RECo

198

Thursday,

July 20, 2006

Part II

Department of

Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Test Procedure for

Residential Central Air Conditioners and

Heat Pumps; Proposed Rule

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
41320 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE-RMITP-02-002]

RIN 1904-AB55

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Test Procedure

for Residential Central Air

Conditioners and Heat Pumps

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

and public meeting.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE or the Department) is proposing to

amend its test procedure for residential

central air conditioners and heat pumps.

The proposal implements test procedure

changes for small-duct, high-velocity

systems, multiple-split systems, twocapacity units, and updates references

to the current American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

standards. The proposal also clarifies

issues associated with sampling and

rating both tested and untested systems.

The Department will hold a public

meeting to discuss and receive

comments on the proposal.

DATES: The Department will hold a

public meeting on Wednesday, August

23, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in

Washington, DC. The Department must

receive requests to speak at the public

meeting before 4 p.m., Wednesday,

August 9, 2006. The Department must

receive a signed original and an

electronic copy of statements to be given

at the public meeting before 4 p.m.,

Wednesday, August 16, 2006.

The Department will accept

comments, data, and information

regarding the notice of proposed

rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the

public meeting, but no later than

September 18, 2006. See section IV,

"Public Participation," of this NOPR for

details.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,

identified by docket number EE-RM/

TP-02-002 and/or RIN number 1904-

AB55, by any of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments.

2. E-mail:

cactestprocedure2006@ee.doe.gov.

Include docket number EE-RM/TP-02-

002 and/or RIN number 1904-AB55 in

the subject line of the message.

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones,

U.S. Department of Energy, Building

Technologies Program, Mail-stop EE-2J,

NOPR for Test Procedure for Residential

Central Air Conditioners and Heat

Pumps, docket number EE-RM/TP-02-

002 and/or RIN number 1904-AB55,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please

submit one signed original paper copy.

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda

Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of

Energy, Building Technologies Program,

Room 1J-018, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-

0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945.

Please submit one signed original paper

copy.

Instructions: All submissions received

must include the agency name and

docket number or Regulatory

Information Number (RIN) for this

rulemaking. For detailed instructions on

submitting comments and additional

information on the rulemaking process,

see section IV of this document (Public

Participation).

Docket: For access to the docket to

read background documents or

comments received, visit the U.S.

Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room 1J-018 (Resource Room

of the Building Technologies Program),

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC, 20585-0121,

Telephone Number: (202) 586-2945,

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at

the above telephone number for

additional information regarding

visiting the Resource Room. Please note:

The Department's Freedom of

Information Reading Room (formerly

Room 1E-190 at the Forrestal Building)

is no longer housing rulemaking

materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Raymond, Project Manager,

Test Procedures for Residential Central

Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps,

Docket No. EE-RM/TP-02-002, U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy,

Building Technologies Program, EE-2J,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585-0121,

Telephone Number: (202) 586-9611, e -

mail: Michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov;

Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,

GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202)

586-9507, e-mail:

Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Overview

B. Authority

C. Background

D. Summary of the Test Procedure

Revisions

II. Discussion

A. Proposed substantive changes to the test

procedure in Appendix M

B. Proposed substantive changes to other

parts of the CFR that affect the testing

and rating of residential central air

conditioners and heat pumps

C. Proposed non-substantive changes to

other parts of the CFR

D. Effect of test procedure revisions on

compliance with standards

III. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction

Act

D. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

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 of 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under the Treasury and General

Government Appropriations Act of 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal

Energy Administration (FEA) Act of 1974

IV. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to

Speak

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Overview

DOE completed a multi-year

rulemaking process to update the DOE

test procedure for residential central air

conditioners and heat pumps on

October 11, 2005, when it published an

amended test procedure in the Federal

Register. (70 FR 59122) (Hereafter

referred to as the October 2005 final

rule.) Today's notice initiates a new

rulemaking that addresses several test

procedure issues that were identified

too late in the prior rulemaking to allow

stakeholders an opportunity to comment

on them. The October 2005 final rule

was concerned almost exclusively with

Appendix M to Subpart B (the test

method proper), which was completely

replaced. Today's revision has

significant updates to Subpart B itself,

in 10 CFR section 430.24 (units to be

tested). These revisions concern topics

such as the alternative rating method

used to provide efficiency ratings for

untested split system combinations,

data submission requirements, and

sampling requirements. There are also

revisions to the test procedure proper in

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules 41321

Appendix M. These revisions have no

common theme. Most are concerned

with improving the accuracy of the test

procedure, and with extending coverage

to new central air conditioner features.

B. Authority

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act)

establishes the Energy Conservation

Program for Consumer Products Other

Than Automobiles (Program). (42 U.S.C.

6291 et seq.) The products currently

subject to this Program ("covered

products") include residential central

air conditioners and heat pumps, the

subject of today's notice.

Under the Act, the Program consists

of three parts: testing, labeling, and the

Federal energy conservation standards.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is

responsible for labeling, and DOE

implements the remainder of the

program. The Department, in

consultation with the National Institute

of Standards and Technology (NIST), is

authorized to establish or amend test

procedures as appropriate for each of

the covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293)

The purpose of the test procedures is to

measure energy efficiency, energy use,

or estimated annual operating cost of a

covered product during a representative,

average use cycle or period of use. The

test procedure must not be unduly

burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.

6293(b)(3)) The central air conditioner

and heat pump test procedures appear

in title 10 of the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR), part 430, subpart B,

Appendix M.

It a test procedure is amended, DOE

is required to determine to what extent,

if any, the new test procedure

amendments would alter the measured

energy efficiency of any covered

product as determined under the

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

6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that an

amended test procedure would alter the

measured energy efficiency of a covered

product, DOE is required to amend the

applicable energy conservation standard

with respect to such test procedure. In

determining any such amended energy

conservation standard, DOE is required

to measure the energy efficiency or

energy use of a representative sample of

covered products that minimally

comply with the existing standard. The

average efficiency or energy use of these

representative samples, tested using the

amended test procedure, constitutes the

amended standard. (42 U.S.C.

6293(e)(2))

Beginning 180 days after a test

procedure for a covered product is

prescribed, no manufacturer,

distributor, retailer, or private labeler

may make representations with respect

to the energy use, efficiency, or cost of

energy consumed by such products,

except as reflected in tests conducted

according to the DOE procedure.

C. Background

The latest revision of the DOE test

procedure for central air conditioners

and heat pumps-which covers units

having rated cooling capacities of less

than 65,000 Btu/h-was published as a

final rule on October 11, 2005 (70 FR

59122), effective April 10, 2006.

After the January 22, 2001,

publication of the proposed rule for the

above rulemaking, stakeholders urged

additional test procedure revisions. On

December 13, 2002, DOE received

stakeholder views on these revisions

during a public workshop. (Hereafter

referred to as the December 2002

workshop.) Written comments were

received from the American Council for

an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE),

Unico, Inc., Carrier Corporation, Lennox

International, York International, and

the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration

Institute (ARI). In addition, five requests

for test procedure waiver have been

received from manufacturers of multisplit central air conditioners. These

waivers are necessary because the

current test procedure is inadequate for

testing these products.

This test procedure revision addresses

changes requested by stakeholders,

either directly or through test procedure

waiver requests. A full list of the

changes appears in the next section. The

primary reasons for these changes are:

(1) To implement test procedure

revisions that are needed because of

new energy efficiency standards for

small-duct, high-velocity (SDHV)

systems; (2) to better address multi-split

units test procedure waivers; and (3) to

address sampling and rating issues that

have been raised since the new

minimum energy efficiency standards

became effective on January 23, 2006.

D. Summary of the Test Procedure

Revisions

Today's proposed rule includes

twelve substantive changes to the test

procedure in Appendix M. It includes

eight substantive changes and four nonsubstantive changes to other parts of the

CFR that concern rating of central air

conditioners and heat pumps. The

proposed test procedure changes are:

Proposed substantive changes to

Appendix M:

1. Imposing higher minimum

external-static-pressure requirements

and adding test-setup modifications for

testing small-duct, high-velocity

systems. (Sections 2.2, 2.4.1, 2.5.4.2,

and 3.1.4.1.2)

2. Reinstating the option of

conducting a cyclic test at high capacity

when testing a two-capacity unit.

(Sections 3.2.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.5.3, 3.6.3, 3.8,

3.8.1, 4.1.3.3, and 4.2.3.3)

3. Shortening the maximum duration

of a Frost Accumulation Test on a twocapacity heat pump when it is operating

at low capacity. (Section 3.9)

4. Using default equations to

approximate the performance of a twocapacity heat pump operating at low

capacity, instead of conducting a Frost

Accumulation Test. (Section 3.6,3)

5. For modulating multi-split systems:

Allowing indoor units to cycle off,

allowing the manufacturer to specify the

compressor speed used during certain

tests, and introducing a new algorithm

for estimating power consumption.

(Sections 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 3.2.4, 3.6.4,

4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2)

6. Extending the duct-loss correction

to the indoor capacities used for

calculating seasonal energy efficiency

ratio (SEER) and heating seasonal

performance factor (HSPF). (Sections

3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9.1, and 3.11)

7. Defining "repeatable" for cyclic

tests. (Section 3.5)

8. Articulating a definition of

"standard air." (Definition 1.37)

9. Changing one of the cooling-mode

outdoor test conditions for units having

a two-capacity compressor. (Sections

3.2.3 and 4.1.3)

10. Renaming "Cooling and Heating

Certified Air Volume Rates" to "Fullload Air Volume Rates." (Definition

1.34)

11. Modifying the criterion for using

an air volume rate that is less than the

manufacturer's specified value.

(Sections 3.1.4.1.1 and 3.1.4.4.3)

12. Revising references to ASHRAE

Standards (e.g., Standards 23, 37 and

116) that have been reaffirmed (i.e.,

reviewed and approved by ASHRAE

with no substantive changes) or revised

too recently to have been included in

the amended test procedure published

on October 11, 2005.

Proposed substantive changes to other

parts of the CFR that affect the testing

and rating of residential central air

conditioners and heat pumps:

1. New data-submission-requirements

when verifying an alternative rating

method. 10 CFR 430.24(m)(6),

2. Guidance on the inclusion of preproduction units in the sample

population used to determine and

validate the published ratings. 10 CFR

430.24.

3. Clarification of the sample

population used to validate the rated

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
41322 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules

SEER and the rated HSPF. 10 CFR

430.24(m).

4, Clarification of the definition of a

"highest sales volume combination." 10

CFR 430.24(m)(2).

5. Upper limit on the difference

between calculated and tested SEER and

HSPF values. 10 CFR 430.24(m), 10 CFR

430.2.

6. Clarification of the published

ratings for untested split-system

combinations. 10 CFR 430.24.

7. Adding requirement that ratings for

an air conditioner or heat pump that is

rated with a furnace include the model

number of that furnace as part of the

overall equipment model number. 10

CFR 430.62(a)(4).

8. For products such as multi-splits

which have multiple indoor units,

instituting a "tested combination" as an

alternative to testing the combination

with "the largest volume of retail sales."

10 CFR 430.24(m)(2), 10 CFR 430.2.

Proposed non-substantive changes to

related portions of the CFR:

1. Clarification of a private labeler's

(i.e., a third party) responsibility for

ensuring that reported ratings are based

on an approved alternative method for

rating untested combinations or on

laboratory test data. 10 CFR

430.24(m)(5).

2. Revisions to the definition of "coil

family." 10 CFR 430.2.

3. New definition for "private labeler"

within § 430.2.

4. Definitions of terms: "indoor unit,"

"outdoor unit," "ARM/simulation

adjustment factor," and "tested

combination." 10 CFR 430.2.

An expanded discussion of each

proposed substantive change is

provided in the next section. The

complete test procedure is not printed

as part of today's proposed rule. Instead,

only the specific sections of the test

procedure and related parts of the CFR

where changes are proposed are printed.

These specific, proposed changes are set

forth at the end of this notice.

II. Discussion

A. Proposed Substantive Changes to the

Test Procedure in Appendix M

1. Imposing higher minimum

external-static-pressure requirements

and adding test-setup modifications for

testing small-duct, high-velocity

systems. Based on consideration of

comments received at the December

2002 workshop, DOE today proposes

minimum external-static-pressure levels

for SDHV systems that are higher, by 1.0

inch of water, than the minimums that

apply for all other units. For example,

for equipment having rated cooling

capacities from 29,000 to 42,500 Btu/h,

the minimum external static pressures

are 0.15 inches of water for

conventional blower-coil systems and

1.15 inches of water for SDHV systems.

Changes to the test procedure that

complement the proposed testing of

SDHV systems at the higher external

static pressures are also proposed today.

Changes are proposed that pertain to

both the equipment setup and the test

setup. For example, because the

external-static-pressure taps for the

laboratory test setup are located

downstream of the indoor unit, all

balance dampers or restrictor devices

on, or inside, the unit must be set fully

open or on the lowest restriction setting.

To avoid potential abuses of using static

regain to meet the lab-measured, higher

external-static requirements and to

otherwise avoid attempts to qualify a

conventional unit as a SDHV unit, limits

are proposed to the size of the duct

connected to the outlet of the indoor

unit. For cases where a closed-loop, airenthalpy test apparatus is used on the

indoor side, DOE proposes to limit the

airflow resistance on the inlet side of

the indoor blower-coil to a maximum

value of 0.1 inch of water. The balance

of the airflow resistance shall be

imposed on the supply side of the

indoor blower. Such loading is

consistent with a field application of a

SDHV system and its smaller supply

ducts and room diffusers. Finally, the

test setup shall include an adjustable air

damper that is positioned immediately

upstream of the airflow measuring

apparatus. This damper can minimize

air leakage in the airflow measuring

apparatus at points upstream of the flow

nozzle by reducing the pressure

difference between the duct and the

surrounding ambient. A maximum

differential of 0.5 inches of water is

proposed. If practicable, the outlet air

damper box used for cyclic tests can

double as this adjustable air damper.

Regarding the above-proposed new

requirements for equipment and test

setup, only one was discussed at the

December 13, 2002 workshop. This

requirement concerns the distribution of

the external resistance between the

supply and return sides when using a

closed-loop test setup. No attendee

opposed this addition, and no opposing

views were voiced in the written

comments that followed, The other

proposed additions were raised in

written comments from Unico, Inc.

(Unico), a SDHV manufacturer. (Unico,

No. 7)1

A notation in the form "Unico, No. 7 at 4"

identifies a written comment DOE received in this

rulemaking. This notation refers to a comment (1)

by Unico, (2) in document number 7 in the docket

A definition for SDHV systems was

developed by industry members during

the previous test procedure rulemaking,

and was adopted as Definition 1.35 (10

CFR 430.2) in the October 2005 final

rule. The combination of this definition,

the higher, lab-verified minimum

external-static-pressure requirements,

and limits on supply-duct sizes

provides a safeguard against

conventional systems being classified

improperly as SDHV systems.

Today's proposed rule does not

include changes to the definition of

"SDHV system." The requirement

remains that all SDHV systems must be

capable of operating at an external static

pressure of 1.2 inches of water, or

higher, at their Full-Load Air Volume

Rate. During the brief discussion of this

issue at the December 2002 workshop,

there was support for making the

definition congruent with the newly

proposed testing requirements (Public

Hearing Tr., pages 20, 69). However,

DOE believes that the difference

between the definition (fixed-minimum

external static pressure of 1.2 inches of

water) and the test procedure

requirement (variable-minimum

external static pressure of 1.1-1.2 inches

of water, depending on capacity) is

acceptable. Any unit meeting the

definition can be tested under the test

procedure. The test procedure's

variable-minimum, external-staticpressure requirements reflect similar

variable static-pressure requirements for

conventional systems. The only effects

of changing the definition to incorporate

a variable-minimum, external-staticpressure requirement would be to make

the definition more complicated and

somewhat less stringent. DOE has

determined that it would not improve

the current definition of "SDHV

system" if DOE made it congruent with

the newly proposed lab testing

requirements.

The DOE's Office of Hearings and

Appeals (OHA) issued a decision and

order on May 24, 2004, that requires

SDHV systems manufactured on or after

January 23, 2006, to achieve SEER and

Heating Seasonal Performance Factor

(HSPF) ratings that are not less than

11.0 and 6.8, respectively. While the

changes proposed today would change

the measure of energy efficiency for

SDHV units, the amendments proposed

were known by OHA and taken into

consideration when OHA issued

exceptions to the central air conditioner

in this matter, and (3) appearing at page 4 of

document number 7. No page number maybe cited

if it is not needed because of the brevity of the

comment, or, as here, the comment is in the form

of a series of e-mails.

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules 41323

standards for SDHV units.2 DOE expects

that the test procedure amendments, as

proposed, will not cause any SDHV

product to become noncompliant with

the energy efficiency standards for

SDHV units set by OHA. DOE requests

comments on the proposed changes,

whether they will change the measure of

energy use and whether they will cause

any SDHV model to be non-compliant

with DOE's energy efficiency standards.

In particular, DOE requests stakeholders

to submit lab test results that show the

impact of these changes on the measure

of efficiency and on compliance with

the standard.

The specific changes proposed within

the DOE test procedure that pertain to

the above discussion on SDHV systems

appear in sections 2.2, 2.4.1, 2.5.4.2, and

3.1.4.1.2 of the central air conditioner

and heat pump test procedure.

2. Reinstating the option of

conducting a cyclic test at high capacity

when testing a two-capacity unit.

