[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 203 (Monday, October 22, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59906-59934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5142]



[[Page 59905]]

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

Part III





Department of Energy





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



10 CFR Part 430



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

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

[[Page 59906]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

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


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

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its test procedure 
for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. This final 
rule implements test procedure changes for small-duct, high-velocity 
systems, two-capacity units, and updates references to the current 
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 
Engineers (ASHRAE) standards. Today's rule also clarifies issues 
associated with sampling tested systems and rating untested split-
system combinations.

DATES: This rule is effective April 21, 2008. Incorporation by 
reference of certain publications in the final rule is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register as of April 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of all materials related to this 
rulemaking at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 
1J-018 (Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program), 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, (202) 586-9127, between 9 
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please 
call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the above telephone number for 
additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room. Please 
note: DOE's Freedom of Information Reading Room (formerly Room 1E-190 
at the Forrestal Building) is no longer housing rulemaking materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael G. Raymond, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-2J, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9611, e-
mail: [email protected]; or Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-72, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-9507, e-
mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    C. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions
II. Discussion of Comments
    A. Frost Accumulation Test Duration
    B. Multiple-Split Systems
    C. Defining ``Repeatable'' for Cyclic Tests
    D. Outdoor Air Test Conditions for Units Having a Two-Capacity 
Compressor
    E. Air Volume Rate Less Than Manufacturer's Specified Value
    F. Updating References to Industry Standards
    G. Maximum and Minimum Speed Values for Calculating 
NQ and NE
    H. Using the Default or Tested Value of Cyclic-Degradation 
Coefficient
    I. Guidance on the Inclusion of Pre-Production Units in the 
Sample Population
    J. Clarification of the Sample Population Used To Validate the 
Rated Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal 
Performance Factor of Heat Pumps
    K. Clarification of the Definition of a ``Highest-Sales-Volume 
Combination''
    L. Upper Limit on the Difference Between Calculated and Tested 
Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal Performance 
Factor Values
    M. Clarification of the Published Ratings for Untested Split-
System Combinations
    N. Ratings That Are Based on Using a Particular Furnace or 
Ducted Air Mover
    O. Revisions to the Definition of ``Coil Family''
III. Summary of Other Additions, Changes, and Corrections to the 
Department of Energy Residential Central Air Conditioner and Heat 
Pump Test Procedure
IV. Effect of Test Procedure Revisions on Compliance With Standards
V. Procedural Requirements
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction

A. Authority

    Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
(EPCA) established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles (Program). (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.) The 
products currently subject to this Program (covered products) include 
central air conditioners and heat pumps, the subject of today's final 
rule.
    Under EPCA, the Program consists of three parts: Testing, labeling, 
and the Federal energy conservation standards. DOE, in consultation 
with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), is 
authorized to establish or amend test procedures as appropriate for 
each of the covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6293) The purpose of these 
test procedures is to measure energy efficiency, energy use, or 
estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a 
representative, average use cycle or period of use. The test procedure 
must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    If a test procedure is amended, DOE is required to determine to 
what extent, if any, the proposed new test procedure would alter the 
measured energy efficiency of any covered product as determined under 
the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines 
that an amended test procedure would alter the measured energy 
efficiency of a covered product, DOE is required to amend the 
applicable energy conservation standard with respect to such test 
procedure. In determining any such amended energy conservation 
standard, DOE is required to measure the energy efficiency or energy 
use of a representative sample of covered products that minimally 
comply with the existing standard. The average efficiency or energy use 
of this representative sample, tested using the amended test procedure, 
constitutes the amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) DOE has 
determined that today's amended test procedure does not alter the 
measured efficiency or measured energy use of minimally compliant 
central air conditioners and heat pumps.
    Beginning 180 days after a test procedure for a covered product is 
prescribed, no manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler 
may make representations with respect to the energy use, efficiency, or 
cost of energy consumed by such product, except as reflected in tests 
conducted according to the DOE procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) Any 
manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler may petition 
the Secretary of Energy for an extension of not more than 180 days to 
test and make representations in accordance with the amended DOE test 
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(3)) In addition, all existing waivers 
concerning residential multi-split

[[Page 59907]]

systems terminate on the effective date of today's final rule.

B. Background

    A final rule published on October 11, 2005, updated and completely 
re-organized the DOE residential central air conditioner and heat pump 
test procedure. 70 FR 59122. During this prior rulemaking, a few issues 
were identified too late in the process to allow them due 
consideration. DOE investigated these issues and considered additional 
topics that could further improve the testing and rating process. As a 
result of these efforts, DOE issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
July 20, 2006 (hereafter referred to as the July 2006 proposed rule). 
71 FR 41320. Although the majority of the proposed changes pertained to 
the test procedure set forth in appendix M to subpart B of Title 10, 
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 430 (10 CFR part 430), DOE also 
proposed revisions to sections of subparts B and F of 10 CFR part 430 
that concern the sampling of tested units and the ratings of untested 
split-system combinations. 10 CFR 430.24 and 430.62. DOE held a public 
meeting on the July 2006 proposed rule on August 23, 2006.
    On October 10, 2006, DOE published a Federal Register notice 
correcting two inadvertent omissions in the July 2006 proposed rule. 71 
FR 59410. These omissions contained the regulatory language governing 
the criterion for using an air volume rate that is less than the 
manufacturer's specified value: One case covered air conditioners and 
heat pumps, the other case covered heating-only heat pumps. This change 
was described in the preamble of the July 2006 proposed rule, but was 
not included in the regulatory language. In addition to publishing the 
corrected regulatory language in the Federal Register, the omitted 
regulatory language was distributed at the August 23, 2006, public 
meeting.

C. Summary of the Test Procedure Revisions

    The revisions adopted in today's final rule include the following 
changes to appendix M of Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430: (1) Adding new 
testing requirements for small-duct, high-velocity systems; (2) 
reinstating the optional testing to determine the cyclic-degradation 
coefficient (CD) of a two-capacity unit when cycling on and 
off at high capacity; (3) shortening the maximum duration of the Frost 
Accumulation Tests; (4) allowing the use of default equations to 
approximate the capacity and power of a two-capacity unit when 
operating at low-capacity/stage and at an outdoor temperature of 35 
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F); (5) implementing modifications and 
additions that specifically address elements unique to testing and 
rating modulating multi-split systems; (6) allowing indoor capacities 
used in calculating Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) and Heating 
Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF) to be corrected for duct losses; (7) 
defining the term ``standard air;'' (8) changing the outdoor 
temperature conditions used for one of the low-capacity, steady-state, 
cooling mode tests on a two-capacity unit; (9) renaming ``Cooling and 
Heating Certified Air Volume Rates'' to ``Full-Load Air Volume Rates;'' 
(10) modifying the criterion for using an air volume rate less than the 
manufacturer's specified value; (11) updating the references to current 
versions of the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) and 
ASHRAE standards; (12) adding language to better explain the SEER and 
HSPF calculation steps for variable-speed equipment; and (13) adding 
text to clarify the provision to use the default value of the cyclic-
degradation coefficient if it is lower than the tested value.
    Today's final rule also amends sections 430.2, 430.24 and 430.62 of 
10 CFR part 430, as follows: (1) It expands the options for meeting the 
data submission requirements when verifying an alternative rating 
method (ARM); (2) it clarifies the sample population to be used to 
validate the rated SEER and rated HSPF of a heat pump; (3) it clarifies 
the definition of a ``highest-sales-volume combination'' (HSVC); (4) it 
clarifies DOE's role in verifying ratings for untested split system 
combinations; (5) it clarifies how to apply the ARM to obtain published 
ratings for untested, split-system combinations; (6) it adds the 
requirement that ratings for an air conditioner or heat pump tested 
with a furnace or similar ducted air mover include the model number of 
the air mover as part of the overall equipment model number; (7) it 
clarifies the responsibilities of private labelers; (8) it adds the 
statutory definition of ``private labeler;'' and (9) it adds 
definitions for terms, including ``indoor unit'', ``outdoor unit'', and 
``ARM/simulation adjustment factor.''

II. Discussion of Comments

    In addition to the comments received at the August 23, 2006, public 
meeting, DOE received written comments to the July, 2006 proposed rule 
from ARI, Nordyne, Mitsubishi, Fujitsu General Limited (Fujitsu), 
Carrier Corporation (Carrier), the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy (ACEEE), Sanyo Fisher Service Corporation (Sanyo), 
Lennox International (Lennox), and the China WTO/TBT National 
Notification and Enquiry Center (China). The comments and the DOE 
response to them are discussed below. References to section numbers 
within this document refer to the section numbers of Appendix M to 
Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430-Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 
Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps (Appendix 
M).

A. Frost Accumulation Test Duration

    DOE proposed shortening the maximum test interval of a Frost 
Accumulation Test from 12 hours to 6 hours when testing a two-capacity 
heat pump at low capacity. ARI supported DOE's proposal to lessen the 
test burden, but recommended that the maximum duration be further 
shortened to 3 hours. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 2)\1\ ARI stated that 
``preliminary testing done by manufacturers shows a variation in HSPF 
of less than one tenth \2\ when the test is reduced from 12 to 3 
hours.'' (ARI, Id.) In a follow-up communication, ARI clarified that 
its 3-hour recommendation applies to all Frost Accumulation Tests, not 
just the test at low-capacity. (ARI, No. 25 at p. 2) ARI provided a 
table showing the percentage of the total interval allocated to 
defrosting for cycles lasting 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 minutes; percentages 
were calculated for complete (frost + defrost) intervals ranging from 1 
hour to 12 hours. As an example, for tests lasting 12, 6, and 3 hours, 
the percentages of time spent defrosting are 1.1, 2.2, and 4.4 percent, 
respectively, if the defrost lasts 8 minutes in all cases. (ARI, No. 25 
at p. 3) In addition to recommending that any change be applied to all 
Frost Accumulation Tests, Nordyne and Carrier recommended manufacturers 
be given the option of using either the procedure specified in ASHRAE 
Standard 37 (which uses a maximum test interval of 3 hours) or the 
algorithm specified in the DOE test procedure. (Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 
2; Carrier, No. 17

[[Page 59908]]

at p. 2) In summary, the stakeholders recommended applying changes to 
all Frost Accumulation Tests (not just to the one low-capacity test, as 
proposed), reducing the maximum duration to 3 hours instead of 6 hours, 
and adding an alternative test method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A notation in the form ``ARI, No.21 at p. 2'' identifies a 
written comment the Department has received and has included in the 
docket of this rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a 
comment (1) by the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute 
(ARI), (2) in document number 21 in the docket of this rulemaking 
(maintained in the Resource Room of the Building Technologies 
Program), and (3) appearing on page 2 of document number 21. 
Likewise, ``Public Hearing Tr., p. 178,'' for example, would refer 
to page 178 of the transcript of the ``Public Meeting on Test 
Procedures for Central Air Conditioners'' held in Washington, DC, 
August 23, 2006.
    \2\ This means an absolute variation in HSPF of 0.1, such as 
between 8.1 and 8.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE believes that if all three changes were adopted, the HSPF 
ratings of heat pumps would be changed, since the ASHRAE Standard 37 
``T'' Test Procedure may terminate after 0, 1, 2, or 3 complete cycles 
whereas the DOE Frost Accumulation Test is either 0 or 1 complete 
cycle. The different cycles in the ASHRAE and DOE test methods can 
yield different average heating capacity and power consumption results 
at the DOE-specified 35 [deg]F dry-bulb/33 [deg]F wet-bulb outdoor test 
conditions which would affect the HSPF rating. As for shortening the 
maximum test time to 3 hours, such a change may benefit heat pumps 
(i.e., give a higher average heating capacity) that initiate a defrost 
of the outdoor coils between 3 and 6 hours after the start of the test. 
In such cases, the heat pump's average heating capacity will not 
account for the energy used for defrosting. By not accounting for the 
defrost energy, the shorter test time would overstate the heating 
capacity and HSPF. Thus, DOE will not reduce the maximum test duration 
by the additional 3 hours or add the ASHRAE Standard 37 procedure as an 
alternate test method as part of this final rule.
    DOE agrees with comments recommending the same maximum limit for 
all Frost Accumulation Tests. The low-capacity Frost Accumulation Test 
is projected to be the most likely of the 35 [deg]F tests to approach 
the proposed 6-hour limit, followed by the required Frost Accumulation 
Test at the intermediate speed when testing a variable-speed heat pump. 
All other Frost Accumulation Tests are more likely to build frost and 
are likely to result in the unit defrosting in less time than it would 
at the intermediate speed. Thus, triggering the 6-hour limit is less 
likely when applied to these other cases. Finally, DOE concludes that 6 
hours offers a sufficiently long duration for evaluating performance in 
all cases. As noted in the July 2006 proposed rule, if a heat pump has 
not defrosted in 6 hours, it is either not building frost or is 
completely frosted and probably has been so for more than half of the 
interval. In both cases, the benefits from continuing to run the test 
past 6 hours are minimal. Therefore, DOE reduces the maximum duration 
of all Frost Accumulation Tests from 12 hours to 6 hours. This change 
appears in section 3.9 of Appendix M.

B. Multiple-Split Systems

    DOE received comments on issues related to the testing and rating 
of multiple-split air-conditioning systems (multi-split systems), 
including: (1) Rating multi-split systems based on SEER (if they 
compete primarily with ducted central air conditioners), or rating them 
based on EER (if they compete with room air conditioners) (SEER or 
EER); (2) adopting a separate test procedure for multi-split systems, 
such as Draft ARI Standard 1230 (ARI 1230); (3) allowing one or more 
indoor coils to turn off during any test, if representative of normal 
operation (Coils active during test); (4) allowing the manufacturer to 
specify the compressor speed used during the minimum-speed, 
intermediate-speed and maximum-speed tests (Compressor speed); (5) 
extending multi-split system test procedure changes to one-to-one 
ducted systems (One-to-one applicability); and (6) adding the term 
``tested combination'' within 10 CFR 430.2 for determining the 
combination of indoor units to be tested when testing a multi-split 
outdoor unit, and the appropriate rating of the tested combination 
(Tested combination).
    SEER or EER. DOE received several comments on whether multi-split 
systems compete primarily with ducted residential central air 
conditioners and heat pumps and as such, should be rated based on SEER 
and HSPF, or if they compete with room air conditioners and should be 
rated in terms of EER and COP. Trane argues that residential size 
multi-split systems compete for the same markets as ducted residential 
central systems: both serve multiple rooms, one ducts air whereas the 
second ``ducts'' refrigerant. (Public Hearing Tr., p. 178) Carrier and 
ACEEE support rating conventional central air conditioners and heat 
pumps and multi-split systems using the same descriptors. (Carrier, No. 
17 at p. 1 and ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 3) According to Mitsubishi, 
``ductless split-systems, including ductless multi-split systems, are 
used for room or spot cooling applications while the rest of the USE 
[unitary small equipment] equipment (i.e., central systems) is applied 
in a ducted environment for multiple rooms or whole houses.'' 
(Mitsubishi, No. 20 at p. 3) DOE believes residential-size multi-split 
systems compete with ducted central systems and that the consumer will 
be best served if multi-split systems can be compared with central air 
conditioners and central air-conditioning heat pumps. Therefore, DOE 
concludes that SEER and HSPF are better descriptors than EER and COP.
    ARI 1230. ARI, Sanyo, Fujitsu, Mitsubishi, and Daikin AC 
(Americas), Inc. (Daikin) urged DOE to adopt Draft ARI Standard 1230, 
``Performance Rating of Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 
Equipment'' in lieu of the proposed rule. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 3; Sanyo, 
No. 15 at pp. 2-3; Fujitsu, No. 13 at p. 3; Mitsubishi, No. 20 at pp. 
4-5; Public Hearing Tr., pp. 153-154) China recommends that DOE not 
cover multi-split systems within the residential central air 
conditioner and heat pump test procedure until all the technical issues 
have been resolved. (China, No. 14 at p. 1) Copeland recommends that 
DOE review and consider the approaches being taken by China and the 
European Union on how to test and rate multi-split systems. (Public 
Hearing Tr., p. 64) Nordyne supports the changes proposed in the July 
2006 proposed rule to cover multi-split systems as an interim solution, 
but states that further study is needed for a long term solution. 
(Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 2) Lennox, on the other hand, believes that 
multi-split systems should be rated using the current test procedure 
for central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps. 
(Lennox, No. 22 at p. 2) Sanyo and Fujitsu point out that the test 
procedure does not address units that can simultaneously cool and heat; 
the test procedure does not specify how many indoor units are turned 
off during a given test; and doubts whether the current DOE tests for 
variable-speed systems can approximate the unit's ``performance map.'' 
\3\ (Sanyo, No. 15 at pp. 2-3; Fujitsu, No. 13 at pp. 2-3; Public 
Hearing Tr., pp. 94-95, 110)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Performance map refers to a plot that shows the effect of 
compressor speed, number of indoor unit turned on versus off, and 
outdoor temperature conditions on the unit's space conditioning 
capacity and power consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is not convinced that residential-size multi-split systems 
require a separate test procedure from the current test procedure found 
in Appendix M. While it is true that the current test procedure fails 
to account for the energy savings derived from a simultaneous cooling 
and heating mode, the current test procedure is adaptable and DOE 
believes the tests for variable-speed systems in Appendix M offer a 
reasonable starting point for producing energy efficiency and energy 
use estimates. Once data become available that provides insight as to 
the energy use and efficiency benefits of simultaneous cooling and 
heating, and alternative or additional tests to estimate these benefits 
are formulated, DOE will then consider further

