CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 05

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 192 / Friday, October 3. 1986 I Notices 35403 

Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. CAC-(I01] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products; Decision and 

Order Granting Waiver From Test 

Procedures for Central Air 

Conditioners, Including Heat Pumps, to 

Carrier Corp. 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Decision and order. 

SUMMARY: Notice ill given of the 

Decision and Order (Case No. CAC-ool) 

granting Carrier Corporation a waiver 

for its variable speed (VSP) model 

carrier air conditioners and heat pumps 

for existing DOE test procedures for 

central air conditioners and heat pumps. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. McCabe, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. Mail Station CE132, Forrestal Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW .. Washington. DC 20585. (202) 252-9127 

Eugene Margolis. Esq., U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of General Counsel. 

Mail Station Gv12. Forrestal 

Building. 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW .. Washington. DC 20585. (202) 

252-9513 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.: In 

accordance with 10 CFR 430.27(g). notice 

is hereby given of the issuance of the 

Decision and Order set out below. In the 

Decision and Order. Carrier Corporation 

has been granted a waiver for its 

variable speed central air conditioners 

and heat pumps. permitting the company 

to use an alternate test method. 

Issued in Washington. DC. September 19. 

1986. 

John R. Berg, 

Principal. Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

Conservation and Renewable Energy. 

In the Matter of: Carrier Corporation. 

The Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products was established 

pursuant to the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, Pub. L 94-163. 89 

Stat. 917. as amended by the National 

Energy Conservation Policy Act, Pub. L 

95-619, 92 Stat. 3266, which requires the 

Department of Energy (DOE) to 

prescribe standardized test procedures 

to measure the energy consumption of 

certain consumer products. including 

central air conditioners. The intent of 

the test procedures is to provide a 

comparable measure of energy 

consumption that will assist consumers 

in making purchase decisions. These 

test procedures appear at 10 CFR Part 

430. Subpart B. 

The Department of Energy amended 

the prescribed test procedure 

regulations by adding paragraph 430.27 

to allow the Assistant Secretary for 

Conservation and Renewable Energy to 

waive temporarily test procedures for a 

particular basic model when a petitioner 

shows that the basic model contains one 

or more design characteristics which 

prevent testing of the basic model 

according to the prescribed test 

procedures or when the prescribed test 

procedures may evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative 

of its true energy consumption 

characteristics 8S to provide materially 

inadequate comparative data. 45 FR 

64108 (September 26. 1980). 

Carrier Corporation (Carrier) fjled a 

"Petition for Waiver" in accordance 

with paragraph 430.27 of 10 CFR Part 

430. DOE published in the Federal 

Register Carrier's petition and solicited 

comments. data. and information 

respecting the petition. Comments wer", 

received from Lennox Industries Inc .. 

Rheem Manufacturing Company. and 

Borg-Warner Air Conditioning. all 

manufacturers of air conditioners and 

heat pumps. Comments were also 

received from Coil Company. Inc .. 

manufacture of heat transfer and air 

hC\ndling systems. The comments 

received by DOE were sent to the 

petitioner on March 25. 1986. The 

petitioner submitted DOE a rebuttal 

statement to the comments on April 11. 

1986. DOE consulted with the Federal 

Trade Commission on May 23. 1986. 

concerning the Carrier petition. 

Aasertations and Determinations 

Carrier's petition seeks a waiver from 

the DOE test procedures for central air 

conditioners and heat pumps for 

Carrier's variable speed units. The 

petition requests authorization to 

substitute the test and calculation 

methods in Appendix B of the Air 

Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

(ARI) Standard 210/240-84 for the test 

and calculation methods in Appendix M 

to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430. In 

addition. the petition requests five 

modifications to Appendix B of ARI 

Standard 210/240-84 to be included in 

the waiver to allow proper 

representation of the unique operating 

characteristic of the equipment. 

All interested parties, including DOE. 

agree that the existing test and 

calculation methods of Apendix M to 

Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430 are 

inappropriate for variable speed units. 

All interested parties also agree that 

appropriate test and calculation 

methods of variable speed units would 

be those based on Appendix B of ARI 

Standard 210/240-84 with modifications. 

However, there is nol total agreement 

with Carrier's requested modifications 

to Appendix B of ARI Standard 210/240-

84. Consequently, the following five 

determinations are made regarding the 

five modifications requested by Carrier. 

