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 

O. 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 

I. 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59907 

1A 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. 

2This means an absolute variation in HSPF of 0.1, 

such as between 8.1 and 8.2. 

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.’’

II. 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
59908 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

3Performance 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. 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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% ........................ 4 

50% to 75% .......................... 3 

25% to 50% .......................... 2 

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


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59911 

4SEER 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. 

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 

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 A1

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

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

test at 82 °F (the D1 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 A1 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 A1 Test. ACEEE supported the 

change in the temperature in the A1 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 C1 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 C1 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 (C1 and D1 tests) is not 

warranted. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
59912 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Therefore, today’s final rule replaces 

the A1 Test with the F1 Test, as 

proposed. The F1 Test requires an 

outdoor dry bulb temperature of 67 °F, 

and for those few cases where it applies, 

an outdoor wet bulb temperature of 53.5 

°F. 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 °F, 82 

°F, and 95 °F. (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 ̇ c

k=1 (87) and 

Q ̇ c

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 Tj = 87. Similar 

direction is provided for determining 

the power consumption quantities E ̇ c

k=1

(87) and E ̇ c

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 °F. 

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 (CDh), 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., 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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 (ICM’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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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). 

O. Revisions to the Definition of ‘‘Coil 

Family’’

DOE proposed minor modifications to 

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 

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. 

This change is found in section 

3.1.4.1.1 of Appendix M. 

—All balance dampers or restrictor 

devices on or inside the unit must be 

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 

(CD) 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 CD

will be the value of the low-capacity CD. 

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, CD. 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 

37–2005 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59917 

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 °F 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 °F 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 

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 °F 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 minimally—

within ± 0.1 SEER point—in most cases. 

However, the reduction in SEER could 

be very considerable if the power 

consumption during the 95 °F test at low 

capacity is increased in an effort to 

obtain lower estimates, through 

extrapolation, of the power 

consumption for low-capacity at 

temperatures less than 82 °F. In general, 

the impact of the change will be 

measurable if the unit’s electrical power 

draw increases atypically at higher 

outdoor temperatures when operating at 

low capacity. However, two-capacity 

compressors are inherently more energy 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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 A5 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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

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 

■ 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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: 

■ 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59921 

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 programs—

including spreadsheets—having less 

than 200 executable lines that 

implement the ARM. Longer computer 

programs must be identified and 

sufficiently explained, as specified 

above, but their inclusion in the initial 

submittal package is optional. 

Applicability or limitations of the ARM 

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

when operating in the cooling mode, 

covers units with rated capacities of 3 

tons or less, not applicable to the 

manufacturer’s product line of nonducted systems, etc.) 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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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] 

■ 6. Appendix M to subpart B of part 

430 is amended: 

■ a. In section 1. Definitions: 

■ 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.’’

■ 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.’’

■ 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.’’

■ 4. Section 1.12 is amended by adding 

‘‘RA(05)’’ after ‘‘116–95’’; and adding 

‘‘and reaffirmed in 2005’’ after ‘‘1995.’’

■ 5. Section 1.35 is amended by 

removing ‘‘certified’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘full-load.’’

■ 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. 

■ 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. 

■ 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.’’

■ 8. Section 2.10.2 is amended in the 

third and fourth sentences, by removing 

‘‘37–88’’ and adding in its place ‘‘37–

2005.’’

■ 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. 

■ 10. Section 2.11a is amended in the 

first sentence, by removing ‘‘37–88’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘37–2005.’’

■ 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: 

■ 1. Section 3.1.1 is amended by 

revising the seventh sentence to read as 

set forth below. 

■ 2. Section 3.1.3 is amended by 

removing ‘‘ARI Standard 210/240–

2003’’ and adding in its place ‘‘ARI 

Standard 210/240–2006.’’

■ 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. 

■ 4a. Section 3.1.4.1.1b is amended by 

revising the first sentence to read as set 

forth below. 

■ 5. Amend sections 3.1.4.1.1b 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. 

■ 7. Section 3.1.4.2a is amended by 

revising the ‘‘Cooling Minimum Air Vol. 

Rate’’ equation to read as set forth 

below. 

■ 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. 

■ 11. Section 3.1.4.3b is amended by 

revising the ‘‘Ev Test DPst ’’ 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. 

