[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32038-32057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13108]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 32038]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429, 430, and 431
[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024]
RIN 1904-AC46
Energy Conservation Program: Alternative Efficiency Determination
Methods and Alternative Rating Methods
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to revise and
expand its existing regulations governing the use of particular methods
as alternatives to testing for the purposes of certifying compliance
with the applicable energy conservation standards and the reporting of
related ratings for certain consumer products and commercial and
industrial equipment covered by energy conservation standards.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) no later than July 2, 2012. See
section V, ``Public Participation,'' of this NOPR for details.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2011-BT-
TP-0024, by any of the following methods:
Email: to AED/[email protected]. Include EERE-
2011-BT-TP-0024 in the subject line of the message.
Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, Revisions to Energy
Efficiency Enforcement Regulations, EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585- 0121. Phone: (202) 586-
2945. Please submit one signed paper original.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit
one signed paper original.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or RIN for this rulemaking.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, or
comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 202-586-6590. Email:
[email protected]; and Ms. Laura Barhydt, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, GC-32, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 287-
5772. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as
amended (``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III
(42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. The National Energy
Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), Pub. L. 95-619, amended EPCA to add
Part A-1 of Title III, which established an energy conservation program
for certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) \1\ The
Department of Energy (``DOE'') is charged with implementing these
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, Parts B (consumer products) and C
(commercial equipment) of Title III of EPCA were re-designated as
parts A and A-1, respectively, in the United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, this program consists essentially of four parts: (1)
Testing; (2) labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation standards; and
(4) certification and enforcement procedures. The Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling consumer
products, and DOE implements the remainder of the program. The testing
requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered
products and equipment must use (1) as the basis for certifying to DOE
that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation
standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) for making representations about
the efficiency of those products and equipment. Similarly, DOE must use
these test requirements to determine whether the products comply with
any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. For certain consumer
products and commercial equipment, DOE's existing testing regulations
include allowing the use of an alternative efficiency determination
method (AEDM) or an alternative rating method (ARM), in lieu of actual
testing, to simulate the energy consumption or efficiency of certain
basic models of covered products under DOE's test procedure conditions.
B. Background
AEDMs and ARMs are computer modeling or mathematical tools that
predict the performance of non-tested basic models. They are derived
from mathematical models and engineering principles that govern the
energy efficiency and energy consumption characteristics of a type of
covered product. (In the context of this discussion, the term ``covered
product'' applies both to consumer products and commercial equipment
that are covered under EPCA.) These computer modeling and mathematical
tools, when properly developed, can provide a relatively straight-
forward and reasonably accurate means to predict the energy usage or
efficiency characteristics of a basic model of a given covered product.
Where authorized by regulation, AEDMs and ARMs enable manufacturers
to rate and certify their basic models by using the projected energy
use or energy efficiency results derived from these simulation models.
DOE has authorized the use of AEDMs or ARMs for certain covered
products that are difficult or expensive to test in an effort to reduce
the testing burden faced by the manufacturers of expensive
[[Page 32039]]
or highly customized basic models. The primary difference between these
two simulation methods is that ARMs must be approved by DOE prior to
use while AEDMs do not require prior DOE approval. From a technical
perspective, there are no substantive differences between these two
simulation methods. DOE's regulations currently permit manufacturers of
commercial heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment,
commercial water heating (WH) equipment, distribution transformers, and
electric motors to use AEDMs, while manufacturers of residential
central air conditioners (CACs) and central heat pumps (CHPs) may use
an ARM to rate their non-tested combinations.
DOE believes other similar products that must currently be rated
and certified through testing, such as commercial refrigeration
equipment, automatic commercial ice makers, beverage vending machines,
walk-in cooler and freezer refrigeration systems and small electric
motors, could also be rated and certified through the use of computer
or mathematical modeling. Permitting the use of these modeling
techniques for certification and rating purposes would require DOE to
explicitly permit manufacturers to use an AEDM or ARM through
regulation. DOE sought comment on this topic and other issues in a
Request for Information (RFI), which was published in the Federal
Register on April 18, 2011. 76 FR 21673.
The RFI requested suggestions, comments, and information relating
to the Department's intent to expand and revise its existing AEDM and
ARM requirements for consumer products and commercial and industrial
equipment covered under EPCA. This rulemaking is intended to facilitate
DOE's consideration of procedural changes to its requirements for AEDMs
and ARMs in an effort to advance the effective implementation of DOE's
conservation standards and regulations. The comment period for written
submissions on the RFI closed on May 18, 2011. This notice proposes to
modify those regulations pertaining to the AEDM and ARM requirements
within Part 429 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
The Department's goal is to establish a uniform, systematic, and fair
approach to the use of these types of modeling techniques that will
enable DOE to ensure that products in the marketplace are correctly
rated--irrespective of whether they are subject to actual physical
testing or are rated using modeling--without unnecessarily burdening
regulated entities.
II. Discussion of Specific Revisions to DOE's Alternative Efficiency
Determination Methods and Alternative Rating Methods Regulations and
Comments Received in Response to the RFI
DOE received comments from 21 interested parties, including
manufacturers, trade associations, and advocacy groups. Specifically,
Table II.1 lists the entities that submitted comments and their
affiliation. These comments are discussed in more detail below, and the
full set of comments 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-TP-0024.
Table II.1--Stakeholders That Submitted Comment on the RFI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Acronym Organization type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI............. Industry Trade Group.
Refrigeration Institute.
American Council for an Energy ACEEE, ASAP, and Advocacy Group.
Efficient Economy, Appliance NRDC (Joint
Standards Awareness Project, Comment).
and Natural Resources Defense
Council.
American Panel Corporation.... American Panel... Manufacturer of
refrigeration
panels.
Bradford White Water Heaters.. Bradford White... Manufacturer of water
heaters.
Carrier Corporation........... Carrier.......... Manufacturer of Air
Conditioning and
Heating Equipment.
Earthjustice.................. Earthjustice..... Advocacy Group.
First Company................. First............ Manufacturer of Air
Conditioning and
Heating Equipment.
Goodman Manufacturing Company. Goodman.......... Manufacturer of Air
Conditioning and
Heating Equipment.
Heatcraft Refrigeration Heatcraft........ Manufacturers of
Products. Commercial
Refrigeration
Equipment.
Howe Corporation.............. Howe............. Manufacturer of
Automatic Commercial
Ice Makers.
Hussmann...................... Hussmann......... Manufacturer of Air
Conditioning and
Heating Equipment
and CRE.
Lennox International, Inc..... Lennox........... Manufacturers of Air
Conditioning and
Heating Equipment.
Mitsubishi Electric and MEUS............. Manufacturer of Air
Electronics USA, Inc. Conditioning and
Heating Equipment.
Modine Manufacturing Company.. Modine........... Manufacturer of Air
Conditioning and
Heating Equipment.
National Electrical NEMA............. Industry Trade Group.
Manufacturers Association.
Natural Resources Defense NRDC............. Advocacy Group.
Council.
Omega Magnetics Engineering, Omega............ Manufacturer of
LLC. Distribution
Transformers.
PVI Industries, LLC........... PVI.............. Manufacturer of
Commercial Water
Heaters.
Scotsman Ice Systems.......... Scotsman......... Manufacturer of
Automatic Commercial
Ice Makers.
Structural Concepts Structural Manufacturer of CRE.
Corporation. Concepts.
Traulsen...................... Traulsen......... Manufacturer of Air
Conditioning and
Heating Equipment
and CRE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 32040]]
A. Distinction Between Alternative Efficiency Determination Method and
Alternative Rating Method
1. Naming Convention
DOE is contemplating combining AEDMs and ARMs under a single term
to avoid confusion, particularly with respect to air conditioning
products that currently are subject to different regulations depending
on whether the unit is consumer or commercial. The RFI sought comment
on the need to have two alternatives to testing or if both alternative
methods could be covered by one term with the inclusion of additional
product specific requirements.
Both Carrier and AHRI believe the distinction is necessary because
ARMs require the highest sales volume tested combination for the indoor
coil, while AEDMs are better for low volume, high variety commercial
products where testing multiple samples is not feasible. (Carrier, No.
7.1 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 17.1 at p. 3) Lennox and Mitsubishi agreed and
pointed out that the two methods are designed for different purposes,
applications and capacity ranges. (Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 1;
Mitsubishi, No. 19.1 at p. 1) PVI Industries provided a similar
observation that an ARM allows for adjustments to address a shortcoming
of the test method, while AEDMs are calculated substitutes for testing.
(PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 3)
However, not all stakeholders agreed with the need for separately
named methods. Hussmann commented that only AEDMs are needed, and
Goodman stated that in order to reduce confusion there should only be
one method, which should be ARMs because they have been in place for
years. (Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 1; Goodman, No 2.1 at p. 1)
DOE tentatively agrees with the commenters suggesting a single term
to apply to those modeling techniques used to rate and certify any
covered products that would be permitted to use these alternate
methods. DOE intends to use AEDM, instead of ARM, to refer to these
methods because the provisions DOE proposes to adopt are more similar
to the current provisions for AEDMs. DOE also notes that the term ARM
is used only for simulations used by manufacturers of residential air
conditioners and heat pumps, whereas AEDMs are used by a wider range of
industries. Given that these two methods are conceptually identical,
DOE is applying the term ``AEDM'' to refer to any simulation method
used to determine the efficiency or energy usage of a given product or
equipment. DOE, however, agrees with Carrier, AHRI, Lennox, and
Mitsubishi in that there are product-specific considerations that
should guide the development and application of an AEDM. In response to
these comments, DOE is proposing product-specific substantiation
requirements in this notice which DOE believes will address the
concerns about the current differences between the two methods.
