[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 139 (Thursday, July 20, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41320-41344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6320]
[[Page 41319]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for
Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 41320]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 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: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is proposing
to amend its test procedure for residential central air conditioners
and heat pumps. The proposal implements test procedure changes for
small-duct, high-velocity systems, multiple-split systems, two-capacity
units, and updates references to the current American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
standards. The proposal also clarifies issues associated with sampling
and rating both tested and untested systems. The Department will hold a
public meeting to discuss and receive comments on the proposal.
DATES: The Department will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, August
23, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The Department must
receive requests to speak at the public meeting before 4 p.m.,
Wednesday, August 9, 2006. The Department must receive a signed
original and an electronic copy of statements to be given at the public
meeting before 4 p.m., Wednesday, August 16, 2006.
The Department will accept comments, data, and information
regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the
public meeting, but no later than September 18, 2006. See section IV,
``Public Participation,'' of this NOPR for details.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number EE-RM/
TP-02-002 and/or RIN number 1904-AB55, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: [email protected]. Include docket number
EE-RM/TP-02-002 and/or RIN number 1904-AB55 in the subject line of the
message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, Mail-stop EE-2J, NOPR for Test Procedure
for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, docket number
EE-RM/TP-02-002 and/or RIN number 1904-AB55, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed original paper
copy.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Room 1J-018, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202)
586-2945. Please submit one signed original paper copy.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see section IV of
this document (Public Participation).
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, Room 1J-018 (Resource Room of the Building Technologies
Program), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121,
Telephone Number: (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda
Edwards-Jones at the above telephone number for additional information
regarding visiting the Resource Room. Please note: The Department's
Freedom of Information Reading Room (formerly Room 1E-190 at the
Forrestal Building) is no longer housing rulemaking materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Raymond, Project Manager, Test
Procedures for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps,
Docket No. EE-RM/TP-02-002, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, Telephone
Number: (202) 586-9611, e-mail: [email protected];
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: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Overview
B. Authority
C. Background
D. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions
II. Discussion
A. Proposed substantive changes to the test procedure in
Appendix M
B. Proposed substantive changes to other parts of the CFR that
affect the testing and rating of residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps
C. Proposed non-substantive changes to other parts of the CFR
D. Effect of test procedure revisions on compliance with
standards
III. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
(FEA) Act of 1974
IV. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to Speak
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
A. Overview
DOE completed a multi-year rulemaking process to update the DOE
test procedure for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps
on October 11, 2005, when it published an amended test procedure in the
Federal Register. (70 FR 59122) (Hereafter referred to as the October
2005 final rule.) Today's notice initiates a new rulemaking that
addresses several test procedure issues that were identified too late
in the prior rulemaking to allow stakeholders an opportunity to comment
on them. The October 2005 final rule was concerned almost exclusively
with Appendix M to Subpart B (the test method proper), which was
completely replaced. Today's revision has significant updates to
Subpart B itself, in 10 CFR section 430.24 (units to be tested). These
revisions concern topics such as the alternative rating method used to
provide efficiency ratings for untested split system combinations, data
submission requirements, and sampling requirements. There are also
revisions to the test procedure proper in
[[Page 41321]]
Appendix M. These revisions have no common theme. Most are concerned
with improving the accuracy of the test procedure, and with extending
coverage to new central air conditioner features.
B. Authority
Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA
or the Act) establishes the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles (Program). (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.) The
products currently subject to this Program (``covered products'')
include residential central air conditioners and heat pumps, the
subject of today's notice.
Under the Act, the Program consists of three parts: testing,
labeling, and the Federal energy conservation standards. The Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) is responsible for labeling, and DOE implements
the remainder of the program. The Department, in consultation with the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), is authorized to
establish or amend test procedures as appropriate for each of the
covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293) The purpose of the test procedures
is to measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative, average
use cycle or period of use. The test procedure must not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The central air
conditioner and heat pump test procedures appear in title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 430, subpart B, Appendix M.
If a test procedure is amended, DOE is required to determine to
what extent, if any, the new test procedure amendments would alter the
measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under
the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines
that an amended test procedure would alter the measured energy
efficiency of a covered product, DOE is required to amend the
applicable energy conservation standard with respect to such test
procedure. In determining any such amended energy conservation
standard, DOE is required to measure the energy efficiency or energy
use of a representative sample of covered products that minimally
comply with the existing standard. The average efficiency or energy use
of these representative samples, tested using the amended test
procedure, constitutes the amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
Beginning 180 days after a test procedure for a covered product is
prescribed, no manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler
may make representations with respect to the energy use, efficiency, or
cost of energy consumed by such products, except as reflected in tests
conducted according to the DOE procedure.
C. Background
The latest revision of the DOE test procedure for central air
conditioners and heat pumps--which covers units having rated cooling
capacities of less than 65,000 Btu/h--was published as a final rule on
October 11, 2005 (70 FR 59122), effective April 10, 2006.
After the January 22, 2001, publication of the proposed rule for
the above rulemaking, stakeholders urged additional test procedure
revisions. On December 13, 2002, DOE received stakeholder views on
these revisions during a public workshop. (Hereafter referred to as the
December 2002 workshop.) Written comments were received from the
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Unico, Inc.,
Carrier Corporation, Lennox International, York International, and the
Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI). In addition, five
requests for test procedure waiver have been received from
manufacturers of multi-split central air conditioners. These waivers
are necessary because the current test procedure is inadequate for
testing these products.
This test procedure revision addresses changes requested by
stakeholders, either directly or through test procedure waiver
requests. A full list of the changes appears in the next section. The
primary reasons for these changes are: (1) To implement test procedure
revisions that are needed because of new energy efficiency standards
for small-duct, high-velocity (SDHV) systems; (2) to better address
multi-split units test procedure waivers; and (3) to address sampling
and rating issues that have been raised since the new minimum energy
efficiency standards became effective on January 23, 2006.
D. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions
Today's proposed rule includes twelve substantive changes to the
test procedure in Appendix M. It includes eight substantive changes and
four non-substantive changes to other parts of the CFR that concern
rating of central air conditioners and heat pumps. The proposed test
procedure changes are:
Proposed substantive changes to Appendix M:
1. Imposing higher minimum external-static-pressure requirements
and adding test-setup modifications for testing small-duct, high-
velocity systems. (Sections 2.2, 2.4.1, 2.5.4.2, and 3.1.4.1.2)
2. Reinstating the option of conducting a cyclic test at high
capacity when testing a two-capacity unit. (Sections 3.2.3, 3.4, 3.5,
3.5.3, 3.6.3, 3.8, 3.8.1, 4.1.3.3, and 4.2.3.3)
3. Shortening the maximum duration of a Frost Accumulation Test on
a two-capacity heat pump when it is operating at low capacity. (Section
3.9)
4. Using default equations to approximate the performance of a two-
capacity heat pump operating at low capacity, instead of conducting a
Frost Accumulation Test. (Section 3.6.3)
5. For modulating multi-split systems: Allowing indoor units to
cycle off, allowing the manufacturer to specify the compressor speed
used during certain tests, and introducing a new algorithm for
estimating power consumption. (Sections 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 3.2.4,
3.6.4, 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2)
6. Extending the duct-loss correction to the indoor capacities used
for calculating seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) and heating
seasonal performance factor (HSPF). (Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7,
3.9.1, and 3.11)
7. Defining ``repeatable'' for cyclic tests. (Section 3.5)
8. Articulating a definition of ``standard air.'' (Definition 1.37)
9. Changing one of the cooling-mode outdoor test conditions for
units having a two-capacity compressor. (Sections 3.2.3 and 4.1.3)
10. Renaming ``Cooling and Heating Certified Air Volume Rates'' to
``Full-load Air Volume Rates.'' (Definition 1.34)
11. Modifying the criterion for using an air volume rate that is
less than the manufacturer's specified value. (Sections 3.1.4.1.1 and
3.1.4.4.3)
12. Revising references to ASHRAE Standards (e.g., Standards 23, 37
and 116) that have been reaffirmed (i.e., reviewed and approved by
ASHRAE with no substantive changes) or revised too recently to have
been included in the amended test procedure published on October 11,
2005.
Proposed substantive changes to other parts of the CFR that affect
the testing and rating of residential central air conditioners and heat
pumps:
1. New data-submission-requirements when verifying an alternative
rating method. 10 CFR 430.24(m)(6).
2. Guidance on the inclusion of pre-production units in the sample
population used to determine and validate the published ratings. 10 CFR
430.24.
3. Clarification of the sample population used to validate the
rated
[[Page 41322]]
SEER and the rated HSPF. 10 CFR 430.24(m).
4. Clarification of the definition of a ``highest sales volume
combination.'' 10 CFR 430.24(m)(2).
5. Upper limit on the difference between calculated and tested SEER
and HSPF values. 10 CFR 430.24(m), 10 CFR 430.2.
6. Clarification of the published ratings for untested split-system
combinations. 10 CFR 430.24.
7. Adding requirement that ratings for an air conditioner or heat
pump that is rated with a furnace include the model number of that
furnace as part of the overall equipment model number. 10 CFR
430.62(a)(4).
8. For products such as multi-splits which have multiple indoor
units, instituting a ``tested combination'' as an alternative to
testing the combination with ``the largest volume of retail sales.'' 10
CFR 430.24(m)(2), 10 CFR 430.2.
Proposed non-substantive changes to related portions of the CFR:
1. Clarification of a private labeler's (i.e., a third party)
responsibility for ensuring that reported ratings are based on an
approved alternative method for rating untested combinations or on
laboratory test data. 10 CFR 430.24(m)(5).
2. Revisions to the definition of ``coil family.'' 10 CFR 430.2.
3. New definition for ``private labeler'' within Sec. 430.2.
4. Definitions of terms: ``indoor unit,'' ``outdoor unit,'' ``ARM/
simulation adjustment factor,'' and ``tested combination.'' 10 CFR
430.2.
An expanded discussion of each proposed substantive change is
provided in the next section. The complete test procedure is not
printed as part of today's proposed rule. Instead, only the specific
sections of the test procedure and related parts of the CFR where
changes are proposed are printed. These specific, proposed changes are
set forth at the end of this notice.
II. Discussion
A. Proposed Substantive Changes to the Test Procedure in Appendix M
1. Imposing higher minimum external-static-pressure requirements
and adding test-setup modifications for testing small-duct, high-
velocity systems. Based on consideration of comments received at the
December 2002 workshop, DOE today proposes minimum external-static-
pressure levels for SDHV systems that are higher, by 1.0 inch of water,
than the minimums that apply for all other units. For example, for
equipment having rated cooling capacities from 29,000 to 42,500 Btu/h,
the minimum external static pressures are 0.15 inches of water for
conventional blower-coil systems and 1.15 inches of water for SDHV
systems.
Changes to the test procedure that complement the proposed testing
of SDHV systems at the higher external static pressures are also
proposed today. Changes are proposed that pertain to both the equipment
setup and the test setup. For example, because the external-static-
pressure taps for the laboratory test setup are located downstream of
the indoor unit, all balance dampers or restrictor devices on, or
inside, the unit must be set fully open or on the lowest restriction
setting. To avoid potential abuses of using static regain to meet the
lab-measured, higher external-static requirements and to otherwise
avoid attempts to qualify a conventional unit as a SDHV unit, limits
are proposed to the size of the duct connected to the outlet of the
indoor unit. For cases where a closed-loop, air-enthalpy test apparatus
is used on the indoor side, DOE proposes to limit the airflow
resistance on the inlet side of the indoor blower-coil to a maximum
value of 0.1 inch of water. The balance of the airflow resistance shall
be imposed on the supply side of the indoor blower. Such loading is
consistent with a field application of a SDHV system and its smaller
supply ducts and room diffusers. Finally, the test setup shall include
an adjustable air damper that is positioned immediately upstream of the
airflow measuring apparatus. This damper can minimize air leakage in
the airflow measuring apparatus at points upstream of the flow nozzle
by reducing the pressure difference between the duct and the
surrounding ambient. A maximum differential of 0.5 inches of water is
proposed. If practicable, the outlet air damper box used for cyclic
tests can double as this adjustable air damper.
Regarding the above-proposed new requirements for equipment and
test setup, only one was discussed at the December 13, 2002 workshop.
This requirement concerns the distribution of the external resistance
between the supply and return sides when using a closed-loop test
setup. No attendee opposed this addition, and no opposing views were
voiced in the written comments that followed. The other proposed
additions were raised in written comments from Unico, Inc. (Unico), a
SDHV manufacturer. (Unico, No. 7) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A notation in the form ``Unico, No. 7 at 4'' identifies a
written comment DOE received in this rulemaking. This notation
refers to a comment (1) by Unico, (2) in document number 7 in the
docket in this matter, and (3) appearing at page 4 of document
number 7. No page number may be cited if it is not needed because of
the brevity of the comment, or, as here, the comment is in the form
of a series of e-mails.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A definition for SDHV systems was developed by industry members
during the previous test procedure rulemaking, and was adopted as
Definition 1.35 (10 CFR 430.2) in the October 2005 final rule. The
combination of this definition, the higher, lab-verified minimum
external-static-pressure requirements, and limits on supply-duct sizes
provides a safeguard against conventional systems being classified
improperly as SDHV systems.
Today's proposed rule does not include changes to the definition of
``SDHV system.'' The requirement remains that all SDHV systems must be
capable of operating at an external static pressure of 1.2 inches of
water, or higher, at their Full-Load Air Volume Rate. During the brief
discussion of this issue at the December 2002 workshop, there was
support for making the definition congruent with the newly proposed
testing requirements (Public Hearing Tr., pages 20, 69). However, DOE
believes that the difference between the definition (fixed-minimum
external static pressure of 1.2 inches of water) and the test procedure
requirement (variable-minimum external static pressure of 1.1-1.2
inches of water, depending on capacity) is acceptable. Any unit meeting
the definition can be tested under the test procedure. The test
procedure's variable-minimum, external-static-pressure requirements
reflect similar variable static-pressure requirements for conventional
systems. The only effects of changing the definition to incorporate a
variable-minimum, external-static-pressure requirement would be to make
the definition more complicated and somewhat less stringent. DOE has
determined that it would not improve the current definition of ``SDHV
system'' if DOE made it congruent with the newly proposed lab testing
requirements.
The DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision
and order on May 24, 2004, that requires SDHV systems manufactured on
or after January 23, 2006, to achieve SEER and Heating Seasonal
Performance Factor (HSPF) ratings that are not less than 11.0 and 6.8,
respectively. While the changes proposed today would change the measure
of energy efficiency for SDHV units, the amendments proposed were known
by OHA and taken into consideration when OHA issued exceptions to the
central air conditioner
[[Page 41323]]
standards for SDHV units.\2\ DOE expects that the test procedure
amendments, as proposed, will not cause any SDHV product to become
noncompliant with the energy efficiency standards for SDHV units set by
OHA. DOE requests comments on the proposed changes, whether they will
change the measure of energy use and whether they will cause any SDHV
model to be non-compliant with DOE's energy efficiency standards. In
particular, DOE requests stakeholders to submit lab test results that
show the impact of these changes on the measure of efficiency and on
compliance with the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ SpacePak/Unico, 29 DOE ] 81,002 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The specific changes proposed within the DOE test procedure that
pertain to the above discussion on SDHV systems appear in sections 2.2,
2.4.1, 2.5.4.2, and 3.1.4.1.2 of the central air conditioner and heat
pump test procedure.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For the aid of the reader, the January 1, 2006, CFR includes
both the central air conditioner test procedure as it existed prior
to the October 2005 final rule (Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR
Part 430) and the test procedure as it exists as a result of the
October 2005 final rule (Appendix M, Nt. to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part
430). References to the central air conditioner and heat pump test
procedures in today's proposed rule are to the test procedure as it
exists as a result of the October 2005 final rule (Appendix M, Nt.
to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430). It is referred to as either the
central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure or the October
2005 test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Reinstating the option of conducting a cyclic test at high
capacity when testing a two-capacity unit. Beginning with the January
17, 1980, effective date of the DOE test procedure for central air
conditioners and heat pumps, the test procedure provided a rarely used
option of conducting cyclic testing at high capacity on two-capacity
units. The October 2005 final rule eliminated the option of testing to
obtain a cyclic-degradation coefficient for high capacity,
CD(k = 2) and instead assigned the coefficient the same
value as the cyclic-degradation coefficient for low capacity,
CD(k = 2) = CD(k = 1), in order to simplify the
test procedure. The change, however, caused some two-capacity units
(i.e., ones that lock out low capacity at certain outdoor temperatures)
to lose a small SEER or HSPF rating boost, usually in the 0.1 range,
that would have been gained by the optional test. There are cases where
a 0.1 boost in SEER or HSPF would be of great value to a manufacturer.
Thus, today's proposed rule includes the option of testing to determine
the high-capacity CD. Assigning the value for the low-
capacity CD as the high-capacity CD now becomes
the default option instead of testing at high capacity. Reinstating the
option of testing to determine the high-capacity CD was
supported at the December 2002 workshop (Public Hearing Tr., pages 67-
68).
The specific changes proposed within the DOE test procedure that
pertain to the reinstatement of the optional, high-capacity cyclic
tests are shown in sections 3.2.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.5.3, 3.6.3, 3.8, 3.8.1,
4.1.3.3, and 4.2.3.3 of the central air conditioner and heat pump test
procedure.
3. Shortening the maximum duration of a Frost Accumulation Test on
a two-capacity heat pump when it is operating at low capacity. A frost
accumulation test at low capacity is required if the heat pump cycles
between low and high heating capacities while matching the building
load at temperatures of 37[deg]F and lower. Completing such a frost
accumulation test, as presently specified, can be difficult, as
discussed below. DOE is proposing changes that seek to reduce the test
burden, while avoiding changing the measure of HSPF.
During a frost accumulation test, the official test period lasts
for one complete cycle, from defrost termination to defrost
termination--or 12 hours, whichever occurs first. Most heat pumps
conduct a complete cycle well in advance of the 12-hour time limit, at
least with single-speed units or two-capacity heat pumps operating at
high capacity. When running a frost accumulation test at low capacity,
however, the outdoor coil builds frost more slowly or not at all. As a
result, frost accumulation tests on two-capacity heat pumps having a
demand defrost and running at low capacity take much longer to
complete, potentially requiring the full 12 hours--that is, if the test
condition tolerances can be maintained over the extended period.
The frost accumulation test conditions are, in themselves, a
challenge to maintain. The task is more difficult when testing a two-
capacity heat pump at low capacity. The test-room air reconditioning
system has to be sized to accommodate high-capacity operation and so is
more likely mismatched and oversized. The level of difficulty also
increases because of having to maintain the test-room tolerances over a
comparatively longer period. More opportunity exists for a perturbation
in the operation of the heat pump or the test-room reconditioning
system to shift the test conditions beyond the allowed tolerances.
Three related modifications to the test procedure were discussed at
the December 2002, workshop. The first option is to change the maximum
test interval from 12 hours to either 3 or 6 hours. A second option is
to state in the test procedure that the controls of the heat pump may
be overridden during frost accumulation tests at low capacity in order
to force a defrost cycle prior to 12 hours. In this case, the
manufacturer would specify the time interval after which defrost would
be manually initiated. The third option is to add a default equation
that could be used instead of running the test.
The rationale for the first option comes from draft revisions of
International Standards Organization (ISO) standards that cover the
testing and rating of residential heat pumps and air conditioners, ISO
Standards 5151 and 13253. (ISO/DIS 5151R, Non-ducted Air Conditioners
and Heat Pumps--Testing and Rating for Performance; ISO/DIS 13253R,
Ducted Air Conditioners and Air-to-Air Heat Pumps--Testing and Rating
for Performance) Currently, these draft revisions call for all heating-
capacity tests to last a maximum of three hours when using the air-
enthalpy test method. The second option would be an extension of the
procedure that was instituted in the October 2005 test procedure to
handle heat pumps that use history-dependent demand-defrost controls.
The manually initiated option was invoked to avoid running an excessive
number of cycles before repeatable defrost cycles occurred. The third
option is consistent with the existing alternative allowed when testing
variable-speed heat pumps. Instead of running frost accumulation tests
at both the intermediate speed and at maximum speed, the manufacturer
has the option of using a specified equation to approximate the
maximum-speed heating capacity and average power at 35[deg]F outdoor
temperature.
At the December 2002 workshop, two manufacturers, Trane and
Copeland, spoke in favor of the default equation (Public Hearing Tr.,
pages 62-63). Ducane spoke in favor of a shorter maximum test time, 6
hours instead of 12 hours (Public Hearing Tr., page 62). ACEEE
expressed a desire for making no change that ultimately discourages
innovation (Public Hearing Tr., page 64). York favored letting the
manufacturer specify the duration of the heating cycle (Public Hearing
Tr., page 65). There was also a discussion of making the third option,
which is a default equation, the default procedure. It was suggested
that if a manufacturer wanted to test, it could use either the first or
second option (Public Hearing Tr., page 66).
After considering recommendations from NIST, based on its
experience, and discussions with industry members familiar with running
frost accumulation tests, DOE believes that if
[[Page 41324]]
a heat pump has not defrosted in six hours, it is either (1) not
building frost or (2) is completely frosted and probably has been so
for more than half of the interval. In both cases, the benefits from
continuing to run the test past 6 hours are none to minimal. For the
``not-building-frost'' case, extending the test is going to have
virtually no impact on the average heating capacity and average power
consumption. For the ``completely frosted'' alternative, the tested
values of average performance might diminish, but at such a slow rate
as to be insignificant.
Any benefit from an extended frost accumulation test, in addition,
is further reduced because of the comparatively smaller impact of a
low-capacity frost accumulation test on HSPF. The results of the low-
capacity frost accumulation test affect low-capacity performance for
the 22, 27, 32, and 37[deg]F temperature bins. For two-capacity heat
pumps, operating time over this bin temperature range is typically
split between low and high capacities rather than being exclusively at
low capacity.
DOE believes a reduction in the manufacturers' test burden is
merited and that any change in the measure of HSPF will be negligible.
Thus, DOE today proposes that the maximum duration of a frost
accumulation test at low capacity be changed from 12 hours to 6 hours.
This test procedure change is shown in section 3.9 of the central air
conditioner and heat pump test procedure.
4. Using default equations to approximate the performance of a two-
capacity heat pump operating at low capacity, instead of conducting a
Frost Accumulation Test. This section builds on the discussion of the
previous section. Although the proposed amendment discussed above will
reduce the test burden, DOE believes the test burden remains
considerable, especially if HSPF is relatively insensitive to the
performance data derived from the test. One example would be a two-
capacity heat pump that locks out low-capacity operation at outdoor
temperatures lower than 35 [deg]F. Such a lockout feature would result
in the average capacity and power consumption from the low-capacity
frost accumulation test being used only for 37 [deg]F-bin calculations.
DOE is amenable to allowing an alternative to conducting a low-
capacity frost accumulation test as long as the alternative yields
conservative estimates of average capacity and power consumption. DOE
has not been able to obtain information on typical performance
degradation at frosting conditions. Data is needed to quantify how much
the heat pump's performance at low-capacity and 35 [deg]F outdoor
temperature departs from the average capacity and power derived from
linearly interpolating between the steady-state-heating-performance
data at 47 and 17 [deg]F. Lacking such data, DOE is following the
recommendation made at the December 2002, workshop and proposes using
the same default equations that it permits for variable-speed heat
pumps in lieu of running a frost accumulation test at maximum speed.
These equations estimate that the average heating-capacity and power-
consumption values will be 90 percent, and 98.5 percent, respectively,
of the interpolated, steady-state values. These percentages, when
applied to low-capacity operation, provide conservative estimates of
performance and are proposed in this rulemaking.
DOE prefers to have current laboratory data on which to base the
selected conservative defaults. Thus, DOE requests that the industry
share its results from testing two-capacity heat pumps at low capacity
for the 47, 35, and 17 [deg]F test conditions. The change, as proposed,
is shown in section 3.6.3 of the central air conditioner and heat pump
test procedure.
5. For modulating multi-split systems: allowing indoor units to
cycle off, allowing the manufacturer to specify the compressor speed
used during certain tests, and introducing a new algorithm for
estimating power consumption. Certain parts of the current test
procedure are poorly suited for testing and rating modulating multi-
splits. In particular, three areas where shortcomings exist are (1) the
requirement that all indoor coils operate during all tests, (2) the
selection of the modulation levels for conducting tests on variable-
speed systems (maximum, minimum, and a specified intermediate speed),
and (3) the calculation algorithm for estimating performance over the
intermediate speed/capacity range. The first area of concern results
from a requirement developed for mini-split systems and then wrongly
extended to multi-split systems. The second and third shortcomings stem
from test levels and a calculation algorithm that are reasonable for
one-condenser-to-one-evaporator-coil, variable-speed units but less
suited for multi-splits.
In an effort to incrementally improve the test procedure's coverage
of multi-splits, DOE proposes: (1) Allowing one or more indoor coils to
cycle off during any test, if this occurs in normal operation, (2)
allowing the manufacturer to specify the compressor speed used during
the minimum-capacity and intermediate-speed tests, and (3) introducing
a different algorithm for estimating power consumption in the
intermediate-speed range. Another test procedure change is to remove
the limitation on the use of only one indoor test room. Using two or
more indoor test rooms may provide the flexibility needed to test
certain multi-splits as complete systems. DOE recognizes that this
change, however, will not be a solution to the prevailing problem where
many multi-split systems cannot be lab tested, even in the most
versatile test facility, due to the too-large number of indoor coils.
The allowance for turning off one or more indoor coils during any
lab test, if this occurs in normal operation, will more likely be
relevant during the intermediate and minimum speed/capacity tests.
However, one or more indoor coils may not operate during a maximum-
capacity test if the particular multi-split is configured using
multiple indoor coils whose cumulative rated capacities exceed the
rated capacity of the outdoor unit. During testing, DOE proposes that
indoor coils that are cycled off be isolated in order to avoid any
induced space conditioning, so that the aggregated, measured capacity
includes no contribution from an inactive coil.
At the December 2002 workshop, and in the comments following the
workshop, stakeholders did not make any objection to testing multi-
splits in the lab in a manner more representative of field operation.
(Public Hearing Tr., page 54) Allowing on/off control of indoor coils
in the lab is consistent with this position.
As for the two other amendments relating to multi-splits that are
proposed in this notice, a brief review of background information is
helpful. Within the DOE test procedure, variable-speed air conditioners
and heat pumps were first covered as a result of amendments to the
central air conditioner and heat pump test procedures published by DOE
in 1988. (53 FR 8304, March 14, 1988) These amendments addressed the
designs of variable-speed systems marketed at the time: split systems
having a single indoor coil and a single outdoor coil (i.e., one-
condenser-to-one-evaporator-coil systems). These systems could
typically modulate, such that minimum-speed operation corresponded to
capacities in the range of 40 to 60 percent of the maximum-speed
capacity. More importantly, for the operating region where the unit
modulates to produce a capacity equal to the building load, these
systems operate most efficiently at the minimum speed with efficiency
monotonically decreasing as the system ramped to maximum speed.
[[Page 41325]]
Further, because EER and COP are more linear than power consumption,
DOE used efficiency as the parameter for interpolating within the DOE
test procedure.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Domanski, Piotr A., ``Recommended Procedure for Rating and
Testing of Variable Speed Air Source Unitary Air Conditioners and
Heat Pumps,'' NBSIR 88-3781, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, May 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The range of modulation of multi-splits is greater than for any
previously evaluated one-condenser-to-one-evaporator-coil, variable-
speed system. Most multi-splits can modulate their capacity to levels
approaching 10 percent of rated capacity. Rated capacity, for some
multi-splits, can be 5 to 10 percent lower than their maximum capacity,
thus adding to the actual range of modulation. Multi-split
manufacturers have informed DOE and NIST that both the minimum and
maximum operating capacities correspond to points of declining
efficiency with peak efficiency typically occurring in the 50-to-70
percent speed/capacity range. Thus, for a fixed set of ambient
conditions, the efficiency-versus-modulation curve is expected to be
hump-shaped.
The central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure's current
algorithm calls for fitting a second-order polynomial (i.e., quadratic
equation) to the efficiency values for the three available data points:
the minimum-speed balance point, the intermediate-speed balance point,
and the maximum-speed balance point. The curve fit is used to obtain an
estimate of efficiency over the outdoor temperature range where the
unit would modulate to provide a space conditioning capacity that
equals the building load. Power consumption at any intermediate speed
operating point is derived from the paired capacity and efficiency
values (i.e., power = building load/EER) corresponding to the chosen
outdoor (bin) temperature.
The above algorithm is well suited for one-condenser-to-one-
evaporator-coil, variable-speed systems because the intermediate-speed,
efficiency-versus-modulation data is monotonic and nearly linear. Due
to insufficient data, DOE cannot quantify the value of using the
algorithm with multi-split units. In the worst case, multi-split
efficiency may deviate significantly from the balanced, parabolic shape
that would be predicted by the second-order-polynomial fit. Another
potential problem is that the efficiency at the intermediate-speed
balance point will likely not be the peak efficiency point. As a
result, the predicted peak efficiency is defined by the curve fit and
not verified in the lab. The algorithm is not well suited for multi-
split units, because the predicted efficiency curve may overestimate
the performance of one unit while underestimating the performance of
another unit.
DOE seeks data showing how the capacity and power consumption of
multi-split units vary as a function of the modulation level and
outdoor test conditions. Lacking such data, DOE proposes to calculate
steady-state efficiency (EER and COP) over the intermediate-speed range
using piece-wise linear fits: a line connecting the minimum- and
intermediate-capacity balance points and a line connecting the
intermediate- and maximum-capacity balance points. The linear fits
should yield a conservative estimate of performance but are favored
because of concern that the second-order fit may provide poor and most-
likely inflated estimates.
