[Federal Register: October 22, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 203)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59905-59934]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22oc07-8]
[[Page 59905]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 430
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for
Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps; Final Rule
[[Page 59906]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EE-RM/TP-02-002]
RIN 1904-AB55
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure
for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its test procedure
for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. This final
rule implements test procedure changes for small-duct, high-velocity
systems, two-capacity units, and updates references to the current
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) standards. Today's rule also clarifies issues
associated with sampling tested systems and rating untested split-
system combinations.
DATES: This rule is effective April 21, 2008. Incorporation by
reference of certain publications in the final rule is approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of April 21, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may review copies of all materials related to this
rulemaking at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room
1J-018 (Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program), 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, (202) 586-9127, between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please
call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the above telephone number for
additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room. Please
note: DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room (formerly Room 1E-190
at the Forrestal Building) is no longer housing rulemaking materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-2J, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9611, e-
mail: michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov; or Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-72, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9507, e-
mail: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions
II. Discussion of Comments
A. Frost Accumulation Test Duration
B. Multiple-Split Systems
C. Defining ``Repeatable'' for Cyclic Tests
D. Outdoor Air Test Conditions for Units Having a Two-Capacity
Compressor
E. Air Volume Rate Less Than Manufacturer's Specified Value
F. Updating References to Industry Standards
G. Maximum and Minimum Speed Values for Calculating
NQ and NE
H. Using the Default or Tested Value of Cyclic-Degradation
Coefficient
I. Guidance on the Inclusion of Pre-Production Units in the
Sample Population
J. Clarification of the Sample Population Used To Validate the
Rated Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal
Performance Factor of Heat Pumps
K. Clarification of the Definition of a ``Highest-Sales-Volume
Combination''
L. Upper Limit on the Difference Between Calculated and Tested
Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal Performance
Factor Values
M. Clarification of the Published Ratings for Untested Split-
System Combinations
N. Ratings That Are Based on Using a Particular Furnace or
Ducted Air Mover
O. Revisions to the Definition of ``Coil Family''
III. Summary of Other Additions, Changes, and Corrections to the
Department of Energy Residential Central Air Conditioner and Heat
Pump Test Procedure
IV. Effect of Test Procedure Revisions on Compliance With Standards
V. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles (Program). (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.) The
products currently subject to this Program (covered products) include
central air conditioners and heat pumps, the subject of today's final
rule.
Under EPCA, the Program consists of three parts: Testing, labeling,
and the Federal energy conservation standards. DOE, in consultation
with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), is
authorized to establish or amend test procedures as appropriate for
each of the covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293) The purpose of these
test procedures is to measure energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a
representative, average use cycle or period of use. The test procedure
must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
If a test procedure is amended, DOE is required to determine to
what extent, if any, the proposed new test procedure would alter the
measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under
the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines
that an amended test procedure would alter the measured energy
efficiency of a covered product, DOE is required to amend the
applicable energy conservation standard with respect to such test
procedure. In determining any such amended energy conservation
standard, DOE is required to measure the energy efficiency or energy
use of a representative sample of covered products that minimally
comply with the existing standard. The average efficiency or energy use
of this representative sample, tested using the amended test procedure,
constitutes the amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) DOE has
determined that today's amended test procedure does not alter the
measured efficiency or measured energy use of minimally compliant
central air conditioners and heat pumps.
Beginning 180 days after a test procedure for a covered product is
prescribed, no manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler
may make representations with respect to the energy use, efficiency, or
cost of energy consumed by such product, except as reflected in tests
conducted according to the DOE procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) Any
manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler may petition
the Secretary of Energy for an extension of not more than 180 days to
test and make representations in accordance with the amended DOE test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) In addition, all existing waivers
concerning residential multi-split
[[Page 59907]]
systems terminate on the effective date of today's final rule.
B. Background
A final rule published on October 11, 2005, updated and completely
re-organized the DOE residential central air conditioner and heat pump
test procedure. 70 FR 59122. During this prior rulemaking, a few issues
were identified too late in the process to allow them due
consideration. DOE investigated these issues and considered additional
topics that could further improve the testing and rating process. As a
result of these efforts, DOE issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
July 20, 2006 (hereafter referred to as the July 2006 proposed rule).
71 FR 41320. Although the majority of the proposed changes pertained to
the test procedure set forth in appendix M to subpart B of Title 10,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 430 (10 CFR part 430), DOE also
proposed revisions to sections of subparts B and F of 10 CFR part 430
that concern the sampling of tested units and the ratings of untested
split-system combinations. 10 CFR 430.24 and 430.62. DOE held a public
meeting on the July 2006 proposed rule on August 23, 2006.
On October 10, 2006, DOE published a Federal Register notice
correcting two inadvertent omissions in the July 2006 proposed rule. 71
FR 59410. These omissions contained the regulatory language governing
the criterion for using an air volume rate that is less than the
manufacturer's specified value: One case covered air conditioners and
heat pumps, the other case covered heating-only heat pumps. This change
was described in the preamble of the July 2006 proposed rule, but was
not included in the regulatory language. In addition to publishing the
corrected regulatory language in the Federal Register, the omitted
regulatory language was distributed at the August 23, 2006, public
meeting.
C. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions
The revisions adopted in today's final rule include the following
changes to appendix M of Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430: (1) Adding new
testing requirements for small-duct, high-velocity systems; (2)
reinstating the optional testing to determine the cyclic-degradation
coefficient (CD) of a two-capacity unit when cycling on and
off at high capacity; (3) shortening the maximum duration of the Frost
Accumulation Tests; (4) allowing the use of default equations to
approximate the capacity and power of a two-capacity unit when
operating at low-capacity/stage and at an outdoor temperature of 35
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F); (5) implementing modifications and
additions that specifically address elements unique to testing and
rating modulating multi-split systems; (6) allowing indoor capacities
used in calculating Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) and Heating
Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF) to be corrected for duct losses; (7)
defining the term ``standard air;'' (8) changing the outdoor
temperature conditions used for one of the low-capacity, steady-state,
cooling mode tests on a two-capacity unit; (9) renaming ``Cooling and
Heating Certified Air Volume Rates'' to ``Full-Load Air Volume Rates;''
(10) modifying the criterion for using an air volume rate less than the
manufacturer's specified value; (11) updating the references to current
versions of the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and
ASHRAE standards; (12) adding language to better explain the SEER and
HSPF calculation steps for variable-speed equipment; and (13) adding
text to clarify the provision to use the default value of the cyclic-
degradation coefficient if it is lower than the tested value.
Today's final rule also amends sections 430.2, 430.24 and 430.62 of
10 CFR part 430, as follows: (1) It expands the options for meeting the
data submission requirements when verifying an alternative rating
method (ARM); (2) it clarifies the sample population to be used to
validate the rated SEER and rated HSPF of a heat pump; (3) it clarifies
the definition of a ``highest-sales-volume combination'' (HSVC); (4) it
clarifies DOE's role in verifying ratings for untested split system
combinations; (5) it clarifies how to apply the ARM to obtain published
ratings for untested, split-system combinations; (6) it adds the
requirement that ratings for an air conditioner or heat pump tested
with a furnace or similar ducted air mover include the model number of
the air mover as part of the overall equipment model number; (7) it
clarifies the responsibilities of private labelers; (8) it adds the
statutory definition of ``private labeler;'' and (9) it adds
definitions for terms, including ``indoor unit'', ``outdoor unit'', and
``ARM/simulation adjustment factor.''
II. Discussion of Comments
In addition to the comments received at the August 23, 2006, public
meeting, DOE received written comments to the July, 2006 proposed rule
from ARI, Nordyne, Mitsubishi, Fujitsu General Limited (Fujitsu),
Carrier Corporation (Carrier), the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Sanyo Fisher Service Corporation (Sanyo),
Lennox International (Lennox), and the China WTO/TBT National
Notification and Enquiry Center (China). The comments and the DOE
response to them are discussed below. References to section numbers
within this document refer to the section numbers of Appendix M to
Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430-Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps (Appendix
M).
A. Frost Accumulation Test Duration
DOE proposed shortening the maximum test interval of a Frost
Accumulation Test from 12 hours to 6 hours when testing a two-capacity
heat pump at low capacity. ARI supported DOE's proposal to lessen the
test burden, but recommended that the maximum duration be further
shortened to 3 hours. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 2)\1\ ARI stated that
``preliminary testing done by manufacturers shows a variation in HSPF
of less than one tenth \2\ when the test is reduced from 12 to 3
hours.'' (ARI, Id.) In a follow-up communication, ARI clarified that
its 3-hour recommendation applies to all Frost Accumulation Tests, not
just the test at low-capacity. (ARI, No. 25 at p. 2) ARI provided a
table showing the percentage of the total interval allocated to
defrosting for cycles lasting 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 minutes; percentages
were calculated for complete (frost + defrost) intervals ranging from 1
hour to 12 hours. As an example, for tests lasting 12, 6, and 3 hours,
the percentages of time spent defrosting are 1.1, 2.2, and 4.4 percent,
respectively, if the defrost lasts 8 minutes in all cases. (ARI, No. 25
at p. 3) In addition to recommending that any change be applied to all
Frost Accumulation Tests, Nordyne and Carrier recommended manufacturers
be given the option of using either the procedure specified in ASHRAE
Standard 37 (which uses a maximum test interval of 3 hours) or the
algorithm specified in the DOE test procedure. (Nordyne, No. 19 at p.
2; Carrier, No. 17
[[Page 59908]]
at p. 2) In summary, the stakeholders recommended applying changes to
all Frost Accumulation Tests (not just to the one low-capacity test, as
proposed), reducing the maximum duration to 3 hours instead of 6 hours,
and adding an alternative test method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A notation in the form ``ARI, No.21 at p. 2'' identifies a
written comment the Department has received and has included in the
docket of this rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a
comment (1) by the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute
(ARI), (2) in document number 21 in the docket of this rulemaking
(maintained in the Resource Room of the Building Technologies
Program), and (3) appearing on page 2 of document number 21.
Likewise, ``Public Hearing Tr., p. 178,'' for example, would refer
to page 178 of the transcript of the ``Public Meeting on Test
Procedures for Central Air Conditioners'' held in Washington, DC,
August 23, 2006.
\2\ This means an absolute variation in HSPF of 0.1, such as
between 8.1 and 8.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE believes that if all three changes were adopted, the HSPF
ratings of heat pumps would be changed, since the ASHRAE Standard 37
``T'' Test Procedure may terminate after 0, 1, 2, or 3 complete cycles
whereas the DOE Frost Accumulation Test is either 0 or 1 complete
cycle. The different cycles in the ASHRAE and DOE test methods can
yield different average heating capacity and power consumption results
at the DOE-specified 35 [deg]F dry-bulb/33 [deg]F wet-bulb outdoor test
conditions which would affect the HSPF rating. As for shortening the
maximum test time to 3 hours, such a change may benefit heat pumps
(i.e., give a higher average heating capacity) that initiate a defrost
of the outdoor coils between 3 and 6 hours after the start of the test.
In such cases, the heat pump's average heating capacity will not
account for the energy used for defrosting. By not accounting for the
defrost energy, the shorter test time would overstate the heating
capacity and HSPF. Thus, DOE will not reduce the maximum test duration
by the additional 3 hours or add the ASHRAE Standard 37 procedure as an
alternate test method as part of this final rule.