2. Pre-Approval by the Department
In light of the approval process currently in place for ARMs, DOE's
RFI sought comment regarding the feasibility of applying a similar
requirement for AEDMs or, alternatively, eliminating the approval
process for ARMs. EarthJustice supported the adoption of a prior
approval-type process. (EarthJustice, No. 21.1 at p. 2) American Panel
also supported this approach and noted that it would give both
manufacturers and DOE a level of security regarding the development of
testing simulations. (American Panel, No. 3.1 at p. 2) Zero Zone echoed
this view, expressing support for a ``pre-approved'' option since it
would reduce the likelihood of a given manufacturer using an
``unapproved'' AEDM. (Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 7) Similarly, both
Hussmann and Goodman asserted that pre-approval would provide
manufacturers with confidence in their programs. (Hussmann, No. 10.1 at
p. 2; Goodman, No. 2.1 at p. 1) Additionally, Bradford White viewed
pre-approval as a way to prevent certain manufacturers from having an
unfair advantage by incorrectly rating their products. (Bradford White,
No. 5.1 at p. 1)
Despite these expressions of support for a pre-approval process,
others identified potential problems with this approach. NEMA stated
that there is no perceived benefit in DOE imposing an additional burden
on both the manufacturer and itself. Requiring prior approval would, in
its view, place an inordinate burden on manufacturers. (NEMA, No. 20.1
at pp. 3-4; NEMA, No. 22.1 at p. 2) Modine commented that there is no
need for pre-approval because it is the manufacturer's responsibility
to produce and certify products that comply. (Modine, No. 8.1 at p. 2)
Heatcraft remarked that a pre-approval requirement is unnecessary and
the imposition of one would likely overwhelm DOE by virtue of the
number of submitted pre-approval requests. (Heatcraft, No. 11.1 at p.
3) Carrier expressed concern with the potential burden involved with a
pre-approval process and indicated that requiring pre-approval can
result in time-to-market delays (i.e., delays in getting new products
to market for sale). (Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 6) This view was supported
by Lennox, Traulsen, PVI Industries, AHRI, Zero Zone, and Mitsubishi.
(Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 2; Traulsen, No. 9 at p. 4; PVI Industries, No.
15.1 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 17.1 at p. 4; Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 7;
Mitsubishi, No. 19.1 at pp. 2-3) Further, Structural Concepts expressed
concern that pre-approval would limit innovation with respect to the
introduction of new designs and technologies, while PVI Industries
mentioned that pre-approval would discourage product innovation.
(Structural Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 2; PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p.
4)
While a broad AEDM pre-approval process could help provide
manufacturers with an added sense of security that their AEDMs comply
with DOE's requirements, the available facts indicate that this added
benefit would be unlikely to outweigh both the additional burden placed
on manufacturers and DOE as well as the drawbacks inherent with
increased market delays created by requiring a pre-approval process.
DOE notes that the substantiation process, an integral part of the
validation of the AEDM, should provide manufacturers and consumers with
confidence in ratings derived from the AEDM. The substantiation process
requires a manufacturer to test several basic models to validate the
accuracy of the AEDM, making DOE pre-approval unnecessary. Furthermore,
DOE uses a self-certification process for most covered products,
whereby manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that the testing is
done in accordance with DOE's regulations. The Department does not
review all manufacturers' test data to confirm that the testing was
performed correctly and that the basic model was rated correctly;
therefore, an approval process for AEDMs could be construed as an
advantage to those manufacturers who are permitted to use them. In
light of these factors, as well as the potential risks that
manufacturers face for using an inaccurate or otherwise faulty AEDM,
which includes civil penalties and prohibitions on marketing
noncompliant products, DOE is not proposing to add a pre-approval
process for AEDMs and is proposing to drop the current pre-approval
requirement for methods used to rate residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps. While DOE does not plan to review AEDMs
prior to their use, DOE may request the records underlying the use of
an AEDM at any time. 10 CFR 429.71. Manufacturers must retain any
records
[[Page 32041]]
of testing performed to support the use of an AEDM. Id.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to continue omitting a pre-
approval process for AEDMs, and to no longer require pre-approval for
rating methods applied to residential central air conditioners and heat
pumps. (See Issue 1 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in
section IV.B of this NOPR.)
B. Products Covered by Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods and
Alternative Rating Methods
1. Expansion of Coverage
Under the current DOE regulations, manufacturers of five types of
commercial equipment are permitted to use AEDMs to generate the
certified ratings of untested basic models, while manufacturers of
residential central air conditioners and heat pumps are permitted to
use ARMs to generate the certified ratings of untested basic models. As
part of this rulemaking, DOE is proposing to expand the types of
commercial equipment that would be addressed by these proposed AEDM
provisions. However, in the consumer product context, DOE has
tentatively decided not to expand the application of AEDMs beyond
central air conditioners and heat pumps.
American Panel commented that walk-in coolers and freezers
(collectively, ``walk-ins'' or ``WICFs'') should be allowed to use
AEDMs for determining the envelope heat transfer characteristics and in
selecting the condensing unit and evaporator coil. (American Panel, No.
3.1 at p. 1) Similarly, Zero Zone, Hussmann, PVI Industries, and
Structural Concepts remarked that commercial refrigeration equipment
(CRE) would also benefit from the use of AEDMs. (Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at
p. 2; Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 1; PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 2;
Structural Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 2) PVI Industries also suggested
extending AEDM coverage to automated commercial ice-makers (ACIMs) and
residential water heaters. (PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 2) AHRI
concurred with the need to permit the use of AEDMs for walk-ins, CRE
units, ACIMs, and commercial water heaters but also indicated that
manufacturers of residential boilers and water heaters, furnaces, pool
heaters and direct heating equipment should also be permitted to use
AEDMs to certify and rate those products. (AHRI, No. 17.1 at p. 2) Zero
Zone and Structural Concepts went further and favored permitting the
use of AEDMs for all products. (Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 2; Structural
Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 1) Scotsman asserted that AEDMs are not cost-
effective for ACIMs because some ACIMs have non-steady operation, which
makes them difficult to model with accuracy. It added that testing is
not overly burdensome for ACIM manufacturers to conduct. (Scotsman, No.
6.1 at p. 1)
Numerous commenters also stressed that DOE should continue
permitting manufacturers to use AEDMs or ARMs with respect to those
products that the agency currently permits to be certified and rated
with these alternative methods. (Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 1; Mitsubishi,
No 19.1 at p. 1; Heatcraft, No. 11.1 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 13.1 at p. 2;
PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 1; AHRI, No.
17.1 at pp. 2,4; NEMA, No. 20.1 at p. 2; NEMA, No. 22.1 at p. 2;
Bradford White, No 5.1 at p. 1) Modine, NRDC, ACEEE, ASAP and Traulsen
did not provide product-specific recommendations, but commented that
large, low-volume, custom equipment manufacturers would benefit from
AEDM use. (Modine, No. 8.1 at p. 1; Traulsen, No. 9.1 at p. 2; Joint
Comment, No. 24.1 at p. 2)
DOE has conducted a number of rulemaking activities examining the
manner in which manufacturers of a variety of products test and rate
their products. These activities have addressed products such as CRE,
ACIMs, small electric motors, beverage vending machines (BVMs), and
walk-ins. Based on substantial amounts of information that DOE has
collected through these rulemaking activities, DOE ascertained that
many basic models of these product types have low sales volumes or are
custom-built, meaning that manufacturers may have a large number of
basic models that they would need to test in order to certify
compliance under DOE's current requirements. Given the potential for a
high testing burden, manufacturers of these products may benefit from
the use of an AEDM since it could be used to simulate testing under DOE
test conditions and the results could then be used to certify
compliance in lieu of conducting the testing that is currently
required. Adopting this approach will likely significantly reduce
manufacturer testing burdens by minimizing the number of units that a
manufacturer must physically test in order to certify all of the basic
models offered for sale in the U.S. As a result, in addition to those
products that are already permitted to be rated and certified using
modeling methods (i.e., commercial HVAC and WH equipment, electric
motors, and distribution transformers), DOE is proposing to allow the
manufacturers of CRE, ACIMs, small electric motors, and BVMs to use
AEDMs to rate and certify their products. Permitting this option should
enable these manufacturers to reduce the overall testing burdens that
they would otherwise face.
Additionally, DOE is proposing to allow the use of AEDMs for WICFs
but is limiting this proposal to apply only to the WICF refrigeration
system. As with other types of commercial equipment for which DOE is
proposing to expand the voluntary use of AEDMs, WICF refrigeration
systems are low-volume and custom-made for the specific installation
and could be accurately rated using a computer simulation to predict
their behavior under DOE test conditions. DOE is not proposing to
permit a similar option for other WICF components. WICF panels are
relatively simple pieces of equipment and results from a basic model of
a given panel can be extrapolated to many other panel basic models
under the provisions of the test procedure. As for WICF doors, the DOE
test procedure already provides for the use of certain modeling
techniques that are approved by the National Fenestration Rating
Council (NFRC), which, in DOE's view, makes a parallel AEDM provision
for these components unnecessary. Consequently, DOE's proposal is to
expand the use of AEDMs to WICF refrigeration systems because
manufacturers of WICF refrigeration systems would benefit from the
reduced testing burden that the proposal would provide.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to expand the use of AEDMs to
other types of commercial equipment. (See Issue 2 under ``Issues on
Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section IV.B of this NOPR.)
In addition, DOE is proposing to retain its existing regulations
that allow for the use of simulation or mathematical models to predict
the certified ratings of residential central air conditioners and heat
pumps. The split-system air conditioner and heat pump market allows the
pairings of a variety of different indoor and outdoor models for
installation in a residence. This approach results in a proliferation
of basic models for which a manufacturer must determine the correct
rating to certify compliance to the Department. If all of these basic
model combinations had to be tested, manufacturers of CACs and CHPs
would likely face significant increased testing burden. DOE believes it
is necessary to continue to allow the use of alternatives to testing to
predict the performance of all the different combinations of CACs and
CHPs that are offered for sale in the U.S. DOE is
[[Page 32042]]
clarifying that its proposal allows manufacturers of CACs and CHPs to
use an AEDM to predict the energy efficiency of various outdoor units
paired with different indoor units as long as the substantiation
criteria are met (see section C below for additional discussion).
As for those comments suggesting that DOE expand the use of AEDMs
to other consumer products such as residential water heaters and
furnaces, DOE does not agree with this approach. Basic models of
consumer products such as water heaters and furnaces are typically
high-volume, with little to no customization from model-to-model. Many
of these products can be found off-the-shelf or are regularly stocked
by distributors. As a result, manufacturers of these products do not
face the same challenges of testing and rating potentially hundreds of
different variations as faced by manufacturers of many commercial
products. Unlike manufacturers of many types of commercial equipment
that had apparently not performed the required testing of each basic
model, manufacturers of consumer products have been regularly
conducting the testing necessary to certify compliance to the
Department without the use of simulation tools. The Department is
unaware of any undue burden caused by testing a large number of basic
models, or an issue with obtaining two samples for testing, due to the
high-volume nature of the manufacturing for these consumer products.
