[6450-01-P] 

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 WaterHeating 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 waterheating 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 AirConditioning 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 

1 
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.	 E-mail: ASHRAE90.1-2011-STD-0029@ee.doe.gov. Include docket number EERE2011-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, 

2 
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 telefacsimilies (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%252 

BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029. This web page contains a link to the docket 

3 
 

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. E-mail: 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. E-mail: 

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 

4 
 

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 AirConditioners 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. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part C1

 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), 

Pub. L. 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by Pub. L. 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 

1

 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1. 

5 
 

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, airconditioning, and water-heating 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)) 

2

 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-140. 

6 
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 more-stringent 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 

7 
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, air-conditioning (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., 

8 
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) water-source 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 air-conditioning and heating equipment); Underwriters 

Laboratories (UL) 727-2006 (oil-fired commercial warm-air furnaces); ANSI Z21.47-2006 (gasfired commercial warm-air furnaces); and ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 (commercial water heaters). 

Lastly, ASHRAE Standard 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 

9 
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, 

10 
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 water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air 

conditioners; variable refrigerant flow (VRF) water-source 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. 

11 
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 comfort-conditioning 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 

12 
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 

AHRI-member 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 

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. 

13 
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). 

14 
 

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 

3

 ASHRAE 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.” 

15 
 

 

 

 

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 Air-Conditioners) 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 

4

 ASHRAE 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.” 5 ASHRAE 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 chilled-water coils.” 

16 
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 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 

17 
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 

18 
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 comfort-conditioning 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 

19 
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: 

20 
(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. 

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 

21 
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 air-conditioning 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. 

22 
 

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 warm-air 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). 

6

 The 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. 

23 
 

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 manuals7

 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 order to do the testing. (Mitsubishi, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 

at p. 48) 

7

 For more information and to access those operations manuals, visit AHRI’s website at: 

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

24 
 

 

 

 

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 

Break-In 

Period 

Small 

Unitary OM 

3.8 (Break-in 

Operation of Test 

Units) 

Certain AHRI OMs allow 

manufacturers the option of 

“breaking in” equipment by 

running the unit before 

DOE is proposing to add a 

“break-in” provision to its 

test procedures for 

Large 3.7 (Break-in commercial air conditioning 

Unitary OM Operation and 

Start-up of Test 

Units) 

testing. Depending on the 

equipment, AHRI allows up 

to 16 hours, up to 24 hours, 

or a manufacturer-specified 

number of hours. 

and heating equipment. 

However, DOE is only 

proposing to allow up to 16 

hours to break in equipment, 

regardless of the equipment 

class. 

VRF OM 3.7 (Break-in 

Operation and 

Start-up of Test 

System) 

SPVU OM 3.7 (Optional 

“Break-In” Period) 

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 Multiple N/A Certain AHRI OMs provide DOE determines whether a 

Samples OMs criteria by which a unit 

would be considered 

defective. 

unit is defective on a caseby-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 

3.3.5.4 (Sample 

Start-Up and 

Operation) 

Certain AHRI OMs allow 

the opportunity for a 

manufacturer or test lab to 

use a “test procedure 

DOE is not proposing to 

adopt AHRI OM “test 

procedure guidelines” or to 

3.12 (Clarification allow for the use of “punch 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in Running of the 

Test Procedure) 

guideline” or a “punch list” 

to help facilitate 

implementation of the DOE 

test procedure. 

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. 

Commercial 

Water 

Heaters OM 

3.3.5.4 (Sample 

Start-Up and 

Operation) 

3.10 (Clarification 

of Test 

Procedures) 

SPVU OM 3.6 (Test Set-up 

and Start-up 

Punch List) 

Enhancement 

Devices 

Small 

Unitary OM 

3.6 (System 

Manufacturer’s 

Required 

Equipment 

Provisions) 

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. 

