Monday,

October 22, 2007

Department

Energy

10 CFR Part 430

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Test Procedure for

Residential Central Air Conditioners and

Heat Pumps; Final Rule

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59906 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE-RM/TP-02-002]

RIN 1904-AB55

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Test Procedure

for Residential Central Air

Conditioners and Heat Pumps

AGENCY : Department of Energy.

ACTION : Final rule.

SUMMARY : The Department of Energy

(DOE) is amending its test procedure for

residential central air conditioners and

heat pumps. This final rule implements

test procedure changes for small-duct,

high-velocity systems, two-capacity

units, and updates references to the

current American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning

Engineers (ASHRAE) standards. Today's

rule also clarifies issues associated with

sampling tested systems and rating

untested split-system combinations.

DATES : This rule is effective April 21,

2008. Incorporation by reference of

certain publications in the final rule is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of April 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES : You may review copies of

all materials related to this rulemaking

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.

Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at

the above telephone number for

additional information regarding

visiting the Resource Room. Please note:

DOE'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 G. Raymond, U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy, EE-2J, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-

9611, e-mail:

michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov; or

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. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

C. Summary of the Test Procedure

Revisions

II. Discussion of Comments

A. Frost Accumulation Test Duration

B. Multiple-Split Systems

C. Defining "Repeatable" for Cyclic Tests

D. Outdoor Air Test Conditions for Units

Having a Two-Capacity Compressor

E. Air Volume Rate Less Than

Manufacturer's Specified Value

F. Updating References to Industry

Standards

G. Maximum and Minimum Speed Values

for Calculating NQ and NE

H. Using the Default or Tested Value of

Cyclic-Degradation Coefficient

I. Guidance on the Inclusion of PreProduction Units in the Sample

Population

J. Clarification of the Sample Population

Used To Validate the Rated Seasonal

Energy Efficiency Ratio and Heating

Seasonal Performance Factor of Heat

Pumps

K. Clarification of the Definition of a

"Highest-Sales-Volume Combination"

L. Upper Limit on the Difference Between

Calculated and Tested Seasonal Energy

Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal

Performance Factor Values

M. Clarification of the Published Ratings

for Untested Split-System Combinations

N. Ratings That Are Based on Using a

Particular Furnace or Ducted Air Mover

0. Revisions to the Definition of "Coil

Family"

III. Summary of Other Additions, Changes,

and Corrections to the Department of

Energy Residential Central Air

Conditioner and Heat Pump Test

Procedure

IV. Effect of Test Procedure Revisions on

Compliance With Standards

V. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995

D. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995

H. Review Under the Treasury and General

Government Appropriations Act, 1999

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

J. Review Under the Treasury and General

Government Appropriations Act, 2001

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal

Energy Administration Act of 1974

M. Congressional Notification

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

1. Introduction

A. Authority

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy

and Conservation Act (EPCA)

established 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 central air

conditioners and heat pumps, the

subject of today's final rule.

Under EPCA, the Program consists of

three parts: Testing, labeling, and the

Federal energy conservation standards.

DOE, 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 these 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))

If a test procedure is amended, DOE

is required to determine to what extent,

if any, the proposed new test procedure

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 this

representative sample, tested using the

amended test procedure, constitutes the

amended standard. (42 U.S.C.

6293(e)(2)) DOE has determined that

today's amended test procedure does

not alter the measured efficiency or

measured energy use of minimally

compliant central air conditioners and

heat pumps.

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 product,

except as reflected in tests conducted

according to the DOE procedure. (42

U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) Any manufacturer,

distributor, retailer, or private labeler

may petition the Secretary of Energy for

an extension of not more than 180 days

to test and make representations in

accordance with the amended DOE test

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) In

addition, all existing waivers

concerning residential multi-split

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations 59907

systems terminate on the effective date

of today's final rule.

B. Background

A final rule published on October 11,

2005, updated and completely reorganized the DOE residential central

air conditioner and heat pump test

procedure. 70 FR 59122. During this

prior rulemaking, a few issues were

identified too late in the process to

allow them due consideration. DOE

investigated these issues and considered

additional topics that could further

improve the testing and rating process.

As a result of these efforts, DOE issued

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on

July 20, 2006 (hereafter referred to as the

July 2006 proposed rule). 71 FR 41320.

Although the majority of the proposed

changes pertained to the test procedure

set forth in appendix M to subpart B of

Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,

Part 430 (10 CFR part 430), DOE also

proposed revisions to sections of

subparts B and F of 10 CFR part 430 that

concern the sampling of tested units and

the ratings of untested split-system

combinations. 10 CFR 430.24 and

430.62. DOE held a public meeting on

the July 2006 proposed rule on August

23, 2006.

On October 10, 2006, DOE published

a Federal Register notice correcting two

inadvertent omissions in the July 2006

proposed rule. 71 FR 59410. These

omissions contained the regulatory

language governing the criterion for

using an air volume rate that is less than

the manufacturer's specified value: One

case covered air conditioners and heat

pumps, the other case covered heatingonly heat pumps. This change was

described in the preamble of the July

2006 proposed rule, but was not

included in the regulatory language. In

addition to publishing the corrected

regulatory language in the Federal

Register, the omitted regulatory

language was distributed at the August

23, 2006, public meeting.

C. Summary of the Test Procedure

Revisions

The revisions adopted in today's final

rule include the following changes to

appendix M of Subpart B of 10 CFR part

430: (1) Adding new testing

requirements for small-duct, highvelocity systems; (2) reinstating the

optional testing to determine the cyclicdegradation coefficient (CD) of a twocapacity unit when cycling on and off

at high capacity; (3) shortening the

maximum duration of the Frost

Accumulation Tests; (4) allowing the

use of default equations to approximate

the capacity and power of a twocapacity unit when operating at lowcapacity/stage and at an outdoor

temperature of 35 degrees Fahrenheit

(°F); (5) implementing modifications

and additions that specifically address

elements unique to testing and rating

modulating multi-split systems; (6)

allowing indoor capacities used in

calculating Seasonal Energy Efficiency

Ratio (SEER) and Heating Seasonal

Performance Factor (HSPF) to be

corrected for duct losses; (7) defining

the term "standard air;" (8) changing the

outdoor temperature conditions used for

one of the low-capacity, steady-state,

cooling mode tests on a two-capacity

unit; (9) renaming "Cooling and Heating

Certified Air Volume Rates" to "FullLoad Air Volume Rates;" (10) modifying

the criterion for using an air volume rate

less than the manufacturer's specified

value; (11) updating the references to

current versions of the Air-Conditioning

and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and

ASHRAE standards; (12) adding

language to better explain the SEER and

HSPF calculation steps for variablespeed equipment; and (13) adding text

to clarify the provision to use the

default value of the cyclic-degradation

coefficient if it is lower than the tested

value.

Today's final rule also amends

sections 430.2, 430.24 and 430.62 of 10

CFR part 430, as follows: (1) It expands

the options for meeting the data

submission requirements when

verifying an alternative rating method

(ARM); (2) it clarifies the sample

population to be used to validate the

rated SEER and rated HSPF of a heat

pump; (3) it clarifies the definition of a

"highest-sales-volume combination"

(HSVC); (4) it clarifies DOE's role in

verifying ratings for untested split

system combinations; (5) it clarifies how

to apply the ARM to obtain published

ratings for untested, split-system

combinations; (6) it adds the

requirement that ratings for an air

conditioner or heat pump tested with a

furnace or similar ducted air mover

include the model number of the air

mover as part of the overall equipment

model number; (7) it clarifies the

responsibilities of private labelers; (8) it

adds the statutory definition of "private

labeler;" and (9) it adds definitions for

terms, including "indoor unit",

"outdoor unit", and "ARM/simulation

adjustment factor."

H. Discussion of Comments

In addition to the comments received

at the August 23, 2006, public meeting,

DOE received written comments to the

July, 2006 proposed rule from ARI,

Nordyne, Mitsubishi, Fujitsu General

Limited (Fujitsu), Carrier Corporation

(Carrier), the American Council for an

Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE),

Sanyo Fisher Service Corporation

(Sanyo), Lennox International (Lennox),

and the China WTO/TBT National

Notification and Enquiry Center (China).

The comments and the DOE response to

them are discussed below. References to

section numbers within this document

refer to the section numbers of

Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR

part 430-Uniform Test Method for

Measuring the Energy Consumption of

Central Air Conditioners and Heat

Pumps (Appendix M).

A. Frost Accumulation Test Duration

DOE proposed shortening the

maximum test interval of a Frost

Accumulation Test from 12 hours to 6

hours when testing a two-capacity heat

pump at low capacity. ARI supported

DOE's proposal to lessen the test

burden, but recommended that the

maximum duration be further shortened

to 3 hours. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 2)1 ARI

stated that "preliminary testing done by

manufacturers shows a variation in

HSPF of less than one tenth 2 when the

test is reduced from 12 to 3 hours."

(ARI, Id.) In a follow-up

communication, ARI clarified that its 3-

hour recommendation applies to all

Frost Accumulation Tests, not just the

test at low-capacity. (ARI, No. 25 at p.

2) ARI provided a table showing the

percentage of the total interval allocated

to defrosting for cycles lasting 6, 7, 8, 9,

and 10 minutes; percentages were

calculated for complete (frost + defrost)

intervals ranging from 1 hour to 12

hours. As an example, for tests lasting

12, 6, and 3 hours, the percentages of

time spent defrosting are 1.1, 2.2, and

4.4 percent, respectively, if the defrost

lasts 8 minutes in all cases. (ARI, No. 25

at p. 3) In addition to recommending

that any change be applied to all Frost

Accumulation Tests, Nordyne and

Carrier recommended manufacturers be

given the option of using either the

procedure specified in ASHRAE

Standard 37 (which uses a maximum

test interval of 3 hours) or the algorithm

specified in the DOE test procedure.

(Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 2; Carrier, No. 17

' A notation in the form "ARI, No.21 at p. 2"

identifies a written comment the Department has

received and has included in the docket of this

rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a

comment (1) by the Air-Conditioning and

Refrigeration Institute (ARI), (2) in document

number 21 in the docket of this rulemaking

(maintained in the Resource Room of the Building

Technologies Program), and (3) appearing on page

2 of document number 21. Likewise, "Public

Hearing Tr., p. 178," for example, would refer to

page 178 of the transcript of the "Public Meeting

on Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners"

held in Washington, DC, August 23, 2006.

2 This means an absolute variation in HSPF of 0.1,

such as between 8.1 and 8.2.

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59908 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

at p. 2) In summary, the stakeholders

recommended applying changes to all

Frost Accumulation Tests (not just to

the one low-capacity test, as proposed),

reducing the maximum duration to 3

hours instead of 6 hours, and adding an

alternative test method.

DOE believes that if all three changes

were adopted, the HSPF ratings of heat

pumps would be changed, since the

ASHRAE Standard 37 "T" Test

Procedure may terminate after 0, 1, 2, or

3 complete cycles whereas the DOE

Frost Accumulation Test is either 0 or

1 complete cycle. The different cycles in

the ASHRAE and DOE test methods can

yield different average heating capacity

and power consumption results at the

DOE-specified 35 °F dry-bulb/33 °F wetbulb outdoor test conditions which

would affect the HSPF rating. As for

shortening the maximum test time to 3

hours, such a change may benefit heat

pumps (i.e., give a higher average

heating capacity) that initiate a defrost

of the outdoor coils between 3 and 6

hours after the start of the test. In such

cases, the heat pump's average heating

capacity will not account for the energy

used for defrosting. By not accounting

for the defrost energy, the shorter test

time would overstate the heating

capacity and HSPF. Thus, DOE will not

reduce the maximum test duration by

the additional 3 hours or add the

ASHRAE Standard 37 procedure as an

alternate test method as part of this final

rule.

DOE agrees with comments

recommending the same maximum limit

for all Frost Accumulation Tests. The

low-capacity Frost Accumulation Test is

projected to be the most likely of the 35

°F tests to approach the proposed 6-hour

limit, followed by the required Frost

Accumulation Test at the intermediate

speed when testing a variable-speed

heat pump. All other Frost

Accumulation Tests are more likely to

build frost and are likely to result in the

unit defrosting in less time than it

would at the intermediate speed. Thus,

triggering the 6-hour limit is less likely

when applied to these other cases.

Finally, DOE concludes that 6 hours

offers a sufficiently long duration for

evaluating performance in all cases. As

noted in the July 2006 proposed rule, if

a heat pump has not defrosted in 6

hours, it is either not building frost or

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 minimal. Therefore, DOE reduces

the maximum duration of all Frost

Accumulation Tests from 12 hours to 6

hours. This change appears in section

3.9 of Appendix M.

B. Multiple-Split Systems

DOE received comments on issues

related to the testing and rating of

multiple-split air-conditioning systems

(multi-split systems), including: (1)

Rating multi-split systems based on

SEER (if they compete primarily with

ducted central air conditioners), or

rating them based on EER (if they

compete with room air conditioners)

(SEER or EER); (2) adopting a separate

test procedure for multi-split systems,

such as Draft ARI Standard 1230 (ARI

1230); (3) allowing one or more indoor

coils to turn off during any test, if

representative of normal operation

(Coils active during test); (4) allowing

the manufacturer to specify the

compressor speed used during the

minimum-speed, intermediate-speed

and maximum-speed tests (Compressor

speed); (5) extending multi-split system

test procedure changes to one-to-one

ducted systems (One-to-one

applicability); and (6) adding the term

"tested combination" within 10 CFR

430.2 for determining the combination

of indoor units to be tested when testing

a multi-split outdoor unit, and the

appropriate rating of the tested

combination (Tested combination).

SEER or EER. DOE received several

comments on whether multi-split

systems compete primarily with ducted

residential central air conditioners and

heat pumps and as such, should be

rated based on SEER and HSPF, or if

they compete with room air

conditioners and should be rated in

terms of EER and COP. Trane argues

that residential size multi-split systems

compete for the same markets as ducted

residential central systems: both serve

multiple rooms, one ducts air whereas

the second "ducts" refrigerant. (Public

Hearing Tr., p. 178) Carrier and ACEEE

support rating conventional central air

conditioners and heat pumps and multisplit systems using the same

descriptors. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 1 and

ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 3) According to

Mitsubishi, "ductless split-systems,

including ductless multi-split systems,

are used for room or spot cooling

applications while the rest of the USE

[unitary small equipment] equipment

(i.e., central systems) is applied in a

ducted environment for multiple rooms

or whole houses." (Mitsubishi, No. 20 at

p. 3) DOE believes residential-size

multi-split systems compete with

ducted central systems and that the

consumer will be best served if multisplit systems can be compared with

central air conditioners and central airconditioning heat pumps. Therefore,

DOE concludes that SEER and HSPF are

better descriptors than EER and COP.

ARI 1230. ARI, Sanyo, Fujitsu,

Mitsubishi, and Daikin AC (Americas),

Inc. (Daikin) urged DOE to adopt Draft

ARI Standard 1230, "Performance

Rating of Multi-Split Air-Conditioning

and Heat Pump Equipment" in lieu of

the proposed rule. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 3;

Sanyo, No. 15 at pp. 2-3; Fujitsu, No.

13 at p. 3; Mitsubishi, No. 20 at pp. 4-

5; Public Hearing Tr., pp. 153-154)

China recommends that DOE not cover

multi-split systems within the

residential central air conditioner and

heat pump test procedure until all the

technical issues have been resolved.

(China, No. 14 at p. 1) Copeland

recommends that DOE review and

consider the approaches being taken by

China and the European Union on how

to test and rate multi-split systems.

(Public Hearing Tr., p. 64) Nordyne

supports the changes proposed in the

July 2006 proposed rule to cover multisplit systems as an interim solution, but

states that further study is needed for a

long term solution. (Nordyne, No. 19 at

p. 2) Lennox, on the other hand,

believes that multi-split systems should

be rated using the current test procedure

for central air conditioners and central

air conditioning heat pumps. (Lennox,

No. 22 at p. 2) Sanyo and Fujitsu point

out that the test procedure does not

address units that can simultaneously

cool and heat; the test procedure does

not specify how many indoor units are

turned off during a given test; and

doubts whether the current DOE tests

for variable-speed systems can

approximate the unit's "performance

map." 3 (Sanyo, No. 15 at pp. 2-3;

Fujitsu, No. 13 at pp. 2-3; Public

Hearing Tr., pp. 94-95, 110)

DOE is not convinced that residentialsize multi-split systems require a

separate test procedure from the current

test procedure found in Appendix M.