2. Use Across Product Classes
Because AEDMs are models based on engineering principles, it may be
possible to use a single AEDM to simulate testing of basic models from
multiple product classes. Since many of the engineering principles
underlying the performance characteristics of different pieces of
equipment are the same, DOE believes it is reasonable for a
manufacturer to develop an AEDM that could apply across multiple
product classes and accurately simulate the energy efficiency or energy
use of various basic models. An AEDM used to model energy consumption
across multiple product classes, however, will be significantly more
complex and will have to account for more variables than an AEDM used
to model energy consumption within a single product class. While DOE
does not want to restrict manufacturer development and use of AEDMs,
the inherent complexity of an AEDM used to rate basic models across
multiple product classes requires sufficient safeguards to ensure the
accuracy of an AEDM with respect to predicting the energy consumption
of a basic model from any product class for which the AEDM will be
used. Consequently, DOE sought comment on the best approach to verify
the accuracy and applicability of AEDMs and ARMs across multiple
product classes without unduly burdening manufacturers.
All interested parties who commented on this issue agreed that
AEDMs and ARMs can and should be used across multiple product classes.
(Goodman, No. 2.1 at p. 1; American Panel, No. 3.1 at p. 2; Bradford
White, No. 5.1 at p. 1; Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 2; Modine, No. 8.1 at
p.1; Traulsen, No. 9.1 at p. 2; Hussmann, No. 10.1 at pp. 1-2;
Heatcraft, No. 11.1 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13.1 at p. 2; PVI Industries,
No. 15.1 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 17.1 at p. 3;
Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 7; Mitsubishi, No. 19.1 at p. 2; NEMA, No.
20.1 at p. 3; Structural Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 1) However,
stakeholders were divided about the need to substantiate the method for
every product class. Carrier, Hussmann, AHRI, Mitsubishi and Structural
Concepts all commented that the amount of required testing should not
depend on the number of covered product classes, while Modine, Lennox,
and NEMA noted that AEDMs and ARMs should be verified for each covered
product class. (Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 2; Hussmann, No. 10.1 at pp. 1-
2; AHRI, No. 17.1 at p. 3; Mitsubishi, No. 19.1 at p. 2; Structural
Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 1; Modine, No. 8.1 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 13.1
at p. 2; NEMA, No. 20.1 at p. 3)
While DOE acknowledges that AEDMs and ARMs could be applied across
product classes, differences in products and operating conditions may
hinder the capability of AEDMs to rate products from multiple product
classes within the necessary tolerances. DOE believes that
manufacturers can build AEDMs that would apply across a variety of
product classes and maintain the appropriate tolerances proposed in
this NOPR, but DOE also believes that AEDMs should be substantiated in
such a manner as to demonstrate that capability. DOE tentatively agrees
with the comments, made by Modine, Lennox and NEMA, supporting
verification of an AEDM for each product class to which the AEDM will
be applied. Consequently, DOE is proposing to require, as part of the
substantiation process, testing of at least one basic model from each
DOE product class to which the AEDM is to be applied in addition to the
other requirements, which are discussed in section II.C. DOE does not
believe this added requirement will significantly increase testing
burden because, as stated by Goodman, manufacturers should already be
continuously validating their AEDMs. (Goodman, No. 2.1 at p. 1) DOE
may, however, amend aspects of this proposal based on information and
feedback presented by interested parties or that DOE discovers through
further research of this issue in preparation of any final rule that
may be issued. As a result, DOE urges all interested parties to provide
specific and detailed information regarding the proposed substantiation
process as well as specific requirements that the agency should
consider when developing the final rule.
DOE requests comment on its proposal to require at least one basic
model from each product class be tested to substantiate the AEDM. DOE
is particularly interested in whether additional clarification is
needed for manufacturers of certain covered products to determine all
the applicable product classes that would need to be tested to
substantiate the AEDM. As part of these comments, the Department is
interested in receiving feedback on how manufacturers currently develop
any simulation tools to ensure they are applicable across a wide range
of product classes. (See Issue 3 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment'' in section IV.B of this NOPR.) Based on these comments and
data, DOE may consider and adopt other substantiation criteria from
those contained in today's proposal that aid manufacturers in
identifying the applicable number of product classes required for
testing.
C. Substantiation Requirements
1. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method Tolerances
Currently, DOE requires that manufacturers test a specified number
of basic models, apply the AEDM to those same basic models, and compare
the results. In order to substantiate the AEDM--i.e., validate the
accuracy of the model--the results obtained from the AEDM output must
be within a specified tolerance of the results obtained from testing.
The comparison is generally required between test results for each
individual basic model and the AEDM output for the same basic model, as
well as between the average of the test results for all tested basic
models, and the average of the AEDM output for all tested basic models.
For electric motors, a comparison is only required between individual
test results and individual AEDM outputs for the basic models tested.
For commercial HVAC and water heaters, the AEDM output for each basic
model must be within five percent of the tested value,
[[Page 32043]]
and the overall average of AEDM outputs must be within one percent of
the average of tested values. For distribution transformers, the
individual tolerance is also five percent, but the overall tolerance is
three percent. Electric motors are subject only to an individual
tolerance of ten percent between the AEDM and tested values. The
current modeling approach for residential central air conditioners and
heat pumps do not have any specific required tolerances because the ARM
must be approved by DOE prior to use.
Interested stakeholders provided numerous suggestions regarding the
appropriate product-specific tolerances. Bradford White and PVI
Industries commented that tolerances for commercial water heaters
should be five percent because of instrumentation tolerances as well as
lab to lab variation. (Bradford White, No. 5.1 at p. 2; PVI Industries,
No. 15.1 at p. 5) AHRI commented that the one percent overall tolerance
for commercial HVAC and water heaters that currently applies was not
appropriate and should be relaxed, while Heatcraft indicated that a one
percent overall tolerance is not realistic for walk-ins because of
equipment tolerances and testing variation inherent in the test
procedure. (AHRI, No. 17.1 at p. 5; Heatcraft, No. 11.1 at p. 4)
Additionally, AHRI commented in a later proposal that the individual
tolerance for residential and commercial HVAC and WH equipment, ACIMs,
walk-ins and commercial refrigeration equipment should be 5 percent.
(AHRI, No. 31.1 at p. 3) Regarding HVAC products, Mitsubishi remarked
that the tolerance should be 5 percent, and both First Company and
Carrier concurred with this suggested level. (Mitsubishi, No. 19.1 at
p. 4; First Company, No. 14.1 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 5)
However, Carrier went further and commented that the overall average of
AEDM ratings should be within five percent of the overall average of
tested ratings. (Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 5) NEMA pointed out that
electric motor tolerances may need to be tightened to test in
accordance with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer (IEEE)
Standard 114 or Standard 112 (the two protocols used to measure the
efficiency of electric and small electric motors) because these test
methods are based on the measured output power divided by input power.
(NEMA, No. 20. 1 at pp. 5-6) NEMA also suggested DOE should limit the
tolerance for overall averages at three percent for distribution
transformers and that the tolerance for individual ratings should allow
the AEDM output to be up to 5 percent more efficient than the test
results. It added, however, that the tolerance should not apply if the
AEDM output was conservative. (NEMA, No. 22.1 at p. 3) Similarly,
Modine commented that the output from AEDMs should be permitted for
rating purposes only if the AEDM output is no more than five percent
more efficient than the tested value. (Modine, No. 8.1 at p. 2) None of
these commenters explained the basis for their recommendations.
With respect to CREs, commenter views were even more varied.
Traulsen recommended a 15 percent tolerance, while Hussmann suggested
that a ten percent tolerance was appropriate. Zero Zone remarked that
the tolerance should be five percent. (Traulsen, No. 9.1 at p. 4;
Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 3; Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 11) None of the
commenters specified why they believed their recommended tolerance was
appropriate.
Regarding potential tolerance levels for CRE-related AEDMs, there
are no technical reasons that would compel the application of larger or
less stringent tolerances for these products compared to others. In
view of this, and the complete absence at this time of any
contradictory data or information that would justify a different
approach, DOE is proposing to set individual tolerances between the
test results of a basic model and AEDM output for that basic model for
CREs at five percent. For the same reasons, DOE is proposing to set
this same tolerance for refrigeration systems of walk-ins, BVMs, ACIMs,
and residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE is not
currently planning to amend the tolerances for electric motors and
proposes to apply the same ten percent tolerance to small electric
motors.
With respect to distribution transformers, DOE agrees with NEMA's
view in favor of an overall tolerance, but disagrees with NEMA's
suggestion that the AEDM outputs for individual basic models should be
limited only to being no more than five percent more efficient than the
test results for that basic model. DOE is concerned with confirming the
accuracy of an AEDM and having no tolerance for AEDM outputs that are
more conservative than the test results could potentially allow for
less accurate results from the AEDMs. Consequently, DOE intends to
retain the current tolerance on how much the AEDM output can diverge
from the test results.
With regard to commercial HVAC equipment, DOE agrees with
stakeholders who claimed that the one percent overall average tolerance
was unnecessarily stringent. However, DOE disagrees with Carrier's
comment suggesting that the overall average tolerance should be five
percent. Testing different types of commercial equipment has similar
limitations with respect to instrumentation and testing variation in
the DOE test procedures as found for other product types, and applying
a consistent tolerance across all of these covered products (excluding
electric and small electric motors) would help ensure that a
consistent, predictable and accurate method is used by manufacturers.
This is also seen in the consistency between the certification
statistics of different types of commercial air conditioning and
heating equipment. Consequently, DOE is proposing to expand this three
percent average tolerance to all products that use AEDMs. The overall
averages are calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.000
where x is the sample average, n is the number of units tested
representing all basic models used to substantiate the AEDM and
xi is the ith sample.
Figure C.1, below, provides a visual representation of DOE's
proposed substantiation tolerances for all products proposed for AEDM
use, excluding motors and small electric motors.
[[Page 32044]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.001
DOE seeks product specific comments and supporting data on these
proposed overall and individual tolerance levels by product type.
Specifically, DOE seeks data showing that the variability seen in the
manufacturing processes, test instrumentation, and testing procedures
merits consideration and adoption of different tolerances. (See Issue 4
under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section IV.B of this
NOPR.) Based on these data, DOE may consider and adopt different
tolerance levels from those contained in today's proposal.