■ 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 DPst’’

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. 

■ 17. Sections 3.1.4.4.3 and 3.1.4.4.3a 

are revised to read as set forth below. 

■ 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.’’

■ 19. Section 3.1.4.5a is amended by 

revising the ‘‘Heating Minimum Air 

Volume Rate’’ equation to read as set 

forth below. 

■ 20. Section 3.1.4.5b is amended by 

revising the ‘‘H01, H11, H21, H31, Test 

DPst’’ equation to read as set forth below. 

■ 21. Section 3.1.4.5d is amended by 

removing Certified and adding in its 

place Full-load in two locations. 

■ 22. Section 3.1.4.6a is amended by 

revising the ‘‘Heating Intermediate Air 

Volume Rate’’ equation to read as set 

forth below. 

■ 23. Section 3.1.4.6b is amended by 

revising the ‘‘H2v Test DPst’’ equation to 

read as set forth below. 

■ 24. Section 3.1.4.7 is amended by 

revising the ‘‘Heating Nominal Air 

Volume Rate’’ equation and the ‘‘H1N

Test DPst’’ equation to read as set forth 

below. 

■ 25. Section 3.1.5 is amended in the 

first sentence by removing ‘‘37–88’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘37–2005.’’


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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. 

■ 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. 

■ 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. 

■ 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. 

■ 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. 

■ 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. 

■ 44. Section 3.5.3 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

set forth below. 

■ 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. 

■ 47. Section 3.6.2 is amended by 

revising the introductory text to read as 

set forth below. 

■ 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. 

■ 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. 

■ 55. The title of section 3.8 is revised 

to read as set forth below. 

■ 56. The introductory text and the first 

equation of section 3.8.1 are revised to 

read as set forth below. 

■ 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. 

■ 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: 

■ 1. Sections 4.1.2.1a and 4.1.2.1d are 

amended by removing ‘‘Certified’’ and 

adding in its place ‘‘Full-load.’’

■ 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 PLFj and the 

text following the equation to read as set 

forth below. 

■ 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 Q ̇ c

k=1 (Tj)’’ and 

E ̇ c

k=1 (Tj) to read as set forth below. 

■ 6. Section 4.1.4.2 is amended by 

revising the equation numbers 

referenced in the descriptions of the 

quantities T1 and Tv, revising the 

equation numbers referred to in the 

equations for EERk=1 (T1) and EERk=v

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

section to read as set forth below. 

■ 7. Section 4.2.3.3 is amended by 

revising the equation for PLFj and the 

text following the equation to read as set 

forth below. 

■ 8. The Section 4.2.4 equations for MQ

and ME are revised to read as set forth 

below. 

■ 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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
59924 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 430.22). 

* * * * * 

2.2 Test unit installation 

requirements. a. Install the unit 

according to section 8.2 of ASHRAE 

Standard 37–2005 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.22). With respect to 

interconnecting tubing used when 

testing split systems, however, follow 

the requirements given in section 6.1.3.5 

of ARI Standard 210/240–2006 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 430.22). When testing triple-split 

systems (see Definition 1.44), use the 

tubing length specified in section 6.1.3.5 

of ARI Standard 210/240–2006 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.22) 

to connect the outdoor coil, indoor 

compressor section, and indoor coil 

while still meeting the requirement of 

exposing 10 feet of the tubing to outside 

conditions. When testing split systems 

having multiple indoor coils, connect 

each indoor fan-coil to the outdoor unit 

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

furnished by the manufacturer, 

whichever is longer. If they are needed 

to make a secondary measurement of 

capacity, install refrigerant pressure 

measuring instruments as described in 

section 8.2.5 of ASHRAE Standard 37–

2005 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 430.22). Refer to section 2.10 of this 

Appendix to learn which secondary 

methods require refrigerant pressure 

measurements. At a minimum, insulate 

the low-pressure line(s) of a split-system 

with insulation having an inside 

diameter that matches the refrigerant 

tubing and a nominal thickness of 0.5 

inch. 

b. For units designed for both 

horizontal and vertical installation or 

for both up-flow and down-flow vertical 

installations, the manufacturer must 

specify the orientation used for testing. 

