Heat 
Pumps;'' ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 2014), ``Method of Testing 
for Rating Room Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Air 
Conditioners;'' ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, ``Methods of Testing for 
Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 
Equipment;'' and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58-1986 (RA 2014) ``Method of 
Testing for Rating Room Air-Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Air-
Conditioner Heating Capacity.''
    AHRI Standard 310/380-2014 is an industry accepted test standard 
that specifies definitions and general testing requirements for 
packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps. AHRI Standard 310/
380-2014 references ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37, 
and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58 for the detailed testing methodologies. 
AHRI Standard 310/380-2014 is readily available on AHRI's Web site at 
https://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/standards%20pdfs/ANSI%20standards%20pdfs/AHRI_310_380-2014-CSA_C744-4.PDF.
    ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 2014) and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-
2009 specify methods for determining the cooling performance of 
packaged terminal air conditioners. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 
2014) specifies a calorimetric test method involving measurement of the 
electric resistance heater power input needed to exactly balance a test 
sample's cooling capacity. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009 specifies a 
psychrometric test method which calculates capacity based on the air 
flow rate and the air inlet and outlet conditions on the indoor side of 
the test sample. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 2014) is readily 
available at ASHRAE's Web site at: https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/products/1881836. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009 is also readily 
available on ASHRAE's Web site at: https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/products/1650947.
    ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58-1986 (RA 2014) specifies a test method for 
measuring heating performance of packaged terminal heat pumps. ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 58-1986 (RA 2014) is readily available on ASHRAE's Web 
site at: https://www.techstreet.com/ashrae/products/1650947.

N. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this final rule before its effective date. The report 
will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

O. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Energy conservation, Imports, Measurement standards, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 431

    Energy conservation, Imports, Incorporation by reference, 
Measurement standards, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 8, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

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

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

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

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  429.43 by adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii) and revising 
paragraphs (b)(2)(v) and (vi) to read as follows:


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

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) For packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal 
heat pumps, the represented value of cooling capacity shall be the 
average of the capacities measured for the sample selected as described 
in (a)(1)(ii) of this section, rounded to the nearest 100 Btu/h.
* * * * *

[[Page 37148]]

    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (v) Packaged terminal air conditioners: The energy efficiency ratio 
(EER in British thermal units per Watt-hour (Btu/Wh)), the rated 
cooling capacity in British thermal units per hour (Btu/h), the wall 
sleeve dimensions in inches (in), and the duration of the break-in 
period (hours).
    (vi) Packaged terminal heat pumps: The energy efficiency ratio (EER 
in British thermal units per Watt-hour (Btu/W-h)), the coefficient of 
performance (COP), the rated cooling capacity in British thermal units 
per hour (Btu/h), the wall sleeve dimensions in inches (in), and the 
duration of the break-in period (hours).
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  429.134 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph 
(e) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.134  Product-specific enforcement provisions.

    (a) General. The following provisions apply to assessment and 
enforcement testing of the relevant products and equipment.
* * * * *
    (e) Packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat 
pumps--(1) Verification of cooling capacity. The total cooling capacity 
of the basic model will be measured pursuant to the test requirements 
of 10 CFR part 431 for each unit tested. The results of the 
measurement(s) will be averaged and compared to the value of cooling 
capacity certified by the manufacturer. The certified cooling capacity 
will be considered valid only if the average measured cooling capacity 
is within five percent of the certified cooling capacity.
    (i) If the certified cooling capacity is found to be valid, that 
cooling capacity will be used as the basis for calculation of minimum 
allowed EER (and minimum allowed COP for PTHP models) for the basic 
model.
    (ii) If the certified cooling capacity is found to be invalid, the 
average measured cooling capacity will serve as the basis for 
calculation of minimum allowed EER (and minimum allowed COP for PTHP 
models) for the tested basic model.
    (2) [Reserved].

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

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

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

0
5. Amend Sec.  431.95 by revising paragraph (b)(3), redesignating 
paragraph (c)(1) as (c)(4), and adding paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  431.95  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) AHRI Standard 310/380-2014, (``AHRI 310/380-2014''), ``Standard 
for Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' February 2014, 
IBR approved for Sec.  431.96.
    (c) * * *
    (1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 2014), (``ANSI/ASHRAE 16''), 
``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners and Packaged 
Terminal Air Conditioners,'' ASHRAE reaffirmed July 3, 2014, IBR 
approved for Sec.  431.96.
    (2) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37''), ``Methods 
of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and 
Heat Pump Equipment,'' ASHRAE approved June 24, 2009, IBR approved for 
Sec.  431.96.
    (3) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58-1986 (RA 2014), (``ANSI/ASHRAE 58''), 
``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air-Conditioner and Packaged 
Terminal Air-Conditioner Heating Capacity,'' ASHRAE reaffirmed July 3, 
2014, IBR approved for Sec.  431.96.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec.  431.96 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) and adding 
paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  431.96  Uniform test method for the measurement of energy 
efficiency of commercial air conditioners and heat pumps.

