Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

Federal RegisterNov 9, 2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0004]

RIN 1904-AB94

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to revise its test procedures for central air conditioners and heat pumps established under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. DOE proposed amendments to the test procedure in a June 2010 notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), an April 2011 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR), and an October 2011 SNOPR. DOE provided additional time for stakeholder comment in a December 2011 extension of the comment period for the October 2011 SNOPR. DOE received further public comment for revising the test procedure in a November 2014 Request for Information for energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE proposes in this SNOPR: A new basic model definition as it pertains to central air conditioners and heat pumps and revised rating requirements; revised alternative efficiency determination methods; termination of active waivers and interim waivers; revised procedures to determine off mode power consumption; changes to the test procedure that would improve test repeatability and reduce test burden; clarifications to ambiguous sections of the test procedure intended also to improve test repeatability; inclusion of, amendments to, and withdrawals of test procedure revisions proposed in published test procedure notices in the rulemaking effort leading to this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; and changes to the test procedure that would improve field representativeness. Some of these proposals also include incorporation by reference of updated industry standards. DOE welcomes comments from the public on any subject within the scope of this test procedure rulemaking.

DATES:

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) no later than December 9, 2015. See section V, “Public Participation,” for details.

ADDRESSES:

Any comments submitted must identify the SNOPR for test procedures for central air conditioners and heat pumps, and provide docket number EE-2009-BT-TP-0004 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AB94. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov

. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Email: RCAC-HP-2009-TP-0004@ee.doe.gov

. Include the docket number EE-2009-BT-TP-0004 and/or 1904-AB94 RIN in the subject line of the message.

Mail:

Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

Hand Delivery/Courier:

Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024.

Telephone:

(202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public Participation).

Docket:

The docket, which includes

Federal Register

notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at

www.regulations.gov

. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.

A link to the docket Web page can be found at:

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/72

. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the

www.regulations.gov

site. The

www.regulations.gov

Web page will contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section V for information on how to submit comments through regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email:

Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov

Johanna Hariharan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email:

Johanna.Hariharan@hq.doe.gov

For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DOE intends to incorporate by reference the following industry standards into Part 430:

(1) ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008 with Addenda 1 and 2: Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment, 2012;

(2) AHRI 210/240-Draft: Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment;

(3) ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010 with Addendum 2: Performance Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment, 2010;

(4) ASHRAE 23.1-2010: Methods of Testing for Rating the Performance of Positive Displacement Refrigerant Compressors and Condensing Units that Operate at Subcritical Temperatures of the Refrigerant;

(5) ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment;

(6) ASHRAE 41.1-2013: Standard Method for Temperature Measurement; ASHRAE 41.6-2014: Standard Method for Humidity Measurement;

(7) ASHRAE 41.9-2011: Standard Methods for Volatile-Refrigerant Mass Flow Measurements Using Calorimeters;

(8) ASHRAE/AMCA 51-07/210-07, Laboratory Methods of Testing Fans for Certified Aerodynamic Performance Rating.

Copies of ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008 and ANSI/AHRI 1230-2010 can be obtained from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, USA, 703-524-8800, or by going to

http://www.ahrinet.org/site/686/Standards/HVACR-Industry-Standards/Search-Standards

. A copy of AHRI 210/240-

Draft is available on the rulemaking Web page (Docket EERE-2009-BT-TP-0004-0045).

Copies of ASHRAE 23.1-2010, ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, ASHRAE 41.1-2013, and ASHRAE 41.9-2011 can be purchased from ASHRAE's Web site at

https://www.ashrae.org/resources-publications

Copies of ASHRAE/AMCA 51-07/210-07 can be purchases from AMCA's Web site at

http://www.amca.org/store/index.php

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

B. Background

II. Summary of the Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

III. Discussion

A. Definitions, Testing, Rating, and Compliance of Basic Models of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

1. Basic Model Definition

2. Additional Definitions

3. Determination of Certified Rating

4. Compliance With Federal (National or Regional) Standards

5. Certification Reports

6. Represented Values

7. Product-Specific Enforcement Provisions

B. Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods

1. General Background

2. Terminology

3. Elimination of the Pre-Approval Requirement

4. AEDM Validation

5. Requirements for Independent Coil Manufacturers

6. AEDM Verification Testing

7. Failure to Meet Certified Ratings

8. Action Following a Determination of Noncompliance

C. Waiver Procedures

1. Termination of Waivers Pertaining to Air-to-Water Heat Pump Products With Integrated Domestic Water Heating

2. Termination of Waivers Pertaining to Multi-Circuit Products

3. Termination of Waiver and Clarification of the Test Procedure Pertaining to Multi-Blower Products

4. Termination of Waiver Pertaining to Triple-Capacity, Northern Heat Pump Products

D. Measurement of Off Mode Power Consumption

1. Test Temperatures

2. Calculation and Weighting of P1 and P2

3. Products With Large, Multiple or Modulated Compressors

4. Procedure for Measuring Low-Voltage Component Power

5. Revision of Off-Mode Power Consumption Equations

6. Off-Mode Power Consumption for Split Systems

7. Time Delay Credit

8. Test Metric for Off-Mode Power Consumption

9. Impacts on Product Reliability

10. Representative Measurement of Energy Use

E. Test Repeatability Improvement and Test Burden Reduction

1. Indoor Fan Speed Settings

2. Requirements for the Refrigerant Lines and Mass Flow Meter

3. Outdoor Room Temperature Variation

4. Method of Measuring Inlet Air Temperature on the Outdoor Side

5. Requirements for the Air Sampling Device

6. Variation in Maximum Compressor Speed With Outdoor Temperature

7. Refrigerant Charging Requirements

8. Alternative Arrangement for Thermal Loss Prevention for Cyclic Tests

9. Test Unit Voltage Supply

10. Coefficient of Cyclic Degradation

11. Break-in Periods Prior to Testing

12. Industry Standards That Are Incorporated by Reference

13. Withdrawing References to ASHRAE Standard 116-1995 (RA 2005)

14. Additional Changes Based on AHRI 210/240-Draft

15. Damping Pressure Transducer Signals

F. Clarification of Test Procedure Provisions

1. Manufacturer Consultation

2. Incorporation by Reference of ANSI/AHRI Standard 1230-2010

3. Replacement of the Informative Guidance Table for Using the Federal Test Procedure

4. Clarifying the Definition of a Mini-Split System

5. Clarifying the Definition of a Multi-Split System

G. Test Procedure Reprint

H. Improving Field Representativeness of the Test Procedure

1. Minimum External Static Pressure Requirements for Conventional Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

2. Minimum External Static Pressure Adjustment for Blower Coil Systems Tested With Condensing Furnaces

3. Default Fan Power for Coil-Only Systems

4. Revised Heating Load Line

5. Revised Heating Mode Test Procedure for Products Equipped With Variable-Speed Compressors

I. Identified Test Procedure Issues DOE May Consider in Future Rulemakings

1. Controlling Variable Capacity Units to Field Conditions

2. Revised Ambient Test Conditions

3. Performance Reporting at Certain Air Volume Flow Rates

4. Cyclic Test With a Wet Coil

5. Inclusion of the Calculation for Sensible Heating Ratio

J. Compliance With Other Energy Policy and Conservation Act Requirements

1. Test Burden

2. Potential Incorporation of International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 62301 and International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 62087

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

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. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

V. Public Participation

A. Attendance at Public Meeting

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Pub. L. 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291−6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major household appliances, including the single phase central air conditioners and heat pumps

with rated cooling capacities less than 65,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h) that are the focus of this notice.

(42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2), (21) and 6292(a)(3))

Where this notice uses the terms “HVAC” or “CAC/CHP”, they are in reference specifically to central air conditioners and heat pumps as covered by EPCA.

For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A.

Under EPCA, the program consists of four activities: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification, compliance, and enforcement. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA and for representing the efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures in any enforcement action to determine whether covered products comply with these energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of such test procedures. Specifically, EPCA provides that an amended test procedure shall produce results which measure the energy

efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product over an average or representative period of use, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Furthermore, DOE must review test procedures at least once every 7 years. (42 U.S.C 6293(b)(1)(A)) DOE last published a test procedure final rule for central air conditioner and heat pumps on October 22, 2007. 72 FR 59906. Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine whether and the extent to which the proposed test procedure would change the measured efficiency of a system that was tested under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))

DOE's existing test procedures for central air conditioners and heat pumps adopted pursuant to these provisions appear under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix M (“Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps”). These procedures establish the currently permitted means for determining energy efficiency and annual energy consumption of these products. Some amendments proposed in this SNOPR will not alter the measured efficiency of central air conditioners and heat pumps, and thus are being proposed as revisions to the current Appendix M. Other amendments proposed in this SNOPR will alter the measured efficiency, as represented in the regulating metrics of energy efficiency ratio (EER), seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER), and heating seasonal performance factor (HSPF). These amendments are proposed as part of a new Appendix M1. The test procedure changes proposed in this notice as part of a new Appendix M1, if adopted, would not become mandatory until the existing energy conservation standards are revised. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) In revising the energy conservation standards, DOE would create a cross-walk from the existing standards under the current test procedure to what the standards would be if tested using the revised test procedure. DOE would then use the cross-walked equivalent of the existing standard as the baseline for its standards analysis to prevent back-sliding as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1).

On December 19, 2007, the President signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Pub. L. 110-140, which contains numerous amendments to EPCA. Section 310 of EISA 2007 established that the Department's test procedures for all covered products must account for standby mode and off mode energy consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) For central air conditioners and heat pumps, standby mode is incorporated into the SEER metric, while off mode power consumption is separately regulated. This SNOPR includes proposals relevant to the determination of both SEER (including standby mode) and off mode power consumption.

10 CFR 430.27 allows manufacturers to submit an application for an interim waiver and/r a petition for a waiver granting relief from adhering to the test procedure requirements found under 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix M. For those waivers that are active, however, 10 CFR 430.27(l) requires DOE to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of such waivers. To this end, this notice proposes relevant amendments to its test procedure concerning such waivers.

B. Background

This SNOPR addresses proposals and comments from three separate rulemakings, two guidance documents, and a working group: (1) Proposals for off mode test procedures made in earlier notices as part of this rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0004); (2) proposals regarding alternative efficiency determination methods (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024); (3) stakeholder comments from a request for information regarding energy conservation standards (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048); (4) a draft guidance document related to testing and rating split systems with blower coil units (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0033); (5) a draft guidance document that deals with selecting units for testing, rating, and certifying split-system combinations, including discussion of basic models and of condensing units and evaporator coils sold separately for replacement installation (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032); and (6) the recommendations of the regional standards enforcement Working Group (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-CE-0077).

DOE's initial proposals for estimating off mode power consumption in the test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps were shared with the public in a notice of proposed rulemaking published in the

Federal Register

on June 2, 2010 (June 2010 NOPR; 75 FR 31224) and at a public meeting at DOE headquarters in Washington, DC on June 11, 2010. Subsequently, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) on April 1, 2011, in response to comments received on the June 2010 NOPR and due to the results of additional laboratory testing conducted by DOE. (April 2011 SNOPR) 76 FR 18105, 18127. DOE received additional comments in response to the April 2011 SNOPR and proposed an amended version of the off mode procedure that addressed those comments in a second SNOPR on October 24, 2011 (October 2011 SNOPR). 76 FR 65616. DOE received additional comments during the comment period of the October 24, 2011 SNOPR and the subsequent extended comment period. 76 FR 79135.

Between the April 2011 and October 2011 SNOPRs, DOE published a direct final rule (DFR) in the

Federal Register

on June 27, 2011 that set forth amended energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps, including a new standard for off mode electrical power consumption. (June 2011 DFR) 76 FR 37408. Units manufactured on or after January 1, 2015, are subject to that standard for off mode electrical power consumption. 10 CFR 430.32(c)(6). However, on July 8, 2014, DOE published an enforcement policy statement regarding off mode standards for central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps

(July 2014 Enforcement Policy Statement) specifying that DOE will not assert civil penalty authority for violation of the off mode standard until 180 days following publication of a final rule establishing a test method for measuring off mode electrical power consumption.

Available at:

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f17/Enforcement%20Policy%20Statement%20-%20cac%20off%20mode.pdf

(Last accessed March 30, 2015.)

DOE also pursued, in a request for information (RFI) published on April 18, 2011 (AEDM RFI) (76 FR 21673), and a NOPR published on May 31, 2012 (AEDM NOPR) (77 FR 32038), revisions to its existing alternative efficiency determination methods (AEDM) and alternative rating methods (ARM) requirements to improve the approach by which manufacturers may use

modeling techniques as the basis to certify consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment covered under EPCA. DOE also published a final rule regarding AEDM requirements for commercial and industrial equipment only (Commercial Equipment AEDM FR). 78 FR 79579. This SNOPR addresses the proposals made and comments received in the AEDM NOPR applicable to central air conditioners and heat pumps and makes additional proposals.

On June 13, 2014, DOE published a notice of intent to form a working group to negotiate enforcement of regional standards for central air conditioners and requested nominations from parties interested in serving as members of the Working Group. 79 FR 33870. On July 16, 2014, the Department published a notice of membership announcing the eighteen nominations that were selected to serve as members of the Working Group, in addition to two members from Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC), and one DOE representative. 79 FR 41456. The Working Group identified a number of issues related to testing and certification that are being addressed in this rule. In addition, all nongovernmental participants of the Working Group approved the final report contingent on upon the issuance of the final guidance on Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032 0032 and Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0033 consistent with the understanding of the Working Group as set forth in its recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-CE-0077-0070, Attachment) This SNOPR responds to comments on the August 19 and 20, 2014, guidance documents related to testing and rating split systems, which are discussed in more detail in section III.A. The proposed changes supplant these two draft guidance documents; DOE will not finalize the draft guidance documents and instead will provide any necessary clarity through this notice and the final rule. DOE believes the proposed changes are consistent with the intent of the Working Group.

On November 5, 2014, DOE published a request for information for energy conservation standards (ECS) for central air conditioners and heat pumps (November 2014 ECS RFI). 79 FR 65603. In response, several stakeholders provided comments suggesting that DOE amend the current test procedure. This SNOPR responds to those test procedure-related comments.

II. Summary of the Supplementary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

This supplementary notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) proposes revising the certification requirements and test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps based on various published material as discussed in section I.B.

DOE proposes to revise the basic model definition, add additional definitions for clarity, make certain revisions to the testing requirements for determination of certified ratings, add certain certification reporting requirements, revise requirements for determination of represented values, and add product-specific enforcement provisions. Some of the proposed revisions to the certification requirements would impact the energy conservation standard and thus would not be effective until the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards.

