1

Report from the Commercial HVAC, WH, and Refrigeration Working Group 

to the 

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee 

August 30, 2013 

Subject: Certification Requirements for HVAC, WH, and Refrigeration Equipment 

Summary

We recommend that ASRAC approve our recommendations for --

A proposed rule on model groupings and certification. 

An extension of time to develop recommendations on a verification program 

proposed rule and to discuss possible issues concerning the existing enforcement 

regulations.

Background 

History 

On February 26, 2013, the Department of Energy (DOE) Appliance Standards and 

Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) established the Commercial HVAC, 

WH, and Refrigeration Working Group (Working Group) to negotiate certification 

requirements for commercial heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC), water 

heating (WH), and refrigeration equipment. The Working Group was directed to provide 

a progress report by June 24, 2013, and a final report by August 30, 2013, with 

recommendations for ASRAC to adopt. 

The first meeting of the Working Group was held on April 30 to develop ground rules for 

the negotiations, discuss the scope of the subjects to be negotiated, and prepare a 

schedule of meetings to meet the August 30, 2013 deadline for the recommendations to 

ASRAC. Among other provisions, the Working Group adopted Ground Rules requiring 

that there be “no more than 2 negative votes” to have the necessary consensus to adopt a 

recommendation. They also agreed that abstentions would not count as a negative vote. 

In addition, the Group discussed the scope of the rulemaking issues to be negotiated and 

decided that they could not effectively negotiate the certification requirements without 

first resolving interrelated issues, particularly Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Methods (AEDMs). The Working Group agreed to begin the negotiations with these 

other issues before addressing the certification issues. 

AEDMs 

Meetings were held on May 14 - 15, May 29 - 30, and June 10 - 11, to resolve the AEDM 

issues. On June 24, the Working Group submitted a report to ASRAC with 
2

recommendations that DOE proceed with a notice of proposed rulemaking on AEDMs 

based on the unanimous consensus of the Working Group reflected in the report.

ASRAC agreed, and the Department is currently drafting the proposed rule. 

Basic Models and Certification 

Recommendations. Subsequent meetings of the full Working Group were held on July 

1-2, July 17 - 18, July 31 - August 1, August 7 - 8, and August 26 - 28. A subset of 

Working Group members met on August 14 (boilers and motors) and August 20 (boilers). 

In addition, some Working Group members have been meeting informally with each 

other and with the constituencies they represent. As a result of these meetings, the 

Working Group reached consensus on basic model groupings for determining and 

certifying ratings and the certification process. The discussions at those meetings 

covered a broad range of issues from the confidentiality of information submitted to DOE 

to the process for evaluating equipment efficiency when a piece of optional equipment 

would increase energy use during a test but provide increased energy efficiency over the 

life of the product. Because of the many different kinds of equipment covered by this 

rulemaking, over 120 separate recommendations were voted on by the Group during the 

meetings; virtually all were adopted unanimously, with only one having one negative 

vote, and one having two negative votes. Although abstentions do not count as negative 

votes, we note that there was only one recommendation having two abstentions, and one 

having one abstention. Each of the recommendations adopted by the Working Group and 

the votes recorded are contained in Attachment 1 to this report. 

One of the key issues of this phase of the negotiation was how various product features 

are treated with respect to the basic model definition. The recommendation of the 

Working Group is for DOE to issue an enforcement policy to exclude certain identified 

features (e.g., economizers) of certain products from Departmental testing; however, such 

an exclusion would only apply when an otherwise identical model (one that is identical in 

all other features; e.g., everything is the same except that it does not have an economizer) 

is available in the manufacturer’s product line for sale at all times. In any case where a 

manufacturer does not offer an otherwise identical model, the model with that feature 

(e.g., an economizer) would be subject to Departmental testing. Implicit in this policy is 

an allowance for manufacturers to incorporate features that impact energy 

efficiency/energy consumption without reflecting that impact in the 

efficiency/consumption ratings for that basic model. 

High Static Indoor Blowers/Oversized Motors. There is one issue presented in 

Attachment 1 that warrants special attention because of the way it is being handled. The 

issue involves the use of HVAC basic models and how to account for the use of high 

static indoor blowers and oversized motors; these are indoor fan assemblies that include a 

motor that drives the fan that can deliver higher external static pressure than the standard 

indoor fan assembly sold with the equipment. Because of the time necessary to work out 

the details for determining the relative efficiency of these high static assemblies 

compared to the standard assembly sold with the equipment, the Working Group 

unanimously agreed to a conceptual approach to the problem so that a recommendation 
3

could be sent to ASRAC. This approach is necessary because of the December 31, 2013 

deadline for implementation of DOE’s existing certification regulations. The 

recommendation is that DOE issue enforcement guidance indicating that units will be 

tested with the base motor, provided that all motors used within the model grouping have 

the same or better relative efficiency performance as the motor included with the base 

unit. The affected interests will work informally with DOE over the next month on the 

details for establishing that relative efficiency via a guidance document. Because they 

agree on the need to establish the relative efficiency, they believe they just need more 

time to work out the complicated details. If they are unable to reach agreement on the 

details, ASRAC will be advised that the certification proposal for several types of HVAC 

equipment (small, large and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating 

equipment and single package vertical units) cannot be included in the proposed 

certification rule. 

Key Points. The Working Group wanted to stress the following points about its 

recommendations: 

The group believes that it is vital that the certification rulemaking move forward 

VERY quickly. 

It recommends that ASRAC advise DOE to provide public notification as quickly 

as it can that compliance with the December 31, 2013 implementation date for 

certification will not be required. 

It agreed to implementation dates in the proposed rule based on its understanding 

that ASRAC would agree to permit the Working Group to review any changes 

made to the proposed rule as a result of public comments so that the Group can 

determine whether the final certification rule will deviate "significantly" from the 

proposed rule, triggering need for later compliance dates (based on the 

certification rule instead of the AEDM rule). We recommend that ASRAC agree 

to this. 

The Group’s recommendation is to address certification separately from 

verification, thus this proposal only addresses certification.

The group has not yet discussed the issue of enforcement 

process/statistics/tolerances and requests additional time to discuss that issue. 

Verification 

Background. The Working Group also began discussions during the post AEDM 

meetings on a verification program. Because this would be a new DOE rule, a 

considerable amount of time has been spent talking about a wide range of alternatives for 

doing the testing to limit costs while achieving the necessary confidence in the test 

results. Because of this, many members of the Group believe they needed to check more 

closely with others affected by the potential rule whose interests they represent in the 

negotiations. 
4

Recommendation. As a result, at the August 7 meeting, the Group agreed that it was 

unlikely to complete discussions and develop recommendations on verification testing by 

the end of August. Therefore, it agreed to add one day and more hours to the meeting 

days for its last meeting in August to resolve as much as possible before the August 30 

report. It also agreed to recommend to ASRAC that the time for the completion of 

recommendations on verification testing be extended to October 31, 2013. The Group 

has scheduled another meeting for September 11 - 12 with the expectation that ASRAC 

will agree to the extension. It was very difficult to schedule another meeting in 

September because of conflicts some members have with an ASRAC meeting, an 

industry group meeting, and other responsibilities, but the group is prepared to add more 

meeting dates if necessary to try to complete its work on verification. 

Key Points. The Working Group wanted to stress several important points on this 

recommendation: 

First, the Group wanted to note the progress already made. The members of the 

group split up into three product subgroups to develop specific recommendations 

in the following areas. 

o Commercial Refrigeration Equipment: This subgroup believes it is making 

good progress on verification. They are approximately "mid-way" 

through working through the issues. 

o Boiler and Water Heater Equipment: This subgroup has reached 

consensus in some areas, but there are some areas with significant 

disagreement. The subgroup is considering whether more progress may 

be made if boilers and water heaters are addressed separately. 

o HVAC & Furnaces (except Computer Room AC (CRAC) and, Single 

Package Vertical Units (SPVU). This subgroup is approximately threequarters of the way through verification. They are putting together a 

simple operations manual with more detail than the original set of bullets 

they have prepared. The recommendation for a proposed rule is largely 

based on the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute’s 

current program for these products. This group stated that they will need 

to talk with manufacturers from the CRAC and SPVU markets before they 

can make recommendations about a verification program for those types 

of equipment. 

The Working Group supports continuing negotiations to address verification.

The Group believes that, at the present time, continuing negotiation is the best 

available option. 

There is consensus (but it is not unanimous) among Working Group members that 

a verification program is needed. The concerns that there are regarding 

verification testing are concentrated around certain subtypes of products. 
5

The Working Group has scheduled a multi-day meeting in mid-September in 

anticipation of ASRAC approving continuation of the negotiations with respect to 

verification testing. The Working Group will continue meeting in product 

subgroups between meetings. The Working Group expects to be able to complete 

a proposal for verification testing in October.

Enforcement 

The Working Group has some concerns about DOE’s existing enforcement regulations. 

The concerns include questions about how the process works, the statistics used to 

determine compliance, and tolerances allowed. If ASRAC approves the extension, the 

Group will address these issues at its September 11 - 12 meeting and develop a 

recommendation for a proposed rule if one is needed. 

Conclusion 

There are a number of important points in support these recommendations: 

If the recommendations in this report are accepted by ASRAC, DOE could 

proceed to develop a proposed rule on basic model groups and certification. When 

consensus is reached and approved for any recommendations on verification and 

enforcement, a separate proposed rule(s) could be issued. As a result, there may 

be little if any delay on any of the issues.

The basic model groups and certification recommendations relate directly to an 

existing DOE rule that is scheduled to go into effect at the end of this year. This 

rulemaking must be initiated expeditiously. 

Because it is a new program, DOE does not believe verification has to be covered 

in the rulemaking covering the other provisions. It can be issued as part of a 

separate rulemaking at a later date without causing any problems.

Any necessary changes to the existing enforcement regulations can also be issued 

separately. They would not be needed as quickly as the basic model groups and 

certification provisions, because of the time being provided for implementation 

and the subsequent six-month grace period before any enforcement actions would 

be taken. 

It is important that members of the Working Group not be pushed to agree before 

they are comfortable with the recommendations. 

The Working Group has worked very well together and has achieved significant 

success so far, including the consensus recommendations on AEDMs that 

ASRAC has already approved.

The Group wants to continue negotiating the verification provisions and try to 

achieve consensus. It has spent considerable time discussing the issue, and it has 

already agreed to add more days and hours to the negotiations in an effort to 

complete them quickly.
The Facilitator is concerned that, in the last few days of negotiations, there was 

increasing evidence of a breakdown in the very good working relationships among the 

members of the Working Group (and the public participants). He is concerned about the 

effect on the negotiations and is working to address the problems. However, he still 

believes that it is worth continuing with the negotiations. He stresses that the Group has 

made significant progress on some very difficult issues and that, despite the rancor, 

everyone wants to continue to make an effort to achieve consensus; their attitudes are 

generally but not unanimously positive about the chances for success. 

If ASRAC approves the extension, we will advise the Committee as soon as possible, if 

issues arise that will prevent us from meeting any new deadline. 

John Cymbalsky 

Designated Federal Officer for ASRAC 

Attachment 

6