* * * * *
    (b) Testing and calculations. (1) Determine the energy efficiency 
of each type of covered equipment by conducting the test procedure(s) 
listed in the fifth column of Table 1 of this section along with any 
additional testing provisions set forth in paragraphs (c) through (g) 
of this section, that apply to the energy efficiency descriptor for 
that equipment, category, and cooling capacity. The omitted sections of 
the test procedures listed in the fifth column of Table 1 of this 
section shall not be used.
    (2) After June 24, 2016, any representations made with respect to 
the energy use or efficiency of packaged terminal air conditioners and 
heat pumps (PTACs and PTHPs) must be made in accordance with the 
results of testing pursuant to this section. Manufacturers conducting 
tests of PTACs and PTHPs after July 30, 2015 and prior to June 24, 
2016, must conduct such test in accordance with either table 1 to this 
section or Sec.  431.96 as it appeared at 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, 
in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2014. 
Any representations made with respect to the energy use or efficiency 
of such packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps must be in 
accordance with whichever version is selected.

                                Table 1 to Sec.   431.96--Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Use tests,
                                                                                                     conditions, and       Additional test procedure
        Equipment type               Category       Cooling capacity  Energy efficiency descriptor   procedures \1\     provisions as indicated in the
                                                                                                           in          listed paragraphs of this section
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air-  Air-Cooled, 3-     <65,000 Btu/h....  SEER and HSPF...............  AHRI 210/240-     Paragraphs (c) and (e).
 Conditioning and Heating        Phase, AC and HP.                                                   2008 (omit
 Equipment.                                                                                          section 6.5).
                                Air-Cooled AC and  >=65,000 Btu/h     EER and COP.................  AHRI 340/360-     Paragraphs (c) and (e).
                                 HP.                and <135,000 Btu/                                2007 (omit
                                                    h.                                               section 6.3).
                                Water-Cooled and   <65,000 Btu/h....  EER.........................  AHRI 210/240-     Paragraphs (c) and (e).
                                 Evaporatively-                                                      2008 (omit
                                 Cooled AC.                                                          section 6.5).
                                .................  >=65,000 Btu/h     EER.........................  AHRI 340/360-     Paragraphs (c) and (e).
                                                    and <135,000 Btu/                                2007 (omit
                                                    h.                                               section 6.3).
                                Water-Source HP..  <135,000 Btu/h...  EER and COP.................  ISO Standard      Paragraph (e).
                                                                                                     13256-1 (1998).
Large Commercial Packaged Air-  Air-Cooled AC and  >=135,000 Btu/h    EER and COP.................  AHRI 340/360-     Paragraphs (c) and (e).
 Conditioning and Heating        HP.                and <240,000 Btu/                                2007 (omit
 Equipment.                                         h.                                               section 6.3).

[[Page 37149]]

 
                                Water-Cooled and   >=135,000 Btu/h    EER.........................  AHRI 340/360-     Paragraphs (c) and (e).
                                 Evaporatively-     and <240,000 Btu/                                2007 (omit
                                 Cooled AC.         h.                                               section 6.3).
Very Large Commercial Packaged  Air-Cooled AC and  >=240,000 Btu/h    EER and COP.................  AHRI 340/360-     Paragraphs (c) and (e).
 Air-Conditioning and Heating    HP.                and <760,000 Btu/                                2007 (omit
 Equipment.                                         h.                                               section 6.3).
                                Water-Cooled and   >=240,000 Btu/h    EER.........................  AHRI 340/360-     Paragraphs (c) and (e).
                                 Evaporatively-     and <760,000 Btu/                                2007 (omit
                                 Cooled AC.         h.                                               section 6.3)..
Packaged Terminal Air           AC and HP........  <760,000 Btu/h...  EER and COP.................  See paragraph     Paragraphs (c), (e), and (g).
 Conditioners and Heat Pumps.                                                                        (g) of this
                                                                                                     section.
Computer Room Air Conditioners  AC...............  <65,000 Btu/h....  SCOP........................  ASHRAE 127-2007   Paragraphs (c) and (e).
                                                                                                     (omit section
                                                                                                     5.11).
                                                   >=65,000 Btu/h     SCOP........................  ASHRAE 127-2007   Paragraphs (c) and (e).
                                                    and <760,000 Btu/                                (omit section
                                                    h.                                               5.11).
Variable Refrigerant Flow       AC...............  <760,000 Btu/h...  EER and COP.................  AHRI 1230-2010    Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f).
 Multi-split Systems.                                                                                (omit sections
                                                                                                     5.1.2 and 6.6).
Variable Refrigerant Flow       HP...............  <760,000 Btu/h...  EER and COP.................  AHRI 1230-2010    Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f).
 Multi-split Systems, Air-                                                                           (omit sections
 cooled.                                                                                             5.1.2 and 6.6).
Variable Refrigerant Flow       HP...............  <17,000 Btu/h....  EER and COP.................  AHRI 1230-2010    Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f).
 Multi-split Systems, Water-                                                                         (omit sections
 source.                                                                                             5.1.2 and 6.6).
Variable Refrigerant Flow       HP...............  >=17,000 Btu/h     EER and COP.................  AHRI 1230-2010    Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f).
 Multi-split Systems, Water-                        and <760,000 Btu/                                (omit sections
 source.                                            h.                                               5.1.2 and 6.6).
Single Package Vertical Air     AC and HP........  <760,000 Btu/h...  EER and COP.................  AHRI 390-2003     Paragraphs (c) and (e).
 Conditioners and Single                                                                             (omit section
 Package Vertical Heat Pumps.                                                                        6.4).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   431.95.