Associated with the proposal to use a piece-wise linear fit of
steady-state efficiency, DOE also proposes that the multi-split
manufacturer shall specify the system capacity (i.e., compressor speed,
indoor coil configurations, fan speeds, etc.) used for the cooling and
heating intermediate speed/capacity tests. This change is being
proposed so that the manufacturer has an opportunity to verify the
peak-efficiency capabilities of the multi-split unit being tested.
Defining two other capacities, maximum and minimum, are the last points
specific to this multi-split discussion.
DOE proposes that multi-splits be tested at their maximum capacity
(maximum compressor speed), or full load, not their rated capacity. The
tested compressor speed shall be the maximum for continuous duty
operation as allowed by the unit's controls. For clarity, this tested
capacity is not a ``turbo'' mode where a higher operating speed(s) is
allowed but for only a limited time interval. This clearer definition
of the maximum speed/capacity test applies to all variable-speed
systems, not just multi-splits.
DOE considered an alternative approach of allowing the manufacturer
to specify the compressor capacity/speed used for maximum-capacity
tests. However, in use, the variable-capacity system operates at
capacities/speeds above this rated capacity. DOE's goal is to specify
tests that yield a performance map that is as encompassing and
representative as possible. Specifying the maximum-capacity tests as
proposed in this notice is consistent with this goal. The approach is
also consistent with the full-load testing approach taken in comparable
ISO standards, 13253, 5151, and 15042. (ISO/DIS 15042P, Multi-split
System Air-Conditioners and Air-to-Air Heat Pumps--Testing and Rating
for Performance)
DOE next considered the option of allowing an additional test at
the manufacturer's rated cooling capacity, for the sole purpose of
defining the building load line used for the SEER bin calculations. DOE
decided not to introduce this option due to possible confusion from
having two SEER's. There could be one SEER based on a building load
line tied to the unit's performance at the A-Test condition at maximum
capacity, and a second SEER based on the load line derived using the
rated capacity at the A-Test conditions. Manufacturers of variable-
capacity systems, including multi-splits, can still show the impact of
sizing the unit based on a rated capacity.
From a testing standpoint, conducting tests at the true minimum
capacity, possibly 10 percent of full load, is difficult. The test room
reconditioning system has difficulty operating against such low loads
and maintaining test conditions within tolerance. Thus, the multi-
split's performance at its true minimum capacity may have to be
determined by extrapolation of test data collected at higher capacities
where the tests are more easily conducted. In this case, some short
test would be needed to verify the true minimum operating capacity of
the multi-split. Alternatively, SEER and HSPF could be calculated based
only on the operational range verified in the steady-state lab tests.
For example, if a multi-split were tested at 30 percent of capacity
even though it was reportedly able to ramp down to 10 percent of
capacity, the SEER and HSPF calculations would be conducted assuming
that the unit would cycle on and off at building loads that fell below
the 30 percent capacity curve.
DOE proposes that the minimum-capacity test be conducted at a
capacity specified by the manufacturer. The operating level can be
either the equipment's true minimum or a capacity that is greater than
the true minimum but nonetheless chosen by the manufacturer as its
designated minimum capacity. DOE prefers that multi-split manufacturers
specify a tested minimum capacity for which test-room tolerances are
readily maintainable. As with the maximum-capacity test, the tested
capacity shall be one that the unit could maintain indefinitely, if
needed. DOE further proposes that SEER and HSPF shall be calculated
assuming that the tested minimum capacity corresponds to the actual
minimum capacity. Extrapolation
[[Page 41326]]
of performance data will not be permitted for the case where the tested
minimum is actually higher than the true minimum. DOE, however, is open
to comments on how to verify the true minimum-capacity operation such
that extrapolation of performance data could be incorporated.
At the December 2002 workshop, Trane recommended that a multi-split
manufacturer make a recommendation on the new test points, possibly
through a waiver petition (Public Hearing Tr., pages 55-56). Copeland,
and to a certain extent, ACEEE, expressed concern that multi-splits may
be difficult to test with the DOE test procedure for central air
conditioners and heat pumps (Public Hearing Tr., pages 58-61). Since
the workshop, DOE has received four waiver petitions from manufacturers
of residential multi-split systems. All four petitions take the
approach of seeking waivers from the DOE test procedures due to
shortcomings in the test procedure (e.g., no credit for a simultaneous
heating and cooling mode), the lack of an alternative method for rating
untested combinations, and the fact that many multi-split combinations
simply cannot be lab tested because they have too many indoor coils.
These limitations are among those multi-split issues that will be
addressed in the future.
The changes proposed in this notice are offered to address some of
the test procedure shortcomings pertaining to residential multi-split
units. At this time, DOE prefers to pursue covering multi-splits within
the central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure rather than
pursue development of a ``multi-split-only'' test procedure. DOE
welcomes comments on the proposed test procedure changes. For those
that feel multi-split systems are so different as to merit coverage in
a separate test procedure, DOE asks that they provide suggestions on
the possible structure of such a test procedure.
The specific changes proposed within the DOE test procedure that
pertain to the above discussion on multi-split systems are shown in
sections 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 3.2.4, 3.6.4, 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2 of the
central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure.
6. Extending the duct-loss correction to the indoor capacities used
for calculating SEER and HSPF. In the recently published test procedure
final rule, a capacity correction for duct losses was added. This
correction was added for compatibility with existing industry practice.
Regrettably, the correction was applied too narrowly. As published, the
correction was only used when evaluating whether the required 6-percent
energy balance was achieved between the primary and secondary test
methods for measuring capacity. The correction is also to be used to
adjust the indoor capacities used in calculating SEER and HSPF. Today's
proposed rule includes this corrective action, with one exception. The
exception applies to the two indoor capacities used for calculating a
cyclic-degradation coefficient, CD. The effort involved in accounting
for the duct losses, especially during a cyclic test, is judged as
overly burdensome, given the adjustment's small effect. Its impact is
further reduced because the CD calculation only requires the ratio of
the two indoor capacities. Duct losses are minimal because the test
procedure requires that the supply ductwork be insulated to an R-19
level.
This topic spurred little discussion at the December 2002 workshop.
In fact, the only related substantive discussion was whether the
correction could be made within the then-pending final rulemaking. DOE
spoke in favor of the issue being considered in a second, separate
rulemaking, and so it is included here. The specific changes proposed
within the DOE test procedure that pertain to the above discussion are
shown in sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9.1, and 3.11 in the central
air conditioner and heat pump test procedure.
7. Defining ``repeatable'' for cyclic tests. In the October 2005
final rule, the following requirement is provided in section 3.5e
regarding the duration of a cyclic test: ``After completing a minimum
of two complete compressor OFF/ON cycles, determine the overall cooling
delivered and total electrical energy consumption during any subsequent
data collection interval where the test tolerances given in Table 8 are
satisfied.'' (70 FR 59122) Many test laboratories, however, let the
test continue until the results are repeatable. These laboratories take
extra time to make sure that they have it right; they go further than
the specified ``one good interval and done'' test procedure
requirement.
In today's proposed rule, DOE proposes to include the additional
requirement that repeatable results be obtained before terminating a
cyclic test. DOE plans to follow industry practice for what qualifies
as ``repeatable.'' At the December 2002 workshop, two attendees spoke
to this issue (Public Hearing Tr., pp. 42-43). After the workshop, NIST
discussed the issue with these two attendees, Excel Comfort Systems
(Excel) and Intertek Testing Services (ITS). Excel indicated that it
typically runs 5 OFF/ON cycles and compares the [Ggr], the time-
integrated temperature difference on the indoor side, from each ``on''
cycle. The goal is to have the [Ggr] values vary by 0.04
[deg]F[middot]hr or less. ITS looks at two parameters when making a
judgment on repeatable cycles. On the capacity side, ITS seeks
consecutive cycles in which the average indoor side air temperature
difference changes by 0.3 [deg]F or less. On the input side, ITS seeks
consecutive cycles where the average system power consumption for the
complete OFF/ON interval changes by 5 watts or less. The ITS criterion
for capacity is slightly less stringent than the Excel Comfort Systems
criterion. The input side criterion imposed by ITS offsets this slight
difference.
DOE favors defining ``repeatable results'' in terms of both the
unit's average capacity (i.e., using the integrated temperature
difference) and its average power consumption. As compared to the above
two industry members and their respective in-house criteria, DOE today
proposes comparatively looser target levels. They are: [Ggr] values
that vary by 0.05 [deg]F[middot]hr or less; and consecutive cycles
where the average system power consumption changes by 10 watts or less.
See section 3.5 of the test procedure for the specific changes proposed
on implementing and defining repeatable results for a cyclic test.
8. Articulating a definition of ``standard air.'' The October 2005
final rule contains a definition for ``standard air'' (see Sec. 1.37,
Appendix M, Nt. to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430). This definition was,
at the time, consistent with the definition contained in the public
review draft of ASHRAE Standard 37-1988R (see 10 CFR 430.22(5)3).
During the public review process, the definition in the ASHRAE Standard
was modified to highlight that mass density is the key defining
parameter, not the combination of the dry air's temperature and
pressure. DOE proposes to amend its definition of ``standard air'' so
that it matches the definition that appears in ASHRAE Standard 37-2005.
This change is included among the list of substantive changes to
emphasize that consistency with the revised ASHRAE standard language
causes standard air volume rates to be expressed in terms of dry air,
not moist air. The proposed update is shown in the definition of
``standard air'' in section 1.37 of the central air conditioner and
heat pump test procedure.
9. Changing one of the cooling-mode outdoor test conditions for
units having a two-capacity compressor. To minimize the testing burden,
the
[[Page 41327]]
cooling-mode tests for air conditioners and heat pumps having a two-
capacity compressor are conducted only at 82 [deg]F and 95 [deg]F
outdoor-dry-bulb temperatures. The 82 [deg]F and 95 [deg]F test
conditions tend to bracket the key temperature bins in which maximum
compressor capacity most affects the SEER bin calculation. By
comparison, the 82 [deg]F and 95 [deg]F test conditions span a range
that tends to be higher than the key temperature bins in which minimum
compressor capacity most affects the SEER bin calculations. As a
result, for the lowest outdoor temperature bins (i.e., 67 [deg]F, 72
[deg]F, and 77 [deg]F), cooling capacity and electrical power
consumption at low (stage) compressor capacity are derived from
linearly extrapolating the 82[deg] and 95 [deg]F test results. These
extrapolated capacities and powers are more susceptible to inaccuracies
and, unfortunately, can potentially reward poor performance. In the
latter case, for example, increased electrical power consumption during
the A1 Test at 95 [deg]F and low compressor capacity could
potentially result in a higher SEER. The higher power consumption for
the A1 Test could cause the power consumption for the
heavily weighted 67 [deg]F, 72 [deg]F, and 77 [deg]F bins to be
underestimated to the point that they more than offset the higher power
consumptions for 87 [deg]F and higher temperature bins.
In today's proposed rule, DOE proposes to change the outdoor
conditions used for certain tests on two-capacity air conditioners and
heat pumps. The first change is the elimination of the steady-state
A1 Test at 95 [deg]F outdoor temperature. Instead, two-
capacity units will now be tested at an outdoor-dry-bulb temperature of
67 [deg]F, and in those few cases where it applies, at an outdoor-wet-
bulb temperature of 53.5 [deg]F. The results from this new steady-state
test, designated the F1 Test, shall be used in conjunction
with the results from the current low-capacity test at 82 [deg]F
outdoor-dry-bulb temperature (i.e., the B1 Test) to
determine the low-capacity cooling capacity and power consumption
values used in SEER bin calculations. With this change, those outdoor
temperature bins where low-capacity operation dominates will now be
more accurately derived by interpolating, as opposed to extrapolating.
The above change caused DOE to consider two additional changes.
Currently, the two tests used to determine the low-capacity, cooling-
mode cyclic-degradation coefficient, C\c\D(k=1), are
conducted at 82 [deg]F outdoor-dry-bulb temperature. Given the change
to 67 [deg]F outdoor-dry-bulb temperature for one wet-coil steady-state
test, DOE also proposes to conduct the two dry-coil tests at 67 [deg]F.
These changes make the test conditions for two-capacity units
consistent with the test conditions specified for variable-speed
systems. These two additional 67 [deg]F tests are denoted by the same
identifiers used for the comparable variable-speed tests: The optional
dry-coil steady-state test is the G1 Test and the optional
dry-coil cyclic test is the I1 test.
The specific changes proposed within the DOE test procedure
pertaining to new outdoor test conditions for one required, and two
optional, cooling mode tests for two-capacity units are shown in
sections 3.2.3 and 4.1.3 of the test procedure. These changes are
combined with DOE's earlier proposal to reinstate the two optional dry-
coil tests at high capacity.
10. Renaming ``Cooling and Heating Certified Air Volume Rates'' to
``Full-load Air Volume Rates.'' The October 2005 final rule introduced
proper names for the air volume rates associated with the many tests
that are described in the test procedure. The name given to the air
volume rate that is used during most tests was ``Certified Air Volume
Rate,'' prefixed with the qualifier ``Cooling'' or ``Heating.''
Typically, the word ``certified'' is used within the industry to
identify parameters that are subject to verification checks and, if
appropriate, penalties for failure to comply with the rules for
accurately reporting the certified parameter. Examples of such
certified parameters are SEER, HSPF, and rated capacity. To avoid
confusion on whether air volume rate is a ``certified parameter''--
which it is not--DOE proposes substituting the word ``Full-load'' for
``Certified'' within the proper name of the particular air volume rate.
DOE considered other substitutes, including ``Nominal,'' ``Rated,''
``Tested,'' and ``Target.'' DOE welcomes comments on alternative
substitutes. In addition, DOE seeks comments on instituting this change
within the definition for small-duct, high-velocity systems in section
1.35 of the central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure.
11. Modifying the criterion for using an air volume rate that is
less than the manufacturer's specified value. The October 2005 final
rule rigidly specified the air volume rate to use during each test. In
particular, DOE definitively stated in section 3.1.4.1.1 of the central
air conditioner and heat pump test procedure that there are only two
circumstances in which the test lab could use an air volume rate that
is less than the manufacturer's specified value. The criterion for
these circumstances, which applies to ducted blower-coil systems having
a fixed-speed, multi-speed, or variable-speed, variable-air-volume-rate
indoor fan, is reexamined in this rulemaking.
The first lab test is the A or A2 Test (except for
heating-only heat pumps). For this test, the unit must generate an
external static pressure that is equal to or greater than the
applicable value listed in the test procedure: 0.10, 0.15, or 0.20
inches of water, the value being assigned based on the unit's
(expected) rated cooling capacity. When running the A or A2
Test, the test lab will either achieve the manufacturer's specified air
volume rate and observe the corresponding external static pressure, or
it will achieve the specified minimum external static pressure and
observe the air volume rate. If this check indicates that the indoor
unit, as configured, cannot provide the manufacturer's specified air
volume rate and meet the minimum external-static requirement, the
central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure (section
3.1.4.4.3a) says to ``incrementally change the setup of the indoor fan
(e.g., fan motor pin settings, fan motor speed) until the Table 2
[minimum static] requirement is met while maintaining the same [target]
air volume rate.'' The central air conditioner and heat pump test
procedure continues, in the section cited above: ``If the indoor fan
setup changes cannot provide the minimum external static, then reduce
the air volume rate until the correct Table 2 minimum is equaled.''