2. Number of Tested Units
In addition to achieving certain tolerances with their AEDMs,
manufacturers are required to test a specific number of basic models to
demonstrate that the AEDM is sufficiently accurate for determining the
ratings of their products. Currently, the required number of models and
units that must be tested varies by product and are as follows: Six
basic models for commercial HVAC and water heaters; 25 units for
distribution transformers (five units of five different basic models);
five basic models for electric motors; and four mixed systems for
residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE received
considerable feedback from interested parties on the necessary sample
sizes for these products as well as for other products that
manufacturers may be permitted to certify and rate using an AEDM as
part of today's proposal.
Bradford White suggested that the appropriate sample size for
commercial water heaters is two units, with the smallest and largest
input capacity models being tested, and that a manufacturer should not
be required to substantiate an AEDM using a number of basic models that
a manufacturer does not have in stock. (Bradford White, No. 5.1 at p.
2) PVI agreed that testing two water heaters was adequate for AEDM
substantiation. (PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 3) Similarly,
Structural Concepts recommended two units as the necessary sample size
for CRE, while Hussmann suggested one unit per DOE product class to
which the AEDM is applied. (Structural Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 3;
Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 3) Regardless of sample size, American Panel
cautioned DOE to be aware of the increased cost to manufacturers of
testing more units. (American Panel, No. 3.1 at p. 3) NEMA observed
that the current sample size and testing for both electric motors and
transformers is appropriate. (NEMA, No. 20.1 at p. 4; NEMA, No. 22.1 at
p. 3) Carrier mentioned that a sample of three basic models is
sufficient and added that DOE should consider permitting manufacturers
to decide how to substantiate their AEDMs and how to select models--
other than the highest sales volume tested combination--in order to
enable them to validate an AEDM across the manufacturer's entire
product range. (Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 4) AHRI submitted a proposal
that the sample size for residential and commercial HVAC and WH
equipment, ACIMs, walk-ins and CRE should be two units. (AHRI, No. 31.1
at p. 2) However, Lennox remarked that the current sample size for ARMs
is reasonable, while Modine supported leaving the decision of how to
substantiate an AEDM to the manufacturer. (Lennox, No. 13.1 at p. 4;
Modine, No. 8.1 at p. 4) Zero Zone was alone in believing that AEDMs do
not need to be substantiated at all. (Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 10)
DOE is reluctant to omit a substantiation process or to leave this
process entirely to manufacturer discretion without some form of
reasonable confirmation regarding the accuracy and validity of the
underlying AEDM. While DOE is sensitive to the costs associated with
equipment testing and the fact that some manufacturers may have a high
degree of familiarity with how to substantiate their AEDMs, DOE wants
to ensure that the AEDM's accuracy is confirmed across the entire range
of product classes to which it is applied. Additionally, DOE wants to
ensure consistency with regard to the minimum testing requirements
needed to substantiate the AEDM across manufacturers of a given
equipment type to provide a fair and consistent approach in allowing
the use of simulations and mathematical models. For these reasons, DOE
is proposing changes to the selection of models used to substantiate an
AEDM. Consequently, in DOE's view, to ensure this accuracy, a minimum
amount of testing should be conducted to substantiate a given AEDM.
Manufacturers may always elect to conduct additional testing to
validate the accuracy of the AEDM.
To this end, DOE proposes that at least five basic models be tested
to substantiate an AEDM with a minimum of one unit tested of each basic
model for all products except distribution transformers. With regard to
distribution transformers, DOE proposes to retain the
[[Page 32045]]
current requirement to test 25 units (five units of five different
basic models). DOE also proposes other criteria discussed below that
will help ensure that the AEDM is sufficiently reliable for all product
classes to which the AEDM will be applied. Consistent with Hussmann's
suggestion regarding the number of models that should be tested to
substantiate an AEDM, DOE is proposing that at least one basic model be
tested from each product class to which the AEDM will be applied as
explained above. While differences among products in different product
classes may be minimal, DOE wants to ensure that the AEDM is able to
account for differences in test conditions for different product
classes (e.g., coolers and freezers) and still accurately predict
product performance.
Because physical size or capacity is another characteristic that
can have a significant effect on efficiency, DOE agrees with Bradford
White's suggestion to test both the smallest and largest capacity units
covered by the AEDM, where applicable. DOE recognizes, however, that
the burden associated with a requirement to test the largest capacity
basic model offered may be prohibitive. Therefore, DOE is proposing
that the models tested for substantiation include the smallest and
largest capacity basic models, or a basic model with a capacity within
25% of the largest capacity basic model, for all products where
physical size (e.g., total display area, vendible capacity, rated
storage volume, etc.) or capacity (e.g., heating, cooling, etc.) is an
integral part of the test procedure and energy use or efficiency of the
product. Further, DOE believes that the basic models that meet these
capacity criteria should be from the product class that has the highest
sales volume because DOE believes these products would be most
representative, less likely to be highly customized or built-to-order,
and less costly to test.
In addition to this requirement to test models from the highest
sales volume product class, DOE proposes that the tested units include
the basic model with the highest sales volume in the previous year or
is expected to have the highest sales volume as one of the five tested
basic models. Lastly, to ensure that the AEDM is substantiated for
current, up-to-date models, DOE proposes to require that test data used
for substantiation meet the applicable energy conservation standards in
effect at the time that the AEDM is being used. Consequently, when the
compliance date for amended standards comes into effect, DOE is
proposing that manufacturers may need to re-substantiate the AEDM
depending on the efficiencies of the basic models used to originally
substantiate the AEDM. Table C.1 below summarizes the requirements
proposed in this section.
Table C.1--Proposed Requirements for Selecting Units for Substantiation
for All Applicable Covered Products and Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed requirement Applicable products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test a minimum of five basic All.
models.
Test at least one basic model All.
from each product class to which
the AEDM will be applied.
Test the smallest and largest Residential AC/HP, Commercial HVAC
capacity basic models from the and WH, ACIM, WICF refrigeration
product class with the highest systems, CRE.
sales volume.
Test the basic model with the All.
highest sales volume the
previous year, or the basic
model which is expected to have
the highest sales volume for
newly introduced basic models.
Test data used for substantiation All.
must meet applicable Federal
energy conservation standards
and applicable DOE testing
procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on the proposed criteria for selecting basic
models and the number of basic models that should be required for
substantiation as well as whether the differences in testing
requirements for distribution transformers are appropriate or
necessary. (See Issue 5 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in
section IV.B of this NOPR.)
3. Required Number of Testing Rounds
To substantiate their AEDMs pursuant to DOE's current regulations,
manufacturers of commercial HVAC and water heaters must first apply the
AEDM to three or more basic models, which then must be tested.
Following this initial round of testing, manufacturers must apply the
AEDM to at least three additional models and test them as well. For
each round of testing, the ratings predicted by the AEDM must be within
a specified percentage of the tested ratings. 10 CFR 429.70. These
products are the only products which have to undergo two rounds of
testing to substantiate the AEDM. Consequently, DOE is considering
altering the number of testing rounds to make AEDM substantiation
requirements for these products align with those for other products and
sought comment in the RFI on the benefits of a second round of testing
because the available data indicate that a reduction in testing burden
consistent with DOE's proposal would be unlikely to affect the accuracy
of the predicted efficiency levels provided by the appropriate AEDM.
Both Carrier and PVI Industries mentioned that one round of testing
is sufficient, while Mitsubishi remarked that two sets of testing do
not add any significant benefit. (Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 6; PVI
Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 6; Mitsubishi, No. 19.1 at p. 4) Considering
DOE's proposal to change the number of models necessary for
substantiation of an AEDM for commercial HVAC and water heaters, DOE
believes that the AEDM would be substantiated for every applicable
product class following one round of substantiation testing. Given that
the manufacturer may test more than the minimum number of basic models
during substantiation, DOE believes that a single round of testing is
sufficient. Additionally, a manufacturer is free to conduct further
testing during the lifetime of an AEDM that is in addition to those
substantiation tests being proposed. Requiring this added testing,
however, is unnecessary since DOE believes manufacturers are best
positioned to assess whether they need to run additional substantiation
testing for newly designed or redesigned basic models on a case-by-case
basis. DOE is proposing a framework that allows manufacturers to weigh
the risk of noncompliance against the increased testing burden and is
providing them with the discretion to choose the extent to which they
want to conduct additional testing beyond the requirements of this
proposal.
[[Page 32046]]
Additionally, DOE is proposing new provisions that will require
manufacturers to perform additional testing and re-substantiation if
changes occur that may impact the validity of the AEDM. These proposals
are discussed further below. Because of these additional changes, as
well as more stringent substantiation requirements, DOE agrees with
commenters that the second round of testing is unnecessary to
substantiate the AEDM and is proposing to eliminate the second round of
testing for commercial HVAC and water heaters.
4. Standardized Substantiation Package
Establishing a standardized substantiation package would provide a
number of benefits, including predictability and consistency with
respect to the submission and review of AEDM-related records. Under
today's proposal, manufacturers would know what materials to maintain
regarding the AEDM-based certifications of their products and DOE would
be able to more readily discern the validity and completeness of these
submissions.
Adopting a standardized substantiation package approach would
provide a number of benefits. First, this approach would clearly inform
manufacturers regarding the underlying materials they need to maintain
in support of their certified ratings for each basic model that has
been certified and rated using an AEDM. With this clarification,
manufacturer confusion regarding document retention issues would be
eliminated. Second, information packages submitted in response to a
request under 10 CFR 429.71 would be comparable in content and lend
themselves more readily to DOE's review of those technical materials
supporting a given manufacturer's AEDM. By creating an approach that
involves the submission of a standardized set of materials, which would
likely include a summary of the basic models used to substantiate the
AEDM, DOE anticipates that the review time of this material will be
substantially less than if a non-standardized approach were used. Other
information that would likely be part of this package includes, but is
not limited to the following: information demonstrating that the
substantiation criteria are met; supporting test data from physical
tests of those basic models; information related to the AEDM such as
its version number and applicable product classes; and a list of all
the basic models that have been rated with the AEDM. DOE intends to
address this topic further in the upcoming Certification, Compliance
and Enforcement rulemaking.