DOE proposes to update requirements for Alternative Rating Methods (ARMs) used to determine performance metrics for central air conditioners and heat pumps based on the regulations for Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods (AEDMs) that are used to estimate performance for commercial HVAC equipment. Specifically, for central air conditioners and heat pumps, DOE proposes: (1) Revisions to nomenclature regarding ARMs; (2) rescinding DOE pre-approval of an ARM prior to use; (3) AEDM validation requirements; (4) a verification testing process; (5) actions a manufacturer could take following a verification test failure; and (6) consequences for invalid ratings. These proposed changes do not impact the energy conservation standard.

DOE proposes to revise the test procedure such that tests of multi-circuit products, triple-capacity northern heat pump products, and multi-blower products can be performed without the need of an interim waiver or a waiver. Existing interim waivers and waivers, as applicable, regarding these products would terminate on the effective date of a final rule promulgating the proposals in this SNOPR. DOE also reaffirms that the waivers associated with multi-split products have already terminated and that these products can also be tested using the current and proposed test procedure. These proposed changes do not impact the energy conservation standard and thus are proposed as part of revisions to Appendix M.

DOE also proposes to clarify that air-to-water heat pump products integrated with domestic water heating are not subject to central air conditioner and heat pump energy conservation standards. Accordingly, the waiver regarding these products would terminate effective 180 days after publication of a final rule that incorporates the proposals in this SNOPR.

DOE proposes revisions to the test methods and calculations for off mode power consumption that were proposed or modified in the June 2010 NOPR, April 2011 SNOPR, and October 2011 SNOPR. These revisions address comments received in response to the October 2011 SNOPR suggesting that test methods and calculations more accurately represent off-mode power consumption in field applications. These proposed changes do not impact the energy conservation standard. Specifically, DOE proposes the following:

(1) Establishment of separate testing and calculations that would depend on whether the tested unit is equipped with a crankcase heater and whether the crankcase heater is controlled during the test;

(2) Alteration of the testing temperatures such that the crankcase heater is tested in outdoor air conditions that are representative of the shoulder and heating seasons;

(3) Changing of the testing methodology for determining the power consumption of the low-voltage components (

);

(4) Changing of the calculation of the off mode power rating (

W,OFF

) such that the off mode power for the shoulder and heating seasons are equally weighted;

(5) Implementation of a time delay credit for energy consumption, including credits in the form of scaling factors and multipliers for energy-efficient products that require larger crankcase heaters to maintain product reliability;

(6) Addition of an alternative energy determination method for determining off mode power for coil-only split-systems; and

(7) Inclusion of a means for calculating a basic model's annual off mode energy use, from which manufacturers could make representations about their products' off mode energy use.

DOE also proposes changes to improve the repeatability and reduce the test burden of the test procedure. These proposed changes do not impact the energy conservation standard. Specifically, DOE proposes the following:

(1) Clarification of fan speed settings;

(2) Clarification of insulation requirements for refrigerant lines and addition of a requirement for insulating mass flow meters;

(3) Addition of a requirement to demonstrate inlet air temperature uniformity for the outdoor unit using thermocouples;

(4) Addition of a requirement that outdoor air conditions be measured using sensors measuring the air captured by the air sampling device(s) rather than the temperature sensors located in the air stream approaching the inlets;

(5) Addition of a requirement that the air sampling device and the tubing that transfers the collected air to the dry bulb temperature sensor be at least two inches from the test chamber floor, and a requirement that humidity measurements be based on dry bulb temperature measurements made at the same location as the corresponding wet bulb temperature measurements used to determine humidity;

(6) Clarification of maximum speed for variable-speed compressors;

(7) Addition of requirements that improve consistency of refrigerant charging procedures;

(8) Allowance of an alternative arrangement for cyclic tests to replace the currently-required damper in the inlet portion of the indoor air ductwork for single-package ducted units;

(9) Clarification of the proper supply voltage for testing;

(10) Revision of the determination of the coefficient of cyclic degradation (C

);

(11) Option for a break-in period of up to 20 hours;

(12) Update of references to industry standards where appropriate;

(13) Withdrawal of all references to ASHRAE Standard 116-1995;

(14) Inclusion of information from the draft AHRI 210/240; and

(15) Provisions regarding damping of pressure transducer signals to avoid exceeding test operating tolerances due to high frequency fluctuations.

Lastly, DOE proposes clarifications of any sections of the test procedure that may be ambiguous. Specifically, DOE proposes to add reference to an industry standard for testing variable refrigerant flow multi-split systems; replace the informative guidance table for using the test procedure; and clarify definitions of multi-split systems and mini-split systems, which DOE now proposes to call single-zone-multiple-unit systems. These proposed changes do not impact the energy conservation standard.

DOE notes that all the above-listed proposed changes to the test procedure would not impact the energy conservation standard and as such are proposed as part of a revised Appendix M. Given the extensive changes proposed for Appendix M, DOE has provided a full re-print of Appendix M in the regulatory text of this SNOPR that includes the changes proposed in this SNOPR as well as those proposed in the June 2010 NOPR and the April 2011 and October 2011 SNOPRs that have not been withdrawn.

DOE also proposes various changes to the test procedure that would affect the energy conservation standard and proposes incorporating these changes in a new appendix, Appendix M1 to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, which includes the text of Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 with amendments as proposed in this SNOPR. Specifically, DOE proposes the following:

(1) Increase the minimum external static pressure requirements for conventional central air conditioners and heat pumps to better represent the external static pressure conditions in field installations;

Conventional central air conditioners and heat pumps are those products that are not short duct systems (see section III.F.2) or small-duct, high-velocity systems.

(2) Add a minimum external static pressure adjustment to correct for potentially unrepresentative external static pressure conditions for blower coil systems tested with condensing furnaces;

(3) Raise the default fan power for coil-only systems;

(4) Adjust the heating load line equation such that the zero load point occurs at 55 °F for Region IV, the adjustment factor is 1.3, and the heating load is tied with the heat pump's cooling capacity; and

(5) Revise the heating mode test procedure to allow more options for products equipped with variable-speed compressors.

DOE proposes to make the test procedure revisions in this SNOPR as reflected in the revised Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 effective on a date 180 days after publication of the test procedure final rule in the

Federal Register

and mandatory for testing to determine compliance with the existing energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps as of that date. DOE proposes to make the test procedure revisions in this SNOPR as reflected in the proposed new Appendix M1 to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 effective on the compliance date of the revised energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps and mandatory for testing to determine compliance with said revised standards as of that date. DOE will address any comments received in response to this SNOPR in the test procedure final rule.

As noted in section I.A, 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) requires that DOE shall determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency and measured energy use. DOE has determined that some of these proposed amendments would result in a change in measured energy efficiency and measured energy use for central air conditioners and heat pumps. Therefore, DOE is conducting a separate rulemaking to amend the energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps with respect to the revised test procedure, once its proposals become final. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0048)

III. Discussion

This section discusses the revisions to the certification requirements and test procedure that DOE proposes in this SNOPR.

A. Definitions, Testing, Rating, and Compliance of Basic Models of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

On August 19 and 20, 2014, DOE issued two draft guidance documents regarding the test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps. One guidance document dealt with testing and rating split systems with blower coil indoor units (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0033); and the other dealt more generally with selecting units for testing, rating, and certifying split-system combinations, including discussion of basic models and of condensing units and evaporator coils sold separately for replacement installation (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032). The comments in response to these draft guidance documents are discussed in this section of the notice. DOE has proposed changes to the substance of the draft guidance that reflects the comments received as well as the recommendations of the regional standards enforcement Working Group (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-CE-0077-0070, Attachment). The proposed changes supplant the two draft guidance documents; DOE will not finalize the draft guidance documents and instead will provide any necessary clarity through this notice and the final rule.

1. Basic Model Definition

In the August 20, 2014 draft guidance document (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032), DOE clarified that a basic

model means all units of a given type (or class thereof) having the same primary energy source, and which have essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional characteristics that affect energy efficiency. 10 CFR 430.2. DOE noted that for split-system units, this includes a condensing (outdoor) unit and a coil-only or blower coil indoor unit.

DOE notes that a blower coil indoor unit may consist of separate units, one that includes the indoor coil and another that is an air mover, either a modular blower or a furnace. Alternatively, a blower coil indoor unit may be a single unit that includes both the indoor coil and the indoor fan. Hence, in further discussion, “blower coil indoor unit” may be any one of these three options.

In the guidance document, DOE also stated that if a company intended to claim ratings for each combination of outdoor unit and indoor unit, it must certify all possible model combinations as separate basic models. Only the basic model combinations that include a highest sales volume combination (HSVC) indoor unit for a given outdoor unit must be tested, while the other basic models may be rated with an ARM. Alternatively, the manufacturer could make all combinations of a given model of outdoor unit part of the same basic model and not rate all individual combinations. However, all combinations within the basic model would have to have the same represented efficiency, based on the least efficient combination. This association would be included in the certification report.

In response to the draft guidance document, AHRI and Johnson Controls (JCI) stated that there was a difference between DOE's definition of Basic Model and the industry's use of Basic Model Groups (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032, AHRI, No. 8 at p. 1; JCI, No. 5 at p. 3) Johnson Controls specified that most manufacturers consider a specific outdoor model with all combinations of indoor units to be a basic model and notes that DOE's definition appeared to allow outdoor units to be combined into a basic model if they share the same ratings. (

Id.

)

DOE reviewed AHRI's Operations Manual for Unitary Small Air-Conditioners and Air-Source Heat Pumps (Includes Mixed-Match Coils) (Rated Below 65,000 Btu/h) Certification Program (AHRI OM 210/240—January 2014).

This document specifies the following definitions:

Available at:

www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/USE_OM.pdf

(Last accessed March 20, 2015.)

A Split System BMG [Basic Model Group

] consists of products with the same Outdoor Unit used with several Indoor Unit combinations (

i.e.

horizontal, vertical, A-coil, etc.). Same Outdoor Unit refers to models with the same or comparable compressor, used with the same outdoor coil surface area and the same outdoor air quantity.

According to the AHRI General Operations Manual, a basic model is a product possessing a discrete performance rating, whereas a basic model group is a set of models that share characteristics that allow the performance of one model to be representative of the group, although the group does not have to share discrete performance. (General OM—October 2013). Available at:

www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/General_OM.pdf

. (Last accessed March 24, 2015.)

An ICM [Independent Coil Manufacturer] BMG consists of coils (Indoor Units) with matching capacity ranges of 6,000 Btu/h and the following identical geometry parameters: Air-handler, evaporator fan type, evaporator number of rows, type of equipment (air-cooled, water-cooled or evaporatively-cooled), evaporator tube centers, evaporator fin types, evaporator fins/inch, evaporator tube OD, evaporator expansion device, fin length per slab, fin height per slab, number of slabs in the coil, fin material type, tube material type, and total number of active tubes (refer to Table H1).

In order to create consistency within the industry, DOE proposes to modify its basic model definition for central air conditioners and heat pumps. Specifically, DOE proposes that manufacturers would have a choice in how to assign individual models (for single-package units) or combinations (for split systems) to basic models. Specifically, manufacturers may consider each individual model/combination its own basic model, or manufacturers may assign all individual models of the same single-package system or all individual combinations using the same model of outdoor unit (for outdoor unit manufacturers (OUM)) or model of indoor unit (for independent coil manufacturers (ICM)) to the same basic model.

DOE believes that this proposal is consistent with the existing general definition of basic model which refers to all units having the same primary energy source and having essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional characteristics that affect energy consumption or energy efficiency. However, DOE proposes to further define the physical characteristics necessary to assign individual models or combinations to the same basic model:

(i) For split-systems manufactured by independent coil manufacturers (ICMs) and for small-duct, high velocity systems: All individual combinations having the same model of indoor unit, which means the same or comparably performing indoor coil(s) [same face area; fin material, depth, style (

e.g.

wavy, louvered), and density (fins per inch); tube pattern, material, diameter, wall thickness, and internal enhancement], indoor fan(s) [same air flow with the same indoor coil and external static pressure, same power input], auxiliary refrigeration system components if present (

e.g.

expansion valve), and controls.

(ii) for split-systems manufactured by outdoor unit manufacturers (OUMs): All individual combinations having the same model of outdoor unit, which means the same or comparably performing compressor(s) [same displacement rate (volume per time) and same capacity and power input when tested under the same operating conditions], outdoor coil(s) [same face area; fin material, depth, style (

e.g.

wavy, louvered), and density (fins per inch); tube pattern, material, diameter, wall thickness, and internal enhancement], outdoor fan(s) [same air flow with the same outdoor coil, same power input], auxiliary refrigeration system components if present (

e.g.

suction accumulator, reversing valve, expansion valve), and controls.

The proposed requirements for single-package models combine the requirements listed describing the characteristics of the same models of indoor units and same models of outdoor units. DOE requests comment on its proposal to modify the definition of “basic model”, as well as the proposed physical characteristics required for assigning individual models or combinations to the same basic model, as described above.

If manufacturers assign each individual model or combination to its own basic model, DOE proposes that each individual model/combination must be tested and that an AEDM cannot be applied. This option would limit a manufacturer's risk in terms of noncompliance but would represent increased testing burden compared to the other option.

If manufacturers assign all individual combinations of a model of outdoor unit (for OUMs) or model of indoor unit (for ICMs) to a single basic model, DOE further proposes that, in contrast to the draft guidance document and DOE's current regulations, each individual combination within a basic model (

i.e.,

having the same model of outdoor unit for OUMs, or having the same model of indoor unit for ICMs) must be certified with a rating determined for that individual combination. In other words, individual combinations within the same basic model that have different SEER ratings, for example, would be certified with their individual ratings, rather than with the lowest SEER of the basic model. However, only one individual combination in each basic

model would have to be tested (see section III.A.3.a), while the others may be rated using an AEDM. This option reduces testing burden but increases risk. Specifically, if any one of the combinations within a basic model fails to meet the applicable standard, then all of the combinations within the basic model fail, and the entire basic model must be taken off the market

(i.e.,

the model of outdoor unit for OUMs and the model of indoor unit for ICMs). All combinations offered for sale (

e.g.,

for OUMs, based on a given model of outdoor unit which is the basis of the basic model) must be certified, and all of these combinations within the basic model must meet applicable standards. DOE notes that under this proposed rule, ICMs and OUMs will continue to have an independent obligation to test, provide certified ratings, and ensure compliance with applicable standards.

By way of example, a manufacturer has two models of outdoor units, models A and B. Each of models A and B can be paired with any of three models of indoor units—models 1, 2, and 3. Per the guidance document, the manufacturer could either: (1) Make each combination a separate basic model (

i.e.,

A-1, A-2, A-3, B-1, B-2, and B-3), test the HSVC for each model of outdoor unit (A and B), and rate the other basic models with an ARM; (2) make each combination a separate basic model and test each of them; or (3) make combinations A-2 and A-3 part of basic model A-1 (and similarly B-2 and B-3 part of B-1) and represent the efficiency of all three with the same certified rating at the least efficient combination in the basic model. In this proposal, the manufacturer could either: (1) Make each combination a separate basic model and test and rate each combination; or (2) make combinations A-2 and A-3 part of basic model A-1 (and similarly B-2 and B-3 part of B-1), test the HSVC combination for the model of outdoor unit, and test or use an AEDM to rate the efficiency of all other combinations in the basic model.