While it is true that the current test

procedure fails to account for the energy

savings derived from a simultaneous

cooling and heating mode, the current

test procedure is adaptable and DOE

believes the tests for variable-speed

systems in Appendix M offer a

reasonable starting point for producing

energy efficiency and energy use

estimates. Once data become available

that provides insight as to the energy

use and efficiency benefits of

simultaneous cooling and heating, and

alternative or additional tests to

estimate these benefits are formulated,

DOE will then consider further

3 Performance map refers to a plot that shows the

effect of compressor speed, number of indoor unit

turned on versus off, and outdoor temperature

conditions on the unit's space conditioning

capacity and power consumption.

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59909

amendments to the test procedure.

Accordingly, DOE is not adopting a new

test procedure and energy efficiency and

energy use ratings will continue to be

based on the test procedure found in

Appendix M.

Regarding the stakeholder

recommendation to adopt draft ARI

Standard 1230, the current draft (as

distributed in June 2007), is less

complete for residential multi-split

systems than the DOE test procedure in

today's final rule. For example, ARI

Standard 1230 (June 2007 draft) lacks

information on how to conduct

intermediate speed tests, whether any

indoor units are to be turned off for partload tests, how to interpolate EER and

COP in the intermediate speed range,

and generally how to calculate SEER

and HSPF. Furthermore, ARI has not

finalized ARI Standard 1230 and, as

such it cannot be incorporated by

reference since it could be amended

prior to being adopted in final form.

Therefore, for the reasons discussed

above, DOE is not adopting ARI

Standard 1230 (June 2007 draft) in

today's final rule.

As for considering changes that are

modeled on the approaches taken in

China and the European Union, DOE

sees their potential use as limited given

the current EPCA requirement to

calculate annual measures of energy

consumption. The European Union

HVAC trade association, Eurovent, lists

ratings for residential-size multi-splits

that are based on full load EER and COP

and their European SEER (ESEER) is

thus far limited to liquid chilling

packages, not unitary air conditioners

(i.e., residential central air conditioners

and central air conditioning heat

pumps). The ESEER is actually a

variation of ARI Standard 340/360's

IPLV, which is used to quantify the partload performance of larger, nonresidential systems. An IPLV equivalent

is also used in China. Neither

international resource explicitly

addresses the number of indoor units to

be turned off during a given part-load

test; such information would be

necessary in order to get an accurate

measure of equipment efficiency for

comparison purposes.

Coils active during test. Concerning

the issue of whether one or more indoor

units should be turned off during any

given test, Daikin commented that you

cannot rely on the unit's controls to

make the decision when operated in a

laboratory environment. (Public Hearing

Tr., p. 62) Given this, DOE offered, at

the public meeting, an algorithm for

specifying the number of indoor units

that are turned on for a given test. This

algorithm is shown in Table 1, below.

To evaluate the effect of such an

algorithm, Fujitsu conducted

simulations in which it modeled the

performance of a unit if operated at the

DOE test procedure cooling mode

conditions. Fujitsu considered cases

where the number of indoor units

turned on for the two minimum speed

and one intermediate speed tests

changed. Fujitsu reported results for

three cases: the first case, all four indoor

units are on for all tests; the second

case, three indoor units are on for the

intermediate speed test and two indoor

units are on for the minimum speed

tests; and the third case, two indoor

units are on for the intermediate-speed

test and one indoor unit is on for the

minimum speed tests. (Fujitsu, No. 13 at

pp. 1-2) Using the simulated data,

Fujitsu reported that the first case yields

the highest SEER. In comparison,

Fujitsu reported that the SEER drops by

4.7 percent for the second case and by

11.6 percent for the third case. Fujitsu

concluded that the number of operating

indoor units may have a great impact on

the result, and that the operating ranges

in Table 1 were not appropriate.

TABLE 1.-APPROACH TO REGULATING

THE NUMBER OF ACTIVE INDOOR

UNITS

(Example Case of a Multi-Split System Having

4 Identical Indoor Units)

Percentage output relative to

full load capacity

Number of

operating

indoor units

75% to 100% ........................

50% to 75% ..........................

25% to 50% ..........................

0% to 25% ............................

4

3

2

1

(DOE, No. 12.3 at p. 12)

DOE recognizes that when field

installed, a multi-split system will often

operate with one or more of its indoor

units turned off. In an effort to have the

DOE test procedure capture this partload operating mechanism, today's final

rule requires that at least one indoor

unit must be turned off for tests

conducted at minimum compressor

speed. In addition, the manufacturer

may elect to have one or more indoor

units turned off for tests conducted at

the intermediate compressor speed. In

all cases, the manufacturer specifies the

particular indoor unit(s) that is turned

off.

Compressor speed. ARI, Sanyo,

Fujitsu, and Mitsubishi opposed DOE's

proposed definition of maximum

compressor speed. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 2;

Sanyo, No. 15 at p. 2; Fujitsu, No. 13 at

p. 2; Mitsubishi, No. 20 at p. 4) They

recommended using the rated capacity

or nominal rated speed because

performance at that compressor speed is

used in sizing and selling the product.

ARI and Sanyo supported DOE's

proposal to allow the manufacturer to

specify the compressor speed used for

the minimum-speed and intermediatespeed tests. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 2; Sanyo,

No. 15 at p. 2) Sanyo and ARI,

moreover, both believe that test

laboratories must accept the task of

providing test facilities that can

maintain steady test room conditions

and accurately measure capacity at very

low loads. (ARI, No. 21 on pp. 2-3;

Sanyo, No. 15 on p. 2)

Regarding the maximum and

minimum compressor speed issue, DOE

reviewed test procedure waivers

processed in the 1980's, and the 1988

test procedure rulemaking that first

added coverage for air conditioners and

heat pumps having a variable-speed

compressor. (53 FR 8304, March 14,

1988) None of these actions explicitly

defined maximum and minimum

compressor speed. Instead, the

manufacturer was allowed to define

these speeds for its particular units. The

evolution to include maximum and

minimum compressor speeds among

those elements that are "conducted in

accordance with the manufacturer's

instructions" occurred because of the

test laboratory's need for a mechanism

to override the unit's normal controls,

so that the compressor can be forced to

operate at fixed speeds for the DOEspecified lab tests. As part of today's

final rule, DOE considered adopting a

specific definition for maximum speed

and requiring additional lab verification

tests, but has decided against it because

there is no compelling technical

argument for doing so. The current

approach effectively allows the

manufacturer to de-rate the unit's

maximum capacity in order to raise its

performance descriptor. As long as that

de-rated capacity is used for sizing the

particular multi-split combination, then

the practice is acceptable. DOE,

however, does not agree with

substituting "nominal" or "rated"

compressor speed for "maximum"

compressor speed, as that will not allow

for test results that can be used to

generate a performance map

representing how particular multi-split

combinations will operate in the field.

The DOE test procedure will continue

to require variable-speed systems to be

tested at their minimum compressor

speed. Manufacturers will be relied

upon to provide the independent testing

laboratory with a means for conducting

tests at this speed. Minimum speed may

not be the absolute minimum speed at

which the compressor can operate, but

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59910 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

it is expected to be a speed below which

the compressor would rarely operate.

DOE concurs with Sanyo and ARI and

expects test laboratories to measure

performance over the wide modulation

range that is characteristic of multisplits. Thus, to the issue of what

compressor speed to use when

conducting minimum speed and

maximum speed tests, DOE is

maintaining the current test procedure

language in sections 3.2.4 and 3.6.4 of

Appendix M.

DOE adopts the July 2006 proposed

change of allowing the manufacturer to

specify the compressor speed used for

the cooling and heating intermediate

speed/capacity tests. This change

provides the manufacturer an

opportunity to select and verify the

peak-efficiency of the unit being tested.

Coupled with this change, and as also

proposed in the July 2006 notice,

steady-state efficiency (EER and COP)

over the intermediate-speed range shall

be calculated using piece-wise linear

fits: a line connecting the minimumand intermediate-speed balance points

and a line connecting the intermediateand maximum-speed balance points.

One-to-one applicability. Carrier

noted the need for transparency in

testing and manufacturer test results so

that interested parties can verify the

performance claims without having to

consult the manufacturer. (Carrier, No.

17 at p. 2) Trane and ARI pointed out

that any steps introduced to facilitate

testing and rating modulating multisplit systems should also be allowed for

modulating one-to-one ducted systems

to promote comparability. (Public

Hearing Tr., pp. 87 and 118; ARI, No. 21

at p. 3) With respect to Carrier's

comment, variable-speed systems do not

lend themselves to being tested by a

third party who does not have the

cooperation of the outdoor unit

manufacturer. Third-party certification

programs thus become especially

important as they offer the primary

pathway for independent verification.

For those multi-split products that are

not covered by a third-party certification

program, DOE can request from the

manufacturer the information needed to

conduct such testing along with

reviewing the lab test results maintained

by the manufacturer, that substantiate

the multi-split system's ratings. 10 CFR

430.62(d).

Of the changes being implemented

today to allow testing and rating of

residential modulating multi-split

systems, two changes could be applied

to variable-speed one-to-one units.

Together, these two changes would

allow the manufacturer to specify the

compressor speed used for the

intermediate-speed tests and then use

linear fits for calculating COP and EER

within the intermediate-speed operating

range. Adopting these two changes for

variable-speed one-to-one units would

create a second compliance path that

would likely cause different SEER and

HSPF ratings than the current test

procedure. Therefore, in adopting these

changes, DOE is not extending them to

variable-speed one-to-one units.

Although DOE expects the current test

procedure to yield the higher ratings for

one-to-one units, it will rely on the

waiver process if any manufacturer

seeks to adopt these two multi-split test

procedure changes for use in rating

variable-speed one-to-one units.

Tested combination. On the issue of

the "tested combination"-the

equipment configuration that can be

tested in the laboratory and thereby

provide a common basis for

comparison-Sanyo, Fujitsu,

Mitsubishi, and ARI recommended

deleting the requirement that the

selected indoor units "represent the

highest-sales-volume type models" and

replacing it with "represent the highest

sales model family." (Sanyo, No. 15 at

p. 3; Fujitsu, No. 13 at p. 4; Mitsubishi,

No. 20 at pp. 5 and 6; ARI, No. 21 at

p. 6) In addition, Sanyo, Fujitsu,

Mitsubishi, and ARI recommended that

provisions be made in the event that

five of the largest model indoor coils

from the selected model family cannot

provide a cumulative indoor capacity

that is more than 95 percent of the

outdoor unit's nominal capacity. As to

references in the proposed definition

that a manufacturer will know the

capacity of each indoor unit and each

outdoor unit, Copeland Corporation

(Copeland) questioned how the

manufacturer would determine

component capacities. (Public Hearing

Tr., pp. 217-221) Finally, with regard to

the proposal that all of the tested indoor

units "have the same external static

pressure," Trane asked how to interpret

that requirement if testing a ducted

multi-split system having indoor units

that have different minimum external

static pressure requirements. (Public

Hearing Tr., p. 229)

DOE accepts the stakeholder

recommendation of substituting the

phrase "represent the highest sales

model family" for the originally

proposed wording, "represent the

highest sales volume type models,"

because it has essentially the same

meaning, but is clearer. Although it is

more an issue with commercial multisplit systems, DOE accepts the proposed

wording to clarify the tested

combination since it is more important

to obtain a cumulative indoor capacity

that matches the outdoor unit than it is

to restrict selection to units from the

highest sales model family, for cases

where both criteria cannot be met. As

for Copeland's statement that the

definition includes references to the

capacity of the outdoor unit and the

cumulative capacities of the indoor

units even though no prescriptions are

given to evaluate these capacities, DOE

agrees but nonetheless will allow their

use in this particular definition.

Manufacturers are able to estimate the

rated capacities of the separate

components without conducting the

rigorous testing associated with ARI

Standards 410 ("Forced-Circulation AirCooling and Air-Heating Coils") and 540

("Performance Rating of Positive

Displacement Refrigerant Compressors

and Compressor Units") on each new

model. Finally, the last element of the

proposed definition of "tested

combination" will be changed from "all

have the same external static pressure"

to "all be subject to the same minimum

external static pressure requirement

(i.e., 0 inches of water column for nonducted, see Table 2 in Appendix M for

ducted indoor units) while being

configurable to produce the same static

pressure at the exit of each outlet

plenum when manifolded as per section

2.4.1 of Appendix M." This additional

information is provided so that the test

laboratory may conduct the lab testing

by manifolding the outlets of all the

indoor units together and using one

airflow measuring apparatus to

determine the cumulative air volume

rate.

At the August 23, 2006, public

meeting, DOE restated its proposed

interim solution for assigning SEER and

HSPF ratings for untested multi-split

combinations. This interim solution-to

assign the rating measured for the tested

combination to every other combination

using the same outdoor unit-was

included as part of the March 24, 2006,

Federal Register notice that published a

petition for waiver from the residential

package air conditioner and heat pump

test procedures that was received from

Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics

USA, Inc. (Case No. CAC-012). 71 FR

14858. This provision was not in the

July 2006 proposed rule, but was

discussed at the public meeting and

relevant comments were received in the

course of the waiver process. Lennox

and Copeland commented that the rated

system's combination of indoor units

could be very different from those in the

tested system, and the ratings agreement

would be poor in this case. (Public

Hearing Tr., pp. 245-246)

Because of the difficulty of

prescribing similarity of indoor unit

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

combinations, and with the belief that a

rating that reflects the "highest sales

model family" is better than no rating,

DOE is including this ratings provision

in the final rule, with the additional

stipulation that multi-split

manufacturers must test two or more

combinations with each outdoor unit

unless they have an approved ARM (in

which case, they only need to test one

combination). 10 CFR 430.24(m)(2). One

system shall be tested using only nonducted indoor units that meet the

definition of a tested combination. The

second system shall be tested using only

ducted indoor units that meet the

definition of a tested combination. The

rating given to any untested multi-split

system combination having the same

outdoor unit and all non-ducted indoor

units shall be set equal to the rating of

the tested system having all non-ducted

indoor units. The rating given to any

untested multi-split system combination

having the same outdoor unit and all

ducted indoor units shall be set equal to

the rating of the tested system having all

ducted indoor units. Finally, the rating

given to any untested multi-split system

combination having the same outdoor

unit and a mix of non-ducted and

ducted indoor units shall be set equal to

the average of the ratings for the two

required tested combinations. 10 CFR

430.24(m)(2)(ii). Furthermore, DOE

notes that it is including a provision for

the use of an alternate rating method.

While DOE is not aware of any

algorithms appropriate for rating the

energy efficiency of untested multi-split

system combinations, DOE expects that

as more laboratory test data and field

use data become available, such

algorithms will be developed.

Today's final rule contains a minor

update that was introduced in the July

2006 proposed rule, removing the limit

on having only one indoor test room. No

comments were received on this

proposed change.

Today's final rule sufficiently

addresses issues that led to the

requesting and granting of test

procedure waivers for several models of

residential multi-split systems.

Therefore, all existing waivers

concerning residential modulating

multi-split systems terminate on the

effective date of today's final rule.

Multi-split manufacturers may use the

waiver process described in 10 CFR

430.27 to petition for modification of

today's test procedure, if necessary.

C. Defining "Repeatable" for Cyclic

Tests

The July 2006 proposed rule

contained two provisions that further

defined repeatable performance during

cyclic tests. One was the requirement

that the time-integrated air temperature

difference across the indoor unit for

consecutive "on" cycles must change by

0.05 °F hr or less while the other was

for the average system power

consumption for the complete "OFF/

ON" interval to change by 10 watts or

less from one cycle to the next.

ARI, Sanyo, Carrier, and Nordyne

commented that repeatability should be

addressed by ASHRAE's Standards

Project Committee (SPC) 116, "Method

of Testing for Rating Seasonal Efficiency

of Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat

Pumps," not by the DOE test procedure

(ARI, No. 21 at p. 3; Sanyo, No. 15 at

p. 5; Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2; Nordyne,

No. 19 at p. 2) Finally, ACEEE supports

DOE's efforts to capture the essence of

industry best practices for cyclic testing.

(ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 4)

DOE recognizes that variability is

inherent in testing products for energy

efficiency, including central air

conditioners and central air

conditioning heat pumps. In order to

reduce test variability and increase

repeatability of test results, DOE has set

specific requirements for test set-up and

measurement to reduce variability.

