Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Portable Electric Spas, 38600-38629 [2023-11782]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
38600
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[EERE–2022–BT–TP–0024]
RIN 1904–AF35
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedure for Portable Electric Spas
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is establishing
definitions, a test procedure, and
representation provisions for portable
electric spas. Currently, portable electric
spas are not subject to DOE test
procedures or energy conservation
standards. DOE is adopting a test
procedure for measuring the standby
loss for portable electric spas. The test
method references the relevant industry
test standard with certain additions and
modifications.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
July 13, 2023. Compliance with the final
rule will be mandatory for
representations of fill volume and
standby loss made on or after the
compliance date of any energy
conservation standards for portable
electric spas. The incorporation by
reference of certain materials listed in
this rule is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register on July 13, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure.
A link to the docket web page can be
found at www.regulations.gov/docket/
EERE-2022-BT-TP-0024. The docket
web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including
public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to
review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
9870. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–3593. Email:
kristin.koernig@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE
incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into 10 CFR part 430:
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 American
National Standard for Portable Electric
Spa Energy Efficiency; ANSI-approved
November 19, 2019.
Copies of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
can be obtained from the Pool & Hot
Tub Alliance (‘‘PHTA’’), 2111
Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500,
Alexandria, VA 22314, or by going to
www.phta.org.
CSA C374:11 (R2021) Energy
performance of hot tubs and spas;
published November 2011, Update No.
1—National Standard of Canada—April
2012.
Copies of CSA C374:11 (R2021) can be
obtained from CSA Group, 178 Rexdale
Blvd., Toronto, ON, Canada M9W 1R3,
or by going to www.csagroup.org.
See section IV.N of this document for
a further discussion of these standards.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope and Definitions
1. Scope of DOE Test Procedure
2. Definitions of Categories of Portable
Electric Spas
3. Therapeutic Spas
4. Portable Electric Spa Size
C. Energy Consumption Metric
1. Background
2. Modes of Use
3. Metric for Active Mode Energy
Consumption
D. Test Method
1. Referenced Industry Test Method
2. Excluded Sections of ANSI/APSP/ICC–
14 2019
3. Ambient Air Temperature
4. Chamber
a. Requirements in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019
b. Chamber Floor Requirements
5. Electrical Supply Voltage and Amperage
Configuration
6. Fill Volume
7. Spa Cover
8. Air Temperature Measurement Location
9. Water Temperature Settings
10. Water Temperature Requirements
11. Standby Loss Calculation
E. Represented Values Provisions
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1. Basic Model
2. Represented Values
F. Test Procedure Costs
G. Effective and Compliance Dates
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866,
13563, and 14904
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
1. Description and Estimate of Small
Entities Regulated
2. Description and Estimate of Compliance
Requirements
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by
Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
DOE defines ‘‘portable electric spa’’ as
a factory-built electric spa or hot tub,
supplied with equipment for heating
and circulating water at the time of sale
or sold separately for subsequent
attachment. See 10 CFR 430.2.
Currently, portable electric spas are not
subject to DOE test procedures or energy
conservation standards.
On September 2, 2022, DOE
published a final determination in the
Federal Register (‘‘September 2022
Final Determination’’) in which it
determined that portable electric spas
qualify as a ‘‘covered product’’ under
Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act, Public Law 94–
163, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’).1 87 FR
54123. In the September 2022 Final
Determination, DOE determined that
coverage of portable electric spas is
necessary or appropriate to carry out the
purposes of EPCA, and that the average
U.S. household energy use for portable
electric spas is likely to exceed 100
kilowatt-hours (‘‘kWh’’) per year. Id. at
87 FR 54127.
Accordingly, portable electric spas are
now included in the list of ‘‘covered
products’’ for which DOE is authorized
to establish and amend energy
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which
reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A–1 of EPCA.
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
conservation standards and test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20))
The following sections discuss DOE’s
authority to establish a test procedure
for portable electric spas and relevant
background information regarding
DOE’s consideration of a test procedure
for this product.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA 2
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles, which sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency for certain
products, referred to as ‘‘covered
products.’’ 3 In addition to specifying a
list of consumer products that are
covered products, EPCA contains
provisions that enable the Secretary of
Energy to classify additional types of
consumer products as covered products.
To classify a consumer product as a
covered product, the Secretary must
determine that classifying the consumer
product as a covered product is
necessary or appropriate to carry out the
purpose of EPCA and the average
annual per household 4 use by such a
product is likely to exceed 100 kWh per
year. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1))
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA specifically include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6296).
The testing requirements consist of
test procedures that manufacturers of
covered products must use as the basis
for (1) certifying to DOE that their
products comply with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted
under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2)
making other representations about the
efficiency of those products (42 U.S.C.
6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these
test procedures to determine whether
the products comply with any relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297)
DOE may, however, grant waivers of
Federal preemption for particular State
laws or regulations, in accordance with
the procedures and other provisions of
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE must
follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered products.
EPCA requires that any test procedures
prescribed or amended under this
section shall be reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle (as determined by the
Secretary) or period of use and shall not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
If the Secretary determines, on her
own behalf or in response to a petition
by any interested person, that a test
procedure should be prescribed, the
Secretary shall promptly publish in the
Federal Register proposed test
procedures and afford interested
persons an opportunity to present oral
and written data, views, and arguments
with respect to such procedure. The
comment period on a proposed rule to
prescribe a test procedure shall be at
least 60 days and may not exceed 270
38601
days. In prescribing a test procedure, the
Secretary shall take into account such
information as the Secretary determines
relevant to such procedure, including
technological developments relating to
energy use or energy efficiency of the
type (or class) of covered products
involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE
amend its test procedures for all covered
products to integrate measures of
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption into the overall energy
efficiency, energy consumption, or other
energy descriptor, unless the current
test procedure already incorporates the
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, or if such integration is
technically infeasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)(i)–(ii)) If an integrated
test procedure is technically infeasible,
DOE must prescribe separate standby
mode and off mode energy use test
procedures for the covered product, if a
separate test is technically feasible. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(i)) Any such
amendment must consider the most
current versions of the International
Electrotechnical Commission (‘‘IEC’’)
Standard 62301 5 and IEC Standard
62087 6 as applicable. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A))
DOE is publishing this final rule in
accordance with the statutory authority
in EPCA.
B. Background
DOE has not previously conducted a
test procedure rulemaking for portable
electric spas. DOE published in the
Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) on October 18,
2022 (‘‘October 2022 NOPR’’). 87 FR
63356. DOE held a public meeting
related to this NOPR on November 17,
2022 (hereafter, the ‘‘NOPR public
meeting’’).
DOE received comments in response
to the October 2022 NOPR from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
TABLE I.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE OCTOBER 2022 NOPR
Comment No.
in the docket
Commenter(s)
Reference in this final rule
American Association for Laboratory Accreditation ..................
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council
for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, and the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance.
Bullfrog International .................................................................
A2LA .......................................
Joint Advocates ......................
6
12
Accreditation Body.
Advocacy Organizations.
Bullfrog ....................................
11
Manufacturer.
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
3 The enumerated list of covered products is at 42
U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)–(19).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
4 The definition for ‘‘household’’ is found at 10
CFR 430.2.
5 IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances—
Measurement of standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011–
01).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Commenter type
6 IEC 62087, Audio, video and related
equipment—Methods of measurement for power
consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1–6: 2015, Part 7:
2018).
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
38602
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE I.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE OCTOBER 2022 NOPR—
Continued
Reference in this final rule
California Energy Commission .................................................
Jacuzzi Group (Sundance Spas, Jacuzzi Hot Tubs, Dimension One Spas, ThermoSpas).
Master Spas ..............................................................................
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric,
and Southern California Edison; collectively, the California
Investor-Owned Utilities.
Pool & Hot Tub Alliance, International Hot Tub Association ....
Texas A&M Master of Public Service & Administration students: Rachel Trusler, Madeline Luster, and Taylor Rapp.
Watkins Wellness ......................................................................
CEC ........................................
Jacuzzi Group .........................
13
9
Master Spas ............................
CA IOUs ..................................
7
8
PHTA/IHTA .............................
Texas A&M Students ..............
10
4
Trade Associations.
Individuals.
Watkins ...................................
14
Manufacturer.
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.7 To the extent that
interested parties have provided written
comments that are substantively
consistent with any oral comments
provided during the NOPR public
meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this final rule.
DOE did not identify any oral comments
provided during the NOPR public
meeting that are not substantively
addressed by written comments.
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE is establishing
a test procedure for measuring the
energy use of portable electric spas in a
new appendix GG to subpart B of part
430 of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) (‘‘appendix GG’’).
DOE is incorporating the applicable
industry test method published by the
Pool & Hot Tub Alliance (‘‘PHTA’’) 8 in
partnership with the International Code
Council (‘‘ICC’’) and approved by the
American National Standards Institute
(‘‘ANSI’’) in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019,
‘‘American National Standard for
Portable Electric Spa Energy Efficiency’’
(‘‘ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019’’), with
certain exceptions and additions. The
test method produces a measure of the
energy consumption of portable electric
spas that represents the average power
consumed by the spa, normalized to a
standard temperature difference
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Comment No.
in the docket
Commenter(s)
7 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket of DOE’s
rulemaking to develop test procedures for portable
electric spas (Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–TP–0024,
which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The
references are arranged as follows: (commenter
name, comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
8 The PHTA is the result of a 2019 merger
between the Association of Pool and Spa
Professionals (‘‘APSP’’) and the National Swimming
Pool Foundation (‘‘NSPF’’). The reference to APSP
has been retained in the ANSI designation of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
between the ambient air and the water
in the spa, while the cover is on and the
product is operating in its default
operation mode. As discussed further in
section III.C.3 of this final rule, DOE is
referring to this power use metric as
‘‘standby loss.’’
DOE reviewed the relevant sections of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 and has
determined that ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019, in conjunction with the additional
test methods and calculations adopted
in appendix GG, produces test results
that reflect the energy efficiency, energy
use, or estimated operating costs of a
portable electric spa during a
representative average use cycle. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
DOE also reviewed the burdens
associated with conducting the portable
electric spa test procedure adopted in
this final rule and based on the results
of such analysis, has determined that
the test procedure would not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3)) DOE’s analysis of the
burdens associated with the test
procedure is presented in section III.F of
this document.
This final rule also adopts definitions
for certain categories of portable electric
spas in appendix GG and establishes
requirements regarding the sampling
plan and representations for portable
electric spas in 10 CFR part 429.
The effective date for the test
procedure adopted in this final rule is
30 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register.
Representations of energy use or energy
efficiency must be based on testing in
accordance with the test procedure
beginning on the compliance date of any
energy conservation standards for
portable electric spas.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE
discusses each topic considered
regarding the portable electric spa test
procedure. For each discussion topic,
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Commenter type
State Government Agency.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Utilities.
DOE provides relevant background
information, summarizes the proposal
from the October 2022 NOPR,
summarizes stakeholder comments
received, responds to those comments,
and provides justification for the
finalized test provisions adopted by this
final rule.
A. General Comments
DOE received general comments in
response to the October 2022 NOPR that
are relevant to establishing a test
procedure for portable electric spas.
PHTA/IHTA, the Jacuzzi Group, and
Bullfrog encouraged DOE to move
forward with both a test procedure and
an energy conservation standard rule
based on ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019.
(PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 2; Jacuzzi
Group, No. 9; Bullfrog, No. 11 at p. 1)
A2LA, the CA IOUs, and the CEC
generally supported the inclusion of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 in the
proposed test procedure. (A2LA, No. 6
at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 1; CEC, No.
13 at p. 2) The Texas A&M Students and
the Joint Advocates expressed support
for DOE advancing the rulemaking for
portable electric spas. (Texas A&M
Students, No. 4 at p. 2; Joint Advocates,
No. 12 at p. 1) And Master Spas, Jacuzzi
Group, and Bullfrog all supported the
written responses from PHTA/IHTA.
(Master Spas, No. 7 at p. 1.; Jacuzzi
Group, No. 9; Bullfrog, No. 11 at p. 1)
As discussed in the following
sections, DOE is adopting a test
procedure that is based on ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 with certain additions and
modifications.
Additionally, PHTA/IHTA
commented that DOE may want to
consider whether anything in the
proposed DOE test procedure or future
energy conservation standards could
force manufacturers to insulate portable
electric spas to such an extreme that
portable electric spas overheat during
hot weather. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p.
19) PHTA/IHTA explained that
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
customer service departments receive
calls from owners wanting to know how
to cool off their portable electric spa,
saying it is overheating from excess heat
retention in warm climates. (Id.) PHTA/
IHTA indicated that this can be a safety
concern, and that it could happen more
frequently with global warming and
increasingly higher temperatures. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA questioned whether there
is a tipping point between hot ambient
temperatures versus energy savings on
heat in cold climates in colder months
that should be considered both in the
proposed test procedure as well as a
future energy conservation standard.
(Id.) PHTA/IHTA stated that they looked
forward to providing any needed data,
testing, or analysis to DOE. (Id.)
In response, DOE notes that there is
nothing in this test procedure final rule
that will force manufacturers to change
the amount that they insulate portable
electric spas because the test procedure
specifies only the method to measure
energy performance and does not
specify any required levels of energy
performance. Required levels of energy
performance would be considered in a
separate energy conservation standard
rulemaking, and DOE encourages
PHTA/IHTA to provide comments on
the topic of overheating to that
rulemaking if PHTA/IHTA is concerned
about portable electric spa overheating
at that time.
B. Scope and Definitions
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
1. Scope of DOE Test Procedure
As part of the October 2022 NOPR,
DOE reviewed the applicable industry
test procedure ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019,9 which provides recommended
minimum guidelines for testing the
energy efficiency of factory-built
residential portable electric spas. The
standard methods included in ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 provide a means to
compare and evaluate the energy
efficiency of different types of portable
electric spas in conditions relevant to
product use. Section 3 of ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 defines ‘‘portable electric
spa’’ as ‘‘a factory-built electric spa or
hot tub, supplied with equipment for
heating and circulating water at the time
of sale or sold separately for subsequent
attachment.’’ This ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 definition is identical to the
definition used by the CEC and adopted
by DOE in the September 2022 Final
Determination. 87 FR 54123, 54125.
Section 3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
also defines certain categories of
9 ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 is available at
webstore.ansi.org/standards/apsp/
ansiapspicc142019.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
portable electric spas, as discussed in
section III.B.2 of this final rule.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
tentatively concluded that all products
on the market can be tested using
methods consistent with or similar to
those in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019. 87
FR 63356, 63359. DOE proposed that the
scope of the test procedure include all
products meeting the definition of
‘‘portable electric spa’’ in 10 CFR 430.2.
Id.
DOE requested comment on its
proposal for the scope of the test
procedure to include all products that
meet the definition of ‘‘portable electric
spa.’’ Id. Additionally, DOE requested
comment on whether any additional
products should be included within the
scope of the DOE test procedure and
whether any products that meet the
definition of ‘‘portable electric spa’’
should be excluded from the scope of
the DOE test procedure, and if so, on
what basis. Id.
The CEC commented in support of the
scope and definitions proposed by DOE
in the October 2022 NOPR. (CEC, No. 13
at p. 2)
PHTA/IHTA supported the inclusion
of all products meeting the definition of
portable electric spa within the scope of
the test procedure. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10
at p. 9) PHTA/IHTA also commented
that sensory deprivation and cold/ice
bath products could unintentionally fall
under the proposed scope and that DOE
could consider clarifying that these
products are excluded from the scope.
(Id.) PHTA/IHTA stated that although
sensory deprivation and cold/ice bath
products are similar to portable electric
spas in some ways, they are very
different in other ways and are not
compatible with the current or proposed
portable electric spa test procedures.
(Id.) PHTA/IHTA noted that cold/ice
bath products are not always supplied
with heating functions. (PHTA/IHTA,
No. 10 at p. 10)
In response to PHTA/IHTA’s
recommendation to clarify the exclusion
of sensory deprivation and cold/ice bath
products from the scope of the test
procedure, DOE has reviewed products
on the market that appear to fit the
description of these categories. Many of
the models that DOE reviewed heat and
circulate water. To the extent that such
a product is supplied with equipment
for heating and circulating water at the
time of sale or sold separately for
subsequent attachment, such a product
would meet the definition of a portable
electric spa. PHTA/IHTA also did not
specify what product characteristics
would differentiate sensory deprivation
and cold/ice bath products that meet the
portable electric spa definition from
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38603
other types of portable electric spas. As
a result, in this final rule, DOE is not
categorically excluding these products
from the scope of the portable electric
spa test procedure.
However, DOE notes that it may
consider sensory deprivation and cold/
ice bath products when evaluating
potential energy conservation standards.
To the extent that these products have
significantly different design, operation,
and efficiency characteristics as
compared to other portable electric spas,
DOE may consider whether separate
treatment is appropriate. Any
consideration of potential energy
conservation standards for separate
categories of portable electric spas
would be addressed in a separate
rulemaking. Further, as discussed in
section III.F of this document,
manufacturers are not required to test
the subject portable electric spas in
accordance with this test method until
such time as compliance is required
with any future applicable energy
conservation standards.
For the reasons discussed in the
October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule,
DOE is finalizing the scope of coverage
to include all products that meet the
definition of ‘‘portable electric spa.’’
2. Definitions of Categories of Portable
Electric Spas
Section 3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
defines the following categories of
portable electric spas:
(1) Standard Spa: A portable electric
spa that is not an inflatable spa, an
exercise spa, or the exercise spa portion
of a combination spa.
(2) Exercise Spa (also known as a
swim spa): A variant of a portable
electric spa in which the design and
construction includes specific features
and equipment to produce a water flow
intended to allow recreational physical
activity including, but not limited to,
swimming in place.
(3) Combination Spa: A portable
electric spa with two separate and
distinct reservoirs, where (a) one
reservoir is an exercise spa; (b) the
second reservoir is a standard spa; and
(c) each reservoir has an independent
water temperature setting control.
(4) Inflatable Spa: A portable electric
spa where the structure is collapsible
and designed to be filled with air to
form the body of the spa.
These categories of portable electric
spas defined in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 differ in the way they are tested
and in the allowed energy consumption
specified in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019.
Based on DOE’s review of the portable
electric spa market, DOE tentatively
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
38604
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
determined in the October 2022 NOPR
that the category definitions defined in
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 accurately
categorize the products available on the
market. 87 FR 63356, 63360. DOE
proposed to include definitions for
‘‘standard spa,’’ ‘‘exercise spa,’’
‘‘combination spa,’’ and ‘‘inflatable spa’’
in section 2 of appendix GG that are
generally consistent with those category
definitions in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019.10 Id. For all definitions other than
‘‘exercise spa,’’ DOE proposed a
definition identical to the wording in
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019. Id. For
‘‘exercise spa,’’ DOE proposed to
include only the first paragraph of the
definition from ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 because the second paragraph 11 of
the definition is informative, describing
examples of products that may be
included within the definition. Id.
DOE requested comment on whether
the definitions for the categories of
portable spas proposed in section 2 of
appendix GG (i.e., ‘‘standard spa,’’
‘‘exercise spa,’’ ‘‘combination spa,’’ and
‘‘inflatable spa’’) adequately delineate
the categories of portable electric spas
and whether any additional or different
categories are warranted. Id.
In response to the October 2022
NOPR, the CA IOUs commented that,
based on their market research, the
current proposed definitions cover all
products labeled as portable electric
spas. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 2) The CA
IOUs stated that the current categories
adequately delineate the portable
electric spa market and that the terms
are well understood by advocates,
industry, and regulators. (Id.)
The CEC commented in support of the
proposed definitions for standard spa,
exercise spa, combination spa, and
inflatable spa. (CEC, No. 13 at p. 2) The
CEC noted that the proposed scope and
definitions would align with ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 and with
California’s Code of Regulations and
would maintain consistency with
several States that have adopted ANSI/
10 Section numbers in appendix GG as proposed
in the October 2022 NOPR were one whole number
lower than the corresponding section numbers in
appendix GG as finalized in this final rule. This
final rule uses the section numbering as finalized
in this final rule in all discussion of appendix GG
to avoid potential confusion.
11 The second paragraph of the definition of
‘‘exercise spa’’ in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 states
the following: Exercise spas may include peripheral
jetted seats intended for water therapy, heater,
circulation and filtration system, or may be a
separate distinct portion of a combination spa and
may have separate controls. These aquatic vessels
are of a design and size such that it has an
unobstructed volume of water large enough to allow
the 99th Percentile Man as specified in ANSI/
APSP/ICC–16 to swim or exercise in place.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
APSP/ICC–14 2019 or that reference
California’s regulations. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA commented that, while
they support DOE’s proposed
definitions of ‘‘standard spa,’’
‘‘combination spa,’’ and ‘‘inflatable
spa,’’ they recommend also adopting the
second paragraph of the definition of
‘‘exercise spa’’ in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 10)
PHTA/IHTA explained that, although
the second paragraph is descriptive, it
actually defines the product because the
first sentence separates an exercise spa
from a standard spa, while the second
sentence separates an exercise spa from
a pool. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA stated that this
additional description under the
definition of ‘‘exercise spa’’ was created
in response to multiple incidents of
misclassification in order to prevent
future misclassifications. (Id.) PHTA/
IHTA expressed concern that
eliminating the second paragraph from
the definition in the DOE test procedure
could imply that this classification is no
longer accurate, thereby causing
misclassifications and misapplications
of DOE’s regulations. (Id.)
In response to PHTA/IHTA’s
comment regarding the definition of
‘‘exercise spa,’’ DOE notes that the
second paragraph of the definition as
written in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
does not actually distinguish exercise
spas from either standard spas or pools.
The first sentence of the second
paragraph lists potential features of
exercise spas, including peripheral
jetted seats, a heater, and a filtration and
circulation system, all of which are also
characteristic of standard spas. As a
result, this sentence does not actually
separate exercise spas from standard
spas, as stated in PHTA/IHTA’s
comment. The first sentence also says
that an exercise spa ‘‘may be a separate
distinct portion of a combination spa
and may have separate controls,’’ but
this phrase does not add descriptive
detail beyond what is included in DOE’s
proposed definition for ‘‘combination
spa.’’ The second sentence states that an
exercise spa holds an unobstructed
volume of water sufficiently large for a
99th percentile man to swim in place.
PTHA/IHTA’s comment states that this
sentence distinguishes exercise spas
from pools. However, as a lower bound
on volume, the requirement to fit a 99th
percentile man does not actually
distinguish exercise spas from larger
pools. Finally, DOE notes that the CEC
regulations use a definition for ‘‘exercise
spa’’ that is similar to DOE’s proposed
definition and does not include the
second paragraph of the definition as
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
stated in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019.12
Because a similar definition is used
already as the basis of State coverage for
portable electric spas, DOE concludes
its own proposed single paragraph
definition would not cause confusion
among manufacturers or test labs.
For the reasons discussed in the
October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule,
DOE is establishing definitions for
categories of portable electric spas that
are identical to those in the proposed
appendix GG.
3. Therapeutic Spas
Section 1.3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 states that spas operated for
medical treatment or physical therapy,
among other types,13 are not included
within the scope of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019. However, DOE noted in the
October 2022 NOPR that the definition
of ‘‘exercise spa’’ in section 3 of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 indicates that
exercise spas may include peripheral
jetted seats intended for water therapy.
87 FR 63324, 63360. DOE discussed in
the October 2022 NOPR that it had
reviewed the market and found that
‘‘therapeutic,’’ ‘‘water therapy,’’ or
‘‘hydrotherapy’’ applications are
frequently advertised in marketing
materials for many portable electric
spas, including many models that do
not appear to have features that are
different than those found on models
that do not mention therapeutic
applications in their marketing
materials. Id.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
stated its presumption that the types of
spas operated for medical treatment or
physical therapy intended to be
referenced by section 1.3 of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 would not be
portable and, therefore, would not be
considered a portable electric spa
(emphasis added). Id. DOE noted in the
October 2022 NOPR that, to the extent
that any of the categories of spas
referenced by section 1.3 of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 do not meet the
definition of a portable electric spa,
such products would not be within the
scope of the test procedure. Id.
12 The CEC defines exercise spas as follows:
‘‘Exercise spa’ (also known as a ‘swim spa’) means
a portable electric spa that includes specific
features and equipment to produce water flow for
water physical therapy or physical fitness activity,
including, but not limited to, swimming in place.’’
See section 1602(g)(2) of Article 4 of Division 2 of
Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations.
13 Section 1.3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 states
the following: These requirements do not apply to
public spas (ANSI/APSP–2), permanently installed
or inground spas (ANSI/APSP/ICC–3), or other
spas, such as those operated for medical treatment,
physical therapy, or other purposes.
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
DOE requested comment on whether
there are portable electric spas used for
special purposes, such as those operated
for medical treatment or physical
therapy, that should be excluded from
the scope of the proposed test procedure
or tested in a different manner. Id. If so,
DOE requested comment on the method
to determine the spas to exclude or test
differently. Id.
In response to the October 2022
NOPR, PHTA/IHTA stated that both
portable electric spas and in-ground
spas can be used for medical treatment
or physical therapy, however in-ground
spas are outside of the scope of this
rulemaking. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p.
10) PHTA/IHTA noted they are not
aware of any method to exclude or test
differently portable electric spas that are
used for medical treatment, physical
therapy, or other special purposes. (Id.)
The CEC commented that spas
intended for medical treatment or
physical therapy would not be portable
and, therefore, would not be considered
portable electric spas. (CEC, No. 13 at p.
2) The CEC also indicated that it has not
received inquiries regarding spas
intended for medical treatment or
physical therapy that would pose an
issue in defining the scope. (Id.)
The Texas A&M Students commented
that medical spas should still be subject
to the same testing requirements as all
other portable electric spas, because
there is little distinction between what
is and is not a medical spa and most
medical spas are from the same
manufacturers as recreational ones are
but are simply sold and marketed on
medical websites. (Texas A&M
Students, No. 4 at p. 1)
Based on the comments received and
DOE’s review of the portable electric spa
market, DOE has determined that there
is no need to explicitly exclude any
products used for special purposes—
such as those for therapeutic purposes—
that meet the definition of portable
electric spa from the scope of the
Federal test procedure.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed
in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE is finalizing
the scope as proposed in the October
2022 NOPR and not adopting any
specific exclusion for products that
meet the definition of portable electric
spa and are intended for special
purposes, such as those for therapeutic
purposes, in this final rule.
4. Portable Electric Spa Size
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 does not
specify any minimum or maximum size
of portable electric spas to limit the
scope of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
Based on DOE’s tentative conclusion
that all portable electric spas on the
market can be tested using methods
consistent with or similar to those in
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019, DOE
tentatively concluded in the October
2022 NOPR that there is no need to limit
the scope of the DOE test procedure
based on the size of the portable electric
spa. 87 FR 63356, 63360. Therefore,
DOE did not propose to specify any
minimum or maximum size to limit the
scope of the proposed test procedure. Id.
DOE requested comment on its
tentative determination not to propose a
minimum or maximum size to limit the
scope of the proposed test procedure. Id.
In response to the October 2022
NOPR, the CEC and PHTA/IHTA
supported DOE’s tentative
determination not to propose a
minimum or maximum size for portable
electric spas in the scope of the test
procedure. (CEC, No. 13 at p. 2; PHTA/
IHTA, No. 10 at p. 10)
For the reasons discussed in the
October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE is not
specifying any minimum or maximum
size to limit the scope of the portable
electric spa test procedure in this final
rule.
C. Energy Consumption Metric
1. Background
As discussed previously in this
document, EPCA requires that any test
procedures prescribed or amended must
be reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect energy efficiency,
energy use, or estimated annual
operating cost of a given type of covered
product during a representative average
use cycle, and that test procedures not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE
amend its test procedures for all covered
products to integrate measures of
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption into the overall energy
efficiency, energy consumption, or other
energy descriptor, taking into
consideration the most current versions
of IEC Standards 62301 and 62087,
unless the current test procedure
already fully accounts for and
incorporates the standby mode and off
mode energy consumption. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)) If an integrated test
procedure is technically infeasible, DOE
must prescribe a separate standby mode
and off mode energy use test procedure
for the covered product, if technically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii))
EPCA defines three different modes of
operation in 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A).
‘‘Active mode’’ means the condition in
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38605
which an energy-using product is
connected to a main power source, has
been activated, and provides one or
more main functions. ‘‘Standby mode’’
means the condition in which an
energy-using product is connected to a
main power source and offers one or
more of the following user-oriented or
protective functions: (a) to facilitate the
activation or deactivation of other
functions (including active mode) by
remote switch (including remote
control), internal sensor, or timer; or (b)
continuous functions, including
information or status displays
(including clocks) or sensor-based
functions. ‘‘Off mode’’ means the
condition in which an energy-using
product is connected to a main power
source and is not providing any standby
or active mode function. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(A)(i)–(iii))
2. Modes of Use
Based on market research performed
by DOE and analysis from the CEC,14
portable electric spas are typically
connected to a main power source and
activated, and provide one or more main
functions 24 hours a day, 365 days per
year. Although a portable electric spa is
typically used for a small number of
hours throughout the year, heating the
water from ambient temperature to the
use temperature takes a long time, and
the water must be filtered regularly to
keep it fresh. Therefore, most users
maintain the spa at their preferred use
temperature at all times with periodic or
continuous water filtration, even when
not in use.15
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
tentatively concluded that all
operational modes for portable electric
spas would be considered ‘‘active
modes’’ as defined in 42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(A)(i). 87 FR 63356, 63361.
As such, portable electric spas would be
considered to operate in active mode at
all times, and standby mode and off
mode, as defined by EPCA, would not
be applicable to portable electric spas.
Id. Therefore, DOE tentatively
concluded that there is no standby
mode or off mode energy consumption
that can be accounted for or
incorporated into the proposed DOE test
procedure. Id.
DOE requested comment on whether
it is necessary to measure standby or off
14 California Energy Commission Final Staff
Report—Analysis of Efficiency Standards and
Marking for Spas, 2018 Appliance Efficiency
Rulemaking for Spas (Docket No. 18–AAER–02, TN
No. 222413). Available at efiling.energy.ca.gov/
GetDocument.aspx?tn=222413&
DocumentContentId=31256.
15 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
38606
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
mode energy consumption in the test
procedure. Id.
PHTA/IHTA supported DOE’s
tentative determination that portable
electric spas are in active mode at all
times. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 10)
Additionally, PHTA/IHTA stated they
would have no objection to replacing
the industry term ‘‘standby mode’’ in
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 with the
EPCA-defined term ‘‘active mode.’’
(PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 11)
For the reasons discussed in the
October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE concludes
that standby mode and off mode, as
defined by EPCA, are not applicable to
portable electric spas and that there is
no standby mode or off mode energy
consumption that can be accounted for
or incorporated into the proposed DOE
test procedure. Accordingly, this final
rule does not include provisions for
measuring standby mode or off mode.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
3. Metric for Active Mode Energy
Consumption
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 includes a
method for measuring the energy
consumption of portable electric spas
while the cover is on and the spa is
operating in its default operation mode.
The metric used by ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 is normalized standby power,
which is the average power consumed
by the portable electric spa while the
cover is on and the spa is operating in
its default operation mode, normalized
to a standard temperature difference
between the ambient air and the water
in the spa.16 Normalized standby power
is the metric used by the CEC and other
States that use ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
as the basis for their efficiency
programs. It is also the metric used by
CSA test method CSA C374:11
(R2021),17 ‘‘Energy performance of hot
tubs and spas’’ (‘‘CSA C374:11
(R2021)’’), which is a method used for
testing portable electric spas in Canada.
According to analyses from the CEC,18
the mode of operation measured in
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 represents
approximately 75 percent of the energy
16 Section 5.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
specifies that the purpose of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 is to measure the energy consumption in
‘‘standby mode.’’ This use of ‘‘standby mode’’ is not
consistent with the term as defined by EPCA but
rather refers to a type of active mode as defined by
EPCA, as explained in section III.C.2 of this final
rule.
17 CSA 374:11 (R2021) is available at
www.csagroup.org/store/product/2703317/.
18 California Energy Commission Final Staff
Report—Analysis of Efficiency Standards and
Marking for Spas, 2018 Appliance Efficiency
Rulemaking for Spas (Docket No. 18–AAER–02, TN
No. 222413). Available at efiling.energy.ca.gov/
GetDocument.aspx?tn=222413&
DocumentContentId=31256.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
consumed by a portable electric spa.
DOE estimates that this percentage may
be approximately 95 percent in some
cases, based on investigative testing that
DOE performed and data on typical spa
usage from PKData.19 Taken together,
the two estimates indicate the mode of
operation measured in ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 represents the largest
portion of active mode energy
consumption by far. Based on these data
sources, DOE tentatively determined in
the October 2022 NOPR that the most
representative average use cycle or
period of use of a portable electric spa
is with the spa cover on (i.e., with no
consumers in the spa), and with the spa
continually or periodically filtering and
heating the water in the spa, such that
the spa is always ready for use. 87 FR
63356, 63361. DOE indicated in the
October 2022 NOPR that it was not
aware of any existing test methods that
measure the energy consumption in any
other parts of active mode described in
section III.C.2 of the October 2022
NOPR. Id. DOE also indicated that it has
been unable to determine any
representative durations for these
portions of active mode use. Id.
Based on these considerations, DOE
proposed to use normalized standby
power from ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 as
the performance-based metric for
representing the energy use of portable
electric spas. Id. DOE further proposed
to refer to this metric as ‘‘standby loss,’’
rather than ‘‘normalized standby
power,’’ to avoid misinterpretation with
the statutory definition of ‘‘standby
mode’’ as defined in 42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii). Id.20 DOE also
proposed to define the term ‘‘standby
loss’’ in section 2.9 of appendix GG as
‘‘the mean normalized power required
to operate the portable electric spa in
default operation mode with the cover
on, as calculated in section 3.3 of this
appendix.’’ Id.
DOE requested comment on its
proposal to use standby loss, equivalent
to the normalized standby power as
defined by ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019, as
the performance-based metric for
representing the energy use of portable
19 P.K. Data Inc. 2022 Hot Tub Market Data:
Custom Compilation for Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (through 2021). 2022.
Alpharetta, GA. Available at www.pkdata.com/
reports-store.html (Last accessed April 24, 202312,
2022).
20 DOE noted in the October 2022 NOPR that the
term ‘‘standby loss’’ has been used previously to
describe the energy use of a water heater associated
with maintaining water temperature (See sections
1.13 and 6.3.3 of appendix E to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430). A portable electric spa is similar to a
water heater in that regard, because both products
consume energy to maintain their contents at a
specified temperature over a long period of time.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
electric spas, and on its proposed
definition for ‘‘standby loss’’ in section
2.9 of appendix GG. Id. DOE also
requested comment on data regarding
the representative operation of spas
when in use with the cover removed,
including typical frequency and
duration of use, operation of jets or
other features, and number of users, and
on how usage varies across spa types.
Id. Lastly, DOE requested comment on
any test methods that measure the
operation of spas when in use with the
cover removed. Id.
PHTA/IHTA commented in support of
DOE’s proposal to use normalized
standby power from ANSI/APSP/ICC–
14 2019 as the performance-based
metric for representing the energy use of
portable electric spas. (PHTA/IHTA, No.
10 at p. 11) PHTA/IHTA also supported
referring to this metric as ‘‘standby loss’’
instead of ‘‘normalized standby power’’
due to concerns of misinterpretation
with other statutory definitions. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA noted that they were not
aware of data analysis existing on
typical portable electric spa usage, but
rather only anecdotal accounts that
suggest a wide range of usage. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA also stated that they were
not aware of test methods measuring the
operation of spas when being used with
the cover removed. (Id.)
For the reasons discussed in the
October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule,
DOE is adopting the definition of
‘‘standby loss’’ in section 2.9 of
appendix GG as ‘‘the mean normalized
power required to operate the portable
electric spa in default operation mode
with the cover on, as calculated in
section 3.3 of this appendix’’ and
establishing ‘‘standby loss’’ as the
performance-based metric for
representing energy usage of portable
electric spas.
D. Test Method
1. Referenced Industry Test Method
As discussed previously in this
document, ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
contains a test method for measuring the
standby loss 21 of portable electric spas.
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 measures
standby loss as the average power
required to maintain the spa’s water at
a ready-to-use temperature over a period
of at least 72 hours, while the spa
21 As discussed in section III.C.3 of this
document, ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 uses the term
‘‘normalized standby power’’ to refer to the metric
that DOE is referring to as ‘‘standby loss.’’ To avoid
confusion about multiple terms, the term ‘‘standby
loss’’ is used throughout section III.D of this final
rule to refer to ‘‘normalized standby power’’ in
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019.
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
remains covered in a controlledtemperature environment.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
discussed that it had reviewed ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 and tentatively
concluded that it is reasonably designed
to produce test results to determine the
energy use of portable electric spas
during a representative average use
cycle or period of use. 87 FR 63356,
63362.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed to adopt specific sections of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 in its test
procedure for portable electric spas,
along with modifications and additions
that DOE determined would improve
repeatability and representativeness of
test results. Id. DOE requested comment
on its proposal. Id.
PHTA/IHTA, the CEC, and the CA
IOUs commented in support of DOE
adopting specific sections of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019. (PHTA/IHTA, No.
10 at p. 11; CEC, No. 13 at p. 3; CA
IOUs, No. 8 at p. 1)
For the reasons discussed in the
October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule,
DOE is adopting specific sections of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 in its test
procedure for portable electric spas.
Specific modifications, additions, and
exceptions are discussed in sections
III.D.2 through III.D.11 of this final rule.