DOE notes that unlike in the current “basic model” definition that contains less detail on what constitutes essentially identical characteristics, under DOE's new proposal, manufacturers would not be able to assign different models of outdoor units (for OUMs) or models of indoor units (for ICMs) to a single basic model Based on a review of certification data, it appears that most manufacturers are not currently doing this, so DOE expects this proposal to have limited impact on current practices.

Additional rating and certification requirements for single-package models and multi-split, multi-circuit, and single-zone-multiple-coil models are described in section III.A.3.c.

Revisions to the test procedure as proposed in section III.D of this SNOPR enable the determination of off mode power consumption, which reflects the operation of the contributing components: Crankcase heater and low-voltage controls. Varying designs of these components produce different off mode power consumption. DOE proposes that if individual combinations that are otherwise identical are offered with multiple options for off mode related components, manufacturers at a minimum must rate the individual combination with the crankcase heater and controls which are the most consumptive (

i.e.,

would result in the largest value of P

W,OFF

). If a manufacturer wishes to also make representations for less consumptive off mode options for the same individual combination, the manufacturer may provide separate ratings, but the manufacturer must differentiate the individual model numbers for these ratings. These individual combinations would be within the same basic model. DOE discusses this in relation to single-package units in section III.A.3.e.

DOE also proposes to clarify that a central air conditioner or central air conditioning heat pump may consist of: A single-package unit; an outdoor unit and one or more indoor units (

e.g.,

a single-split or multi-split system); an indoor unit only (rated as a combination by an ICM with an OUM's outdoor unit); or an outdoor unit only (with no match, rated by an OUM with the coil specified in this test procedure). DOE has proposed adding these specifications to the definition of central air conditioner or central air conditioning heat pump in 10 CFR 430.2. In the certification reports submitted by OUMs for split systems, DOE proposes that manufacturers must report the basic model number as well as the individual model numbers of the indoor unit(s) and the air mover where applicable.

2. Additional Definitions

In order to specify differences in the proposed basic model definition for ICMs and OUMs, DOE also proposes the following definitions:

Independent coil manufacturer (ICM)

means a manufacturer that manufactures indoor units but does not manufacture single-package units or outdoor units.

Outdoor unit manufacturer (OUM)

means a manufacturer of single-package units, outdoor units, and/or both indoor units and outdoor units.

With respect to any given basic model, a manufacturer could be an ICM or an OUM. DOE notes that the use of the term “manufacturer” in these definitions refers to any person who manufactures, produces, assembles, or imports a consumer product.

See

42 U.S.C. 6291(10, 12).

DOE also proposes to define variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems as a kind of multi-split system. DOE notes that not all VRF systems are commercial equipment. Therefore, the proposed definition also clarifies that VRF systems that are single-phase and less than 65,000 btu/h are a kind of central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps.

DOE also proposes to modify the definition of indoor unit. DOE noted in market research that ICMs may not always provide cooling mode expansion devices with indoor units. Therefore to provide clarity in the testing and rating requirements, DOE proposes to change the definition of “indoor unit” to clarify that it may not include the cooling mode expansion device. Also, for reasons discussed in section III.A.3.f, DOE proposes to include the casing in the definition so that uncased coils will not be considered indoor units:

Indoor unit

transfers heat between the refrigerant and the indoor air, and consists of an indoor coil and casing and may include a cooling mode expansion device and/or an air moving device.

DOE proposes to specify in Appendix M that if the indoor unit does not ship with a cooling mode expansion device, the system should be tested using the device as specified in the installation instructions provided with the indoor unit, or if no device is specified, using a TXV. DOE notes that the AHRI program does not appear to assume that the expansion device is necessarily provided with the coil,

i.e.,

AHRI's operations manual specifies that for testing for the AHRI certification program, the ICM must provide an indoor coil and expansion device.

Finally, DOE is proposing to clarify several other definitions currently in 10 CFR 430.2 with minor wording changes and move them to 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix M. The proposed definition of central air conditioner or central air conditioning heat pump in 10 CFR 430.2 refers the reader to the additional central air conditioner-related definitions in Appendix M. Locating all of the relevant definitions in the appendix will make it easier to find and reference them. DOE also proposes to remove entirely the definitions for “condenser-evaporator coil combination” and “coil family” as

those terms no longer appear in the proposed regulations.

3. Determination of Certified Rating

During the regional standards Working Group meetings, participants invested a great deal of time and energy discussing the relationship between system ratings and an effective enforcement plan. As part of the negotiations, the Working Group requested that DOE issue guidance regarding the applicability of regional standards to indoor units and outdoor units distributed separately and the applicability of regional standards to different combinations of indoor and outdoor units. DOE developed two draft guidance documents to address these issues. After consideration of the Working Group's discussions and the comments received on the two draft guidance documents, DOE determined that regulatory changes would be necessary to implement the approach agreed to by the Working Group. DOE is proposing several of those regulatory changes as part of this rulemaking. The remainder of the necessary regulatory changes will be addressed in a forthcoming regional standards enforcement notice of proposed rulemaking.

During the pendency of the rulemakings (CAC TP and Regional Standards), DOE reaffirms its commitment to the approach advocated by the Working Group, subject to consideration of comments received in the rulemakings to effectuate the necessary changes to the regulations. The following sections describe the two guidance documents and DOE's proposals to address them as part of this rulemaking.

a. Single-Split-System Air Conditioners Rated by OUMs

In the August 20, 2014 draft guidance document (Aug 20 Guidance) (EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032), DOE proposed to clarify that when selecting which split-system air conditioner and heat pump units to test (in accordance with the DOE test procedure), a unit of each outdoor model must be paired with a unit of one selected indoor model. 10 CFR 429.16(a)(2)(i). Specifically, the manufacturer must test the condenser-evaporator coil combination that includes the model of evaporator coil that is likely to have the largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of condensing unit. 10 CFR 429.16(a)(2)(ii) (This combination is also known as the highest sales volume combination or HSVC.) That is, the HSVC for each condensing unit may not be rated using an ARM. (See section III.B regarding DOE's proposal to switch from ARMs to AEDMs for this product.)

The guidance further stated that for any other split-system combination that includes the same outdoor unit model but a different indoor unit model than the HSVC, manufacturers may determine represented values of energy efficiency (including those values that, for each combination, must be reported in certifications to DOE) of a split-system central air conditioner or heat pump basic model combination either by testing the combination in accordance with the DOE test procedure or by applying an ARM that has been approved by DOE in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 429.70(e)(1) and (2). 10 CFR 429.16(a)(2)(ii)(A) and (B)(1).

In the August 19, 2014 draft guidance document (August 19 Guidance) (EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0033), DOE proposed to clarify that split-system central air conditioners other than those with single-speed compressors may be tested and rated using a blower coil only if the condensing unit is sold exclusively for use with a blower coil indoor unit. 10 CFR 429.16(a)(2)(ii). The guidance stated that there is no provision in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) permitting use of a blower coil for testing and rating a split-system central air conditioner where the condensing unit is also offered for sale with a coil-only indoor unit, and that, furthermore, there is no provision in the CFR permitting the use of a blower coil for testing and rating a condensing unit with a single-speed compressor.

Commenters generally agreed with the information in the August 20 Guidance regarding selecting units for testing, rating, and certifying split-system combinations. In addition, in response to the August 19 Guidance, DOE received nearly identical comments from several stakeholders generally agreeing with the intent of the guidance to emphasize that single-speed compressor products must be tested and rated with a coil-only system as HSVC. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0033, AHRI No. 8 at p. 2; Nordyne, No. 9 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 4 at p. 2; Ingersoll Rand, No. 3 at p. 1; Goodman, No. 10 at p. 1; Rheem, No. 2 at p. 2; JCI, No. 5 at p. 2-3) These stakeholders, as well as Mortex, clarified that other combinations besides the HSVC, including blower coil combinations, can be rated through testing or using an ARM. (

Id.;

Mortex, No. 6 at p. 1) Stakeholders recommended language identical to or similar to the following:

Split-system central air conditioners with single-speed compressors must be tested and rated using a coil-only for the HSVC. 10 CFR 429.16(a)(2)(ii). Such single-speed systems may be rated with other coil-only and blower coil indoor units through the use of a DOE approved ARM or by testing. 10 CFR 429.16(a)(2)(ii)(A) and 10 CFR 429.16(a)(2)(ii)(B). Furthermore, there is no provision in the CFR permitting the use of a blowercoil for testing and rating a condensing unit with a single-speed compressor for the HSVC, unless:

• [Version 1] the unit is a mini-split, multi-split or through-the-wall, OR

• [Version 2] the unit is sold and installed only with blower-coil indoor units.

(Version 1: Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0033, Lennox, No. 4 at p. 2; Ingersoll Rand, No. 3 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 10 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 2 at p. 3; JCI, No. 5 at p. 4; Version 2: AHRI No. 8 at p. 3; Nordyne, No. 9 at p. 2)

AHRI and several manufacturers disputed that when using a compressor other than single speed, the HSVC can never be a blower coil unless it is exclusively used with a blower coil. AHRI and the manufacturers reported that many multi-stage capacity products are tested and rated with high efficiency blower coil or furnace products as the HSVC even though those systems are also rated for coil-only use. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0033, AHRI No. 8 at p. 2; Nordyne, No. 9 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 4 at p. 2; Ingersoll Rand, No. 3 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 10 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 2 at p. 2; Carrier, No. 7 at p. 1) Johnson Controls responded that they test and rate multi-speed compressor units with blower coils or furnace/coils as the HSVC. (JCI, No. 5 at p. 3). AHRI and the manufacturers reported that not allowing this could limit the application of high performing products, and that it is important for units designed for blower coil to also be rated as coil-only to offer certain consumers a compromise of cost and performance. AHRI and the manufacturers proposed the following modified language:

Split-system central air conditioners other than those with single-speed compressors (two-stage or multi-stage) may be tested and rated using a blower-coil only as HSVC only if the condensing unit design intent is for use with a blower-coil indoor unit (

e.g.

the evaporator coil that is likely to have the largest volume of retails sales with the particular model of condensing unit is a blower-coil).

(Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0033, AHRI No. 8 at p. 3; Nordyne, No. 9 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 4 at p. 3; Ingersoll Rand, No. 3 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 10 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 2 at p. 3; JCI, No. 5 at p. 4; Carrier, No. 7 at p. 2 with slightly different language)

After reviewing the comments, DOE proposes to make changes to 10 CFR 429.16 to revise the testing and rating requirements for single-split-system air conditioners. (See section III.F.4

regarding discussion of new definitions including “single-split-system.”) These changes will occur in two phases. In the first phase, prior to the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards, DOE proposes only a slight change to the current requirements. Specifically, DOE proposes that for single-split-system air conditioners with single capacity condensing units, each model of outdoor unit must be tested with the model of coil-only indoor unit that is likely to have the largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of outdoor unit. For split-system air conditioners with other than single capacity condensing units each model of outdoor unit must also be tested with the model of coil-only indoor unit likely to have the largest sales volume unless the model of outdoor unit is sold only with model(s) of blower coil indoor units, in which case it must be tested and rated with the model of blower coil indoor unit likely to have the highest sales volume. However, any other combination may be rated through testing or use of an AEDM. (See section III.B regarding proposed changes from ARM to AEDM.) Therefore, both single capacity and other than single capacity systems may be rated with models of both coil-only or blower coil indoor units, but if the system is sold with a model of coil-only indoor unit, it must, at a minimum, be tested in that combination.

In the second phase, DOE anticipates that any amended energy conservation standards will be based on blower coil ratings. Therefore, DOE proposes that all single-split-system air conditioner basic models be tested and rated with the model of blower coil indoor unit likely to have the largest volume of retail sales with that model of outdoor unit. Manufacturers would be required to also rate all other blower coil and coil-only combinations within the basic model but would be permitted do so through testing or an AEDM. DOE believes that this proposal will offer the benefits of design for high performance through the use of blower coils as well as providing appropriate representations for coil-only combinations. In addition, given that most basic models are currently submitted as blower coil ratings, this change will align DOE requirements with industry practice. This proposed change would also be accounted for in the parallel energy conservation standards rulemaking, and is contingent upon any proposed amended standards being based on blower coil ratings.

Table III.1 summarizes these proposed changes.

Table III.1—Test Requirements for Single-Split-System Non-Space-Constrained Air Conditioners Rated by OUMs

Date

Equipment type

Must test each:

With:

Before the compliance date for any amended energy conservation standards

Split-System AC with single capacity condensing unit

Model of Outdoor Unit

The model of coil-only indoor unit that is likely to have the largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of outdoor unit.

Split-System AC with other than single capacity condensing unit

Model of Outdoor Unit

The model of coil-only indoor unit that is likely to have the largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of outdoor unit, unless the model of outdoor unit is only sold with model(s) of blower coil indoor units in which case, the model of blower coil indoor unit that is likely to have the largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of outdoor unit.

After the compliance date for any amended energy conservation standards

Split-system AC

Model of Outdoor Unit

The model of blower coil indoor unit that is likely to have the largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of outdoor unit.

In order to facilitate these changes, DOE also proposes definitions of blower coil indoor unit and coil-only indoor unit:

•

Blower coil indoor unit

means the indoor unit of a split-system central air conditioner or heat pump that includes a refrigerant-to-air heat exchanger coil, may include a cooling-mode expansion device, and includes either an indoor blower housed with the coil or a separate designated air mover such as a furnace or a modular blower (as defined in Appendix AA).

•

Blower coil system

refers to a split-system that includes one or more blower coil indoor units.

•

Coil-only indoor unit

means the indoor unit of a split-system central air conditioner or heat pump that includes a refrigerant-to-air heat exchanger coil and may include a cooling-mode expansion device, but does not include an indoor blower housed with the coil, and does not include a separate designated air mover such as a furnace or a modular blower (as defined in Appendix AA). A coil-only indoor unit is designed to use a separately-installed furnace or a modular blower for indoor air movement.

•

Coil-only system

refers to a system that includes one or more coil-only indoor units.

DOE notes that these proposed testing requirements, when combined with the proposed definition for basic model, require that each basic model have at least one rating determined through testing; no basic model can be rated solely using an AEDM.

DOE also proposes that in the certification report, manufacturers state whether each rating is for a coil-only or blower coil combination.

DOE seeks comment on its proposed changes to the determination of certified ratings for single-split-system air conditioners when rated by an OUM, as well as on the proposed definitions for blower coil and coil-only indoor units.

b. Split-System Heat Pumps and Space-Constrained Split Systems

The current requirements for split-system heat pumps in 10 CFR 429.16 require testing a condenser-evaporator coil combination with the evaporator coil likely to have the largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of condensing unit. The coil-only requirement does not apply to split-system heat pumps, because central heat pump indoor units nearly always include both a coil and a fan.