DOE agrees with comments recommending the same maximum limit for
all Frost Accumulation Tests. The low-capacity Frost Accumulation Test
is projected to be the most likely of the 35 [deg]F tests to approach
the proposed 6-hour limit, followed by the required Frost Accumulation
Test at the intermediate speed when testing a variable-speed heat pump.
All other Frost Accumulation Tests are more likely to build frost and
are likely to result in the unit defrosting in less time than it would
at the intermediate speed. Thus, triggering the 6-hour limit is less
likely when applied to these other cases. Finally, DOE concludes that 6
hours offers a sufficiently long duration for evaluating performance in
all cases. As noted in the July 2006 proposed rule, if a heat pump has
not defrosted in 6 hours, it is either not building frost or is
completely frosted and probably has been so for more than half of the
interval. In both cases, the benefits from continuing to run the test
past 6 hours are minimal. Therefore, DOE reduces the maximum duration
of all Frost Accumulation Tests from 12 hours to 6 hours. This change
appears in section 3.9 of Appendix M.
B. Multiple-Split Systems
DOE received comments on issues related to the testing and rating
of multiple-split air-conditioning systems (multi-split systems),
including: (1) Rating multi-split systems based on SEER (if they
compete primarily with ducted central air conditioners), or rating them
based on EER (if they compete with room air conditioners) (SEER or
EER); (2) adopting a separate test procedure for multi-split systems,
such as Draft ARI Standard 1230 (ARI 1230); (3) allowing one or more
indoor coils to turn off during any test, if representative of normal
operation (Coils active during test); (4) allowing the manufacturer to
specify the compressor speed used during the minimum-speed,
intermediate-speed and maximum-speed tests (Compressor speed); (5)
extending multi-split system test procedure changes to one-to-one
ducted systems (One-to-one applicability); and (6) adding the term
``tested combination'' within 10 CFR 430.2 for determining the
combination of indoor units to be tested when testing a multi-split
outdoor unit, and the appropriate rating of the tested combination
(Tested combination).
SEER or EER. DOE received several comments on whether multi-split
systems compete primarily with ducted residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps and as such, should be rated based on SEER
and HSPF, or if they compete with room air conditioners and should be
rated in terms of EER and COP. Trane argues that residential size
multi-split systems compete for the same markets as ducted residential
central systems: both serve multiple rooms, one ducts air whereas the
second ``ducts'' refrigerant. (Public Hearing Tr., p. 178) Carrier and
ACEEE support rating conventional central air conditioners and heat
pumps and multi-split systems using the same descriptors. (Carrier, No.
17 at p. 1 and ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 3) According to Mitsubishi,
``ductless split-systems, including ductless multi-split systems, are
used for room or spot cooling applications while the rest of the USE
[unitary small equipment] equipment (i.e., central systems) is applied
in a ducted environment for multiple rooms or whole houses.''
(Mitsubishi, No. 20 at p. 3) DOE believes residential-size multi-split
systems compete with ducted central systems and that the consumer will
be best served if multi-split systems can be compared with central air
conditioners and central air-conditioning heat pumps. Therefore, DOE
concludes that SEER and HSPF are better descriptors than EER and COP.
ARI 1230. ARI, Sanyo, Fujitsu, Mitsubishi, and Daikin AC
(Americas), Inc. (Daikin) urged DOE to adopt Draft ARI Standard 1230,
``Performance Rating of Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment'' in lieu of the proposed rule. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 3; Sanyo,
No. 15 at pp. 2-3; Fujitsu, No. 13 at p. 3; Mitsubishi, No. 20 at pp.
4-5; Public Hearing Tr., pp. 153-154) China recommends that DOE not
cover multi-split systems within the residential central air
conditioner and heat pump test procedure until all the technical issues
have been resolved. (China, No. 14 at p. 1) Copeland recommends that
DOE review and consider the approaches being taken by China and the
European Union on how to test and rate multi-split systems. (Public
Hearing Tr., p. 64) Nordyne supports the changes proposed in the July
2006 proposed rule to cover multi-split systems as an interim solution,
but states that further study is needed for a long term solution.
(Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 2) Lennox, on the other hand, believes that
multi-split systems should be rated using the current test procedure
for central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps.
(Lennox, No. 22 at p. 2) Sanyo and Fujitsu point out that the test
procedure does not address units that can simultaneously cool and heat;
the test procedure does not specify how many indoor units are turned
off during a given test; and doubts whether the current DOE tests for
variable-speed systems can approximate the unit's ``performance map.''
\3\ (Sanyo, No. 15 at pp. 2-3; Fujitsu, No. 13 at pp. 2-3; Public
Hearing Tr., pp. 94-95, 110)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Performance map refers to a plot that shows the effect of
compressor speed, number of indoor unit turned on versus off, and
outdoor temperature conditions on the unit's space conditioning
capacity and power consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is not convinced that residential-size multi-split systems
require a separate test procedure from the current test procedure found
in Appendix M. While it is true that the current test procedure fails
to account for the energy savings derived from a simultaneous cooling
and heating mode, the current test procedure is adaptable and DOE
believes the tests for variable-speed systems in Appendix M offer a
reasonable starting point for producing energy efficiency and energy
use estimates. Once data become available that provides insight as to
the energy use and efficiency benefits of simultaneous cooling and
heating, and alternative or additional tests to estimate these benefits
are formulated, DOE will then consider further
[[Page 59909]]
amendments to the test procedure. Accordingly, DOE is not adopting a
new test procedure and energy efficiency and energy use ratings will
continue to be based on the test procedure found in Appendix M.
Regarding the stakeholder recommendation to adopt draft ARI
Standard 1230, the current draft (as distributed in June 2007), is less
complete for residential multi-split systems than the DOE test
procedure in today's final rule. For example, ARI Standard 1230 (June
2007 draft) lacks information on how to conduct intermediate speed
tests, whether any indoor units are to be turned off for part-load
tests, how to interpolate EER and COP in the intermediate speed range,
and generally how to calculate SEER and HSPF. Furthermore, ARI has not
finalized ARI Standard 1230 and, as such it cannot be incorporated by
reference since it could be amended prior to being adopted in final
form. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, DOE is not adopting
ARI Standard 1230 (June 2007 draft) in today's final rule.
As for considering changes that are modeled on the approaches taken
in China and the European Union, DOE sees their potential use as
limited given the current EPCA requirement to calculate annual measures
of energy consumption. The European Union HVAC trade association,
Eurovent, lists ratings for residential-size multi-splits that are
based on full load EER and COP and their European SEER (ESEER) is thus
far limited to liquid chilling packages, not unitary air conditioners
(i.e., residential central air conditioners and central air
conditioning heat pumps). The ESEER is actually a variation of ARI
Standard 340/360's IPLV, which is used to quantify the part-load
performance of larger, non-residential systems. An IPLV equivalent is
also used in China. Neither international resource explicitly addresses
the number of indoor units to be turned off during a given part-load
test; such information would be necessary in order to get an accurate
measure of equipment efficiency for comparison purposes.
Coils active during test. Concerning the issue of whether one or
more indoor units should be turned off during any given test, Daikin
commented that you cannot rely on the unit's controls to make the
decision when operated in a laboratory environment. (Public Hearing
Tr., p. 62) Given this, DOE offered, at the public meeting, an
algorithm for specifying the number of indoor units that are turned on
for a given test. This algorithm is shown in Table 1, below. To
evaluate the effect of such an algorithm, Fujitsu conducted simulations
in which it modeled the performance of a unit if operated at the DOE
test procedure cooling mode conditions. Fujitsu considered cases where
the number of indoor units turned on for the two minimum speed and one
intermediate speed tests changed. Fujitsu reported results for three
cases: the first case, all four indoor units are on for all tests; the
second case, three indoor units are on for the intermediate speed test
and two indoor units are on for the minimum speed tests; and the third
case, two indoor units are on for the intermediate-speed test and one
indoor unit is on for the minimum speed tests. (Fujitsu, No. 13 at pp.
1-2) Using the simulated data, Fujitsu reported that the first case
yields the highest SEER. In comparison, Fujitsu reported that the SEER
drops by 4.7 percent for the second case and by 11.6 percent for the
third case. Fujitsu concluded that the number of operating indoor units
may have a great impact on the result, and that the operating ranges in
Table 1 were not appropriate.
Table 1.--Approach to Regulating the Number of Active Indoor Units
(Example Case of a Multi-Split System Having 4 Identical Indoor Units)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Percentage output relative to full load capacity operating
indoor units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
75% to 100%............................................. 4
50% to 75%.............................................. 3
25% to 50%.............................................. 2
0% to 25%............................................... 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(DOE, No. 12.3 at p. 12)
DOE recognizes that when field installed, a multi-split system will
often operate with one or more of its indoor units turned off. In an
effort to have the DOE test procedure capture this part-load operating
mechanism, today's final rule requires that at least one indoor unit
must be turned off for tests conducted at minimum compressor speed. In
addition, the manufacturer may elect to have one or more indoor units
turned off for tests conducted at the intermediate compressor speed. In
all cases, the manufacturer specifies the particular indoor unit(s)
that is turned off.
Compressor speed. ARI, Sanyo, Fujitsu, and Mitsubishi opposed DOE's
proposed definition of maximum compressor speed. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 2;
Sanyo, No. 15 at p. 2; Fujitsu, No. 13 at p. 2; Mitsubishi, No. 20 at
p. 4) They recommended using the rated capacity or nominal rated speed
because performance at that compressor speed is used in sizing and
selling the product. ARI and Sanyo supported DOE's proposal to allow
the manufacturer to specify the compressor speed used for the minimum-
speed and intermediate-speed tests. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 2; Sanyo, No. 15
at p. 2) Sanyo and ARI, moreover, both believe that test laboratories
must accept the task of providing test facilities that can maintain
steady test room conditions and accurately measure capacity at very low
loads. (ARI, No. 21 on pp. 2-3; Sanyo, No. 15 on p. 2)
Regarding the maximum and minimum compressor speed issue, DOE
reviewed test procedure waivers processed in the 1980's, and the 1988
test procedure rulemaking that first added coverage for air
conditioners and heat pumps having a variable-speed compressor. (53 FR
8304, March 14, 1988) None of these actions explicitly defined maximum
and minimum compressor speed. Instead, the manufacturer was allowed to
define these speeds for its particular units. The evolution to include
maximum and minimum compressor speeds among those elements that are
``conducted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions''
occurred because of the test laboratory's need for a mechanism to
override the unit's normal controls, so that the compressor can be
forced to operate at fixed speeds for the DOE-specified lab tests. As
part of today's final rule, DOE considered adopting a specific
definition for maximum speed and requiring additional lab verification
tests, but has decided against it because there is no compelling
technical argument for doing so. The current approach effectively
allows the manufacturer to de-rate the unit's maximum capacity in order
to raise its performance descriptor. As long as that de-rated capacity
is used for sizing the particular multi-split combination, then the
practice is acceptable. DOE, however, does not agree with substituting
``nominal'' or ``rated'' compressor speed for ``maximum'' compressor
speed, as that will not allow for test results that can be used to
generate a performance map representing how particular multi-split
combinations will operate in the field.
The DOE test procedure will continue to require variable-speed
systems to be tested at their minimum compressor speed. Manufacturers
will be relied upon to provide the independent testing laboratory with
a means for conducting tests at this speed. Minimum speed may not be
the absolute minimum speed at which the compressor can operate, but
[[Page 59910]]
it is expected to be a speed below which the compressor would rarely
operate. DOE concurs with Sanyo and ARI and expects test laboratories
to measure performance over the wide modulation range that is
characteristic of multi-splits. Thus, to the issue of what compressor
speed to use when conducting minimum speed and maximum speed tests, DOE
is maintaining the current test procedure language in sections 3.2.4
and 3.6.4 of Appendix M.