2. Excluded Sections of ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed to exclude the following
sections, subsections, and appendices of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 from DOE’s
test procedure:
• Sections 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 in their
entirety;
• Section 3 definitions for ‘‘cover,
specified,’’ ‘‘fill volume,’’ ‘‘rated
volume,’’ and ‘‘standby mode’’;
• Subsections 5.1, 5.2, 5.5.2, 5.5.4,
5.5.5, and 5.7;
• Appendix A subsection ‘‘Chamber
floor’’; and
• Appendices B, C, and D.
87 FR 63356, 63362–63363.
DOE explained the rationale for each
proposed exclusion in the October 2022
NOPR and requested comment on
whether any of the sections of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 that DOE proposed
to exclude should be included in the
DOE test procedure. Id.
The CEC commented in support of
excluding sections 1 and 2 of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 from the test
procedure. (CEC, No. 13 at pp. 2–3)
PHTA/IHTA supported DOE’s
proposed exclusion of some sections of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 that are not
appropriate for the Federal test
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
procedure, but they expressed concern
with excluding or changing the ambient
temperature, normalization formula,
and chamber floor requirements of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019. (PHTA/IHTA,
No. 10 at p. 12) DOE addresses these
specific areas of concern identified by
PHTA/IHTA in sections III.D.3 and
III.D.4.b of this final rule.
Watkins commented generally in
support of the PHTA/IHTA comments.
(Watkins, No. 14 at p. 1) Watkins also
commented specifically that the
proposed changes that deviate from
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 would induce
significant financial burden to
manufacturers, create supply chain
disruptions, and create a shortage of
certified third-party laboratories.
Watkins encouraged DOE to align as
closely as possible with ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019. (Id. at p. 2)
A2LA commented that sections 4.1
and 4.2 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
should be included,22 as accreditation of
testing laboratories allows DOE to trust
the validity of test results and ensures
technical competency across testing
laboratories and certification bodies.
(A2LA, No. 6 at pp. 1–2)
In response to the concerns expressed
by Watkins, DOE has aligned its
finalized test procedure with ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 to the greatest extent
possible consistent with its obligations
under EPCA to design test procedures
that measure the energy use of a
portable electric spa during a
representative average use cycle or
period of use without being unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3)) Where DOE has deviated
from the provisions of ANSI/APSP/ICC–
14 2019, DOE discusses throughout this
final rule why such deviations are
necessary to fulfill these statutory
requirements. DOE has reviewed the
burdens associated with conducting the
portable electric spa test procedure
adopted in this final rule. Based on the
results of such analysis, DOE has
determined that the test procedure
would not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. DOE’s analysis of the burdens
associated with the test procedure is
presented in section III.F of this
document. Accordingly, DOE does not
expect the test procedure adopted in
this final rule to adversely affect the
availability of certified third-party
laboratories to perform testing
22 Section 4.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
requires that all certification bodies shall be
accredited to ISO/IEC 17065. Section 4.2 of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 requires that all testing
laboratories shall be qualified by a certification
body or accredited by an accreditation body who is
a member of the International Laboratory
Accreditation Cooperation (‘‘ILAC’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38607
consistent with the finalized test
procedure. DOE also does not expect the
test procedure adopted in this final rule
to create any supply chain disruptions,
as suggested by Watkins. As discussed
in section III.G of this final rule, there
is no need to perform testing according
to the DOE test procedure until the
compliance date of any future Federal
energy conservation standards, were
DOE to establish energy conservation
standards. This compliance date leaves
at least several years for all testing to be
completed, which DOE expects to be an
adequate duration to ensure that any
needed testing will not create supply
chain disruptions.
In response to the comment from
A2LA, DOE’s experience in conducting
testing according to ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 and to the DOE test procedure as
finalized in this final rule demonstrates
that the finalized DOE test procedure
adequately outlines the details required
to perform the test. As a result, the
accreditation as specified in section 4.2
of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 is not
necessary to achieve repeatable,
reproducible, and representative test
results from DOE’s test procedure for
portable electric spas. In addition,
accreditation is not sufficient for
ensuring a laboratory’s test results are
accurate because, although accreditation
is a tool that can help a laboratory to
become and remain technically
competent, accreditation alone does not
ensure the laboratory performs each test
method correctly for each test. On this
basis, DOE has concluded that the
requirement for a testing laboratory to
be qualified by a certification body
accredited to ISO/IEC 17065 or
accredited by an accreditation body who
is a member of ILAC is not necessary for
the purposes of conducting the DOE test
procedure as finalized. Therefore, in
this final rule, DOE is excluding the
sections in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
regarding laboratory qualification from
the DOE test procedure.
For the reasons discussed in the
October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE is finalizing
its proposal to exclude the following
sections, subsections, and appendices of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 from DOE’s
portable electric spa test procedure:
• Sections 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 in their
entirety;
• Section 3 definitions for ‘‘cover,
specified,’’ ‘‘fill volume,’’ ‘‘rated
volume,’’ and ‘‘standby mode’’;
• Subsections 5.1, 5.2, 5.5.2, 5.5.4,
5.5.5, and 5.7;
• Appendix A subsection ‘‘Chamber
floor’’; and
• Appendices B, C, and D.
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
38608
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
3. Ambient Air Temperature
As part of the October 2022 NOPR,
DOE reviewed the ambient air
temperature requirements specified in
several existing or past test procedures
for portable electric spas.
Section 5.5.4 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 specifies that the ambient air
temperature shall be a maximum of
63 °F for the duration of the test. This
approach to specifying ambient air
temperature (i.e., in which a maximum
temperature, rather than a target
temperature, is specified) is used in
conjunction with a normalization
approach to determine a normalized
standby loss value. Section 5.7.2 of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 specifies that
for inflatable spas, standard spas, or the
standard spa portion of a combination
spa, the measured standby loss is
normalized to represent a temperature
difference of 37 °F between the average
water temperature during the test and
the average ambient air temperature
during the test. For exercise spas or the
exercise spa portion of a combination
spa, the measured standby loss is
normalized to represent a temperature
difference of 22 °F between the average
water temperature during the test and
the average ambient air temperature
during the test.
An earlier version of the CEC portable
electric spa test procedure, on which
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 is based,
specified an ambient air temperature of
60 °F ± 3 °F.23 DOE notes that 60 °F is
approximately equal to the annual
average temperature for all of
California.24
CSA C374:11 (R2021) specifies a
mandatory test with ambient
temperature of 44.6 °F ± 1.8 °F (7 °C ±
2 °C), and an optional cold-weather test
with ambient temperature of 17.6 °F ±
1.8 °F (¥8 °C ± 2 °C).
DOE noted in the October 2022 NOPR
that the DOE test procedure will be used
for representations of portable electric
spa energy consumption throughout the
United States; therefore, the specified
ambient air temperature must reflect a
nationally representative value. 87 FR
63324, 63363. To determine a nationally
representative ambient air temperature
that could be applicable to portable
electric spas throughout the United
States, DOE first determined the average
annual air temperature across all states
23 See table in p. 5 of the CEC Docket Number 12–
AAER–2G, document TN 73027. Available at
efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=73027&
DocumentContentId=8328.
24 See climate data from National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. Available at:
www.ncei.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/4/
tavg/12/12/2012-2021?base_
prd=true&begbaseyear=2012&endbaseyear=2021.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
in the contiguous United States, and
then calculated a weighted average
across all states, weighted by the
estimated number of spas installed in
each state.25 Id. DOE used data from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration 26 indicating average
temperature in each state for the years
2012–2021, and data from PKData 27
indicating the number of spas installed
in each state in 2020. Id. This
methodology resulted in an average air
temperature of 56.1 °F. Rounded to the
nearest degree Fahrenheit, DOE
tentatively determined in the October
2022 NOPR that 56 °F is a nationally
representative ambient air temperature
applicable to testing portable electric
spas. Id.
Accordingly, based on this analysis,
DOE proposed in the October 2022
NOPR to specify 56.0 °F as the target
ambient air temperature in section 3.2.1
of appendix GG. Id. Consistent with the
earlier CEC test procedure, DOE also
proposed to specify a tolerance of
±3.0 °F on the ambient air temperature
during the test. Id. DOE tentatively
determined in the October 2022 NOPR
that specifying an allowable range of
temperatures would provide greater
assurance of reproducible and
representative test results compared to
the approach used in ANSI/APSP/ICC–
14 2019 of specifying only a maximum
ambient air temperature. Id. DOE also
proposed to specify that this
requirement applies to each individual
ambient air temperature measurement
taken for the duration of the test (i.e.,
the requirement does not apply to the
overall average ambient air temperature
during the test). Id.
DOE requested comment on its
determination that, rounded to the
nearest degree, 56 °F is a nationally
representative ambient air temperature
applicable to testing portable electric
spas. Id. DOE requested comment on its
proposal to specify an ambient
temperature of 56.0 ± 3.0 °F during
testing. Id. If commenters recommend a
different ambient temperature, DOE
requested data demonstrating the
representativeness of that ambient
temperature. Id.
In response to the October 2023
NOPR, PHTA/IHTA stated that the
25 DOE used only the contiguous U.S., excluding
Alaska and Hawaii, because the data from PKData
on the number of spas in each state excluded
Alaska and Hawaii.
26 www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climateat-a-glance/statewide/time-series.
27 P.K. Data Inc. 2022 Hot Tub Market Data:
Custom Compilation for Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory (through 2021). 2022.
Alpharetta, GA. Available at www.pkdata.com/
reports-store.html#/ (Last accessed April 24,
202312, 2022).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
ambient temperature in ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 is not meant to be
representative of a national average but
rather a point of reference to ensure
consistency in testing. (PHTA/IHTA,
No. 10 at pp. 5, 12) PHTA/IHTA
asserted that DOE’s proposal to use the
national average temperature would not
improve testing consistency or yield
better results over ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019. (Id. at p. 5) Further, PHTA/IHTA
stated that a 56 °F ambient temperature
requirement would require some
existing test chambers to be upgraded to
full air makeup systems. (Id. at p. 5, 12)
PHTA/IHTA noted that the current
ambient temperature requirement
specified in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 is
used for various State programs
spanning a diverse range of climates.
(Id. at p. 5)
With regard to inflatable spas
specifically, PHTA/IHTA commented
that these products are typically used
only during the 6–7 warmest months of
the year and stored during the winter
months when standby loss energy for
other types of portable electric spas
would be at its highest. (Id.) PHTA/
IHTA presented data indicating that the
simple (i.e., unweighted by installation
volume) average temperature in the 48
contiguous States over the last 12 years
for the months April through October
was 63.2 °F. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA asserted
that this average temperature would
warrant using the ambient temperature
specified in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
(i.e., maximum of 63 °F) for simplicity
and to avoid what PHTA/IHTA
characterized as the heavy burden
manufacturers would face if having to
retest based on DOE’s proposed ambient
temperature or other temperature that
would better reflect the seasonal use for
inflatable spas. (Id. at pp. 5–6)
PHTA/IHTA also presented data from
manufacturer testing comparing the
final normalized test results between the
testing conducted at 56 °F
(corresponding to DOE’s proposed
ambient air temperature) and testing
conducted at 60 °F (corresponding to a
higher ambient air temperature
allowable by ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019).
(Id. at pp. 4–5) This testing included
five portable electric spas collected in
four different test chambers. (Id. at p. 5)
The measured standby loss for each test
was normalized to represent a
temperature difference of 37 °F between
the average water temperature during
the test and the average ambient air
temperature during the test, as required
by ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019. (Id.) The
results of this testing indicated that the
difference in final test results between
the two ambient air temperatures
deviated by an average of 1.4 percent,
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
with a maximum deviation for one unit
of 2.2 percent. (Id. at pp. 5, 12) PHTA/
IHTA concluded that these test results
demonstrate that it is not necessary to
change the ambient temperature or the
normalization formula (from what is
currently specified in ANSI/APSP/ICC–
14 2019), as retesting (according to
DOE’s proposed requirements) would
achieve the same results. (Id.)
With regard to DOE’s proposal to
specify a tolerance of ±3 °F around the
target ambient air temperature, PHTA/
IHTA commented that some test
chambers cannot hold a ±3 °F ambient
tolerance without rapid and damaging
cycling to the cooling system, which is
the reason why ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 no longer specifies a minimum
ambient air temperature requirement
and uses the normalization approach
instead. (Id. at pp. 6, 12)
In summary, PHTA/IHTA
recommended that DOE reference the
ambient temperature requirement of
63 °F or lower (i.e., with no lower
boundary) as specified in ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019, in lieu of specifying a
target temperature with an allowable
range of ±3.0 °F during testing. (Id. at
pp. 6, 12)
Master Spas commented that 56 °F is
not representative of all consumers, and
that, given the wide range of
temperature and climates experienced
by portable electric spa consumers, it
would be challenging to develop a
temperature that it is representative for
consumers across different regions.
(Master Spas, No. 7 at p. 1) Master Spas
stated that changing the ambient air
temperature would be burdensome and
unnecessary, especially when the
results of the temperature change could
be calculated without expensive testing.
(Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that
changing the ambient temperature
would not affect the standby loss results
because of the normalization approach
used in the test procedure. (CA IOUs,
No. 8 at p. 5) The CA IOUs presented
data from the Alberta Research Council
that the CA IOUs asserted provides
experimental proof of the temperature
normalization procedure. (Id. at p. 6) As
described by the CA IOUs, the study
measured eight portable spas at various
ambient air and water temperature
combinations, and the results
demonstrated that when the difference
between the ambient air and water
temperature was increased by 2.6 times,
the power consumption increase was
2.7 times greater. (Id.) Thus, the CA
IOUs asserted that the temperature
normalization method closely predicts
energy consumption from experimental
results. (Id.)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
The CA IOUs also suggested that if
DOE were to finalize its proposal to
specify 56 °F as the target ambient air
temperature for testing, products
currently certified for State programs
could avoid retesting by using
normalization to extrapolate new values
from those currently reported, and that
as products are tested at updated
temperatures, such an exemption could
be retired after a transition period of one
year. (Id.)
As discussed earlier in this document,
EPCA requires that any test procedures
prescribed by DOE be reasonably
designed to produce test results that
measure energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use, while
not being unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE
recognizes that no single temperature
specification would be representative of
all portable electric spa installations
throughout the United States. Defining a
nationally representative average air
temperature for portable electric spas,
however, provides a consistent basis of
comparison for measured test results
among the diversity of portable electric
spa models available on the market.
DOE has determined that defining a
single ambient air condition
representing the average annual
condition experienced by portable
electric spas in the United States,
weighted by estimated installation
volume, satisfies EPCA’s requirements
for the test procedure to produce results
that measure energy use during a
representative average period of use,
while not being unduly burdensome to
conduct. Based on DOE’s analysis of
available climate data, and noting that
interested parties have not provided
other, installation-weighted data with
which to determine a nationally
representative average air temperature,
DOE has determined that 56 °F is a
nationally representative ambient air
temperature applicable to testing
portable electric spas.
As discussed, PHTA/IHTA stated that
the ambient temperature in ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 is not meant to be
representative of a national average, and
that use of a national average
temperature would not improve testing
consistency or yield better results over
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019. (PHTA/IHTA,
No. 10 at p. 5) In response, DOE notes
that it is true that using a national
average temperature will not improve
testing consistency between tests in
different laboratories or of different
models because test results from
different laboratories or of different
models will be consistent with each
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38609
other as long as they all use the same
ambient temperature regardless of the
ambient temperature set in the test
procedure. However, use of a national
average ambient temperature will yield
better results than the ambient
temperature in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 in that the results will be more
representative of the average standby
loss of portable electric spas throughout
the U.S. than results determined using
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019.
Testing with a 63 °F ambient
temperature for calculating standby loss
in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 results in
measures of standby loss that are
approximately 15 to 23 percent lower
than those would be if using a national
average ambient temperature of 56 °F.
This change is because the rate of heat
loss is approximately linearly related to
the difference between the ambient
temperature and the temperature of the
water in the spa. This linear
relationship between temperature
difference and the rate of heat loss is the
basis for the temperature normalization
that is used in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
and that DOE is adopting in this final
rule, as discussed later in this section.
Use of a 63 °F ambient temperature for
calculating standby loss in ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 results in a temperature
difference that is 7 °F less than it would
be if using a nationally representative
temperature of 56 °F (i.e., 63 °F¥56 °F =
7 °F). That 7 °F results in a 15.2 percent
lower calculated standby loss for
portable electric spas tested at a 102 °F
± 2 °F water temperature [i.e., 7 °F/
(102 °F¥56 °F) = 15.2 percent], and a
22.6 percent lower calculated standby
loss for exercise spas tested at a 87 °F ±
2 °F water temperature [i.e., 7 °F/
(87 °F¥56 °F) = 22.6 percent]. This
magnitude of understatement of standby
loss means that results determined
using the ambient temperature in ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 are not
representative of an average use cycle or
period of use for portable electric spas
in the U.S. Therefore, DOE has
determined that the use of a national
average ambient temperature of 56 °F
will yield results that are more
representative of the average standby
loss of portable electric spas throughout
the U.S. than results determined using
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019. As discussed
in section III.D.11 of this final rule, DOE
is adopting the use of 56 °F as the
representative ambient temperature in
the normalization approach used for the
standby loss calculation.
Regarding the seasonality of inflatable
spas and the potential that
representative test conditions for
inflatable spas might include an
ambient air temperature different from
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
38610
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
rigid spas, namely a temperature
averaged across such the inflatable spa
season, DOE considers that the use of
different representative ambient
temperatures for different categories of
portable electric spas would produce
test results that are not comparable
among the different categories of
portable electric spas. Comparability of
energy use ratings would be important
for any consumer comparing inflatable
spas with hard-shelled spas to
understand the relative efficiencies
between the different models. For these
reasons, this final rule reflects use of the
same average representative ambient air
temperature (i.e., 56 °F) for inflatable
portable electric spas as for hard-shelled
portable electric spas.
Regarding comments received
discussing the accuracy and advantages
of the normalization approach, DOE has
reviewed the data submitted by PHTA/
IHTA and agrees with the conclusion
that these test results demonstrate that
the normalization approach produces
accurate test results and can enable the
use of a wider range of ambient air
temperatures during testing than DOE
had proposed in the October 2022
NOPR. As a result, DOE is adopting an
ambient temperature during testing of
up to 63.0 °F in this final rule.
DOE recognizes that specifying the
ambient air temperature as a maximum
value (e.g., a maximum of 63 °F), rather
than a target value within a specified
tolerance (e.g., 56.0 ± 3 °F), yields a less
burdensome approach for testing, for the
reasons described in PHTA/IHTA’s
comments. In considering the relative
similarities in accuracy (i.e.,
representativeness) of the two
approaches, as well as the differences in
test burden between the two
approaches, DOE has determined that
the general approach currently used in
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 of specifying
only a maximum ambient air
temperature—in conjunction with the
normalization of measured test results—
produces test results that measure the
energy use of a portable electric spa
during a representative average period
of use while not being unduly
burdensome to conduct.
Finally, as previously noted, PHTA/
IHTA stated that a 56 °F ambient
temperature requirement would require
some existing test chambers to be
upgraded to full air makeup systems.
(PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at pp. 5, 12)
Although DOE is adopting the use of
56 °F as the representative ambient
temperature for the normalization
approach used in the standby loss
calculation, DOE is adopting a
maximum ambient temperature during
testing of 63 °F, as discussed in the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
previous two paragraphs. These
requirements on ambient temperature
during testing are identical to those of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019. As a result,
DOE has determined that there is no
need for any test chambers to be
upgraded due to the ambient
temperature requirements of the test
procedure in this final rule.
In summary, for the reasons discussed
in the preceding paragraphs, this final
rule specifies in section 3.2.1 of
appendix GG that ambient air
temperature be maintained at a
maximum of 63.0 °F for the duration of
the test, consistent with ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019. This ambient temperature
requirement applies to each individual
ambient air temperature measurement
taken for the duration of the
stabilization period and test period, as
proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.
Furthermore, in this final rule, the
normalization of measured values in
section 3.3 of appendix GG is based on
a temperature of 56 °F as a nationally
representative ambient air temperature
for testing portable electric spas, as
proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.
The normalization approach used for
the standby loss calculation is discussed
further in section III.D.11 of this final
rule.
4. Chamber
a. Requirements in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 includes
informative appendix A that provides
minimum requirements for the test
chamber in which the portable electric
spa is installed. These include optional
specifications regarding chamber
internal dimensions, air circulation,
chamber insulation, and chamber floor
insulation.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
tentatively concluded that the
specifications in appendix A to ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 regarding chamber
internal dimensions, air flow, and
chamber insulation are appropriate for
testing portable electric spas, and DOE
proposed in section 3.1.1 of appendix
GG to install portable electric spas in
chambers meeting those specifications.
87 FR 63356, 63364. DOE requested
comment on its tentative conclusion
and proposal. Id.
In response to the October 2022
NOPR, PHTA/IHTA expressed support
for DOE’s tentative determination and
proposal regarding chamber internal
dimensions, air flow, and chamber
insulation. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p.
13) The CA IOUs commented that
standardizing internal chamber
dimensions, air flow, and chamber
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
insulation would help to improve the
repeatability of test results. (CA IOUs,
No. 8 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also
recommended that DOE require
humidity controls and measurements to
further improve the repeatability of test
results. (Id. at p. 3) The CA IOUs
explained that a portable electric spa in
a sealed chamber with 100 percent
relative humidity would have a lower
evaporation rate and thereby a lower
measured energy consumption than is
representative of field use. (Id.) The CA
IOUs also identified several test
procedures for other products that
require control of relative humidity and
indicated that the CEC’s portable
electric spa test procedure adopted in
2004 required the measurement of
average relative humidity during the
test. (Id. at p. 4)
In response to the CA IOUs’
recommendation to require humidity
controls and measurements in the test
procedure, DOE maintains that it is not
clear these requirements are needed.
Although the CA IOUs stated that
evaporation is the primary source of
standby loss from the portable electric
spa, they did not provide any additional
information aside from citing a CA IOUs
report from 2014 submitted to the CEC
(‘‘2014 CA IOUs Report’’).28 (CA IOUs,
No. 8 at p. 3) That report provides no
information on the amount of standby
loss that is due to evaporation, aside
from stating that ‘‘a majority of heat is
lost through evaporation’’ and that spa
covers with a good seal can reduce
evaporation. As a result, it is possible
that when the 2014 CA IOUs Report
indicated that ‘‘a majority of heat is lost
through evaporation,’’ the authors were
referring to the case when the portable
electric spa is uncovered or has a poorly
fitting cover. And it is not clear from
these sources how much evaporation
occurs during the proposed DOE test
procedure, in DOE’s investigative
testing, however, the amount of portable
electric spas’ water lost to evaporation
was very small. This testing was done
with the spas’ covers installed, as is
required in the test procedure
established in this final rule. Although
the scenario described by the CA IOUs
is technically possible, DOE’s testing
suggests it is unlikely to occur with
portable electric spas commonly on the
market.
In addition, the CA IOUs identified
several test procedures for other
products that require measurement and
control of humidity. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at
28 ‘‘Portable Electric Spas—California,’’ California
Energy Commission (California Investor-Owned
Utilities, May 15, 2014). Available at), https://
efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=73027
&DocumentContentId=8328.
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
p. 4) DOE notes that measurement and
control of humidity is more important
for those test procedures because each
of those products either: actively
modifies the humidity of the ambient or
process air as part of their operation
(i.e., clothes dryers, dehumidifiers,
central air conditioners, heat pump
water heaters, and electric heat pump
pool heaters); or moves air with a fan,
for which humidity can affect air
density and the resulting energy
performance (i.e., ceiling fans and
furnace fans); or both. A portable
electric spa does not do either of those
things during the test for standby loss.
Accordingly, DOE concludes that
relative humidity does not significantly
impact typical operation of a spa during
testing and that it is unnecessary to
require measurement and control of
relative humidity. Therefore, DOE is not
adopting requirements to measure and
control relative humidity in the test
procedure for portable electric spas.
For the reasons discussed in the
October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule,
DOE is adopting specifications for
chamber dimensions, air flow, and
chamber insulation in section 3.1 of
appendix GG, which refer to those
provisions in appendix A to ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019.
b. Chamber Floor Requirements
Appendix A to ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 specifies that the test chamber
floor may be insulated with 2 inches of
polyisocyanurate insulation, that the
insulation shall be laid directly on a
level surface, and that the insulating
layer shall be sheathed with at least 0.5
inches of plywood.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
conducted an analysis to determine
whether these requirements would
produce test results that reflect
representative consumer use in a
proposed test procedure for portable
electric spas. 87 FR 63324, 63364. DOE
reviewed installation and owner’s
manuals for a representative sample of
portable electric spas available on the
market and found that the majority of
manuals specify that the preferred
method of installation is directly on a
poured concrete slab. Id. A smaller
portion of manuals specify installation
on a wooden deck, and a small number
of manuals specify other acceptable
installation surfaces, such as concrete
pavers or crushed gravel. Id. None of the
manuals that DOE reviewed specify
installing the portable electric spa with
insulation between the ground and the
spa. Id. Presuming that portable electric
spas are installed consistently with the
installation manual, DOE’s findings in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
the October 2022 NOPR suggested that
the most representative installation of a
portable electric spa is to be installed
directly on a concrete slab with no
insulation between that surface and the
spa. Id.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
presented data from investigative testing
to determine the extent to which
installation with the optional insulation
specified in the chamber floor section of
appendix A to ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
impacts energy use in comparison to
installation with no insulation. Id. The
data indicated that the amount of
insulation and plywood specified in the
chamber floor section of appendix A to
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 reduced
standby loss by up to 37 percent
compared to testing with no insulation.
Id. As discussed in the October 2022
NOPR, these results demonstrated that
the inclusion or exclusion of chamber
floor insulation has a significant impact
on measured energy use. Id.
DOE further explained in the October
2022 NOPR that although DOE was not
aware of any portable electric spas that
include insulation and/or other
materials such as plywood as part of the
installation materials for the spa, DOE
presumed that a consumer would be
likely to install insulation and/or
plywood if insulation and/or wood were
to be included with the spa and
specified by the installation instructions
to be installed for use. Id. at 87 FR
63364–63365. In such case, DOE
tentatively concluded in the October
2022 NOPR that testing with the
insulation and/or plywood provided
would produce test results that are
representative of consumer use. Id. at 87
FR 63365.
To ensure that test results are
representative of an average consumer
use cycle or period of use, DOE
proposed in the October 2022 NOPR to
specify in section 3.1.2 of appendix GG
that portable electric spas be installed
directly on a level concrete floor or slab.
Id. Additionally, DOE proposed to
specify that if insulation and/or
plywood is provided with the spa, and
the manufacturer’s instructions indicate
that insulation and/or plywood be
installed between the ground and the
spa for normal use, the spa is to be
installed with the minimum amount of
insulation and/or plywood between the
floor and the spa that is specified by the
manufacturer’s installation instructions.
Otherwise, no insulation or plywood is
to be installed between the floor and the
spa. Id.
DOE requested comment on its
tentative determination that the most
representative installation of a portable
electric spa is directly on concrete with
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38611
no insulation between that surface and
the spa. Id. DOE also requested
comment on its presumption that a
consumer would be likely to install
insulation and/or wood if insulation
and/or wood were to be included with
the portable electric spa and specified
by the installation instructions to be
installed for use, and that in such cases,
testing with the insulation and/or wood
provided would produce test results
that are representative of consumer use.
Id.
In addition, DOE requested comment
on its proposal to specify installing the
portable electric spa directly on the
chamber floor without any insulation
between the spa and the floor. Id.
Finally, DOE requested comment on the
availability of concrete floors or slabs
within test facilities and whether any
test chamber floor alternatives, such as
solid or perforated steel or aluminum
floors, would represent portable electric
spa operation when installed on
concrete floors or slabs. Id.
In response to the October 2022
NOPR, PHTA/IHTA commented that
consumers install portable electric spas
on a wide range of foundations,
including concrete slabs, brick/pavers,
pea gravel, tile, marble, wood decking
(including both ground-mounted and
elevated), synthetic decking (including
both ground-mounted and elevated),
coated steel decking, and urethane
decking material. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10
at p. 13) PHTA/IHTA also stated that
concrete slab thickness requirements
vary greatly in the United States. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA commented on DOE’s
presumption that a consumer would be
likely to install insulation and/or wood
if it were included with the portable
electric spa and specified in the
installation instructions to be installed
for use and that in such cases, testing
with the insulation and/or wood
provided would produce results that are
representative of consumer use. (PHTA/
IHTA, No. 10 at p. 14) PHTA/IHTA
stated that for portable electric spas
other than inflatable spas, it is not
industry practice to include insulation
and/or wood as part of the installation
materials, and they have no data
supporting the presumption that a
consumer would be likely to install
insulation and/or wood if it were
included. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA also stated
that the idea of manufacturers including
or recommending insulation adds
variability to the portable electric spa
test method because there is no
guarantee the consumer will use it in
their final installation. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA
added that removal of the floor variable
with a standardized reproducible floor
provides better data to the end
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
38612
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
consumer when comparing models for
purchase. (Id.) Finally, PHTA/IHTA
stated that the proposal of including a
foundation with portable electric spa
purchases would increase consumer
cost and manufacturers’ liability. (Id.)
Regarding inflatable spas, PHTA/IHTA
stated that these products are typically
supplied with an insulating ground
cover that the consumer is instructed to
place underneath the inflated tub. (Id. at
p. 13) PHTA/IHTA stated that they
expect consumers to utilize the
provided insulating ground cover
during installation of inflatable spas,
because they are put up and taken down
seasonally. (Id. at p. 14)
PHTA/IHTA commented that DOE’s
proposal to specify testing on concrete
floors with no additional insulation
would not be repeatable and that
varying concrete temperatures or
thicknesses could significantly impact
test results. (Id. at p. 7) PHTA/IHTA
noted that a concrete floor introduces an
uncontrolled variable regardless of
construction. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA added
that test results need to be independent
of both the geographical location of test
labs and the season during which
testing is conducted and that testing on
bare concrete would make test results
dependent on each of those. (Id.) In the
event that DOE continues to pursue
testing on concrete without insulation,
PHTA/IHTA recommended more testing
be conducted to better determine the
effects of the chamber floor change. (Id.
at p. 8)
PHTA/IHTA commented also that not
enough information was provided in the
October 2022 NOPR about DOE’s testing
regarding the effect of changing floor
conditions on portable electric spa
standby loss. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA stated
that industry was not able to provide its
own data in time for comment, but that
an early industry research project
determined that the heat loss through
the bottom of the spa was a relatively
small portion of the total energy. (Id. at
pp. 7–8) PHTA/IHTA encouraged DOE,
due to lack of data, to conduct more
analysis and reconsider the approach in
the October 2022 NOPR. (Id. at pp. 8,
13)
Furthermore, PHTA/IHTA
commented that testing on concrete may
not actually be representative of
concrete installations because a spa in
the field would reach thermal
equilibrium with the concrete surface it
is installed on whereas one in a lab
would not, and such a difference would
lead to results not representative of
customer use. (Id. at p. 8)
PHTA/IHTA commented that testing
on pallets or simulated decks would
remove the variability of heat losses
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
through the floor of the spa. PHTA/
IHTA noted, however, that the ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 writing committee
recognized that the proportion of
portable electric spas installed on decks
was small and this added heat loss
would skew the results for the vast
majority of installations. (Id. at p. 7)
PHTA/IHTA recommended that DOE
maintain the chamber floor conditions
specified in appendix A to ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019. (Id. at pp. 8, 13) PHTA/
IHTA explained that the insulated floor
used in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 and
the platform with air flow beneath the
spa used in CSA C374:11 (R2021) are
not meant to be representative of typical
installations, but instead to ensure the
consistency of test results. (Id. at p. 7)
PHTA/IHTA also stated that they are not
aware of any test chambers that
currently use the CSA standard
platform, as that standard is not
currently required. (Id.)
In response to DOE’s request for
comment regarding the availability of
concrete floors or slabs within test
facilities, PHTA/IHTA noted that they
are not aware of any test chambers that
have the ability to test on a concrete
floor or slab without major renovations
and that current test labs were designed
to meet the ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
testing protocol. (Id. at p. 14)
Similarly, the CA IOUs recommended
that DOE maintain the chamber floor
conditions specified in appendix A to
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019. (CA IOUs,
No. 8 at p. 5) The CA IOUs stated that
it is unclear whether installing portable
electric spas on concrete represents
standard consumer practice, indicating
that several spa dealers and online
sources provided advice for installing
spas on concrete, plastic spa pads, and
compacted gravel. (Id.) The CA IOUs
commented that DOE’s proposal to
specify testing on concrete floors with
no additional insulation would not be
repeatable and that varying concrete
temperatures or thicknesses could
significantly impact test results. (Id.)
The CA IOUs added that not enough
information was provided in the
October 2022 NOPR about DOE’s testing
regarding the effect of changing floor
conditions on portable electric spa
standby loss. (Id.)
The CA IOUs also estimated that
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 compliant
spas are significantly less susceptible to
ground effect conductivity loss than low
insulation baseline spas and stated that
they believe evaporative losses impact
test results more than the ground effect.
(Id.) The CA IOUs suggested that DOE
collect and publicly display additional
data to demonstrate the value of
modifying a test method to measure the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
interaction between uninsulated ground
and portable electric spas. (Id.) The CA
IOUs commented it was unclear
whether testing on a bare concrete floor
would overpredict energy due to
concrete’s higher thermal conductivity
relative to other mounting surfaces. (Id.)
The CA IOUs stated that ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 is suitable for spa
performance measurement and
comparison for arbitrary ground
surfaces, and they encouraged DOE to
develop equations to extrapolate ground
effect by base type (e.g., concrete, wood,
gravel, ABS plastic) for minimally
insulated as well as moderate and high
insulation spas in the consumer analysis
of energy conservation standards. (Id.)
Master Spas commented that,
regardless of the representativeness of
installing a portable electric spa on
concrete, testing on concrete may not
actually be representative of concrete
installations because a spa in the field
would reach thermal equilibrium with
the concrete surface it is installed on
whereas one in a lab would not, and
such a difference would lead to results
not representative of customer use.
(Master Spas, No. 7 at p. 2) Master Spas
stated that DOE’s proposal to specify
testing on concrete floors with no
additional insulation would not be
repeatable and that varying concrete
temperatures could significantly impact
test results. (Id.) Master Spas asserted
that test results need to be independent
of both the geographical location of test
labs and the season during which
testing is conducted and that testing on
bare concrete would make test results
dependent on each of those. (Id.)
Master Spas commented that it is not
clear whether testing on a concrete floor
would result in significantly different
normalized standby loss values than
testing on an insulated chamber floor,
especially for portable electric spas that
currently satisfy ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 minimum performance standards
and are likely to have more internal
insulation to resist effects of varying
floors. (Id.) Master Spas also stated that
no test data exists right now to answer
this question, and that adopting the
DOE proposal for floor conditions
would be risky. (Id.)
In the event that DOE continues to
pursue testing on concrete without
insulation, the CEC requested that DOE
specify control conditions for preparing
and maintaining the temperature of the
concrete slab. (CEC, No. 13 at p. 3) The
CEC recommended that DOE continue
collecting information to establish a
testing floor representative of consumer
use with standardized conditions. (Id.)
The CEC also commented that DOE did
not state in the October 2022 NOPR
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
whether it had considered stock
distribution when estimating the
distribution of spas recommended to be
installed on a concrete floor. (Id.) The
CEC noted that DOE’s test results in the
October 2022 NOPR did demonstrate a
significant impact when changing the
chamber floor’s level of insulation. (Id.)
In contrast, the Joint Advocates
commented that they agreed with DOE’s
conclusion that the preliminary test
results in the October 2022 NOPR
suggest the use of chamber floor
insulation may result in
unrepresentative standby loss ratings,
and they supported DOE’s efforts to
ensure that the test procedure is
representative. (Joint Advocates, No. 12
at p. 2)
As discussed, EPCA requires test
procedures to be representative of an
average use cycle and not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3)) DOE had proposed in the
October 2022 NOPR that testing on a
concrete floor or slab would meet these
criteria because it would provide
representative results while not being
unduly burdensome. 87 FR 63356,
63365. However, comments from
stakeholders suggest that, although
concrete may be a representative
material used by consumers, there is
uncertainty regarding whether testing
on concrete would provide reproducible
test results—and therefore uncertainty
regarding whether testing on concrete
would reliably provide representative
test results among different test
laboratories. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p.
14; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 5; Master Spas,
No. 7 at p. 2) Comments also suggest
that ensuring reproducible results from
a concrete slab might require
measures—such as control of the slab
temperature—that could introduce
substantial burden. (CEC, No. 13 at p. 3)
Therefore, based on feedback provided
in stakeholder comments, DOE has
determined that there is uncertainty
regarding whether testing on concrete
would reliably produce representative
test results without being unduly
burdensome.
Regarding suggestions to specify
testing with insulation between the spa
and the floor, DOE received no
comments disputing its tentative
determination that consumers are likely
to install non-inflatable spas without
any insulation between the supporting
surface and the spa, and no comments
stated it is common for consumers to
install spas on top of insulation. While
comments indicate that testing on
insulation may yield repeatable and
reproducible test results, for the reasons
presented in the October 2022 NOPR
(including DOE’s test data), DOE has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
determined that testing on insulation
would not yield results that are
representative of consumer use, as
required by EPCA. Testing on insulation
underestimates the standby loss of
portable electric spas as compared to
testing with no insulation installed
between the floor and the spa, as shown
in DOE’s investigative testing results in
the October 2022 NOPR. 87 FR 63324,
63364. As discussed, no comments
stated it is common for consumers to
install spas on top of insulation. As a
result, it is most representative to test a
portable electric spa when installed on
a surface with a temperature and
thermal conductivity that is similar to
those of the surfaces on which portable
electric spas are commonly installed,
such as concrete, brick, gravel, tile,
marble, or decking (see PHTA/IHTA,
No. 10 at p. 13). Insulation has a much
lower thermal conductivity than any of
those materials, and therefore insulation
reduces the rate of heat transfer from the
bottom surface of the spa to the floor.