In this notice, DOE proposes to slightly modify the wording explaining this requirement; specifically, the requirement would use the more general terms “indoor unit” and “outdoor unit,” rather than “evaporator coil” and “condensing unit,” since the requirement addresses heat pumps. DOE also proposes to apply this same test requirement to space-constrained split-system air conditioners and heat pumps. The current requirements in 10 CFR

429.16 do not specifically call out space-constrained systems, and as such, the current coil-only requirements for split-system air conditioners apply to space-constrained split-system air conditioners. Therefore, this proposal will change test procedures for space-constrained split-system air conditioners but will not change, other than in nomenclature, the test procedures for space-constrained split-system heat pumps.

c. Multi-Split, Multi-Circuit, and Single-Zone-Multiple-Coil Units

The current requirements in 10 CFR 429.16(a)(2)(ii) specify that multi-split systems and mini-split systems designed to always be installed with more than one indoor unit (now proposed to be called single-zone-multiple-coil units, see section III.F.4) be tested using a “tested combination” as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. For multi-split systems, each model of condensing unit currently must be tested with a non-ducted tested combination and a ducted tested combination. Furthermore, current requirements for testing with a coil-only indoor unit do not apply to mini-splits or multi-splits, as the general use of these terms in the industry refers to specific types of systems with blower coil indoor units.

Id.

The current requirements also state that for other multi-split systems that include the same model of condensing unit but a different set of evaporator coils, whether the evaporator coil(s) are manufactured by the same manufacturer or by a component manufacturer (

i.e.,

ICM), the rating must be: (1) Set equal to the rating for the non-ducted indoor unit system tested (for systems composed entirely of non-ducted units), (2) set equal to the rating for the ducted indoor unit system tested (for systems composed entirely of ducted units), or (3) set equal to the mean of the values for the two systems (for systems having a mix of non-ducted and ducted indoor units). (10 CFR 429.16(a)(2)(ii))

In this notice, DOE proposes a slight modification to the testing requirements for single-zone-multiple-coil and multi-split systems, and adds similar requirements for testing multi-circuit systems (see section III.C.2 for more information about these systems). DOE also clarifies that these requirements apply to VRF systems that are single-phase and less than 65,000 Btu/h (see section III.A.3.c for more details). For all multi-split, multi-circuit, and single-zone-multiple-coil split systems, DOE proposes that at a minimum, each model of outdoor unit must be tested as part of a tested combination (as defined in the CFR) composed entirely of non-ducted indoor units. For any models of outdoor units also sold with short-ducted indoor units, a second “tested combination” composed entirely of short-ducted indoor units would be required to be tested. DOE also proposes the manufacturers may rate a mixed non-ducted/short-ducted combination as the mean of the represented values for the tested non-ducted and short-ducted combinations.

Under the proposed definition of basic model, these three combinations (non-ducted, short-ducted, and mixed) would represent a single basic model. When certifying the basic model, manufacturers should report “* * *” for the indoor unit model number, and report the test sample size as the total of all the units tested for the basic model, not just the units tested for each combination. For example, if the manufacturer tests 2 units of a non-ducted combination and 2 units of a short-ducted combination, and also rates a mix-match combination, the manufacturer should specify “4” as the test sample size for the basic model, while providing the rating for each combination. DOE also proposes that manufacturers be allowed to test and rate specific individual combinations as separate basic models, even if they share the same model of outdoor unit. In this case, the manufacturer must provide the individual model numbers for the indoor units rather than stating “* * *”. Table III.2 provides an example of both situations.

Table III.2—Example Ratings for Multi-Split Systems

Basic model

Individual model

(outdoor unit)

Individual model

(indoor unit)

Sample size

Ducted rating

Non-ducted rating

Mix rating

ABC

* * *

14.5

ABC1

ABC

2-A123; 3-JH746

DOE requests comment on whether additional requirements are necessary for multi-split systems paired with models of conventional ducted indoor units rather than short-duct indoor units.

DOE also notes that the test procedure currently allows testing of only non-ducted or short-ducted systems, and not combinations of the two. Therefore to rate individual mix-match combinations, manufacturers would have to test 4 units—2 ducted and 2 short-ducted. DOE requests comment on whether manufacturers should have the ability to test mix-match systems using the test procedure rather than rating them using an average of the other tested systems. DOE also requests comment on whether manufacturers should be able to rate mix-match systems using other than a straight average, such as a weighting by the number of non-ducted or short-ducted units. Finally, DOE requests comment on whether the definition of “tested combination” is appropriate for rating specific individual combinations, or whether manufacturers should be given more flexibility, such as testing with more than 5 indoor units.

In reviewing the market for multi-split systems, DOE determined that some are sold by OUMs with only models of small-duct, high velocity (SDHV) indoor units, or with a mix of models of short-duct and SDHV units. (See section III.F.2 regarding the proposed definition of short ducted systems.) These kinds of units are not currently explicitly addressed in DOE's test requirements. Therefore, DOE proposes to add a requirement that for any models of outdoor units also sold with models of SDHV indoor units, a “tested combination” composed entirely of SDHV indoor units must be used for testing and rating. However, such a system must be certified as a different basic model.

DOE notes that multi-split systems consisting of a model of outdoor unit paired with models of non-ducted or short-ducted units must meet the energy conservation standards for split-system air conditioners or heat pumps, while systems consisting of a model of outdoor unit paired with models of small-duct, high-velocity indoor units must meet SDHV standards. DOE proposes to add a limitations section in 429.16 that would require models of outdoor units that are rated and distributed in combinations that span multiple product classes to be tested and certified as compliant with the

applicable standard for each product class. Even if a manufacturer sells a combination including models of both SDHV and other non-ducted or short-ducted indoor units, DOE proposes that the manufacturer may not provide a mix-match rating for such combinations. DOE requests comment on whether manufacturers would want to rate such combinations, and if so, how they would prefer to rate them (

i.e.,

by by taking the mean of a sample of tested non-ducted units and a sample of tested SDHV units or by testing a combination on non-ducted and SDHV units), and whether the SDHV or split-system standard would be most appropriate.

DOE understands that manufacturers of multi-split systems commonly only test one sample rather than complying with the sampling plan requirements in 429.16(a)(2)(i), which require a sample of two. DOE may consider moving toward a single unit sample for single-zone multiple-coil and multi-split system models, but in order to do so, DOE requires information on manufacturing and testing variability associated with these systems. In particular, DOE requires data to allow it to understand how a single unit sample may be representative of the population. DOE also requests information on what tolerances would need to be applied to the ratings of these units based on a single unit sample in order to account for the variability.

d. Basic Models Rated by ICMs

The current requirements in 10 CFR 429.16(a) require that each condensing unit of a split system must be tested using the HSVC associated with that condensing unit. There are no current requirements for testing each model of indoor unit of a split system. Non-HSVC combinations can be rated using an ARM, assuming the condensing unit of the combination has a separate HSVC rating based on testing. DOE understands that ICMs typically do not test all of their models of indoor units, but rather use OUM test data for outdoor units to generate ratings for their models. (See section III.B on AEDMs for further information.) In this notice, DOE proposes that ICMs must test and provide certified ratings for each model of indoor unit (

i.e.,

basic model) with the least-efficient model of outdoor unit with which it will be paired, where the least- efficient model of outdoor unit is the outdoor unit in the lowest-SEER combination as certified by the OUM. If more than one model of outdoor unit (with which the ICM wishes to rate the model of indoor unit) has the same lowest-SEER rating, the ICM may select one for testing purposes. This applies to both conventional (

i.e.,

non-short-duct, non-SDHV) split-systems and SDHV systems. ICMs must rate all other individual combinations of the same model of indoor unit, but may determine those ratings through testing or use of an AEDM.

DOE understands that this proposal would increase test burden for ICMs beyond the testing they currently conduct to meet ARM validation requirements. However, DOE believes this burden is outweighed by the benefit of providing more accurate ratings for models of indoor units sold by ICMs. Additional discussion regarding potential test requirements for ICMs can be found in the stakeholder comments regarding AEDMs in section III.B.5.

DOE understands that the proposed definition of basic model for an ICM, including what constitutes the “same” model of indoor unit and thus would be required to be tested, is important for accurately assessing the test burden for manufacturers as a result of this test proposal. DOE seeks comment on the basic model definition in section III.A.1. DOE also seeks comment on the proposed testing requirements for ICMs.

e. Single-Package Systems

In the current regulations, 10 CFR 429.16(a)(2)(i) states that each single-package system a must have a sample of sufficient size tested in accordance with the applicable provisions of Subpart B. In this notice, DOE proposes that the lowest SEER individual model within each basic model must be tested. DOE expects that in most cases, each single-package system will represent its own basic model. However, based on the proposal for the definition of basic model in section III.A.1, this may not always be the case. DOE notes that regardless, AEDMs do not apply to single-package models—manufacturers may either test and rate each individual single-package model, or if multiple individual models are assigned to the same basic model per the proposed requirements in the basic model definition, the manufacturer would be required to test only the lowest SEER individual model within the basic model and use that to determine the rating for the basic model.

DOE requests comment on the likelihood of multiple individual models of single-package units meeting the requirements proposed in the basic model definition to be assigned to the same basic model. DOE also requests comment on whether, if manufacturers are able to assign multiple individual models to a single basic model, manufacturers would want to use an AEDM to rate other individual models within the same basic model other than the lowest SEER individual model. Finally, DOE requests comment on whether manufacturers would want to employ an AEDM to rate the off-mode power consumption for other variations of off-mode associated with the basic model other than the variation tested.

DOE also proposes to specify this same requirement for space-constrained single-package air conditioners and heat pumps, which are currently not explicitly identified in the test requirement section.

f. Replacement Coils

DOE stated in the August 20 Guidance that an individual condensing unit or coil must meet the current Federal standard (National or regional) when paired with the appropriate other new part to make a system when tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure and sampling plan.

In response, AHRI and manufacturers commented that they believed the intent of the guidance was to clarify how the outdoor section of a split system used in a replacement situation can be tested and rated to meet the appropriate efficiency requirements. However, they felt this language should not apply to the indoor coil. AHRI stated that indoor coil is rarely changed and when it is, such as for an irreparable leak, it requires an exact replacement. In addition, they note that warranties can extend up to 10 years. Commenters also expressed the view that the guidance would not result in an improvement to installed product efficiency. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032, AHRI, No. 8 at pp. 2-3; Rheem, No. 2 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 10 at pp. 2-3; Ingersoll Rand, No. 3 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 4 at p. 2; Nordyne, No. 9 at p. 2) AHRI and the manufacturers recommended removing indoor coils from the draft guidance language on replacement. (

Id.;

JCI, No. 5 at p. 6)

Johnson Controls added further detail that using the term coil does not differentiate between service parts (listed with part numbers) and finished component assemblies (listed as a coil model) or between evaporator coils and condenser coils. Johnson Controls added that replacement parts cannot be rated as a finished coil assembly because the replacement parts do not contain sheet metal parts required to complete the installation. They also added that where the physical characteristics of an evaporator coil are significantly different when compared to a new system, replacing the old evaporator coil with a new coil model rather than a replacement part could result in increased cost and reduced

performance, reliability, and comfort. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032, JCI, No. 5 at pp. 4-6)

Mortex also commented that replacement with a different evaporator coil design and size could lead to issues of fitting or size constraint problems and refrigerant metering and charging differences. The end result (if

design air volume rate is hampered and refrigerant circuit performance is modified) could lead to less efficiency than the pre-failure situation. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032, Mortex, No. 6 at p. 1)

DOE also notes that the ASRAC regional standards enforcement Working Group agreed that manufacturers do not need to keep track of components including uncased coils. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-CE-0077-0070, Attachment)

In consideration of the comments and the Working Group proposals, DOE notes that its proposed definition of “indoor unit” refers to the box rather than just a coil. Accordingly, legacy indoor coil replacements and uncased coils would not meet the definition of indoor unit. Furthermore, by defining air conditioners and heat pumps as consisting of a single-package unit, an outdoor unit and one or more indoor units, an indoor unit only, or an outdoor unit only, legacy indoor coil replacements and uncased coils would not meet the definition of a central air conditioner or heat pump. Hence, they would not need to be tested or certified as meeting the standard.

g. Outdoor Units With No Match

For split-system central air conditioners and heat pumps, current DOE regulations require that manufacturers test the condensing unit and “the evaporator coil that is likely to have the largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of condensing unit” (commonly referred to as the highest sales volume combination). 10 CFR 4429.16(a)(2)(ii). Effective January 1, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned the sale and distribution of those central air conditioning systems and heat pump systems that are designed to use HCFC-22 refrigerant. 74 FR 66450 (Dec. 15, 2009). EPA's rulemaking included an exception for the manufacture and importation of replacement components, as long as those components are not pre-charged with HCFC-22.

Id.

at 66459-60.

Because complete HCFC-22 systems can no longer be distributed, manufacturers inquired how to test and rate individual components—because these components are sold separately, there are no highest sales volume combinations. Because the EPA prohibits distribution of new HCFC-22 condensing unit and coil combinations (

i.e.,

complete systems), there is no such thing as a HSVC, and hence, testing and rating of new HCFC-22 combinations cannot be conducted using the existing test procedure.

DOE expects that the HCFC-22 indoor and outdoor units remaining on the market are part of legacy offerings that were initially sold five or more years ago. These components of HCFC-22 systems were in production for sale as part of matched systems before the EPA regulations became effective on January 1, 2010. While EPA's rulemaking bans the sale of HCFC-22 systems that are charged with refrigerant while allowing sale of uncharged components of such systems, EPA's rule has no effect on the efficiency rating of these systems or on requirements for DOE efficiency standards that they must meet. The DOE test procedure used prior to January 15, 2010 that would have been used to rate these systems is no longer valid, thus these ratings can no longer be used as the basis for representing their efficiency. The individual indoor coils and outdoor units of such systems that could potentially meet the current standard may continue to be manufactured only if the manufacturer uses a valid test procedure to ensure compliance (

i.e.,

to certify compliance) and for representations.

Generally, when a model cannot be tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure, manufacturers must submit a petition for a test procedure waiver for DOE to assign an alternative test method. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1) Instead, DOE proposes in this notice a test procedure that may be used for rating and certifying the compliance of these outdoor units. DOE proposes in this notice to specify coil characteristics that should be used when testing models of outdoor units that do not have a HSVC. Specifically, these requirements include limitations on coil tube geometries and dimensions and coil fin surface area. These outdoor unit models, when tested with the specified indoor units, must meet applicable Federal standards. (See section III.A.4 for more information on compliance.) This proposal is consistent with the regional standards enforcement Working Group recommendation that a person cannot install a replacement outdoor unit unless it is certified as part of a combination that meets the applicable standard. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-CE-0077-0070, Attachment) The new test procedure would be effective (

i.e.,

allowed for use for such certifications) 30 days after it is finalized and would be required for use for such systems (

i.e.,

rather than any granted waiver test procedure) beginning 180 days after it is finalized.