However, even with these requirements,

test variability remains. Furthermore,

DOE notes that the less repeatable the

test, either more units need to be tested

to support an energy efficiency rating

that is representative of the units true

energy efficiency or, if less testing is

done, the product must be rated

conservatively (i.e., lower energy

efficiency rating).4 Test variability can

be further reduced by, for example,

including more specific requirements in

the DOE test procedures as well as

through industry actions, such as

ASHRAE Standard 116. However,

changes to the DOE test procedures to

deal with test variability could increase

the burden and cost of testing. Since the

purpose of this requirement was to

reduce variability and there are

alternative approaches manufacturers

can take to reduce variability, DOE is

not adopting the cyclic changes

proposed. Therefore, as part of today's

final rule, DOE makes no changes on

defining repeatability during cyclic

tests.

D. Outdoor Air Test Conditions for Units

Having a Two-Capacity Compressor

The July 2006 proposed rule included

provisions that dealt with the outdoor

test conditions for three low-capacity

4 SEER and HSPF values, per the sampling plan

in 10 CFR 430.24, are to be based on the lower 90

percent confidence limit of the true mean divided

by 0.95 (as opposed to the sample mean), thus the

more variability in test results, the more likely that

a product's SEER and HSPF ratings will have to be

reduced from the true mean.

59911

cooling mode tests. The three lowcapacity tests are conducted at different

outdoor dry bulb temperatures (i.e.,

steady-state, wet-coil test at 95 °F

outdoor dry bulb temperature (the Al

Test); the steady-state, dry-coil test at 82

°F (the C1 Test); and the cyclic, dry-coil

test at 82 °F (the D, Test)). The July 2006

proposal was to have all three of these

tests replaced by equivalent tests

conducted at an outdoor dry bulb

temperature of 67 °F.

ARI, Carrier, and Nordyne supported

replacing the A, Test; with the steadystate, wet-coil, F1 Test at 67 °F because

the change will close a potential

loophole in the current test procedure.

(ARI, No. 21 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 17 at

p. 2; Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 2) This

loophole allowed manufacturers a way

to increase the measured SEER by

disproportionately increasing the

electrical power consumption during

the A, Test. ACEEE supported the

change in the temperature in the A, test,

but expressed its concern that the

change may downgrade the importance

of high temperature performance.

(ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 4) ARI, Carrier, and

Nordyne commented that the change in

the C, and D1 tests is unnecessary since

these tests are optional and the changes

will do very little to improve the

accuracy of SEER. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 3;

Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2; Nordyne, No. 19

at p. 2) Carrier also expressed its

concern that products designed and

tested under the current methodology

may have to be re-rated as a result of the

proposal. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2) In

terms of the test procedure, Carrier is

concerned that a different cyclicdegradation coefficient (CD) may result

from replacing the C, and D1 Tests with

equivalent tests at 67°F.

Collectively, the three proposed

changes make the test conditions for

two-capacity units consistent with the

test conditions specified for variablespeed systems. Implementing all three

changes would result in a more normal

test progression for most two-capacity

units: all wet coil tests followed by the

dry coil test; start with high capacity

tests and end with the low capacity

tests; and start at 95 °F, progress to 82

°F, and then end with 67 °F. These

benefits, however, cannot be realized

because of the possibility of causing a

change in the SEER ratings of some twocapacity units. Thus, DOE agrees with

the general position of the comments

that the proposal to change the outdoor

test conditions for the two optional drycoil CD tests (Cl and D, tests) is not

warranted.

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59912 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

Therefore, today's final rule replaces

the A, Test with the F, Test, as

proposed. The F1 Test requires an

outdoor dry bulb temperature of 67 IF,

and for those few cases where it applies,

an outdoor wet bulb temperature of 53.5

IF. The amendments discussed above

are found in sections 3.2.3 and 4.1.3 of

Appendix M.

E. Air Volume Rate Less Than

Manufacturer's Specified Value

In the July 2006 proposed rule, and

the October 10, 2006, correction notice,

DOE proposed modifications to the

criteria for using an air volume rate that

is less than the manufacturer's specified

value. The proposal was made to

account for the variability in fan motors,

housings, and wheels. In brief, the

proposed set-up process for the test

procedure provides for making

incremental adjustments in the indoor

fan speed until the indoor unit provides

an external static pressure that is equal

to or greater than the applicable DOE

minimum (i.e., 0.1, 0.15, or 0.20 inch of

water column, if a non-small-duct, highvelocity (SDHV) system), while

operating at the manufacturer-specified

air volume rate or, if needed, at the air

volume rate between 95 percent and 100

percent that produces the corresponding

DOE minimum static pressure value.

For comparison, the current algorithm

in the DOE test procedure does not

allow the air volume rate to be reduced

from 100 percent for the case where the

external static pressure is less than

specified by the test procedure. The

proposed criteria apply to all ducted

blower-coil systems, except those

having a variable-speed motor that is

controlled based on maintaining a

constant air volume rate. The proposed

criteria include two cases where the test

laboratory is instructed to operate at an

air volume rate less than that specified

by the manufacturer: (1) If the highest

indoor fan speed setting cannot yield

the DOE-specified external static

pressure minimum while supplying the

manufacturer-specified air volume rate,

and (2) if the manufacturer's specified

air volume rate yields a ratio higher

than 37.5 standard cubic feet per minute

(scfm) per 1000 Btu/h.

Nordyne, Carrier and Rheem

supported the proposed criteria for

using an air volume rate that is less than

the manufacturer's specified value.

(Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 2; Carrier, No. 17

at p. 3; Public Hearing Tr., p. 135; and

Public Hearing Tr., pp. 134-135) ACEEE

commented that since the proposed

language specified which product

designs would be subject to this

requirement, they recommended that

the wording for the types of indoor

blowers that are affected by this change

be as generic as possible so as not to

impede product innovation. (Public

Hearing Tr., pp. 132-133)

DOE agrees with ACEEE that the

proposed language could limit

innovation since the proposed

amendment was intended to apply to

designs that are not adequately

addressed by the current air volume

requirements. Since it is impossible to

predict what product designs may enter

the marketplace, specifying the designs

subject to the new provisions may, in

fact, limit innovation. Therefore, in

response to ACEEE's comment, DOE

restructured the air volume criteria to

indicate that the change applies to all

designs, except variable-speed,

constant-air-volume-rate blowers. In this

way, the variable-speed, constantvolume-rate blowers, which the existing

test procedure adequately addresses,

continue to be subject to the existing

requirement.

F. Updating References to Industry

Standards

The July 2006 proposed rule included

updates to references to current industry

test standards, including ASHRAE

Standard 23-2005, "Methods of Testing

for Rating Positive Displacement

Refrigerant Compressors and

Condensing Units," ASHRAE Standard

37-2005, "Methods of Testing for Rating

Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump

Equipment," and ASHRAE Standard

116-1995 (RA2005), "Methods of

Testing for Rating Seasonal Efficiency of

Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat

Pumps." Nordyne commented in

support of this proposal. (Nordyne, No.

19 at p. 2)

In addition, subsequent to the

publication of the July 2006 proposed

rule, ARI released an updated version of

ARI Standard 210/240, "Performance

Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning and

Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment." The

updated version of ARI Standard 210/

240 included references to the DOE test

procedure as amended by the final rule

published on October 11, 2005. This

latest version of ARI Standard 210/240

had not been released at the time that

the content of the July 2006 proposed

rule had been finalized. Since the

updated test procedures do not affect

the measure of efficiency and provide

manufacturers with current test

standards, DOE moves today to adopt

the 2006 version of ARI Standard 210/

240.

G. Maximum and Minimum Speed

Values for Calculating NQ and NE

Rheem inquired as to whether the

minimum and maximum speed

quantities needed to evaluate Appendix

M equations 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-3 are to

be determined directly from additional

lab testing or from interpolating data

from required tests lab tests at 67 IF, 82

IF, and 95 IF. (NIST, No. 24 at p. 2) In

response, for cooling performance, DOE

modified section 4.1.4 to explicitly state

that the capacities and Q°k=1 (87) and

Q- k=2 (87), which are used as part of the

algorithm for approximating the slope of

the intermediate compressor speed

(k=v) capacity curve, are determined by

evaluating equations 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-

3, respectively, for TT = 87. Similar

direction is provided for determining

the power consumption quantities Eck=1

(87) and E°k=2 (87) that appear within

the section 4.1.4 equation for NE. For

heating performance, such direction

already exists within the section on

calculating the HSPF for a variablespeed heat pump, with regard to the

source of the minimum speed quantities

at 35 IF.

This change does not affect the

calculated SEER. The revised text is

found following the equation for NE in

section 4.1.4 of Appendix M.

H. Using the Default or Tested Value of

Cyclic-Degradation Coefficient

Carrier asked if the manufacturer

elects to run the optional tests, and the

resulting CD exceeds the 0.25 default

value, is the manufacturer obligated to

use the tested value. (Public Hearing Tr.,

p. 31) The current test procedure

addresses this scenario for most cases

where a CD is used in the SEER and

HSPF calculations. Specifically,

sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2.1, 4.1.3.1, 4.1.4.1,

4.2.1, and 4.2.3.1, direct that if the

optional test(s) are not conducted, the

cooling (heating) cyclic-degradation

coefficient, CDC (CD"), is to be set to the

default value of 0.25. If the optional

test(s) are conducted, CDC (CDh) must to

be set to the lower of: the value

calculated per the test or the default

value of 0.25. In response to Carrier's

comment, DOE has added similar

wording to sections 4.1.3.3 and 4.2.3.3,

the only sections that did not include

the clarifying language found in the

sections referenced above.

Furthermore, in reviewing the

organization of the current test

procedure while considering this

update, DOE found that the information

would be better placed in the earlier

sections (within section 3) with the

instructions as to which tests to conduct

based on the type of equipment (i.e.,

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations 59913

single-speed, two-capacity, variablespeed, etc). Therefore, language has

been added in the test procedure to

clarify that if the tested cyclicdegradation coefficient is higher than

the default value, the default value is to

be used to calculate SEER and HSPF.

(see sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.4,

3.5.3, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.4, 3.8.1,

4.1.3.3, and 4.2.3.3).

I. Guidance on the Inclusion of PreProduction Units in the Sample

Population

As part of the July 2006 proposed

rule, DOE proposed that only preproduction units fabricated using the

same tooling used for the eventual fullproduction units could be used as part

of the tested sample population to

obtain the certified ratings of fullproduction units.

ARI, Nordyne, and Carrier

commented that the proposed wording

is too narrow, and recommended that

the current regulatory language not be

changed. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 4; Nordyne,

No. 19 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2)

ARI and Trane explained that the

tooling used for pre-production units is

often different than that used for

production units. (Public Hearing Tr.,

pp. 192-193) Trane stated that preproduction units must have the same

configuration as the production unit to

be included in the sample population,

while Carrier suggested using wording

such as that in the ARI Certification

Program Operational Manual to define

the configuration (e.g., same

compressor, same air flow, etc.). (Public

Hearing Tr., pp. 192, 198-199) Rheem

commented that the ARI internal

process handles ratings derived from

pre-production units by making the

model subject to certification testing

immediately after production starts.

(Public Hearing Tr., p. 202)

DOE agrees that the proposed

criterion is too narrow, and that

different tooling can yield equivalent

machinery. Moreover, DOE believes that

spot checks conducted under an

industry certification program, such as

the ARI Certification Program, provide a

safeguard against the performance of the

production unit deviating appreciably

from ratings derived from testing preproduction units. For these reasons,

DOE is not amending the existing

requirements and will continue to allow

manufacturers to test pre-production

units.

J. Clarification of the Sample Population

Used To Validate the Rated Seasonal

Energy Efficiency Ratio and Heating

Seasonal Performance Factor of Heat

Pumps

DOE proposed that a manufacturer

must include the cooling and heating

results from each heat pump of the

sample population when obtaining the

certified SEER and HSPF ratings. This

requirement disallows testing multiple

heat pumps and then using a subset of

results for assigning the certified SEER

rating and a different subset of results

for determining the certified HSPF

rating. The proposal provided one

exception, which would allow

additional testing in just one mode,

cooling or heating, if the manufacturer

elected to discontinue testing in the

other mode at some point in the sample

sequence.

ACEEE, Nordyne, and Carrier

supported the intent of clarifying the

sample population used for determining

heat pump ratings. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p.

5; Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 3; Carrier, No.

17 at p. 2) Carrier and the ACEEE,

however, recommended deleting the

exception, noting that additional testing

is insignificant as compared to the

potential for misrepresented ratings.

(Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2; ACEEE, No. 16

at p. 5)

DOE is aware of the testing burden on

manufacturers, but agrees with Carrier

and the ACEEE that this particular

attempt at marginally reducing the test

burden is not worthwhile. Thus, today's

final rule adopts the proposal that all

units of the sample population must be

tested in both the cooling and heating

modes and the results used for

determining the heat pump's certified

SEER and HSPF ratings without

adopting the proposed exception for

additional testing.

K. Clarification of the Definition of a

"Highest-Sales-Volume Combination"

DOE proposed amendments to the

definition of the Highest-Sales-Volume

Combination (HSVC) to require that a

single-speed, split-system air

conditioner must include the coil-only

indoor unit likely to have the largest

volume of retail sales with the particular

model of outdoor unit. Proposed 10 CFR

430.24(m)(2). In addition, DOE

proposed exceptions to this requirement

to provide for equipment designed

exclusively for blower-coil installations:

mini-splits; multi-splits; small-duct,

high-velocity systems; through-the-wall

units; and condensing units having

features (e.g., proprietary interfaces) that

prevent their installation with thirdparty, coil-only indoor units. This

proposal was made in recognition that

coil-only units represent the

overwhelming majority of installations

of central air conditioners and, as such,

the highest-sales-volume should reflect

standard practice. The proposal also

minimizes instances where the highestsales volume combination of a splitsystem air conditioner could be defined

as one with a "blower-coil" in order to

meet Federal minimum energy

efficiency standards and then have the

outdoor unit combined with coil-only

indoor units where the combination

would not meet the Federal energy

efficiency standards.

ACEEE, Carrier and ARI agreed that

some clarification to the test procedure

was needed in order to avoid such

situations. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 5; ARI,

No. 21 at p. 4; Public Hearing Tr., pp.

208-209) ACEEE supported the goal of

not having outdoor units installed with

coil-only indoor units where the

combination does not meet the energy

efficiency standard. (ACEEE, No. 16 at

p. 5) Instead of the proposed text, ARI

and Carrier recommended that DOE

adopt the wording from the 2006 ARI

Certification Program Operational

Manual for Unitary Air Conditioners &

Air-Source Unitary Heat Pumps (Rated

Below 65,000 Btu/h Cooling). (ARI, No.

21 at p. 4; Public Hearing Tr., pp. 208-

209) Carrier and ARI commented that

the proposed exception for outdoor

units that prevent installations with

coil-only units with a proprietary

interface should be eliminated because

it is not enforceable. Nordyne strongly

objected to the entire proposal, stating

that it restricts a manufacturer's use of

technology. (Nordyne, No. 19 at pp. 3-

4) Moreover, to implement such a

change, Nordyne asserted that DOE

needs to analyze the impact of

minimally compliant units. Nordyne,

however, did note its support for the

proposed exception for blower coils

having a proprietary interface.

ARI and Carrier recommended the

following alternative text to the July

2006 proposed rule:

HSVTC, Highest-sales-volume Tested

Combination. For Unitary Air-Conditioners

below 14 SEER, the HSVTC must be an RCUA-C combination, except for through-the-wall

and ductless equipment (RCU-A-CBO). For

Unitary Air-Conditioners 14 SEER and above,

every outdoor model number must have a

coil-only rating. Coil-only ratings offered for

sale must be publicly viewable. Coil-only

ratings not offered for sale are viewable only

to ARI staff. Non-viewable ratings fall under

all compliance guidelines except the

challenge procedure. If a non-publicly

viewable rating falls below NAECA

minimum, then the manufacturer must

submit a coil-only rating that meets NAECA

minimum and is verified through ARI testing.

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59914 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

Until then, the Basic Model Group ratings

will not be listed in the ARI directory.

Historically, the highest sales volume

combination for most split-system air

conditioners has had a coil-only indoor

unit. Both the June 2006 proposed rule

and the ARI alternative maintain this

historical practice. DOE, however,

believes ARI's approach is arbitrary and

results in uncertainties to

manufacturers. Furthermore, DOE

believes it would be difficult to

implement the above ARI algorithm.