This results in lower rate of heat transfer
from the bottom surface of the spa to the
floor than would occur if the spa was
installed on one of the common
mounting surfaces. As a result, DOE
finds that measures of standby loss
determined from spas installed on top of
insulation are lower than what is
representative. the spa. Although the CA
IOUs suggested the possibility of
developing equations to extrapolate the
effect of the ground surface from the
results of tests performed on insulation
(CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 5), this approach
is not feasible for the test procedure
because the magnitude of the
underestimate of standby loss due to
testing on insulation will vary between
spas based on differences in product
design, such as the amount of insulation
installed inside the body of the spa.
Through further consideration of the
rationales presented by DOE in the
October 2022 NOPR, as well as review
of installation materials and
consideration of stakeholder comments,
DOE is specifying an approach in this
final rule that addresses the challenges
articulated by stakeholders and will
provide test results that are
representative without being unduly
burdensome. DOE’s review of
installation manuals confirms that
wooden decking is a common
installation surface, as it was the
second-most commonly listed mounting
surface. Decking was also one of the
common mounting surfaces that PHTA/
IHTA indicated in their comments.
(PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 13)
Additionally, PHTA/IHTA commented
that testing on pallets or simulated
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38613
decks would remove the variability of
heat losses through the floor of the spa.
(Id. at p. 7) DOE has determined that
this test approach would address the
concerns noted by stakeholders
regarding reproducibility and produce
representative test results by not
limiting heat transfer from the bottom of
a portable electric spa. Clause 5.1.1(b)
and Figure 1 of CSA C374:11 (R2021)
specify a wooden decking test platform
that is placed directly on the test room
floor. The outside dimensions of the
platform are large enough to support the
entire base of the spa, and the platform
is constructed using standard
construction 2 inch by 6 inch planking
with 0.236 inch spacing between the
planks. The structure is supported by
three equally spaced beams constructed
using four layers of 2 inch by 6 inch
planking laminated together, providing
a standardized gap of free air space
beneath the deck. PHTA/IHTA
commented that the wooden decking
specified by CSA C374:11 (R2021) is
intended to provide consistent test
results. (Id.) Based on consideration of
the comments received in response to
the October 2022 NOPR, DOE has
determined that testing on wooden
decking would provide repeatable and
reproducible test results and would
yield test results that are representative
of average consumer use cycle or period
of use.
As discussed, in response to the
October 2022 NOPR, several
commenters expressed concern about
the lack of reproducibility of the
concrete slab data, and the lack of
supporting data, and encouraged DOE to
compile more analysis and reconsider
the chamber floor approach in the
October 2022 NOPR. (PHTA/IHTA, No.
10 at pp. 8, 13; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 5;
Master Spas, No. 7 at p. 2) As discussed,
DOE has evaluated the comments,
reconsidered, and is adopting an
alternate approach for the chamber
floor. This approach requires installing
the spa on the wooden decking
specified by CSA C374:11 (R2021). DOE
expects that this approach will allay the
concerns of PHTA/IHTA and other
commenters because PHTA/IHTA, in
particular, stated in their comments in
response to the October 2022 NOPR that
they worked collaboratively to assist
CSA with testing and data, including
testing 4 portable electric spas for CSA,
prior to the finalization, publishing, and
implementation of CSA C374:11
(R2021). (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 4)
PHTA/IHTA also stated that the
platform specified by CSA C374:11
(R2021) is intended to provide
consistent test results, which would
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
38614
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
alleviate the repeatability concerns
noted by commenters. (Id. at p. 7) As a
result, DOE expects that stakeholders
will be satisfied with the reproducibility
of test data produced from tests
performed using the platform specified
in CSA C374:11 (R2021).
Regarding the question of burden,
PHTA/IHTA suggested that test labs
might not currently be equipped with
the wooden platform specified by CSA
C374:11 (R2021). (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10
at p. 7) However, DOE expects that the
type of platform specified by CSA
C374:11 (R2021) could be built at
relatively modest cost (see section III.F
of this final rule for more details on
cost). Based on these considerations,
DOE has determined that it would not
be unduly burdensome to require testing
on the wooden platform specified by
CSA C374:11 (R2021).
In summary, in this final rule, DOE is
requiring testing of portable electric
spas on the wooden platform specified
by CSA C374:11 (R2021). DOE has
determined that this requirement will
produce test results that are
representative of an average consumer
use cycle or period of use without being
unduly burdensome. DOE is specifying
this requirement in section 3.1.2 of
appendix GG by incorporating by
reference CSA C374:11 (R2021) in 10
CFR 430.3 and specifying in section
3.1.2 of appendix GG to install the
portable electric spa on a platform as
specified in Clause 5.1.1(b) and Figure
1 of CSA C374:11 (R2021).
5. Electrical Supply Voltage and
Amperage Configuration
Section 5.5.6 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 specifies that the voltage supplied
to the portable electric spa be within 10
percent of the nameplate voltage during
testing but specifies no other
requirements for the electrical supply or
amperage configuration. The following
paragraphs discuss additional
considerations regarding voltage supply
and amperage configuration relevant to
testing portable electric spas.
DOE’s market research indicates that
most portable electric spas operate at a
single voltage (e.g., either 120 or 240
volts (‘‘V’’), nominally). Models that
operate at 120 V are often referred to as
‘‘plug and play’’ models and are plugged
into an ordinary 120 V electrical outlet.
Models that operate at 240 V are
typically required to be permanently
connected (i.e., hard wired) into a 240
V circuit, similar to that which would
supply an electric water heater. DOE is
aware of models on the market that can
be configured to operate at either 120 V
or 240 V, depending on the preference
of the consumer. Such models are most
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
often pre-configured by the
manufacturer to operate at 120 V and
include instructions for converting the
model to operate at 240 V. The
conversion process typically requires
changing the configuration of internal
wiring and controls in addition to
changes to the external wiring.
Similarly, certain portable electric
spas on the market allow the consumer
to configure the maximum amperage at
which the portable electric spa can
operate at a particular voltage level.
This configurability ensures that the
operation of the portable electric spa is
compatible with the electrical service of
the home. For example, for a home with
a 50 ampere (‘‘A’’) circuit breaker
available, all the features on a particular
portable electric spa may be capable of
operating at the same time; whereas, for
a home with only a 30 A circuit breaker
available, the portable electric spa may
still operate, albeit with reduced or
restricted functionality. Units that
provide amperage configurability most
commonly operate at 240 V. On such
units, changing the maximum amperage
corresponds to allowing more or fewer
components to operate at the same time
(e.g., whether the heater is able to be
energized at the same time as a
secondary pump), or setting the level of
operation for certain components (e.g.,
varying the number of heating elements
that can operate simultaneously).
The choice of voltage and maximum
amperage can affect the rate of heating
in the portable electric spa and the
occurrence of multiple components of
the spa (e.g., pump and heater)
operating simultaneously. These
differences in operation may affect
measured energy use. Therefore, in the
October 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively
concluded that additional specifications
regarding the supply voltage and
amperage configuration to be used
during testing would ensure the
reproducibility of the DOE test
procedure across different test
laboratories. 87 FR 63356, 63365.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed in section 3.1.3 of appendix
GG a hierarchy to use for configuring
the voltage and amperage configuration
of the portable electric spa during
testing in section 3.1.3 of appendix GG.
Id. Specifically, DOE proposed that if
the portable electric spa can be installed
or configured with multiple options of
voltage, maximum amperage, or both,
testing should use the as-shipped
configuration. Id. If no configuration is
provided in the as-shipped condition,
DOE proposed that testing be conducted
using the option specified in the
manufacturer’s instructions as the
recommended configuration for normal
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
consumer use. Id. If no configuration is
provided in the as-shipped condition
and the manufacturer’s instructions do
not provide a recommended
configuration for normal operation, DOE
proposed that testing be conducted
using the maximum voltage specified in
the manufacturer’s installation
instructions and the maximum
amperage that the manufacturer’s
installation instructions specify for use
with the maximum voltage. Id.
DOE requested comment on the
proposed hierarchy for specifying
voltage and maximum amperage for
portable electric spas that have multiple
options for voltage and/or amperage. Id.
DOE also requested comment on any
cases for which the proposed language
would not make clear the voltage and/
or maximum amperage to be used
during testing. Id.
In response to DOE’s request for
comment in the October 2022 NOPR,
the Joint Advocates supported DOE’s
proposed hierarchy to add clarification
and make the test procedure more
reproducible. (Joint Advocates, No. 12 at
p. 2) However, the CEC recommended
using the maximum voltage and
maximum amperage on the nameplate
for testing rather than the proposed
hierarchy. (CEC, No. 13 at pp. 3–4) The
CEC stated that the proposed hierarchy
method introduces variability by relying
on as-shipped configurations and
manufacturer’s instructions, as each
manufacturer may configure and operate
their spas differently. (Id. at p. 4) In
addition, the CEC noted that as-shipped
configurations may or may not be
included in the literature provided by
manufacturers, and manufacturer
manuals are typically updated annually
while older dated manuals are archived
and not accessible to the public after a
certain period. (Id.) The CEC indicated
that, to ensure compliance,
manufacturers and test laboratories
must keep records of all manuals for
tested units and tests must be
repeatable. (Id.) The CEC continued that
it is more accessible and manageable to
rely on information permanently
marked on the nameplate of a spa than
on manufacturer literature that may be
amended or become unavailable. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA stated that portable
electric spas should be installed and
tested to the manufacturer’s
instructions. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p.
14) PHTA/IHTA also stated that the
amperage rating is not relevant to energy
performance in the mode of operation in
DOE’s proposed test procedure because
the amperage is only used for sizing the
breaker relevant to manual operations
such as turning on the jet pumps, which
are not used in the proposed test
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
procedure. (Id.) Finally, PHTA/IHTA
recommended the final rule clearly state
that a 10 percent voltage fluctuation in
the unregulated power source is allowed
during testing. (Id.)
Regarding the CEC’s recommendation
to use the maximum voltage and current
on the nameplate instead of using a
hierarchy, DOE has determined that it is
most representative to preferentially use
the most commonly used voltage and
maximum amperage settings instead of
using only the maximum values on the
nameplate. Although the nameplate
maximums might be easier to identify
and trace over several years, as
suggested by the CEC, they are not
necessarily the most commonly used
settings. DOE considers it most likely
that consumers would set up a portable
electric spa using the as-shipped
settings or the manufacturer’s
recommended configuration for normal
consumer use and would only use the
maximum values of each if no asshipped or recommended configuration
is available. For these reasons, DOE is
using a hierarchy in this final rule.
Regarding the CEC’s comment that asshipped configurations may or may not
be included in the literature provided
by manufacturers, the as-shipped
configuration does not need to be
included in literature because it is the
configuration that exists when the unit
is shipped to the customer. Regarding
the CEC’s comment that older dated
manuals are archived and not accessible
to the public after a certain period,
appliance efficiency tests are typically
performed on new products, which are
typically shipped with a manual. As a
result, older manuals are not typically
required for appliance efficiency testing.
In response to PHTA/IHTA’s
comment that the amperage is not
relevant to energy performance in the
DOE test procedure, it is likely that the
setting for maximum amperage has no
impact on the measured standby loss for
many or most models. It is also possible
that there are some models for which
the setting for maximum amperage does
have an impact on the measured
standby loss, due to variations in the
heating or pump settings in different
maximum amperage settings. As a
result, DOE considers it most
representative to include the setting for
maximum amperage in the hierarchy,
instead of including only the setting for
voltage, to ensure that the unit is set up
with the setting for maximum amperage
that is commonly used in the field. DOE
also notes that adjusting the setting for
maximum amperage of a portable
electric spa is typically performed by
adjusting settings on the setup panel of
the spa, and therefore is not unduly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
burdensome. For these reasons, DOE is
including the setting for maximum
amperage in the hierarchy being
adopted in this final rule.
In response to PHTA/IHTA’s
comment about allowing voltage to be
within 10 percent of the nameplate
rating during testing, that tolerance is
currently specified in section 5.5.6 of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019, which DOE is
adopting in the test procedure.
For the reasons discussed in the
October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule,
DOE is adopting the requirements on
electrical voltage and maximum
amperage configuration in section 3.1.3
of appendix GG as proposed in the
October 2022 NOPR. DOE is also
dividing the requirements into
subsections 3.1.3.1 and 3.1.3.2 in
section 3.1.3 of appendix GG to make
the requirements clearer.
6. Fill Volume
Section 3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
defines two quantities for the volume of
water in a portable electric spa: fill
volume and rated volume. ‘‘Fill
volume’’ is the amount of water that is
required to be in the spa during testing
and is defined as the halfway point
between the bottom of the skimmer
opening and the top of the skimmer
opening. In the absence of a wall
skimmer, the fill volume is 6 inches
(152 mm) below the overflow level of
the spa. ‘‘Rated volume’’ is defined as
the water capacity of a portable electric
spa, in gallons (liters), as specified by
the manufacturer on the spa, on the spa
packaging, or the spa marketing
materials. ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
provides no requirement for the rated
volume to correspond to the fill volume.
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 also does not
specify any tolerance on the fill volume
measurement.
DOE compared fill volume and rated
volume of portable electric spas on the
market by reviewing certification
records available in the CEC
Modernized Appliance Energy
Efficiency Database System
(‘‘MAEDbS’’).29 Fill volume and rated
volume are equivalent for some models
but differ for other models. For most
models with differing values of fill
volume and rated volume, the variation
is within a few percent. For example, in
some cases, the value of rated volume
corresponds to the fill volume rounded
to the nearest multiple of 10. For other
models, however, the difference
29 The CEC Modernized Appliance Efficiency
Database System. Available at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov (Last accessed May
23, 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38615
between rated and fill volume is much
greater than any difference due to
rounding, ranging from 10 to 50 percent
of fill volume.
The volume of the water in a portable
electric spa has a significant effect on
the energy consumption of the spa, such
that any significant difference between
fill volume and rated volume for
particular portable electric spas suggests
that the standby loss determined for
those models (based on fill volume) may
not be representative of the way those
models are advertised or used by
consumers (presumably, rated volume).
Furthermore, lack of tolerance on the fill
level specification may result in
variation in the fill level that could
reduce repeatability and reproducibility
of the test.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE made
several proposals on how the volume of
water in portable electric spas would be
defined, determined during testing, and
represented. 87 FR 63324, 63366.
First, DOE proposed to exclude from
incorporation by reference the
definitions of ‘‘fill volume’’ and ‘‘rated
volume’’ in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019,
and to create a new definition of ‘‘fill
volume’’ in section 2.5 of appendix GG.
Id. DOE proposed to define ‘‘fill
volume’’ as the volume of water held by
the portable electric spa when it is filled
according to the filling instructions
specified in section 3.1.4 of appendix
GG. Id. DOE made this proposal to
prevent the ambiguity in representations
of volume that DOE had identified for
some models in the CEC MAEDbS. Id.
Second, to ensure that the volume of
water in the portable electric spa during
testing is representative of consumer
use, DOE proposed to exclude the spa
filling instructions in section 5.5.2 of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 and to define
new filling instructions that refer to
manufacturer’s instructions in section
3.1.4 of appendix GG. Id. Section 3.1.4
of appendix GG would specify filling
the spa with water as follows:
(a) If the manufacturer’s instructions
specify a single fill level, fill to that
level with a tolerance of ± 0.125 inches.
(b) If the manufacturer’s instructions
specify a range of fill levels and not a
single fill level, fill to the middle of that
range with a tolerance of ± 0.125 inches.
(c) If the manufacturer’s instructions
do not specify a fill level or range of fill
levels, fill to the halfway point between
the bottom of the skimmer opening and
the top of the skimmer opening with a
tolerance of ± 0.125 inches.
(d) If the manufacturer’s instructions
do not specify a fill level or range of fill
levels, and there is no wall skimmer, fill
to 6.0 inches ± 0.125 inches below the
overflow level of the spa. Id.
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
38616
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Third, to ensure that the fill volume
includes the water in all components of
the portable electric spa, DOE proposed
in section 3.1.4 of appendix GG to
follow the manufacturer’s instructions
for filling the spa with water,
connecting and/or priming the pump(s),
and starting up the spa. Id. After
verifying that the portable electric spa is
operating normally and that all water
lines are filled, DOE proposed to power
off the spa and adjust the fill level as
needed. Id. DOE proposed to measure
the volume of water added to the
portable electric spa with a water meter
while filling the spa, and to measure
any water removed from the spa using
a water meter, graduated container, or
scale with an accuracy of ± 2 percent of
the quantity measured. Id. DOE
proposed to define ‘‘fill volume’’ as the
volume of water held by the portable
electric spa when the spa is filled, as
specified in section 3.1.4 of appendix
GG. Id.
Finally, DOE proposed that all
representations of fill volume be within
5 gallons of the mean fill volume
measured for the sample of the basic
model. Id. The proposed requirement
would allow manufacturers to continue
to represent fill volume as a value
rounded to the nearest multiple of 10,
because any such rounded value would
vary by no more than 5 gallons from the
measured value. Id. Further discussion
of DOE’s proposals regarding
represented values is detailed in section
III.E.2 of this final rule.
DOE requested comment on its
proposals to exclude from incorporation
by reference the definitions of ‘‘fill
volume’’ and ‘‘rated volume’’ in ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019, to define a new
term for ‘‘fill volume,’’ and to specify
new filling instructions in appendix GG.
Id. DOE also requested comment on its
proposal to specify a tolerance of ±
0.125 inches on the defined fill level
and on whether any other tolerances on
fill level, such as ± 0.0625 inches or ±
0.25 inches, would be more appropriate
than ± 0.125 inches. Id. at 87 FR 63367.
Finally, DOE requested comment on its
proposal to allow represented values of
fill volume to be within 5 gallons of the
mean fill volume measured for the
sample of the basic model. Id.
DOE received comments from the
CEC, the Joint Advocates, and PHTA/
IHTA on the proposals in the October
2022 NOPR for definitions and fill level
instructions. The CEC supported DOE’s
proposal to exclude the definition of
‘‘rated volume’’ from incorporation by
reference because DOE is not proposing
labeling requirements in the proposed
rulemaking. (CEC, No. 13, at p. 4) The
Joint Advocates commented in support
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
of the additional proposed
specifications to ensure that the fill
volume in testing is representative.
(Joint Advocates, No. 12 at p. 2) PHTA/
IHTA expressed no position on the
proposed change from the filling
instructions in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 and deferred to individual
manufacturer comments. (PHTA/IHTA,
No. 10 at p. 15) DOE received no
individual manufacturer comments on
this topic.
PHTA/IHTA stated that they do not
see any significant issue with using
manufacturer-recommended fill level
for the test, as it provides clarity to the
end user. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA also
explained that, although ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 sets a uniform method for
filling a portable electric spa, the ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 fill level
requirements do not always agree with
typical user fill levels. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA
stated that the ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
fill level is often similar to the user fill
level, but the user fill level can differ
from the ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 fill
level due to the way the portable
electric spa is designed to meet a
specific consumer experience or other
physical, operational, or cosmetic
requirements. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA stated
that the recommended fill line for
inflatable spas is lower than the ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 fill level. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA also stated that there are
other models for which the
recommended fill line is approximately
2 inches higher than the ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 fill level, and for which the
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 fill volume
would interfere with normal operation
because it would not cover all the jets.
(Id.)
PHTA/IHTA and the CEC commented
in support of DOE’s proposal to allow a
tolerance of ± 0.125 inches on fill level
requirements. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p.
15; CEC, No. 13 at p. 4) The CEC
supported adding instructions
specifying that all water lines are filled,
but the CEC recommended using the
filling instructions in ANSI/APSP/ICC–
14 2019 rather than the hierarchy
proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.
(CEC, No. 13, at p. 4) The CEC indicated
that relying on manufacturer’s
instructions is not necessarily
representative of consumer use if each
manufacturer is different in providing
instructions with various setup options.
(Id.) The CEC recommended that DOE
specify testing conditions that are
identical for all manufacturers to ensure
standardized conditions and
comparable testing results across all
products. (Id.)
Regarding representations of fill
volumes, the CEC supported specifying
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
the value of the fill volume to be a
whole number within 5 gallons to allow
consumers to easily compare similarly
sized spas. (Id. at p. 5) Conversely,
PHTA/IHTA commented that 5 gallons
is a very tight tolerance for represented
fill volumes, even with the proposed ±
0.125-inch fill tolerance, and that
changes to plumbing or configuration
could affect the volume and affect
whether portable electric spas that
would otherwise be grouped under the
same basic model could be represented
as having the same fill volume. (PHTA/
IHTA, No. 10 at p. 15)
In response to the CEC’s comments
recommending the use of the filling
instructions in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 rather than the hierarchy proposed
in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
concludes that the hierarchy proposed
in the October 2022 NOPR is more
representative than the fill level
specified by ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
because the hierarchy uses the fill level
that is specified in the model-specific
manufacturer’s instructions, if available,
instead of relying only on the
geometrical relationships in ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 that are not specific
to the model. Although the CEC
indicated that relying on manufacturer’s
instructions is not necessarily
representative of consumer use if each
manufacturer provides different
instructions and instead recommended
that DOE specify testing conditions that
are identical for all manufacturers (CEC,
No. 13, at p. 4), DOE has concluded that
the most representative fill level to use
for each model is the fill level that
would be used most commonly for that
model by consumers. As indicated in
comments by PHTA/IHTA, the ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 fill level is often
similar to the user fill level, but the user
fill level can differ from the ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 fill level due to the
way the portable electric spa model is
designed to meet a specific consumer
experience or other physical,
operational, or cosmetic requirements.
(PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 15) DOE
concludes that the manufacturer’s
instructions, if available, provide the
best indication of the typical user fill
level because the manufacturer’s
instructions take into consideration the
design and intended use of the model,
and the instructions are the primary
literature used by a consumer to
determine the proper use of the portable
electric spa. As a result, DOE concludes
that the filling instructions in ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 are not as
representative of an average use cycle or
period of use as the filling instructions
proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
In response to PHTA/IHTA’s
comment on the proposed tolerance for
represented value for fill volume, it is
true that a ± 0.125-inch fill level
tolerance could allow for a variation in
total fill volume of greater than 5 gallons
between multiple tests on the same
portable electric spa. However, the 5gallon allowance in representations of
fill volume does not necessarily
delineate basic models, as suggested by
PHTA/IHTA’s comment. Rather, as
described in section III.E.1 of this final
rule, manufacturers have the ability to
determine how they want to group
individual models into basic models, as
long as the individual model used to
represent each basic model has the
highest standby loss of all individual
models in that basic model. As a result,
a manufacturer could group multiple
individual models of similar volumes
into a single basic model and use test
results from the individual model with
the highest standby loss to represent
that basic model. The 5-gallon
allowance applies only to the flexibility
that the manufacturer has in
representing the mean fill volume from
the testing of the individual model
being used to represent the basic model.
Therefore, DOE concludes that the 5gallon allowance on represented fill
volume is not overly narrow, and DOE
is proceeding with its proposal.
For the reasons discussed in the
October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule,
DOE is finalizing its proposals on fill
volume as proposed in the October 2022
NOPR.
7. Spa Cover
Portable electric spas are typically
covered when not in active use. The
standby loss of a portable electric spa is
significantly affected by the presence
and thermal properties of a spa cover.
Section 5.5.5 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 requires that the manufacturer’s
specified cover be used during the test.
Section 3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
defines ‘‘cover, specified’’ as the cover
that is provided or specified by the
manufacturer. However, ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 does not specify how to
conduct testing if the manufacturer does
not specify a cover. For such cases,
differences in laboratory decisions
regarding the spa cover to be used for
testing could result in significant
variation in results between laboratories
(i.e., low reproducibility of test results)
and could also produce test results that
are not representative of average
consumer use.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed to exclude section 5.5.5 of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019, which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
requires use of the manufacturer’s
specified cover during testing, and to
exclude the definition in ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 for ‘‘cover, specified.’’ 87
FR 63356, 63367. DOE proposed instead
to specify in section 3.1.5 of appendix
GG to install the spa cover following the
manufacturer’s instructions. Id.
Additionally, DOE proposed that if a
basic model is distributed with multiple
covers designated by the spa
manufacturer for use with the basic
model, the manufacturer must
determine all represented values for that
basic model based on the cover that
results in the highest standby loss,
except the manufacturer may choose to
identify specific individual
combinations of spa and cover as
additional basic models. Id.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed to provide instructions for
testing if the manufacturer does not
specify a particular cover to be used
with a portable electric spa. Id. DOE
tentatively concluded that some
consumers would opt to use a low-cost,
minimally insulative cover if the spa
manufacturer does not specify use of a
particular cover. Id. As such, if a cover
were not specified for use with a basic
model, DOE proposed to specify the
following in section 3.1.5 of appendix
GG: If no cover is designated by the spa
manufacturer for use with the portable
electric spa, cover the spa with a single
layer of 6 mil thickness (0.006 in; 0.15
mm) plastic film. Cut the plastic to
cover the entire top surface of the spa
and extend over each edge of the spa
approximately 6 inches below the top
surface of the spa. Use fasteners or
weights to keep the plastic in place
during the test, but do not seal the edges
of the plastic to the spa (by using tape,
for example). Id.
DOE also noted in the October 2022
NOPR that this proposal may not be
applicable when the spa manufacturer
specifically designates a portable
electric spa model for use without a
cover or with ‘‘no cover’’ as one of
multiple cover options designated by
the spa manufacturer. Id. In both of
these cases, testing the spa with a cover
made of 6 mil plastic might not be
representative of field use and,
therefore, it might be more
representative to test the spa without a
cover. Id. DOE requested comment on
its proposed requirements for testing a
portable electric spa that does not have
a cover designated for use by the spa
manufacturer, on whether
manufacturers would ever designate a
portable electric spa model to be used
without a cover, or designate a ‘‘no
cover’’ option, and how such a spa
should be tested to determine the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38617
highest standby loss. Id. at 87 FR
63366–63367.
In response to the October 2022
NOPR, the CEC, the CA IOUs, and the
Joint Advocates expressed support for
DOE’s proposal regarding spa cover
specifications during testing. (CEC, No.
13 at pp. 4–5; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 2;
Joint Advocates, No. 12 at pp. 2–3) Both
PHTA/IHTA and the CEC commented
that they are not aware of manufacturers
that designate a ‘‘no cover’’ option or
manufacturers that do not ship an
approved cover with the portable
electric spa. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p.
16; CEC, No. 13 at p. 5) PHTA/IHTA
emphasized that no spa would be able
to pass a reasonable minimum energy
efficiency standard without a cover and
stated that they presumed any DOE test
procedure would provide a minimum
requirement that could not be met
without a cover. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at
p. 16) Instead of the plastic film
proposed by DOE to cover a portable
electric spa without a designated cover,
the CEC suggested using a cover that
uses the same material and design as an
inflatable spa cover. (CEC, No. 13 at pp.
4–5)
In response to the CEC’s comment
regarding covers of the same design and
material as inflatable spa covers, DOE
notes that portable electric spas
consume significantly more energy
when the spa cover is removed and
manufacturer’s instructions that do not
specify the use of a cover may lead some
consumers to use only a low-cost,
minimally protective cover that would
prevent debris from entering the spa but
would not provide substantial insulative
properties. Therefore, it is necessary to
simulate a low-cost, minimally
protective cover for testing if a cover is
not specified by a manufacturer.
Although covers resembling those used
by inflatable spas may represent a
lower-efficiency option than common
covers for rigid spas, DOE finds that
these covers provide more insulation
than the plastic film proposed in the
October 2022 NOPR. As a result, such
covers would not meet the requirement
of a low-cost, minimally protective
cover as well as the plastic film
proposed by DOE.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed
in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule,
DOE is finalizing its requirements for
installing a spa cover in section 3.1.5 of
appendix GG.
DOE discusses its proposal on
representations related to spa covers in
section III.E.2 of this final rule.
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
38618
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
8. Air Temperature Measurement
Location
above the center of the portable electric
spa.
Section 5.6.3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 requires that ambient air
temperature be measured at one point
located 12 to 18 inches above the level
of the spa cover and a minimum of 8
inches from the wall of the chamber.
The temperature probe will be
positioned and out of direct airflow
from the circulation fan. ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 does not provide any
further requirements on the location of
the ambient air temperature
measurement point, such that it would
be possible in a large chamber for the
measurement point to be located beyond
the immediate proximity of the portable
electric spa. In the October 2022 NOPR,
DOE noted that this lack of direction
presents the possibility that the
temperature could be taken at a location
in the chamber with an ambient
temperature that is different than the
ambient temperature immediately
around the portable electric spa. 87 FR
63356, 63368.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed further requirements on the
horizontal location of the ambient air
temperature measurement point. Id.
Specifically, DOE proposed in section
3.1.6 of appendix GG that the ambient
air temperature measurement point
specified in section 5.6.3 of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 must be located
above the center of the portable electric
spa. Id. DOE tentatively concluded that
this proposed requirement ensures that
ambient temperature is measured in the
immediate vicinity of the portable
electric spa and in the same general
location each time, thereby increasing
test repeatability. Id.
DOE requested comment on its
proposal. Id. PHTA/IHTA commented
that DOE’s proposal reflects what is
intended in ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
and is common practice in the industry.
(PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 16) PHTA/
IHTA continued that it fully supports
DOE’s proposal to clarify ambient air
temperature measurement location. (Id.)
The CEC also commented in support of
clarifying the horizontal position at
which to measure the ambient
temperature to ensure the measurement
is taken in the same location in every
test. (CEC, No. 13 at p. 5)
For the reasons stated in the October
2022 NOPR and in the preceding
paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is
adopting specifications in section 3.1.6
of appendix GG that the ambient air
temperature measurement point
specified in section 5.6.3 of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 must be located
9. Water Temperature Settings
The definition of ‘‘standby mode’’ in
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 indicates that
water temperature settings may be
adjusted to meet the test conditions.30
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 does not
specify, however, whether adjustments
to the water temperature settings can be
made during the test. Spa users
typically leave a portable electric spa at
the desired water temperature setting
while the spa is operating in default
operation mode with the cover on.
Based on these consumer usage
patterns, water temperature adjustments
during a test would be unrepresentative
of field use. In addition, the permitting
of water temperature setting
adjustments during a test could
influence the outcome of the test.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
tentatively concluded that water
temperature setting adjustments would
not be appropriate during the test, and
that its proposed specification is
required to ensure repeatable,
reproducible, and representative test
results. 87 FR 63356, 63368. DOE
proposed in section 3.2.2 of appendix
GG to specify that portable electric spa
water temperature settings be adjusted
to meet the test requirements, but that
spa water temperature settings must not
be adjusted between the start of the
stabilizing period specified in section
5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 and
the end of the test period specified in
section 5.6.4.7 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019. Id.
DOE requested comment on its
proposed requirement that water
temperature settings must not be
adjusted between the start of the
stabilizing period and the end of the test
period. Id. In response to DOE’s request
for comment in the October 2022 NOPR,
both PHTA/IHTA and the CEC
expressed support for DOE’s proposal to
clarify to not adjust water temperature
settings during testing periods. (PHTA/
IHTA, No. 10 at p. 16; CEC, No. 13 at
p. 5) The CEC also noted that DOE’s
proposal reflects the intention of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 and current practice
in the industry. (CEC, No. 13 at p. 5)
For the reasons stated in the October
2022 NOPR and in the preceding
paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is
adopting in section 3.2.2 of appendix
GG a specification that portable electric
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
30 The definition of standby mode in section 3 of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 is as follows: All settings
at default as shipped by the manufacturer, except
water temperature, which may be adjusted to meet
the test conditions. No manual operations are
enabled.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
spa water temperature settings be
adjusted to meet the test requirements,
but that spa water temperature settings
must not be adjusted between the start
of the stabilizing period specified in
section 5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 and the end of the test period
specified in section 5.6.4.7 of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019.
10. Water Temperature Requirements
The sub-sections within section 5.6.1
of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 specify the
range of water temperatures that are
allowed during the test based on the
capabilities of the portable electric
spa.31 In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
interpreted these requirements to apply
to every temperature measurement
taken during the test. 87 FR 63356,
63368. However, some consumer
product test procedures specify
requirements for the average
temperature during a test instead of the
individual temperature
measurements.32 In the October 2022
NOPR, DOE stated that the phrasing
used in section 5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 could be interpreted to
refer to requirements on the average
temperature during the test instead of
every temperature measurement taken
during the test. Id.
DOE proposed in the October 2022
NOPR to specify explicitly in section
3.2.3 of appendix GG that each
individual water temperature
measurement taken during the
stabilization period and test period must
meet the applicable water temperature
requirements specified in section 5.6.1
of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019. Id. DOE
proposed this specification to ensure
that the water temperature requirements
are interpreted consistently and
repeatably because DOE tentatively
determined the phrasing used in section
5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
creates the possibility that the range of
water temperatures could vary between
tests based on a laboratory’s
interpretation of whether the water
temperature requirements apply to the
average temperature or each individual
measurement. Id. DOE conducted
investigative testing and found that its
31 For example, section 5.6.1.1 states that for
exercise spas or the exercise portion of a
combination spa, that are capable of maintaining a
minimum water temperature of 100 °F (38 °C) for
the duration of the test, the spa shall be tested at
102 °F ±2 °F (39 °C ±1 °C) and maintain a minimum
water temperature of 100 °F (38 °C) for the duration
of the test.
32 For example, the test procedure for refrigerators
and refrigerator-freezers at appendix A to subpart B
of part 430 contains several requirements on the
average temperature of the compartment(s) within
the appliance.
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
proposed requirement can be met in
typical spa operation. Id.
DOE requested comment on its
proposal. Id. In response to the October
2022 NOPR, PHTA/IHTA commented
that industry currently interprets
requirements for individual water
temperature measurements as proposed
by DOE and that it supports DOE’s
proposal as it may better describe the
original intent of what is provided for in
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019. (PHTA/IHTA,
No. 10 at p. 16)
For the reasons stated in preceding
paragraphs and in the October 2022
NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is
adopting in section 3.2.3 of appendix
GG a specification that each individual
water temperature measurement taken
during the stabilization period and test
period must meet the applicable water
temperature requirements specified in
section 5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019.
11. Standby Loss Calculation
Section 5.7 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 contains calculations for
normalized standby power. This
includes calculating the measured
standby power and normalizing that
standby power to a normalized
temperature difference between the
water in the spa and the ambient air. As
discussed in section III.C.3 of this final
rule, DOE is adopting a requirement to
use the term ‘‘standby loss’’ instead of
‘‘normalized standby power.’’ In
addition, as discussed in section III.D.3
of this final rule, DOE is adopting a
requirement to specify a representative
ambient air temperature of 56 °F.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed standby loss calculations in
section 3.3 of appendix GG, including a
normalized temperature difference of
46 °F (i.e., 102 °F¥56 °F) for units tested
at a water temperature of 102 °F ± 2 °F,
and a normalized temperature
difference of 31 °F (i.e., 87 °F¥56 °F) for
units tested at a water temperature of
87 °F ± 2 °F. 87 FR 63356, 63369. DOE
calculated each proposed normalized
temperature difference as the difference
between the midpoints of the allowable
water temperature and ambient air
temperature ranges, which DOE
tentatively concluded as being the most
representative method for determining a
normalized temperature difference. Id.
DOE’s proposed approach to calculate
the normalized temperature differs from
the approach used in section 5.7 of
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019, which
normalizes to a temperature difference
equal to the minimum of the allowed
water temperature range (i.e., 100 °F or
85 °F) minus the maximum of the
allowed ambient air temperature range
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
(i.e., 63 °F). Id. DOE tentatively
concluded that this approach may not
be representative of an average use cycle
because it normalizes standby loss to
the minimum expected temperature
difference resulting from the two
defined ranges. Id.
DOE requested comment on the
proposed standby loss calculations,
including the method used to calculate
normalized temperature differences
based on the midpoint of the allowable
temperature ranges. Id. DOE also
requested comment on its tentative
conclusion that normalizing standby
loss to the midpoint of the allowable
temperature ranges would produce test
results that are more representative than
normalizing standby loss to the
minimum expected temperature
difference between the allowable ranges.
Id.
PHTA/IHTA strongly recommended
that there be no change to the
normalized temperature difference and
that DOE use the minimum water
temperature and maximum ambient
temperature to determine the
normalized temperature difference.
(PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at pp. 7, 17)
PHTA/IHTA indicated that the
particular normalized temperature
difference has no effect on the
comparison between portable electric
spas at a given temperature difference,
in that the ranking of portable electric
spa standby loss will stay the same no
matter the normalized temperature
difference used. (Id. at pp. 6, 17) PHTA/
IHTA also indicated that the minimum
water temperature and maximum
ambient air temperature were chosen to
reduce the number of test results
discarded due to temperatures being out
of tolerance. (Id. at p. 17) Finally,
PHTA/IHTA stated that if DOE feels
strongly that the normalized
temperature difference should be 46 °F,
the formula specifying the allowed
standby loss must be changed
accordingly. (Id. at p. 7) Master Spas
also commented that the current
normalization method should be left
intact, as it is representative, it is proven
to be reproducible, and changing it
would impose burden on the industry.