In response to the August 20, 2014 draft guidance document, Carrier requested clarification that the finalized guidance would replace DOE's draft guidance document issued on January 1, 2012, regarding central air conditioning systems and air conditioning heat pump systems that are designed to use dry R-22 condensing units. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032, Carrier, No. 7 at p. 2) If finalized, this proposed test procedure would replace both the 2012 guidance document for dry R-22 units as well as the 2014 draft guidance document on unit selection regarding condensing units for replacement applications.

4. Compliance With Federal (National or Regional) Standards

In the August 20, 2014 draft guidance document (EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032), DOE discussed whether each basic model of split-system air conditioner or heat pump has to meet the applicable standard. DOE stated that compliance with standards is based on the statistical concept that an entire population of units (where “unit” refers to a complete system) of a basic model must meet the standard, recognizing that efficiency measurements for some units may be better or worse than the standard due to manufacturing or testing variation. Manufacturers apply the statistical formulae in 10 CFR 429.16 to demonstrate compliance, and DOE applies the statistical formulae in 10 CFR part 429, subpart C, Appendix A to determine compliance.

Further, DOE stated that the only condensing units and coils that may be installed in the region are those that can meet the regional standard when tested and rated as a new system in accordance with the test procedure and sampling plan as described above.

In response, AHRI and several manufacturers recommended the following additions to DOE's statements regarding compliance:

“Compliance with

national or regional standards

is based on the statistical concept that an entire population of units (where “unit” refers to a complete system) of a basic model

including Highest Sales Volume Tested Combination and all other combinations

must meet the standard, recognizing that some individual units may perform slightly better or worse than the design due to manufacturing or testing variation.”

(Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032, AHRI, No. 8 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 2 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 10 at p. 2; Ingersoll Rand, No. 3 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 4 at p. 2; Nordyne, No.

9 at pp. 1-2; JCI, No. 5 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 7 at p. 6)

In addition, Carrier commented that with respect to the discussion about selection of units for testing, the HSVC should be determined for the applicable region. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032, Carrier, No. 7 at p. 4)

AHRI and several manufacturers recommended the following addition to the paragraph on condensing units sold as replacements:

“In summary, DOE interprets for the regional standard to require that the least efficient rating combination for a specified model of condensing unit must be 14 SEER with a coil only rating where 14 SEER is the regional standard. Any model that has a certified combination below the regional standard cannot be installed in the region. This interpretation of the regional standard also applies to units shipped without refrigerant charge.”

(Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032, AHRI, No. 8 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 2 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 10 at p. 3; Ingersoll Rand, No. 3 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 4 at p. 3; Nordyne, No. 9 at pp. 2-3; JCI, No. 5 at p. 6)

Carrier provided slightly different recommended language:

“Given the different Federal standards, National and regional, the least efficient rating combination for a specified model of condensing unit must: (i) in the regions where the regional standard applies, be rated and certified on as performing at or above the current regional standard with a coil only rating; and (ii) where the National standard applies, be rated and certified as performing at or above the current National standard with a coil only rating. For purposes of clarity, any basic model that has a certified combination below the current regional standard cannot be installed in the region. This interpretation also applies to dry condensing units.” (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0032, Carrier, No. 7 at pp. 1-2)

In contrast, Carrier also suggested that the guidance document discussion of unit selection and basic models should replace references to “Federal standard” with “Federal (national or regional) standard”. (Carrier, No. 7 at pp. 4-5)

The regional standards enforcement Working Group suggested the regional standards required clarification because a particular condensing unit may have a range of efficiency ratings when paired with various indoor evaporator coils and/or blowers. The Working Group provided the following four recommendations to clarify the regional standards: That (1) the least-efficient rated combination for a specified model of condensing unit must be 14 SEER for models installed in the Southeast and Southwest regions; (2) the least-efficient rated combination for a specified model of condensing unit must meet the minimum EER for models installed in the Southwest region; (3) any condensing unit model that has a certified combination that is below the regional standard(s) cannot be installed in that region; and (4) a condensing unit model certified below a regional standard by the original equipment manufacturer cannot be installed in a region subject to a regional standard(s) even with an independent coil manufacturer's indoor coil or air handler combination that may have a certified rating meeting the applicable regional standard(s). (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-CE-0077-0070, Attachment)

After reviewing stakeholder comments and the Working Group report, DOE agrees that all individual models or combinations within a basic model must meet the applicable national or regional standard. DOE proposes to add requirements to the relevant provisions of section 430.32 that the least-efficient combination of each basic model must comply with the regional SEER and EER standards.

In addition, as noted in section III.A.1, DOE proposes that if any individual combination within a basic model fails to meet the standard, the entire basic model (

i.e.,

model of outdoor unit) must be removed from the market. In order to clarify the limitations on sales of models of outdoor units across regions with different standards, DOE proposes to add a limitation in section 429.16 that any model of outdoor unit that is certified in a combination that does not meet all regional standards cannot also be certified in a combination that meets the regional standard(s). Outdoor unit model numbers cannot span regions unless the model of outdoor unit is compliant with all standards in all possible combinations. If a model of outdoor unit is certified below a regional standard, then it must have a unique individual model number for distribution in each region. For example:

Basic model

Individual model # (outdoor unit)

Individual model # (indoor unit)

Certified rating (SEER/EER)

Permitted?

AB12

ABC**#**-***

SO123

14.5/12.0

NO.

AB12

ABC**#**-***

SW123

15.0/12.8

AB12

ABC**#**-***

N123

13.9/11.7

CD13

CDESO**-*#*

SO123

14.5/12.0

YES.

CD13

CDESW**-*#*

SW123

15.0/12.8

CD13

CDEN***-*#*

N123

13.9/11.7

EF12

EFCS**#**-***

SO123

14.5/12.2

YES.

EF12

EFCS**#**-***

SW123

14.6/12.4

EF12

EFCN**#**-***

N123

13.9/11.7

5. Certification Reports

To maximize test repeatability and reproducibility for assessment and enforcement testing, DOE proposes to amend the certification reporting requirements.

DOE proposes to clarify what basic model number and individual model numbers must be reported for central air conditioners and heat pumps:

Equipment type

Basic model number

Individual model number(s)

Single Package

Number unique to the basic model

Package

N/A

N/A.

Split System (rated by OUM)

Number unique to the basic model

Outdoor Unit

Indoor Unit(s)

Air Mover (or N/A if rating coil-only system or fan is part of indoor unit model number).

Outdoor Unit Only

Number unique to the basic model

Outdoor Unit

N/A

N/A.

Split-System or SDHV (rated by ICM)

Number unique to the basic model

Outdoor Unit

Indoor Unit(s)

N/A.

Each basic model number must be unique in some way so that all individual models or combinations within the same basic model can be identified.

DOE also proposes to require product-specific information at 10 CFR 429.16(c)(4) that is not public and will not be displayed in DOE's database. Several proposed requirements are addressed in the remainder of this notice in response to comments on specific issues or in relation to test procedure changes. In addition, several other requirements are discussed in this section.

In order for DOE to replicate the test setup for its assessment tests, DOE proposes that manufacturers that wish to certify multi-split, multiple-circuit, and single-zone-multiple-coil systems report the number of indoor units tested with the outdoor unit, the nominal cooling capacity of each indoor unit and outdoor unit, and the indoor units that are not providing heating or cooling for part-load tests. Manufacturers that wish to certify systems that operate with multiple indoor fans within a single indoor unit shall report the number of indoor fans; the nominal cooling capacity of the indoor unit and outdoor unit; which fan(s) are operating to attain the full-load air volume rate when controls limit the simultaneous operation of all fans within the single indoor unit; and the allocation of the full-load air volume rate to each operational fan when different capacity blowers are connected to the common duct.

Similarly, DOE proposes that for those models of indoor units designed for both horizontal and vertical installation or for both up-flow and down-flow vertical installations, the orientation used during certification testing shall be included on the certification test reports.

DOE also proposes that the maximum time between defrosts as allowed by the controls be included on the certification test reports. For units with time-adaptive defrost control, the frosting interval used during the Frost Accumulation tests and the associated procedure for manually initiating defrost at the specified time, if applicable, should also be included on the certification test reports.

DOE also proposes that for variable-speed units, the compressor frequency set points and the required dip switch/control settings for step or variable components should be included. For variable-speed heat pumps, DOE proposes that manufacturers report whether the unit controls restrict use of minimum compressor speed operation for some range of operating ambient conditions, whether the unit controls restrict use of maximum compressor speed operation for any ambient temperatures below 17 °F, and whether the optional H4

low temperature test was used to characterize performance at temperatures below 17 °F.

Finally, DOE proposes that manufactures report air volume rates and airflow-control settings.

DOE recognizes that additional reporting requirements in certification test reports increases reporting burden because manufacturers must spend additional time to add such content to the report. However, DOE believes that a knowledgeable person in the field would not find the additional information difficult to provide and could do so in a reasonable amount of time. Thus, DOE does not believe that the added reporting requirements are significantly burdensome to warrant excluding them. DOE requests comment on this issue.

6. Represented Values

DOE proposes to make several additions to the represented value requirements in 10 CFR 429.16. First, DOE proposes to add a requirement that the represented value of cooling capacity, heating capacity, and sensible heat ratio (SHR) shall be the mean of the values measured for the sample. Second, DOE proposes to move the provisions currently in 10 CFR 430.23 regarding calculations of various measures of energy efficiency and consumption for central air conditioners to 10 CFR 429.16. Specifically, while Part 430 would refer to the test procedure appendix and section therein to use for each metric and the rounding requirements for test results of individual units, Part 429 would refer to how to calculate annual operating cost for the sample based on represented values of cooling capacity and SEER, and how to round the represented values based on the sample for other measures of energy efficiency and consumption. DOE proposes minor changes to the calculations of annual operating cost to address changes proposed in Appendix M and M1. Table III.3 shows the proposed rounding requirements for each section. DOE requests comment on these values.

Table III.3—Rounding Proposals

Measure

10 CFR 430.23

(one unit)

10 CFR 429.16

(sample)

Cooling capacity/heating capacity:

<20,000 Btu/h

nearest 50 Btu/h

nearest 100 Btu/h.

≥20,000 Btu/h and <38,000 Btu/h

nearest 100 Btu/h

nearest 200 Btu/h.

≥38,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h

nearest 250 Btu/h

nearest 500 Btu/h

Annual operating cost

N/A

nearest dollar per year.

EER/SEER/HSPF/APF

nearest 0.025

nearest 0.05.

Off-mode power consumption

nearest 0.5 watt

nearest watt.

Sensible heat ratio

nearest 0.5%

nearest percent (%).

7. Product-Specific Enforcement Provisions

DOE proposes to verify during assessment or enforcement testing the cooling capacity certified for each basic model or individual combination. DOE proposes to measure the cooling capacity of each tested unit pursuant to the test requirements of 10 CFR part 430. The results of the measurement(s) will be compared to the value of cooling capacity certified by the manufacturer. If the measurement is within five percent of the certified cooling capacity, DOE will use the certified cooling capacity as the basis for determining SEER. Otherwise, DOE will use the measured cooling capacity as the basis for determining SEER.

DOE also proposes to require manufacturers to report the cyclic degradation coefficient (C

) value used to determine efficiency ratings. In this proposal, DOE would run C

testing as part of any assessment or verification testing, except when testing an outdoor unit with no match. If the measurement is 0.02 or more greater than the certified value, DOE would use the measurement as the basis for calculation of SEER or HSPF. Otherwise, DOE would use the certified value. For models of outdoor units with no match, DOE would always use the default value.

B. Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods

1. General Background

For certain consumer products and commercial equipment, DOE's existing regulations allow the use of an alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) or alternative rating method (ARM), in lieu of actual testing, to estimate the ratings of energy consumption or efficiency of basic models by simulating their energy consumption or efficiency at the test conditions required by the applicable DOE test procedure. The simulation method permitted by DOE for use in rating split-system central air conditioners and heat pumps, in accordance with 10 CFR 429.70(e), is referred to as an ARM. In contrast to an AEDM, an ARM must be approved by DOE prior to its use.

The simulation methods represented by AEDMs or ARMs are computer modeling or mathematical tools that predict the performance of non-tested individual or basic models. They are derived from mathematical models and engineering principles that govern the energy efficiency and energy consumption of a particular basic model of covered product based on its design characteristics. (In the context of this discussion, the term “covered product” applies both to consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment that are covered under EPCA.) These computer modeling and mathematical tools can provide a relatively straightforward means to predict the energy usage or efficiency characteristics of an individual or basic model of a given covered product and reduce the burden and cost associated with testing certain covered products that are inherently difficult or expensive to test. When properly developed, they can predict the performance of a product accurately enough to be statistically representative under DOE's sampling requirements.

On April 18, 2011, DOE published a Request for Information (AEDM RFI) in the

Federal Register

. 76 FR 21673. Through the AEDM RFI, DOE requested suggestions, comments, and information relating to the Department's intent to expand and revise its existing AEDM and ARM requirements for consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment covered under EPCA. In response to comments it received on the AEDM RFI, DOE published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (AEDM NOPR) in the

Federal Register

on May 31, 2012. 77 FR 32038. DOE also held a public meeting on June 5, 2012, to present proposals in the AEDM NOPR and to receive comments from stakeholders. In the AEDM NOPR, DOE proposed the elimination of ARMs, and the expansion of AEDM applicability to those products for which DOE allowed the use of an ARM (

i.e.,

split-system central air conditioners and heat pumps). 77 FR at 32055. Furthermore, DOE proposed a number of requirements that manufacturers must meet in order to use an AEDM as well as a method that DOE would employ to determine if an AEDM was used appropriately along with specific consequences for misuse of an AEDM. 77 FR at 32055-56.

The purpose of the AEDM rulemaking was to establish a uniform, systematic, and fair approach to the use of modeling techniques that would enable DOE to ensure that products in the marketplace are correctly rated—irrespective of whether they are rated based on physical testing or modeling—without unnecessarily burdening regulated entities. DOE solicited suggestions, comments, and information related to its proposal and accepted written comments on the AEDM NOPR through July 2, 2012. DOE subsequently formed a working group through the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) (see the Notice of Intent To Form the Commercial HVAC, WH, and Refrigeration Certification Working Group and Solicit Nominations To Negotiate Commercial Certification Requirements for Commercial HVAC, WH, and Refrigeration Equipment, published on March, 12, 2013, 78 FR 15653), which addressed revisions to the AEDM requirements for commercial and industrial equipment covered by EPCA and resulted in the subsequent publishing of a SNOPR on October 22, 2013 (78 FR 62472) and a final rule on December 31, 2013 (78 FR 79579). In the final rule, DOE made, among others changes, revisions to pre-approval requirements, validation requirements, and DOE verification testing requirements for the AEDM process for commercial HVAC equipment.