1. The ARJ Standard 210/240 includes 

a'cyclic test pattern which represents 20 

percent compressor "on" time, i.e .. the 

compressor runs for six minutes of a 30 

minute cycle (6/30=.2). Since efficiency 

is the quotient of output capacity and 

input energy, the cyclic efficiency is 

determined by actual measurement of 

cooling capacity and electric energy 
CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 05

35404 Federal Register" Vol. 51. No. '192 I Friday. October 3. 1986 I Notices 

'during this cyclic test. Since cooling can 

continue after the compressor is off. the 

'ARI standard allows cooling capacity to 

be measured for the compressor· "on" 

period plus an additional two minutes. 

i.e .• a capacity integration period of 

eight minutes. , Carrier states that the microprocessor. 

control on its variable speed units has a minimum run time of12 minutes; and as 

such. it is not possible for an "on" 

period of less than 12 minutes to occur in normal operation of the equipment. 

Consequently Carrier requests that the 

cyclic test pattern representing a 20 

percent "on" time fraction consisting of 

six minutes "on" and 24 minutes "ofP' 

be replaced by a cyclic test pattern 

representing a 20.percent "on" time 

fraction consisting of 12 minutes "on" 

and 48 minutes "off." Regarding the 

capacity integration period. Carrier 

requests 14 minutes. which is consistent 

with the ARI standard. i.e .• compressor 

run time plus two minutes. 

In their comments. Lennox and Rheem 

suggested different "on" time fractions 

from that simulated by a six minutes 

"on" and 24 minutes "ofr' cycle. 

Although Lennox agteed to the 

requested 12 minutes "on" time. Lennox 

suggested 18 minutes "ofP' time as more 

realistic. substantially shorter to run and 

providing necessary repeatability. BorgWarner supported 12 minutes "on" and. 

48 minutes "ofP' cyclic test with the 

reservation that this test cycle is only 

appropriate for variable speed systems 

that can operate down to approximately 

50 percent compressor speed or lower. 

Borg-Warner also commented in support 

of the 14-minute capacity integration 

period requested by Carrier. 

Responding to the Lennox and Rheem 

comments. Carrier agreed that it is the 

intent of the cyclic test to model a unit 

satisfying a building load. Therefore. it 

is not necessary to perform the test with' 

the same fractional run time (loading) as single speed and two speed units. In 

response to the Borg-Warner comment, . Carrier agreed that the proposed 12 

minutes "on" and 48 minutes "ofP' cycle 

test should be allowed only for systems 

which have ability to modulate capacity 

to approximately 50 percent or less of 

maximum capacity. 

The National Bureau of Standards 

(NBS) and DOE reviewed this request in 

terms of compatibility with variable 

speed system operation. existing DOE 

procedures and the thermostat theory. 

The analysis showed that 12 minutes 

"on" time. ·18 minutes "ofP' time will . constitute a cycle that is compatible 

with a residential thermostat curve . while 12 minutes "on" and 18 minutes 

"ofP' cycle will not. Furthermore. the 

cyclic test requested by Carrier 

, represents an, "on" time fraction, 20 " 

}:I,ercent, that is consistent with the 

existing DOE test procedures. It also 

appears that a cyclic test with a longer 

"ofP' period will provide conservative 

,(lower) efficiency results. DOE , 

considers such conservative results 

appropriate until the Department 

addresses this issue thoroughly in the 

test procedure amendment process. 

Carrier's request to set the capacity 

integration period to 14 minutes allows 

for a two-minute capacity integration 

after compressor shut-off. as does the 

ARI method. However, DOE believes 

that the capacity integration time should 

not be extended beyond the ' 

compressor's time of operation because 

it would result in over-estimations of 

unit capacity. Furthermore. in the 

current test procedure, the capacity 

integration time equals the compressor's 

time of operation. 

Based on all of the above, DOE has 

determined that Carrier should be " 

granted a waiver to perform a cyclic test 

of its variable speed systems at 12 

minutes "on" and 48 minutes "ofP' 

compressor operation and a 12-minute 

capacity integration time, with' 

limitation that this waiver apply only to 

systems that can modulate down to 

approximately 50 percent maximum 

capacity or lower. 