With the ARI approach, the

manufacturer may have to re-test in a

coil-only configuration after having

tested in a blower-coil configuration, if

the expected SEER of 14 or higher is not

realized in laboratory testing. In

addition, if DOE were to adopt the ARI

alternative and the minimum energy

efficiency standards were amended,

DOE would have to modify the

requirement, since the new minimum

could be higher than the 14 SEER

requirement in the ARI alternative.

Conversely, in formulating the approach

proposed in the July 2006 proposed

rulemaking, DOE first considered

requiring that all split-system air

conditioners be tested with a coil-only

indoor unit. DOE recognized, however,

that in addition to the exceptions such

as equipment designed exclusively for

blower-coil installations, other

exceptions would have to be recognized.

These other exceptions include twocapacity and variable-speed units,

because they are always much more

efficient than 14 SEER, and do not risk

having a coil-only combination that

would not meet the DOE efficiency

standards. Therefore, DOE applied the

coil-only requirement only to split

system air conditioners having a singlespeed compressor.

Returning to the issue of listed

exceptions, DOE agrees with ARI and

Carrier that the proposed exception for

combinations that prevent applications

with third-party coil-only indoor units

would be prohibitively difficult to

define, verify, and enforce. DOE

believes that its proposal to substitute

the words "mini-splits" and "multisplits" for "ductless equipment," is

somewhat more comprehensive because

it includes ducted multi-split systems.

Finally, SDHV manufacturers, at

present, only manufacture indoor coils

and do not manufacture outdoor units.

Since SDHV manufacturers do not offer

for sale complete systems, they are not

subject to specifying HSVC's. Thus,

SDHV systems do not need to be

included as an exception.

As to Nordyne's objections, DOE

stands by its position as stated in the

July 2006 proposed rule. DOE believes

that its proposal, which is adopted in

today's final rule, increases the

likelihood that the outdoor unit, in

combination with any compatible

indoor unit, will meet the federal energy

efficiency standards. This is because the

proposal which is adopted today

ensures that the tested combinations,

upon which most ratings are based,

reflect the outdoor-indoor combinations

most likely to be sold. Furthermore, this

language does not limit technology

options to manufacturers, since the test

procedure allows for representations of

other than the highest-sales-volume

combination.

With regard to Nordyne's comment

that DOE needs to analyze the impact of

the clarifications on minimally

compliant units, DOE fails to see how

the clarification in the definition will

alter the rating of a particular splitsystem air conditioner. The clarification

ensures that the highest-sales-volume

split-system air conditioner-which is

subject to testing-yields ratings

reflective of the outdoor-indoor

combinations most likely to be sold. For

split-system air conditioners

"representative" and "highest sales"

historically equate to coil-only indoor

units. Only mini-splits, multi-splits, and

through-the-wall units can currently

argue for an exception, since, in these

cases, the outdoor units would be sold

in combination with specific indoor

units which would include a fan and a

coil.

Therefore, DOE is adopting the

language of the July 2006 proposed rule,

to require that the highest sales volume

combination of a single-speed, splitsystem air conditioner must include the

coil-only indoor unit likely to have the

largest volume of retail sales with the

particular model of outdoor unit. The

only change from the proposed rule is

to limit the exceptions to mini-splits,

multi-splits, and through-the-wall units.

L. Upper Limit on the Difference

Between Calculated and Tested

Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio and

Heating Seasonal Performance Factor

Values

DOE proposed setting a 5 percent

limit on the amount that a rating for an

untested split-system combination

could exceed the rating of the

corresponding HSVC. 71 FR 41330, July

20, 2006. The proposed limit only

applied to applications where both

combinations used coil-only indoor

units. Ratings based on testing are not

subject to the 5 percent limit.

Manufacturers seeking a rating that

exceeds the 5 percent limit can do so by

testing the particular coil-only

combination. The proposed approach

applied to untested combinations

offered by system manufacturers and by

independent coil manufacturers (IOM's).

ACEEE commented in support of the

proposal to limit the difference between

calculated and tested SEER and HSPF

values. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 5) Carrier

and Nordyne also supported the DOE

proposal for SEER ratings but Carrier

does not believe a similar cap is

required for HSPF ratings. (Carrier, No.

17 at p. 3; Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 4)

Using data from the September 2006

ARI Online Directory, Carrier found that

the proposed 5 percent SEER limit

would affect the ratings of 1.05 percent

of OEM coil-only combinations and

13.87 percent of ICM coil-only

combinations. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 4) At

the public meeting, Carrier offered

similar statistics to show that ICM's, in

general, rate condenser-coil

combinations employing the same

condenser at higher efficiencies than the

OEM's. Carrier also offered statistics to

show that a small number of ICM's

provide most of the ratings that are more

than 5 percent higher than the OEM

rating for the highest-sales combination.

(Public Hearing Tr., p. 265) Carrier also

cites the September 2006 NIST "Survey

of SEER Ratings for Independent Coil

Manufacturer Mixed Systems" as

demonstrating the need to address the

issue. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 3)

Lennox disagrees with the June 2006

proposal. Lennox points out that the

proposed 5 percent limit is not

technically supported and that the

practical limit is more likely 13 percent

than 5 percent. Lennox notes that the

NIST report referenced above states that

"maximum gains in SEER associated

with coil capacity and improved

expansion devices are approximately 10

percent and 2.5 percent, respectively."

(Lennox, No. 22 at p. 1) Lennox reports

that an independent laboratory tested

two different condensing units having

13 SEER HSVC ratings with an alternate,

non-HSVC, evaporator coil. According

to Lennox, the non-HSVC tested

combinations produced SEER ratings

7.9 and 11.8 percent higher than the

13.0 SEER rating of the HSVC units.

Lennox argues that data analysis

conducted by Carrier is incomplete and

that having to test combinations that are

projected to exceed the 5 percent limit

will be overly burdensome. Lennox

further stated that the combination of

DOE approval of the ARM,

governmentally enforceable penalties

for overrating, and an industrysponsored certification program "ensure

a reasonable level of rating integrity and

result in a full availability of cost

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations 59915

effective, higher efficiency combinations

for consumers." (Lennox, No. 22 at p. 2)

ARI commented that the DOE

proposed 5 percent upper limit is

arbitrary and will unduly penalize

manufacturers who participate in the

ARI certification program. Furthermore,

ARI commented that inconsistent

ratings for untested split-system

combinations have been discussed at

length with the appropriate ARI

committees for quite some time, and,

based on these discussions, significant

changes were made to strengthen the

credibility of the ARI certification

program. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 5) For

example, ARI commented that coil-only

combinations (system manufacturers

and ICMs) with SEER ratings that are 6

percent above the SEER rating of the

highest-sales-volume tested

combination are automatically subject to

testing as part of the ARI certification

program. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 5)

The analysis conducted by Carrier

and NIST certainly justifies further

scrutiny of ratings of untested

combinations of split-system central air

conditioners. The SEER ratings reported

by Lennox raise a few questions, while

suggesting that the proposed mechanism

and 5 percent limit may not be

adequate, but Lennox doesn't offer an

alternative. For example, how much of

the ratings difference is a result of the

better performance of the mixed system

indoor units? How much of the ratings

difference results from the HSVC rating

being conservative " i.e., although rated

at 13.0, the tested SEER of the HSVCs

is likely higher? If the percent

differences reported by Lennox had

been based on the measured SEER of the

HSVC, the respective magnitudes would

likely have been less, possibly much

less.

As for Lennox's comment that the

NIST report supports a higher

percentage, DOE notes that the NIST

analysis only commented on the effect

of increased coil capacity and an

improved expansion device, two factors

that increase SEER. The impact of the

larger coil on compressor power

consumption, however, was believed

negligible even though it too would

typically increase. Thus, for the nominal

case where a power increase

accompanies the capacity gain, the

maximum SEER increase predicted by

the long-standing NIST ARM is in the 9

to 10 percent range, higher than the 5

percent limit proposed in the NOPR, but

less than the maximum increase stated

by Lennox.

Upon consideration of the above

comments, DOE believes that its 5

percent limit, as proposed, is deficient.

DOE still believes that more scrutiny of

untested combination ratings is

warranted. However, DOE finds, from a

review of the data and comments

received, that the ratings of some nonHSVCs are higher that what would seem

warranted. DOE supports the steps

recently implemented by ARI's

certification program to more frequently

check combinations having suspect

ratings. Moreover, DOE is amending the

test procedure to emphasize its right to

obtain information that is the basis for

any manufacturer's rating. DOE will

require documentation to justify ratings

more than 6 percent higher that the

rated efficiency of the HSVC unit. If

DOE questions the rating, the

manufacturer will be responsible for

verifying the ARM, and supplying to

DOE the ARM used and furnishing the

specific input parameters used for each

condenser-evaporator combination, the

energy efficiency rating of the HSVC,

the energy efficiency results of the

ARM, and the rated energy efficiency of

the units in question. Furthermore, the

manufacturer must be prepared to

provide the information source and/or

justification for any input parameter.

In summary, DOE is not adopting the

proposed 5 percent limit on the

maximum amount that a rating for an

untested coil-only split-system can

exceed the rating of the HSVC. Instead,

DOE will evaluate the improvements

available through using new and

improved ARMs and the results from

internal changes made as part of the ARI

Certification Program. DOE will give

follow-up priority to individual

combinations having questionably high

ratings (for example, a coil-only system

having a rating that exceeds the rating

of a coil-only highest sales volume

combination by more than 6 percent).

The text that sets forth DOE's authority

to examine ratings for untested split

system combinations is found in 10 CFR

430.24(m)(5) of today's rule.

M. Clarification of the Published Ratings

for Untested Split-System Combinations

DOE proposed amendments to 10 CFR

430.24(m)(4) to require published

ratings for an untested split-system

combination to be equal to, or lower

than, the value calculated using the

DOE-approved ARM. 71 FR 41336. The

proposed language specifically

recognized that a manufacturer may use

laboratory data from the HSVC testing to

adjust or "tune" its ARM, or a

simulation subcomponent, when

calculating the ratings for untested

combinations that use the same outdoor

unit. Under the proposal, the amount of

adjustment is limited to a 5 percent

increase in the calculated rating

compared to the rating obtained using

the ARM without the adjustment/tuning

factor. The purpose is to limit the

amount of manufacturer's "tuning" of

ARMs, without resubmitting the ARM

for DOE review in accordance with 10

CFR 430.24(m)(5). DOE is concerned

that the "tuned" ARMs will result in a

different model than the one the

Department had reviewed and approved

under 10 CFR 430.24(m)(5). The

changes were proposed to improve the

current regulatory language that states

the ARM must be used to obtain

"representative values of the measures

of energy consumption." 10 CFR

430.24(m)(2)(ii).

ARI commented that "untested"

combinations are subject to verification

testing in the ARI Certification Program

and so placing a limit on the adjustment

factor is unwarranted for combinations

listed in the ARI directory. (ARI, No. 21

at p. 5) Carrier commented that any

adjustment based on actual testing to be

not only allowable but desirable.

(Carrier, No. 17 at p. 3) Nordyne was

willing to consider the concept of a

maximum allowable adjustment but

stated that the exact values and the

specific wording needed further review.

(Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 4)

In reviewing its files of ARMs that

DOE has approved, DOE finds that none

reference an ARM/simulation

adjustment factor, or equivalent. Yet,

the use of such adjustment factors

appears to be common. This situation,

along with the fact that most

manufacturers' ARMs have not been

updated in many years, and that most,

if not all, of the models upon which the

ARMs were based have been removed

from the marketplace because they did

not meet the 13 SEER standard leads

DOE to conclude that it is likely some

ARMs need the adjustment factor in

order to correctly predict the efficiency

of untested combinations.

In view of the foregoing, DOE is

amending 10 CFR 430.24(m)(5) to

require published ratings for an

untested split-system combination to be

equal to, or lower than, the value

calculated using the DOE-approved

ARM. The practice of "tuning" an ARM

or computer simulation by using

laboratory data from tests on the HSVC

or any other split-system combination

tested in accordance with the sample

plan of 10 CFR 430.24(m), and then

using the tuned ARM to calculate the

ratings for untested combinations that

use the same outdoor unit, is now

referenced in 10 CFR 430.24(m)(4).

DOE, however, is not adopting a limit

on how much the SEER/HSPF rating,

calculated using an ARM, may exceed

the rating obtained without using the

adjustment factor.

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59916 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

N. Ratings That Are Based on Using a

Particular Furnace or Ducted Air Mover

DOE proposed having manufacturers

document those published ratings that

are based on a complete system

consisting of a coil-only air conditioner

or heat pump and a particular model of

furnace. The model number of the

furnace would be published, most likely

in addition to the indoor unit model

number.

ACEEE supported the measure, as

originally proposed. (ACEEE, No. 16 at

p. 5) Nordyne and ARI also supported

the measure but suggest replacing the

word "furnace" with a more generic

term so that the requirement is extended

to all indoor air movers. (Nordyne, No.

19 at p. 4; ARI, No. 21 at p. 6) Nordyne

suggests using "indoor blower" and ARI

suggests "ducted air mover."

DOE accepts the recommendation of

using generic wording to clearly convey

the equipment components that

contribute to the published rating, and

selects the description "ducted air

mover." DOE adopts revised text for 10

CFR 430.62(a)(4)(i) and (ii) that

explicitly states that the model number

of the ducted air mover, if applicable,

must be included among the

manufacturer's model numbers

submitted on the certification report to

DOE. Compared to the wording

proposed in the July 2006 proposed

rule, today's revision is simpler, in that

it does not repeat text from 10 CFR

430.62(a)(4) in sections 430.62(a)(4)(i)

and (a)(4)(ii).

define coil circuitry. Trane responded

that if this coil differentiating feature

were deleted then it wouldn't have to be

defined. (Public Hearing Tr., p. 297)

In considering the comments

received, DOE finds the proposed

amendments to the definition cause

more confusion than the existing

definition, therefore, DOE is not

amending the definition of coil circuitry

at this time.

III. Summary of Other Additions,

Changes, and Corrections to the

Department of Energy Residential

Central Air Conditioner and Heat Pump

Test Procedure .

The following discussion summarizes

revisions that were proposed in the July

2006 proposed rule and received no

substantive comments.

Small-duct, high-velocity (SDHV)

systems. Today's final rule adopts the

following five changes that apply

exclusively to small-duct, high-velocity

(SDHV) systems:

-The minimum external-static-pressure

levels that must be equaled or

exceeded during the first test on any

SDHV system will be 1.0 inches of

water column higher than the

minimum that is required of nonSDHV units. For example, for

equipment having rated cooling

capacities from 29,000 to 42,500 Btu/

h, the minimum external static

pressure is 1.15 inches of water

column for SDHV systems, compared

to 0.15 inches of water column for

conventional blower-coil systems.

0. Revisions to the Definition of "Coil This change is found in section

Family"

3.1.4.1.1 of Appendix M.

-All balance dampers or restrictor

DOE proposed minor modifications to devices on or inside the unit must be

the existing definition of "coil family,"

to improve its readability and make it

easier to understand. 71 FR 41335.

Nordyne and Rheem asked for

clarifications to the proposed language.

(Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 4)

Concerning Nordyne's comment, DOE

had no intention other than to offer a

few editorial improvements, and to

heighten awareness of the definition

among stakeholders, given the related

discussion of ARMs. As proposed, DOE

viewed the substantive content of the

definition as adequate for the purpose of

designating what split systems may be

used for verifying an ARM. There was

no change proposed to the definition of

"coil family" with respect to coil

circuitry. In both the current and

proposed test procedures, "coil

circuitry" is included in a list of design

features that affect heat exchanger

performance. In responding to the

question raised by Rheem, NIST asked

attendees at the public meeting how to

set fully open or on the lowest

restriction setting. This change is

found in section 2.2 of Appendix M.

-The size of the duct connected to the

outlet of the indoor unit must not

exceed prescribed limits. This change

is found in section 2.4.1 of Appendix

M.

-When a closed-loop, air-enthalpy test

apparatus is used on the indoor side,

the test laboratory must limit the

airflow resistance on the inlet-side of

the indoor blower-coil to a maximum

value of 0.1 inches of water column.

The balance of the airflow resistance

must be imposed on the outlet-side of

the indoor blower. This change is

found in section 3.1.4.1.1 of

Appendix M.

-The test setup must include an

adjustable air damper that is

positioned immediately upstream of

the airflow measuring apparatus that

limits the differential pressure

between the inside of the duct and the

surrounding ambient to 0.5 inches of

water column or less. If the particular

test setup permits, the outlet air

damper box used for cyclic tests can

double as the adjustable air damper.