[[Page 59909]]

amendments to the test procedure. Accordingly, DOE is not adopting a 
new test procedure and energy efficiency and energy use ratings will 
continue to be based on the test procedure found in Appendix M.
    Regarding the stakeholder recommendation to adopt draft ARI 
Standard 1230, the current draft (as distributed in June 2007), is less 
complete for residential multi-split systems than the DOE test 
procedure in today's final rule. For example, ARI Standard 1230 (June 
2007 draft) lacks information on how to conduct intermediate speed 
tests, whether any indoor units are to be turned off for part-load 
tests, how to interpolate EER and COP in the intermediate speed range, 
and generally how to calculate SEER and HSPF. Furthermore, ARI has not 
finalized ARI Standard 1230 and, as such it cannot be incorporated by 
reference since it could be amended prior to being adopted in final 
form. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, DOE is not adopting 
ARI Standard 1230 (June 2007 draft) in today's final rule.
    As for considering changes that are modeled on the approaches taken 
in China and the European Union, DOE sees their potential use as 
limited given the current EPCA requirement to calculate annual measures 
of energy consumption. The European Union HVAC trade association, 
Eurovent, lists ratings for residential-size multi-splits that are 
based on full load EER and COP and their European SEER (ESEER) is thus 
far limited to liquid chilling packages, not unitary air conditioners 
(i.e., residential central air conditioners and central air 
conditioning heat pumps). The ESEER is actually a variation of ARI 
Standard 340/360's IPLV, which is used to quantify the part-load 
performance of larger, non-residential systems. An IPLV equivalent is 
also used in China. Neither international resource explicitly addresses 
the number of indoor units to be turned off during a given part-load 
test; such information would be necessary in order to get an accurate 
measure of equipment efficiency for comparison purposes.
    Coils active during test. Concerning the issue of whether one or 
more indoor units should be turned off during any given test, Daikin 
commented that you cannot rely on the unit's controls to make the 
decision when operated in a laboratory environment. (Public Hearing 
Tr., p. 62) Given this, DOE offered, at the public meeting, an 
algorithm for specifying the number of indoor units that are turned on 
for a given test. This algorithm is shown in Table 1, below. To 
evaluate the effect of such an algorithm, Fujitsu conducted simulations 
in which it modeled the performance of a unit if operated at the DOE 
test procedure cooling mode conditions. Fujitsu considered cases where 
the number of indoor units turned on for the two minimum speed and one 
intermediate speed tests changed. Fujitsu reported results for three 
cases: the first case, all four indoor units are on for all tests; the 
second case, three indoor units are on for the intermediate speed test 
and two indoor units are on for the minimum speed tests; and the third 
case, two indoor units are on for the intermediate-speed test and one 
indoor unit is on for the minimum speed tests. (Fujitsu, No. 13 at pp. 
1-2) Using the simulated data, Fujitsu reported that the first case 
yields the highest SEER. In comparison, Fujitsu reported that the SEER 
drops by 4.7 percent for the second case and by 11.6 percent for the 
third case. Fujitsu concluded that the number of operating indoor units 
may have a great impact on the result, and that the operating ranges in 
Table 1 were not appropriate.

   Table 1.--Approach to Regulating the Number of Active Indoor Units
 (Example Case of a Multi-Split System Having 4 Identical Indoor Units)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
    Percentage output relative to full load capacity         operating
                                                           indoor units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
75% to 100%.............................................               4
50% to 75%..............................................               3
25% to 50%..............................................               2
0% to 25%...............................................               1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(DOE, No. 12.3 at p. 12)

    DOE recognizes that when field installed, a multi-split system will 
often operate with one or more of its indoor units turned off. In an 
effort to have the DOE test procedure capture this part-load operating 
mechanism, today's final rule requires that at least one indoor unit 
must be turned off for tests conducted at minimum compressor speed. In 
addition, the manufacturer may elect to have one or more indoor units 
turned off for tests conducted at the intermediate compressor speed. In 
all cases, the manufacturer specifies the particular indoor unit(s) 
that is turned off.
    Compressor speed. ARI, Sanyo, Fujitsu, and Mitsubishi opposed DOE's 
proposed definition of maximum compressor speed. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 2; 
Sanyo, No. 15 at p. 2; Fujitsu, No. 13 at p. 2; Mitsubishi, No. 20 at 
p. 4) They recommended using the rated capacity or nominal rated speed 
because performance at that compressor speed is used in sizing and 
selling the product. ARI and Sanyo supported DOE's proposal to allow 
the manufacturer to specify the compressor speed used for the minimum-
speed and intermediate-speed tests. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 2; Sanyo, No. 15 
at p. 2) Sanyo and ARI, moreover, both believe that test laboratories 
must accept the task of providing test facilities that can maintain 
steady test room conditions and accurately measure capacity at very low 
loads. (ARI, No. 21 on pp. 2-3; Sanyo, No. 15 on p. 2)
    Regarding the maximum and minimum compressor speed issue, DOE 
reviewed test procedure waivers processed in the 1980's, and the 1988 
test procedure rulemaking that first added coverage for air 
conditioners and heat pumps having a variable-speed compressor. (53 FR 
8304, March 14, 1988) None of these actions explicitly defined maximum 
and minimum compressor speed. Instead, the manufacturer was allowed to 
define these speeds for its particular units. The evolution to include 
maximum and minimum compressor speeds among those elements that are 
``conducted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions'' 
occurred because of the test laboratory's need for a mechanism to 
override the unit's normal controls, so that the compressor can be 
forced to operate at fixed speeds for the DOE-specified lab tests. As 
part of today's final rule, DOE considered adopting a specific 
definition for maximum speed and requiring additional lab verification 
tests, but has decided against it because there is no compelling 
technical argument for doing so. The current approach effectively 
allows the manufacturer to de-rate the unit's maximum capacity in order 
to raise its performance descriptor. As long as that de-rated capacity 
is used for sizing the particular multi-split combination, then the 
practice is acceptable. DOE, however, does not agree with substituting 
``nominal'' or ``rated'' compressor speed for ``maximum'' compressor 
speed, as that will not allow for test results that can be used to 
generate a performance map representing how particular multi-split 
combinations will operate in the field.
    The DOE test procedure will continue to require variable-speed 
systems to be tested at their minimum compressor speed. Manufacturers 
will be relied upon to provide the independent testing laboratory with 
a means for conducting tests at this speed. Minimum speed may not be 
the absolute minimum speed at which the compressor can operate, but

[[Page 59910]]

it is expected to be a speed below which the compressor would rarely 
operate. DOE concurs with Sanyo and ARI and expects test laboratories 
to measure performance over the wide modulation range that is 
characteristic of multi-splits. Thus, to the issue of what compressor 
speed to use when conducting minimum speed and maximum speed tests, DOE 
is maintaining the current test procedure language in sections 3.2.4 
and 3.6.4 of Appendix M.
    DOE adopts the July 2006 proposed change of allowing the 
manufacturer to specify the compressor speed used for the cooling and 
heating intermediate speed/capacity tests. This change provides the 
manufacturer an opportunity to select and verify the peak-efficiency of 
the unit being tested. Coupled with this change, and as also proposed 
in the July 2006 notice, steady-state efficiency (EER and COP) over the 
intermediate-speed range shall be calculated using piece-wise linear 
fits: a line connecting the minimum- and intermediate-speed balance 
points and a line connecting the intermediate- and maximum-speed 
balance points.
    One-to-one applicability. Carrier noted the need for transparency 
in testing and manufacturer test results so that interested parties can 
verify the performance claims without having to consult the 
manufacturer. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2) Trane and ARI pointed out that 
any steps introduced to facilitate testing and rating modulating multi-
split systems should also be allowed for modulating one-to-one ducted 
systems to promote comparability. (Public Hearing Tr., pp. 87 and 118; 
ARI, No. 21 at p. 3) With respect to Carrier's comment, variable-speed 
systems do not lend themselves to being tested by a third party who 
does not have the cooperation of the outdoor unit manufacturer. Third-
party certification programs thus become especially important as they 
offer the primary pathway for independent verification. For those 
multi-split products that are not covered by a third-party 
certification program, DOE can request from the manufacturer the 
information needed to conduct such testing along with reviewing the lab 
test results maintained by the manufacturer, that substantiate the 
multi-split system's ratings. 10 CFR 430.62(d).
    Of the changes being implemented today to allow testing and rating 
of residential modulating multi-split systems, two changes could be 
applied to variable-speed one-to-one units. Together, these two changes 
would allow the manufacturer to specify the compressor speed used for 
the intermediate-speed tests and then use linear fits for calculating 
COP and EER within the intermediate-speed operating range. Adopting 
these two changes for variable-speed one-to-one units would create a 
second compliance path that would likely cause different SEER and HSPF 
ratings than the current test procedure. Therefore, in adopting these 
changes, DOE is not extending them to variable-speed one-to-one units. 
Although DOE expects the current test procedure to yield the higher 
ratings for one-to-one units, it will rely on the waiver process if any 
manufacturer seeks to adopt these two multi-split test procedure 
changes for use in rating variable-speed one-to-one units.
    Tested combination. On the issue of the ``tested combination''--the 
equipment configuration that can be tested in the laboratory and 
thereby provide a common basis for comparison--Sanyo, Fujitsu, 
Mitsubishi, and ARI recommended deleting the requirement that the 
selected indoor units ``represent the highest-sales-volume type 
models'' and replacing it with ``represent the highest sales model 
family.'' (Sanyo, No. 15 at p. 3; Fujitsu, No. 13 at p. 4; Mitsubishi, 
No. 20 at pp. 5 and 6; ARI, No. 21 at p. 6) In addition, Sanyo, 
Fujitsu, Mitsubishi, and ARI recommended that provisions be made in the 
event that five of the largest model indoor coils from the selected 
model family cannot provide a cumulative indoor capacity that is more 
than 95 percent of the outdoor unit's nominal capacity. As to 
references in the proposed definition that a manufacturer will know the 
capacity of each indoor unit and each outdoor unit, Copeland 
Corporation (Copeland) questioned how the manufacturer would determine 
component capacities. (Public Hearing Tr., pp. 217-221) Finally, with 
regard to the proposal that all of the tested indoor units ``have the 
same external static pressure,'' Trane asked how to interpret that 
requirement if testing a ducted multi-split system having indoor units 
that have different minimum external static pressure requirements. 
(Public Hearing Tr., p. 229)
    DOE accepts the stakeholder recommendation of substituting the 
phrase ``represent the highest sales model family'' for the originally 
proposed wording, ``represent the highest sales volume type models,'' 
because it has essentially the same meaning, but is clearer. Although 
it is more an issue with commercial multi-split systems, DOE accepts 
the proposed wording to clarify the tested combination since it is more 
important to obtain a cumulative indoor capacity that matches the 
outdoor unit than it is to restrict selection to units from the highest 
sales model family, for cases where both criteria cannot be met. As for 
Copeland's statement that the definition includes references to the 
capacity of the outdoor unit and the cumulative capacities of the 
indoor units even though no prescriptions are given to evaluate these 
capacities, DOE agrees but nonetheless will allow their use in this 
particular definition. Manufacturers are able to estimate the rated 
capacities of the separate components without conducting the rigorous 
testing associated with ARI Standards 410 (``Forced-Circulation Air-
Cooling and Air-Heating Coils'') and 540 (``Performance Rating of 
Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Compressor Units'') 
on each new model. Finally, the last element of the proposed definition 
of ``tested combination'' will be changed from ``all have the same 
external static pressure'' to ``all be subject to the same minimum 
external static pressure requirement (i.e., 0 inches of water column 
for non-ducted, see Table 2 in Appendix M for ducted indoor units) 
while being configurable to produce the same static pressure at the 
exit of each outlet plenum when manifolded as per section 2.4.1 of 
Appendix M.'' This additional information is provided so that the test 
laboratory may conduct the lab testing by manifolding the outlets of 
all the indoor units together and using one airflow measuring apparatus 
to determine the cumulative air volume rate.
    At the August 23, 2006, public meeting, DOE restated its proposed 
interim solution for assigning SEER and HSPF ratings for untested 
multi-split combinations. This interim solution--to assign the rating 
measured for the tested combination to every other combination using 
the same outdoor unit--was included as part of the March 24, 2006, 
Federal Register notice that published a petition for waiver from the 
residential package air conditioner and heat pump test procedures that 
was received from Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. (Case 
No. CAC-012). 71 FR 14858. This provision was not in the July 2006 
proposed rule, but was discussed at the public meeting and relevant 
comments were received in the course of the waiver process. Lennox and 
Copeland commented that the rated system's combination of indoor units 
could be very different from those in the tested system, and the 
ratings agreement would be poor in this case. (Public Hearing Tr., pp. 
245-246)
    Because of the difficulty of prescribing similarity of indoor unit

[[Page 59911]]

combinations, and with the belief that a rating that reflects the 
``highest sales model family'' is better than no rating, DOE is 
including this ratings provision in the final rule, with the additional 
stipulation that multi-split manufacturers must test two or more 
combinations with each outdoor unit unless they have an approved ARM 
(in which case, they only need to test one combination). 10 CFR 
430.24(m)(2). One system shall be tested using only non-ducted indoor 
units that meet the definition of a tested combination. The second 
system shall be tested using only ducted indoor units that meet the 
definition of a tested combination. The rating given to any untested 
multi-split system combination having the same outdoor unit and all 
non-ducted indoor units shall be set equal to the rating of the tested 
system having all non-ducted indoor units. The rating given to any 
untested multi-split system combination having the same outdoor unit 
and all ducted indoor units shall be set equal to the rating of the 
tested system having all ducted indoor units. Finally, the rating given 
to any untested multi-split system combination having the same outdoor 
unit and a mix of non-ducted and ducted indoor units shall be set equal 
to the average of the ratings for the two required tested combinations. 
10 CFR 430.24(m)(2)(ii). Furthermore, DOE notes that it is including a 
provision for the use of an alternate rating method. While DOE is not 
aware of any algorithms appropriate for rating the energy efficiency of 
untested multi-split system combinations, DOE expects that as more 
laboratory test data and field use data become available, such 
algorithms will be developed.
    Today's final rule contains a minor update that was introduced in 
the July 2006 proposed rule, removing the limit on having only one 
indoor test room. No comments were received on this proposed change.
    Today's final rule sufficiently addresses issues that led to the 
requesting and granting of test procedure waivers for several models of 
residential multi-split systems. Therefore, all existing waivers 
concerning residential modulating multi-split systems terminate on the 
effective date of today's final rule. Multi-split manufacturers may use 
the waiver process described in 10 CFR 430.27 to petition for 
modification of today's test procedure, if necessary.

