Energy Conservation Program: Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods and Alternative Rating Methods, 32038-32057 [2012-13108]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32038-32057]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 https://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/ARM-2011-TP-0024@ee.doe.gov. 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 https://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: 
Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov; 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: Laura.Barhydt@hq.doe.gov.

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: https://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