[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 139 (Thursday, July 20, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41320-41344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6320]



[[Page 41319]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



10 CFR Part 430



Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for 
Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 139 / Thursday, July 20, 2006 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 41320]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE-RM/TP-02-002]
RIN 1904-AB55


Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure 
for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) is proposing 
to amend its test procedure for residential central air conditioners 
and heat pumps. The proposal implements test procedure changes for 
small-duct, high-velocity systems, multiple-split systems, two-capacity 
units, and updates references to the current American Society of 
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 
standards. The proposal also clarifies issues associated with sampling 
and rating both tested and untested systems. The Department will hold a 
public meeting to discuss and receive comments on the proposal.

DATES: The Department will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, August 
23, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The Department must 
receive requests to speak at the public meeting before 4 p.m., 
Wednesday, August 9, 2006. The Department must receive a signed 
original and an electronic copy of statements to be given at the public 
meeting before 4 p.m., Wednesday, August 16, 2006.
    The Department will accept comments, data, and information 
regarding the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the 
public meeting, but no later than September 18, 2006. See section IV, 
``Public Participation,'' of this NOPR for details.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number EE-RM/
TP-02-002 and/or RIN number 1904-AB55, by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: [email protected]. Include docket number 
EE-RM/TP-02-002 and/or RIN number 1904-AB55 in the subject line of the 
message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Building Technologies Program, Mail-stop EE-2J, NOPR for Test Procedure 
for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, docket number 
EE-RM/TP-02-002 and/or RIN number 1904-AB55, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed original paper 
copy.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Room 1J-018, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 
586-2945. Please submit one signed original paper copy.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see section IV of 
this document (Public Participation).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal 
Building, Room 1J-018 (Resource Room of the Building Technologies 
Program), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121, 
Telephone Number: (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda 
Edwards-Jones at the above telephone number for additional information 
regarding visiting the Resource Room. Please note: The Department's 
Freedom of Information Reading Room (formerly Room 1E-190 at the 
Forrestal Building) is no longer housing rulemaking materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Raymond, Project Manager, Test 
Procedures for Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 
Docket No. EE-RM/TP-02-002, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, Telephone 
Number: (202) 586-9611, e-mail: [email protected];
    Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121, (202) 586-9507, e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of the Proposed Rule
    A. Overview
    B. Authority
    C. Background
    D. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions
II. Discussion
    A. Proposed substantive changes to the test procedure in 
Appendix M
    B. Proposed substantive changes to other parts of the CFR that 
affect the testing and rating of residential central air 
conditioners and heat pumps
    C. Proposed non-substantive changes to other parts of the CFR
    D. Effect of test procedure revisions on compliance with 
standards
III. Procedural Requirements
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act of 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act of 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
(FEA) Act of 1974
IV. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to Speak
    C. Conduct of Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. Overview

    DOE completed a multi-year rulemaking process to update the DOE 
test procedure for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps 
on October 11, 2005, when it published an amended test procedure in the 
Federal Register. (70 FR 59122) (Hereafter referred to as the October 
2005 final rule.) Today's notice initiates a new rulemaking that 
addresses several test procedure issues that were identified too late 
in the prior rulemaking to allow stakeholders an opportunity to comment 
on them. The October 2005 final rule was concerned almost exclusively 
with Appendix M to Subpart B (the test method proper), which was 
completely replaced. Today's revision has significant updates to 
Subpart B itself, in 10 CFR section 430.24 (units to be tested). These 
revisions concern topics such as the alternative rating method used to 
provide efficiency ratings for untested split system combinations, data 
submission requirements, and sampling requirements. There are also 
revisions to the test procedure proper in

[[Page 41321]]

Appendix M. These revisions have no common theme. Most are concerned 
with improving the accuracy of the test procedure, and with extending 
coverage to new central air conditioner features.

B. Authority

    Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA 
or the Act) establishes the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles (Program). (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.) The 
products currently subject to this Program (``covered products'') 
include residential central air conditioners and heat pumps, the 
subject of today's notice.
    Under the Act, the Program consists of three parts: testing, 
labeling, and the Federal energy conservation standards. The Federal 
Trade Commission (FTC) is responsible for labeling, and DOE implements 
the remainder of the program. The Department, in consultation with the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), is authorized to 
establish or amend test procedures as appropriate for each of the 
covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293) The purpose of the test procedures 
is to measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual 
operating cost of a covered product during a representative, average 
use cycle or period of use. The test procedure must not be unduly 
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The central air 
conditioner and heat pump test procedures appear in title 10 of the 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 430, subpart B, Appendix M.
    If a test procedure is amended, DOE is required to determine to 
what extent, if any, the new test procedure amendments would alter the 
measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under 
the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines 
that an amended test procedure would alter the measured energy 
efficiency of a covered product, DOE is required to amend the 
applicable energy conservation standard with respect to such test 
procedure. In determining any such amended energy conservation 
standard, DOE is required to measure the energy efficiency or energy 
use of a representative sample of covered products that minimally 
comply with the existing standard. The average efficiency or energy use 
of these representative samples, tested using the amended test 
procedure, constitutes the amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
    Beginning 180 days after a test procedure for a covered product is 
prescribed, no manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler 
may make representations with respect to the energy use, efficiency, or 
cost of energy consumed by such products, except as reflected in tests 
conducted according to the DOE procedure.

C. Background

    The latest revision of the DOE test procedure for central air 
conditioners and heat pumps--which covers units having rated cooling 
capacities of less than 65,000 Btu/h--was published as a final rule on 
October 11, 2005 (70 FR 59122), effective April 10, 2006.
    After the January 22, 2001, publication of the proposed rule for 
the above rulemaking, stakeholders urged additional test procedure 
revisions. On December 13, 2002, DOE received stakeholder views on 
these revisions during a public workshop. (Hereafter referred to as the 
December 2002 workshop.) Written comments were received from the 
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Unico, Inc., 
Carrier Corporation, Lennox International, York International, and the 
Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI). In addition, five 
requests for test procedure waiver have been received from 
manufacturers of multi-split central air conditioners. These waivers 
are necessary because the current test procedure is inadequate for 
testing these products.
    This test procedure revision addresses changes requested by 
stakeholders, either directly or through test procedure waiver 
requests. A full list of the changes appears in the next section. The 
primary reasons for these changes are: (1) To implement test procedure 
revisions that are needed because of new energy efficiency standards 
for small-duct, high-velocity (SDHV) systems; (2) to better address 
multi-split units test procedure waivers; and (3) to address sampling 
and rating issues that have been raised since the new minimum energy 
efficiency standards became effective on January 23, 2006.

D. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions

    Today's proposed rule includes twelve substantive changes to the 
test procedure in Appendix M. It includes eight substantive changes and 
four non-substantive changes to other parts of the CFR that concern 
rating of central air conditioners and heat pumps. The proposed test 
procedure changes are:
    Proposed substantive changes to Appendix M:
    1. Imposing higher minimum external-static-pressure requirements 
and adding test-setup modifications for testing small-duct, high-
velocity systems. (Sections 2.2, 2.4.1, 2.5.4.2, and 3.1.4.1.2)
    2. Reinstating the option of conducting a cyclic test at high 
capacity when testing a two-capacity unit. (Sections 3.2.3, 3.4, 3.5, 
3.5.3, 3.6.3, 3.8, 3.8.1, 4.1.3.3, and 4.2.3.3)
    3. Shortening the maximum duration of a Frost Accumulation Test on 
a two-capacity heat pump when it is operating at low capacity. (Section 
3.9)
    4. Using default equations to approximate the performance of a two-
capacity heat pump operating at low capacity, instead of conducting a 
Frost Accumulation Test. (Section 3.6.3)
    5. For modulating multi-split systems: Allowing indoor units to 
cycle off, allowing the manufacturer to specify the compressor speed 
used during certain tests, and introducing a new algorithm for 
estimating power consumption. (Sections 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 3.2.4, 
3.6.4, 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2)
    6. Extending the duct-loss correction to the indoor capacities used 
for calculating seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) and heating 
seasonal performance factor (HSPF). (Sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 
3.9.1, and 3.11)
    7. Defining ``repeatable'' for cyclic tests. (Section 3.5)
    8. Articulating a definition of ``standard air.'' (Definition 1.37)
    9. Changing one of the cooling-mode outdoor test conditions for 
units having a two-capacity compressor. (Sections 3.2.3 and 4.1.3)
    10. Renaming ``Cooling and Heating Certified Air Volume Rates'' to 
``Full-load Air Volume Rates.'' (Definition 1.34)
    11. Modifying the criterion for using an air volume rate that is 
less than the manufacturer's specified value. (Sections 3.1.4.1.1 and 
3.1.4.4.3)
    12. Revising references to ASHRAE Standards (e.g., Standards 23, 37 
and 116) that have been reaffirmed (i.e., reviewed and approved by 
ASHRAE with no substantive changes) or revised too recently to have 
been included in the amended test procedure published on October 11, 
2005.
    Proposed substantive changes to other parts of the CFR that affect 
the testing and rating of residential central air conditioners and heat 
pumps:
    1. New data-submission-requirements when verifying an alternative 
rating method. 10 CFR 430.24(m)(6).
    2. Guidance on the inclusion of pre-production units in the sample 
population used to determine and validate the published ratings. 10 CFR 
430.24.
    3. Clarification of the sample population used to validate the 
rated

[[Page 41322]]

SEER and the rated HSPF. 10 CFR 430.24(m).
    4. Clarification of the definition of a ``highest sales volume 
combination.'' 10 CFR 430.24(m)(2).
    5. Upper limit on the difference between calculated and tested SEER 
and HSPF values. 10 CFR 430.24(m), 10 CFR 430.2.
    6. Clarification of the published ratings for untested split-system 
combinations. 10 CFR 430.24.
    7. Adding requirement that ratings for an air conditioner or heat 
pump that is rated with a furnace include the model number of that 
furnace as part of the overall equipment model number. 10 CFR 
430.62(a)(4).
    8. For products such as multi-splits which have multiple indoor 
units, instituting a ``tested combination'' as an alternative to 
testing the combination with ``the largest volume of retail sales.'' 10 
CFR 430.24(m)(2), 10 CFR 430.2.
    Proposed non-substantive changes to related portions of the CFR:
    1. Clarification of a private labeler's (i.e., a third party) 
responsibility for ensuring that reported ratings are based on an 
approved alternative method for rating untested combinations or on 
laboratory test data. 10 CFR 430.24(m)(5).
    2. Revisions to the definition of ``coil family.'' 10 CFR 430.2.
    3. New definition for ``private labeler'' within Sec.  430.2.
    4. Definitions of terms: ``indoor unit,'' ``outdoor unit,'' ``ARM/
simulation adjustment factor,'' and ``tested combination.'' 10 CFR 
430.2.
    An expanded discussion of each proposed substantive change is 
provided in the next section. The complete test procedure is not 
printed as part of today's proposed rule. Instead, only the specific 
sections of the test procedure and related parts of the CFR where 
changes are proposed are printed. These specific, proposed changes are 
set forth at the end of this notice.

II. Discussion

A. Proposed Substantive Changes to the Test Procedure in Appendix M

    1. Imposing higher minimum external-static-pressure requirements 
and adding test-setup modifications for testing small-duct, high-
velocity systems. Based on consideration of comments received at the 
December 2002 workshop, DOE today proposes minimum external-static-
pressure levels for SDHV systems that are higher, by 1.0 inch of water, 
than the minimums that apply for all other units. For example, for 
equipment having rated cooling capacities from 29,000 to 42,500 Btu/h, 
the minimum external static pressures are 0.15 inches of water for 
conventional blower-coil systems and 1.15 inches of water for SDHV 
systems.
    Changes to the test procedure that complement the proposed testing 
of SDHV systems at the higher external static pressures are also 
proposed today. Changes are proposed that pertain to both the equipment 
setup and the test setup. For example, because the external-static-
pressure taps for the laboratory test setup are located downstream of 
the indoor unit, all balance dampers or restrictor devices on, or 
inside, the unit must be set fully open or on the lowest restriction 
setting. To avoid potential abuses of using static regain to meet the 
lab-measured, higher external-static requirements and to otherwise 
avoid attempts to qualify a conventional unit as a SDHV unit, limits 
are proposed to the size of the duct connected to the outlet of the 
indoor unit. For cases where a closed-loop, air-enthalpy test apparatus 
is used on the indoor side, DOE proposes to limit the airflow 
resistance on the inlet side of the indoor blower-coil to a maximum 
value of 0.1 inch of water. The balance of the airflow resistance shall 
be imposed on the supply side of the indoor blower. Such loading is 
consistent with a field application of a SDHV system and its smaller 
supply ducts and room diffusers. Finally, the test setup shall include 
an adjustable air damper that is positioned immediately upstream of the 
airflow measuring apparatus. This damper can minimize air leakage in 
the airflow measuring apparatus at points upstream of the flow nozzle 
by reducing the pressure difference between the duct and the 
surrounding ambient. A maximum differential of 0.5 inches of water is 
proposed. If practicable, the outlet air damper box used for cyclic 
tests can double as this adjustable air damper.
    Regarding the above-proposed new requirements for equipment and 
test setup, only one was discussed at the December 13, 2002 workshop. 
This requirement concerns the distribution of the external resistance 
between the supply and return sides when using a closed-loop test 
setup. No attendee opposed this addition, and no opposing views were 
voiced in the written comments that followed. The other proposed 
additions were raised in written comments from Unico, Inc. (Unico), a 
SDHV manufacturer. (Unico, No. 7) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A notation in the form ``Unico, No. 7 at 4'' identifies a 
written comment DOE received in this rulemaking. This notation 
refers to a comment (1) by Unico, (2) in document number 7 in the 
docket in this matter, and (3) appearing at page 4 of document 
number 7. No page number may be cited if it is not needed because of 
the brevity of the comment, or, as here, the comment is in the form 
of a series of e-mails.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A definition for SDHV systems was developed by industry members 
during the previous test procedure rulemaking, and was adopted as 
Definition 1.35 (10 CFR 430.2) in the October 2005 final rule. The 
combination of this definition, the higher, lab-verified minimum 
external-static-pressure requirements, and limits on supply-duct sizes 
provides a safeguard against conventional systems being classified 
improperly as SDHV systems.
    Today's proposed rule does not include changes to the definition of 
``SDHV system.'' The requirement remains that all SDHV systems must be 
capable of operating at an external static pressure of 1.2 inches of 
water, or higher, at their Full-Load Air Volume Rate. During the brief 
discussion of this issue at the December 2002 workshop, there was 
support for making the definition congruent with the newly proposed 
testing requirements (Public Hearing Tr., pages 20, 69). However, DOE 
believes that the difference between the definition (fixed-minimum 
external static pressure of 1.2 inches of water) and the test procedure 
requirement (variable-minimum external static pressure of 1.1-1.2 
inches of water, depending on capacity) is acceptable. Any unit meeting 
the definition can be tested under the test procedure. The test 
procedure's variable-minimum, external-static-pressure requirements 
reflect similar variable static-pressure requirements for conventional 
systems. The only effects of changing the definition to incorporate a 
variable-minimum, external-static-pressure requirement would be to make 
the definition more complicated and somewhat less stringent. DOE has 
determined that it would not improve the current definition of ``SDHV 
system'' if DOE made it congruent with the newly proposed lab testing 
requirements.
    The DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision 
and order on May 24, 2004, that requires SDHV systems manufactured on 
or after January 23, 2006, to achieve SEER and Heating Seasonal 
Performance Factor (HSPF) ratings that are not less than 11.0 and 6.8, 
respectively. While the changes proposed today would change the measure 
of energy efficiency for SDHV units, the amendments proposed were known 
by OHA and taken into consideration when OHA issued exceptions to the 
central air conditioner