DOE adopts the July 2006 proposed change of allowing the
manufacturer to specify the compressor speed used for the cooling and
heating intermediate speed/capacity tests. This change provides the
manufacturer an opportunity to select and verify the peak-efficiency of
the unit being tested. Coupled with this change, and as also proposed
in the July 2006 notice, steady-state efficiency (EER and COP) over the
intermediate-speed range shall be calculated using piece-wise linear
fits: a line connecting the minimum- and intermediate-speed balance
points and a line connecting the intermediate- and maximum-speed
balance points.
One-to-one applicability. Carrier noted the need for transparency
in testing and manufacturer test results so that interested parties can
verify the performance claims without having to consult the
manufacturer. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2) Trane and ARI pointed out that
any steps introduced to facilitate testing and rating modulating multi-
split systems should also be allowed for modulating one-to-one ducted
systems to promote comparability. (Public Hearing Tr., pp. 87 and 118;
ARI, No. 21 at p. 3) With respect to Carrier's comment, variable-speed
systems do not lend themselves to being tested by a third party who
does not have the cooperation of the outdoor unit manufacturer. Third-
party certification programs thus become especially important as they
offer the primary pathway for independent verification. For those
multi-split products that are not covered by a third-party
certification program, DOE can request from the manufacturer the
information needed to conduct such testing along with reviewing the lab
test results maintained by the manufacturer, that substantiate the
multi-split system's ratings. 10 CFR 430.62(d).
Of the changes being implemented today to allow testing and rating
of residential modulating multi-split systems, two changes could be
applied to variable-speed one-to-one units. Together, these two changes
would allow the manufacturer to specify the compressor speed used for
the intermediate-speed tests and then use linear fits for calculating
COP and EER within the intermediate-speed operating range. Adopting
these two changes for variable-speed one-to-one units would create a
second compliance path that would likely cause different SEER and HSPF
ratings than the current test procedure. Therefore, in adopting these
changes, DOE is not extending them to variable-speed one-to-one units.
Although DOE expects the current test procedure to yield the higher
ratings for one-to-one units, it will rely on the waiver process if any
manufacturer seeks to adopt these two multi-split test procedure
changes for use in rating variable-speed one-to-one units.
Tested combination. On the issue of the ``tested combination''--the
equipment configuration that can be tested in the laboratory and
thereby provide a common basis for comparison--Sanyo, Fujitsu,
Mitsubishi, and ARI recommended deleting the requirement that the
selected indoor units ``represent the highest-sales-volume type
models'' and replacing it with ``represent the highest sales model
family.'' (Sanyo, No. 15 at p. 3; Fujitsu, No. 13 at p. 4; Mitsubishi,
No. 20 at pp. 5 and 6; ARI, No. 21 at p. 6) In addition, Sanyo,
Fujitsu, Mitsubishi, and ARI recommended that provisions be made in the
event that five of the largest model indoor coils from the selected
model family cannot provide a cumulative indoor capacity that is more
than 95 percent of the outdoor unit's nominal capacity. As to
references in the proposed definition that a manufacturer will know the
capacity of each indoor unit and each outdoor unit, Copeland
Corporation (Copeland) questioned how the manufacturer would determine
component capacities. (Public Hearing Tr., pp. 217-221) Finally, with
regard to the proposal that all of the tested indoor units ``have the
same external static pressure,'' Trane asked how to interpret that
requirement if testing a ducted multi-split system having indoor units
that have different minimum external static pressure requirements.
(Public Hearing Tr., p. 229)
DOE accepts the stakeholder recommendation of substituting the
phrase ``represent the highest sales model family'' for the originally
proposed wording, ``represent the highest sales volume type models,''
because it has essentially the same meaning, but is clearer. Although
it is more an issue with commercial multi-split systems, DOE accepts
the proposed wording to clarify the tested combination since it is more
important to obtain a cumulative indoor capacity that matches the
outdoor unit than it is to restrict selection to units from the highest
sales model family, for cases where both criteria cannot be met. As for
Copeland's statement that the definition includes references to the
capacity of the outdoor unit and the cumulative capacities of the
indoor units even though no prescriptions are given to evaluate these
capacities, DOE agrees but nonetheless will allow their use in this
particular definition. Manufacturers are able to estimate the rated
capacities of the separate components without conducting the rigorous
testing associated with ARI Standards 410 (``Forced-Circulation Air-
Cooling and Air-Heating Coils'') and 540 (``Performance Rating of
Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Compressor Units'')
on each new model. Finally, the last element of the proposed definition
of ``tested combination'' will be changed from ``all have the same
external static pressure'' to ``all be subject to the same minimum
external static pressure requirement (i.e., 0 inches of water column
for non-ducted, see Table 2 in Appendix M for ducted indoor units)
while being configurable to produce the same static pressure at the
exit of each outlet plenum when manifolded as per section 2.4.1 of
Appendix M.'' This additional information is provided so that the test
laboratory may conduct the lab testing by manifolding the outlets of
all the indoor units together and using one airflow measuring apparatus
to determine the cumulative air volume rate.
At the August 23, 2006, public meeting, DOE restated its proposed
interim solution for assigning SEER and HSPF ratings for untested
multi-split combinations. This interim solution--to assign the rating
measured for the tested combination to every other combination using
the same outdoor unit--was included as part of the March 24, 2006,
Federal Register notice that published a petition for waiver from the
residential package air conditioner and heat pump test procedures that
was received from Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. (Case
No. CAC-012). 71 FR 14858. This provision was not in the July 2006
proposed rule, but was discussed at the public meeting and relevant
comments were received in the course of the waiver process. Lennox and
Copeland commented that the rated system's combination of indoor units
could be very different from those in the tested system, and the
ratings agreement would be poor in this case. (Public Hearing Tr., pp.
245-246)
Because of the difficulty of prescribing similarity of indoor unit
[[Page 59911]]
combinations, and with the belief that a rating that reflects the
``highest sales model family'' is better than no rating, DOE is
including this ratings provision in the final rule, with the additional
stipulation that multi-split manufacturers must test two or more
combinations with each outdoor unit unless they have an approved ARM
(in which case, they only need to test one combination). 10 CFR
430.24(m)(2). One system shall be tested using only non-ducted indoor
units that meet the definition of a tested combination. The second
system shall be tested using only ducted indoor units that meet the
definition of a tested combination. The rating given to any untested
multi-split system combination having the same outdoor unit and all
non-ducted indoor units shall be set equal to the rating of the tested
system having all non-ducted indoor units. The rating given to any
untested multi-split system combination having the same outdoor unit
and all ducted indoor units shall be set equal to the rating of the
tested system having all ducted indoor units. Finally, the rating given
to any untested multi-split system combination having the same outdoor
unit and a mix of non-ducted and ducted indoor units shall be set equal
to the average of the ratings for the two required tested combinations.
10 CFR 430.24(m)(2)(ii). Furthermore, DOE notes that it is including a
provision for the use of an alternate rating method. While DOE is not
aware of any algorithms appropriate for rating the energy efficiency of
untested multi-split system combinations, DOE expects that as more
laboratory test data and field use data become available, such
algorithms will be developed.
Today's final rule contains a minor update that was introduced in
the July 2006 proposed rule, removing the limit on having only one
indoor test room. No comments were received on this proposed change.
Today's final rule sufficiently addresses issues that led to the
requesting and granting of test procedure waivers for several models of
residential multi-split systems. Therefore, all existing waivers
concerning residential modulating multi-split systems terminate on the
effective date of today's final rule. Multi-split manufacturers may use
the waiver process described in 10 CFR 430.27 to petition for
modification of today's test procedure, if necessary.
C. Defining ``Repeatable'' for Cyclic Tests
The July 2006 proposed rule contained two provisions that further
defined repeatable performance during cyclic tests. One was the
requirement that the time-integrated air temperature difference across
the indoor unit for consecutive ``on'' cycles must change by 0.05
[deg]F hr or less while the other was for the average system power
consumption for the complete ``OFF/ON'' interval to change by 10 watts
or less from one cycle to the next.
ARI, Sanyo, Carrier, and Nordyne commented that repeatability
should be addressed by ASHRAE's Standards Project Committee (SPC) 116,
``Method of Testing for Rating Seasonal Efficiency of Unitary Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' not by the DOE test procedure (ARI, No.
21 at p. 3; Sanyo, No. 15 at p. 5; Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2; Nordyne,
No. 19 at p. 2) Finally, ACEEE supports DOE's efforts to capture the
essence of industry best practices for cyclic testing. (ACEEE, No. 16
at p. 4)
DOE recognizes that variability is inherent in testing products for
energy efficiency, including central air conditioners and central air
conditioning heat pumps. In order to reduce test variability and
increase repeatability of test results, DOE has set specific
requirements for test set-up and measurement to reduce variability.
However, even with these requirements, test variability remains.
Furthermore, DOE notes that the less repeatable the test, either more
units need to be tested to support an energy efficiency rating that is
representative of the units true energy efficiency or, if less testing
is done, the product must be rated conservatively (i.e., lower energy
efficiency rating).\4\ Test variability can be further reduced by, for
example, including more specific requirements in the DOE test
procedures as well as through industry actions, such as ASHRAE Standard
116. However, changes to the DOE test procedures to deal with test
variability could increase the burden and cost of testing. Since the
purpose of this requirement was to reduce variability and there are
alternative approaches manufacturers can take to reduce variability,
DOE is not adopting the cyclic changes proposed. Therefore, as part of
today's final rule, DOE makes no changes on defining repeatability
during cyclic tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ SEER and HSPF values, per the sampling plan in 10 CFR
430.24, are to be based on the lower 90 percent confidence limit of
the true mean divided by 0.95 (as opposed to the sample mean), thus
the more variability in test results, the more likely that a
product's SEER and HSPF ratings will have to be reduced from the
true mean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Outdoor Air Test Conditions for Units Having a Two-Capacity
Compressor
The July 2006 proposed rule included provisions that dealt with the
outdoor test conditions for three low-capacity cooling mode tests. The
three low-capacity tests are conducted at different outdoor dry bulb
temperatures (i.e., steady-state, wet-coil test at 95 [deg]F outdoor
dry bulb temperature (the A1 Test); the steady-state, dry-
coil test at 82 [deg]F (the C1 Test); and the cyclic, dry-
coil test at 82 [deg]F (the D1 Test)). The July 2006
proposal was to have all three of these tests replaced by equivalent
tests conducted at an outdoor dry bulb temperature of 67 [deg]F.
ARI, Carrier, and Nordyne supported replacing the A1
Test with the steady-state, wet-coil, F1 Test at 67 [deg]F
because the change will close a potential loophole in the current test
procedure. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2; Nordyne, No.
19 at p. 2) This loophole allowed manufacturers a way to increase the
measured SEER by disproportionately increasing the electrical power
consumption during the A1 Test. ACEEE supported the change
in the temperature in the A1 test, but expressed its concern
that the change may downgrade the importance of high temperature
performance. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 4) ARI, Carrier, and Nordyne
commented that the change in the C1 and D1 tests
is unnecessary since these tests are optional and the changes will do
very little to improve the accuracy of SEER. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 3;
Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2; Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 2) Carrier also
expressed its concern that products designed and tested under the
current methodology may have to be re-rated as a result of the
proposal. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2) In terms of the test procedure,
Carrier is concerned that a different cyclic-degradation coefficient
(CD) may result from replacing the C1 and
D1 Tests with equivalent tests at 67[deg]F.