3.7 (ICM’s 

Required 

Equipment 

Provisions) 

5.8 (Listing 

Equipment with 

Enhancement 

Components) 

Large 

Unitary OM 

3.6 (Required 

Equipment 

Provisions) 

Refrigerant 

Charge 

General OM 9.11.1.1 (Test 

Sample 

Refrigerant 

Charge) 

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. 

Small 

Unitary OM 

3.19 (Test Sample 

Refrigerant 

Charge) 

VRF OM 3.15 (Test Sample 

Refrigerant 

Charge) and 3.15.1 

(Refrigerant 

Charge 

Adjustment) 

Fan Speeds and 

Air Flow 

Rates, Rated 

vs. Nominal 

General OM 9.11.1.2 (Fan 

Speed) 

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. 

Large 

Unitary OM 

3.11 (Indoor Coil 

Airflow Rate) 

Manufacturer 

Involvement 

During VRF 

VRF OM 3.8 (Duties of 

Testing Laboratory 

Personnel) 

The AHRI OM for VRF 

equipment allows 

manufacturers to lock in the 

DOE proposes to allow 

limited manufacturer 

involvement in ensuring the 

26 
 

 

Testing 3.10 (System 

Stabilization for 

Testing) 

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. 

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 VRF OM 3.9 (Refrigerant The AHRI OM for VRF DOE proposes to adopt the 

Factors for Line Length equipment provides a table correction factors but only in 

VRF Considerations) of cooling capacity the instance where the 

Refrigerant correction factors in the physical limitations of the 

Line Lengths event that a testing 

laboratory exceeds the 

minimum refrigerant line 

length specified in AHRI 

1230. 

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 air-conditioning 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 “break-in” 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). 

27 
 

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 Multi-Split 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 breakin period used by the manufacturer, if any, when it performed certification testing, up to 16 

hours. 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. 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 

8

 For 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. 

28 
 

break-in 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 furnaces9

 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 

9

 The AHRI Commercial Furnaces Operations Manual is available at: 

http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/2012/CFRN%20OM-2012.pdf. 

29 
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 

water-heating 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 low-volume 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, 

30 
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 case-by-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. 

31 
 

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 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 

10 For 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. 

32 
 

 

 

regulations in the DOE guidance database11 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, 

11 Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1..
 12 For more information, see sections 3.6, 3.7, and 5.8 of the AHRI Operations Manual for Unitary Small AirConditioners 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. 

33 
 

 

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, sub-cooling, 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, 

13 For 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. 14 For 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 . 

34 
DOE proposes that if a manufacturer specifies a range of superheat, sub-cooling, 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 

35 
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 Flow MultiSplit 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 

36 
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 setup 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, 

37 
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 onsite 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 VFR 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 longerthan-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 

38 
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.” 

39 
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 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. 

40 
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 

41 
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 website 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, 

42 
 

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. 

43 
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). 

44 
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 airconditioning 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. 

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. 

45 
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication oftoday's supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and procedure. Confidential business infonnation, Energy 

conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and rccordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 2012. 

Ween B. Hogan 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Ener!;,,), Efficiency 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

46 
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 to read 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 means a basic model of commercial package air-conditioning 

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 

47 
 

as available options, an integrated humidifier, temperature and/or humidity control of the 

supplied air, and reheating function. 

* * * * * 

3. Revise §431.96 heading and text 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 

48 
Small 

Commercial 

Packaged AirConditioning 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 

EvaporativelyCooled 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 AirConditioning 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 

EvaporativelyCooled AC 

≥135,000 Btu/h 

and <240,000 

Btu/h 

EER AHRI Standard 

340/360-2007 

(omit section 

6.3) 

Very Large 

Commercial 

Packaged AirConditioning 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 

EvaporativelyCooled 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) 

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) 

49 
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% 

50 
(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 

51 
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 proposed paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) as published January 17, 

2012, at 77 FR 2427-32 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. 

* * * * * 

52