[[Page 41323]]

standards for SDHV units.\2\ DOE expects that the test procedure 
amendments, as proposed, will not cause any SDHV product to become 
noncompliant with the energy efficiency standards for SDHV units set by 
OHA. DOE requests comments on the proposed changes, whether they will 
change the measure of energy use and whether they will cause any SDHV 
model to be non-compliant with DOE's energy efficiency standards. In 
particular, DOE requests stakeholders to submit lab test results that 
show the impact of these changes on the measure of efficiency and on 
compliance with the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ SpacePak/Unico, 29 DOE ] 81,002 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The specific changes proposed within the DOE test procedure that 
pertain to the above discussion on SDHV systems appear in sections 2.2, 
2.4.1, 2.5.4.2, and 3.1.4.1.2 of the central air conditioner and heat 
pump test procedure.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For the aid of the reader, the January 1, 2006, CFR includes 
both the central air conditioner test procedure as it existed prior 
to the October 2005 final rule (Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR 
Part 430) and the test procedure as it exists as a result of the 
October 2005 final rule (Appendix M, Nt. to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 
430). References to the central air conditioner and heat pump test 
procedures in today's proposed rule are to the test procedure as it 
exists as a result of the October 2005 final rule (Appendix M, Nt. 
to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430). It is referred to as either the 
central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure or the October 
2005 test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Reinstating the option of conducting a cyclic test at high 
capacity when testing a two-capacity unit. Beginning with the January 
17, 1980, effective date of the DOE test procedure for central air 
conditioners and heat pumps, the test procedure provided a rarely used 
option of conducting cyclic testing at high capacity on two-capacity 
units. The October 2005 final rule eliminated the option of testing to 
obtain a cyclic-degradation coefficient for high capacity, 
CD(k = 2) and instead assigned the coefficient the same 
value as the cyclic-degradation coefficient for low capacity, 
CD(k = 2) = CD(k = 1), in order to simplify the 
test procedure. The change, however, caused some two-capacity units 
(i.e., ones that lock out low capacity at certain outdoor temperatures) 
to lose a small SEER or HSPF rating boost, usually in the 0.1 range, 
that would have been gained by the optional test. There are cases where 
a 0.1 boost in SEER or HSPF would be of great value to a manufacturer. 
Thus, today's proposed rule includes the option of testing to determine 
the high-capacity CD. Assigning the value for the low-
capacity CD as the high-capacity CD now becomes 
the default option instead of testing at high capacity. Reinstating the 
option of testing to determine the high-capacity CD was 
supported at the December 2002 workshop (Public Hearing Tr., pages 67-
68).
    The specific changes proposed within the DOE test procedure that 
pertain to the reinstatement of the optional, high-capacity cyclic 
tests are shown in sections 3.2.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.5.3, 3.6.3, 3.8, 3.8.1, 
4.1.3.3, and 4.2.3.3 of the central air conditioner and heat pump test 
procedure.
    3. Shortening the maximum duration of a Frost Accumulation Test on 
a two-capacity heat pump when it is operating at low capacity. A frost 
accumulation test at low capacity is required if the heat pump cycles 
between low and high heating capacities while matching the building 
load at temperatures of 37[deg]F and lower. Completing such a frost 
accumulation test, as presently specified, can be difficult, as 
discussed below. DOE is proposing changes that seek to reduce the test 
burden, while avoiding changing the measure of HSPF.
    During a frost accumulation test, the official test period lasts 
for one complete cycle, from defrost termination to defrost 
termination--or 12 hours, whichever occurs first. Most heat pumps 
conduct a complete cycle well in advance of the 12-hour time limit, at 
least with single-speed units or two-capacity heat pumps operating at 
high capacity. When running a frost accumulation test at low capacity, 
however, the outdoor coil builds frost more slowly or not at all. As a 
result, frost accumulation tests on two-capacity heat pumps having a 
demand defrost and running at low capacity take much longer to 
complete, potentially requiring the full 12 hours--that is, if the test 
condition tolerances can be maintained over the extended period.
    The frost accumulation test conditions are, in themselves, a 
challenge to maintain. The task is more difficult when testing a two-
capacity heat pump at low capacity. The test-room air reconditioning 
system has to be sized to accommodate high-capacity operation and so is 
more likely mismatched and oversized. The level of difficulty also 
increases because of having to maintain the test-room tolerances over a 
comparatively longer period. More opportunity exists for a perturbation 
in the operation of the heat pump or the test-room reconditioning 
system to shift the test conditions beyond the allowed tolerances.
    Three related modifications to the test procedure were discussed at 
the December 2002, workshop. The first option is to change the maximum 
test interval from 12 hours to either 3 or 6 hours. A second option is 
to state in the test procedure that the controls of the heat pump may 
be overridden during frost accumulation tests at low capacity in order 
to force a defrost cycle prior to 12 hours. In this case, the 
manufacturer would specify the time interval after which defrost would 
be manually initiated. The third option is to add a default equation 
that could be used instead of running the test.
    The rationale for the first option comes from draft revisions of 
International Standards Organization (ISO) standards that cover the 
testing and rating of residential heat pumps and air conditioners, ISO 
Standards 5151 and 13253. (ISO/DIS 5151R, Non-ducted Air Conditioners 
and Heat Pumps--Testing and Rating for Performance; ISO/DIS 13253R, 
Ducted Air Conditioners and Air-to-Air Heat Pumps--Testing and Rating 
for Performance) Currently, these draft revisions call for all heating-
capacity tests to last a maximum of three hours when using the air-
enthalpy test method. The second option would be an extension of the 
procedure that was instituted in the October 2005 test procedure to 
handle heat pumps that use history-dependent demand-defrost controls. 
The manually initiated option was invoked to avoid running an excessive 
number of cycles before repeatable defrost cycles occurred. The third 
option is consistent with the existing alternative allowed when testing 
variable-speed heat pumps. Instead of running frost accumulation tests 
at both the intermediate speed and at maximum speed, the manufacturer 
has the option of using a specified equation to approximate the 
maximum-speed heating capacity and average power at 35[deg]F outdoor 
temperature.
    At the December 2002 workshop, two manufacturers, Trane and 
Copeland, spoke in favor of the default equation (Public Hearing Tr., 
pages 62-63). Ducane spoke in favor of a shorter maximum test time, 6 
hours instead of 12 hours (Public Hearing Tr., page 62). ACEEE 
expressed a desire for making no change that ultimately discourages 
innovation (Public Hearing Tr., page 64). York favored letting the 
manufacturer specify the duration of the heating cycle (Public Hearing 
Tr., page 65). There was also a discussion of making the third option, 
which is a default equation, the default procedure. It was suggested 
that if a manufacturer wanted to test, it could use either the first or 
second option (Public Hearing Tr., page 66).
    After considering recommendations from NIST, based on its 
experience, and discussions with industry members familiar with running 
frost accumulation tests, DOE believes that if

[[Page 41324]]

a heat pump has not defrosted in six hours, it is either (1) not 
building frost or (2) is completely frosted and probably has been so 
for more than half of the interval. In both cases, the benefits from 
continuing to run the test past 6 hours are none to minimal. For the 
``not-building-frost'' case, extending the test is going to have 
virtually no impact on the average heating capacity and average power 
consumption. For the ``completely frosted'' alternative, the tested 
values of average performance might diminish, but at such a slow rate 
as to be insignificant.
    Any benefit from an extended frost accumulation test, in addition, 
is further reduced because of the comparatively smaller impact of a 
low-capacity frost accumulation test on HSPF. The results of the low-
capacity frost accumulation test affect low-capacity performance for 
the 22, 27, 32, and 37[deg]F temperature bins. For two-capacity heat 
pumps, operating time over this bin temperature range is typically 
split between low and high capacities rather than being exclusively at 
low capacity.
    DOE believes a reduction in the manufacturers' test burden is 
merited and that any change in the measure of HSPF will be negligible. 
Thus, DOE today proposes that the maximum duration of a frost 
accumulation test at low capacity be changed from 12 hours to 6 hours. 
This test procedure change is shown in section 3.9 of the central air 
conditioner and heat pump test procedure.
    4. Using default equations to approximate the performance of a two-
capacity heat pump operating at low capacity, instead of conducting a 
Frost Accumulation Test. This section builds on the discussion of the 
previous section. Although the proposed amendment discussed above will 
reduce the test burden, DOE believes the test burden remains 
considerable, especially if HSPF is relatively insensitive to the 
performance data derived from the test. One example would be a two-
capacity heat pump that locks out low-capacity operation at outdoor 
temperatures lower than 35 [deg]F. Such a lockout feature would result 
in the average capacity and power consumption from the low-capacity 
frost accumulation test being used only for 37 [deg]F-bin calculations.
    DOE is amenable to allowing an alternative to conducting a low-
capacity frost accumulation test as long as the alternative yields 
conservative estimates of average capacity and power consumption. DOE 
has not been able to obtain information on typical performance 
degradation at frosting conditions. Data is needed to quantify how much 
the heat pump's performance at low-capacity and 35 [deg]F outdoor 
temperature departs from the average capacity and power derived from 
linearly interpolating between the steady-state-heating-performance 
data at 47 and 17 [deg]F. Lacking such data, DOE is following the 
recommendation made at the December 2002, workshop and proposes using 
the same default equations that it permits for variable-speed heat 
pumps in lieu of running a frost accumulation test at maximum speed. 
These equations estimate that the average heating-capacity and power-
consumption values will be 90 percent, and 98.5 percent, respectively, 
of the interpolated, steady-state values. These percentages, when 
applied to low-capacity operation, provide conservative estimates of 
performance and are proposed in this rulemaking.
    DOE prefers to have current laboratory data on which to base the 
selected conservative defaults. Thus, DOE requests that the industry 
share its results from testing two-capacity heat pumps at low capacity 
for the 47, 35, and 17 [deg]F test conditions. The change, as proposed, 
is shown in section 3.6.3 of the central air conditioner and heat pump 
test procedure.
    5. For modulating multi-split systems: allowing indoor units to 
cycle off, allowing the manufacturer to specify the compressor speed 
used during certain tests, and introducing a new algorithm for 
estimating power consumption. Certain parts of the current test 
procedure are poorly suited for testing and rating modulating multi-
splits. In particular, three areas where shortcomings exist are (1) the 
requirement that all indoor coils operate during all tests, (2) the 
selection of the modulation levels for conducting tests on variable-
speed systems (maximum, minimum, and a specified intermediate speed), 
and (3) the calculation algorithm for estimating performance over the 
intermediate speed/capacity range. The first area of concern results 
from a requirement developed for mini-split systems and then wrongly 
extended to multi-split systems. The second and third shortcomings stem 
from test levels and a calculation algorithm that are reasonable for 
one-condenser-to-one-evaporator-coil, variable-speed units but less 
suited for multi-splits.
    In an effort to incrementally improve the test procedure's coverage 
of multi-splits, DOE proposes: (1) Allowing one or more indoor coils to 
cycle off during any test, if this occurs in normal operation, (2) 
allowing the manufacturer to specify the compressor speed used during 
the minimum-capacity and intermediate-speed tests, and (3) introducing 
a different algorithm for estimating power consumption in the 
intermediate-speed range. Another test procedure change is to remove 
the limitation on the use of only one indoor test room. Using two or 
more indoor test rooms may provide the flexibility needed to test 
certain multi-splits as complete systems. DOE recognizes that this 
change, however, will not be a solution to the prevailing problem where 
many multi-split systems cannot be lab tested, even in the most 
versatile test facility, due to the too-large number of indoor coils.
    The allowance for turning off one or more indoor coils during any 
lab test, if this occurs in normal operation, will more likely be 
relevant during the intermediate and minimum speed/capacity tests. 
However, one or more indoor coils may not operate during a maximum-
capacity test if the particular multi-split is configured using 
multiple indoor coils whose cumulative rated capacities exceed the 
rated capacity of the outdoor unit. During testing, DOE proposes that 
indoor coils that are cycled off be isolated in order to avoid any 
induced space conditioning, so that the aggregated, measured capacity 
includes no contribution from an inactive coil.
    At the December 2002 workshop, and in the comments following the 
workshop, stakeholders did not make any objection to testing multi-
splits in the lab in a manner more representative of field operation. 
(Public Hearing Tr., page 54) Allowing on/off control of indoor coils 
in the lab is consistent with this position.
    As for the two other amendments relating to multi-splits that are 
proposed in this notice, a brief review of background information is 
helpful. Within the DOE test procedure, variable-speed air conditioners 
and heat pumps were first covered as a result of amendments to the 
central air conditioner and heat pump test procedures published by DOE 
in 1988. (53 FR 8304, March 14, 1988) These amendments addressed the 
designs of variable-speed systems marketed at the time: split systems 
having a single indoor coil and a single outdoor coil (i.e., one-
condenser-to-one-evaporator-coil systems). These systems could 
typically modulate, such that minimum-speed operation corresponded to 
capacities in the range of 40 to 60 percent of the maximum-speed 
capacity. More importantly, for the operating region where the unit 
modulates to produce a capacity equal to the building load, these 
systems operate most efficiently at the minimum speed with efficiency 
monotonically decreasing as the system ramped to maximum speed.

[[Page 41325]]

Further, because EER and COP are more linear than power consumption, 
DOE used efficiency as the parameter for interpolating within the DOE 
test procedure.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Domanski, Piotr A., ``Recommended Procedure for Rating and 
Testing of Variable Speed Air Source Unitary Air Conditioners and 
Heat Pumps,'' NBSIR 88-3781, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, May 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The range of modulation of multi-splits is greater than for any 
previously evaluated one-condenser-to-one-evaporator-coil, variable-
speed system. Most multi-splits can modulate their capacity to levels 
approaching 10 percent of rated capacity. Rated capacity, for some 
multi-splits, can be 5 to 10 percent lower than their maximum capacity, 
thus adding to the actual range of modulation. Multi-split 
manufacturers have informed DOE and NIST that both the minimum and 
maximum operating capacities correspond to points of declining 
efficiency with peak efficiency typically occurring in the 50-to-70 
percent speed/capacity range. Thus, for a fixed set of ambient 
conditions, the efficiency-versus-modulation curve is expected to be 
hump-shaped.
    The central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure's current 
algorithm calls for fitting a second-order polynomial (i.e., quadratic 
equation) to the efficiency values for the three available data points: 
the minimum-speed balance point, the intermediate-speed balance point, 
and the maximum-speed balance point. The curve fit is used to obtain an 
estimate of efficiency over the outdoor temperature range where the 
unit would modulate to provide a space conditioning capacity that 
equals the building load. Power consumption at any intermediate speed 
operating point is derived from the paired capacity and efficiency 
values (i.e., power = building load/EER) corresponding to the chosen 
outdoor (bin) temperature.
    The above algorithm is well suited for one-condenser-to-one-
evaporator-coil, variable-speed systems because the intermediate-speed, 
efficiency-versus-modulation data is monotonic and nearly linear. Due 
to insufficient data, DOE cannot quantify the value of using the 
algorithm with multi-split units. In the worst case, multi-split 
efficiency may deviate significantly from the balanced, parabolic shape 
that would be predicted by the second-order-polynomial fit. Another 
potential problem is that the efficiency at the intermediate-speed 
balance point will likely not be the peak efficiency point. As a 
result, the predicted peak efficiency is defined by the curve fit and 
not verified in the lab. The algorithm is not well suited for multi-
split units, because the predicted efficiency curve may overestimate 
the performance of one unit while underestimating the performance of 
another unit.
    DOE seeks data showing how the capacity and power consumption of 
multi-split units vary as a function of the modulation level and 
outdoor test conditions. Lacking such data, DOE proposes to calculate 
steady-state efficiency (EER and COP) over the intermediate-speed range 
using piece-wise linear fits: a line connecting the minimum- and 
intermediate-capacity balance points and a line connecting the 
intermediate- and maximum-capacity balance points. The linear fits 
should yield a conservative estimate of performance but are favored 
because of concern that the second-order fit may provide poor and most-
likely inflated estimates.
    Associated with the proposal to use a piece-wise linear fit of 
steady-state efficiency, DOE also proposes that the multi-split 
manufacturer shall specify the system capacity (i.e., compressor speed, 
indoor coil configurations, fan speeds, etc.) used for the cooling and 
heating intermediate speed/capacity tests. This change is being 
proposed so that the manufacturer has an opportunity to verify the 
peak-efficiency capabilities of the multi-split unit being tested. 
Defining two other capacities, maximum and minimum, are the last points 
specific to this multi-split discussion.
    DOE proposes that multi-splits be tested at their maximum capacity 
(maximum compressor speed), or full load, not their rated capacity. The 
tested compressor speed shall be the maximum for continuous duty 
operation as allowed by the unit's controls. For clarity, this tested 
capacity is not a ``turbo'' mode where a higher operating speed(s) is 
allowed but for only a limited time interval. This clearer definition 
of the maximum speed/capacity test applies to all variable-speed 
systems, not just multi-splits.
    DOE considered an alternative approach of allowing the manufacturer 
to specify the compressor capacity/speed used for maximum-capacity 
tests. However, in use, the variable-capacity system operates at 
capacities/speeds above this rated capacity. DOE's goal is to specify 
tests that yield a performance map that is as encompassing and 
representative as possible. Specifying the maximum-capacity tests as 
proposed in this notice is consistent with this goal. The approach is 
also consistent with the full-load testing approach taken in comparable 
ISO standards, 13253, 5151, and 15042. (ISO/DIS 15042P, Multi-split 
System Air-Conditioners and Air-to-Air Heat Pumps--Testing and Rating 
for Performance)
    DOE next considered the option of allowing an additional test at 
the manufacturer's rated cooling capacity, for the sole purpose of 
defining the building load line used for the SEER bin calculations. DOE 
decided not to introduce this option due to possible confusion from 
having two SEER's. There could be one SEER based on a building load 
line tied to the unit's performance at the A-Test condition at maximum 
capacity, and a second SEER based on the load line derived using the 
rated capacity at the A-Test conditions. Manufacturers of variable-
capacity systems, including multi-splits, can still show the impact of 
sizing the unit based on a rated capacity.
    From a testing standpoint, conducting tests at the true minimum 
capacity, possibly 10 percent of full load, is difficult. The test room 
reconditioning system has difficulty operating against such low loads 
and maintaining test conditions within tolerance. Thus, the multi-
split's performance at its true minimum capacity may have to be 
determined by extrapolation of test data collected at higher capacities 
where the tests are more easily conducted. In this case, some short 
test would be needed to verify the true minimum operating capacity of 
the multi-split. Alternatively, SEER and HSPF could be calculated based 
only on the operational range verified in the steady-state lab tests. 
For example, if a multi-split were tested at 30 percent of capacity 
even though it was reportedly able to ramp down to 10 percent of 
capacity, the SEER and HSPF calculations would be conducted assuming 
that the unit would cycle on and off at building loads that fell below 
the 30 percent capacity curve.
    DOE proposes that the minimum-capacity test be conducted at a 
capacity specified by the manufacturer. The operating level can be 
either the equipment's true minimum or a capacity that is greater than 
the true minimum but nonetheless chosen by the manufacturer as its 
designated minimum capacity. DOE prefers that multi-split manufacturers 
specify a tested minimum capacity for which test-room tolerances are 
readily maintainable. As with the maximum-capacity test, the tested 
capacity shall be one that the unit could maintain indefinitely, if 
needed. DOE further proposes that SEER and HSPF shall be calculated 
assuming that the tested minimum capacity corresponds to the actual 
minimum capacity. Extrapolation