C. Defining ``Repeatable'' for Cyclic Tests

    The July 2006 proposed rule contained two provisions that further 
defined repeatable performance during cyclic tests. One was the 
requirement that the time-integrated air temperature difference across 
the indoor unit for consecutive ``on'' cycles must change by 0.05 
[deg]F hr or less while the other was for the average system power 
consumption for the complete ``OFF/ON'' interval to change by 10 watts 
or less from one cycle to the next.
    ARI, Sanyo, Carrier, and Nordyne commented that repeatability 
should be addressed by ASHRAE's Standards Project Committee (SPC) 116, 
``Method of Testing for Rating Seasonal Efficiency of Unitary Air 
Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' not by the DOE test procedure (ARI, No. 
21 at p. 3; Sanyo, No. 15 at p. 5; Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2; Nordyne, 
No. 19 at p. 2) Finally, ACEEE supports DOE's efforts to capture the 
essence of industry best practices for cyclic testing. (ACEEE, No. 16 
at p. 4)
    DOE recognizes that variability is inherent in testing products for 
energy efficiency, including central air conditioners and central air 
conditioning heat pumps. In order to reduce test variability and 
increase repeatability of test results, DOE has set specific 
requirements for test set-up and measurement to reduce variability. 
However, even with these requirements, test variability remains. 
Furthermore, DOE notes that the less repeatable the test, either more 
units need to be tested to support an energy efficiency rating that is 
representative of the units true energy efficiency or, if less testing 
is done, the product must be rated conservatively (i.e., lower energy 
efficiency rating).\4\ Test variability can be further reduced by, for 
example, including more specific requirements in the DOE test 
procedures as well as through industry actions, such as ASHRAE Standard 
116. However, changes to the DOE test procedures to deal with test 
variability could increase the burden and cost of testing. Since the 
purpose of this requirement was to reduce variability and there are 
alternative approaches manufacturers can take to reduce variability, 
DOE is not adopting the cyclic changes proposed. Therefore, as part of 
today's final rule, DOE makes no changes on defining repeatability 
during cyclic tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ SEER and HSPF values, per the sampling plan in 10 CFR 
430.24, are to be based on the lower 90 percent confidence limit of 
the true mean divided by 0.95 (as opposed to the sample mean), thus 
the more variability in test results, the more likely that a 
product's SEER and HSPF ratings will have to be reduced from the 
true mean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Outdoor Air Test Conditions for Units Having a Two-Capacity 
Compressor

    The July 2006 proposed rule included provisions that dealt with the 
outdoor test conditions for three low-capacity cooling mode tests. The 
three low-capacity tests are conducted at different outdoor dry bulb 
temperatures (i.e., steady-state, wet-coil test at 95 [deg]F outdoor 
dry bulb temperature (the A1 Test); the steady-state, dry-
coil test at 82 [deg]F (the C1 Test); and the cyclic, dry-
coil test at 82 [deg]F (the D1 Test)). The July 2006 
proposal was to have all three of these tests replaced by equivalent 
tests conducted at an outdoor dry bulb temperature of 67 [deg]F.
    ARI, Carrier, and Nordyne supported replacing the A1 
Test with the steady-state, wet-coil, F1 Test at 67 [deg]F 
because the change will close a potential loophole in the current test 
procedure. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2; Nordyne, No. 
19 at p. 2) This loophole allowed manufacturers a way to increase the 
measured SEER by disproportionately increasing the electrical power 
consumption during the A1 Test. ACEEE supported the change 
in the temperature in the A1 test, but expressed its concern 
that the change may downgrade the importance of high temperature 
performance. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 4) ARI, Carrier, and Nordyne 
commented that the change in the C1 and D1 tests 
is unnecessary since these tests are optional and the changes will do 
very little to improve the accuracy of SEER. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 3; 
Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2; Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 2) Carrier also 
expressed its concern that products designed and tested under the 
current methodology may have to be re-rated as a result of the 
proposal. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2) In terms of the test procedure, 
Carrier is concerned that a different cyclic-degradation coefficient 
(CD) may result from replacing the C1 and 
D1 Tests with equivalent tests at 67[deg]F.
    Collectively, the three proposed changes make the test conditions 
for two-capacity units consistent with the test conditions specified 
for variable-speed systems. Implementing all three changes would result 
in a more normal test progression for most two-capacity units: all wet 
coil tests followed by the dry coil test; start with high capacity 
tests and end with the low capacity tests; and start at 95 [deg]F, 
progress to 82 [deg]F, and then end with 67 [deg]F. These benefits, 
however, cannot be realized because of the possibility of causing a 
change in the SEER ratings of some two-capacity units. Thus, DOE agrees 
with the general position of the comments that the proposal to change 
the outdoor test conditions for the two optional dry-coil CD 
tests (C1 and D1 tests) is not warranted.

[[Page 59912]]

    Therefore, today's final rule replaces the A1 Test with 
the F1 Test, as proposed. The F1 Test requires an 
outdoor dry bulb temperature of 67 [deg]F, and for those few cases 
where it applies, an outdoor wet bulb temperature of 53.5 [deg]F. The 
amendments discussed above are found in sections 3.2.3 and 4.1.3 of 
Appendix M.

E. Air Volume Rate Less Than Manufacturer's Specified Value

    In the July 2006 proposed rule, and the October 10, 2006, 
correction notice, DOE proposed modifications to the criteria for using 
an air volume rate that is less than the manufacturer's specified 
value. The proposal was made to account for the variability in fan 
motors, housings, and wheels. In brief, the proposed set-up process for 
the test procedure provides for making incremental adjustments in the 
indoor fan speed until the indoor unit provides an external static 
pressure that is equal to or greater than the applicable DOE minimum 
(i.e., 0.1, 0.15, or 0.20 inch of water column, if a non-small-duct, 
high-velocity (SDHV) system), while operating at the manufacturer-
specified air volume rate or, if needed, at the air volume rate between 
95 percent and 100 percent that produces the corresponding DOE minimum 
static pressure value. For comparison, the current algorithm in the DOE 
test procedure does not allow the air volume rate to be reduced from 
100 percent for the case where the external static pressure is less 
than specified by the test procedure. The proposed criteria apply to 
all ducted blower-coil systems, except those having a variable-speed 
motor that is controlled based on maintaining a constant air volume 
rate. The proposed criteria include two cases where the test laboratory 
is instructed to operate at an air volume rate less than that specified 
by the manufacturer: (1) If the highest indoor fan speed setting cannot 
yield the DOE-specified external static pressure minimum while 
supplying the manufacturer-specified air volume rate, and (2) if the 
manufacturer's specified air volume rate yields a ratio higher than 
37.5 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) per 1000 Btu/h.
    Nordyne, Carrier and Rheem supported the proposed criteria for 
using an air volume rate that is less than the manufacturer's specified 
value. (Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 2; Carrier, No. 17 at p. 3; Public 
Hearing Tr., p. 135; and Public Hearing Tr., pp. 134-135) ACEEE 
commented that since the proposed language specified which product 
designs would be subject to this requirement, they recommended that the 
wording for the types of indoor blowers that are affected by this 
change be as generic as possible so as not to impede product 
innovation. (Public Hearing Tr., pp. 132-133)
    DOE agrees with ACEEE that the proposed language could limit 
innovation since the proposed amendment was intended to apply to 
designs that are not adequately addressed by the current air volume 
requirements. Since it is impossible to predict what product designs 
may enter the marketplace, specifying the designs subject to the new 
provisions may, in fact, limit innovation. Therefore, in response to 
ACEEE's comment, DOE restructured the air volume criteria to indicate 
that the change applies to all designs, except variable-speed, 
constant-air-volume-rate blowers. In this way, the variable-speed, 
constant-volume-rate blowers, which the existing test procedure 
adequately addresses, continue to be subject to the existing 
requirement.

F. Updating References to Industry Standards

    The July 2006 proposed rule included updates to references to 
current industry test standards, including ASHRAE Standard 23-2005, 
``Methods of Testing for Rating Positive Displacement Refrigerant 
Compressors and Condensing Units,'' ASHRAE Standard 37-2005, ``Methods 
of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and 
Heat Pump Equipment,'' and ASHRAE Standard 116-1995 (RA2005), ``Methods 
of Testing for Rating Seasonal Efficiency of Unitary Air Conditioners 
and Heat Pumps.'' Nordyne commented in support of this proposal. 
(Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 2)
    In addition, subsequent to the publication of the July 2006 
proposed rule, ARI released an updated version of ARI Standard 210/240, 
``Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning and Air-Source Heat 
Pump Equipment.'' The updated version of ARI Standard 210/240 included 
references to the DOE test procedure as amended by the final rule 
published on October 11, 2005. This latest version of ARI Standard 210/
240 had not been released at the time that the content of the July 2006 
proposed rule had been finalized. Since the updated test procedures do 
not affect the measure of efficiency and provide manufacturers with 
current test standards, DOE moves today to adopt the 2006 version of 
ARI Standard 210/240.

G. Maximum and Minimum Speed Values for Calculating NQ and 
NE

    Rheem inquired as to whether the minimum and maximum speed 
quantities needed to evaluate Appendix M equations 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-3 
are to be determined directly from additional lab testing or from 
interpolating data from required tests lab tests at 67 [deg]F, 82 
[deg]F, and 95 [deg]F. (NIST, No. 24 at p. 2) In response, for cooling 
performance, DOE modified section 4.1.4 to explicitly state that the 
capacities and Qck=1 (87) and 
Qck=2 (87), which are used as part of the 
algorithm for approximating the slope of the intermediate compressor 
speed (k=v) capacity curve, are determined by evaluating equations 
4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-3, respectively, for Tj = 87. Similar 
direction is provided for determining the power consumption quantities 
Eck=1 (87) and Eck=2 (87) 
that appear within the section 4.1.4 equation for NE. For 
heating performance, such direction already exists within the section 
on calculating the HSPF for a variable-speed heat pump, with regard to 
the source of the minimum speed quantities at 35 [deg]F.
    This change does not affect the calculated SEER. The revised text 
is found following the equation for NE in section 4.1.4 of 
Appendix M.

H. Using the Default or Tested Value of Cyclic-Degradation Coefficient

    Carrier asked if the manufacturer elects to run the optional tests, 
and the resulting CD exceeds the 0.25 default value, is the 
manufacturer obligated to use the tested value. (Public Hearing Tr., p. 
31) The current test procedure addresses this scenario for most cases 
where a CD is used in the SEER and HSPF calculations. 
Specifically, sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2.1, 4.1.3.1, 4.1.4.1, 4.2.1, and 
4.2.3.1, direct that if the optional test(s) are not conducted, the 
cooling (heating) cyclic-degradation coefficient, 
CDc (CDh), is to be set to 
the default value of 0.25. If the optional test(s) are conducted, 
CDc (CDh) must to be set to 
the lower of: the value calculated per the test or the default value of 
0.25. In response to Carrier's comment, DOE has added similar wording 
to sections 4.1.3.3 and 4.2.3.3, the only sections that did not include 
the clarifying language found in the sections referenced above.
    Furthermore, in reviewing the organization of the current test 
procedure while considering this update, DOE found that the information 
would be better placed in the earlier sections (within section 3) with 
the instructions as to which tests to conduct based on the type of 
equipment (i.e.,

[[Page 59913]]

single-speed, two-capacity, variable-speed, etc). Therefore, language 
has been added in the test procedure to clarify that if the tested 
cyclic-degradation coefficient is higher than the default value, the 
default value is to be used to calculate SEER and HSPF. (see sections 
3.2.1, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.5.3, 3.6.1, 3.6.2, 3.6.3, 3.6.4, 3.8.1, 
4.1.3.3, and 4.2.3.3).

I. Guidance on the Inclusion of Pre-Production Units in the Sample 
Population

    As part of the July 2006 proposed rule, DOE proposed that only pre-
production units fabricated using the same tooling used for the 
eventual full-production units could be used as part of the tested 
sample population to obtain the certified ratings of full-production 
units.
    ARI, Nordyne, and Carrier commented that the proposed wording is 
too narrow, and recommended that the current regulatory language not be 
changed. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 4; Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 17 
at p. 2) ARI and Trane explained that the tooling used for pre-
production units is often different than that used for production 
units. (Public Hearing Tr., pp. 192-193) Trane stated that pre-
production units must have the same configuration as the production 
unit to be included in the sample population, while Carrier suggested 
using wording such as that in the ARI Certification Program Operational 
Manual to define the configuration (e.g., same compressor, same air 
flow, etc.). (Public Hearing Tr., pp. 192, 198-199) Rheem commented 
that the ARI internal process handles ratings derived from pre-
production units by making the model subject to certification testing 
immediately after production starts. (Public Hearing Tr., p. 202)
    DOE agrees that the proposed criterion is too narrow, and that 
different tooling can yield equivalent machinery. Moreover, DOE 
believes that spot checks conducted under an industry certification 
program, such as the ARI Certification Program, provide a safeguard 
against the performance of the production unit deviating appreciably 
from ratings derived from testing pre-production units. For these 
reasons, DOE is not amending the existing requirements and will 
continue to allow manufacturers to test pre-production units.

J. Clarification of the Sample Population Used To Validate the Rated 
Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal Performance 
Factor of Heat Pumps

    DOE proposed that a manufacturer must include the cooling and 
heating results from each heat pump of the sample population when 
obtaining the certified SEER and HSPF ratings. This requirement 
disallows testing multiple heat pumps and then using a subset of 
results for assigning the certified SEER rating and a different subset 
of results for determining the certified HSPF rating. The proposal 
provided one exception, which would allow additional testing in just 
one mode, cooling or heating, if the manufacturer elected to 
discontinue testing in the other mode at some point in the sample 
sequence.
    ACEEE, Nordyne, and Carrier supported the intent of clarifying the 
sample population used for determining heat pump ratings. (ACEEE, No. 
16 at p. 5; Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2) Carrier 
and the ACEEE, however, recommended deleting the exception, noting that 
additional testing is insignificant as compared to the potential for 
misrepresented ratings. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 2; ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 
5)
    DOE is aware of the testing burden on manufacturers, but agrees 
with Carrier and the ACEEE that this particular attempt at marginally 
reducing the test burden is not worthwhile. Thus, today's final rule 
adopts the proposal that all units of the sample population must be 
tested in both the cooling and heating modes and the results used for 
determining the heat pump's certified SEER and HSPF ratings without 
adopting the proposed exception for additional testing.

K. Clarification of the Definition of a ``Highest-Sales-Volume 
Combination''

    DOE proposed amendments to the definition of the Highest-Sales-
Volume Combination (HSVC) to require that a single-speed, split-system 
air conditioner must include the coil-only indoor unit likely to have 
the largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of outdoor 
unit. Proposed 10 CFR 430.24(m)(2). In addition, DOE proposed 
exceptions to this requirement to provide for equipment designed 
exclusively for blower-coil installations: mini-splits; multi-splits; 
small-duct, high-velocity systems; through-the-wall units; and 
condensing units having features (e.g., proprietary interfaces) that 
prevent their installation with third-party, coil-only indoor units. 
This proposal was made in recognition that coil-only units represent 
the overwhelming majority of installations of central air conditioners 
and, as such, the highest-sales-volume should reflect standard 
practice. The proposal also minimizes instances where the highest-sales 
volume combination of a split-system air conditioner could be defined 
as one with a ``blower-coil'' in order to meet Federal minimum energy 
efficiency standards and then have the outdoor unit combined with coil-
only indoor units where the combination would not meet the Federal 
energy efficiency standards.
    ACEEE, Carrier and ARI agreed that some clarification to the test 
procedure was needed in order to avoid such situations. (ACEEE, No. 16 
at p. 5; ARI, No. 21 at p. 4; Public Hearing Tr., pp. 208-209) ACEEE 
supported the goal of not having outdoor units installed with coil-only 
indoor units where the combination does not meet the energy efficiency 
standard. (ACEEE, No. 16 at p. 5) Instead of the proposed text, ARI and 
Carrier recommended that DOE adopt the wording from the 2006 ARI 
Certification Program Operational Manual for Unitary Air Conditioners & 
Air-Source Unitary Heat Pumps (Rated Below 65,000 Btu/h Cooling). (ARI, 
No. 21 at p. 4; Public Hearing Tr., pp. 208-209) Carrier and ARI 
commented that the proposed exception for outdoor units that prevent 
installations with coil-only units with a proprietary interface should 
be eliminated because it is not enforceable. Nordyne strongly objected 
to the entire proposal, stating that it restricts a manufacturer's use 
of technology. (Nordyne, No. 19 at pp. 3-4) Moreover, to implement such 
a change, Nordyne asserted that DOE needs to analyze the impact of 
minimally compliant units. Nordyne, however, did note its support for 
the proposed exception for blower coils having a proprietary interface.
    ARI and Carrier recommended the following alternative text to the 
July 2006 proposed rule:

HSVTC, Highest-sales-volume Tested Combination. For Unitary Air-
Conditioners below 14 SEER, the HSVTC must be an RCU-A-C 
combination, except for through-the-wall and ductless equipment 
(RCU-A-CBO). For Unitary Air-Conditioners 14 SEER and above, every 
outdoor model number must have a coil-only rating. Coil-only ratings 
offered for sale must be publicly viewable. Coil-only ratings not 
offered for sale are viewable only to ARI staff. Non-viewable 
ratings fall under all compliance guidelines except the challenge 
procedure. If a non-publicly viewable rating falls below NAECA 
minimum, then the manufacturer must submit a coil-only rating that 
meets NAECA minimum and is verified through ARI testing.

[[Page 59914]]

Until then, the Basic Model Group ratings will not be listed in the 
ARI directory.

    Historically, the highest sales volume combination for most split-
system air conditioners has had a coil-only indoor unit. Both the June 
2006 proposed rule and the ARI alternative maintain this historical 
practice. DOE, however, believes ARI's approach is arbitrary and 
results in uncertainties to manufacturers. Furthermore, DOE believes it 
would be difficult to implement the above ARI algorithm. With the ARI 
approach, the manufacturer may have to re-test in a coil-only 
configuration after having tested in a blower-coil configuration, if 
the expected SEER of 14 or higher is not realized in laboratory 
testing. In addition, if DOE were to adopt the ARI alternative and the 
minimum energy efficiency standards were amended, DOE would have to 
modify the requirement, since the new minimum could be higher than the 
14 SEER requirement in the ARI alternative. Conversely, in formulating 
the approach proposed in the July 2006 proposed rulemaking, DOE first 
considered requiring that all split-system air conditioners be tested 
with a coil-only indoor unit. DOE recognized, however, that in addition 
to the exceptions such as equipment designed exclusively for blower-
coil installations, other exceptions would have to be recognized. These 
other exceptions include two-capacity and variable-speed units, because 
they are always much more efficient than 14 SEER, and do not risk 
having a coil-only combination that would not meet the DOE efficiency 
standards. Therefore, DOE applied the coil-only requirement only to 
split system air conditioners having a single-speed compressor.
    Returning to the issue of listed exceptions, DOE agrees with ARI 
and Carrier that the proposed exception for combinations that prevent 
applications with third-party coil-only indoor units would be 
prohibitively difficult to define, verify, and enforce. DOE believes 
that its proposal to substitute the words ``mini-splits'' and ``multi-
splits'' for ``ductless equipment,'' is somewhat more comprehensive 
because it includes ducted multi-split systems. Finally, SDHV 
manufacturers, at present, only manufacture indoor coils and do not 
manufacture outdoor units. Since SDHV manufacturers do not offer for 
sale complete systems, they are not subject to specifying HSVC's. Thus, 
SDHV systems do not need to be included as an exception.
    As to Nordyne's objections, DOE stands by its position as stated in 
the July 2006 proposed rule. DOE believes that its proposal, which is 
adopted in today's final rule, increases the likelihood that the 
outdoor unit, in combination with any compatible indoor unit, will meet 
the federal energy efficiency standards. This is because the proposal 
which is adopted today ensures that the tested combinations, upon which 
most ratings are based, reflect the outdoor-indoor combinations most 
likely to be sold. Furthermore, this language does not limit technology 
options to manufacturers, since the test procedure allows for 
representations of other than the highest-sales-volume combination.
    With regard to Nordyne's comment that DOE needs to analyze the 
impact of the clarifications on minimally compliant units, DOE fails to 
see how the clarification in the definition will alter the rating of a 
particular split-system air conditioner. The clarification ensures that 
the highest-sales-volume split-system air conditioner--which is subject 
to testing--yields ratings reflective of the outdoor-indoor 
combinations most likely to be sold. For split-system air conditioners 
``representative'' and ``highest sales'' historically equate to coil-
only indoor units. Only mini-splits, multi-splits, and through-the-wall 
units can currently argue for an exception, since, in these cases, the 
outdoor units would be sold in combination with specific indoor units 
which would include a fan and a coil.
    Therefore, DOE is adopting the language of the July 2006 proposed 
rule, to require that the highest sales volume combination of a single-
speed, split-system air conditioner must include the coil-only indoor 
unit likely to have the largest volume of retail sales with the 
particular model of outdoor unit. The only change from the proposed 
rule is to limit the exceptions to mini-splits, multi-splits, and 
through-the-wall units.