D. DOE Validation
1. Evaluation
Under the current process, manufacturers must retain documentation
containing a description of the AEDM, supporting test data, and the
AEDM itself. To avail themselves of the less burdensome option of using
an AEDM, manufacturers must be willing to run additional simulations,
provide further analysis of previous AEDM output, and test selected
basic models on request. See, e.g., 10 CFR 431.17 (specifying AEDM-
related requirements for electric motors) and 10 CFR 429.70(c)(3)
(specifying AEDM-related requirements for commercial HVAC-WH). However,
DOE does not currently require a specific frequency for validating a
given AEDM--e.g., annually or once every five years. To address this
shortcoming, DOE sought comment in the RFI on how often it should, if
at all, validate AEDMs without creating an undue burden on
manufacturers or limiting the number of products in the marketplace.
AHRI stated that there was no need for DOE to validate AEDMs or
ARMs, particularly if a manufacturer participates in a voluntary
industry certification program (VICP). Carrier, Zero Zone, NEMA,
Mitsubishi, and Goodman supported this view. (AHRI, No. 17.1 at p. 4;
Carrier, No 7.1 at p. 6; Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 12; Mitsubishi, No.
19.1 at p. 3-4; Goodman, No. 2.1 at p. 2) Structural Concepts asserted
that the initial validation of AEDMs is all that is needed to ensure
the accuracy of the AEDM, while Modine and Lennox argued that
validation is unnecessary. (Structural Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 3;
Modine, No. 8.1 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 4) While NEMA also
indicated that validation was unnecessary, it noted that if DOE still
chooses to validate AEDMs, it should be done at most annually. (NEMA,
No. 22.1 at p. 4) Traulsen suggested the same validation frequency
(i.e., annually) as NEMA. (Traulsen, No. 9.1 at p. 4) Bradford White
supported validation testing every three to five years and Hussmann
favored testing at least 4 models annually--but at DOE's expense.
(Bradford White, No. 5.1 at p. 2; Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 3)
In DOE's view, an AEDM validation measure is a necessary component
of ensuring the accuracy of product ratings based on AEDMs. However,
DOE recognizes that too frequent validation could be unnecessary.
Accordingly, rather than specify a particular validation frequency
requirement, DOE is reserving the right to request the documentation
supporting the AEDM and to test a basic model at any point, pursuant to
10 CFR 429.104.
2. Assessment Testing
As part of today's notice, DOE also seeks to clarify how it would
conduct assessment testing to evaluate whether basic models rated with
the use of an AEDM comply with conservation standards. When conducting
assessment testing, DOE will exercise its authority to select and test
a single unit of a basic model, including those that have been
certified using an AEDM, at any point, pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104. The
unit will be tested to the applicable DOE test procedure at an
independent, third-party laboratory accredited to the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical
Commission (IEC), ``General requirements for the competence of testing
and calibration laboratories,'' ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E). The test results
obtained from the testing of one unit will be compared to both the
applicable Federal conservation standard as well as the manufacturer's
certified rating, which was developed using an AEDM. If the test result
indicates that the product was rated incorrectly, DOE may require the
manufacturer to re-substantiate their AEDM using the DOE test data, and
re-rate and re-certify the basic model, as may be necessary. If the
test result indicates that the product may not meet Federal
conservation standards, DOE may pursue enforcement testing pursuant to
10 CFR 429.110.
The following sections describe potential DOE actions in response
to certain verification testing results.
a. Failure to Meet Certified Ratings
If testing results from DOE-initiated testing indicate that the
model was rated incorrectly by an AEDM, DOE may require the
manufacturer to re-substantiate their AEDM and re-rate and re-certify
all products that were rated using the AEDM, as the new results from
the AEDM prove necessary. DOE would make this determination by
comparing the assessment test results to the certified rating to
determine if the specified tolerances were maintained as prescribed in
10 CFR 429.70 (c). If a basic model is rated incorrectly, DOE proposes
to require manufacturers to re-substantiate their AEDM within 30 days
of being provided with test data by the Department. The manufacturer
would be required to use the test data obtained through DOE testing in
the re-substantiation of the AEDM. This would
[[Page 32047]]
not require an entirely new set of testing by the manufacturer.
However, if inclusion of test data from the Department results in new
results for basic models that do not meet the substantiation criteria
enumerated in 10 CFR 429.70 (c) (e.g., the specified tolerances), then
a manufacturer must make additional modifications to the AEDM either
through engineering modifications or additional testing. At this time,
DOE has tentatively decided not to require new testing for basic models
outside of the affected product class as part of the re-substantiation
process, in order to alleviate manufacturer burden. Ultimately, if DOE
requires re-substantiation of the AEDM, all basic models that were
rated using the AEDM in question must be re-rated after re-
substantiation and re-certified to the Department if re-substantiation
resulted in a rating change for those models.
DOE requests comment on the appropriate course of action and
necessary time to complete such steps when a basic model tested by DOE
fails to meet its certified rating generated using an AEDM. (See Issue
6 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section IV.B of this
NOPR.)
b. Non-Compliance With Federal Standards
Based on the results of this initial assessment testing, DOE may
initiate an investigation that a basic model may not comply with an
applicable conservation standard pursuant to 10 CFR 429.106 and/or
undertake enforcement testing pursuant to 10 CFR 429.110. If, following
enforcement testing, a model is determined to be non-compliant, all
other models within that basic model are deemed non-compliant. DOE will
withhold a finding of noncompliance for all other basic models rated
with the AEDM pending additional investigation.
If the basic model that is found non-compliant was used for
substantiation of the AEDM, the manufacturer must re-substantiate that
AEDM within 30 days of notification, pursuant to the substantiation
requirements enumerated in 10 CFR 429.70(c). DOE is not proposing to
require the manufacturer to re-test basic models that were tested
previously for substantiation if DOE has not determined those models to
be non-compliant.
c. Multiple Instances of Non-Compliance
Additionally, DOE is considering how to address those manufacturers
whose AEDMs do not accurately rate their products on a recurring basis.
One possible approach would be to restrict or disallow the use of AEDMs
for these manufacturers. Under this approach, manufacturers would have
an incentive to exercise greater care when developing and applying
AEDMs to rate their products. Another option would be to impose civil
penalties. DOE believes that manufacturers must be held accountable for
the accuracy of their AEDMs and that a means of discouraging future
attempts to circumvent the standards established either by Congress or
DOE is necessary. However, DOE does not want to unduly burden
manufacturers, adversely impact the ability of small businesses to
compete, or otherwise impede the development and marketing of new and
innovative compliant products for consumers to purchase.
Responding to DOE's RFI, numerous interested parties suggested a
variety of steps DOE could take in dealing with an instance of non-
compliance. AHRI observed that a finding of non-compliance does not
necessarily indicate an error in the AEDM, and that all models should
not be found non-compliant until the reason for failure has been
determined. (AHRI, No. 17.1 at p. 3) Goodman, Lennox, Carrier, Modine,
Hussmann, Heatcraft, First Company, PVI Industries, NEMA, and
Structural Concepts all concurred with this comment. (Goodman, No. 2.1
at p. 1; Carrier, No. 7.1 at pp. 2-3; Modine, No. 8, at p. 1; Hussmann,
No. 10.1 at p. 2; Heatcraft, No. 11.1 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13.1 at p.
2; Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 2; First Company; No. 14.1 at p. 2; PVI
Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 22.1 at p. 2; Structural
Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 1). Zero Zone and NEMA noted that, rather than
restrict AEDM usage, DOE should focus on finding the cause of the error
and ensuring that a correction is made. (Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 7;
NEMA, No. 20.1 at p. 3)
However, some stakeholders recognized the need to more actively
discourage manufacturers who are consistently non-compliant or
intentionally non-compliant. Traulsen, Bradford White, First Company
and EarthJustice all stated that DOE should disallow the use of AEDMs
for manufacturers after multiple instances of non-compliance, while
American Panel wrote that the use of AEDMs should be disallowed if
there was willful intent by the manufacturer regarding the ratings from
the AEDM. (American Panel, No. 3.1 at p. 2; Traulsen, No. 9.1 at p. 3;
First Company, No. 14.1 at p. 2; EarthJustice, No. 21.1 at p. 1)
DOE concurs that finding the root cause of a non-compliance is
important. As important as this factor is, DOE stresses that
determining this cause is the manufacturer's responsibility, not DOE's.
DOE remains concerned, however, that the prospect of disallowing the
use of AEDMs following a single instance of non-compliance would place
a significant burden on manufacturers, and the additional testing
necessitated by this penalty potentially could lead to time-to-market
delays. Therefore, DOE is proposing to disallow the use of an AEDM
following multiple instances of non-compliance and/or if there is
evidence that the mis-rating was willful.
DOE requests comment on the proposal that DOE disallow the use of
an AEDM if there is evidence that the mis-rating is willful and/or
there are multiple instances of non-compliance. (See Issue 7 under
``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section IV.B of this NOPR.)
2. Re-Substantiation
In addition to re-substantiation required by DOE as the result of
assessment testing, DOE is concerned about the need to update an AEDM
to avoid having AEDMs based on outdated substantiation data, which
could lead to inaccurate ratings for basic models certified using
AEDMs, and requested comment in the RFI on the necessity and required
frequency of re-substantiation.
Carrier and Goodman asserted that a given manufacturer's
familiarity and understanding of both its products and AEDMs makes them
better equipped than DOE to decide when re-substantiation is necessary.
(Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 5; Goodman, No. 2.1 at p. 1) Goodman also noted
that there would be an additional burden placed on manufacturers by
mandatory re-substantiation, and several other stakeholders, including
American Panel, Heatcraft, First Company, and Lennox voiced similar
concerns about the added burden. (Goodman, No. 2.1 at p. 1; American
Panel, No. 3.1 at p. 3; Heatcraft, No. 11.1 at p. 3; First Company, No.
14.1 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 3)
In contrast, a variety of stakeholders--American Panel, First
Company, Lennox, NEMA and AHRI--all remarked that significant changes
in a test method would justify re-substantiation. (American Panel, No.
3.1 at p. 3; First Company, No. 14.1 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 3;
AHRI, No. 17.1 at p. 5; NEMA, No. 20.1 at p. 5). Several commenters,
including Modine, Hussmann, Howe, Mitsubishi and Structural Concepts,
disagreed with this opinion and believed that there is no need for re-
substantiation. (Modine, No.