[[Page 41326]]

of performance data will not be permitted for the case where the tested 
minimum is actually higher than the true minimum. DOE, however, is open 
to comments on how to verify the true minimum-capacity operation such 
that extrapolation of performance data could be incorporated.
    At the December 2002 workshop, Trane recommended that a multi-split 
manufacturer make a recommendation on the new test points, possibly 
through a waiver petition (Public Hearing Tr., pages 55-56). Copeland, 
and to a certain extent, ACEEE, expressed concern that multi-splits may 
be difficult to test with the DOE test procedure for central air 
conditioners and heat pumps (Public Hearing Tr., pages 58-61). Since 
the workshop, DOE has received four waiver petitions from manufacturers 
of residential multi-split systems. All four petitions take the 
approach of seeking waivers from the DOE test procedures due to 
shortcomings in the test procedure (e.g., no credit for a simultaneous 
heating and cooling mode), the lack of an alternative method for rating 
untested combinations, and the fact that many multi-split combinations 
simply cannot be lab tested because they have too many indoor coils. 
These limitations are among those multi-split issues that will be 
addressed in the future.
    The changes proposed in this notice are offered to address some of 
the test procedure shortcomings pertaining to residential multi-split 
units. At this time, DOE prefers to pursue covering multi-splits within 
the central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure rather than 
pursue development of a ``multi-split-only'' test procedure. DOE 
welcomes comments on the proposed test procedure changes. For those 
that feel multi-split systems are so different as to merit coverage in 
a separate test procedure, DOE asks that they provide suggestions on 
the possible structure of such a test procedure.
    The specific changes proposed within the DOE test procedure that 
pertain to the above discussion on multi-split systems are shown in 
sections 2.1, 2.2.3, 2.4.1, 3.2.4, 3.6.4, 4.1.4.2, and 4.2.4.2 of the 
central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure.
    6. Extending the duct-loss correction to the indoor capacities used 
for calculating SEER and HSPF. In the recently published test procedure 
final rule, a capacity correction for duct losses was added. This 
correction was added for compatibility with existing industry practice. 
Regrettably, the correction was applied too narrowly. As published, the 
correction was only used when evaluating whether the required 6-percent 
energy balance was achieved between the primary and secondary test 
methods for measuring capacity. The correction is also to be used to 
adjust the indoor capacities used in calculating SEER and HSPF. Today's 
proposed rule includes this corrective action, with one exception. The 
exception applies to the two indoor capacities used for calculating a 
cyclic-degradation coefficient, CD. The effort involved in accounting 
for the duct losses, especially during a cyclic test, is judged as 
overly burdensome, given the adjustment's small effect. Its impact is 
further reduced because the CD calculation only requires the ratio of 
the two indoor capacities. Duct losses are minimal because the test 
procedure requires that the supply ductwork be insulated to an R-19 
level.
    This topic spurred little discussion at the December 2002 workshop. 
In fact, the only related substantive discussion was whether the 
correction could be made within the then-pending final rulemaking. DOE 
spoke in favor of the issue being considered in a second, separate 
rulemaking, and so it is included here. The specific changes proposed 
within the DOE test procedure that pertain to the above discussion are 
shown in sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9.1, and 3.11 in the central 
air conditioner and heat pump test procedure.
    7. Defining ``repeatable'' for cyclic tests. In the October 2005 
final rule, the following requirement is provided in section 3.5e 
regarding the duration of a cyclic test: ``After completing a minimum 
of two complete compressor OFF/ON cycles, determine the overall cooling 
delivered and total electrical energy consumption during any subsequent 
data collection interval where the test tolerances given in Table 8 are 
satisfied.'' (70 FR 59122) Many test laboratories, however, let the 
test continue until the results are repeatable. These laboratories take 
extra time to make sure that they have it right; they go further than 
the specified ``one good interval and done'' test procedure 
requirement.
    In today's proposed rule, DOE proposes to include the additional 
requirement that repeatable results be obtained before terminating a 
cyclic test. DOE plans to follow industry practice for what qualifies 
as ``repeatable.'' At the December 2002 workshop, two attendees spoke 
to this issue (Public Hearing Tr., pp. 42-43). After the workshop, NIST 
discussed the issue with these two attendees, Excel Comfort Systems 
(Excel) and Intertek Testing Services (ITS). Excel indicated that it 
typically runs 5 OFF/ON cycles and compares the [Ggr], the time-
integrated temperature difference on the indoor side, from each ``on'' 
cycle. The goal is to have the [Ggr] values vary by 0.04 
[deg]F[middot]hr or less. ITS looks at two parameters when making a 
judgment on repeatable cycles. On the capacity side, ITS seeks 
consecutive cycles in which the average indoor side air temperature 
difference changes by 0.3 [deg]F or less. On the input side, ITS seeks 
consecutive cycles where the average system power consumption for the 
complete OFF/ON interval changes by 5 watts or less. The ITS criterion 
for capacity is slightly less stringent than the Excel Comfort Systems 
criterion. The input side criterion imposed by ITS offsets this slight 
difference.
    DOE favors defining ``repeatable results'' in terms of both the 
unit's average capacity (i.e., using the integrated temperature 
difference) and its average power consumption. As compared to the above 
two industry members and their respective in-house criteria, DOE today 
proposes comparatively looser target levels. They are: [Ggr] values 
that vary by 0.05 [deg]F[middot]hr or less; and consecutive cycles 
where the average system power consumption changes by 10 watts or less. 
See section 3.5 of the test procedure for the specific changes proposed 
on implementing and defining repeatable results for a cyclic test.
    8. Articulating a definition of ``standard air.'' The October 2005 
final rule contains a definition for ``standard air'' (see Sec.  1.37, 
Appendix M, Nt. to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430). This definition was, 
at the time, consistent with the definition contained in the public 
review draft of ASHRAE Standard 37-1988R (see 10 CFR 430.22(5)3). 
During the public review process, the definition in the ASHRAE Standard 
was modified to highlight that mass density is the key defining 
parameter, not the combination of the dry air's temperature and 
pressure. DOE proposes to amend its definition of ``standard air'' so 
that it matches the definition that appears in ASHRAE Standard 37-2005. 
This change is included among the list of substantive changes to 
emphasize that consistency with the revised ASHRAE standard language 
causes standard air volume rates to be expressed in terms of dry air, 
not moist air. The proposed update is shown in the definition of 
``standard air'' in section 1.37 of the central air conditioner and 
heat pump test procedure.
    9. Changing one of the cooling-mode outdoor test conditions for 
units having a two-capacity compressor. To minimize the testing burden, 
the

[[Page 41327]]

cooling-mode tests for air conditioners and heat pumps having a two-
capacity compressor are conducted only at 82 [deg]F and 95 [deg]F 
outdoor-dry-bulb temperatures. The 82 [deg]F and 95 [deg]F test 
conditions tend to bracket the key temperature bins in which maximum 
compressor capacity most affects the SEER bin calculation. By 
comparison, the 82 [deg]F and 95 [deg]F test conditions span a range 
that tends to be higher than the key temperature bins in which minimum 
compressor capacity most affects the SEER bin calculations. As a 
result, for the lowest outdoor temperature bins (i.e., 67 [deg]F, 72 
[deg]F, and 77 [deg]F), cooling capacity and electrical power 
consumption at low (stage) compressor capacity are derived from 
linearly extrapolating the 82[deg] and 95 [deg]F test results. These 
extrapolated capacities and powers are more susceptible to inaccuracies 
and, unfortunately, can potentially reward poor performance. In the 
latter case, for example, increased electrical power consumption during 
the A1 Test at 95 [deg]F and low compressor capacity could 
potentially result in a higher SEER. The higher power consumption for 
the A1 Test could cause the power consumption for the 
heavily weighted 67 [deg]F, 72 [deg]F, and 77 [deg]F bins to be 
underestimated to the point that they more than offset the higher power 
consumptions for 87 [deg]F and higher temperature bins.
    In today's proposed rule, DOE proposes to change the outdoor 
conditions used for certain tests on two-capacity air conditioners and 
heat pumps. The first change is the elimination of the steady-state 
A1 Test at 95 [deg]F outdoor temperature. Instead, two-
capacity units will now be tested at an outdoor-dry-bulb temperature of 
67 [deg]F, and in those few cases where it applies, at an outdoor-wet-
bulb temperature of 53.5 [deg]F. The results from this new steady-state 
test, designated the F1 Test, shall be used in conjunction 
with the results from the current low-capacity test at 82 [deg]F 
outdoor-dry-bulb temperature (i.e., the B1 Test) to 
determine the low-capacity cooling capacity and power consumption 
values used in SEER bin calculations. With this change, those outdoor 
temperature bins where low-capacity operation dominates will now be 
more accurately derived by interpolating, as opposed to extrapolating.
    The above change caused DOE to consider two additional changes. 
Currently, the two tests used to determine the low-capacity, cooling-
mode cyclic-degradation coefficient, C\c\D(k=1), are 
conducted at 82 [deg]F outdoor-dry-bulb temperature. Given the change 
to 67 [deg]F outdoor-dry-bulb temperature for one wet-coil steady-state 
test, DOE also proposes to conduct the two dry-coil tests at 67 [deg]F. 
These changes make the test conditions for two-capacity units 
consistent with the test conditions specified for variable-speed 
systems. These two additional 67 [deg]F tests are denoted by the same 
identifiers used for the comparable variable-speed tests: The optional 
dry-coil steady-state test is the G1 Test and the optional 
dry-coil cyclic test is the I1 test.
    The specific changes proposed within the DOE test procedure 
pertaining to new outdoor test conditions for one required, and two 
optional, cooling mode tests for two-capacity units are shown in 
sections 3.2.3 and 4.1.3 of the test procedure. These changes are 
combined with DOE's earlier proposal to reinstate the two optional dry-
coil tests at high capacity.
    10. Renaming ``Cooling and Heating Certified Air Volume Rates'' to 
``Full-load Air Volume Rates.'' The October 2005 final rule introduced 
proper names for the air volume rates associated with the many tests 
that are described in the test procedure. The name given to the air 
volume rate that is used during most tests was ``Certified Air Volume 
Rate,'' prefixed with the qualifier ``Cooling'' or ``Heating.'' 
Typically, the word ``certified'' is used within the industry to 
identify parameters that are subject to verification checks and, if 
appropriate, penalties for failure to comply with the rules for 
accurately reporting the certified parameter. Examples of such 
certified parameters are SEER, HSPF, and rated capacity. To avoid 
confusion on whether air volume rate is a ``certified parameter''--
which it is not--DOE proposes substituting the word ``Full-load'' for 
``Certified'' within the proper name of the particular air volume rate. 
DOE considered other substitutes, including ``Nominal,'' ``Rated,'' 
``Tested,'' and ``Target.'' DOE welcomes comments on alternative 
substitutes. In addition, DOE seeks comments on instituting this change 
within the definition for small-duct, high-velocity systems in section 
1.35 of the central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure.
    11. Modifying the criterion for using an air volume rate that is 
less than the manufacturer's specified value. The October 2005 final 
rule rigidly specified the air volume rate to use during each test. In 
particular, DOE definitively stated in section 3.1.4.1.1 of the central 
air conditioner and heat pump test procedure that there are only two 
circumstances in which the test lab could use an air volume rate that 
is less than the manufacturer's specified value. The criterion for 
these circumstances, which applies to ducted blower-coil systems having 
a fixed-speed, multi-speed, or variable-speed, variable-air-volume-rate 
indoor fan, is reexamined in this rulemaking.
    The first lab test is the A or A2 Test (except for 
heating-only heat pumps). For this test, the unit must generate an 
external static pressure that is equal to or greater than the 
applicable value listed in the test procedure: 0.10, 0.15, or 0.20 
inches of water, the value being assigned based on the unit's 
(expected) rated cooling capacity. When running the A or A2 
Test, the test lab will either achieve the manufacturer's specified air 
volume rate and observe the corresponding external static pressure, or 
it will achieve the specified minimum external static pressure and 
observe the air volume rate. If this check indicates that the indoor 
unit, as configured, cannot provide the manufacturer's specified air 
volume rate and meet the minimum external-static requirement, the 
central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure (section 
3.1.4.4.3a) says to ``incrementally change the setup of the indoor fan 
(e.g., fan motor pin settings, fan motor speed) until the Table 2 
[minimum static] requirement is met while maintaining the same [target] 
air volume rate.'' The central air conditioner and heat pump test 
procedure continues, in the section cited above: ``If the indoor fan 
setup changes cannot provide the minimum external static, then reduce 
the air volume rate until the correct Table 2 minimum is equaled.'' 
This last case covers one of two cases where the test lab can use an 
air volume rate that is less than the value specified by the 
manufacturer. The second case is the more global stipulation to set the 
air volume rate to 37.5 scfm per 1000 Btu/h if the manufacturer's 
specified air volume rate yields a higher ratio.
    Since the publication of the final rule, DOE now understands that 
this approach is too rigid and is inconsistent with industry practice. 
Specifically, although the test requirement to achieve the minimum 
external static pressure has been universally upheld, the requirement 
that this be done by first changing the motor's speed has not been 
universally employed. In particular, for cases in which the specified 
minimum external static pressure is achieved at an air volume rate that 
is slightly less than the value specified by the manufacturer, the 
testing customarily proceeds using this slightly lower air volume rate 
rather than increasing the speed setting of the fan motor.

[[Page 41328]]

    The desired approach should account for normal equipment tolerances 
and variability, and should be compatible with allowing the 
manufacturer to specify an air volume rate representative of the 
average indoor unit, for each indoor unit model. The current, more 
rigid, approach causes manufacturers to specify an air volume rate at 
the low end of the range for a typical model.
    Because the current algorithm does not account for the inherent 
variability in fan motors, housings, and wheels, DOE proposes to add an 
overall tolerance when assigning the indoor-air volume rate used for 
testing. This change will result in more representative testing, 
because of the use of an average air volume rate, rather than a rate on 
the low end of the range. DOE proposes to assign a tolerance of -5 
percent on the air volume rate specified by the manufacturer. Thus, if 
the indoor unit can attain the minimum external static pressure while 
operating at an indoor air volume rate that is between 0 and -5 percent 
of the manufacturer-specified value, then this lab air volume rate 
shall be used. The tolerance of -5 percent is recommended because it is 
representative of indoor blower variations and also because a maximum 
tolerance of -5 percent in air volume rate typically causes a change in 
total capacity that is within the uncertainty of the measurement.
    Proposed language for effecting the above change is provided in the 
last section of this notice as part of the revised section 3.1.4.1.1 of 
the central air conditioner and heat pump test procedure and, for 
ducted, heating-only heat pumps, section 3.1.4.4.3. DOE requests 
comments on the approach of including the tolerance within the setup 
algorithm, and assigning it as a one-sided tolerance. DOE also requests 
data concerning the selection of -5 percent as the tolerance.
    12. Revising references to ASHRAE Standards (e.g., Standards 23, 
37, 116) that have been reaffirmed (i.e., reviewed and approved by 
ASHRAE with no substantive changes) or revised too recently to have 
been included in the amended test procedure published on October 11, 
2005. ASHRAE Standard 23, ``Methods of Testing for Rating Positive 
Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Condensing Units,'' and 
Standard 37 ``Methods of Testing for Rating Unitary Air-Conditioning 
and Heat Pump Equipment'' completed the revision, public review, and 
publication process in 2005. ASHRAE Standard 116, ``Methods of Testing 
for Rating for Seasonal Efficiency of Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat 
Pumps,'' completed the reaffirmation, public review, and publication 
process in 2005. When an ASHRAE standard is revised, substantive 
changes are made. Reaffirmations, by comparison, contain only non-
substantive changes and so do not alter the technical content of the 
document. To DOE's knowledge, the proposal to reference these current 
versions of the three ASHRAE standards will not affect the SEER and 
HSPF ratings calculated using the current or proposed DOE test 
procedure.