Beginning with the January 17, 1980,

effective date of the DOE test procedure

for central air conditioners and heat

pumps, the test procedure provided a

rarely used option of conducting cyclic

testing at high capacity on two-capacity

units. The October 2005 final rule

eliminated the option of testing to

obtain a cyclic-degradation coefficient

for high capacity, C0(k = 2) and instead

assigned the coefficient the same value

as the cyclic-degradation coefficient for

low capacity, CD(k = 2) = CD(k = 1), in

order to simplify the test procedure. The

change, however, caused some twocapacity units (i.e., ones that lock out

low capacity at certain outdoor

temperatures) to lose a small SEER or

HSPF rating boost, usually in the 0.1

range, that would have been gained by

the optional test. There are cases where

a 0.1 boost in SEER or HSPF would be

of great value to a manufacturer. Thus,

today's proposed rule includes the

option of testing to determine the highcapacity C0. Assigning the value for the

low-capacity C0 as the high-capacity C0

now becomes the default option instead

of testing at high capacity. Reinstating

the option of testing to determine the

2 SpocePak/Unico, 29 DOE ¶ 31,002 (2004).

3 For the aid of the reader, the January 1, 2006,

CFR includes both the central air conditioner test

procedure as it existed prior to the October 2005

final rule (Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part

430) and the test procedure as it exists as a result

of the October 2005 final rule (Appendix M, Nt. to

Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430). References to the

central air conditioner and heat pump test

procedures in today's proposed rule are to the test

procedure as it exists as a result of the October 2005

final rule (Appendix M, Nt. to Subpart B of 10 CFR

Part 430). It is referred to as either the central air

conditioner and heat pump test procedure or the

October 2005 testprocedure.

high-capacity C0 was supported at the

December 2002 workshop (Public

Hearing Tr., pages 67-68).

The specific changes proposed within

the DOE test procedure that pertain to

the reinstatement of the optional, highcapacity cyclic tests are shown in

sections 3.2.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.5.3, 3.6.3, 3.8,

3.8.1, 4.1.3.3, and 4.2.3.3 of the central

air conditioner and heat pump test

procedure.

3. Shortening the maximum duration

of a Frost Accumulation Test on a twocapacity heat pump when it is operating

at low capacity. A frost accumulation

test at low capacity is required if the

heat pump cycles between low and high

heating capacities while matching the

building load at temperatures of 37°F

and lower. Completing such a frost

accumulation test, as presently

specified, can be difficult, as discussed

below. DOE is proposing changes that

seek to reduce the test burden, while

avoiding changing the measure of HSPF.

During a frost accumulation test, the

official test period lasts for one

complete cycle, from defrost

termination to defrost termination-or

12 hours, whichever occurs first. Most

heat pumps conduct a complete cycle

well in advance of the 12-hour time

limit, at least with single-speed units or

two-capacity heat pumps operating at

high capacity. When running a frost

accumulation test at low capacity,

however, the outdoor coil builds frost

more slowly or not at all. As a result,

frost accumulation tests on two-capacity

heat pumps having a demand defrost

and running at low capacity take much

longer to complete, potentially requiring

the full 12 hours-that is, if the test

condition tolerances can be maintained

over the extended period.

The frost accumulation test

conditions are, in themselves, a

challenge to maintain. The task is more

difficult when testing a two-capacity

heat pump at low capacity. The testroom air reconditioning system has to

be sized to accommodate high-capacity

operation and so is more likely

mismatched and oversized. The level of

difficulty also increases because of

having to maintain the test-room

tolerances over a comparatively longer

period. More opportunity exists for a

perturbation in the operation of the heat

pump or the test-room reconditioning

system to shift the test conditions

beyond the allowed tolerances.

Three related modifications to the test

procedure were discussed at the

December 2002, workshop. The first

option is to change the maximum test

interval from 12 hours to either 3 or 6

hours. A second option is to state in the

test procedure that the controls of the

heat pump may be overridden during

frost accumulation tests at low capacity

in order to force a defrost cycle prior to

12 hours. In this case, the manufacturer

would specify the time interval after

which defrost would be manually

initiated. The third option is to add a

default equation that could be used

instead of running the test.

The rationale for the first option

comes from draft revisions of

International Standards Organization

(ISO) standards that cover the testing

and rating of residential heat pumps and

air conditioners, ISO Standards 5151

and 13253. (ISO/DIS 5151R, Non-ducted

Air Conditioners and Heat PumpsTesting and Rating for Performance;

ISO/DIS 13253R, Ducted Air

Conditioners and Air-to-Air Heat

Pumps-Testing and Rating for

Performance) Currently, these draft

revisions call for all heating-capacity

tests to last a maximum of three hours

when using the air-enthalpy test

method. The second option would be an

extension of the procedure that was

instituted in the October 2005 test

procedure to handle heat pumps that

use history-dependent demand-defrost

controls. The manually initiated option

was invoked to avoid running an

excessive number of cycles before

repeatable defrost cycles occurred. The

third option is consistent with the

existing alternative allowed when

testing variable-speed heat pumps.

Instead of running frost accumulation

tests at both the intermediate speed and

at maximum speed, the manufacturer

has the option of using a specified

equation to approximate the maximumspeed heating capacity and average

power at 35°F outdoor temperature.

At the December 2002 workshop, two

manufacturers, Trane and Cop eland,

spoke in favor of the default equation

(Public Hearing Tr., pages 62-63).

Ducane spoke in favor of a shorter

maximum test time, 6 hours instead of

12 hours (Public Hearing Tr., page 62).

ACEEE expressed a desire for making no

change that ultimately discourages

innovation (Public Hearing Tr., page

64). York favored letting the

manufacturer specify the duration of the

heating cycle (Public Hearing Tr., page

65). There was also a discussion of

making the third option, which is a

default equation, the default procedure.

It was suggested that if a manufacturer

wanted to test, it could use either the

first or second option (Public Hearing

Tr., page 66).

After considering recommendations

from NIST, based on its experience, and

discussions with industry members

familiar with running frost

accumulation tests, DOE believes that if

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
41324 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules

a heat pump has not defrosted in six

hours, it is either (1) not building frost

or (2) is completely frosted and probably

has been so for more than half of the

interval. In both cases, the benefits from

continuing to run the test past 6 hours

are none to minimal. For the "notbuilding-frost" case, extending the test

is going to have virtually no impact on

the average heating capacity and average

power consumption. For the

"completely frosted" alternative, the

tested values of average performance

might diminish, but at such a slow rate

as to be insignificant.

Any benefit from an extended frost

accumulation test, in addition, is further

reduced because of the comparatively

smaller impact of a low-capacity frost

accumulation test on HSPF. The results

of the low-capacity frost accumulation

test affect low-capacity performance for

the 22, 27, 32, and 37°F temperature

bins. For two-capacity heat pumps,

operating time over this bin temperature

range is typically split between low and

high capacities rather than being

exclusively at low capacity.

DOE believes a reduction in the

manufacturers' test burden is merited

and that any change in the measure of

HSPF will be negligible. Thus, DOE

today proposes that the maximum

duration of a frost accumulation test at

low capacity be changed from 12 hours

to 6 hours. This test procedure change

is shown in section 3.9 of the central air

conditioner and heat pump test

procedure.

4, Using default equations to

approximate the performance of a twocapacity heat pump operating at low

capacity, instead of conducting a Frost

Accumulation Test. This section builds

on the discussion of the previous

section. Although the proposed

amendment discussed above will reduce

the test burden, DOE believes the test

burden remains considerable, especially

if HSPF is relatively insensitive to the

performance data derived from the test.

One example would be a two-capacity

heat pump that locks out low-capacity

operation at outdoor temperatures lower

than 35 °F. Such a lockout feature

would result in the average capacity and

power consumption from the lowcapacity frost accumulation test being

used only for 37 °F-bin calculations.

DOE is amenable to allowing an

alternative to conducting a low-capacity

frost accumulation test as long as the

alternative yields conservative estimates

of average capacity and power

consumption. DOE has not been able to

obtain information on typical

performance degradation at frosting

conditions. Data is needed to quantify

how much the heat pump's performance

at low-capacity and 35 °F outdoor

temperature departs from the average

capacity and power derived from

linearly interpolating between the

steady-state-heating-performance data at

47 and 17 °F. Lacking such data, DOE

is following the recommendation made

at the December 2002, workshop and

proposes using the same default

equations that it permits for variablespeed heat pumps in lieu of running a

frost accumulation test at maximum

speed. These equations estimate that the

average heating-capacity and powerconsumption values will be 90 percent,

and 98.5 percent, respectively, of the

interpolated, steady-state values. These

percentages, when applied to lowcapacity operation, provide conservative

estimates of performance and are

proposed in this rulemaking.

DOE prefers to have current

laboratory data on which to base the

selected conservative defaults. Thus,

DOE requests that the industry share its

results from testing two-capacity heat

pumps at low capacity for the 47, 35,

and 17 °F test conditions. The change,

as proposed, is shown in section 3.6.3

of the central air conditioner and heat

pump test procedure.

5. For modulating multi-split systems:

allowing indoor units to cycle off,

allowing the manufacturer to specify the

compressor speed used during certain

tests, and introducing a new algorithm

for estimating power consumption.

Certain parts of the current test

procedure are poorly suited for testing

and rating modulating multi-splits. In

particular, three areas where

shortcomings exist are (1) the

requirement that all indoor coils operate

during all tests, (2) the selection of the

modulation levels for conducting tests

on variable-speed systems (maximum,

minimum, and a specified intermediate

speed), and (3) the calculation algorithm

for estimating performance over the

intermediate speed/capacity range. The

first area of concern results from a

requirement developed for mini-split

systems and then wrongly extended to

multi-split systems. The second and

third shortcomings stem from test levels

and a calculation algorithm that are

reasonable for one-condenser-to-oneevaporator-coil, variable-speed units but

less suited for multi-splits.

In an effort to incrementally improve

the test procedure's coverage of multisplits, DOE proposes: (1) Allowing one

or more indoor coils to cycle off during

any test, if this occurs in normal

operation, (2) allowing the manufacturer

to specify the compressor speed used

during the minimum-capacity and

intermediate-speed tests, and (3)

introducing a different algorithm for

estimating power consumption in the

intermediate-speed range. Another test

procedure change is to remove the

limitation on the use of only one indoor

test room. Using two or more indoor test

rooms may provide the flexibility

needed to test certain multi-splits as

complete systems. DOE recognizes that

this change, however, will not be a

solution to the prevailing problem

where many multi-split systems cannot

be lab tested, even in the most versatile

test facility, due to the too-large number

of indoor coils.

The allowance for turning off one or

more indoor coils during any lab test, if

this occurs in normal operation, will

more likely be relevant during the

intermediate and minimum speed/

capacity tests. However, one or more

indoor coils may not operate during a

maximum-capacity test if the particular

multi-split is configured using multiple

indoor coils whose cumulative rated

capacities exceed the rated capacity of

the outdoor unit. During testing, DOE

proposes that indoor coils that are

cycled off be isolated in order to avoid

any induced space conditioning, so that

the aggregated, measured capacity

includes no contribution from an

inactive coil.

At the December 2002 workshop, and

in the comments following the

workshop, stakeholders did not make

any objection to testing multi-splits in

the lab in a manner more representative

of field operation. (Public Hearing Tr.,

page 54) Allowing on/off control of

indoor coils in the lab is consistent with

this position.

As for the two other amendments

relating to multi-splits that are proposed

in this notice, a brief review of

background information is helpful.

Within the DOE test procedure,

variable-speed air conditioners and heat

pumps were first covered as a result of

amendments to the central air

conditioner and heat pump test

procedures published by DOE in 1988.

(53 FR 8304, March 14, 1988) These

amendments addressed the designs of

variable-speed systems marketed at the

time: split systems having a single

indoor coil and a single outdoor coil

(i.e., one-condenser-to-one-evaporatorcoil systems). These systems could

typically modulate, such that minimumspeed operation corresponded to

capacities in the range of 40 to 60

percent of the maximum-speed capacity.

More importantly, for the operating

region where the unit modulates to

produce a capacity equal to the building

load, these systems operate most

efficiently at the minimum speed with

efficiency monotonically decreasing as

the system ramped to maximum speed.

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules 41325

Further, because EER and COP are more

linear than power consumption, DOE

used efficiency as the parameter for

interpolating within the DOE test

procedure.4

The range of modulation of multisplits is greater than for any previously

evaluated one-condenser-to-oneevaporator-coil, variable-speed system.

Most multi-splits can modulate their

capacity to levels approaching 10

percent of rated capacity. Rated

capacity, for some multi-splits, can be 5

to 10 percent lower than their maximum

capacity, thus adding to the actual range

of modulation. Multi-split

manufacturers have informed DOE and

NIST that both the minimum and

maximum operating capacities

correspond to points of declining

efficiency with peak efficiency typically

occurring in the 50-to-70 percent speed/

capacity range. Thus, for a fixed set of

ambient conditions, the efficiencyversus-modulation curve is expected to

be hump-shaped.

The central air conditioner and heat

pump test procedure's current algorithm

calls for fitting a second-order

polynomial (i.e., quadratic equation) to

the efficiency values for the three

available data points: the minimumspeed balance point, the intermediatespeed balance point, and the maximumspeed balance point. The curve fit is

used to obtain an estimate of efficiency

over the outdoor temperature range

where the unit would modulate to

provide a space conditioning capacity

that equals the building load. Power

consumption at any intermediate speed

operating point is derived from the

paired capacity and efficiency values

(i.e., power = building load/EER)

corresponding to the chosen outdoor

(bin) temperature.

The above algorithm is well suited for

one-condenser-to-one-evaporator-coil,

variable-speed systems because the

intermediate-speed, efficiency-versusmodulation data is monotonic and

nearly linear. Due to insufficient data,

DOE cannot quantify the value of using

the algorithm with multi-split units. In

the worst case, multi-split efficiency

may deviate significantly from the

balanced, parabolic shape that would be

predicted by the second-orderpolynomial fit, Another potential

problem is that the efficiency at the

intermediate-speed balance point will

likely not be the peak efficiency point.

As a result, the predicted peak

efficiency is defined by the curve fit and

4Domanski, Piotr A., "Recommended Procedure

for Rating and Testing of Variable Speed Air Source

Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps," NBSIR

88-3781, National Institute of Standards and

Technology, May1988,

not verified in the lab. The algorithm is

not well suited for multi-split units,

because the predicted efficiency curve

may overestimate the performance of

one unit while underestimating the

performance of another unit.

DOE seeks data showing how the

capacity and power consumption of

multi-split units vary as a function of

the modulation level and outdoor test

conditions. Lacking such data, DOE

proposes to calculate steady-state

efficiency (EER and COP) over the

intermediate-speed range using piecewise linear fits: a line connecting the

minimum- and intermediate-capacity

balance points and a line connecting the

intermediate- and maximum-capacity

balance points. The linear fits should

yield a conservative estimate of

performance but are favored because of

concern that the second-order fit may

provide poor and most-likely inflated

estimates.

Associated with the proposal to use a

piece-wise linear fit of steady-state

efficiency, DOE also proposes that the

multi-split manufacturer shall specify

the system capacity (i.e., compressor

speed, indoor coil configurations, fan

speeds, etc.) used for the cooling and

heating intermediate speed/capacity

tests. This change is being proposed so

that the manufacturer has an

opportunity to verify the peak-efficiency

capabilities of the multi-split unit being

tested. Defining two other capacities,

maximum and minimum, are the last

points specific to this multi-split

discussion.

DOE proposes that multi-splits be

tested at their maximum capacity

(maximum compressor speed), or full

load, not their rated capacity. The tested

compressor speed shall be the

maximum for continuous duty

operation as allowed by the unit's

controls. For clarity, this tested capacity

is not a "turbo" mode where a higher

operating speed(s) is allowed but for

only a limited time interval. This clearer

definition of the maximum speed/

capacity test applies to all variablespeed systems, not just multi-splits.

DOE considered an alternative

approach of allowing the manufacturer

to specify the compressor capacity/

speed used for maximum-capacity tests.

However, in use, the variable-capacity

system operates at capacities/speeds

above this rated capacity. DOE's goal is

to specify tests that yield a performance

map that is as encompassing and

representative as possible. Specifying

the maximum-capacity tests as proposed

in this notice is consistent with this

goal. The approach is also consistent

with the full-load testing approach

taken in comparable ISO standards,

13253, 5151, and 15042. (ISO/DIS

15042P, Multi-split System AirConditioners and Air-to-Air Heat

Pumps-Testing and Rating for

Performance)

DOE next considered the option of

allowing an additional test at the

manufacturer's rated cooling capacity,

for the sole purpose of defining the

building load line used for the SEER bin

calculations. DOE decided not to

introduce this option due to possible

confusion from having two SEER's.

There could be one SEER based on a

building load line tied to the unit's

performance at the A-Test condition at

maximum capacity, and a second SEER

based on the load line derived using the

rated capacity at the A-Test conditions,

Manufacturers of variable-capacity

systems, including multi-splits, can still

show the impact of sizing the unit based

on a rated capacity.

From a testing standpoint, conducting

tests at the true minimum capacity,

possibly 10 percent of full load, is

difficult. The test room reconditioning

system has difficulty operating against

such low loads and maintaining test

conditions within tolerance. Thus, the

multi-split's performance at its true

minimum capacity may have to be

determined by extrapolation of test data

collected at higher capacities where the

tests are more easily conducted. In this

case, some short test would be needed

to verify the true minimum operating

capacity of the multi-split.

