Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16769 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029] 

RIN 1904–AC47 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test 

Procedures for Commercial Heating, 

Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating 

Equipment 

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) proposed to amend its 

energy conservation standards for 

several classes of commercial heating, 

air-conditioning, and water-heating 

equipment and to adopt new energy 

conservation standards for computer 

room air conditioners in a January 2012 

notice of proposed rulemaking (January 

2012 NOPR). The levels that DOE 

proposed to adopt were equivalent to 

the efficiency levels contained in the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI)/American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE)/Illuminating 

Engineering Society of North America 

(IESNA) Standard 90.1–2010 (ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010). In addition, DOE 

proposed in the January 2012 NOPR to 

update the current Federal test 

procedures, or for certain equipment 

types adopt new test procedures, to 

incorporate by reference the most 

current versions of several relevant 

industry test procedures specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. The 

amendments proposed in today’s 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR) would modify the 

definition of ‘‘computer room air 

conditioner’’ initially proposed in the 

January 2012 NOPR and incorporate 

additional provisions to clarify the 

proposed test procedure provisions for 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment and variable 

refrigerant flow systems. DOE is also 

proposing to include with modification 

certain provisions from AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI) operations manuals in 

its test procedures that would clarify the 

application of the DOE test procedures 

and harmonize DOE testing with the 

testing performed by industry. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and other information regarding this 

SNOPR no later than April 2, 2012. For 

details, see section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation’’ of this SNOPR. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the SNOPR on Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test 

Procedures for ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

Products, and provide docket number 

EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029 and/or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

1904–AC47. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: ASHRAE90.1–2011–STD– 

0029@ee.doe.gov. Include docket 

number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029 

and/or RIN 1904–AC47 in the subject 

line of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 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. 

No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section V of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendee lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;dct=

FR%252BPR%252BN%

252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=25;

po=0;D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029. This 

Web page contains a link to the docket 

for this notice, along with simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for further information 

on how to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7892. Email: 

Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9507. Email: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

2. Previous Rulemaking Documents 

II. Summary of the Supplemental Proposed 

Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Definition of ‘‘Computer Room Air 

Conditioner’’ 

B. Test Procedures 

1. Compressor Break-In Period 

2. Certified Ratings 

3. Defective Samples 

4. Test Set-Up 

5. Enhancement Devices 

6. Refrigerant Charge 

7. Fan Speeds and Air Flow Rates, Rated 

versus Nominal 

8. Manufacturer Involvement During 

Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split 

Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

Assessment and/or Enforcement Testing 

9. Correction Factors for VRF Refrigerant 

Line Lengths 

10. Corrections to the January 2012 Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying today’s supplemental notice 

of proposed rulemaking, as well as some 

of the relevant historical background 

related to the establishment of energy 

conservation standards and test 

procedures for ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

equipment. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16770 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 

110–140. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part C1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6311–6317, as codified), added by 

Public Law 95–619, Title IV, § 441(a), 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment, which includes the 

commercial heating, air-conditioning, 

and water-heating equipment that is the 

subject of this rulemaking.2 In general, 

this program addresses the energy 

efficiency of certain types of commercial 

and industrial equipment. Relevant 

provisions of the Act specifically 

include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), 

energy conservation standards (42 

U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 

6314), labelling provisions (42 U.S.C. 

6315), and the authority to require 

information and reports from 

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316). 

EPCA contains mandatory energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

heating, air-conditioning, and waterheating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) 

Specifically, the statute sets standards 

for small, large, and very large 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment, packaged 

terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and 

packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), 

warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, 

storage water heaters, instantaneous 

water heaters, and unfired hot water 

storage tanks. Id. In doing so, EPCA 

established Federal energy conservation 

standards that generally correspond to 

the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as 

in effect on October 24, 1992 (i.e., 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–1989), for each 

type of covered equipment listed in 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a). 

In acknowledgement of technological 

changes that yield energy efficiency 

benefits, Congress further directed DOE 

through EPCA to consider amending the 

existing Federal energy conservation 

standard for each type of equipment 

listed, each time ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 is amended with respect to such 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For 

each type of equipment, EPCA directs 

that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is 

amended, DOE must publish in the 

Federal Register an analysis of the 

energy savings potential of amended 

energy efficiency standards within 180 

days of the amendment of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) EPCA further directs 

that DOE must adopt amended 

standards at the new efficiency level in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear 

and convincing evidence supports a 

determination that adoption of a morestringent level would produce 

significant additional energy savings 

and be technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to 

adopt as a national standard the 

efficiency levels specified in the 

amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE 

must establish such standard not later 

than 18 months after publication of the 

amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE 

determines that a more-stringent 

standard is justified under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II), then it must 

establish such more-stringent standard 

not later than 30 months after 

publication of the amended ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) 

(In addition, DOE notes that pursuant to 

the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA, 

under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), the 

agency must periodically review its 

already-established energy conservation 

standards for ASHRAE products. Under 

this requirement, the next review that 

DOE would need to conduct must occur 

no later than six years from the issuance 

of a final rule establishing or amending 

a standard for a covered product.) 

EPCA also requires that if a test 

procedure referenced in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 is updated, DOE must 

update its test procedure to be 

consistent with the amended test 

procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

unless DOE determines that the 

amended test procedure is not 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which reflect the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

operating costs of the ASHRAE 

equipment during a representative 

average use cycle. In addition, DOE 

must determine that the amended test 

procedure is not unduly burdensome to 

conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (4)) 

Additionally, the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110–140) amended 

EPCA to require that at least once every 

7 years, DOE must conduct an 

evaluation of the test procedures for all 

covered equipment and either amend 

test procedures (if the Secretary 

determines that amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements of 

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)–(3)) or publish 

notice in the Federal Register of any 

determination not to amend a test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) 

Under this requirement, DOE must 

review the test procedures for the 

various types of ASHRAE equipment 

not later than December 19, 2014 (i.e., 

7 years after the enactment of EISA 

2007). Thus, the final rule resulting 

from this rulemaking will satisfy the 

requirement to review the test 

procedures for the certain types of 

ASHRAE equipment addressed in this 

rulemaking (i.e., those equipment for 

which DOE has been triggered) within 

seven years. 

On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE 

officially released and made public 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. This 

action triggered DOE’s obligations under 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), as outlined above. 

For a more complete discussion of 

authority, see DOE’s January 17, 2012 

NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2359–61. 

B. Background 

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

As noted, ASHRAE released a new 

version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 on 

October 29, 2010. The ASHRAE 

standard addresses efficiency levels and 

test procedures for many types of 

commercial heating, ventilating, airconditioning (HVAC), and water-heating 

equipment covered by EPCA. ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 revised its 

efficiency levels for certain commercial 

equipment, but for the remaining 

equipment, ASHRAE left in place the 

preexisting levels (i.e., the efficiency 

levels specified in EPCA or the 

efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2007). Specifically, DOE 

determined in the January 2012 NOPR 

that ASHRAE updated its efficiency 

levels for small, large, and very large 

water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled 

commercial package air conditioners; 

variable refrigerant flow (VRF) watersource heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/ 

h; and VRF water-source heat pumps at 

or greater than 135,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 also revised its 

scope to include certain commercial 

equipment used for industrial and 

process cooling, namely ‘‘air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms.’’ 

In addition, ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 updated the following referenced 

test procedures to the most recent 

version of the industry standards: AHRI 

210/240–2008 (small commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment); AHRI 340/360–2007 (large 

and very large commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment); 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 727– 

2006 (oil-fired commercial warm-air 

furnaces); ANSI Z21.47–2006 (gas-fired 

commercial warm-air furnaces); and 

ANSI Z21.10.3–2004 (commercial water 

heaters). Lastly, ASHRAE Standard 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16771 

90.1–2010 specified new test procedures 

for certain equipment, including: 

ASHRAE 127–2007 (computer room air 

conditioners); and AHRI 1230–2010 

(variable refrigerant flow air 

conditioners and heat pumps). 

2. Previous Rulemaking Documents 

Subsequent to the release of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010, DOE published a 

notice of data availability (NODA) in the 

Federal Register on May 5, 2011 (May 

2011 NODA) and requested public 

comment as a preliminary step required 

pursuant to EPCA when DOE considers 

amended energy conservation standards 

for certain types of commercial 

equipment covered by ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. 76 FR 25622. 

Specifically, in the May 2011 NODA, 

DOE presented a discussion of the 

changes found in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, which included a 

description of DOE’s evaluation of each 

ASHRAE equipment type in order for 

DOE to determine whether the 

amendments in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 have increased efficiency 

levels. Id. at 25630–37. As an initial 

matter, DOE sought to determine which 

requirements for covered equipment in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, if any, were 

revised solely to reflect the level of the 

current Federal energy conservation 

standard (where ASHRAE is merely 

‘‘catching up’’ to the current national 

standard), were revised but lowered, 

were revised to include design 

requirements without changes to the 

efficiency level, or had any other 

revisions made that did not increase the 

standard level, in which case, DOE was 

not triggered to act under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6) for that particular equipment 

type. For those types of equipment in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for which 

ASHRAE actually increased efficiency 

levels above the current Federal 

standard (i.e., water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; 

two classes of VRF water-source heat 

pumps with and without heat recovery; 

and computer room air conditioners 

(which were not previously covered)), 

DOE subjected that equipment to the 

potential energy savings analysis for 

amended national energy conservation 

standards based on: (1) The modified 

efficiency levels contained within 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010; and (2) 

more-stringent efficiency levels. DOE 

presented its methodology, data, and 

results for the preliminary energy 

savings analysis developed for the 

water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled 

equipment classes in the May 2011 

NODA for public comment. Id. at 

25637–46. For the remaining equipment 

classes, DOE requested data and 

information that would allow it to 

accurately assess the energy savings 

potential of those equipment classes. 