2. The primary efficiency advantage of' a variable speed unit is the ability to 

avoid cycling losses for most of the 

cooling (or heating) season. Specifically, 

cycling losses are avoided when the unit 

modulates its speed to meet a partial 

load rather than cycle on and off. The 

range of outdoor temperatures for which 

the unit does not cycle is called the load 

matching region. To capture this 

advantage in the analytic geometry of 

the SEER calculations, ARI procedures 

require an additional test point termed 

the intermediate test point. This test is 

in addition to the already required high 

speed/high outdoor temperature test 

and the lower speed/lower outdoor 

temperature test. All agree that the 

intermediate test should be reflective of 

the loan matching region. However, 

specifying the laboratory test conditions 

for the intermediate test is a difficult 

matter, since cooling load and the unit's 

cooling capacity both vary with outdoor 

temperature. 

The ARI procedures require the 

intermediate test to be conducted at an 

intermediate outdoor temperature of 

87°F. The capacity of the unit during this 

test is to be 67 percent of the capacity 

measured during the high speed/high 

outdoor temperature test. This 

specification method requires the 

conductor of the laboratory test to 

"hunt" interactive!y for the correct 

i '." -'I 

! intermediate compressor speed to " . satisfy the specifications. In lieu of the 

ARI method of specification, Carrier 

requests a less burdensome 

specification based on outdoor 

temperatures 'and compressor speed. 

Specifically, Carrier requests testing at 

the intermediate outdoor temperature of 

87°F, identical to the ARI procedures, 

i and any compressor speed between 

i maximum and minimum speeds. Carrier 

l contends that the capacity and power 

; for an appropriate intermediate test , point can be determined using the 

: minimum speed, intermediate speed and i maximum speed test points to find the 

! outdoor temperature at which the . 

; equipment capacity intersects the load 

i line (respective equations are included 

; in the petition). The capacity and power 

: values for this intersection can be then 

; used as the intermediate speed test 

'. results for determining SEER. Carrier 

i states that the present specificalionof : the intermediate test point by the 

i temperature conditions and equipment 

; capacity requires an iterative test and is , unnecessarily burdensome. Lennox, . . 

: Rheem, and Borg-Warner commented on 

; this request. Lennox considered an · arbitrary speed test as unacceptable and 

• questioned the technical feasibility of 

'auditing such a test point. Lennox also was concerned that such a test would be 

;run at the lowest possible speed to · increase the SEER. Rheem also opposed 

· the petitioner's request and insisted that 

the intermediate test point be specified 

,by the temperature conditions and 

,capacity. Rheem suggested ± 2 percent, 

;allowance for variation from the test 

'value to the calculated building load 

'value. Rheem also contended that 

allowing the compressor speed to vary 

between the minimum and maximum 

:value would introduce excessive errors 

'when attempting to adjust the test 

ivalues. Borg-Warner requested sample 

,calculations that would allow better 

understanding of Carrier's proposal. 

.In its ,rebuttal to these comments," 

Carrier maintained again that 

specification of the intermediate speed 

point by capacity was impractical. . 

However, Carrier suggested that an improvement to its requested method for 

the intermediate speed test would be to 

bracket the speed range from Va to 1f2 

between minimum and maximum speed 

in lieu of any speed between minimum 

and maximum. Carrier also stated that 

verification of the efficiency claim by an 

"audit test," conducted by ARI in its 

certification program, maybe conducted. ' 

at any speed. Carrier explained that the 

adjustment method based on high speed .. 

and low speed test points will always 

match the intermediate speed point to 
CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 05

Federal Register I Vol. 51, No. 192 I Friday, October 3, 1986 I Notices 35405 

the load line, and the effect of changing corrected with respect to temperature to 

the intermediate speed value from test find the intersection with the heating 

to test should be within the uncertainty load line in the same manner as the 

of the test data. Carrier's rebuttal also intermediate speed cooling point. 

contained an example of calculations for Carrier contends that the frost 

the intermediate speed point as accumulation test run at maximum 

requested by Borg-Warner. speed is not well-matched to the load 

DOE accepts Carrier's argument lhat line and, as a result, has almost no 

an intermediate speed test specified, in influence on the HSPF. 