Alternatively, SEER and HSPF could be

calculated based only on the operational

range verified in the steady-state lab

tests. For example, if a multi-split were

tested at 30 percent of capacity even

though it was reportedly able to ramp

down to 10 percent of capacity, the

SEER and HSPF calculations would be

conducted assuming that the unit would

cycle on and off at building loads that

fell below the 30 percent capacity curve.

DOE proposes that the minimumcapacity test be conducted at a capacity

specified by the manufacturer. The

operating level can be either the

equipment's true minimum or a

capacity that is greater than the true

minimum but nonetheless chosen by the

manufacturer as its designated

minimum capacity. DOE prefers that

multi-split manufacturers specify a

tested minimum capacity for which testroom tolerances are readily

maintainable. As with the maximumcapacity test, the tested capacity shall be

one that the unit could maintain

indefinitely, if needed. DOE further

proposes that SEER and HSPF shall be

calculated assuming that the tested

minimum capacity corresponds to the

actual minimum capacity. Extrapolation

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
41326 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules

of performance data will not be

permitted for the case where the tested

minimum is actually higher than the

true minimum. DOE, however, is open

to comments on how to verify the true

minimum-capacity operation such that

extrapolation of performance data could

be incorporated.

At the December 2002 workshop,

Trane recommended that a multi-split

manufacturer make a recommendation

on the new test points, possibly through

a waiver petition (Public Hearing Tr.,

pages 55-56). Copeland, and to a certain

extent, ACEEE, expressed concern that

multi-splits may be difficult to test with

the DOE test procedure for central air

conditioners and heat pumps (Public

Hearing Tr., pages 58-61). Since the

workshop, DOE has received four

waiver petitions from manufacturers of

residential multi-split systems. All four

petitions take the approach of seeking

waivers from the DOE test procedures

due to shortcomings in the test

procedure (e.g., no credit for a

simultaneous heating and cooling

mode), the lack of an alternative method

for rating untested combinations, and

the fact that many multi-split

combinations simply cannot be lab

tested because they have too many

indoor coils. These limitations are

among those multi-split issues that will

be addressed in the future.

The changes proposed in this notice

are offered to address some of the test

procedure shortcomings pertaining to

residential multi-split units. At this

time, DOE prefers to pursue covering

multi-splits within the central air

conditioner and heat pump test

procedure rather than pursue

development of a 'multi-split-only" test

procedure. DOE welcomes comments on

the proposed test procedure changes.

For those that feel multi-split systems

are so different as to merit coverage in

a separate test procedure, DOE asks that

they provide suggestions on the possible

structure of such a test procedure.

The specific changes proposed within

the DOE test procedure that pertain to

the above discussion on multi-split

systems are shown in sections 2.1, 2.2.3,

2.4.1, 3.2.4, 3.6.4, 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2 of

the central air conditioner and heat

pump test procedure.

6. Extending the duct-loss correction

to the indoor capacities used for

calculating SEER and HSPF. In the

recently published test procedure final

rule, a capacity correction for duct

losses was added. This correction was

added for compatibility with existing

industry practice. Regrettably, the

correction was applied too narrowly. As

published, the correction was only used

when evaluating whether the required

6-percent energy balance was achieved

between the primary and secondary test

methods for measuring capacity. The

correction is also to be used to adjust

the indoor capacities used in calculating

SEER and HSPF, Today's proposed rule

includes this corrective action, with one

exception. The exception applies to the

two indoor capacities used for

calculating a cyclic-degradation

coefficient, CD. The effort involved in

accounting for the duct losses,

especially during a cyclic test, is judged

as overly burdensome, given the

adjustment's small effect. Its impact is

further reduced because the CD

calculation only requires the ratio of the

two indoor capacities. Duct losses are

minimal because the test procedure

requires that the supply ductwork be

insulated to an R-19 level.

This topic spurred little discussion at

the December 2002 workshop. In fact,

the only related substantive discussion

was whether the correction could be

made within the then-pending final

rulemaking. DOE spoke in favor of the

issue being considered in a second,

separate rulemaking, and so it is

included here. The specific changes

proposed within the DOE test procedure

that pertain to the above discussion are

shown in sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7,

3.9.1, and 3.11 in the central air

conditioner and heat pump test

procedure.

7. Defining "repeatable"for cyclic

tests. In the October 2005 final rule, the

following requirement is provided in

section 3.5e regarding the duration of a

cyclic test: "After completing a

minimum of two complete compressor

OFF/ON cycles, determine the overall

cooling delivered and total electrical

energy consumption during any

subsequent data collection interval

where the test tolerances given in Table

8 are satisfied." (70 FR 59122) Many test

laboratories, however, let the test

continue until the results are repeatable.

These laboratories take extra time to

make sure that they have it right; they

go further than the specified "one good

interval and done" test procedure

requirement.

In today's proposed rule, DOE

proposes to include the additional

requirement that repeatable results be

obtained before terminating a cyclic test.

DOE plans to follow industry practice

for what qualifies as "repeatable." At

the December 2002 workshop, two

attendees spoke to this issue (Public

Hearing Tr., pp. 42-4 3). After the

workshop, NIST discussed the issue

with these two attendees, Excel Comfort

Systems (Excel) and Intertek Testing

Services (ITS). Excel indicated that it

typically runs 5 OFF/ON cycles and

compares the F, the time-integrated

temperature difference on the indoor

side, from each "on" cycle. The goal is

to have the F values vary by 0.04 °Fhr

or less. ITS looks at two parameters

when making a judgment on repeatable

cycles. On the capacity side, ITS seeks

consecutive cycles in which the average

indoor side air temperature difference

changes by 0.3 °F or less. On the input

side, ITS seeks consecutive cycles

where the average system power

consumption for the complete OFF/ON

interval changes by 5 watts or less. The

ITS criterion for capacity is slightly less

stringent than the Excel Comfort

Systems criterion. The input side

criterion imposed by ITS offsets this

slight difference.

DOE favors defining "repeatable

results" in terms of both the unit's

average capacity (i.e., using the

integrated temperature difference) and

its average power consumption. As

compared to the above two industry

members and their respective in-house

criteria, DOE today proposes

comparatively looser target levels. They

are: F values that vary by 0.05 °F•hr or

less; and consecutive cycles where the

average system power consumption

changes by 10 watts or less. See section

3.5 of the test procedure for the specific

changes proposed on implementing and

defining repeatable results for a cyclic

test.

8. Articulating a definition of

"standard air." The October 2005 final

rule contains a definition for "standard

air" (see § 1.37, Appendix M, Nt. to

Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430). This

definition was, at the time, consistent

with the definition contained in the

public review draft of ASHRAE

Standard 37-1988R (see 10 CFR

430.22(5)3). During the public review

process, the definition in the ASHRAE

Standard was modified to highlight that

mass density is the key defining

parameter, not the combination of the

dry air's temperature and pressure. DOE

proposes to amend its definition of

"standard air" so that it matches the

definition that appears in ASHRAE

Standard 37-2005. This change is

included among the list of substantive

changes to emphasize that consistency

with the revised ASHRAE standard

language causes standard air volume

rates to be expressed in terms of dry air,

not moist air. The proposed update is

shown in the definition of "standard

air" in section 1,37 of the central air

conditioner and heat pump test

procedure.

9. Changing one of the cooling-mode

outdoor test conditions for units having

a two-capacity compressor. To

minimize the testing burden, the

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules 41327

cooling-mode tests for air conditioners

and heat pumps having a two-capacity

compressor are conducted only at 82 °F

and 95 °F outdoor-dry-bulb

temperatures. The 82 °F and 95 °F test

conditions tend to bracket the key

temperature bins in which maximum

compressor capacity most affects the

SEER bin calculation. By comparison,

the 82 °F and 95 °F test conditions span

a range that tends to be higher than the

key temperature bins in which

minimum compressor capacity most

affects the SEER bin calculations. As a

result, for the lowest outdoor

temperature bins (i.e., 67 °F, 72 °F, and

77 °F), cooling capacity and electrical

power consumption at low (stage)

compressor capacity are derived from

linearly extrapolating the 82° and 95 °F

test results. These extrapolated

capacities and powers are more

susceptible to inaccuracies and,

unfortunately, can potentially reward

poor performance. In the latter case, for

example, increased electrical power

consumption during the A1 Test at 95 °F

and low compressor capacity could

potentially result in a higher SEER. The

higher power consumption for the A1

Test could cause the power

consumption for the heavily weighted

67 °F, 72 °F, and 77 °F bins to be

underestimated to the point that they

more than offset the higher power

consumptions for 87 °F and higher

temperature bins.

In today's proposed rule, DOE

proposes to change the outdoor

conditions used for certain tests on twocapacity air conditioners and heat

pumps. The first change is the

elimination of the steady-state A1 Test at

95 °F outdoor temperature. Instead, twocap acity units will now be tested at an

outdoor-dry-bulb temperature of 67 °F,

and in those few cases where it applies,

at an outdoor-wet-bulb temperature of

53.5 °F. The results from this new

steady-state test, designated the F1 Test,

shall be used in conjunction with the

results from the current low-capacity

test at 82 °F outdoor-dry-bulb

temperature (i.e., the B1 Test) to

determine the low-capacity cooling

capacity and power consumption values

used in SEER bin calculations, With this

change, those outdoor temperature bins

where low-capacity operation

dominates will now be more accurately

derived by interpolating, as opposed to

extrapolating.

The above change caused DOE to

consider two additional changes.

Currently, the two tests used to

determine the low-capacity, coolingmode cyclic-degradation coefficient,

Cco(k=1), are conducted at 82 °F

outdoor-dry-bulb temperature. Given

the change to 67 °F outdoor-dry-bulb

temperature for one wet-coil steadystate test, DOE also proposes to conduct

the two dry-coil tests at 67 °F. These

changes make the test conditions for

two-capacity units consistent with the

test conditions specified for variablespeed systems. These two additional

67 °F tests are denoted by the same

identifiers used for the comparable

variable-speed tests: The optional drycoil steady-state test is the G1 Test and

the optional dry-coil cyclic test is the Ii

test.

The specific changes proposed within

the DOE test procedure pertaining to

new outdoor test conditions for one

required, and two optional, cooling

mode tests for two-capacity units are

shown in sections 3.2.3 and 4.1.3 of the

test procedure. These changes are

combined with DOE's earlier proposal

to reinstate the two optional dry-coil

tests at high capacity.

10. Renaming "Cooling and Heating

Certified Air Volume Rates" to "Fullload Air Volume Rates." The October

2005 final rule introduced proper names

for the air volume rates associated with

the many tests that are described in the

test procedure. The name given to the

air volume rate that is used during most

tests was "Certified Air Volume Rate,"

prefixed with the qualifier "Cooling" or

"Heating." Typically, the word

"certified" is used within the industry

to identify parameters that are subject to

verification checks and, if appropriate,

penalties for failure to comply with the

rules for accurately reporting the

certified parameter. Examples of such

certified parameters are SEER, HSPF,

and rated capacity. To avoid confusion

on whether air volume rate is a

"certified parameter"-which it is notDOE proposes substituting the word

"Full-load" for "Certified" within the

proper name of the particular air

volume rate. DOE considered other

substitutes, including "Nominal,"

"Rated," "Tested," and "Target." DOE

welcomes comments on alternative

substitutes. In addition, DOE seeks

comments on instituting this change

within the definition for small-duct,

high-velocity systems in section 1.35 of

the central air conditioner and heat

pump test procedure.

11. Modifying the criterion for using

an air volume rate that is less than the

manufacturer's specified value. The

October 2005 final rule rigidly specified

the air volume rate to use during each

test. In particular, DOE definitively

stated in section 3.1.4.1.1 of the central

air conditioner and heat pump test

procedure that there are only two

circumstances in which the test lab

could use an air volume rate that is less

than the manufacturer's specified value.

The criterion for these circumstances,

which applies to ducted blower-coil

systems having a fixed-speed, multispeed, or variable-speed, variable-airvolume-rate indoor fan, is reexamined

in this rulemaking.

The first lab test is the A or A2 Test

(except for heating-only heat pumps).

For this test, the unit must generate an

external static pressure that is equal to

or greater than the applicable value

listed in the test procedure: 0.10, 0.15,

or 0.20 inches of water, the value being

assigned based on the unit's (expected)

rated cooling capacity. When running

the A or A2 Test, the test lab will either

achieve the manufacturer's specified air

volume rate and observe the

corresponding external static pressure,

or it will achieve the specified

minimum external static pressure and

observe the air volume rate. If this check

indicates that the indoor unit, as

configured, cannot provide the

manufacturer's specified air volume rate

and meet the minimum external-static

requirement, the central air conditioner

and heat pump test procedure (section

3.1.4.4.3a) says to "incrementally

change the setup of the indoor fan (e.g.,

fan motor pin settings, fan motor speed)

until the Table 2 [minimum static]

requirement is met while maintaining

the same [target] air volume rate." The

central air conditioner and heat pump

test procedure continues, in the section

cited above: "If the indoor fan setup

changes cannot provide the minimum

external static, then reduce the air

volume rate until the correct Table 2

minimum is equaled." This last case

covers one of two cases where the test

lab can use an air volume rate that is

less than the value specified by the

manufacturer. The second case is the

more global stipulation to set the air

volume rate to 37.5 scfm per 1000 Btu/

h if the manufacturer's specified air

volume rate yields a higher ratio.

Since the publication of the final rule,

DOE now understands that this

approach is too rigid and is inconsistent

with industry practice. Specifically,

although the test requirement to achieve

the minimum external static pressure

has been universally upheld, the

requirement that this be done by first

changing the motor's speed has not been

universally employed. In particular, for

cases in which the specified minimum

external static pressure is achieved at an

air volume rate that is slightly less than

the value specified by the manufacturer,

the testing customarily proceeds using

this slightly lower air volume rate rather

than increasing the speed setting of the

fan motor.

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
41328 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No, 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules

The desired approach should account

for normal equipment tolerances and

variability, and should be compatible

with allowing the manufacturer to

specify an air volume rate representative

of the average indoor unit, for each

indoor unit model. The current, more

rigid, approach causes manufacturers to

specify an air volume rate at the low

end of the range for a typical model.

Because the current algorithm does

not account for the inherent variability

in fan motors, housings, and wheels,

DOE proposes to add an overall

tolerance when assigning the indoor-air

volume rate used for testing. This

change will result in more

representative testing, because of the

use of an average air volume rate, rather

than a rate on the low end of the range.

DOE proposes to assign a tolerance of

- 5 percent on the air volume rate

specified by the manufacturer. Thus, if

the indoor unit can attain the minimum

external static pressure while operating

at an indoor air volume rate that is

between 0 and -5 percent of the

manufacturer-specified value, then this

lab air volume rate shall be used. The

tolerance of -5 percent is

recommended because it is

representative of indoor blower

variations and also because a maximum

tolerance of - 5 percent in air volume

rate typically causes a change in total

capacity that is within the uncertainty

of the measurement.

Proposed language for effecting the

above change is provided in the last

section of this notice as part of the

revised section 3.1.4.1.1 of the central

air conditioner and heat pump test

procedure and, for ducted, heating-only

heat pumps, section 3.1.4.4.3. DOE

requests comments on the approach of

including the tolerance within the setup

algorithm, and assigning it as a onesided tolerance. DOE also requests data

concerning the selection of - 5 percent

as the tolerance.

12. Revising references to ASHRAE

Standards (e.g., Standards 23, 37, 116)

that have been reaffirmed (i.e., reviewed

and approved byASHRAE with no

substantive changes) or revised too

recently to have been included in the

amended test procedure published on

October11, 2005. ASHRAE Standard 23,

"Methods of Testing for Rating Positive

Displacement Refrigerant Compressors

and Condensing Units," and Standard

37 "Methods of Testing for Rating

Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat

Pump Equipment" completed the

revision, public review, and publication

process in 2005. ASHRAE Standard 116,

"Methods of Testing for Rating for

Seasonal Efficiency of Unitary Air

Conditioners and Heat Pumps,"

completed the reaffirmation, public

review, and publication process in 2005.

When an ASHRAE standard is revised,

substantive changes are made.

Reaffirmations, by comparison, contain

only non-substantive changes and so do

not alter the technical content of the

document. To DOE's knowledge, the

proposal to reference these current

versions of the three ASHRAE standards

will not affect the SEER and HSPF

ratings calculated using the current or

proposed DOE test procedure.

B. Proposed Substantive Changes to

Other Parts of the CFR That Affect the

Testing and Rating of Residential

Central Air Conditioners and Heat

Pumps

1. New data-submission-requirements

when verifying an alternative rating

method. Presently the CFR states that

the manufacturer must supply test data

on four different split-system

combinations. 10 CFR 430. 24(m)(6)(iii)

Each split-system combination must be

other than the combination with the

highest sales volume. Overall, test data

on four different indoor units and two

different models of outdoor units are

required. Two of the indoor units are to

be tested with one model of outdoor

unit; the remaining two indoor units are

to be tested with the second model of

outdoor unit.

Two additional requirements are also

currently specified in § 430. 24(m)(6)(iii).