B. Proposed Substantive Changes to Other Parts of the CFR That Affect 
the Testing and Rating of Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat 
Pumps

    1. New data-submission-requirements when verifying an alternative 
rating method. Presently the CFR states that the manufacturer must 
supply test data on four different split-system combinations. 10 CFR 
430.24(m)(6)(iii) Each split-system combination must be other than the 
combination with the highest sales volume. Overall, test data on four 
different indoor units and two different models of outdoor units are 
required. Two of the indoor units are to be tested with one model of 
outdoor unit; the remaining two indoor units are to be tested with the 
second model of outdoor unit.
    Two additional requirements are also currently specified in Sec.  
430.24(m)(6)(iii). First, the tested capacities of the two models of 
outdoor units, when paired with their respective highest-sales-volume 
indoor unit, shall differ by at least a factor of two. Second, the two 
indoor units tested with the same model of outdoor unit are required to 
be from two different coil families. Finally, in addition to data on 
the four (mixed system) combinations, performance ratings on the 
outdoor units alone, or on the outdoor units when coupled to their 
highest-sales-volume indoor unit, are also required.
    Some manufacturers find it difficult to, or simply cannot, meet the 
above requirements. For example, an independent coil manufacturer who 
sells indoor units from only one coil family for a given capacity 
range, will not be able to meet the two-different-coil-families 
requirement. The requirement of using only two models of outdoor units 
may also cause difficulty. Often the manufacturers will submit ARI 
certification test data for verification purposes in order to avoid 
having to pay for additional testing. A manufacturer is more likely to 
have test data on its indoor units tested with four different outdoor 
units than to have data where the same model of outdoor unit was used 
with two different indoor coils.
    At the December 2002 workshop, Excel Comfort Systems suggested that 
waivers be considered for those cases where a company cannot meet the 
present requirements for verification data (Public Hearing Tr., pages 
48-50). Unico spoke in favor of using any valid, available data to 
verify an alternative rating method (Public Hearing Tr., page 51). 
Other manufacturers present (Trane, Lennox, and Carrier) emphasized 
assuring that the data used for verification is representative of the 
manufacturer's existing product line (Public Hearing Tr., pages 52-53).
    NIST, with industry input, reviewed section Sec.  430.24(m)(6) and 
(8) and recommended additions to the existing requirements. Based on 
NIST recommendations, DOE has decided that the present requirements are 
acceptable but additional options should be incorporated to allow 
flexibility without affecting the quality of the validation process. 
For example, as proposed, data from two, three, or four outdoor units 
may be used to meet the requirements for data on four systems. 
Presently, only two outdoor units are used to create the four required 
systems.
    A related issue raised at the December 2002 workshop was whether 
any new limits should be allowed concerning the use of ``old'' 
verification data (Public Hearing Tr., pages 35-36, 51-53). The 
adjective ``old'' here can mean verification data for a split system 
where the indoor, outdoor, or both units are no longer manufactured, or 
where the data was collected many years ago. In the former case, one 
question that may influence a decision on allowing the use of data 
based on an obsolete indoor unit is whether the remaining product line 
includes coils from the same coil family. As a step toward offering 
clarification on acceptable verification data, DOE proposes to 
specifically address the case in which submitted data includes an 
obsolete indoor coil. In such cases, the data will be accepted if the 
indoor coil is from the same coil family as other indoor coils that are 
still in production.
    The above proposed changes, along with those revisions discussed in 
the next few sections, contribute to a rather comprehensive revision of 
Sec.  430.24(m), ``Units to be tested.'' The entire content of the 
proposed 430.24(m) is provided in the regulatory language section 
following this notice.
    2. Guidance on the inclusion of pre-production units in the sample 
population used to determine and validate the published ratings. DOE

[[Page 41329]]

seeks to have all manufacturers subject to the same requirements and to 
have them apply consistent practices in meeting the DOE regulatory 
requirements. In the area of selecting a sample population, the first 
paragraph of Sec.  430.24, ``Units to be tested,'' states that ``a 
sample shall be selected and tested comprised of units which are 
production units, or are representative of production units of the 
basic model being tested, and shall meet the following applicable 
criteria.'' Similar language is repeated in a subsection specific to 
central air conditioners and heat pumps, Sec.  430.24(m)(2)(i): ``A 
sample of sufficient size, composed of production units or representing 
production units, shall be tested * * *'' Today's proposed rule seeks 
to build on this requirement by explicitly stating that pre-production 
units may be used as part of the sample population, but only if 
fabricated using the same tooling as used for production units (see 
section 430.24(m)(1) in the regulatory language section following this 
notice). DOE seeks comment on this proposal and any other alternative 
requirements that should be used to disqualify a pre-production unit 
from being used to obtain certified ratings for its full-production 
counterpart.
    3. Clarification of the sample population used to validate the 
rated SEER and the rated HSPF. Today's proposed rule includes a 
requirement within Sec.  430.24(m)(1)(iii) that a manufacturer must use 
the same heat pump results for both SEER and HSPF when obtaining 
certified ratings. For example, a manufacturer cannot test five heat 
pumps in cooling and heating and then use the results from units 1, 3, 
and 5 as the basis for the certified SEER while using the results from 
units 2, 4, and 5 as the basis for the certified HSPF. With one 
exception, each heat pump unit of the sample population must be tested 
in both the cooling and heating mode and their respective results used 
in determining the certified SEER and HSPF for the particular heat pump 
model. The one exception is the case where the manufacturer obtains a 
sample SEER or HSPF that is equal to or greater than the value at which 
the manufacturer will certify, while the other seasonal rating 
descriptor (HSPF or SEER, respectively) is below a threshold value 
being targeted by the manufacturer. In this case only, one or more 
additional units may be tested in the operating mode, cooling or 
heating, that corresponds to this marginal rating and the results used 
as part of the sample population for that descriptor. DOE invites 
comments on the proposal.
    4. Clarification of the definition of a ``highest sales volume 
combination.'' ARI recently implemented an internal policy whereby all 
highest-sales-volume tested combinations for unitary air conditioners 
having a rated SEER less than 14 must be coil-only units. ARI waives 
this requirement for through-the-wall and ductless equipment. The ARI 
policy also requires that all unitary air conditioners having a rated 
SEER of 14 or higher must have a coil-only rating for each model of 
outdoor unit.
    The ARI policy improves the likelihood that the outdoor unit, in 
combination with any compatible indoor unit, will meet the federal 
energy efficiency standards. The default values for the fan heat and 
fan power prescribed in the DOE test procedure when rating coil-only 
systems typically yield a conservative estimate of indoor performance. 
As in the past, SEER and HSPF ratings for coil-only listings are 
expected to remain clustered below the listings for blower coils, for 
the same outdoor unit. The coil-only policy helps avoid the situation 
in which an outdoor unit combined with a blower coil has a tested SEER 
of 13.0 or 13.5, while the same outdoor unit, combined with a coil-only 
indoor unit, would have a tested SEER of only 12.0 or 12.5. Thus, the 
policy improves the chances that all combinations with a given outdoor 
unit meet DOE's energy conservation standards.
    The ARI policy is consistent with the DOE requirement to test each 
outdoor unit with its highest-sales-volume indoor unit. Historically, 
split-system condensing units are much more often installed with coil-
only indoor units than with blower-coil units. And, for those 
comparatively fewer blower-coil installations, most do not use the 
highest efficiency motors, which are usually variable-speed motors. 
Thus, now and for the immediate future, the probability that a split-
system condensing unit will be most often installed with a blower coil 
is low, and the chances of the highest-sales-volume application 
including a blower coil having the highest-efficiency motor is remote.
    The ARI policy is consistent with current and past assignments of 
highest-sales-volume combinations for split-system air conditioners. A 
review of past ARI Unitary Directories shows that the vast majority of 
listings designate a coil-only system as the highest-sales-volume 
combination (HSVC). For those comparatively few cases where a blower-
coil combination was so designated, the ratings frequently corresponded 
to substantially higher SEER equipment, such as modulating systems.
    The ARI policy avoids the scenario in which a manufacturer chooses 
to designate its highest-rated split-system combination as the highest-
sales-volume combination. The process of proving or disproving whether 
sales volume supports such a designation would be difficult. If 
allowed, such a designation might lead to many sub-13-SEER combinations 
being sold--if not by a system manufacturer, then with the systems sold 
with third-party indoor units. Although such rated coil-only 
combinations would still have to meet the 13-SEER standard and, for ARI 
members, be subject to certification verification tests, these two 
safeguards are not as rigorous as the sample-population testing 
required for highest-sales-volume combinations. Thus, the ARI policy 
protects against increased availability of truly sub-13-SEER 
combinations.
    In making exceptions for through-the-wall and ductless systems, and 
by including the 14-SEER delimiter, the ARI policy recognizes that 
there are cases where blower-coil combinations are the predominant, if 
not exclusive, option. However, the outdoor units for the two exception 
cases are highly unlikely, if not impossible, to combine with a typical 
coil-only indoor unit. A HSVC having a SEER rating of 14 or greater is 
unlikely to yield a sub-13 SEER system when combined with a compatible 
coil-only indoor unit. The policy leaves little chance for sub-13 SEER 
combinations to become readily available to the installer in the field.
    DOE agrees with the ARI policy and believes that its main elements 
should apply to all manufacturers, not just ARI member companies. 
Therefore, DOE seeks to adopt those aspects of the ARI policy that 
better define the requirements of a highest-sales-volume combination. 
In doing so, DOE proposes one change and two additions. The one change 
is to have the policy apply to all split-system air conditioners that 
use a single-speed compressor rather than to units having a rated SEER 
less than 14. DOE believes this change offers a slightly cleaner 
delimiter. One addition is to add small-duct, high-velocity systems to 
the list of exceptions. The second addition is an exception for split-
system air conditioners having design features (e.g., controls, 
proprietary interface cabling and handshaking) that prevent its 
installation with all coil-only indoor units. This second addition is 
offered as a compromise to manufacturers who intend to sell only 
blower-coils with particular outdoor units. In this case,

[[Page 41330]]

the manufacturer must accept the burden of preventing cases where these 
same outdoor units are installed with third-party, coil-only indoor 
units. The system manufacturer must do more than include written 
disclaimers that the outdoor units may not be so applied; the 
manufacturer must incorporate some feature that only allows blower-coil 
combinations and prevents all coil-only misapplications.
    The text for this proposed clarification of what constitutes a 
highest-sales-volume combination is provided in Sec.  430.24(m)(2).
    5. Upper limit on the difference between calculated and tested SEER 
and HSPF values. Ratings for untested split-system combinations can 
exceed the ratings of the highest-sales-volume tested combination on 
which the former ratings are based. Ideally, these ratings increases 
occur because of differences between the type of expansion device, the 
type of blower (including with or without fan delay), and the type of 
coil used in the two different indoor units. The rating offsets, 
however, are also due to the inherent limitations of the alternative 
rating method, the quality of input data used for the ARM calculations, 
and, possibly, how the ARM itself is applied.
    At a DOE public workshop held on March 29, 2001, Carrier 
Corporation reported cases where two systems using the same outdoor 
unit and very similar indoor units had published ratings that differed 
by as much as 10 percent, or one full SEER point. (Public Hearing Tr., 
page 208) The higher rated combination was either subject to spot 
checks as part of the ARI certification program, or had its 
representations reviewed by a professional engineer for accuracy. 
However, the effectiveness of these checks was questioned because, in 
the case of the former, a five-percent tolerance must be allowed and, 
in the case of the latter, no guidance was provided as to how to 
evaluate or quantify the accuracy.
    To their credit, ARI members sought to address the problem 
internally by pursuing two changes. The first change was for system 
manufacturers to provide the Independent Coil Manufacturers (ICM) with 
better data (i.e., condenser curves) on which to base the ICM mixed 
system ratings--better data in, better predictions out. The second 
change was to conduct more spot checks on combinations rated by ICMs 
and, when a failure did occur, to require re-ratings for all 
combinations using the failed indoor unit. Previously, only the one 
combination that failed certification testing was re-rated. The impact 
of these changes is yet to be fully assessed but is expected to 
mitigate the problem of inconsistent ratings among competing 
manufacturers.
    As a further step, DOE today proposes to place an upper limit on 
the allowed offsets between predicted versus measurement-based ratings. 
Whereas presently ratings from DOE-approved alternative rating methods 
receive blanket acceptance, the proposed change would introduce an 
upper limit offset of 5 percent. Five percent is proposed because of an 
argument put forth by Carrier Corporation that 5 percent is the upper 
limit of the practical efficiency increase that could be achieved 
(Carrier, No. 1). DOE believes that this 5-percent limit will reduce 
the occurrence of inflated ratings and therefore proposes a 5-percent-
upper-limit offset. However, this proposed limit would only apply to 
cases where the difference in performance should be smallest: Where the 
HSVC system is a coil-only unit and the untested system is a coil-only 
unit. Manufacturers having non-highest-sales-volume combinations whose 
ratings are expected to exceed the 5-percent offset limit have the 
option of obtaining the ratings by testing. This existing test option, 
which is found in 10 CFR 430.24(m)(2)(i), is not subject to the 
proposed 5-percent limit. The proposed approach would apply to any 
untested combination, whether offered by the system manufacturer or an 
ICM.
    DOE proposes placing limits on the offsets predicted by an 
alternative rating method in Sec.  430.24(m)(4)(iii) and seeks comments 
on whether limits should be imposed in other cases, not just when both 
combinations are coil-only. Finally, data that either confirms or 
refutes the proposed limit of 5 percent is requested.
    6. Clarification of the published ratings for untested split-system 
combinations. The test procedure states that the ARM shall be used to 
obtain ``representative values of the measures of energy consumption.'' 
(See Sec.  430.24 (m)(2)(ii).) DOE seeks to improve upon the existing 
definition by adding new quantitative requirements. Thus, DOE today 
proposes amendments to Sec.  430.24(m)(4) that require published 
ratings for an untested split-system combination to be equal to, or 
lower than, the value calculated using the DOE-approved ARM. For those 
manufacturers who use the laboratory data from the HSVC testing to 
adjust their ARM or a simulation subcomponent, the resulting 
``adjustment factor'' shall be applied to the ARM calculations for 
untested combinations that use the same outdoor unit. This adjustment 
factor, if used, shall be limited to causing a maximum change of five-
percent higher ratings than those obtained by applying the ARM without 
adjustment.
    For cases where the HSVC and the untested combination are both 
coil-only units, the limit described in item 5 above, ``Upper limit on 
the difference between calculated and tested SEER and HSPF values,'' 
also applies, and therefore may cause the published rating to be less 
than the value calculated using the manufacturer's ARM, as adjusted by 
the ``adjustment factor'' described above. This proposal, like the 
previous one above, should tend to curb artificially inflated 
efficiency ratings for untested split-system combinations.
    7. Adding requirement that ratings for an air conditioner or heat 
pump that is rated with a furnace include the model number of that 
furnace as part of the overall equipment model number. System 
manufacturers sometimes seek SEER and HSPF ratings for complete systems 
consisting of a coil-only air conditioner or heat pump and a particular 
model of furnace. To more clearly delineate published ratings obtained 
for such systems, DOE proposes to require that the model number of the 
furnace be included as part of the published model number, most likely 
as an add-on to the indoor unit model number. This proposed 
clarification is reflected in the proposed revisions to Sec.  
430.62(a)(4)(i) and (ii).
    8. For products such as multi-splits which have multiple indoor 
units, instituting a ``tested combination'' as an alternative to 
testing the combination with ``the largest volume of retail sales.'' 
Currently, manufacturers are required to select for testing the 
combination manufactured by the condensing unit manufacturer likely to 
have the largest volume of retail sales. For combinations having 
multiple indoor units, the combination with the largest volume of 
retail sales may be difficult to identify and too complex to test. DOE 
is therefore proposing an equivalent ``tested combination,'' which 
should remove one impediment to the testing of multi-split units.