Conduct testing with the following 

installed: 

(1) the most restrictive filter(s); 

(2) supplementary heating coils; and 

(3) other equipment specified as part 

of the unit, including all hardware used 

by a heat comfort controller if so 

equipped (see Definition 1.28). For 

small-duct, high-velocity systems, 

configure all balance dampers or 

restrictor devices on or inside the unit 

to fully open or lowest restriction. 

* * * * * 

2.2.3 Special requirements for multisplit air conditioners and heat pumps, 

and systems composed of multiple 

mini-split units (outdoor units located 

side-by-side) that would normally 

operate using two or more indoor 

thermostats. For any test where the 

system is operated at part load (i.e., one 

or more compressors ‘‘off’’, operating at 

the intermediate or minimum 

compressor speed, or at low compressor 

capacity), the manufacturer shall 

designate the particular indoor coils that 

are turned off during the test. For 

variable-speed systems, the 

manufacturer must designate at least 

one indoor unit that is turned off for all 

tests conducted at minimum compressor 

speed. For all other part-load tests, the 

manufacturer shall choose to turn off 

zero, one, two, or more indoor units. 

The chosen configuration shall remain 

unchanged for all tests conducted at the 

same compressor speed/capacity. For 

any indoor coil that is turned off during 

a test, take steps to cease forced airflow 

through this indoor coil and block its 

outlet duct. Because these types of 

systems will have more than one indoor 

fan and possibly multiple outdoor fans 

and compressor systems, references in 

this test procedure to a single indoor 

fan, outdoor fan, and compressor means 

all indoor fans, all outdoor fans, and all 

compressor systems that are turned on 

during the test. 

* * * * * 

2.2.5 Additional refrigerant charging 

requirements. Charging according to the 

‘‘manufacturer’s published 

instructions,’’ as stated in section 8.2 of 

ASHRAE Standard 37–2005 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 430.22), means the manufacturer’s 

installation instructions that come 

packaged with the unit. * * * 

* * * * * 

2.4.1 Outlet plenum for the indoor 

unit. a. Attach a plenum to the outlet of 

the indoor coil. (NOTE: for some 

packaged systems, the indoor coil 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. 

Cooling full-load air volume rate 

(scfm) 

Maximum diameter* of 

outlet plenum 

(inches) 

≤500 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 

501 to 700 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7 

701 to 900 ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 

901 to 1100 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

1101 to 1400 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 10 

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


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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 1 or Heating 2 Capacity 

(Btu/h) 

Minimum external resistance 3

(Inches of water) 

All other systems 

Small-duct, highvelocity systems 4,5

Up Thru 28,800 ................................................................................................................................................ 0.10 1.10 

29,000 to 42,500 .............................................................................................................................................. 0.15 1.15 

43,000 and Above ........................................................................................................................................... 0.20 1.20 

1For 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. 2For 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. 3For 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. 

5 If a closed-loop, air-enthalpy test apparatus is used on the indoor side, limit the resistance to airflow on the inlet side of the indoor blower coil 

to a maximum value of 0.1 inch of water. Impose the balance of the airflow resistance on the outlet side of the indoor blower. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
59926 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 Air Vol. Rate = Cooling Full-load Air Vol. Rate Minimum Fan Speed

A Fan Speed 2

× Cooling

Test ,

* * * b. * * * 

A P 1 1 11 1 st A2 , , ,, , B C F & G Test P Cooling Minimum A ∆ ∆ st = ×

ir Volume Rate

Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate





 





2

,

* * * * * 3.1.4.3 Cooling Intermediate Air 

Volume Rate. a. * * * 

Cooling Intermediate Air Vol. Rate = Cooling Full-load Air Vol. Rate Test Fan Speed

A Fan Speed 2

×

E

Test

V ,

* * * b. * * * 

E P V st Test P Cooling Intermediate Air Volume Rate

C st A2 ∆ ∆ = × , ooling Full-load Air Volume Rate





 





2

,

* * * * * 

3.1.4.4.2 Ducted heat pumps where 

the Heating and Cooling Full-load Air 

Volume Rates are different due to 

indoor fan operation. a. * * * 

Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate = Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate H1 or H1 Test Fan Speed

A or A Test Fan Speed

2

2

× ,

* * * b. * * * 

Heating Full-load P Full-load P Heating Full ∆ ∆ st st = × Cooling -load Air Volume Rate

Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate





 





2

,

* * * * * 

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 

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. * * * 

* * * * * 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3ER22OC07.065</MATH> ER22OC07.066</MATH> ER22OC07.067</MATH> ER22OC07.068</MATH> ER22OC07.069</MATH> ER22OC07.070</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59927 

3.1.4.5 Heating Minimum Air 

Volume Rate. a. * * * 

Heating Minimum Air Vol. Rate = Full-load Air Vol. R Heating ate Minimum Fan Speed

H1 Fan Speed 2

× Heating

Test ,

* * * b. * * * 

H HH H H 0123 11 1 1 ,, , , Test P = P tg Minimum Air Vo

st st, H12 ∆∆ × l. Rate

Htg Full-load Air Vol. Rate , 

2





 





* * * * * 3.1.4.6 Heating Intermediate Air 

Volume Rate. a. * * * 

Heating Intermediate Air Volume Rate = ing Full-load Air Heat Volume Rate Test Fan Speed

Test Fan Speed

×

H

H

V 2

12

,

* * * b. * * * 

H P V st 2 Test P Heating Intermediate Air Volume Rat st H12 ∆ ∆ , × e

Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate





 





2

,

* * * * * 3.1.4.7 Heating Nominal Air Volume 

Rate. * * * 

Heating Nominal Air Volume Rate = Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate H1 Test Fan Speed

H1 Test Fan Speed

N

2

× ,

H P N st 1 Test P Heating Nominal Air Volume Rate

He st H12 ∆ ∆ = × , ating Full-load Air Volume Rate





 





2

,

* * * * * 

3.1.6 * * * (Note: In the first 

printing of ASHRAE Standard 37–2005, 

the second IP equation for Qmi should 

read, 

1097CA P v n vn′ .)* * *

* * * 

* * * * * 

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 CDc or if the 

two optional tests are not conducted, 

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 C1 Test and the cyclic D1

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. 

* * * * * 

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, CDc(k=2). If 

the two optional tests are conducted but 

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

default CDc(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)]. 


ER22OC07.071</MATH> ER22OC07.072</MATH> ER22OC07.073</MATH> ER22OC07.074</MATH> ER22OC07.075</MATH> ER22OC07.076</MATH> ER22OC07.077</MATH>pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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) Compressor 

capacity Cooling air volume rate 

Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb 

A2 Test—required ................................

(steady, wet coil) 

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

B2 Test—required ................................

(steady, wet coil) 

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

B1 Test—required ................................

(steady, wet coil) 

80 67 82 1 65 Low ............. Cooling Minimum.3

C2 Test—optional ................................

(steady, dry-coil) 

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

D2 Test—optional ................................

(cyclic, dry-coil) 

80 (4) 82 ...................... High ............. (5) 

C1 Test—optional ................................

(steady, dry-coil) 

80 (4) 82 ...................... Low .............. Cooling Minimum.3

D1 Test—optional ................................

(cyclic, dry-coil) 

80 (4) 82 ...................... Low .............. (6) 

F1 Test—required ................................

(steady, wet coil) 

80 67 67 1 53 .5 Low ............. Cooling Minimum.3

1The 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. 

4The 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 C1 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 CDc that exceeds the 

default CDc 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 

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 6 EV Test, a coolingmode intermediate compressor speed 

that falls within 1⁄4 and 3⁄4 of the 

difference between the maximum and 

minimum cooling-mode speeds. The 

manufacturer should prescribe an 

intermediate speed that is expected to 

yield the highest EER for the given EV

Test conditions and bracketed 

compressor speed range. The 

manufacturer can designate that one or 

more indoor units are turned off for the 

EV Test. 

* * * * * 

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

Test description 

Air entering indoor unit 

temperature (°F) 

Air entering outdoor unit 

temperature (°F) Compressor 

speed Cooling air volume rate 

Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb 

A2 Test—required ..........................

(steady, wet coil) 

80 67 95 1 75 Maximum .......... Cooling Full-Load2

B2 Test—required ..........................

(steady, wet coil) 

80 67 82 1 65 Maximum .......... Cooling Full-Load2

EV Test—required ..........................