(Master Spas, No. 7 at p. 2)
Regarding PHTA/IHTA’s comment
that use of the minimum water
temperature and maximum ambient air
temperature minimizes the discarding of
test results, DOE concludes that the
normalized temperature difference has
no effect on whether test results are
discarded. The validity of test results is
based on the water and ambient air
temperature tolerances during the test,
which are different than the normalized
temperature difference used for
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38619
normalizing the standby loss. The DOE
test procedure uses the water
temperature tolerances from ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019, and the ambient air
temperature tolerances are discussed in
section III.D.3 of this final rule.
PHTA/IHTA’s statement that the
ranking of portable electric spa standby
loss will stay the same regardless of
whether the normalized temperature
difference used is accurate. DOE
proposed to change the normalized
temperature difference not to change the
ranking of portable electric spa standby
loss, but to make representations of
standby loss more representative. To
this end, it is more representative to
base the normalized temperature
difference on an air temperature of
56 °F—the ambient air temperature that
DOE has determined as the
representative national ambient
temperature for portable electric spas in
section III.D.3 of this final rule—than it
is to base it on air temperature of 63 °F.
It is also more representative to use the
midpoint of the allowed water
temperature range than it is to use the
minimum of the allowed water
temperature range, because it is DOE’s
understanding that the midpoint of each
allowed temperature range (i.e., 102 °F
for most portable electric spas and 87 °F
for exercise spas that cannot maintain a
minimum water temperature of 100 °F)
is the most commonly used temperature
setting for the products using the
respective range.
Regarding PHTA/IHTA’s comment
that the allowed standby loss must be
changed if the normalized temperature
difference is changed, DOE notes that if
it were to establish an energy
conservation standard for portable
electric spas, that energy conservation
standard would be based on the standby
loss as measured by the DOE test
procedure. As a result, any energy
conservation standard would take into
account the normalized temperature
difference used in the DOE test
procedure.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed
in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule,
DOE is finalizing in section 3.3 of
appendix GG the standby loss
calculations that were proposed in the
October 2022 NOPR.
E. Represented Values Provisions
1. Basic Model
In the course of regulating consumer
products, DOE has developed the
concept of a ‘‘basic model’’ to determine
the specific product or equipment
configuration(s) to which the
regulations would apply. DOE’s existing
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
33 The
definition of ‘‘basic model’’ in 10 CFR
430.2 also includes several product-specific
paragraphs that are not relevant to portable electric
spas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
electric characteristics, and hydraulic
characteristics as items that might be
used to differentiate basic models.
(Master Spas, No. 7 at pp. 2–3) PHTA/
IHTA also indicated that the use of a
circulation pump and the number of jets
are additional characteristics that might
be used to distinguish models. (PHTA/
IHTA, No. 10 at p. 17) PHTA/IHTA also
argued that while DOE mentioned that
basic models can help minimize test
burden, the proposed method does not
account for the testing required to
determine the most consumptive spa
within a given basic model. (Id.)
In response to the lack of clarity that
PHTA/IHTA and Master Spas identified
regarding the features that constitute a
basic model, DOE notes that
manufacturers can choose how they
interpret the term ‘‘essentially
identical’’ in the basic model definition,
as long as the individual model used to
represent the basic model has the
highest standby loss of all individual
models in that basic model. The more
broadly they choose to interpret this
term, the more individual models can
potentially be grouped within a single
basic model. Therefore, manufacturers
have the ability to determine the
number of basic models they want to
represent, as long as the individual
model used to represent each basic
model has the highest standby loss of all
individual models in that basic model.
Regarding PHTA/IHTA’s concern that
DOE’s claim that basic models can help
minimize test burden does not account
for the testing required to determine the
most consumptive spa within a given
basic model, DOE notes that, as
discussed, manufacturers have the
ability to determine the number of basic
models they want to represent, as long
as the individual model used to
represent each basic model has the
highest standby loss of all individual
models in that basic model. When
determining that number, manufacturers
can consider the testing required to
determine the most consumptive spa
within a given basic model to ensure
that their total testing burden, including
tests to determine the most consumptive
spa within a given basic model, will be
manageable. In addition, DOE notes that
manufacturers of other products have
used the basic model approach to
considerably reduce the number of
individual models that require testing.
There is no clear reason why portable
electric spa manufacturers should not be
able to do the same thing by combining
their product knowledge with judicious
use of the basic model definition. The
alternative approach would be to have
manufacturers test and rate individual
models with any difference in design as
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
unique basic models, which would
increase testing burden far beyond
PHTA/IHTA and Master Spa’s
estimates. As a result, DOE concludes
that the basic model approach should
reduce the testing burden on portable
electric spa manufacturers considerably,
even when including the testing
required to determine the most
consumptive spa within a given basic
model, when compared to testing all
individual models.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed
in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule,
DOE is finalizing its proposal in the
October 2022 NOPR to rely on the
definition of ‘‘basic model’’ as currently
defined at 10 CFR 430.2.
2. Represented Values
DOE provides requirements for
represented values and sampling plans
for all covered products in subpart B to
10 CFR part 429. The purpose of a
statistical sampling plan is to provide a
method to determine represented values
of energy- and non-energy-related
metrics for each basic model.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed to create a new section at 10
CFR 429.66 34 for portable electric spas
and to require that, for each basic
model, a sample of sufficient size must
be randomly selected and tested to
ensure that any represented value of
standby loss or other measure of energy
consumption of a basic model for which
customers would favor lower values is
greater than or equal to the higher of the
following two values:
(1) The mean of the sample, where:
and x is the sample mean, n is the
number of samples, and xi is the
maximum of the ith sample;
Or,
(2) The upper 95-percent confidence
limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by
1.05, where:
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-percent one-tailed
confidence interval with n¥1 degrees of
freedom (from appendix A of subpart B
34 The section was proposed as 10 CFR 429.66 in
the October 2022 NOPR, but it is being finalized in
this final rule as 10 CFR 429.76, due to additional
sections that have been added between the dates of
the proposal and the final rule.
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
ER13JN23.004</GPH>
definition of this term at 10 CFR 430.2
states that ‘‘basic model’’ means all
units of a given type of covered product
(or class thereof) manufactured by one
manufacturer that have the same
primary energy source and have
essentially identical electrical, physical,
and functional (or hydraulic)
characteristics that affect energy
consumption, energy efficiency, water
consumption, or water efficiency.33
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
tentatively determined that the general
definition of ‘‘basic model’’ is
appropriate for portable electric spas. 87
FR 63356, 63379. For the purposes of
applying the proposed portable electric
spa regulations, DOE proposed to rely
on the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ as
currently defined at 10 CFR 430.2. Id.
As proposed, manufacturers would be
required to test only a representative
number of units of a basic model in lieu
of testing every individual model they
manufacture, and individual models of
portable electric spas would be
permitted to be grouped under a single
basic model so long as all grouped
models have the same representative
energy performance, which is
representative of the unit with the
highest standby loss. Id.
DOE also proposed that if a basic
model is distributed in commerce with
multiple covers designated by the spa
manufacturer for use with the basic
model, a manufacturer must determine
all represented values for that basic
model based on the cover that results in
the highest standby loss, except that the
manufacturer may choose to identify
specific individual combinations of spa
and cover as additional basic models.
Id. DOE addresses comments on this
proposal regarding spa covers in section
III.E.2 of this final rule.
DOE requested comment on the
proposed applicability of the definition
of ‘‘basic model’’ at 10 CFR 430.2 to
portable electric spas. Id.
In written comments responding to
the October 2022 NOPR, the CEC
supported applying the definition of
‘‘basic model.’’ (CEC, No. 13 at p. 5)
However, PHTA/IHTA and Master Spas
stated that there is a lack of clarity on
the features that constitute different
basic models, and, without more clarity,
manufacturers would only group basic
models that have different aesthetic
features (e.g., cabinet colors). (PHTA/
IHTA, No. 10 at p. 17; Master Spas, No.
7 at pp. 2–3) Master Spas identified
differences in fill volume, shape, size,
ER13JN23.003</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
38620
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
of 10 CFR part 429). 87 FR 63356,
63369.
DOE proposed in 10 CFR 429.66 that
the represented value of standby loss
must be a whole number of watts. Id.
Additionally, DOE proposed that the
represented value of fill volume must be
a whole number of gallons that is within
5 gallons of the mean of the fill volumes
measured for the units in the sample
used to determine the represented value
of standby loss. Id. DOE’s proposal on
fill volume representations is discussed
in section III.D.6 of this final rule.
Portable electric spas are often
available with more than one model of
cover, and the characteristics of the
cover can significantly affect measured
standby loss. In the October 2022 NOPR,
DOE proposed that if a basic model is
distributed in commerce with multiple
covers designated by the spa
manufacturer for use with the basic
model, a manufacturer must determine
all represented values for that basic
model based on the cover that results in
the highest standby loss, except the
manufacturer may choose to identify
specific individual combinations of spa
and cover as additional basic models.
Id. at 87 FR 63370. DOE also proposed
that if a basic model is distributed in
commerce with no cover designated by
the spa manufacturer for use with the
basic model, a manufacturer must
determine all represented values for that
basic model by testing as specified in
section 3.1.5.2 of appendix GG to
subpart B of part 430. Id. DOE’s
proposal on testing units without a
designated cover is discussed in section
III.D.7 of this final rule.
DOE requested comment on the
proposed statistical sampling
procedures and representations
requirements for portable electric spas.
Id. DOE also requested comment on the
proposal that represented values be
based on testing with the designated
cover that results in the highest standby
loss or by testing as specified in section
3.1.5.2 of appendix GG to subpart B of
part 430 if there is no designated cover.
Id.
In response to the October 2022
NOPR, the CEC commented in support
of DOE’s proposal for providing
calculation instructions on represented
values and sampling plans. (CEC, No. 13
at p. 5) PHTA/IHTA requested
clarification on the number of units for
each basic model that would be required
for testing to generate the 95-percent
confidence level. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10
at p. 17) PHTA/IHTA indicated that
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 requires only
a single unit to be tested and requested
that DOE consider their concerns on
how basic models are defined, as well
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
as the amount of time necessary to test
each model, given that some test labs
only have the capacity to test one
portable electric spa at a time. (Id. at p.
17–18) Master Spas also highlighted the
amount of time required for testing and
requested that DOE allow manufacturers
to test only a single unit of a basic
model when grouping of models is not
exercised. (Master Spas, No. 7 at p. 3)
Master Spas also stated that they
supported testing at least two spas per
basic model if grouping was performed.
(Id.)
PHTA/IHTA, the CEC, and the CA
IOUs commented in support of DOE’s
proposal on the spa cover to use for
representations. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at
p. 18; CEC, No. 13 at p. 4; CA IOUs, No.
8 at p. 2)
Regarding PHTA/IHTA’s request for
clarification of the number of units of
each basic model that need to be tested,
the proposed section 10 CFR
429.66(a)(2) states that the sampling
requirements of 10 CFR 429.11 are
applicable to portable electric spas. 10
CFR 429.11(b) states that the minimum
number of units tested shall be no less
than two, except where a different
minimum limit is specified for the
product or only one unit of the basic
model is produced, in which case that
single unit must be tested. As a result,
at least two units of a basic model of
portable electric spas must be tested,
unless only one unit of the basic model
is produced, in which case that single
unit must be tested. Additionally,
although PHTA/IHTA stated that ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 requires only a
single unit to be tested, DOE has not
been able to identify any specification of
the number of units to be tested in
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019. As a result,
DOE surmises that agencies that choose
to use ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 as part
of a State or local energy conservation
program or energy code, or
manufacturers that choose to use ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 on a voluntary basis,
would choose the number of units to be
tested per basic model.
Regarding the comments from PHTA/
IHTA and Master Spas on the potential
for testing only one unit of a basic
model instead of two, DOE notes that,
as discussed, manufacturers have the
ability to determine the number of basic
models they want to represent, as long
as the individual model used to
represent each basic model has the
highest standby loss of all individual
models in that basic model. When
determining that number, manufacturers
can consider the need to test at least two
units for each basic model to ensure that
their total testing burden, including
testing at least two units for each basic
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38621
model, will be manageable. DOE
surmises that this ability to define the
grouping of individual models into
basic models addresses the concerns of
Master Spas and PHTA/IHTA, because
Master Spas stated that they supported
testing at least two spas per basic model
if grouping were performed, and PHTA/
IHTA referred to their concerns on basic
model definition (discussed in section
III.E.1) as part of their comment on the
sample size. DOE also notes that these
same minimum requirements are used
across almost all products with DOE test
procedures, with a wide range of
required test durations. PHTA/IHTA did
not make clear why manufacturers of
portable electric spas would require a
sample size smaller than those of other
products. As a result, DOE is not
including a smaller required sample size
in this final rule.
For the reasons discussed in the
October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule,
DOE is establishing in 10 CFR 429.76
the requirements for represented values
and sampling plans that were proposed
in the October 2022 NOPR. DOE is also
updating paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) in 10
CFR 429.11, which lists the general
sampling requirements for selecting
units to be tested, to change the
referenced sections from ‘‘10 CFR
429.14 through 10 CFR 429.69’’ to ‘‘10
CFR 429.14 through 10 CFR 429.69 and
10 CFR 429.76.’’
F. Test Procedure Costs
Use of the DOE test procedure
established in this final rule will not be
required for use until new energy
conservation standards are established,
if they are established. As a result, this
test procedure will not in itself impose
any costs on any manufacturers.
Although use of the test procedure is
not required as a result of this test
procedure final rule, DOE has
undertaken a study of the costs of
testing a portable electric spa in the
event of new energy conservation
standards.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
estimated the per-test cost for thirdparty laboratory testing of portable
electric spas according to the current
industry consensus test procedure,
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019, to be $5,000
for standard and inflatable spas, $9,000
for exercise spas, and $11,000 for
combination spas. 87 FR 63356, 63370.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE
estimated the per-unit test cost for thirdparty lab testing according to the
proposed DOE test procedure to be
approximately the same except for an
additional $150 per test to account for
the purchase of equipment to control
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
38622
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
ambient temperature. In this final rule,
DOE has adjusted the test procedure,
factoring in public comments that will
be discussed further in the remainder of
this section, to no longer require the use
of this equipment. Accordingly, DOE
expects per-unit test costs to be the
same as the existing industry consensus
test procedure. Two units will need to
be tested per basic model to certify
compliance under this test procedure.
Although ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
does not specify the number of units of
a basic model that need to be tested,
DOE generally requires that at least two
units be tested to certify compliance
with energy conservation standards (see
10 CFR 429.11(b)) to ensure that such
determinations of compliance are
representative of actual basic model
performance and is finalizing that
requirement in this final rule.
Additionally, this final rule includes a
requirement that testing be conducted
on a raised wood deck rather than a
foam bed (which is used in the industry
test procedure). DOE expects the total
cost of constructing this new flooring
would be $877.01 per test station.35
In response to the October 2022
NOPR, commenters expressed concern
for the financial burden that would
ensue by deviating from the ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 test procedure. The
Texas A&M Students noted that
increased cost for companies would
result in higher cost to consumers, but
that is not too concerning because spas
are a luxury item. (Texas A&M Students,
No. 4 at pp. 1–2) PHTA/IHTA
commented that retesting all ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 compliant products
would cost a minimum of $5,000 per
portable electric spa and more for
exercise spas. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p.
18) PHTA/IHTA argued that the $150
increase for equipment to control
ambient temperature described by DOE
does not consider retesting, and that the
number of models that would need to be
retested is likely undervalued because
manufacturers may be selling portable
electric spas in states incompliant with
CA Title 20. (Id.) Watkins also
expressed concern for the significant
financial burden that would result from
deviation from ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019. (Watkins, No. 14 at p. 2)
Regarding retesting portable electric
spas, Master Spas commented that
35 DOE expects that the required materials would
consist of 77 10 ft 2 x 6 wooden beams, for a cost
of $8.95 each, and decking screws costing $22.94.
Labor costs are expected to be four hours at a rate
of $41.23 (national median wage of a mechanical
engineering technician is 29.07, wages account for
70.5 percent of total employment costs). All
together, these supplies and labor ($8.95 * 77 +
$22.94 + $41.23 * 4) equal $877.01.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
testing every spa twice would cause
immense burden, and that even with
advanced testing capacities, retesting
would still take about 60 weeks. (Master
Spas, No. 7 at p. 3) Master Spas added
that most labs do not have such testing
capacities, which means their testing
would take much longer, and retesting
would be burdensome to the spa
industry. (Id.) Because the industry
cannot afford to lose time, Master Spas
urged DOE to consider special
exceptions for testing models twice. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA commented that retesting
due to the proposed changes in ambient
temperature, normalization, and
chamber floor requirements in the
October 2022 NOPR would incur
millions of dollars in expenses with no
significant increase in energy efficiency
and could make costs to consumers
higher. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 7 at pp. 3–4)
PHTA/IHTA mentioned collaborating
on CA Title 20 regulation and CSA
C374:11 (R2021) 36 and said that there is
currently not enough testing data on the
proposed changes to the test procedure
to prove these changes will produce a
net benefit. (Id.) Master Spas agreed that
retesting would cost millions and that
there is a lack of existing data, which
would require additional trial and error
testing. (Master Spas, No. 7 at p. 3)
PHTA/IHTA also commented that any
substantive changes would require
additional data analysis, as data
mentioned in the October 2022 NOPR
was not made available. (PHTA/IHTA,
No. 7 at p. 4)
In response to these comments, DOE
notes that many of DOE’s proposals in
the October 2022 NOPR, specifically
those regarding ambient temperature,
normalization, and floor conditions,
would have required retesting and
imposed further burden on
manufacturers in the event of new
energy conservation standards.
However, DOE has accounted for this
potential burden in this final rule and
modified its final proposal to mitigate
unnecessary time and financial burden.
These modifications are discussed in
more detail in sections III.D.3 and III.D.4
of this final rule.
In finalizing this test procedure, DOE
finds that the testing of two units per
basic model, including the retesting of
models previously tested under the
industry test procedure, is necessary for
appropriate representativeness. As
stated, use of the test procedure
established in this final rule will not be
required for use until the compliance
36 The standard CSA 374:11 (R2021) was referred
to as CAN/CSA–C374–11 or CAN/CSA–C374–11
(R2021) by PHTA/IHTA and was referred to as
CAN/CSA–C374–11 (R2021) in the October 2022
NOPR.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
date of any new energy conservation
standards for portable electric spas, if
such standards are finalized. DOE
expects that the time period until any
energy conservation standards on these
products would allow sufficient time for
manufacturers to conduct testing.
Additionally, application of the basic
model provisions, as discussed in
section III.E.1 of this document, would
limit the number of individual models
manufacturers would be required to test
to make representations of efficiency.
In regard to possible impacts on
consumers associated with this test
procedure, DOE does not expect that
these increased test costs for
manufacturers will lead to significantly
higher prices for consumers.
Commenters are correct that, if energy
conservation standards are finalized,
test costs across the industry would
constitute several millions of dollars—
however, additional costs related to a
given model are very small relative to
overall production costs associated with
that model and would not justify a
significant increase to its selling price.
DOE expects that the finalized test
procedure will produce more
representative efficiency metrics that
consumers can use to inform purchasing
choices to their benefit as well as better
support compliance with potential
energy conservation standards. Costs
associated with this test procedure will
be part of the cost-benefit analysis
conducted for potential energy
conservation standards, which DOE
uses to evaluate whether potential
standards are economically justified.
G. Effective and Compliance Dates
The effective date for the prescribed
test procedure will be 30 days after
publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register.
EPCA prescribes that all
representations of energy efficiency and
energy use, including those made on
marketing materials and product labels,
must be made in accordance with an
amended or new test procedure,
beginning 180 days after publication of
the final rule in the Federal Register.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) To the extent the
test procedure established in this final
rule is required only for the evaluation
and issuance of new efficiency
standards, compliance with the test
procedure does not require use of such
test procedure until the compliance date
of new standards.
For portable electric spas, all
representations of energy efficiency and
energy use, including those made on
marketing materials and product labels,
must be made in accordance with the
test procedure in this final rule,
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
beginning on the compliance date of any
Federal energy conservation standards
for portable electric spas.
DOE is specifying a compliance date
later than 180 days after the publication
of the final rule in the Federal Register
because several States have test
procedures and energy conservation
standards in place for portable electric
spas. The test procedure in this final
rule establishes measures of energy
consumption that are different than
those currently used by States. As a
result, compliance with the DOE test
procedure would require all State
programs to be adjusted to use the
measures of energy consumption in the
DOE test procedure.
By requiring compliance with the
DOE test procedure beginning on the
compliance date of any Federal energy
conservation standards for portable
electric spas, DOE is avoiding the
necessity for State programs to be
adjusted to use the measures of energy
consumption in the DOE test procedure.
This compliance date also provides
States and manufacturers additional
time to adjust to the new rating method
in the DOE test procedure and to align
all changes with the compliance date of
any Federal energy conservation
standards. In addition, the extended
compliance date will alleviate the
potential burden, raised by some
commenters in response to the October
2022 NOPR, for manufacturers to test a
large number of models within a short
duration with limited testing facilities.
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public. DOE emphasizes as
well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to
use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management
and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized
that such techniques may include
identifying changing future compliance
costs that might result from
technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes. For the reasons
stated in this preamble, this final
regulatory action is consistent with
these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also
requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant
regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review.
OIRA has determined that this final
regulatory action does not constitute a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
this action was not submitted to OIRA
for review under E.O. 12866.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of a final regulatory flexibility analysis
(‘‘FRFA’’) for any final rule where the
agency was first required by law to
publish a proposed rule 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 website: www.energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed
this final rule under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003.
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866, 13563, and 14904
Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as
supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan.
21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094,
‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88
FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law,
to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only
upon a reasoned determination that its
benefits justify its costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to
impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among
other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing
among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38623
As noted in section III.F of this
document, no mandatory costs will be
incurred by any manufacturers as a
result of this final rule. Use of the test
procedure would not be required until
the compliance date of any new energy
conservation standards established for
portable electric spas. Therefore, DOE
concludes that the impacts of the test
procedure in this final rule would not
have a ‘‘significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,’’
and that the preparation of a FRFA is
not warranted. DOE will transmit the
certification and supporting statement
of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5
U.S.C. 605(b).
Despite a FRFA not being required, in
the following sections, DOE has
conducted an analysis of the cost
impacts to small businesses associated
with this test procedure in the event of
any new energy conservation standards
for portable electric spas.
1. Description and Estimate of Small
Entities Regulated
DOE uses the Small Business
Administration (‘‘SBA’’) small business
size standards to determine whether
manufacturers qualify as ‘‘small
businesses,’’ which are listed by the
North American Industry Classification
System (‘‘NAICS’’).37 The SBA
considers a business entity to be a small
business if, together with its affiliates, it
employs less than a threshold number of
workers specified in 13 CFR part 121.
Portable electric spa manufacturers,
who produce the products covered by
this final rule, are classified under
NAICS code 333414, ‘‘Heating
Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces)
Manufacturing.’’ In 13 CFR 121.201, the
SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees
or fewer for an entity to be considered
as a small business in this category. This
employee threshold includes all
employees in a business’s parent
company and any other subsidiaries.
DOE used available public information,
such as the MAEDbS, to identify
potential manufacturers. Once DOE
created a list of potential manufacturers,
DOE used market research tools to
determine whether any met the SBA’s
definition of a small entity.
DOE identified 28 companies
potentially manufacturing portable
electric spas covered by this test
procedure. DOE screened out companies
that do not meet the small entity
definition and, additionally, screened
out companies that are largely or
37 Available at: www.sba.gov/document/supporttable-size-standards.
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
38624
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
entirely foreign owned and operated. Of
the 28 companies, 14 were identified as
a small business. Each of these small
businesses were further identified—
through a review of their websites and
online documentation—to be original
equipment manufacturers
manufacturing covered portable electric
spas as opposed to rebranding spas,
integrating the spas into some broader
product offering, or producing spas for
strictly commercial applications.
2. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements
DOE’s test procedure is largely
consistent with the current industry
consensus test method ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019. As such, DOE anticipates
that this final rule will be unlikely to
significantly increase existing per-unit
test burden given that DOE is
referencing the prevailing industry test
procedure. However, this test procedure
does require two tests per basic model,
which would be a substantial cost
increase, as well as requiring tests to be
conducted on decking rather than a
foam pad—in the event energy
conservation standards are established.
Commenting on the October 2022
NOPR, the Texas A&M Students stated
that companies may have to pay
anywhere from $5,000–$11,150 to retest
spas, and though that may not be a huge
burden to large companies, it would be
a burden for smaller companies. (Texas
A&M Students, No. 4 at pp. 1–2)
However, the Texas A&M Students
noted that the cost would be somewhat
mitigated because many States already
have many of the proposed changes and
tests in place. (Id. at p. 2)
DOE agrees that costs imposed by the
test procedure may be relatively higher
for small manufacturers than large
manufacturers. Still, DOE does not
expect these costs to be a significant
burden to small manufacturers. In the
following paragraph and table, DOE
reviews the estimated test costs for each
identified small business and places
those test costs in terms of the
businesses estimated revenue.
DOE understands that most portable
electric spa manufacturers elect to test
units at a third-party testing facility.
DOE estimates the per unit model test
costs for third-party lab testing to be
$5,000 for standard and inflatable spas,
$9,000 for exercise spas, and $11,000 for
combination spas. In the table below,
DOE provides estimates of the possible
cost impacts (based on estimated basic
model counts from MAEDbS) for each
small business, estimated small
business revenue, and those costs as a
percentage of revenue. The cost to build
decking for the purposes of the test is
included on the assumption that a small
business will need to cover the cost of
decking for one testing station—
estimated to total $877.01. On average,
estimated testing costs represent 1.2
percent of annual revenue for a given
small business.
TABLE IV.1—ESTIMATED TESTING BURDEN FOR SMALL, DOMESTIC MANUFACTURERS
Estimated
testing
burden
(2022$mm)
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
A ............................................................................................................................
B ............................................................................................................................
C ............................................................................................................................
D ............................................................................................................................
E ............................................................................................................................
F ............................................................................................................................
G ............................................................................................................................
H ............................................................................................................................
I ..............................................................................................................................
J .............................................................................................................................
K ............................................................................................................................
L .............................................................................................................................
M ............................................................................................................................
N ............................................................................................................................
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Based on this analysis, DOE does not
expect the testing costs to be a
significant burden to small
manufacturers.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
Although no energy conservation
standards have been established for
portable electric spas as of the
publication of this final rule,
manufacturers of portable electric spas
would need to certify to DOE that their
products comply with any potential
future applicable energy conservation
standards. To certify compliance,
manufacturers must first obtain test data
for their products according to the DOE
test procedures, including any
amendments adopted for those test
procedures. DOE has established
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
regulations for the certification and
recordkeeping requirements for all
covered consumer products and
commercial equipment. (See generally
10 CFR part 429.) The collection-ofinformation requirement for the
certification and recordkeeping 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 35 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.
Certification data will be required for
portable electric spas once any energy
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
0.16
0.01
0.12
0.05
0.03
0.28
0.34
0.12
0.14
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.06
0.02
Annual
revenue
(2022$mm)
51.4
10.3
29.6
0.6
111
62.0
27.0
20.0
7.52
23.7
40.0
12.7
7.73
2.19
Percent of
annual
revenue
(%)
0.3
0.1
0.4
8.5
0.0
0.5
1.3
0.6
1.9
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.8
1.0
conservation standards have been
established for portable electric spas;
however, DOE is not establishing
certification or reporting requirements
for portable electric spas in this final
rule. Instead, DOE may consider
proposals to establish certification
requirements and reporting for portable
electric spas under a separate
rulemaking regarding appliance and
equipment certification. DOE will
address changes to OMB Control
Number 1910–1400 at that time, as
necessary.
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
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE establishes a
test procedure that it expects will be
used to develop and implement future
energy conservation standards for
portable electric spas. 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, DOE has determined
that adopting test procedures for
measuring energy efficiency of
consumer products and industrial
equipment is consistent with activities
identified in 10 CFR part 1021,
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6.
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. For the reasons described below,
DOE has examined this final rule and
has determined that this rule meets the
relevant standards of E.O. 13132.
E.O. 13132 includes special
requirements for preemption, including
that Federal agencies must only
construe a Federal statute to preempt
State law where the statute includes
express preemption or some other clear
evidence that Congress intended
preemption of State law, or where the
exercise of State authority conflicts with
the exercise of Federal authority under
the Federal statute. Federal energy
efficiency requirements for covered
products established under EPCA
generally supersede State laws and
regulations concerning energy
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
conservation testing, labeling, and
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297) As such, any
State regulation regarding portable
electric spa testing will be preempted on
the compliance dates listed in the DATES
section. States can petition DOE for
exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42
U.S.C. 6297)
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, this final 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
regulatory action resulting 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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
38625
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)) 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.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this final 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
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
final rule will 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
will not result in any takings that might
require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under 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
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
38626
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB
Memorandum M–19–15, Improving
Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are
available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2019/12/f70/
DOE%20Final%20Updated
%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec
%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed this
final rule under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is
consistent with applicable policies in
those guidelines.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
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
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 significant energy
action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use if the
regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and
their expected benefits on energy
supply, distribution, and use.
This final regulatory action 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.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply
with section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974, as amended
by the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C.
788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially
provides in relevant part that, where a
proposed rule authorizes or requires use
of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section
32(c) requires DOE to consult with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’)
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The test procedure for portable
electric spas adopted in this final rule
incorporates testing methods contained
in certain sections of the following
commercial standards: Pool & Hot Tub
Alliance ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019,
‘‘American National Standard for
Portable Electric Spa Energy
Efficiency,’’ and CSA C374:11 (R2021)
‘‘Energy performance of hot tubs and
spas.’’ DOE has evaluated these
standards and is unable to conclude
whether they fully comply with the
requirements of section 32(b) of the
FEAA (i.e., whether they were
developed in a manner that fully
provides for public participation,
comment, and review.) DOE has
consulted with both the Attorney
General and the Chairman of the FTC
about the impact on competition of
using the methods contained in these
standards and has received no
comments objecting to their use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of this rule before its effective date. The
report will state that it has been
determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
N. Description of Materials Incorporated
by Reference
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 and CSA
C374:11 (R2021) are industry-accepted
test standards that specify methods for
measuring the energy efficiency of
portable electric spas that differ in
certain installation requirements.
Specifically, the test procedure
codified by this final rule references
ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 for measuring
the energy efficiency of portable electric
spas. ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 is
reasonably available from PHTA
(www.phta.org).
Specifically, the test procedure
codified by this final rule references
CSA C374:11 (R2021) for specifying the
platform on which to install portable
electric spas during testing. CSA
C374:11 (R2021) is reasonably available
from the CSA Group
(www.csagroup.org).
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Small
businesses.
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on May 30, 2023, by
Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 30,
2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
430 of Chapter II of Title 10, 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; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
§ 429.11
[Amended]
2. Amend paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) by
removing the text ‘‘§§ 429.14 through
429.69’’ and adding in its place
‘‘§§ 429.14 through 429.69 and
§ 429.76’’.
■
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Portable electric spas.
(a) Determination of represented
values. Manufacturers must determine
the represented values for each basic
model of portable electric spas by
testing in conjunction with the
following provisions.
(1) For spa covers:
(i) If a basic model is distributed in
commerce with multiple covers
designated by the spa manufacturer for
use with the basic model, a
manufacturer must determine all
represented values for that basic model
based on the cover that results in the
highest standby loss, except that the
manufacturer may choose to identify
specific individual combinations of spa
and cover as additional basic models.
(ii) If a basic model is distributed in
commerce with no cover designated by
the spa manufacturer for use with the
basic model, a manufacturer must
determine all represented values for that
basic model by testing as specified in
section 3.1.5.2 of appendix GG to
subpart B of this part.
(2) The sampling requirements of
§ 429.11 are applicable to portable
electric spas; and
(3) For each basic model of portable
electric spas, a sample of sufficient size
must be randomly selected and tested to
ensure that any representation of
standby loss 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:
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
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:
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 percent one-tailed
confidence interval with n-1 degrees of
freedom (from appendix A of subpart B
of part 429).
(4) The represented value of standby
loss must be a whole number of watts.
(5) The represented value of fill
volume of a basic model must be a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
4. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
5. Amend § 430.3 by:
a. Revising paragraph (a);
b. Revising paragraph (k) introductory
text;
■ c. Adding paragraph (k)(2);
■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (w)
through (x) as paragraphs (x) through
(y); and
■ e. Adding a new paragraph (w).
The revision and additions read as
follows:
■
■
■
§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by
reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this part with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1
CFR part 51. To enforce any edition
other than that specified in this section,
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
must publish a document in the Federal
Register and the material must be
available to the public. All approved
incorporation by reference (IBR)
material is available for inspection at
DOE and at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA).
Contact DOE at: The U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, 1000
Independence Ave. SW, EE–5B,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–9127,
Buildings@ee.doe.gov, https://
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/
appliance-and-equipment-standardsprogram. For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/
cfr/ibr-locations.html or email
fr.inspection@nara.gov. The material
may be obtained from the sources in the
following paragraphs of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) CSA. CSA Group, 178 Rexdale
Blvd., Toronto, ON, Canada M9W 1R3,
1–800–463–6727 or 416–747–4044,
www.csagroup.org.
*
*
*
*
*
(2) CSA C374:11 (R2021), Energy
performance of hot tubs and spas,
published November 2011, Update No.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
1—National Standard of Canada—April
2012; IBR approved for appendix GG to
subpart B of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(w) PHTA. Pool & Hot Tub Alliance,
2111 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500,
Alexandria, VA 22314 (www.phta.org),
(703) 838–0083.
(1) ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019,
American National Standard for
Portable Electric Spa Energy Efficiency,
ANSI-approved November 19, 2019; IBR
approved for appendix GG to subpart B
of this part.
(2) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. Amend § 430.23 by adding a new
paragraph (ii) to read as follows:
§ 430.23 Test procedures for the
measurement of energy and water
consumption.
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) Portable electric spas. Measure the
standby loss in watts and the fill volume
in gallons of a portable electric spa in
accordance with appendix GG to this
subpart.
■ 6. Add appendix GG to subpart B of
part 430 to read as follows:
Appendix GG to Subpart B of Part
430—Uniform Test Method for
Measuring the Energy Consumption of
Portable Electric Spas
Note: Beginning on the compliance date of
any energy conservation standards for
portable electric spas specified in § 430.32,
all representations of fill volume, energy
efficiency, and energy use of portable electric
spas, including those made on marketing
materials and product labels, must be made
in accordance with this test procedure.
0. Incorporation by Reference
DOE incorporated by reference in § 430.3,
the entire standard for ANSI/APSP/ICC–14
2019 and CSA C374:11 (R2021). However,
only enumerated provisions of ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 and CSA C374:11 (R2021), as
listed in this section 0 are required. To the
extent there is a conflict between the terms
or provisions of a referenced industry
standard and the CFR, the CFR provisions
control. Non-enumerated provisions of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 are specifically excluded.
0.1. ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019
(a) Section 3—Definitions (excluding the
definitions for cover, specified; fill volume;
rated volume; and standby mode), as
specified in section 2.1 of this appendix;
(b) Section 5—Test Method (excluding
Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.5.2, 5.5.4, 5.5.5, and 5.7),
as specified in sections 3, 3.1.6, 3.2.2, and
3.2.3 of this appendix;
(c) Appendix A—Minimum Chamber
Requirements (excluding section titled
Chamber floor), as specified in section 3.1.1
of this appendix.
0.2. CSA C374:11 (R2021)
(a) Clause 5.1.1—Test room, as specified in
section 3.1.2 of this appendix;
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
ER13JN23.006</GPH>
§ 429.76
whole number of gallons that is within
5 gallons of the mean of the fill volumes
measured for the units in the sample
selected as described in paragraph (a)(3)
of this section.
(b) [Reserved]
ER13JN23.005</GPH>
3. Add § 429.76 to subpart B to read
as follows:
■
38627
38628
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
(b) Figure 1—Test platform, as specified in
section 3.1.2 of this appendix.
1. Scope
This appendix provides the test procedure
for measuring the standby loss in watts and
the fill volume in gallons of portable electric
spas.
2. Definitions
2.1. Section 3, Definitions, of ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019 applies to this test procedure.
In case of conflicting terms between ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 and DOE’s definitions in
this appendix or in § 430.2, DOE’s definitions
take priority.
2.2. Combination spa means a portable
electric spa with two separate and distinct
reservoirs, where—
(a) One reservoir is an exercise spa;
(b) The second reservoir is a standard spa;
and
(c) Each reservoir has an independent
water temperature setting control.
2.3. Exercise spa means a variant of a
portable electric spa in which the design and
construction includes specific features and
equipment to produce a water flow intended
to allow recreational physical activity
including, but not limited to, swimming in
place. An exercise spa is also known as a
swim spa.
2.4. Exercise spa portion means the
reservoir of a combination spa that is an
exercise spa.
2.5. Fill volume means the volume of water
held by the portable electric spa when it is
filled as specified in section 3.1.4 of this
appendix.
2.6. Inflatable spa means a portable electric
spa where the structure is collapsible and is
designed to be filled with air to form the
body of the spa.
2.7. Standard spa means a portable electric
spa that is not an inflatable spa, an exercise
spa, or the exercise spa portion of a
combination spa.
2.8. Standard spa portion means the
reservoir of a combination spa that is a
standard spa.
2.9. Standby loss means the mean
normalized power required to operate the
portable electric spa in default operation
mode with the cover on, as calculated in
section 3.3 of this appendix.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
3. Test Method
Determine the standby loss in watts and fill
volume in gallons for portable electric spas
in accordance with section 5, Test Method,
of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019, except as
follows.