C. Proposed Non-Substantive Changes to Related Portions of the CFR

    1. Clarification of a private labeler's (i.e., a third party) 
responsibility for ensuring that reported ratings are based on an 
approved alternative method for rating untested combinations or on 
laboratory test data. The responsibilities of private labelers are set 
forth in Subpart F, Certification and Enforcement, but are delineated 
in Sec.  430.24. DOE proposes language

[[Page 41331]]

clarifying that private labelers, as well as manufacturers, must seek 
DOE approval to use an ARM. If the system manufacturer or the ICM has a 
DOE-approved ARM for the products in question, the same ARM may be used 
by the private labeler.
    2. Revisions to the definition of ``coil family.'' DOE proposes 
minor modifications to the existing definition, adding a few specifics, 
including examples of fin shapes: ``flat, wavy, louvered, lanced,'' and 
re-formatting for improved readability.
    3. New definition for ``private labeler'' within Sec.  430.2. DOE 
proposes to incorporate the definition from the statute, 42 U.S.C. 
6291(15). Hitherto, private labelers were not explicitly referenced in 
10 CFR 430.24, but the proposed revision does explicitly reference them 
(see item 1, above). In order to facilitate the clarification of 
private labeler responsibility, DOE proposes to incorporate the 
statutory definition into the definitions section, Sec.  430.2.
    4. Definitions of terms: ``Indoor unit,'' ``outdoor unit,'' ``ARM/
simulation adjustment factor,'' and ``tested combination.'' The terms 
``indoor unit'' and ``outdoor unit'' are used in the current test 
procedure, and in the proposed revisions, but are not defined. DOE 
proposes definitions based on the current definition of ``condensing 
unit'' in Sec.  430.2. DOE proposes definitions of the new terms ``ARM/
simulation adjustment factor'' and ``tested combination'' which are 
included in proposed amendments to 10 CFR 430.24(m). The ARM/simulation 
adjustment factor was developed by NIST and DOE as part of an effort to 
improve the accuracy of mixed system ratings. The definition of 
``tested combination'' is a minor revision to the term as proposed in 
DOE's publication of a multi-split petition for waiver. (71 FR 14858, 
March 24, 2006)

D. Effect of Test Procedure Revisions on Compliance With Standards

    DOE believes the revisions proposed today will not affect the 
ratings of air conditioners and heat pumps with SEER and HSPF ratings 
that minimally comply with the current DOE energy conservation 
standards. Some of the proposed revisions are projected to slightly 
change the ratings of some higher efficiency, two-capacity systems. The 
proposed changes that only affect higher-efficiency systems (relative 
to the 2006 EPCA minimums), if adopted, would not invoke the 
requirement for DOE to amend its energy conservation minimum standards. 
More specific discussions concerning the impact of the proposed changes 
are offered below.
    The proposed changes unique to the testing of small-duct, high 
velocity systems are needed to more accurately measure their 
performance. DOE's decision in SpacePak/Unico, 29 DOE ] 81,002 (2004), 
on exception relief efficiency standards for SDHV systems 
manufacturers--11.0 SEER and 6.8 HSPF--came after the higher minimum 
external-static-pressure requirements of section II.A.1 and the new 
definition of an SDHV system were evaluated. Therefore, any impact from 
testing at the higher static pressures has already been considered.
    Reinstating the option of conducting a cyclic test at high-
capacity, when testing a two-capacity unit, is projected to very 
minimally increase the measured SEER or HSPF rating. This option will 
be used only when the unit locks out low-capacity operation, typically 
at the more extreme outdoor temperatures. At these more extreme 
temperatures, the unit would be modeled as having a relatively high 
load-factor. The more extreme temperatures also correspond to 
temperature bins having comparatively few fractional hours. The 
combination acts to minimize the impact of the cyclic-degradation 
coefficient. Thus, the burden of running this optional test would only 
be considered when a manufacturer is very close to achieving a target 
rating and needs less than 0.2 SEER/HSPF increase in the measured SEER/
HSPF to achieve this target. So, a possible scenario is a two-capacity 
unit that reverts to second-stage cooling only at temperatures above 90 
[deg]F and the optional, high-capacity cyclic test yields a 
CD that bumps the measured SEER from 16.85 to 17.0.
    Two proposed changes specific to two-capacity heat pumps are 
shortening the duration of the low-capacity Frost Accumulation Test 
from 12 hours to 6 hours, and allowing the use of default equations in 
lieu of testing. As noted above in section II.A.3, the former is only 
expected to affect the average space heating capacity and power use at 
low-stage and 35 [deg]F to the point of causing a minimal, systematic 
increase in the derived HSPF for the rare case where the heat pump 
remains completely frosted beyond 6 hours during this low-capacity 
test. Such a heat pump would be expected to perform very poorly during 
the required, high-capacity Frost Accumulation Test, and thus yield a 
HSPF rating that was at the low end for two-capacity heat pumps. Such 
performance would likely be unacceptable to most manufacturers.
    Using default equations in lieu of conducting the low-capacity 
Frost Accumulation Test would negatively impact the measured HSPF. DOE 
estimates that the HSPF could be as much as 0.3 points lower if the 
default equations are used to obtain the value corresponding to Region 
IV and the minimum design-heating requirement.
    The changes proposed for testing and rating modulating multi-split 
systems, as outlined above in section II.A.5 certainly will impact 
their SEER and HSPF ratings. These changes, however, are necessary to 
allow a reasonable approximation of these performance descriptors. The 
current test procedure is simply deficient in covering these relatively 
new products, as is best evidenced by the numerous requests for test 
procedure waivers that have been submitted by manufacturers of these 
products. However, it is too early to know the impact, if any, of these 
changes on such equipment that only minimally complies with the current 
energy conservation standards.
    The proposed changes to adopt the long-standing industry practice 
of adjusting measured capacities to account for the losses in the 
outlet ductwork is not expected to cause an increase in SEER or HSPF. 
This expectation results because the test procedure is simply catching 
up with current practice.
    The proposed change to define ``repeatable'' when conducting cyclic 
tests is viewed as improving repeatability and thus having a random 
effect on the derived cyclic-degradation coefficient and, ultimately, 
the calculated SEER and HSPF. Similarly, making the definition of 
``standard air'' consistent with the definition in the 2005 version of 
ASHRAE Standard 37 will have no effect on the SEER and HSPF as 
calculated using the October 2005 final rule.
    Finally, changing the low-capacity cooling-mode test condition from 
95 [deg]F to 67 [deg]F for two-capacity units is projected to change 
the calculated SEER very minimally--within  0.1 SEER 
points--in most cases. However, the reduction in SEER could be very 
considerable if the power consumption during the 95 [deg]F test at low 
capacity is increased in an effort to obtain lower estimates, through 
extrapolation, of the power consumption for low-capacity at 
temperatures less than 82 [deg]F. In general, the impact of the change 
will be measurable if the unit's electrical power draw increases 
atypically at higher outdoor temperatures when operating at low-
capacity. Manufacturers will now seek to avoid this because it reduces 
the SEER rating.

[[Page 41332]]

III. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    It has been determined that today's regulatory action is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). 
Accordingly, this action was not subject to review by the Office of 
Management and Budget under the Executive Order.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required 
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. The Department 
has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of General 
Counsel's web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    The Department reviewed today's proposed rule under the provisions 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies 
published on February 19, 2003. This proposed rule prescribes test 
procedures that will be used to test compliance with energy 
conservation standards. The proposed rule affects central air 
conditioner and heat pump test procedures and would not have a 
significant economic impact, but rather would provide common testing 
methods. Therefore DOE certifies that the proposed rule would not have 
a ``significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities,'' and the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis is 
not warranted. The Department will transmit the certification and 
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking will impose no new information or record keeping 
requirements. Accordingly, Office of Management and Budget clearance is 
not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.)

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    In this proposed rule, the Department proposes amendments to test 
procedures that may be used to implement future energy conservation 
standards for central air conditioners. The Department has determined 
that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically 
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The rule is covered by Categorical 
Exclusion A5, for rulemakings that interpret or amend an existing rule 
without changing the environmental effect, as set forth in the 
Department's NEPA regulations in Appendix A to Subpart D, 10 CFR part 
1021. This rule will not affect the quality or distribution of energy 
usage and, therefore, will not result in any environmental impacts. 
Accordingly, neither an environmental impact statement nor an 
environmental assessment is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. The Department has examined today's proposed 
rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does not 
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as 
to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of today's 
proposed rule. States can petition the Department for a waiver of such 
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 
U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) imposes on 
Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following 
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal 
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and 
promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive 
Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on 
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard 
for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden 
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting 
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the 
Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable 
standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they 
are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. The 
Department has completed the required review and determined that, to 
the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant 
standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a 
rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million 
or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 
of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that 
estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the 
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a 
Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input 
by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal

[[Page 41333]]

governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' 
and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for 
timely input to potentially affected small governments before 
establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement 
of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA 
(62 FR 12820) (also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov). The proposed 
rule published today contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor 
a mandate that may result in expenditure of $100 million or more in any 
year, so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 
of 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    The Department has determined, under Executive Order 12630, 
``Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed 
regulation, if promulgated as a final rule, would not result in any 
takings which might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to 
the United States Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 
of 2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. The OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 
2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 
2002). The Department has reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE 
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable 
policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of 
Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed 
significant energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined 
as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to 
promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the 
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed 
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of 
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the 
proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action 
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. 
Today's regulatory action would not have a significant adverse effect 
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and, therefore, is not a 
significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 
Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration (FEA) 
Act of 1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy 
Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy 
Administration Authorization Act of 1977. 15 U.S.C. 788. Section 32 
provides that where a proposed rule contains or involves use of 
commercial standards, the rulemaking must inform the public of the use 
and background of such standards.
    The proposed rule incorporates testing methods contained in the 
following commercial standards: (1) ASHRAE Standard 23-2005, ``Methods 
of Testing for Rating Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and 
Condensing Units;'' (2) ASHRAE Standard 37-2005, ``Methods of Testing 
for Rating Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment;'' (3) 
ASHRAE Standard 116-2005, and ``Methods of Testing for Rating for 
Seasonal Efficiency of Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps. The 
Department has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude 
whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 323(b) of 
the Federal Energy Administration Act, i.e., whether they were 
developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, 
comment, and review.
    As required by section 32(c) of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974, as amended, DOE will consult with the Attorney General and 
the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission before prescribing a final 
rule about the impact on competition of using the methods contained in 
these standards.

IV. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

    The time and date of the public meeting are listed in the DATES 
section at the beginning of this notice of proposed rulemaking. The 
public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal 
Building, Room 1E-245, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. To attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda 
Edwards-Jones at (202) 586-2945. Foreign nationals visiting DOE 
Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures, 
requiring a 30-day advance notice. Any foreign national wishing to 
participate in the meeting should advise DOE of this fact as soon as 
possible by contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones to initiate the 
necessary procedures.

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to Speak

    Any person who has an interest in today's notice, or who is a 
representative of a group or class of persons that has an interest in 
these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral presentation. 
Such persons may hand-deliver requests to speak, along with a computer 
diskette or CD in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) 
file format to the address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 
beginning of this notice of proposed rulemaking between the hours of 9 
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
Requests may also be sent by mail or e-mail to: [email protected].
    Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of 
their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for 
contact. The Department requests persons selected to be heard to submit 
an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before the 
public meeting. At its discretion, DOE may permit any person who cannot 
supply an advance copy of

[[Page 41334]]

their statement to participate, if that person has made advance 
alternative arrangements with the Building Technologies Program. The 
request to give an oral presentation should ask for such alternative 
arrangements.

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

    The Department will designate a DOE official to preside at the 
public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid 
discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type 
public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 
and section 336 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6306. A court reporter will be 
present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. The 
Department reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations 
and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the public 
meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may submit 
further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of the 
rulemaking until the end of the comment period.
    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference 
style. The Department will present summaries of comments received 
before the public meeting, allow time for presentations by 
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views 
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed 
to make a prepared general statement (within time limits determined by 
DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. The Department will 
permit other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on 
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer 
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. 
Department representatives may also ask questions of participants 
concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official 
conducting the public meeting will accept additional comments or 
questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official 
will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above 
procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the public 
meeting.
    The Department will make the entire record of this proposed 
rulemaking, including the transcript from the public meeting, available 
for inspection at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 
Room 1J-018 (Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program), 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, (202) 586-9127, between 9 
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Any 
person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    The Department will accept comments, data, and information 
regarding the proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no 
later than the date provided at the beginning of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking. Please submit comments, data, and information 
electronically. Send them to the following e-mail address: 
[email protected]. Submit electronic comments in 
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format and avoid 
the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Comments in 
electronic format should be identified by the docket number EE-RM/TP-
02-002 and/or RIN number 1904-AB55, and wherever possible carry the 
electronic signature of the author. Absent an electronic signature, 
comments submitted electronically must be followed and authenticated by 
submitting the signed original paper document. No telefacsimiles 
(faxes) will be accepted.
    According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that 
he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public 
disclosure should submit two copies: one copy of the document including 
all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the 
document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. The 
Department of Energy will make its own determination about the 
confidential status of the information and treat it according to its 
determination.
    Factors of interest to the Department when evaluating requests to 
treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description 
of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    The Department is particularly interested in receiving comments and 
views of interested parties concerning:
    1. Whether any of the proposed changes would affect the measure of 
energy efficiency, and if so, to what degree, of any central air 
conditioner or heat pump.
    2. Whether the proposed changes would prevent any model from 
complying with the DOE energy conservation standards.
    3. The default equations for calculating low-capacity performance 
of two-capacity heat pumps at the 35 [deg]F test condition (see 
proposed revisions to section 3.6.3). DOE requests data from testing at 
low capacity for the 47, 35, and 17 [deg]F test conditions.
    4. The proposed changes specific to multi-split systems. For 
example, how should the test procedure account for their full range of 
modulation even though tests may not be possible at the true minimum 
capacity?
    5. Whether a separate test procedure for multi-splits should be 
developed.
    6. Whether the proposed quantitative measures to improve the 
repeatability of cyclic tests (i.e., tolerance on both the cycle-to-
cycle integrated temperature difference and average power consumption) 
are justified.
    7. The impact of conducting as many as three low-capacity tests at 
the 67 [deg]F test condition.
    8. Whether there is a better descriptor than ``Full-load'' for 
replacing ``Certified'' when identifying the air-volume rate used for 
most lab tests. Should the selected descriptor also be incorporated 
into the definition for a small-duct, high-velocity system (see 1.35): 
``at least 1.2 inches (of water) when operated at the certified air 
volume rate of 220-350 cfm per rated ton of cooling * * *''?
    9. The proposed approach for establishing the Full-load, Air-Volume 
Rate for blower coil units, with its 0 to -5 percent tolerance during 
the setup process. Data showing the typical variation in blower 
performance is requested.
    10. The changes proposed within 10 CFR 430.24, ``Units to be 
tested,'' that pertain to the alternative rating method (ARM). Comments 
and data are sought that address the proposed options for ARM 
verification data, the information on the contents of a submittal 
package, and the explicit limits on the ARM-derived ratings (e.g., a 
maximum 5 percent limit for cases where both the untested and HSVC 
units are coil-only systems).
    11. When a pre-production unit should be accepted or excluded from

[[Page 41335]]

the tested sample population used to obtain the certified ratings.
    12. The proposal for improving the definition of a highest-sales-
volume combination, which only applies to single-speed air 
conditioners.
    13. The proposed definition of a ``tested combination,'' for 
combinations having multiple indoor units?
    DOE also welcomes comments on any problems that have arisen with 
the October 2005 final rule. In that regard, DOE has received inquiries 
regarding two changes contained in the 2005 test procedure.
    The October 2005 final rule contains amendments to the definition 
of a demand-defrost control system (definition 1.21) while also 
singling out one such system, a time-adaptive-defrost control system 
(definition 1.42). In order to avoid the excessive number of frost/
defrost cycles needed to obtain repeatable performance during a Frost 
accumulation Test, the October 2005 final rule allows the controls of 
the time-adaptive system to be overridden. The frosting interval during 
the official test period, in this case only, now ends by manually 
initiating a defrost cycle at an elapsed time specified by the 
manufacturer (see section 3.9 of Appendix M, Nt., to Subpart B of 10 
CFR part 430). To varying degrees, most heat pumps having a demand 
defrost-control system require multiple frost/defrost cycles in the 
laboratory before repeatable performance results. The need for running 
several complete cycles alone, or in combination with relatively long 
frosting intervals, can lead to long test times. The question arises 
whether there are cases involving other control systems where changes 
may be required in the future to reduce the testing burden. DOE seeks 
comments on this question.
    The October 2005 final rule included a requirement in section 
3.1.4.2 that ``for ducted two-capacity units that are tested without an 
indoor fan installed, the Cooling Minimum Air Volume Rate is the higher 
of (1) the rate specified by the manufacturer or, (2) 75 percent of the 
Cooling Full-Load Air Volume Rate.'' For heating, in addition, section 
3.1.4.5 directs the tester to ``use the Cooling Minimum Air Volume Rate 
as the Heating Minimum Air Volume Rate.'' An alternative approach 
considered during the prior rulemaking was to exclude option (2) 
above--75 percent of the Cooling Full-Load Air Volume Rate--and simply 
have the manufacturer specify the Cooling Minimum Air Volume Rate. 
Although these two alternatives were extensively debated before 
publishing the October 2005 final rule, the issue has been revived. The 
sales of two-capacity units is likely to increase following the higher 
2006 DOE efficiency standards and, as a result, there is increasing 
attention to test procedure requirements for these products. The 
reasoning behind the October 2005 final rule approach is that most 
furnaces in the current housing stock (to which a two-capacity coil-
only unit would be applied) contain multi-speed blowers. For these 
multi-speed furnace blowers, a typical air volume rate at the lowest 
speed setting is 75 percent of the maximum air volume rate. For many 
other two-capacity units, however, the default minimum air volume rate 
is higher than the air volume rate at the lowest speed setting. 
Although satisfied with its earlier decision on this topic, DOE seeks 
improvements to the test procedure to ensure that two-capacity coil-
only units are appropriately tested. For example, does the test 
procedure need to cover the effect of a blower kit accessory that 
ensures a proper coil-only field installation? DOE seeks comments on 
this point, in particular, and also on the general issue of rating two-
capacity coil-only units. If there is sufficient response, DOE would 
consider addressing these issues in a future rulemaking.