. part, by equipment capacity is Lennox, Rheem and Borg-Warner 

excessively burdensome. Also, after commented on this request. Lennox 

reviewing information prepared by the commented that maximum speed 

petitioner and in consultation with NBS, capacity is well-matched to the load line 

DOE accepts the bracketed speed since 35 ° temperature is very close to 

provision of the intermediate test point the balance point in most residences. As 

suggested by Carrier and agrees that with the intermediate test point for 

correcting the capacity and power based cooling, Lennox expressed concern on low and high speed test points is a a bout the technical feasibility of 

reasonable method for evaluating the auditing an arbitrary speed test point. 

intermediate performance of a variable Lennox also was concerned that the 

speed unit. However, DOE concluded intermediate test point would be run at 

that material submitted by the petitioner lowest possible speed to increase the 

does nol support entirely its statement coefficient of performance (COP).: 

that verifying the intermediate speed Rheem suggested that the 

test can be done by running the "audit intermediate speed should be specified 

test" at any speed. Consequently, DOE in relationship to building load, which 

has determined that verification of the would parallel the cooling intermediate 

intermediate cooling test should be speed determination. Borg-Warner also 

performed by testing at the same speed recommended that the frost as the manufacturer's test. accumulation test be conducted at the 

3. In its petition Carrier maintained same compressor speed as that used for 

that, in order to evaluate fairly its the 95 OF outdoor temperature for the 

variable speed unit, an appropriate cooling mode. 

intermediate test point is needed for the Responding to Lennox's comment. 

heating performance procedures as well Carrier stated that while maximum 

as the cooling performance procedures. speed capacity may be well matched to 

However, because of the added the load line at 35 OF in actual 

complexities of the heating performance residences, it is not true for the 

evaluation procedures. an appropriate prescribed heating load line. Rebutting 

intermediate test point is not easily Rheem's comment. the petitioner 

defined. Specifically, unlike cooling proposed to bracket the speed at the 

performance which is based on a single intermediate heating point, as for the 

sizing, i.e., the relationship of the cooling mode, in the range from % to % 

capacity of the unit to the cooling load between minimum and maximum speed. 

at design conditions, heating In response to the Borg-Warner 

performance is based on several comment, Carrier stated that the 

different sizing possibilities. Also, the building load at 35 OF, as shown in the 

heating evaluation procedures already example, is only slightly greater than the 

include a test point at an intermediate unit capacity at minimum speed. Carrier 

outdoor temperature, called the frost contended that running a defrost test at 

accumulation test point. This test point l the maximum speed would mean • is designed to capture the degradation in requiring variable speed heat pumps to 

performance due to the frosting and satisfy a different load line than it is 

defrosting of a heat pump and is required forsingle- and two-speed heat 

specified in ARI and DOE procedures to pumps. 

be run at maximum speed with 35 OF DOE analyzed Carrier's request in 

outdoor temperature. Carrier claims the consultation with NBS and determined 

3S0F outdoor temperature is· appropriate that an intermediate speed frost 

for an intermediate test point but the accumulation test is appropriate for the 

maximum speed provision is Carrier variable speed unit in lieu of the 

inappropriate. Carrier is seeking maximum speed frost accumulation test 

modifications to Appendix B allowing contained in DOE and ARI procedures. 

the test to be performed at an However, where Carrier felt the 

intermediate speed specified as a value compressor speed for the intermediate 

between the minimum and maximum test could be specified as any 

speeds for the equipment. Carrier states compressor speed between maximum 

that the capacity and power of the and minimum. DOE and NBS believe 

intermediate speed test point may be more guidance is needed regarding this 

intermediate speed specification. 

Specifically, today's Decision and Order 

requires .the intermediate compressor ' 

speed to be high enough to obtain 

system capacity that is.95 percent or more of the building load at 35 OF for 

which the HSPF is being calculated. It is 

believed this specification is necessary 

to avoid testing at unrealistically low 

compressor speeds which could , overstate the performance improvement 

due variable speed units. 

4. Carrier requests that HSPF for 

variable speed heat pumps that employ 

a demand defrost control be increased . 

by four percent instead of making any· 

adjustments to the frost accumulation 

test point data as provided in the 

current test procedure. Carrier contends 

that a simple increase of the capacity at 

the frost accumulation test by seven 

percent (Appendix M to Subpart B of 

Part 430, § 5.2) is not appropriate since 

the HSPF calculation method for 

variable speed systems is substantially 

different from that for single speed 

systems. Carrier's request for a four 

percent HSPF credit is based on an 

analysis of comments on the proposed 

rule as published in the December 1979 

final rule. 44 FR 76703 (December 27, 

1979). 

Lennox and Borg-Warner commented 

on this request. Lennox stated that a 

demand defrost credit should be applied 

to the test point which it affects and 

should be consistent with the test 

procedures currently being used. BorgWarner supported the HSPF 

enhancement requested by Carrier. 

The enhancement factor for a demand 

defrost control system was introduced 

by DOE in order "to compensate for 

improved performance not measured in 

the Frost Accumulation Test". 44 FR 

76714 (December 27,1979). The 

enhancement factor was introduced for· 

single-speed and two-speed systems 

because otherwise the calculation would 

assume that a system with a demand 

defrost control would defrost as often as 

a system with a time defrost control, 

while at weather conditions other than 

those specified in the Frost 

Accumulation Test, a system with a demand defrost control would defrost 

only when necessary. 

Based on available evidence, DOE has 

concluded that in the case of a variable 

speed heat pump, most of the 

performance improvement due to a 

demand defrost control would be 

measured in the Frost Accumulation 

Test run at intermediate speed. For 

example, it appears that a frost 

accumulation test run at a low speed to 

match the minimum prescribed building 

load with system capacity would result 
CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 05

35406 . Federal Register I Vol. 51. No. 192 I Friday, October 3, 1986 I Notices 

: .. ; 

in minimal or no frostorelated. 

degradation.if the system is equipped 

with a demand defrost control. If the 

system will not defrost during the test. 

the maximum improved performance 

will be measured by the test. 

In conclusion. DOE determined not to 

grant Carrier's request for a flat four 

percent HSPF enhancement factor for 

demand defrost control system. Instead. 

DOE is granting an enhancement factor 

ranging from zero to four percent, . adjustable according to the number of 

· defrost cycles in a 12-hour period. 

Accordingly. today's Decision and Order· · included an equation allowing a full · enhancement credit for heat pumps 

having the defrost test period less than · 90 minutes, and linearly. based on the 

number of defrost cycles saved. prorates 

the enhancement credit for longer test 

periods resulting in zero credit if a 

tested heat pump does not go into 

defrost during a 12-hour test. 

5. In addition to varying the 

compressor speed. Carrier'S unit also 

varies the Indoor air fan speed with 

various part loads, Carrier requested 

· that the indoor air flow rate at fan · speeds less than the maximum speed be . 

determined 8S the ratio of fan speed to 

maximum fan speed multiplied by air' 

flow at maximum fan speed. The . petitioner states that present standards. 

DOE's and ARl's, do not provide , instructions for determining the indoor 

mass flow of air at intermediate fan 

speeds. 

Borg-Warner commented in support of 

this request stating that the Carrier. 

requested method for determining air . 

mass flow rate was used by Borg-:: ... , .. , Warner on its variable speed heat 

pumps. 

Based on the information provided by 

the petitioner and the commenters. DOE 

has determined to grant Carrier's 

request for the method for determining 

indoor air mass flow rate. 

It is, therefore ordered that: (1) The 

"Petition of Waiver" filed by Carrier 

Corporation (CAC-{)Ol) iR hereby 

granted as set forth in paragraph (Z) 

below, subject to the provisions of 

paragraphs (3) and (4). 

(2) Notwithstanding any contrary 

provisions of Appendix M of 10 CFR 

Part 430 Subpart B, Carrier Corporation 

shall be permitted to test its vat'iable 

speed (VSP) model heat pumps and 

cooling units on the basis specified in 10 

CFR Part 430, wilh the modifications set 

forth below: 

(i) Test Procedure. Test procedures 

shall be as specified in section 5 of ARI 

Standard 210/Z40-84 and in section 8.0 

of ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 116-1983, 

with the inclusion of the following 

conditions. 

(Al Cooling GIld heating cycle tests . " 

shall be conducted by cycling the 

compressor 12 minutes "on" and 48 

minutes "off'. The capacity and all 

electrical energy shall be measured for 

the compressor "on" time or12 minutes. 

All off-cycle electrical energy shall be 

measured for the compressor 48 minutes 

"off' time. Off-cycle electrical energy 

does not include fan power. 

(B) Intermediate cooling and heating 

steady-state tests shall be conducted at 

indoor coil and outdoor coil air 

conditions selected for the intermediate 

cooling steady-state test and heating' 

frost accumulation test. respectively, in 

Table B1 of ARI StandardZ10/240-84. 