[[Page 32048]]
8.1 at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 3; Howe, No. 12.1 at p. 1;
Mitsubishi, No. 19.1 at p. 3; Structural Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 2)
PVI Industries was the only stakeholder who suggested that re-
substantiation be required after a specific amount of time, and it
recommended that at least one sample be tested every five years to re-
substantiate the AEDM. (PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 5)
DOE is concerned that, without some type of re-substantiation
requirement, AEDMs could become outdated over time if they are based on
old models, which have been discontinued and are not currently in
production. However, DOE acknowledges manufacturer concerns over the
additional test burden and is not proposing to require re-
substantiation on a periodic basis. Instead, DOE is proposing that
manufacturers must re-substantiate their AEDMs when there is a change
either to the applicable standards or DOE test procedure. Additionally,
DOE is proposing that the substantiation data used by the manufacturer
must be obtained from physical tests of current models from that
manufacturer. DOE is taking this approach because it agrees with
commenters who claim that it is not necessary to re-substantiate an
AEDM for products for which there has been no change that would cause
the model to behave differently under testing. However, changes to the
applicable standards or DOE test procedure are more likely to
necessitate changes to a given AEDM that would result in a different
output. When a model used for substantiation of the AEDM is
discontinued or becomes obsolete, a manufacturer will need to replace
that model with a new model and re-rate or re-certify as necessary.
DOE requests comment on the necessity of requiring re-
substantiation when there is a change in standards or test procedure
and requiring that AEDMs be substantiated with active models. (See
Issue 8 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section IV.B of
this NOPR.)
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires the
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site: www.gc.doe.gov. DOE reviewed the test procedures
considered in today's NOPR under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) and the policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003.
DOE reviewed the AEDM and ARM requirements being proposed under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19, 2003. As discussed in more detail
below, DOE found that because the provisions of this rule will not
result in increased testing and/or reporting burden for manufacturers
already eligible to use an AEDM and will extend AEDM use to a number of
manufacturers, thus reducing their testing burden, manufacturers will
not experience increased financial burden as a result of this rule.
Today's proposal, which presents voluntary methods for certifying
compliance in lieu of conducting actual physical testing, would not
increase the testing or reporting burden of manufacturers who currently
use, or are eligible to use, an AEDM to certify their products.
Manufacturers who produce products that may be certified using ARMs
must obtain approval from the Department prior to the use of those ARMs
for certification purposes. This rule, if promulgated, will eliminate
the ARM nomenclature and treat these methods as AEDMs. As a result, the
pre-approval requirement will be eliminated, resulting in a reduction
in reporting burden for those manufacturers.
Furthermore, proposed requirements for substantiation of an AEDM do
not require more testing than that required by the AEDM provisions
included in the March 7, 2011 Certification, Compliance and Enforcement
Final Rule (76 FR 12422) (``March 2011 Final Rule''), and would relax
tolerances that tested products are required to meet in order to
substantiate the AEDM. In this proposed rule, DOE has discussed re-
substantiation requirements for manufacturers utilizing an AEDM. While
these requirements were not directly stated in the March 2011 Final
Rule, DOE believes that the March rule implicitly included requirements
for re-substantiation within its AEDM requirements. DOE is explicitly
including re-substantiation requirements in this proposed rule to
provide clarity for those manufacturers using an AEDM. As such, DOE
does not believe these requirements result in an increased burden for
manufacturers who already use an AEDM.
Finally, DOE has clarified in today's proposal how it intends to
exercise its authority to validate AEDM performance and verify the
performance of products certified using an AEDM. This is a
clarification of the process that DOE promulgated in the March 2011
Final Rule and would not increase burden for manufacturers currently
allowed to use AEDMs to certify their products.
This notice also proposes to extend the applicability of AEDMs to
products that are currently not permitted to be certified or rated by
these alternate methods. Manufacturers not eligible to use AEDMs must
currently test at least two units of every basic model that they
produce in order to certify compliance to the Department pursuant to
the March 2011 Final Rule. Today's proposal would reduce a
manufacturer's testing burden by enabling these manufacturers to
simulate testing based on testing data derived from a reduced number of
units. While the Department believes that permitting greater use of
AEDMs will reduce the affected manufacturer's test burden, their use is
at the manufacturer's discretion. If, as a result of any of the
proposals herein, a manufacturer believes that use of an AEDM would
increase rather than decrease their financial burden, the manufacturer
may choose not to employ the method. Should a manufacturer choose to
abstain from using an AEDM, this proposed provision would not apply and
the manufacturer would continue to remain subject to the requirements
of any DOE test procedure that applies to that product, which would
result in no change in burden from that which is required currently.
For the reasons enumerated above, DOE is certifying that the
proposed rule,
[[Page 32049]]
if promulgated, would not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of the covered products addressed in today's NOPR
must certify to DOE that their equipment comply with any applicable
energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers
must test their equipment according to the applicable DOE test
procedures for the given equipment type, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures, or use the AEDMs to develop the
certified ratings of the basic models. DOE has established regulations
for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered
consumer products and commercial equipment, including the equipment at
issue in this NOPR. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011)). The collection-of-
information requirement for these certification and recordkeeping
provisions is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under
OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions
that are categorically excluded from review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this
proposed rule would adopt changes for certifying certain covered
appliances, so it would not affect the amount, quality or distribution
of energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental
impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A6
under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of today's proposed rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further
action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today's proposed rule according to UMRA
and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains
neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in
the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these
requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
[[Page 32050]]
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today's proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's regulatory action to establish alternate certification
requirements for certain covered appliances is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects.
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the
proposed rule no later than the date provided at the beginning of this
notice. Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE's email
address for this rulemaking should be provided in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. Interested parties
should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption,
and wherever possible, comments should include the electronic signature
of the author. Absent an electronic signature, comments submitted
electronically must be followed and authenticated by submitting a
signed original paper document to the address provided at the beginning
of this notice. Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE via
mail or hand delivery/courier should include one signed original paper
copy. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
According 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 two copies: one copy of the document including
all the information believed to be confidential and one copy of the
document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE
will make its own determination as to 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) a date upon which such information might lose
its confidential nature due to the passage of time, and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. DOE requests comment on its proposal not to add a pre-approval
process for AEDMs and its proposal to no longer require pre-approval
for use of an alternative rating method for residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps.
2. DOE requests comment on its proposal to expand the use of AEDMs
to other commercial products.
3. DOE requests comment on its proposal to require at least one
basic model from each product class to be tested to substantiate the
AEDM. Specifically, DOE requests comments from manufacturers as to
whether additional clarification is needed for manufacturers of certain
covered products to determine all the applicable product classes that
would need to be tested to substantiate the AEDM. As part of these
comments, the Department is interested in receiving feedback on how
manufacturers currently develop any simulation tools to ensure they are
applicable across a wide range of product classes.
4. DOE seeks product specific comments on proposed overall and
individual tolerance levels by product type. Specifically, DOE seeks
data which show that the variability seen in the manufacturing
processes, test instrumentation, and testing procedures are such that a
different tolerance should be considered.
5. DOE seeks comment on the criteria for selection of basic models
and the number of basic models a manufacturer should be required to
test for substantiation as well as whether the differences in testing
requirements for distribution transformers are appropriate or
necessary.
6. DOE seeks comment on the appropriate course of action and the
time to complete such steps when a model tested by DOE fails to meet
its certified rating.
7. DOE requests comment on the proposal to disallow the use of an
AEDM if there is evidence that the mis-rating is willful and/or there
are multiple instances of non-compliance.
[[Page 32051]]
8. DOE requests comment on the necessity of requiring re-
substantiation when there is a change in standards or test procedure
and requiring that AEDMs be re-substantiated with active models.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's NOPR.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, and Small businesses.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 24, 2012.
Timothy Unruh,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
parts 429, 430 and 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
2. Section 429.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 429.1 Purpose and scope.
This part sets forth the procedures to be followed for
certification, determination and enforcement of compliance of covered
products and covered equipment with the applicable conservation
standards set forth in parts 430 and 431 of this subchapter.
3. Section 429.2 is amended by adding the definition for ``
Alternative Efficiency Determination Method or AEDM'' in alphabetical
order to paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Alternative Efficiency Determination Method or AEDM is a
simulation, calculation or engineering algorithm for determining the
efficiency or consumption of a basic model of consumer product or
commercial equipment, in terms of the appropriate descriptor used in or
under section 325 or 342(a) of the Act to state the standard for that
product.
* * * * *
4. Section 429.12 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(12) to read
as follows:
Sec. 429.12 General requirements applicable to certification reports.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(12) Whether certification is based upon the use of an AEDM, where
permitted, for determining measures of energy conservation and the name
or version of any such AEDM; and
* * * * *
5. Section 429.16 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.16 Central air conditioners and heat pumps.
(a) Determination of Certified Rating. Manufacturers can determine
the certified rating for each basic model either by testing or by
applying a substantiated AEDM in conjunction with the applicable
sampling procedures.
(1) Units to be tested.
(i) If represented values are determined through testing, the
general requirements of Sec. 429.11 are applicable to central air
conditioners and heat pumps; and
(ii)(A) For central air conditioners and heat pumps, each single-
package system and each condensing unit (outdoor unit) of a split-
system, when combined with a selected evaporator coil (indoor unit) or
a set of selected indoor units, must have a sample of sufficient size
tested in accordance with the applicable provisions of this subpart.
The represented values for any model of a single-package system, any
model of a tested split-system combination, any model of a tested mini-
split system combination, or any model of a tested multi-split system
combination must be assigned such that--
(1) Any represented value of annual operating cost, energy
consumption or other measure of energy consumption of the central air
conditioner or heat pump for which consumers would favor lower values
shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.002
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample;
Or,
(ii) The upper 90 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.003
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.90 is the t statistic for a
90% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix D).
and
(2) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other measure
of energy consumption of the central air conditioner or heat pump for
which consumers would favor higher values shall be less than or equal
to the lower of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.004
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample;
Or,
(ii) The lower 90 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.005
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.90 is the t statistic for a
90% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix D).
(B) For heat pumps, all units of the sample population must be
tested in both the cooling and heating modes and the results used for
determining the heat pump's certified Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
(SEER) and Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF) ratings in
accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A)(2) of this section.