Collectively, the three proposed changes make the test conditions
for two-capacity units consistent with the test conditions specified
for variable-speed systems. Implementing all three changes would result
in a more normal test progression for most two-capacity units: all wet
coil tests followed by the dry coil test; start with high capacity
tests and end with the low capacity tests; and start at 95 [deg]F,
progress to 82 [deg]F, and then end with 67 [deg]F. These benefits,
however, cannot be realized because of the possibility of causing a
change in the SEER ratings of some two-capacity units. Thus, DOE agrees
with the general position of the comments that the proposal to change
the outdoor test conditions for the two optional dry-coil CD
tests (C1 and D1 tests) is not warranted.
[[Page 59912]]
Therefore, today's final rule replaces the A1 Test with
the F1 Test, as proposed. The F1 Test requires an
outdoor dry bulb temperature of 67 [deg]F, and for those few cases
where it applies, an outdoor wet bulb temperature of 53.5 [deg]F. The
amendments discussed above are found in sections 3.2.3 and 4.1.3 of
Appendix M.
E. Air Volume Rate Less Than Manufacturer's Specified Value
In the July 2006 proposed rule, and the October 10, 2006,
correction notice, DOE proposed modifications to the criteria for using
an air volume rate that is less than the manufacturer's specified
value. The proposal was made to account for the variability in fan
motors, housings, and wheels. In brief, the proposed set-up process for
the test procedure provides for making incremental adjustments in the
indoor fan speed until the indoor unit provides an external static
pressure that is equal to or greater than the applicable DOE minimum
(i.e., 0.1, 0.15, or 0.20 inch of water column, if a non-small-duct,
high-velocity (SDHV) system), while operating at the manufacturer-
specified air volume rate or, if needed, at the air volume rate between
95 percent and 100 percent that produces the corresponding DOE minimum
static pressure value. For comparison, the current algorithm in the DOE
test procedure does not allow the air volume rate to be reduced from
100 percent for the case where the external static pressure is less
than specified by the test procedure. The proposed criteria apply to
all ducted blower-coil systems, except those having a variable-speed
motor that is controlled based on maintaining a constant air volume
rate. The proposed criteria include two cases where the test laboratory
is instructed to operate at an air volume rate less than that specified
by the manufacturer: (1) If the highest indoor fan speed setting cannot
yield the DOE-specified external static pressure minimum while
supplying the manufacturer-specified air volume rate, and (2) if the
manufacturer's specified air volume rate yields a ratio higher than
37.5 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) per 1000 Btu/h.
Nordyne, Carrier and Rheem supported the proposed criteria for
using an air volume rate that is less than the manufacturer's specified
value. (Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 2; Carrier, No. 17 at p. 3; Public
Hearing Tr., p. 135; and Public Hearing Tr., pp. 134-135) ACEEE
commented that since the proposed language specified which product
designs would be subject to this requirement, they recommended that the
wording for the types of indoor blowers that are affected by this
change be as generic as possible so as not to impede product
innovation. (Public Hearing Tr., pp. 132-133)
DOE agrees with ACEEE that the proposed language could limit
innovation since the proposed amendment was intended to apply to
designs that are not adequately addressed by the current air volume
requirements. Since it is impossible to predict what product designs
may enter the marketplace, specifying the designs subject to the new
provisions may, in fact, limit innovation. Therefore, in response to
ACEEE's comment, DOE restructured the air volume criteria to indicate
that the change applies to all designs, except variable-speed,
constant-air-volume-rate blowers. In this way, the variable-speed,
constant-volume-rate blowers, which the existing test procedure
adequately addresses, continue to be subject to the existing
requirement.
F. Updating References to Industry Standards
The July 2006 proposed rule included updates to references to
current industry test standards, including ASHRAE Standard 23-2005,
``Methods of Testing for Rating Positive Displacement Refrigerant
Compressors and Condensing Units,'' ASHRAE Standard 37-2005, ``Methods
of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and
Heat Pump Equipment,'' and ASHRAE Standard 116-1995 (RA2005), ``Methods
of Testing for Rating Seasonal Efficiency of Unitary Air Conditioners
and Heat Pumps.'' Nordyne commented in support of this proposal.
(Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 2)
In addition, subsequent to the publication of the July 2006
proposed rule, ARI released an updated version of ARI Standard 210/240,
``Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning and Air-Source Heat
Pump Equipment.'' The updated version of ARI Standard 210/240 included
references to the DOE test procedure as amended by the final rule
published on October 11, 2005. This latest version of ARI Standard 210/
240 had not been released at the time that the content of the July 2006
proposed rule had been finalized. Since the updated test procedures do
not affect the measure of efficiency and provide manufacturers with
current test standards, DOE moves today to adopt the 2006 version of
ARI Standard 210/240.
G. Maximum and Minimum Speed Values for Calculating NQ and
NE
Rheem inquired as to whether the minimum and maximum speed
quantities needed to evaluate Appendix M equations 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-3
are to be determined directly from additional lab testing or from
interpolating data from required tests lab tests at 67 [deg]F, 82
[deg]F, and 95 [deg]F. (NIST, No. 24 at p. 2) In response, for cooling
performance, DOE modified section 4.1.4 to explicitly state that the
capacities and Qck=1 (87) and
Qck=2 (87), which are used as part of the
algorithm for approximating the slope of the intermediate compressor
speed (k=v) capacity curve, are determined by evaluating equations
4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-3, respectively, for Tj = 87. Similar
direction is provided for determining the power consumption quantities
Eck=1 (87) and Eck=2 (87)
that appear within the section 4.1.4 equation for NE. For
heating performance, such direction already exists within the section
on calculating the HSPF for a variable-speed heat pump, with regard to
the source of the minimum speed quantities at 35 [deg]F.
This change does not affect the calculated SEER. The revised text
is found following the equation for NE in section 4.1.4 of
Appendix M.
H. Using the Default or Tested Value of Cyclic-Degradation Coefficient
Carrier asked if the manufacturer elects to run the optional tests,
and the resulting CD exceeds the 0.25 default value, is the
manufacturer obligated to use the tested value. (Public Hearing Tr., p.
31) The current test procedure addresses this scenario for most cases
where a CD is used in the SEER and HSPF calculations.
Specifically, sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2.1, 4.1.3.1, 4.1.4.1, 4.2.1, and
4.2.3.1, direct that if the optional test(s) are not conducted, the
cooling (heating) cyclic-degradation coefficient,
CDc (CDh), is to be set to
the default value of 0.25. If the optional test(s) are conducted,
CDc (CDh) must to be set to
the lower of: the value calculated per the test or the default value of
0.25. In response to Carrier's comment, DOE has added similar wording
to sections 4.1.3.3 and 4.2.3.3, the only sections that did not include
the clarifying language found in the sections referenced above.
Furthermore, in reviewing the organization of the current test
procedure while considering this update, DOE found that the information
would be better placed in the earlier sections (within section 3) with
the instructions as to which tests to conduct based on the type of
equipment (i.e.,
[[Page 59913]]
single-speed, two-capacity, variable-speed, etc). Therefore, language
has been added in the test procedure to clarify that if the tested
cyclic-degradation coefficient is higher than the default value, the
default value is to be used to calculate SEER and HSPF. (see sections
3.2.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.5.3, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.4, 3.8.1,
4.1.3.3, and 4.2.3.3).
I. Guidance on the Inclusion of Pre-Production Units in the Sample
Population
As part of the July 2006 proposed rule, DOE proposed that only pre-
production units fabricated using the same tooling used for the
eventual full-production units could be used as part of the tested
sample population to obtain the certified ratings of full-production
units.
ARI, Nordyne, and Carrier commented that the proposed wording is
too narrow, and recommended that the current regulatory language not be
changed. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 4; Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 17
at p. 2) ARI and Trane explained that the tooling used for pre-
production units is often different than that used for production
units. (Public Hearing Tr., pp. 192-193) Trane stated that pre-
production units must have the same configuration as the production
unit to be included in the sample population, while Carrier suggested
using wording such as that in the ARI Certification Program Operational
Manual to define the configuration (e.g., same compressor, same air
flow, etc.). (Public Hearing Tr., pp. 192, 198-199) Rheem commented
that the ARI internal process handles ratings derived from pre-
production units by making the model subject to certification testing
immediately after production starts. (Public Hearing Tr., p. 202)
DOE agrees that the proposed criterion is too narrow, and that
different tooling can yield equivalent machinery. Moreover, DOE
believes that spot checks conducted under an industry certification
program, such as the ARI Certification Program, provide a safeguard
against the performance of the production unit deviating appreciably
from ratings derived from testing pre-production units. For these
reasons, DOE is not amending the existing requirements and will
continue to allow manufacturers to test pre-production units.
J. Clarification of the Sample Population Used To Validate the Rated
Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal Performance
Factor of Heat Pumps
DOE proposed that a manufacturer must include the cooling and
heating results from each heat pump of the sample population when
obtaining the certified SEER and HSPF ratings. This requirement
disallows testing multiple heat pumps and then using a subset of
results for assigning the certified SEER rating and a different subset
of results for determining the certified HSPF rating. The proposal
provided one exception, which would allow additional testing in just
one mode, cooling or heating, if the manufacturer elected to
discontinue testing in the other mode at some point in the sample
sequence.
ACEEE, Nordyne, and Carrier supported the intent of clarifying the
sample population used for determining heat pump ratings. (ACEEE, No.
16 at p. 5; Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2) Carrier
and the ACEEE, however, recommended deleting the exception, noting that
additional testing is insignificant as compared to the potential for
misrepresented ratings. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2; ACEEE, No. 16 at p.
5)
DOE is aware of the testing burden on manufacturers, but agrees
with Carrier and the ACEEE that this particular attempt at marginally
reducing the test burden is not worthwhile. Thus, today's final rule
adopts the proposal that all units of the sample population must be
tested in both the cooling and heating modes and the results used for
determining the heat pump's certified SEER and HSPF ratings without
adopting the proposed exception for additional testing.
K. Clarification of the Definition of a ``Highest-Sales-Volume
Combination''
DOE proposed amendments to the definition of the Highest-Sales-
Volume Combination (HSVC) to require that a single-speed, split-system
air conditioner must include the coil-only indoor unit likely to have
the largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of outdoor
unit. Proposed 10 CFR 430.24(m)(2). In addition, DOE proposed
exceptions to this requirement to provide for equipment designed
exclusively for blower-coil installations: mini-splits; multi-splits;
small-duct, high-velocity systems; through-the-wall units; and
condensing units having features (e.g., proprietary interfaces) that
prevent their installation with third-party, coil-only indoor units.
This proposal was made in recognition that coil-only units represent
the overwhelming majority of installations of central air conditioners
and, as such, the highest-sales-volume should reflect standard
practice. The proposal also minimizes instances where the highest-sales
volume combination of a split-system air conditioner could be defined
as one with a ``blower-coil'' in order to meet Federal minimum energy
efficiency standards and then have the outdoor unit combined with coil-
only indoor units where the combination would not meet the Federal
energy efficiency standards.