This change is found in section

2.5.4.3 of Appendix M.

Optional high-capacity cyclicdegradation coefficient (CD). Today's

final rule reinstates the optional highcapacity cyclic-degradation coefficient

(C0) testing for two-capacity units that

lock out low-capacity operation at

outdoor temperatures where the unit is

otherwise projected to modulate

between low and high capacities/

compressor stages. In lieu of testing, the

default value for the high-capacity Co

will be the value of the low-capacity Co.

The specific change is reflected 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 Appendix

M.

Two-capacity heat pump default

equations. Instead of conducting the

laboratory test, default equations are

now provided to approximate the

performance of a two-capacity heat

pump operating at low capacity and

35 °F outdoor temperature. The default

equations appear in section 3.6.3 of

Appendix M.

Duct loss correction. Except as noted

below, DOE adopts the practice of

applying a duct loss correction to the

cooling and heating capacities

determined using the indoor air

enthalpy method. The losses occur

within the section of insulated duct that

extends between the outlet of the indoor

unit and the test facility's outlet

temperature grid. The correction,

however, does not apply to the two

indoor capacities used for calculating a

cyclic-degradation coefficient, Co. The

change affects sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.7,

3.9.1, and 3.11 of Appendix M and is

implemented by referencing sections

7.3.3.3 and 7.3.4.3 of ASHRAE Standard

3 7-2005 for cooling and heating tests,

respectively.

Air volume. DOE adopts the definition

of "standard air" as given in ASHRAE

Standard 37-2005. This change affects

section 1.37 of Appendix M and causes

standard air volume rates to be

expressed in terms of dry air, not moist

air. DOE replaces the proper names

containing the words "Certified Air

Volume Rate" with "Full-load Air

Volume Rate." The change will

eliminate confusion over whether the

air volume rates specified in the test

procedure are certified values, which

they are not. This change appears in

numerous places within the DOE test

procedure, mostly in section 3 and

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

Tables 3 to 6 and Tables 9 to 12 of

Appendix M.

ARMs. DOE adopts revised language

for 10 CFR 430.24(m)(6) that describes

the specific information the

manufacturer must include in its

submittal when requesting DOE's

approval of the manufacturer's ARM.

The revision expands the options

regarding the data used to evaluate and

verify the ARM and provides a

compliance path for manufacturers who

offer indoor units from only one coil

family.

Definitions. DOE incorporates the

definition for "private labelers" from

EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6291(15) into 10 CFR

430.2. Definitions for the terms "indoor

unit," "outdoor unit," and "ARM/

simulation adjustment factor" have also

been added. Under 10 CFR

430.24(m)(5), DOE adopts revised

language to specify that the

requirements also apply to private

labelers, and not just to manufacturers.

For example, private labelers, like

manufacturers, are responsible for

ensuring that reported ratings for

untested split-system combinations are

based on a DOE-approved ARM.

October 2005 final rule. In addition,

DOE is correcting two errors that were

mistakenly introduced in the test

procedure final rule published on

October 11, 2005. 70 FR 59122. The

October 2005 final rule incorrectly

specifies the outdoor test conditions

used for the optional low-capacity

heating-mode cyclic test for twocapacity heat pumps. The temperatures

for this test are incorrectly specified in

the October 2005 final rule as 62 OF db/

56.5°F wb. These temperatures should

have remained as they were, with the

values 47°F db/43°F wb. This error was

unfortunately not discovered until after

the final rule became effective on April

10, 2006. DOE has been informed that

several new models of two-capacity heat

pumps have been rated for HSPF based

on conducting the low-capacity heating

mode cyclic test at 62 °F db/56.5 OF wb.

In implementing the test condition

correction, DOE will not require that

these affected models of two-capacity

heat pumps be retested and rerated

since the difference in energy efficiency

is very slight, (i.e., tenths of HSPF). This

correction appears in section 3.6.3b and

Table 11 of Appendix M.

The second correction affects two

equations used for calculating the HSPF

of a variable-speed heat pump. Within

section 4.2.4 of Appendix M of the final

rule published on October 11, 2005, the

terms NQ and NE are incorrectly

positioned within the equations for MQ

and ME, respectively. MQ and ME

correspond to the slopes of the capacity

and power curves when the heat pump

is operated at the intermediate

compressor speed, k = v. These

intermediate speed slopes are derived

from the slopes of the minimum and

maximum speed curves, weighting each

accordingly. The terms NQ and NE are

the weighting factors for the maximum

speed slopes.

In the October 2005 final rule, section

4.2.4 of Appendix M, the equations for

MQ and ME each consist of the sum of

two expressions in square brackets. In

the right-hand bracketed expression of

both equations, the divisor line is too

long. It should not extend under NQ in

the equation for MQ, nor should it

extend under NE in the equation for ME.

The divisor line is being shortened so

that the equation returns to its format

established in the 1988 revision of the

test procedure. (53 FR 8304, March 14,

1988). The same misprint did not occur

within the comparable cooling mode

equations.

IV. Effect of Test Procedure Revisions

on Compliance With Standards

In amending a test procedure, section

323(e) of EPCA directs DOE to

determine to what extent, if any, the test

procedure would alter the measured

energy efficiency of the covered product

and if the amended test procedure alters

the measured efficiency, the Secretary is

to amend the applicable energy

conservation standard to the extent the

amended test procedure changes the

energy efficiency of products that

minimally comply with the existing

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)) In

recognition of this requirement, the July

2006 proposed rule requested comments

on whether any of the proposed changes

would affect the measures of energy

efficiency, and, if so, to what extent,

when tested under the current test

procedure. DOE received no comments

in response. The issue was also raised

at the public hearing, and DOE again

received no comments that any models

would fail to meet the standard when

tested using the new test procedure.

Since DOE did not receive comments on

this issue, and based on the discussion

below, DOE concludes that the

amendments to the central air

conditioner and central air conditioning

test procedures adopted in today's final

rule do not change the measure of

energy efficiency of central air

conditioners and central air

conditioning heat pumps that minimally

comply with the existing standard.

Therefore, amendments to the existing

energy efficiency standard are not

required.

Some revisions in today's final rule

are expected to slightly change the

59917

ratings of two-capacity systems. Since

two-capacity systems are inherently

more energy efficient, DOE concludes

that these amendments would only

affect higher efficiency systems and,

therefore, not require DOE to amend its

energy conservation standards.

The change to allow the use of default

equations instead of conducting a lowcapacity Frost Accumulation Test will

negatively impact the measured HSPF.

DOE estimates that the HSPF could be

as much as 0.3 point lower if the default

equations are used to obtain the value

corresponding to climate Region IV and

the minimum design-heating

requirement instead of testing. This

change will not affect the HSPF of a

currently rated heat pump because use

of the default equations is optional and

DOE understands manufacturers test

products instead of using the default

value and, therefore, there is no change

as a result of today's revisions.

Changing the maximum duration of

all Frost Accumulation Tests from 12

hours to 6 hours is expected to only

affect the average space heating capacity

and power at 35 OF by causing a

minimal, systematic increase in the

derived HSPF for the rare case where

the heat pump remains completely

frosted beyond 6 hours. DOE believes

such a situation is extremely unlikely,

especially for tests at full-load.

DOE does not expect that adopting the

practice of applying a duct loss

correction to the cooling and heating

capacities determined using the indoor

air enthalpy method to cause an

increase in SEER or HSPF. This is

because the test procedure is simply

catching up with current practice.

Making the definition of "standard

air" consistent with the definition in

ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 will have

no effect on the SEER and HSPF as

calculated using the October 2005 final

rule. 70 FR 59122 (October 11, 2005).

Finally, changing the one steady-state,

low-capacity cooling-mode test

condition from 95 °F to 67 °F for twocapacity units is projected to change the

calculated SEER very minimallywithin ± 0.1 SEER point-in most cases.

However, the reduction in SEER could

be very considerable if the power

consumption during the 95 OF 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. However, two-capacity

compressors are inherently more energy

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59918 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203/Monday, October 22, 2007/Rules and Regulations

efficient and are not used in minimally

compliant units, and, therefore, DOE

concludes that this amendment to the

test procedure will not change the

energy efficiency of marginally

compliant units.

V. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

Today's regulatory action is not a

"significant regulatory action" under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly,

this action was not subject to review

under the Executive Order by the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs in

the Office of Management and Budget.

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

DOE procedures and policies are

available on the Office of General

Counsel's Web site: http://

www.gc.doe.gov.

DOE reviewed today's final rule under

the provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act and the procedures and

policies published on February 19,

2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE certified in the

July 20, 2006, proposed rule that the

proposed rule would not impose a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. (66

FR 6780) DOE received no comments on

this issue, and after considering the

potential small entity impact of this

final rule, DOE affirms the certification

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

C. Review Under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995

This rulemaking imposes no new

information or record keeping

requirements. Accordingly, Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

clearance is not required under the

Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.)

D. Review Under the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969

DOE has determined that this rule

falls into a class of actions that are

categorically excluded from review

under the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et

seq.) and DOE'S implementing

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. This

rule amends an existing rule without

changing its environmental effect, and,

therefore, is covered by the categorical

Exclusion in paragraph AS to subpart D,

10 CFR part 1021: Accordingly, neither

an environmental assessment nor an

environmental impact statement is

required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, "Federalism,"

64 FR 43255 (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) DOE examined this final rule

and determined that it 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. Executive Order

13132 requires no further action.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

Regarding the review of existing

regulations and the promulgation of

new regulations, section 3(a) of

Executive Order 12988, "civil Justice

Reform" 61 FR 4729 (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. DOE has completed the

required review and determined that, to

the extent permitted by law, this 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 that may

result in the expenditure by State, local

and Tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector of

$100 million or more (adjusted annually

for inflation), section 202 of UMRA

requires a Federal agency to publish

estimates of the resulting costs, benefits,

and other effects on the national

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b)) UMRA

also requires a Federal agency to

develop an effective process to permit

timely input by elected officers of State,

local, and Tribal governments on a

proposed "significant intergovernmental

mandate," and requires an agency plan

for giving notice and opportunity for

timely input to potentially affected

small governments before establishing

any requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE

published a statement of policy on its

process for intergovernmental

consultation under UMRA (62 FR

12820) (also available at http://

www.gc.doe.gov). The rule published

today contains neither an

intergovernmental mandate, nor a

mandate that may result in an

expenditure of $100 million or more in

any year, so these requirements do not

apply.

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59919

H. Review Under the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act, 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

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

Federal agencies to issue a Family

Policymaking Assessment for any rule

that may affect family well-being. This

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.

1. Review Under Executive Order 12630

DOE has determined, under Executive

Order 12630, "Governmental Actions

and Interference with Constitutionally

Protected Property Rights," 53 FR 8859

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation

would not result in any takings which

might require compensation under the

Fifth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act, 2001

Section 515 of the Treasury and

General Government Appropriations

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) requires

agencies to review most disseminations

of information to the public under

guidelines established by each agency

pursuant to general guidelines issued by

OMB. OMB's guidelines were published

at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and

DOE's guidelines were published at 67

FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has

reviewed today's notice under the OMB

and DOE guidelines and has concluded

that it is consistent with applicable

policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, "Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use," 66 FR 28355 (May

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to

prepare and submit to OIRA, 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 not

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the

Federal Energy Administration Act of

1974

Under section 301 of the Department

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-

91), the Department of Energy must

comply with section 32 of the Federal

Energy Administration Act of 1974

(FEAA), as amended by the Federal

Energy Administration Authorization

Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788) Section 32

provides in essence that, where a

proposed rule contains or involves use

of commercial standards, the notice of

proposed rulemaking must inform the

public of the use and background of

such standards. This final rule updates

references to the most recent versions of

four commercial standards, as discussed

in section II.F of this preamble.

The Department has evaluated these

standards and is unable to conclude

whether they fully comply with the

requirements of section 32(b) of the

FEAA, i.e., that they were developed in

a manner which fully provides for

public participation, comment and

review. As required by section 32(c) of

the FEAA, the Department has

consulted with the Attorney General

and the Chairman of the Federal Trade

Commission concerning the impact of

these four standards on competition,

and neither recommended against

incorporation of these standards.

M. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will

report to Congress on the promulgation

of today's rule prior to its effective date.

The report will state that it has been

determined that the rule is not a "major

rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VI. Approval of the Office of the

Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved

publication of this final rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

Administrative practice and

procedure, Energy conservation,

Household appliances, Incorporation by

reference.

Issued in Washington, DC, on September

27, 2007.

Alexander A. Karsner,

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, Part 430 of Chapter II of Title

10, Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as set forth below:

PART 430-ENERGY CONSERVATION

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER

PRODUCTS

E 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 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 as part of a DOEapproved alternative rating method

(ARM) to improve the accuracy of the

calculated ratings for untested splitsystem central air conditioners or heat

pumps. The adjustment factor

associated with each outdoor unit must

be set such that it reduces the difference

between the SEER (HSPF) determined

using the ARM and a split-system

combination tested in accordance with

§ 430.24(m)(1). 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).

* * * * *

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

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59920 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

label. A consumer product bears a

private label if:

(1) Such product (or its container) is

labeled with the brand or trademark of

a person other than a manufacturer of

such product;

(2) The person with whose brand or

trademark such product (or container) is

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 multisplit 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; for multisplit systems, each of these indoor units

shall be designed for individual

operation.

(2) The indoor units shall-

(i) Represent the highest sales model

family, or another indoor model family

if the highest sales model family does

not provide sufficient capacity (see ii);

(ii) Together, have a nominal capacity

that is between 95% and 105% of the

nominal capacity of the outdoor unit;

(iii) Not, individually, have a capacity

that is greater than 50% of the nominal

capacity of the outdoor unit;

(iv) Operate at fan speeds that are

consistent with the manufacturer's

specifications; and

(v) All be subject to the same

minimum external static pressure

requirement (i.e., 0 inches of water

column for non-ducted, see Table 2 in

Appendix M to Subpart B of this part for

ducted indoor units) while being

configurable to produce the same static

pressure at the exit of each outlet

plenum when manifolded as per section

2.4.1 of Appendix M.

* * * * *

§ 430.22 [Amended]

® 3. Section 430.22 is amended as

follows:

M a. Paragraph (b)(5)2. is amended by

removing "23-1993" and adding in its

place "23-2005."

® b. Paragraph (b)(5)3. is amended by

removing "37-1988" and adding in its

place "37-2005."

c. Paragraph (b)(5)8. is amended by

removing "116-1995" and adding in its

place "116-1995 (RA 2005)."

® d. Paragraph (b)(8) is amended by

removing "210/240-2003" and adding

in its place "210/240-2006."

® 4. Section 430.23 is amended in

subpart B by revising paragraph (m)(5)

to read as follows:

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the

measurement of energy and water

consumption.

* *

(m) * * *

(5) All measures of energy

consumption must be determined by the

test method as set forth in appendix M

to this subpart; or by an alternative

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).

* * * * *

® 5. 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 evaporator coil (indoor unit)

or a set of selected indoor units, must

have a sample of sufficient size tested in

accordance with the applicable

provisions of this subpart. The

represented values for any model of

single-package system, any model of a

tested split-system combination, any

model of a tested mini-split system

combination, or any model of a tested

multi-split system combination must 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

must 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;

(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

must 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 must 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.

(2) For split-system air conditioners

and heat pumps, the condenserevaporator coil combination selected for

tests pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of

this section shall include the evaporator

coil that is likely to have the largest

volume of retail sales with the particular

model of condensing unit. For minisplit condensing units that are designed

to always be installed with 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. For multi-split systems,

each model of condensing unit shall be

tested with two different sets of indoor

units. For one set, a "tested

combination" composed entirely of nonducted indoor units shall be used. For

the second set, a "tested combination"

composed entirely of ducted indoor

units shall be used. 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 condenser-evaporator

coil combination selected for tests

pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of this

section shall include the indoor coilonly unit that is likely to have the

largest volume of retail sales with the

particular model of outdoor unit. This

coil-only requirement does not apply to

split-system air conditioners that are

only sold and installed with blower-coil

indoor units, specifically mini-splits,

multi-splits, and through-the-wall units.

This coil-only requirement does not

apply to any split-system heat pumps.