3.1. Test Setup
3.1.1. Chamber
Install the portable electric spa in a
chamber satisfying the requirements
specified for Chamber internal dimensions,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
Air flow, and Chamber insulation in
appendix A, Minimum Chamber
Requirements, to ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019.
3.1.2. Chamber Floor
Install the portable electric spa on a
platform as specified in Clause 5.1.1(b) and
Figure 1 of CSA C374:11 (R2021).
3.1.3. Electrical Supply Voltage and
Amperage Configuration
3.1.3.1. General
If the portable electric spa can be installed
or configured with multiple options of
voltage, maximum amperage, or both, use the
hierarchy in section 3.1.3.2 of this appendix
to determine the configuration for testing.
3.1.3.2. Hierarchy
Use the as-shipped configuration, if such a
configuration is provided.
If no configuration is provided in the asshipped condition, use the option specified
in the manufacturer’s instructions as the
recommended configuration for normal
consumer use.
If no configuration is provided in the asshipped condition and the manufacturer’s
instructions do not provide a recommended
configuration for normal consumer use, use
the maximum voltage specified in the
manufacturer’s installation instructions and
maximum amperage that the manufacturer’s
installation instructions specify for use with
the maximum voltage.
3.1.4. Fill Volume
Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for
filling the portable electric spa with water,
connecting and/or priming the pump(s), and
starting up the spa. After verifying that the
spa is operating normally and that all water
lines are filled, power off the spa and adjust
the fill level as needed to meet the following
specifications before starting the test.
If the manufacturer’s instructions specify a
single fill level, fill to that level with a
tolerance of ±0.125 inches.
If the manufacturer’s instructions specify a
range of fill levels and not a single fill level,
fill to the middle of that range with a
tolerance of ±0.125 inches.
If the manufacturer’s instructions do not
specify a fill level or range of fill levels, fill
to the halfway point between the bottom of
the skimmer opening and the top of the
skimmer opening with a tolerance of ±0.125
inches.
If the manufacturer’s instructions do not
specify a fill level or range of fill levels, and
there is no wall skimmer, fill to 6.0 inches
±0.125 inches below the overflow level of the
spa.
Measure the volume of water added to the
spa with a water meter while filling the spa.
Measure any water removed from the spa
using a water meter, graduated container, or
scale, each with an accuracy of ±2 percent of
the quantity measured. The fill volume is the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
volume of water held by the spa when the
spa is filled as specified above.
3.1.5. Spa Cover
3.1.5.1. Cover Is Designated by the Spa
Manufacturer
Install the spa cover following the
manufacturer’s instructions.
3.1.5.2. No Cover Is Designated by the Spa
Manufacturer
If no cover is designated by the spa
manufacturer for use with the spa, cover the
portable electric spa with a single layer of 6
mil thickness (0.006 inches; 0.15 mm) plastic
film. Cut the plastic to cover the entire top
surface of the spa and extend over the edge
of the spa approximately 6 inches below the
top surface of the spa. Use fasteners or
weights to keep the plastic in place during
the test, but do not seal the edges of the
plastic to the spa (by using tape, for
example).
3.1.6. Ambient Temperature Measurement
Location
The ambient air temperature measurement
point specified in section 5.6.3 of ANSI/
APSP/ICC–14 2019 must be located above the
center of the spa.
3.2. Test Conditions and Conduct
3.2.1. Ambient Air Temperature
Maintain the ambient air temperature at a
maximum of 63.0 °F for the duration of the
test. This requirement applies to each
individual ambient air temperature
measurement taken for the duration of the
stabilization period and test period.
3.2.2. Water Temperature Settings
Adjust the spa water temperature settings
to meet the applicable temperature
requirements in section 5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/
ICC–14 2019. The spa water temperature
settings must not be adjusted between the
start of the stabilizing period specified in
section 5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019 and
the end of the test period specified in section
5.6.4.7 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–14 2019.
3.2.3. Water Temperature Requirements
Each individual water temperature
measurement taken during the stabilization
period and test period must meet the
applicable water temperature requirements
specified in section 5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC–
14 2019.
3.3. Standby Loss Calculation
Calculate standby loss in watts by
calculating the measured standby loss using
Equation 1 of this appendix, calculating the
measured temperature difference using
Equation 2 of this appendix, and normalizing
the standby loss using Equation 3 of this
appendix. Use the standby loss calculated in
Equation 3 as the standby loss value for the
test.
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:24 Jun 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
Tair avg = Average air temperature during test
(°F)
SL = Standby loss (W)
DTstd = Normalized temperature difference
(°F), as follows:
46.0 °F for all inflatable spas, standard
spas, standard spa portions of a combination
spa, exercise spas, and exercise spa portions
of a combination spa tested to a minimum
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
water temperature of 100 °F; or 31.0 °F for all
exercise spas or exercise spa portions of a
combination spa tested to a minimum water
temperature of 85 °F.
[FR Doc. 2023–11782 Filed 6–12–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
E:\FR\FM\13JNR2.SGM
13JNR2
ER13JN23.007</GPH>
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Where:
SLmeas = Measured standby loss (watts)
E = Total energy use during the test (watthours)
t = Length of test (hours)
DTmeas = Measured temperature difference
(°F)
Twater avg = Average water temperature during
test (°F)
38629
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38600-38629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11782]
[[Page 38599]]
Vol. 88
Tuesday,
No. 113
June 13, 2023
Part II
Department of Energy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Portable Electric Spas;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 113 / Tuesday, June 13, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 38600]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[EERE-2022-BT-TP-0024]
RIN 1904-AF35
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Portable Electric
Spas
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is establishing
definitions, a test procedure, and representation provisions for
portable electric spas. Currently, portable electric spas are not
subject to DOE test procedures or energy conservation standards. DOE is
adopting a test procedure for measuring the standby loss for portable
electric spas. The test method references the relevant industry test
standard with certain additions and modifications.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is July 13, 2023. Compliance
with the final rule will be mandatory for representations of fill
volume and standby loss made on or after the compliance date of any
energy conservation standards for portable electric spas. The
incorporation by reference of certain materials listed in this rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July 13, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly
available, such as those containing information that is exempt from
public disclosure.
A link to the docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-TP-0024. The docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the
docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-9870. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-3593. Email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE incorporates by reference the following
industry standards into 10 CFR part 430:
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 American National Standard for Portable
Electric Spa Energy Efficiency; ANSI-approved November 19, 2019.
Copies of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 can be obtained from the Pool & Hot
Tub Alliance (``PHTA''), 2111 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500, Alexandria,
VA 22314, or by going to www.phta.org.
CSA C374:11 (R2021) Energy performance of hot tubs and spas;
published November 2011, Update No. 1--National Standard of Canada--
April 2012.
Copies of CSA C374:11 (R2021) can be obtained from CSA Group, 178
Rexdale Blvd., Toronto, ON, Canada M9W 1R3, or by going to
www.csagroup.org.
See section IV.N of this document for a further discussion of these
standards.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. General Comments
B. Scope and Definitions
1. Scope of DOE Test Procedure
2. Definitions of Categories of Portable Electric Spas
3. Therapeutic Spas
4. Portable Electric Spa Size
C. Energy Consumption Metric
1. Background
2. Modes of Use
3. Metric for Active Mode Energy Consumption
D. Test Method
1. Referenced Industry Test Method
2. Excluded Sections of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019
3. Ambient Air Temperature
4. Chamber
a. Requirements in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019
b. Chamber Floor Requirements
5. Electrical Supply Voltage and Amperage Configuration
6. Fill Volume
7. Spa Cover
8. Air Temperature Measurement Location
9. Water Temperature Settings
10. Water Temperature Requirements
11. Standby Loss Calculation
E. Represented Values Provisions
1. Basic Model
2. Represented Values
F. Test Procedure Costs
G. Effective and Compliance Dates
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14904
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
DOE defines ``portable electric spa'' as a factory-built electric
spa or hot tub, supplied with equipment for heating and circulating
water at the time of sale or sold separately for subsequent attachment.
See 10 CFR 430.2. Currently, portable electric spas are not subject to
DOE test procedures or energy conservation standards.
On September 2, 2022, DOE published a final determination in the
Federal Register (``September 2022 Final Determination'') in which it
determined that portable electric spas qualify as a ``covered product''
under Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,
Public Law 94-163, as amended (``EPCA'').\1\ 87 FR 54123. In the
September 2022 Final Determination, DOE determined that coverage of
portable electric spas is necessary or appropriate to carry out the
purposes of EPCA, and that the average U.S. household energy use for
portable electric spas is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours (``kWh'')
per year. Id. at 87 FR 54127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, portable electric spas are now included in the list of
``covered products'' for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend
energy
[[Page 38601]]
conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20))
The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish a test
procedure for portable electric spas and relevant background
information regarding DOE's consideration of a test procedure for this
product.
A. Authority
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency for
certain products, referred to as ``covered products.'' \3\ In addition
to specifying a list of consumer products that are covered products,
EPCA contains provisions that enable the Secretary of Energy to
classify additional types of consumer products as covered products. To
classify a consumer product as a covered product, the Secretary must
determine that classifying the consumer product as a covered product is
necessary or appropriate to carry out the purpose of EPCA and the
average annual per household \4\ use by such a product is likely to
exceed 100 kWh per year. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\3\ The enumerated list of covered products is at 42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(1)-(19).
\4\ The definition for ``household'' is found at 10 CFR 430.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1)
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2)
making other representations about the efficiency of those products (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to
determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards
promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures
and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative
average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary) or period of use and
shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a
petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be
prescribed, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal
Register proposed test procedures and afford interested persons an
opportunity to present oral and written data, views, and arguments with
respect to such procedure. The comment period on a proposed rule to
prescribe a test procedure shall be at least 60 days and may not exceed
270 days. In prescribing a test procedure, the Secretary shall take
into account such information as the Secretary determines relevant to
such procedure, including technological developments relating to energy
use or energy efficiency of the type (or class) of covered products
involved. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy
consumption, or other energy descriptor, unless the current test
procedure already incorporates the standby mode and off mode energy
consumption, or if such integration is technically infeasible. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(i)-(ii)) If an integrated test procedure is
technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe separate standby mode and
off mode energy use test procedures for the covered product, if a
separate test is technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(i))
Any such amendment must consider the most current versions of the
International Electrotechnical Commission (``IEC'') Standard 62301 \5\
and IEC Standard 62087 \6\ as applicable. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ IEC 62301, Household electrical appliances--Measurement of
standby power (Edition 2.0, 2011-01).
\6\ IEC 62087, Audio, video and related equipment--Methods of
measurement for power consumption (Edition 1.0, Parts 1-6: 2015,
Part 7: 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is publishing this final rule in accordance with the statutory
authority in EPCA.
B. Background
DOE has not previously conducted a test procedure rulemaking for
portable electric spas. DOE published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') on October 18, 2022 (``October 2022
NOPR''). 87 FR 63356. DOE held a public meeting related to this NOPR on
November 17, 2022 (hereafter, the ``NOPR public meeting'').
DOE received comments in response to the October 2022 NOPR from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.
Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the October 2022 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in this final Comment No. in
Commenter(s) rule the docket Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Association for Laboratory A2LA...................... 6 Accreditation Body.
Accreditation.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Advocates........... 12 Advocacy Organizations.
American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, Natural Resources
Defense Council, New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority, and
the Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance.
Bullfrog International.................. Bullfrog.................. 11 Manufacturer.
[[Page 38602]]
California Energy Commission............ CEC....................... 13 State Government Agency.
Jacuzzi Group (Sundance Spas, Jacuzzi Jacuzzi Group............. 9 Manufacturer.
Hot Tubs, Dimension One Spas,
ThermoSpas).
Master Spas............................. Master Spas............... 7 Manufacturer.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San CA IOUs................... 8 Utilities.
Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern
California Edison; collectively, the
California Investor-Owned Utilities.
Pool & Hot Tub Alliance, International PHTA/IHTA................. 10 Trade Associations.
Hot Tub Association.
Texas A&M Master of Public Service & Texas A&M Students........ 4 Individuals.
Administration students: Rachel
Trusler, Madeline Luster, and Taylor
Rapp.
Watkins Wellness........................ Watkins................... 14 Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\7\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the NOPR public meeting, DOE cites the written comments
throughout this final rule. DOE did not identify any oral comments
provided during the NOPR public meeting that are not substantively
addressed by written comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for portable electric spas (Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-
TP-0024, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE is establishing a test procedure for
measuring the energy use of portable electric spas in a new appendix GG
to subpart B of part 430 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR'') (``appendix GG''). DOE is incorporating the applicable
industry test method published by the Pool & Hot Tub Alliance
(``PHTA'') \8\ in partnership with the International Code Council
(``ICC'') and approved by the American National Standards Institute
(``ANSI'') in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019, ``American National Standard for
Portable Electric Spa Energy Efficiency'' (``ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019''),
with certain exceptions and additions. The test method produces a
measure of the energy consumption of portable electric spas that
represents the average power consumed by the spa, normalized to a
standard temperature difference between the ambient air and the water
in the spa, while the cover is on and the product is operating in its
default operation mode. As discussed further in section III.C.3 of this
final rule, DOE is referring to this power use metric as ``standby
loss.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The PHTA is the result of a 2019 merger between the
Association of Pool and Spa Professionals (``APSP'') and the
National Swimming Pool Foundation (``NSPF''). The reference to APSP
has been retained in the ANSI designation of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE reviewed the relevant sections of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 and has
determined that ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019, in conjunction with the
additional test methods and calculations adopted in appendix GG,
produces test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use,
or estimated operating costs of a portable electric spa during a
representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
DOE also reviewed the burdens associated with conducting the
portable electric spa test procedure adopted in this final rule and
based on the results of such analysis, has determined that the test
procedure would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3)) DOE's analysis of the burdens associated with the test
procedure is presented in section III.F of this document.
This final rule also adopts definitions for certain categories of
portable electric spas in appendix GG and establishes requirements
regarding the sampling plan and representations for portable electric
spas in 10 CFR part 429.
The effective date for the test procedure adopted in this final
rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register. Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be
based on testing in accordance with the test procedure beginning on the
compliance date of any energy conservation standards for portable
electric spas.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE discusses each topic considered
regarding the portable electric spa test procedure. For each discussion
topic, DOE provides relevant background information, summarizes the
proposal from the October 2022 NOPR, summarizes stakeholder comments
received, responds to those comments, and provides justification for
the finalized test provisions adopted by this final rule.
A. General Comments
DOE received general comments in response to the October 2022 NOPR
that are relevant to establishing a test procedure for portable
electric spas.
PHTA/IHTA, the Jacuzzi Group, and Bullfrog encouraged DOE to move
forward with both a test procedure and an energy conservation standard
rule based on ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 2;
Jacuzzi Group, No. 9; Bullfrog, No. 11 at p. 1) A2LA, the CA IOUs, and
the CEC generally supported the inclusion of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 in
the proposed test procedure. (A2LA, No. 6 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p.
1; CEC, No. 13 at p. 2) The Texas A&M Students and the Joint Advocates
expressed support for DOE advancing the rulemaking for portable
electric spas. (Texas A&M Students, No. 4 at p. 2; Joint Advocates, No.
12 at p. 1) And Master Spas, Jacuzzi Group, and Bullfrog all supported
the written responses from PHTA/IHTA. (Master Spas, No. 7 at p. 1.;
Jacuzzi Group, No. 9; Bullfrog, No. 11 at p. 1)
As discussed in the following sections, DOE is adopting a test
procedure that is based on ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 with certain additions
and modifications.
Additionally, PHTA/IHTA commented that DOE may want to consider
whether anything in the proposed DOE test procedure or future energy
conservation standards could force manufacturers to insulate portable
electric spas to such an extreme that portable electric spas overheat
during hot weather. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 19) PHTA/IHTA explained
that
[[Page 38603]]
customer service departments receive calls from owners wanting to know
how to cool off their portable electric spa, saying it is overheating
from excess heat retention in warm climates. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA indicated
that this can be a safety concern, and that it could happen more
frequently with global warming and increasingly higher temperatures.
(Id.) PHTA/IHTA questioned whether there is a tipping point between hot
ambient temperatures versus energy savings on heat in cold climates in
colder months that should be considered both in the proposed test
procedure as well as a future energy conservation standard. (Id.) PHTA/
IHTA stated that they looked forward to providing any needed data,
testing, or analysis to DOE. (Id.)
In response, DOE notes that there is nothing in this test procedure
final rule that will force manufacturers to change the amount that they
insulate portable electric spas because the test procedure specifies
only the method to measure energy performance and does not specify any
required levels of energy performance. Required levels of energy
performance would be considered in a separate energy conservation
standard rulemaking, and DOE encourages PHTA/IHTA to provide comments
on the topic of overheating to that rulemaking if PHTA/IHTA is
concerned about portable electric spa overheating at that time.
B. Scope and Definitions
1. Scope of DOE Test Procedure
As part of the October 2022 NOPR, DOE reviewed the applicable
industry test procedure ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019,\9\ which provides
recommended minimum guidelines for testing the energy efficiency of
factory-built residential portable electric spas. The standard methods
included in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 provide a means to compare and
evaluate the energy efficiency of different types of portable electric
spas in conditions relevant to product use. Section 3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-
14 2019 defines ``portable electric spa'' as ``a factory-built electric
spa or hot tub, supplied with equipment for heating and circulating
water at the time of sale or sold separately for subsequent
attachment.'' This ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 definition is identical to the
definition used by the CEC and adopted by DOE in the September 2022
Final Determination. 87 FR 54123, 54125. Section 3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14
2019 also defines certain categories of portable electric spas, as
discussed in section III.B.2 of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 is available at webstore.ansi.org/standards/apsp/ansiapspicc142019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that all
products on the market can be tested using methods consistent with or
similar to those in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. 87 FR 63356, 63359. DOE
proposed that the scope of the test procedure include all products
meeting the definition of ``portable electric spa'' in 10 CFR 430.2.
Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal for the scope of the test
procedure to include all products that meet the definition of
``portable electric spa.'' Id. Additionally, DOE requested comment on
whether any additional products should be included within the scope of
the DOE test procedure and whether any products that meet the
definition of ``portable electric spa'' should be excluded from the
scope of the DOE test procedure, and if so, on what basis. Id.
The CEC commented in support of the scope and definitions proposed
by DOE in the October 2022 NOPR. (CEC, No. 13 at p. 2)
PHTA/IHTA supported the inclusion of all products meeting the
definition of portable electric spa within the scope of the test
procedure. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 9) PHTA/IHTA also commented that
sensory deprivation and cold/ice bath products could unintentionally
fall under the proposed scope and that DOE could consider clarifying
that these products are excluded from the scope. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA stated
that although sensory deprivation and cold/ice bath products are
similar to portable electric spas in some ways, they are very different
in other ways and are not compatible with the current or proposed
portable electric spa test procedures. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA noted that cold/
ice bath products are not always supplied with heating functions.
(PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 10)
In response to PHTA/IHTA's recommendation to clarify the exclusion
of sensory deprivation and cold/ice bath products from the scope of the
test procedure, DOE has reviewed products on the market that appear to
fit the description of these categories. Many of the models that DOE
reviewed heat and circulate water. To the extent that such a product is
supplied with equipment for heating and circulating water at the time
of sale or sold separately for subsequent attachment, such a product
would meet the definition of a portable electric spa. PHTA/IHTA also
did not specify what product characteristics would differentiate
sensory deprivation and cold/ice bath products that meet the portable
electric spa definition from other types of portable electric spas. As
a result, in this final rule, DOE is not categorically excluding these
products from the scope of the portable electric spa test procedure.
However, DOE notes that it may consider sensory deprivation and
cold/ice bath products when evaluating potential energy conservation
standards. To the extent that these products have significantly
different design, operation, and efficiency characteristics as compared
to other portable electric spas, DOE may consider whether separate
treatment is appropriate. Any consideration of potential energy
conservation standards for separate categories of portable electric
spas would be addressed in a separate rulemaking. Further, as discussed
in section III.F of this document, manufacturers are not required to
test the subject portable electric spas in accordance with this test
method until such time as compliance is required with any future
applicable energy conservation standards.
For the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is finalizing the scope
of coverage to include all products that meet the definition of
``portable electric spa.''
2. Definitions of Categories of Portable Electric Spas
Section 3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 defines the following categories
of portable electric spas:
(1) Standard Spa: A portable electric spa that is not an inflatable
spa, an exercise spa, or the exercise spa portion of a combination spa.
(2) Exercise Spa (also known as a swim spa): A variant of a
portable electric spa in which the design and construction includes
specific features and equipment to produce a water flow intended to
allow recreational physical activity including, but not limited to,
swimming in place.
(3) Combination Spa: A portable electric spa with two separate and
distinct reservoirs, where (a) one reservoir is an exercise spa; (b)
the second reservoir is a standard spa; and (c) each reservoir has an
independent water temperature setting control.
(4) Inflatable Spa: A portable electric spa where the structure is
collapsible and designed to be filled with air to form the body of the
spa.
These categories of portable electric spas defined in ANSI/APSP/
ICC-14 2019 differ in the way they are tested and in the allowed energy
consumption specified in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. Based on DOE's review
of the portable electric spa market, DOE tentatively
[[Page 38604]]
determined in the October 2022 NOPR that the category definitions
defined in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 accurately categorize the products
available on the market. 87 FR 63356, 63360. DOE proposed to include
definitions for ``standard spa,'' ``exercise spa,'' ``combination
spa,'' and ``inflatable spa'' in section 2 of appendix GG that are
generally consistent with those category definitions in ANSI/APSP/ICC-
14 2019.\10\ Id. For all definitions other than ``exercise spa,'' DOE
proposed a definition identical to the wording in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14
2019. Id. For ``exercise spa,'' DOE proposed to include only the first
paragraph of the definition from ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 because the
second paragraph \11\ of the definition is informative, describing
examples of products that may be included within the definition. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Section numbers in appendix GG as proposed in the October
2022 NOPR were one whole number lower than the corresponding section
numbers in appendix GG as finalized in this final rule. This final
rule uses the section numbering as finalized in this final rule in
all discussion of appendix GG to avoid potential confusion.
\11\ The second paragraph of the definition of ``exercise spa''
in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 states the following: Exercise spas may
include peripheral jetted seats intended for water therapy, heater,
circulation and filtration system, or may be a separate distinct
portion of a combination spa and may have separate controls. These
aquatic vessels are of a design and size such that it has an
unobstructed volume of water large enough to allow the 99th
Percentile Man as specified in ANSI/APSP/ICC-16 to swim or exercise
in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requested comment on whether the definitions for the categories
of portable spas proposed in section 2 of appendix GG (i.e., ``standard
spa,'' ``exercise spa,'' ``combination spa,'' and ``inflatable spa'')
adequately delineate the categories of portable electric spas and
whether any additional or different categories are warranted. Id.
In response to the October 2022 NOPR, the CA IOUs commented that,
based on their market research, the current proposed definitions cover
all products labeled as portable electric spas. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p.
2) The CA IOUs stated that the current categories adequately delineate
the portable electric spa market and that the terms are well understood
by advocates, industry, and regulators. (Id.)
The CEC commented in support of the proposed definitions for
standard spa, exercise spa, combination spa, and inflatable spa. (CEC,
No. 13 at p. 2) The CEC noted that the proposed scope and definitions
would align with ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 and with California's Code of
Regulations and would maintain consistency with several States that
have adopted ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 or that reference California's
regulations. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA commented that, while they support DOE's proposed
definitions of ``standard spa,'' ``combination spa,'' and ``inflatable
spa,'' they recommend also adopting the second paragraph of the
definition of ``exercise spa'' in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. (PHTA/IHTA,
No. 10 at p. 10) PHTA/IHTA explained that, although the second
paragraph is descriptive, it actually defines the product because the
first sentence separates an exercise spa from a standard spa, while the
second sentence separates an exercise spa from a pool. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA
stated that this additional description under the definition of
``exercise spa'' was created in response to multiple incidents of
misclassification in order to prevent future misclassifications. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA expressed concern that eliminating the second paragraph from
the definition in the DOE test procedure could imply that this
classification is no longer accurate, thereby causing
misclassifications and misapplications of DOE's regulations. (Id.)
In response to PHTA/IHTA's comment regarding the definition of
``exercise spa,'' DOE notes that the second paragraph of the definition
as written in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 does not actually distinguish
exercise spas from either standard spas or pools. The first sentence of
the second paragraph lists potential features of exercise spas,
including peripheral jetted seats, a heater, and a filtration and
circulation system, all of which are also characteristic of standard
spas. As a result, this sentence does not actually separate exercise
spas from standard spas, as stated in PHTA/IHTA's comment. The first
sentence also says that an exercise spa ``may be a separate distinct
portion of a combination spa and may have separate controls,'' but this
phrase does not add descriptive detail beyond what is included in DOE's
proposed definition for ``combination spa.'' The second sentence states
that an exercise spa holds an unobstructed volume of water sufficiently
large for a 99th percentile man to swim in place. PTHA/IHTA's comment
states that this sentence distinguishes exercise spas from pools.
However, as a lower bound on volume, the requirement to fit a 99th
percentile man does not actually distinguish exercise spas from larger
pools. Finally, DOE notes that the CEC regulations use a definition for
``exercise spa'' that is similar to DOE's proposed definition and does
not include the second paragraph of the definition as stated in ANSI/
APSP/ICC-14 2019.\12\ Because a similar definition is used already as
the basis of State coverage for portable electric spas, DOE concludes
its own proposed single paragraph definition would not cause confusion
among manufacturers or test labs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The CEC defines exercise spas as follows: ``Exercise spa'
(also known as a `swim spa') means a portable electric spa that
includes specific features and equipment to produce water flow for
water physical therapy or physical fitness activity, including, but
not limited to, swimming in place.'' See section 1602(g)(2) of
Article 4 of Division 2 of Title 20 of the California Code of
Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is establishing
definitions for categories of portable electric spas that are identical
to those in the proposed appendix GG.
3. Therapeutic Spas
Section 1.3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 states that spas operated for
medical treatment or physical therapy, among other types,\13\ are not
included within the scope of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. However, DOE noted
in the October 2022 NOPR that the definition of ``exercise spa'' in
section 3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 indicates that exercise spas may
include peripheral jetted seats intended for water therapy. 87 FR
63324, 63360. DOE discussed in the October 2022 NOPR that it had
reviewed the market and found that ``therapeutic,'' ``water therapy,''
or ``hydrotherapy'' applications are frequently advertised in marketing
materials for many portable electric spas, including many models that
do not appear to have features that are different than those found on
models that do not mention therapeutic applications in their marketing
materials. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Section 1.3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 states the following:
These requirements do not apply to public spas (ANSI/APSP-2),
permanently installed or inground spas (ANSI/APSP/ICC-3), or other
spas, such as those operated for medical treatment, physical
therapy, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE stated its presumption that the types
of spas operated for medical treatment or physical therapy intended to
be referenced by section 1.3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 would not be
portable and, therefore, would not be considered a portable electric
spa (emphasis added). Id. DOE noted in the October 2022 NOPR that, to
the extent that any of the categories of spas referenced by section 1.3
of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 do not meet the definition of a portable
electric spa, such products would not be within the scope of the test
procedure. Id.
[[Page 38605]]
DOE requested comment on whether there are portable electric spas
used for special purposes, such as those operated for medical treatment
or physical therapy, that should be excluded from the scope of the
proposed test procedure or tested in a different manner. Id. If so, DOE
requested comment on the method to determine the spas to exclude or
test differently. Id.
In response to the October 2022 NOPR, PHTA/IHTA stated that both
portable electric spas and in-ground spas can be used for medical
treatment or physical therapy, however in-ground spas are outside of
the scope of this rulemaking. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 10) PHTA/IHTA
noted they are not aware of any method to exclude or test differently
portable electric spas that are used for medical treatment, physical
therapy, or other special purposes. (Id.)
The CEC commented that spas intended for medical treatment or
physical therapy would not be portable and, therefore, would not be
considered portable electric spas. (CEC, No. 13 at p. 2) The CEC also
indicated that it has not received inquiries regarding spas intended
for medical treatment or physical therapy that would pose an issue in
defining the scope. (Id.)
The Texas A&M Students commented that medical spas should still be
subject to the same testing requirements as all other portable electric
spas, because there is little distinction between what is and is not a
medical spa and most medical spas are from the same manufacturers as
recreational ones are but are simply sold and marketed on medical
websites. (Texas A&M Students, No. 4 at p. 1)
Based on the comments received and DOE's review of the portable
electric spa market, DOE has determined that there is no need to
explicitly exclude any products used for special purposes--such as
those for therapeutic purposes--that meet the definition of portable
electric spa from the scope of the Federal test procedure.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and
in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is finalizing the scope as proposed in
the October 2022 NOPR and not adopting any specific exclusion for
products that meet the definition of portable electric spa and are
intended for special purposes, such as those for therapeutic purposes,
in this final rule.
4. Portable Electric Spa Size
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 does not specify any minimum or maximum size
of portable electric spas to limit the scope of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019.
Based on DOE's tentative conclusion that all portable electric spas
on the market can be tested using methods consistent with or similar to
those in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019, DOE tentatively concluded in the
October 2022 NOPR that there is no need to limit the scope of the DOE
test procedure based on the size of the portable electric spa. 87 FR
63356, 63360. Therefore, DOE did not propose to specify any minimum or
maximum size to limit the scope of the proposed test procedure. Id.
DOE requested comment on its tentative determination not to propose
a minimum or maximum size to limit the scope of the proposed test
procedure. Id.
In response to the October 2022 NOPR, the CEC and PHTA/IHTA
supported DOE's tentative determination not to propose a minimum or
maximum size for portable electric spas in the scope of the test
procedure. (CEC, No. 13 at p. 2; PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 10)
For the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE is not specifying any minimum or maximum size
to limit the scope of the portable electric spa test procedure in this
final rule.
C. Energy Consumption Metric
1. Background
As discussed previously in this document, EPCA requires that any
test procedures prescribed or amended must be reasonably designed to
produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a given type of covered product
during a representative average use cycle, and that test procedures not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
In addition, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedures for
all covered products to integrate measures of standby mode and off mode
energy consumption into the overall energy efficiency, energy
consumption, or other energy descriptor, taking into consideration the
most current versions of IEC Standards 62301 and 62087, unless the
current test procedure already fully accounts for and incorporates the
standby mode and off mode energy consumption. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)) If an integrated test procedure is technically
infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode and off mode
energy use test procedure for the covered product, if technically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(ii))
EPCA defines three different modes of operation in 42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(A). ``Active mode'' means the condition in which an energy-
using product is connected to a main power source, has been activated,
and provides one or more main functions. ``Standby mode'' means the
condition in which an energy-using product is connected to a main power
source and offers one or more of the following user-oriented or
protective functions: (a) to facilitate the activation or deactivation
of other functions (including active mode) by remote switch (including
remote control), internal sensor, or timer; or (b) continuous
functions, including information or status displays (including clocks)
or sensor-based functions. ``Off mode'' means the condition in which an
energy-using product is connected to a main power source and is not
providing any standby or active mode function. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(1)(A)(i)-(iii))
2. Modes of Use
Based on market research performed by DOE and analysis from the
CEC,\14\ portable electric spas are typically connected to a main power
source and activated, and provide one or more main functions 24 hours a
day, 365 days per year. Although a portable electric spa is typically
used for a small number of hours throughout the year, heating the water
from ambient temperature to the use temperature takes a long time, and
the water must be filtered regularly to keep it fresh. Therefore, most
users maintain the spa at their preferred use temperature at all times
with periodic or continuous water filtration, even when not in use.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ California Energy Commission Final Staff Report--Analysis
of Efficiency Standards and Marking for Spas, 2018 Appliance
Efficiency Rulemaking for Spas (Docket No. 18-AAER-02, TN No.
222413). Available at efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=222413&DocumentContentId=31256.
\15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that all
operational modes for portable electric spas would be considered
``active modes'' as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(i). 87 FR
63356, 63361. As such, portable electric spas would be considered to
operate in active mode at all times, and standby mode and off mode, as
defined by EPCA, would not be applicable to portable electric spas. Id.
Therefore, DOE tentatively concluded that there is no standby mode or
off mode energy consumption that can be accounted for or incorporated
into the proposed DOE test procedure. Id.
DOE requested comment on whether it is necessary to measure standby
or off
[[Page 38606]]
mode energy consumption in the test procedure. Id.
PHTA/IHTA supported DOE's tentative determination that portable
electric spas are in active mode at all times. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p.
10) Additionally, PHTA/IHTA stated they would have no objection to
replacing the industry term ``standby mode'' in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019
with the EPCA-defined term ``active mode.'' (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p.
11)
For the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE concludes that standby mode and off mode, as
defined by EPCA, are not applicable to portable electric spas and that
there is no standby mode or off mode energy consumption that can be
accounted for or incorporated into the proposed DOE test procedure.
Accordingly, this final rule does not include provisions for measuring
standby mode or off mode.
3. Metric for Active Mode Energy Consumption
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 includes a method for measuring the energy
consumption of portable electric spas while the cover is on and the spa
is operating in its default operation mode. The metric used by ANSI/
APSP/ICC-14 2019 is normalized standby power, which is the average
power consumed by the portable electric spa while the cover is on and
the spa is operating in its default operation mode, normalized to a
standard temperature difference between the ambient air and the water
in the spa.\16\ Normalized standby power is the metric used by the CEC
and other States that use ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 as the basis for their
efficiency programs. It is also the metric used by CSA test method CSA
C374:11 (R2021),\17\ ``Energy performance of hot tubs and spas'' (``CSA
C374:11 (R2021)''), which is a method used for testing portable
electric spas in Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Section 5.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 specifies that the
purpose of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 is to measure the energy
consumption in ``standby mode.'' This use of ``standby mode'' is not
consistent with the term as defined by EPCA but rather refers to a
type of active mode as defined by EPCA, as explained in section
III.C.2 of this final rule.
\17\ CSA 374:11 (R2021) is available at www.csagroup.org/store/product/2703317/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to analyses from the CEC,\18\ the mode of operation
measured in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 represents approximately 75 percent
of the energy consumed by a portable electric spa. DOE estimates that
this percentage may be approximately 95 percent in some cases, based on
investigative testing that DOE performed and data on typical spa usage
from PKData.\19\ Taken together, the two estimates indicate the mode of
operation measured in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 represents the largest
portion of active mode energy consumption by far. Based on these data
sources, DOE tentatively determined in the October 2022 NOPR that the
most representative average use cycle or period of use of a portable
electric spa is with the spa cover on (i.e., with no consumers in the
spa), and with the spa continually or periodically filtering and
heating the water in the spa, such that the spa is always ready for
use. 87 FR 63356, 63361. DOE indicated in the October 2022 NOPR that it
was not aware of any existing test methods that measure the energy
consumption in any other parts of active mode described in section
III.C.2 of the October 2022 NOPR. Id. DOE also indicated that it has
been unable to determine any representative durations for these
portions of active mode use. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ California Energy Commission Final Staff Report--Analysis
of Efficiency Standards and Marking for Spas, 2018 Appliance
Efficiency Rulemaking for Spas (Docket No. 18-AAER-02, TN No.
222413). Available at efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=222413&DocumentContentId=31256.
\19\ P.K. Data Inc. 2022 Hot Tub Market Data: Custom Compilation
for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (through 2021). 2022.
Alpharetta, GA. Available at www.pkdata.com/reports-store.html (Last
accessed April 24, 202312, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these considerations, DOE proposed to use normalized
standby power from ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 as the performance-based
metric for representing the energy use of portable electric spas. Id.
DOE further proposed to refer to this metric as ``standby loss,''
rather than ``normalized standby power,'' to avoid misinterpretation
with the statutory definition of ``standby mode'' as defined in 42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii). Id.\20\ DOE also proposed to define the
term ``standby loss'' in section 2.9 of appendix GG as ``the mean
normalized power required to operate the portable electric spa in
default operation mode with the cover on, as calculated in section 3.3
of this appendix.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ DOE noted in the October 2022 NOPR that the term ``standby
loss'' has been used previously to describe the energy use of a
water heater associated with maintaining water temperature (See
sections 1.13 and 6.3.3 of appendix E to subpart B of 10 CFR part
430). A portable electric spa is similar to a water heater in that
regard, because both products consume energy to maintain their
contents at a specified temperature over a long period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requested comment on its proposal to use standby loss,
equivalent to the normalized standby power as defined by ANSI/APSP/ICC-
14 2019, as the performance-based metric for representing the energy
use of portable electric spas, and on its proposed definition for
``standby loss'' in section 2.9 of appendix GG. Id. DOE also requested
comment on data regarding the representative operation of spas when in
use with the cover removed, including typical frequency and duration of
use, operation of jets or other features, and number of users, and on
how usage varies across spa types. Id. Lastly, DOE requested comment on
any test methods that measure the operation of spas when in use with
the cover removed. Id.
PHTA/IHTA commented in support of DOE's proposal to use normalized
standby power from ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 as the performance-based
metric for representing the energy use of portable electric spas.
(PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 11) PHTA/IHTA also supported referring to this
metric as ``standby loss'' instead of ``normalized standby power'' due
to concerns of misinterpretation with other statutory definitions.
(Id.) PHTA/IHTA noted that they were not aware of data analysis
existing on typical portable electric spa usage, but rather only
anecdotal accounts that suggest a wide range of usage. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA
also stated that they were not aware of test methods measuring the
operation of spas when being used with the cover removed. (Id.)
For the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is adopting the
definition of ``standby loss'' in section 2.9 of appendix GG as ``the
mean normalized power required to operate the portable electric spa in
default operation mode with the cover on, as calculated in section 3.3
of this appendix'' and establishing ``standby loss'' as the
performance-based metric for representing energy usage of portable
electric spas.