First, the tested capacities of the two

models of outdoor units, when paired

with their respective highest-salesvolume indoor unit, shall differ by at

least a factor of two. Second, the two

indoor units tested with the same model

of outdoor unit are required to be from

two different coil families. Finally, in

addition to data on the four (mixed

system) combinations, performance

ratings on the outdoor units alone, or on

the outdoor units when coupled to their

highest-sales-volume indoor unit, are

also required.

Some manufacturers find it difficult

to, or simply cannot, meet the above

requirements. For example, an

independent coil manufacturer who

sells indoor units from only one coil

family for a given capacity range, will

not be able to meet the two-differentcoil-families requirement. The

requirement of using only two models of

outdoor units may also cause difficulty.

Often the manufacturers will submit

ART certification test data for

verification purposes in order to avoid

having to pay for additional testing. A

manufacturer is more likely to have test

data on its indoor units tested with four

different outdoor units than to have data

where the same model of outdoor unit

was used with two different indoor

coils.

At the December 2002 workshop,

Excel Comfort Systems suggested that

waivers be considered for those cases

where a company cannot meet the

present requirements for verification

data (Public Hearing Tr., pages 48-50).

Unico spoke in favor of using any valid,

available data to verify an alternative

rating method (Public Hearing Tr., page

51). Other manufacturers present

(Trane, Lennox, and Carrier)

emphasized assuring that the data used

for verification is representative of the

manufacturer's existing pro duct line

(Public Hearing Tr., pages 52-53).

NIST, with industry input, reviewed

section §430.24(m)(6) and (8) and

recommended additions to the existing

requirements. Based on NIST

recommendations, DOE has decided

that the present requirements are

acceptable but additional options

should be incorporated to allow

flexibility without affecting the quality

of the validation process. For example,

as proposed, data from two, three, or

four outdoor units may be used to meet

the requirements for data on four

systems. Presently, only two outdoor

units are used to create the four required

systems.

A related issue raised at the December

2002 workshop was whether any new

limits should be allowed concerning the

use of "old" verification data (Public

Hearing Tr., pages 35-36, 51-53). The

adjective "old" here can mean

verification data for a split system

where the indoor, outdoor, or both units

are no longer manufactured, or where

the data was collected many years ago.

In the former case, one question that

may influence a decision on allowing

the use of data based on an obsolete

indoor unit is whether the remaining

product line includes coils from the

same coil family. As a step toward

offering clarification on acceptable

verification data, DOE proposes to

specifically address the case in which

submitted data includes an obsolete

indoor coil. In such cases, the data will

be accepted if the indoor coil is from the

same coil family as other indoor coils

that are still in production.

The above proposed changes, along

with those revisions discussed in the

next few sections, contribute to a rather

comprehensive revision of § 430.24(m),

"Units to be tested." The entire content

of the proposed 430.24(m) is provided

in the regulatory language section

following this notice.

2. Guidance on the inclusion of preproduction units in the sample

population used to determine and

validate the published ratings. DOE

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules 41329

seeks to have all manufacturers subject

to the same requirements and to have

them apply consistent practices in

meeting the DOE regulatory

requirements. In the area of selecting a

sample population, the first paragraph

of § 430.24, "Units to be tested," states

that "a sample shall be selected and

tested comprised of units which are

production units, or are representative

of production units of the basic model

being tested, and shall meet the

following applicable criteria." Similar

language is repeated in a subsection

specific to central air conditioners and

heat pumps, § 430.24(m)(2)(fl: "A

sample of sufficient size, composed of

production units or representing

production units, shall be tested * *

Today's proposed rule seeks to build on

this requirement by explicitly stating

that pre-production units may be used

as part of the sample population, but

only if fabricated using the same tooling

as used for production units (see section

430.24(m)(1) in the regulatory language

section following this notice). DOE

seeks comment on this proposal and any

other alternative requirements that

should be used to disqualify a preproduction unit from being used to

obtain certified ratings for its fullproduction counterpart.

3. Clarification of the sample

population used to validate the rated

SEER and the rated HSPF. Today's

proposed rule includes a requirement

within § 430.24(m)(1)(iii) that a

manufacturer must use the same heat

pump results for both SEER and HSPF

when obtaining certified ratings. For

example, a manufacturer cannot test five

heat pumps in cooling and heating and

then use the results from units 1, 3, and

5 as the basis for the certified SEER

while using the results from units 2, 4,

and 5 as the basis for the certified HSPF.

With one exception, each heat pump

unit of the sample population must be

tested in both the cooling and heating

mode and their respective results used

in determining the certified SEER and

HSPF for the particular heat pump

model. The one exception is the case

where the manufacturer obtains a

sample SEER or HSPF that is equal to

or greater than the value at which the

manufacturer will certify, while the

other seasonal rating descriptor (HSPF

or SEER, respectively) is below a

threshold value being targeted by the

manufacturer. In this case only, one or

more additional units may be tested in

the operating mode, cooling or heating,

that corresponds to this marginal rating

and the results used as part of the

sample population for that descriptor.

DOE invites comments on the proposal.

4. Clarification of the definition of a

"highest sales volume combination."

ART recently implemented an internal

policy whereby all highest-sales-volume

tested combinations for unitary air

conditioners having a rated SEER less

than 14 must be coil-only units. ART

waives this requirement for through-thewall and ductless equipment. The ARI

policy also requires that all unitary air

conditioners having a rated SEER of 14

or higher must have a coil-only rating

for each model of outdoor unit.

The ARI policy improves the

likelihood that the outdoor unit, in

combination with any compatible

indoor unit, will meet the federal energy

efficiency standards. The default values

for the fan heat and fan power

prescribed in the DOE test procedure

when rating coil-only systems typically

yield a conservative estimate of indoor

performance. As in the past, SEER and

HSPF ratings for coil-only listings are

expected to remain clustered below the

listings for blower coils, for the same

outdoor unit. The coil-only policy helps

avoid the situation in which an outdoor

unit combined with a blower coil has a

tested SEER of 13.0 or 13.5, while the

same outdoor unit, combined with a

coil-only indoor unit, would have a

tested SEER of only 12.0 or 12.5. Thus,

the policy improves the chances that all

combinations with a given outdoor unit

meet DOE's energy conservation

standards.

The ART policy is consistent with the

DOE requirement to test each outdoor

unit with its highest-sales-volume

indoor unit. Historically, split-system

condensing units are much more often

installed with coil-only indoor units

than with blower-coil units. And, for

those comparatively fewer blower-coil

installations, most do not use the

highest efficiency motors, which are

usually variable-speed motors. Thus,

now and for the immediate future, the

probability that a split-system

condensing unit will be most often

installed with a blower coil is low, and

the chances of the highest-sales-volume

application including a blower coil

having the highest-efficiency motor is

remote.

The ART policy is consistent with

current and past assignments of highestsales-volume combinations for splitsystem air conditioners. A review of

past ARI Unitary Directories shows that

the vast majority of listings designate a

coil-only system as the highest-salesvolume combination (HSVC). For those

comparatively few cases where a

blower-coil combination was so

designated, the ratings frequently

corresponded to substantially higher

SEER equipment, such as modulating

systems.

The ART policy avoids the scenario in

which a manufacturer chooses to

designate its highest-rated split-system

combination as the highest-sales-volume

combination. The process of proving or

disproving whether sales volume

supports such a designation would be

difficult. If allowed, such a designation

might lead to many sub-13-SEER

combinations being sold-if not by a

system manufacturer, then with the

systems sold with third-party indoor

units. Although such rated coil-only

combinations would still have to meet

the 13-SEER standard and, for ART

members, be subject to certification

verification tests, these two safeguards

are not as rigorous as the samplepopulation testing required for highestsales-volume combinations. Thus, the

ARI policy protects against increased

availability of truly sub-13-SEER

combinations.

In making exceptions for through-thewall and ductless systems, and by

including the 14-SEER delimiter, the

ART policy recognizes that there are

cases where blower-coil combinations

are the predominant, if not exclusive,

option. However, the outdoor units for

the two exception cases are highly

unlikely, if not impossible, to combine

with a typical coil-only indoor unit. A

HSVC having a SEER rating of 14 or

greater is unlikely to yield a sub-13

SEER system when combined with a

compatible coil-only indoor unit. The

policy leaves little chance for sub-13

SEER combinations to become readily

available to the installer in the field.

DOE agrees with the ART policy and

believes that its main elements should

apply to all manufacturers, not just ART

member companies. Therefore, DOE

seeks to adopt those aspects of the ART

policy that better define the

requirements of a highest-sales-volume

combination. In doing so, DOE proposes

one change and two additions. The one

change is to have the policy apply to all

split-system air conditioners that use a

single-speed compressor rather than to

units having a rated SEER less than 14.

DOE believes this change offers a

slightly cleaner delimiter. One addition

is to add small-duct, high-velocity

systems to the list of exceptions. The

second addition is an exception for

split-system air conditioners having

design features (e.g., controls,

proprietary interface cabling and

handshaking) that prevent its

installation with all coil-only indoor

units. This second addition is offered as

a compromise to manufacturers who

intend to sell only blower-coils with

particular outdoor units. In this case,

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
41330 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules

the manufacturer must accept the

burden of preventing cases where these

same outdoor units are installed with

third-party, coil-only indoor units. The

system manufacturer must do more than

include written disclaimers that the

outdoor units may not be so applied; the

manufacturer must incorporate some

feature that only allows blower-coil

combinations and prevents all coil-only

misapplications.

The text for this proposed

clarification of what constitutes a

highest-sales-volume combination is

provided in § 430.24(m)(2).

5. Upper limit on the difference

between calculated and tested SEER

and HSPF values. Ratings for untested

split-system combinations can exceed

the ratings of the highest-sales-volume

tested combination on which the former

ratings are based. Ideally, these ratings

increases occur because of differences

between the type of expansion device,

the type of blower (including with or

without fan delay), and the type of coil

used in the two different indoor units.

The rating offsets, however, are also due

to the inherent limitations of the

alternative rating method, the quality of

input data used for the ARM

calculations, and, possibly, how the

ARM itself is applied.

At a DOE public workshop held on

March 29, 2001, Carrier Corporation

reported cases where two systems using

the same outdoor unit and very similar

indoor units had published ratings that

differed by as much as 10 percent, or

one full SEER point. (Public Hearing Tr.,

page 208) The higher rated combination

was either subject to spot checks as part

of the ART certification program, or had

its representations reviewed by a

professional engineer for accuracy.

However, the effectiveness of these

checks was questioned because, in the

case of the former, a five-percent

tolerance must be allowed and, in the

case of the latter, no guidance was

provided as to how to evaluate or

quantify the accuracy.

To their credit, ARI members sought

to address the problem internally by

pursuing two changes. The first change

was for system manufacturers to provide

the Independent Coil Manufacturers

(1CM) with better data (i.e., condenser

curves) on which to base the 1CM mixed

system ratings-better data in, better

predictions out. The second change was

to conduct more spot checks on

combinations rated by ICMs and, when

a failure did occur, to require re-ratings

for all combinations using the failed

indoor unit. Previously, only the one

combination that failed certification

testing was re-rated. The impact of these

changes is yet to be fully assessed but

is expected to mitigate the problem of

inconsistent ratings among competing

manufacturers.

As a further step, DOE today proposes

to place an upper limit on the allowed

offsets between predicted versus

measurement-based ratings. Whereas

presently ratings from DOE-approved

alternative rating methods receive

blanket acceptance, the proposed

change would introduce an upper limit

offset of 5 percent. Five percent is

proposed because of an argument put

forth by Carrier Corporation that 5

percent is the upper limit of the

practical efficiency increase that could

be achieved (Carrier, No. 1). DOE

believes that this 5-percent limit will

reduce the occurrence of inflated ratings

and therefore proposes a 5-percentupper-limit offset. However, this

proposed limit would only apply to

cases where the difference in

performance should be smallest: Where

the HSVC system is a coil-only unit and

the untested system is a coil-only unit.

Manufacturers having non-highest-salesvolume combinations whose ratings are

expected to exceed the 5-percent offset

limit have the option of obtaining the

ratings by testing. This existing test

option, which is found in 10 CFR

430.24(m)(2)(i), is not subject to the

proposed 5-percent limit. The proposed

approach would apply to any untested

combination, whether offered by the

system manufacturer or an 1CM.

DOE proposes placing limits on the

offsets predicted by an alternative rating

method in § 430.24(m)(4)(iii) and seeks

comments on whether limits should be

imposed in other cases, not just when

both combinations are coil-only.

Finally, data that either confirms or

refutes the proposed limit of 5 percent

is requested.

6. Clarification of the published

ratings for untested split-system

combinations. The test procedure states

that the ARM shall be used to obtain

"representative values of the measures

of energy consumption." (See § 430.24

(m)(2)(ii).) DOE seeks to improve upon

the existing definition by adding new

quantitative requirements. Thus, DOE

today proposes amendments to

§ 430.24(m)(4) that require published

ratings for an untested split-system

combination to be equal to, or lower

than, the value calculated using the

DOE-approved ARM. For those

manufacturers who use the laboratory

data from the HSVC testing to adjust

their ARM or a simulation

subcomponent, the resulting

"adjustment factor" shall be applied to

the ARM calculations for untested

combinations that use the same outdoor

unit. This adjustment factor, if used,

shall be limited to causing a maximum

change of five-percent higher ratings

than those obtained by applying the

ARM without adjustment.

For cases where the HSVC and the

untested combination are both coil-only

units, the limit described in item 5

above, "Upper limit on the difference

between calculated and tested SEER and

HSPF values," also applies, and

therefore may cause the published

rating to be less than the value

calculated using the manufacturer's

ARM, as adjusted by the "adjustment

factor" described above. This proposal,

like the previous one above, should tend

to curb artificially inflated efficiency

ratings for untested split-system

combinations.

7. Adding requirement that ratings for

an air conditioner or heat pump that is

rated with a furnace include the model

number of that furnace as part of the

overall equipment model number.

System manufacturers sometimes seek

SEER and HSPF ratings for complete

systems consisting of a coil-only air

conditioner or heat pump and a

particular model of furnace. To more

clearly delineate published ratings

obtained for such systems, DOE

proposes to require that the model

number of the furnace be included as

part of the published model number,

most likely as an add-on to the indoor

unit model number. This proposed

clarification is reflected in the proposed

revisions to § 430.62(a)(4)(i) and (ii).

8. For products such as multi-splits

which have multiple indoor units,

instituting a "tested combination" as an

alternative to testing the combination

with "the largest volume of retail sales."

Currently, manufacturers are required to

select for testing the combination

manufactured by the condensing unit

manufacturer likely to have the largest

volume of retail sales. For combinations

having multiple indoor units, the

combination with the largest volume of

retail sales may be difficult to identify

and too complex to test. DOE is

therefore proposing an equivalent

"tested combination," which should

remove one impediment to the testing of

multi-split units.

C. Proposed Non-Substantive Changes

to Related Portions of the CFR

1. Clarification of a private labeler's

(i.e., a third party) responsibility for

ensuring that reported ratings are based

on an approved alternative method for

rating untested combinations or on

laboratory test data. The responsibilities

of private labelers are set forth in

Subpart F, Certification and

Enforcement, but are delineated in

§ 430.24. DOE proposes language

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules 41331

clarifying that private labelers, as well

as manufacturers, must seek DOE

approval to use an ARM. If the system

manufacturer or the 1CM has a DOEapproved ARM for the products in

question, the same ARM may be used by

the private labeler.

2. Revisions to the definition of "coil

family."DOE proposes minor

modifications to the existing definition,

adding a few specifics, including

examples of fin shapes: "flat, wavy,

louvered, lanced," and re-formatting for

improved readability.

3. New definition for "private labeler"

within § 430.2. DOE proposes to

incorporate the definition from the

statute, 42 U.S.C. 6291(15). Hitherto,

private labelers were not explicitly

referenced in 10 CFR 430.24, but the

proposed revision does explicitly

reference them (see item 1, above). In

order to facilitate the clarification of

private labeler responsibility, DOE

proposes to incorporate the statutory

definition into the definitions section,

§ 430.2.

4. Definitions of terms: "Indoor unit,"

"outdoor unit," "ARM/simulation

adjustment factor," and "tested

combination." The terms "indoor unit"

and "outdoor unit" are used in the

current test procedure, and in the

proposed revisions, but are not defined.

DOE proposes definitions based on the

current definition of "condensing unit"

in § 430.2. DOE proposes definitions of

the new terms "ARM/simulation

adjustment factor" and "tested

combination" which are included in

proposed amendments to 10 CFR

430,24(m). The ARM/simulation

adjustment factor was developed by

NIST and DOE as part of an effort to

improve the accuracy of mixed system

ratings. The definition of "tested

combination" is a minor revision to the

term as proposed in DOE's publication

of a multi-split petition for waiver. (71

FR 14858, March 24, 2006)

D. Effect of Test Procedure Revisions on

Compliance With Standards

DOE believes the revisions proposed

today will not affect the ratings of air

conditioners and heat pumps with SEER

and HSPF ratings that minimally

comply with the current DOE energy

conservation standards. Some of the

proposed revisions are projected to

slightly change the ratings of some

higher efficiency, two-capacity systems.

The proposed changes that only affect

higher-efficiency systems (relative to the

2006 EPCA minimums), if adopted,

would not invoke the requirement for

DOE to amend its energy conservation

minimum standards. More specific

discussions concerning the impact of

the proposed changes are offered below.