This last case covers one of two cases where the test lab can use an
air volume rate that is less than the value specified by the
manufacturer. The second case is the more global stipulation to set the
air volume rate to 37.5 scfm per 1000 Btu/h if the manufacturer's
specified air volume rate yields a higher ratio.
Since the publication of the final rule, DOE now understands that
this approach is too rigid and is inconsistent with industry practice.
Specifically, although the test requirement to achieve the minimum
external static pressure has been universally upheld, the requirement
that this be done by first changing the motor's speed has not been
universally employed. In particular, for cases in which the specified
minimum external static pressure is achieved at an air volume rate that
is slightly less than the value specified by the manufacturer, the
testing customarily proceeds using this slightly lower air volume rate
rather than increasing the speed setting of the fan motor.
[[Page 41328]]
The desired approach should account for normal equipment tolerances
and variability, and should be compatible with allowing the
manufacturer to specify an air volume rate representative of the
average indoor unit, for each indoor unit model. The current, more
rigid, approach causes manufacturers to specify an air volume rate at
the low end of the range for a typical model.
Because the current algorithm does not account for the inherent
variability in fan motors, housings, and wheels, DOE proposes to add an
overall tolerance when assigning the indoor-air volume rate used for
testing. This change will result in more representative testing,
because of the use of an average air volume rate, rather than a rate on
the low end of the range. DOE proposes to assign a tolerance of -5
percent on the air volume rate specified by the manufacturer. Thus, if
the indoor unit can attain the minimum external static pressure while
operating at an indoor air volume rate that is between 0 and -5 percent
of the manufacturer-specified value, then this lab air volume rate
shall be used. The tolerance of -5 percent is recommended because it is
representative of indoor blower variations and also because a maximum
tolerance of -5 percent in air volume rate typically causes a change in
total capacity that is within the uncertainty of the measurement.
Proposed language for effecting the above change is provided in the
last section of this notice as part of the revised section 3.1.4.1.1 of
the central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure and, for
ducted, heating-only heat pumps, section 3.1.4.4.3. DOE requests
comments on the approach of including the tolerance within the setup
algorithm, and assigning it as a one-sided tolerance. DOE also requests
data concerning the selection of -5 percent as the tolerance.
12. Revising references to ASHRAE Standards (e.g., Standards 23,
37, 116) that have been reaffirmed (i.e., reviewed and approved by
ASHRAE with no substantive changes) or revised too recently to have
been included in the amended test procedure published on October 11,
2005. ASHRAE Standard 23, ``Methods of Testing for Rating Positive
Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Condensing Units,'' and
Standard 37 ``Methods of Testing for Rating Unitary Air-Conditioning
and Heat Pump Equipment'' completed the revision, public review, and
publication process in 2005. ASHRAE Standard 116, ``Methods of Testing
for Rating for Seasonal Efficiency of Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps,'' completed the reaffirmation, public review, and publication
process in 2005. When an ASHRAE standard is revised, substantive
changes are made. Reaffirmations, by comparison, contain only non-
substantive changes and so do not alter the technical content of the
document. To DOE's knowledge, the proposal to reference these current
versions of the three ASHRAE standards will not affect the SEER and
HSPF ratings calculated using the current or proposed DOE test
procedure.
B. Proposed Substantive Changes to Other Parts of the CFR That Affect
the Testing and Rating of Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps
1. New data-submission-requirements when verifying an alternative
rating method. Presently the CFR states that the manufacturer must
supply test data on four different split-system combinations. 10 CFR
430.24(m)(6)(iii) Each split-system combination must be other than the
combination with the highest sales volume. Overall, test data on four
different indoor units and two different models of outdoor units are
required. Two of the indoor units are to be tested with one model of
outdoor unit; the remaining two indoor units are to be tested with the
second model of outdoor unit.
Two additional requirements are also currently specified in Sec.
430.24(m)(6)(iii). First, the tested capacities of the two models of
outdoor units, when paired with their respective highest-sales-volume
indoor unit, shall differ by at least a factor of two. Second, the two
indoor units tested with the same model of outdoor unit are required to
be from two different coil families. Finally, in addition to data on
the four (mixed system) combinations, performance ratings on the
outdoor units alone, or on the outdoor units when coupled to their
highest-sales-volume indoor unit, are also required.
Some manufacturers find it difficult to, or simply cannot, meet the
above requirements. For example, an independent coil manufacturer who
sells indoor units from only one coil family for a given capacity
range, will not be able to meet the two-different-coil-families
requirement. The requirement of using only two models of outdoor units
may also cause difficulty. Often the manufacturers will submit ARI
certification test data for verification purposes in order to avoid
having to pay for additional testing. A manufacturer is more likely to
have test data on its indoor units tested with four different outdoor
units than to have data where the same model of outdoor unit was used
with two different indoor coils.
At the December 2002 workshop, Excel Comfort Systems suggested that
waivers be considered for those cases where a company cannot meet the
present requirements for verification data (Public Hearing Tr., pages
48-50). Unico spoke in favor of using any valid, available data to
verify an alternative rating method (Public Hearing Tr., page 51).
Other manufacturers present (Trane, Lennox, and Carrier) emphasized
assuring that the data used for verification is representative of the
manufacturer's existing product line (Public Hearing Tr., pages 52-53).
NIST, with industry input, reviewed section Sec. 430.24(m)(6) and
(8) and recommended additions to the existing requirements. Based on
NIST recommendations, DOE has decided that the present requirements are
acceptable but additional options should be incorporated to allow
flexibility without affecting the quality of the validation process.
For example, as proposed, data from two, three, or four outdoor units
may be used to meet the requirements for data on four systems.
Presently, only two outdoor units are used to create the four required
systems.
A related issue raised at the December 2002 workshop was whether
any new limits should be allowed concerning the use of ``old''
verification data (Public Hearing Tr., pages 35-36, 51-53). The
adjective ``old'' here can mean verification data for a split system
where the indoor, outdoor, or both units are no longer manufactured, or
where the data was collected many years ago. In the former case, one
question that may influence a decision on allowing the use of data
based on an obsolete indoor unit is whether the remaining product line
includes coils from the same coil family. As a step toward offering
clarification on acceptable verification data, DOE proposes to
specifically address the case in which submitted data includes an
obsolete indoor coil. In such cases, the data will be accepted if the
indoor coil is from the same coil family as other indoor coils that are
still in production.
The above proposed changes, along with those revisions discussed in
the next few sections, contribute to a rather comprehensive revision of
Sec. 430.24(m), ``Units to be tested.'' The entire content of the
proposed 430.24(m) is provided in the regulatory language section
following this notice.
2. Guidance on the inclusion of pre-production units in the sample
population used to determine and validate the published ratings. DOE
[[Page 41329]]
seeks to have all manufacturers subject to the same requirements and to
have them apply consistent practices in meeting the DOE regulatory
requirements. In the area of selecting a sample population, the first
paragraph of Sec. 430.24, ``Units to be tested,'' states that ``a
sample shall be selected and tested comprised of units which are
production units, or are representative of production units of the
basic model being tested, and shall meet the following applicable
criteria.'' Similar language is repeated in a subsection specific to
central air conditioners and heat pumps, Sec. 430.24(m)(2)(i): ``A
sample of sufficient size, composed of production units or representing
production units, shall be tested * * *'' Today's proposed rule seeks
to build on this requirement by explicitly stating that pre-production
units may be used as part of the sample population, but only if
fabricated using the same tooling as used for production units (see
section 430.24(m)(1) in the regulatory language section following this
notice). DOE seeks comment on this proposal and any other alternative
requirements that should be used to disqualify a pre-production unit
from being used to obtain certified ratings for its full-production
counterpart.
3. Clarification of the sample population used to validate the
rated SEER and the rated HSPF. Today's proposed rule includes a
requirement within Sec. 430.24(m)(1)(iii) that a manufacturer must use
the same heat pump results for both SEER and HSPF when obtaining
certified ratings. For example, a manufacturer cannot test five heat
pumps in cooling and heating and then use the results from units 1, 3,
and 5 as the basis for the certified SEER while using the results from
units 2, 4, and 5 as the basis for the certified HSPF. With one
exception, each heat pump unit of the sample population must be tested
in both the cooling and heating mode and their respective results used
in determining the certified SEER and HSPF for the particular heat pump
model. The one exception is the case where the manufacturer obtains a
sample SEER or HSPF that is equal to or greater than the value at which
the manufacturer will certify, while the other seasonal rating
descriptor (HSPF or SEER, respectively) is below a threshold value
being targeted by the manufacturer. In this case only, one or more
additional units may be tested in the operating mode, cooling or
heating, that corresponds to this marginal rating and the results used
as part of the sample population for that descriptor. DOE invites
comments on the proposal.
4. Clarification of the definition of a ``highest sales volume
combination.'' ARI recently implemented an internal policy whereby all
highest-sales-volume tested combinations for unitary air conditioners
having a rated SEER less than 14 must be coil-only units. ARI waives
this requirement for through-the-wall and ductless equipment. The ARI
policy also requires that all unitary air conditioners having a rated
SEER of 14 or higher must have a coil-only rating for each model of
outdoor unit.
The ARI policy improves the likelihood that the outdoor unit, in
combination with any compatible indoor unit, will meet the federal
energy efficiency standards. The default values for the fan heat and
fan power prescribed in the DOE test procedure when rating coil-only
systems typically yield a conservative estimate of indoor performance.
As in the past, SEER and HSPF ratings for coil-only listings are
expected to remain clustered below the listings for blower coils, for
the same outdoor unit. The coil-only policy helps avoid the situation
in which an outdoor unit combined with a blower coil has a tested SEER
of 13.0 or 13.5, while the same outdoor unit, combined with a coil-only
indoor unit, would have a tested SEER of only 12.0 or 12.5. Thus, the
policy improves the chances that all combinations with a given outdoor
unit meet DOE's energy conservation standards.
The ARI policy is consistent with the DOE requirement to test each
outdoor unit with its highest-sales-volume indoor unit. Historically,
split-system condensing units are much more often installed with coil-
only indoor units than with blower-coil units. And, for those
comparatively fewer blower-coil installations, most do not use the
highest efficiency motors, which are usually variable-speed motors.
Thus, now and for the immediate future, the probability that a split-
system condensing unit will be most often installed with a blower coil
is low, and the chances of the highest-sales-volume application
including a blower coil having the highest-efficiency motor is remote.
The ARI policy is consistent with current and past assignments of
highest-sales-volume combinations for split-system air conditioners. A
review of past ARI Unitary Directories shows that the vast majority of
listings designate a coil-only system as the highest-sales-volume
combination (HSVC). For those comparatively few cases where a blower-
coil combination was so designated, the ratings frequently corresponded
to substantially higher SEER equipment, such as modulating systems.
The ARI policy avoids the scenario in which a manufacturer chooses
to designate its highest-rated split-system combination as the highest-
sales-volume combination. The process of proving or disproving whether
sales volume supports such a designation would be difficult. If
allowed, such a designation might lead to many sub-13-SEER combinations
being sold--if not by a system manufacturer, then with the systems sold
with third-party indoor units. Although such rated coil-only
combinations would still have to meet the 13-SEER standard and, for ARI
members, be subject to certification verification tests, these two
safeguards are not as rigorous as the sample-population testing
required for highest-sales-volume combinations. Thus, the ARI policy
protects against increased availability of truly sub-13-SEER
combinations.
In making exceptions for through-the-wall and ductless systems, and
by including the 14-SEER delimiter, the ARI policy recognizes that
there are cases where blower-coil combinations are the predominant, if
not exclusive, option. However, the outdoor units for the two exception
cases are highly unlikely, if not impossible, to combine with a typical
coil-only indoor unit. A HSVC having a SEER rating of 14 or greater is
unlikely to yield a sub-13 SEER system when combined with a compatible
coil-only indoor unit. The policy leaves little chance for sub-13 SEER
combinations to become readily available to the installer in the field.
DOE agrees with the ARI policy and believes that its main elements
should apply to all manufacturers, not just ARI member companies.
Therefore, DOE seeks to adopt those aspects of the ARI policy that
better define the requirements of a highest-sales-volume combination.
In doing so, DOE proposes one change and two additions. The one change
is to have the policy apply to all split-system air conditioners that
use a single-speed compressor rather than to units having a rated SEER
less than 14. DOE believes this change offers a slightly cleaner
delimiter. One addition is to add small-duct, high-velocity systems to
the list of exceptions. The second addition is an exception for split-
system air conditioners having design features (e.g., controls,
proprietary interface cabling and handshaking) that prevent its
installation with all coil-only indoor units. This second addition is
offered as a compromise to manufacturers who intend to sell only
blower-coils with particular outdoor units. In this case,
[[Page 41330]]
the manufacturer must accept the burden of preventing cases where these
same outdoor units are installed with third-party, coil-only indoor
units. The system manufacturer must do more than include written
disclaimers that the outdoor units may not be so applied; the
manufacturer must incorporate some feature that only allows blower-coil
combinations and prevents all coil-only misapplications.
The text for this proposed clarification of what constitutes a
highest-sales-volume combination is provided in Sec. 430.24(m)(2).
5. Upper limit on the difference between calculated and tested SEER
and HSPF values. Ratings for untested split-system combinations can
exceed the ratings of the highest-sales-volume tested combination on
which the former ratings are based. Ideally, these ratings increases
occur because of differences between the type of expansion device, the
type of blower (including with or without fan delay), and the type of
coil used in the two different indoor units. The rating offsets,
however, are also due to the inherent limitations of the alternative
rating method, the quality of input data used for the ARM calculations,
and, possibly, how the ARM itself is applied.
At a DOE public workshop held on March 29, 2001, Carrier
Corporation reported cases where two systems using the same outdoor
unit and very similar indoor units had published ratings that differed
by as much as 10 percent, or one full SEER point. (Public Hearing Tr.,
page 208) The higher rated combination was either subject to spot
checks as part of the ARI certification program, or had its
representations reviewed by a professional engineer for accuracy.
However, the effectiveness of these checks was questioned because, in
the case of the former, a five-percent tolerance must be allowed and,
in the case of the latter, no guidance was provided as to how to
evaluate or quantify the accuracy.
To their credit, ARI members sought to address the problem
internally by pursuing two changes. The first change was for system
manufacturers to provide the Independent Coil Manufacturers (ICM) with
better data (i.e., condenser curves) on which to base the ICM mixed
system ratings--better data in, better predictions out. The second
change was to conduct more spot checks on combinations rated by ICMs
and, when a failure did occur, to require re-ratings for all
combinations using the failed indoor unit. Previously, only the one
combination that failed certification testing was re-rated. The impact
of these changes is yet to be fully assessed but is expected to
mitigate the problem of inconsistent ratings among competing
manufacturers.
As a further step, DOE today proposes to place an upper limit on
the allowed offsets between predicted versus measurement-based ratings.