For every other split-system

combination that includes the same

model of condensing unit but a different

model of evaporator coil and for every

other mini-split and multi-split system

that includes the same model of

condensing unit but a different set of

evaporator coils, whether the evaporator

coil(s) is manufactured by the same

manufacturer or by a component

manufacturer, either-

(i) A sample of sufficient size,

comprised of production units or

representing production units, must be

tested as complete systems with the

resulting ratings for the outdoor unitindoor unit(s) combination obtained in

accordance with paragraphs (m)(1)(i)

and (m)(1)(ii) of this section; or

(ii) The representative values of the

measures of energy efficiency must be

assigned as follows,

(A) Using 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; or

(B) For multi-split systems composed

entirely of non-ducted indoor units, set

equal to the system tested in accordance

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

with paragraph (m)(1) of this section

whose tested combination was entirely

non-ducted indoor units;

(C) For multi-split systems composed

entirely of ducted indoor units, set

equal to the system tested in accordance

with paragraph (m)(1) of this section

whose tested combination was entirely

ducted indoor units; and

(D) For multi-split systems having a

mix of non-ducted and ducted indoor

units, set equal to the mean of the

values for the two systems - one

having the tested combination of all

non-ducted units and the second having

the tested combination of all ducted

indoor units - tested in accordance

with paragraph (m)(1) 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 5 percent of

the representative values of the

measures of energy consumption as

determined by actual testing, the

representative values determined by

actual testing must be used to comply

with section 323(c) of the Act or to

comply with rules under section 324 of

the Act.

(4) The basis of the ARM referred to

in paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of this section

must be a representation of the test data

and calculations of a mechanical vaporcompression refrigeration cycle. The

major components in the refrigeration

cycle must be modeled as "fits" to

manufacturer performance data or by

graphical or tabular performance data.

Heat transfer characteristics of coils may

be modeled as a function of face area,

number of rows, fins per inch,

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 must be derived from the

ratings of a combination tested in

accordance with paragraph (m)(1) of this

section. The seasonal energy efficiency

ratio (SEER) and/or heating seasonal

performance factor (HSPF) ratings for an

untested combination must be set equal

to or less than the lower of the SEER

and/or HSPF calculated using the

applicable DOE-approved alternative

rating method (ARM). If the method

includes an ARM/simulation

adjustment factor(s), determine the

value(s) of the factors(s) that yield the

best match between the SEER/HSPF

determined using the ARM versus the

SEER/HSPF determined from testing in

accordance with paragraph (m)(1) of this

section. Thereafter, apply the ARM

using the derived adjustment factor(s)

only when determining the ratings for

untested combinations having the same

outdoor unit.

(5) Manufacturers or private labelers

who elect to use an ARM for

determining measures of energy

consumption under paragraphs

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

must submit a request for DOE to review

the ARM. 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 ARM before the

ARM may be used for rating splitsystem central air conditioners and heat

pumps. If a manufacturer has a DOEapproved 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. Once an ARM is approved,

DOE may contact a manufacturer to

learn if their ARM has been modified in

any way and to verify that the ARM is

being applied as approved. DOE will

give follow-up priority to individual

combinations having questionably high

ratings (e.g., a coil-only system having a

rating that exceeds the rating of a coilonly highest sales volume combination

by more than 6 percent).

(6) Each request to DOE for approval

of an alternative rating method must

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 must 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 must

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 non59921

ducted systems, etc.) must be stated in

the documentation.

(iii) Complete test data from

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

systems per each ARM.

(A) 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 low-capacity mixed system.

The four mixed systems must meet the

applicable energy conservation standard

in § 430.32(c) in effect at the time of the

rating.

(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

do 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 will 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,

must be provided along with any other

related information that will aid the

verification process.

(v) If request for approval is for an

updated ARM, manufacturers must

identify modifications made to the ARM

since the last submittal, including any

ARM/simulation adjustment factor(s)

added since the ARM was last approved

by DOE.

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59922 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

(7) Manufacturers that elect to use an

alternative rating method for

determining measures of energy

consumption under paragraphs

(m)(2)(ii)(A) 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)(A) and (m)(4) through (m)(7)

of this section must 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]

m 6. Appendix M to subpart B of part

430 is amended:

m a. In section 1. Definitions:

m 1. Section 1.3 is amended by

removing "210/240-2003" and adding

in its place "210/240-2006"; and by

removing "2003" and adding in its

place "2006."

m 2. Section 1.5 is amended by

removing "23-93" and adding in its

place "23-2005"; and by removing

"1993" and adding in its place "2005."

m 3. Section 1.6 is amended by

removing "37-88" and adding in its

place "37-2005"; and by removing

"1988" and adding in its place "2005."

M 4. Section 1.12 is amended by adding

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

"and reaffirmed in 2005" after "1995."

M 5. Section 1.35 is amended by

removing "certified" and adding in its

place "full-load."

m 6. Section 1.37 is revised to read as set

forth below. -

b. In section 2, Testing Conditions:

1. Sections 2.1a, 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.

M 2. Section 2.3.1b is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load."

3. Section 2.5.3 is amended by

revising the first sentence to read as set

forth below.

® 4. New section 2.5.4.3 is added to read

as set forth below.

M 5. Section 2.6a is amended by adding

in the first sentence "(RA05)" after

"116-95."

® 6. Section 2.6b is amended in the

second sentence, and in the last

sentence, by removing "37-88" and

adding in its place "37-2005;" and by

removing "ARI Standard 210/240-

2003" and adding in its place "ARI

Standard 210/240-2006" in the second

sentence.

® 7. Section 2.7 is amended by

removing "ARI Standard 210/240-

2003" and adding in its place "ARI

Standard 210/240-2006."

m 8. Section 2.10.2 is amended in the

third and fourth sentences, by removing

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

2005."

M 9. 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 "37-2005" in the second and

third sentences.

M 10. Section 2.11a is amended in the

first sentence, by removing "37-88" and

adding in its place "37-2005."

M 11. Section 2.13 is amended in the

second sentence, by removing "37-88"

and adding in its place "37-2005."

® c. In section 3, Testing Procedures:

m 1. Section 3.1.1 is amended by

revising the seventh sentence to read as

set forth below.

M 2. Section 3.1.3 is amended by

removing "ARI Standard 210/240-

2003" and adding in its place "ARI

Standard 210/240-2006."

M 3. Section 3.1.4.1 is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load."

® 4. Section 3.1.4.1.1, from its title to

the end of paragraph a., and Table 2, are

revised to read as set forth below.

M 4a. Section 3.1.4.1.1b is amended by

revising the first sentence to read as set

forth below.

m 5. Amend sections 3.1.4.1.lb and

3.1.4.1.1c by removing "Certified" and

adding in its place "Full-load."

6. Section 3.1.4.1.2 is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load" in two locations.

M 7. Section 3.1.4.2a is amended by

revising the "Cooling Minimum Air Vol.

Rate" equation to read as set forth

below.

11 8. Section 3.1.4.2b is amended by

revising the equation for minimum

external static pressure to read as set

forth below.

® 9. Section 3.1.4.2c is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load."

10. Section 3.1.4.3a is amended by

revising the "Cooling Intermediate Air

Volume Rate" equation to read as set

forth below.

M 11. Section 3.1.4.3b is amended by

revising the "E„ Test AP., " equation to

read as set forth below.

12. Section 3.1.4.4 is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load."

® 13. Section 3.1.4.4.1 is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load" in three locations.

14. Section 3.1.4.4.2 is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load" and revising the

"Heating Certified Air Volume Rate"

equation to read as set forth below.

E 14a. Section 3.1.4.4.2a is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load."

15. Section 3.1.4.4.2b is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load" in three locations, and

revising the "Heating Certified APst"

equation to read as set forth below.

® 16. Section 3.1.4.4.2c is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load" in three locations.

m 17. Sections 3.1.4.4.3 and 3.1.4.4.3a

are revised to read as set forth below.

E 17a. Sections 3.1.4.4.3b is amended by

revising the first sentence to read as set

forth below.

18. Amend sections 3.1.4.4.3b,

3.1.4.4.3c and 3.1.4.4.4 by removing

"Certified" and adding in its place

"Full-load."

n 19. Section 3.1.4.5a is amended by

revising the "Heating Minimum Air

Volume Rate" equation to read as set

forth below.

n 20. Section 3.1.4.5b is amended by

revising the "HO1, H11, H21, H31, Test

AP,," equation to read as set forth below.

N 21. Section 3.1.4.5d is amended by

removing Certified and adding in its

place Full-load in two locations.

n 22. Section 3.1.4.6a is amended by

revising the "Heating Intermediate Air

Volume Rate" equation to read as set

forth below.

N 23. Section 3.1.4.6b is amended by

revising the "H2, Test AP,," equation to

read as set forth below.

N 24. Section 3.1.4.7 is amended by

revising the "Heating Nominal Air

Volume Rate" equation and the "H1N

Test AP,," equation to read as set forth

below.

E 25. Section 3.1.5 is amended in the

first sentence by removing "37-88" and

adding in its place "37-2005."

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations 59923

26. 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 "37-2005," and by

adding a new sentence after the second

sentence, to read as set forth below.

m 27. Section 3.1.7 is amended by

removing "certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load" in four locations.

® 28. Section 3.1.9 is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load."

28a. Section 3.2.1 is amended by

revising the fourth sentence to read as

set forth below.

® 29. Table 3 to Section 3.2.1 is

amended by removing "certified" and

adding in its place "full-load" in three

locations in the last column.

M 29a. Section 3.2.2.1 is amended by

revising the third sentence to read as set

forth below.

® 30. Table 4 to Section 3.2.2.1 is

amended by removing "certified" and

adding in its place "full-load" in two

locations in the last column.

31. Section 3.2.2.2 is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load."

32. Sections 3.2.3a is revised as set

forth below.

M 33. Section 3.2.3b is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load."

® 34. Section 3.2.3d is revised as set

forth below.

m 35. Table 5 to section 3.2.3 is revised

as set forth below.

® 36. Section 3.2.4.a is amended by

revising the third sentence to read as set

forth below.

® 37. Section 3.2.4b is amended by

removing "Certified" and adding in its

place "Full-load."

® 38. Table 6 to section 3.2.4 is revised

as set forth below.

M 39. Section 3.2.4 is amended by

adding a new paragraph (c) as set forth

below.

® 40. 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 "37-2005."

® 41. 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-

2005."

® 42. The titles of sections 3.4 and 3.5

are revised as set forth below.

® 43. Section 3.4b is revised to read as

set forth below.

m 44. Section 3.5.3 is amended by

revising the introductory text to read as

set forth below.

E 45. Section 3.6.1 is amended by

revising the second, third, and fourth

sentences to read as set forth below.

® 46. Table 9 to Section 3.6.1 is

amended by removing "Certified" and

adding in its place "Full-load" in three

locations.

E 47. Section 3.6.2 is amended by

revising the introductory text to read as

set forth below.

E 48. Table 10 to Section 3.6.2 is

amended by removing "Certified" and

adding in its place "Full-load" in three

locations.

® 49. Section 3.6.3 is revised as set forth

below.

® 50. Table 11 to section 3.6.3 is revised

as set forth below.

m 51. Section 3.6.4 is amended by

revising the third, fourth, and fifth

sentences of paragraph a. and adding a

new paragraph c. to read as set forth

below.

® 52. Table 12 to section 3.6.4 is revised

to read as set forth below.

® 53. 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 37-2005," and in the sixth

sentence, by removing "Table 5" and

adding in its place "Table 3."

® 54. Section 3.7b is amended by

revising the first sentence to read as set

forth below.

M 55. The title of section 3.8 is revised

to read as set forth below.

m 56. The introductory text and the first

equation of section 3.8.1 are revised to

read as set forth below.

n 57. Section 3.9c is revised to read as

set forth below.

58. Section 3.9f is amended by

revising the fifth sentence and adding a

parenthetical immediately following it

to read as set forth below.

® 59. Section 3.9.1a 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.

m 60. Section 3.9.2b is amended by

replacing "Certified" with "Full-load."

61. Section 3.11 is amended by

removing the introductory text

following the paragraph heading, which

is republished below.

62. Section 3.11.1.3b is revised to read

as set forth below.

® 63. Section 3.11.2a is amended by

revising the seventh sentence to read as

set forth below.

64. Section 3.11.2b is revised to read

as set forth below.

® 65. Section 3.11.3 is revised to read as

set forth below.

d. In section 4, CALCULATIONS OF

SEASONAL PERFORMANCE

DESCRIPTORS:

m 1. Sections 4.1.2.1a and 4.1.2.1d are

amended by removing "Certified" and

adding in its place "Full-load."

m 2. Section 4.1.3 is amended by

revising the introductory text, equations

4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-2, the paragraph

preceding equation 4.1.3-3, and

equation 4.1.3-3 to read as set forth

below.

3. Section 4.1.3.3 is amended by

revising the equation for PLF, and the

text following the equation to read as set

forth below.

m 4. Section 4.1.4 is amended by

revising everything except for the

equations for calculating MQ and ME, to

read as set forth below.

® 5. Section 4.1.4.1 is amended by

revising the second sentence after the

explanation of terms in the equations

("Use Equations 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-2,

respectively, to evaluate Qk=1 (Ti)" and

Eck=1 (Ti) to read as set forth below.

n 6. Section 4.1.4.2 is amended by

revising the equation numbers

referenced in the descriptions of the

quantities T, and T,„ revising the

equation numbers referred to in the

equations for EERk=1 (T1) and EERk

(Tv), and adding text at the end of the

section to read as set forth below.

M 7. Section 4.2.3.3 is amended by

revising the equation for PLF, and the

text following the equation to read as set

forth below.

M 8. The Section 4.2.4 equations for MQ

and ME are revised to read as set forth

below.

W 9. 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/ft3.

* * * * *

2. 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 37-2005

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59924 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203/Monday, October 22, 2007/ Rules and Regulations

(incorporated by reference, see small-duct, high-velocity systems,

§ 430.22). configure all balance dampers or

* * * * * restrictor devices on or inside the unit

2.2 Test unit installation to fully open or lowest restriction.

requirements. a. Install the unit

according to section 8.2 of ASHRAE 2.2.3 Special requirements for multiStandard 37-2005 (incorporated by split air conditioners and heat pumps,

reference, see § 430.22). With respect to and systems composed of multiple

interconnecting tubing used when mini-split units (outdoor units located

testing split systems, however, follow side-by-side) that would normally

the requirements given in section 6.1.3.5 operate using two or more indoor

of ARI Standard 210/240-2006 thermostats. For any test where the

(incorporated by reference, see system is operated at part load (i.e., one

§ 430.22). When testing triple-split or more compressors "off", operating at

systems (see Definition 1.44), use the the intermediate or minimum

tubing length specified in section 6.1.3.5 compressor speed, or at low compressor

of ARI Standard 210/240-2006 capacity), the manufacturer shall

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22) designate the particular indoor coils that

to connect the outdoor coil, indoor are turned off during the test. For

compressor section, and indoor coil variable-speed systems, the

while still meeting the requirement of manufacturer must designate at least

exposing 10 feet of the tubing to outside one indoor unit that is turned off for all

conditions. When testing split systems tests conducted at minimum compressor

having multiple indoor coils, connect speed. For all other part-load tests, the

each indoor fan-coil to the outdoor unit manufacturer shall choose to turn off

using: (a) 25 feet of tubing, or (b) tubing zero, one, two, or more indoor units.

furnished by the manufacturer, The chosen configuration shall remain

whichever is longer. If they are needed unchanged for all tests conducted at the

to make a secondary measurement of same compressor speed/capacity. For

capacity, install refrigerant pressure any indoor coil that is turned off during

measuring instruments as described in a test, take steps to cease forced airflow

section 8.2.5 of ASHRAE Standard 37- through this indoor coil and block its

2005 (incorporated by reference, see outlet duct. Because these types of

§ 430.22). Refer to section 2.10 of this systems will have more than one indoor

Appendix to learn which secondary fan and possibly multiple outdoor fans

methods require refrigerant pressure and compressor systems, references in

measurements. At a minimum, insulate this test procedure to a single indoor

the low-pressure line(s) of a split-system fan, outdoor fan, and compressor means

with insulation having an inside all indoor fans, all outdoor fans, and all

diameter that matches the refrigerant compressor systems that are turned on

tubing and a nominal thickness of 0.5 during the test.

inch. * * * * *

b. For units designed for both 2.2.5 Additional refrigerant charging

horizontal and vertical installation or requirements. Charging according to the

for both up-flow and down-flow vertical "manufacturer's published

installations, the manufacturer must instructions," as stated in section 8.2 of

specify the orientation used for testing. ASHRAE Standard 37-2005

Conduct testing with the following (incorporated by reference, see

installed: § 430.22), means the manufacturer's

(1) the most restrictive filter(s); installation instructions that come

(2) supplementary heating coils; and packaged with the unit.