Additionally, for single package vertical 

air conditioners and heat pumps, 

although the levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 were unchanged, 

DOE performed an analysis of their 

potential energy savings as required by 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B). Lastly, DOE 

presented an initial assessment of the 

test procedure changes included in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. Id. at 

25644–47. 

Following the NODA, DOE published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking in the 

Federal Register on January 17, 2012 

(the January 2012 NOPR), and requested 

public comment. 77 FR 2356. In the 

January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed 

amended energy conservation standards 

for small, large, and very large watercooled and evaporatively-cooled 

commercial package air conditioners; 

variable refrigerant flow (VRF) watersource heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/ 

h; VRF water-source heat pumps at or 

greater than 135,000 Btu/h; and new 

energy conservation standards for 

computer room air conditioners. DOE 

presented its methodology, data, and 

results for its analysis of two classes of 

variable refrigerant flow water-source 

heat pumps and for its analysis of 

computer room air conditioners. 

In addition, DOE’s NOPR also 

proposed the adoption of amended test 

procedures for small commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment; large and very large 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment; commercial 

warm-air furnaces; and commercial 

water heaters. Furthermore, DOE 

proposed to adopt new test procedures 

for variable refrigerant flow equipment, 

single package vertical air conditioners 

and heat pumps, and computer room air 

conditioners. Following the publication 

of the NOPR, DOE held a public meeting 

on February 14, 2012 to receive 

feedback from interested parties on its 

proposals and analyses. 

II. Summary of the Supplemental 

Proposed Rule 

This supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking builds upon the January 17, 

2012 NOPR, which DOE hereby affirms, 

except for those provisions that are 

modified by this supplemental proposal. 

In overview, in today’s SNOPR, DOE 

proposes to modify the definition of 

‘‘computer room air conditioner’’ that 

was initially proposed in the January 

2012 NOPR. DOE also proposes to 

include with modification certain 

provisions from AHRI operations 

manuals (OMs) in its test procedures 

that would clarify the application of the 

test procedures and harmonize DOE 

testing with the testing performed by 

industry. 

At the February 14, 2012 public 

meeting, DOE came to better understand 

the overlap between the markets for 

comfort conditioning and computer 

room air conditioning, as well as the 

difficulty in identifying physical or 

technological characteristics that would 

consistently differentiate between 

equipment used for these two types of 

applications in all cases. Accordingly, 

DOE is proposing a revised definition of 

‘‘computer room air conditioner’’ that 

would focus on the equipment’s use, its 

testing and certification under a test 

procedure specifically tailored to 

computer room air conditioners, and 

confirmation that the basic model is not 

a covered consumer product to which 

energy conservation standards apply. 

DOE believes that this revised approach 

would ensure that the computer room 

air conditioner equipment class does 

not improperly expand to other comfortconditioning applications where other 

energy conservation standards apply. To 

assist in making these distinctions, the 

SNOPR’s proposed definition of 

‘‘computer room air conditioner’’ 

provides physical characteristics to help 

guide manufacturers in determining 

whether their equipment meets the 

definition of ‘‘computer room air 

conditioner.’’ DOE wishes to make clear 

that its proposal would do nothing to 

prevent properly rated and certified 

comfort-conditioning air conditioners 

from also being marketed and sold in 

computer room applications. However, 

DOE’s proposed definition is intended 

to ensure that certification to the new 

computer room air conditioner 

standards remains limited to basic 

models devoted to such applications. 

These changes are discussed in further 

detail in section III.A of this SNOPR. 

The proposed changes to the test 

procedures are described in detail in 

III.B of this SNOPR. Primarily, DOE 

proposes to further modify the DOE test 

procedures in order to provide 

clarifications of several test parameters 

that are not explicitly addressed in the 

previously proposed test procedures but 

are currently found in AHRI operations 

manuals, which guide the AHRImember manufacturers in applying the 

DOE test procedures to their equipment. 

In some cases, DOE has made 

modifications to the wording that is 

used in AHRI’s operations manuals. 

Specifically, DOE is proposing to adopt 

provisions to specify how 

manufacturers should determine the 

refrigerant charge and fans speeds/air 

flow rates for testing. Further, DOE is 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16772 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 defines 

‘‘Computer Room’’ as ‘‘a room whose primary 

function is to house equipment for the processing 

and storage of electronic data and that has a design 

electronic data equipment power density exceeding 

20 watts/ft2 of conditioned floor area.’’ 

4ASHRAE Standard 127–2007 defines ‘‘computer 

and data processing room (CDPR) unitary air 

conditioner’’ as ‘‘a computer and data processing 

room unitary air conditioner consisting of one or 

more factory-made assemblies, which include a 

direct expansion evaporator or chilled water 

cooling coil, an air-moving device, and air filtering 

devices. The air conditioner may include a 

compressor, condenser, humidifier, or reheating 

function. Where direct expansion equipment is 

provided in more than one assembly and the 

separate assemblies are to be used together, the 

requirements of rating outlined in this standard are 

based upon the use of matched assemblies. The 

functions of a CDPR air conditioner, either alone or 

in combination with a cooling and heating plant, 

are to provide air filtration, circulation, cooling, 

reheating, and humidity control.’’ 

5ASHRAE Standard 127–2007R Proposed 

Revision of Standard 127–2007, Method of Testing 

for Rating Computer and Data Processing Room 

Unitary Air Conditioners defines ‘‘computer room 

air conditioner (CRAC)’’ as ‘‘computer room air 

conditioner; generally refers to computer-room 

cooling units that utilize dedicated compressors 

and refrigerant cooling coils rather than chilledwater coils.’’ 

proposing clarifications to the 

allowance of manufacturer involvement 

in VRF testing. DOE is also proposing to 

adopt refrigerant line length correction 

factors for variable refrigerant flow 

systems that are contained in the AHRI 

operations manual for that equipment 

with some limitations on their use. DOE 

also proposes modification to the 

regulatory text where necessary to 

reflect DOE’s interpretation of the test 

procedure by clarifying several other 

testing issues described below, 

including certified rating tolerances, 

defective samples, test set-up, and 

enhancement devices. DOE tentatively 

determined in the January 2012 NOPR 

and reaffirms in today’s SNOPR that 

none of the proposed changes would 

alter the measured efficiency of covered 

products. 

III. Discussion 

A. Definition of ‘‘Computer Room Air 

Conditioner’’ 

In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE 

tentatively concluded that because 

ASHRAE expanded the scope of 

Standard 90.1 to include air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms, the scope of 

DOE’s obligations pursuant to EPCA 

with regard to ASHRAE products 

similarly expanded to encompass these 

products. 77 FR 2356, 2372 (Jan. 17, 

2012). Thus, DOE analyzed the 

technological feasibility and economic 

justification of adopting efficiency 

levels for computer room air 

conditioners that are more stringent 

than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010, as required by EPCA, and 

proposed to adopt new standards for 

computer room air conditioners at the 

same levels as those specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. Id. at 

2416–18. The term ‘‘computer room air 

conditioner’’ had not been defined 

under DOE’s regulations because such 

units had not previously been covered 

equipment. As a result, in the January 

2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt the 

following definition for ‘‘computer room 

air conditioner’’: 

Computer Room Air Conditioner means a 

unit of commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment that is advertised, 

marketed, and/or sold specifically for use in 

computer rooms, data processing rooms, or 

other precision cooling applications, and is 

rated for performance using ASHRAE 

Standard 127, (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.95). Such equipment may not be 

marketed or advertised as equipment for any 

other space conditioning applications, and 

may not be rated for performance using AHRI 

Standard 210/240 or AHRI Standard 340/360 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.95). 

77 FR 2356, 2425–26 (Jan. 17, 2012). 

DOE presented the proposed 

definition at the February 2012 public 

meeting for the ASHRAE equipment 

NOPR, and received feedback from 

interested parties that indicated 

concerns about the proposed definition 

of ‘‘computer room air conditioner.’’ In 

particular, Panasonic indicated concern 

that the proposed definition might 

require the same equipment to be 

certified to multiple test methods—one 

for comfort cooling and one for 

computer room applications. 

(Panasonic, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 20 at p. 62) Mitsubishi expressed 

concern that the proposed definition 

would prevent equipment that is 

designed primarily for use in comfort 

conditioning (and thus not rated using 

ASHRAE Standard 127) but that may 

also be suitable for computer room 

service from being installed in all 

potential applications. (Mitsubishi, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 

60–61) In an attempt to alleviate these 

concerns, DOE is proposing 

modifications to this definition in 

today’s SNOPR to assist manufacturers 

in determining what equipment is 

considered a ‘‘computer room air 

conditioner’’ under DOE’s proposed 

regulations. 