The proposed changes unique to the

testing of small-duct, high velocity

systems are needed to more accurately

measure their performance. DOE's

decision in SpacePak/Unico, 29 DOE

¶ 81,002 (2004), on exception relief

efficiency standards for SDHV systems

manufacturers-i1.0 SEER and 6.8

HSPF-came after the higher minimum

external-static-pressure requirements of

section II.A.1 and the new definition of

an SDHV system were evaluated.

Therefore, any impact from testing at

the higher static pressures has already

been considered.

Reinstating the option of conducting a

cyclic test at high-capacity, when testing

a two-capacity unit, is projected to very

minimally increase the measured SEER

or HSPF rating. This option will be used

only when the unit locks out lowcapacity operation, typically at the more

extreme outdoor temperatures. At these

more extreme temperatures, the unit

would be modeled as having a relatively

high load-factor. The more extreme

temperatures also correspond to

temperature bins having comparatively

few fractional hours. The combination

acts to minimize the impact of the

cyclic-degradation coefficient. Thus, the

burden of running this optional test

would only be considered when a

manufacturer is very close to achieving

a target rating and needs less than 0.2

SEER/HSPF increase in the measured

SEER/HSPF to achieve this target. So, a

possible scenario is a two-capacity unit

that reverts to second-stage cooling only

at temperatures above 90 °F and the

optional, high-capacity cyclic test yields

a C0 that bumps the measured SEER

from 16.85 to 17.0.

Two proposed changes specific to

two-capacity heat pumps are shortening

the duration of the low-capacity Frost

Accumulation Test from 12 hours to 6

hours, and allowing the use of default

equations in lieu of testing. As noted

above in section II.A.3, the former is

only expected to affect the average space

heating capacity and power use at lowstage and 35 °F to the point of causing

a minimal, systematic increase in the

derived HSPF for the rare case where

the heat pump remains completely

frosted beyond 6 hours during this lowcapacity test. Such a heat pump would

be expected to perform very poorly

during the required, high-capacity Frost

Accumulation Test, and thus yield a

HSPF rating that was at the low end for

two-capacity heat pumps. Such

performance would likely be

unacceptable to most manufacturers.

Using default equations in lieu of

conducting the low-capacity Frost

Accumulation Test would negatively

impact the measured HSPF. DOE

estimates that the HSPF could be as

much as 0.3 points lower if the default

equations are used to obtain the value

corresponding to Region IV and the

minimum design-heating requirement.

The changes proposed for testing and

rating modulating multi-split systems,

as outlined above in section II.A.5

certainly will impact their SEER and

HSPF ratings. These changes, however,

are necessary to allow a reasonable

approximation of these performance

descriptors. The current test procedure

is simply deficient in covering these

relatively new products, as is best

evidenced by the numerous requests for

test procedure waivers that have been

submitted by manufacturers of these

products. However, it is too early to

know the impact, if any, of these

changes on such equipment that only

minimally complies with the current

energy conservation standards.

The proposed changes to adopt the

long-standing industry practice of

adjusting measured capacities to

account for the losses in the outlet

ductwork is not expected to cause an

increase in SEER or HSPF. This

expectation results because the test

procedure is simply catching up with

current practice.

The proposed change to define

"repeatable" when conducting cyclic

tests is viewed as improving

repeatability and thus having a random

effect on the derived cyclic-degradation

coefficient and, ultimately, the

calculated SEER and HSPF. Similarly,

making the definition of "standard air"

consistent with the definition in the

2005 version of ASHRAE Standard 37

will have no effect on the SEER and

HSPF as calculated using the October

2005 final rule.

Finally, changing the low-capacity

cooling-mode test condition from 95 °F

to 67 °F for two-capacity units is

projected to change the calculated SEER

very minimally-within ± 0.1 SEER

points-in most cases. However, the

reduction in SEER could be very

considerable if the power consumption

during the 95 °F test at low capacity is

increased in an effort to obtain lower

estimates, through extrapolation, of the

power consumption for low-capacity at

temperatures less than 82 °F. In general,

the impact of the change will be

measurable if the unit's electrical power

draw increases atypically at higher

outdoor temperatures when operating at

low-capacity. Manufacturers will now

seek to avoid this because it reduces the

SEER rating.

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
41332 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules

III. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

It has been determined that today's

regulatory action is not a "significant

regulatory action" under Executive

Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and

Review." 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).

Accordingly, this action was not subject

to review by the Office of Management

and Budget under the Executive Order.

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 for any rule that by law must

be proposed for public comment, unless

the agency certifies that the rule, if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. As required by

Executive Order 13272, "Proper

consideration of Small Entities in

Agency Rulemaking," 67 FR 53461

(August 16, 2002), DOE published

procedures and policies on February 19,

2003, to ensure that the potential

impacts of its rules on small entities are

properly considered during the

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. The

Department has made its procedures

and policies available on the Office of

General counsel's web site: http://

www.gc.doe.gov.

The Department reviewed today's

proposed rule under the provisions of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the

procedures and policies published on

February 19, 2003. This proposed rule

prescribes test procedures that will be

used to test compliance with energy

conservation standards. The proposed

rule affects central air conditioner and

heat pump test procedures and would

not have a significant economic impact,

but rather would provide common

testing methods. Therefore DOE certifies

that the proposed rule would not have

a "significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities,"

and the preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis is not warranted. The

Department will transmit the

certification and supporting statement

of factual basis to the chief counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration for review under 5

u.s.c. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act

This rulemaking will impose no new

information or record keeping

requirements. Accordingly, Office of

Management and Budget clearance is

not required under the Paperwork

Reduction Act. (44 u.s.c. 3501 et seq.)

D. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act

In this proposed rule, the Department

proposes amendments to test

procedures that may be used to

implement future energy conservation

standards for central air conditioners.

The Department has determined that

this rule falls into a class of actions that

are categorically excluded from review

under the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 u.s.c.

4321 et seq. The rule is covered by

categorical Exclusion A5, for

rulemakings that interpret or amend an

existing rule without changing the

environmental effect, as set forth in the

Department's NEPA regulations in

Appendix A to Subpart D, 10 CFR part

1021. This rule will not affect the

quality or distribution of energy usage

and, therefore, will not result in any

environmental impacts. Accordingly,

neither an environmental impact

statement nor an environmental

assessment is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, "Federalism,"

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes

certain requirements on agencies

formulating and implementing policies

or regulations that preempt State law or

that have federalism implications. The

Executive Order requires agencies to

examine the constitutional and statutory

authority supporting any action that

would limit the policymaking discretion

of the States and to carefully assess the

necessity for such actions. The

Executive Order also requires agencies

to have an accountable process to

ensure meaningful and timely input by

State and local officials in the

development of regulatory policies that

have federalism implications. On March

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of

policy describing the intergovernmental

consultation process it will follow in the

development of such regulations. 65 FR

13735. The Department has examined

today's proposed rule and has

determined that it does not preempt

State law and does 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

today's proposed rule. States can

petition the Department for a waiver of

such preemption to the extent, and

based on criteria, set forth in EPcA. (42

u.s.c. 6297) No further action is

required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing

regulations and the promulgation of

new regulations, section 3(a) of

Executive Order 12988, "civil Justice

Reform" (61 FR 4729, February 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; and

(3) provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct rather than a general

standard and 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 section 3(a) and section

3(b) to determine whether they are met

or it is unreasonable to meet one or

more of them. The Department has

completed the required review and

determined that, to the extent permitted

by law, this proposed rule meets the

relevant standards of Executive Order

12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4)

(UMRA) requires each Federal agency to

assess the effects of Federal regulatory

actions on State, local, and Tribal

governments and the private sector. For

a proposed regulatory action likely to

result in a rule that may cause the

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector of $100 million or more

in any one year (adjusted annually for

inflation), section 202 of uMRA requires

a Federal agency to publish a written

statement that estimates the resulting

costs, benefits, and other effects on the

national economy. (2 u.S.c. 1532(a), (b))

The UMRA also requires a Federal

agency to develop an effective process

to permit timely input by elected

officers of State, local, and Tribal

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules 41333

governments on a proposed "significant

intergovernmental mandate," and

requires an agency plan for giving notice

and opportunity for timely input to

potentially affected small governments

before establishing any requirements

that might significantly or uniquely

affect small governments. On March 18,

1997, DOE published a statement of

policy on its process for

intergovernmental consultation under

UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at

http://www.gc.doe.gov). The proposed

rule published today contains neither an

intergovernmental mandate nor a

mandate that may result in 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 of 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires

Federal agencies to issue a Family

Policymaking Assessment for any rule

that may affect family well-being. This

rule would not have any impact on the

autonomy or integrity of the family as

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has

concluded that it is not necessary to

prepare a Family Policymaking

Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

The Department has determined,

under Executive Order 12630,

"Governmental Actions and Interference

with Constitutionally Protected Property

Rights," 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988),

that this proposed regulation, if

promulgated as a final rule, would not

result in any takings which might

require compensation under the Fifth

Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

I. Review Under the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act of 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 0MB. The OMB's

guidelines were published at 67 FR

8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's

guidelines were published at 67 FR

62446 (October 7, 2002). The

Department has reviewed today's notice

under the 0MB 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 the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

(OIRA), Office of Management and

Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for

any proposed significant energy action.

A "significant energy action" is defined

as any action by an agency that

promulgated or is expected to lead to

promulgation of a final rule, and that:

(1) Is a significant regulatory action

under Executive Order 12866, or any

successor order; and (2) is likely to have

a significant adverse effect on the

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or

(3) is designated by the Administrator of

OIRA as a significant energy action. For

any proposed significant energy action,

the agency must give a detailed

statement of any adverse effects on

energy supply, distribution, or use

should the proposal be implemented,

and of reasonable alternatives to the

action and their expected benefits on

energy supply, distribution, and use.

Today's regulatory action would not

have a significant adverse effect on the

supply, distribution, or use of energy

and, therefore, is not a significant

energy action. Accordingly, DOE has riot

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the

Federal Energy Administration (FEA)

Act of 1974

Under section 301 of the Department

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-

91), 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. Section 32

provides that where a proposed rule

contains or involves use of commercial

standards, the rulemaking must inform

the public of the use and background of

such standards.

The proposed rule incorporates

testing methods contained in the

following commercial standards: (1)

ASHRAE Standard 23-2005, "Methods

of Testing for Rating Positive

Displacement Refrigerant Compressors

and Condensing Units;" (2) ASHRAE

Standard 37-2005, "Methods of Testing

for Rating Unitary Air-Conditioning and

Heat Pump Equipment;" (3) ASHRAE

Standard 116-2005, and "Methods of

Testing for Rating for Seasonal

Efficiency of Unitary Air Conditioners

and Heat Pumps. The Department has

evaluated these standards and is unable

to conclude whether they fully comply

with the requirements of section 323(b)

of the Federal Energy Administration

Act, i.e., whether they were developed

in a manner that fully provides for

public participation, comment, and

review.

As required by section 32(c) of the

Federal Energy Administration Act of

1974, as amended, DOE will consult

with the Attorney General and the

Chairman of the Federal Trade

Commission before prescribing a final

rule about the impact on competition of

using the methods contained in these

standards.

IV. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

The time and date of the public

meeting are listed in the DATES section

at the beginning of this notice of

proposed rulemaking. The public

meeting will be held at the U.S.

Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room 1E-245, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585-0121. To attend

the public meeting, please notify Ms.

Brenda Edwards-Jones at (202) 586-

2945. Foreign nationals visiting DOE

Headquarters are subject to advance

security screening procedures, requiring

a 30-day advance notice. Any foreign

national wishing to participate in the

meeting should advise DOE of this fact

as soon as possible by contacting Ms.

Brenda Edwards-Jones to initiate the

necessary procedures.

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to

Speak

Any person who has an interest in

today's notice, or who is a

representative of a group or class of

persons that has an interest in these

issues, may request an opportunity to

make an oral presentation. Such persons

may hand-deliver requests to speak,

along with a computer diskette or CD in

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or

text (ASCII) file format to the address

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the

beginning of this notice of proposed

rulemaking between the hours of 9 am.

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays. Requests may

also be sent by mail or e-mail to:

Brenda .Edwards-Jones@ee. doe.gov.

Persons requesting to speak should

briefly describe the nature of their

interest in this rulemaking and provide

a telephone number for contact. The

Department requests persons selected to

be heard to submit an advance copy of

their statements at least two weeks

before the public meeting. At its

discretion, DOE may permit any person

who cannot supply an advance copy of

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
41334 Federal_Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules

their statement to participate, if that

person has made advance alternative

arrangements with the Building

Technologies Program. The request to

give an oral presentation should ask for

such alternative arrangements.

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

The Department will designate a DOE

official to preside at the public meeting

and may also use a professional

facilitator to aid discussion. The

meeting will not be a judicial or

evidentiary-type public hearing, but

DOE will conduct it in accordance with

5 u.s.c. 553 and section 336 of EPCA,

42 u.s.c. 6306. A court reporter will be

present to record the proceedings and

prepare a transcript. The Department

reserves the right to schedule the order

of presentations and to establish the

procedures governing the conduct of the

public meeting. After the public

meeting, interested parties may submit

further comments on the proceedings as

well as on any aspect of the rulemaking

until the end of the comment period.

The public meeting will be conducted

in an informal, conference style. The

Department will present summaries of

comments received before the public

meeting, allow time for presentations by

participants, and encourage all

interested parties to share their views on

issues affecting this rulemaking. Each

participant will be allowed to make a

prepared general statement (within time

limits determined by DOE), before the

discussion of specific topics. The

Department will permit other

participants to comment briefly on any

general statements.

At the end of all prepared statements

on a topic, DOE will permit participants

to clarify their statements briefly and

comment on statements made by others.

Participants should be prepared to

answer questions by DOE and by other

participants concerning these issues.

Department representatives may also

ask questions of participants concerning

other matters relevant to this

rulemaking. The official conducting the

public meeting will accept additional

comments or questions from those

attending, as time permits. The

presiding official will announce any

further procedural rules or modification

of the above procedures that may be

needed for the proper conduct of the

public meeting.

The Department will make the entire

record of this proposed rulemaking,

including the transcript from the public

meeting, available for inspection at the

u.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal

Building, Room 1J-018 (Resource Room

of the Building Technologies Program),

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC, (202) 586-9127,

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays

Any person may buy a copy of the

transcript from the transcribing reporter

D. Submission of Comments

The Department will accept

comments, data, and information

regarding the proposed rule before or

after the public meeting, but no later

than the date provided at the beginning

of this notice of proposed rulemaking.

Please submit comments, data, and

information electronically. Send them to

the following e-mail address:

cactestprocedure2006@ee.doe.gov.

Submit electronic comments in

WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or

text (ASCII) file format and avoid the

use of special characters or any form of

encryption. Comments in electronic

format should be identified by the

docket number EE-RM/TP-02-002 and!

or RIN number 1904-AB55, and

wherever possible carry the electronic

signature of the author. Absent an

electronic signature, comments

submitted electronically must be

followed and authenticated by

submitting the signed original paper

document. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will

be accepted.

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any

person submitting information that he

or she believes to be confidential and

exempt by law from public disclosure

should submit two copies: one copy of

the document including all the

information believed to be confidential,

and one copy of the document with the

information believed to be confidential

deleted. The Department of Energy will

make its own determination about the

confidential status of the information

and treat it according to its

determination.

Factors of interest to the Department

when evaluating requests to treat

submitted information as confidential

include: (1) A description of the items;

(2) whether and why such items are

customarily treated as confidential

within the industry; (3) whether the

information is generally known by or

available from other sources; (4)

whether the information has previously

been made available to others without

obligation concerning its

confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the

competitive injury to the submitting

person which would result from public

disclosure; (6) when such information

might lose its confidential character due

to the passage of time; and (7) why

disclosure of the information would be

contrary to the public interest.

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

The Department is particularly

interested in receiving comments and

views of interested parties concerning:

1. Whether any of the proposed

changes would affect the measure of

energy efficiency, and if so, to what

degree, of any central air conditioner or

heat pump.

2. Whether the proposed changes

would prevent any model from

complying with the DOE energy

conservation standards.

3. The default equations for

calculating low-capacity performance of

two-capacity heat pumps at the 35 °F

test condition (see proposed revisions to

section 3.6.3). DOE requests data from

testing at low capacity for the 47, 35,

and 17 °F test conditions.

4. The proposed changes specific to

multi-split systems. For example, how

should the test procedure account for

their full range of modulation even

though tests may not be possible at the

true minimum capacity?

5. Whether a separate test procedure

for multi-splits should be developed.

6. Whether the proposed quantitative

measures to improve the repeatability of

cyclic tests (i.e., tolerance on both the

cycle-to-cycle integrated temperature

difference and average power

consumption) are justified.

7. The impact of conducting as many

as three low-capacity tests at the 67 °F

test condition.

8. Whether there is a better descriptor

than "Full-load" for replacing

"Certified" when identifying the airvolume rate used for most lab tests.

Should the selected descriptor also be

incorporated into the definition for a

small-duct, high-velocity system (see

1.35): "at least 1.2 inches (of water)

when operated at the certified air

volume rate of 220-3 50 cfm per rated

ton of cooling * *

9. The proposed approach for

establishing the Full-load, Air-Volume

Rate for blower coil units, with its 0 to

- 5 percent tolerance during the setup

process. Data showing the typical

variation in blower performance is

requested.