In this notice, DOE proposes modifications to the central air conditioners and heat pump AEDM requirements proposed in the AEDM NOPR with consideration of the comments received on the AEDM NOPR specific to these products, as well as the requirements implemented for commercial HVAC equipment in the December 2013 AEDM final rule.

2. Terminology

In the AEDM NOPR, DOE proposed to eliminate the term “alternate rating method” (ARM) and instead use the term “alternative efficiency determination method” (AEDM) to refer to any modeling technique used to rate and certify covered products. 77 FR 32038, 32040 (May 31, 2012). DOE proposed to refer to any technique used to model product performance as an AEDM, but recognized that there are product-specific considerations that should be accounted for in the development of an AEDM and thus, in the proposed methodology for validating product-specific AEDMs.

Id.

DOE received a number of comments in response to its proposal to solely apply the term AEDM to any modeling technique used to rate and certify covered products. Bradford White Corporation (Bradford White), United Technologies Climate, Controls & Security and ITS Carrier (UTC/Carrier), and Nordyne, LLC (Nordyne) agreed with DOE that one term should be used. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024, Bradford White, No. 38 at p. 1; UTC/Carrier, No. 56 at p. 1; Nordyne, No. 55 at p. 1)

AAON, Inc. (AAON) supported

DOE's proposal to combine requirements for ARMs and AEDMs, but did not differentiate between the terminology and the methodological changes proposed. (AAON, No. 40 at p. 2) DOE also received a number of comments, both written and at the public meeting, regarding the differences in ARM and AEDM methodology. Those comments are discussed in section III.B.3 of this document. In addition, DOE received numerous comments regarding the validation of AEDMs for different product types, which are discussed in section III.B.4 of this document.

Unless otherwise specified, further references in this section (section III.B) to comments received by DOE are to those associated with the AEDM rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024). References to the public meeting are to the June 5, 2012 public meeting on the AEDM NOPR, the transcript of which is in the AEDM rulemaking docket.

In response to comments received, DOE is continuing to propose the use of one term, AEDM, to refer to all modeling techniques used to develop certified ratings of covered products. DOE believes that since the two methods are conceptually similar, the use of one term is appropriate. DOE would like to clarify that the use of one term to refer to all modeling techniques used to develop certified ratings of covered products and equipment does not indicate a uniform process or requirements for their use across all covered products, nor does it imply that DOE will not include any of the current ARM provisions as part of the proposed AEDM provisions. Further, similar to the differences between AEDMs for distribution transformers and commercial HVAC products, DOE proposes validation requirements that will account for the differences between HVAC products and other covered equipment.

3. Elimination of the Pre-Approval Requirement

Under current regulations, ARMs used by manufacturers of split-system central air conditioners and central heat pumps must be approved by the Department before use. (10 CFR 429.70(e)(2)) Manufacturers who elect to use an ARM to rate untested basic models pursuant to 10 CFR 429.16(a)(2)(ii)(B)(1) must, among other requirements, submit to the Department full documentation of the rating method including a description of the methodology, complete test data on four mixed systems per each ARM, and product information on each indoor and outdoor unit of those systems. Furthermore, manufacturers are not permitted to use the ARM as a rating tool prior to receiving Departmental approval.

In the AEDM RFI, DOE requested comment on the necessity of a pre-approval requirement for AEDMs and/or ARMs. 76 FR 21673, 21674 (April 18, 2011). Based on the comments received in response to the AEDM RFI, DOE perceived no benefit in the additional burden imposed by a pre-approval requirement and that a pre-approval process could cause time-to-market delays. Pursuant to those comments, DOE proposed in the AEDM NOPR to eliminate the pre-approval process currently in place for central air conditioner and heat pump ARMs. 77 FR 32038, 32040-41 (May 31, 2012). DOE believed that this would reduce the burden currently placed on manufacturers by eliminating the time-to-market delays caused by completing the necessary request for approval before bringing products to market. Furthermore, DOE believed that elimination of the pre-approval requirement would promote innovation because an ARM would not need to be approved or re-approved to account for any changes in technology.

Id.

In the AEDM NOPR, DOE sought comment regarding its proposal to eliminate the pre-approval requirement for ARMs for central air conditioners and heat pumps and received mixed responses. Modine Manufacturing Corporation (Modine) supported DOE's proposal to eliminate the pre-approval requirement. (Modine, No. 42 at p. 1) Lennox International, Inc. (Lennox) and Unico, Inc. (Unico), however, suggested that removal of the pre-approval requirement could lead to incorrect ratings and unfair competition in the marketplace, which could negatively impact consumers. (Lennox, No. 46 at p. 2; Unico, No. 54 at p. 2) Furthermore, Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) commented that it was particularly important that manufacturers continue to be allowed to use pre-approved ARMs because the new AEDM provisions, by eliminating pre-approval, introduce regulatory risk that is not present under current ARM requirements. (JCI, No. 66 at pp. 2)

Other interested parties specifically recommended that participation in a voluntary industry certification program (VICP),

or review of an AEDM or ARM by a qualified engineer, could reduce or eliminate the need for pre-approval. AHRI, Rheem Manufacturing Company (Rheem), Goodman Global, Inc. (Goodman), and Unico suggested that DOE should consider pre-approval for manufacturers not participating in a VICP, and that at a minimum, review by a professional engineer should be required. (AHRI, No. 61 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 59 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 53 at p. 1; Unico, No. 54 at p. 5) Likewise, Lennox agreed that if DOE does not maintain pre-approval in general, it could still require pre-approval for those who do not participate in a VICP . (Lennox, No. 46 at pp. 2 and 4) Lennox and Rheem commented that a pre-approval requirement for manufacturers who do not participate in a VICP could protect consumers from unsubstantiated ratings. (Rheem, No. 59 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 46 at p. 2)

A Voluntary Industry Certification Program, or VICP, is an independent, third-party program that conducts ongoing verification testing of members' products.

DOE does not agree with JCI's suggestion that the elimination of pre-approval could create additional burden for manufacturers in cases where they fail to meet certified ratings and are subsequently required to re-substantiate their AEDM. DOE also does not agree with Rheem Lennox, and Unico who claim that the elimination of pre-approval will lead to incorrect ratings in the marketplace or create unfair competition. Pre-approval of an ARM that is used to certify a basic model rating does not mean that the basic model is correctly rated. Products that are certified using an approved ARM are subject to the same assessment testing and enforcement actions as those products certified through testing and/or use of an AEDM. Further, DOE currently has the authority to review approved ARMs at any time, including review of documentation of tests used to support the ARM. DOE may also test products that were certified using an ARM to determine compliance with the applicable sampling provisions, as well as with federal standards. Should DOE determine that products were incorrectly rated, DOE may require that the ARM is no longer used. Similarly, AEDMs used to certify ratings are subject to review at any time, as well as the potential for suspension should DOE determine that products were incorrectly rated. Additionally, as discussed in section III.A.3.a, each basic model must have at least one rating determined through testing; no basic model can be rated solely using an AEDM, which reduces the likelihood of significant error. Finally, use of a pre-approved ARM does not insulate a manufacturer from responsibility for the accuracy of their ratings, and the misconception that it does presents another reason to eliminate DOE review. Most manufacturers have not updated their ARMs and submitted the revised ARM for DOE review as required by regulation since prior to the last standards update and, thus, are effectively using unapproved or outdated ARMs currently. For these reasons, it is DOE's view that the elimination of the pre-approval process would not have a substantive

detrimental effect on the accuracy of a manufacturer's ratings, will improve manufacturers' ability to introduce new products into the marketplace, and will not represent a significant change from the status quo.

For the forgoing reasons, in this SNOPR, DOE proposes to eliminate the pre-approval process for ARMs for split-system central air conditioners and heat pumps. As stated in the AEDM NOPR, DOE believes that this will reduce time-to-market delays, facilitate innovation, and eliminate the time required to complete the approval process. Furthermore, DOE emphasizes that the Department's treatment of products that are currently rated and certified with the use of an ARM does not differ from its treatment of products currently rated and certified using an AEDM, except for the pre-approval requirement. (See for example 10 CFR 429.70(c).)

In addition, DOE proposes that manufacturers may only apply an AEDM if it (1) is derived from a mathematical model that estimates performance as measured by the applicable DOE test procedure; and (2) has been validated with individual combinations that meet current Federal energy conservation standards (as discussed in the next section). Furthermore, DOE proposes records retention requirements and additional manufacturer requirements to permit DOE to audit AEDMs through simulations, review of data and analyses, and/or certification testing.

4. AEDM Validation

In the AEDM NOPR, DOE proposed product-specific AEDM validation requirements meant to reduce confusion and allow for easier development and utilization of AEDMs by manufacturers. 77 FR 32044-32045. The proposed validation requirements applicable to central air conditioner and heat pump products would have required manufacturers to:

a. Test a minimum of five basic models, including at least one basic model from each product class to which the AEDM would be applied.

b. Test the smallest and largest capacity basic models from the product class with the highest sales volume.

c. Test the basic model with the highest sales volume from the previous year, or the basic model which is expected to have the highest sales volume for newly introduced basic models.

d. Validate only with test data that meets applicable Federal energy conservation standards and was derived using applicable DOE testing procedures.

In response to these proposed validation requirements, DOE received a number of comments from stakeholders addressing specific products covered by the AEDM rule. Comments applicable to the proposed requirements for central air conditioner and heat pump products are discussed in the following sections.

a. Number of Basic Models From a Product Class Necessary To Validate an AEDM

Commenter responses with regard to the minimum sample size of one unit each of five different basic models were mixed, with some commenters agreeing with DOE's proposal and some offering alternative sample sizes. Both AAON and Goodman agreed with DOE's proposal that a minimum of one unit each of five basic models be tested to validate the AEDM. (AAON, No. 40 at p. 6; Goodman, No. 53 at p. 2) AHRI, however, commented that it was not realistic for a manufacturer who produces two basic models, for example, to be required to validate an AEDM based on a minimum sample of five units of the same two basic models. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 154) Furthermore, AHRI stated that it is disproportionately burdensome to require testing of at least five basic models for small manufacturers who manufacture or wish to use an AEDM for only a few basic models compared to manufacturers who offer many basic models and many product classes. AHRI recommended that DOE require testing of only 3 basic models if the AEDM is to be applied to 15 or fewer basic models. (AHRI No. 61 at p. 3) United Cool Air agreed with AHRI's concerns and stated that to obtain data that are statistically robust enough to meet the validation requirements, testing of at least two to five units of many basic models would be necessary, which may be too burdensome for built-to-order and small manufacturers. This would be particularly burdensome in cases where models used for testing cannot be sold. (United Cool Air, No. 51 at pp. 7, 10, and 11) Acknowledging the amount of work and complex testing required for validation of an AEDM, Zero Zone, Inc. (Zero Zone) noted that it would be difficult for small manufacturers to comply. Zero Zone recommended that small manufacturers could be exempt or have a different sample size requirement. (Zero Zone, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 65)

Other stakeholders commented on the validation requirements for specific products. JCI stated that testing of five units is unnecessarily burdensome and suggested that testing a minimum of three units would be sufficient to validate HVAC AEDMs. (JCI, No. 66 at p. 6) First Co. stated that DOE's proposed requirements would unreasonably burden small manufacturers, especially independent coil manufacturers because they would not have knowledge of which condensing unit model is expected to have the highest sales volume in the coming year. First Co. stated that this proposed requirement is unnecessary and should be eliminated given that the proposed validation requirements already include testing of the smallest and largest capacity basic model from the product class with the highest sales volume, and that the current minimum number of tests required for obtaining ARM approval is four. (First Co., No. 45 at p. 2) JCI agreed with First Co., stating that the proposal would create an overrepresentation of the highest sales volume product class because the highest sales volume basic model is most likely from that product class, and along with the requirement to test the smallest and largest capacity basic model from that product class, would require testing of three basic models from the highest sales volume product class. (JCI, No. 66 at p. 7) Goodman, on the other hand, stated that an additional test beyond the currently required four tests would not cause significant burden. (Goodman, No. 53 at p. 2)

DOE notes that in its proposed revisions to the determination of certified ratings for central air conditioners and heat pumps (discussed in section III.A.3), manufacturers must test each basic model; specifically for split-system air conditioners and heat pumps, OUMs must test each model of outdoor unit with at least one model of indoor unit (highest sales volume), and ICMs must test each model of indoor unit with at least one model of outdoor unit (lowest SEER). Manufacturers would only be able to use AEDMs for other individual combinations within the same basic model—in other words, other combinations of models of indoor units with the same model of outdoor unit. DOE does not seek to require additional testing to validate an AEDM beyond what is proposed under 10 CFR 429.16(a)(1)(ii). Therefore, the testing burden required to validate an AEDM would depend on the number of basic models each manufacturer must rate. Furthermore, because ICMs must test each model of indoor unit with the lowest-SEER model of outdoor unit with which it is paired, First Co.'s concerns related to predicting the highest sales volume model would no longer be relevant. DOE requests comment on its proposal related to the testing

requirements for validation of an AEDM.

Regarding the proposed requirement to test a basic model from each applicable product class for HVAC products, Goodman believes that the current definition of “product class” does not address the specific issues raised by split-system central air conditioners and heat pumps, which consist of separate indoor and outdoor coils that only function as intended when paired with one another to form a unitary split-system central air conditioner or heat pump. Hence, Goodman suggested that DOE consider the following product types to constitute individual validation classes: Split-system air conditioners, split-system heat pumps, single-package air conditioners, and single-package heat pumps. (Goodman, No. 53 at p. 4) UTC/Carrier proposed separate validation classes for the categories mentioned by Goodman, but also proposed that central air conditioners and heat pumps should include distinct validation classes for space-constrained air conditioners and space-constrained heat pumps. (UTC/Carrier, No. 56 at p. 2) United Cool Air stated that DOE did not properly address classification of space-constrained HVAC systems. (United Cool Air, No. 51 at p. 4, 13) United Cool Air's comments align with comments from Carrier that DOE should create a separate product class for space-constrained equipment.