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation, 
Household appliances.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 30, 2006.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes 
to amend part 430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal 
Regulations, to read as follows:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

    1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Section 430.2 is amended in subpart A by revising the definition 
of ``coil family'' and adding definitions of ``ARM/simulation 
adjustment factor,'' ``indoor unit,'' ``outdoor unit,'' ``private 
labeler'' and ``tested combination,'' in alphabetical order, to read as 
follows:


Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    ARM/simulation adjustment factor means a factor used to improve the 
accuracy of a DOE-approved alternative rating method (ARM) for untested 
split system central air conditioners or heat pumps. The adjustment 
factor associated with each outdoor unit shall be set such that it 
reduces the difference between the SEER (HSPF) determined using the ARM 
and the tested rating for the highest sales volume combination. The 
ARM/simulation adjustment factor is an integral part of the ARM and 
must be a DOE-approved element in accordance with 10 CFR 430.24(m)(4) 
to (m)(6).
* * * * *
    Coil family means:
    (1) A group of coils with the same basic design features that 
affect the heat exchanger performance. Examples of particular features 
in different categories are:
    (i) General configuration: A-shape, V-shape, slanted or flat top.
    (ii) Heat transfer surface on the refrigerant side: flat, grooved.
    (iii) Heat transfer surface on the air side: flat, wavy, louver, 
lanced.
    (iv) Tube material: copper, aluminum.
    (v) Fin material: copper, aluminum.
    (vi) Coil circuitry.
    (2) When a group of coils has all these features in common, it 
constitutes a ``coil family.''
* * * * *
    Indoor unit means a component of a split-system central air 
conditioner or heat pump that is designed to transfer heat between the 
refrigerant and the indoor air, and which consists of an indoor coil, a 
cooling mode expansion device, and may include an air moving device.
* * * * *
    Outdoor unit means a component of a split-system central air 
conditioner or heat pump that is designed to transfer heat between the 
refrigerant and the outdoor air, and which consists of an outdoor coil, 
compressor(s), an air moving device, and in addition for heat pumps, a 
heating mode expansion device, reversing valve, and defrost controls.
* * * * *
    Private labeler means an owner of a brand or trademark on the label 
of a consumer product which bears a private label. A consumer product 
bears a private label if:
    (1) Such product (or its container) is labeled with the brand or 
trademark of

[[Page 41336]]

a person other than a manufacturer of such product,
    (2) The person with whose brand or trademark such product (or 
container) is labeled has authorized or caused such product to be so 
labeled, and
    (3) The brand or trademark of a manufacturer of such product does 
not appear on such label.
* * * * *
    Tested combination means a split system with multiple indoor coils 
having the following features:
    (1) The basic model of a system used as a tested combination shall 
consist of one outdoor unit, with one or more compressors, that is 
matched with between 2 and 5 indoor units designed for individual 
operation.
    (2) The indoor units shall--
    (i) Represent the highest sales volume type models;
    (ii) Together, have a capacity that is between 95% and 105% of the 
capacity of the outdoor unit;
    (iii) Not, individually, have a capacity that is greater than 50% 
of the capacity of the outdoor unit;
    (iv) Have a fan speed that is consistent with the manufacturer's 
specifications; and
    (v) All have the same external static pressure.
* * * * *
    3. Section 430.23 is amended in subpart B by revising paragraph 
(m)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.23  Test procedure for measures of energy consumption.

* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (5) All measures of energy consumption shall be determined by the 
test method as set forth in appendix M to this subpart; or by an 
alternate rating method set forth in Sec.  430.24(m)(4) as approved by 
the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in 
accordance with Sec.  430.24(m)(5).
* * * * *
    4. Section 430.24 is amended in subpart B by revising paragraph (m) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  430.24  Units to be tested.

* * * * *
    (m)(1) For central air conditioners and heat pumps, each single-
package system, and each condensing unit (outdoor unit) of a split-
system, when combined with a selected indoor unit, shall have a sample 
of sufficient size tested in accordance with the applicable provisions 
of this subpart. To be included in the sample population, any pre-
production units must have been fabricated using the same tooling as 
used for full-production units. The represented values for any model of 
single-package system, or for any model of a tested split-system 
combination shall be assigned such that--
    (i) Any represented value of estimated annual operating cost, 
energy consumption or other measure of energy consumption of the 
central air conditioner or heat pump for which consumers would favor 
lower values shall be no less than the higher of:
    (A) The mean of the sample; or
    (B) The upper 90-percent confidence limit of the true mean divided 
by 1.05; and
    (ii) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other 
measure of energy consumption of the central air conditioner or heat 
pump for which consumers would favor higher values shall be no greater 
than the lower of:
    (A) The mean of the sample; or
    (B) The lower 90-percent confidence limit of the true mean divided 
by 0.95.
    (iii) For heat pumps, all units of the sample population shall be 
tested in both the cooling and heating modes and the results used for 
determining the heat pump's certified SEER and HSPF ratings in 
accordance with paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this section. When the 
manufacturer calculates SEER and HSPF ratings in accordance with 
paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this section, and the value of one descriptor 
(SEER or HSPF) is equal to or greater than the value the manufacturer 
will certify in accordance with 10 CFR 430.62, while the other 
descriptor (HSPF or SEER) is below the value the manufacturer will 
certify, one or more additional units may be tested in the operating 
mode (cooling or heating, but not both) that corresponds to this 
marginal rating, and the results included in the sample population for 
calculating the marginal descriptor.
    (2) For split-system air conditioners and heat pumps, the model of 
indoor unit selected for tests pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of this 
section shall be the indoor unit manufactured by the outdoor unit (or 
system) manufacturer that is likely to have the largest volume of 
retail sales in combination with the particular model of outdoor unit. 
For combinations that have more than one indoor unit, a ``tested 
combination,'' as defined in 10 CFR 430.2, shall be used for tests 
pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of this section. Components of similar 
design may be substituted without requiring additional testing if the 
represented measures of energy consumption continue to satisfy the 
applicable sampling provisions of paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) 
of this section. However, for any split-system air conditioner having a 
single-speed compressor, the indoor unit selected for tests pursuant to 
paragraph (m)(1) of this section shall be the indoor coil-only unit 
manufactured by the system manufacturer that is likely to have the 
largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of outdoor 
unit. This coil-only requirement is annulled for split-system air 
conditioners that are only sold and installed with blower-coil indoor 
units (e.g., mini-splits, multi-splits, small-duct high-velocity, and 
through-the-wall units) and any other outdoor units that are designed 
solely for application with OEM-supplied blower-coils and thus have 
features that prevent their installation with third-party coil-only 
indoor units. This coil-only requirement does not apply to split-system 
heat pumps. For every other split-system combination that includes the 
same model of outdoor unit but a different model of indoor unit, 
whether the indoor unit is manufactured by the same manufacturer or by 
a component manufacturer, either--
    (i) A sample of sufficient size, comprised of production and/or 
pre-production units, shall be tested as complete systems with the 
resulting ratings for the outdoor unit-indoor unit combination obtained 
in accordance with paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this section; 
any pre-production units included in the sample population must have 
been fabricated using the same tooling as used for the full production 
units; or
    (ii) The representative values of the measures of energy 
consumption shall be based on an alternative rating method (ARM) that 
has been approved by DOE in accordance with the provisions of 
paragraphs (m)(4) through (m)(6) of this section.
    (3) Whenever the representative values of the measures of energy 
consumption, as determined by the provisions of paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of 
this section, do not agree within five percent of the representative 
values of the measures of energy consumption as determined by actual 
testing, the representative values determined by actual testing shall 
be used.
    (4) The basis of the alternative rating method referred to in 
paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of this section shall be a representation of the 
test data and calculations of a mechanical vapor-compression 
refrigeration cycle. The major components in the refrigeration cycle 
shall be modeled as ``fits'' to manufacturer performance data or by 
graphic or tabular performance data. Heat transfer characteristics of 
coils may be modeled as a function of face area, number of rows, fins 
per inch,

[[Page 41337]]

refrigerant circuitry, air-flow rate and entering-air enthalpy. 
Additional performance-related characteristics to be considered may 
include type of expansion device, refrigerant flow rate through the 
expansion device, power of the indoor fan and cyclic-degradation 
coefficient. Ratings for untested combinations shall be derived from 
the ratings of the tested highest-sales-volume combination (HSVC), or 
from the tested combination. The SEER and/or HSPF ratings for an 
untested combination shall be set equal to or less than the lower of:
    (i) The SEER and HSPF calculated using the alternative rating 
method (ARM), as adjusted based on the maximum allowed ARM/simulation 
adjustment factor. This adjustment factor is allowed in cases in which 
the manufacturer uses laboratory data from the HSVC testing to adjust 
its ARM or a simulation subcomponent and then applies the factor to 
ratings for untested combinations having the same outdoor unit. This 
adjustment factor, if used, shall not cause a change in ratings greater 
than five percent compared to the result of the ARM without the 
adjustment factor; or
    (ii) Five percent higher than the ratings of the tested HSVC. This 
five percent limit only applies when the indoor unit of both the 
untested combination and the HSVC is a coil-only design (i.e., no 
indoor blower). Ratings above this limit can only be obtained for the 
non-HSVC by testing in accordance with paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this 
section.
    (5) Manufacturers or private labelers who elect to use an 
alternative rating method for determining measures of energy 
consumption under paragraphs (m)(2)(ii) and (m)(4) of this section must 
submit a request for DOE to review the alternative rating method. Send 
the request to the Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Approval must be received from the Assistant Secretary to use the 
alternative method before the alternative method may be used for rating 
split system central air conditioners and heat pumps. If a manufacturer 
has a DOE-approved ARM for products also distributed in commerce by a 
private labeler, the ARM may also be used by the private labeler for 
rating these products.
    (6) Each request to DOE for approval of an alternative rating 
method shall include:
    (i) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address 
of the official representing the manufacturer.
    (ii) Complete documentation of the alternative rating method to 
allow DOE to evaluate its technical adequacy. The documentation shall 
include a description of the methodology, state any underlying 
assumptions, and explain any correlations. The documentation should 
address how the method accounts for the cyclic-degradation coefficient, 
the type of expansion device, and, if applicable, the indoor fan-off 
delay. The requestor shall submit any computer programs--including 
spreadsheets--having less than 200 executable lines that implement the 
ARM. Longer computer programs must be identified and sufficiently 
explained, as specified above, but their inclusion in the initial 
submittal package is optional. Applicability or limitations of the ARM 
(e.g., only covers single-speed units when operating in the cooling 
mode, covers units with rated capacities of 3 tons or less, not 
applicable to the manufacturer's product line of non-ducted systems, 
etc.) shall be stated in the documentation.
    (iii)(A) Complete test data from laboratory tests on four mixed 
(i.e., non-highest-sales-volume combination) systems per each ARM. The 
four mixed systems must include four different indoor units and at 
least two different outdoor units. A particular model of outdoor unit 
may be tested with up to two of the four indoor units. The four systems 
must include two low-capacity mixed systems and two high-capacity mixed 
systems. The low-capacity mixed systems may have any capacity. The 
rated capacity of each high-capacity mixed system must be at least a 
factor of two higher than its counterpart low-capacity mixed system.
    (B) The four indoor units must come from at least two different 
coil families, with a maximum of two indoor units coming from the same 
coil family. Data for two indoor units from the same coil family, if 
submitted, must come from testing with one of the ``low-capacity mixed 
systems'' and one of the ``high capacity mixed systems.'' A mixed 
system indoor coil may come from the same coil family as the highest-
sales-volume-combination indoor unit (i.e., the ``matched'' indoor 
unit) for the particular outdoor unit. Data on mixed systems where the 
indoor unit is now obsolete will be accepted towards the ARM-validation 
submittal requirement if it is from the same coil family as other 
indoor units still in production.
    (C) The first two sentences of paragraph (m)(6)(iii)(B) of this 
section shall not apply if the manufacturer offers indoor units from 
only one coil family. In this case only, all four indoor coils must be 
selected from this one coil family. If approved, the ARM shall be 
specifically limited to applications for this one coil family.
    (iv) All product information on each mixed system indoor unit, each 
matched system indoor unit, and each outdoor unit needed to implement 
the proposed ARM. The calculated ratings for the four mixed systems, as 
determined using the proposed ARM, shall be provided along with any 
other related information that will aid the verification process.
    (7) Manufacturers that elect to use an alternative rating method 
for determining measures of energy consumption under paragraphs 
(m)(2)(ii) and (m)(4) of this section must either subject a sample of 
their units to independent testing on a regular basis, e.g., through a 
voluntary certification program, or have the representations reviewed 
and certified by an independent state-registered professional engineer 
who is not an employee of the manufacturer. The registered professional 
engineer is to certify that the results of the alternative rating 
procedure accurately represent the energy consumption of the unit(s). 
The manufacturer is to keep the registered professional engineer's 
certifications on file for review by DOE for as long as said 
combination is made available for sale by the manufacturer. Any 
proposed change to the alternative rating method must be approved by 
DOE prior to its use for rating.
    (8) Manufacturers who choose to use computer simulation or 
engineering analysis for determining measures of energy consumption 
under paragraphs (m)(2)(ii) through (m)(6) of this section shall permit 
representatives of the Department of Energy to inspect for verification 
purposes the simulation method(s) and computer program(s) used. This 
inspection may include conducting simulations to predict the 
performance of particular outdoor unit--indoor unit combinations 
specified by DOE, analysis of previous simulations conducted by the 
manufacturer, or both.
* * * * *

Appendix M--[Amended]

    5. Appendix M to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
    a. In section 1. Definitions:
    1. Section 1.5 is amended by removing ``23-93'' and adding in its 
place ``23-05''; and by removing ``1993'' and adding in its place 
``2005.''
    2. Section 1.6 is amended by removing ``37-88'' and adding in its 
place ``37-05''; and by removing ``1988'' and adding in its place 
``2005.''