    (c) Optional break-in period. Manufacturers may optionally specify 
a ``break-in'' period, not to exceed 20 hours, to operate the equipment 
under test prior to conducting the test method specified by AHRI 210/
240-2008, AHRI 310/380-2014, AHRI 340/360-2007, AHRI 390-2003, AHRI 
1230-2010, or ASHRAE 127-2007 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.95). A manufacturer who elects to use an optional break-in period 
in its certification testing should record this information (including 
the duration) in the test data underlying the certified ratings that is 
required to be maintained under 10 CFR 429.71.
* * * * *
    (g) Test Procedures for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and 
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps--(1) Cooling mode testing. The test method 
for testing packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal 
heat pumps in cooling mode shall consist of application of the methods 
and conditions in AHRI 310/380-2014 sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  431.95), and in ANSI/ASHRAE 16 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  431.95) or ANSI/ASHRAE 37 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  431.95), except that instruments 
used for measuring electricity input shall be accurate to within 0.5 percent of the quantity measured. Where definitions provided 
in AHRI 310/380-2014, ANSI/ASHRAE 16, and/or ANSI/ASHRAE 37 conflict 
with the definitions provided in 10 CFR 431.92, the 10 CFR 431.92 
definitions shall be used. Where AHRI 310/380-2014 makes reference to 
ANSI/ASHRAE 16, it is interpreted as reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 16-1983 
(RA 2014).
    (2) Heating mode testing. The test method for testing packaged 
terminal heat pumps in heating mode shall consist of application of the 
methods and conditions in AHRI 310/380-2014 sections 3, 4.1, 4.2 
(except the section 4.2.1.2(b) reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 37), 4.3, and 
4.4 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  431.95), and in ANSI/ASHRAE 
58 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  431.95). Where definitions 
provided in AHRI 310/380-2014 or ANSI/ASHRAE 58 conflict with the 
definitions provided in 10 CFR 431.92, the 10 CFR 431.92 definitions 
shall be used. Where AHRI 310/380-2014 makes reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 
58, it is interpreted as reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 58-1986 (RA 2014).
    (3) Wall sleeves. For packaged terminal air conditioners and 
packaged terminal heat pumps, the unit must be installed in a wall 
sleeve with a 14 inch depth if available. If a 14 inch deep wall sleeve 
is not available, use the available wall sleeve option closest to 14 
inches in depth. The area(s) between the wall sleeve and the insulated 
partition between the indoor and outdoor rooms must be sealed to 
eliminate all air leakage through this area.
    (4) Optional pre-filling of the condensate drain pan. For packaged 
terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps, test 
facilities may add water to the condensate drain pan of the equipment 
under test (until the water drains out due to overflow devices or until 
the pan is full) prior to conducting the test method specified by AHRI 
310/380-2014 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.95). No specific 
level of water mineral content or water temperature is required for the 
water added to the condensate drain pan.
    (5) Filter selection. For packaged terminal air conditioners and 
packaged terminal heat pumps, the indoor filter used during testing 
shall be the standard or default filter option shipped with the model. 
If a particular model is shipped without a filter, the unit must be 
tested with a MERV-1 filter sized appropriately for the filter slot.

[FR Doc. 2015-15885 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P