ACEEE, Carrier and ARI agreed that some clarification to the test
procedure was needed in order to avoid such situations. (ACEEE, No. 16
at p. 5; ARI, No. 21 at p. 4; Public Hearing Tr., pp. 208-209) ACEEE
supported the goal of not having outdoor units installed with coil-only
indoor units where the combination does not meet the energy efficiency
standard. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 5) Instead of the proposed text, ARI and
Carrier recommended that DOE adopt the wording from the 2006 ARI
Certification Program Operational Manual for Unitary Air Conditioners &
Air-Source Unitary Heat Pumps (Rated Below 65,000 Btu/h Cooling). (ARI,
No. 21 at p. 4; Public Hearing Tr., pp. 208-209) Carrier and ARI
commented that the proposed exception for outdoor units that prevent
installations with coil-only units with a proprietary interface should
be eliminated because it is not enforceable. Nordyne strongly objected
to the entire proposal, stating that it restricts a manufacturer's use
of technology. (Nordyne, No. 19 at pp. 3-4) Moreover, to implement such
a change, Nordyne asserted that DOE needs to analyze the impact of
minimally compliant units. Nordyne, however, did note its support for
the proposed exception for blower coils having a proprietary interface.
ARI and Carrier recommended the following alternative text to the
July 2006 proposed rule:
HSVTC, Highest-sales-volume Tested Combination. For Unitary Air-
Conditioners below 14 SEER, the HSVTC must be an RCU-A-C
combination, except for through-the-wall and ductless equipment
(RCU-A-CBO). For Unitary Air-Conditioners 14 SEER and above, every
outdoor model number must have a coil-only rating. Coil-only ratings
offered for sale must be publicly viewable. Coil-only ratings not
offered for sale are viewable only to ARI staff. Non-viewable
ratings fall under all compliance guidelines except the challenge
procedure. If a non-publicly viewable rating falls below NAECA
minimum, then the manufacturer must submit a coil-only rating that
meets NAECA minimum and is verified through ARI testing.
[[Page 59914]]
Until then, the Basic Model Group ratings will not be listed in the
ARI directory.
Historically, the highest sales volume combination for most split-
system air conditioners has had a coil-only indoor unit. Both the June
2006 proposed rule and the ARI alternative maintain this historical
practice. DOE, however, believes ARI's approach is arbitrary and
results in uncertainties to manufacturers. Furthermore, DOE believes it
would be difficult to implement the above ARI algorithm. With the ARI
approach, the manufacturer may have to re-test in a coil-only
configuration after having tested in a blower-coil configuration, if
the expected SEER of 14 or higher is not realized in laboratory
testing. In addition, if DOE were to adopt the ARI alternative and the
minimum energy efficiency standards were amended, DOE would have to
modify the requirement, since the new minimum could be higher than the
14 SEER requirement in the ARI alternative. Conversely, in formulating
the approach proposed in the July 2006 proposed rulemaking, DOE first
considered requiring that all split-system air conditioners be tested
with a coil-only indoor unit. DOE recognized, however, that in addition
to the exceptions such as equipment designed exclusively for blower-
coil installations, other exceptions would have to be recognized. These
other exceptions include two-capacity and variable-speed units, because
they are always much more efficient than 14 SEER, and do not risk
having a coil-only combination that would not meet the DOE efficiency
standards. Therefore, DOE applied the coil-only requirement only to
split system air conditioners having a single-speed compressor.
Returning to the issue of listed exceptions, DOE agrees with ARI
and Carrier that the proposed exception for combinations that prevent
applications with third-party coil-only indoor units would be
prohibitively difficult to define, verify, and enforce. DOE believes
that its proposal to substitute the words ``mini-splits'' and ``multi-
splits'' for ``ductless equipment,'' is somewhat more comprehensive
because it includes ducted multi-split systems. Finally, SDHV
manufacturers, at present, only manufacture indoor coils and do not
manufacture outdoor units. Since SDHV manufacturers do not offer for
sale complete systems, they are not subject to specifying HSVC's. Thus,
SDHV systems do not need to be included as an exception.
As to Nordyne's objections, DOE stands by its position as stated in
the July 2006 proposed rule. DOE believes that its proposal, which is
adopted in today's final rule, increases the likelihood that the
outdoor unit, in combination with any compatible indoor unit, will meet
the federal energy efficiency standards. This is because the proposal
which is adopted today ensures that the tested combinations, upon which
most ratings are based, reflect the outdoor-indoor combinations most
likely to be sold. Furthermore, this language does not limit technology
options to manufacturers, since the test procedure allows for
representations of other than the highest-sales-volume combination.
With regard to Nordyne's comment that DOE needs to analyze the
impact of the clarifications on minimally compliant units, DOE fails to
see how the clarification in the definition will alter the rating of a
particular split-system air conditioner. The clarification ensures that
the highest-sales-volume split-system air conditioner--which is subject
to testing--yields ratings reflective of the outdoor-indoor
combinations most likely to be sold. For split-system air conditioners
``representative'' and ``highest sales'' historically equate to coil-
only indoor units. Only mini-splits, multi-splits, and through-the-wall
units can currently argue for an exception, since, in these cases, the
outdoor units would be sold in combination with specific indoor units
which would include a fan and a coil.
Therefore, DOE is adopting the language of the July 2006 proposed
rule, to require that the highest sales volume combination of a single-
speed, split-system air conditioner must include the coil-only indoor
unit likely to have the largest volume of retail sales with the
particular model of outdoor unit. The only change from the proposed
rule is to limit the exceptions to mini-splits, multi-splits, and
through-the-wall units.
L. Upper Limit on the Difference Between Calculated and Tested Seasonal
Energy Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal Performance Factor Values
DOE proposed setting a 5 percent limit on the amount that a rating
for an untested split-system combination could exceed the rating of the
corresponding HSVC. 71 FR 41330, July 20, 2006. The proposed limit only
applied to applications where both combinations used coil-only indoor
units. Ratings based on testing are not subject to the 5 percent limit.
Manufacturers seeking a rating that exceeds the 5 percent limit can do
so by testing the particular coil-only combination. The proposed
approach applied to untested combinations offered by system
manufacturers and by independent coil manufacturers (ICM's).
ACEEE commented in support of the proposal to limit the difference
between calculated and tested SEER and HSPF values. (ACEEE, No. 16 at
p. 5) Carrier and Nordyne also supported the DOE proposal for SEER
ratings but Carrier does not believe a similar cap is required for HSPF
ratings. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 3; Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 4) Using data
from the September 2006 ARI Online Directory, Carrier found that the
proposed 5 percent SEER limit would affect the ratings of 1.05 percent
of OEM coil-only combinations and 13.87 percent of ICM coil-only
combinations. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 4) At the public meeting, Carrier
offered similar statistics to show that ICM's, in general, rate
condenser-coil combinations employing the same condenser at higher
efficiencies than the OEM's. Carrier also offered statistics to show
that a small number of ICM's provide most of the ratings that are more
than 5 percent higher than the OEM rating for the highest-sales
combination. (Public Hearing Tr., p. 265) Carrier also cites the
September 2006 NIST ``Survey of SEER Ratings for Independent Coil
Manufacturer Mixed Systems'' as demonstrating the need to address the
issue. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 3)
Lennox disagrees with the June 2006 proposal. Lennox points out
that the proposed 5 percent limit is not technically supported and that
the practical limit is more likely 13 percent than 5 percent. Lennox
notes that the NIST report referenced above states that ``maximum gains
in SEER associated with coil capacity and improved expansion devices
are approximately 10 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively.'' (Lennox,
No. 22 at p. 1) Lennox reports that an independent laboratory tested
two different condensing units having 13 SEER HSVC ratings with an
alternate, non-HSVC, evaporator coil. According to Lennox, the non-HSVC
tested combinations produced SEER ratings 7.9 and 11.8 percent higher
than the 13.0 SEER rating of the HSVC units. Lennox argues that data
analysis conducted by Carrier is incomplete and that having to test
combinations that are projected to exceed the 5 percent limit will be
overly burdensome. Lennox further stated that the combination of DOE
approval of the ARM, governmentally enforceable penalties for
overrating, and an industry-sponsored certification program ``ensure a
reasonable level of rating integrity and result in a full availability
of cost
[[Page 59915]]
effective, higher efficiency combinations for consumers.'' (Lennox, No.
22 at p. 2)
ARI commented that the DOE proposed 5 percent upper limit is
arbitrary and will unduly penalize manufacturers who participate in the
ARI certification program. Furthermore, ARI commented that inconsistent
ratings for untested split-system combinations have been discussed at
length with the appropriate ARI committees for quite some time, and,
based on these discussions, significant changes were made to strengthen
the credibility of the ARI certification program. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 5)
For example, ARI commented that coil-only combinations (system
manufacturers and ICMs) with SEER ratings that are 6 percent above the
SEER rating of the highest-sales-volume tested combination are
automatically subject to testing as part of the ARI certification
program. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 5)
The analysis conducted by Carrier and NIST certainly justifies
further scrutiny of ratings of untested combinations of split-system
central air conditioners. The SEER ratings reported by Lennox raise a
few questions, while suggesting that the proposed mechanism and 5
percent limit may not be adequate, but Lennox doesn't offer an
alternative. For example, how much of the ratings difference is a
result of the better performance of the mixed system indoor units? How
much of the ratings difference results from the HSVC rating being
conservative `` i.e., although rated at 13.0, the tested SEER of the
HSVCs is likely higher? If the percent differences reported by Lennox
had been based on the measured SEER of the HSVC, the respective
magnitudes would likely have been less, possibly much less.
As for Lennox's comment that the NIST report supports a higher
percentage, DOE notes that the NIST analysis only commented on the
effect of increased coil capacity and an improved expansion device, two
factors that increase SEER. The impact of the larger coil on compressor
power consumption, however, was believed negligible even though it too
would typically increase. Thus, for the nominal case where a power
increase accompanies the capacity gain, the maximum SEER increase
predicted by the long-standing NIST ARM is in the 9 to 10 percent
range, higher than the 5 percent limit proposed in the NOPR, but less
than the maximum increase stated by Lennox.
Upon consideration of the above comments, DOE believes that its 5
percent limit, as proposed, is deficient. DOE still believes that more
scrutiny of untested combination ratings is warranted. However, DOE
finds, from a review of the data and comments received, that the
ratings of some non-HSVCs are higher that what would seem warranted.
DOE supports the steps recently implemented by ARI's certification
program to more frequently check combinations having suspect ratings.
Moreover, DOE is amending the test procedure to emphasize its right to
obtain information that is the basis for any manufacturer's rating. DOE
will require documentation to justify ratings more than 6 percent
higher that the rated efficiency of the HSVC unit. If DOE questions the
rating, the manufacturer will be responsible for verifying the ARM, and
supplying to DOE the ARM used and furnishing the specific input
parameters used for each condenser-evaporator combination, the energy
efficiency rating of the HSVC, the energy efficiency results of the
ARM, and the rated energy efficiency of the units in question.
Furthermore, the manufacturer must be prepared to provide the
information source and/or justification for any input parameter.
In summary, DOE is not adopting the proposed 5 percent limit on the
maximum amount that a rating for an untested coil-only split-system can
exceed the rating of the HSVC. Instead, DOE will evaluate the
improvements available through using new and improved ARMs and the
results from internal changes made as part of the ARI Certification
Program. DOE will give follow-up priority to individual combinations
having questionably high ratings (for example, a coil-only system
having a rating that exceeds the rating of a coil-only highest sales
volume combination by more than 6 percent). The text that sets forth
DOE's authority to examine ratings for untested split system
combinations is found in 10 CFR 430.24(m)(5) of today's rule.