[[Page 41338]]

    3. Section 1.12 is amended by adding ``RA(05)'' after ``116-95''; 
and adding ``and reaffirmed in 2005'' after ``1995.''
    4. Section 1.37 is revised to read as set forth below.
    b. In section 2, Testing Conditions:
    1. Sections 2.1a, 2.2a, 2.2b, 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 2.4.1, and 2.4.2 are 
revised to read as set forth below.
    2. Section 2.5.3 is amended by revising the first sentence to read 
as set forth below.
    3. New section 2.5.4.3 is added to read as set forth below.
    4. Section 2.6a is amended by adding in the first sentence 
``(RA05)'' after ``116-95.''
    5. Section 2.6b is amended in the second sentence, and in the last 
sentence, by removing ``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-05.''
    6. Section 2.10.2 is amended in the third and fourth sentences, by 
removing ``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-05.''
    7. Section 2.10.3 is amended in the second sentence, by removing 
``7.6.2,'' and adding in its place ``7.5.2,'' and by removing ``37-88'' 
and adding in its place ``37-05'' in the second and third sentences.
    8. Section 2.11a is amended in the first sentence, by removing 
``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-05.''
    9. Section 2.13 is amended in the second sentence, by removing 
``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-05.''
    c. In section 3, Testing Procedures:
    1. Section 3.1.1 is amended in the seventh sentence, by removing 
``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-05.''
    2. Section 3.1.4.1.1 title is revised and Table 2 to paragraph (c) 
is revised to read as set forth below.
    3. Section 3.1.5 is amended in the first sentence by removing ``37-
88'' and adding in its place ``37-05.''
    4. Section 3.1.6 is amended in the first and second sentences, by 
removing ``7.8.3.1 and 7.8.3.2'' and adding in its place ``7.7.2.1 and 
7.7.2.2,'' and in the first sentence, by removing ``37-88'' and adding 
in its place ``37-05'', and by adding a new sentence after the second 
sentence, to read as set forth below.
    5. Sections 3.2.3a. and 3.2.3d. are revised to read as set forth 
below.
    6. Table 5 to section 3.2.3 is revised to read as set forth below.
    7. Section 3.2.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph c to read as 
set forth below.
    8. Table 6 to section 3.2.4 is revised to read as set forth below.
    9. Section 3.3b is amended in both the first and second sentences, 
by removing ``Table 5,'' and adding in its place ``Table 3,'' and in 
the first sentence by removing ``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-
05.''
    10. Section 3.3c is amended in the first sentence by removing 
``section 7.3.3.1 of ASHRAE Standard 37-88,'' and adding in its place 
``sections 7.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05.''
    11. The title of sections 3.4 and 3.5 is revised to read as set 
forth below.
    12. Section 3.5e is revised to read as set forth below.
    13. The first two sentences of section 3.5.3 are revised to read as 
set forth below.
    14. Section 3.6.3 is revised to read as set forth below.
    15. Table 11 to section 3.6.3 is revised to read as set forth 
below.
    16. Section 3.6.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph c to read as 
set forth below.
    17. Table 12 to section 3.6.4 is revised to read as set forth 
below.
    18. Section 3.7a is amended in the fifth sentence by removing 
``Table 5 of ASHRAE Standard 37-88'' and adding in its place ``Table 3 
of ASHRAE Standard 37-05,'' and in the sixth sentence, by removing 
``Table 5'' and adding in its place ``Table 3.''
    19. Section 3.7b is amended by revising the first sentence to read 
as set forth below.
    20. The title of section 3.8 is revised to read as set forth below.
    21. The introductory text (preceding the equation) for section 
3.8.1 is revised to read as set forth below.
    22. Section 3.9c is revised to read as set forth below.
    23. Section 3.9f is amended by revising the fifth sentence to read 
as set forth below.
    24. Section 3.9.1a is amended by adding a new sentence at the end 
of the section directly before section 3.9.1.b to read as set forth 
below.
    25. Section 3.11.1.3b is revised to read as set forth below.
    26. Section 3.11.2a is amended by revising the seventh sentence to 
read as set forth below.
    27. Section 3.11.2b is revised to read as set forth below.
    28. Section 3.11.3 is revised to read as set forth below.
    d. In section 4, CALCULATIONS OF SEASONAL PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTORS:
    1. Section 4.1.3 is amended by revising the introductory text, 
equations 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-2, and the paragraph preceding equation 
4.1.3-3 to read as set forth below.
    2. Section 4.1.3.3 is amended by revising the equation for PLFj and 
the text between the equation and Table 16 to read as set forth below.
    3. Section 4.1.4.2 is amended by adding text at the end of the 
section to read as set forth below.
    4. Section 4.2.3.3 is amended by revising the equation for PLFj and 
the text following the equation to read as set forth below.
    5. Section 4.2.4.2 is amended by adding text at the end of the 
section to read as set forth below.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Appendix M to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

* * * * *

1. Definitions

* * * * *
    1.37 Standard Air means dry air having a mass density of 0.075 
lb/ft \3\.
* * * * *

2. Testing Conditions

* * * * *
    2.1 Test room requirements. a. Test using two side-by-side 
rooms, an indoor test room and an outdoor test room. For multiple-
split air conditioners and heat pumps (see Definition 1.30), 
however, use as many available indoor test rooms as needed to 
accommodate the total number of indoor units. These rooms must 
comply with the requirements specified in sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.3 
of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
430.22).
* * * * *
    2.2 Test unit installation requirements. a. Install the unit 
according to section 8.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  430.22). With respect to interconnecting tubing 
used when testing split-systems, however, follow the requirements 
given in section 6.1.3.5 of ARI Standard 210/240-2003 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  430.22). When testing triple-split systems 
(see Definition 1.44), use the tubing length specified in section 
6.1.3.5 of ARI Standard 210/240-2003 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  430.22) to connect the outdoor coil, indoor compressor 
section, and indoor coil while still meeting the requirement of 
exposing 10 feet of the tubing to outside conditions. When testing 
non-ducted systems having multiple indoor coils, connect each indoor 
fan-coil to the outdoor unit using: (a) 25 feet of tubing, or (b) 
tubing furnished by the manufacturer, whichever is longer. If they 
are needed to make a secondary measurement of capacity, install 
refrigerant pressure measuring instruments as described in section 
8.2.5 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
430.22). Refer to section 2.10 of this Appendix to learn which 
secondary methods require refrigerant pressure measurements. At a 
minimum, insulate the low-pressure line(s) of a split-system with 
insulation having an inside diameter that matches the refrigerant 
tubing and a nominal thickness of \1/2\ inch.

[[Page 41339]]

    b. For units designed for both horizontal and vertical 
installation or for both up-flow and down-flow vertical 
installations, the manufacturer must specify the orientation used 
for testing. Conduct testing with the following installed:
    (1) The most restrictive filter(s);
    (2) Supplementary heating coils; and
    (3) Other equipment specified as part of the unit, including all 
hardware used by a heat comfort controller if so equipped (see 
Definition 1.28). For small-duct, high-velocity systems, configure 
all balance dampers or restrictor devices on or inside the unit to 
fully open or lowest restriction.
* * * * *
    2.2.3 Special requirements for multi-split air conditioners and 
heat pumps, and systems composed of multiple mini-split units 
(outdoor units located side-by-side) that would normally operate 
using two or more indoor thermostats. Allow the controls of the 
multi-split or multiple mini-split air conditioner or heat pump (see 
Definitions 1.30 and 1.29, respectively) to determine the number of 
indoor coils, if any, whose fans are turned off during a given test. 
For any indoor coil whose fan is automatically turned off during a 
test, take steps to cease forced airflow through this indoor coil 
and block its outlet duct. Because these types of systems will have 
more than one indoor fan and possibly multiple outdoor fans and 
compressor systems, references in this test procedure to a single 
indoor fan, outdoor fan, and compressor means all indoor fans, all 
outdoor fans, and all compressor systems that are active during a 
test.
* * * * *
    2.2.5 Charging according to the ``manufacturer's published 
instructions,'' as stated in section 8.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.22), means the 
manufacturer's installation instructions that come packaged with the 
unit. If a unit requires charging but the installation instructions 
do not specify a charging procedure, then evacuate the unit and add 
the nameplate refrigerant charge. Where the manufacturer's 
installation instructions contain two sets of refrigerant charging 
criteria, one for field installations and one for lab testing, use 
the field installation criteria. For third-party testing, the test 
laboratory may consult with the manufacturer about the refrigerant 
charging procedure and make any needed corrections so long as they 
do not contradict the published installation instructions. The 
manufacturer may specify an alternative charging criteria to the 
third-party laboratory so long as the manufacturer thereafter 
revises the published installation instructions accordingly.
* * * * *
    2.4.1 Outlet plenum for the indoor unit. a. Attach a plenum to 
the outlet of the indoor coil. (Note: for some packaged systems, the 
indoor coil may be located in the outdoor test room.) For non-ducted 
systems having multiple indoor coils, attach a plenum to each indoor 
coil outlet. Add a static pressure tap to each face of the (each) 
outlet plenum, if rectangular, or at four evenly distributed 
locations along the circumference of an oval or round plenum. Create 
a manifold that connects the four static pressure taps. Figure 1 
shows two of the three options allowed for the manifold 
configuration; the third option is the broken-ring, four-to-one 
manifold configuration that is shown in Figure 7a of ASHRAE Standard 
37-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.22). See Figures 7a, 
7b, 7c, and 8 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  430.22) for the cross-sectional dimensions and minimum 
length of the (each) plenum and the locations for adding the static 
pressure taps for units tested with and without an indoor fan 
installed. For a non-ducted system having multiple indoor coils, 
have all outlet plenums discharge air into a single common duct. At 
the plane where each plenum enters the common duct, install an 
adjustable airflow damper and use it to equalize the static pressure 
in each plenum. For multi-split units tested using more than one 
indoor test room, create a common duct within each test room that 
contains multiple indoor coils. Each common duct should feed a 
separate outlet air temperature grid (section 2.5.4) and airflow 
measuring apparatus (section 2.6).
    b. For small-duct, high-velocity systems, install an outlet 
plenum that has a diameter that is equal to or less than the value 
listed below. The limit depends only on the cooling Full-Load Air 
Volume Rate (see section 3.1.4.1.1) and is effective regardless of 
the flange dimensions on the outlet of the unit (or an air supply 
plenum adapter accessory, if installed in accordance with the 
manufacturers installation instructions).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maximum
                                                              diameter*
         Cooling full-load air volume rate  (SCFM)            of outlet
                                                                plenum
                                                               (inches)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<= 500.....................................................            6
501 to 700.................................................            7
701 to 900.................................................            8
901 to 1100................................................            9
1101 to 1400...............................................           10
1401 to 1750...............................................          11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*If the outlet plenum is rectangular, calculate its equivalent diameter
  using (4A)/P, where A is the area and P is the perimeter of the
  rectangular plenum, and compare it to the listed maximum diameter.

2.4.2 Inlet plenum for the indoor unit. Install an inlet plenum when 
testing a coil-only indoor unit or a packaged system where the 
indoor coil is located in the outdoor test room. Add static pressure 
taps at the center of each face of this plenum, if rectangular, or 
at four evenly distributed locations along the circumference of an 
oval or round plenum. Make a manifold that connects the four static-
pressure taps using one of the three configurations specified in 
section 2.4.1. See Figures 7b, 7c, and Figure 8 of ASHRAE Standard 
37-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.22) for cross-
sectional dimensions, the minimum length of the inlet plenum, and 
the locations of the static-pressure taps. When testing a ducted 
unit having an indoor fan (and the indoor coil is in the indoor test 
room), the manufacturer has the option to test with or without an 
inlet plenum installed. Space limitations within the test room may 
dictate that the manufacturer choose the latter option. If used, 
construct the inlet plenum and add the four static-pressure taps as 
shown in Figure 8 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  430.22). Manifold the four static-pressure taps 
using one of the three configurations specified in section 2.4.1. 
Never use an inlet plenum when testing a non-ducted system.
* * * * *
     2.5.3 Section 6.5.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  430.22) describes the method for fabricating 
static pressure taps. * * *
* * * * *
    2.5.4.3 Minimizing air leakage. For small-duct, high-velocity 
systems, install an air damper near the end of the interconnecting 
duct, just prior to the transition to the airflow measuring 
apparatus of Section 2.6. In order to minimize air leakage, adjust 
this damper such that the pressure in the receiving chamber of the 
airflow measuring apparatus is no more than 0.5 inches of water 
higher than the surrounding test room ambient. In lieu of installing 
a separate damper, use the outlet air damper box of Section 2.5 and 
2.5.4.1 if it allows variable positioning. Also apply these steps to 
any conventional indoor blower unit that creates a static pressure 
within the receiving chamber of the airflow measuring apparatus that 
exceeds the test room ambient pressure by more than 0.5 inches of 
water.
* * * * *

3. Testing Procedures

* * * * *
    3.1.4.1.1 Cooling Full-Load Air Volume Rate for Ducted Units. * 
* *
* * * * *
    c. * * *

  Table 2.--Minimum External Static Pressure for Ducted Systems Tested
                      With an Indoor Fan Installed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Minimum external resistance
                                               (3) (inches of water)
    Rated cooling (1) or heating (2)     -------------------------------
            capacity (Btu/h)                                Small-duct,
                                             All other     high-velocity
                                              systems     systems (4, 5)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up Thru 28,800..........................            0.10            1.10

[[Page 41340]]

 
29,000 to 42,500........................            0.15            1.15
43,000 and Above........................            0.20            1.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(1)\ For air conditioners and heat pumps, the value cited by the
  manufacturer in published literature for the unit's capacity when
  operated at the A or A2 Test conditions.
\(2)\ For heating-only heat pumps, the value the manufacturer cites in
  published literature for the unit's capacity when operated at the H1
  or H12 Test conditions.
\(3)\ For ducted units tested without an air filter installed, increase
  the applicable tabular value by 0.08 inches of water.
\(4)\ See Definition 1.35 to determine if the equipment qualifies as a
  small-duct, high-velocity system.
\(5)\ If a closed-loop, air-enthalpy test apparatus is used on the
  indoor side, limit the resistance to airflow on the inlet side of the
  indoor blower coil to a maximum value of 0.1 inches of water. Impose
  the balance of the airflow resistance on the supply side.

* * * * *
    3.1.6 * * * (Note: In the first printing of ASHRAE Standard 37-
2005, the second IP equation for Qmi should read, 
1097CAn[radic]PvV'n.) * * *
* * * * *
    3.2.3 Tests for a unit having a two-capacity compressor. (See 
Definition 1.45.)
    a. Conduct four steady-state wet coil tests: the A2, 
B2, B1, and F1 Tests. Use the two 
optional dry-coil tests, the steady-state G1 Test and the 
cyclic I1 Test, to determine the cooling-mode cyclic-
degradation coefficient,CcD. If the two 
optional tests are not conducted, assign CcD 
the default value of 0.25. Table 5 specifies test conditions for 
these six tests.
* * * * *
    d. If a two-capacity air conditioner or heat pump locks out low-
capacity operation at higher outdoor temperatures, then use the two 
optional dry-coil tests, the steady-state C2 Test and the 
cyclic D2 Test, to determine the cooling-mode cyclic-
degradation coefficient that only applies to on/off cycling from 
high capacity, CcD (k = 2). If the two 
optional tests are not conducted, assign CcD 
(k = 2) the same value as determined or assigned for the low-
capacity cyclic-degradation coefficient, [or equivalently, 
CcD (k = 1)].

                Table 5.--Cooling Mode Test Conditions for Units Having a Two-Capacity Compressor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Air entering        Air entering
                                      indoor unit        outdoor unit
                                      temperature         temperature         Compressor      Cooling air volume
        Test description               ([deg]F)            ([deg]F)            capacity              rate
                                 ----------------------------------------
                                  Dry bulb  Wet bulb  Dry bulb  Wet bulb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A2 Test--required (steady, wet          80        67        95    (1) 75  High..............  Cooling Full-
 coil).                                                                                        Load.\(2)\
B2 Test--required (steady, wet          80        67        82    (1) 65  High..............  Cooling Full-
 coil).                                                                                        Load.(2)
B1 Test--required (steady, wet          80        67        82    (1) 65  Low...............  Cooling
 coil).                                                                                        Minimum.(3)
F1 Test--required (steady, wet          80        67        67  (1) 53.5  Low...............  Cooling
 coil).                                                                                        Minimum.(3)
G1 Test--optional (steady, dry-         80       (4)        67  ........  Low...............  Cooling
 coil).                                                                                        Minimum.(3)
I1 Test--optional (cyclic, dry-         80       (4)        67  ........  Low...............  (5)
 coil).
C2 Test--optional (steady, dry-         80       (4)        82  ........  High..............  Cooling Full-
 coil).                                                                                        Load.(2)
D2 Test--optional (cyclic, dry-         80       (4)        82  ........  High..............  (6)
 coil).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(1)\ The specified test condition only applies if the unit rejects condensate to the outdoor coil.
\(2)\ Defined in Section 3.1.4.1.
\(3)\ Defined in Section 3.1.4.2.
\(4)\ The entering air must have a low enough moisture content so no condensate forms on the indoor coil. DOE
  recommends using an indoor air wet-bulb temperature of 57 [deg]F or less.
\(5)\ Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the
  same pressure or velocity as measured during the C1 Test.
\(6)\ Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the
  same pressure or velocity as measured during the C2 Test.

    3.2.4 Tests for a unit having a variable-speed compressor. * * *
* * * * *
    c. For multiple-split air conditioners and heat pumps (only), 
the following procedures supersede the above requirements: For all 
Table 6 tests specified for a minimum compressor speed, use the 
compressor speed specified by the manufacturer. The manufacturer 
should prescribe a speed that allows successful completion of the 
Table 6 tests while deviating as little as possible from the unit's 
actual lowest cooling-mode operating speed. The manufacturer must 
also specify the compressor speed used for the Table 6 EV 
Test, a cooling-mode intermediate compressor speed that falls within 
\1/4\ and \3/4\ of the difference between the tested

[[Page 41341]]

maximum and minimum cooling-mode speeds. The manufacturer should 
prescribe an intermediate speed that is expected to yield the 
highest EER for the given EV Test conditions.