10. The changes proposed within 10

CFR 430.24, "Units to be tested," that

pertain to the alternative rating method

(ARM). Comments and data are sought

that address the proposed options for

ARM verification data, the information

on the contents of a submittal package,

and the explicit limits on the ARMderived ratings (e.g., a maximum 5

percent limit for cases where both the

untested and HSVC units are coil-only

systems).

11. When a pre-production unit

should be accepted or excluded from

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules 41335

the tested sample population used to

obtain the certified ratings.

12. The proposal for improving the

definition of a highest-sales-volume

combination, which only applies to

single-speed air conditioners.

13. The proposed definition of a

"tested combination," for combinations

having multiple indoor units?

DOE also welcomes comments on any

problems that have arisen with the

October 2005 final rule. In that regard,

DOE has received inquiries regarding

two changes contained in the 2005 test

procedure.

The October 2005 final rule contains

amendments to the definition of a

demand-defrost control system

(definition 1.21) while also singling out

one such system, a time-adaptivedefrost control system (definition 1.42).

In order to avoid the excessive number

of frost/defrost cycles needed to obtain

repeatable performance during a Frost

accumulation Test, the October 2005

final rule allows the controls of the

time-adaptive system to be overridden.

The frosting interval during the official

test period, in this case only, now ends

by manually initiating a defrost cycle at

an elapsed time specified by the

manufacturer (see section 3.9 of

Appendix M, Nt., to Subpart B of 10

CFR part 430). To varying degrees, most

heat pumps having a demand defrostcontrol system require multiple frost/

defrost cycles in the laboratory before

repeatable performance results. The

need for running several complete

cycles alone, or in combination with

relatively long frosting intervals, can

lead to long test times. The question

arises whether there are cases involving

other control systems where changes

may be required in the future to reduce

the testing burden. DOE seeks

comments on this question.

The October 2005 final rule included

a requirement in section 3.1.4.2 that "for

ducted two-capacity units that are tested

without an indoor fan installed, the

Cooling Minimum Air Volume Rate is

the higher of (1) the rate specified by the

manufacturer or, (2) 75 percent of the

Cooling Full-Load Air Volume Rate."

For heating, in addition, section 3.1.4.5

directs the tester to "use the Cooling

Minimum Air Volume Rate as the

Heating Minimum Air Volume Rate."

An alternative approach considered

during the prior rulemaking was to

exclude option (2) above-75 percent of

the Cooling Full-Load Air Volume

Rate-and simply have the

manufacturer specify the Cooling

Minimum Air Volume Rate. Although

these two alternatives were extensively

debated before publishing the October

2005 final rule, the issue has been

revived. The sales of two-capacity units

is likely to increase following the higher

2006 DOE efficiency standards and, as

a result, there is increasing attention to

test procedure requirements for these

products. The reasoning behind the

October 2005 final rule approach is that

most furnaces in the current housing

stock (to which a two-capacity coil-only

unit would be applied) contain multispeed blowers. For these multi-speed

furnace blowers, a typical air volume

rate at the lowest speed setting is 75

percent of the maximum air volume

rate. For many other two-capacity units,

however, the default minimum air

volume rate is higher than the air

volume rate at the lowest speed setting.

Although satisfied with its earlier

decision on this topic, DOE seeks

improvements to the test procedure to

ensure that two-capacity coil-only units

are appropriately tested. For example,

does the test procedure need to cover

the effect of a blower kit accessory that

ensures a proper coil-only field

installation? DOE seeks comments on

this point, in particular, and also on the

general issue of rating two-capacity coilonly units. If there is sufficient

response, DOE would consider

addressing these issues in a future

rulemaking.

V. Approval of the Office of the

Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved

publication of today's Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and

procedure, Energy conservation,

Household appliances.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 30,

2006.

Alexander A. Karsner,

Assistant Secretory, Energy Efficiency end

Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Department proposes to

amend part 430 of Chapter II of Title 10,

Code of Federal Regulations, to read as

follows:

PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER

PRODUCTS

1. The authority citation for part 430

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C.

2461 note.

2. Section 430.2 is amended in

subpart A by revising the definition of

"coil family" and adding definitions of

"ARM/simulation adjustment factor,"

"indoor unit," "outdoor unit," "private

labeler" and "tested combination," in

alphabetical order, to read as follows:

§ 430.2 Definitions.

ARM/simulation adjustment factor

means a factor used to improve the

accuracy of a DOE-approved alternative

rating method (ARM) for untested split

system central air conditioners or heat

pumps. The adjustment factor

associated with each outdoor unit shall

be set such that it reduces the difference

between the SEER (HSPF) determined

using the ARM and the tested rating for

the highest sales volume combination.

The ARM/simulation adjustment factor

is an integral part of the ARM and must

be a DOE-approved element in

accordance with 10 CFR 430.24(m)(4) to

(m)(6).

Coil family means:

(1) A group of coils with the same

basic design features that affect the heat

exchanger performance. Examples of

particular features in different categories

are:

(i) General configuration: A-shape, V -

shape, slanted or flat top.

(ii) Heat transfer surface on the

refrigerant side: flat, grooved.

(iii) Heat transfer surface on the air

side: flat, wavy, louver, lanced.

(iv) Tube material: copper, aluminum.

(v) Fin material: copper, aluminum.

(vi) Coil circuitry.

(2) When a group of coils has all these

features in common, it constitutes a

"coil family."

Indoor unit means a component of a

split-system central air conditioner or

heat pump that is designed to transfer

heat between the refrigerant and the

indoor air, and which consists of an

indoor coil, a cooling mode expansion

device, and may include an air moving

device.

Outdoor unit means a component of

a split-system central air conditioner or

heat pump that is designed to transfer

heat between the refrigerant and the

outdoor air, and which consists of an

outdoor coil, compressor(s), an air

moving device, and in addition for heat

pumps, a heating mode expansion

device, reversing valve, and defrost

controls.

Private labeler means an owner of a

brand or trademark on the label of a

consumer product which bears a private

label. A consumer product bears a

private label if:

(1) Such product (or its container) is

labeled with the brand or trademark of

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
41336 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules

a person other than a manufacturer of

such product,

(2) The person with whose brand or

trademark such product (or container)

labeled has authorized or caused such

product to be so labeled, and

(3) The brand or trademark of a

manufacturer of such product does not

appear on such label.

Tested combination means a split

system with multiple indoor coils

having the following features

(1) The basic model of a system used

as a tested combination shall consist of

one outdoor unit, with one or more

compressors, that is matched with

between 2 and 5 indoor units designed

for individual operation.

(2) The indoor units shall-

(i) Represent the highest sales volume

type models;

(ii) Together, have a capacity that is

between 95% and 105% of the capacity

of the outdoor unit;

(iii) Not, individually, have a capacity

that is greater than 50% of the capacity

of the outdoor unit;

(iv) Have a fan speed that is consistent

with the manufacturer's specifications;

and

(v) All have the same external static

pressure.

3. Section 430.23 is amended in

subpart B by revising paragraph (m)(5)

to read as follows:

§ 430.23 Test procedure for measures of

energy consumption.

(m) * * *

(5) All measures of energy

consumption shall be determined by the

test method as set forth in appendix M

to this subpart; or by an alternate rating

method set forth in § 430.24(m)(4) as

approved by the Assistant Secretary for

Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy in accordance with

§ 430.24(m)(5).

4. Section 430.24 is amended in

subpart B by revising paragraph (m) to

read as follows:

§ 430.24 Units to be tested.

(m)(1) For central air conditioners and

heat pumps, each single-package

system, and each condensing unit

(outdoor unit) of a split-system, when

combined with a selected indoor unit,

shall have a sample of sufficient size

tested in accordance with the applicable

provisions of this subpart. To be

included in the sample population, any

pre-production units must have been

fabricated using the same tooling as

used for full-production units. The

represented values for any model of

single-package system, or for any model

of a tested split-system combination

shall be assigned such that-

(i) Any represented value of estimated

annual operating cost, energy

consumption or other measure of energy

consumption of the central air

conditioner or heat pump for which

consumers would favor lower values

shall be no less than the higher of:

(A) The mean of the sample; or

(B) The upper 90-percent confidence

limit of the true mean divided by 1.05;

and

(ii) Any represented value of the

energy efficiency or other measure of

energy consumption of the central air

conditioner or heat pump for which

consumers would favor higher values

shall be no greater than the lower of:

(A) The mean of the sample; or

(B) The lower 90-percent confidence

limit of the true mean divided by 0.95.

(iii) For heat pumps, all units of the

sample population shall be tested in

both the cooling and heating modes and

the results used for determining the heat

pump's certified SEER and HSPF ratings

in accordance with paragraph (m)(1)(ii)

of this section. When the manufacturer

calculates SEER and HSPF ratings in

accordance with paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of

this section, and the value of one

descriptor (SEER or HSPF) is equal to or

greater than the value the manufacturer

will certify in accordance with 10 CFR

430.62, while the other descriptor

(HSPF or SEER) is below the value the

manufacturer will certify, one or more

additional units may be tested in the

operating mode (cooling or heating, but

not both) that corresponds to this

marginal rating, and the results

included in the sample population for

calculating the marginal descriptor.

(2) For split-system air conditioners

and heat pumps, the model of indoor

unit selected for tests pursuant to

paragraph (m)(1) of this section shall be

the indoor unit manufactured by the

outdoor unit (or system) manufacturer

that is likely to have the largest volume

of retail sales in combination with the

particular model of outdoor unit. For

combinations that have more than one

indoor unit, a "tested combination," as

defined in 10 CFR 430,2, shall be used

for tests pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of

this section. Components of similar

design may be substituted without

requiring additional testing if the

represented measures of energy

consumption continue to satisfy the

applicable sampling provisions of

paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this

section. However, for any split-system

air conditioner having a single-speed

compressor, the indoor unit selected for

tests pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of

this section shall be the indoor coil-only

unit manufactured by the system

manufacturer that is likely to have the

largest volume of retail sales with the

particular model of outdoor unit. This

coil-only requirement is annulled for

split-system air conditioners that are

only sold and installed with blower-coil

indoor units (e.g., mini-splits, multisplits, small-duct high-velocity, and

through-the-wall units) and any other

outdoor units that are designed solely

for application with OEM-supplied

blower-coils and thus have features that

prevent their installation with thirdparty coil-only indoor units. This coilonly requirement does not apply to

split-system heat pumps. For every

other split-system combination that

includes the same model of outdoor unit

but a different model of indoor unit,

whether the indoor unit is

manufactured by the same manufacturer

or by a component manufacturer,

either-

(i) A sample of sufficient size,

comprised of production and/or preproduction units, shall be tested as

complete systems with the resulting

ratings for the outdoor unit-indoor unit

combination obtained in accordance

with paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii)

of this section; any pro-production units

included in the sample population must

have been fabricated using the same

tooling as used for the full production

units; or

(ii) The representative values of the

measures of energy consumption shall

be based on an alternative rating method

(ARM) that has been approved by DOE

in accordance with the provisions of

paragraphs (m)(4) through (m)(6) of this

section.

(3) Whenever the representative

values of the measures of energy

consumption, as determined by the

provisions of paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of this

section, do not agree within five percent

of the representative values of the

measures of energy consumption as

determined by actual testing, the

representative values determined by

actual testing shall be used.

(4) The basis of the alternative rating

method referred to in paragraph

(m)(2)(ii) of this section shall be a

representation of the test data and

calculations of a mechanical vaporcompression refrigeration cycle. The

major components in the refrigeration

cycle shall be modeled as "fits" to

manufacturer performance data or by

graphic or tabular performance data.

Heat transfer characteristics of coils may

be modeled as a function of face area,

number of rows, fins per inch,

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules 41337

refrigerant circuitry, air-flow rate and

entering-air enthalpy. Additional

performance-related characteristics to be

considered may include type of

expansion device, refrigerant flow rate

through the expansion device, power of

the indoor fan and cyclic-degradation

coefficient. Ratings for untested

combinations shall be derived from the

ratings of the tested high est-salesvolume combination (HSVC), or from

the tested combination. The SEER and!

or HSPF ratings for an untested

combination shall be set equal to or less

than the lower of:

(i) The SEER and HSPF calculated

using the alternative rating method

(ARM), as adjusted based on the

maximum allowed ARM/simulation

adjustment factor. This adjustment

factor is allowed in cases in which the

manufacturer uses laboratory data from

the HSVC testing to adjust its ARM or

a simulation subcomponent and then

applies the factor to ratings for untested

combinations having the same outdoor

unit. This adjustment factor, if used,

shall not cause a change in ratings

greater than five percent compared to

the result of the ARM without the

adjustment factor; or

(ii) Five percent higher than the

ratings of the tested HSVC. This five

percent limit only applies when the

indoor unit of both the untested

combination and the HSVC is a coilonly design (i.e., no indoor blower).

Ratings above this limit can only be

obtained for the non-HSVC by testing in

accordance with paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of

this section.

(5) Manufacturers or private labelers

who elect to use an alternative rating

method for determining measures of

energy consumption under paragraphs

(m)(2)(ii) and (m)(4) of this section must

submit a request for DOE to review the

alternative rating method. Send the

request to the Assistant Secretary of

Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW,, Washington, DC 20585-0121.

Approval must be received from the

Assistant Secretary to use the alternative

method before the alternative method

may be used for rating split system

central air conditioners and heat pumps.

If a manufacturer has a DOE-approved

ARM for products also distributed in

commerce by a private labeler, the ARM

may also be used by the private labeler

for rating these products.

(6) Each request to DOE for approval

of an alternative rating method shall

include:

(i) The name, mailing address,

telephone number, and e-mail address

of the official representing the

manufacturer.

(ii) Complete documentation of the

alternative rating method to allow DOE

to evaluate its technical adequacy. The

documentation shall include a

description of the methodology, state

any underlying assumptions, and

explain any correlations. The

documentation should address how the

method accounts for the cyclicdegradation coefficient, the type of

expansion device, and, if applicable, the

indoor fan-off delay. The requestor shall

submit any computer programsincluding spreadsheets-having less

than 200 executable lines that

implement the ARM. Longer computer

programs must be identified and

sufficiently explained, as specified

above, but their inclusion in the initial

submittal package is optional.

Applicability or limitations of the ARM

(e.g., only covers single-speed units

when operating in the cooling mode,

covers units with rated capacities of 3

tons or less, not applicable to the

manufacturer's product line of nonducted systems, etc.) shall be stated in

the documentation.

(iii)(A) Complete test data from

laboratory tests on four mixed (i.e., nonhighest-sales-volume combination)

systems per each ARM. The four mixed

systems must include four different

indoor units and at least two different

outdoor units. A particular model of

outdoor unit may be tested with up to

two of the four indoor units. The four

systems must include two low-capacity

mixed systems and two high-capacity

mixed systems. The low-capacity mixed

systems may have any capacity. The

rated capacity of each high-capacity

mixed system must be at least a factor

of two higher than its counterpart lowcapacity mixed system.

(B) The four indoor units must come

from at least two different coil families,

with a maximum of two indoor units

coming from the same coil family. Data

for two indoor units from the same coil

family, if submitted, must come from

testing with one of the "low-capacity

mixed systems" and one of the "high

capacity mixed systems." A mixed

system indoor coil may come from the

same coil family as the highest-salesvolume-combination indoor unit (i.e.,

the "matched" indoor unit) for the

particular outdoor unit. Data on mixed

systems where the indoor unit is now

obsolete will be accepted towards the

ARM-validation submittal requirement

if it is from the same coil family as other

indoor units still in production.

(C) The first two sentences of

paragraph (m)(6)(iii)(B) of this section

shall not apply if the manufacturer

offers indoor units from only one coil

family. In this case only, all four indoor

coils must be selected from this one coil

family. If approved, the ARM shall be

specifically limited to applications for

this one coil family.

(iv) All product information on each

mixed system indoor unit, each

matched system indoor unit, and each

outdoor unit needed to implement the

proposed ARM. The calculated ratings

for the four mixed systems, as

determined using the proposed ARM,

shall be provided along with any other

related information that will aid the

verification process.

(7) Manufacturers that elect to use an

alternative rating method for

determining measures of energy

consumption under paragraphs

(m)(2)(ii) and (m)(4) of this section must

either subject a sample of their units to

independent testing on a regular basis,

e.g., through a voluntary certification

program, or have the representations

reviewed and certified by an

independent state-registered

professional engineer who is not an

employee of the manufacturer, The

registered professional engineer is to

certify that the results of the alternative

rating procedure accurately represent

the energy consumption of the unit(s).

The manufacturer is to keep the

registered professional engineer's

certifications on file for review by DOE

for as long as said combination is made

available for sale by the manufacturer.

Any proposed change to the alternative

rating method must be approved by

DOE prior to its use for rating.

(8) Manufacturers who choose to use

computer simulation or engineering

analysis for determining measures of

energy consumption under paragraphs

(m)(2)(ii) through (m)(6) of this section

shall permit representatives of the

Department of Energy to inspect for

verification purposes the simulation

method(s) and computer program(s)

used. This inspection may include

conducting simulations to predict the

performance of particular outdoor

unit-indoor unit combinations

specified by DOE, analysis of previous

simulations conducted by the

manufacturer, or both.

Appendix M-[Amended]

5. Appendix M to subpart B of part

430 is amended:

a. In section 1. Definitions:

1. Section 1.5 is amended by

removing "23-93" and adding in its

place "23-05"; and by removing "1993"

and adding in its place "2005."

2. Section 1.6 is amended by

removing "37-88" and adding in its

place "37-OS"; and by removing "1988"

and adding in its place "2005."