In response, DOE notes that the proposed testing requirements in 429.16 require testing at least one individual model/combination within each basic model. Therefore, by default manufacturers would be testing all basic models from each product class in which they manufacture units.

b. Selection of Capacity Variations of a Basic Model for Validating an AEDM

Regarding selection of basic models for validating an AEDM, both Nordyne and Goodman agreed with DOE's proposal that the basic models selected for validating an AEDM must include the smallest capacity basic model as well as the largest capacity basic model (or a basic model within 25 percent of the largest capacity). (Nordyne, No. 55 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 53 at p. 2) Rheem, however, disagreed and stated that the requirement to test the smallest and largest capacity basic model was too restrictive and does not account for outliers or differences in technology across product classes. (Rheem, No. 59 at p. 4) Furthermore, Lennox noted that the manufacturer is most suited to determine which models should be used for validation and that requirements for particular capacities do not account for variation in product design and construction. (Lennox, No. 46 at p. 4)

DOE's intention when proposing to require that a manufacturer test both the smallest and largest capacity basic models within the product class with the highest sales volume was to ensure that the AEDM could accurately predict the efficiency of those products at the extremes of a manufacturer's product line. As variations in product design and construction across all capacities should be accounted for when testing all basic models, DOE withdraws the proposal regarding selecting the smallest and largest capacity basic models from the product class with the highest sales volume for testing for validation of the AEDM. DOE notes that in the proposed revisions to the determination of certified ratings, each basic model must be tested and an AEDM can only be used to certify other individual combinations that are part of the same basic model.

c. Use of the Highest Sales Volume Basic Model for Validating an AEDM

Many interested parties recommended that DOE continue to require that split-system manufacturers test each condensing unit they manufacture with the evaporator coil that is likely to have the largest volume of retail sales (

i.e.,

the highest sales volume combination, or HSVC) because the data resulting from these test combinations are critical to independent coil manufacturers (ICMs) in determining accurate ratings for their products since they must determine their ratings based on pairings with condensing units offered by other manufacturers. AHRI stated that DOE should retain requirements for testing based on the HSVC for central air conditioners and heat pumps. (AHRI, No. 61 at p. 2) UTC/Carrier agreed that DOE should allow split-systems to retain the HSVC process, as is required by current ARM regulations. (UTC/Carrier, No. 56 at p. 1) Lennox disagreed with removing the requirement for testing based on HSVC because the current AHRI certification program and independent coil manufacturing industry depend on this requirement, and the data from HSVC test results are used by independent coil manufacturers (ICMs) as the input to their ARM. (Lennox, No. 46 at p. 4)

Unico stated that DOE should maintain the current ARM requirements for central air conditioners and heat pumps because as an indoor coil manufacturer, Unico relies on the accuracy of the ratings published by the manufacturer of the outdoor unit and decreasing the accuracy of those ratings would increase their own risk of failure. Unico stressed that it was particularly important for DOE to allow manufacturers' rating methodology to rely on curve fit data, and specifically proposed that for validating an AEDM, matched system manufacturers should test at least the highest sales volume combination for each outdoor unit. (Unico, No. 54 at pp. 2, 4, and 6) Mortex Products, Inc. (Mortex) stated that in order for ICMs to rate indoor coils accurately using the ARM, the system manufacturer's HSVC data is necessary, and if HSVC data were no longer obtained from tests, but generated using an AEDM, the accuracy of the indoor coil ratings would be affected. (Mortex, No. 58 at p. 1)

DOE recognizes the concerns of stakeholders who commented that eliminating the requirement to test the HSVC for split-system products could increase the burden on ICMs. DOE does not intend to eliminate that requirement and notes that such requirement is proposed to be retained in this notice, as discussed in section III.A.3.a. However, DOE also proposes additional requirements for ICMs that are discussed in section III.B.5. DOE also notes that the ARM provisions in the current regulations do not clearly apply to ICMs, and most ICMs do not have DOE-approved ARMs.

DOE's proposal in the AEDM NOPR required re-validation when the HSVC changes. In response, Goodman stated that for split-system CACs and HPs, testing the highest or expected highest sales volume combination basic model would be appropriate as long as DOE does not require re-validation of the AEDM if another basic model subsequently becomes the highest sales volume combination. Determination of the highest volume basic model should be based on sales data of the prior year, or sales data or forecasts of the year of the AEDM's validation. (Goodman, No. 53 at p. 3) United Cool Air was also concerned that additional testing would be required if the highest selling basic model changed. (United Cool Air, No. 51 at p. 9)

In response to the concerns of Goodman and United Cool Air regarding re-validation if the HSVC changed, DOE agrees that re-validation should not be required if test data used to validate the AEDM was based on an expected HSVC that subsequently becomes a lower sales volume model and is not proposing such a requirement in this notice. DOE agrees with Goodman that determination of the highest volume basic model should be based on sales data of the prior year, sales data or forecasts of the year of the AEDM's

validation, or other similar information. Selection of the highest volume basic model should reflect a good faith effort by the manufacturer to predict the combination most likely to result in the highest volume of sales. DOE notes that it may verify compliance with this HSVC testing requirement.

d. Requirements for Test Data Used for Validation

In AEDM NOPR, DOE did not propose requirements on the test data used for validation of an AEDM because any non-testing approaches to certifying central air conditioners and heat pumps via an ARM were to be approved by DOE prior to use. 77 FR 32043. However, if DOE adopts the current proposal to remove the pre-approval requirement, certified ratings generated using an AEDM would be unreliable without other requirements to validate the AEDM against actual test data. Therefore, DOE proposes in this notice to adopt requirements on test data similar to those used for validation for commercial HVAC and water heating equipment, as published in the AEDM final rule 78 FR 79579, 79584 (Dec. 31, 2013). Specifically, (1) for energy-efficiency metrics, the predicted efficiency using the AEDM may not be more than 3 percent greater than that determined through testing; (2) for energy consumption metrics, the predicted efficiency using the AEDM may not be more than 3 percent less than that determined through testing; and (3) the predicted efficiency or consumption for each individual combination calculated using the AEDM must comply with the applicable Federal energy conservation standard. Furthermore, the test results used to validate the AEDM must meet or exceed the applicable Federal standards, and the test must have been performed in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure. If DOE has ordered the use of an alternative test method for a particular basic model through the issuance of a waiver, that is the applicable test procedure.

DOE proposes a validation tolerance of 3 percent because the variability in a manufacturer's lab and within a basic model should be more limited than lab-to-lab variability. DOE proposes tolerances for verification testing of 5 percent to account for added lab-to-lab variability.

5. Requirements for Independent Coil Manufacturers

In the AEDM NOPR, DOE did not propose a statistical sampling requirement for independent coil manufacturers (ICMs) that would be distinct from the sampling required to validate an AEDM for HVAC products. 77 FR at 32043. In response, Unico commented that ICMs should test coils of each fin-pattern, varying the number of rows, fin density, tube type, circuiting, and frontal area. (Unico, No. 54 at p. 4) Mortex stated that their ARMs are based on data from a “matched system” tested by an OUM. Mortex uses an ARM to simulate the performance of their own coil in a matched system by substituting the geometry of the indoor evaporator coil used by the manufacturer of the condensing unit with the geometry of their own coil. (Mortex, No. 58 at p. 1)

While DOE understands that ICMs currently use ratings from OUMs to predict the efficiency of their coil models, as discussed in section III.A.3.d, DOE is now proposing to require that ICMs test each of model of indoor units (

i.e.,

basic models) with the least efficient model of outdoor unit with which it will be paired. In order to validate an AEDM for split-systems rated by ICMs for other individual combinations within each basic model, DOE also proposes that ICMs must use the individual combinations the ICMs would be required to test under the proposed text in 10 CFR 429.16. DOE seeks comment on this proposal.

In regard to Unico's suggestion to test indoor units with coils of varying fin-patterns, DOE refers stakeholders to the definition of a basic model in section III.A.1, and particularly what constitutes the same model of indoor unit. DOE notes that the manner in which manufacturers apply the basic model provisions would impact what models of indoor units are required for testing.

6. AEDM Verification Testing

DOE may randomly select and test a single unit of a basic model pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104. This authority extends to all DOE covered products, including those certified using an AEDM. In the AEDM NOPR, DOE clarified that a selected unit would be tested using the applicable DOE test procedure at an independent, third-party laboratory accredited to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories,” ISO/IEC 17025:2005E. 77 FR 32038, 32057 (May 31, 2012).

In this notice, DOE proposes further verification testing methods. Specifically, DOE proposes that verification testing conducted by the DOE will be (1) on a retail unit or a unit provided by the manufacturer if a retail unit is not available, (2) at an independent, third-party testing facility or a manufacturer's facility upon DOE's request if the former is not capable of testing such a unit, and (3) conducted with no communication between the lab and the manufacturer without DOE authorization.

DOE also proposes clarification of requirements for determining that a model does not meet its certified rating, as proposed in the AEDM NOPR. Specifically, DOE proposes that an individual combination would be considered as having not met its certified rating if, even after applying the five percent tolerance between the test results and the rating as specified in the proposed 10 CFR 429.70(e)(5)(vi), the test results indicate the individual combination being tested is less efficient or consumes more energy than indicated by its certified rating. DOE notes that this approach will not penalize manufacturers for applying conservative ratings to their products. That is, if the test results indicate that the individual combination being tested is

efficient or consumes

less

energy than indicated by its certified rating, DOE would consider that individual combination to meet its certified rating. DOE seeks comment on whether this is a reasonable approach to identify an individual combination's failure to meet its certified rating.

In the AEDM NOPR, DOE also proposed the actions DOE would take in response to individual models that fail to meet their certified ratings. 77 FR at 32056. Many stakeholders submitted comments suggesting that DOE should determine the cause of the test failure prior to taking any additional action. UTC/Carrier commented that failure of a single unit test result could be a result of a defective unit and further urged DOE to define a process to contest test results from a third party lab. (UTC/Carrier, No. 56 at p. 2) JCI had a similar concern regarding potential errors in test set-up and proposed that DOE should work with the manufacturer to determine the root cause of the failure, performing additional testing if necessary. (JCI, No. 66 at p. 8) Rheem agreed with JCI that DOE should work with the manufacturer to determine whether the root cause is associated with test variability, AEDM model inaccuracy, or manufacturing variability. Rheem added that DOE should clarify what constitutes a “failure” as well as develop a detailed plan for selection, testing, evaluation, manufacturer notification, and resolution. (Rheem, No. 59 at p. 4) Lennox also agreed that DOE should not immediately require modification of an

AEDM without first finding the cause of the failure. (Lennox, No. 46 at pp. 4-5) Additionally, Ingersoll Rand requested that DOE allow for a dialogue with the manufacturer to ensure that the sample unit was not defective and that the test was set up correctly. (Ingersoll Rand, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 187) AHRI agreed that it would be valuable to specify particular steps manufacturers and DOE must take in the case of a test failure and incorporate a defective sample provision, and recommended that DOE provide data, a failure report, and other necessary information to the manufacturer for proper analysis of the test failure. (AHRI, No. 61 at pp. 6-7)

Unico and manufacturers of products other than HVAC suggested that DOE should not only share the data with the manufacturer, but also allow the manufacturer to review or witness testing done by a lab. This would allow for better understanding of potential discrepancies in test results and ensure that failure was not merely a result of variation in test set-up. (Unico, No. 54 at p. 4) AHRI and UTC/Carrier suggested that manufacturers should be allowed to participate in commissioning of their equipment prior to the assessment test since proper set-up is critical. AHRI added that manufacturers should have an opportunity to repair a unit, if defective, while it is in the assessment lab. (AHRI, No. 61 at pp. 6-7; Carrier, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 218) Further, UTC/Carrier urged DOE to specify an appeals process for tests that a manufacturer believes were tested with improper test set-up. (UTC/Carrier, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 69 at p. 195; UTC/Carrier, No. 56 at p. 3)

DOE agrees that determining the root cause of the failure to meet certified ratings is important; however, DOE stresses that this would be the manufacturer's responsibility. DOE is aware that in order to determine the cause of the failure, the manufacturer will need to review the data from DOE's testing. DOE therefore proposes that when an individual combination fails to meet certified ratings, DOE will provide to the manufacturer a test report that includes a description of test set-up, test conditions, and test results. DOE will provide the manufacturer with an opportunity to respond to the lab report by presenting all claims regarding testing validity, and if the manufacturer was not on-site for initial set-up, to purchase an additional unit from retail to test following the requirements in 429.110(a)(3). This process is designed to provide manufacturers the opportunity to raise concerns about the test set-up, taking into account various comments from stakeholders. DOE will consider any response offered by the manufacturer within a designated time frame before deciding upon the validity of the test results. Only after following these steps will the Department make a determination that the rating for the basic model is invalid and require the manufacturer to take subsequent action, as described in section III.B.7.

7. Failure To Meet Certified Ratings

In the AEDM NOPR, DOE proposed a method of determining whether a model meets its certified rating whereby the assessment test result would be compared to the certified rating for that model. If the test result was not within the tolerance in the proposed section 429.70(c), the model would be considered as having not met its certified rating. In this case DOE proposed to require that manufacturers re-validate the AEDM that was used to certify the product within 30 days of receiving the test report from the Department. DOE also proposed to require that manufacturers incorporate DOE's test data into the re-validation of the AEDM. If after inclusion of DOE's test data and re-validation, the AEDM-certified ratings change for any models, then the manufacturer would be required to re-rate and re-certify those models. The manufacturer would not be required to perform additional testing in this re-validation process unless the manufacturer finds it necessary in order to meet the requirements enumerated in the proposed section 429.70. 77 FR 32028, 32056.

A few stakeholders provided comments on the aforementioned proposals. Zero Zone commented that the failure of a single test unit to meet its certified rating should not automatically necessitate re-validation, but suggested that the manufacturer should decide on the appropriate course of action. (Zero Zone, No. 64 at p. 3) UTC/Carrier commented that DOE should not require re-validation based on a single unit's test result because the failure could be a result of a defective unit. (UTC/Carrier, No. 56 at p. 2) Lennox opposed DOE's proposal to require manufacturers to incorporate DOE test data into their AEDM if a model is determined not to meet its certified rating because they believe that DOE data may be erroneous and only the best available data should be used to validate an AEDM. (Lennox, No. 46 at p. 5) JCI stated that without additional information as to why a particular product failed a test, it is not reasonable to assume that all models rated with the AEDM must be re-rated. (JCI, No. 66 at pp. 9-10).

In consideration of the above mentioned comments, DOE proposed to allay concerns via the proposal in section III.B.6, which provides manufacturers an opportunity to review the data from DOE's testing and present claims regarding testing validity. Based on these comments, DOE also proposes an exception to re-validation of the AEDM in cases where the determination of an invalid rating for that basic model is the first for models certified with an AEDM. In such cases, the manufacturer must conduct additional testing and re-rate and re-certify the individual combinations within the basic model that were improperly rated using the AEDM.

DOE also proposes that if DOE has determined that a manufacturer made invalid ratings on individual combinations within two or more basic models rated using the manufacturer's AEDM within a 24 month period, the manufacturer must test the least efficient and most efficient combination within each basic model in addition to the combination specified in 429.16(a)(1)(ii). The twenty-four month period begins with a DOE determination that a rating is invalid through the process outlined above. If DOE has determined that a manufacturer made invalid ratings on more than four basic models rated using the manufacturer's AEDM within a 24-month period, the manufacturer may no longer use an AEDM.