Whereas presently ratings from DOE-approved alternative rating methods
receive blanket acceptance, the proposed change would introduce an
upper limit offset of 5 percent. Five percent is proposed because of an
argument put forth by Carrier Corporation that 5 percent is the upper
limit of the practical efficiency increase that could be achieved
(Carrier, No. 1). DOE believes that this 5-percent limit will reduce
the occurrence of inflated ratings and therefore proposes a 5-percent-
upper-limit offset. However, this proposed limit would only apply to
cases where the difference in performance should be smallest: Where the
HSVC system is a coil-only unit and the untested system is a coil-only
unit. Manufacturers having non-highest-sales-volume combinations whose
ratings are expected to exceed the 5-percent offset limit have the
option of obtaining the ratings by testing. This existing test option,
which is found in 10 CFR 430.24(m)(2)(i), is not subject to the
proposed 5-percent limit. The proposed approach would apply to any
untested combination, whether offered by the system manufacturer or an
ICM.
DOE proposes placing limits on the offsets predicted by an
alternative rating method in Sec. 430.24(m)(4)(iii) and seeks comments
on whether limits should be imposed in other cases, not just when both
combinations are coil-only. Finally, data that either confirms or
refutes the proposed limit of 5 percent is requested.
6. Clarification of the published ratings for untested split-system
combinations. The test procedure states that the ARM shall be used to
obtain ``representative values of the measures of energy consumption.''
(See Sec. 430.24 (m)(2)(ii).) DOE seeks to improve upon the existing
definition by adding new quantitative requirements. Thus, DOE today
proposes amendments to Sec. 430.24(m)(4) that require published
ratings for an untested split-system combination to be equal to, or
lower than, the value calculated using the DOE-approved ARM. For those
manufacturers who use the laboratory data from the HSVC testing to
adjust their ARM or a simulation subcomponent, the resulting
``adjustment factor'' shall be applied to the ARM calculations for
untested combinations that use the same outdoor unit. This adjustment
factor, if used, shall be limited to causing a maximum change of five-
percent higher ratings than those obtained by applying the ARM without
adjustment.
For cases where the HSVC and the untested combination are both
coil-only units, the limit described in item 5 above, ``Upper limit on
the difference between calculated and tested SEER and HSPF values,''
also applies, and therefore may cause the published rating to be less
than the value calculated using the manufacturer's ARM, as adjusted by
the ``adjustment factor'' described above. This proposal, like the
previous one above, should tend to curb artificially inflated
efficiency ratings for untested split-system combinations.
7. Adding requirement that ratings for an air conditioner or heat
pump that is rated with a furnace include the model number of that
furnace as part of the overall equipment model number. System
manufacturers sometimes seek SEER and HSPF ratings for complete systems
consisting of a coil-only air conditioner or heat pump and a particular
model of furnace. To more clearly delineate published ratings obtained
for such systems, DOE proposes to require that the model number of the
furnace be included as part of the published model number, most likely
as an add-on to the indoor unit model number. This proposed
clarification is reflected in the proposed revisions to Sec.
430.62(a)(4)(i) and (ii).
8. For products such as multi-splits which have multiple indoor
units, instituting a ``tested combination'' as an alternative to
testing the combination with ``the largest volume of retail sales.''
Currently, manufacturers are required to select for testing the
combination manufactured by the condensing unit manufacturer likely to
have the largest volume of retail sales. For combinations having
multiple indoor units, the combination with the largest volume of
retail sales may be difficult to identify and too complex to test. DOE
is therefore proposing an equivalent ``tested combination,'' which
should remove one impediment to the testing of multi-split units.
C. Proposed Non-Substantive Changes to Related Portions of the CFR
1. Clarification of a private labeler's (i.e., a third party)
responsibility for ensuring that reported ratings are based on an
approved alternative method for rating untested combinations or on
laboratory test data. The responsibilities of private labelers are set
forth in Subpart F, Certification and Enforcement, but are delineated
in Sec. 430.24. DOE proposes language
[[Page 41331]]
clarifying that private labelers, as well as manufacturers, must seek
DOE approval to use an ARM. If the system manufacturer or the ICM has a
DOE-approved ARM for the products in question, the same ARM may be used
by the private labeler.
2. Revisions to the definition of ``coil family.'' DOE proposes
minor modifications to the existing definition, adding a few specifics,
including examples of fin shapes: ``flat, wavy, louvered, lanced,'' and
re-formatting for improved readability.
3. New definition for ``private labeler'' within Sec. 430.2. DOE
proposes to incorporate the definition from the statute, 42 U.S.C.
6291(15). Hitherto, private labelers were not explicitly referenced in
10 CFR 430.24, but the proposed revision does explicitly reference them
(see item 1, above). In order to facilitate the clarification of
private labeler responsibility, DOE proposes to incorporate the
statutory definition into the definitions section, Sec. 430.2.
4. Definitions of terms: ``Indoor unit,'' ``outdoor unit,'' ``ARM/
simulation adjustment factor,'' and ``tested combination.'' The terms
``indoor unit'' and ``outdoor unit'' are used in the current test
procedure, and in the proposed revisions, but are not defined. DOE
proposes definitions based on the current definition of ``condensing
unit'' in Sec. 430.2. DOE proposes definitions of the new terms ``ARM/
simulation adjustment factor'' and ``tested combination'' which are
included in proposed amendments to 10 CFR 430.24(m). The ARM/simulation
adjustment factor was developed by NIST and DOE as part of an effort to
improve the accuracy of mixed system ratings. The definition of
``tested combination'' is a minor revision to the term as proposed in
DOE's publication of a multi-split petition for waiver. (71 FR 14858,
March 24, 2006)
D. Effect of Test Procedure Revisions on Compliance With Standards
DOE believes the revisions proposed today will not affect the
ratings of air conditioners and heat pumps with SEER and HSPF ratings
that minimally comply with the current DOE energy conservation
standards. Some of the proposed revisions are projected to slightly
change the ratings of some higher efficiency, two-capacity systems. The
proposed changes that only affect higher-efficiency systems (relative
to the 2006 EPCA minimums), if adopted, would not invoke the
requirement for DOE to amend its energy conservation minimum standards.
More specific discussions concerning the impact of the proposed changes
are offered below.
The proposed changes unique to the testing of small-duct, high
velocity systems are needed to more accurately measure their
performance. DOE's decision in SpacePak/Unico, 29 DOE ] 81,002 (2004),
on exception relief efficiency standards for SDHV systems
manufacturers--11.0 SEER and 6.8 HSPF--came after the higher minimum
external-static-pressure requirements of section II.A.1 and the new
definition of an SDHV system were evaluated. Therefore, any impact from
testing at the higher static pressures has already been considered.
Reinstating the option of conducting a cyclic test at high-
capacity, when testing a two-capacity unit, is projected to very
minimally increase the measured SEER or HSPF rating. This option will
be used only when the unit locks out low-capacity operation, typically
at the more extreme outdoor temperatures. At these more extreme
temperatures, the unit would be modeled as having a relatively high
load-factor. The more extreme temperatures also correspond to
temperature bins having comparatively few fractional hours. The
combination acts to minimize the impact of the cyclic-degradation
coefficient. Thus, the burden of running this optional test would only
be considered when a manufacturer is very close to achieving a target
rating and needs less than 0.2 SEER/HSPF increase in the measured SEER/
HSPF to achieve this target. So, a possible scenario is a two-capacity
unit that reverts to second-stage cooling only at temperatures above 90
[deg]F and the optional, high-capacity cyclic test yields a
CD that bumps the measured SEER from 16.85 to 17.0.
Two proposed changes specific to two-capacity heat pumps are
shortening the duration of the low-capacity Frost Accumulation Test
from 12 hours to 6 hours, and allowing the use of default equations in
lieu of testing. As noted above in section II.A.3, the former is only
expected to affect the average space heating capacity and power use at
low-stage and 35 [deg]F to the point of causing a minimal, systematic
increase in the derived HSPF for the rare case where the heat pump
remains completely frosted beyond 6 hours during this low-capacity
test. Such a heat pump would be expected to perform very poorly during
the required, high-capacity Frost Accumulation Test, and thus yield a
HSPF rating that was at the low end for two-capacity heat pumps. Such
performance would likely be unacceptable to most manufacturers.
Using default equations in lieu of conducting the low-capacity
Frost Accumulation Test would negatively impact the measured HSPF. DOE
estimates that the HSPF could be as much as 0.3 points lower if the
default equations are used to obtain the value corresponding to Region
IV and the minimum design-heating requirement.
The changes proposed for testing and rating modulating multi-split
systems, as outlined above in section II.A.5 certainly will impact
their SEER and HSPF ratings. These changes, however, are necessary to
allow a reasonable approximation of these performance descriptors. The
current test procedure is simply deficient in covering these relatively
new products, as is best evidenced by the numerous requests for test
procedure waivers that have been submitted by manufacturers of these
products. However, it is too early to know the impact, if any, of these
changes on such equipment that only minimally complies with the current
energy conservation standards.
The proposed changes to adopt the long-standing industry practice
of adjusting measured capacities to account for the losses in the
outlet ductwork is not expected to cause an increase in SEER or HSPF.
This expectation results because the test procedure is simply catching
up with current practice.
The proposed change to define ``repeatable'' when conducting cyclic
tests is viewed as improving repeatability and thus having a random
effect on the derived cyclic-degradation coefficient and, ultimately,
the calculated SEER and HSPF. Similarly, making the definition of
``standard air'' consistent with the definition in the 2005 version of
ASHRAE Standard 37 will have no effect on the SEER and HSPF as
calculated using the October 2005 final rule.
Finally, changing the low-capacity cooling-mode test condition from
95 [deg]F to 67 [deg]F for two-capacity units is projected to change
the calculated SEER very minimally--within 0.1 SEER
points--in most cases. However, the reduction in SEER could be very
considerable if the power consumption during the 95 [deg]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 [deg]F. In general, the impact of the change
will be measurable if the unit's electrical power draw increases
atypically at higher outdoor temperatures when operating at low-
capacity. Manufacturers will now seek to avoid this because it reduces
the SEER rating.
[[Page 41332]]
III. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
It has been determined that today's regulatory action is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
Accordingly, this action was not subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under the Executive Order.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. The Department
has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of General
Counsel's web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
The Department reviewed today's proposed rule under the provisions
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies
published on February 19, 2003. This proposed rule prescribes test
procedures that will be used to test compliance with energy
conservation standards. The proposed rule affects central air
conditioner and heat pump test procedures and would not have a
significant economic impact, but rather would provide common testing
methods. Therefore DOE certifies that the proposed rule would not have
a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities,'' and the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not warranted. The Department will transmit the certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
This rulemaking will impose no new information or record keeping
requirements. Accordingly, Office of Management and Budget clearance is
not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
In this proposed rule, the Department proposes amendments to test
procedures that may be used to implement future energy conservation
standards for central air conditioners. The Department has determined
that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The rule is covered by Categorical
Exclusion A5, for rulemakings that interpret or amend an existing rule
without changing the environmental effect, as set forth in the
Department's NEPA regulations in Appendix A to Subpart D, 10 CFR part
1021. This rule will not affect the quality or distribution of energy
usage and, therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts.
Accordingly, neither an environmental impact statement nor an
environmental assessment is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. The Department has examined today's proposed
rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as
to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of today's
proposed rule. States can petition the Department for a waiver of such
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) imposes on
Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and
promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive
Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard
for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they
are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. The
Department has completed the required review and determined that, to
the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant
standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a
rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million
or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202
of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that
estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a
Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input
by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal
[[Page 41333]]
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,''
and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to potentially affected small governments before
establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement
of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA
(62 FR 12820) (also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov). The proposed
rule published today contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor
a mandate that may result in expenditure of $100 million or more in any
year, so these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
The Department has determined, under Executive Order 12630,
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed
regulation, if promulgated as a final rule, would not result in any
takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. The OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22,
2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7,
2002). The Department has reviewed today's notice under the 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 the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed
significant energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined
as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's regulatory action would not have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and, therefore, is not a
significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration (FEA)
Act of 1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy
Administration Authorization Act of 1977. 15 U.S.C. 788. Section 32
provides that where a proposed rule contains or involves use of
commercial standards, the rulemaking must inform the public of the use
and background of such standards.
The proposed rule incorporates testing methods contained in the
following commercial standards: (1) ASHRAE Standard 23-2005, ``Methods
of Testing for Rating Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and
Condensing Units;'' (2) ASHRAE Standard 37-2005, ``Methods of Testing
for Rating Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment;'' (3)
ASHRAE Standard 116-2005, and ``Methods of Testing for Rating for
Seasonal Efficiency of Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps. The
Department has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude
whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 323(b) of
the Federal Energy Administration Act, i.e., whether they were
developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation,
comment, and review.
As required by section 32(c) of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974, as amended, DOE will consult with the Attorney General and
the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission before prescribing a final
rule about the impact on competition of using the methods contained in
these standards.
IV. Public Participation
A. Attendance at Public Meeting
The time and date of the public meeting are listed in the DATES
section at the beginning of this notice of proposed rulemaking. The
public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal
Building, Room 1E-245, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0121. To attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda
Edwards-Jones at (202) 586-2945. Foreign nationals visiting DOE
Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures,
requiring a 30-day advance notice. Any foreign national wishing to
participate in the meeting should advise DOE of this fact as soon as
possible by contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones to initiate the
necessary procedures.
B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to Speak
Any person who has an interest in today's notice, or who is a
representative of a group or class of persons that has an interest in
these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Such persons may hand-deliver requests to speak, along with a computer
diskette or CD in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII)
file format to the address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this notice of proposed rulemaking between the hours of 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Requests may also be sent by mail or e-mail to: [email protected].
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of
their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for
contact. The Department requests persons selected to be heard to submit
an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before the
public meeting. At its discretion, DOE may permit any person who cannot
supply an advance copy of
[[Page 41334]]
their statement to participate, if that person has made advance
alternative arrangements with the Building Technologies Program. The
request to give an oral presentation should ask for such alternative
arrangements.
C. Conduct of Public Meeting
The Department will designate a DOE official to preside at the
public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid
discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type
public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553
and section 336 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6306. A court reporter will be
present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. The
Department reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations
and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public
meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may submit
further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of the
rulemaking until the end of the comment period.
The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference
style. The Department will present summaries of comments received
before the public meeting, allow time for presentations by
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed
to make a prepared general statement (within time limits determined by
DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. The Department will
permit other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues.
Department representatives may also ask questions of participants
concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official
conducting the public meeting will accept additional comments or
questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official
will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above
procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public
meeting.
The Department will make the entire record of this proposed
rulemaking, including the transcript from the public meeting, available
for inspection at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building,
Room 1J-018 (Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program), 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, (202) 586-9127, between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Any
person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
The Department will accept comments, data, and information
regarding the proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no
later than the date provided at the beginning of this notice of
proposed rulemaking. Please submit comments, data, and information
electronically. Send them to the following e-mail address:
[email protected]. Submit electronic comments in
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format and avoid
the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Comments in
electronic format should be identified by the docket number EE-RM/TP-
02-002 and/or RIN number 1904-AB55, and wherever possible carry the
electronic signature of the author. Absent an electronic signature,
comments submitted electronically must be followed and authenticated by
submitting the signed original paper document. No telefacsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that
he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public
disclosure should submit two copies: one copy of the document including
all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the
document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. The
Department of Energy will make its own determination about the
confidential status of the information and treat it according to its
determination.