In developing a definition for 

‘‘computer room air conditioner,’’ DOE 

first looked to existing industry 

definitions in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

and ASHRAE Standard 127. ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 does not provide a 

definition of ‘‘computer room air 

conditioner,’’ but rather, it defines a 

‘‘computer room,’’ thereby clarifying the 

use/location but not the technology 

suitable for that location.3 In terms of 

applying its efficiency levels, ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 states that ‘‘[a]ir 

conditioners primarily serving computer 

rooms and covered by ASHRAE 

Standard 127 shall meet the 

requirements in Table 6.8.1K. All other 

air conditioners shall meet the 

requirements in Table 6.8.1A.’’ Table 

6.8.1K in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

provides the minimum efficiency levels 

for computer room air conditioners that 

DOE proposed adopting in the January 

2012 NOPR. 

ASHRAE Standard 127–2007 (Method 

of Testing for Rating Computer and Data 

Processing Room Unitary AirConditioners) provides a definition for 

‘‘computer and data processing room 

(CDPR) unitary air conditioner.’’ 4 In 

addition, the first public review draft of 

proposed revisions to ASHRAE 127– 

2007 (i.e., ASHRAE 127–2007R, 

Proposed Revision of Standard 127– 

2007, Method of Testing and Rating 

Computer and Data Processing Room 

Unitary Air Conditioners) defines 

‘‘CRAC’’ 5 [computer room air 

conditioner]. However, no part of the 

definition of either ‘‘CRAC’’ or ‘‘CDPR 

unitary air conditioner’’ clearly 

differentiates the design of CRACs from 

other direct expansion cooling 

equipment. 

As discussed in the January 2012 

NOPR, DOE was not able to identify any 

physical construction and/or 

component characteristic(s) of computer 

room air conditioners that distinguish 

those products from conventional 

comfort-cooling air conditioners. 77 FR 

2356, 2382–83 (Jan. 17, 2012). After 

hearing the concerns raised at the 

February 2012 public meeting, DOE 

again attempted to develop a definition 

for ‘‘computer room air conditioner’’ 

that effectively distinguishes these 

products from other types of 

commercial air conditioners. DOE 

considered characteristics such as 

evaporator-to-condenser effective 

surface area ratio and delivered cubic 

feet per minute (CFM) per ton of 

capacity, as well as the presence of 

certain features such as an integrated 

humidifier, temperature and/or 

humidity control of the supplied air, 

and reheating function. Based upon its 

review, DOE notes that many, but not 

all, computer room air conditioners may 

have features such as an integrated 

humidifier, temperature and/or 

humidity control of the supplied air, 

and reheating function. However, DOE 

could not identify any single 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16773 

characteristic or combination of 

characteristics that would consistently 

differentiate between the two types of 

equipment, the same reasoning which 

led DOE to propose a definition in the 

January 2012 NOPR based upon how the 

equipment is marketed and/or sold for 

use, rather than upon physical 

characteristics. 

At the February 2012 public meeting, 

Mitsubishi stated that the most 

distinguishing characteristic of CRAC 

equipment is that it has the ability to 

apply cooling operation at very low 

temperatures. (Mitsubishi, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 99) 

Although DOE recognizes that many 

computer room air conditioners are 

deemed ‘‘mission critical’’ equipment 

and are expected to operate year round 

regardless of the outdoor conditions, 

DOE is also aware that other types of 

commercial air conditioners can be 

designed to operate under low ambient 

temperature conditions (through the use 

of ‘‘low ambient’’ control packages). At 

the public meeting, Mitsubishi stated 

that certain comfort-cooling equipment 

it manufactures also has the ability to 

operate under low ambient conditions, 

and, thus, such equipment can be used 

in some computer room applications. 

(Mitsubishi, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 20 at p. 99) DOE notes that many 

self-contained water-cooled air 

conditioners and heat pumps also can 

operate under low ambient conditions. 

As a result, a commercial air 

conditioner’s ability to apply cooling 

operation at very low temperatures is 

not a differentiating characteristic on 

which to base the definition, because it 

would not differentiate computer room 

air conditioners from other conventional 

comfort-conditioning air conditioners. 

The Department considered all of 

these potential differentiating 

characteristics when developing a 

definition of ‘‘computer room air 

conditioner’’ but ultimately determined 

that none of these factors could be used 

to definitively distinguish computer 

room air conditioners from conventional 

comfort-conditioning air conditioners. 

However, upon considering the 

comments at the NOPR public meeting, 

DOE believes that specifying certain 

physical characteristics in the definition 

that may be present in computer room 

air conditioners will assist 

manufacturers in determining which 

equipment falls under the definition of 

‘‘computer room air conditioner’’ and 

which equipment falls under the 

definitions for other types of 

commercial package air conditioners. 

Therefore, DOE has proposed in today’s 

SNOPR to include some of the physical 

characteristics listed above in the 

revised definition of ‘‘computer room 

air conditioner.’’ 

Given the above-discussed difficulties 

in distinguishing computer room air 

conditioners from comfort-conditioning 

air conditioners based solely upon 

differences in physical construction 

and/or component characteristics, DOE 

is proposing to instead specify that 

products satisfying the definition of 

‘‘computer room air conditioner’’ are (by 

definition) certified to DOE’s test 

procedure for CRACs (see § 431.96), and 

any other covered comfort-conditioning 

air conditioners must still be rated and 

certified to their applicable test 

procedure and energy conservation 

standards (either residential or 

commercial). 

By definition, ‘‘industrial equipment’’ 

(generally applicable to ASHRAE 

equipment) ‘‘is not a ‘covered product’ 

as defined in section 6291(a)(2) * * *.’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(A)(iii)) Under 42 

U.S.C. 6291(2), the term ‘‘covered 

product’’ means a consumer product of 

a type listed in 42 U.S.C. 6292, 

Coverage; central air conditioners and 

central air conditioning heat pumps are 

specifically included at 42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(3). Furthermore, the definition 

of ‘‘consumer product’’ at 42 U.S.C. 

6291(1) specifically captures a type of 

product, which, to any significant 

extent, is distributed in commerce for 

personal use or consumption by 

individuals. Thus, if a basic model of 

central air conditioner is found to any 

significant extent in consumer 

applications, it would appropriately be 

a residential central air conditioner 

subject to 10 CFR 430.32(c). 

For air-conditioning equipment that is 

properly classified as commercial and 

industrial equipment, DOE notes that 

there is already a comprehensive set of 

standards at 10 CFR 431.97 for a variety 

of types of commercial air-conditioning 

and heating equipment used in comfortconditioning applications. Similar to the 

principle stated above, if a basic model 

of commercial air-conditioning 

equipment is found to any significant 

extent in comfort-conditioning 

applications, the manufacturer would be 

required to test and certify the basic 

model to the applicable comfortconditioning air conditioner test 

procedure and standard under 10 CFR 

431.97. If the manufacturer, at its 

discretion, wishes to make 

representations as to the basic model’s 

performance as a comfort-conditioning 

air conditioner and a computer room air 

conditioner, then the basic model would 

need to be tested using the DOE test 

procedures for each equipment type. 

However, DOE believes that in most 

cases, the manufacturer would decide 

upon the primary purpose of each given 

basic model in its product offering and 

choose the equipment type associated 

with that basic model for the purposes 

of testing and certification. 

Once the manufacturer identifies the 

applicable equipment type of the basic 

model, the applicable DOE test 

procedure provisions for rating, 

standards for compliance, and 

certification requirements should be 

easy to identify. DOE is not proposing 

to modify any certification requirements 

in this rulemaking. Nothing in DOE’s 

proposal would bar a manufacturer from 

making representations of the same 

basic model performing as two 

equipment types as long as those ratings 

are based on testing using the DOE 

testing procedures for each equipment 

type. 

In consideration of the above points, 

DOE is proposing to define ‘‘computer 

room air conditioner’’ as follows: 

Computer room air conditioner means a 

basic model of commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment that is: 

(1) Used in computer rooms, data processing 

rooms, or other purpose-specific cooling 

applications; (2) rated for sensible coefficient 

of performance (SCOP) and tested in 

accordance with 10 CFR 431.96; and (3) not 

a covered, consumer product under 42 U.S.C. 

6291(1)–(2) and 6292. A computer room air 

conditioner may be provided with, or have as 

available options, an integrated humidifier, 

temperature and/or humidity control of the 

supplied air, and reheating function. 