(C) For split-system air conditioners and heat pumps, the
condenser-evaporator coil combination selected for tests pursuant to
paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A)
[[Page 32052]]
of this section shall include the evaporator coil that is likely to
have the largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of
condensing unit. For mini-split condensing units that are designed to
always be installed with more than one indoor unit, a ``tested
combination'' as defined in 10 CFR 430.2 shall be used for tests
pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. For multi-split
systems, each model of condensing unit shall be tested with two
different sets of indoor units. For one set, a ``tested combination''
composed entirely of non-ducted indoor units shall be used. For the
second set, a ``tested combination'' composed entirely of ducted indoor
units shall be used. However, for any split-system air conditioner
having a single-speed compressor, the condenser-evaporator coil
combination selected for tests pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of
this section shall include the indoor coil-only unit that is likely to
have the largest volume of retail sales with the particular model of
outdoor unit. This coil-only requirement does not apply to split-system
air conditioners that are only sold and installed with blower-coil
indoor units, specifically mini-splits, multi-splits, and through-the-
wall units. This coil-only requirement does not apply to any split-
system heat pumps. For every other split-system combination that
includes the same model of condensing unit but a different model of
evaporator coil and for every other mini-split and multi-split system
that includes the same model of condensing unit but a different set of
evaporator coils, whether the evaporator coil(s) is manufactured by the
same manufacturer or by a component manufacturer, either--
(1) A sample of sufficient size, comprised of production units or
representing production units, must be tested as complete systems with
the resulting ratings for the outdoor unit-indoor unit(s) combination
obtained in accordance with paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A)(1) and
(a)(1)(ii)(A)(2) of this section; or
(2) The representative values of the measures of energy efficiency
must be assigned as follows:
(i) For multi-split systems composed entirely of non-ducted indoor
units, set equal to the system tested in accordance with paragraph
(a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section whose tested combination was entirely
non-ducted indoor units; or
(ii) For multi-split systems composed entirely of ducted indoor
units, set equal to the system tested in accordance with paragraph
(a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section when the tested combination was entirely
ducted indoor units; or
(iii) For multi-split systems having a mix of non-ducted and ducted
indoor units, set equal to the mean of the values for the two systems--
one having the tested combination of all non-ducted units and the
second having the tested combination of all ducted indoor units--tested
in accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, represented values of efficiency or consumption of central air
conditioners and heat pumps may be certified as based on a single unit
when determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the
requirements of Sec. 429.70 and the provisions of this section, where:
(i) Any represented value of estimated maximum daily energy
consumption or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for
which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal
to the output of the AEDM; and
(ii) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other
measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers
would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of
the AEDM.
* * * * *
6. Section 429.42 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.42 Commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers.
(a) Determination of Certified Rating. Manufacturers can determine
the certified rating for each basic model either by testing or by
applying a substantiated AEDM in conjunction with the applicable
sampling procedures.
(1) Units to be tested.
(i) If represented values are determined through testing, the
general requirements of Sec. 429.11 are applicable to commercial
refrigeration equipment; and
(ii)(A) For each basic model of commercial refrigerator, freezer,
or refrigerator-freezer selected for testing, a sample of sufficient
size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--to ensure
that--
(1) Any represented value of estimated maximum daily energy
consumption or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for
which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal
to the higher of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.006
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample;
Or,
(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.10, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.007
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n - 1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix D).
and
(2) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other measure
of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.008
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample;
Or,
(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.90, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.009
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n - 1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix D).
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, represented values of efficiency or consumption of commercial
refrigerators, freezers or refrigerator-freezers may be certified as
based on a single unit when determined through the application of an
AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 429.70 and the provisions of
this section, where:
(i) Any represented value of estimated maximum daily energy
consumption or other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for
which consumers would favor lower values shall be greater than or equal
to the output of the AEDM; and
(ii) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other
measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers
would favor higher
[[Page 32053]]
values shall be less than or equal to the output of the AEDM.
* * * * *
7. Section 429.43 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC)
equipment.
(a) Determination of Certified Rating. Manufacturers can determine
the certified rating for each basic model either by testing or by
applying a substantiated AEDM in conjunction with the applicable
sampling procedures.
(1) Units to be tested.
(i) If represented values are determined through testing, the
general requirements of Sec. 429.11 are applicable to commercial HVAC
equipment; and
(ii)(A) For each basic model of commercial HVAC equipment, a sample
of sufficient size shall be selected and tested to ensure that--
(1) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of
energy usage of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower
values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.010
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample;
Or,
(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.011
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n - 1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix D).
and
(2) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.012
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample;
Or,
(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.013
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n - 1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix D).
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, represented values of efficiency or consumption of commercial
HVAC equipment may be certified as based on a single unit when
determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the
requirements of Sec. 429.70 and the provisions of this section, where:
(i) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of
energy usage of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower
values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM; and
(ii) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of the AEDM.
* * * * *
8. Section 429.44 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.44 Commercial water heating equipment.
(a) Determination of Certified Rating. Manufacturers can determine
the certified rating for each basic model either by testing or by
applying a substantiated AEDM in conjunction with the applicable
sampling procedures.
(1) Units to be tested.
(i) If represented values are determined through testing, the
general requirements of Sec. 429.11 are applicable to commercial WH
equipment; and
(ii)(A) For each basic model of commercial WH equipment, a sample
of sufficient size shall be selected and tested to ensure that--
(1) Any represented value of maximum standby loss or other measure
of energy usage of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower
values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.014
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample;
Or,
(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.015
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix D).
and
(2) Any represented value of minimum thermal efficiency or other
measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers
would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.016
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample;
Or,
(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.017
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix D).
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, represented values of efficiency or consumption of commercial
WHWH equipment may be certified as based on a single unit when
determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the
requirements of Sec. 429.70 and the provisions of this section, where:
(i) Any represented value of maximum standby loss or other measure
of energy usage of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower
values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM; and
(ii) Any represented value of minimum thermal efficiency or other
measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers
would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of
the AEDM.
* * * * *
[[Page 32054]]
9. Section 429.45 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.45 Automatic commercial ice makers.
(a) Determination of Certified Rating. Manufacturers can determine
the certified rating for each basic model either by testing or by
applying a substantiated AEDM in conjunction with the applicable
sampling procedures.
(1) Units to be tested.
(i) If represented values are determined through testing, the
general requirements of Sec. 429.11 are applicable to automatic
commercial ice makers; and
(ii)(A) For each basic model of automatic commercial ice maker
selected for testing, a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly
selected and tested to ensure that--
(1) Any represented value of maximum energy use or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.018
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample;
Or,
(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.10, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.019
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix D).
and
(2) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other measure
of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.020
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample;
Or,
(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.90, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.021
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix D).
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, represented values of efficiency or consumption of automatic
commercial ice makers may be certified as based on a single unit when
determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the
requirements of Sec. 429.70 and the provisions of this section, where:
(i) Any represented value of maximum energy use or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
lower values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM;
and
(ii) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other
measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers
would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of
the AEDM.
* * * * *
10. Section 429.47 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and
removing paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.47 Distribution transformers.
(a) Determination of Certified Rating. Manufacturers can determine
the certified rating for each basic model either by testing or by
applying a substantiated AEDM in conjunction with the applicable
sampling procedures.
(1) Units to be tested.
(i) If represented values are determined through testing, the
general requirements of Sec. 429.11 are applicable to distribution
transformers; and
(ii)(A) For each basic model selected for testing:
(1) If the manufacturer produces five or fewer units of a basic
model over 6 months, each unit must be tested. A manufacturer may not
use a basic model with a sample size of fewer than five units to
substantiate an AEDM pursuant to Sec. 429.70.
(2) If the manufacturer produces more than five units over 6
months, a sample of at least five units must be selected and tested;
and
(B) Any represented value of efficiency of a basic model must
satisfy the condition:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.022
where x is the average efficiency of the sample.
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, represented values of efficiency of distribution transformers
may be certified as based on a single unit when determined through the
application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 429.70 and
the provisions of this section, where any represented value of the
energy efficiency or other measure of energy consumption of a basic
model for which consumers would favor higher values shall be less than
or equal to the output of the AEDM.
* * * * *
11. Section 429.52 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.52 Refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
(a) Determination of Certified Rating. Manufacturers can determine
the certified rating for each basic model either by testing or by
applying a substantiated AEDM in conjunction with the applicable
sampling procedures.
(1) Units to be tested.
(i) If represented values are determined through testing, the
general requirements of Sec. 429.11 are applicable to refrigerated
bottled or canned vending machines; and
(ii)(A) For each basic model of refrigerated bottled or canned
beverage vending machine selected for testing, a sample of sufficient
size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
(1) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
lower values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.023
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample;
Or,
(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.10, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.024
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the
[[Page 32055]]
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95%
one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix D).
and
(2) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other measure
of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.025
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample;
Or,
(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.90, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.026
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a
95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix D).
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, represented values of efficiency or consumption of
refrigerated bottled or canned vending machines may be certified as
based on a single unit when determined through the application of an
AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 429.70 and the provisions of
this section, where:
(i) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
lower values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM;
and
(ii) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other
measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers
would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of
the AEDM.
* * * * *
12. Section 429.53 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.53 Walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.
(a) Determination of Certified Rating. Manufacturers can determine
the certified rating for each basic model either by testing or by
applying a substantiated AEDM in conjunction with the applicable
sampling procedures.
(1) Units to be tested.
(i) If represented values are determined through testing, the
general requirements of Sec. 429.11 are applicable to walk-in cooler
or freezer refrigeration systems; and
(ii)(A) For each basic model of walk-in cooler or freezer
refrigeration system selected for testing, a sample of sufficient size
shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
(1) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
lower values shall be greater than or equal to:
(i ) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.027
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the i\th\ sample;
Or,
(ii) Reserved. and
(2) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other measure
of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal to:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.028
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the i\th\ sample;
Or,
(ii) Reserved.
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, represented values of efficiency or consumption of walk-in
cooler or freezer refrigeration systems may be certified as based on a
single unit when determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant
to the requirements of Sec. 429.70 and the provisions of this section,
where:
(i) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
lower values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM;
and
(ii) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other
measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers
would favor higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of
the AEDM.
* * * * *
13. Section 429.70 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d)
and (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.70 Alternative methods for determining energy efficiency
and energy use.