L. Upper Limit on the Difference Between Calculated and Tested Seasonal 
Energy Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal Performance Factor Values

    DOE proposed setting a 5 percent limit on the amount that a rating 
for an untested split-system combination could exceed the rating of the 
corresponding HSVC. 71 FR 41330, July 20, 2006. The proposed limit only 
applied to applications where both combinations used coil-only indoor 
units. Ratings based on testing are not subject to the 5 percent limit. 
Manufacturers seeking a rating that exceeds the 5 percent limit can do 
so by testing the particular coil-only combination. The proposed 
approach applied to untested combinations offered by system 
manufacturers and by independent coil manufacturers (ICM's).
    ACEEE commented in support of the proposal to limit the difference 
between calculated and tested SEER and HSPF values. (ACEEE, No. 16 at 
p. 5) Carrier and Nordyne also supported the DOE proposal for SEER 
ratings but Carrier does not believe a similar cap is required for HSPF 
ratings. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 3; Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 4) Using data 
from the September 2006 ARI Online Directory, Carrier found that the 
proposed 5 percent SEER limit would affect the ratings of 1.05 percent 
of OEM coil-only combinations and 13.87 percent of ICM coil-only 
combinations. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 4) At the public meeting, Carrier 
offered similar statistics to show that ICM's, in general, rate 
condenser-coil combinations employing the same condenser at higher 
efficiencies than the OEM's. Carrier also offered statistics to show 
that a small number of ICM's provide most of the ratings that are more 
than 5 percent higher than the OEM rating for the highest-sales 
combination. (Public Hearing Tr., p. 265) Carrier also cites the 
September 2006 NIST ``Survey of SEER Ratings for Independent Coil 
Manufacturer Mixed Systems'' as demonstrating the need to address the 
issue. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 3)
    Lennox disagrees with the June 2006 proposal. Lennox points out 
that the proposed 5 percent limit is not technically supported and that 
the practical limit is more likely 13 percent than 5 percent. Lennox 
notes that the NIST report referenced above states that ``maximum gains 
in SEER associated with coil capacity and improved expansion devices 
are approximately 10 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively.'' (Lennox, 
No. 22 at p. 1) Lennox reports that an independent laboratory tested 
two different condensing units having 13 SEER HSVC ratings with an 
alternate, non-HSVC, evaporator coil. According to Lennox, the non-HSVC 
tested combinations produced SEER ratings 7.9 and 11.8 percent higher 
than the 13.0 SEER rating of the HSVC units. Lennox argues that data 
analysis conducted by Carrier is incomplete and that having to test 
combinations that are projected to exceed the 5 percent limit will be 
overly burdensome. Lennox further stated that the combination of DOE 
approval of the ARM, governmentally enforceable penalties for 
overrating, and an industry-sponsored certification program ``ensure a 
reasonable level of rating integrity and result in a full availability 
of cost

[[Page 59915]]

effective, higher efficiency combinations for consumers.'' (Lennox, No. 
22 at p. 2)
    ARI commented that the DOE proposed 5 percent upper limit is 
arbitrary and will unduly penalize manufacturers who participate in the 
ARI certification program. Furthermore, ARI commented that inconsistent 
ratings for untested split-system combinations have been discussed at 
length with the appropriate ARI committees for quite some time, and, 
based on these discussions, significant changes were made to strengthen 
the credibility of the ARI certification program. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 5) 
For example, ARI commented that coil-only combinations (system 
manufacturers and ICMs) with SEER ratings that are 6 percent above the 
SEER rating of the highest-sales-volume tested combination are 
automatically subject to testing as part of the ARI certification 
program. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 5)
    The analysis conducted by Carrier and NIST certainly justifies 
further scrutiny of ratings of untested combinations of split-system 
central air conditioners. The SEER ratings reported by Lennox raise a 
few questions, while suggesting that the proposed mechanism and 5 
percent limit may not be adequate, but Lennox doesn't offer an 
alternative. For example, how much of the ratings difference is a 
result of the better performance of the mixed system indoor units? How 
much of the ratings difference results from the HSVC rating being 
conservative `` i.e., although rated at 13.0, the tested SEER of the 
HSVCs is likely higher? If the percent differences reported by Lennox 
had been based on the measured SEER of the HSVC, the respective 
magnitudes would likely have been less, possibly much less.
    As for Lennox's comment that the NIST report supports a higher 
percentage, DOE notes that the NIST analysis only commented on the 
effect of increased coil capacity and an improved expansion device, two 
factors that increase SEER. The impact of the larger coil on compressor 
power consumption, however, was believed negligible even though it too 
would typically increase. Thus, for the nominal case where a power 
increase accompanies the capacity gain, the maximum SEER increase 
predicted by the long-standing NIST ARM is in the 9 to 10 percent 
range, higher than the 5 percent limit proposed in the NOPR, but less 
than the maximum increase stated by Lennox.
    Upon consideration of the above comments, DOE believes that its 5 
percent limit, as proposed, is deficient. DOE still believes that more 
scrutiny of untested combination ratings is warranted. However, DOE 
finds, from a review of the data and comments received, that the 
ratings of some non-HSVCs are higher that what would seem warranted. 
DOE supports the steps recently implemented by ARI's certification 
program to more frequently check combinations having suspect ratings. 
Moreover, DOE is amending the test procedure to emphasize its right to 
obtain information that is the basis for any manufacturer's rating. DOE 
will require documentation to justify ratings more than 6 percent 
higher that the rated efficiency of the HSVC unit. If DOE questions the 
rating, the manufacturer will be responsible for verifying the ARM, and 
supplying to DOE the ARM used and furnishing the specific input 
parameters used for each condenser-evaporator combination, the energy 
efficiency rating of the HSVC, the energy efficiency results of the 
ARM, and the rated energy efficiency of the units in question. 
Furthermore, the manufacturer must be prepared to provide the 
information source and/or justification for any input parameter.
    In summary, DOE is not adopting the proposed 5 percent limit on the 
maximum amount that a rating for an untested coil-only split-system can 
exceed the rating of the HSVC. Instead, DOE will evaluate the 
improvements available through using new and improved ARMs and the 
results from internal changes made as part of the ARI Certification 
Program. DOE will give follow-up priority to individual combinations 
having questionably high ratings (for example, a coil-only system 
having a rating that exceeds the rating of a coil-only highest sales 
volume combination by more than 6 percent). The text that sets forth 
DOE's authority to examine ratings for untested split system 
combinations is found in 10 CFR 430.24(m)(5) of today's rule.

M. Clarification of the Published Ratings for Untested Split-System 
Combinations

    DOE proposed amendments to 10 CFR 430.24(m)(4) to require published 
ratings for an untested split-system combination to be equal to, or 
lower than, the value calculated using the DOE-approved ARM. 71 FR 
41336. The proposed language specifically recognized that a 
manufacturer may use laboratory data from the HSVC testing to adjust or 
``tune'' its ARM, or a simulation subcomponent, when calculating the 
ratings for untested combinations that use the same outdoor unit. Under 
the proposal, the amount of adjustment is limited to a 5 percent 
increase in the calculated rating compared to the rating obtained using 
the ARM without the adjustment/tuning factor. The purpose is to limit 
the amount of manufacturer's ``tuning'' of ARMs, without resubmitting 
the ARM for DOE review in accordance with 10 CFR 430.24(m)(5). DOE is 
concerned that the ``tuned'' ARMs will result in a different model than 
the one the Department had reviewed and approved under 10 CFR 
430.24(m)(5). The changes were proposed to improve the current 
regulatory language that states the ARM must be used to obtain 
``representative values of the measures of energy consumption.'' 10 CFR 
430.24(m)(2)(ii).
    ARI commented that ``untested'' combinations are subject to 
verification testing in the ARI Certification Program and so placing a 
limit on the adjustment factor is unwarranted for combinations listed 
in the ARI directory. (ARI, No. 21 at p. 5) Carrier commented that any 
adjustment based on actual testing to be not only allowable but 
desirable. (Carrier, No. 17 at p. 3) Nordyne was willing to consider 
the concept of a maximum allowable adjustment but stated that the exact 
values and the specific wording needed further review. (Nordyne, No. 19 
at p. 4)
    In reviewing its files of ARMs that DOE has approved, DOE finds 
that none reference an ARM/simulation adjustment factor, or equivalent. 
Yet, the use of such adjustment factors appears to be common. This 
situation, along with the fact that most manufacturers' ARMs have not 
been updated in many years, and that most, if not all, of the models 
upon which the ARMs were based have been removed from the marketplace 
because they did not meet the 13 SEER standard leads DOE to conclude 
that it is likely some ARMs need the adjustment factor in order to 
correctly predict the efficiency of untested combinations.
    In view of the foregoing, DOE is amending 10 CFR 430.24(m)(5) to 
require published ratings for an untested split-system combination to 
be equal to, or lower than, the value calculated using the DOE-approved 
ARM. The practice of ``tuning'' an ARM or computer simulation by using 
laboratory data from tests on the HSVC or any other split-system 
combination tested in accordance with the sample plan of 10 CFR 
430.24(m), and then using the tuned ARM to calculate the ratings for 
untested combinations that use the same outdoor unit, is now referenced 
in 10 CFR 430.24(m)(4). DOE, however, is not adopting a limit on how 
much the SEER/HSPF rating, calculated using an ARM, may exceed the 
rating obtained without using the adjustment factor.

[[Page 59916]]

N. Ratings That Are Based on Using a Particular Furnace or Ducted Air 
Mover

    DOE proposed having manufacturers document those published ratings 
that are based on a complete system consisting of a coil-only air 
conditioner or heat pump and a particular model of furnace. The model 
number of the furnace would be published, most likely in addition to 
the indoor unit model number.
    ACEEE supported the measure, as originally proposed. (ACEEE, No. 16 
at p. 5) Nordyne and ARI also supported the measure but suggest 
replacing the word ``furnace'' with a more generic term so that the 
requirement is extended to all indoor air movers. (Nordyne, No. 19 at 
p. 4; ARI, No. 21 at p. 6) Nordyne suggests using ``indoor blower'' and 
ARI suggests ``ducted air mover.''
    DOE accepts the recommendation of using generic wording to clearly 
convey the equipment components that contribute to the published 
rating, and selects the description ``ducted air mover.'' DOE adopts 
revised text for 10 CFR 430.62(a)(4)(i) and (ii) that explicitly states 
that the model number of the ducted air mover, if applicable, must be 
included among the manufacturer's model numbers submitted on the 
certification report to DOE. Compared to the wording proposed in the 
July 2006 proposed rule, today's revision is simpler, in that it does 
not repeat text from 10 CFR 430.62(a)(4) in sections 430.62(a)(4)(i) 
and (a)(4)(ii).

O. Revisions to the Definition of ``Coil Family''

    DOE proposed minor modifications to the existing definition of 
``coil family,'' to improve its readability and make it easier to 
understand. 71 FR 41335. Nordyne and Rheem asked for clarifications to 
the proposed language. (Nordyne, No. 19 at p. 4)
    Concerning Nordyne's comment, DOE had no intention other than to 
offer a few editorial improvements, and to heighten awareness of the 
definition among stakeholders, given the related discussion of ARMs. As 
proposed, DOE viewed the substantive content of the definition as 
adequate for the purpose of designating what split systems may be used 
for verifying an ARM. There was no change proposed to the definition of 
``coil family'' with respect to coil circuitry. In both the current and 
proposed test procedures, ``coil circuitry'' is included in a list of 
design features that affect heat exchanger performance. In responding 
to the question raised by Rheem, NIST asked attendees at the public 
meeting how to define coil circuitry. Trane responded that if this coil 
differentiating feature were deleted then it wouldn't have to be 
defined. (Public Hearing Tr., p. 297)
    In considering the comments received, DOE finds the proposed 
amendments to the definition cause more confusion than the existing 
definition, therefore, DOE is not amending the definition of coil 
circuitry at this time.

III. Summary of Other Additions, Changes, and Corrections to the 
Department of Energy Residential Central Air Conditioner and Heat Pump 
Test Procedure

    The following discussion summarizes revisions that were proposed in 
the July 2006 proposed rule and received no substantive comments.
    Small-duct, high-velocity (SDHV) systems. Today's final rule adopts 
the following five changes that apply exclusively to small-duct, high-
velocity (SDHV) systems:

--The minimum external-static-pressure levels that must be equaled or 
exceeded during the first test on any SDHV system will be 1.0 inches of 
water column higher than the minimum that is required of non-SDHV 
units. For example, for equipment having rated cooling capacities from 
29,000 to 42,500 Btu/h, the minimum external static pressure is 1.15 
inches of water column for SDHV systems, compared to 0.15 inches of 
water column for conventional blower-coil systems. This change is found 
in section 3.1.4.1.1 of Appendix M.
--All balance dampers or restrictor devices on or inside the unit must 
be set fully open or on the lowest restriction setting. This change is 
found in section 2.2 of Appendix M.
--The size of the duct connected to the outlet of the indoor unit must 
not exceed prescribed limits. This change is found in section 2.4.1 of 
Appendix M.
--When a closed-loop, air-enthalpy test apparatus is used on the indoor 
side, the test laboratory must limit the airflow resistance on the 
inlet-side of the indoor blower-coil to a maximum value of 0.1 inches 
of water column. The balance of the airflow resistance must be imposed 
on the outlet-side of the indoor blower. This change is found in 
section 3.1.4.1.1 of Appendix M.
--The test setup must include an adjustable air damper that is 
positioned immediately upstream of the airflow measuring apparatus that 
limits the differential pressure between the inside of the duct and the 
surrounding ambient to 0.5 inches of water column or less. If the 
particular test setup permits, the outlet air damper box used for 
cyclic tests can double as the adjustable air damper. This change is 
found in section 2.5.4.3 of Appendix M.