Additionally, DOE clarifies that any 

basic model that meets the definition of 

‘‘commercial package air-conditioning 

and heat equipment’’ must be classified 

as one of the equipment types (e.g., 

small, large, or very large commercial 

package air-conditioning and heat 

equipment, packaged terminal air 

conditioners or heat pumps, variable 

refrigerant flow systems, computer room 

air conditioners, and single package 

vertical units) for the purposes of 

determining the applicable test 

procedure and energy conservation 

standard. While DOE is permitting 

manufacturers to make this election 

based on a comparison of each basic 

model with DOE’s regulatory definitions 

for the various equipment types, DOE is 

adding a new section to the beginning 

of 10 CFR 431.97 to make it clear that 

each manufacturer of a basic model that 

meets this definition does have a 

regulatory obligation in terms of 

standards compliance. Accordingly, 

DOE is proposing the following revision 

to 10 CFR 431.97: 

(a) All basic models of commercial package 

air-conditioning and heating equipment must 

be tested for performance using the 

applicable DOE test procedure in § 431.96, be 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16774 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6The relevant statutory provisions at 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(2)–(3) state that test procedure shall be 

reasonably designed to produce test results which 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated 

operating costs of a type of industrial equipment 

and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. If 

the test procedure is a procedure for determining 

estimated annual operating costs, such costs shall 

be calculated from measurements of energy use in 

a representative average-use cycle. 

7For more information and to access those 

operations manuals, visit AHRI’s Web site at: http:// 

www.ahrinet.org/ahri+certification+programs.aspx. 

compliant with the applicable standards set 

forth in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this 

section, and be certified to the Department 

under 10 CFR part 429. 

DOE believes that the amended 

definition of ‘‘computer room air 

conditioner’’ would not restrict any 

types of commercial air-conditioning 

equipment from being installed in 

computer rooms, but rather, that it 

clarifies which air conditioners must be 

tested and certified as computer room 

air conditioners under DOE’s regulatory 

program. DOE seeks comment on its 

proposed definition of ‘‘computer room 

air conditioner’’ and the clarifications 

proposed to 10 CFR 431.97(a) regarding 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment. These are 

identified as issues 1 and 2 in section 

V.B, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

DOE would also like to take this 

opportunity to address another potential 

approach raised at the February 2012 

public meeting. More specifically, 

several interested parties suggested use 

of the term ‘‘precision’’ air conditioner 

to identify this equipment class. 

Panasonic stated that it is opposed to 

this equipment being termed ‘‘computer 

room air conditioning’’ equipment, 

because there are other systems that 

could be used for computer rooms. 

(Panasonic, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 20 at p. 92) Danfoss stated that there 

could be a standard for precision 

computer room air conditioning 

equipment and one for conventional 

commercial air conditioning equipment. 

(Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20 at p. 103) Panasonic stated that the 

term ‘‘precision air conditioning’’ would 

be more appropriate for use, rather than 

computer room air conditioning, 

because precision air conditioning 

would not restrict the market. 

(Panasonic, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 20 at p. 105) Danfoss stated that 

specialized equipment might be used in 

a laboratory with very strict climate 

control needs, which might have the 

same type of requirements but not be a 

computer room. (Danfoss, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 105) 

Mitsubishi supported these comments 

and the use of the term ‘‘precision air 

conditioner.’’ (Mitsubishi, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 105) 

As noted in the January 2012 NOPR, 

DOE believes ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

does not cover commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment 

used for industrial, manufacturing, or 

commercial processes, with the 

exception of the specific industrial 

equipment listed in the standard (i.e., 

‘‘air conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms’’). 77 FR 2356, 

2373 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE intends its 

standards for commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment to 

have the same scope as ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 and to apply only to 

equipment used for comfort space 

conditioning, with the exception of 

those equipment types listed in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that are used for 

commercial or industrial processes. See 

further discussion in the January 2012 

NOPR regarding the ‘‘Coverage of 

Commercial Package Air Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment That Are 

Exclusively Used as Part of Industrial or 

Manufacturing Processes.’’ 77 FR 2356, 

2372–2373 (Jan. 17, 2012). 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 does 

not refer to or use the term ‘‘precision 

air conditioner.’’ The process cooling 

application that has been listed in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 specifically 

refers to cooling of computer rooms (i.e., 

‘‘air conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms’’). Given these 

factors, DOE has tentatively concluded 

that DOE’s proposed use of the term 

‘‘computer room air conditioner’’ would 

be in line with the equipment covered 

by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 and 

that use of the term ‘‘precision air 

conditioner’’ would not be appropriate. 

B. Test Procedures 

EPCA requires DOE to amend any test 

procedures for ASHRAE equipment to 

the latest version generally accepted by 

the industry or the rating procedures 

developed or recognized by industry, as 

referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 

90.1, unless the Secretary determines 

that clear and convincing evidence 

exists that the latest version of the 

industry test procedure does not meet 

the requirements for test procedures 

described under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)– 

(3).6 (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)–(B)) In the 

January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to 

adopt the updated industry test 

procedures for the following equipment: 

small commercial package air 

conditioners and heating equipment 

(AHRI 210/240–2008, Performance 

Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & 

Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment), 

large and very large commercial package 

air conditioners and heating equipment 

(AHRI 340/360–2007, Performance 

Rating of Commercial and Industrial 

Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment), commercial warmair furnaces (UL 727–2006, Standard for 

Safety for Oil-Fired Central Furnaces, 

and ANSI Z21.47–2006, Standard for 

Gas-Fired Central Furnaces), and 

commercial water heaters (ANSI 

Z21.10.3–2004, Gas Water Heaters, 

Volume III, Storage Water Heaters with 

Input Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per 

Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous). In 

the May 2011 NODA and the January 

2012 NOPR, DOE reviewed each of 

these test procedures and described the 

changes in comparison to the previous 

version of the test procedure. 76 FR 

25622, 25634–37 (May 5, 2011) and 76 

FR 2356, 2373–76 (Jan. 17, 2012). 

Additionally, in the January 2012 

NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt new test 

procedures for measuring the efficiency 

of variable refrigerant flow equipment 

(AHRI 1230–2010, Performance Rating 

of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) 

Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment), computer room air 

conditioners (ASHRAE 127–2007, 

Method of Testing for Rating Computer 

and Data Processing Room Unitary Air 

Conditioners), and single package 

vertical air conditioners and single 

package vertical heat pumps (AHRI 

390–2003, Performance Rating of Single 

Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps) An initial assessment of 

these test procedures is also presented 

in the January 2012 NOPR. 76 FR 2356, 

2376–79 (Jan. 17, 2012). 

DOE presented its proposed changes 

to the test procedures for ASHRAE 

equipment at the February 2012 public 

meeting. At the meeting, interested 

parties indicated that DOE should 

review the AHRI operations manuals 7

and, if necessary, adopt parts of the 

manuals that contain provisions 

relevant to testing that would impact or 

help clarify DOE’s proposed test 

procedures. Specifically, AHRI 

commented that the organization has 

been running certification and 

verification programs for years, and in 

each program, there is an operations 

manual that describes the verification 

program and clarifies how to run the 

test procedure. AHRI encouraged DOE 

to look at these operations manuals and 

reference them in any way DOE can. 

(AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

20 at p. 48) Mitsubishi also commented 

that it would be essential for DOE to 

incorporate the operations manual in 

the case of VRF systems, because the 

operations manual has additional 

guidance on how to set up the systems 

and what the manufacturer requires in 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16775 

order to do the testing. (Mitsubishi, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 

48) 

In response, DOE reviewed the 

industry operations manuals developed 

by AHRI to determine whether the 

manuals provide information that 

would help clarify the application of the 

DOE test procedures and those updates 

that were proposed in the January 2012 

NOPR. In its review, DOE found that 

several AHRI operations manuals 

provide guidance that DOE believes 

could be useful in clarifying the DOE 

test procedures. This guidance, which is 

in part proposed for inclusion in DOE’s 

test procedures, is presented in Table 

III.1 and discussed in detail in the 

subsections immediately below. 

TABLE III.1—SUMMARY OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED THROUGH REVIEW OF AHRI OPERATIONS MANUALS

Issue AHRI OM* Relevant OM 

section Summary of issue Summary of response 

Compressor BreakIn Period.Small Unitary OM

Large Unitary OM. 

VRF OM. 

SPVU OM 

3.8 (Break-in Operation of Test 

Units).

3.7 (Break-in Operation and Startup of Test Units).

3.7 (Break-in Operation and Startup of Test System).

3.7 (Optional 

‘‘Break-In’’ Period).

Certain AHRI OMs allow manufacturers the option of ‘‘breaking in’’ 

equipment by running the unit before testing. Depending on the 

equipment, AHRI allows up to 16 

hours, up to 24 hours, or a manufacturer-specified number of hours.

DOE is proposing to add a ‘‘break-in’’ 

provision to its test procedures for 

commercial air conditioning and 

heating equipment. However, DOE 

is only proposing to allow up to 16 

hours to break in equipment, regardless of the equipment class. 

Tolerances ............. Multiple OMs ........ N/A ........................ Certain AHRI OMs and certain industry test methods provide tolerances 

to evaluate manufacturer efficiency 

ratings.

Compliance with DOE standards is 

based on a statistically valid set of 

samples, as specified at 10 CFR 

part 429, and DOE is not proposing 

to adopt tolerances from AHRI OMs 

in the final rule. 

Defective Samples Multiple OMs ........ N/A ........................ Certain AHRI OMs provide criteria by 

which a unit would be considered 

defective.