D. Test Method
1. Referenced Industry Test Method
As discussed previously in this document, ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019
contains a test method for measuring the standby loss \21\ of portable
electric spas. ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 measures standby loss as the
average power required to maintain the spa's water at a ready-to-use
temperature over a period of at least 72 hours, while the spa
[[Page 38607]]
remains covered in a controlled-temperature environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ As discussed in section III.C.3 of this document, ANSI/
APSP/ICC-14 2019 uses the term ``normalized standby power'' to refer
to the metric that DOE is referring to as ``standby loss.'' To avoid
confusion about multiple terms, the term ``standby loss'' is used
throughout section III.D of this final rule to refer to ``normalized
standby power'' in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE discussed that it had reviewed ANSI/
APSP/ICC-14 2019 and tentatively concluded that it is reasonably
designed to produce test results to determine the energy use of
portable electric spas during a representative average use cycle or
period of use. 87 FR 63356, 63362.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt specific sections
of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 in its test procedure for portable electric
spas, along with modifications and additions that DOE determined would
improve repeatability and representativeness of test results. Id. DOE
requested comment on its proposal. Id.
PHTA/IHTA, the CEC, and the CA IOUs commented in support of DOE
adopting specific sections of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10
at p. 11; CEC, No. 13 at p. 3; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 1)
For the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is adopting specific
sections of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 in its test procedure for portable
electric spas. Specific modifications, additions, and exceptions are
discussed in sections III.D.2 through III.D.11 of this final rule.
2. Excluded Sections of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to exclude the following
sections, subsections, and appendices of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 from
DOE's test procedure:
Sections 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 in their entirety;
Section 3 definitions for ``cover, specified,'' ``fill
volume,'' ``rated volume,'' and ``standby mode'';
Subsections 5.1, 5.2, 5.5.2, 5.5.4, 5.5.5, and 5.7;
Appendix A subsection ``Chamber floor''; and
Appendices B, C, and D.
87 FR 63356, 63362-63363.
DOE explained the rationale for each proposed exclusion in the
October 2022 NOPR and requested comment on whether any of the sections
of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 that DOE proposed to exclude should be
included in the DOE test procedure. Id.
The CEC commented in support of excluding sections 1 and 2 of ANSI/
APSP/ICC-14 2019 from the test procedure. (CEC, No. 13 at pp. 2-3)
PHTA/IHTA supported DOE's proposed exclusion of some sections of
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 that are not appropriate for the Federal test
procedure, but they expressed concern with excluding or changing the
ambient temperature, normalization formula, and chamber floor
requirements of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 12) DOE
addresses these specific areas of concern identified by PHTA/IHTA in
sections III.D.3 and III.D.4.b of this final rule.
Watkins commented generally in support of the PHTA/IHTA comments.
(Watkins, No. 14 at p. 1) Watkins also commented specifically that the
proposed changes that deviate from ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 would induce
significant financial burden to manufacturers, create supply chain
disruptions, and create a shortage of certified third-party
laboratories. Watkins encouraged DOE to align as closely as possible
with ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. (Id. at p. 2)
A2LA commented that sections 4.1 and 4.2 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019
should be included,\22\ as accreditation of testing laboratories allows
DOE to trust the validity of test results and ensures technical
competency across testing laboratories and certification bodies. (A2LA,
No. 6 at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Section 4.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 requires that all
certification bodies shall be accredited to ISO/IEC 17065. Section
4.2 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 requires that all testing laboratories
shall be qualified by a certification body or accredited by an
accreditation body who is a member of the International Laboratory
Accreditation Cooperation (``ILAC'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the concerns expressed by Watkins, DOE has aligned
its finalized test procedure with ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 to the greatest
extent possible consistent with its obligations under EPCA to design
test procedures that measure the energy use of a portable electric spa
during a representative average use cycle or period of use without
being unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) Where DOE
has deviated from the provisions of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019, DOE
discusses throughout this final rule why such deviations are necessary
to fulfill these statutory requirements. DOE has reviewed the burdens
associated with conducting the portable electric spa test procedure
adopted in this final rule. Based on the results of such analysis, DOE
has determined that the test procedure would not be unduly burdensome
to conduct. DOE's analysis of the burdens associated with the test
procedure is presented in section III.F of this document. Accordingly,
DOE does not expect the test procedure adopted in this final rule to
adversely affect the availability of certified third-party laboratories
to perform testing consistent with the finalized test procedure. DOE
also does not expect the test procedure adopted in this final rule to
create any supply chain disruptions, as suggested by Watkins. As
discussed in section III.G of this final rule, there is no need to
perform testing according to the DOE test procedure until the
compliance date of any future Federal energy conservation standards,
were DOE to establish energy conservation standards. This compliance
date leaves at least several years for all testing to be completed,
which DOE expects to be an adequate duration to ensure that any needed
testing will not create supply chain disruptions.
In response to the comment from A2LA, DOE's experience in
conducting testing according to ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 and to the DOE
test procedure as finalized in this final rule demonstrates that the
finalized DOE test procedure adequately outlines the details required
to perform the test. As a result, the accreditation as specified in
section 4.2 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 is not necessary to achieve
repeatable, reproducible, and representative test results from DOE's
test procedure for portable electric spas. In addition, accreditation
is not sufficient for ensuring a laboratory's test results are accurate
because, although accreditation is a tool that can help a laboratory to
become and remain technically competent, accreditation alone does not
ensure the laboratory performs each test method correctly for each
test. On this basis, DOE has concluded that the requirement for a
testing laboratory to be qualified by a certification body accredited
to ISO/IEC 17065 or accredited by an accreditation body who is a member
of ILAC is not necessary for the purposes of conducting the DOE test
procedure as finalized. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is excluding
the sections in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 regarding laboratory
qualification from the DOE test procedure.
For the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, DOE is finalizing its proposal to exclude the
following sections, subsections, and appendices of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14
2019 from DOE's portable electric spa test procedure:
Sections 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 in their entirety;
Section 3 definitions for ``cover, specified,'' ``fill
volume,'' ``rated volume,'' and ``standby mode'';
Subsections 5.1, 5.2, 5.5.2, 5.5.4, 5.5.5, and 5.7;
Appendix A subsection ``Chamber floor''; and
Appendices B, C, and D.
[[Page 38608]]
3. Ambient Air Temperature
As part of the October 2022 NOPR, DOE reviewed the ambient air
temperature requirements specified in several existing or past test
procedures for portable electric spas.
Section 5.5.4 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 specifies that the ambient
air temperature shall be a maximum of 63 [deg]F for the duration of the
test. This approach to specifying ambient air temperature (i.e., in
which a maximum temperature, rather than a target temperature, is
specified) is used in conjunction with a normalization approach to
determine a normalized standby loss value. Section 5.7.2 of ANSI/APSP/
ICC-14 2019 specifies that for inflatable spas, standard spas, or the
standard spa portion of a combination spa, the measured standby loss is
normalized to represent a temperature difference of 37 [deg]F between
the average water temperature during the test and the average ambient
air temperature during the test. For exercise spas or the exercise spa
portion of a combination spa, the measured standby loss is normalized
to represent a temperature difference of 22 [deg]F between the average
water temperature during the test and the average ambient air
temperature during the test.
An earlier version of the CEC portable electric spa test procedure,
on which ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 is based, specified an ambient air
temperature of 60 [deg]F 3 [deg]F.\23\ DOE notes that 60
[deg]F is approximately equal to the annual average temperature for all
of California.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See table in p. 5 of the CEC Docket Number 12-AAER-2G,
document TN 73027. Available at efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=73027&DocumentContentId=8328.
\24\ See climate data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Available at: www.ncei.noaa.gov/cag/statewide/time-series/4/tavg/12/12/2012-2021?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=2012&endbaseyear=2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSA C374:11 (R2021) specifies a mandatory test with ambient
temperature of 44.6 [deg]F 1.8 [deg]F (7 [deg]C 2 [deg]C), and an optional cold-weather test with ambient
temperature of 17.6 [deg]F 1.8 [deg]F (-8 [deg]C 2 [deg]C).
DOE noted in the October 2022 NOPR that the DOE test procedure will
be used for representations of portable electric spa energy consumption
throughout the United States; therefore, the specified ambient air
temperature must reflect a nationally representative value. 87 FR
63324, 63363. To determine a nationally representative ambient air
temperature that could be applicable to portable electric spas
throughout the United States, DOE first determined the average annual
air temperature across all states in the contiguous United States, and
then calculated a weighted average across all states, weighted by the
estimated number of spas installed in each state.\25\ Id. DOE used data
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration \26\
indicating average temperature in each state for the years 2012-2021,
and data from PKData \27\ indicating the number of spas installed in
each state in 2020. Id. This methodology resulted in an average air
temperature of 56.1 [deg]F. Rounded to the nearest degree Fahrenheit,
DOE tentatively determined in the October 2022 NOPR that 56 [deg]F is a
nationally representative ambient air temperature applicable to testing
portable electric spas. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ DOE used only the contiguous U.S., excluding Alaska and
Hawaii, because the data from PKData on the number of spas in each
state excluded Alaska and Hawaii.
\26\ www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series.
\27\ P.K. Data Inc. 2022 Hot Tub Market Data: Custom Compilation
for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (through 2021). 2022.
Alpharetta, GA. Available at www.pkdata.com/reports-store.html#/
(Last accessed April 24, 202312, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, based on this analysis, DOE proposed in the October
2022 NOPR to specify 56.0 [deg]F as the target ambient air temperature
in section 3.2.1 of appendix GG. Id. Consistent with the earlier CEC
test procedure, DOE also proposed to specify a tolerance of 3.0 [deg]F on the ambient air temperature during the test. Id.
DOE tentatively determined in the October 2022 NOPR that specifying an
allowable range of temperatures would provide greater assurance of
reproducible and representative test results compared to the approach
used in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 of specifying only a maximum ambient air
temperature. Id. DOE also proposed to specify that this requirement
applies to each individual ambient air temperature measurement taken
for the duration of the test (i.e., the requirement does not apply to
the overall average ambient air temperature during the test). Id.
DOE requested comment on its determination that, rounded to the
nearest degree, 56 [deg]F is a nationally representative ambient air
temperature applicable to testing portable electric spas. Id. DOE
requested comment on its proposal to specify an ambient temperature of
56.0 3.0 [deg]F during testing. Id. If commenters
recommend a different ambient temperature, DOE requested data
demonstrating the representativeness of that ambient temperature. Id.
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, PHTA/IHTA stated that the
ambient temperature in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 is not meant to be
representative of a national average but rather a point of reference to
ensure consistency in testing. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at pp. 5, 12) PHTA/
IHTA asserted that DOE's proposal to use the national average
temperature would not improve testing consistency or yield better
results over ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. (Id. at p. 5) Further, PHTA/IHTA
stated that a 56 [deg]F ambient temperature requirement would require
some existing test chambers to be upgraded to full air makeup systems.
(Id. at p. 5, 12) PHTA/IHTA noted that the current ambient temperature
requirement specified in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 is used for various
State programs spanning a diverse range of climates. (Id. at p. 5)
With regard to inflatable spas specifically, PHTA/IHTA commented
that these products are typically used only during the 6-7 warmest
months of the year and stored during the winter months when standby
loss energy for other types of portable electric spas would be at its
highest. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA presented data indicating that the simple
(i.e., unweighted by installation volume) average temperature in the 48
contiguous States over the last 12 years for the months April through
October was 63.2 [deg]F. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA asserted that this average
temperature would warrant using the ambient temperature specified in
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 (i.e., maximum of 63 [deg]F) for simplicity and
to avoid what PHTA/IHTA characterized as the heavy burden manufacturers
would face if having to retest based on DOE's proposed ambient
temperature or other temperature that would better reflect the seasonal
use for inflatable spas. (Id. at pp. 5-6)
PHTA/IHTA also presented data from manufacturer testing comparing
the final normalized test results between the testing conducted at 56
[deg]F (corresponding to DOE's proposed ambient air temperature) and
testing conducted at 60 [deg]F (corresponding to a higher ambient air
temperature allowable by ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019). (Id. at pp. 4-5) This
testing included five portable electric spas collected in four
different test chambers. (Id. at p. 5) The measured standby loss for
each test was normalized to represent a temperature difference of 37
[deg]F between the average water temperature during the test and the
average ambient air temperature during the test, as required by ANSI/
APSP/ICC-14 2019. (Id.) The results of this testing indicated that the
difference in final test results between the two ambient air
temperatures deviated by an average of 1.4 percent,
[[Page 38609]]
with a maximum deviation for one unit of 2.2 percent. (Id. at pp. 5,
12) PHTA/IHTA concluded that these test results demonstrate that it is
not necessary to change the ambient temperature or the normalization
formula (from what is currently specified in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019), as
retesting (according to DOE's proposed requirements) would achieve the
same results. (Id.)
With regard to DOE's proposal to specify a tolerance of 3 [deg]F around the target ambient air temperature, PHTA/IHTA
commented that some test chambers cannot hold a 3 [deg]F
ambient tolerance without rapid and damaging cycling to the cooling
system, which is the reason why ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 no longer
specifies a minimum ambient air temperature requirement and uses the
normalization approach instead. (Id. at pp. 6, 12)
In summary, PHTA/IHTA recommended that DOE reference the ambient
temperature requirement of 63 [deg]F or lower (i.e., with no lower
boundary) as specified in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019, in lieu of specifying
a target temperature with an allowable range of 3.0 [deg]F
during testing. (Id. at pp. 6, 12)
Master Spas commented that 56 [deg]F is not representative of all
consumers, and that, given the wide range of temperature and climates
experienced by portable electric spa consumers, it would be challenging
to develop a temperature that it is representative for consumers across
different regions. (Master Spas, No. 7 at p. 1) Master Spas stated that
changing the ambient air temperature would be burdensome and
unnecessary, especially when the results of the temperature change
could be calculated without expensive testing. (Id.)
The CA IOUs commented that changing the ambient temperature would
not affect the standby loss results because of the normalization
approach used in the test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 5) The CA
IOUs presented data from the Alberta Research Council that the CA IOUs
asserted provides experimental proof of the temperature normalization
procedure. (Id. at p. 6) As described by the CA IOUs, the study
measured eight portable spas at various ambient air and water
temperature combinations, and the results demonstrated that when the
difference between the ambient air and water temperature was increased
by 2.6 times, the power consumption increase was 2.7 times greater.
(Id.) Thus, the CA IOUs asserted that the temperature normalization
method closely predicts energy consumption from experimental results.
(Id.)
The CA IOUs also suggested that if DOE were to finalize its
proposal to specify 56 [deg]F as the target ambient air temperature for
testing, products currently certified for State programs could avoid
retesting by using normalization to extrapolate new values from those
currently reported, and that as products are tested at updated
temperatures, such an exemption could be retired after a transition
period of one year. (Id.)
As discussed earlier in this document, EPCA requires that any test
procedures prescribed by DOE be reasonably designed to produce test
results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual
operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use
cycle or period of use, while not being unduly burdensome to conduct.
(42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE recognizes that no single temperature
specification would be representative of all portable electric spa
installations throughout the United States. Defining a nationally
representative average air temperature for portable electric spas,
however, provides a consistent basis of comparison for measured test
results among the diversity of portable electric spa models available
on the market. DOE has determined that defining a single ambient air
condition representing the average annual condition experienced by
portable electric spas in the United States, weighted by estimated
installation volume, satisfies EPCA's requirements for the test
procedure to produce results that measure energy use during a
representative average period of use, while not being unduly burdensome
to conduct. Based on DOE's analysis of available climate data, and
noting that interested parties have not provided other, installation-
weighted data with which to determine a nationally representative
average air temperature, DOE has determined that 56 [deg]F is a
nationally representative ambient air temperature applicable to testing
portable electric spas.
As discussed, PHTA/IHTA stated that the ambient temperature in
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 is not meant to be representative of a national
average, and that use of a national average temperature would not
improve testing consistency or yield better results over ANSI/APSP/ICC-
14 2019. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 5) In response, DOE notes that it is
true that using a national average temperature will not improve testing
consistency between tests in different laboratories or of different
models because test results from different laboratories or of different
models will be consistent with each other as long as they all use the
same ambient temperature regardless of the ambient temperature set in
the test procedure. However, use of a national average ambient
temperature will yield better results than the ambient temperature in
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 in that the results will be more representative
of the average standby loss of portable electric spas throughout the
U.S. than results determined using ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019.
Testing with a 63 [deg]F ambient temperature for calculating
standby loss in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 results in measures of standby
loss that are approximately 15 to 23 percent lower than those would be
if using a national average ambient temperature of 56 [deg]F. This
change is because the rate of heat loss is approximately linearly
related to the difference between the ambient temperature and the
temperature of the water in the spa. This linear relationship between
temperature difference and the rate of heat loss is the basis for the
temperature normalization that is used in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 and
that DOE is adopting in this final rule, as discussed later in this
section. Use of a 63 [deg]F ambient temperature for calculating standby
loss in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 results in a temperature difference that
is 7 [deg]F less than it would be if using a nationally representative
temperature of 56 [deg]F (i.e., 63 [deg]F-56 [deg]F = 7 [deg]F). That 7
[deg]F results in a 15.2 percent lower calculated standby loss for
portable electric spas tested at a 102 [deg]F 2 [deg]F
water temperature [i.e., 7 [deg]F/(102 [deg]F-56 [deg]F) = 15.2
percent], and a 22.6 percent lower calculated standby loss for exercise
spas tested at a 87 [deg]F 2 [deg]F water temperature
[i.e., 7 [deg]F/(87 [deg]F-56 [deg]F) = 22.6 percent]. This magnitude
of understatement of standby loss means that results determined using
the ambient temperature in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 are not representative
of an average use cycle or period of use for portable electric spas in
the U.S. Therefore, DOE has determined that the use of a national
average ambient temperature of 56 [deg]F will yield results that are
more representative of the average standby loss of portable electric
spas throughout the U.S. than results determined using ANSI/APSP/ICC-14
2019. As discussed in section III.D.11 of this final rule, DOE is
adopting the use of 56 [deg]F as the representative ambient temperature
in the normalization approach used for the standby loss calculation.
Regarding the seasonality of inflatable spas and the potential that
representative test conditions for inflatable spas might include an
ambient air temperature different from
[[Page 38610]]
rigid spas, namely a temperature averaged across such the inflatable
spa season, DOE considers that the use of different representative
ambient temperatures for different categories of portable electric spas
would produce test results that are not comparable among the different
categories of portable electric spas. Comparability of energy use
ratings would be important for any consumer comparing inflatable spas
with hard-shelled spas to understand the relative efficiencies between
the different models. For these reasons, this final rule reflects use
of the same average representative ambient air temperature (i.e., 56
[deg]F) for inflatable portable electric spas as for hard-shelled
portable electric spas.
Regarding comments received discussing the accuracy and advantages
of the normalization approach, DOE has reviewed the data submitted by
PHTA/IHTA and agrees with the conclusion that these test results
demonstrate that the normalization approach produces accurate test
results and can enable the use of a wider range of ambient air
temperatures during testing than DOE had proposed in the October 2022
NOPR. As a result, DOE is adopting an ambient temperature during
testing of up to 63.0 [deg]F in this final rule.
DOE recognizes that specifying the ambient air temperature as a
maximum value (e.g., a maximum of 63 [deg]F), rather than a target
value within a specified tolerance (e.g., 56.0 3 [deg]F),
yields a less burdensome approach for testing, for the reasons
described in PHTA/IHTA's comments. In considering the relative
similarities in accuracy (i.e., representativeness) of the two
approaches, as well as the differences in test burden between the two
approaches, DOE has determined that the general approach currently used
in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 of specifying only a maximum ambient air
temperature--in conjunction with the normalization of measured test
results--produces test results that measure the energy use of a
portable electric spa during a representative average period of use
while not being unduly burdensome to conduct.
Finally, as previously noted, PHTA/IHTA stated that a 56 [deg]F
ambient temperature requirement would require some existing test
chambers to be upgraded to full air makeup systems. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10
at pp. 5, 12) Although DOE is adopting the use of 56 [deg]F as the
representative ambient temperature for the normalization approach used
in the standby loss calculation, DOE is adopting a maximum ambient
temperature during testing of 63 [deg]F, as discussed in the previous
two paragraphs. These requirements on ambient temperature during
testing are identical to those of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. As a result,
DOE has determined that there is no need for any test chambers to be
upgraded due to the ambient temperature requirements of the test
procedure in this final rule.
In summary, for the reasons discussed in the preceding paragraphs,
this final rule specifies in section 3.2.1 of appendix GG that ambient
air temperature be maintained at a maximum of 63.0 [deg]F for the
duration of the test, consistent with ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. This
ambient temperature requirement applies to each individual ambient air
temperature measurement taken for the duration of the stabilization
period and test period, as proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.
Furthermore, in this final rule, the normalization of measured values
in section 3.3 of appendix GG is based on a temperature of 56 [deg]F as
a nationally representative ambient air temperature for testing
portable electric spas, as proposed in the October 2022 NOPR. The
normalization approach used for the standby loss calculation is
discussed further in section III.D.11 of this final rule.
4. Chamber
a. Requirements in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 includes informative appendix A that provides
minimum requirements for the test chamber in which the portable
electric spa is installed. These include optional specifications
regarding chamber internal dimensions, air circulation, chamber
insulation, and chamber floor insulation.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that the
specifications in appendix A to ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 regarding chamber
internal dimensions, air flow, and chamber insulation are appropriate
for testing portable electric spas, and DOE proposed in section 3.1.1
of appendix GG to install portable electric spas in chambers meeting
those specifications. 87 FR 63356, 63364. DOE requested comment on its
tentative conclusion and proposal. Id.
In response to the October 2022 NOPR, PHTA/IHTA expressed support
for DOE's tentative determination and proposal regarding chamber
internal dimensions, air flow, and chamber insulation. (PHTA/IHTA, No.
10 at p. 13) The CA IOUs commented that standardizing internal chamber
dimensions, air flow, and chamber insulation would help to improve the
repeatability of test results. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 3) The CA IOUs
also recommended that DOE require humidity controls and measurements to
further improve the repeatability of test results. (Id. at p. 3) The CA
IOUs explained that a portable electric spa in a sealed chamber with
100 percent relative humidity would have a lower evaporation rate and
thereby a lower measured energy consumption than is representative of
field use. (Id.) The CA IOUs also identified several test procedures
for other products that require control of relative humidity and
indicated that the CEC's portable electric spa test procedure adopted
in 2004 required the measurement of average relative humidity during
the test. (Id. at p. 4)
In response to the CA IOUs' recommendation to require humidity
controls and measurements in the test procedure, DOE maintains that it
is not clear these requirements are needed. Although the CA IOUs stated
that evaporation is the primary source of standby loss from the
portable electric spa, they did not provide any additional information
aside from citing a CA IOUs report from 2014 submitted to the CEC
(``2014 CA IOUs Report'').\28\ (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 3) That report
provides no information on the amount of standby loss that is due to
evaporation, aside from stating that ``a majority of heat is lost
through evaporation'' and that spa covers with a good seal can reduce
evaporation. As a result, it is possible that when the 2014 CA IOUs
Report indicated that ``a majority of heat is lost through
evaporation,'' the authors were referring to the case when the portable
electric spa is uncovered or has a poorly fitting cover. And it is not
clear from these sources how much evaporation occurs during the
proposed DOE test procedure, in DOE's investigative testing, however,
the amount of portable electric spas' water lost to evaporation was
very small. This testing was done with the spas' covers installed, as
is required in the test procedure established in this final rule.
Although the scenario described by the CA IOUs is technically possible,
DOE's testing suggests it is unlikely to occur with portable electric
spas commonly on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ ``Portable Electric Spas--California,'' California Energy
Commission (California Investor-Owned Utilities, May 15, 2014).
Available at), https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=73027&DocumentContentId=8328.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the CA IOUs identified several test procedures for
other products that require measurement and control of humidity. (CA
IOUs, No. 8 at
[[Page 38611]]
p. 4) DOE notes that measurement and control of humidity is more
important for those test procedures because each of those products
either: actively modifies the humidity of the ambient or process air as
part of their operation (i.e., clothes dryers, dehumidifiers, central
air conditioners, heat pump water heaters, and electric heat pump pool
heaters); or moves air with a fan, for which humidity can affect air
density and the resulting energy performance (i.e., ceiling fans and
furnace fans); or both. A portable electric spa does not do either of
those things during the test for standby loss. Accordingly, DOE
concludes that relative humidity does not significantly impact typical
operation of a spa during testing and that it is unnecessary to require
measurement and control of relative humidity. Therefore, DOE is not
adopting requirements to measure and control relative humidity in the
test procedure for portable electric spas.
For the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is adopting
specifications for chamber dimensions, air flow, and chamber insulation
in section 3.1 of appendix GG, which refer to those provisions in
appendix A to ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019.
b. Chamber Floor Requirements
Appendix A to ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 specifies that the test chamber
floor may be insulated with 2 inches of polyisocyanurate insulation,
that the insulation shall be laid directly on a level surface, and that
the insulating layer shall be sheathed with at least 0.5 inches of
plywood.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE conducted an analysis to determine
whether these requirements would produce test results that reflect
representative consumer use in a proposed test procedure for portable
electric spas. 87 FR 63324, 63364. DOE reviewed installation and
owner's manuals for a representative sample of portable electric spas
available on the market and found that the majority of manuals specify
that the preferred method of installation is directly on a poured
concrete slab. Id. A smaller portion of manuals specify installation on
a wooden deck, and a small number of manuals specify other acceptable
installation surfaces, such as concrete pavers or crushed gravel. Id.
None of the manuals that DOE reviewed specify installing the portable
electric spa with insulation between the ground and the spa. Id.
Presuming that portable electric spas are installed consistently with
the installation manual, DOE's findings in the October 2022 NOPR
suggested that the most representative installation of a portable
electric spa is to be installed directly on a concrete slab with no
insulation between that surface and the spa. Id.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE presented data from investigative
testing to determine the extent to which installation with the optional
insulation specified in the chamber floor section of appendix A to
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 impacts energy use in comparison to installation
with no insulation. Id. The data indicated that the amount of
insulation and plywood specified in the chamber floor section of
appendix A to ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 reduced standby loss by up to 37
percent compared to testing with no insulation. Id. As discussed in the
October 2022 NOPR, these results demonstrated that the inclusion or
exclusion of chamber floor insulation has a significant impact on
measured energy use. Id.
DOE further explained in the October 2022 NOPR that although DOE
was not aware of any portable electric spas that include insulation
and/or other materials such as plywood as part of the installation
materials for the spa, DOE presumed that a consumer would be likely to
install insulation and/or plywood if insulation and/or wood were to be
included with the spa and specified by the installation instructions to
be installed for use. Id. at 87 FR 63364-63365. In such case, DOE
tentatively concluded in the October 2022 NOPR that testing with the
insulation and/or plywood provided would produce test results that are
representative of consumer use. Id. at 87 FR 63365.
To ensure that test results are representative of an average
consumer use cycle or period of use, DOE proposed in the October 2022
NOPR to specify in section 3.1.2 of appendix GG that portable electric
spas be installed directly on a level concrete floor or slab. Id.
Additionally, DOE proposed to specify that if insulation and/or plywood
is provided with the spa, and the manufacturer's instructions indicate
that insulation and/or plywood be installed between the ground and the
spa for normal use, the spa is to be installed with the minimum amount
of insulation and/or plywood between the floor and the spa that is
specified by the manufacturer's installation instructions. Otherwise,
no insulation or plywood is to be installed between the floor and the
spa. Id.
DOE requested comment on its tentative determination that the most
representative installation of a portable electric spa is directly on
concrete with no insulation between that surface and the spa. Id. DOE
also requested comment on its presumption that a consumer would be
likely to install insulation and/or wood if insulation and/or wood were
to be included with the portable electric spa and specified by the
installation instructions to be installed for use, and that in such
cases, testing with the insulation and/or wood provided would produce
test results that are representative of consumer use. Id.
In addition, DOE requested comment on its proposal to specify
installing the portable electric spa directly on the chamber floor
without any insulation between the spa and the floor. Id. Finally, DOE
requested comment on the availability of concrete floors or slabs
within test facilities and whether any test chamber floor alternatives,
such as solid or perforated steel or aluminum floors, would represent
portable electric spa operation when installed on concrete floors or
slabs. Id.
In response to the October 2022 NOPR, PHTA/IHTA commented that
consumers install portable electric spas on a wide range of
foundations, including concrete slabs, brick/pavers, pea gravel, tile,
marble, wood decking (including both ground-mounted and elevated),
synthetic decking (including both ground-mounted and elevated), coated
steel decking, and urethane decking material. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p.
13) PHTA/IHTA also stated that concrete slab thickness requirements
vary greatly in the United States. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA commented on DOE's presumption that a consumer would be
likely to install insulation and/or wood if it were included with the
portable electric spa and specified in the installation instructions to
be installed for use and that in such cases, testing with the
insulation and/or wood provided would produce results that are
representative of consumer use. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 14) PHTA/IHTA
stated that for portable electric spas other than inflatable spas, it
is not industry practice to include insulation and/or wood as part of
the installation materials, and they have no data supporting the
presumption that a consumer would be likely to install insulation and/
or wood if it were included. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA also stated that the idea
of manufacturers including or recommending insulation adds variability
to the portable electric spa test method because there is no guarantee
the consumer will use it in their final installation. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA
added that removal of the floor variable with a standardized
reproducible floor provides better data to the end
[[Page 38612]]
consumer when comparing models for purchase. (Id.) Finally, PHTA/IHTA
stated that the proposal of including a foundation with portable
electric spa purchases would increase consumer cost and manufacturers'
liability. (Id.) Regarding inflatable spas, PHTA/IHTA stated that these
products are typically supplied with an insulating ground cover that
the consumer is instructed to place underneath the inflated tub. (Id.
at p. 13) PHTA/IHTA stated that they expect consumers to utilize the
provided insulating ground cover during installation of inflatable
spas, because they are put up and taken down seasonally. (Id. at p. 14)
PHTA/IHTA commented that DOE's proposal to specify testing on
concrete floors with no additional insulation would not be repeatable
and that varying concrete temperatures or thicknesses could
significantly impact test results. (Id. at p. 7) PHTA/IHTA noted that a
concrete floor introduces an uncontrolled variable regardless of
construction. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA added that test results need to be
independent of both the geographical location of test labs and the
season during which testing is conducted and that testing on bare
concrete would make test results dependent on each of those. (Id.) In
the event that DOE continues to pursue testing on concrete without
insulation, PHTA/IHTA recommended more testing be conducted to better
determine the effects of the chamber floor change. (Id. at p. 8)
PHTA/IHTA commented also that not enough information was provided
in the October 2022 NOPR about DOE's testing regarding the effect of
changing floor conditions on portable electric spa standby loss. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA stated that industry was not able to provide its own data in
time for comment, but that an early industry research project
determined that the heat loss through the bottom of the spa was a
relatively small portion of the total energy. (Id. at pp. 7-8) PHTA/
IHTA encouraged DOE, due to lack of data, to conduct more analysis and
reconsider the approach in the October 2022 NOPR. (Id. at pp. 8, 13)
Furthermore, PHTA/IHTA commented that testing on concrete may not
actually be representative of concrete installations because a spa in
the field would reach thermal equilibrium with the concrete surface it
is installed on whereas one in a lab would not, and such a difference
would lead to results not representative of customer use. (Id. at p. 8)
PHTA/IHTA commented that testing on pallets or simulated decks
would remove the variability of heat losses through the floor of the
spa. PHTA/IHTA noted, however, that the ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 writing
committee recognized that the proportion of portable electric spas
installed on decks was small and this added heat loss would skew the
results for the vast majority of installations. (Id. at p. 7) PHTA/IHTA
recommended that DOE maintain the chamber floor conditions specified in
appendix A to ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. (Id. at pp. 8, 13) PHTA/IHTA
explained that the insulated floor used in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 and
the platform with air flow beneath the spa used in CSA C374:11 (R2021)
are not meant to be representative of typical installations, but
instead to ensure the consistency of test results. (Id. at p. 7) PHTA/
IHTA also stated that they are not aware of any test chambers that
currently use the CSA standard platform, as that standard is not
currently required. (Id.)
In response to DOE's request for comment regarding the availability
of concrete floors or slabs within test facilities, PHTA/IHTA noted
that they are not aware of any test chambers that have the ability to
test on a concrete floor or slab without major renovations and that
current test labs were designed to meet the ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019
testing protocol. (Id. at p. 14)
Similarly, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE maintain the chamber
floor conditions specified in appendix A to ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. (CA
IOUs, No. 8 at p. 5) The CA IOUs stated that it is unclear whether
installing portable electric spas on concrete represents standard
consumer practice, indicating that several spa dealers and online
sources provided advice for installing spas on concrete, plastic spa
pads, and compacted gravel. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented that DOE's
proposal to specify testing on concrete floors with no additional
insulation would not be repeatable and that varying concrete
temperatures or thicknesses could significantly impact test results.
(Id.) The CA IOUs added that not enough information was provided in the
October 2022 NOPR about DOE's testing regarding the effect of changing
floor conditions on portable electric spa standby loss. (Id.)
The CA IOUs also estimated that ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 compliant
spas are significantly less susceptible to ground effect conductivity
loss than low insulation baseline spas and stated that they believe
evaporative losses impact test results more than the ground effect.
(Id.) The CA IOUs suggested that DOE collect and publicly display
additional data to demonstrate the value of modifying a test method to
measure the interaction between uninsulated ground and portable
electric spas. (Id.) The CA IOUs commented it was unclear whether
testing on a bare concrete floor would overpredict energy due to
concrete's higher thermal conductivity relative to other mounting
surfaces. (Id.)
The CA IOUs stated that ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 is suitable for spa
performance measurement and comparison for arbitrary ground surfaces,
and they encouraged DOE to develop equations to extrapolate ground
effect by base type (e.g., concrete, wood, gravel, ABS plastic) for
minimally insulated as well as moderate and high insulation spas in the
consumer analysis of energy conservation standards. (Id.)
Master Spas commented that, regardless of the representativeness of
installing a portable electric spa on concrete, testing on concrete may
not actually be representative of concrete installations because a spa
in the field would reach thermal equilibrium with the concrete surface
it is installed on whereas one in a lab would not, and such a
difference would lead to results not representative of customer use.
(Master Spas, No. 7 at p. 2) Master Spas stated that DOE's proposal to
specify testing on concrete floors with no additional insulation would
not be repeatable and that varying concrete temperatures could
significantly impact test results. (Id.) Master Spas asserted that test
results need to be independent of both the geographical location of
test labs and the season during which testing is conducted and that
testing on bare concrete would make test results dependent on each of
those. (Id.)
Master Spas commented that it is not clear whether testing on a
concrete floor would result in significantly different normalized
standby loss values than testing on an insulated chamber floor,
especially for portable electric spas that currently satisfy ANSI/APSP/
ICC-14 2019 minimum performance standards and are likely to have more
internal insulation to resist effects of varying floors. (Id.) Master
Spas also stated that no test data exists right now to answer this
question, and that adopting the DOE proposal for floor conditions would
be risky. (Id.)
In the event that DOE continues to pursue testing on concrete
without insulation, the CEC requested that DOE specify control
conditions for preparing and maintaining the temperature of the
concrete slab. (CEC, No. 13 at p. 3) The CEC recommended that DOE
continue collecting information to establish a testing floor
representative of consumer use with standardized conditions. (Id.) The
CEC also commented that DOE did not state in the October 2022 NOPR
[[Page 38613]]
whether it had considered stock distribution when estimating the
distribution of spas recommended to be installed on a concrete floor.
(Id.) The CEC noted that DOE's test results in the October 2022 NOPR
did demonstrate a significant impact when changing the chamber floor's
level of insulation. (Id.)
In contrast, the Joint Advocates commented that they agreed with
DOE's conclusion that the preliminary test results in the October 2022
NOPR suggest the use of chamber floor insulation may result in
unrepresentative standby loss ratings, and they supported DOE's efforts
to ensure that the test procedure is representative. (Joint Advocates,
No. 12 at p. 2)
As discussed, EPCA requires test procedures to be representative of
an average use cycle and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) DOE had proposed in the October 2022 NOPR that
testing on a concrete floor or slab would meet these criteria because
it would provide representative results while not being unduly
burdensome. 87 FR 63356, 63365. However, comments from stakeholders
suggest that, although concrete may be a representative material used
by consumers, there is uncertainty regarding whether testing on
concrete would provide reproducible test results--and therefore
uncertainty regarding whether testing on concrete would reliably
provide representative test results among different test laboratories.
(PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 14; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 5; Master Spas, No. 7
at p. 2) Comments also suggest that ensuring reproducible results from
a concrete slab might require measures--such as control of the slab
temperature--that could introduce substantial burden. (CEC, No. 13 at
p. 3) Therefore, based on feedback provided in stakeholder comments,
DOE has determined that there is uncertainty regarding whether testing
on concrete would reliably produce representative test results without
being unduly burdensome.