M. Clarification of the Published Ratings for Untested Split-System
Combinations
DOE proposed amendments to 10 CFR 430.24(m)(4) to require published
ratings for an untested split-system combination to be equal to, or
lower than, the value calculated using the DOE-approved ARM. 71 FR
41336. The proposed language specifically recognized that a
manufacturer may use laboratory data from the HSVC testing to adjust or
``tune'' its ARM, or a simulation subcomponent, when calculating the
ratings for untested combinations that use the same outdoor unit. Under
the proposal, the amount of adjustment is limited to a 5 percent
increase in the calculated rating compared to the rating obtained using
the ARM without the adjustment/tuning factor. The purpose is to limit
the amount of manufacturer's ``tuning'' of ARMs, without resubmitting
the ARM for DOE review in accordance with 10 CFR 430.24(m)(5). DOE is
concerned that the ``tuned'' ARMs will result in a different model than
the one the Department had reviewed and approved under 10 CFR
430.24(m)(5). The changes were proposed to improve the current
regulatory language that states the ARM must be used to obtain
``representative values of the measures of energy consumption.'' 10 CFR
430.24(m)(2)(ii).
ARI commented that ``untested'' combinations are subject to
verification testing in the ARI Certification Program and so placing a
limit on the adjustment factor is unwarranted for combinations listed
in the ARI directory. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 5) Carrier commented that any
adjustment based on actual testing to be not only allowable but
desirable. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 3) Nordyne was willing to consider
the concept of a maximum allowable adjustment but stated that the exact
values and the specific wording needed further review. (Nordyne, No. 19
at p. 4)
In reviewing its files of ARMs that DOE has approved, DOE finds
that none reference an ARM/simulation adjustment factor, or equivalent.
Yet, the use of such adjustment factors appears to be common. This
situation, along with the fact that most manufacturers' ARMs have not
been updated in many years, and that most, if not all, of the models
upon which the ARMs were based have been removed from the marketplace
because they did not meet the 13 SEER standard leads DOE to conclude
that it is likely some ARMs need the adjustment factor in order to
correctly predict the efficiency of untested combinations.
In view of the foregoing, DOE is amending 10 CFR 430.24(m)(5) to
require published ratings for an untested split-system combination to
be equal to, or lower than, the value calculated using the DOE-approved
ARM. The practice of ``tuning'' an ARM or computer simulation by using
laboratory data from tests on the HSVC or any other split-system
combination tested in accordance with the sample plan of 10 CFR
430.24(m), and then using the tuned ARM to calculate the ratings for
untested combinations that use the same outdoor unit, is now referenced
in 10 CFR 430.24(m)(4). DOE, however, is not adopting a limit on how
much the SEER/HSPF rating, calculated using an ARM, may exceed the
rating obtained without using the adjustment factor.
[[Page 59916]]
N. Ratings That Are Based on Using a Particular Furnace or Ducted Air
Mover
DOE proposed having manufacturers document those published ratings
that are based on a complete system consisting of a coil-only air
conditioner or heat pump and a particular model of furnace. The model
number of the furnace would be published, most likely in addition to
the indoor unit model number.
ACEEE supported the measure, as originally proposed. (ACEEE, No. 16
at p. 5) Nordyne and ARI also supported the measure but suggest
replacing the word ``furnace'' with a more generic term so that the
requirement is extended to all indoor air movers. (Nordyne, No. 19 at
p. 4; ARI, No. 21 at p. 6) Nordyne suggests using ``indoor blower'' and
ARI suggests ``ducted air mover.''
DOE accepts the recommendation of using generic wording to clearly
convey the equipment components that contribute to the published
rating, and selects the description ``ducted air mover.'' DOE adopts
revised text for 10 CFR 430.62(a)(4)(i) and (ii) that explicitly states
that the model number of the ducted air mover, if applicable, must be
included among the manufacturer's model numbers submitted on the
certification report to DOE. Compared to the wording proposed in the
July 2006 proposed rule, today's revision is simpler, in that it does
not repeat text from 10 CFR 430.62(a)(4) in sections 430.62(a)(4)(i)
and (a)(4)(ii).
O. Revisions to the Definition of ``Coil Family''
DOE proposed minor modifications to the existing definition of
``coil family,'' to improve its readability and make it easier to
understand. 71 FR 41335. Nordyne and Rheem asked for clarifications to
the proposed language. (Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 4)
Concerning Nordyne's comment, DOE had no intention other than to
offer a few editorial improvements, and to heighten awareness of the
definition among stakeholders, given the related discussion of ARMs. As
proposed, DOE viewed the substantive content of the definition as
adequate for the purpose of designating what split systems may be used
for verifying an ARM. There was no change proposed to the definition of
``coil family'' with respect to coil circuitry. In both the current and
proposed test procedures, ``coil circuitry'' is included in a list of
design features that affect heat exchanger performance. In responding
to the question raised by Rheem, NIST asked attendees at the public
meeting how to define coil circuitry. Trane responded that if this coil
differentiating feature were deleted then it wouldn't have to be
defined. (Public Hearing Tr., p. 297)
In considering the comments received, DOE finds the proposed
amendments to the definition cause more confusion than the existing
definition, therefore, DOE is not amending the definition of coil
circuitry at this time.
III. Summary of Other Additions, Changes, and Corrections to the
Department of Energy Residential Central Air Conditioner and Heat Pump
Test Procedure
The following discussion summarizes revisions that were proposed in
the July 2006 proposed rule and received no substantive comments.
Small-duct, high-velocity (SDHV) systems. Today's final rule adopts
the following five changes that apply exclusively to small-duct, high-
velocity (SDHV) systems:
--The minimum external-static-pressure levels that must be equaled or
exceeded during the first test on any SDHV system will be 1.0 inches of
water column higher than the minimum that is required of non-SDHV
units. For example, for equipment having rated cooling capacities from
29,000 to 42,500 Btu/h, the minimum external static pressure is 1.15
inches of water column for SDHV systems, compared to 0.15 inches of
water column for conventional blower-coil systems. This change is found
in section 3.1.4.1.1 of Appendix M.
--All balance dampers or restrictor devices on or inside the unit must
be set fully open or on the lowest restriction setting. This change is
found in section 2.2 of Appendix M.
--The size of the duct connected to the outlet of the indoor unit must
not exceed prescribed limits. This change is found in section 2.4.1 of
Appendix M.
--When a closed-loop, air-enthalpy test apparatus is used on the indoor
side, the test laboratory must limit the airflow resistance on the
inlet-side of the indoor blower-coil to a maximum value of 0.1 inches
of water column. The balance of the airflow resistance must be imposed
on the outlet-side of the indoor blower. This change is found in
section 3.1.4.1.1 of Appendix M.
--The test setup must include an adjustable air damper that is
positioned immediately upstream of the airflow measuring apparatus that
limits the differential pressure between the inside of the duct and the
surrounding ambient to 0.5 inches of water column or less. If the
particular test setup permits, the outlet air damper box used for
cyclic tests can double as the adjustable air damper. This change is
found in section 2.5.4.3 of Appendix M.
Optional high-capacity cyclic-degradation coefficient
(CD). Today's final rule reinstates the optional high-
capacity cyclic-degradation coefficient (CD) testing for
two-capacity units that lock out low-capacity operation at outdoor
temperatures where the unit is otherwise projected to modulate between
low and high capacities/compressor stages. In lieu of testing, the
default value for the high-capacity CD will be the value of
the low-capacity CD. The specific change is reflected in
sections 3.2.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.5.3, 3.6.3, 3.8, 3.8.1, 4.1.3.3, and
4.2.3.3 of Appendix M.
Two-capacity heat pump default equations. Instead of conducting the
laboratory test, default equations are now provided to approximate the
performance of a two-capacity heat pump operating at low capacity and
35 [deg]F outdoor temperature. The default equations appear in section
3.6.3 of Appendix M.
Duct loss correction. Except as noted below, DOE adopts the
practice of applying a duct loss correction to the cooling and heating
capacities determined using the indoor air enthalpy method. The losses
occur within the section of insulated duct that extends between the
outlet of the indoor unit and the test facility's outlet temperature
grid. The correction, however, does not apply to the two indoor
capacities used for calculating a cyclic-degradation coefficient,
CD. The change affects sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, 3.9.1, and
3.11 of Appendix M and is implemented by referencing sections 7.3.3.3
and 7.3.4.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 for cooling and heating tests,
respectively.
Air volume. DOE adopts the definition of ``standard air'' as given
in ASHRAE Standard 37-2005. This change affects section 1.37 of
Appendix M and causes standard air volume rates to be expressed in
terms of dry air, not moist air. DOE replaces the proper names
containing the words ``Certified Air Volume Rate'' with ``Full-load Air
Volume Rate.'' The change will eliminate confusion over whether the air
volume rates specified in the test procedure are certified values,
which they are not. This change appears in numerous places within the
DOE test procedure, mostly in section 3 and
[[Page 59917]]
Tables 3 to 6 and Tables 9 to 12 of Appendix M.
ARMs. DOE adopts revised language for 10 CFR 430.24(m)(6) that
describes the specific information the manufacturer must include in its
submittal when requesting DOE's approval of the manufacturer's ARM. The
revision expands the options regarding the data used to evaluate and
verify the ARM and provides a compliance path for manufacturers who
offer indoor units from only one coil family.
Definitions. DOE incorporates the definition for ``private
labelers'' from EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6291(15) into 10 CFR 430.2. Definitions
for the terms ``indoor unit,'' ``outdoor unit,'' and ``ARM/simulation
adjustment factor'' have also been added. Under 10 CFR 430.24(m)(5),
DOE adopts revised language to specify that the requirements also apply
to private labelers, and not just to manufacturers. For example,
private labelers, like manufacturers, are responsible for ensuring that
reported ratings for untested split-system combinations are based on a
DOE-approved ARM.
October 2005 final rule. In addition, DOE is correcting two errors
that were mistakenly introduced in the test procedure final rule
published on October 11, 2005. 70 FR 59122. The October 2005 final rule
incorrectly specifies the outdoor test conditions used for the optional
low-capacity heating-mode cyclic test for two-capacity heat pumps. The
temperatures for this test are incorrectly specified in the October
2005 final rule as 62 [deg]F db/56.5[deg]F wb. These temperatures
should have remained as they were, with the values 47[deg]F db/43[deg]F
wb. This error was unfortunately not discovered until after the final
rule became effective on April 10, 2006. DOE has been informed that
several new models of two-capacity heat pumps have been rated for HSPF
based on conducting the low-capacity heating mode cyclic test at 62
[deg]F db/56.5 [deg]F wb. In implementing the test condition
correction, DOE will not require that these affected models of two-
capacity heat pumps be retested and rerated since the difference in
energy efficiency is very slight, (i.e., tenths of HSPF). This
correction appears in section 3.6.3b and Table 11 of Appendix M.
The second correction affects two equations used for calculating
the HSPF of a variable-speed heat pump. Within section 4.2.4 of
Appendix M of the final rule published on October 11, 2005, the terms
NQ and NE are incorrectly positioned within the
equations for MQ and ME, respectively. MQ
and ME correspond to the slopes of the capacity and power
curves when the heat pump is operated at the intermediate compressor
speed, k = v. These intermediate speed slopes are derived from the
slopes of the minimum and maximum speed curves, weighting each
accordingly. The terms NQ and NE are the
weighting factors for the maximum speed slopes.
In the October 2005 final rule, section 4.2.4 of Appendix M, the
equations for MQ and ME each consist of the sum
of two expressions in square brackets. In the right-hand bracketed
expression of both equations, the divisor line is too long. It should
not extend under NQ in the equation for MQ, nor
should it extend under NE in the equation for ME.