Factors of interest to the Department when evaluating requests to
treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description
of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
The Department is particularly interested in receiving comments and
views of interested parties concerning:
1. Whether any of the proposed changes would affect the measure of
energy efficiency, and if so, to what degree, of any central air
conditioner or heat pump.
2. Whether the proposed changes would prevent any model from
complying with the DOE energy conservation standards.
3. The default equations for calculating low-capacity performance
of two-capacity heat pumps at the 35 [deg]F test condition (see
proposed revisions to section 3.6.3). DOE requests data from testing at
low capacity for the 47, 35, and 17 [deg]F test conditions.
4. The proposed changes specific to multi-split systems. For
example, how should the test procedure account for their full range of
modulation even though tests may not be possible at the true minimum
capacity?
5. Whether a separate test procedure for multi-splits should be
developed.
6. Whether the proposed quantitative measures to improve the
repeatability of cyclic tests (i.e., tolerance on both the cycle-to-
cycle integrated temperature difference and average power consumption)
are justified.
7. The impact of conducting as many as three low-capacity tests at
the 67 [deg]F test condition.
8. Whether there is a better descriptor than ``Full-load'' for
replacing ``Certified'' when identifying the air-volume rate used for
most lab tests. Should the selected descriptor also be incorporated
into the definition for a small-duct, high-velocity system (see 1.35):
``at least 1.2 inches (of water) when operated at the certified air
volume rate of 220-350 cfm per rated ton of cooling * * *''?
9. The proposed approach for establishing the Full-load, Air-Volume
Rate for blower coil units, with its 0 to -5 percent tolerance during
the setup process. Data showing the typical variation in blower
performance is requested.
10. The changes proposed within 10 CFR 430.24, ``Units to be
tested,'' that pertain to the alternative rating method (ARM). Comments
and data are sought that address the proposed options for ARM
verification data, the information on the contents of a submittal
package, and the explicit limits on the ARM-derived ratings (e.g., a
maximum 5 percent limit for cases where both the untested and HSVC
units are coil-only systems).
11. When a pre-production unit should be accepted or excluded from
[[Page 41335]]
the tested sample population used to obtain the certified ratings.
12. The proposal for improving the definition of a highest-sales-
volume combination, which only applies to single-speed air
conditioners.
13. The proposed definition of a ``tested combination,'' for
combinations having multiple indoor units?
DOE also welcomes comments on any problems that have arisen with
the October 2005 final rule. In that regard, DOE has received inquiries
regarding two changes contained in the 2005 test procedure.
The October 2005 final rule contains amendments to the definition
of a demand-defrost control system (definition 1.21) while also
singling out one such system, a time-adaptive-defrost control system
(definition 1.42). In order to avoid the excessive number of frost/
defrost cycles needed to obtain repeatable performance during a Frost
accumulation Test, the October 2005 final rule allows the controls of
the time-adaptive system to be overridden. The frosting interval during
the official test period, in this case only, now ends by manually
initiating a defrost cycle at an elapsed time specified by the
manufacturer (see section 3.9 of Appendix M, Nt., to Subpart B of 10
CFR part 430). To varying degrees, most heat pumps having a demand
defrost-control system require multiple frost/defrost cycles in the
laboratory before repeatable performance results. The need for running
several complete cycles alone, or in combination with relatively long
frosting intervals, can lead to long test times. The question arises
whether there are cases involving other control systems where changes
may be required in the future to reduce the testing burden. DOE seeks
comments on this question.
The October 2005 final rule included a requirement in section
3.1.4.2 that ``for ducted two-capacity units that are tested without an
indoor fan installed, the Cooling Minimum Air Volume Rate is the higher
of (1) the rate specified by the manufacturer or, (2) 75 percent of the
Cooling Full-Load Air Volume Rate.'' For heating, in addition, section
3.1.4.5 directs the tester to ``use the Cooling Minimum Air Volume Rate
as the Heating Minimum Air Volume Rate.'' An alternative approach
considered during the prior rulemaking was to exclude option (2)
above--75 percent of the Cooling Full-Load Air Volume Rate--and simply
have the manufacturer specify the Cooling Minimum Air Volume Rate.
Although these two alternatives were extensively debated before
publishing the October 2005 final rule, the issue has been revived. The
sales of two-capacity units is likely to increase following the higher
2006 DOE efficiency standards and, as a result, there is increasing
attention to test procedure requirements for these products. The
reasoning behind the October 2005 final rule approach is that most
furnaces in the current housing stock (to which a two-capacity coil-
only unit would be applied) contain multi-speed blowers. For these
multi-speed furnace blowers, a typical air volume rate at the lowest
speed setting is 75 percent of the maximum air volume rate. For many
other two-capacity units, however, the default minimum air volume rate
is higher than the air volume rate at the lowest speed setting.
Although satisfied with its earlier decision on this topic, DOE seeks
improvements to the test procedure to ensure that two-capacity coil-
only units are appropriately tested. For example, does the test
procedure need to cover the effect of a blower kit accessory that
ensures a proper coil-only field installation? DOE seeks comments on
this point, in particular, and also on the general issue of rating two-
capacity coil-only units. If there is sufficient response, DOE would
consider addressing these issues in a future rulemaking.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation,
Household appliances.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 30, 2006.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes
to amend part 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, to read as follows:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
2. Section 430.2 is amended in subpart A by revising the definition
of ``coil family'' and adding definitions of ``ARM/simulation
adjustment factor,'' ``indoor unit,'' ``outdoor unit,'' ``private
labeler'' and ``tested combination,'' in alphabetical order, to read as
follows:
Sec. 430.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
ARM/simulation adjustment factor means a factor used to improve the
accuracy of a DOE-approved alternative rating method (ARM) for untested
split system central air conditioners or heat pumps. The adjustment
factor associated with each outdoor unit shall be set such that it
reduces the difference between the SEER (HSPF) determined using the ARM
and the tested rating for the highest sales volume combination. The
ARM/simulation adjustment factor is an integral part of the ARM and
must be a DOE-approved element in accordance with 10 CFR 430.24(m)(4)
to (m)(6).
* * * * *
Coil family means:
(1) A group of coils with the same basic design features that
affect the heat exchanger performance. Examples of particular features
in different categories are:
(i) General configuration: A-shape, V-shape, slanted or flat top.
(ii) Heat transfer surface on the refrigerant side: flat, grooved.
(iii) Heat transfer surface on the air side: flat, wavy, louver,
lanced.
(iv) Tube material: copper, aluminum.
(v) Fin material: copper, aluminum.
(vi) Coil circuitry.
(2) When a group of coils has all these features in common, it
constitutes a ``coil family.''
* * * * *
Indoor unit means a component of a split-system central air
conditioner or heat pump that is designed to transfer heat between the
refrigerant and the indoor air, and which consists of an indoor coil, a
cooling mode expansion device, and may include an air moving device.
* * * * *
Outdoor unit means a component of a split-system central air
conditioner or heat pump that is designed to transfer heat between the
refrigerant and the outdoor air, and which consists of an outdoor coil,
compressor(s), an air moving device, and in addition for heat pumps, a
heating mode expansion device, reversing valve, and defrost controls.
* * * * *
Private labeler means an owner of a brand or trademark on the label
of a consumer product which bears a private label. A consumer product
bears a private label if:
(1) Such product (or its container) is labeled with the brand or
trademark of
[[Page 41336]]
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 split system with multiple indoor coils
having the following features:
(1) The basic model of a system used as a tested combination shall
consist of one outdoor unit, with one or more compressors, that is
matched with between 2 and 5 indoor units designed for individual
operation.
(2) The indoor units shall--
(i) Represent the highest sales volume type models;
(ii) Together, have a capacity that is between 95% and 105% of the
capacity of the outdoor unit;
(iii) Not, individually, have a capacity that is greater than 50%
of the capacity of the outdoor unit;
(iv) Have a fan speed that is consistent with the manufacturer's
specifications; and
(v) All have the same external static pressure.
* * * * *
3. Section 430.23 is amended in subpart B by revising paragraph
(m)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 430.23 Test procedure for measures of energy consumption.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(5) All measures of energy consumption shall be determined by the
test method as set forth in appendix M to this subpart; or by an
alternate rating method set forth in Sec. 430.24(m)(4) as approved by
the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in
accordance with Sec. 430.24(m)(5).
* * * * *
4. Section 430.24 is amended in subpart B by revising paragraph (m)
to read as follows:
Sec. 430.24 Units to be tested.
* * * * *
(m)(1) For central air conditioners and heat pumps, each single-
package system, and each condensing unit (outdoor unit) of a split-
system, when combined with a selected indoor unit, shall have a sample
of sufficient size tested in accordance with the applicable provisions
of this subpart. To be included in the sample population, any pre-
production units must have been fabricated using the same tooling as
used for full-production units. The represented values for any model of
single-package system, or for any model of a tested split-system
combination shall be assigned such that--
(i) Any represented value of estimated annual operating cost,
energy consumption or other measure of energy consumption of the
central air conditioner or heat pump for which consumers would favor
lower values shall be no less than the higher of:
(A) The mean of the sample; or
(B) The upper 90-percent confidence limit of the true mean divided
by 1.05; and
(ii) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other
measure of energy consumption of the central air conditioner or heat
pump for which consumers would favor higher values shall be no greater
than the lower of:
(A) The mean of the sample; or
(B) The lower 90-percent confidence limit of the true mean divided
by 0.95.
(iii) For heat pumps, all units of the sample population shall be
tested in both the cooling and heating modes and the results used for
determining the heat pump's certified SEER and HSPF ratings in
accordance with paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this section. When the
manufacturer calculates SEER and HSPF ratings in accordance with
paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this section, and the value of one descriptor
(SEER or HSPF) is equal to or greater than the value the manufacturer
will certify in accordance with 10 CFR 430.62, while the other
descriptor (HSPF or SEER) is below the value the manufacturer will
certify, one or more additional units may be tested in the operating
mode (cooling or heating, but not both) that corresponds to this
marginal rating, and the results included in the sample population for
calculating the marginal descriptor.
(2) For split-system air conditioners and heat pumps, the model of
indoor unit selected for tests pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of this
section shall be the indoor unit manufactured by the outdoor unit (or
system) manufacturer that is likely to have the largest volume of
retail sales in combination with the particular model of outdoor unit.
For combinations that have more than one indoor unit, a ``tested
combination,'' as defined in 10 CFR 430.2, shall be used for tests
pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of this section. Components of similar
design may be substituted without requiring additional testing if the
represented measures of energy consumption continue to satisfy the
applicable sampling provisions of paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii)
of this section. However, for any split-system air conditioner having a
single-speed compressor, the indoor unit selected for tests pursuant to
paragraph (m)(1) of this section shall be the indoor coil-only unit
manufactured by the system manufacturer that is likely to have the
largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of outdoor
unit. This coil-only requirement is annulled for split-system air
conditioners that are only sold and installed with blower-coil indoor
units (e.g., mini-splits, multi-splits, small-duct high-velocity, and
through-the-wall units) and any other outdoor units that are designed
solely for application with OEM-supplied blower-coils and thus have
features that prevent their installation with third-party coil-only
indoor units. This coil-only requirement does not apply to split-system
heat pumps. For every other split-system combination that includes the
same model of outdoor unit but a different model of indoor unit,
whether the indoor unit is manufactured by the same manufacturer or by
a component manufacturer, either--
(i) A sample of sufficient size, comprised of production and/or
pre-production units, shall be tested as complete systems with the
resulting ratings for the outdoor unit-indoor unit combination obtained
in accordance with paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this section;
any pre-production units included in the sample population must have
been fabricated using the same tooling as used for the full production
units; or
(ii) The representative values of the measures of energy
consumption shall be based on an alternative rating method (ARM) that
has been approved by DOE in accordance with the provisions of
paragraphs (m)(4) through (m)(6) of this section.
(3) Whenever the representative values of the measures of energy
consumption, as determined by the provisions of paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of
this section, do not agree within five percent of the representative
values of the measures of energy consumption as determined by actual
testing, the representative values determined by actual testing shall
be used.
(4) The basis of the alternative rating method referred to in
paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of this section shall be a representation of the
test data and calculations of a mechanical vapor-compression
refrigeration cycle. The major components in the refrigeration cycle
shall be modeled as ``fits'' to manufacturer performance data or by
graphic or tabular performance data. Heat transfer characteristics of
coils may be modeled as a function of face area, number of rows, fins
per inch,
[[Page 41337]]
refrigerant circuitry, air-flow rate and entering-air enthalpy.
Additional performance-related characteristics to be considered may
include type of expansion device, refrigerant flow rate through the
expansion device, power of the indoor fan and cyclic-degradation
coefficient. Ratings for untested combinations shall be derived from
the ratings of the tested highest-sales-volume combination (HSVC), or
from the tested combination. The SEER and/or HSPF ratings for an
untested combination shall be set equal to or less than the lower of:
(i) The SEER and HSPF calculated using the alternative rating
method (ARM), as adjusted based on the maximum allowed ARM/simulation
adjustment factor. This adjustment factor is allowed in cases in which
the manufacturer uses laboratory data from the HSVC testing to adjust
its ARM or a simulation subcomponent and then applies the factor to
ratings for untested combinations having the same outdoor unit. This
adjustment factor, if used, shall not cause a change in ratings greater
than five percent compared to the result of the ARM without the
adjustment factor; or
(ii) Five percent higher than the ratings of the tested HSVC. This
five percent limit only applies when the indoor unit of both the
untested combination and the HSVC is a coil-only design (i.e., no
indoor blower). Ratings above this limit can only be obtained for the
non-HSVC by testing in accordance with paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(5) Manufacturers or private labelers who elect to use an
alternative rating method for determining measures of energy
consumption under paragraphs (m)(2)(ii) and (m)(4) of this section must
submit a request for DOE to review the alternative rating method. Send
the request to the Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Approval must be received from the Assistant Secretary to use the
alternative method before the alternative method may be used for rating
split system central air conditioners and heat pumps. If a manufacturer
has a DOE-approved ARM for products also distributed in commerce by a
private labeler, the ARM may also be used by the private labeler for
rating these products.
(6) Each request to DOE for approval of an alternative rating
method shall include:
(i) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address
of the official representing the manufacturer.
(ii) Complete documentation of the alternative rating method to
allow DOE to evaluate its technical adequacy. The documentation shall
include a description of the methodology, state any underlying
assumptions, and explain any correlations. The documentation should
address how the method accounts for the cyclic-degradation coefficient,
the type of expansion device, and, if applicable, the indoor fan-off
delay. The requestor shall 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 non-ducted systems,
etc.) shall be stated in the documentation.
(iii)(A) Complete test data from laboratory tests on four mixed
(i.e., non-highest-sales-volume combination) systems per each ARM. The
four mixed systems must include four different indoor units and at
least two different outdoor units. A particular model of outdoor unit
may be tested with up to two of the four indoor units. The four systems
must include two low-capacity mixed systems and two high-capacity mixed
systems. The low-capacity mixed systems may have any capacity. The
rated capacity of each high-capacity mixed system must be at least a
factor of two higher than its counterpart low-capacity mixed system.