DOE determines whether a unit is defective on a case-by-case basis as 

part of its regulatory program using 

the guidelines in 10 CFR part 429 

and is not proposing to adopt 

AHRI’s provisions for what constitutes a defective sample. 

Test Set-Up ........... Commercial Furnaces OM.

Commercial Water 

Heaters OM.

SPVU OM. 

3.3.5.4 (Sample 

Start-Up and 

Operation).

3.12 (Clarification 

in Running of 

the Test Procedure).

3.3.5.4 (Sample 

Start-Up and 

Operation).

3.10 (Clarification 

of Test Procedures).

3.6 (Test Set-up 

and Start-up 

Punch List).

Certain AHRI OMs allow the opportunity for a manufacturer or test lab 

to use a ‘‘test procedure guideline’’ 

or a ‘‘punch list’’ to help facilitate 

implementation of the DOE test procedure.

DOE is not proposing to adopt AHRI 

OM ‘‘test procedure guidelines’’ or 

to allow for the use of ‘‘punch lists.’’ 

DOE proposes to use only information found in the DOE test procedures in 10 CFR part 431 and in Installation and Operation (I&O) 

manuals when conducting testing. 

Enhancement Devices.Small Unitary OM 3.6 (System Manufacturer’s Required Equipment Provisions).

3.7 (ICM’s Required Equipment Provisions).

5.8 (Listing Equipment with Enhancement 

Components).

Certain AHRI OMs state that manufacturers shall provide a complete 

system including ‘‘other listed system enhancement devices.’’ 

DOE will only consider those devices 

which are part of the rated basic 

model, are shipped with the unit, 

and are clearly described as enhancement devices in the I&O 

manuals. 

Large Unitary OM 3.6 (Required 

Equipment Provisions).


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16776 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8For more information, see section 3.7 of the 

AHRI Operations Manual for Unitary Large 

Equipment, available at: http://www.ahrinet.org/ 

App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/ 

2012/ULE%20OM-2012.pdf. 

TABLE III.1—SUMMARY OF ISSUES IDENTIFIED THROUGH REVIEW OF AHRI OPERATIONS MANUALS—Continued 

Issue AHRI OM* Relevant OM 

section Summary of issue Summary of response 

Refrigerant Charge General OM ..........

Small Unitary OM

VRF OM. 

9.11.1.1 (Test 

Sample Refrigerant Charge).

3.19 (Test Sample 

Refrigerant 

Charge).

3.15 (Test Sample 

Refrigerant 

Charge) and 

3.15.1 (Refrigerant Charge 

Adjustment).

Certain AHRI OMs give the manufacturer additional guidance on how to 

charge the system for testing.

DOE proposes to add clarification to 

its test procedures that if a range of 

refrigerant charges is specified in 

the I&O manuals, then any charge 

in that range is acceptable for use 

in testing, unless a rating value is 

clearly specified in the I&O manual. 

Fan Speeds and Air 

Flow Rates, 

Rated vs. Nominal.

General OM ..........

Large Unitary OM

9.11.1.2 (Fan 

Speed).

3.11 (Indoor Coil 

Airflow Rate).

Certain AHRI OMs and the test procedures allow manufacturers to adjust 

the indoor air flow rate as long as it 

is under a specified limit and meets 

minimum external static pressure 

requirements.

DOE proposes to add clarification to 

its test procedures that the air flow 

rate to be used for testing should 

be clearly specified in the I&O 

manuals. If rated air flow values for 

DOE testing are not clearly identified then a default value of 400 

standard cubic feet per minute 

(scfm) per ton will be used. 

Manufacturer Involvement During 

VRF Testing.

VRF OM ............... 3.8 (Duties of Testing Laboratory 

Personnel).

3.10 (System Stabilization for 

Testing).

The AHRI OM for VRF equipment allows manufacturers to lock in the 

compressor and fan motor speeds 

in order to achieve steady-state operation and allows manufacturers to 

assist in the set up and start up of 

this equipment during AHRI 

verification testing.

DOE proposes to allow limited manufacturer involvement in ensuring the 

system has been set up correctly, 

including setting the compressor 

speed during DOE regulatory testing, provided that the manufacturers 

document their set-up and record 

their fixed compressor speeds. 

Correction Factors 

for VRF Refrigerant Line 

Lengths.

VRF OM ............... 3.9 (Refrigerant 

Line Length 

Considerations).

The AHRI OM for VRF equipment 

provides a table of cooling capacity 

correction factors in the event that a 

testing laboratory exceeds the minimum refrigerant line length specified in AHRI 1230.

DOE proposes to adopt the correction 

factors but only in the instance 

where the physical limitations of the 

laboratory prevent it from setting up 

the test without exceeding the minimum refrigerant line lengths. 

* Small Unitary OM means Unitary Small Air-Conditioners and Air-Source Heat Pumps (Includes Mixed-Match Coils) (Rated Below 65,000 Btu/ 

h) Certification Program Operations Manual; Large Unitary OM means Unitary Large Equipment Certification Program Operations Manual; VRF 

OM means Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps Certification Program (rated up to 760,000 Btu/h) Operations 

Manual; SPVU OM means Single Packaged Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps Certification Program Operations Manual; Commercial 

Furnaces OM means Commercial Furnaces Certification Program Operations Manual; Commercial Water Heater OM means Commercial Water 

Heaters Certification Program Operations Manual. 

1. Compressor Break-In Period 

The DOE test procedure for 

commercial air-conditioning equipment 

does not provide for a compressor 

‘‘break-in’’ period prior to initiating 

testing. According to several AHRI 

operations manuals for commercial airconditioning equipment, manufacturers 

may direct AHRI to run the tested unit’s 

compressor for a certain amount of time 

before running DOE’s test procedure. In 

the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed 

to allow an optional compressor ‘‘breakin’’ period of no longer than 16 hours 

as part of the proposed adoption of 

AHRI 210/240–2008, AHRI 340/360– 

2007, AHRI 390–2003, and AHRI 1230– 

2010, and requested comment on 

allowing the break-in period for tests 

conducted using ASHRAE 127–2007. 77 

FR 2356, 2374, 2376–78 (Jan. 17, 2012). 

The 16-hour break-in limit aligns with 

the limit indicated in the AHRI 

operations manual for unitary large air 

conditioners and heat pumps.8 Other 

AHRI operations manuals that provide 

for a compressor break-in period either 

specify a different time limit or allow 

the manufacturer to specify the break-in 

period. For example, the VRF MultiSplit Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

Operations Manual allows for a 

compressor break-in period of up to 24 

hours, and the operations manuals for 

unitary small air conditioners and heat 

pumps and for SPVUs do not specify a 

time limit for the ‘‘break-in’’ period, 

instead deferring to manufacturer 

specifications. 

DOE reiterates the proposal set forth 

in the January 2012 NOPR, providing 

the manufacturer the option of breaking 

in the compressor for up to 16 hours for 

all equipment types. Due to the general 

similarities between the compressors 

used in large unitary equipment and 

other types of commercial air 

conditioning equipment, DOE believes 

that a compressor break-in time of up to 

16 hours is adequate and appropriate to 

ensure test results that are 

representative of the energy efficiency of 

the basic model during average use. 

For assessment and enforcement 

testing purposes, DOE would use the 

compressor break-in period used by the 

manufacturer, if any, when it performed 

certification testing, up to 16 hours. A 

manufacturer who elects to use an 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16777 

9The AHRI Commercial Furnaces Operations 

Manual is available at: http://www.ahrinet.org/ 

App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/ 

2012/CFRN%20OM-2012.pdf. 

10For more information, see section 3.10 of the 

AHRI Commercial Water Heater Operations 

Manual, available at: http://www.ahrinet.org/ 

App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/ 

2012/CWH%20OM-2012.pdf, or section 3.12 of the 

AHRI Commercial Furnaces Operations Manual, 

available at: http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ 

ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/2012/ 

CFRN%20OM-2012.pdf. 

optional compressor break-in period in 

its certification testing should record 

this information (including the 

duration) in the test data underlying the 

certified ratings that is required to be 

maintained under 10 CFR 429.71. DOE 

seeks comment as to whether a longer 

break-in period is necessary for VRF 

systems, small air conditioners and heat 

pumps, and SPVUs, and why these 

types of equipment need a longer breakin period. This is identified as issue 3 

in section V.B, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ 

2. Certified Ratings 

Many AHRI operations manuals and 

certain test procedures proposed in the 

January 2012 NOPR to be incorporated 

by reference into DOE regulations 

contain guidance on the tolerance that 

AHRI applies in its verification program 

to determine whether a given basic 

model is properly rated. For example, 

the AHRI operations manual for 

commercial furnaces 9 states in section 

3.9 (Tolerances) that if a piece of 

equipment tests below 95 percent of its 

rated efficiency, then it fails its AHRI 

verification test. DOE has received 

numerous inquiries regarding the use of 

the AHRI tolerances in DOE’s regulatory 

program as it may relate to certification, 

assessment, and/or enforcement testing. 