The tolerances for the dry-bulb and wetbulb temperatures of the air entering the 

indoor and outdoor coils shall be within 

the test operating tolerance and test 

condition tolerance specified in Table 

when·:. CFMv = volumetr ic 

speed less 

CFMmax = volumetric 

III-A of ANSII ASHRAE Standard 116-

1983. the intermediate compressor speed' 

during the cooling test shall be in the . 

range from '13 to 'Iz between the 

minimum and maximum speed. The 

intermediate compressor speed during . 

the frost accumulation test shall be high .. 

enough to obtain system capacity that is 

95 percent or more of the building load 

at 35 OF for which HSPF is to be 

calculated. Determination of the 

compressor speed shall be conducted by . 

a method which has the ability to 

provide results with less than two 

percent error.' 

'The air volumetric flow rate at fan 

speeds less than the maximum speed 

shall be determined u'sing the fan laws 

for a fixed resistance sytems. The ' 

following equation shall be used to 

calculate the flow rate of air: 

flow rate of air at fan. 

than maximum speed 

flow rate of air at the: 

. max imum. fan ,speed " 

RPM~ ,. the fan speed for: which air: flQw. rate is' 

calculated: 

= the max imum·.,fan speed' 

Fan speed shall be determined by a 

method having the ability-to provid~ 

results with uncertainty less than .two 

compressor units, as specified in ANSI/ . 

ASHRAEStandard.116-1983 and ARI; . Standard ZlO/Z4(),-84.an~ in accordap.ce·, 

wLth the following changes.The .... ,' ._ . 

capacity for the unit modulating at the 

intermediate compressor speed (k=v) at 

percent. . 

(ii) Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio, 

SEER. The SEER shall be determined by 

the method for two-speed or two - any temperature (tal shall be defined as: 

wherel 

Q"<"(87) flS + 

tl>e capacity of the unit at 870 F det~rmined by the intermediat.e cooUna steady-state test 

Mq • slope of the capacity curve for the 

intermediate compressor speed (k=v) 

M = a 

k= I kc< 1 ess (62) - Qss (67) 

62 - 67 

* 

k=2 k=2 

°55 (95) - 055 (82) 

95- 82 

Ok=2(87) ss k= 1 - Qss (67) 

k=v Where: All O's, except for Q (87), are determined by AN5I/ASH~ 

116-1983 ana ARI Standar~ 2107240-64 by test or linear interpolation. 
CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 05

Federal Register I Vol. 51, No. 192 I Friday, October 3, 1986 I Notices 35407 

Once the equation for Qk=V(t.lhas 

been determined, the lemperature where 

Qk=V(I.)=BL(I.) can be follnd. This 

temperature is designated as Iv. and 

replaces 87 of in the equations for Case 

II in Appendix B of ARI Standard 210/ 

240-34. 

Th,e electrical power input for the unit 

operating at the intermediate 

compressor speed (k=v) and the 

temperature (tve) shall be defined! as: 

"I . • f ~ ; ~, 0> ! .! 

:: .' 

. ,j' • . ! ; : ~'. 

where: 

k=v k=v ESg (tvc ) = E~5 (87) + ME (tvc - 87) 

E~:v(87) z the electrical power input of the urit 

at 87 0 F determined by the intermediate 

cooling steady-state test 

ME = slope of the electrical power input curv'e 

for the intermediate compressor speed (k-v) 

k"v Whetp:' All'E's, except Es (87),are'determined'from ANSI/AbHAAt:. 

116-1983. and ARI Stannard i!0/240-84 by test or linear interpolation. 

Once E~;2(tvc) has been netermined, 'it replaces 

Ek"'v(87) in the equations for Case II in Appendix B of AId 55 . ' 

Stand~td 210/240-84. 

"'; 

, (iii) Heating Seasonal Performance ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 116-1983 and 

ARI Standard 210/240-84, and in 

accordance with the following changes. 