Finally, DOE proposes additional requirements for manufacturers to regain the privilege of using an AEDM, including identifying the cause(s) for failure, taking corrective action, performing six new tests per basic model, and obtaining DOE authorization.

DOE created this proposal under the expectation that each manufacturer will use only a single AEDM for all central air conditioner and central air conditioning heat pumps. DOE requests comment on whether manufacturers would typically apply more than one AEDM and if they would, the differences between such AEDMs.

8. Action Following a Determination of Noncompliance

In the AEDM NOPR, DOE explained that if a model failed to meet the applicable Federal energy conservation standard during assessment testing, DOE may pursue enforcement testing pursuant to 10 CFR 429.110. DOE also stated that if an individual model was determined to be noncompliant, then all other individual models within that basic model would be considered noncompliant. This is consistent with

DOE's approach for all covered products. All other basic models rated with the AEDM would be unaffected pending additional investigation. Furthermore, DOE proposed that if a noncompliant model was used for validation of an AEDM, the AEDM must be re-validated within 30 days of notification, pursuant to requirements enumerated in 10 CFR 429.70. Notably, DOE did not propose that manufacturers must re-test basic models used to validate an AEDM when there is no determination of noncompliance. 77 FR 32056.

In response, JCI agreed that all AEDM-rated models should not be disqualified if one model is found out of compliance. (JCI, No. 66 at p. 9)

DOE reiterates that for central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps, if an individual combination was determined to be noncompliant, then all other individual combinations within that basic model would be considered noncompliant. DOE is not proposing in this SNOPR that other basic models rated with the AEDM be considered non-compliant. However, DOE notes that an AEDM must be validated using test data for individual combinations that meet the current Federal energy conservation standards. Therefore, if a noncompliant model was used for validation of an AEDM, manufacturers would be expected to re-validate the AEDM in order to continue using it. The requirements for additional testing based on invalid ratings, as discussed in the previous section, may also apply.

C. Waiver Procedures

10 CFR 430.27(l) requires DOE to publish in the

Federal Register

a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its regulations so as to eliminate any need for the continuation of waivers and as soon thereafter as practicable, DOE will publish a final rule in the

Federal Register

. As of the issuance date of this notice, a total of four waivers (and one interim waiver) for central air conditioner and heat pump products are active. They are detailed in the Table III.4, with the section reference to this notice included for discussion regarding DOE's proposed amended regulations and intention for subsequent waiver termination.

Table III.4—Active Waivers and Active Interim Waivers

Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Consumer

Scope

Decision & order

Termination

ECR International, Inc., Multi-zone Unitary Small Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

(Petition & Interim Waiver, 78 FR 47681, 8/6/2013)

III.C.2

Daikin AC (Americas), Inc., Heat Pump & Water Heater Combination

76 FR 11438, 3/2/2011

III.C.1

Daikin AC (Americas), Inc., Heat Pump & Water Heater Combination

75 FR 34731, 6/18/2010

III.C.1

Hallowell International, Triple-Capacity Northern Heat Pumps

75 FR 6013, 2/5/2010

III.C.4

Cascade Group, LLC, Multi-blower Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment

73 FR 50787, 8/28/2008

III.C.3

DOE notes that four waivers previously associated with both commercial equipment and consumer products, as listed in Table III.3, were terminated for consumer products as of the October 22, 2007 Final Rule (72 FR 59906, 59911) and for commercial equipment as of the May 16, 2012 Final Rule (77 FR 28928, 28936). In this SNOPR, DOE reaffirms that these waivers have been terminated for consumer products and that the products in question can be tested using the current and proposed test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps.

Table III.5—Terminated Waivers

Scope

Decision & order

Daikin U.S. Corporation, Multi-split Heat Pumps and Heat Recovery Systems

73 FR 39680, 7/10/2008.

Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc., Variable Refrigerant Flow Zoning Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

72 FR 17528, 4/9/2007.

Fujitsu General Limited, Multi-split Products

72 FR 71383, 12/17/2007.

Samsung Air Conditioning, Multi-split Products

72 FR 71387, 12/17/2007.

1. Termination of Waivers Pertaining to Air-to-Water Heat Pump Products With Integrated Domestic Water Heating

DOE has granted two waivers to Daikin Altherma for the air-to-water heat pump with integrated domestic water heating; one on June 18, 2010 and a second on March 2, 2011. 75 FR 34731 and 76 FR 11438. As described in Daikin's petitions, the Daikin Altherma system consists of an air-to-water heat pump that provides hydronic space heating and cooling as well as domestic hot water functions. It operates either as a split system with the compressor unit outdoors and the hydronic components in an indoor unit, or as a single-package configuration in which all system components are combined in a single outdoor unit. In both the single-package and the split-system configurations, the system can include a domestic hot water supply tank that is located indoors. These waivers were granted on the grounds that the existing DOE test procedure contained in Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 addresses only air-to-air heat pumps and does not include any provisions to account for the operational characteristics of an air-to-water heat pump, or any central air-conditioning heat pump with an integrated domestic hot water component.

According to the definition set forth in EPCA and 10 CFR 430.2, a central air conditioner is a product, other than a packaged terminal air conditioner, which is powered by single phase electric current, air cooled, rated below 65,000 Btu per hour, not contained within the same cabinet as a furnace, the rated capacity of which is above 225,000 Btu per hour, and is a heat pump or a cooling unit only. (42 U.S.C. 6291(21)) The heat pump definition in EPCA and 10 CFR 430.2 requires that a heat pump utilize a refrigerant-to-

outdoor air heat exchanger, effectively excluding heat pump products classified as air-to-water. (42 U.S.C. 6291(24)) In addition, because the definition of a central air conditioner, which also applies to heat pumps, requires products to be “air cooled,” products that rely exclusively on refrigerant-to-water heat exchange on the indoor side are effectively excluded from the definition of, and the existing efficiency standards for, central air conditioners and heat pumps.

Based upon the description in the waiver petitions for the Daikin Altherma air-to-water heat pumps with integrated domestic water heater, DOE has determined that these products rely exclusively on refrigerant-to-water heat exchange on the indoor side, and thus would not be subject to the central air conditioner or heat pump standards and would not be required to be tested and rated for the purpose of compliance with DOE standards for central air conditioners or heat pumps. Thus, if this interpretation is adopted, these waivers would terminate on the effective date of a notice finalizing the proposals in this notice.

2. Termination of Waivers Pertaining to Multi-Circuit Products

DOE granted ECR International (ECR) an interim waiver on August 6, 2013, for its line of Enviromaster International (EMI) products. 78 FR 47681. ECR describes in its petitions that its multi-zone air conditioners and heat pumps each comprise a single outdoor unit combined with two or more indoor units, which each comprise a refrigeration circuit, a single air handler, a single control circuit, and an expansion valve, intended for independent zone-conditioning. The outdoor unit contains one fixed-speed compressor for each refrigeration circuit; all zones utilize the same condenser fan and defrost procedures but refrigerant is not mixed among the zones. 78 FR at 47686. These products are similar to multiple-split (or multi-split) air conditioners or heat pumps, which are defined and covered by current test procedure (Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430). However, they are distinct from, and therefore not classified as, multi-split products due to differences in refrigerant circuitry. The separate refrigeration circuits of the ECR product line are not amenable to the test procedures for multi-split systems, specifically the procedures calling for operation at different levels of compressor speed or staging, because the individual compressors are not necessarily variable-speed. Hence, alternative procedures have been developed, as described in the interim waiver. DOE proposes to address products such as the ECR product line in the DOE test procedure. DOE also proposes to define such a product as a “multi-circuit air conditioner or heat pump” and provide testing requirements for such for such products at 10 CFR 429.16(a)(1)(ii)(A).

For the duration of the interim waiver period, either until 180 days after the publication of the interim waiver (the interim waiver period) or until DOE issued its determination on the petition for waiver, whichever occurred earlier, DOE granted ECR permission to use the proposed alternative test procedure to test and rate its multi-circuit products. 78 FR 47681, 47682 (Aug. 6, 2013). The requirements in the alternative test procedure comprise methods to establish air volume rate, procedures for testing, and adjustments to equations used to calculate SEER and HSPF. Following publication of the Notice of Grant of Interim Waiver, DOE received no comments regarding this alternative test procedure. After the interim waiver period, DOE did not issue a final decision and order on ECR's petition for waiver, therefore, the interim waiver will terminate upon the publication of a test procedure final rule for central air conditioners and heat pumps, and the alternative test procedure included therein shall cease from being applicable to testing and rating ECR's multi-circuit products and multi-circuit products in general, absent amendments regarding provisions for testing such products. Therefore, DOE proposes in this notice testing requirements for manufacturers who wish to certify multi-circuit products.

According to Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, Section 2.4.1b, systems with multiple indoor coils are tested in a manner where each indoor unit is outfitted with an outlet plenum connecting to a common duct so that each indoor coil ultimately connects to an airflow measuring apparatus.

In testing a multi-circuit system in this manner, the data collection, performance measurement, and reporting is done only on the system level. ECR took issue with this, citing inadequate data accountability, and thus argued in its petition for waiver to individually test each indoor unit.

Id.

Current test procedures for systems with multiple indoor coils, however, produce ratings that are repeatable and accurate even though monitoring of all indoor units are not required by regulation, or common industry practice. DOE also notes that the common duct testing approach has been adopted by industry standards and is an accepted method for testing systems having multiple indoor units. ECR's petition did not identify specific differences between the indoor units of its new product line and the indoor units of multi-splits that would make the common-duct approach unsuitable for its products. Further, the interim waiver approach of using multiple airflow measuring devices, one for each indoor unit, represents unnecessary test burden. Therefore, DOE proposes to adopt for multi-circuit products the same common duct testing approach used for testing multi-split products.

When the indoor units are installed in separate indoor chambers for the test, the test procedure allows common ducting to a separate airflow measuring apparatus for each indoor chamber.

The alternative test procedure in the interim waiver calls for separate measurement of performance for each indoor unit for each required test condition, and requires that all indoor units be operating during each of these separate measurements. The overall system performance for the given test condition is calculated by summing the capacities and power inputs measured for all of the indoor units and adding to the power input sum the average of the power measurements made for outdoor unit for the set of tests.

Id.

In contrast, DOE's current proposal involves use of the common duct to measure the full system capacity, thus allowing use of a single test for each operating condition. DOE requests comment on whether this method will yield accurate results that are representative of the true performance of these systems.

3. Termination of Waiver and Clarification of the Test Procedure Pertaining to Multi-Blower Products

On August 28, 2008, DOE published a decision and order granting Cascade Group, LLC a waiver from the Central Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedure for its line of multi-blower indoor units that may be combined with one single-speed heat pump outdoor unit, one two-capacity heat pump outdoor unit, or two separate single-speed heat pump outdoor units. 73 FR 50787, 50787-97. DOE proposed revisions to the test procedure in the June 2010 NOPR to accommodate the certification testing of such products. 75 FR 31237. NEEA responded in the subsequent public comment period, recommending DOE defer action on test procedure changes until such a product is actually being tested, certified and sold. (NEEA, No. 7 at pp. 4-5). Mitsubishi recommended DOE either use AHRI Standard 1230-2010 to rate such a product or does not amend the

test procedure to allow coverage of such a product. (Mitsubishi, No. 12 at p. 2).

DOE notes that AHRI Standard 1230-2010, which provides testing procedures for products with variable speed or multi-capacity compressors, may not be suitable for testing the subject products, which are equipped with single-speed compressors; however, the test procedure, as proposed in the June 2010 NOPR enables testing of such products. DOE therefore retains its proposal in the June 2010 NOPR to adopt that test procedure, except for the following revisions.

The proposal in the June 2010 NOPR amended Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 with language in sections 3.1.4.1.1e and 3.1.4.2e that suggested that test setup information may be obtained directly from manufacturers. DOE is revising that proposal to eliminate the need for communication between third-party test laboratories and manufacturers, such that the test setup is conducted based on information found in the installation manuals included with the unit by the manufacturer. DOE is proposing that much of that information be provided to DOE as part of certification reporting. These proposed modifications regarding test setup can be found in section 3.1.4.1.1d and 3.1.4.2e of the proposed Appendix M in this notice. DOE requests comment on its proposals for multi-blower products, including whether individual adjustments of each blower are appropriate and whether external static pressures measured for individual tests may be different.

Because the proposed test procedure amendments would allow testing of Cascade Group, LLC's line of multi-blower products, DOE proposes to terminate the waiver currently in effect for those multi-blower products effective 180 days after publication of the test procedure final rule.

4. Termination of Waiver Pertaining to Triple-Capacity, Northern Heat Pump Products

On February 5, 2010, DOE granted Hallowell International a waiver from the DOE Central Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Test Procedure for its line of boosted compression heat pumps. 75 FR 6014, 6014-18. DOE proposed revisions to its test procedures in the June 2010 NOPR to accommodate the certification testing of such products. 75 FR 31223, 31238 (June 2, 2010). NEEA expressed support for DOE's proposal in the subsequent public comment period but urged DOE to ensure that the northern climate test procedure can be used by variable speed systems that can meet the appropriate test conditions, and that the procedures can accurately assess the performance of these systems relative to more conventional ones. (NEEA, No. 7 at p. 5). NEEA also urged DOE to require publishing of Region V ratings for heat pumps. Mitsubishi supported DOE's proposed changes to cover triple-capacity, northern heat pumps but requested that DOE reevaluate the testing of inverter-driven compressor systems to permit better demonstration of the system's capabilities at heating at low ambient conditions. (Mitsubishi, No. 12 at p. 3).

DOE believes that the test procedure as proposed in the June 2010 NOPR, along with the proposed revisions to the test procedure for heating tests conducted on units equipped with variable-speed compressors, as discussed in section III.H.5, would produce performance that represents an average period of use of such products. Because the proposed test procedure amendments would allow testing of Hallowell International's line of triple-capacity, northern heat pump products, DOE proposes to terminate the waiver currently in effect for those products effective 180 days after publication of the test procedure final rule.

D. Measurement of Off Mode Power Consumption

In the June 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed a first draft of testing procedures and calculations for off mode power consumption. 75 FR 31223, 31238 (June 2, 2010). In the following April 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed a second draft, revising said testing procedures and calculations based on stakeholder-identified issues and changes to the test procedure proposals in the 2010 June NOPR and on DOE-conducted laboratory testing. 76 FR 18105, 18111 (April 1, 2011). In the October 2011 SNOPR, DOE proposed a third draft, further revising the testing procedures and calculations for off mode power consumption based primarily on stakeholder comments regarding burden of test as received during the April 2011 SNOPR comment period. 76 FR 65616, 65618-22 (Oct. 24, 2011). From the original and extended comment period of the October 2011 SNOPR DOE received stakeholder comments, which are the basis of DOE's proposed fourth draft in this notice, further revising testing procedures and calculations for off m

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.