Consistent with the language in the 

January 2012 NOPR and DOE’s current 

practice, current DOE regulations do not 

provide for a 5-percent tolerance across 

its regulatory program. Instead, DOE’s 

regulations call for a statistical 

evaluation of a test sample, as explained 

below. As such, DOE is not proposing 

to adopt such provisions for a general 5- 

percent tolerance in the final rule and 

is proposing to explicitly exclude them 

from industry standards incorporated by 

reference. 

Under current DOE regulations, a 

manufacturer must determine its 

certified ratings for its products and 

equipment from values derived 

pursuant to the applicable testing and 

sampling requirements set forth in 10 

CFR parts 429, 430, and 431. For the 

products covered by this rulemaking, 

the sampling requirements incorporate a 

95-percent confidence limit based on 

testing a sample of sufficient size (no 

less than 2 units per basic model). 

DOE’s sampling plan for certification 

testing allows for some variation in the 

manufacturing and testing processes. 

More information on DOE’s sampling 

plans can be found in 10 CFR part 429, 

more specifically at 10 CFR 429.43 for 

commercial HVAC equipment and at 10 

CFR 429.44 for commercial waterheating equipment. 

In the March 2011 final rule 

addressing certification, compliance, 

and enforcement, DOE reiterated its 

authority under the statute that DOE 

may, at any time, test a basic model to 

assess whether the basic model is in 

compliance with the applicable energy 

conservation standard(s). See 10 CFR 

429.104; 76 FR 12422, 12495 (March 7, 

2011). For an ‘‘assessment test,’’ DOE 

obtains one or more units for testing, 

generally from retailors or distributors, 

and frequently performs the testing 

without the knowledge of the 

manufacturer. For an ‘‘enforcement 

test,’’ DOE issues a test notice requiring 

the manufacturer to provide units for 

testing. DOE uses the results of 

assessment testing as one tool when 

determining whether to pursue 

enforcement testing. DOE does not 

apply a tolerance to the results of an 

assessment test to determine whether to 

pursue enforcement testing. DOE may 

pursue enforcement testing if it has 

reason to believe that a basic model is 

not in compliance with applicable 

standards (10 CFR 429.110(a))—a 

determination that is informed but not 

necessarily driven by the assessment 

test results. 

DOE has set forth different sampling 

plans for DOE enforcement testing of 

covered equipment and certain lowvolume covered products, which 

include many of the products that are 

the subject of this rulemaking 

proceeding, including built-to-order 

products. These sampling plans utilize 

a test sample of no more than 4 units for 

low-volume, built-to-order basic 

models, which include many of the 

products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking proceeding. These sampling 

plans are set forth in Appendix B to 

subpart C to part 429. 

3. Defective Samples 

AHRI operations manuals contain 

guidance on determining whether a 

sample is defective. This determination 

typically is based on how closely the 

AHRI verification test results correlate 

to the product’s rated performance. The 

AHRI general OM manual provides, ‘‘A 

Defective Sample is one that fails a test 

due to the sample’s inability to operate 

in accordance with the Participant’s 

installation and operating instructions 

because it suffers an anomaly making it 

inconsistent with other samples of the 

same model. Unit design, unit assembly, 

quality control issues, and/or the 

Participant’s inability to rate the 

product correctly will not be accepted 

by AHRI as causes for defect.’’ 

DOE determines whether a unit is 

defective on a case-by-case basis as part 

of its certification and enforcement 

program. DOE’s guidelines for 

determining whether a unit is defective 

are contained at 10 CFR 429.110(d)(3), 

which provides, ‘‘A test unit shall be 

considered defective if such unit is 

inoperative or is found to be in 

noncompliance due to failure of the unit 

to operate according to the 

manufacturer’s design and operating 

instructions.’’ DOE is retaining its 

current approach and will evaluate the 

circumstances regarding the 

enforcement test results on a per-unit 

basis for a given basic model on a caseby-case basis. In DOE’s view, additional 

clarification may be overly restrictive 

and may result in a unit of a sample 

being determined defective due simply 

to high variability in the performance of 

a given basic model. 

4. Test Set-Up 

In many of AHRI’s product-specific 

operations manuals, AHRI states that 

the start-up and operation of a unit shall 

be in accordance with the installation 

and operation instructions shipped with 

the sample. As DOE has previously 

stated in this rulemaking, DOE agrees 

and proposed to use the installation and 

operation instructions shipped with the 

sample. However, in some cases (e.g., 

commercial water heaters and 

commercial warm-air furnaces), the 

AHRI OM provides for the use of a ‘‘test 

procedure guideline’’ intended to 

facilitate ‘‘proper’’ performance of the 

DOE test procedure. The operations 

manuals add that ‘‘such guidelines shall 

not revise or modify the basic DOE test 

procedure * * * but shall seek to 

provide uniformity in interpretation of 

terms, measurements, and application of 

procedures.’’ 10 Likewise, the operations 

manual for single package vertical air 

conditioners and heat pumps requires 

that manufacturers provide a ‘‘punch 

list’’ specific to performance testing that 

contains specific information needed to 

facilitate the testing of a given basic 

model (if any). 

DOE has not proposed to incorporate 

by reference any industry test procedure 

guidelines or provisions for ‘‘punch 

lists’’ into its test procedures. DOE 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16778 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

11Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1. 

12For more information, see sections 3.6, 3.7, and 

5.8 of the AHRI Operations Manual for Unitary 

Small Air-Conditioners and Air-source Heat Pumps, 

available at: http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ 

ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/2012/ 

USE%20OM-2012.pdf, and section 3.6 of the AHRI 

Operations Manual for Unitary Large Equipment, 

available at: http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ 

ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/2012/ 

ULE%20OM-2012.pdf. 

13For more information, see section 9.11.1.1 of 

the AHRI General Operations Manual, available at: 

http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/ 

Certification/2012%20General%20OM.PDF. 

14For more information, see section 3.15 of the 

AHRI Operations Manual for Variable Refrigerant 

Flow Multi-Split Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 

available at: http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ 

ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/2012/ 

VRF%20OM-2012.pdf. 

reiterates that any provisions of the 

operations manuals, industry test 

procedure guidelines, or any other 

guidelines or provisions that are not in 

DOE’s test procedure or issued as the 

Department’s official interpretation of 

the regulations in the DOE guidance 

database 11 are not part of the DOE 

regulatory structure. Accordingly, DOE 

will not use any of these types of 

documents during DOE’s assessment 

and enforcement testing. DOE will use 

the individual basic model’s installation 

and operation manual. DOE accepts 

questions regarding the application of 

its test procedures when areas requiring 

clarification are identified or 

ambiguities arise. The DOE guidance 

database provides interested parties a 

way of submitting test procedure 

questions and industry-developed 

guidance for DOE review and response. 

DOE utilizes this guidance process as 

interim clarification until DOE’s test 

procedure regulations can be 

periodically updated through 

rulemaking. 

5. Enhancement Devices 

The AHRI Operations Manuals for 

Unitary Small Air-Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps and Unitary Large 

Equipment provide that system 

manufacturers shall provide a complete 

system including ‘‘other listed system 

enhancement devices’’ for verification 

testing purposes.12 While DOE is 

unclear exactly what is meant by ‘‘other 

listed system enhancement devices,’’ 

DOE will only consider a device to be 

part of a basic model for certification, 

assessment, and/or enforcement testing 

purposes if the device is a shipped with 

the unit from the point of manufacture 

and is clearly described as required 

equipment in the equipment’s I&O 

manual. If an enhancement device is 

necessary for a basic model to meet 

minimum energy conservation 

standards, all units of the basic model 

must be shipped with any required 

enhancement device, and the 

installation and operational manual 

should include a description of the 

unit’s operation with such a device. 

6. Refrigerant Charge 

AHRI’s General Operations Manual 

states that the laboratory must 

‘‘determine the refrigerant charge at the 

Standard Rating Condition in 

accordance with instructions from the 

[manufacturer’s] installation and 

operational manuals.’’ 13 The operations 

manual also states that, ‘‘for a given 

specified range of superheat, subcooling, or refrigerant pressure, the 

average of the range shall be used to 

determine the refrigerant charge. If 

multiple instructions are given, the 

[manufacturer] shall be asked to sign off 

on the preferred method.’’ Similarly, the 

AHRI VRF Operations Manual states 

that in the event of a verification test 

failure, the manufacturer has the 

‘‘option to charge the unit between the 

minimum and maximum of the range. 

The Laboratory may consult with the 

[manufacturer] about the refrigerant 

charging procedures and make any 

needed corrections as long as they do 

not contradict the published installation 

instructions.’’ 14

DOE’s current test procedures for 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps greater than 65,000 Btu/h and for 

VRF systems do not provide a method 

for determining the refrigerant charge 

for testing if the manufacturer only 

specifies a range of refrigerant charges 

or in the event of an assessment and/or 

enforcement test failure. Thus, to 

provide clarity in its test procedures, 

DOE proposes that if a manufacturer 

specifies a range of superheat, subcooling, and/or refrigerant pressure in 

its I&O manuals, any value(s) within 

that range may be used to determine 

refrigerant charge or mass of refrigerant 

for purposes of assessment and/or 

enforcement testing, unless the 

manufacturer clearly specifies a rating 

value in its I&O manuals. Note that in 

all cases, the laboratory conducting the 

assessment and/or enforcement test 

shall not ask the manufacturer to 

provide, and shall not consider, any 

instructions outside of those specified 

in the I&O manuals shipped with the 

unit. 