(steady, wet coil) 

80 67 87 1 69 Intermediate ..... Cooling Intermediate 3

B1 Test—required ..........................

(steady, wet coil) 

80 67 82 1 65 Minimum ........... Cooling Minimum 4

F1 Test—required ...........................

(steady, wet coil) 

80 67 67 1 53 .5 Minimum ........... Cooling Minimum 4

G1 Test 5—optional .........................

(steady, dry-coil) 

80 (6) 67 ...................... Minimum ........... Cooling Minimum 4

I1 Test 5—optional ..........................

(cyclic, dry-coil) 

80 (6) 67 ...................... Minimum ........... (6) 

1The 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. 6 Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure difference or velocity 

pressure as measured during the G1 Test. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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, C1, C2, and G1 Tests). 

* * * * * 

b. Denote the resulting total space 

cooling capacity and electrical power 

derived from the test as Q ̇ ss,dry and E ̇ ss,dry. 

With regard to a section 3.3 deviation, 

do not adjust Q ̇ ss,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

Ô, specific heat of the air, Cp,a 

(expressed on dry air basis), specific 

volume of the air at the nozzles, v′n, 

humidity ratio at the nozzles, Wn, 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 I1 Tests). 

* * * * * 

3.5.3 Cooling-mode cyclicdegradation coefficient calculation. Use 

the two optional dry-coil tests to 

determine the cooling-mode cyclicdegradation coefficient, CDc. 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, 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 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 H31). Conducting an 

additional Frost Accumulation Test 

(H21) is optional. Conduct the optional 

High Temperature Cyclic (H1C1) 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 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 H21 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 (H01), two High Temperature Tests 

(H12 and H11), one Frost Accumulation 

Test (H22), and one Low Temperature 

Test (H32). Conduct an additional Frost 

Accumulation Test (H21) and Low 

Temperature Test (H31) if both of the 

following conditions exist: 

1. Knowledge of the heat pump’s 

capacity and electrical power at low 

compressor capacity for outdoor 

temperatures of 37°F and less is needed 

to complete the section 4.2.3 seasonal 

performance calculations; and 

2.The heat pump’s controls allow 

low-capacity operation at outdoor 

temperatures of 37°F and less. 

If the above two conditions are met, 

an alternative to conducting the H21

Frost Accumulation is to use the 

following equations to approximate the 

capacity and electrical power: 

Determine the quantities Q ̇ h

k=1 (47) 

and E ̇ h

k=1 (47) from the H11 Test and 

evaluate them according to Section 3.7. 

Determine the quantities Q ̇ h

k=1 (17) and 

E ̇ h

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, 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. 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, CDh

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

capacity is conducted but yields a tested 

CDh (k=2) that exceeds the default CDh

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

conducted, assign CDh the default value. 

The default CDh (k=2) is the same value 

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

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

11 specifies test conditions for these 

nine tests. 

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

Test description 

Air entering indoor unit 

temperature (°F) 

Air entering outdoor unit 

temperature (°F) Compressor 

capacity Heating air volume rate 

Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb 

H01 Test ..............................................

(required, steady) 

70 60(max) 62 56 .5 Low .............. Heating Minimum.1

H12 Test ..............................................

(required, steady) 

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


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3ER22OC07.078</MATH>
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 

capacity Heating air volume rate 

Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb 

H1C2 Test ............................................

(optional, cyclic) 

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

H11 Test ..............................................

(required) 

70 60(max) 47 43 Low ............. Heating Minimum.1

H1C1 Test ............................................

(optional, cyclic) 

70 60(max) 47 43 Low .............. (4) 

H22 Test ..............................................

(required) 

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

H21 Test5,6 ...........................................

(required) 

70 60(max) 35 33 Low ............. Heating Minimum.1

H32 Test ..............................................

(required, steady) 

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

H31 Test 5 ............................................

(required, steady) 

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

1 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 H11 Test. 5 Required only if the heat pump’s performance when operating at low compressor capacity and outdoor temperatures less than 37°F is needed to complete the section 4.2.3 HSPF calculations. 6 If table note #5 applies, the section 3.6.3 equations for Q ̇ h

k=1 (35) and E ̇ hk=1 (17) may be used in lieu of conducting the H21 Test. 