    Optional high-capacity cyclic-degradation coefficient 
(CD). Today's final rule reinstates the optional high-
capacity cyclic-degradation coefficient (CD) testing for 
two-capacity units that lock out low-capacity operation at outdoor 
temperatures where the unit is otherwise projected to modulate between 
low and high capacities/compressor stages. In lieu of testing, the 
default value for the high-capacity CD will be the value of 
the low-capacity CD. The specific change is reflected in 
sections 3.2.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.5.3, 3.6.3, 3.8, 3.8.1, 4.1.3.3, and 
4.2.3.3 of Appendix M.
    Two-capacity heat pump default equations. Instead of conducting the 
laboratory test, default equations are now provided to approximate the 
performance of a two-capacity heat pump operating at low capacity and 
35 [deg]F outdoor temperature. The default equations appear in section 
3.6.3 of Appendix M.
    Duct loss correction. Except as noted below, DOE adopts the 
practice of applying a duct loss correction to the cooling and heating 
capacities determined using the indoor air enthalpy method. The losses 
occur within the section of insulated duct that extends between the 
outlet of the indoor unit and the test facility's outlet temperature 
grid. The correction, however, does not apply to the two indoor 
capacities used for calculating a cyclic-degradation coefficient, 
CD. The change affects sections 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, 3.9.1, and 
3.11 of Appendix M and is implemented by referencing sections 7.3.3.3 
and 7.3.4.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 for cooling and heating tests, 
respectively.
    Air volume. DOE adopts the definition of ``standard air'' as given 
in ASHRAE Standard 37-2005. This change affects section 1.37 of 
Appendix M and causes standard air volume rates to be expressed in 
terms of dry air, not moist air. DOE replaces the proper names 
containing the words ``Certified Air Volume Rate'' with ``Full-load Air 
Volume Rate.'' The change will eliminate confusion over whether the air 
volume rates specified in the test procedure are certified values, 
which they are not. This change appears in numerous places within the 
DOE test procedure, mostly in section 3 and

[[Page 59917]]

Tables 3 to 6 and Tables 9 to 12 of Appendix M.
    ARMs. DOE adopts revised language for 10 CFR 430.24(m)(6) that 
describes the specific information the manufacturer must include in its 
submittal when requesting DOE's approval of the manufacturer's ARM. The 
revision expands the options regarding the data used to evaluate and 
verify the ARM and provides a compliance path for manufacturers who 
offer indoor units from only one coil family.
    Definitions. DOE incorporates the definition for ``private 
labelers'' from EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6291(15) into 10 CFR 430.2. Definitions 
for the terms ``indoor unit,'' ``outdoor unit,'' and ``ARM/simulation 
adjustment factor'' have also been added. Under 10 CFR 430.24(m)(5), 
DOE adopts revised language to specify that the requirements also apply 
to private labelers, and not just to manufacturers. For example, 
private labelers, like manufacturers, are responsible for ensuring that 
reported ratings for untested split-system combinations are based on a 
DOE-approved ARM.
    October 2005 final rule. In addition, DOE is correcting two errors 
that were mistakenly introduced in the test procedure final rule 
published on October 11, 2005. 70 FR 59122. The October 2005 final rule 
incorrectly specifies the outdoor test conditions used for the optional 
low-capacity heating-mode cyclic test for two-capacity heat pumps. The 
temperatures for this test are incorrectly specified in the October 
2005 final rule as 62 [deg]F db/56.5[deg]F wb. These temperatures 
should have remained as they were, with the values 47[deg]F db/43[deg]F 
wb. This error was unfortunately not discovered until after the final 
rule became effective on April 10, 2006. DOE has been informed that 
several new models of two-capacity heat pumps have been rated for HSPF 
based on conducting the low-capacity heating mode cyclic test at 62 
[deg]F db/56.5 [deg]F wb. In implementing the test condition 
correction, DOE will not require that these affected models of two-
capacity heat pumps be retested and rerated since the difference in 
energy efficiency is very slight, (i.e., tenths of HSPF). This 
correction appears in section 3.6.3b and Table 11 of Appendix M.
    The second correction affects two equations used for calculating 
the HSPF of a variable-speed heat pump. Within section 4.2.4 of 
Appendix M of the final rule published on October 11, 2005, the terms 
NQ and NE are incorrectly positioned within the 
equations for MQ and ME, respectively. MQ 
and ME correspond to the slopes of the capacity and power 
curves when the heat pump is operated at the intermediate compressor 
speed, k = v. These intermediate speed slopes are derived from the 
slopes of the minimum and maximum speed curves, weighting each 
accordingly. The terms NQ and NE are the 
weighting factors for the maximum speed slopes.
    In the October 2005 final rule, section 4.2.4 of Appendix M, the 
equations for MQ and ME each consist of the sum 
of two expressions in square brackets. In the right-hand bracketed 
expression of both equations, the divisor line is too long. It should 
not extend under NQ in the equation for MQ, nor 
should it extend under NE in the equation for ME. 
The divisor line is being shortened so that the equation returns to its 
format established in the 1988 revision of the test procedure. (53 FR 
8304, March 14, 1988). The same misprint did not occur within the 
comparable cooling mode equations.

IV. Effect of Test Procedure Revisions on Compliance With Standards

    In amending a test procedure, section 323(e) of EPCA directs DOE to 
determine to what extent, if any, the test procedure would alter the 
measured energy efficiency of the covered product and if the amended 
test procedure alters the measured efficiency, the Secretary is to 
amend the applicable energy conservation standard to the extent the 
amended test procedure changes the energy efficiency of products that 
minimally comply with the existing standard. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)) In 
recognition of this requirement, the July 2006 proposed rule requested 
comments on whether any of the proposed changes would affect the 
measures of energy efficiency, and, if so, to what extent, when tested 
under the current test procedure. DOE received no comments in response. 
The issue was also raised at the public hearing, and DOE again received 
no comments that any models would fail to meet the standard when tested 
using the new test procedure. Since DOE did not receive comments on 
this issue, and based on the discussion below, DOE concludes that the 
amendments to the central air conditioner and central air conditioning 
test procedures adopted in today's final rule do not change the measure 
of energy efficiency of central air conditioners and central air 
conditioning heat pumps that minimally comply with the existing 
standard. Therefore, amendments to the existing energy efficiency 
standard are not required.
    Some revisions in today's final rule are expected to slightly 
change the ratings of two-capacity systems. Since two-capacity systems 
are inherently more energy efficient, DOE concludes that these 
amendments would only affect higher efficiency systems and, therefore, 
not require DOE to amend its energy conservation standards.
    The change to allow the use of default equations instead of 
conducting a low-capacity Frost Accumulation Test will negatively 
impact the measured HSPF. DOE estimates that the HSPF could be as much 
as 0.3 point lower if the default equations are used to obtain the 
value corresponding to climate Region IV and the minimum design-heating 
requirement instead of testing. This change will not affect the HSPF of 
a currently rated heat pump because use of the default equations is 
optional and DOE understands manufacturers test products instead of 
using the default value and, therefore, there is no change as a result 
of today's revisions.
    Changing the maximum duration of all Frost Accumulation Tests from 
12 hours to 6 hours is expected to only affect the average space 
heating capacity and power at 35 [deg]F by causing a minimal, 
systematic increase in the derived HSPF for the rare case where the 
heat pump remains completely frosted beyond 6 hours. DOE believes such 
a situation is extremely unlikely, especially for tests at full-load.
    DOE does not expect that adopting the practice of applying a duct 
loss correction to the cooling and heating capacities determined using 
the indoor air enthalpy method to cause an increase in SEER or HSPF. 
This is because the test procedure is simply catching up with current 
practice.
    Making the definition of ``standard air'' consistent with the 
definition in ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 will have no effect on the SEER 
and HSPF as calculated using the October 2005 final rule. 70 FR 59122 
(October 11, 2005).
    Finally, changing the one steady-state, low-capacity cooling-mode 
test condition from 95 [deg]F to 67 [deg]F for two-capacity units is 
projected to change the calculated SEER very minimally--within  0.1 SEER point--in most cases. However, the reduction in SEER 
could be very considerable if the power consumption during the 95 
[deg]F test at low capacity is increased in an effort to obtain lower 
estimates, through extrapolation, of the power consumption for low-
capacity at temperatures less than 82 [deg]F. In general, the impact of 
the change will be measurable if the unit's electrical power draw 
increases atypically at higher outdoor temperatures when operating at 
low capacity. However, two-capacity compressors are inherently more 
energy

[[Page 59918]]

efficient and are not used in minimally compliant units, and, 
therefore, DOE concludes that this amendment to the test procedure will 
not change the energy efficiency of marginally compliant units.

V. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    Today's regulatory action is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of 
Management and Budget.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required 
by Executive Order 13272, Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking, 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. (68 FR 7990) The DOE 
procedures and policies are available on the Office of General 
Counsel's Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    DOE reviewed today's final rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 
February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE certified in the July 20, 2006, 
proposed rule that the proposed rule would not impose a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. (66 FR 6780) 
DOE received no comments on this issue, and after considering the 
potential small entity impact of this final rule, DOE affirms the 
certification that this rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

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

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions 
that are categorically excluded from review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's 
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. This rule amends an 
existing rule without changing its environmental effect, and, 
therefore, is covered by the Categorical Exclusion in paragraph A5 to 
subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. Accordingly, neither an environmental 
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. (65 FR 13735) DOE examined this final rule and determined 
that it does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Executive Order 13132 requires no further action.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. For a proposed regulatory action that may result in the 
expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish 
estimates of the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the 
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b)) UMRA also requires a Federal 
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by 
elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed 
``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan 
for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially 
affected small governments before establishing any requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 
1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available 
at http://www.gc.doe.gov). The rule published today contains neither an 
intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in an 
expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements 
do not apply.

[[Page 59919]]

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91), the Department of Energy must comply with section 32 
of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (FEAA), as amended by 
the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 
788) Section 32 provides in essence that, where a proposed rule 
contains or involves use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. This final rule updates references to the most recent 
versions of four commercial standards, as discussed in section II.F of 
this preamble.
    The Department has evaluated these standards and is unable to 
conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 
32(b) of the FEAA, i.e., that they were developed in a manner which 
fully provides for public participation, comment and review. As 
required by section 32(c) of the FEAA, the Department has consulted 
with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade 
Commission concerning the impact of these four standards on 
competition, and neither recommended against incorporation of these 
standards.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of today's rule prior to its effective date. The report 
will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Energy conservation, 
Household appliances, Incorporation by reference.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 27, 2007.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Part 430 of Chapter II 
of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Section 430.2 is amended in subpart A by adding definitions of 
``ARM/simulation adjustment factor,'' ``indoor unit,'' ``outdoor 
unit,'' ``private labeler,'' and ``tested combination,'' in 
alphabetical order, to read as follows:


Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    ARM/simulation adjustment factor means a factor used as part of a 
DOE-approved alternative rating method (ARM) to improve the accuracy of 
the calculated ratings for untested split-system central air 
conditioners or heat pumps. The adjustment factor associated with each 
outdoor unit must be set such that it reduces the difference between 
the SEER (HSPF) determined using the ARM and a split-system combination 
tested in accordance with Sec.  430.24(m)(1). The ARM/simulation 
adjustment factor is an integral part of the ARM and must be a DOE-
approved element in accordance with 10 CFR 430.24(m)(4) to (m)(6).
* * * * *
    Indoor unit means a component of a split-system central air 
conditioner or heat pump that is designed to transfer heat between the 
refrigerant and the indoor air, and which consists of an indoor coil, a 
cooling mode expansion device, and may include an air moving device.
* * * * *
    Outdoor unit means a component of a split-system central air 
conditioner or heat pump that is designed to transfer heat between the 
refrigerant and the outdoor air, and which consists of an outdoor coil, 
compressor(s), an air moving device, and in addition for heat pumps, a 
heating mode expansion device, reversing valve, and defrost controls.
* * * * *
    Private labeler means an owner of a brand or trademark on the label 
of a consumer product which bears a private

[[Page 59920]]

label. A consumer product bears a private label if:
    (1) Such product (or its container) is labeled with the brand or 
trademark of a person other than a manufacturer of such product;
    (2) The person with whose brand or trademark such product (or 
container) is labeled has authorized or caused such product to be so 
labeled; and
    (3) The brand or trademark of a manufacturer of such product does 
not appear on such label.
* * * * *
    Tested combination means a multi-split system with multiple indoor 
coils having the following features:
    (1) The basic model of a system used as a tested combination shall 
consist of one outdoor unit, with one or more compressors, that is 
matched with between 2 and 5 indoor units; for multi-split systems, 
each of these indoor units shall be designed for individual operation.
    (2) The indoor units shall--
    (i) Represent the highest sales model family, or another indoor 
model family if the highest sales model family does not provide 
sufficient capacity (see ii);
    (ii) Together, have a nominal capacity that is between 95% and 105% 
of the nominal capacity of the outdoor unit;
    (iii) Not, individually, have a capacity that is greater than 50% 
of the nominal capacity of the outdoor unit;
    (iv) Operate at fan speeds that are consistent with the 
manufacturer's specifications; and
    (v) All be subject to the same minimum external static pressure 
requirement (i.e., 0 inches of water column for non-ducted, see Table 2 
in Appendix M to Subpart B of this part for ducted indoor units) while 
being configurable to produce the same static pressure at the exit of 
each outlet plenum when manifolded as per section 2.4.1 of Appendix M.
* * * * *


Sec.  430.22  [Amended]

0
3. Section 430.22 is amended as follows:
0
a. Paragraph (b)(5)2. is amended by removing ``23-1993'' and adding in 
its place ``23-2005.''
0
b. Paragraph (b)(5)3. is amended by removing ``37-1988'' and adding in 
its place ``37-2005.''
0
c. Paragraph (b)(5)8. is amended by removing ``116-1995'' and adding in 
its place ``116-1995 (RA 2005).''
0
d. Paragraph (b)(8) is amended by removing ``210/240-2003'' and adding 
in its place ``210/240-2006.''


0
4. Section 430.23 is amended in subpart B by revising paragraph (m)(5) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  430.23  Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water 
consumption.

* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (5) All measures of energy consumption must be determined by the 
test method as set forth in appendix M to this subpart; or by an 
alternative rating method set forth in Sec.  430.24(m)(4) as approved 
by the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
in accordance with Sec.  430.24(m)(5).
* * * * *


0
5. Section 430.24 is amended in subpart B by revising paragraph (m) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  430.24  Units to be tested.

* * * * *
    (m)(1) For central air conditioners and heat pumps, each single-
package system and each condensing unit (outdoor unit) of a split-
system, when combined with a selected evaporator coil (indoor unit) or 
a set of selected indoor units, must have a sample of sufficient size 
tested in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart. 
The represented values for any model of single-package system, any 
model of a tested split-system combination, any model of a tested mini-
split system combination, or any model of a tested multi-split system 
combination must be assigned such that --
    (i) Any represented value of estimated annual operating cost, 
energy consumption or other measure of energy consumption of the 
central air conditioner or heat pump for which consumers would favor 
lower values must be no less than the higher of:
    (A) The mean of the sample; or
    (B) The upper 90-percent confidence limit of the true mean divided 
by 1.05;
    (ii) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other 
measure of energy consumption of the central air conditioner or heat 
pump for which consumers would favor higher values must be no greater 
than the lower of:
    (A) The mean of the sample; or
    (B) The lower 90-percent confidence limit of the true mean divided 
by 0.95;
    (iii) For heat pumps, all units of the sample population must be 
tested in both the cooling and heating modes and the results used for 
determining the heat pump's certified SEER and HSPF ratings in 
accordance with paragraph (m)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (2) For split-system air conditioners and heat pumps, the 
condenser-evaporator coil combination selected for tests pursuant to 
paragraph (m)(1) of this section shall include the evaporator coil that 
is likely to have the largest volume of retail sales with the 
particular model of condensing unit. For mini-split condensing units 
that are designed to always be installed with more than one indoor 
unit, a ``tested combination'' as defined in 10 CFR 430.2 shall be used 
for tests pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of this section. For multi-split 
systems, each model of condensing unit shall be tested with two 
different sets of indoor units. For one set, a ``tested combination'' 
composed entirely of non-ducted indoor units shall be used. For the 
second set, a ``tested combination'' composed entirely of ducted indoor 
units shall be used. Components of similar design may be substituted 
without requiring additional testing if the represented measures of 
energy consumption continue to satisfy the applicable sampling 
provisions of paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this section. 
However, for any split-system air conditioner having a single-speed 
compressor, the condenser-evaporator coil combination selected for 
tests pursuant to paragraph (m)(1) of this section shall include the 
indoor coil-only unit that is likely to have the largest volume of 
retail sales with the particular model of outdoor unit. This coil-only 
requirement does not apply to split-system air conditioners that are 
only sold and installed with blower-coil indoor units, specifically 
mini-splits, multi-splits, and through-the-wall units. This coil-only 
requirement does not apply to any split-system heat pumps. For every 
other split-system combination that includes the same model of 
condensing unit but a different model of evaporator coil and for every 
other mini-split and multi-split system that includes the same model of 
condensing unit but a different set of evaporator coils, whether the 
evaporator coil(s) is manufactured by the same manufacturer or by a 
component manufacturer, either--
    (i) A sample of sufficient size, comprised of production units or 
representing production units, must be tested as complete systems with 
the resulting ratings for the outdoor unit-indoor unit(s) combination 
obtained in accordance with paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (m)(1)(ii) of this 
section; or
    (ii) The representative values of the measures of energy efficiency 
must be assigned as follows,
    (A) Using an alternative rating method (ARM) that has been approved 
by DOE in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (m)(4) through 
(m)(6) of this section; or
    (B) For multi-split systems composed entirely of non-ducted indoor 
units, set equal to the system tested in accordance