               Table 6.--Cooling Mode Test Condition for Units Having a Variable-Speed Compressor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Air entering        Air entering
                                      indoor unit        outdoor unit
                                      temperature         temperature                         Cooling air volume
        Test description               ([deg]F)            ([deg]F)        Compressor speed          rate
                                 ----------------------------------------
                                  Dry bulb  Wet bulb  Dry bulb  Wet bulb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A2 Test--required (steady, wet          80        67        95  \(1)\ 75  Maximum \(2)\.....  Cooling Full-
 coil).                                                                                        Load.\(3)\
B2 Test--required (steady--wet          80        67        82  \(1)\ 65  Maximum \(2)\.....  Cooling Full-
 coil).                                                                                        Load.\(3)\
EV Test--required (steady, wet          80        67        87  \(1)\ 69  Intermediate......  Cooling
 coil).                                                                                        Intermediate.\(4)
                                                                                               \
B1 Test--required (steady, wet          80        67        82  \(1)\ 65  Minimum...........  Cooling
 coil).                                                                                        Minimum.\(5)\
F1 Test--required (steady, wet          80        67        67   \(1)\    Minimum...........  Cooling
 coil).                                                             53.5                       Minimum.\(5)\
G1 Test \(6)\--optional (steady,        80     (\6\)        67  ........  Minimum...........  Cooling
 dry-coil).                                                                                    Minimum.\(5)\
I1 Test \(6)\--optional (cyclic,        80     (\6\)        67  ........  Minimum...........  \(7)\
 dry-coil).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(1)\The specified test condition only applies if the unit rejects condensate to the outdoor coil.
\(2)\Configured for the maximum continuous duty operation as allowed by the unit's controls.
\(3)\Defined in Section 3.1.4.1.
\(4)\Defined in Section 3.1.4.3.
\(5)\Defined in Section 3.1.4.2.
\(6)\The entering air must have a low enough moisture content so no condensate forms on the indoor coil. DOE
  recommends using an indoor air wet bulb temperature of 57 [deg]F or less.
\(7)\Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the
  same pressure difference or velocity pressure as measured during the G1 Test.

* * * * *
    3.4 Test procedures for the optional steady-state dry-coil 
cooling-mode tests (the C, C1, C2, and 
G1 Tests).
* * * * *
    3.5 Test procedures for the optional cyclic dry-coil cooling-
mode tests (the D, D1, D2, and I1 
Tests).
* * * * *
    e. For consecutive compressor OFF/ON cycles, evaluate whether 
the below criterion for repeatable results is met. After completing 
a minimum of two complete OFF/ON compressor cycles, determine the 
overall cooling delivered and total electrical energy consumption 
during any subsequent data collection interval where the test 
tolerances given in Table 8 and the below criterion for repeatable 
results is satisfied.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.041

    For the above criterion, m represents the cycle number and 
[Ggr], ecyc,dry, and [Delta][tgr]cyc,dry are defined later in this 
same section. If available, use electric resistance heaters (see 
Section 2.1) to minimize the variation in the inlet air temperature.
* * * * *
    3.5.3 Cooling-mode cyclic-degradation coefficient calculation. 
Use the two optional dry-coil tests to determine the cooling-mode 
cyclic-degradation coefficient, CcD. Append 
``(k=2)'' to the coefficient if it corresponds to a two-capacity 
unit cycling at high capacity. If the two optional tests are not 
conducted, assign CcD the default value of 
0.25. The default value for two-capacity units cycling at high 
capacity, however, is the low-capacity coefficient, i.e., 
CcD (k=2) =CcD. Evaluate 
CcD using the above results and those from the 
section 3.4 dry-coil steady-state test.* * *
* * * * *
    3.6.3 Tests for a heat pump having a two-capacity compressor 
(see Definition 1.45), including two-capacity, northern heat pumps 
(see Definition 1.46). a. Conduct one Maximum Temperature Test 
(H01), two High Temperature Tests (H12 and 
H11), one Frost Accumulation Test (H22), and 
one Low Temperature Test (H32). Conduct an additional 
Frost Accumulation Test (H21) and Low Temperature Test 
(H31) if both of the following conditions exist:
    1. Knowledge of the heat pump's capacity and electrical power at 
low compressor capacity for outdoor temperatures of 37 [deg]F and 
less is needed to complete the section 4.2.3 seasonal performance 
calculations, and
    2. The heat pump's controls allow low-capacity operation at 
outdoor temperatures of 37 [deg]F and less.
    If the above two conditions are met, an alternative to 
conducting the H21 Frost Accumulation is to use the 
following equations to approximate the capacity and electrical 
power:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.001

    Determine the quantities Qk=1h (47) and 
Ek=1h (47) from the H11 Test and 
evaluate them according to Section 3.7. Determine the quantities 
Qk=1h (17)and Ek=1h (17) 
from the H31 Test and evaluate them according to Section 
3.10. b. Conduct the optional Maximum Temperature Cyclic Test 
(H0C1) to determine the heating-mode cyclic-degradation 
coefficient, ChD. If this optional test is not 
conducted, assign ChD the default value of 
0.25. If a two-capacity heat pump locks out low capacity operation 
at lower outdoor temperatures, conduct the optional High Temperature 
Cyclic Test (H1C2) to determine the high-capacity 
heating-mode

[[Page 41342]]

cyclic-degradation coefficient, ChD (k=2). If 
this optional test at high capacity is not conducted, assign 
ChD (k=2) the same value as determined or 
assigned for the low-capacity cyclic-degradation coefficient, 
ChD [or equivalently, 
ChD (k=1)]. Table 11 specifies test conditions 
for these nine tests.

               Table 11.--Heating Mode Test Conditions for Units Having a Two-Capacity Compressor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Air entering        Air entering
                                      indoor unit        outdoor unit
                                      temperature         temperature         Compressor      Heating air volume
        Test description               ([deg]F)            ([deg]F)            capacity              rate
                                 ----------------------------------------
                                  Dry bulb  Wet bulb  Dry bulb  Wet bulb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H01 Test (required, steady).....        70   (max)60        62      56.5  Low...............  Heating
                                                                                               Minimum.(1)
H0C1 Test (optional, cyclic)....        70   (max)60        62      56.5  Low...............  (2)
H12 Test (required, steady).....        70   (max)60        47      43    High..............  Heating Full-
                                                                                               Load.(3)
H1C2 Test (optional, cyclic)....        70   (max)60        47      43    High..............  (4)
H11 Test (required).............        70   (max)60        47      43    Low...............  Heating
                                                                                               Minimum.(1)
H22 Test (required).............        70   (max)60        35      33    High..............  Heating Full-
                                                                                               Load.(3)
H21 Test (5, 6) (required)......        70   (max)60        35      33    Low...............  Heating
                                                                                               Minimum.(3)
H32 Test (required, steady).....        70   (max)60        17      15    High..............  Heating Full-
                                                                                               Load.(3)
H31 Test (5) (required, steady).        70   (max)60        17      15    Low...............  Heating
                                                                                               Minimum.(1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Defined in Section 3.1.4.5.
(2) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the
  same pressure or velocity as measured during the H01 Test.
(3) Defined in Section 3.1.4.4.
(4) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the
  same pressure or velocity as measured during the H12 Test.
(5) Required only if the heat pump's performance when operating at low compressor capacity and outdoor
  temperatures less than 37 [deg]F is needed to complete the Section 4.2.3 HSPF calculations.
(6) If table note 5 applies, the Section 3.6.3 equations for Qhk=1 (35) and Ehk=1 (17) may be used in
  lieu of conducting the H21 Test.

    3.6.4 Tests for a heat pump having a variable-speed compressor.
* * * * *
    c. For multiple-split heat pumps (only), the following 
procedures supersede the above requirements: For all Table 12 tests 
specified for a minimum compressor speed, use the compressor speed 
specified by the manufacturer. The manufacturer should prescribe a 
speed that allows successful completion of the Table 12 tests while 
deviating as little as possible from the heat pump's actual lowest 
heating-mode operating speed. The manufacturer must also specify the 
compressor speed used for the Table 12 H2V Test, a 
heating-mode intermediate compressor speed that falls within \1/4\ 
and \3/4\ of the difference between the tested maximum and minimum 
heating-mode speeds. The manufacturer should prescribe an 
intermediate speed that is expected to yield the highest COP for the 
given H2V Test conditions.

               Table 12.--Heating Mode Test Condition for Units Having a Variable-Speed Compressor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Air entering        Air entering
                                      indoor unit        outdoor unit
                                      temperature         temperature                         Heating air volume
        Test description               ([deg]F)            ([deg]F)        Compressor speed          rate
                                 ----------------------------------------
                                  Dry bulb  Wet bulb  Dry bulb  Wet bulb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H01 Test (required, steady).....        70  (max) 60        62      56.5  Minimum...........  Heating Minimum
                                                                                               (1)
H0C1 Test (optional, steady)....        70  (max) 60        62      56.5  Minimum...........  (2)
H12 Test (required, steady).....        70  (max) 60        47        43  Maximum (3).......  Heating Full-Load
                                                                                               (4)
H11 Test (required, steady).....        70  (max) 60        47        43  Minimum...........  Heating Minimum
                                                                                               (1)
H1N Test (optional, steady).....        70  (max) 60        47        43  Cooling Mode        Heating Nominal
                                                                           Maximum.            (5)
H22 Test (optional).............        70  (max) 60        35        33  Maximum (3).......  Heating Full-Load
                                                                                               (4)
H2V Test........................        70  (max) 60        35        33  Intermediate......  Heating
                                                                                               Intermediate (6)
H32 Test (required, steady).....        70  (max) 60        17        15  Maximum (3).......  Heating Full-Load
                                                                                               (4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Defined in Section 3.1.4.5.
(2) Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during an ON period at the
  same pressure or velocity as measured during the H01 Test.
(3) Configured for the maximum continuous duty operation as allowed by the unit's controls when heating.
(4) Defined in Section 3.1.4.4.
(5) Defined in Section 3.1.4.7.
(6) Defined in Section 3.1.4.6.

* * * * *
    3.7 a. * * *
    b. Calculate indoor-side total heating capacity as specified in 
sections 7.3.4.1 and 7.3.4.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  430.22). * * *
    3.8 Test procedures for the optional cyclic heating mode tests 
(the H0C1, H1C, H1C1 and H1C2 
Tests).
* * * * *
    3.8.1 Heating mode cyclic degradation coefficient calculation. 
Use the results from the optional cyclic test and the required 
steady-state test that were conducted at the same test conditions to 
determine the heating-mode cyclic-degradation coefficient, 
ChD. Add ``(k=2)'' to the coefficient if it 
corresponds to a two-capacity unit cycling at high capacity. If the 
optional test is not conducted, assign ChD the 
default value of

[[Page 41343]]

0.25. The default value for two-capacity units cycling at high 
capacity, however, is the low-capacity coefficient, i.e., 
ChD(k = 2) = ChD. * * *
* * * * *
    3.9 * * *
    c. The official test period begins when the preliminary test 
period ends, at defrost termination. The official test period ends 
at the termination of the next occurring automatic defrost cycle. 
When testing a heat pump that uses a time-adaptive defrost control 
system (see Definition 1.42), however, manually initiate the defrost 
cycle that ends the official test period at the instant indicated by 
instructions provided by the manufacturer. If the heat pump has not 
undergone a defrost after 12 hours, immediately conclude the test 
and use the results from the full 12-hour period to calculate the 
average space heating capacity and average electrical power 
consumption. For the H21 Test, use a maximum official 
test period of 6 hours instead of 12 hours. For heat pumps that turn 
the indoor fan off during the defrost cycle, take steps to cease 
forced airflow through the indoor coil and block the outlet duct 
whenever the heat pump's controls cycle off the indoor fan. If it is 
installed, use the outlet damper box described in section 2.5.4.1 to 
affect the blocked outlet duct.
* * * * *
    f. * * * Sample measurements used in calculating the air volume 
rate (refer to sections 7.7.2.1 and 7.7.2.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.22)) at equal intervals 
that span 10 minutes or less. (Note: In the first printing of ASHRAE 
Standard 37-2005, the second IP equation for Qmi should 
read:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.002

* * * * *
    3.9.1 Average space heating capacity and electrical power 
calculations.
    a. * * *
    To account for the effect of duct loses, adjust 
Qkh (35) in accordance with section 7.3.4.3 of 
ASHRAE Standard 37-05.
* * * * *
    3.11.1.3 Official test.
* * * * *
    b. For space cooling tests, calculate capacity from the outdoor 
air-enthalpy measurements as specified in section 7.3.3.2 of ASHRAE 
Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.22). 
Calculate heating capacity based on outdoor air-enthalpy 
measurements as specified in section 7.3.4.2 of the same ASHRAE 
Standard. Adjust outdoor-side capacities according to section 
7.3.3.4 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  430.22) to account for line losses when testing split systems. 
Do not correct the average electrical power measurement as described 
in section 8.6.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  430.22).
    3.11.2 If using the Compressor Calibration Method as the 
secondary test method.
    a. * * * Otherwise, conduct the calibration tests according to 
ASHRAE Standard 23-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.22), 
ASHRAE Standard 41.9-00 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
430.22), and section 7.4 of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  430.22).
    b. Calculate space cooling and space heating capacities using 
the compressor calibration method measurements as specified in 
section 7.4.5 and 7.4.6 respectively, of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.22).
    3.11.3 If using the Refrigerant-Enthalpy Method as the secondary 
test method. Conduct this secondary method according to section 7.5 
of ASHRAE Standard 37-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
430.22). Calculate space cooling and heating capacities using the 
refrigerant-enthalpy method measurements as specified in sections 
7.5.4 and 7.5.5, respectively, of the same ASHRAE Standard.

4. Calculations of Seasonal Performance Descriptors

* * * * *
    4.1.3 SEER calculations for an air conditioner or heat pump 
having a two-capacity compressor. Calculate SEER using Equation 4.1-
1. Evaluate the space cooling capacity, Qk=1c 
(Tj) , and electrical power consumption, 
Ek=1c (Tj) , of the test unit when 
operating at low compressor capacity and outdoor temperature 
Tj using,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.004

 where Qk=1c (82) and 
Ek=1c (82) are determined from the 
B1 Test, Qk=1c (67) and 
Ek=1c (67) and Ek=1 c 
(67) are determined from the F1 Test, and all are 
calculated as specified in section 3.3. Evaluate the space cooling 
capacity, Qk=2c (Tj), and 
electrical power consumption, Ek=2c 
(Tj), of the test unit when operating at high compressor 
capacity and outdoor temperature Tj using,
* * * * *
    4.1.3.3 * * *
    PLFj = 1 -CcD (k = 2) . [1 - 
Xk=2 (Tj)], the part load factor, 
dimensionless.
    Obtain the fraction bin hours for the cooling season,
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.040
    
from Table 16. Use Equations 4.1.3-3 and 4.1.3-4, respectively, to 
evaluate Qk=2 c(Tj) and 
Ek=2c (Tj). Use Cc 
D (k=2) as determined in sections 3.2.3 and 3.5.3.
* * * * *
    4.1.4.2 * * *
    For multiple-split air conditioners and heat pumps (only), the 
following procedures supersede the above requirements for 
calculating EERk=i (Tj). For each temperature 
bin where T1 < Tj < Tv,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.005

For each temperature bin where Tv <= Tj < 
T2,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.006


[[Page 41344]]


* * * * *
    4.2.3.3 * * * .
PLFj = 1 - ChD (k = 2) [middot] [1 
- Xk=2 (Tj)].

    Use ChD (k = 2) as determined in sections 
3.6.3 and 3.8.1. Determine the low temperature cut-out factor, 
[delta]' (Tj), using Equation 4.2.3-3.
* * * * *
    4.2.4.2 * * *
    For multiple-split air conditioners and heat pumps (only), the 
following procedures supersede the above requirements for 
calculating COPk=ih (Tj). For each 
temperature bin where T3 > Tj > 
Tvh,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.007

    For each temperature bin where Tvh >= Tj > 
T4,
* * * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JY06.008

* * * * *
    6. Section 430.62 is amended in subpart F by revising paragraphs 
(a)(4)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.62  Submission of data.

    (a) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) Central air conditioners, the seasonal energy efficiency ratio. 
For central air conditioners whose seasonal energy efficiency ratio is 
based on an installation that includes a particular model of furnace, 
the certification report shall include the product class (as denoted in 
Sec.  430.32, manufacturer's name, private labeler's name (if 
applicable) and manufacturer's model number of the furnace.
    (ii) Central air conditioning heat pumps, the seasonal energy 
efficiency ratio and heating seasonal performance factor. For central 
air conditioner heat pumps whose seasonal energy efficiency ratio and/
or heating seasonal performance factor is based on an installation that 
includes a particular model of furnace, the certification report shall 
include the product class (as denoted in Sec.  430.32), manufacturer's 
name, private labeler's name (if applicable) and manufacturer's model 
number of the furnace.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-6320 Filed 7-19-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P