(a) General Applicability of an AEDM. A manufacturer of commercial
HVAC and WH equipment, distribution transformers, central air
conditioners and heat pumps, commercial refrigeration equipment,
refrigeration systems of walk-in coolers and freezers, automatic
commercial ice makers, beverage vending machines, electric motors, and
small electric motors may not distribute any basic model of such
equipment in commerce unless the manufacturer has determined the energy
efficiency of the basic model, either from testing the basic model or
from applying an alternative method for determining energy efficiency
or energy use (AEDM) to the basic model, in accordance with the
requirements of this section. In instances where a manufacturer has
tested a basic model to substantiate the alternative method, the energy
efficiency of that basic model must be determined and rated according
to results from actual testing and application of the sampling plans.
In addition, a manufacturer may not knowingly use an AEDM to overrate
the efficiency of a basic model. For each basic model of distribution
transformer that has a configuration of windings that allows for more
than one nominal rated voltage, the manufacturer must determine the
basic model's efficiency either at the voltage at which the highest
losses occur or at each voltage at which the transformer is rated to
operate.
* * * * *
(c) Substantiation of an AEDM. Before using an AEDM, the
manufacturer must substantiate the AEDM's accuracy and reliability as
follows:
(1) Apply the AEDM to at least five of the manufacturer's basic
models that have been selected for testing in accordance with paragraph
(c)(5) of this section, and calculate the efficiency for each of these
basic models. In any instance where a manufacturer has produced fewer
than five basic models in the previous 6 months, select one model from
each basic model and additional individual models to meet the minimum
of five;
(2) Test at least one unit of each basic model to which the AEDM
was applied in accordance with the applicable provisions of Part 430 or
431 and determine the efficiency (or consumption) for each of these
basic models, except that, for distribution transformer AEDMs, test
five units of each basic model selected for testing.
(3) Individual Model Tolerances:
(i) For electric motors and small electric motors, the efficiency
predicted
[[Page 32056]]
by the AEDM for each basic model must be within plus or minus 10
percent of the efficiency determined from the corresponding test of the
basic model;
(ii) For all other products where an AEDM is authorized for use in
paragraph (a) of this section, the efficiency predicted by the AEDM for
each basic model must be within plus or minus 5 percent of the
efficiency determined from the corresponding test of the basic model.
(4) Averaged Tolerances: The average of the predicted efficiencies
of the five or more basic models determined in accordance with
paragraph (c)(1) of this section must be within plus or minus 3 percent
of the average of the tested efficiencies of the five or more basic
models determined in accordance with paragraph (c)(2) of this section,
where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP31MY12.029
where x is the sample average efficiency, n is the number of samples
and xi is the efficiency of the i\th\ sample.
(5) Additional Test Unit Requirements.
(i) Each AEDM must be supported by test data obtained from physical
tests of current models. The tested basic models underlying an AEDM
must meet the following criteria:
(A) There must be at least one basic model selected from each DOE
product class to which the AEDM will be applied;
(B) Two basic models must be from the product class with the
highest sales volume. For residential AC/HP, Commercial HVAC,
Commercial WH, ACIM, WICF refrigeration systems, CRE and BVMs; one of
these two selected models must be the smallest capacity (e.g., cooling
capacity or total display area), and one must be within 25% of the
largest capacity of the models to be covered by the AEDM;
(C) One tested model must be the basic model which either has the
highest sales volume of the models covered by the AEDM during the prior
year or is expected to have the highest sales volume in the coming
year;
(D) Each selected model must meet the current applicable energy or
water conservation standards for that product; and
(E) Each test must have been performed in accordance with the test
procedure for which compliance is required at the time the basic model
is distributed in commerce.
(ii) In any instance where it is not possible for a manufacturer
to select basic models for testing in accordance with all of these
criteria, the criteria shall be given priority in the order in which
they are listed. Within the limits imposed by the criteria, basic
models shall be selected randomly.
(d) AEDM Records and Procedures
(1) If a manufacturer has used an AEDM pursuant to this section;
(i) The manufacturer must have available for inspection by the
Department records showing:
(A) The method or methods used;
(B) The mathematical model, the engineering or statistical
analysis, computer simulation or modeling, and other analytic
evaluation of performance data on which the AEDM is based;
(C) Complete test data, product information, and related
information that the manufacturer generated or acquired through testing
and AEDM calculations for each basic model; and
(D) The calculations used to determine the average efficiency,
energy consumption, or power loss of each basic model to which an AEDM
was applied.
(ii) If requested by the Department and at DOE's discretion, the
manufacturer must perform at least one of the following:
(A) Conduct simulations before representatives of the Department to
predict the performance of particular basic models of the product to
which the AEDM was applied with DOE witnessing;
(B) Provide analyses of previous simulations conducted by the
manufacturer; or
(C) Conduct certification testing of basic models selected by the
Department.
(2) Assessment Testing: Pursuant to Sec. 429.104, DOE may, at any
time, test a basic model to assess whether the basic model is in
compliance with the applicable energy conservation standards.
(i) Indication of non-compliance: Should the assessment testing
suggest the basic model may not comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards, DOE may initiate an investigation pursuant to
Sec. 429.106 and/or undertake enforcement testing pursuant to Sec.
429.110;
(ii) Finding of non-compliance: The provisions of Sec. 429.114
apply, and if the non-compliant basic model was used to substantiate
the AEDM, within 30 days the manufacturer must:
(A) Re-substantiate the AEDM based on a completely new set of test
data from the product class affected by the determination of non-
compliance subject to the applicable provisions of Part 430 and 431,
Sec. 429.116, and paragraph (c) of this section, and
(B) Re-rate and re-certify, as necessary, with the re-substantiated
AEDM, all basic models that were certified using the AEDM.
(iii) Failure to meet certified ratings: If DOE testing
demonstrates that the basic model does not test within 10 percent of
its certified rating for electric motors and small electric motors or
within 5 percent of its certified rating for all other products, the
manufacturer shall within 30 days of receipt of DOE test data;
(A) Re-substantiate the AEDM used to certify the model;
(1) Pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, and
(2) Incorporate the DOE test data into the substantiation package
for the AEDM and recalculate a certified rating for each basic models
from the product class for which the tested model failed to achieve its
rating. New test data is not required for models in unaffected product
classes.
(B) Re-rate and re-certify with the updated AEDM, as necessary, all
basic models that used the original AEDM.
(e) Re-substantiation of an AEDM.
(1) Change in applicable standards or DOE test procedure: Following
a change in energy conservation or water use standards or DOE test
procedure for products which are rated using an AEDM, a manufacturer
shall re-substantiate the AEDM subject to the following criteria in
addition to those listed in paragraph (c) of this section:
(i) The basic models used to substantiate the AEDM must be models
currently in production; and
(ii) All test data used to substantiate the AEDM must meet the new
standard levels.
(2) Discontinuance of model on which substantiation of AEDM was
based: If a model that was used to substantiate the AEDM is
discontinued, a manufacturer must replace that model's data and re-
substantiate such that the AEDM is based on models currently in
production and meets the criteria of paragraph (c).
(3) Failure to re-substantiate an AEDM subject to these criteria:
If a manufacturer fails to re-substantiate an AEDM within 30 days of an
occurrence of one of the events described in this section, then the
AEDM becomes invalid and any certifications made pursuant to the AEDM
are invalidated.
14. Section 429.116 is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 429.116 Additional certification testing requirements.
(a) If DOE determines that independent, third-party testing is
[[Page 32057]]
necessary to ensure a manufacturer's compliance with the rules of this
part, part 430, or part 431, a manufacturer must base its certification
of a basic model under subpart B of this part on independent, third-
party laboratory testing.
(b) If DOE determines that a manufacturer has used an AEDM to
certify compliance and either has willfully certified the product at an
unsupported rating or has distributed multiple, non-compliant basic
models in commerce as a result of a faulty AEDM, DOE may prohibit
continued use of an AEDM and require the manufacturer to base its
certifications of compliance on physical testing of each basic model.
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
15. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Sec. 430.2 [Amended]
16. Section 430.2 is amended by removing the definition of ``ARM/
simulation adjustment factor''.
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
17. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
18. Section 431.2 is amended by revising the definition of
``alternative efficiency determination method or AEDM'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 431.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Alternative Efficiency Determination Method or AEDM is a
simulation, calculation or engineering algorithm for determining the
efficiency or consumption of a basic model of consumer product or
commercial equipment, in terms of the appropriate descriptor used in or
under section 325 or 342(a) of the Act to state the standard for that
product.
* * * * *
19. Section 431.17 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 431.17 Determination of efficiency.
* * * * *
(a) Provisions applicable to all electric motors-- (1) General
requirements. The average full load efficiency of each basic model of
electric motor must be determined either by testing in accordance with
Sec. 431.16 of this subpart, or by application of an alternative
efficiency determination method (AEDM) that meets the requirements of
Sec. 429.70, provided, however, that an AEDM may be used to determine
the average full load efficiency of one or more of a manufacturer's
basic models only if the average full load efficiency of at least five
of its other basic models is determined through testing.
(2) Alternative efficiency determination method. An AEDM applied to
a basic model must comply with Sec. 429.70.
(3) Use of a certification program or accredited laboratory. (i) A
manufacturer may have a certification program, that DOE has classified
as nationally recognized under Sec. 431.20, certify the nominal full
load efficiency of a basic model of electric motor, and issue a
certificate of conformity for the motor.
(ii) For each basic model for which a certification program is not
used as described in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, any testing
of the motor pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) through (2) of this section
to determine its energy efficiency must be carried out in accordance
with paragraph (b) of this section, in an accredited laboratory that
meets the requirements of Sec. 431.18. (This includes testing of the
basic model, pursuant to Sec. 429.70, to substantiate an AEDM.)
* * * * *
Sec. 431.442 [Amended]
20. Section 431.442 is revised by removing the definition of
``Alternative efficiency determination method''.
* * * * *
21. Section 431.445 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b); and
b. Removing paragraph (c).
Sec. 431.445 Determination of small electric motor efficiency.
* * * * *
(b) Provisions applicable to all small electric motors--(1) General
requirements. The average full load efficiency of each basic model of
electric motor must be determined either by testing in accordance with
Sec. 431.444 of this subpart, or by application of an alternative
efficiency determination method (AEDM) that meets the requirements of
Sec. 429.70, provided, however, that an AEDM may be used to determine
the average full load efficiency of one or more of a manufacturer's
basic models only if the average full load efficiency of at least five
of its other basic models is determined through testing.
(2) Alternative efficiency determination method. To use an AEDM to
rate a basic model, the AEDM must comply with Sec. 429.70.
[FR Doc. 2012-13108 Filed 5-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P