3.6.4 Tests for a heat pump having a 

variable-speed compressor. a. * * * 

Conduct the optional Maximum 

Temperature Cyclic (H0C1) 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 

H01 Test .......................

(required, steady) 

70 60(max) 62 56 .5 Minimum ............................. Heating Minimum.1

H0C1 Test ....................

(optional, steady) 

70 60(max) 62 56 .5 Minimum ............................. (2) 

H12 Test .......................

(required, steady) 

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

H11 Test .......................

(required, steady) 

70 60(max) 47 43 Minimum ............................. Heating Minimum.1

H1N Test ......................

(optional, steady) 

70 60(max) 47 43 Cooling Mode Maximum .... Heating Nominal.4

H22 Test .......................

(optional) 

70 60(max) 35 33 Maximum ............................ Heating Full-Load.3

H2V Test ......................

(required) 

70 60(max) 35 33 Intermediate ....................... Heating Intermediate.5

H32 Test .......................

(required, steady) 

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

1 Defined in section 3.1.4.5. 

2 Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during an ON period at the same pressure or velocity as measured during the H01 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. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
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 

H01, 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 H0C1, 

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 ̇ h

k(Tcyc) (or qcyc). If the 

optional cyclic 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. The default value for twocapacity units cycling at high capacity, 

however, is the low-capacity coefficient, 

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

calculated as follows: 

C

COP

COP T

HLF D

h

cyc

ss cyc

=

1

1

− ( ) −

* * * 

* * * * * 

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 Qmi should 

read: .) 

1097CA P v n vn′ .)* * *

* * * * * 

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 Q ̇ h

k(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 outdoorside 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 ̇ c

k=1 (Tj), and 

electrical power consumption, E ̇ c

k=1 (Tj), 

of the test unit when operating at low 

compressor capacity and outdoor 

temperature Tj using, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3ER22OC07.096</MATH> ER22OC07.098</MATH> ER22OC07.079</MATH> ER22OC07.080</MATH>
59932 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

where Q ̇ c

k=1 (82) and E ̇ ck=1 (82) are 

determined from the B1 Test, Q ̇ c

k=1 (67) 

and E ̇ c

k=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 ̇ c

k=2 (Tj), and electrical power 

consumption, E ̇ c

k=2 (Tj), of the test unit 

when operating at high compressor 

capacity and outdoor temperature Tj

using, 

* * * * * 

4.1.3.3 * * * 

PLF C k X T j D

c k =− = ⋅ − j 

  = 1 21 2 ( ) ( ),

the part load factor, dimensionless. 

Obtain the fraction bin hours for the 

cooling season, 

n

N

j

,

from Table 16. Use Equations 4.1.3–3 

and 4.1.3–4, respectively, to evaluate 

Q ̇ c

k=2 (Tj) and E ̇ ck=2 (Tj). If the optional 

C2 and D2 Tests described in section 

3.2.3 and Table 5 are not conducted, set 

CDc (k=2) equal to the default value 

specified in section 3.5.3. If these 

optional tests are conducted, set CDc

(k=2) to the lower of: 

a. the CDc (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, Q ̇ c

k=1 (Tj), and 

electrical power consumption E ̇ c

k=1 (Tj), 

of the test unit when operating at 

minimum compressor speed and 

outdoor temperature Tj. Use Equations 

4.1.3–1 and 4.1.3–2, respectively, where 

Q ̇ c

k=1 (82) and E ̇ ck=1 (82) are determined 

from the B1 Test, Q ̇ c

k=1 (67) and E ̇ ck=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 ̇ c

k=2 (Tj), and 

electrical power consumption, E ̇ c

k=2 (Tj), 

of the test unit when operating at 

maximum compressor speed and 

outdoor temperature Tj. Use Equations 

4.1.3–3 and 4.1.3–4, respectively, where 

Q ̇ c

k=2 (95) and E ̇ ck=2 (95) are determined 

from the A2 Test, Q ̇ c

k=2 (82) and E ̇ ck=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, Q ̇ c

k=v (Tj), and 

electrical power consumption, E ̇ c

k=v (Tj), 

of the test unit when operating at 

outdoor temperature Tj and the 

intermediate compressor speed used 

during the section 3.2.4 (and Table 6) EV

Test using, 

where Q ̇ c

k=v (87) and E ̇ ck=v (87) are 

determined from the Ev Test and 

calculated as specified in section 3.3. 