[[Page 59921]]

with paragraph (m)(1) of this section whose tested combination was 
entirely non-ducted indoor units;
    (C) For multi-split systems composed entirely of ducted indoor 
units, set equal to the system tested in accordance with paragraph 
(m)(1) of this section whose tested combination was entirely ducted 
indoor units; and
    (D) For multi-split systems having a mix of non-ducted and ducted 
indoor units, set equal to the mean of the values for the two systems 
-- one having the tested combination of all non-ducted units and the 
second having the tested combination of all ducted indoor units -- 
tested in accordance with paragraph (m)(1) of this section.
    (3) Whenever the representative values of the measures of energy 
consumption, as determined by the provisions of paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of 
this section, do not agree within 5 percent of the representative 
values of the measures of energy consumption as determined by actual 
testing, the representative values determined by actual testing must be 
used to comply with section 323(c) of the Act or to comply with rules 
under section 324 of the Act.
    (4) The basis of the ARM referred to in paragraph (m)(2)(ii) of 
this section must be a representation of the test data and calculations 
of a mechanical vapor-compression refrigeration cycle. The major 
components in the refrigeration cycle must be modeled as ``fits'' to 
manufacturer performance data or by graphical or tabular performance 
data. Heat transfer characteristics of coils may be modeled as a 
function of face area, number of rows, fins per inch, refrigerant 
circuitry, air-flow rate and entering-air enthalpy. Additional 
performance-related characteristics to be considered may include type 
of expansion device, refrigerant flow rate through the expansion 
device, power of the indoor fan and cyclic-degradation coefficient. 
Ratings for untested combinations must be derived from the ratings of a 
combination tested in accordance with paragraph (m)(1) of this section. 
The seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) and/or heating seasonal 
performance factor (HSPF) ratings for an untested combination must be 
set equal to or less than the lower of the SEER and/or HSPF calculated 
using the applicable DOE-approved alternative rating method (ARM). If 
the method includes an ARM/simulation adjustment factor(s), determine 
the value(s) of the factors(s) that yield the best match between the 
SEER/HSPF determined using the ARM versus the SEER/HSPF determined from 
testing in accordance with paragraph (m)(1) of this section. 
Thereafter, apply the ARM using the derived adjustment factor(s) only 
when determining the ratings for untested combinations having the same 
outdoor unit.
    (5) Manufacturers or private labelers who elect to use an ARM for 
determining measures of energy consumption under paragraphs 
(m)(2)(ii)(A) and (m)(4) of this section must submit a request for DOE 
to review the ARM. Send the request to the Assistant Secretary of 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Approval must be received from the Assistant 
Secretary to use the ARM before the ARM may be used for rating split-
system central air conditioners and heat pumps. If a manufacturer has a 
DOE-approved ARM for products also distributed in commerce by a private 
labeler, the ARM may also be used by the private labeler for rating 
these products. Once an ARM is approved, DOE may contact a manufacturer 
to learn if their ARM has been modified in any way and to verify that 
the ARM is being applied as approved. DOE will give follow-up priority 
to individual combinations having questionably high ratings (e.g., a 
coil-only system having a rating that exceeds the rating of a coil-only 
highest sales volume combination by more than 6 percent).
    (6) Each request to DOE for approval of an alternative rating 
method must include:
    (i) The name, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address 
of the official representing the manufacturer.
    (ii) Complete documentation of the alternative rating method to 
allow DOE to evaluate its technical adequacy. The documentation must 
include a description of the methodology, state any underlying 
assumptions, and explain any correlations. The documentation should 
address how the method accounts for the cyclic-degradation coefficient, 
the type of expansion device, and, if applicable, the indoor fan-off 
delay. The requestor must submit any computer programs--including 
spreadsheets--having less than 200 executable lines that implement the 
ARM. Longer computer programs must be identified and sufficiently 
explained, as specified above, but their inclusion in the initial 
submittal package is optional. Applicability or limitations of the ARM 
(e.g., only covers single-speed units when operating in the cooling 
mode, covers units with rated capacities of 3 tons or less, not 
applicable to the manufacturer's product line of non-ducted systems, 
etc.) must be stated in the documentation.
    (iii) Complete test data from laboratory tests on four mixed (i.e., 
non-highest-sales-volume combination) systems per each ARM.
    (A) The four mixed systems must include four different indoor units 
and at least two different outdoor units. A particular model of outdoor 
unit may be tested with up to two of the four indoor units. The four 
systems must include two low-capacity mixed systems and two high-
capacity mixed systems. The low-capacity mixed systems may have any 
capacity. The rated capacity of each high-capacity mixed system must be 
at least a factor of two higher than its counterpart low-capacity mixed 
system. The four mixed systems must meet the applicable energy 
conservation standard in Sec.  430.32(c) in effect at the time of the 
rating.
    (B) The four indoor units must come from at least two different 
coil families, with a maximum of two indoor units coming from the same 
coil family. Data for two indoor units from the same coil family, if 
submitted, must come from testing with one of the ``low-capacity mixed 
systems'' and one of the ``high capacity mixed systems.'' A mixed 
system indoor coil may come from the same coil family as the highest-
sales-volume-combination indoor unit (i.e., the ``matched'' indoor 
unit) for the particular outdoor unit. Data on mixed systems where the 
indoor unit is now obsolete will be accepted towards the ARM-validation 
submittal requirement if it is from the same coil family as other 
indoor units still in production.
    (C) The first two sentences of paragraph (m)(6)(iii)(B) of this 
section do not apply if the manufacturer offers indoor units from only 
one coil family. In this case only, all four indoor coils must be 
selected from this one coil family. If approved, the ARM will be 
specifically limited to applications for this one coil family.
    (iv) All product information on each mixed system indoor unit, each 
matched system indoor unit, and each outdoor unit needed to implement 
the proposed ARM. The calculated ratings for the four mixed systems, as 
determined using the proposed ARM, must be provided along with any 
other related information that will aid the verification process.
    (v) If request for approval is for an updated ARM, manufacturers 
must identify modifications made to the ARM since the last submittal, 
including any ARM/simulation adjustment factor(s) added since the ARM 
was last approved by DOE.

[[Page 59922]]

    (7) Manufacturers that elect to use an alternative rating method 
for determining measures of energy consumption under paragraphs 
(m)(2)(ii)(A) and (m)(4) of this section must either subject a sample 
of their units to independent testing on a regular basis, e.g., through 
a voluntary certification program, or have the representations reviewed 
and certified by an independent state-registered professional engineer 
who is not an employee of the manufacturer. The registered professional 
engineer is to certify that the results of the alternative rating 
procedure accurately represent the energy consumption of the unit(s). 
The manufacturer is to keep the registered professional engineer's 
certifications on file for review by DOE for as long as said 
combination is made available for sale by the manufacturer. Any 
proposed change to the alternative rating method must be approved by 
DOE prior to its use for rating.
    (8) Manufacturers who choose to use computer simulation or 
engineering analysis for determining measures of energy consumption 
under paragraphs (m)(2)(ii)(A) and (m)(4) through (m)(7) of this 
section must permit representatives of the Department of Energy to 
inspect for verification purposes the simulation method(s) and computer 
program(s) used. This inspection may include conducting simulations to 
predict the performance of particular outdoor unit `` indoor unit 
combinations specified by DOE, analysis of previous simulations 
conducted by the manufacturer, or both.
* * * * *

Appendix M--[Amended]

0
6. Appendix M to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
0
a. In section 1. Definitions:
0
1. Section 1.3 is amended by removing ``210/240-2003'' and adding in 
its place ``210/240-2006''; and by removing ``2003'' and adding in its 
place ``2006.''
0
2. Section 1.5 is amended by removing ``23-93'' and adding in its place 
``23-2005''; and by removing ``1993'' and adding in its place ``2005.''
0
3. Section 1.6 is amended by removing ``37-88'' and adding in its place 
``37-2005''; and by removing ``1988'' and adding in its place ``2005.''
0
4. Section 1.12 is amended by adding ``RA(05)'' after ``116-95''; and 
adding ``and reaffirmed in 2005'' after ``1995.''
0
5. Section 1.35 is amended by removing ``certified'' and adding in its 
place ``full-load.''
0
6. Section 1.37 is revised to read as set forth below.
0
b. In section 2, Testing Conditions:
0
1. Sections 2.1a, 2.2a, 2.2b, 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 2.4.1, and 2.4.2 are 
revised to read as set forth below.
0
2. Section 2.3.1b is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in 
its place ``Full-load.''
0
3. Section 2.5.3 is amended by revising the first sentence to read as 
set forth below.
0
4. New section 2.5.4.3 is added to read as set forth below.
0
5. Section 2.6a is amended by adding in the first sentence ``(RA05)'' 
after ``116-95.''
0
6. Section 2.6b is amended in the second sentence, and in the last 
sentence, by removing ``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-2005;'' 
and by removing ``ARI Standard 210/240-2003'' and adding in its place 
``ARI Standard 210/240-2006'' in the second sentence.
0
7. Section 2.7 is amended by removing ``ARI Standard 210/240-2003'' and 
adding in its place ``ARI Standard 210/240-2006.''
0
8. Section 2.10.2 is amended in the third and fourth sentences, by 
removing ``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-2005.''
0
9. Section 2.10.3 is amended in the second sentence, by removing 
``7.6.2,'' and adding in its place ``7.5.2,'' and by removing ``37-88'' 
and adding in its place ``37-2005'' in the second and third sentences.
0
10. Section 2.11a is amended in the first sentence, by removing ``37-
88'' and adding in its place ``37-2005.''
0
11. Section 2.13 is amended in the second sentence, by removing ``37-
88'' and adding in its place ``37-2005.''
0
c. In section 3, Testing Procedures:
0
1. Section 3.1.1 is amended by revising the seventh sentence to read as 
set forth below.
0
2. Section 3.1.3 is amended by removing ``ARI Standard 210/240-2003'' 
and adding in its place ``ARI Standard 210/240-2006.''
0
3. Section 3.1.4.1 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in 
its place ``Full-load.''
0
4. Section 3.1.4.1.1, from its title to the end of paragraph a., and 
Table 2, are revised to read as set forth below.
0
4a. Section 3.1.4.1.1b is amended by revising the first sentence to 
read as set forth below.
0
5. Amend sections 3.1.4.1.1b and 3.1.4.1.1c by removing ``Certified'' 
and adding in its place ``Full-load.''
0
6. Section 3.1.4.1.2 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in 
its place ``Full-load'' in two locations.
0
7. Section 3.1.4.2a is amended by revising the ``Cooling Minimum Air 
Vol. Rate'' equation to read as set forth below.
0
8. Section 3.1.4.2b is amended by revising the equation for minimum 
external static pressure to read as set forth below.
0
9. Section 3.1.4.2c is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in 
its place ``Full-load.''
0
10. Section 3.1.4.3a is amended by revising the ``Cooling Intermediate 
Air Volume Rate'' equation to read as set forth below.
0
11. Section 3.1.4.3b is amended by revising the ``Ev Test 
[Delta]Pst '' equation to read as set forth below.
0
12. Section 3.1.4.4 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in 
its place ``Full-load.''
0
13. Section 3.1.4.4.1 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding 
in its place ``Full-load'' in three locations.
0
14. Section 3.1.4.4.2 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding 
in its place ``Full-load'' and revising the ``Heating Certified Air 
Volume Rate'' equation to read as set forth below.
0
14a. Section 3.1.4.4.2a is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding 
in its place ``Full-load.''
0
15. Section 3.1.4.4.2b is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding 
in its place ``Full-load'' in three locations, and revising the 
``Heating Certified [Delta]Pst'' equation to read as set 
forth below.
0
16. Section 3.1.4.4.2c is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding 
in its place ``Full-load'' in three locations.
0
17. Sections 3.1.4.4.3 and 3.1.4.4.3a are revised to read as set forth 
below.
0
17a. Sections 3.1.4.4.3b is amended by revising the first sentence to 
read as set forth below.
0
18. Amend sections 3.1.4.4.3b, 3.1.4.4.3c and 3.1.4.4.4 by removing 
``Certified'' and adding in its place ``Full-load.''
0
19. Section 3.1.4.5a is amended by revising the ``Heating Minimum Air 
Volume Rate'' equation to read as set forth below.
0
20. Section 3.1.4.5b is amended by revising the ``H01, 
H11, H21, H31, Test 
[Delta]Pst'' equation to read as set forth below.
0
21. Section 3.1.4.5d is amended by removing Certified and adding in its 
place Full-load in two locations.
0
22. Section 3.1.4.6a is amended by revising the ``Heating Intermediate 
Air Volume Rate'' equation to read as set forth below.
0
23. Section 3.1.4.6b is amended by revising the ``H2v Test 
[Delta]Pst'' equation to read as set forth below.
0
24. Section 3.1.4.7 is amended by revising the ``Heating Nominal Air 
Volume Rate'' equation and the ``H1N Test 
[Delta]Pst'' equation to read as set forth below.
0
25. Section 3.1.5 is amended in the first sentence by removing ``37-
88'' and adding in its place ``37-2005.''

[[Page 59923]]

0
26. Section 3.1.6 is amended in the first and second sentences, by 
removing ``7.8.3.1 and 7.8.3.2'' and adding in its place ``7.7.2.1 and 
7.7.2.2,'' and in the first sentence, by removing ``37-88'' and adding 
in its place ``37-2005,'' and by adding a new sentence after the second 
sentence, to read as set forth below.
0
27. Section 3.1.7 is amended by removing ``certified'' and adding in 
its place ``Full-load'' in four locations.
0
28. Section 3.1.9 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in 
its place ``Full-load.''
0
28a. Section 3.2.1 is amended by revising the fourth sentence to read 
as set forth below.
0
29. Table 3 to Section 3.2.1 is amended by removing ``certified'' and 
adding in its place ``full-load'' in three locations in the last 
column.
0
29a. Section 3.2.2.1 is amended by revising the third sentence to read 
as set forth below.
0
30. Table 4 to Section 3.2.2.1 is amended by removing ``certified'' and 
adding in its place ``full-load'' in two locations in the last column.
0
31. Section 3.2.2.2 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in 
its place ``Full-load.''
0
32. Sections 3.2.3a is revised as set forth below.
0
33. Section 3.2.3b is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in 
its place ``Full-load.''
0
34. Section 3.2.3d is revised as set forth below.
0
35. Table 5 to section 3.2.3 is revised as set forth below.
0
36. Section 3.2.4.a is amended by revising the third sentence to read 
as set forth below.
0
37. Section 3.2.4b is amended by removing ``Certified'' and adding in 
its place ``Full-load.''
0
38. Table 6 to section 3.2.4 is revised as set forth below.
0
39. Section 3.2.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) as set forth 
below.
0
40. Section 3.3b is amended in both the first and second sentences, by 
removing ``Table 5,'' and adding in its place ``Table 3,'' and in the 
first sentence by removing ``37-88'' and adding in its place ``37-
2005.''
0
41. Section 3.3c is amended in the first sentence by removing ``section 
7.3.3.1 of ASHRAE Standard 37-88,'' and adding in its place ``sections 
7.3.3.1 and 7.3.3.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005.''
0
42. The titles of sections 3.4 and 3.5 are revised as set forth below.
0
43. Section 3.4b is revised to read as set forth below.
0
44. Section 3.5.3 is amended by revising the introductory text to read 
as set forth below.
0
45. Section 3.6.1 is amended by revising the second, third, and fourth 
sentences to read as set forth below.
0
46. Table 9 to Section 3.6.1 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and 
adding in its place ``Full-load'' in three locations.
0
47. Section 3.6.2 is amended by revising the introductory text to read 
as set forth below.
0
48. Table 10 to Section 3.6.2 is amended by removing ``Certified'' and 
adding in its place ``Full-load'' in three locations.
0
49. Section 3.6.3 is revised as set forth below.
0
50. Table 11 to section 3.6.3 is revised as set forth below.
0
51. Section 3.6.4 is amended by revising the third, fourth, and fifth 
sentences of paragraph a. and adding a new paragraph c. to read as set 
forth below.
0
52. Table 12 to section 3.6.4 is revised to read as set forth below.
0
53. Section 3.7a is amended in the fifth sentence by removing ``Table 5 
of ASHRAE Standard 37-88'' and adding in its place ``Table 3 of ASHRAE 
Standard 37-2005,'' and in the sixth sentence, by removing ``Table 5'' 
and adding in its place ``Table 3.''
0
54. Section 3.7b is amended by revising the first sentence to read as 
set forth below.
0
55. The title of section 3.8 is revised to read as set forth below.
0
56. The introductory text and the first equation of section 3.8.1 are 
revised to read as set forth below.
0
57. Section 3.9c is revised to read as set forth below.
0
58. Section 3.9f is amended by revising the fifth sentence and adding a 
parenthetical immediately following it to read as set forth below.
0
59. Section 3.9.1a is amended by adding a new sentence at the end of 
the section directly before section 3.9.1.b to read as set forth below.
0
60. Section 3.9.2b is amended by replacing ``Certified'' with ``Full-
load.''
0
61. Section 3.11 is amended by removing the introductory text following 
the paragraph heading, which is republished below.
0
62. Section 3.11.1.3b is revised to read as set forth below.
0
63. Section 3.11.2a is amended by revising the seventh sentence to read 
as set forth below.
0
64. Section 3.11.2b is revised to read as set forth below.
0
65. Section 3.11.3 is revised to read as set forth below.
0
d. In section 4, CALCULATIONS OF SEASONAL PERFORMANCE DESCRIPTORS:
0
1. Sections 4.1.2.1a and 4.1.2.1d are amended by removing ``Certified'' 
and adding in its place ``Full-load.''
0
2. Section 4.1.3 is amended by revising the introductory text, 
equations 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-2, the paragraph preceding equation 4.1.3-
3, and equation 4.1.3-3 to read as set forth below.
0
3. Section 4.1.3.3 is amended by revising the equation for 
PLFj and the text following the equation to read as set 
forth below.
0
4. Section 4.1.4 is amended by revising everything except for the 
equations for calculating MQ and ME, to read as 
set forth below.
0
5. Section 4.1.4.1 is amended by revising the second sentence after the 
explanation of terms in the equations (``Use Equations 4.1.3-1 and 
4.1.3-2, respectively, to evaluate Qck=1 
(Tj)'' and Eck=1 (Tj) to 
read as set forth below.
0
6. Section 4.1.4.2 is amended by revising the equation numbers 
referenced in the descriptions of the quantities T1 and 
Tv, revising the equation numbers referred to in the 
equations for EERk=1 (T1) and EERk=v 
(Tv), and adding text at the end of the section to read as 
set forth below.
0
7. Section 4.2.3.3 is amended by revising the equation for 
PLFj and the text following the equation to read as set 
forth below.
0
8. The Section 4.2.4 equations for MQ and ME are 
revised to read as set forth below.
0
9. Section 4.2.4.2 is amended by adding text at the end of the section 
to read as set forth below.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    1. Definitions
* * * * *
    1.37 Standard air means dry air having a mass density of 0.075 lb/
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 37-2005