(B) The four indoor units must come from at least two different
coil families, with a maximum of two indoor units coming from the same
coil family. Data for two indoor units from the same coil family, if
submitted, must come from testing with one of the ``low-capacity mixed
systems'' and one of the ``high capacity mixed systems.'' A mixed
system indoor coil may come from the same coil family as the highest-
sales-volume-combination indoor unit (i.e., the ``matched'' indoor
unit) for the particular outdoor unit. Data on mixed systems where the
indoor unit is now obsolete will be accepted towards the ARM-validation
submittal requirement if it is from the same coil family as other
indoor units still in production.
(C) The first two sentences of paragraph (m)(6)(iii)(B) of this
section shall not apply if the manufacturer offers indoor units from
only one coil family. In this case only, all four indoor coils must be
selected from this one coil family. If approved, the ARM shall be
specifically limited to applications for this one coil family.
(iv) All product information on each mixed system indoor unit, each
matched system indoor unit, and each outdoor unit needed to implement
the proposed ARM. The calculated ratings for the four mixed systems, as
determined using the proposed ARM, shall be provided along with any
other related information that will aid the verification process.
(7) Manufacturers that elect to use an alternative rating method
for determining measures of energy consumption under paragraphs
(m)(2)(ii) and (m)(4) of this section must either subject a sample of
their units to independent testing on a regular basis, e.g., through a
voluntary certification program, or have the representations reviewed
and certified by an independent state-registered professional engineer
who is not an employee of the manufacturer. The registered professional
engineer is to certify that the results of the alternative rating
procedure accurately represent the energy consumption of the unit(s).
The manufacturer is to keep the registered professional engineer's
certifications on file for review by DOE for as long as said
combination is made available for sale by the manufacturer. Any
proposed change to the alternative rating method must be approved by
DOE prior to its use for rating.
(8) Manufacturers who choose to use computer simulation or
engineering analysis for determining measures of energy consumption
under paragraphs (m)(2)(ii) through (m)(6) of this section shall permit
representatives of the Department of Energy to inspect for verification
purposes the simulation method(s) and computer program(s) used. This
inspection may include conducting simulations to predict the
performance of particular outdoor unit--indoor unit combinations
specified by DOE, analysis of previous simulations conducted by the
manufacturer, or both.
* * * * *
Appendix M--[Amended]
5. Appendix M to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
a. In section 1. Definitions:
1. Section 1.5 is amended by removing ``23-93'' and adding in its
place ``23-05''; and by removing ``1993'' and adding in its place
``2005.''
2. Section 1.6 is amended by removing ``37-88'' and adding in its
place ``37-05''; and by removing ``1988'' and adding in its place
``2005.''
[[Page 41338]]
3. Section 1.12 is amended by adding ``RA(05)'' after ``116-95'';
and adding ``and reaffirmed in 2005'' after ``1995.''
4. Section 1.37 is revised to read as set forth below.
b. In section 2, Testing Conditions:
1. Sections 2.1a, 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 2.5.3 is amended by revising the first sentence to read
as set forth below.
3. New section 2.5.4.3 is added to read as set forth below.
4. Section 2.6a is amended by adding in the first sentence
``(RA05)'' after ``116-95.''
5. Section 2.6b is amended in the second sentence, and in the last
sentence, by removing ``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-05.''
6. Section 2.10.2 is amended in the third and fourth sentences, by
removing ``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-05.''
7. Section 2.10.3 is amended in the second sentence, by removing
``7.6.2,'' and adding in its place ``7.5.2,'' and by removing ``37-88''
and adding in its place ``37-05'' in the second and third sentences.
8. Section 2.11a is amended in the first sentence, by removing
``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-05.''
9. Section 2.13 is amended in the second sentence, by removing
``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-05.''
c. In section 3, Testing Procedures:
1. Section 3.1.1 is amended in the seventh sentence, by removing
``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-05.''
2. Section 3.1.4.1.1 title is revised and Table 2 to paragraph (c)
is revised to read as set forth below.
3. Section 3.1.5 is amended in the first sentence by removing ``37-
88'' and adding in its place ``37-05.''
4. Section 3.1.6 is amended in the first and second sentences, by
removing ``7.8.3.1 and 7.8.3.2'' and adding in its place ``7.7.2.1 and
7.7.2.2,'' and in the first sentence, by removing ``37-88'' and adding
in its place ``37-05'', and by adding a new sentence after the second
sentence, to read as set forth below.
5. Sections 3.2.3a. and 3.2.3d. are revised to read as set forth
below.
6. Table 5 to section 3.2.3 is revised to read as set forth below.
7. Section 3.2.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph c to read as
set forth below.
8. Table 6 to section 3.2.4 is revised to read as set forth below.
9. Section 3.3b is amended in both the first and second sentences,
by removing ``Table 5,'' and adding in its place ``Table 3,'' and in
the first sentence by removing ``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-
05.''
10. Section 3.3c is amended in the first sentence by removing
``section 7.3.3.1 of ASHRAE Standard 37-88,'' and adding in its place
``sections 7.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05.''
11. The title of sections 3.4 and 3.5 is revised to read as set
forth below.
12. Section 3.5e is revised to read as set forth below.
13. The first two sentences of section 3.5.3 are revised to read as
set forth below.
14. Section 3.6.3 is revised to read as set forth below.
15. Table 11 to section 3.6.3 is revised to read as set forth
below.
16. Section 3.6.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph c to read as
set forth below.
17. Table 12 to section 3.6.4 is revised to read as set forth
below.
18. Section 3.7a is amended in the fifth sentence by removing
``Table 5 of ASHRAE Standard 37-88'' and adding in its place ``Table 3
of ASHRAE Standard 37-05,'' and in the sixth sentence, by removing
``Table 5'' and adding in its place ``Table 3.''
19. Section 3.7b is amended by revising the first sentence to read
as set forth below.
20. The title of section 3.8 is revised to read as set forth below.
21. The introductory text (preceding the equation) for section
3.8.1 is revised to read as set forth below.
22. Section 3.9c is revised to read as set forth below.
23. Section 3.9f is amended by revising the fifth sentence to read
as set forth below.
24. 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.
25. Section 3.11.1.3b is revised to read as set forth below.
26. Section 3.11.2a is amended by revising the seventh sentence to
read as set forth below.
27. Section 3.11.2b is revised to read as set forth below.
28. Section 3.11.3 is revised to read as set forth below.
d. In section 4, CALCULATIONS OF SEASONAL PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTORS:
1. Section 4.1.3 is amended by revising the introductory text,
equations 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-2, and the paragraph preceding equation
4.1.3-3 to read as set forth below.
2. Section 4.1.3.3 is amended by revising the equation for PLFj and
the text between the equation and Table 16 to read as set forth below.
3. Section 4.1.4.2 is amended by adding text at the end of the
section to read as set forth below.
4. Section 4.2.3.3 is amended by revising the equation for PLFj and
the text following the equation to read as set forth below.
5. Section 4.2.4.2 is amended by adding text at the end of the
section to read as set forth below.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Appendix M to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
* * * * *
1. Definitions
* * * * *
1.37 Standard Air means dry air having a mass density of 0.075
lb/ft \3\.
* * * * *
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 37-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
430.22).
* * * * *
2.2 Test unit installation requirements. a. Install the unit
according to section 8.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 430.22). With respect to interconnecting tubing
used when testing split-systems, however, follow the requirements
given in section 6.1.3.5 of ARI Standard 210/240-2003 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 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 210/240-2003 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 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
non-ducted systems having multiple indoor coils, connect each indoor
fan-coil to the outdoor unit using: (a) 25 feet of tubing, or (b)
tubing furnished by the manufacturer, whichever is longer. If they
are needed to make a secondary measurement of capacity, install
refrigerant pressure measuring instruments as described in section
8.2.5 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
430.22). Refer to section 2.10 of this Appendix to learn which
secondary methods require refrigerant pressure measurements. At a
minimum, insulate the low-pressure line(s) of a split-system with
insulation having an inside diameter that matches the refrigerant
tubing and a nominal thickness of \1/2\ inch.
[[Page 41339]]
b. For units designed for both horizontal and vertical
installation or for both up-flow and down-flow vertical
installations, the manufacturer must specify the orientation used
for testing. Conduct testing with the following installed:
(1) The most restrictive filter(s);
(2) Supplementary heating coils; and
(3) Other equipment specified as part of the unit, including all
hardware used by a heat comfort controller if so equipped (see
Definition 1.28). For small-duct, 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 multi-split air conditioners and
heat pumps, and systems composed of multiple mini-split units
(outdoor units located side-by-side) that would normally operate
using two or more indoor thermostats. Allow the controls of the
multi-split or multiple mini-split air conditioner or heat pump (see
Definitions 1.30 and 1.29, respectively) to determine the number of
indoor coils, if any, whose fans are turned off during a given test.
For any indoor coil whose fan is automatically turned off during a
test, take steps to cease forced airflow through this indoor coil
and block its outlet duct. Because these types of systems will have
more than one indoor fan and possibly multiple outdoor fans and
compressor systems, references in this test procedure to a single
indoor fan, outdoor fan, and compressor means all indoor fans, all
outdoor fans, and all compressor systems that are active during a
test.
* * * * *
2.2.5 Charging according to the ``manufacturer's published
instructions,'' as stated in section 8.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.22), means the
manufacturer's installation instructions that come packaged with the
unit. If a unit requires charging but the installation instructions
do not specify a charging procedure, then evacuate the unit and add
the nameplate refrigerant charge. Where the manufacturer's
installation instructions contain two sets of refrigerant charging
criteria, one for field installations and one for lab testing, use
the field installation criteria. For third-party testing, the test
laboratory may consult with the manufacturer about the refrigerant
charging procedure and make any needed corrections so long as they
do not contradict the published installation instructions. The
manufacturer may specify an alternative charging criteria to the
third-party laboratory so long as the manufacturer thereafter
revises the published installation instructions accordingly.
* * * * *
2.4.1 Outlet plenum for the indoor unit. a. Attach a plenum to
the outlet of the indoor coil. (Note: for some packaged systems, the
indoor coil may be located in the outdoor test room.) For non-ducted
systems having multiple indoor coils, attach a plenum to each indoor
coil outlet. Add a static pressure tap to each face of the (each)
outlet plenum, if rectangular, or at four evenly distributed
locations along the circumference of an oval or round plenum. Create
a manifold that connects the four static pressure taps. Figure 1
shows two of the three options allowed for the manifold
configuration; the third option is the broken-ring, four-to-one
manifold configuration that is shown in Figure 7a of ASHRAE Standard
37-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.22). See Figures 7a,
7b, 7c, and 8 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 430.22) for the cross-sectional dimensions and minimum
length of the (each) plenum and the locations for adding the static
pressure taps for units tested with and without an indoor fan
installed. For a non-ducted system having multiple indoor coils,
have all outlet plenums discharge air into a single common duct. At
the plane where each plenum enters the common duct, install an
adjustable airflow damper and use it to equalize the static pressure
in each plenum. For multi-split units tested using more than one
indoor test room, create a common duct within each test room that
contains multiple indoor coils. Each common duct should feed a
separate outlet air temperature grid (section 2.5.4) and airflow
measuring apparatus (section 2.6).
b. For small-duct, high-velocity systems, install an outlet
plenum that has a diameter that is equal to or less than the value
listed below. The limit depends only on the cooling Full-Load Air
Volume Rate (see section 3.1.4.1.1) and is effective regardless of
the flange dimensions on the outlet of the unit (or an air supply
plenum adapter accessory, if installed in accordance with the
manufacturers installation instructions).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
diameter*
Cooling full-load air volume rate (SCFM) 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.
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
37-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 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 37-05 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 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 37-05 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 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. In order to minimize air leakage, adjust
this damper such that the pressure in the receiving chamber of the
airflow measuring apparatus is no more than 0.5 inches of water
higher than the surrounding test room ambient. In lieu of installing
a separate damper, use the outlet air damper box of Section 2.5 and
2.5.4.1 if it allows variable positioning. Also apply these steps to
any conventional indoor blower unit that creates a static pressure
within the receiving chamber of the airflow measuring apparatus that
exceeds the test room ambient pressure by more than 0.5 inches of
water.
* * * * *
3. Testing Procedures
* * * * *
3.1.4.1.1 Cooling Full-Load Air Volume Rate for Ducted Units. *
* *
* * * * *
c. * * *
Table 2.--Minimum External Static Pressure for Ducted Systems Tested
With an Indoor Fan Installed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum external resistance
(3) (inches of water)
Rated cooling (1) or heating (2) -------------------------------
capacity (Btu/h) Small-duct,
All other high-velocity
systems systems (4, 5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up Thru 28,800.......................... 0.10 1.10
[[Page 41340]]
29,000 to 42,500........................ 0.15 1.15
43,000 and Above........................ 0.20 1.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(1)\ For air conditioners and heat pumps, the value cited by the
manufacturer in published literature for the unit's capacity when
operated at the A or A2 Test conditions.
\(2)\ For heating-only heat pumps, the value the manufacturer cites in
published literature for the unit's capacity when operated at the H1
or H12 Test conditions.
\(3)\ For ducted units tested without an air filter installed, increase
the applicable tabular value by 0.08 inches of water.
\(4)\ See Definition 1.35 to determine if the equipment qualifies as a
small-duct, high-velocity system.
\(5)\ If a closed-loop, air-enthalpy test apparatus is used on the
indoor side, limit the resistance to airflow on the inlet side of the
indoor blower coil to a maximum value of 0.1 inches of water. Impose
the balance of the airflow resistance on the supply side.
* * * * *
3.1.6 * * * (Note: In the first printing of ASHRAE Standard 37-
2005, the second IP equation for Qmi should read,
1097CAn[radic]PvV'n.) * * *
* * * * *
3.2.3 Tests for a unit having a two-capacity 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 G1 Test and the
cyclic I1 Test, to determine the cooling-mode cyclic-
degradation coefficient,CcD. If the two
optional tests are not conducted, assign CcD
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, CcD (k = 2). If the two
optional tests are not conducted, assign CcD
(k = 2) the same value as determined or assigned for the low-
capacity cyclic-degradation coefficient, [or equivalently,
CcD (k = 1)].
Table 5.--Cooling Mode Test Conditions for Units Having a Two-Capacity Compressor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air entering Air entering
indoor unit outdoor unit
temperature temperature Compressor Cooling air volume
Test description ([deg]F) ([deg]F) capacity rate
----------------------------------------
Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A2 Test--required (steady, wet 80 67 95 (1) 75 High.............. Cooling Full-
coil). Load.\(2)\
B2 Test--required (steady, wet 80 67 82 (1) 65 High.............. Cooling Full-
coil). Load.(2)
B1 Test--required (steady, wet 80 67 82 (1) 65 Low............... Cooling
coil). Minimum.(3)
F1 Test--required (steady, wet 80 67 67 (1) 53.5 Low............... Cooling
coil). Minimum.(3)
G1 Test--optional (steady, dry- 80 (4) 67 ........ Low............... Cooling
coil). Minimum.(3)
I1 Test--optional (cyclic, dry- 80 (4) 67 ........ Low............... (5)
coil).