7. Fan Speeds and Air Flow Rates, Rated 

Versus Nominal 

AHRI’s General Operations Manual 

states that ‘‘unless specified in writing, 

Laboratory personnel shall not make 

adjustments to fan speed.’’ Also, the 

Unitary Large Equipment Operations 

Manual states ‘‘if the rated cfm is not 

obtained at the required external static 

pressure * * * the [manufacturer] shall 

change the cfm rating by adjusting the 

speed of the fan motor or supply 

alternate drives.’’ 

The DOE test procedures specify only 

an upper limit to the indoor air flow rate 

based on nominal capacity. 

Manufacturers can adjust the indoor air 

flow rate to any point below that limit 

when conducting certification testing, 

provided that the system, as tested, 

maintains DOE’s minimum external 

static pressure requirements throughout 

the duration of the test. 

DOE has found that in most instances, 

manufacturers rate their equipment 

using an indoor airflow rate that differs 

from the nominal airflow rate (typically 

400 cfm/ton) for a given basic model. 

While DOE understands that 

manufacturers may submit their rated 

air flow rate as part of AHRI’s 

Certification, DOE will only use those 

test parameters and conditions, 

including air flow rate, that are set forth 

in the installation and operation 

manuals being shipped to the 

commercial customer with the basic 

model, are clearly identified in the 

installation and operation manuals as 

being used in the testing to generate the 

DOE performance ratings, and are 

allowed by the applicable DOE test 

procedure. 

DOE reiterates its position from the 

January 2012 NOPR that if 

manufacturers have specific conditions 

or instructions used in generating their 

energy efficiency ratings, they must be 

clearly provided in the I&O manual 

shipped with the unit. 77 FR 2356, 2378 

(Jan. 17, 2012). If DOE finds that the 

rated information, such as airflow rates, 

is not specified in the I&O manual 

shipped with the unit, DOE will test 

using a default value of 400 standard 

cubic feet per minute (scfm) per ton of 

cooling capacity. DOE realizes that 

testing under nominal, as opposed to 

rated, conditions may negatively impact 

the equipment’s energy efficiency 

performance; however, in DOE’s view, 

the commercial customer has a right to 

know the operating conditions that are 

used to generate the certified efficiency 

values, including rated airflow and 

rated capacity. 

8. Manufacturer Involvement During 

Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split 

Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

Assessment and/or Enforcement Testing 

The DOE test procedure incorporated 

by reference for Variable Refrigerant 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16779 

Flow Multi-Split Air-Conditioner and 

Heat Pumps (VRF), AHRI 1230–2010, 

states that ‘‘if the equipment cannot be 

maintained at steady state conditions by 

its normal controls, then the 

manufacturer shall modify or over-ride 

such controls so that steady state 

conditions are achieved.’’ The VRF 

Operations Manual provides that 

manufacturers are allowed to assist in 

the set up and start up of this equipment 

during AHRI verification testing, 

because skilled personnel with 

knowledge of the control software 

specific to the equipment being tested 

are required to ensure proper test set-up 

and valid test results. This provision in 

the VRF OM limits manufacturer 

involvement during start-up and testing 

to only regulating the compressor motor 

speed control. Similarly, the VRF OM 

states that if the equipment does not 

stabilize within two hours of fixing the 

compressor speed, the manufacturer 

may adjust the control operation of the 

system to meet the requirements of the 

standard. 

DOE understands the complexity of 

the VRF systems and will allow a 

manufacturer representative to witness 

assessment and/or enforcement testing. 

DOE is proposing that the manufacturer 

representative will also be allowed to 

adjust the compressor speed during 

testing. Manufacturers should document 

their certification test set-up, including 

fixed compressor speeds, and maintain 

this documentation as part of their test 

data underlying certification so that 

DOE can request the documentation 

from the manufacturers on an as-needed 

basis. The documentation must be 

detailed enough about the set-up, such 

that it can be recreated by a laboratory 

technician without further manufacturer 

assistance. However, DOE acknowledges 

that a VRF manufacturer’s 

representative will be allowed on-site 

for DOE-initiated testing to verify set-up 

per the documentation. DOE will only 

use set-up instructions from the testing 

underlying the manufacturer’s certified 

ratings for DOE verification and 

enforcement testing. Also, the 

manufacturer must designate the 

maximum, minimum, and any 

intermediate speeds used during 

certification testing (as required under 

AHRI 1230–2010); these speeds should 

be documented in the test data 

underlying certification. 

DOE does not typically allow 

manufacturers to witness or be involved 

in DOE-initiated assessment and/or 

enforcement testing of commercial air 

conditioning and heating equipment, 

and consequently, this allowance for 

VRF systems represents a departure of 

DOE’s current practices. DOE has 

received comment that DOE is adopting 

an inequity between VRF systems and 

unitary systems. In response, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that there are 

unique circumstances governing the 

installation and operation of VRF 

systems that require intimate knowledge 

of the product control software in order 

to ensure that the system can operate 

properly during assessment and/or 

enforcement testing. Further, DOE 

believes that unlike the unitary market, 

a representative from the VRF 

manufacturer’s company typically 

provides on-site expertise when product 

VRF system is being installed in a given 

commercial building in order to help 

ensure proper operation. DOE seeks 

additional comment from interested 

parties regarding its proposal to allow 

limited manufacturer involvement in 

the testing of VRF systems. This is 

identified as issue 4 in section V.B, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

9. Correction Factors for VRF 

Refrigerant Line Lengths 

The VRF OM provides correction 

factors for the cooling capacity of the 

VRF system in the event that the 

refrigerant line length used in the test 

set-up exceeds the length specified in 

AHRI 1230–2010. The VRF OM 

provides that if the test facility does not 

set up the test using the minimum 

required lengths, the test facility will 

apply a correction factor to the cooling 

capacity when establishing the certified 

ratings to correct for the lost capacity 

due to a longer-than-required refrigerant 

line. The correction factor makes test 

results more comparable across different 

laboratories and testing set-ups. 

DOE is proposing to adopt correction 

factors as part of the DOE test 

procedures for commercial VRF systems 

to a limited extent. DOE proposes to 

limit the use of the correction to 

instances in which the physical 

constraints of the laboratory prevent it 

from setting up a given basic model for 

test in accordance with the piping 

lengths specified in Table 3 of AHRI 

1230–2007, thereby making it a matter 

of necessity. In all other circumstances, 

DOE expects laboratories to use proper 

refrigerant line lengths as a matter of 

course. 

Table III.2 shows the refrigerant line 

length correction factors DOE proposes 

to adopt, which are equivalent to those 

found in AHRI’s VRF OM. DOE believes 

that the correction factors would allow 

manufacturers to produce test results 

that are a better representation of the 

average energy efficiency for this 

equipment and are more comparable to 

results of testing across test facilities. 

TABLE III.2—REFRIGERANT LINE LENGTH CORRECTION FACTORS

Piping length beyond minimum, X (ft) Piping length beyond minimum, Y (m) Cooling capacity 

correction, % 

0> X ≤20 ................................................................................. 0> Y ≤6.1 ................................................................................ 1 

20> X ≤40 ............................................................................... 6.1> Y ≤12.2 ........................................................................... 2 

40> X ≤60 ............................................................................... 12.2> Y ≤18.3 ......................................................................... 3 

60> X ≤80 ............................................................................... 18.3> Y ≤24.4 ......................................................................... 4 

80> X ≤100 ............................................................................. 24.4> Y ≤30.5 ......................................................................... 5 

100> X ≤120 ........................................................................... 30.5> Y ≤36.6 ......................................................................... 6 

DOE is seeking comment on its 

proposal to incorporate into its test 

procedures the refrigerant line length 

correction factors. This is identified as 

issue 5 in section V.B, ‘‘Issues on Which 

DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

10. Corrections to the January 2012 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE 

inadvertently referenced incorrect titles 

for certain industry test procedure 

standards by improperly identifying the 

year of the standard. Specifically, DOE 

referenced ‘‘ANSI Z21.10.3–2006’’ at 

certain places in the January 2012 

NOPR, but intended to reference ‘‘ANSI 

Z21.10.3–2004,’’ which is the latest 

version of the standard referenced in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. 

Additionally, DOE referenced ‘‘AHRI 

340/360–2004’’ in some places in the 

January 2012 NOPR, but intended to 

reference ‘‘AHRI 340/360–2007,’’ which 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16780 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

is the latest version of the standard 

referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010. DOE is clarifying in this SNOPR 

that it proposes to adopt ANSI 

Z21.10.3–2004 for commercial water 

heaters and AHRI 340/360–2007 for 

large and very large commercial package 

air conditioners and heat pumps. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

DOE has concluded that the 

determinations made pursuant to the 

various procedural requirements 

applicable to the January 17, 2012 

NOPR remain unchanged for this 

SNOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2419–22. The 

additional changes proposed in this 

SNOPR (a refined definition of 

‘‘computer room air conditioner’’ and 

updates to the DOE test procedures 

based on information found in industry 

operations manuals) would not be 

expected to increase testing burden 

beyond what is specified in the January 

17, 2012 NOPR. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this SNOPR no 

later than the date provided in the DATES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

Interested parties may submit 

comments, data, and other information 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery/ 

courier, please provide all items on a 

compact disc (CD), if feasible, in which 

case it is not necessary to submit 

printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email, postal mail, or hand 

delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comment on 

any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. The proposed definition of 

‘‘computer room air conditioner.’’ 