The divisor line is being shortened so that the equation returns to its
format established in the 1988 revision of the test procedure. (53 FR
8304, March 14, 1988). The same misprint did not occur within the
comparable cooling mode equations.
IV. Effect of Test Procedure Revisions on Compliance With Standards
In amending a test procedure, section 323(e) of EPCA directs DOE to
determine to what extent, if any, the test procedure would alter the
measured energy efficiency of the covered product and if the amended
test procedure alters the measured efficiency, the Secretary is to
amend the applicable energy conservation standard to the extent the
amended test procedure changes the energy efficiency of products that
minimally comply with the existing standard. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)) In
recognition of this requirement, the July 2006 proposed rule requested
comments on whether any of the proposed changes would affect the
measures of energy efficiency, and, if so, to what extent, when tested
under the current test procedure. DOE received no comments in response.
The issue was also raised at the public hearing, and DOE again received
no comments that any models would fail to meet the standard when tested
using the new test procedure. Since DOE did not receive comments on
this issue, and based on the discussion below, DOE concludes that the
amendments to the central air conditioner and central air conditioning
test procedures adopted in today's final rule do not change the measure
of energy efficiency of central air conditioners and central air
conditioning heat pumps that minimally comply with the existing
standard. Therefore, amendments to the existing energy efficiency
standard are not required.
Some revisions in today's final rule are expected to slightly
change the ratings of two-capacity systems. Since two-capacity systems
are inherently more energy efficient, DOE concludes that these
amendments would only affect higher efficiency systems and, therefore,
not require DOE to amend its energy conservation standards.
The change to allow the use of default equations instead of
conducting a low-capacity Frost Accumulation Test will negatively
impact the measured HSPF. DOE estimates that the HSPF could be as much
as 0.3 point lower if the default equations are used to obtain the
value corresponding to climate Region IV and the minimum design-heating
requirement instead of testing. This change will not affect the HSPF of
a currently rated heat pump because use of the default equations is
optional and DOE understands manufacturers test products instead of
using the default value and, therefore, there is no change as a result
of today's revisions.
Changing the maximum duration of all Frost Accumulation Tests from
12 hours to 6 hours is expected to only affect the average space
heating capacity and power at 35 [deg]F by causing a minimal,
systematic increase in the derived HSPF for the rare case where the
heat pump remains completely frosted beyond 6 hours. DOE believes such
a situation is extremely unlikely, especially for tests at full-load.
DOE does not expect that adopting the practice of applying a duct
loss correction to the cooling and heating capacities determined using
the indoor air enthalpy method to cause an increase in SEER or HSPF.
This is because the test procedure is simply catching up with current
practice.
Making the definition of ``standard air'' consistent with the
definition in ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 will have no effect on the SEER
and HSPF as calculated using the October 2005 final rule. 70 FR 59122
(October 11, 2005).
Finally, changing the one steady-state, low-capacity cooling-mode
test condition from 95 [deg]F to 67 [deg]F for two-capacity units is
projected to change the calculated SEER very minimally--within < plus-
minus> 0.1 SEER point--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. However, two-capacity compressors are inherently more
energy
[[Page 59918]]
efficient and are not used in minimally compliant units, and,
therefore, DOE concludes that this amendment to the test procedure will
not change the energy efficiency of marginally compliant units.
V. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Today's regulatory action is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of
Management and Budget.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required
by Executive Order 13272, Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking, 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. (68 FR 7990) The DOE
procedures and policies are available on the Office of General
Counsel's Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE reviewed today's final rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE certified in the July 20, 2006,
proposed rule that the proposed rule would not impose a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. (66 FR 6780)
DOE received no comments on this issue, and after considering the
potential small entity impact of this final rule, DOE affirms the
certification that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rulemaking imposes no new information or record keeping
requirements. Accordingly, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions
that are categorically excluded from review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. This rule amends an
existing rule without changing its environmental effect, and,
therefore, is covered by the Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 to
subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. Accordingly, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. (65 FR 13735) DOE examined this final rule and determined
that it does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Executive Order 13132 requires no further action.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote
simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order
12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard
for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they
are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has
completed the required review and determined that, to the extent
permitted by law, this rule meets the relevant standards of Executive
Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. For a proposed regulatory action that may result in the
expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish
estimates of the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b)) UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18,
1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available
at http://www.gc.doe.gov). The rule published today contains neither an
intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in an
expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements
do not apply.
[[Page 59919]]
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not
result in any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) requires agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002),
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002).
DOE has reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to
OIRA, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. Today's regulatory
action would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy and, therefore, is not a significant
energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91), the Department of Energy must comply with section 32
of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (FEAA), as amended by
the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C.
788) Section 32 provides in essence that, where a proposed rule
contains or involves use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. This final rule updates references to the most recent
versions of four commercial standards, as discussed in section II.F of
this preamble.
The Department has evaluated these standards and is unable to
conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section
32(b) of the FEAA, i.e., that they were developed in a manner which
fully provides for public participation, comment and review. As
required by section 32(c) of the FEAA, the Department has consulted
with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade
Commission concerning the impact of these four standards on
competition, and neither recommended against incorporation of these
standards.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of today's rule prior to its effective date. The report
will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Incorporation by reference.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 27, 2007.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Part 430 of Chapter II
of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
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.
0
2. Section 430.2 is amended in subpart A by adding definitions of
``ARM/simulation adjustment factor,'' ``indoor unit,'' ``outdoor
unit,'' ``private labeler,'' and ``tested combination,'' in
alphabetical order, to read as follows:
Sec. 430.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
ARM/simulation adjustment factor means a factor used as part of a
DOE-approved alternative rating method (ARM) to improve the accuracy of
the calculated ratings for untested split-system central air
conditioners or heat pumps. The adjustment factor associated with each
outdoor unit must be set such that it reduces the difference between
the SEER (HSPF) determined using the ARM and a split-system combination
tested in accordance with Sec. 430.24(m)(1). The ARM/simulation
adjustment factor is an integral part of the ARM and must be a DOE-
approved element in accordance with 10 CFR 430.24(m)(4) to (m)(6).
* * * * *
Indoor unit means a component of a split-system central air
conditioner or heat pump that is designed to transfer heat between the
refrigerant and the indoor air, and which consists of an indoor coil, a
cooling mode expansion device, and may include an air moving device.
* * * * *
Outdoor unit means a component of a split-system central air
conditioner or heat pump that is designed to transfer heat between the
refrigerant and the outdoor air, and which consists of an outdoor coil,
compressor(s), an air moving device, and in addition for heat pumps, a
heating mode expansion device, reversing valve, and defrost controls.
* * * * *
Private labeler means an owner of a brand or trademark on the label
of a consumer product which bears a private
[[Page 59920]]
label. A consumer product bears a private label if:
(1) Such product (or its container) is labeled with the brand or
trademark of a person other than a manufacturer of such product;
(2) The person with whose brand or trademark such product (or
container) is labeled has authorized or caused such product to be so
labeled; and
(3) The brand or trademark of a manufacturer of such product does
not appear on such label.
* * * * *
Tested combination means a multi-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; for multi-split systems,
each of these indoor units shall be designed for individual operation.
(2) The indoor units shall--
(i) Represent the highest sales model family, or another indoor
model family if the highest sales model family does not provide
sufficient capacity (see ii);
(ii) Together, have a nominal capacity that is between 95% and 105%
of the nominal capacity of the outdoor unit;
(iii) Not, individually, have a capacity that is greater than 50%
of the nominal capacity of the outdoor unit;
(iv) Operate at fan speeds that are consistent with the
manufacturer's specifications; and
(v) All be subject to the same minimum external static pressure
requirement (i.e., 0 inches of water column for non-ducted, see Table 2
in Appendix M to Subpart B of this part for ducted indoor units) while
being configurable to produce the same static pressure at the exit of
each outlet plenum when manifolded as per section 2.4.1 of Appendix M.
* * * * *
Sec. 430.22 [Amended]
0
3. Section 430.22 is amended as follows:
0
a. Paragraph (b)(5)2. is amended by removing ``23-1993'' and adding in
its place ``23-2005.''
0
b. Paragraph (b)(5)3. is amended by removing ``37-1988'' and adding in
its place ``37-2005.''
0
c. Paragraph (b)(5)8. is amended by removing ``116-1995'' and adding in
its place ``116-1995 (RA 2005).''
0
d. Paragraph (b)(8) is amended by removing ``210/240-2003'' and adding
in its place ``210/240-2006.''
0
4. Section 430.23 is amended in subpart B by revising paragraph (m)(5)
to read as follows:
Sec. 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water
consumption.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(5) All measures of energy consumption must be determined by the
test method as set forth in appendix M to this subpart; or by an
alternative rating method set forth in 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).
* * * * *
0
5. 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 evaporator coil (indoor unit) or
a set of selected indoor units, must have a sample of sufficient size
tested in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart.
The represented values for any model of single-package system, any
model of a tested split-system combination, any model of a tested mini-
split system combination, or any model of a tested multi-split system
combination must be assigned such that --
(i) Any represented value of estimated annual operating cost,
energy consumption or other measure of energy consumption of the
central air conditioner or heat pump for which consumers would favor
lower values must be no less than the higher of:
(A) The mean of the sample; or
(B) The upper 90-percent confidence limit of the true mean divided
by 1.05;
(ii) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other
measure of energy consumption of the central air conditioner or heat
pump for which consumers would favor higher values must be no greater
than the lower of:
(A) The mean of the sample; or
(B) The lower 90-percent confidence limit of the true mean divided
by 0.95;
(iii) For heat pumps, all units of the sample population must be
tested in both the cooling and heating modes and the results used for
determining the heat pump's certified SEER and HSPF ratings in
accordance with paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this section.
(2) For split-system air conditioners and heat pumps, the
condenser-evaporator coil combination selected for tests pursuant to
paragraph (m)(1) of this section shall include the evaporator coil that
is likely to have the largest volume of retail sales with the
particular model of condensing unit. For mini-split condensing units
that are designed to always be installed with more than one indoor
unit, a ``tested combination'' as defined in 10 CFR 430.2 shall be used
for tests pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of this section. For multi-split
systems, each model of condensing unit shall be tested with two
different sets of indoor units. For one set, a ``tested combination''
composed entirely of non-ducted indoor units shall be used. For the
second set, a ``tested combination'' composed entirely of ducted indoor
units shall be used. Components of similar design may be substituted
without requiring additional testing if the represented measures of
energy consumption continue to satisfy the applicable sampling
provisions of paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this section.