C2 Test--optional (steady, dry- 80 (4) 82 ........ High.............. Cooling Full-
coil). Load.(2)
D2 Test--optional (cyclic, dry- 80 (4) 82 ........ High.............. (6)
coil).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(1)\ The specified test condition only applies if the unit rejects condensate to the outdoor coil.
\(2)\ Defined in Section 3.1.4.1.
\(3)\ Defined in Section 3.1.4.2.
\(4)\ The entering air must have a low enough moisture content so no condensate forms on the indoor coil. DOE
recommends using an indoor air wet-bulb temperature of 57 [deg]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 C1 Test.
\(6)\ Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the
same pressure or velocity as measured during the C2 Test.
3.2.4 Tests for a unit having a variable-speed compressor. * * *
* * * * *
c. For multiple-split air conditioners and heat pumps (only),
the following procedures supersede the above requirements: For all
Table 6 tests specified for a minimum compressor speed, use the
compressor speed specified by the manufacturer. The manufacturer
should prescribe a speed that allows successful completion of the
Table 6 tests while deviating as little as possible from the unit's
actual lowest cooling-mode operating speed. The manufacturer must
also specify the compressor speed used for the Table 6 EV
Test, a cooling-mode intermediate compressor speed that falls within
\1/4\ and \3/4\ of the difference between the tested
[[Page 41341]]
maximum and minimum cooling-mode speeds. The manufacturer should
prescribe an intermediate speed that is expected to yield the
highest EER for the given EV Test conditions.
Table 6.--Cooling Mode Test Condition for Units Having a Variable-Speed Compressor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air entering Air entering
indoor unit outdoor unit
temperature temperature Cooling air volume
Test description ([deg]F) ([deg]F) Compressor speed rate
----------------------------------------
Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A2 Test--required (steady, wet 80 67 95 \(1)\ 75 Maximum \(2)\..... Cooling Full-
coil). Load.\(3)\
B2 Test--required (steady--wet 80 67 82 \(1)\ 65 Maximum \(2)\..... Cooling Full-
coil). Load.\(3)\
EV Test--required (steady, wet 80 67 87 \(1)\ 69 Intermediate...... Cooling
coil). Intermediate.\(4)
\
B1 Test--required (steady, wet 80 67 82 \(1)\ 65 Minimum........... Cooling
coil). Minimum.\(5)\
F1 Test--required (steady, wet 80 67 67 \(1)\ Minimum........... Cooling
coil). 53.5 Minimum.\(5)\
G1 Test \(6)\--optional (steady, 80 (\6\) 67 ........ Minimum........... Cooling
dry-coil). Minimum.\(5)\
I1 Test \(6)\--optional (cyclic, 80 (\6\) 67 ........ Minimum........... \(7)\
dry-coil).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(1)\The specified test condition only applies if the unit rejects condensate to the outdoor coil.
\(2)\Configured for the maximum continuous duty operation as allowed by the unit's controls.
\(3)\Defined in Section 3.1.4.1.
\(4)\Defined in Section 3.1.4.3.
\(5)\Defined in Section 3.1.4.2.
\(6)\The entering air must have a low enough moisture content so no condensate forms on the indoor coil. DOE
recommends using an indoor air wet bulb temperature of 57 [deg]F or less.
\(7)\Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the
same pressure difference or velocity pressure as measured during the G1 Test.
* * * * *
3.4 Test procedures for the optional steady-state dry-coil
cooling-mode tests (the C, C1, C2, and
G1 Tests).
* * * * *
3.5 Test procedures for the optional cyclic dry-coil cooling-
mode tests (the D, D1, D2, and I1
Tests).
* * * * *
e. For consecutive compressor OFF/ON cycles, evaluate whether
the below criterion for repeatable results is met. After completing
a minimum of two complete OFF/ON compressor cycles, determine the
overall cooling delivered and total electrical energy consumption
during any subsequent data collection interval where the test
tolerances given in Table 8 and the below criterion for repeatable
results is satisfied.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.041
For the above criterion, m represents the cycle number and
[Ggr], ecyc,dry, and [Delta][tgr]cyc,dry are defined later in this
same section. If available, use electric resistance heaters (see
Section 2.1) to minimize the variation in the inlet air temperature.
* * * * *
3.5.3 Cooling-mode cyclic-degradation coefficient calculation.
Use the two optional dry-coil tests to determine the cooling-mode
cyclic-degradation coefficient, CcD. Append
``(k=2)'' to the coefficient if it corresponds to a two-capacity
unit cycling at high capacity. If the two optional tests are not
conducted, assign CcD the default value of
0.25. The default value for two-capacity units cycling at high
capacity, however, is the low-capacity coefficient, i.e.,
CcD (k=2) =CcD. Evaluate
CcD using the above results and those from the
section 3.4 dry-coil steady-state test.* * *
* * * * *
3.6.3 Tests for a heat pump having a 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 [deg]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 [deg]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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.001
Determine the quantities Qk=1h (47) and
Ek=1h (47) from the H11 Test and
evaluate them according to Section 3.7. Determine the quantities
Qk=1h (17)and Ek=1h (17)
from the H31 Test and evaluate them according to Section
3.10. b. Conduct the optional Maximum Temperature Cyclic Test
(H0C1) to determine the heating-mode cyclic-degradation
coefficient, ChD. If this optional test is not
conducted, assign ChD 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
heating-mode
[[Page 41342]]
cyclic-degradation coefficient, ChD (k=2). If
this optional test at high capacity is not conducted, assign
ChD (k=2) the same value as determined or
assigned for the low-capacity cyclic-degradation coefficient,
ChD [or equivalently,
ChD (k=1)]. Table 11 specifies test conditions
for these nine tests.
Table 11.--Heating Mode Test Conditions for Units Having a Two-Capacity Compressor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air entering Air entering
indoor unit outdoor unit
temperature temperature Compressor Heating air volume
Test description ([deg]F) ([deg]F) capacity rate
----------------------------------------
Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H01 Test (required, steady)..... 70 (max)60 62 56.5 Low............... Heating
Minimum.(1)
H0C1 Test (optional, cyclic).... 70 (max)60 62 56.5 Low............... (2)
H12 Test (required, steady)..... 70 (max)60 47 43 High.............. Heating Full-
Load.(3)
H1C2 Test (optional, cyclic).... 70 (max)60 47 43 High.............. (4)
H11 Test (required)............. 70 (max)60 47 43 Low............... Heating
Minimum.(1)
H22 Test (required)............. 70 (max)60 35 33 High.............. Heating Full-
Load.(3)
H21 Test (5, 6) (required)...... 70 (max)60 35 33 Low............... Heating
Minimum.(3)
H32 Test (required, steady)..... 70 (max)60 17 15 High.............. Heating Full-
Load.(3)
H31 Test (5) (required, steady). 70 (max)60 17 15 Low............... Heating
Minimum.(1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Defined in Section 3.1.4.5.
(2) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the
same pressure or velocity as measured during the H01 Test.
(3) Defined in Section 3.1.4.4.
(4) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the
same pressure or velocity as measured during the H12 Test.
(5) Required only if the heat pump's performance when operating at low compressor capacity and outdoor
temperatures less than 37 [deg]F is needed to complete the Section 4.2.3 HSPF calculations.
(6) If table note 5 applies, the Section 3.6.3 equations for Qhk=1 (35) and Ehk=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.
* * * * *
c. For multiple-split heat pumps (only), the following
procedures supersede the above requirements: For all Table 12 tests
specified for a minimum compressor speed, use the compressor speed
specified by the manufacturer. The manufacturer should prescribe a
speed that allows successful completion of the Table 12 tests while
deviating as little as possible from the heat pump's actual lowest
heating-mode operating speed. The manufacturer must also specify the
compressor speed used for the Table 12 H2V Test, a
heating-mode intermediate compressor speed that falls within \1/4\
and \3/4\ of the difference between the tested maximum and minimum
heating-mode speeds. The manufacturer should prescribe an
intermediate speed that is expected to yield the highest COP for the
given H2V Test conditions.
Table 12.--Heating Mode Test Condition for Units Having a Variable-Speed Compressor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air entering Air entering
indoor unit outdoor unit
temperature temperature Heating air volume
Test description ([deg]F) ([deg]F) Compressor speed rate
----------------------------------------
Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H01 Test (required, steady)..... 70 (max) 60 62 56.5 Minimum........... Heating Minimum
(1)
H0C1 Test (optional, steady).... 70 (max) 60 62 56.5 Minimum........... (2)
H12 Test (required, steady)..... 70 (max) 60 47 43 Maximum (3)....... Heating Full-Load
(4)
H11 Test (required, steady)..... 70 (max) 60 47 43 Minimum........... Heating Minimum
(1)
H1N Test (optional, steady)..... 70 (max) 60 47 43 Cooling Mode Heating Nominal
Maximum. (5)
H22 Test (optional)............. 70 (max) 60 35 33 Maximum (3)....... Heating Full-Load
(4)
H2V Test........................ 70 (max) 60 35 33 Intermediate...... Heating
Intermediate (6)
H32 Test (required, steady)..... 70 (max) 60 17 15 Maximum (3)....... Heating Full-Load
(4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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) Configured for the maximum continuous duty operation as allowed by the unit's controls when heating.
(4) Defined in Section 3.1.4.4.
(5) Defined in Section 3.1.4.7.
(6) Defined in Section 3.1.4.6.
* * * * *
3.7 a. * * *
b. Calculate indoor-side total heating capacity as specified in
sections 7.3.4.1 and 7.3.4.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 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 cyclic degradation coefficient calculation.
Use the results from the optional cyclic test and the required
steady-state test that were conducted at the same test conditions to
determine the heating-mode cyclic-degradation coefficient,
ChD. Add ``(k=2)'' to the coefficient if it
corresponds to a two-capacity unit cycling at high capacity. If the
optional test is not conducted, assign ChD the
default value of
[[Page 41343]]
0.25. The default value for two-capacity units cycling at high
capacity, however, is the low-capacity coefficient, i.e.,
ChD(k = 2) = ChD. * * *
* * * * *
3.9 * * *
c. The official test period begins when the preliminary test
period ends, at defrost termination. The official test period ends
at the termination of the next occurring automatic defrost cycle.
When testing a heat pump that uses a time-adaptive defrost control
system (see Definition 1.42), however, manually initiate the defrost
cycle that ends the official test period at the instant indicated by
instructions provided by the manufacturer. If the heat pump has not
undergone a defrost after 12 hours, immediately conclude the test
and use the results from the full 12-hour period to calculate the
average space heating capacity and average electrical power
consumption. For the H21 Test, use a maximum official
test period of 6 hours instead of 12 hours. For heat pumps that turn
the indoor fan off during the defrost cycle, take steps to cease
forced airflow through the indoor coil and block the outlet duct
whenever the heat pump's controls cycle off the indoor fan. If it is
installed, use the outlet damper box described in section 2.5.4.1 to
affect the blocked outlet duct.
* * * * *
f. * * * Sample measurements used in calculating the air volume
rate (refer to sections 7.7.2.1 and 7.7.2.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.002
* * * * *
3.9.1 Average space heating capacity and electrical power
calculations.
a. * * *
To account for the effect of duct loses, adjust
Qkh (35) in accordance with section 7.3.4.3 of
ASHRAE Standard 37-05.
* * * * *
3.11.1.3 Official test.
* * * * *
b. For space cooling tests, calculate capacity from the outdoor
air-enthalpy measurements as specified in section 7.3.3.2 of ASHRAE
Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.22).
Calculate heating capacity based on outdoor air-enthalpy
measurements as specified in section 7.3.4.2 of the same ASHRAE
Standard. Adjust outdoor-side capacities according to section
7.3.3.4 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 430.22) to account for line losses when testing split systems.
Do not correct the average electrical power measurement as described
in section 8.6.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 430.22).
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 Sec. 430.22),
ASHRAE Standard 41.9-00 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
430.22), and section 7.4 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by
reference, see Sec. 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 37-05
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.22).
3.11.3 If using the Refrigerant-Enthalpy Method as the secondary
test method. Conduct this secondary method according to section 7.5
of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
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 two-capacity compressor. Calculate SEER using Equation 4.1-
1. Evaluate the space cooling capacity, Qk=1c
(Tj) , and electrical power consumption,
Ek=1c (Tj) , of the test unit when
operating at low compressor capacity and outdoor temperature
Tj using,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.004
where Qk=1c (82) and
Ek=1c (82) are determined from the
B1 Test, Qk=1c (67) and
Ek=1c (67) and Ek=1 c
(67) are determined from the F1 Test, and all are
calculated as specified in section 3.3. Evaluate the space cooling
capacity, Qk=2c (Tj), and
electrical power consumption, Ek=2c
(Tj), of the test unit when operating at high compressor
capacity and outdoor temperature Tj using,
* * * * *
4.1.3.3 * * *
PLFj = 1 -CcD (k = 2) . [1 -
Xk=2 (Tj)], the part load factor,
dimensionless.
Obtain the fraction bin hours for the cooling season,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.040
from Table 16. Use Equations 4.1.3-3 and 4.1.3-4, respectively, to
evaluate Qk=2 c(Tj) and
Ek=2c (Tj). Use Cc
D (k=2) as determined in sections 3.2.3 and 3.5.3.
* * * * *
4.1.4.2 * * *
For multiple-split air conditioners and heat pumps (only), the
following procedures supersede the above requirements for
calculating EERk=i (Tj). For each temperature
bin where T1 < Tj < Tv,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.005
For each temperature bin where Tv <= Tj <
T2,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.006
[[Page 41344]]
* * * * *
4.2.3.3 * * * .
PLFj = 1 - ChD (k = 2) [middot] [1
- Xk=2 (Tj)].
Use ChD (k = 2) as determined in sections
3.6.3 and 3.8.1. Determine the low temperature cut-out factor,
[delta]' (Tj), using Equation 4.2.3-3.
* * * * *
4.2.4.2 * * *
For multiple-split air conditioners and heat pumps (only), the
following procedures supersede the above requirements for
calculating COPk=ih (Tj). For each
temperature bin where T3 > Tj >
Tvh,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.007
For each temperature bin where Tvh >= Tj >
T4,
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.008
* * * * *
6. Section 430.62 is amended in subpart F by revising paragraphs
(a)(4)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 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 furnace,
the certification report shall include the product class (as denoted in
Sec. 430.32, manufacturer's name, private labeler's name (if
applicable) and manufacturer's model number of the furnace.
(ii) Central air conditioning heat pumps, the seasonal energy
efficiency ratio and heating seasonal performance factor. For central
air conditioner heat pumps whose seasonal energy efficiency ratio and/
or heating seasonal performance factor is based on an installation that
includes a particular model of furnace, the certification report shall
include the product class (as denoted in Sec. 430.32), manufacturer's
name, private labeler's name (if applicable) and manufacturer's model
number of the furnace.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-6320 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P