2. The clarifications proposed to 10 

CFR 431.97(a) regarding commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment. 

3. Whether a longer break-in period is 

necessary for VRF systems, small air 

conditioners and heat pumps, and 

SPVUs, and, if so, why these equipment 

require a longer break-in period. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 16781 

4. The proposal to allow limited 

manufacturer involvement in the testing 

of VRF systems. 

5. The proposal to incorporate 

applicable industry refrigerant line 

length correction factors into the DOE 

test procedure. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 19, 

2012. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

431 of Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

set forth below: 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

2. Section 431.92 is amended by 

adding the definition ‘‘Computer room 

air conditioner’’ in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 431.92 Definitions concerning 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 

* * * * * 

Computer room air conditioner. 

(1) Means a basic model of commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment that is: 

(i) Used in computer rooms, data 

processing rooms, or other purposespecific cooling applications; 

(ii) Rated for sensible coefficient of 

performance (SCOP) and tested in 

accordance with 10 CFR 431.96; and 

(iii) Not a covered, consumer product 

under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)–(2) and 6292. 

(2) A computer room air conditioner 

may be provided with, or have as 

available options, an integrated 

humidifier, temperature and/or 

humidity control of the supplied air, 

and reheating function. 

* * * * * 

3. Revise § 431.96 to read as follows: 

§ 431.96 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy efficiency of 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 

(a) Scope. This section contains test 

procedures for measuring, pursuant to 

EPCA, the energy efficiency of any 

small, large, or very large commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment, packaged terminal air 

conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps, computer room air 

conditioners, variable refrigerant flow 

systems, and single package vertical air 

conditioners and single package vertical 

heat pumps. 

(b) Testing and calculations. 

Determine the energy efficiency of each 

type of covered equipment by 

conducting the test procedure(s) listed 

in the rightmost column of Table 1 of 

this section along with any additional 

testing provisions set forth in 

paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this 

section, that apply to the energy 

efficiency descriptor for that equipment, 

category, and cooling capacity. Note, the 

omitted sections of the test procedures 

listed in the rightmost column of Table 

1 of this section shall not be used. 

TABLE 1 TO § 431.96—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Equipment type Category Cooling capacity Energy efficiency 

descriptor 

Use tests, conditions and 

procedures1 in 

Small Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment.

Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, AC 

and HP.

<65,000 Btu/h ................... SEER and HSPF .............. AHRI Standard 210/240– 

2008 (omit section 6.5). 

Air-Cooled AC and HP ...... ≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

EER and COP ................... AHRI Standard 340/360– 

2007 (omit section 6.3). 

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC.<65,000 Btu/h ................... EER ................................... AHRI Standard 210/240– 

2008 (omit section 6.5). 

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

EER ................................... AHRI Standard 340/360– 

2007 (omit section 6.3). 

Water-Source HP .............. <135,000 Btu/h ................. EER and COP ................... ISO Standard 13256–1 

(1998). 

Large Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment.

Air-Cooled AC and HP ...... ≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

EER and COP ................... AHRI Standard 340/360– 

2007 (omit section 6.3). 

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC.≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

EER ................................... AHRI Standard 340/360– 

2007 (omit section 6.3). 

Very Large Commercial 

Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment.

Air-Cooled AC and HP ...... ≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

EER and COP ................... AHRI Standard 340/360– 

2007 (omit section 6.3). 

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC.≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

EER ................................... AHRI Standard 340/360– 

2007 (omit section 6.3). 

Packaged Terminal Air 

Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps.

AC and HP ........................ <760,000 Btu/h ................. EER and COP ................... AHRI Standard 310/380– 

2004 (omit section 5.6). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
16782 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 56 / Thursday, March 22, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO § 431.96—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS—Continued 

Equipment type Category Cooling capacity Energy efficiency 

descriptor 

Use tests, conditions and 

procedures1 in 

Computer Room Air Conditioners.AC ..................................... <760,000 Btu/h ................. SCOP ................................ ASHRAE Standard 127– 

2007 (omit section 5.11). 

Variable Refrigerant Flow 

Multi-split Systems.

AC and HP ........................ <760,000 Btu/h ................. EER and COP ................... AHRI Standard 1230–2010 

(omit sections 5.1.2 and 

6.6). 

Single Package Vertical Air 

Conditioners and Single 

Package Vertical Heat 

Pumps.

AC and HP ........................ <760,000 Btu/h ................. EER and COP ................... AHRI Standard 390–2003 

(omit section 6.4). 

1 Incorporated by reference, see § 431.95. 

(c) Optional break-in period for tests 

conducted using AHRI 210/240–2008, 

AHRI 340/360–2007, AHRI 1230–2010, 

and AHRI 390–2003. Manufacturers 

may optionally specify a ‘‘break-in’’ 

period, not to exceed 16 hours, to 

operate the equipment under test prior 

to conducting the test method specified 

by AHRI 210/240–2008, AHRI 340/360– 

2007, AHRI 1230–2010, or AHRI 390– 

2003. A manufacturer who elects to use 

an optional compressor break-in period 

in its certification testing should record 

this information (including the 

duration) in the test data underlying the 

certified ratings that is required to be 

maintained under 10 CFR 429.71. 

(d) Refrigerant line length corrections 

for tests conducted using AHRI 1230– 

2010. For test setups where it is 

physically impossible for the laboratory 

to use the required line length listed in 

Table 3 of the AHRI 1230–2010 

Standard, then the actual refrigerant line 

length used by the laboratory may 

exceed the required length and the 

following correction factors are applied: 

Piping length beyond minimum, X (ft) Piping length beyond minimum, Y (m) Cooling capacity 

correction, % 

0> X ≤20 ................................................................................. 0 > Y ≤ 6.1 ............................................................................. 1 

20 > X ≤40 .............................................................................. 6.1> Y ≤12.2 ........................................................................... 2 

40 > X ≤60 .............................................................................. 12.2> Y ≤18.3 ......................................................................... 3 

60 > X ≤80 .............................................................................. 18.3> Y ≤24.4 ......................................................................... 4 

80 > X ≤100 ............................................................................ 24.4> Y ≤30.5 ......................................................................... 5 

100 > X ≤120 .......................................................................... 30.5> Y ≤36.6 ......................................................................... 6 

(e) Additional provisions for 

equipment set-up. The only additional 

specifications that may be used in 

setting up the basic model for test are 

those set forth in the installation and 

operation manual shipped with the unit. 

Each unit should be set up for test in 

accordance with the manufacturer 

installation and operation manuals. 

Paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this 

section provide specifications for 

addressing key information typically 

found in the installation and operation 

manuals. 

(1) If a manufacturer specifies a range 

of superheat, sub-cooling, and/or 

refrigerant pressure in its installation 

and operation manual for a given basic 

model, any value(s) within that range 

may be used to determine refrigerant 

charge or mass of refrigerant, unless the 

manufacturer clearly specifies a rating 

value in its installation and operation 

manual in which case the specified 

rating value shall be used. 

(2) The air flow rate used for testing 

must be that set forth in the installation 

and operation manuals being shipped to 

the commercial customer with the basic 

model and clearly identified as that 

used to generate the DOE performance 

ratings. If a rated air flow value for 

testing is not clearly identified, a value 

of 400 standard cubic feet per minute 

(scfm) per ton shall be used. 

(3) For VRF systems, the test set-up 

and the fixed compressor speeds (i.e., 

the maximum, minimum, and any 

intermediate speeds used for testing) 

should be recorded and maintained as 

part of the test data underlying the 

certified ratings that is required to be 

maintained under 10 CFR 429.71. 

(f) Manufacturer involvement in 

assessment or enforcement testing for 

variable refrigerant flow systems. A 

manufacturer’s representative will be 

allowed to witness assessment and/or 

enforcement testing for VRF systems. 

The manufacturer’s representative will 

be allowed to inspect and discuss set-up 

only with a DOE representative and 

adjust the compressor speed during 

testing in the presence of a DOE 

representative. Only previously 

documented specifications for set-up as 

specified under paragraphs (d) and (e) of 

this section will be used. 

4. In § 431.97, redesignate paragraphs 

(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) as proposed 

January 17, 2012, at 77 FR 2427, as 

paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) 

respectively and add a new paragraph 

(a) to read as follows: 

§ 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and 

their effective dates. 

(a) All basic models of commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment must be tested for 

performance using the applicable DOE 

test procedure in § 431.96, be compliant 

with the applicable standards set forth 

in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this 

section, and be certified to the 

Department under 10 CFR part 429. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–7022 Filed 3–20–12; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS