[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16769-16782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7022]
[[Page 16769]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029]
RIN 1904-AC47
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment:
Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Commercial
Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposed to amend its
energy conservation standards for several classes of commercial
heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment and to adopt new
energy conservation standards for computer room air conditioners in a
January 2012 notice of proposed rulemaking (January 2012 NOPR). The
levels that DOE proposed to adopt were equivalent to the efficiency
levels contained in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE)/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
(IESNA) Standard 90.1-2010 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010). In addition,
DOE proposed in the January 2012 NOPR to update the current Federal
test procedures, or for certain equipment types adopt new test
procedures, to incorporate by reference the most current versions of
several relevant industry test procedures specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010. The amendments proposed in today's supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) would modify the definition of ``computer
room air conditioner'' initially proposed in the January 2012 NOPR and
incorporate additional provisions to clarify the proposed test
procedure provisions for commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment and variable refrigerant flow systems. DOE is also
proposing to include with modification certain provisions from Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) operations
manuals in its test procedures that would clarify the application of
the DOE test procedures and harmonize DOE testing with the testing
performed by industry.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and other information regarding
this SNOPR no later than April 2, 2012. For details, see section V,
``Public Participation'' of this SNOPR.
ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted must identify the SNOPR on Energy
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for ASHRAE Standard 90.1
Products, and provide docket number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029 and/or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1904-AC47. Comments may be
submitted using any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected]. Include docket
number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029 and/or RIN 1904-AC47 in the subject line
of the message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed
copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to
include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and
transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All
documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=EER
E-2011-BT-STD-0029. This Web page contains a link to the docket for
this notice, along with simple instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section V,
``Public Participation,'' for further information on how to submit
comments through www.regulations.gov.
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202)
586-2945 or by email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7892. Email:
[email protected].
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
2. Previous Rulemaking Documents
II. Summary of the Supplemental Proposed Rule
III. Discussion
A. Definition of ``Computer Room Air Conditioner''
B. Test Procedures
1. Compressor Break-In Period
2. Certified Ratings
3. Defective Samples
4. Test Set-Up
5. Enhancement Devices
6. Refrigerant Charge
7. Fan Speeds and Air Flow Rates, Rated versus Nominal
8. Manufacturer Involvement During Variable Refrigerant Flow
Multi-Split Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps Assessment and/or
Enforcement Testing
9. Correction Factors for VRF Refrigerant Line Lengths
10. Corrections to the January 2012 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying today's supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking, as well
as some of the relevant historical background related to the
establishment of energy conservation standards and test procedures for
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 equipment.
[[Page 16770]]
A. Authority
Title III, Part C \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as
codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, Sec. 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which includes the commercial heating, air-conditioning, and
water-heating equipment that is the subject of this rulemaking.\2\ In
general, this program addresses the energy efficiency of certain types
of commercial and industrial equipment. Relevant provisions of the Act
specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labelling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information
and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
Public Law 110-140.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for
commercial heating, air-conditioning, 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)) 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 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., 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 (gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces);
and ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 (commercial water heaters). Lastly, ASHRAE
Standard
[[Page 16771]]
90.1-2010 specified new test procedures for certain equipment,
including: ASHRAE 127-2007 (computer room air conditioners); and AHRI
1230-2010 (variable refrigerant flow air conditioners and heat pumps).
2. Previous Rulemaking Documents
Subsequent to the release of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE
published a notice of data availability (NODA) in the Federal Register
on May 5, 2011 (May 2011 NODA) and requested public comment as a
preliminary step required pursuant to EPCA when DOE considers amended
energy conservation standards for certain types of commercial equipment
covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 76 FR 25622. Specifically, in the May
2011 NODA, DOE presented a discussion of the changes found in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010, which included a description of DOE's evaluation of
each ASHRAE equipment type in order for DOE to determine whether the
amendments in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 have increased efficiency
levels. Id. at 25630-37. As an initial matter, DOE sought to determine
which requirements for covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, if
any, were revised solely to reflect the level of the current Federal
energy conservation standard (where ASHRAE is merely ``catching up'' to
the current national standard), were revised but lowered, were revised
to include design requirements without changes to the efficiency level,
or had any other revisions made that did not increase the standard
level, in which case, DOE was not triggered to act under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6) for that particular equipment type. For those types of
equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for which ASHRAE actually increased
efficiency levels above the current Federal standard (i.e., water-
cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; two classes of VRF
water-source heat pumps with and without heat recovery; and computer
room air conditioners (which were not previously covered)), DOE
subjected that equipment to the potential energy savings analysis for
amended national energy conservation standards based on: (1) The
modified efficiency levels contained within ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010;
and (2) more-stringent efficiency levels. DOE presented its
methodology, data, and results for the preliminary energy savings
analysis developed for the water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled
equipment classes in the May 2011 NODA for public comment. Id. at
25637-46. For the remaining equipment classes, DOE requested data and
information that would allow it to accurately assess the energy savings
potential of those equipment classes. Additionally, for single package
vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, although the levels in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010 were unchanged, DOE performed an analysis of their
potential energy savings as required by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B).
Lastly, DOE presented an initial assessment of the test procedure
changes included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Id. at 25644-47.
Following the NODA, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking
in the Federal Register on January 17, 2012 (the January 2012 NOPR),
and requested public comment. 77 FR 2356. In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE
proposed amended energy conservation standards for small, large, and
very large 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.
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 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
[[Page 16772]]
proposing clarifications to the allowance of manufacturer involvement
in VRF testing. DOE is also proposing to adopt refrigerant line length
correction factors for variable refrigerant flow systems that are
contained in the AHRI operations manual for that equipment with some
limitations on their use. DOE also proposes modification to the
regulatory text where necessary to reflect DOE's interpretation of the
test procedure by clarifying several other testing issues described
below, including certified rating tolerances, defective samples, test
set-up, and enhancement devices. DOE tentatively determined in the
January 2012 NOPR and reaffirms in today's SNOPR that none of the
proposed changes would alter the measured efficiency of covered
products.
III. Discussion
A. Definition of ``Computer Room Air Conditioner''
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that because
ASHRAE expanded the scope of Standard 90.1 to include air conditioners
and condensing units serving computer rooms, the scope of DOE's
obligations pursuant to EPCA with regard to ASHRAE products similarly
expanded to encompass these products. 77 FR 2356, 2372 (Jan. 17, 2012).
Thus, DOE analyzed the technological feasibility and economic
justification of adopting efficiency levels for computer room air
conditioners that are more stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010, as required by EPCA, and proposed to adopt new standards for
computer room air conditioners at the same levels as those specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Id. at 2416-18. The term ``computer room air
conditioner'' had not been defined under DOE's regulations because such
units had not previously been covered equipment. As a result, in the
January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt the following definition for
``computer room air conditioner'':
Computer Room Air Conditioner means a unit of commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment that is advertised, marketed,
and/or sold specifically for use in computer rooms, data processing
rooms, or other precision cooling applications, and is rated for
performance using ASHRAE Standard 127, (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 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 Sec. 431.95).
77 FR 2356, 2425-26 (Jan. 17, 2012).
DOE presented the proposed definition at the February 2012 public
meeting for the ASHRAE equipment NOPR, and received feedback from
interested parties that indicated concerns about the proposed
definition of ``computer room air conditioner.'' In particular,
Panasonic indicated concern that the proposed definition might require
the same equipment to be certified to multiple test methods--one for
comfort cooling and one for computer room applications. (Panasonic,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 62) Mitsubishi expressed
concern that the proposed definition would prevent equipment that is
designed primarily for use in comfort conditioning (and thus not rated
using ASHRAE Standard 127) but that may also be suitable for computer
room service from being installed in all potential applications.
(Mitsubishi, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 60-61) In an
attempt to alleviate these concerns, DOE is proposing modifications to
this definition in today's SNOPR to assist manufacturers in determining
what equipment is considered a ``computer room air conditioner'' under
DOE's proposed regulations.
In developing a definition for ``computer room air conditioner,''
DOE first looked to existing industry definitions in ASHRAE Standard
90.1 and ASHRAE Standard 127. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 does not
provide a definition of ``computer room air conditioner,'' but rather,
it defines a ``computer room,'' thereby clarifying the use/location but
not the technology suitable for that location.\3\ In terms of applying
its efficiency levels, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 states that ``[a]ir
conditioners primarily serving computer rooms and covered by ASHRAE
Standard 127 shall meet the requirements in Table 6.8.1K. All other air
conditioners shall meet the requirements in Table 6.8.1A.'' Table
6.8.1K in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 provides the minimum efficiency
levels for computer room air conditioners that DOE proposed adopting in
the January 2012 NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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/ft\2\ of conditioned
floor area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE was not able to identify
any physical construction and/or component characteristic(s) of
computer room air conditioners that distinguish those products from
conventional comfort-cooling air conditioners. 77 FR 2356, 2382-83
(Jan. 17, 2012). After hearing the concerns raised at the February 2012
public meeting, DOE again attempted to develop a definition for
``computer room air conditioner'' that effectively distinguishes these
products from other types of commercial air conditioners. DOE
considered characteristics such as evaporator-to-condenser effective
surface area ratio and delivered cubic feet per minute (CFM) per ton of
capacity, as well as the presence of certain features such as an
integrated humidifier, temperature and/or humidity control of the
supplied air, and reheating function. Based upon its review, DOE notes
that many, but not all, computer room air conditioners may have
features such as an integrated humidifier, temperature and/or humidity
control of the supplied air, and reheating function. However, DOE could
not identify any single
[[Page 16773]]
characteristic or combination of characteristics that would
consistently differentiate between the two types of equipment, the same
reasoning which led DOE to propose a definition in the January 2012
NOPR based upon how the equipment is marketed and/or sold for use,
rather than upon physical characteristics.
At the February 2012 public meeting, Mitsubishi stated that the
most distinguishing characteristic of CRAC equipment is that it has the
ability to apply cooling operation at very low temperatures.
(Mitsubishi, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 99) Although DOE
recognizes that many computer room air conditioners are deemed
``mission critical'' equipment and are expected to operate year round
regardless of the outdoor conditions, DOE is also aware that other
types of commercial air conditioners can be designed to operate under
low ambient temperature conditions (through the use of ``low ambient''
control packages). At the public meeting, Mitsubishi stated that
certain comfort-cooling equipment it manufactures also has the ability
to operate under low ambient conditions, and, thus, such equipment can
be used in some computer room applications. (Mitsubishi, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 20 at p. 99) DOE notes that many self-contained water-
cooled air conditioners and heat pumps also can operate under low
ambient conditions. As a result, a commercial air conditioner's ability
to apply cooling operation at very low temperatures is not a
differentiating characteristic on which to base the definition, because
it would not differentiate computer room air conditioners from other
conventional comfort-conditioning air conditioners.
The Department considered all of these potential differentiating
characteristics when developing a definition of ``computer room air
conditioner'' but ultimately determined that none of these factors
could be used to definitively distinguish computer room air
conditioners from conventional comfort-conditioning air conditioners.
However, upon considering the comments at the NOPR public meeting, DOE
believes that specifying certain physical characteristics in the
definition that may be present in computer room air conditioners will
assist manufacturers in determining which equipment falls under the
definition of ``computer room air conditioner'' and which equipment
falls under the definitions for other types of commercial package air
conditioners. Therefore, DOE has proposed in today's SNOPR to include
some of the physical characteristics listed above in the revised
definition of ``computer room air conditioner.''
Given the above-discussed difficulties in distinguishing computer
room air conditioners from comfort-conditioning air conditioners based
solely upon differences in physical construction and/or component
characteristics, DOE is proposing to instead specify that products
satisfying the definition of ``computer room air conditioner'' are (by
definition) certified to DOE's test procedure for CRACs (see Sec.
431.96), and any other covered comfort-conditioning air conditioners
must still be rated and certified to their applicable test procedure
and energy conservation standards (either residential or commercial).
By definition, ``industrial equipment'' (generally applicable to
ASHRAE equipment) ``is not a `covered product' as defined in section
6291(a)(2) * * *.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(A)(iii)) Under 42 U.S.C.
6291(2), the term ``covered product'' means a consumer product of a
type listed in 42 U.S.C. 6292, Coverage; central air conditioners and
central air conditioning heat pumps are specifically included at 42
U.S.C. 6292(a)(3). Furthermore, the definition of ``consumer product''
at 42 U.S.C. 6291(1) specifically captures a type of product, which, to
any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for personal use or
consumption by individuals. Thus, if a basic model of central air
conditioner is found to any significant extent in consumer
applications, it would appropriately be a residential central air
conditioner subject to 10 CFR 430.32(c).
For air-conditioning equipment that is properly classified as
commercial and industrial equipment, DOE notes that there is already a
comprehensive set of standards at 10 CFR 431.97 for a variety of types
of commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment used in comfort-
conditioning 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 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 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
as available options, an integrated humidifier, temperature and/or
humidity control of the supplied air, and reheating function.
Additionally, DOE clarifies that any basic model that meets the
definition of ``commercial package air-conditioning and heat
equipment'' must be classified as one of the equipment types (e.g.,
small, large, or very large commercial package air-conditioning and
heat equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners or heat pumps,
variable refrigerant flow systems, computer room air conditioners, and
single package vertical units) for the purposes of determining the
applicable test procedure and energy conservation standard. While DOE
is permitting manufacturers to make this election based on a comparison
of each basic model with DOE's regulatory definitions for the various
equipment types, DOE is adding a new section to the beginning of 10 CFR
431.97 to make it clear that each manufacturer of a basic model that
meets this definition does have a regulatory obligation in terms of
standards compliance. Accordingly, DOE is proposing the following
revision to 10 CFR 431.97:
(a) All basic models of commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment must be tested for performance using the
applicable DOE test procedure in Sec. 431.96, be
[[Page 16774]]
compliant with the applicable standards set forth in paragraphs (b)
through (f) of this section, and be certified to the Department
under 10 CFR part 429.
DOE believes that the amended definition of ``computer room air
conditioner'' would not restrict any types of commercial air-
conditioning equipment from being installed in computer rooms, but
rather, that it clarifies which air conditioners must be tested and
certified as computer room air conditioners under DOE's regulatory
program. DOE seeks comment on its proposed definition of ``computer
room air conditioner'' and the clarifications proposed to 10 CFR
431.97(a) regarding commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment. These are identified as issues 1 and 2 in section V.B,
``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.''
DOE would also like to take this opportunity to address another
potential approach raised at the February 2012 public meeting. More
specifically, several interested parties suggested use of the term
``precision'' air conditioner to identify this equipment class.
Panasonic stated that it is opposed to this equipment being termed
``computer room air conditioning'' equipment, because there are other
systems that could be used for computer rooms. (Panasonic, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 92) Danfoss stated that there could be
a standard for precision computer room air conditioning equipment and
one for conventional commercial air conditioning equipment. (Danfoss,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 103) Panasonic stated that the
term ``precision air conditioning'' would be more appropriate for use,
rather than computer room air conditioning, because precision air
conditioning would not restrict the market. (Panasonic, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 20 at p. 105) Danfoss stated that specialized equipment
might be used in a laboratory with very strict climate control needs,
which might have the same type of requirements but not be a computer
room. (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 105) Mitsubishi
supported these comments and the use of the term ``precision air
conditioner.'' (Mitsubishi, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p.
105)
As noted in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE believes ASHRAE Standard
90.1 does not cover commercial package 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 air-conditioning and heating equipment
to have the same scope as ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and to apply only to
equipment used for comfort space conditioning, with the exception of
those equipment types listed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that are used for
commercial or industrial processes. See further discussion in the
January 2012 NOPR regarding the ``Coverage of Commercial Package Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment That Are Exclusively Used as Part of
Industrial or Manufacturing Processes.'' 77 FR 2356, 2372-2373 (Jan.
17, 2012).
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 does not refer to or use the term
``precision air conditioner.'' The process cooling application that has
been listed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 specifically refers to cooling of
computer rooms (i.e., ``air conditioners and condensing units serving
computer rooms''). Given these factors, DOE has tentatively concluded
that DOE's proposed use of the term ``computer room air conditioner''
would be in line with the equipment covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 and that use of the term ``precision air conditioner'' would not
be appropriate.
B. Test Procedures
EPCA requires DOE to amend any test procedures for ASHRAE equipment
to the latest version generally accepted by the industry or the rating
procedures developed or recognized by industry, as referenced in
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary determines that clear
and convincing evidence exists that the latest version of the industry
test procedure does not meet the requirements for test procedures
described under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3).\6\ (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)-
(B)) In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt the updated
industry test procedures for the following equipment: small commercial
package air conditioners and heating equipment (AHRI 210/240-2008,
Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump
Equipment), large and very large commercial package air conditioners
and heating equipment (AHRI 340/360-2007, Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment), commercial 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt new
test procedures for measuring the efficiency of variable refrigerant
flow equipment (AHRI 1230-2010, Performance Rating of Variable
Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment), computer room air conditioners (ASHRAE 127-2007, Method of
Testing for Rating Computer and Data Processing Room Unitary Air
Conditioners), and single package vertical air conditioners and single
package vertical heat pumps (AHRI 390-2003, Performance Rating of
Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps) An initial
assessment of these test procedures is also presented in the January
2012 NOPR. 76 FR 2356, 2376-79 (Jan. 17, 2012).
DOE presented its proposed changes to the test procedures for
ASHRAE equipment at the February 2012 public meeting. At the meeting,
interested parties indicated that DOE should review the AHRI operations
manuals \7\ and, if necessary, adopt parts of the manuals that contain
provisions relevant to testing that would impact or help clarify DOE's
proposed test procedures. Specifically, AHRI commented that the
organization has been running certification and verification programs
for years, and in each program, there is an operations manual that
describes the verification program and clarifies how to run the test
procedure. AHRI encouraged DOE to look at these operations manuals and
reference them in any way DOE can. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 20 at p. 48) Mitsubishi also commented that it would be essential
for DOE to incorporate the operations manual in the case of VRF
systems, because the operations manual has additional guidance on how
to set up the systems and what the manufacturer requires in
[[Page 16775]]
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 Web site at: http://www.ahrinet.org/ahri+certification+programs.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevant OM
Issue AHRI OM* section Summary of issue Summary of response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compressor Break-In Period.... Small Unitary OM 3.8 (Break-in Certain AHRI OMs DOE is proposing to
................ Operation of allow manufacturers add a ``break-in''
................ Test Units). the option of provision to its
Large Unitary 3.7 (Break-in ``breaking in'' test procedures for
OM.. Operation and equipment by running commercial air
................ Start-up of the unit before conditioning and
................ Test Units). testing. Depending heating equipment.
VRF OM.......... 3.7 (Break-in on the equipment, However, DOE is only
................ Operation and AHRI allows up to 16 proposing to allow
................ Start-up of hours, up to 24 up to 16 hours to
................ Test System). hours, or a break in equipment,
SPVU OM......... 3.7 (Optional manufacturer- regardless of the
``Break-In'' specified number of equipment class.
Period). hours.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tolerances.................... Multiple OMs.... N/A............. Certain AHRI OMs and Compliance with DOE
certain industry standards is based
test methods provide on a statistically
tolerances to valid set of
evaluate samples, as
manufacturer specified at 10 CFR
efficiency ratings. part 429, and DOE is
not proposing to
adopt tolerances
from AHRI OMs in the
final rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defective Samples............. Multiple OMs.... N/A............. Certain AHRI OMs DOE determines
provide criteria by whether a unit is
which a unit would defective on a case-
be considered by-case basis as
defective. 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 3.3.5.4 (Sample Certain AHRI OMs DOE is not proposing
Furnaces OM. Start-Up and allow the to adopt AHRI OM
Commercial Water Operation). opportunity for a ``test procedure
Heaters OM. 3.12 manufacturer or test guidelines'' or to
................ (Clarification lab to use a ``test allow for the use of
................ in Running of procedure ``punch lists.'' DOE
................ the Test guideline'' or a proposes to use only
................ Procedure). ``punch list'' to information found in
................ 3.3.5.4 (Sample help facilitate the DOE test
................ Start-Up and implementation of procedures in 10 CFR
................ Operation). the DOE test part 431 and in
................ 3.10 procedure. Installation and
................ (Clarification Operation (I&O)
SPVU OM......... of Test manuals when
Procedures). conducting testing.
3.6 (Test Set-up
and Start-up
Punch List).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhancement Devices........... Small Unitary OM 3.6 (System Certain AHRI OMs DOE will only
Manufacturer's state that consider those
Required manufacturers shall devices which are
Equipment provide a complete part of the rated
Provisions). system including basic model, are
3.7 (ICM's ``other listed shipped with the
Required system enhancement unit, and are
Equipment devices.'' clearly described as
Provisions). enhancement devices
5.8 (Listing in the I&O manuals.
Equipment with
Enhancement
Components).
Large Unitary OM 3.6 (Required
Equipment
Provisions).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16776]]
Refrigerant Charge............ General OM...... 9.11.1.1 (Test Certain AHRI OMs give DOE proposes to add
................ Sample the manufacturer clarification to its
................ Refrigerant additional guidance test procedures that
Small Unitary OM Charge). on how to charge the if a range of
................ 3.19 (Test system for testing. refrigerant charges
................ Sample is specified in the
VRF OM.......... Refrigerant I&O manuals, then
Charge). any charge in that
3.15 (Test range is acceptable
Sample for use in testing,
Refrigerant unless a rating
Charge) and value is clearly
3.15.1 specified in the I&O
(Refrigerant manual.
Charge
Adjustment).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fan Speeds and Air Flow Rates, General OM...... 9.11.1.2 (Fan Certain AHRI OMs and DOE proposes to add
Rated vs. Nominal. ................ Speed). the test procedures clarification to its
Large Unitary OM 3.11 (Indoor allow manufacturers test procedures that
Coil Airflow to adjust the indoor the air flow rate to
Rate). air flow rate as be used for testing
long as it is under should be clearly
a specified limit specified in the I&O
and meets minimum manuals. If rated
external static air flow values for
pressure DOE testing are not
requirements. clearly identified
then a default value
of 400 standard
cubic feet per
minute (scfm) per
ton will be used.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Involvement VRF OM.......... 3.8 (Duties of The AHRI OM for VRF DOE proposes to allow
During VRF Testing. Testing equipment allows limited manufacturer
Laboratory manufacturers to involvement in
Personnel). lock in the ensuring the system
3.10 (System compressor and fan has been set up
Stabilization motor speeds in correctly, including
for Testing). order to achieve setting the
steady-state compressor speed
operation and allows during DOE
manufacturers to regulatory testing,
assist in the set up provided that the
and start up of this manufacturers
equipment during document their set-
AHRI verification up and record their
testing. fixed compressor
speeds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correction Factors for VRF VRF OM.......... 3.9 (Refrigerant The AHRI OM for VRF DOE proposes to adopt
Refrigerant Line Lengths. Line Length equipment provides a the correction
Considerations). table of cooling factors but only in
capacity correction the instance where
factors in the event the physical
that a testing limitations of the
laboratory exceeds laboratory prevent
the minimum it from setting up
refrigerant line the test without
length specified in exceeding the
AHRI 1230. 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).
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE reiterates the proposal set forth in the January 2012 NOPR,
providing the manufacturer the option of breaking in the compressor for
up to 16 hours for all equipment types. Due to the general similarities
between the compressors used in large unitary equipment and other types
of commercial air conditioning equipment, DOE believes that a
compressor break-in time of up to 16 hours is adequate and appropriate
to ensure test results that are representative of the energy efficiency
of the basic model during average use.
For assessment and enforcement testing purposes, DOE would use the
compressor break-in period used by the manufacturer, if any, when it
performed certification testing, up to 16 hours. A manufacturer who
elects to use an
[[Page 16777]]
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 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
furnaces \9\ states in section 3.9 (Tolerances) that if a piece of
equipment tests below 95 percent of its rated efficiency, then it fails
its AHRI verification test. DOE has received numerous inquiries
regarding the use of the AHRI tolerances in DOE's regulatory program as
it may relate to certification, assessment, and/or enforcement testing.
Consistent with the language in the January 2012 NOPR and DOE's current
practice, current DOE regulations do not provide for a 5-percent
tolerance across its regulatory program. Instead, DOE's regulations
call for a statistical evaluation of a test sample, as explained below.
As such, DOE is not proposing to adopt such provisions for a general 5-
percent tolerance in the final rule and is proposing to explicitly
exclude them from industry standards incorporated by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under current DOE regulations, a manufacturer must determine its
certified ratings for its products and equipment from values derived
pursuant to the applicable testing and sampling requirements set forth
in 10 CFR parts 429, 430, and 431. For the products covered by this
rulemaking, the sampling requirements incorporate a 95-percent
confidence limit based on testing a sample of sufficient size (no less
than 2 units per basic model). DOE's sampling plan for certification
testing allows for some variation in the manufacturing and testing
processes. More information on DOE's sampling plans can be found in 10
CFR part 429, more specifically at 10 CFR 429.43 for commercial HVAC
equipment and at 10 CFR 429.44 for commercial 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, 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.
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has not proposed to incorporate by reference any industry test
procedure guidelines or provisions for ``punch lists'' into its test
procedures. DOE
[[Page 16778]]
reiterates that any provisions of the operations manuals, industry test
procedure guidelines, or any other guidelines or provisions that are
not in DOE's test procedure or issued as the Department's official
interpretation of the regulations in the DOE guidance database \11\ are
not part of the DOE regulatory structure. Accordingly, DOE will not use
any of these types of documents during DOE's assessment and enforcement
testing. DOE will use the individual basic model's installation and
operation manual. DOE accepts questions regarding the application of
its test procedures when areas requiring clarification are identified
or ambiguities arise. The DOE guidance database provides interested
parties a way of submitting test procedure questions and industry-
developed guidance for DOE review and response. DOE utilizes this
guidance process as interim clarification until DOE's test procedure
regulations can be periodically updated through rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Enhancement Devices
The AHRI Operations Manuals for Unitary Small Air-Conditioners and
Heat Pumps and Unitary Large Equipment provide that system
manufacturers shall provide a complete system including ``other listed
system enhancement devices'' for verification testing purposes.\12\
While DOE is unclear exactly what is meant by ``other listed system
enhancement devices,'' DOE will only consider a device to be part of a
basic model for certification, assessment, and/or enforcement testing
purposes if the device is a shipped with the unit from the point of
manufacture and is clearly described as required equipment in the
equipment's I&O manual. If an enhancement device is necessary for a
basic model to meet minimum energy conservation standards, all units of
the basic model must be shipped with any required enhancement device,
and the installation and operational manual should include a
description of the unit's operation with such a device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For more information, see sections 3.6, 3.7, and 5.8 of the
AHRI Operations Manual for Unitary Small Air-Conditioners and Air-
source Heat Pumps, available at: http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/2012/USE%20OM-2012.pdf,
and section 3.6 of the AHRI Operations Manual for Unitary Large
Equipment, available at: http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/2012/ULE%20OM-2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE's current test procedures for commercial air conditioners and
heat pumps greater than 65,000 Btu/h and for VRF systems do not provide
a method for determining the refrigerant charge for testing if the
manufacturer only specifies a range of refrigerant charges or in the
event of an assessment and/or enforcement test failure. Thus, to
provide clarity in its test procedures, DOE proposes that if a
manufacturer specifies a range of superheat, 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
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
[[Page 16779]]
Flow Multi-Split Air-Conditioner and Heat Pumps (VRF), AHRI 1230-2010,
states that ``if the equipment cannot be maintained at steady state
conditions by its normal controls, then the manufacturer shall modify
or over-ride such controls so that steady state conditions are
achieved.'' The VRF Operations Manual provides that manufacturers are
allowed to assist in the set up and start up of this equipment during
AHRI verification testing, because skilled personnel with knowledge of
the control software specific to the equipment being tested are
required to ensure proper test set-up and valid test results. This
provision in the VRF OM limits manufacturer involvement during start-up
and testing to only regulating the compressor motor speed control.
Similarly, the VRF OM states that if the equipment does not stabilize
within two hours of fixing the compressor speed, the manufacturer may
adjust the control operation of the system to meet the requirements of
the standard.
DOE understands the complexity of the VRF systems and will allow a
manufacturer representative to witness assessment and/or enforcement
testing. DOE is proposing that the manufacturer representative will
also be allowed to adjust the compressor speed during testing.
Manufacturers should document their certification test set-up,
including fixed compressor speeds, and maintain this documentation as
part of their test data underlying certification so that DOE can
request the documentation from the manufacturers on an as-needed basis.
The documentation must be detailed enough about the set-up, such that
it can be recreated by a laboratory technician without further
manufacturer assistance. However, DOE acknowledges that a VRF
manufacturer's representative will be allowed on-site for DOE-initiated
testing to verify set-up per the documentation. DOE will only use set-
up instructions from the testing underlying the manufacturer's
certified ratings for DOE verification and enforcement testing. Also,
the manufacturer must designate the maximum, minimum, and any
intermediate speeds used during certification testing (as required
under AHRI 1230-2010); these speeds should be documented in the test
data underlying certification.
DOE does not typically allow manufacturers to witness or be
involved in DOE-initiated assessment and/or enforcement testing of
commercial air conditioning and heating equipment, and consequently,
this allowance for VRF systems represents a departure of DOE's current
practices. DOE has received comment that DOE is adopting an inequity
between VRF systems and unitary systems. In response, DOE has
tentatively concluded that there are unique circumstances governing the
installation and operation of VRF systems that require intimate
knowledge of the product control software in order to ensure that the
system can operate properly during assessment and/or enforcement
testing. Further, DOE believes that unlike the unitary market, a
representative from the VRF manufacturer's company typically provides
on-site expertise when product VRF system is being installed in a given
commercial building in order to help ensure proper operation. DOE seeks
additional comment from interested parties regarding its proposal to
allow limited manufacturer involvement in the testing of VRF systems.
This is identified as issue 4 in section V.B, ``Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment.''
9. Correction Factors for VRF Refrigerant Line Lengths
The VRF OM provides correction factors for the cooling capacity of
the VRF system in the event that the refrigerant line length used in
the test set-up exceeds the length specified in AHRI 1230-2010. The VRF
OM provides that if the test facility does not set up the test using
the minimum required lengths, the test facility will apply a correction
factor to the cooling capacity when establishing the certified ratings
to correct for the lost capacity due to a longer-than-required
refrigerant line. The correction factor makes test results more
comparable across different laboratories and testing set-ups.
DOE is proposing to adopt correction factors as part of the DOE
test procedures for commercial VRF systems to a limited extent. DOE
proposes to limit the use of the correction to instances in which the
physical constraints of the laboratory prevent it from setting up a
given basic model for test in accordance with the piping lengths
specified in Table 3 of AHRI 1230-2007, thereby making it a matter of
necessity. In all other circumstances, DOE expects laboratories to use
proper refrigerant line lengths as a matter of course.
Table III.2 shows the refrigerant line length correction factors
DOE proposes to adopt, which are equivalent to those found in AHRI's
VRF OM. DOE believes that the correction factors would allow
manufacturers to produce test results that are a better representation
of the average energy efficiency for this equipment and are more
comparable to results of testing across test facilities.
Table III.2--Refrigerant Line Length Correction Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piping length beyond minimum, Piping length beyond Cooling capacity
X (ft) minimum, Y (m) correction, %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0> X <=20.................... 0> Y <=6.1........... 1
20> X <=40................... 6.1> Y <=12.2........ 2
40> X <=60................... 12.2> Y <=18.3....... 3
60> X <=80................... 18.3> Y <=24.4....... 4
80> X <=100.................. 24.4> Y <=30.5....... 5
100> X <=120................. 30.5> Y <=36.6....... 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is seeking comment on its proposal to incorporate into its test
procedures the refrigerant line length correction factors. This is
identified as issue 5 in section V.B, ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment.''
10. Corrections to the January 2012 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE inadvertently referenced incorrect
titles for certain industry test procedure standards by improperly
identifying the year of the standard. Specifically, DOE referenced
``ANSI Z21.10.3-2006'' at certain places in the January 2012 NOPR, but
intended to reference ``ANSI Z21.10.3-2004,'' which is the latest
version of the standard referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.
Additionally, DOE referenced ``AHRI 340/360-2004'' in some places in
the January 2012 NOPR, but intended to reference ``AHRI 340/360-2007,''
which
[[Page 16780]]
is the latest version of the standard referenced in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010. DOE is clarifying in this SNOPR that it proposes to adopt
ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 for commercial water heaters and AHRI 340/360-2007
for large and very large commercial package air conditioners and heat
pumps.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
DOE has concluded that the determinations made pursuant to the
various procedural requirements applicable to the January 17, 2012 NOPR
remain unchanged for this SNOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2419-22. The additional
changes proposed in this SNOPR (a refined definition of ``computer room
air conditioner'' and updates to the DOE test procedures based on
information found in industry operations manuals) would not be expected
to increase testing burden beyond what is specified in the January 17,
2012 NOPR.
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
SNOPR no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this notice. Interested parties may submit comments, data,
and other information using any of the methods described in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through
the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted.
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business
Information section below.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail.
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also
will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your
comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a compact disc (CD), if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
one copy of the document marked confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked non-confidential with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comment on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. The proposed definition of ``computer room air conditioner.''
2. The clarifications proposed to 10 CFR 431.97(a) regarding
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment.
3. Whether a longer break-in period is necessary for VRF systems,
small air conditioners and heat pumps, and SPVUs, and, if so, why these
equipment require a longer break-in period.
[[Page 16781]]
4. The proposal to allow limited manufacturer involvement in the
testing of VRF systems.
5. The proposal to incorporate applicable industry refrigerant line
length correction factors into the DOE test procedure.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 19, 2012.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
part 431 of Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
2. Section 431.92 is amended by adding the definition ``Computer
room air conditioner'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 431.92 Definitions concerning commercial air conditioners and
heat pumps.
* * * * *
Computer room air conditioner. (1) Means a basic model of
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment that is:
(i) Used in computer rooms, data processing rooms, or other
purpose-specific cooling applications;
(ii) Rated for sensible coefficient of performance (SCOP) and
tested in accordance with 10 CFR 431.96; and
(iii) Not a covered, consumer product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2)
and 6292.
(2) A computer room air conditioner may be provided with, or have
as available options, an integrated humidifier, temperature and/or
humidity control of the supplied air, and reheating function.
* * * * *
3. Revise Sec. 431.96 to read as follows:
Sec. 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 Sec. 431.96--Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use tests,
Equipment type Category Cooling capacity Energy efficiency conditions and
descriptor procedures\1\ in
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air- Air-Cooled, 3- <65,000 Btu/h..... SEER and HSPF..... AHRI Standard 210/
Conditioning and Heating Phase, AC and HP. 240-2008 (omit
Equipment. section 6.5).
Air-Cooled AC and >=65,000 Btu/h and EER and COP....... AHRI Standard 340/
HP. <135,000 Btu/h. 360-2007 (omit
section 6.3).
Water-Cooled and <65,000 Btu/h..... EER............... AHRI Standard 210/
Evaporatively- 240-2008 (omit
Cooled AC. section 6.5).
>=65,000 Btu/h and EER............... AHRI Standard 340/
<135,000 Btu/h. 360-2007 (omit
section 6.3).
Water-Source HP... <135,000 Btu/h.... EER and COP....... ISO Standard 13256-
1 (1998).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Commercial Packaged Air- Air-Cooled AC and >=135,000 Btu/h EER and COP....... AHRI Standard 340/
Conditioning and Heating HP. and <240,000 Btu/ 360-2007 (omit
Equipment. h. section 6.3).
Water-Cooled and >=135,000 Btu/h EER............... AHRI Standard 340/
Evaporatively- and <240,000 Btu/ 360-2007 (omit
Cooled AC. h. section 6.3).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air-Cooled AC and >=240,000 Btu/h EER and COP....... AHRI Standard 340/
Air-Conditioning and Heating HP. and <760,000 Btu/ 360-2007 (omit
Equipment. h. section 6.3).
Water-Cooled and >=240,000 Btu/h EER............... AHRI Standard 340/
Evaporatively- and <760,000 Btu/ 360-2007 (omit
Cooled AC. h. section 6.3).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packaged Terminal Air AC and HP......... <760,000 Btu/h.... EER and COP....... AHRI Standard 310/
Conditioners and Heat Pumps. 380-2004 (omit
section 5.6).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 16782]]
Computer Room Air Conditioners.. AC................ <760,000 Btu/h.... SCOP.............. ASHRAE Standard
127-2007 (omit
section 5.11).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi- AC and HP......... <760,000 Btu/h.... EER and COP....... AHRI Standard 1230-
split Systems. 2010 (omit
sections 5.1.2
and 6.6).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Package Vertical Air AC and HP......... <760,000 Btu/h.... EER and COP....... AHRI Standard 390-
Conditioners and Single Package 2003 (omit
Vertical Heat Pumps. section 6.4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec. 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, Piping length beyond Cooling capacity
X (ft) minimum, Y (m) correction, %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0> X <=20.................... 0 > Y <= 6.1......... 1
20 > X <=40.................. 6.1> Y <=12.2........ 2
40 > X <=60.................. 12.2> Y <=18.3....... 3
60 > X <=80.................. 18.3> Y <=24.4....... 4
80 > X <=100................. 24.4> Y <=30.5....... 5
100 > X <=120................ 30.5> Y <=36.6....... 6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Additional provisions for equipment set-up. The only
additional specifications that may be used in setting up the basic
model for test are those set forth in the installation and operation
manual shipped with the unit. Each unit should be set up for test in
accordance with the manufacturer installation and operation manuals.
Paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section provide specifications
for addressing key information typically found in the installation and
operation manuals.
(1) If a manufacturer specifies a range of superheat, sub-cooling,
and/or refrigerant pressure in its installation and operation manual
for a given basic model, any value(s) within that range may be used to
determine refrigerant charge or mass of refrigerant, unless the
manufacturer clearly specifies a rating value in its installation and
operation manual in which case the specified rating value shall be
used.
(2) The air flow rate used for testing must be that set forth in
the installation and operation manuals being shipped to the commercial
customer with the basic model and clearly identified as that used to
generate the DOE performance ratings. If a rated air flow value for
testing is not clearly identified, a value of 400 standard cubic feet
per minute (scfm) per ton shall be used.
(3) For VRF systems, the test set-up and the fixed compressor
speeds (i.e., the maximum, minimum, and any intermediate speeds used
for testing) should be recorded and maintained as part of the test data
underlying the certified ratings that is required to be maintained
under 10 CFR 429.71.
(f) Manufacturer involvement in assessment or enforcement testing
for variable refrigerant flow systems. A manufacturer's representative
will be allowed to witness assessment and/or enforcement testing for
VRF systems. The manufacturer's representative will be allowed to
inspect and discuss set-up only with a DOE representative and adjust
the compressor speed during testing in the presence of a DOE
representative. Only previously documented specifications for set-up as
specified under paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section will be used.
4. In Sec. 431.97, redesignate paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and
(e) as proposed January 17, 2012, at 77 FR 2427, as paragraphs (b),
(c), (d), (e), and (f) respectively and add a new paragraph (a) to read
as follows:
Sec. 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 Sec. 431.96, be compliant with the applicable
standards set forth in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section, and
be certified to the Department under 10 CFR part 429.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-7022 Filed 3-20-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P