Regarding suggestions to specify testing with insulation between
the spa and the floor, DOE received no comments disputing its tentative
determination that consumers are likely to install non-inflatable spas
without any insulation between the supporting surface and the spa, and
no comments stated it is common for consumers to install spas on top of
insulation. While comments indicate that testing on insulation may
yield repeatable and reproducible test results, for the reasons
presented in the October 2022 NOPR (including DOE's test data), DOE has
determined that testing on insulation would not yield results that are
representative of consumer use, as required by EPCA. Testing on
insulation underestimates the standby loss of portable electric spas as
compared to testing with no insulation installed between the floor and
the spa, as shown in DOE's investigative testing results in the October
2022 NOPR. 87 FR 63324, 63364. As discussed, no comments stated it is
common for consumers to install spas on top of insulation. As a result,
it is most representative to test a portable electric spa when
installed on a surface with a temperature and thermal conductivity that
is similar to those of the surfaces on which portable electric spas are
commonly installed, such as concrete, brick, gravel, tile, marble, or
decking (see PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 13). Insulation has a much lower
thermal conductivity than any of those materials, and therefore
insulation reduces the rate of heat transfer from the bottom surface of
the spa to the floor. This results in lower rate of heat transfer from
the bottom surface of the spa to the floor than would occur if the spa
was installed on one of the common mounting surfaces. As a result, DOE
finds that measures of standby loss determined from spas installed on
top of insulation are lower than what is representative. the spa.
Although the CA IOUs suggested the possibility of developing equations
to extrapolate the effect of the ground surface from the results of
tests performed on insulation (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 5), this approach
is not feasible for the test procedure because the magnitude of the
underestimate of standby loss due to testing on insulation will vary
between spas based on differences in product design, such as the amount
of insulation installed inside the body of the spa.
Through further consideration of the rationales presented by DOE in
the October 2022 NOPR, as well as review of installation materials and
consideration of stakeholder comments, DOE is specifying an approach in
this final rule that addresses the challenges articulated by
stakeholders and will provide test results that are representative
without being unduly burdensome. DOE's review of installation manuals
confirms that wooden decking is a common installation surface, as it
was the second-most commonly listed mounting surface. Decking was also
one of the common mounting surfaces that PHTA/IHTA indicated in their
comments. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 13) Additionally, PHTA/IHTA
commented that testing on pallets or simulated decks would remove the
variability of heat losses through the floor of the spa. (Id. at p. 7)
DOE has determined that this test approach would address the concerns
noted by stakeholders regarding reproducibility and produce
representative test results by not limiting heat transfer from the
bottom of a portable electric spa. Clause 5.1.1(b) and Figure 1 of CSA
C374:11 (R2021) specify a wooden decking test platform that is placed
directly on the test room floor. The outside dimensions of the platform
are large enough to support the entire base of the spa, and the
platform is constructed using standard construction 2 inch by 6 inch
planking with 0.236 inch spacing between the planks. The structure is
supported by three equally spaced beams constructed using four layers
of 2 inch by 6 inch planking laminated together, providing a
standardized gap of free air space beneath the deck. PHTA/IHTA
commented that the wooden decking specified by CSA C374:11 (R2021) is
intended to provide consistent test results. (Id.) Based on
consideration of the comments received in response to the October 2022
NOPR, DOE has determined that testing on wooden decking would provide
repeatable and reproducible test results and would yield test results
that are representative of average consumer use cycle or period of use.
As discussed, in response to the October 2022 NOPR, several
commenters expressed concern about the lack of reproducibility of the
concrete slab data, and the lack of supporting data, and encouraged DOE
to compile more analysis and reconsider the chamber floor approach in
the October 2022 NOPR. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at pp. 8, 13; CA IOUs, No. 8
at p. 5; Master Spas, No. 7 at p. 2) As discussed, DOE has evaluated
the comments, reconsidered, and is adopting an alternate approach for
the chamber floor. This approach requires installing the spa on the
wooden decking specified by CSA C374:11 (R2021). DOE expects that this
approach will allay the concerns of PHTA/IHTA and other commenters
because PHTA/IHTA, in particular, stated in their comments in response
to the October 2022 NOPR that they worked collaboratively to assist CSA
with testing and data, including testing 4 portable electric spas for
CSA, prior to the finalization, publishing, and implementation of CSA
C374:11 (R2021). (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 4) PHTA/IHTA also stated that
the platform specified by CSA C374:11 (R2021) is intended to provide
consistent test results, which would
[[Page 38614]]
alleviate the repeatability concerns noted by commenters. (Id. at p. 7)
As a result, DOE expects that stakeholders will be satisfied with the
reproducibility of test data produced from tests performed using the
platform specified in CSA C374:11 (R2021).
Regarding the question of burden, PHTA/IHTA suggested that test
labs might not currently be equipped with the wooden platform specified
by CSA C374:11 (R2021). (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 7) However, DOE
expects that the type of platform specified by CSA C374:11 (R2021)
could be built at relatively modest cost (see section III.F of this
final rule for more details on cost). Based on these considerations,
DOE has determined that it would not be unduly burdensome to require
testing on the wooden platform specified by CSA C374:11 (R2021).
In summary, in this final rule, DOE is requiring testing of
portable electric spas on the wooden platform specified by CSA C374:11
(R2021). DOE has determined that this requirement will produce test
results that are representative of an average consumer use cycle or
period of use without being unduly burdensome. DOE is specifying this
requirement in section 3.1.2 of appendix GG by incorporating by
reference CSA C374:11 (R2021) in 10 CFR 430.3 and specifying in section
3.1.2 of appendix GG to install the portable electric spa on a platform
as specified in Clause 5.1.1(b) and Figure 1 of CSA C374:11 (R2021).
5. Electrical Supply Voltage and Amperage Configuration
Section 5.5.6 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 specifies that the voltage
supplied to the portable electric spa be within 10 percent of the
nameplate voltage during testing but specifies no other requirements
for the electrical supply or amperage configuration. The following
paragraphs discuss additional considerations regarding voltage supply
and amperage configuration relevant to testing portable electric spas.
DOE's market research indicates that most portable electric spas
operate at a single voltage (e.g., either 120 or 240 volts (``V''),
nominally). Models that operate at 120 V are often referred to as
``plug and play'' models and are plugged into an ordinary 120 V
electrical outlet. Models that operate at 240 V are typically required
to be permanently connected (i.e., hard wired) into a 240 V circuit,
similar to that which would supply an electric water heater. DOE is
aware of models on the market that can be configured to operate at
either 120 V or 240 V, depending on the preference of the consumer.
Such models are most often pre-configured by the manufacturer to
operate at 120 V and include instructions for converting the model to
operate at 240 V. The conversion process typically requires changing
the configuration of internal wiring and controls in addition to
changes to the external wiring.
Similarly, certain portable electric spas on the market allow the
consumer to configure the maximum amperage at which the portable
electric spa can operate at a particular voltage level. This
configurability ensures that the operation of the portable electric spa
is compatible with the electrical service of the home. For example, for
a home with a 50 ampere (``A'') circuit breaker available, all the
features on a particular portable electric spa may be capable of
operating at the same time; whereas, for a home with only a 30 A
circuit breaker available, the portable electric spa may still operate,
albeit with reduced or restricted functionality. Units that provide
amperage configurability most commonly operate at 240 V. On such units,
changing the maximum amperage corresponds to allowing more or fewer
components to operate at the same time (e.g., whether the heater is
able to be energized at the same time as a secondary pump), or setting
the level of operation for certain components (e.g., varying the number
of heating elements that can operate simultaneously).
The choice of voltage and maximum amperage can affect the rate of
heating in the portable electric spa and the occurrence of multiple
components of the spa (e.g., pump and heater) operating simultaneously.
These differences in operation may affect measured energy use.
Therefore, in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that
additional specifications regarding the supply voltage and amperage
configuration to be used during testing would ensure the
reproducibility of the DOE test procedure across different test
laboratories. 87 FR 63356, 63365.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed in section 3.1.3 of appendix
GG a hierarchy to use for configuring the voltage and amperage
configuration of the portable electric spa during testing in section
3.1.3 of appendix GG. Id. Specifically, DOE proposed that if the
portable electric spa can be installed or configured with multiple
options of voltage, maximum amperage, or both, testing should use the
as-shipped configuration. Id. If no configuration is provided in the
as-shipped condition, DOE proposed that testing be conducted using the
option specified in the manufacturer's instructions as the recommended
configuration for normal consumer use. Id. If no configuration is
provided in the as-shipped condition and the manufacturer's
instructions do not provide a recommended configuration for normal
operation, DOE proposed that testing be conducted using the maximum
voltage specified in the manufacturer's installation instructions and
the maximum amperage that the manufacturer's installation instructions
specify for use with the maximum voltage. Id.
DOE requested comment on the proposed hierarchy for specifying
voltage and maximum amperage for portable electric spas that have
multiple options for voltage and/or amperage. Id. DOE also requested
comment on any cases for which the proposed language would not make
clear the voltage and/or maximum amperage to be used during testing.
Id.
In response to DOE's request for comment in the October 2022 NOPR,
the Joint Advocates supported DOE's proposed hierarchy to add
clarification and make the test procedure more reproducible. (Joint
Advocates, No. 12 at p. 2) However, the CEC recommended using the
maximum voltage and maximum amperage on the nameplate for testing
rather than the proposed hierarchy. (CEC, No. 13 at pp. 3-4) The CEC
stated that the proposed hierarchy method introduces variability by
relying on as-shipped configurations and manufacturer's instructions,
as each manufacturer may configure and operate their spas differently.
(Id. at p. 4) In addition, the CEC noted that as-shipped configurations
may or may not be included in the literature provided by manufacturers,
and manufacturer manuals are typically updated annually while older
dated manuals are archived and not accessible to the public after a
certain period. (Id.) The CEC indicated that, to ensure compliance,
manufacturers and test laboratories must keep records of all manuals
for tested units and tests must be repeatable. (Id.) The CEC continued
that it is more accessible and manageable to rely on information
permanently marked on the nameplate of a spa than on manufacturer
literature that may be amended or become unavailable. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA stated that portable electric spas should be installed
and tested to the manufacturer's instructions. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p.
14) PHTA/IHTA also stated that the amperage rating is not relevant to
energy performance in the mode of operation in DOE's proposed test
procedure because the amperage is only used for sizing the breaker
relevant to manual operations such as turning on the jet pumps, which
are not used in the proposed test
[[Page 38615]]
procedure. (Id.) Finally, PHTA/IHTA recommended the final rule clearly
state that a 10 percent voltage fluctuation in the unregulated power
source is allowed during testing. (Id.)
Regarding the CEC's recommendation to use the maximum voltage and
current on the nameplate instead of using a hierarchy, DOE has
determined that it is most representative to preferentially use the
most commonly used voltage and maximum amperage settings instead of
using only the maximum values on the nameplate. Although the nameplate
maximums might be easier to identify and trace over several years, as
suggested by the CEC, they are not necessarily the most commonly used
settings. DOE considers it most likely that consumers would set up a
portable electric spa using the as-shipped settings or the
manufacturer's recommended configuration for normal consumer use and
would only use the maximum values of each if no as-shipped or
recommended configuration is available. For these reasons, DOE is using
a hierarchy in this final rule.
Regarding the CEC's comment that as-shipped configurations may or
may not be included in the literature provided by manufacturers, the
as-shipped configuration does not need to be included in literature
because it is the configuration that exists when the unit is shipped to
the customer. Regarding the CEC's comment that older dated manuals are
archived and not accessible to the public after a certain period,
appliance efficiency tests are typically performed on new products,
which are typically shipped with a manual. As a result, older manuals
are not typically required for appliance efficiency testing.
In response to PHTA/IHTA's comment that the amperage is not
relevant to energy performance in the DOE test procedure, it is likely
that the setting for maximum amperage has no impact on the measured
standby loss for many or most models. It is also possible that there
are some models for which the setting for maximum amperage does have an
impact on the measured standby loss, due to variations in the heating
or pump settings in different maximum amperage settings. As a result,
DOE considers it most representative to include the setting for maximum
amperage in the hierarchy, instead of including only the setting for
voltage, to ensure that the unit is set up with the setting for maximum
amperage that is commonly used in the field. DOE also notes that
adjusting the setting for maximum amperage of a portable electric spa
is typically performed by adjusting settings on the setup panel of the
spa, and therefore is not unduly burdensome. For these reasons, DOE is
including the setting for maximum amperage in the hierarchy being
adopted in this final rule.
In response to PHTA/IHTA's comment about allowing voltage to be
within 10 percent of the nameplate rating during testing, that
tolerance is currently specified in section 5.5.6 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14
2019, which DOE is adopting in the test procedure.
For the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is adopting the
requirements on electrical voltage and maximum amperage configuration
in section 3.1.3 of appendix GG as proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.
DOE is also dividing the requirements into subsections 3.1.3.1 and
3.1.3.2 in section 3.1.3 of appendix GG to make the requirements
clearer.
6. Fill Volume
Section 3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 defines two quantities for the
volume of water in a portable electric spa: fill volume and rated
volume. ``Fill volume'' is the amount of water that is required to be
in the spa during testing and is defined as the halfway point between
the bottom of the skimmer opening and the top of the skimmer opening.
In the absence of a wall skimmer, the fill volume is 6 inches (152 mm)
below the overflow level of the spa. ``Rated volume'' is defined as the
water capacity of a portable electric spa, in gallons (liters), as
specified by the manufacturer on the spa, on the spa packaging, or the
spa marketing materials. ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 provides no requirement
for the rated volume to correspond to the fill volume. ANSI/APSP/ICC-14
2019 also does not specify any tolerance on the fill volume
measurement.
DOE compared fill volume and rated volume of portable electric spas
on the market by reviewing certification records available in the CEC
Modernized Appliance Energy Efficiency Database System
(``MAEDbS'').\29\ Fill volume and rated volume are equivalent for some
models but differ for other models. For most models with differing
values of fill volume and rated volume, the variation is within a few
percent. For example, in some cases, the value of rated volume
corresponds to the fill volume rounded to the nearest multiple of 10.
For other models, however, the difference between rated and fill volume
is much greater than any difference due to rounding, ranging from 10 to
50 percent of fill volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The CEC Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System.
Available at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov (Last accessed May 23,
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The volume of the water in a portable electric spa has a
significant effect on the energy consumption of the spa, such that any
significant difference between fill volume and rated volume for
particular portable electric spas suggests that the standby loss
determined for those models (based on fill volume) may not be
representative of the way those models are advertised or used by
consumers (presumably, rated volume). Furthermore, lack of tolerance on
the fill level specification may result in variation in the fill level
that could reduce repeatability and reproducibility of the test.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE made several proposals on how the
volume of water in portable electric spas would be defined, determined
during testing, and represented. 87 FR 63324, 63366.
First, DOE proposed to exclude from incorporation by reference the
definitions of ``fill volume'' and ``rated volume'' in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14
2019, and to create a new definition of ``fill volume'' in section 2.5
of appendix GG. Id. DOE proposed to define ``fill volume'' as the
volume of water held by the portable electric spa when it is filled
according to the filling instructions specified in section 3.1.4 of
appendix GG. Id. DOE made this proposal to prevent the ambiguity in
representations of volume that DOE had identified for some models in
the CEC MAEDbS. Id.
Second, to ensure that the volume of water in the portable electric
spa during testing is representative of consumer use, DOE proposed to
exclude the spa filling instructions in section 5.5.2 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-
14 2019 and to define new filling instructions that refer to
manufacturer's instructions in section 3.1.4 of appendix GG. Id.
Section 3.1.4 of appendix GG would specify filling the spa with water
as follows:
(a) If the manufacturer's instructions specify a single fill level,
fill to that level with a tolerance of 0.125 inches.
(b) If the manufacturer's instructions specify a range of fill
levels and not a single fill level, fill to the middle of that range
with a tolerance of 0.125 inches.
(c) If the manufacturer's instructions do not specify a fill level
or range of fill levels, fill to the halfway point between the bottom
of the skimmer opening and the top of the skimmer opening with a
tolerance of 0.125 inches.
(d) If the manufacturer's instructions do not specify a fill level
or range of fill levels, and there is no wall skimmer, fill to 6.0
inches 0.125 inches below the overflow level of the spa.
Id.
[[Page 38616]]
Third, to ensure that the fill volume includes the water in all
components of the portable electric spa, DOE proposed in section 3.1.4
of appendix GG to follow the manufacturer's instructions for filling
the spa with water, connecting and/or priming the pump(s), and starting
up the spa. Id. After verifying that the portable electric spa is
operating normally and that all water lines are filled, DOE proposed to
power off the spa and adjust the fill level as needed. Id. DOE proposed
to measure the volume of water added to the portable electric spa with
a water meter while filling the spa, and to measure any water removed
from the spa using a water meter, graduated container, or scale with an
accuracy of 2 percent of the quantity measured. Id. DOE
proposed to define ``fill volume'' as the volume of water held by the
portable electric spa when the spa is filled, as specified in section
3.1.4 of appendix GG. Id.
Finally, DOE proposed that all representations of fill volume be
within 5 gallons of the mean fill volume measured for the sample of the
basic model. Id. The proposed requirement would allow manufacturers to
continue to represent fill volume as a value rounded to the nearest
multiple of 10, because any such rounded value would vary by no more
than 5 gallons from the measured value. Id. Further discussion of DOE's
proposals regarding represented values is detailed in section III.E.2
of this final rule.
DOE requested comment on its proposals to exclude from
incorporation by reference the definitions of ``fill volume'' and
``rated volume'' in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019, to define a new term for
``fill volume,'' and to specify new filling instructions in appendix
GG. Id. DOE also requested comment on its proposal to specify a
tolerance of 0.125 inches on the defined fill level and on
whether any other tolerances on fill level, such as 0.0625
inches or 0.25 inches, would be more appropriate than
0.125 inches. Id. at 87 FR 63367. Finally, DOE requested
comment on its proposal to allow represented values of fill volume to
be within 5 gallons of the mean fill volume measured for the sample of
the basic model. Id.
DOE received comments from the CEC, the Joint Advocates, and PHTA/
IHTA on the proposals in the October 2022 NOPR for definitions and fill
level instructions. The CEC supported DOE's proposal to exclude the
definition of ``rated volume'' from incorporation by reference because
DOE is not proposing labeling requirements in the proposed rulemaking.
(CEC, No. 13, at p. 4) The Joint Advocates commented in support of the
additional proposed specifications to ensure that the fill volume in
testing is representative. (Joint Advocates, No. 12 at p. 2) PHTA/IHTA
expressed no position on the proposed change from the filling
instructions in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 and deferred to individual
manufacturer comments. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 15) DOE received no
individual manufacturer comments on this topic.
PHTA/IHTA stated that they do not see any significant issue with
using manufacturer-recommended fill level for the test, as it provides
clarity to the end user. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA also explained that, although
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 sets a uniform method for filling a portable
electric spa, the ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 fill level requirements do not
always agree with typical user fill levels. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA stated that
the ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 fill level is often similar to the user fill
level, but the user fill level can differ from the ANSI/APSP/ICC-14
2019 fill level due to the way the portable electric spa is designed to
meet a specific consumer experience or other physical, operational, or
cosmetic requirements. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA stated that the recommended fill
line for inflatable spas is lower than the ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 fill
level. (Id.) PHTA/IHTA also stated that there are other models for
which the recommended fill line is approximately 2 inches higher than
the ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 fill level, and for which the ANSI/APSP/ICC-
14 2019 fill volume would interfere with normal operation because it
would not cover all the jets. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA and the CEC commented in support of DOE's proposal to
allow a tolerance of 0.125 inches on fill level
requirements. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 15; CEC, No. 13 at p. 4) The CEC
supported adding instructions specifying that all water lines are
filled, but the CEC recommended using the filling instructions in ANSI/
APSP/ICC-14 2019 rather than the hierarchy proposed in the October 2022
NOPR. (CEC, No. 13, at p. 4) The CEC indicated that relying on
manufacturer's instructions is not necessarily representative of
consumer use if each manufacturer is different in providing
instructions with various setup options. (Id.) The CEC recommended that
DOE specify testing conditions that are identical for all manufacturers
to ensure standardized conditions and comparable testing results across
all products. (Id.)
Regarding representations of fill volumes, the CEC supported
specifying the value of the fill volume to be a whole number within 5
gallons to allow consumers to easily compare similarly sized spas. (Id.
at p. 5) Conversely, PHTA/IHTA commented that 5 gallons is a very tight
tolerance for represented fill volumes, even with the proposed 0.125-inch fill tolerance, and that changes to plumbing or
configuration could affect the volume and affect whether portable
electric spas that would otherwise be grouped under the same basic
model could be represented as having the same fill volume. (PHTA/IHTA,
No. 10 at p. 15)
In response to the CEC's comments recommending the use of the
filling instructions in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 rather than the hierarchy
proposed in the October 2022 NOPR, DOE concludes that the hierarchy
proposed in the October 2022 NOPR is more representative than the fill
level specified by ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 because the hierarchy uses the
fill level that is specified in the model-specific manufacturer's
instructions, if available, instead of relying only on the geometrical
relationships in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 that are not specific to the
model. Although the CEC indicated that relying on manufacturer's
instructions is not necessarily representative of consumer use if each
manufacturer provides different instructions and instead recommended
that DOE specify testing conditions that are identical for all
manufacturers (CEC, No. 13, at p. 4), DOE has concluded that the most
representative fill level to use for each model is the fill level that
would be used most commonly for that model by consumers. As indicated
in comments by PHTA/IHTA, the ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 fill level is often
similar to the user fill level, but the user fill level can differ from
the ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 fill level due to the way the portable
electric spa model is designed to meet a specific consumer experience
or other physical, operational, or cosmetic requirements. (PHTA/IHTA,
No. 10 at p. 15) DOE concludes that the manufacturer's instructions, if
available, provide the best indication of the typical user fill level
because the manufacturer's instructions take into consideration the
design and intended use of the model, and the instructions are the
primary literature used by a consumer to determine the proper use of
the portable electric spa. As a result, DOE concludes that the filling
instructions in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 are not as representative of an
average use cycle or period of use as the filling instructions proposed
in the October 2022 NOPR.
[[Page 38617]]
In response to PHTA/IHTA's comment on the proposed tolerance for
represented value for fill volume, it is true that a
0.125-inch fill level tolerance could allow for a variation in total
fill volume of greater than 5 gallons between multiple tests on the
same portable electric spa. However, the 5-gallon allowance in
representations of fill volume does not necessarily delineate basic
models, as suggested by PHTA/IHTA's comment. Rather, as described in
section III.E.1 of this final rule, manufacturers have the ability to
determine how they want to group individual models into basic models,
as long as the individual model used to represent each basic model has
the highest standby loss of all individual models in that basic model.
As a result, a manufacturer could group multiple individual models of
similar volumes into a single basic model and use test results from the
individual model with the highest standby loss to represent that basic
model. The 5-gallon allowance applies only to the flexibility that the
manufacturer has in representing the mean fill volume from the testing
of the individual model being used to represent the basic model.
Therefore, DOE concludes that the 5-gallon allowance on represented
fill volume is not overly narrow, and DOE is proceeding with its
proposal.
For the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is finalizing its
proposals on fill volume as proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.
7. Spa Cover
Portable electric spas are typically covered when not in active
use. The standby loss of a portable electric spa is significantly
affected by the presence and thermal properties of a spa cover. Section
5.5.5 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 requires that the manufacturer's
specified cover be used during the test. Section 3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14
2019 defines ``cover, specified'' as the cover that is provided or
specified by the manufacturer. However, ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 does not
specify how to conduct testing if the manufacturer does not specify a
cover. For such cases, differences in laboratory decisions regarding
the spa cover to be used for testing could result in significant
variation in results between laboratories (i.e., low reproducibility of
test results) and could also produce test results that are not
representative of average consumer use.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to exclude section 5.5.5 of
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019, which requires use of the manufacturer's
specified cover during testing, and to exclude the definition in ANSI/
APSP/ICC-14 2019 for ``cover, specified.'' 87 FR 63356, 63367. DOE
proposed instead to specify in section 3.1.5 of appendix GG to install
the spa cover following the manufacturer's instructions. Id.
Additionally, DOE proposed that if a basic model is distributed with
multiple covers designated by the spa manufacturer for use with the
basic model, the manufacturer must determine all represented values for
that basic model based on the cover that results in the highest standby
loss, except the manufacturer may choose to identify specific
individual combinations of spa and cover as additional basic models.
Id.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to provide instructions for
testing if the manufacturer does not specify a particular cover to be
used with a portable electric spa. Id. DOE tentatively concluded that
some consumers would opt to use a low-cost, minimally insulative cover
if the spa manufacturer does not specify use of a particular cover. Id.
As such, if a cover were not specified for use with a basic model, DOE
proposed to specify the following in section 3.1.5 of appendix GG: If
no cover is designated by the spa manufacturer for use with the
portable electric spa, cover the spa with a single layer of 6 mil
thickness (0.006 in; 0.15 mm) plastic film. Cut the plastic to cover
the entire top surface of the spa and extend over each edge of the spa
approximately 6 inches below the top surface of the spa. Use fasteners
or weights to keep the plastic in place during the test, but do not
seal the edges of the plastic to the spa (by using tape, for example).
Id.
DOE also noted in the October 2022 NOPR that this proposal may not
be applicable when the spa manufacturer specifically designates a
portable electric spa model for use without a cover or with ``no
cover'' as one of multiple cover options designated by the spa
manufacturer. Id. In both of these cases, testing the spa with a cover
made of 6 mil plastic might not be representative of field use and,
therefore, it might be more representative to test the spa without a
cover. Id. DOE requested comment on its proposed requirements for
testing a portable electric spa that does not have a cover designated
for use by the spa manufacturer, on whether manufacturers would ever
designate a portable electric spa model to be used without a cover, or
designate a ``no cover'' option, and how such a spa should be tested to
determine the highest standby loss. Id. at 87 FR 63366-63367.
In response to the October 2022 NOPR, the CEC, the CA IOUs, and the
Joint Advocates expressed support for DOE's proposal regarding spa
cover specifications during testing. (CEC, No. 13 at pp. 4-5; CA IOUs,
No. 8 at p. 2; Joint Advocates, No. 12 at pp. 2-3) Both PHTA/IHTA and
the CEC commented that they are not aware of manufacturers that
designate a ``no cover'' option or manufacturers that do not ship an
approved cover with the portable electric spa. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p.
16; CEC, No. 13 at p. 5) PHTA/IHTA emphasized that no spa would be able
to pass a reasonable minimum energy efficiency standard without a cover
and stated that they presumed any DOE test procedure would provide a
minimum requirement that could not be met without a cover. (PHTA/IHTA,
No. 10 at p. 16) Instead of the plastic film proposed by DOE to cover a
portable electric spa without a designated cover, the CEC suggested
using a cover that uses the same material and design as an inflatable
spa cover. (CEC, No. 13 at pp. 4-5)
In response to the CEC's comment regarding covers of the same
design and material as inflatable spa covers, DOE notes that portable
electric spas consume significantly more energy when the spa cover is
removed and manufacturer's instructions that do not specify the use of
a cover may lead some consumers to use only a low-cost, minimally
protective cover that would prevent debris from entering the spa but
would not provide substantial insulative properties. Therefore, it is
necessary to simulate a low-cost, minimally protective cover for
testing if a cover is not specified by a manufacturer. Although covers
resembling those used by inflatable spas may represent a lower-
efficiency option than common covers for rigid spas, DOE finds that
these covers provide more insulation than the plastic film proposed in
the October 2022 NOPR. As a result, such covers would not meet the
requirement of a low-cost, minimally protective cover as well as the
plastic film proposed by DOE.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and
in the preceding paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is finalizing its
requirements for installing a spa cover in section 3.1.5 of appendix
GG.
DOE discusses its proposal on representations related to spa covers
in section III.E.2 of this final rule.
[[Page 38618]]
8. Air Temperature Measurement Location
Section 5.6.3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 requires that ambient air
temperature be measured at one point located 12 to 18 inches above the
level of the spa cover and a minimum of 8 inches from the wall of the
chamber. The temperature probe will be positioned and out of direct
airflow from the circulation fan. ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 does not
provide any further requirements on the location of the ambient air
temperature measurement point, such that it would be possible in a
large chamber for the measurement point to be located beyond the
immediate proximity of the portable electric spa. In the October 2022
NOPR, DOE noted that this lack of direction presents the possibility
that the temperature could be taken at a location in the chamber with
an ambient temperature that is different than the ambient temperature
immediately around the portable electric spa. 87 FR 63356, 63368.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed further requirements on the
horizontal location of the ambient air temperature measurement point.
Id. Specifically, DOE proposed in section 3.1.6 of appendix GG that the
ambient air temperature measurement point specified in section 5.6.3 of
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 must be located above the center of the portable
electric spa. Id. DOE tentatively concluded that this proposed
requirement ensures that ambient temperature is measured in the
immediate vicinity of the portable electric spa and in the same general
location each time, thereby increasing test repeatability. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal. Id. PHTA/IHTA commented that
DOE's proposal reflects what is intended in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 and
is common practice in the industry. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 16) PHTA/
IHTA continued that it fully supports DOE's proposal to clarify ambient
air temperature measurement location. (Id.) The CEC also commented in
support of clarifying the horizontal position at which to measure the
ambient temperature to ensure the measurement is taken in the same
location in every test. (CEC, No. 13 at p. 5)
For the reasons stated in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is adopting
specifications in section 3.1.6 of appendix GG that the ambient air
temperature measurement point specified in section 5.6.3 of ANSI/APSP/
ICC-14 2019 must be located above the center of the portable electric
spa.
9. Water Temperature Settings
The definition of ``standby mode'' in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019
indicates that water temperature settings may be adjusted to meet the
test conditions.\30\ ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 does not specify, however,
whether adjustments to the water temperature settings can be made
during the test. Spa users typically leave a portable electric spa at
the desired water temperature setting while the spa is operating in
default operation mode with the cover on. Based on these consumer usage
patterns, water temperature adjustments during a test would be
unrepresentative of field use. In addition, the permitting of water
temperature setting adjustments during a test could influence the
outcome of the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The definition of standby mode in section 3 of ANSI/APSP/
ICC-14 2019 is as follows: All settings at default as shipped by the
manufacturer, except water temperature, which may be adjusted to
meet the test conditions. No manual operations are enabled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively concluded that water
temperature setting adjustments would not be appropriate during the
test, and that its proposed specification is required to ensure
repeatable, reproducible, and representative test results. 87 FR 63356,
63368. DOE proposed in section 3.2.2 of appendix GG to specify that
portable electric spa water temperature settings be adjusted to meet
the test requirements, but that spa water temperature settings must not
be adjusted between the start of the stabilizing period specified in
section 5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 and the end of the test period
specified in section 5.6.4.7 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposed requirement that water
temperature settings must not be adjusted between the start of the
stabilizing period and the end of the test period. Id. In response to
DOE's request for comment in the October 2022 NOPR, both PHTA/IHTA and
the CEC expressed support for DOE's proposal to clarify to not adjust
water temperature settings during testing periods. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10
at p. 16; CEC, No. 13 at p. 5) The CEC also noted that DOE's proposal
reflects the intention of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 and current practice in
the industry. (CEC, No. 13 at p. 5)
For the reasons stated in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is adopting in section
3.2.2 of appendix GG a specification that portable electric spa water
temperature settings be adjusted to meet the test requirements, but
that spa water temperature settings must not be adjusted between the
start of the stabilizing period specified in section 5.6.1 of ANSI/
APSP/ICC-14 2019 and the end of the test period specified in section
5.6.4.7 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019.
10. Water Temperature Requirements
The sub-sections within section 5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019
specify the range of water temperatures that are allowed during the
test based on the capabilities of the portable electric spa.\31\ In the
October 2022 NOPR, DOE interpreted these requirements to apply to every
temperature measurement taken during the test. 87 FR 63356, 63368.
However, some consumer product test procedures specify requirements for
the average temperature during a test instead of the individual
temperature measurements.\32\ In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE stated that
the phrasing used in section 5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 could be
interpreted to refer to requirements on the average temperature during
the test instead of every temperature measurement taken during the
test. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ For example, section 5.6.1.1 states that for exercise spas
or the exercise portion of a combination spa, that are capable of
maintaining a minimum water temperature of 100 [deg]F (38 [deg]C)
for the duration of the test, the spa shall be tested at 102 [deg]F
2 [deg]F (39 [deg]C 1 [deg]C) and maintain a
minimum water temperature of 100 [deg]F (38 [deg]C) for the duration
of the test.
\32\ For example, the test procedure for refrigerators and
refrigerator-freezers at appendix A to subpart B of part 430
contains several requirements on the average temperature of the
compartment(s) within the appliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE proposed in the October 2022 NOPR to specify explicitly in
section 3.2.3 of appendix GG that each individual water temperature
measurement taken during the stabilization period and test period must
meet the applicable water temperature requirements specified in section
5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. Id. DOE proposed this specification to
ensure that the water temperature requirements are interpreted
consistently and repeatably because DOE tentatively determined the
phrasing used in section 5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 creates the
possibility that the range of water temperatures could vary between
tests based on a laboratory's interpretation of whether the water
temperature requirements apply to the average temperature or each
individual measurement. Id. DOE conducted investigative testing and
found that its
[[Page 38619]]
proposed requirement can be met in typical spa operation. Id.
DOE requested comment on its proposal. Id. In response to the
October 2022 NOPR, PHTA/IHTA commented that industry currently
interprets requirements for individual water temperature measurements
as proposed by DOE and that it supports DOE's proposal as it may better
describe the original intent of what is provided for in ANSI/APSP/ICC-
14 2019. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 16)
For the reasons stated in preceding paragraphs and in the October
2022 NOPR, in this final rule, DOE is adopting in section 3.2.3 of
appendix GG a specification that each individual water temperature
measurement taken during the stabilization period and test period must
meet the applicable water temperature requirements specified in section
5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019.
11. Standby Loss Calculation
Section 5.7 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 contains calculations for
normalized standby power. This includes calculating the measured
standby power and normalizing that standby power to a normalized
temperature difference between the water in the spa and the ambient
air. As discussed in section III.C.3 of this final rule, DOE is
adopting a requirement to use the term ``standby loss'' instead of
``normalized standby power.'' In addition, as discussed in section
III.D.3 of this final rule, DOE is adopting a requirement to specify a
representative ambient air temperature of 56 [deg]F.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed standby loss calculations in
section 3.3 of appendix GG, including a normalized temperature
difference of 46 [deg]F (i.e., 102 [deg]F-56 [deg]F) for units tested
at a water temperature of 102 [deg]F 2 [deg]F, and a
normalized temperature difference of 31 [deg]F (i.e., 87 [deg]F-56
[deg]F) for units tested at a water temperature of 87 [deg]F 2 [deg]F. 87 FR 63356, 63369. DOE calculated each proposed
normalized temperature difference as the difference between the
midpoints of the allowable water temperature and ambient air
temperature ranges, which DOE tentatively concluded as being the most
representative method for determining a normalized temperature
difference. Id.
DOE's proposed approach to calculate the normalized temperature
differs from the approach used in section 5.7 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019,
which normalizes to a temperature difference equal to the minimum of
the allowed water temperature range (i.e., 100 [deg]F or 85 [deg]F)
minus the maximum of the allowed ambient air temperature range (i.e.,
63 [deg]F). Id. DOE tentatively concluded that this approach may not be
representative of an average use cycle because it normalizes standby
loss to the minimum expected temperature difference resulting from the
two defined ranges. Id.
DOE requested comment on the proposed standby loss calculations,
including the method used to calculate normalized temperature
differences based on the midpoint of the allowable temperature ranges.
Id. DOE also requested comment on its tentative conclusion that
normalizing standby loss to the midpoint of the allowable temperature
ranges would produce test results that are more representative than
normalizing standby loss to the minimum expected temperature difference
between the allowable ranges. Id.
PHTA/IHTA strongly recommended that there be no change to the
normalized temperature difference and that DOE use the minimum water
temperature and maximum ambient temperature to determine the normalized
temperature difference. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at pp. 7, 17) PHTA/IHTA
indicated that the particular normalized temperature difference has no
effect on the comparison between portable electric spas at a given
temperature difference, in that the ranking of portable electric spa
standby loss will stay the same no matter the normalized temperature
difference used. (Id. at pp. 6, 17) PHTA/IHTA also indicated that the
minimum water temperature and maximum ambient air temperature were
chosen to reduce the number of test results discarded due to
temperatures being out of tolerance. (Id. at p. 17) Finally, PHTA/IHTA
stated that if DOE feels strongly that the normalized temperature
difference should be 46 [deg]F, the formula specifying the allowed
standby loss must be changed accordingly. (Id. at p. 7) Master Spas
also commented that the current normalization method should be left
intact, as it is representative, it is proven to be reproducible, and
changing it would impose burden on the industry. (Master Spas, No. 7 at
p. 2)
Regarding PHTA/IHTA's comment that use of the minimum water
temperature and maximum ambient air temperature minimizes the
discarding of test results, DOE concludes that the normalized
temperature difference has no effect on whether test results are
discarded. The validity of test results is based on the water and
ambient air temperature tolerances during the test, which are different
than the normalized temperature difference used for normalizing the
standby loss. The DOE test procedure uses the water temperature
tolerances from ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019, and the ambient air temperature
tolerances are discussed in section III.D.3 of this final rule.
PHTA/IHTA's statement that the ranking of portable electric spa
standby loss will stay the same regardless of whether the normalized
temperature difference used is accurate. DOE proposed to change the
normalized temperature difference not to change the ranking of portable
electric spa standby loss, but to make representations of standby loss
more representative. To this end, it is more representative to base the
normalized temperature difference on an air temperature of 56 [deg]F--
the ambient air temperature that DOE has determined as the
representative national ambient temperature for portable electric spas
in section III.D.3 of this final rule--than it is to base it on air
temperature of 63 [deg]F. It is also more representative to use the
midpoint of the allowed water temperature range than it is to use the
minimum of the allowed water temperature range, because it is DOE's
understanding that the midpoint of each allowed temperature range
(i.e., 102 [deg]F for most portable electric spas and 87 [deg]F for
exercise spas that cannot maintain a minimum water temperature of 100
[deg]F) is the most commonly used temperature setting for the products
using the respective range.