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
41338 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules

3. Section 1.12 is amended by adding

"RA(05)" after "116-95"; and adding

"and reaffirmed in 2005" after "1995."

4. Section 1.37 is revised to read as set

forth below.

b. In section 2, Testing Conditions:

1. Sections 2.la, 2.2a, 2.2b, 2.2.3,

2,2.5, 2.4.1, and 2.4.2 are revised to read

as set forth below.

2. Section 2.5.3 is amended by

revising the first sentence to read as set

forth below.

3. New section 2.5.4.3 is added to

read as set forth below.

4. Section 2.6a is amended by adding

in the first sentence "(RAO5)" after

"116-95."

5. Section 2.6b is amended in the

second sentence, and in the last

sentence, by removing "37-88" and

adding in its place "37-05."

6. Section 2.10.2 is amended in the

third and fourth sentences, by removing

"37-88" and adding in its place "37-

05."

7. Section 2.10.3 is amended in the

second sentence, by removing "7.6.2,"

and adding in its place "7.5.2," and by

removing "37-88" and adding in its

place "37-05" in the second and third

sentences.

8. Section 2.lla is amended in the

first sentence, by removing "37-88" and

adding in its place "3 7-05."

9. Section 2.13 is amended in the

second sentence, by removing "37-88"

and adding in its place "37-05."

c. In section 3, Testing Procedures:

1. Section 3.1.1 is amended in the

seventh sentence, by removing "3 7-88"

and adding in its place "37-05."

2. Section 3.1.4.1.1 title is revised and

Table 2 to paragraph (c) is revised to

read as set forth below.

3. Section 3.1.5 is amended in the first

sentence by removing "37-88" and

adding in its place "37-05."

4. Section 3.1.6 is amended in the first

and second sentences, by removing

"7.8.3.1 and 7.8.3.2" and adding in its

place "7.7.2.1 and 7.7.2.2," and in the

first sentence, by removing "37-88" and

adding in its place "3 7-05", and by

adding a new sentence after the second

sentence, to read as set forth below,

5. Sections 3.2.3a. and 3.2.3d. are

revised to read as set forth below.

6. Table 5 to section 3.2.3 is revised

to read as set forth below.

7. Section 3.2.4 is amended by adding

a new paragraph c to read as set forth

below.

8. Table 6 to section 3.2.4 is revised

to read as set forth below.

9. Section 3.3b is amended in both the

first and second sentences, by removing

"Table 5," and adding in its place

"Table 3," and in the first sentence by

removing "37-88" and adding in its

place "37-05."

10. Section 3.3c is amended in the

first sentence by removing "section

7.3.3.1 of ASHRAE Standard 37-88,"

and adding in its place "sections 7.3.3.1

and 7.3.3.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-

05."

11. The title of sections 3.4 and 3.5 is

revised to read as set forth below.

12. Section 3.5e is revised to read as

set forth below.

13. The first two sentences of section

3.5.3 are revised to read as set forth

below.

14. Section 3.6.3 is revised to read as

set forth below.

15. Table 11 to section 3.6.3 is revised

to read as set forth below.

16. Section 3.6.4 is amended by

adding a new paragraph c to read as set

forth below.

17. Table 12 to section 3.6.4 is revised

to read as set forth below.

18. Section 3.7a is amended in the

fifth sentence by removing "Table 5 of

ASHRAE Standard 37-88" and adding

in its place "Table 3 of ASHRAE

Standard 3 7-05," and in the sixth

sentence, by removing "Table 5" and

adding in its place "Table 3."

19. Section 3.7b is amended by

revising the first sentence to read as set

forth below.

20. The title of section 3.8 is revised

to read as set forth below.

21. The introductory text (preceding

the equation) for section 3.8.1 is revised

to read as set forth below.

22. Section 3.9c is revised to read as

set forth below.

23. Section 3.91 is amended by

revising the fifth sentence to read as set

forth below.

24. Section 3.9.la is amended by

adding a new sentence at the end of the

section directly before section 3.9.1.b to

read as set forth below.

25. Section 3.11.1.3b is revised to read

as set forth below.

26. Section 3.11,2a is amended by

revising the seventh sentence to read as

set forth below.

27. Section 3.11.2b is revised to read

as set forth below.

28. Section 3.11.3 is revised to read as

set forth below.

d. In section 4, CALCULATIONS OF

SEASONAL PERFORMANCE

DESCRIPTORS:

1. Section 4.1.3 is amended by

revising the introductory text, equations

4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-2, and the paragraph

preceding equation 4.1.3-3 to read as set

forth below.

2. Section 4.1.3.3 is amended by

revising the equation for PLFj and the

text between the equation and Table 16

to read as set forth below.

3. Section 4.1.4.2 is amended by

adding text at the end of the section to

read as set forth below.

4. Section 4.2.3.3 is amended by

revising the equation for PLFj and the

text following the equation to read as set

forth below.

5. Section 4.2.4.2 is amended by

adding text at the end of the section to

read as set forth below.

The additions and revisions read as

follows:

Appendix M to Subpart B of Part 430-

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the

Energy Consumption of Central Air

Conditioners and Heat Pumps

1. Definitions

1.37 Standard Air means dry air having a

mass density of 0.075 lb/ft .

Testing Conditions

2.1 Test room requirements. a. Test using

two side-by-side rooms, an indoor test room

and an outdoor test room. For multiple-split

air conditioners and heat pumps (see

Definition 1.30), however, use as many

available indoor test rooms as needed to

accommodate the total number of indoor

units. These rooms must comply with the

requirements specified in sections 8.1.2 and

8.1.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22).

* * * * *

2.2 Test unit install otion requirements. a.

Install the unit according to section 8.2 of

ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by

reference, see §430.22). With respect to

interconnecting tubing used when testing

split-systems, however, follow the

requirements given in section 6.1.3.5 of ARI

Standard 210/240-2003 (incorporated by

reference, see § 430.22). When testing triplesplit systems (see Definition 1.44), use the

tubing length specified in section 6.1.3.5 of

ARI Standard 210/240-2003 (incorporated by

reference, see § 430.22) to connect the

outdoor coil, indoor compressor section, and

indoor coil while still meeting the

requirement of exposing 10 feet of the tubing

to outside conditions, When testing nonducted systems having multiple indoor coils,

connect each indoor fan-coil to the outdoor

unit using: (a) 25 feet of tubing, or (b) tubing

furnished by the manufacturer, whichever is

longer. If they are needed to make a

secondary measurement of capacity, install

refrigerant pressure measuring instruments as

described in section 8.2.5 of ASHRAE

Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference,

see §430.22). Refer to section 2.10 of this

Appendix to learn which secondary methods

require refrigerant pressure measurements.

At a minimum, insulate the low-pressure

line(s) of a split-system with insulation

having an inside diameter that matches the

refrigerant tubing and a nominal thickness of

1/ inch.

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules 41339

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. For units designed for both horizontal

and vertical installation or for both up-flow

and down-flow vertical installations, the

manufacturer must specify the orientation

used for testing. Conduct testing with the

following installed:

(1) The most restrictive filter(s);

(2) Supplementary heating coils; and

(3) Other equipment specified as part of the

unit, including all hardware used by a heat

comfort controller if so equipped (see

Definition 1.28). For small-duct, highvelocity systems, configure all balance

dampers or restrictor devices on or inside the

unit to fully open or lowest restriction.

2.2.3 Special requirements for multi-split

air conditioners and heat pumps, and

systems composed of multiple mini-split

units (outdoor units located side-by-side) that

would normally operate using two or more

indoor thermostats. Allow the controls of the

multi-split or multiple mini-split air

conditioner or heat pump (see Definitions

1.30 and 1.29, respectively) to determine the

number of indoor coils, if any, whose fans are

turned off during a given test. For any indoor

coil whose fan is automatically turned off

during a test, take steps to cease forced

airflow through this indoor coil and block its

outlet duct. Because these types of systems

will have more than one indoor fan and

possibly multiple outdoor fans and

compressor systems, references in this test

procedure to a single indoor fan, outdoor fan,

and compressor means all indoor fans, all

outdoor fans, and all compressor systems that

are active during a test.

2.2.5 Charging according to the

"manufacturer's published instructions," as

stated in section 8.2 of ASHRAE Standard

3 7-05 (incorporated by reference, see

§ 430.22), means the manufacturer's

installation instructions that come packaged

with the unit. If a unit requires charging but

the installation instructions do not specify a

charging procedure, then evacuate the unit

and add the nameplate refrigerant charge.

Where the manufacturer's installation

instructions contain two sets of refrigerant

charging criteria, one for field installations

and one for lab testing, use the field

installation criteria. For third-party testing,

the test laboratory may consult with the

manufacturer about the refrigerant charging

procedure and make any needed corrections

so long as they do not contradict the

published installation instructions. The

manufacturer may specify an alternative

charging criteria to the third-party laboratory

so long as the manufacturer thereafter revises

the published installation instructions

accordingly.

2.4.1 Outlet plenum for the indoor unit.

a. Attach a plenum to the outlet of the indoor

coil. (Note: for some packaged systems, the

indoor coil maybe located in the outdoor test

room.) For non-ducted systems having

multiple indoor coils, attach a plenum to

each indoor coil outlet. Add a static pressure

tap to each face of the (each) outlet plenum,

if rectangular, or at four evenly distributed

locations along the circumference of an oval

or round plenum. Create a manifold that

connects the four static pressure taps. Figure

1 shows two of the three options allowed for

the manifold configuration; the third option

is the broken-ring, four-to-one manifold

configuration that is shown in Figure 7a of

ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by

reference, see § 430.22). See Figures 7a, 7b,

7c, and 8 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22) for

the cross-sectional dimensions and minimum

length of the (each) plenum and the locations

for adding the static pressure taps for units

tested with and without an indoor fan

installed. For a non-ducted system having

multiple indoor coils, have all outlet

plenums discharge air into a single common

duct. At the plane where each plenum enters

the common duct, install an adjustable

airflow damper and use it to equalize the

static pressure in each plenum. For multisplit units tested using more than one indoor

test room, create a common duct within each

test room that contains multiple indoor coils.

Each common duct should feed a separate

outlet air temperature grid (section 2.5.4) and

airflow measuring apparatus (section 2.6).

b. For small-duct, high-velocity systems,

install an outlet plenum that has a diameter

that is equal to or less than the value listed

below. The limit depends only on the cooling

Full-Load Air Volume Rate (see section

3.1.4.1.1) and is effective regardless of the

flange dimensions on the outlet of the unit

(or an air supply plenum adapter accessory,

if installed in accordance with the

manufacturers installation instructions).

Maximum

Cooling full-load air volume rate diameter* of

(SCFM) outlet plenum

(inches)

^ 500

501 to 700

701 to 900

901 tollOO

1101 to 1400

1401 to 1750

6

7

8

2.4.2 Inlet plenum for the indoor unit.

Install an inlet plenum when testing a coilonly indoor unit or a packaged system where

the indoor coil is located in the outdoor test

room. Add static pressure taps at the center

of each face of this plenum, if rectangular, or

at four evenly distributed locations along the

circumference of an oval or round plenum.

Make a manifold that connects the four

static-pressure taps using one of the three

configurations specified in section 2.4.1. See

Figures 7b, 7c, and Figure 8 of ASHRAE

Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference,

see § 430.22) for cross-sectional dimensions,

the minimum length of the inlet plenum, and

the locations of the static-pressure taps.

When testing a ducted unit having an indoor

fan (and the indoor coil is in the indoor test

room), the manufacturer has the option to

test with or without an inlet plenum

installed. Space limitations within the test

room may dictate that the manufacturer

choose the latter option. If used, construct

the inlet plenum and add the four staticpressure taps as shown in Figure 8 of

ASHRAE Standard 3 7-05 (incorporated by

reference, see § 430.22). Manifold the four

static-pressure taps using one of the three

configurations specified in section 2.4.1.

Never use an inlet plenum when testing a

non-ducted system.

2.5.3 Section 6.5.2 ofASHRAE

Standard 3 7-05 (incorporated by reference,

see § 430.22) describes the method for

fabricating static pressure taps. * * *

2.5.4.3 Minimizing air leakage. For smallduct, high-velocity systems, install an air

damper near the end of the interconnecting

duct, just prior to the transition to the airflow

measuring apparatus of Section 2.6. In order

to minimize air leakage, adjust this damper

such that the pressure in the receiving

chamber of the airflow measuring apparatus

is no more than 0.5 inches of water higher

than the surrounding test room ambient. In

lieu of installing a separate damper, use the

outlet air damper box of Section 2.5 and

2.5.4.1 if it allows variable positioning. Also

apply these steps to any conventional indoor

blower unit that creates a static pressure

within the receiving chamber of the airflow

measuring apparatus that exceeds the test

room ambient pressure by more than 0.5

inches of water.

3. Testing Procedures

*lf the outlet plenum is rectangular, calculate

its equivalent diameter using (4A)/P, where A

is the area and P is the perimeter of the rectangular plenum, and compare it to the listed

maximum diameter.

3.1.4.1.1 Cooling Full-Load Air Volume

Rate for Ducted Units. * * *

c. * * *

TABLE 2.-MINIMUM EXTERNAL STATIC PRESSURE FOR DUCTED SYSTEMS TESTED WITH AN INDOOR FAN INSTALLED

Rated cooling (1) or heating (2) capacity

(Btu/h)

Minimum external resistance (3)

(inches of water)

All other Small-duct,

systems high-velocity I systems (4,5)

Up Thru 28,800 0.10 I 1.10

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
41340 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE 2.-MINIMUM EXTERNAL STATIC PRESSURE FOR DUCTED SYSTEMS TESTED WITH AN INDOOR FAN INSTALLEDContinued

Minimum external resistance (3)

(inches of water)

Rated cooling)') or heating(2) capacity

(Btu/h) I Small-duct, All other systems high-velocity

I systems (4. 5)

29,000 to 42,500 0.15 1.15

43,000 and Above 0.20 1.20

(1) For air conditioners and heat pumps, the value cited by the manufacturer in published literature for the unit's capacity when operated at the

A or A2 Test conditions. (2) For heating-only heat pumps, the value the manufacturer cites in published literature for the unit's capacity when operated at the Hi or Hi2

Test conditions. (3) For ducted units tested without an air filter installed, increase the applicable tabular value by 0.08 inches of water. (4) See Definition 1.35 to determine if the equipment qualifies as a small-duct, high-velocity system. (5) If a closed-loop, air-enthalpy test apparatus is used on the indoor side, limit the resistance to airflow on the inlet side of the indoor blower

coil to a maximum value of 0.1 inches of water. Impose the balance of the airflow resistance on the supply side.

3.1.6 * * * (Note: In the first printing of

ASHRAE Standard 37-2005, the second lIP

equation for Q,,,, should read,

1097CA'PV'.) * * *

3.2.3 Tests for a unit having a twocapacity compressor. (See Definition 1.45.)

a. Conduct four steady-state wet coil tests:

the A2, B2, B,, and F, Tests. Use the two

optional dry-coil tests, the steady-state G,

Test and the cyclic I, Test, to determine the

cooling-mode cyclic-degradation

coefficient,Cco. If the two optional tests are

not conducted, assign Cc0 the default value

of 0.25. Table 5 specifies test conditions for

these six tests.

* * * * *

d. If a two-capacity air conditioner or heat

pump locks out low-capacity operation at

higher outdoor temperatures, then use the

two optional dry-coil tests, the steady-state

C2 Test and the cyclic D2 Test, to determine

the cooling-mode cyclic-degradation

coefficient that only applies to on/off cycling

from high capacity, C'0 (k = 2). If the two

optional tests are not conducted, assign Cco

(k = 2) the same value as determined or

assigned for the low-capacity cyclicdegradation coefficient, [or equivalently, Cc0

(k=1)].

TABLE 5.-COOLING MODE TEST CONDITIONS FOR UNITS HAVING A TWO-CAPACITY COMPRESSOR

Test description

Air entering indoor

unit temperature

( F)

Air entering outdoor

unit temperature

( F) Compressor capacity Cooling air volume rate

D bib ry u Wet

bulb D bib y u

Wet

bulb

A2 Test-required (steady, wet 80 67 95 (1)75 High Cooling FuII-Load.(2)

coil).

B2 Test-required (steady, wet 80 67 82 ('(65 High Cooling FulILoad.)2)

coil).

B, Test-required (steady, wet 80 67 82 ("65 Low Cooling Minimum.)3)

coil).

F, Test-required (steady, wet 80 67 67 (1)53.5 Low Cooling Minimum.)3)

coil).

G, Test-optional (steady, thy- 80 (4) 67 Low Cooling Minimum.)3)

coil).

I, Test-optional (cyclic, dry- 80 (4) 67 Low (5)

coil).

C2 Test-optional (steady, dry- 80 (4) 82 High Cooling FulILoad.(2)

coil).

D2 Test-optional (cyclic, dry- 80 (4) 82 High (6)

coil).

_________ ________ _________ _________ _______________________________

)1)The specified test condition only applies if the unit rejects condensate to the outdoor coil. (2) Defined in Section 3.1.4.1. (3) Defined in Section 3.1.4.2.

)4)The entering air must have a low enough moisture content so no condensate forms on the indoor coil. DOE recommends using an indoor

air wet-bulb temperature of 57 °F or less. (5) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure or velocity as measured during the C, Test. (6) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure or velocity as measured during the C2 Test.