(3) other equipment specified as part

of the unit, including all hardware used 2.4.1 Outlet plenum for the indoor

by a heat comfort controller if so unit. a. Attach a plenum to the outlet of

equipped (see Definition 1.28). For the indoor coil. (NOTE : for some

Cooling full-load air volume rate

(scfm)

packaged systems, the indoor coil may

be located in the outdoor test room.)

b. For systems having multiple indoor

coils, attach a plenum to each indoor

coil outlet. Connect two or more outlet

plenums to a single common duct so

that each indoor coil ultimately

connects to an airflow measuring

apparatus (section 2.6). If using more

than one indoor test room, do likewise,

creating one or more common ducts

within each test room that contains

multiple indoor coils. At the plane

where each plenum enters a common

duct, install an adjustable airflow

damper and use it to equalize the static

pressure in each plenum. Each outlet air

temperature grid (section 2.5.4) and

airflow measuring apparatus are located

downstream of the inlet(s) to the

common duct.

c. 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

manufacturer's installation

instructions).

d. 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 37-2005

(incorporated by reference, see

§ 430.22). See Figures 7a, 7b, 7c, and 8

of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005

(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.

<_500 .....................................................................................................................................................................................

501 to 700 ............................................................................................................................................................................

701 to 900 ............................................................................................................................................................................

901 to 1100 ..........................................................................................................................................................................

1101 to 1400 ........................................................................................................................................................................

1401 to 1750 ........................................................................................................................................................................

Maximum diameter* of

outlet plenum

(inches)

6

7

8

9

10

11

*If 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.

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59925

2.4.2 Inlet plenum for the indoor

unit. Install an inlet plenum when

testing a coil-only 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 37-2005

(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 static-pressure

taps as shown in Figure 8 of ASHRAE

Standard 37-2005 (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 of ASHRAE

Standard 37-2005 (incorporated by

reference, see § 430.22) describes the

method for fabricating static-pressure

taps.

* * * * *

2.5.4.3 Minimizing air leakage. For

small-duct, 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. 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 inch of water higher than

the surrounding test room ambient. In

lieu of installing a separate damper, use

the outlet air damper box of sections 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 column.

* * * * *

3. Testing Procedures

* * * * *

3.1.1 Primary and secondary test

methods. * * *

For this capacity comparison, use the

Indoor Air Enthalpy Method capacity

that is calculated in section 7.3 of

ASHRAE Standard 37-2005

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22)

(and, if testing a coil-only unit, do not

make the after-test fan heat adjustments

described in section 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, and

3.10 of this Appendix).

* * * * *

3.1.4.1.1 Cooling Full-Load Air

Volume Rate for Ducted Units. The

manufacturer must specify the Cooling

Full-load Air Volume Rate. Use this

value as long as the following two

requirements are satisfied. First, when

conducting the A or A2 Test

(exclusively), the measured air volume

rate, when divided by the measured

indoor air-side total cooling capacity

must not exceed 37.5 cubic feet per

minute of standard air (scfm) per 1000

Btu/h. If this ratio is exceeded, reduce

the air volume rate until this ratio is

equaled. Use this reduced air volume

rate for all tests that call for using the

Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate. The

second requirement is as follows:

a. For all ducted units tested with an

indoor fan installed, except those

having a variable-speed, constant-airvolume-rate indoor fan. The second

requirement applies exclusively to the A

or A2 Test and is met as follows.

1. Achieve the Cooling Full-load Air

Volume Rate, determined in accordance

with the previous paragraph;

2. Measure the external static

pressure;

3. If this pressure is equal to or greater

than the applicable minimum external

static pressure cited in Table 2, this

second requirement is satisfied. Use the

current air volume rate for all tests that

require the Cooling Full-load Air

Volume Rate.

4. If the Table 2 minimum is not

equaled or exceeded,

4a. reduce the air volume rate until

the applicable Table 2 minimum is

equaled or

4b. until the measured air volume rate

equals 95 percent of the air volume rate

from step 1, whichever occurs first.

5. If the conditions of step 4a occur

first, this second requirement is

satisfied. Use the step 4a reduced air

volume rate for all tests that require the

Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate.

6. If the conditions of step 4b occur

first, make an incremental change to the

set-up of the indoor fan (e.g., next

highest fan motor pin setting, next

highest fan motor speed) and repeat the

evaluation process beginning at above

step 1. If the indoor fan set-up cannot

be further changed, reduce the air

volume rate until the applicable Table 2

minimum is equaled. Use this reduced

air volume rate for all tests that require

the Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate.

b. For ducted units that are tested

with a variable-speed, constant-airvolume-rate indoor fan installed.

* * * * *

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

Rated Cooling' or Heating2 Capacity

(Btu/h)

Up Thru 28,800 ................................................................................................................................................

29,000 to 42 , 500 ..............................................................................................................................................

43,000 and Above ...........................................................................................................................................

Minimum externat resistance 3

(Inches of water)

All other systems

Small-duct, highvelocity systems 4,5

0.10

0.15

0.20

1.10

1.15

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 H1 or H12

Test conditions.

3 For ducted units tested without an air filter installed , increase the applicable tabular value by 0.08 inch of water.

4See Definition 1.35 to determine if the equipment qualifies as a small-duct , high-velocity system.

5If 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 inch of water . Impose the balance of the airflow resistance on the outlet side of the indoor blower.

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59926

*** b. * * *

A B C, F, & G, Test AP., = Ap xl Cooling Minimum Air Volume Rate

" " " " ' st = 51' ^Z Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate

3.1.4.3 Cooling Intermediate Air

Volume Rate. a. * * *

Volume Rates are different due to

E Test Fan Speed

Cooling Intermediate Air Vol. Rate = Cooling Full-load Air Vol. Rate X

A2Test Fan Speed'

***

E^Test APS = APs n, x [Cooling Intermediate Air Volume Rate 12

L Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate J

* * * *

3.1.4.4.2 Ducted heat pumps where indoor fan operation. a.

the Heating and Cooling Full-load Air

*** b. * * *

2

A or A2 Test Fan Speed

Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate

Heating Full-load AP., = Cooling Full-load AP., x (

* * *

3.1.4.4.3 Ducted heating-only heat

pumps. The manufacturer must specify

the Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate.

a. For all ducted heating-only heat

pumps tested with an indoor fan

installed, except those having a

variable-speed, constant-air-volume-rate

indoor fan. Conduct the following steps

only during the first test, the H1 or H12

Test.

1. Achieve the Heating Full-load'Air

Volume Rate.

2. Measure the external static

pressure.

3. If this pressure is equal to or greater

than the Table 2 minimum external

static pressure that applies given the

Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

3.1.4.2 Cooling Minimum Air

Volume Rate. a. * * *

Cooling Minimum Fan Speed

Cooling Minimum Air Vol. Rate = Cooling Full-load Air Vol. Rate X

A2Test Fan Speed

Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate - Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate x

H1 or H12 Test Fan Speed

2

Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate '

heating-only heat pump's rated heating

capacity, use the current air volume rate

for all tests that require the Heating

Full-load Air Volume Rate.

4. If the Table 2 minimum is not

equaled or exceeded,

4a. reduce the air volume rate until

the applicable Table 2 minimum is

equaled or

4b. until the measured air volume rate

equals 95 percent of the manufacturerspecified Full-load Air Volume Rate,

whichever occurs first.

5. If the conditions of step 4a occurs

first, use the step 4a reduced air volume

rate for all tests that require the Heating

Full-load Air Volume Rate.

6. If the conditions of step 4b occur

first, make an incremental change to the

set-up of the indoor fan (e.g., next

highest fan motor pin setting, next

highest fan motor speed) and repeat the

evaluation process beginning at above

step 1. If the indoor fan set-up cannot

be further changed, reduce the air

volume rate until the applicable Table 2

minimum is equaled. Use this reduced

air volume rate for all tests that require

the Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate.

b. For ducted heating-only heat

pumps that are tested with a variablespeed, constant-air-volume-rate indoor

fan installed. * * *

* * * * *

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007/Rules and Regulations

3.1.4.5 Heating Minimum Air

Volume Rate. a. * * *

Heating Minimum Fan Speed

Heating Minimum Air Vol. Rate = Heating Full-load Air Vol. Rate x

H12Test Fan Speed

***

HO Hl H2 H3 Test AP = AP x Htg Minimum Air Vol. Ratel z

" " " " s` = S`' `" 2 E Htg Full-load Air Vol. Rate

3.1.4.6 Heating Intermediate Air

Volume Rate. a. * * *

H2VTest Fan Speed

Heating Intermediate Air Volume Rate = Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate X

H12 Test Fan Speed '

*** b. * * *

H2v Test AP.,AP,,,,,,z X

Heating Intermediate Air Volume Rate 12

L Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate J

3.1.4.7 Heating Nominal Air Volume

Rate. * * *

H1NTest Fan Speed

Heating Nominal Air Volume Rate = Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate x

H12Test Fan Speed '

H1N Test AP., = "12 x

* * * * *

3.1.6 * * * (Note: In the first

printing of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005,

the second IP equation for Q j should

read,

1097CAn Pvun ') * * *

* * *

* * * * *

3.2.1 * * * If the two optional tests

are conducted but yield a tested CDC that

exceeds the default CDC or if the two

optional tests are not conducted, assign

CDC the default value of 0.25.

* * * * *

3.2.2.1 * * * If the two optional

tests are conducted but yield a tested

CDC that exceeds the default Co- or if the

two optional tests are not conducted,

Heating Nominal Air Volume Rate

2

Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate J '

C

assign CDC the default value of 0.25.

* * *

* * * * *

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, B1, and F1 Tests. Use

the two optional dry-coil tests, the

steady-state C, Test and the cyclic D,

Test, to determine the cooling-mode

cyclic-degradation coefficient, CDC. If the

two optional tests are conducted but

yield a tested CDC that exceeds the

default CDC or if the two optional tests

are not conducted, assign CDC the

default value of 0.25. Table 5 specifies

test conditions for these six tests.

* * * * *

59927

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, CD°(k=2). If

the two optional tests are conducted but

yield a tested CDC(k=2) that exceeds the

default CD' (k=2) or if the two optional

tests are not conducted, assign CDC(k=2)

the default value. The default CDc(k=2)

is the same value as determined or

assigned for the low-capacity cyclicdegradation coefficient, CDC [or

equivalently, CDc(k=1)].

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59928 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

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)

Co cmp res r

Cooling air volume rate

Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb

y

A2 Test-required ................................ 80 67 95 1 75 High ............. Cooling Full-Load.2

(steady, wet coil)

B2 Test-required ................................ 80 67 82 1 65 High ............. Cooling Full-Load.2

(steady, wet coil)

B, Test-required ................................ 80 67 82 1 65 Low ............. Cooling Minimum.3

(steady, wet coil)

C2 Test-optional ................................ 80 (4) 82 ...................... High ............. Cooling Full-Load.2

(steady, dry-coil)

D, Test-optional 80 (4) 82 ...................... High ............. (5)

(cyclic, dry-coil)

C, Test-optional ................................ 80 (4) 82 ...................... Low .............. Cooling Minimum.3

(steady, dry-coil)

D, Test-optional 80 (4) 82 ...................... Low .............. (6)

(cyclic, dry-coil)

F, Test-required ................................ 80 67 67 153.5 Low ............. Cooling Minimum.3

(steady, wet coil)

, 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.

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 C2 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 C, Test.

3.2.4 Tests for a unit having a

variable-speed compressor. a. * * * If

the two optional tests are conducted but

yield a tested CD° that exceeds the

default CD° or if the two optional tests

are not conducted, assign CDc the

default value of 0.25. * * *

c. For multiple-split air conditioners

and heat pumps (except where noted),

the following procedures supersede the

above requirements: For all Table 6 tests

specified for a minimum compressor minimum cooling-mode speeds. The

speed, at least one indoor unit must be manufacturer should prescribe an

turned off. The manufacturer shall intermediate speed that is expected to

designate the particular indoor unit(s) yield the highest EER for the given Ev

that is turned off. The manufacturer Test conditions and bracketed

must also specify the compressor speed compressor speed range. The

used for the Table 6 Ev Test, a cooling- manufacturer can designate that one or

mode intermediate compressor speed more indoor units are turned off for the

that falls within 1/4 and 3/4 of the Ev Test.

difference between the maximum and * *

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

eed Cooling air volume rate

Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb

sp

A2 Test-required .......................... 80 67 95 1 75 Maximum .......... Cooling Full-Load2

(steady, wet coil)

B2 Test-required .......................... 80 67 82 165 Maximum .......... Cooling Full-Load2

(steady, wet coil)

Ev Test-required .......................... 80 67 87 169 Intermediate ..... Cooling Intermediate3

(steady, wet coil)

B, Test-required .......................... 80 67 82 165 Minimum ........... Cooling Minimum4

(steady, wet coil)

F, Test-required ........................... 80 67 67 153.5 Minimum ........... Cooling Minimum 4

(steady, wet coil)

G, Tests-optional ......................... 80 (6) 67 ...................... Minimum ........... Cooling Minimum4

(steady, dry-coil)

I, Tests-optional .......................... 80 (6) 67 ...................... Minimum ........... (6)

(cyclic, dry-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 3.1.4.3.

4 Defined in section 3.1.4.2.

5The 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.

6Maintain 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 G, Test.

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59929

* * * * *

3.4 Test procedures for the optional

steady-state dry-coil cooling-mode tests

(the C, CI, C2, and G1 Tests).

* * * * *

b. Denote the resulting total space

cooling capacity and electrical power

derived from the test as QSS,dry and Ess,dry•

With regard to a section 3.3 deviation,

do not adjust Qss,dry for duct losses (i.e.,

do not apply section 7.3.3.3 of ASHRAE

Standard 37-2005 (incorporated by

reference, see § 430.22)). In preparing

for the section 3.5 cyclic tests, record

the average indoor-side air volume rate,

V, specific heat of the air, Cp,a

(expressed on dry air basis), specific

volume of the air at the nozzles, v',,,

humidity ratio at the nozzles, W,,, and

either pressure difference or velocity

pressure for the flow nozzles. For units

having a variable-speed indoor fan (that

provides either a constant or variable air

volume rate) that will or may be tested

during the cyclic dry coil cooling mode

test with the indoor fan turned off (see

section 3.5), include the electrical

power used by the indoor fan motor

among the recorded parameters from the

30-minute test.

3.5 Test procedures for the optional

cyclic dry-coil cooling-mode tests (the

D, D1, D2, and II Tests).

* * * * *

3.5.3 Cooling-mode cyclicdegradation coefficient calculation. Use

the two optional dry-coil tests to

determine the cooling-mode cyclicdegradation coefficient, CD°. Append

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

corresponds to a two-capacity unit

cycling at high capacity. If the two

optional tests are conducted but yield a

tested CDC that exceeds the default CDC

or if the two optional tests are not

conducted, assign CDC the default value

of 0.25. The default value for twocapacity units cycling at high capacity,

however, is the low-capacity coefficient,

i.e., CDc(k=2)=CDc. Evaluate CDC using

the above results and those from the

section 3.4 dry-coil steady-state test.

* * * * *

3.6.1 * * * Conduct the optional

High Temperature Cyclic (H1C) Test to

determine the heating mode cyclicdegradation coefficient, CD". If this

optional test is conducted but yields a

tested CD" that exceeds the default CD"

or if the optional test is not conducted,

assign CD" the default value of 0.25. Test

conditions for the four tests are

specified in Table 9.

* * * * *

3.6.2 Tests for a heat pump having a

single-speed compressor and a variablespeed, variable-air-volume-rate indoor

fan: capacity modulation correlates with

outdoor dry bulb temperature. Conduct

five tests: two High Temperature Tests

(H12 and H11), one Frost Accumulation

Test (H22), and two Low Temperature

Tests (H32 and H3,). Conducting an

additional Frost Accumulation Test

(H21) is optional. Conduct the optional

High Temperature Cyclic (H1C1) Test to

determine the heating mode cyclicdegradation coefficient, CD11. If this

optional test is conducted but yields a

tested CD" that exceeds the default CD"

or if the optional test is not conducted,

assign CD" the default value of 0.25. Test

conditions for the seven tests are

specified in Table 10. If the optional H21

Test is not performed, use the following

equations to approximate the capacity

and electrical power of the heat pump

at the H2, test conditions:

* * * * *

3.6.3 Tests for a heat pump having a

two-capacity 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

(H12 and H11), one Frost Accumulation

Test (H22), and one Low Temperature

Test (H32). Conduct an additional Frost

Accumulation Test (H2,) and Low

Temperature Test (H3,) 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

low-capacity operation at outdoor

temperatures of 37°F and less.