Regarding PHTA/IHTA's comment that the allowed standby loss must be
changed if the normalized temperature difference is changed, DOE notes
that if it were to establish an energy conservation standard for
portable electric spas, that energy conservation standard would be
based on the standby loss as measured by the DOE test procedure. As a
result, any energy conservation standard would take into account the
normalized temperature difference used in the DOE test procedure.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and
in the preceding paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is finalizing in
section 3.3 of appendix GG the standby loss calculations that were
proposed in the October 2022 NOPR.
E. Represented Values Provisions
1. Basic Model
In the course of regulating consumer products, DOE has developed
the concept of a ``basic model'' to determine the specific product or
equipment configuration(s) to which the regulations would apply. DOE's
existing
[[Page 38620]]
definition of this term at 10 CFR 430.2 states that ``basic model''
means all units of a given type of covered product (or class thereof)
manufactured by one manufacturer that have the same primary energy
source and have essentially identical electrical, physical, and
functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect energy
consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, or water
efficiency.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The definition of ``basic model'' in 10 CFR 430.2 also
includes several product-specific paragraphs that are not relevant
to portable electric spas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that the
general definition of ``basic model'' is appropriate for portable
electric spas. 87 FR 63356, 63379. For the purposes of applying the
proposed portable electric spa regulations, DOE proposed to rely on the
definition of ``basic model'' as currently defined at 10 CFR 430.2. Id.
As proposed, manufacturers would be required to test only a
representative number of units of a basic model in lieu of testing
every individual model they manufacture, and individual models of
portable electric spas would be permitted to be grouped under a single
basic model so long as all grouped models have the same representative
energy performance, which is representative of the unit with the
highest standby loss. Id.
DOE also proposed that if a basic model is distributed in commerce
with multiple covers designated by the spa manufacturer for use with
the basic model, a manufacturer must determine all represented values
for that basic model based on the cover that results in the highest
standby loss, except that the manufacturer may choose to identify
specific individual combinations of spa and cover as additional basic
models. Id. DOE addresses comments on this proposal regarding spa
covers in section III.E.2 of this final rule.
DOE requested comment on the proposed applicability of the
definition of ``basic model'' at 10 CFR 430.2 to portable electric
spas. Id.
In written comments responding to the October 2022 NOPR, the CEC
supported applying the definition of ``basic model.'' (CEC, No. 13 at
p. 5) However, PHTA/IHTA and Master Spas stated that there is a lack of
clarity on the features that constitute different basic models, and,
without more clarity, manufacturers would only group basic models that
have different aesthetic features (e.g., cabinet colors). (PHTA/IHTA,
No. 10 at p. 17; Master Spas, No. 7 at pp. 2-3) Master Spas identified
differences in fill volume, shape, size, electric characteristics, and
hydraulic characteristics as items that might be used to differentiate
basic models. (Master Spas, No. 7 at pp. 2-3) PHTA/IHTA also indicated
that the use of a circulation pump and the number of jets are
additional characteristics that might be used to distinguish models.
(PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 17) PHTA/IHTA also argued that while DOE
mentioned that basic models can help minimize test burden, the proposed
method does not account for the testing required to determine the most
consumptive spa within a given basic model. (Id.)
In response to the lack of clarity that PHTA/IHTA and Master Spas
identified regarding the features that constitute a basic model, DOE
notes that manufacturers can choose how they interpret the term
``essentially identical'' in the basic model definition, as long as the
individual model used to represent the basic model has the highest
standby loss of all individual models in that basic model. The more
broadly they choose to interpret this term, the more individual models
can potentially be grouped within a single basic model. Therefore,
manufacturers have the ability to determine the number of basic models
they want to represent, as long as the individual model used to
represent each basic model has the highest standby loss of all
individual models in that basic model.
Regarding PHTA/IHTA's concern that DOE's claim that basic models
can help minimize test burden does not account for the testing required
to determine the most consumptive spa within a given basic model, DOE
notes that, as discussed, manufacturers have the ability to determine
the number of basic models they want to represent, as long as the
individual model used to represent each basic model has the highest
standby loss of all individual models in that basic model. When
determining that number, manufacturers can consider the testing
required to determine the most consumptive spa within a given basic
model to ensure that their total testing burden, including tests to
determine the most consumptive spa within a given basic model, will be
manageable. In addition, DOE notes that manufacturers of other products
have used the basic model approach to considerably reduce the number of
individual models that require testing. There is no clear reason why
portable electric spa manufacturers should not be able to do the same
thing by combining their product knowledge with judicious use of the
basic model definition. The alternative approach would be to have
manufacturers test and rate individual models with any difference in
design as unique basic models, which would increase testing burden far
beyond PHTA/IHTA and Master Spa's estimates. As a result, DOE concludes
that the basic model approach should reduce the testing burden on
portable electric spa manufacturers considerably, even when including
the testing required to determine the most consumptive spa within a
given basic model, when compared to testing all individual models.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and
in the preceding paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is finalizing its
proposal in the October 2022 NOPR to rely on the definition of ``basic
model'' as currently defined at 10 CFR 430.2.
2. Represented Values
DOE provides requirements for represented values and sampling plans
for all covered products in subpart B to 10 CFR part 429. The purpose
of a statistical sampling plan is to provide a method to determine
represented values of energy- and non-energy-related metrics for each
basic model.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to create a new section at
10 CFR 429.66 \34\ for portable electric spas and to require that, for
each basic model, a sample of sufficient size must be randomly selected
and tested to ensure that any represented value of standby loss or
other measure of energy consumption of a basic model for which
customers would favor lower values is greater than or equal to the
higher of the following two values:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The section was proposed as 10 CFR 429.66 in the October
2022 NOPR, but it is being finalized in this final rule as 10 CFR
429.76, due to additional sections that have been added between the
dates of the proposal and the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JN23.003
and x is the sample mean, n is the number of samples, and xi
is the maximum of the i\th\ sample;
Or,
(2) The upper 95-percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JN23.004
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-
percent one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom
(from appendix A of subpart B
[[Page 38621]]
of 10 CFR part 429). 87 FR 63356, 63369.
DOE proposed in 10 CFR 429.66 that the represented value of standby
loss must be a whole number of watts. Id. Additionally, DOE proposed
that the represented value of fill volume must be a whole number of
gallons that is within 5 gallons of the mean of the fill volumes
measured for the units in the sample used to determine the represented
value of standby loss. Id. DOE's proposal on fill volume
representations is discussed in section III.D.6 of this final rule.
Portable electric spas are often available with more than one model
of cover, and the characteristics of the cover can significantly affect
measured standby loss. In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed that if a
basic model is distributed in commerce with multiple covers designated
by the spa manufacturer for use with the basic model, a manufacturer
must determine all represented values for that basic model based on the
cover that results in the highest standby loss, except the manufacturer
may choose to identify specific individual combinations of spa and
cover as additional basic models. Id. at 87 FR 63370. DOE also proposed
that if a basic model is distributed in commerce with no cover
designated by the spa manufacturer for use with the basic model, a
manufacturer must determine all represented values for that basic model
by testing as specified in section 3.1.5.2 of appendix GG to subpart B
of part 430. Id. DOE's proposal on testing units without a designated
cover is discussed in section III.D.7 of this final rule.
DOE requested comment on the proposed statistical sampling
procedures and representations requirements for portable electric spas.
Id. DOE also requested comment on the proposal that represented values
be based on testing with the designated cover that results in the
highest standby loss or by testing as specified in section 3.1.5.2 of
appendix GG to subpart B of part 430 if there is no designated cover.
Id.
In response to the October 2022 NOPR, the CEC commented in support
of DOE's proposal for providing calculation instructions on represented
values and sampling plans. (CEC, No. 13 at p. 5) PHTA/IHTA requested
clarification on the number of units for each basic model that would be
required for testing to generate the 95-percent confidence level.
(PHTA/IHTA, No. 10 at p. 17) PHTA/IHTA indicated that ANSI/APSP/ICC-14
2019 requires only a single unit to be tested and requested that DOE
consider their concerns on how basic models are defined, as well as the
amount of time necessary to test each model, given that some test labs
only have the capacity to test one portable electric spa at a time.
(Id. at p. 17-18) Master Spas also highlighted the amount of time
required for testing and requested that DOE allow manufacturers to test
only a single unit of a basic model when grouping of models is not
exercised. (Master Spas, No. 7 at p. 3) Master Spas also stated that
they supported testing at least two spas per basic model if grouping
was performed. (Id.)
PHTA/IHTA, the CEC, and the CA IOUs commented in support of DOE's
proposal on the spa cover to use for representations. (PHTA/IHTA, No.
10 at p. 18; CEC, No. 13 at p. 4; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 2)
Regarding PHTA/IHTA's request for clarification of the number of
units of each basic model that need to be tested, the proposed section
10 CFR 429.66(a)(2) states that the sampling requirements of 10 CFR
429.11 are applicable to portable electric spas. 10 CFR 429.11(b)
states that the minimum number of units tested shall be no less than
two, except where a different minimum limit is specified for the
product or only one unit of the basic model is produced, in which case
that single unit must be tested. As a result, at least two units of a
basic model of portable electric spas must be tested, unless only one
unit of the basic model is produced, in which case that single unit
must be tested. Additionally, although PHTA/IHTA stated that ANSI/APSP/
ICC-14 2019 requires only a single unit to be tested, DOE has not been
able to identify any specification of the number of units to be tested
in ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. As a result, DOE surmises that agencies that
choose to use ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 as part of a State or local energy
conservation program or energy code, or manufacturers that choose to
use ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 on a voluntary basis, would choose the number
of units to be tested per basic model.
Regarding the comments from PHTA/IHTA and Master Spas on the
potential for testing only one unit of a basic model instead of two,
DOE notes that, as discussed, manufacturers have the ability to
determine the number of basic models they want to represent, as long as
the individual model used to represent each basic model has the highest
standby loss of all individual models in that basic model. When
determining that number, manufacturers can consider the need to test at
least two units for each basic model to ensure that their total testing
burden, including testing at least two units for each basic model, will
be manageable. DOE surmises that this ability to define the grouping of
individual models into basic models addresses the concerns of Master
Spas and PHTA/IHTA, because Master Spas stated that they supported
testing at least two spas per basic model if grouping were performed,
and PHTA/IHTA referred to their concerns on basic model definition
(discussed in section III.E.1) as part of their comment on the sample
size. DOE also notes that these same minimum requirements are used
across almost all products with DOE test procedures, with a wide range
of required test durations. PHTA/IHTA did not make clear why
manufacturers of portable electric spas would require a sample size
smaller than those of other products. As a result, DOE is not including
a smaller required sample size in this final rule.
For the reasons discussed in the October 2022 NOPR and in the
preceding paragraphs, in this final rule, DOE is establishing in 10 CFR
429.76 the requirements for represented values and sampling plans that
were proposed in the October 2022 NOPR. DOE is also updating paragraphs
(a) and (b)(1) in 10 CFR 429.11, which lists the general sampling
requirements for selecting units to be tested, to change the referenced
sections from ``10 CFR 429.14 through 10 CFR 429.69'' to ``10 CFR
429.14 through 10 CFR 429.69 and 10 CFR 429.76.''
F. Test Procedure Costs
Use of the DOE test procedure established in this final rule will
not be required for use until new energy conservation standards are
established, if they are established. As a result, this test procedure
will not in itself impose any costs on any manufacturers. Although use
of the test procedure is not required as a result of this test
procedure final rule, DOE has undertaken a study of the costs of
testing a portable electric spa in the event of new energy conservation
standards.
In the October 2022 NOPR, DOE estimated the per-test cost for
third-party laboratory testing of portable electric spas according to
the current industry consensus test procedure, ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019,
to be $5,000 for standard and inflatable spas, $9,000 for exercise
spas, and $11,000 for combination spas. 87 FR 63356, 63370. In the
October 2022 NOPR, DOE estimated the per-unit test cost for third-party
lab testing according to the proposed DOE test procedure to be
approximately the same except for an additional $150 per test to
account for the purchase of equipment to control
[[Page 38622]]
ambient temperature. In this final rule, DOE has adjusted the test
procedure, factoring in public comments that will be discussed further
in the remainder of this section, to no longer require the use of this
equipment. Accordingly, DOE expects per-unit test costs to be the same
as the existing industry consensus test procedure. Two units will need
to be tested per basic model to certify compliance under this test
procedure. Although ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 does not specify the number
of units of a basic model that need to be tested, DOE generally
requires that at least two units be tested to certify compliance with
energy conservation standards (see 10 CFR 429.11(b)) to ensure that
such determinations of compliance are representative of actual basic
model performance and is finalizing that requirement in this final
rule. Additionally, this final rule includes a requirement that testing
be conducted on a raised wood deck rather than a foam bed (which is
used in the industry test procedure). DOE expects the total cost of
constructing this new flooring would be $877.01 per test station.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ DOE expects that the required materials would consist of 77
10 ft 2 x 6 wooden beams, for a cost of $8.95 each, and decking
screws costing $22.94. Labor costs are expected to be four hours at
a rate of $41.23 (national median wage of a mechanical engineering
technician is 29.07, wages account for 70.5 percent of total
employment costs). All together, these supplies and labor ($8.95 *
77 + $22.94 + $41.23 * 4) equal $877.01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the October 2022 NOPR, commenters expressed concern
for the financial burden that would ensue by deviating from the ANSI/
APSP/ICC-14 2019 test procedure. The Texas A&M Students noted that
increased cost for companies would result in higher cost to consumers,
but that is not too concerning because spas are a luxury item. (Texas
A&M Students, No. 4 at pp. 1-2) PHTA/IHTA commented that retesting all
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 compliant products would cost a minimum of $5,000
per portable electric spa and more for exercise spas. (PHTA/IHTA, No.
10 at p. 18) PHTA/IHTA argued that the $150 increase for equipment to
control ambient temperature described by DOE does not consider
retesting, and that the number of models that would need to be retested
is likely undervalued because manufacturers may be selling portable
electric spas in states incompliant with CA Title 20. (Id.) Watkins
also expressed concern for the significant financial burden that would
result from deviation from ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. (Watkins, No. 14 at
p. 2)
Regarding retesting portable electric spas, Master Spas commented
that testing every spa twice would cause immense burden, and that even
with advanced testing capacities, retesting would still take about 60
weeks. (Master Spas, No. 7 at p. 3) Master Spas added that most labs do
not have such testing capacities, which means their testing would take
much longer, and retesting would be burdensome to the spa industry.
(Id.) Because the industry cannot afford to lose time, Master Spas
urged DOE to consider special exceptions for testing models twice.
(Id.) PHTA/IHTA commented that retesting due to the proposed changes in
ambient temperature, normalization, and chamber floor requirements in
the October 2022 NOPR would incur millions of dollars in expenses with
no significant increase in energy efficiency and could make costs to
consumers higher. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 7 at pp. 3-4) PHTA/IHTA mentioned
collaborating on CA Title 20 regulation and CSA C374:11 (R2021) \36\
and said that there is currently not enough testing data on the
proposed changes to the test procedure to prove these changes will
produce a net benefit. (Id.) Master Spas agreed that retesting would
cost millions and that there is a lack of existing data, which would
require additional trial and error testing. (Master Spas, No. 7 at p.
3) PHTA/IHTA also commented that any substantive changes would require
additional data analysis, as data mentioned in the October 2022 NOPR
was not made available. (PHTA/IHTA, No. 7 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The standard CSA 374:11 (R2021) was referred to as CAN/CSA-
C374-11 or CAN/CSA-C374-11 (R2021) by PHTA/IHTA and was referred to
as CAN/CSA-C374-11 (R2021) in the October 2022 NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to these comments, DOE notes that many of DOE's
proposals in the October 2022 NOPR, specifically those regarding
ambient temperature, normalization, and floor conditions, would have
required retesting and imposed further burden on manufacturers in the
event of new energy conservation standards. However, DOE has accounted
for this potential burden in this final rule and modified its final
proposal to mitigate unnecessary time and financial burden. These
modifications are discussed in more detail in sections III.D.3 and
III.D.4 of this final rule.
In finalizing this test procedure, DOE finds that the testing of
two units per basic model, including the retesting of models previously
tested under the industry test procedure, is necessary for appropriate
representativeness. As stated, use of the test procedure established in
this final rule will not be required for use until the compliance date
of any new energy conservation standards for portable electric spas, if
such standards are finalized. DOE expects that the time period until
any energy conservation standards on these products would allow
sufficient time for manufacturers to conduct testing. Additionally,
application of the basic model provisions, as discussed in section
III.E.1 of this document, would limit the number of individual models
manufacturers would be required to test to make representations of
efficiency.
In regard to possible impacts on consumers associated with this
test procedure, DOE does not expect that these increased test costs for
manufacturers will lead to significantly higher prices for consumers.
Commenters are correct that, if energy conservation standards are
finalized, test costs across the industry would constitute several
millions of dollars--however, additional costs related to a given model
are very small relative to overall production costs associated with
that model and would not justify a significant increase to its selling
price. DOE expects that the finalized test procedure will produce more
representative efficiency metrics that consumers can use to inform
purchasing choices to their benefit as well as better support
compliance with potential energy conservation standards. Costs
associated with this test procedure will be part of the cost-benefit
analysis conducted for potential energy conservation standards, which
DOE uses to evaluate whether potential standards are economically
justified.
G. Effective and Compliance Dates
The effective date for the prescribed test procedure will be 30
days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.
EPCA prescribes that all representations of energy efficiency and
energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product
labels, must be made in accordance with an amended or new test
procedure, beginning 180 days after publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2)) To the extent the test
procedure established in this final rule is required only for the
evaluation and issuance of new efficiency standards, compliance with
the test procedure does not require use of such test procedure until
the compliance date of new standards.
For portable electric spas, all representations of energy
efficiency and energy use, including those made on marketing materials
and product labels, must be made in accordance with the test procedure
in this final rule,
[[Page 38623]]
beginning on the compliance date of any Federal energy conservation
standards for portable electric spas.
DOE is specifying a compliance date later than 180 days after the
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register because several
States have test procedures and energy conservation standards in place
for portable electric spas. The test procedure in this final rule
establishes measures of energy consumption that are different than
those currently used by States. As a result, compliance with the DOE
test procedure would require all State programs to be adjusted to use
the measures of energy consumption in the DOE test procedure.
By requiring compliance with the DOE test procedure beginning on
the compliance date of any Federal energy conservation standards for
portable electric spas, DOE is avoiding the necessity for State
programs to be adjusted to use the measures of energy consumption in
the DOE test procedure. This compliance date also provides States and
manufacturers additional time to adjust to the new rating method in the
DOE test procedure and to align all changes with the compliance date of
any Federal energy conservation standards. In addition, the extended
compliance date will alleviate the potential burden, raised by some
commenters in response to the October 2022 NOPR, for manufacturers to
test a large number of models within a short duration with limited
testing facilities.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14904
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and
amended by E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 88 FR 21879
(April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to
(1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory
objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent
practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts;
and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance
objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance
that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user
fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices
can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563
requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify
anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in this
preamble, this final regulatory action is consistent with these
principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for
any final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a
proposed rule 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 website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed this final rule under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19, 2003.
As noted in section III.F of this document, no mandatory costs will
be incurred by any manufacturers as a result of this final rule. Use of
the test procedure would not be required until the compliance date of
any new energy conservation standards established for portable electric
spas. Therefore, DOE concludes that the impacts of the test procedure
in this final rule would not have a ``significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,'' and that the preparation of a
FRFA is not warranted. DOE will transmit the certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Despite a FRFA not being required, in the following sections, DOE
has conducted an analysis of the cost impacts to small businesses
associated with this test procedure in the event of any new energy
conservation standards for portable electric spas.
1. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
DOE uses the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') small business
size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as ``small
businesses,'' which are listed by the North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS'').\37\ The SBA considers a business
entity to be a small business if, together with its affiliates, it
employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR
part 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Available at: www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portable electric spa manufacturers, who produce the products
covered by this final rule, are classified under NAICS code 333414,
``Heating Equipment (except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing.'' In 13
CFR 121.201, the SBA sets a threshold of 500 employees or fewer for an
entity to be considered as a small business in this category. This
employee threshold includes all employees in a business's parent
company and any other subsidiaries. DOE used available public
information, such as the MAEDbS, to identify potential manufacturers.
Once DOE created a list of potential manufacturers, DOE used market
research tools to determine whether any met the SBA's definition of a
small entity.
DOE identified 28 companies potentially manufacturing portable
electric spas covered by this test procedure. DOE screened out
companies that do not meet the small entity definition and,
additionally, screened out companies that are largely or
[[Page 38624]]
entirely foreign owned and operated. Of the 28 companies, 14 were
identified as a small business. Each of these small businesses were
further identified--through a review of their websites and online
documentation--to be original equipment manufacturers manufacturing
covered portable electric spas as opposed to rebranding spas,
integrating the spas into some broader product offering, or producing
spas for strictly commercial applications.
2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
DOE's test procedure is largely consistent with the current
industry consensus test method ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019. As such, DOE
anticipates that this final rule will be unlikely to significantly
increase existing per-unit test burden given that DOE is referencing
the prevailing industry test procedure. However, this test procedure
does require two tests per basic model, which would be a substantial
cost increase, as well as requiring tests to be conducted on decking
rather than a foam pad--in the event energy conservation standards are
established.
Commenting on the October 2022 NOPR, the Texas A&M Students stated
that companies may have to pay anywhere from $5,000-$11,150 to retest
spas, and though that may not be a huge burden to large companies, it
would be a burden for smaller companies. (Texas A&M Students, No. 4 at
pp. 1-2) However, the Texas A&M Students noted that the cost would be
somewhat mitigated because many States already have many of the
proposed changes and tests in place. (Id. at p. 2)
DOE agrees that costs imposed by the test procedure may be
relatively higher for small manufacturers than large manufacturers.
Still, DOE does not expect these costs to be a significant burden to
small manufacturers. In the following paragraph and table, DOE reviews
the estimated test costs for each identified small business and places
those test costs in terms of the businesses estimated revenue.
DOE understands that most portable electric spa manufacturers elect
to test units at a third-party testing facility. DOE estimates the per
unit model test costs for third-party lab testing to be $5,000 for
standard and inflatable spas, $9,000 for exercise spas, and $11,000 for
combination spas. In the table below, DOE provides estimates of the
possible cost impacts (based on estimated basic model counts from
MAEDbS) for each small business, estimated small business revenue, and
those costs as a percentage of revenue. The cost to build decking for
the purposes of the test is included on the assumption that a small
business will need to cover the cost of decking for one testing
station--estimated to total $877.01. On average, estimated testing
costs represent 1.2 percent of annual revenue for a given small
business.
Table IV.1--Estimated Testing Burden for Small, Domestic Manufacturers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Percent of
Manufacturer testing burden Annual revenue annual revenue
(2022$mm) (2022$mm) (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer A.................................................. 0.16 51.4 0.3
Manufacturer B.................................................. 0.01 10.3 0.1
Manufacturer C.................................................. 0.12 29.6 0.4
Manufacturer D.................................................. 0.05 0.6 8.5
Manufacturer E.................................................. 0.03 111 0.0
Manufacturer F.................................................. 0.28 62.0 0.5
Manufacturer G.................................................. 0.34 27.0 1.3
Manufacturer H.................................................. 0.12 20.0 0.6
Manufacturer I.................................................. 0.14 7.52 1.9
Manufacturer J.................................................. 0.04 23.7 0.2
Manufacturer K.................................................. 0.04 40.0 0.1
Manufacturer L.................................................. 0.09 12.7 0.7
Manufacturer M.................................................. 0.06 7.73 0.8
Manufacturer N.................................................. 0.02 2.19 1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this analysis, DOE does not expect the testing costs to be
a significant burden to small manufacturers.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Although no energy conservation standards have been established for
portable electric spas as of the publication of this final rule,
manufacturers of portable electric spas would need to certify to DOE
that their products comply with any potential future applicable energy
conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first
obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test
procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures.
DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial
equipment. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-
information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping 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 35 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.
Certification data will be required for portable electric spas once
any energy conservation standards have been established for portable
electric spas; however, DOE is not establishing certification or
reporting requirements for portable electric spas in this final rule.
Instead, DOE may consider proposals to establish certification
requirements and reporting for portable electric spas under a separate
rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. DOE will
address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time, as
necessary.
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
[[Page 38625]]
that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control
Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this final rule, DOE establishes a test procedure that it
expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for portable electric spas. 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, DOE has determined that adopting test
procedures for measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and
industrial equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR
part 1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. 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. For the reasons described
below, DOE has examined this final rule and has determined that this
rule meets the relevant standards of E.O. 13132.
E.O. 13132 includes special requirements for preemption, including
that Federal agencies must only construe a Federal statute to preempt
State law where the statute includes express preemption or some other
clear evidence that Congress intended preemption of State law, or where
the exercise of State authority conflicts with the exercise of Federal
authority under the Federal statute. Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation
testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297) As such, any State
regulation regarding portable electric spa testing will be preempted on
the compliance dates listed in the DATES section. States can petition
DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C.
6297)
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,
this final 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 regulatory action resulting 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)) 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.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final
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
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 final rule will 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 will not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under 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
[[Page 38626]]
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this final 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 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 significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
This final regulatory action 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.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or
industry standards on competition.
The test procedure for portable electric spas adopted in this final
rule incorporates testing methods contained in certain sections of the
following commercial standards: Pool & Hot Tub Alliance ANSI/APSP/ICC-
14 2019, ``American National Standard for Portable Electric Spa Energy
Efficiency,'' and CSA C374:11 (R2021) ``Energy performance of hot tubs
and spas.'' DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude
whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the
FEAA (i.e., whether they were developed in a manner that fully provides
for public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with
both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact
on competition of using the methods contained in these standards and
has received no comments objecting to their use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 and CSA C374:11 (R2021) are industry-accepted
test standards that specify methods for measuring the energy efficiency
of portable electric spas that differ in certain installation
requirements.
Specifically, the test procedure codified by this final rule
references ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 for measuring the energy efficiency of
portable electric spas. ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 is reasonably available
from PHTA (www.phta.org).
Specifically, the test procedure codified by this final rule
references CSA C374:11 (R2021) for specifying the platform on which to
install portable electric spas during testing. CSA C374:11 (R2021) is
reasonably available from the CSA Group (www.csagroup.org).
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Small businesses.
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 30,
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Sec. 429.11 [Amended]
0
2. Amend paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) by removing the text ``Sec. Sec.
429.14 through 429.69'' and adding in its place ``Sec. Sec. 429.14
through 429.69 and Sec. 429.76''.
[[Page 38627]]
0
3. Add Sec. 429.76 to subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 429.76 Portable electric spas.
(a) Determination of represented values. Manufacturers must
determine the represented values for each basic model of portable
electric spas by testing in conjunction with the following provisions.
(1) For spa covers:
(i) If a basic model is distributed in commerce with multiple
covers designated by the spa manufacturer for use with the basic model,
a manufacturer must determine all represented values for that basic
model based on the cover that results in the highest standby loss,
except that the manufacturer may choose to identify specific individual
combinations of spa and cover as additional basic models.
(ii) If a basic model is distributed in commerce with no cover
designated by the spa manufacturer for use with the basic model, a
manufacturer must determine all represented values for that basic model
by testing as specified in section 3.1.5.2 of appendix GG to subpart B
of this part.
(2) The sampling requirements of Sec. 429.11 are applicable to
portable electric spas; and
(3) For each basic model of portable electric spas, a sample of
sufficient size must be randomly selected and tested to ensure that any
representation of standby loss 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] TR13JN23.005
and x is the sample mean, n is the number of samples, and xi
is the i\th\ sample; or,
(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JN23.006
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
percent one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom
(from appendix A of subpart B of part 429).
(4) The represented value of standby loss must be a whole number of
watts.
(5) The represented value of fill volume of a basic model must be a
whole number of gallons that is within 5 gallons of the mean of the
fill volumes measured for the units in the sample selected as described
in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(b) [Reserved]
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
4. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
5. Amend Sec. 430.3 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (k) introductory text;
0
c. Adding paragraph (k)(2);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (w) through (x) as paragraphs (x) through
(y); and
0
e. Adding a new paragraph (w).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference.
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that
specified in this section, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) must
publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must be
available to the public. All approved incorporation by reference (IBR)
material is available for inspection at DOE and at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact DOE at: The U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, EE-5B,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9127, [email protected], https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/appliance-and-equipment-standards-program. For information on the availability of this material at NARA,
visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email
[email protected]. The material may be obtained from the sources
in the following paragraphs of this section.
* * * * *
(k) CSA. CSA Group, 178 Rexdale Blvd., Toronto, ON, Canada M9W 1R3,
1-800-463-6727 or 416-747-4044, www.csagroup.org.
* * * * *
(2) CSA C374:11 (R2021), Energy performance of hot tubs and spas,
published November 2011, Update No. 1--National Standard of Canada--
April 2012; IBR approved for appendix GG to subpart B of this part.
* * * * *
(w) PHTA. Pool & Hot Tub Alliance, 2111 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite
500, Alexandria, VA 22314 (www.phta.org), (703) 838-0083.
(1) ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019, American National Standard for Portable
Electric Spa Energy Efficiency, ANSI-approved November 19, 2019; IBR
approved for appendix GG to subpart B of this part.
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 430.23 by adding a new paragraph (ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 430.23 Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water
consumption.
* * * * *
(ii) Portable electric spas. Measure the standby loss in watts and
the fill volume in gallons of a portable electric spa in accordance
with appendix GG to this subpart.
0
6. Add appendix GG to subpart B of part 430 to read as follows:
Appendix GG to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Portable Electric Spas
Note: Beginning on the compliance date of any energy
conservation standards for portable electric spas specified in Sec.
430.32, all representations of fill volume, energy efficiency, and
energy use of portable electric spas, including those made on
marketing materials and product labels, must be made in accordance
with this test procedure.
0. Incorporation by Reference
DOE incorporated by reference in Sec. 430.3, the entire
standard for ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 and CSA C374:11 (R2021). However,
only enumerated provisions of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 and CSA C374:11
(R2021), as listed in this section 0 are required. To the extent
there is a conflict between the terms or provisions of a referenced
industry standard and the CFR, the CFR provisions control. Non-
enumerated provisions of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 are specifically
excluded.
0.1. ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019
(a) Section 3--Definitions (excluding the definitions for cover,
specified; fill volume; rated volume; and standby mode), as
specified in section 2.1 of this appendix;
(b) Section 5--Test Method (excluding Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.5.2,
5.5.4, 5.5.5, and 5.7), as specified in sections 3, 3.1.6, 3.2.2,
and 3.2.3 of this appendix;
(c) Appendix A--Minimum Chamber Requirements (excluding section
titled Chamber floor), as specified in section 3.1.1 of this
appendix.
0.2. CSA C374:11 (R2021)
(a) Clause 5.1.1--Test room, as specified in section 3.1.2 of
this appendix;
[[Page 38628]]
(b) Figure 1--Test platform, as specified in section 3.1.2 of
this appendix.
1. Scope
This appendix provides the test procedure for measuring the
standby loss in watts and the fill volume in gallons of portable
electric spas.
2. Definitions
2.1. Section 3, Definitions, of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 applies to
this test procedure. In case of conflicting terms between ANSI/APSP/
ICC-14 2019 and DOE's definitions in this appendix or in Sec.
430.2, DOE's definitions take priority.
2.2. Combination spa means a portable electric spa with two
separate and distinct reservoirs, where--
(a) One reservoir is an exercise spa;
(b) The second reservoir is a standard spa; and
(c) Each reservoir has an independent water temperature setting
control.
2.3. Exercise spa means a variant of a portable electric spa in
which the design and construction includes specific features and
equipment to produce a water flow intended to allow recreational
physical activity including, but not limited to, swimming in place.
An exercise spa is also known as a swim spa.
2.4. Exercise spa portion means the reservoir of a combination
spa that is an exercise spa.
2.5. Fill volume means the volume of water held by the portable
electric spa when it is filled as specified in section 3.1.4 of this
appendix.
2.6. Inflatable spa means a portable electric spa where the
structure is collapsible and is designed to be filled with air to
form the body of the spa.
2.7. Standard spa means a portable electric spa that is not an
inflatable spa, an exercise spa, or the exercise spa portion of a
combination spa.
2.8. Standard spa portion means the reservoir of a combination
spa that is a standard spa.
2.9. Standby loss means the mean normalized power required to
operate the portable electric spa in default operation mode with the
cover on, as calculated in section 3.3 of this appendix.
3. Test Method
Determine the standby loss in watts and fill volume in gallons
for portable electric spas in accordance with section 5, Test
Method, of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019, except as follows.
3.1. Test Setup
3.1.1. Chamber
Install the portable electric spa in a chamber satisfying the
requirements specified for Chamber internal dimensions, Air flow,
and Chamber insulation in appendix A, Minimum Chamber Requirements,
to ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019.
3.1.2. Chamber Floor
Install the portable electric spa on a platform as specified in
Clause 5.1.1(b) and Figure 1 of CSA C374:11 (R2021).
3.1.3. Electrical Supply Voltage and Amperage Configuration
3.1.3.1. General
If the portable electric spa can be installed or configured with
multiple options of voltage, maximum amperage, or both, use the
hierarchy in section 3.1.3.2 of this appendix to determine the
configuration for testing.
3.1.3.2. Hierarchy
Use the as-shipped configuration, if such a configuration is
provided.
If no configuration is provided in the as-shipped condition, use
the option specified in the manufacturer's instructions as the
recommended configuration for normal consumer use.
If no configuration is provided in the as-shipped condition and
the manufacturer's instructions do not provide a recommended
configuration for normal consumer use, use the maximum voltage
specified in the manufacturer's installation instructions and
maximum amperage that the manufacturer's installation instructions
specify for use with the maximum voltage.
3.1.4. Fill Volume
Follow the manufacturer's instructions for filling the portable
electric spa with water, connecting and/or priming the pump(s), and
starting up the spa. After verifying that the spa is operating
normally and that all water lines are filled, power off the spa and
adjust the fill level as needed to meet the following specifications
before starting the test.
If the manufacturer's instructions specify a single fill level,
fill to that level with a tolerance of 0.125 inches.
If the manufacturer's instructions specify a range of fill
levels and not a single fill level, fill to the middle of that range
with a tolerance of 0.125 inches.
If the manufacturer's instructions do not specify a fill level
or range of fill levels, fill to the halfway point between the
bottom of the skimmer opening and the top of the skimmer opening
with a tolerance of 0.125 inches.
If the manufacturer's instructions do not specify a fill level
or range of fill levels, and there is no wall skimmer, fill to 6.0
inches 0.125 inches below the overflow level of the spa.
Measure the volume of water added to the spa with a water meter
while filling the spa. Measure any water removed from the spa using
a water meter, graduated container, or scale, each with an accuracy
of 2 percent of the quantity measured. The fill volume
is the volume of water held by the spa when the spa is filled as
specified above.
3.1.5. Spa Cover
3.1.5.1. Cover Is Designated by the Spa Manufacturer
Install the spa cover following the manufacturer's instructions.
3.1.5.2. No Cover Is Designated by the Spa Manufacturer
If no cover is designated by the spa manufacturer for use with
the spa, cover the portable electric spa with a single layer of 6
mil thickness (0.006 inches; 0.15 mm) plastic film. Cut the plastic
to cover the entire top surface of the spa and extend over the edge
of the spa approximately 6 inches below the top surface of the spa.
Use fasteners or weights to keep the plastic in place during the
test, but do not seal the edges of the plastic to the spa (by using
tape, for example).
3.1.6. Ambient Temperature Measurement Location
The ambient air temperature measurement point specified in
section 5.6.3 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019 must be located above the
center of the spa.
3.2. Test Conditions and Conduct
3.2.1. Ambient Air Temperature
Maintain the ambient air temperature at a maximum of 63.0 [deg]F
for the duration of the test. This requirement applies to each
individual ambient air temperature measurement taken for the
duration of the stabilization period and test period.
3.2.2. Water Temperature Settings
Adjust the spa water temperature settings to meet the applicable
temperature requirements in section 5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019.
The spa water temperature settings must not be adjusted between the
start of the stabilizing period specified in section 5.6.1 of ANSI/
APSP/ICC-14 2019 and the end of the test period specified in section
5.6.4.7 of ANSI/APSP/ICC-14 2019.
3.2.3. Water Temperature Requirements
Each individual water temperature measurement taken during the
stabilization period and test period must meet the applicable water
temperature requirements specified in section 5.6.1 of ANSI/APSP/
ICC-14 2019.
3.3. Standby Loss Calculation
Calculate standby loss in watts by calculating the measured
standby loss using Equation 1 of this appendix, calculating the
measured temperature difference using Equation 2 of this appendix,
and normalizing the standby loss using Equation 3 of this appendix.
Use the standby loss calculated in Equation 3 as the standby loss
value for the test.
[[Page 38629]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR13JN23.007
Where:
SLmeas = Measured standby loss (watts)
E = Total energy use during the test (watt-hours)
t = Length of test (hours)
[Delta]Tmeas = Measured temperature difference ([deg]F)
Twater avg = Average water temperature during test
([deg]F)
Tair avg = Average air temperature during test ([deg]F)
SL = Standby loss (W)
[Delta]Tstd = Normalized temperature difference ([deg]F),
as follows:
46.0 [deg]F for all inflatable spas, standard spas, standard spa
portions of a combination spa, exercise spas, and exercise spa
portions of a combination spa tested to a minimum water temperature
of 100 [deg]F; or 31.0 [deg]F for all exercise spas or exercise spa
portions of a combination spa tested to a minimum water temperature
of 85 [deg]F.
[FR Doc. 2023-11782 Filed 6-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