3.2.4 Tests for a unit having a variablespeed compressor. * * *

c. For multiple-split air conditioners and

heat pumps (only), the following procedures

supersede the above requirements: For all

Table 6 tests specified for a minimum

compressor speed, use the compressor speed

specified by the manufacturer. The

manufacturer should prescribe a speed that

allows successful completion of the Table 6

tests while deviating as little as possible from

the unit's actual lowest cooling-mode

operating speed. The manufacturer must also

specify the compressor speed used for the

Table 6 Ev Test, a cooling-mode intermediate

compressor speed that falls within 1/4 and 3/4

of the difference between the tested

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No, 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules 41341

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

.

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

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

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

.

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

.

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

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

_

maximum and minimum cooling-mode

speeds. The manufacturer should prescribe

an intermediate speed that is expected to

yield the highest EER for the given Ev Test

conditions.

TABLE 6.-CooLING MODE TEST CONDITION FOR UNITS HAVING A VARIABLE-SPEED COMPRESSOR

Test description

Air entering indoor

unit temperature

( F)

Air entering outdoor

unit temperature

( F) Compressor speed Cooling air volume rate

Dry bulb Dry bulb

A2 Test-required (steady, wet coil) 80 67 95 (1)75 Maximum)2) Cooling FulI-Load.(3)

B2 Test-required (steady-wet coil) 80 67 82 (1)65 Maximum (2) Cooling FulI-Load.(3)

Ev Test-required (steady, wet coil) 80 67 87 (1)69 Intermediate Cooling lntermediate.(4)

B1 Test-required (steady, wet coil) 80 67 82 (1)65 Minimum Cooling Minimum.(5)

F1 Test-required (steady, wet coil) 80 67 67 (l)535 Minimum Cooling Minimum.(5)

G1 Test(6)-optional (steady, dry-coil) 80 (6) 67 Minimum Cooling Minimum.(5)

I Test (6)-optional (cyclic, dry-coil) 80 (6) 67 Minimum (7)

(1)The specified test condition only applies if the unit rejects condensate to the outdoor coil.

(2)Configured for the maximum continuous duty operation as allowed by the unit's controls.

(3)Defined in Section 3.1.4.1.

(4)Defined in Section 3.1.4.3.

(5)Defined in Section 3.1.4.2.

(6)The entering air must have a low enough moisture content so no condensate forms on the indoor coil. DOE recommends using an indoor air

wet bulb temperature of 57 °F or less.

(7)Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure difference or velocity

pressure as measured during the G1 Test.

3.4 Test procedures for the optional

steady-state dry-coil cooling-mode tests (the

C, Ci, C2, and G1 Tests).

3.5 Test procedures for the optional

cyclic dry-coil cooling-mode tests (the D, D1,

D2, and Ii Tests).

* * * * *

e. For consecutive compressor OFF/ON

cycles, evaluate whether the below criterion

for repeatable results is met. After completing

a minimum of two complete OFF/ON

compressor cycles, determine the overall

cooling delivered and total electrical energy

consumption during any subsequent data

collection interval where the test tolerances

given in Table 8 and the below criterion for

repeatable results is satisfied.

For the above criterion, m represents the

cycle number and F, and are

defined later in this same section. If

available, use electric resistance heaters (see

Section 2.1) to minimize the variation in the

inlet air temperature.

* * * * *

3.5.3 Cooling-mode cyclic-degradation

coefficient calculation. Use the two optional

dry-coil tests to determine the cooling-mode

cyclic-degradation coefficient, Cc0. Append

"(k=2)" to the coefficient if it corresponds to

a two-capacity unit cycling at high capacity.

If the two optional tests are not conducted,

assign Cco the default value of 0.25. The

1) Ir'm+ _FmI^0.05F.hr, and

eJCdf 2) 1

L\Vcyy rCYd,Y )m

default value for two-capacity units cycling

at high capacity, however, is the low-capacity

coefficient, i.e., Cc0 (k=2) =Cc0. Evaluate Cc0

using the above results and those from the

section 3.4 dry-coil steady-state test.* * *

* * * * *

3.6.3 Tests for a heat pump having a twocapacity compressor (see Definition 1.45),

including two-capacity, northern heat pumps

(see Definition 1.46). a. Conduct one

Maximum Temperature Test (Ho1), two High

Temperature Tests (Hi2 and Hi i), one Frost

Accumulation Test (H22), and one Low

Temperature Test (H32). Conduct an

additional Frost Accumulation Test (H21)

and Low Temperature Test (H31) if both of

the following conditions exist:

1. Knowledge of the heat pump's capacity

and electrical power at low compressor

capacity for outdoor temperatures of 37 °F

and less is needed to complete the section

4.2.3 seasonal performance calculations, and

2. The heat pump's controls allow lowcapacity operation at outdoor temperatures of

37 °F and less.

If the above two conditions are met, an

alternative to conducting the H21 Frost

Accumulation is to use the following

equations to approximate the capacity and

electrical power:

k=I (35) = 0.90- {Q (17) + 0.6 [Qk=l (47) _k=l(17)j}

E' (35) = 0.985 {E'(l7)+ 0.6 .[E=' (47)- Ek=l(17)]}

Determine the quantities lk1h (47) and Section 3.10. b. Conduct the optional value of 0.25. If a two-capacity heat pump

Ek=16 (47) from the Hi1 Test and evaluate Maximum Temperature Cyclic Test (HOC ) to locks out low capacity operation at lower

them according to Section 3.7. Determine the determine the heating-mode cyclic- outdoor temperatures, conduct the optional

quantities Qk=l, (17)and Ek=lh (17) from the degradation coefficient, C"0. If this optional High Temperature Cyclic Test (H1C2) to

H3, Test and evaluate them according to test is not conducted, assign C"0 the default determine the high-capacity heating-mode

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
41342 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cyclic-degradation coefficient, Ch0 (k=2). If

this optional test at high capacity is not

conducted, assign C0 (k=2) the same value

as determined or assigned for the low- [or equivalently, C0 (k=1)]. Table ii

capacity cyclic-degradation coefficient, C5D specifies test conditions for these nine tests.

TABLE 11 -HEATING MODE TEST CONDITIONS FOR UNITS HAVING A TWO-CAPACITY COMPRESSOR

Test description

Air entering indoor

unit temperature

( F)

Air entering outdoor

unit temperature

( F) Compressor capacity Heating air volume rate

Dry bulb Dry bulb

HO1 Test (required, steady) 70 (mal)60 62 56.5 Low Heating Minimum.(1)

HOC1 Test (optional, cyclic) 70 (mal)60 62 56.5 Low (2)

Hi2 Test (required, steady) 70 (x)60 47 43 High Heating Full-Load.(3)

H1C2 Test (optional, cyclic) 70 (mlx)60 47 43 High (4)

Hi1 Test (required) 70 (max)6O 47 43 Low Heating Minimum.)')

H22 Test (required) 70 (rnax)60 35 33 High Heating FulI-Load.()

H2, Test(5.6) (required) 70 (nax)6O 35 33 Low Heating Minimum.(3)

H32 Test (required, steady) 70 (ax)6O 17 15 High Heating FuII-Load.()

H31 Test)5) (required, steady) 70 (max)60 17 15 Low Heating Minimum.)')

(1) Defined in Section 3.1.4.5.

(2) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure or velocity as

measured during the HO1 Test.

(3) Defined in Section 3.i.4.4.

(4) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure or velocity as

measured during the Hi2 Test.

(5) Required only if the heat pump's performance when operating at low compressor capacity and outdoor temperatures less than 37 °F is

needed to complete the Section 4.2.3 HSPF calculations.

(6)If table note #5 applies, the Section 3.6.3 equations for Qhk, (35) and (17) may be used in lieu of conducting the H2, Test.

3.6.4 Tests for a heat pump having a

variable-speed compressor.

* * * * *

c. For multiple-split heat pumps (only), the

following procedures supersede the above

requirements: For all Table 12 tests specified

for a minimum compressor speed, use the

compressor speed specified by the

manufacturer. The manufacturer should

prescribe a speed that allows successful

completion of the Table 12 tests while

deviating as little as possible from the heat

pump's actual lowest heating-mode operating

speed. The manufacturer must also specify

the compressor speed used for the Table 12

H2y Test, a heating-mode intermediate

compressor speed that falls within 1/4 and 3/4

of the difference between the tested

maximum and minimum heating-mode

speeds. The manufacturer should prescribe

an intermediate speed that is expected to

yield the highest COP for the given H2v Test

conditions.

TABLE 12.-HEATING MODE TEST CONDITION FOR UNITS HAVING A VARIABLE-SPEED COMPRESSOR

Test description

Air entering indoor

unit temperature

________

F)

Air entering outdoor

unit temperature

( F) Compressor speed Heating air volume rate

Dry bulb Dry bulb

HOi Test (required, steady) 70 (m)6O 62 56.5 Minimum Heating Minimum)')

HOC1 Test (optional, steady) 70 (ma*)6O 62 56.5 Minimum (2)

Hi2 Test (required, steady) 70 (,a1)6O 47 43 Maximum(s) Heating FulI-Load()

Hi1 Test (required, steady) 70 (1,a*)6O 47 43 Minimum Heating Minimum)')

H1N Test (optional, steady) 70 (1,*)6O 47 43 Cooling Mode Max- Heating Nominal)5)

imum.

H22 Test (optional) 70 (ma*) 60 35 33 Maximum (3) Heating Full-Load (4)

H2v Test 70 (a*)6O 35 33 Intermediate Heating Intermediate(6)

H32 Test (required, steady) 70 (,a*)6O 17 15 Maximum(3) Heating FuII-Load(4)

(')Defined in Section 3.1.4.5.

(2)Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during an ON period at the same pressure or velocity as measured during the HO1 Test.

(3) Configured for the maximum continuous duty operation as allowed by the unit's controls when heating.

(4)Defined in Section 3.1.4.4.

(5) Defined in Section 3.1.4.7.

(6)Defined in Section 3.1.4.6.

3.7a.* * *

b. Calculate indoor-side total heating

capacity as specified in sections 7.3.4.1 and

7.3.4.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-OS

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22).

3.8 Test procedures for the optional

cyclic heating mode tests (the HOC,, HIC,

H1C, and H1C2 Tests).

3.8.1 Heating mode cyclic degradation

coefficient calculation. Use the results from

the optional cyclic test and the required

steady-state test that were conducted at the

same test conditions to determine the

heating-mode cyclic-degradation coefficient,

Ch0. Add "(k=2)" to the coefficient if it

corresponds to a two-capacity unit cycling at

high capacity. If the optional test is not

conducted, assign Ch0 the default value of

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules 41343

0.25. The default value for two-capacity units

cycling at high capacity, however, is the lowcapacity coefficient, i.e., C"0(k = 2) =

3.9 * * *

c. The official test period begins when the

preliminary test period ends, at defrost

termination. The official test period ends at

the termination of the next occurring

automatic defrost cycle. When testing a heat

pump that uses a time-adaptive defrost

control system (see Definition 1.42),

however, manually initiate the defrost cycle

that ends the official test period at the instant

indicated by instructions provided by the

manufacturer. If the heat pump has not

undergone a defrost after 12 hours,

immediately conclude the test and use the

results from the full 12-hour period to

calculate the average space heating capacity

and average electrical power consumption.

For the H21 Test, use a maximum official test

period of 6 hours instead of 12 hours. For

heat pumps that turn the indoor fan off

during the defrost cycle, take steps to cease

forced airflow through the indoor coil and

block the outlet duct whenever the heat

pump's controls cycle off the indoor fan. If

it is installed, use the outlet damper box

described in section 2.5.4.1 to affect the

blocked outlet duct.

* * * * *

f

* * * Sample measurements used in

calculating the air volume rate (refer to

sections 7.7.2.1 and 7.7.2.2 of ASHRAE

Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference,

see § 430.22)) at equal intervals that span 10

minutes or less. (Note: In the first printing of

ASHRAE Standard 37-2005, the second IP

equation for Q,,, should read:

a. * * * Otherwise, conduct the

calibration tests according to ASHRAE

Standard 23-05 (incorporated by reference,

see § 430.22), ASHRAE Standard 41.9-00

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22), and

section 7.4 of ASHRAE Standard 3 7-05

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22).

b. Calculate space cooling and space

heating capacities using the compressor

calibration method measurements as

specified in section 7.4.5 and 7.4.6

respectively, of ASHRAE Standard 3 7-05

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22).

3.11.3 If using the Refrigerant-Enthalpy

Method as the secondary test method.

Conduct this secondary method according to

section 7.5 of ASHRAE Standard 3 7-05

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22).

Calculate space cooling and heating

capacities using the refrigerant-enthalpy

method measurements as specified in

sections 7.5.4 and 7.5.5, respectively, of the

same ASHRAE Standard.

l097CAJ.)* * *

3.9.1 Average space heating capacity and

electrical power calculations.

a. * * *

To account for the effect of duct loses,

adjust Qkh (35) in accordance with section

7.3.4.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05.

3.11.1.3 Officialtest.

b. For space cooling tests, calculate

capacity from the outdoor air-enthalpy

measurements as specified in section 7.3.3.2

of ASHRAE Standard 3 7-05 (incorporated by

reference, see § 430.22). Calculate heating

capacity based on outdoor air-enthalpy

measurements as specified in section 7.3.4.2

of the same ASHRAE Standard. Adjust

outdoor-side capacities according to section

7.3.3.4 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22) to

account for line losses when testing split

systems. Do not correct the average electrical

power measurement as described in section

8.6.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22).

3.11.2 If using the Compressor

Calibration Method as the secondary test

method.

Q' (Ti) =

=l (67) +

(82)1 Q (67)

. (T -67)

E (82)- E (67) Ek=lCr)Ek=l(67)+ •(T-67) C - C

82-67

where Qk=1 (82) and Ek=1 (82) are

determined from the B1 Test, Qk.I (67) and

Ek1 (67) and E' (67) are determined from

the F1 Test, and all are calculated as specified

in section 3.3. Evaluate the space cooling

capacity, Q"2 (Ti), and electrical power

consumption, Ek2 (Ti), of the test unit when

operating at high compressor capacity and

outdoor temperature T using,

* * * * *

4.1.3.3 * * *

PLF = 1 _C*o (k = 2) . [1 - Xk2 (Ti)], the

part load factor, dimensionless.

Obtain the fraction bin hours for the

cooling season,

ni

N'

from Table 16. Use Equations 4.1.3-3 and

4.1.3-4, respectively, to evaluate Qk2 (T)

4. Calculations of Seasonal Performance

Descriptors

* * * * *

4.1.3 SEER calculations for an air

conditioner or heat pump having a twocapacity compressor. Calculate SEER using

Equation 4.1-1. Evaluate the space cooling

capacity, Q1C (Ti) , and electrical power

consumption, Ek1 (Ti) , of the test unit when

operating at low compressor capacity and

outdoor temperature T using,

(4.1.3-1)

(4.1.3-2)

and Ek2 (Ti). Use CC (k=2) as determined

in sections 3.2.3 and 3.5.3.

4.1.4.2 * * *

For multiple-split air conditioners and heat

pumps (only), the following procedures

supersede the above requirements for

calculating EER'= (Ti). For each temperature

bin where T1 <T < T,

EER(T)=EERl(T1)+ (i-I) EERu* (Tv) - EER' (T)

-T

For each temperature bin where T ^ T <T2,

EER()= EER(T)+ EER2(T2)-EER(T) f).

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09
41344 Federal Register/Vol. 71, No. 139/Thursday, July 20, 2006/Proposed Rules

* * * * *

4.2.3.3 * * *

PLF = 1 - C50 (k = 2) [1 - X52 (Ti)].

Use C5o (k = 2) as determined in sections

3.6.3 and 3.8.1. Determine the low

temperature cut-out factor, ' (T3), using

Equation 4.2.3-3.

* * * * *

4.2.4.2 * * *

co (i) = coP' (T3 )

-f

For each temperature bin where TV5 ^

T4,

* * * * *

For multiple-split air conditioners and heat

pumps (only), the following procedures

supersede the above requirements for

calculating COP"5 (Ti), For each temperature

bin where T3 > T > Tv5,

coP1 (T )

-coP (Ti)

T1 -T3

(i -T3)."

COP () CO (TVh ) +

COP2 (T4) -COP5 (T)

.

(T -TVh)'

-T1,

* * * * *

6. Section 430.62 is amended in subpart F

by revising paragraphs (a)(4)(i) and (ii) to

read as follows:

§ 430.62 Submission of data.

(a) * * *

(4) * * *

(1) Central air conditioners, the

seasonal energy efficiency ratio. For

central air conditioners whose seasonal

energy efficiency ratio is based on an

installation that includes a particular

model of furnace, the certification report

shall include the product class (as

denoted in § 430.32, manufacturer's

name, private labeler's name (if

applicable) and manufacturer's model

number of the furnace.

(ii) Central air conditioning heat

pumps, the seasonal energy efficiency

ratio and heating seasonal performance

factor. For central air conditioner heat

pumps whose seasonal energy efficiency

ratio and/or heating seasonal

performance factor is based on an

installation that includes a particular

model of furnace, the certification report

shall include the product class (as

denoted in § 430.32), manufacturer's

name, private labeler's name (if

applicable) and manufacturer's model

number of the furnace.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 06-6320 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am]

B!LLING CODE 6450-Cl-P

 EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 09