[[Page 59924]]

(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 37-2005 (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 210/240-2006 (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 210/240-2006 (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 split systems having multiple 
indoor coils, connect each indoor fan-coil to the outdoor unit using: 
(a) 25 feet of tubing, or (b) tubing furnished by the manufacturer, 
whichever is longer. If they are needed to make a secondary measurement 
of capacity, install refrigerant pressure measuring instruments as 
described in section 8.2.5 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 (incorporated by 
reference, see 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 0.5 inch.
    b. For units designed for both horizontal and vertical installation 
or for both up-flow and down-flow vertical installations, the 
manufacturer must specify the orientation used for testing. Conduct 
testing with the following installed:
    (1) the most restrictive filter(s);
    (2) supplementary heating coils; and
    (3) other equipment specified as part of the unit, including all 
hardware used by a heat comfort controller if so equipped (see 
Definition 1.28). For small-duct, high-velocity systems, configure all 
balance dampers or restrictor devices on or inside the unit to fully 
open or lowest restriction.
* * * * *
    2.2.3 Special requirements for 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. For any test where the system is operated at 
part load (i.e., one or more compressors ``off'', operating at the 
intermediate or minimum compressor speed, or at low compressor 
capacity), the manufacturer shall designate the particular indoor coils 
that are turned off during the test. For variable-speed systems, the 
manufacturer must designate at least one indoor unit that is turned off 
for all tests conducted at minimum compressor speed. For all other 
part-load tests, the manufacturer shall choose to turn off zero, one, 
two, or more indoor units. The chosen configuration shall remain 
unchanged for all tests conducted at the same compressor speed/
capacity. For any indoor coil that is turned off during a test, take 
steps to cease forced airflow through this indoor coil and block its 
outlet duct. Because these types of systems will have more than one 
indoor fan and possibly multiple outdoor fans and compressor systems, 
references in this test procedure to a single indoor fan, outdoor fan, 
and compressor means all indoor fans, all outdoor fans, and all 
compressor systems that are turned on during the test.
* * * * *
    2.2.5 Additional refrigerant charging requirements. Charging 
according to the ``manufacturer's published instructions,'' as stated 
in section 8.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  430.22), means the manufacturer's installation instructions 
that come packaged with the unit. * * *
* * * * *
    2.4.1 Outlet plenum for the indoor unit. a. Attach a plenum to the 
outlet of the indoor coil. (Note: for some packaged systems, the indoor 
coil may be located in the outdoor test room.)
    b. For systems having multiple indoor coils, attach a plenum to 
each indoor coil outlet. Connect two or more outlet plenums to a single 
common duct so that each indoor coil ultimately connects to an airflow 
measuring apparatus (section 2.6). If using more than one indoor test 
room, do likewise, creating one or more common ducts within each test 
room that contains multiple indoor coils. At the plane where each 
plenum enters a common duct, install an adjustable airflow damper and 
use it to equalize the static pressure in each plenum. Each outlet air 
temperature grid (section 2.5.4) and airflow measuring apparatus are 
located downstream of the inlet(s) to the common duct.
    c. For small-duct, high-velocity systems, install an outlet plenum 
that has a diameter that is equal to or less than the value listed 
below. The limit depends only on the cooling Full-Load Air Volume Rate 
(see section 3.1.4.1.1) and is effective regardless of the flange 
dimensions on the outlet of the unit (or an air supply plenum adapter 
accessory, if installed in accordance with the manufacturer's 
installation instructions).
    d. Add a static pressure tap to each face of the (each) outlet 
plenum, if rectangular, or at four evenly distributed locations along 
the circumference of an oval or round plenum. Create a manifold that 
connects the four static pressure taps. Figure 1 shows two of the three 
options allowed for the manifold configuration; the third option is the 
broken-ring, four-to-one manifold configuration that is shown in Figure 
7a of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
430.22). See Figures 7a, 7b, 7c, and 8 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 
(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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Maximum diameter* of
    Cooling full-load air volume rate (scfm)     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.


[[Page 59925]]

    2.4.2 Inlet plenum for the indoor unit. Install an inlet plenum 
when testing a coil-only indoor unit or a packaged system where the 
indoor coil is located in the outdoor test room. Add static pressure 
taps at the center of each face of this plenum, if rectangular, or at 
four evenly distributed locations along the circumference of an oval or 
round plenum. Make a manifold that connects the four static-pressure 
taps using one of the three configurations specified in section 2.4.1. 
See Figures 7b, 7c, and Figure 8 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 
(incorporated by reference, see 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 37-2005 (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 37-2005 (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. To minimize air leakage, adjust this damper such that 
the pressure in the receiving chamber of the airflow measuring 
apparatus is no more than 0.5 inch of water higher than the surrounding 
test room ambient. In lieu of installing a separate damper, use the 
outlet air damper box of sections 2.5 and 2.5.4.1 if it allows variable 
positioning. Also apply these steps to any conventional indoor blower 
unit that creates a static pressure within the receiving chamber of the 
airflow measuring apparatus that exceeds the test room ambient pressure 
by more than 0.5 inches of water column.
* * * * *
    3. Testing Procedures
* * * * *
    3.1.1 Primary and secondary test methods. * * *
    For this capacity comparison, use the Indoor Air Enthalpy Method 
capacity that is calculated in section 7.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.22) (and, if testing a coil-
only unit, do not make the after-test fan heat adjustments described in 
section 3.3, 3.4, 3.7, and 3.10 of this Appendix). * * *
* * * * *
    3.1.4.1.1 Cooling Full-Load Air Volume Rate for Ducted Units. The 
manufacturer must specify the Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate. Use 
this value as long as the following two requirements are satisfied. 
First, when conducting the A or A2 Test (exclusively), the 
measured air volume rate, when divided by the measured indoor air-side 
total cooling capacity must not exceed 37.5 cubic feet per minute of 
standard air (scfm) per 1000 Btu/h. If this ratio is exceeded, reduce 
the air volume rate until this ratio is equaled. Use this reduced air 
volume rate for all tests that call for using the Cooling Full-load Air 
Volume Rate. The second requirement is as follows:
    a. For all ducted units tested with an indoor fan installed, except 
those having a variable-speed, constant-air-volume-rate indoor fan. The 
second requirement applies exclusively to the A or A2 Test 
and is met as follows.
    1. Achieve the Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate, determined in 
accordance with the previous paragraph;
    2. Measure the external static pressure;
    3. If this pressure is equal to or greater than the applicable 
minimum external static pressure cited in Table 2, this second 
requirement is satisfied. Use the current air volume rate for all tests 
that require the Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate.
    4. If the Table 2 minimum is not equaled or exceeded,
    4a. reduce the air volume rate until the applicable Table 2 minimum 
is equaled or
    4b. until the measured air volume rate equals 95 percent of the air 
volume rate from step 1, whichever occurs first.
    5. If the conditions of step 4a occur first, this second 
requirement is satisfied. Use the step 4a reduced air volume rate for 
all tests that require the Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate.
    6. If the conditions of step 4b occur first, make an incremental 
change to the set-up of the indoor fan (e.g., next highest fan motor 
pin setting, next highest fan motor speed) and repeat the evaluation 
process beginning at above step 1. If the indoor fan set-up cannot be 
further changed, reduce the air volume rate until the applicable Table 
2 minimum is equaled. Use this reduced air volume rate for all tests 
that require the Cooling Full-load Air Volume Rate.
    b. For ducted units that are tested with a variable-speed, 
constant-air-volume-rate indoor fan installed. * * *
* * * * *

  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, high-
                                          All other     velocity systems
                                           systems            \4,5\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up Thru 28,800......................              0.10              1.10
29,000 to 42,500....................              0.15              1.15
43,000 and Above....................              0.20              1.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For air conditioners and heat pumps, the value cited by the
  manufacturer in published literature for the unit's capacity when
  operated at the A or A2 Test conditions.
\2\ For heating-only heat pumps, the value the manufacturer cites in
  published literature for the unit's capacity when operated at the H1
  or H12 Test conditions.
\3\ For ducted units tested without an air filter installed, increase
  the applicable tabular value by 0.08 inch of water.
\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 inch of water. Impose the
  balance of the airflow resistance on the outlet side of the indoor
  blower.


[[Page 59926]]

* * * * *
    3.1.4.2 Cooling Minimum Air Volume Rate. a. * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.065
    
* * *

    b. * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.066
    
* * * * *
    3.1.4.3 Cooling Intermediate Air Volume Rate. a. * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.067
    
* * *

    b. * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.068
    
* * * * *
    3.1.4.4.2 Ducted heat pumps where the Heating and Cooling Full-load 
Air Volume Rates are different due to indoor fan operation. a. * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.069

* * *

    b. * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.070
    
* * * * *
    3.1.4.4.3 Ducted heating-only heat pumps. The manufacturer must 
specify the Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate.
    a. For all ducted heating-only heat pumps tested with an indoor fan 
installed, except those having a variable-speed, constant-air-volume-
rate indoor fan. Conduct the following steps only during the first 
test, the H1 or H12 Test.
    1. Achieve the Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate.
    2. Measure the external static pressure.
    3. If this pressure is equal to or greater than the Table 2 minimum 
external static pressure that applies given the heating-only heat 
pump's rated heating capacity, use the current air volume rate for all 
tests that require the Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate.
    4. If the Table 2 minimum is not equaled or exceeded,
    4a. reduce the air volume rate until the applicable Table 2 minimum 
is equaled or
    4b. until the measured air volume rate equals 95 percent of the 
manufacturer-specified Full-load Air Volume Rate, whichever occurs 
first.
    5. If the conditions of step 4a occurs first, use the step 4a 
reduced air volume rate for all tests that require the Heating Full-
load Air Volume Rate.
    6. If the conditions of step 4b occur first, make an incremental 
change to the set-up of the indoor fan (e.g., next highest fan motor 
pin setting, next highest fan motor speed) and repeat the evaluation 
process beginning at above step 1. If the indoor fan set-up cannot be 
further changed, reduce the air volume rate until the applicable Table 
2 minimum is equaled. Use this reduced air volume rate for all tests 
that require the Heating Full-load Air Volume Rate.
    b. For ducted heating-only heat pumps that are tested with a 
variable-speed, constant-air-volume-rate indoor fan installed. * * *
* * * * *

[[Page 59927]]

    3.1.4.5 Heating Minimum Air Volume Rate. a. * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.071
    
* * *

    b. * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.072
    
* * * * *
    3.1.4.6 Heating Intermediate Air Volume Rate. a. * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.073
    
* * *

    b. * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.074
    
* * * * *
    3.1.4.7 Heating Nominal Air Volume Rate. * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.075
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.076
    
* * * * *
    3.1.6 * * * (Note: In the first printing of ASHRAE Standard 37-
2005, the second IP equation for Qmi should read,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.077

* * *
* * * * *
    3.2.1 * * * If the two optional tests are conducted but yield a 
tested CDc that exceeds the default 
CDc or if the two optional tests are not 
conducted, assign CDc the default value of 0.25. 
* * *
* * * * *
    3.2.2.1 * * * If the two optional tests are conducted but yield a 
tested CDc that exceeds the default 
CDc or if the two optional tests are not 
conducted, assign CDc the default value of 0.25. 
* * *
* * * * *
    3.2.3 Tests for a unit having a 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 C1 Test and the 
cyclic D1 Test, to determine the cooling-mode cyclic-
degradation coefficient, CDc. If the two optional 
tests are conducted but yield a tested CDc that 
exceeds the default CDc or if the two optional 
tests are not conducted, assign CDc the default 
value of 0.25. Table 5 specifies test conditions for these six tests.
* * * * *
    d. If a two-capacity air conditioner or heat pump locks out low-
capacity operation at higher outdoor temperatures, then use the two 
optional dry-coil tests, the steady-state C2 Test and the 
cyclic D2 Test, to determine the cooling-mode cyclic-
degradation coefficient that only applies to on/off cycling from high 
capacity, CDc(k=2). If the two optional tests are 
conducted but yield a tested CDc(k=2) that 
exceeds the default CDc(k=2) or if the two 
optional tests are not conducted, assign CDc(k=2) 
the default value. The default CDc(k=2) is the 
same value as determined or assigned for the low-capacity cyclic-
degradation coefficient, CDc [or equivalently, 
CDc(k=1)].

[[Page 59928]]



                                    Table 5.--Cooling Mode Test Conditions for Units Having a Two-Capacity Compressor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Air entering indoor unit  Air entering outdoor unit
                                      temperature ([deg]F)       temperature ([deg]F)
         Test description          -----------------------------------------------------   Compressor capacity           Cooling air volume rate
                                      Dry bulb     Wet bulb     Dry bulb     Wet bulb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A2 Test--required.................           80           67           95        1 75    High..................  Cooling Full-Load.2
(steady, wet coil)................
B2 Test--required.................           80           67           82        1 65    High..................  Cooling Full-Load.2
(steady, wet coil)................
B1 Test--required.................           80           67           82        1 65    Low...................  Cooling Minimum.3
(steady, wet coil)................
C2 Test--optional.................           80          (4)           82  ............  High..................  Cooling Full-Load.2
(steady, dry-coil)................
D2 Test--optional.................           80          (4)           82  ............  High..................  (5)
(cyclic, dry-coil)................
C1 Test--optional.................           80          (4)           82  ............  Low...................  Cooling Minimum.3
(steady, dry-coil)................
D1 Test--optional.................           80          (4)           82  ............  Low...................  (6)
(cyclic, dry-coil)................
F1 Test--required.................           80           67           67        1 53.5  Low...................  Cooling Minimum.3
(steady, wet 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 C2 Test.
6 Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure or velocity as measured
  during the C1 Test.

    3.2.4 Tests for a unit having a variable-speed compressor. a. * * * 
If the two optional tests are conducted but yield a tested 
CDc that exceeds the default 
CDc or if the two optional tests are not 
conducted, assign CDc the default value of 0.25. 
* * *
    c. For multiple-split air conditioners and heat pumps (except where 
noted), the following procedures supersede the above requirements: For 
all Table 6 tests specified for a minimum compressor speed, at least 
one indoor unit must be turned off. The manufacturer shall designate 
the particular indoor unit(s) that is turned off. The manufacturer must 
also specify the compressor speed used for the Table 6 EV 
Test, a cooling-mode intermediate compressor speed that falls within 
\1/4\ and \3/4\ of the difference between the maximum and minimum 
cooling-mode speeds. The manufacturer should prescribe an intermediate 
speed that is expected to yield the highest EER for the given 
EV Test conditions and bracketed compressor speed range. The 
manufacturer can designate that one or more indoor units are turned off 
for the EV Test.
* * * * *

                                   Table 6.--Cooling Mode Test Condition for Units Having a Variable-Speed Compressor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Air entering indoor unit  Air entering outdoor unit
                                     temperature ([deg]F)       temperature ([deg]F)
         Test description         -----------------------------------------------------      Compressor speed             Cooling air volume rate
                                     Dry bulb     Wet bulb     Dry bulb     Wet bulb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A2 Test--required................           80           67           95        1 75    Maximum..................  Cooling Full-Load2
(steady, wet coil)...............
B2 Test--required................           80           67           82        1 65    Maximum..................  Cooling Full-Load2
(steady, wet coil)...............
EV Test--required................           80           67           87        1 69    Intermediate.............  Cooling Intermediate 3
(steady, wet coil)...............
B1 Test--required................           80           67           82        1 65    Minimum..................  Cooling Minimum 4
(steady, wet coil)...............
F1 Test--required................           80           67           67        1 53.5  Minimum..................  Cooling Minimum 4
(steady, wet coil)...............
G1 Test 5--optional..............           80          (6)           67  ............  Minimum..................  Cooling Minimum 4
(steady, dry-coil)...............
I1 Test 5--optional..............           80        (\6\)           67  ............  Minimum..................  (\6\)
(cyclic, dry-coil)...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The specified test condition only applies if the unit rejects condensate to the outdoor coil.
2 Defined in section 3.1.4.1.
3 Defined in section 3.1.4.3.
4 Defined in section 3.1.4.2.
5 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.
6 Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure difference or velocity
  pressure as measured during the G1 Test.