However, for any split-system air conditioner having a single-speed
compressor, the condenser-evaporator coil combination selected for
tests pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of this section shall include the
indoor coil-only unit that is likely to have the largest volume of
retail sales with the particular model of outdoor unit. This coil-only
requirement does not apply to split-system air conditioners that are
only sold and installed with blower-coil indoor units, specifically
mini-splits, multi-splits, and through-the-wall units. This coil-only
requirement does not apply to any split-system heat pumps. For every
other split-system combination that includes the same model of
condensing unit but a different model of evaporator coil and for every
other mini-split and multi-split system that includes the same model of
condensing unit but a different set of evaporator coils, whether the
evaporator coil(s) is manufactured by the same manufacturer or by a
component manufacturer, either--
(i) A sample of sufficient size, comprised of production units or
representing production units, must be tested as complete systems with
the resulting ratings for the outdoor unit-indoor unit(s) combination
obtained in accordance with paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this
section; or
(ii) The representative values of the measures of energy efficiency
must be assigned as follows,
(A) Using an alternative rating method (ARM) that has been approved
by DOE in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (m)(4) through
(m)(6) of this section; or
(B) For multi-split systems composed entirely of non-ducted indoor
units, set equal to the system tested in accordance
[[Page 59921]]
with paragraph (m)(1) of this section whose tested combination was
entirely non-ducted indoor units;
(C) For multi-split systems composed entirely of ducted indoor
units, set equal to the system tested in accordance with paragraph
(m)(1) of this section whose tested combination was entirely ducted
indoor units; and
(D) For multi-split systems having a mix of non-ducted and ducted
indoor units, set equal to the mean of the values for the two systems
-- one having the tested combination of all non-ducted units and the
second having the tested combination of all ducted indoor units --
tested in accordance with paragraph (m)(1) of this section.
(3) Whenever the representative values of the measures of energy
consumption, as determined by the provisions of paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of
this section, do not agree within 5 percent of the representative
values of the measures of energy consumption as determined by actual
testing, the representative values determined by actual testing must be
used to comply with section 323(c) of the Act or to comply with rules
under section 324 of the Act.
(4) The basis of the ARM referred to in paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of
this section must be a representation of the test data and calculations
of a mechanical vapor-compression refrigeration cycle. The major
components in the refrigeration cycle must be modeled as ``fits'' to
manufacturer performance data or by graphical or tabular performance
data. Heat transfer characteristics of coils may be modeled as a
function of face area, number of rows, fins per inch, refrigerant
circuitry, air-flow rate and entering-air enthalpy. Additional
performance-related characteristics to be considered may include type
of expansion device, refrigerant flow rate through the expansion
device, power of the indoor fan and cyclic-degradation coefficient.
Ratings for untested combinations must be derived from the ratings of a
combination tested in accordance with paragraph (m)(1) of this section.
The seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) and/or heating seasonal
performance factor (HSPF) ratings for an untested combination must be
set equal to or less than the lower of the SEER and/or HSPF calculated
using the applicable DOE-approved alternative rating method (ARM). If
the method includes an ARM/simulation adjustment factor(s), determine
the value(s) of the factors(s) that yield the best match between the
SEER/HSPF determined using the ARM versus the SEER/HSPF determined from
testing in accordance with paragraph (m)(1) of this section.
Thereafter, apply the ARM using the derived adjustment factor(s) only
when determining the ratings for untested combinations having the same
outdoor unit.
(5) Manufacturers or private labelers who elect to use an ARM for
determining measures of energy consumption under paragraphs
(m)(2)(ii)(A) and (m)(4) of this section must submit a request for DOE
to review the ARM. Send the request to the Assistant Secretary of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Approval must be received from the Assistant
Secretary to use the ARM before the ARM may be used for rating 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. Once an ARM is approved, DOE may contact a manufacturer
to learn if their ARM has been modified in any way and to verify that
the ARM is being applied as approved. DOE will give follow-up priority
to individual combinations having questionably high ratings (e.g., a
coil-only system having a rating that exceeds the rating of a coil-only
highest sales volume combination by more than 6 percent).
(6) Each request to DOE for approval of an alternative rating
method must include:
(i) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address
of the official representing the manufacturer.
(ii) Complete documentation of the alternative rating method to
allow DOE to evaluate its technical adequacy. The documentation must
include a description of the methodology, state any underlying
assumptions, and explain any correlations. The documentation should
address how the method accounts for the cyclic-degradation coefficient,
the type of expansion device, and, if applicable, the indoor fan-off
delay. The requestor must submit any computer programs--including
spreadsheets--having less than 200 executable lines that implement the
ARM. Longer computer programs must be identified and sufficiently
explained, as specified above, but their inclusion in the initial
submittal package is optional. Applicability or limitations of the ARM
(e.g., only covers single-speed units when operating in the cooling
mode, covers units with rated capacities of 3 tons or less, not
applicable to the manufacturer's product line of non-ducted systems,
etc.) must be stated in the documentation.
(iii) Complete test data from laboratory tests on four mixed (i.e.,
non-highest-sales-volume combination) systems per each ARM.
(A) The four mixed systems must include four different indoor units
and at least two different outdoor units. A particular model of outdoor
unit may be tested with up to two of the four indoor units. The four
systems must include two low-capacity mixed systems and two high-
capacity mixed systems. The low-capacity mixed systems may have any
capacity. The rated capacity of each high-capacity mixed system must be
at least a factor of two higher than its counterpart low-capacity mixed
system. The four mixed systems must meet the applicable energy
conservation standard in Sec. 430.32(c) in effect at the time of the
rating.
(B) The four indoor units must come from at least two different
coil families, with a maximum of two indoor units coming from the same
coil family. Data for two indoor units from the same coil family, if
submitted, must come from testing with one of the ``low-capacity mixed
systems'' and one of the ``high capacity mixed systems.'' A mixed
system indoor coil may come from the same coil family as the highest-
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 do not apply if the manufacturer offers indoor units from only
one coil family. In this case only, all four indoor coils must be
selected from this one coil family. If approved, the ARM will be
specifically limited to applications for this one coil family.
(iv) All product information on each mixed system indoor unit, each
matched system indoor unit, and each outdoor unit needed to implement
the proposed ARM. The calculated ratings for the four mixed systems, as
determined using the proposed ARM, must be provided along with any
other related information that will aid the verification process.
(v) If request for approval is for an updated ARM, manufacturers
must identify modifications made to the ARM since the last submittal,
including any ARM/simulation adjustment factor(s) added since the ARM
was last approved by DOE.
[[Page 59922]]
(7) Manufacturers that elect to use an alternative rating method
for determining measures of energy consumption under paragraphs
(m)(2)(ii)(A) and (m)(4) of this section must either subject a sample
of their units to independent testing on a regular basis, e.g., through
a voluntary certification program, or have the representations reviewed
and certified by an independent state-registered professional engineer
who is not an employee of the manufacturer. The registered professional
engineer is to certify that the results of the alternative rating
procedure accurately represent the energy consumption of the unit(s).
The manufacturer is to keep the registered professional engineer's
certifications on file for review by DOE for as long as said
combination is made available for sale by the manufacturer. Any
proposed change to the alternative rating method must be approved by
DOE prior to its use for rating.
(8) Manufacturers who choose to use computer simulation or
engineering analysis for determining measures of energy consumption
under paragraphs (m)(2)(ii)(A) and (m)(4) through (m)(7) of this
section must permit representatives of the Department of Energy to
inspect for verification purposes the simulation method(s) and computer
program(s) used. This inspection may include conducting simulations to
predict the performance of particular outdoor unit `` indoor unit
combinations specified by DOE, analysis of previous simulations
conducted by the manufacturer, or both.
* * * * *
Appendix M--[Amended]
0
6. Appendix M to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
0
a. In section 1. Definitions:
0
1. Section 1.3 is amended by removing ``210/240-2003'' and adding in
its place ``210/240-2006''; and by removing ``2003'' and adding in its
place ``2006.''
0
2. Section 1.5 is amended by removing ``23-93'' and adding in its place
``23-2005''; and by removing ``1993'' and adding in its place ``2005.''
0
3. Section 1.6 is amended by removing ``37-88'' and adding in its place
``37-2005''; and by removing ``1988'' and adding in its place ``2005.''
0
4. Section 1.12 is amended by adding ``RA(05)'' after ``116-95''; and
adding ``and reaffirmed in 2005'' after ``1995.''
0
5. Section 1.35 is amended by removing ``certified'' and adding in its
place ``full-load.''
0
6. Section 1.37 is revised to read as set forth below.
0
b. In section 2, Testing Conditions:
0
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.
0
2. Section 2.3.1b is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in
its place ``Full-load.''
0
3. Section 2.5.3 is amended by revising the first sentence to read as
set forth below.
0
4. New section 2.5.4.3 is added to read as set forth below.
0
5. Section 2.6a is amended by adding in the first sentence ``(RA05)''
after ``116-95.''
0
6. Section 2.6b is amended in the second sentence, and in the last
sentence, by removing ``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-2005;''
and by removing ``ARI Standard 210/240-2003'' and adding in its place
``ARI Standard 210/240-2006'' in the second sentence.
0
7. Section 2.7 is amended by removing ``ARI Standard 210/240-2003'' and
adding in its place ``ARI Standard 210/240-2006.''
0
8. Section 2.10.2 is amended in the third and fourth sentences, by
removing ``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-2005.''
0
9. Section 2.10.3 is amended in the second sentence, by removing
``7.6.2,'' and adding in its place ``7.5.2,'' and by removing ``37-88''
and adding in its place ``37-2005'' in the second and third sentences.
0
10. Section 2.11a is amended in the first sentence, by removing ``37-
88'' and adding in its place ``37-2005.''
0
11. Section 2.13 is amended in the second sentence, by removing ``37-
88'' and adding in its place ``37-2005.''
0
c. In section 3, Testing Procedures:
0
1. Section 3.1.1 is amended by revising the seventh sentence to read as
set forth below.
0
2. Section 3.1.3 is amended by removing ``ARI Standard 210/240-2003''
and adding in its place ``ARI Standard 210/240-2006.''
0
3. Section 3.1.4.1 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in
its place ``Full-load.''
0
4. Section 3.1.4.1.1, from its title to the end of paragraph a., and
Table 2, are revised to read as set forth below.
0
4a. Section 3.1.4.1.1b is amended by revising the first sentence to
read as set forth below.
0
5. Amend sections 3.1.4.1.1b and 3.1.4.1.1c by removing ``Certified''
and adding in its place ``Full-load.''
0
6. Section 3.1.4.1.2 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in
its place ``Full-load'' in two locations.
0
7. Section 3.1.4.2a is amended by revising the ``Cooling Minimum Air
Vol. Rate'' equation to read as set forth below.
0
8. Section 3.1.4.2b is amended by revising the equation for minimum
external static pressure to read as set forth below.
0
9. Section 3.1.4.2c is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in
its place ``Full-load.''
0
10. Section 3.1.4.3a is amended by revising the ``Cooling Intermediate
Air Volume Rate'' equation to read as set forth below.
0
11. Section 3.1.4.3b is amended by revising the ``Ev Test
[Delta]Pst '' equation to read as set forth below.
0
12. Section 3.1.4.4 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in
its place ``Full-load.''
0
13. Section 3.1.4.4.1 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding
in its place ``Full-load'' in three locations.
0
14. Section 3.1.4.4.2 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding
in its place ``Full-load'' and revising the ``Heating Certified Air
Volume Rate'' equation to read as set forth below.
0
14a. Section 3.1.4.4.2a is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding
in its place ``Full-load.''
0
15. Section 3.1.4.4.2b is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding
in its place ``Full-load'' in three locations, and revising the
``Heating Certified [Delta]Pst'' equation to read as set
forth below.
0
16. Section 3.1.4.4.2c is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding
in its place ``Full-load'' in three locations.
0
17. Sections 3.1.4.4.3 and 3.1.4.4.3a are revised to read as set forth
below.
0
17a. Sections 3.1.4.4.3b is amended by revising the first sentence to
read as set forth below.
0
18. Amend sections 3.1.4.4.3b, 3.1.4.4.3c and 3.1.4.4.4 by removing
``Certified'' and adding in its place ``Full-load.''
0
19. Section 3.1.4.5a is amended by revising the ``Heating Minimu