If the above two conditions are met,

an alternative to conducting the H2,

Frost Accumulation is to use the

following equations to approximate the

capacity and electrical power:

Qn-'(35)=0.90•{Qh-'(17)+0.6.[Qn-'(47) Q; (17)]}

E; '(35)=0.985•{E; ''(17)+0.6-LE;-'(47) Eh-'(17)]}

Determine the quantities Oj,k=1 (47)

and E"k=1 (47) from the H11 Test and

evaluate them according to Section 3.7.

Determine the quantities Ql,k=1 (17) and

E"k=1 (17) from the H31 Test and

evaluate them according to Section 3.10.

b. Conduct the optional High

Temperature Cyclic Test (H1C1) to

determine the heating-mode cyclicdegradation coefficient, CD". If this

optional test is conducted but yields a

Air entering indoor unit

temperature (°F)

tested CD" that exceeds the default CD"

or if the optional test is not conducted,

assign CD" the default value of 0.25. If

a two-capacity heat pump locks out low

capacity operation at lower outdoor

temperatures, conduct the optional High

Temperature Cyclic Test (H1C2) to

determine the high-capacity heatingmode cyclic-degradation coefficient, CDI,

(k=2). If this optional test at high

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

Test description

HO1 Test ..............................................

(required, steady)

Hie Test ..............................................

(required, steady)

Dry bulb Wet bulb

Air entering outdoor unit

temperature (°F)

Dry bulb Wet bulb

capacity is conducted but yields a tested

CD" (k=2) that exceeds the default CD"

(k=2) or if the optional test is not

conducted, assign CDh the default value.

The default CD" (k=2) is the same value

as determined or assigned for the lowcapacity cyclic-degradation coefficient,

CD" [or equivalently, CD" (k=1)]. Table

11 specifies test conditions for these

nine tests.

Compressor

capacity Heating air volume rate

70 60(max) 62 56.5 1 Low .............. Heating Minimum.[

70 60(max) 47 43 High ............. Heating Full-Load.2

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59930 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

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

Test description

Air entering indoor unit

temperature (°F)

Air entering outdoor unit

temperature (° F) Compressor

it Heating air volume rate

Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb

capac y

HIC2 Test ............................................ 70 60(max) 47 43 High ............. (3)

(optional , cyclic)

H1, Test .............................................. 70 60(max) 47 43 Low ............. Heating Minimum.'

(required)

H1C, Test ............................................ 70 60(max) 47 43 Low .............. (4)

(optional , cyclic)

H22 Test .............................................. 70 60(max) 35 33 High ............. Heating Full-Load.2

(required)

H2, Test5.6 ........................................... 70 60(max) 35 33 Low ............. Heating Minimum. '

(required)

H32 Test .............................................. 70 60(max) 17 15 High ............. Heating Full-Load.2

(required , steady)

H3, Test5 ............................................ 70 60(max) 17 15 Low .............. Heating Minimum. 1

(required , steady)

Defined in section 3.1.4.5.

2 Defined in section 3.1.4.4.

3 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 H12 Test.

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 H1, 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.

Elf table note #5 applies, the section 3. 6.3 equations for Qhk=l (35) and Ehk=l (17) may be used in lieu of conducting the H2, Test.

3.6.4 Tests for a heat pump having a

variable-speed compressor. a. * * *

Conduct the optional Maximum

Temperature Cyclic (HOC,) Test to

determine the heating mode cyclicdegradation coefficient, CDh. If this

optional test is conducted but yields a

tested CDh that exceeds the default CDh

or if the optional test is not conducted,

assign CDh the default value of 0.25. Test

conditions for the eight tests are

specified in Table 12. * * *

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, at least

one indoor unit must be turned off. The

manufacturer shall designate the

particular indoor unit(s) that is turned

off. The manufacturer must also specify

the compressor speed used for the Table

12 H2v Test, a heating-mode

intermediate compressor speed that falls

within 1/4 and 3/4 of the difference

between the 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 and

bracketed compressor speed range. The

manufacturer can designate that one or

more specific indoor units are turned off

for the H2v Test.

* * * * *

TABLE 12.-HEATING MODE TEST CONDITIONS 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 Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb

HO, Test ....................... 70 60( max) 62 56. 5 Minimum ............................. Heating Minimum.'

(required , steady)

HOC, Test .................... 70 60(max) 62 56. 5 Minimum ............................. (2)

(optional, steady)

H12 Test ....................... 70 60( max) 47 43 Maximum ............................ Heating Full-Load.3

(required , steady)

H1, Test . ...................... 70 60( max) 47 43 Minimum ............................. Heating Minimum.'

(required , steady)

H1N Test ...................... 70 6O(max) 47 43 Cooling Mode Maximum .... Heating Nominal.4

(optional , steady)

H22 Test ....................... 70 60(°'ax) 35 33 Maximum ............................ Heating Full-Load.3

(optional)

H2v Test ...................... 70 6O(max) 35 33 Intermediate ....................... Heating Intermediate.5

(required)

H32 Test ....................... 70 60( max) 17 15 Maximum ............................ Heating Full-Load.3

(required , steady)

) Defined in section 3.1.4.5.

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

3 Defined in section 3.1.4.4.

4 Defined in section 3.1.4.7.

5 Defined in section 3.1.4.6.

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59931

* * * * *

3.7 Test procedures for steady-state

Maximum Temperature and High

Temperature heating mode tests (the

HO1, H1, H12, H11, and H1N Tests). a.

* * *

b. Calculate indoor-side total heating

capacity as specified in sections 7.3.4.1

and 7.3.4.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-

2005 (incorporated by reference, see

§ 430.22). * * *

* * * * *

3.8 Test procedures for the optional

cyclic heating mode tests (the HOCI,

H1C, H1C1 and H1C2 Tests).

* * * * *

3.8.1 Heating mode cyclicdegradation 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 heatingmode cyclic-degradation coefficient CDh.

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

corresponds to a two-capacity unit

cycling at high capacity. For the below

calculation of the heating mode cyclic

degradation coefficient, do not include

the duct loss correction from section

7.3.3.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22)

in determining Q,k(Tyc) (or gcyc). If the

optional cyclic test is conducted but

yields a tested CDh that exceeds the

default CD!' or if the optional test is not

conducted, assign CDh the default value

of 0.25. The default value for twocapacity units cycling at high capacity,

however, is the low-capacity coefficient,

i.e., CDh (k=2) = CD h. The tested CDh is

calculated as follows:

* * *

* * *

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 6 hours,

immediately conclude the test and use

the results from the full 6-hour period

to calculate the average space heating

capacity and average electrical power

consumption.

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 37-2005

(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: .)

1097CA, Pwn .)***

* * * * *

3.9.1 Average space heating capacity

and electrical power calculations.

a.* * *

To account for the effect of duct losses

between the outlet of the indoor unit

and the section 2.5.4 dry-bulb

temperature grid, adjust Qhk(35) in

accordance with section 7.3.4.3 of

ASHRAE Standard 37-2005

(incorporated by reference, see

§ 430.22).

* * * * *

3.11 Additional requirements for the

secondary test methods.

3.11.1 If using the Outdoor Air

Enthalpy Method as the secondary test

method.

* * * * *

3.11.1.3 Official test.

* * * * *

b. For space cooling tests, calculate

capacity from the outdoor air-enthalpy

measurements as specified in sections

7.3.3.2 and 7.3.3.3 of ASHRAE Standard

37-2005 (incorporated by reference, see

§ 430.22). Calculate heating capacity

based on outdoor air-enthalpy

measurements as specified in sections

7.3.4.2 and 7.3.3.4.3 of the same

ASHRAE Standard. Adjust the outdoor

side capacity according to section

7.3.3.4 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22)

to account for line losses when testing

split systems. Use the outdoor unit fan

power as measured during the official

test and not the value measured during

the preliminary test, as described in

section 8.6.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-

2005 (incorporated by reference, see

§ 430.22), when calculating the capacity.

3.11.2 If using the Compressor

Calibration Method as the secondary

test method.

a. * * * Otherwise, conduct the

calibration tests according to ASHRAE

Standard 23-05 (incorporated by

reference, see § 430.22), ASHRAE

Standard 41.9-2000 (incorporated by

reference, see § 430.22), and section 7.4

of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005

(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 37-

2005 (incorporated by reference, see

§ 430.22).

3.11.3 If using the RefrigerantEnthalpy Method as the secondary test

method. Conduct this secondary method

according to section 7.5 of ASHRAE

Standard 37-2005 (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.

* * * * * *

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, Q,k=' (Ta), and

electrical power consumption, E,k=' (Ti),

of the test unit when operating at low

compressor capacity and outdoor

temperature TT using,

0k-1(T;)=Q'_'(67)+Q`^ (82)-0`^ (67)•(T1-67) ( 4.1.3-1)

82 - 67

k- ' k 7) (82) - E ' (6

k-'(T.)=Ek°'(67)+ E c- -67) (4.1.3-2)

82-67 '

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59932 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203/Monday, October 22, 2007/Rules and Regulations

where QQk=1 (82) and E°k=1 (82) are

determined from the BI Test, 01 k=1 (67)

and E.-1 (67) are determined from the

F1 Test, and all four quantities are

calculated as specified in section 3.3.

Evaluate the space cooling capacity,

Q- k=2 (Ta), and electrical power

consumption, E°k=2 (Ti), of the test unit

Qk2(T;)= Qk 2(82)

+Q` 2 (95) -0C 2 (82). (T -82) (4.1.3-3)

95 - 82

4.1.3.3

PLF, =1-Cp(k=2)•[1-Xk=2(T,)],

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

Q°k=2 (Ti) and E.k=2 (Ti). If the optional

C2 and D2 Tests described in section

3.2.3 and Table 5 are not conducted, set

CD` (k=2) equal to the default value

specified in section 3.5.3. If these

optional tests are conducted, set CD°

(k=2) to the lower of:

a. the CD° (k=2) value calculated as

per section 3.5.3; or

b. the section 3.5.3 default value for

CDC (k=2) .

* * * * *

4.1.4 SEER calculations for an air

conditioner or heat pump having a

variable-speed compressor. Calculate

SEER using Equation 4.1-1. Evaluate the

space cooling capacity, QQk=1 (Tj), and

electrical power consumption E°k=1 (Tj),

of the test unit when operating at

minimum compressor speed and

outdoor temperature T. Use Equations

4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-2, respectively, where

QCk=1 (82) and Eck=1 (82) are determined

from the B1 Test, Qk=i (67) and E°k=1

(67) are determined from the F1 Test,

when operating at high compressor

capacity and outdoor temperature T,

using,

and all four quantities are calculated as

specified in section 3.3. Evaluate the

space cooling capacity, QQk=2 (Tj), and

electrical power consumption, E°k=2 (Ti),

of the test unit when'operating at

maximum compressor speed and

outdoor temperature T. Use Equations

4.1.3-3 and 4.1.3-4, respectively, where

0. k=2 (95) and E°k=2 (95) are determined

from the A2 Test, Q- k=2 (82) and Ek=2

(82) are determined from the B2 Test,

and all four quantities are calculated as

specified in section 3.3. Calculate the

space cooling capacity, 0-k=° (Ta), and

electrical power consumption, E,k (Ti),

of the test unit when operating at

outdoor temperature TT and the

intermediate compressor speed used

during the section 3.2.4 (and Table 6) Ev

Test using,

Qk `(T) = Qk°` (87)+M Q• (T^ -87) (4.1.4-1)

Ek-"(T^) = Ek `(87)+ME • (Tj -87) (4.1.4-2)

where QFk (87) and E°k (87) are Approximate the slopes of the k = v electrical power input curves, MQ and

determined from the E„ Test and intermediate speed cooling capacity and ME, as follows: *

calculated as specified in section 3.3. where,

E

Q Qk--(87) -Qk '(87) Ek (87) -Ek 1 (87)

Use Equations 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-2 for Tj 3 and 4.1.3-4 for TT = 87°F to determine

= 87°F to determine Q°k=' (87) and E,k=l Qck=2 (87) and Eck=2 (87), respectively.

(87), respectively. Use Equations 4.1.3- Calculating Equation 4.1-1 quantities

g^ (T;) and e^ (T; )

N N

differs depending upon whether the test 4 . 1.4.3) in responding to the building 4.1.4.1 * * * Use Equations 4.1.3-1

unit would operate at minimum speed load. Use Equation 4.1-2 to calculate and 4.1.3-2 , respectively, to evaluate

(section 4 . 1.4.1), operate at an the building load, BL(T,), for each Q11=1 (Ti) and E°k=t (Ti).

intermediate speed (section 4 . 1.4.2), or temperature bin. 4.1.4.2

operate at maximum speed (section

Qk-`(87)-Qk^'(87) Ek=°(87)-Ek-'(87)

an d N = - c

A=EERk=2 (T2)-B•T2-C•TT

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 203 /Monday, October 22, 2007 /Rules and Regulations

where,

T, = the outdoor temperature at which

the unit, when operating at minimum

compressor speed, provides a space

cooling capacity that is equal to the

building load (QQk=' (T,) = BL(T,)), °F.

Determine T, by equating Equations

4.1.3-1 and 4.1-2 and solving for

outdoor temperature. Tv = the outdoor

temperature at which the unit, when

operating at the intermediate

compressor speed used during the

0k (T)[Egn.4.1.3-1, substituting T, for T

EERk `' (T) = Bturh per W.

Ek-' ("1 ,) [ Eqn . 4.1.3-2, substituting T, for T1

k k °(T.)[Egn.4.1.4-1, substitutingT for T1

EER (T) = Q Btu/h per W.

Ek (T.) I

Eqn. 4.1.4-2 , substituting T, for Ti

*

* * * * procedures supersede the above For each temperature bin where T, < T

For multiple-split air conditioners requirements for calculating EERk= ' (Ti). < Tv,

and heat pumps (only), the following

EERk=' (T.) = EER k-' (T,) +

4.2.3.3

EERk=v (Tv)-EERk='(T,)

T

* *

v - T

PLFJ =1- CD (k = 2) . [l - Xk= 2 (TA.

If the optional H1C2 Test described in If this optional test is conducted, set CDh Determine the low temperature cutsection 3.6.3 and Table 11 is not (k=2) to the lower of: out factor, 5 (Ti), using Equation 4.2.3-

conducted, set CD" (k=2) equal to the a. the CDh (k=2) value calculated as 3.

default value specified in section 3.8.1. per section 3.8.1; or * * * * *

b. the section 3.8.1 default value for

CD" (k=2).

[Q,'

(62)- Qh

(47)

M. =

*

4.2.4.2

-h-NC6_ - 47

Eh-:i (62) - Eh;::' (47)

•(1-Nh^

62 - 47

1-

59933

section 3.2.4 Ev Test, provides a space

cooling capacity that is equal to the

building load (Q°k=v (Tv) = BL(Tv)), °F.

Determine Tv by equating Equations

4.1.4-1 and 4.1-2 and solving for

outdoor temperature. * * *

4.2.4 * * *

1, 2

(35)-1'(17)

35-17

For multiple-split heat pumps (only), COPhk=' (Ti). For each temperature bin

the following procedures supersede the where T3 > T > Tvh,

above requirements for calculating

COP,-'(T.;)=COP, '(T3)+COPP ,(Tvh)-COPS '(T3) (T -T3)

TO - T3

For each temperature bin where Tvh > T

> T4,

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26
59934 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

COPn-'(T.)=COph-"(Th)+ v

COPn-Z(T4) -COPh-,(T,,)

^

T4 - Tvh

* * *

7. 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) * * *

(i) 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 ducted air mover (e.g., furnace,

air handler, blower kit, etc.), the model

number of this ducted air mover must

be included among the model numbers

listed on the certification report.

(ii) Central air conditioning heat

pumps, the seasonal energy efficiency

ratio and heating seasonal performance

factor. For central air conditioning heat

pumps whose seasonal energy efficiency

-Tvh)."

ratio and heating seasonal performance

factor are based on an installation that

includes a particular model of ducted

air mover (e.g., furnace, air handler,

blower kit, etc.), the model number of

this ducted air mover must be included

among the model numbers listed on the

certification report.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 07-5142 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

EE-RM/TP-02-002 COMMENT 26