[[Page 59929]]

* * * * *
    3.4 Test procedures for the optional steady-state dry-coil cooling-
mode tests (the C, C1, C2, and G1 
Tests).
* * * * *
    b. Denote the resulting total space cooling capacity and electrical 
power derived from the test as Qss,dry and 
Ess,dry. With regard to a section 3.3 deviation, do not 
adjust Qss,dry for duct losses (i.e., do not apply section 
7.3.3.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  430.22)). In preparing for the section 3.5 cyclic tests, record 
the average indoor-side air volume rate, V, specific heat of the air, 
Cp,a (expressed on dry air basis), specific volume of the air at the 
nozzles, v'n, humidity ratio at the nozzles, Wn, 
and either pressure difference or velocity pressure for the flow 
nozzles. For units having a variable-speed indoor fan (that provides 
either a constant or variable air volume rate) that will or may be 
tested during the cyclic dry coil cooling mode test with the indoor fan 
turned off (see section 3.5), include the electrical power used by the 
indoor fan motor among the recorded parameters from the 30-minute test.
    3.5 Test procedures for the optional cyclic dry-coil cooling-mode 
tests (the D, D1, D2, and I1 Tests).
* * * * *
    3.5.3 Cooling-mode cyclic-degradation coefficient calculation. Use 
the two optional dry-coil tests to determine the cooling-mode cyclic-
degradation coefficient, CDc. Append ``(k=2)'' to 
the coefficient if it corresponds to a two-capacity unit cycling at 
high capacity. If the two optional tests are conducted but yield a 
tested CDc that exceeds the default 
CDc or if the two optional tests are not 
conducted, assign CDc the default value of 0.25. 
The default value for two-capacity units cycling at high capacity, 
however, is the low-capacity coefficient, i.e., 
CDc(k=2)=CDc. Evaluate 
CDc using the above results and those from the 
section 3.4 dry-coil steady-state test.
* * * * *
    3.6.1 * * * Conduct the optional High Temperature Cyclic (H1C) Test 
to determine the heating mode cyclic-degradation coefficient, 
CDh. If this optional test is conducted but 
yields a tested CDh that exceeds the default 
CDh or if the optional test is not conducted, 
assign CDh the default value of 0.25. Test 
conditions for the four tests are specified in Table 9. * * *
* * * * *
    3.6.2 Tests for a heat pump having a single-speed compressor and a 
variable-speed, variable-air-volume-rate indoor fan: capacity 
modulation correlates with outdoor dry bulb temperature. Conduct five 
tests: two High Temperature Tests (H12 and H11), 
one Frost Accumulation Test (H22), and two Low Temperature 
Tests (H32 and H31). Conducting an additional 
Frost Accumulation Test (H21) is optional. Conduct the 
optional High Temperature Cyclic (H1C1) Test to determine 
the heating mode cyclic-degradation coefficient, 
CDh. If this optional test is conducted but 
yields a tested CDh that exceeds the default 
CDh or if the optional test is not conducted, 
assign CDh the default value of 0.25. Test 
conditions for the seven tests are specified in Table 10. If the 
optional H21 Test is not performed, use the following 
equations to approximate the capacity and electrical power of the heat 
pump at the H21 test conditions:
* * * * *
    3.6.3 Tests for a heat pump having a two-capacity compressor (see 
Definition 1.45), including two-capacity, northern heat pumps (see 
Definition 1.46). a. Conduct one Maximum Temperature Test 
(H01), two High Temperature Tests (H12 and 
H11), one Frost Accumulation Test (H22), and one 
Low Temperature Test (H32). Conduct an additional Frost 
Accumulation Test (H21) and Low Temperature Test 
(H31) if both of the following conditions exist:
    1. Knowledge of the heat pump's capacity and electrical power at 
low compressor capacity for outdoor temperatures of 37[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] TR22OC07.078

    Determine the quantities Qhk=1 (47) and 
Ehk=1 (47) from the H11 Test and 
evaluate them according to Section 3.7. Determine the quantities 
Qhk=1 (17) and Ehk=1 (17) 
from the H31 Test and evaluate them according to Section 
3.10.
    b. Conduct the optional High Temperature Cyclic Test 
(H1C1) to determine the heating-mode cyclic-degradation 
coefficient, CDh. If this optional test is 
conducted but yields a tested CDh that exceeds 
the default CDh or if the optional test is not 
conducted, assign CDh the default value of 0.25. 
If a two-capacity heat pump locks out low capacity operation at lower 
outdoor temperatures, conduct the optional High Temperature Cyclic Test 
(H1C2) to determine the high-capacity heating-mode cyclic-
degradation coefficient, CDh (k=2). If this 
optional test at high capacity is conducted but yields a tested 
CDh (k=2) that exceeds the default 
CDh (k=2) or if the optional test is not 
conducted, assign CDh the default value. The 
default CDh (k=2) is the same value as determined 
or assigned for the low-capacity cyclic-degradation coefficient, 
CDh [or equivalently, CDh 
(k=1)]. Table 11 specifies test conditions for these nine tests.

                                   Table 11.--Heating Mode Test Conditions for Units Having a Two-Capacity Compressor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Air entering indoor unit  Air entering outdoor unit
                                      temperature ([deg]F)       temperature ([deg]F)
         Test description          -----------------------------------------------------   Compressor capacity           Heating air volume rate
                                      Dry bulb     Wet bulb     Dry bulb     Wet bulb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H01 Test..........................           70      60(max)           62          56.5  Low...................  Heating Minimum.1
(required, steady)................
H12 Test..........................           70      60(max)           47          43    High..................  Heating Full-Load.2
(required, steady)................

[[Page 59930]]

 
H1C2 Test.........................           70      60(max)           47          43    High..................  (3)
(optional, cyclic)................
H11 Test..........................           70      60(max)           47          43    Low...................  Heating Minimum.1
(required)........................
H1C1 Test.........................           70      60(max)           47          43    Low...................  (4)
(optional, cyclic)................
H22 Test..........................           70      60(max)           35          33    High..................  Heating Full-Load.2
(required)........................
H21 Test5,6.......................           70      60(max)           35          33    Low...................  Heating Minimum.1
(required)........................
H32 Test..........................           70      60(max)           17          15    High..................  Heating Full-Load.2
(required, steady)................
H31 Test 5........................           70      60(max)           17          15    Low...................  Heating Minimum. 1
(required, steady)................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Defined in section 3.1.4.5.
2 Defined in section 3.1.4.4.
3 Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure or velocity as measured
  during the H12 Test.
4 Maintain the airflow nozzle(s) static pressure difference or velocity pressure during the ON period at the same pressure or velocity as measured
  during the H11 Test.
5 Required only if the heat pump's performance when operating at low compressor capacity and outdoor temperatures less than 37[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. a. 
* * * Conduct the optional Maximum Temperature Cyclic (H0C1) 
Test to determine the heating mode cyclic-degradation coefficient, 
CDh. If this optional test is conducted but 
yields a tested CDh that exceeds the default 
CDh or if the optional test is not conducted, 
assign CDh the default value of 0.25. Test 
conditions for the eight tests are specified in Table 12. * * *
    c. For multiple-split heat pumps (only), the following procedures 
supersede the above requirements. For all Table 12 tests specified for 
a minimum compressor speed, at least one indoor unit must be turned 
off. The manufacturer shall designate the particular indoor unit(s) 
that is turned off. The manufacturer must also specify the compressor 
speed used for the Table 12 H2V Test, a heating-mode 
intermediate compressor speed that falls within \1/4\ and \3/4\ of the 
difference between the maximum and minimum heating-mode speeds. The 
manufacturer should prescribe an intermediate speed that is expected to 
yield the highest COP for the given H2V Test conditions and 
bracketed compressor speed range. The manufacturer can designate that 
one or more specific indoor units are turned off for the H2V 
Test.
* * * * *

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


[[Page 59931]]

* * * * *
    3.7 Test procedures for steady-state Maximum Temperature and High 
Temperature heating mode tests (the H01, H1, H12, 
H11, and H1N Tests). a. * * *
    b. Calculate indoor-side total heating capacity as specified in 
sections 7.3.4.1 and 7.3.4.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 (incorporated 
by reference, see 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 CDh. 
Add ``(k=2)'' to the coefficient if it corresponds to a two-capacity 
unit cycling at high capacity. For the below calculation of the heating 
mode cyclic degradation coefficient, do not include the duct loss 
correction from section 7.3.3.3 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.22) in determining 
Qhk(Tcyc) (or qcyc). If the 
optional cyclic test is conducted but yields a tested 
CDh that exceeds the default 
CDh or if the optional test is not conducted, 
assign CDh the default value of 0.25. The default 
value for two-capacity units cycling at high capacity, however, is the 
low-capacity coefficient, i.e., CDh (k=2) = 
CDh. The tested CDh is 
calculated as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.096

* * *

* * * * *
    3.9 * * *
    c. The official test period begins when the preliminary test period 
ends, at defrost termination. The official test period ends at the 
termination of the next occurring automatic defrost cycle. When testing 
a heat pump that uses a time-adaptive defrost control system (see 
Definition 1.42), however, manually initiate the defrost cycle that 
ends the official test period at the instant indicated by instructions 
provided by the manufacturer. If the heat pump has not undergone a 
defrost after 6 hours, immediately conclude the test and use the 
results from the full 6-hour period to calculate the average space 
heating capacity and average electrical power consumption.
    For heat pumps that turn the indoor fan off during the defrost 
cycle, take steps to cease forced airflow through the indoor coil and 
block the outlet duct whenever the heat pump's controls cycle off the 
indoor fan. If it is installed, use the outlet damper box described in 
section 2.5.4.1 to affect the blocked outlet duct.
* * * * *
    f. * * * Sample measurements used in calculating the air volume 
rate (refer to sections 7.7.2.1 and 7.7.2.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 
(incorporated by reference, see 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] TR22OC07.098

* * * * *
    3.9.1 Average space heating capacity and electrical power 
calculations.
    a. * * *
    To account for the effect of duct losses between the outlet of the 
indoor unit and the section 2.5.4 dry-bulb temperature grid, adjust 
Qhk(35) in accordance with section 7.3.4.3 of 
ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.22).
* * * * *
    3.11 Additional requirements for the secondary test methods.
    3.11.1 If using the Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method as the secondary 
test method.
* * * * *
    3.11.1.3 Official test.
* * * * *
    b. For space cooling tests, calculate capacity from the outdoor 
air-enthalpy measurements as specified in sections 7.3.3.2 and 7.3.3.3 
of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
430.22). Calculate heating capacity based on outdoor air-enthalpy 
measurements as specified in sections 7.3.4.2 and 7.3.3.4.3 of the same 
ASHRAE Standard. Adjust the outdoor-side capacity according to section 
7.3.3.4 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  430.22) to account for line losses when testing split systems. 
Use the outdoor unit fan power as measured during the official test and 
not the value measured during the preliminary test, as described in 
section 8.6.2 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  430.22), when calculating the capacity.
    3.11.2 If using the Compressor Calibration Method as the secondary 
test method.
    a. * * * Otherwise, conduct the calibration tests according to 
ASHRAE Standard 23-05 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.22), 
ASHRAE Standard 41.9-2000 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
430.22), and section 7.4 of ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 (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 37-2005 (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 37-2005 (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, Qck=1 
(Tj), and electrical power consumption, 
Eck=1 (Tj), of the test unit when 
operating at low compressor capacity and outdoor temperature 
Tj using,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.080


[[Page 59932]]


where Qck=1 (82) and Eck=1 
(82) are determined from the B1 Test, 
Qck=1 (67) and Eck=1 (67) 
are determined from the F1 Test, and all four quantities are 
calculated as specified in section 3.3. Evaluate the space cooling 
capacity, Qck=2 (Tj), and electrical 
power consumption, Eck=2 (Tj), of the 
test unit when operating at high compressor capacity and outdoor 
temperature Tj using,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.081

* * * * *
    4.1.3.3 * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.082
    
the part load factor, dimensionless.

    Obtain the fraction bin hours for the cooling season,
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.097
    
from Table 16. Use Equations 4.1.3-3 and 4.1.3-4, respectively, to 
evaluate Qck=2 (Tj) and 
Eck=2 (Tj). If the optional 
C2 and D2 Tests described in section 3.2.3 and 
Table 5 are not conducted, set CDc (k=2) equal to 
the default value specified in section 3.5.3. If these optional tests 
are conducted, set CDc (k=2) to the lower of:
    a. the CDc (k=2) value calculated as per 
section 3.5.3; or
    b. the section 3.5.3 default value for CDc 
(k=2) .
* * * * *
    4.1.4 SEER calculations for an air conditioner or heat pump having 
a variable-speed compressor. Calculate SEER using Equation 4.1-1. 
Evaluate the space cooling capacity, Qck=1 
(Tj), and electrical power consumption 
Eck=1 (Tj), of the test unit when 
operating at minimum compressor speed and outdoor temperature 
Tj. Use Equations 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-2, respectively, where 
Qck=1 (82) and Eck=1 (82) 
are determined from the B1 Test, Qck=1 
(67) and Eck=1 (67) are determined from the 
F1 Test, and all four quantities are calculated as specified 
in section 3.3. Evaluate the space cooling capacity, 
Qck=2 (Tj), and electrical power 
consumption, Eck=2 (Tj), of the test 
unit when operating at maximum compressor speed and outdoor temperature 
Tj. Use Equations 4.1.3-3 and 4.1.3-4, respectively, where 
Qck=2 (95) and Eck=2 (95) 
are determined from the A2 Test, Qck=2 
(82) and Eck=2 (82) are determined from the 
B2 Test, and all four quantities are calculated as specified 
in section 3.3. Calculate the space cooling capacity, 
Qck=v (Tj), and electrical power 
consumption, Eck=v (Tj), of the test 
unit when operating at outdoor temperature Tj and the 
intermediate compressor speed used during the section 3.2.4 (and Table 
6) EV Test using,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.083

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.084

where Qck=v (87) and Eck=v 
(87) are determined from the Ev Test and calculated as 
specified in section 3.3. Approximate the slopes of the k = v 
intermediate speed cooling capacity and electrical power input curves, 
MQ and ME, as follows: * * *

where,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.085

Use Equations 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-2 for Tj = 87[deg]F to 
determine Qck=l (87) and 
Eck=l (87), respectively. Use Equations 4.1.3-3 
and 4.1.3-4 for Tj = 87[deg]F to determine 
Qck=2 (87) and Eck=2 (87), 
respectively.
    Calculating Equation 4.1-1 quantities
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.086
    
differs depending upon whether the test unit would operate at minimum 
speed (section 4.1.4.1), operate at an intermediate speed (section 
4.1.4.2), or operate at maximum speed (section 4.1.4.3) in responding 
to the building load. Use Equation 4.1-2 to calculate the building 
load, BL(Tj), for each temperature bin.
    4.1.4.1 * * * Use Equations 4.1.3-1 and 4.1.3-2, respectively, to 
evaluate Qck=l (Tj) and 
Eck=l (Tj).
    4.1.4.2 * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.087
    

[[Page 59933]]


where,

    T1 = the outdoor temperature at which the unit, when 
operating at minimum compressor speed, provides a space cooling 
capacity that is equal to the building load 
(Qck=l (Tl) = BL(T1)), 
[deg]F. Determine T1 by equating Equations 4.1.3-1 and 4.1-2 
and solving for outdoor temperature. Tv = the outdoor 
temperature at which the unit, when operating at the intermediate 
compressor speed used during the section 3.2.4 EV Test, 
provides a space cooling capacity that is equal to the building load 
(Qck=v (Tv) = BL(Tv)), 
[deg]F. Determine Tv by equating Equations 4.1.4-1 and 4.1-2 
and solving for outdoor temperature. * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.088

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.089

* * * * *
    For multiple-split air conditioners and heat pumps (only), the 
following procedures supersede the above requirements for calculating 
EERk=i (Tj). For each temperature bin where 
Tl < Tj < Tv,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.090

* * * * *
    4.2.3.3 * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.091
    
    If the optional H1C2 Test described in section 3.6.3 and 
Table 11 is not conducted, set CDh (k=2) equal to 
the default value specified in section 3.8.1. If this optional test is 
conducted, set CDh (k=2) to the lower of:
    a. the CDh (k=2) value calculated as per 
section 3.8.1; or
    b. the section 3.8.1 default value for CDh 
(k=2).
    Determine the low temperature cut-out factor, [delta] 
(Tj), using Equation 4.2.3-3.
* * * * *
    4.2.4 * * *
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.092
    
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.093
    
* * * * *
    4.2.4.2 * * *
    For multiple-split heat pumps (only), the following procedures 
supersede the above requirements for calculating 
COPhk=i (Tj). For each temperature bin 
where T3 > Tj > Tvh,
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.094

For each temperature bin where Tvh >= Tj > 
T4,

[[Page 59934]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22OC07.095

* * * * *

0
7. 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 ducted air 
mover (e.g., furnace, air handler, blower kit, etc.), the model number 
of this ducted air mover must be included among the model numbers 
listed on the certification report.
    (ii) Central air conditioning heat pumps, the seasonal energy 
efficiency ratio and heating seasonal performance factor. For central 
air conditioning heat pumps whose seasonal energy efficiency ratio and 
heating seasonal performance factor are based on an installation that 
includes a particular model of ducted air mover (e.g., furnace, air 
handler, blower kit, etc.), the model number of this ducted air mover 
must be included among the model numbers listed on the certification 
report.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 07-5142 Filed 10-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P