Approximate the slopes of the k = v 

intermediate speed cooling capacity and 

electrical power input curves, MQ and 

ME, as follows: * * * 

where, 

Use Equations 4.1.3–1 and 4.1.3–2 for Tj

= 87°F to determine Q ̇ c

k=l (87) and E ̇ ck=l

(87), respectively. Use Equations 4.1.3–

3 and 4.1.3–4 for Tj = 87°F to determine 

Q ̇ c

k=2 (87) and E ̇ ck=2 (87), respectively. 

Calculating Equation 4.1–1 quantities 

q T

N

and

e T

N

cj cj () ()

differs depending upon whether the test 

unit would operate at minimum speed 

(section 4.1.4.1), operate at an 

intermediate speed (section 4.1.4.2), or 

operate at maximum speed (section 

4.1.4.3) in responding to the building 

load. Use Equation 4.1–2 to calculate 

the building load, BL(Tj), for each 

temperature bin. 

4.1.4.1 * * * Use Equations 4.1.3–1 

and 4.1.3–2, respectively, to evaluate 

Q ̇ c

k=l (Tj) and E ̇ ck=l (Tj). 

4.1.4.2 * * * 

A EER T B T C T k = −⋅ −⋅ =2

2 22

2 ( )


ER22OC07.081</MATH> ER22OC07.082</MATH> ER22OC07.097</MATH> ER22OC07.083</MATH> ER22OC07.084</MATH> ER22OC07.085</MATH> ER22OC07.086</MATH> ER22OC07.087</MATH>pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 59933 

where, 

T1 = 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 (Q ̇ c

k=l (Tl) = BL(T1)), °F. 

Determine T1 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 

section 3.2.4 EV Test, provides a space 

cooling capacity that is equal to the 

building load (Q ̇ c

k=v (Tv) = BL(Tv)), °F. 

Determine Tv by equating Equations 

4.1.4–1 and 4.1–2 and solving for 

outdoor temperature. * * * 

* * * * * 

For multiple-split air conditioners 

and heat pumps (only), the following 

procedures supersede the above 

requirements for calculating EERk=i (Tj). 

For each temperature bin where Tl < Tj

< Tv, 

EER T EER T

EER T EER T

T T

T T k i

j

k

k v

v

k

v

j

= =

= =

= + −

− () () ⋅ − () () ( ). 1

1

1

1

1

1

* * * * * 4.2.3.3 * * * 

PLF C k X T j D

h k =− = ( ) j ⋅ − 

  = 1 21 2

( ).

If the optional H1C2 Test described in 

section 3.6.3 and Table 11 is not 

conducted, set CDh (k=2) equal to the 

default value specified in section 3.8.1. 

If this optional test is conducted, set CDh

(k=2) to the lower of: 

a. the CDh (k=2) value calculated as 

per section 3.8.1; or 

b. the section 3.8.1 default value for 

CDh (k=2). 

Determine the low temperature cutout factor, d (Tj), using Equation 4.2.3–

3. 

* * * * * 

4.2.4 * * * 

* * * * * 

4.2.4.2 * * * 

For multiple-split heat pumps (only), 

the following procedures supersede the 

above requirements for calculating 

COPh

k=i (Tj). For each temperature bin 

where T3 > Tj > Tvh, 

COP T COP T

COP T COP T

T T h T k i

j h

k h

k v

vh h

k

vh

j

= =

= =

( ) = ( ) + ( ) − ( )

− ⋅ − 1

3

1

3

3

( ) T3 .

For each temperature bin where Tvh ≥ Tj

> T4, 


ER22OC07.088</MATH> ER22OC07.089</MATH> ER22OC07.090</MATH> ER22OC07.091</MATH> ER22OC07.092</MATH> ER22OC07.093</MATH> ER22OC07.094</MATH>pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
59934 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 203 / Monday, October 22, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

COP T COP T

COP T COP T

T T h T k i

j h

k v

vh

h

k

h

k v

vh

vh

j

= =

= =

( ) = ( ) + ( ) − ( )

− ⋅

2

4

4

( ) − 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 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3ER22OC07.095</MATH>