The capacity for the unit modulating 

at the intermediate compressor speed 

(k=v) at any tempera lure (t,,) shall be 

defined as: 

Factor. HSPF. ,The HSPF shall be 

determined by the method for two-speed 

or two compressor units, .as specified in 

k=v where: 0nef (35) = ,the capacity of the unit at J50p determined 

at the interme(liate compressor speed (k=v) in 

defrost accumulation test 

= slope of the capacity curve for the intermediate 

compressor speed (k=v) 

= 

Ok=1(62) -Ok=1(47) 55. 5S 

62 47 

(lk=l(47) - Ok=2(17) 55 55 

47 - 17 

O~:¥(35) - O~;1(35) 

0~~2(J5) Q~~1(35) 

wnere: All O'!O', exc/>ot O~=¥ (35), are determined from 

ANSI/ASIlAAE Standard i16-1983 and ARI Standard 210/24u-84 

lip~ar interpolation. 

by test or 

,,: 
CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 05

35403 Federal'Register I Vol. 51, No. 192 I-Friday, Octollcr 3, 1986 / Notices 

Once the equation for Qk=V(tx)=BL(t.) .. has been determined, the temperature 

where Qk=·(t.=BL{t.) can be found. This 

temperature is designated as IvlI• A 

where: 

ala U _ 

separate tv" shall be determined for 

each design heating requirement. 

The electrical power input for the unit 

operating at the intermediate 

compressor speed {k=v) and at the 

temperature (tvlI) shall be defined as: 

the electrical power input of the unit 

at 3SoF determined at the intermediate 

compressor speed (k=v) in the frost 

accumulation test 

= slope of the electrical power input curve 

for the intermediate compressor speed (k=v) 

Ek=1(62) _ Ek=l (47) 

ME = ss ss * (1 - NE) 

62 - 47 

Ek=2- (47 ) - Ek=2 (17) 

+ NE ss ss 

47 - 17 

Ek=v (35) _ Ek=l (35 ) 

NE = ss ss 

J:;k=2 ss (35 ) Ek=l 

ss (35) 

Where: All E's except Ek:

V (35) are determined from ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 116-1983 and ART Standard 210/240-84 bv test or linear 

interpolation. -

The following section replaces Case II 

in section 2.2 of ARI 210/240-84. 

Casell 

, When the compressor speed varies 

between the maximum speed (k=2) and 

minimum speed (k=l) such that k=v to 

satisfy the building load at temperature 

tJ evaluate the following equations: 

BILLING CODE 64S0-01-M 
CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 05

Federal Register I Vol. 51. No. 192 I Friday. October 3. 1986 I Notices 

where: 

where: Ek=v{t·) 

ss , J. 

Ek=v (t. ) S9 JH 

2. U 

Qk=v(t.) = BL (t.) 

ss J J 

steady-state capacity delivered by the 

unit at any speed between the minimum and 

maximum compressor speeds at temperature tj 

.. Ek= v (tVH) 

ss * 

'-'r 

= the electrical power input required by the 

unit at temperature t· and at a variable 

compressor speed betw~en tH~ minimum and 

maximum compressor speeds 

= the electrical power input required by the 

unit at temperature tVH and at the 

intermediate compressor speed (k=v), as 

determined above ' 

= the electrical power input required by the 

unit at temperature t3 and at the 

minimum compressor speed r 

t3.= temperat~re at which Q~:l (tj) = BL (tj) 

+ 

where: the electrical power input required by the 

unit at temperature t4 and at the maximum 

compressor speed 

= temperatur~ at which Qk=2 (t·) = BL(t·) t4 ss J J 

BllllNr;; CODE 6450-o1-C 

35409 

a 
CAS-RM-79-102 COMMENT 05

35410 Federal Register I Vol. 51, No. 192 I Friday. October 3. 1986 I Notices 

For air-source units with variablespeed compressors that are equipped 

with "demand defrost control systems", 

the value for HSPF. as determined 

above shall be multiplied by an 

enhancement factor. Ecsef' to compensate 

for improved performance not measured 

in the Frost Accumulation Test. 

F~ef = 1 + 0.04 N;l 

where: n = 720/t, or 8, whichever is smaller 

The factor. Fder• depends on the 

number of defrost cycles in a 12-hour 

period (n) and should be calculated as 

follows: 

t = length of the frost accumulation test period in minutes 

(3) The waiver shall remain in effect 

from the date of issuance of this Order 

until the Department of Energy 

prescribes final test procedures 

appropriate to the type of variablespeed central air conditioners and heat 

pumps manufactured by Carrier 

Corporation. 

(4) This waiver is based upon the 

prescribed validity of statements. 

allegations. and documentary materials 

submitted by the applicant and 

commenters. This waiver may be 

revoked or modified at any time upon a 

determination that the factual basis 

underlying the application is incorrect. 

IFR Doc. 65-22354 Filed 10-2-66; 6:45 am] 

BlWNG CODE 6450-01 ....