[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62472-62488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24351]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 62472]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024]
RIN 1904-AC46
Energy Conservation Program: Alternative Efficiency Determination
Methods, Basic Model Definition, and Compliance for Commercial HVAC,
Refrigeration, and WH Equipment
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to revise and
expand its existing regulations governing the use of particular methods
as alternatives to testing for the purposes of certifying compliance
with the applicable energy conservation standards and the reporting of
related ratings for commercial and industrial equipment covered by
EPCA. The proposals contained in this supplemental notice arose from a
negotiated rulemaking effort on issues regarding certification of
commercial heating, ventilating, air-conditioning (HVAC), water heating
(WH), and refrigeration equipment. In addition, DOE is proposing to
amend the compliance dates for the initial certification of commercial
HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) no later than
November 21, 2013. See section VI, ``Public Participation,'' of this
SNOPR for details.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2011-BT-
TP-0024, by any of the following methods:
Email: to AEDM/[email protected]. Include EERE-
2011-BT-TP-0024 in the subject line of the message.
Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-2J, Alternative Efficiency
Determination Methods, Basic Model Definition, and Compliance for
Commercial HVAC, Refrigeration, and WH Equipment, EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024,
1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585- 0121. Phone: (202)
586-2945. Please submit one signed paper original.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza
SW., Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one
signed paper original.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or RIN for this rulemaking.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, or
comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Email: [email protected]; and Ms. Laura
Barhydt, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
Forrestal Building, GC-32, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20585. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Discussion of Specific Revisions to DOE's Regulations for
Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods and Alternative Rating
Methods
A. General Issues
1. Pre-Approval
2. Applicable Equipment
B. Validation
1. Number of Tested Units Required for Validation
2. Tolerances
3. Certified Ratings
C. DOE Verification
1. Witness Testing
2. Verification Process
3. Verification Lab Requirements
4. Verification Tolerances
5. Invalid Rating Process
6. Consequences of an Invalid Rating
7. Regaining the Use of AEDMs
III. Basic Model Definitions
IV. Discussion of Specific Revisions to the Compliance Date for
Certification of Commercial HVAC, WH, and Refrigeration Equipment
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
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 the 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
VI. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as
amended (``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III
(42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. The National Energy
Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), Public Law 95-619, amended EPCA to add
Part A-1 of Title III, which established an energy conservation program
for certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) \1\ The
Department of Energy (``DOE'') is charged with implementing these
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, Parts B (consumer products) and C
(commercial equipment) of Title III of EPCA were re-designated as
parts A and A-1, respectively, in the United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, this program consists essentially of four parts: (1)
Testing; (2) labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation
[[Page 62473]]
standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily responsible for labeling of
consumer products, and DOE implements the remainder of the program. The
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of
covered products and equipment must use (1) as the basis for certifying
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) for making
representations about the efficiency of those products and equipment.
Similarly, DOE must use these test requirements to determine whether
the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
For certain consumer products and commercial equipment, DOE's existing
testing regulations allow the use of an alternative efficiency
determination method (AEDM) or an alternative rating method (ARM), in
lieu of actual testing, to simulate the energy consumption or
efficiency of certain basic models of covered products under DOE's test
procedure conditions.
In addition, sections 6299-6305, and 6316 of EPCA authorize DOE to
enforce compliance with the energy and water conservation standards
(all non-product specific references herein referring to energy use and
consumption include water use and consumption; all references to energy
efficiency include water efficiency) established for certain consumer
products and commercial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6299-6305 (consumer
products), 6316 (commercial equipment)) DOE has promulgated enforcement
regulations that include specific certification and compliance
requirements. See 10 CFR part 429; 10 CFR part 431, subparts B, U, and
V.
B. Background
On March 7, 2011, DOE published a final rule in the Federal
Register that, among other things, modified the requirements regarding
manufacturer submission of compliance statements and certification
reports to DOE (hereafter referred to as the March 2011 Final Rule). 76
FR 12421. This rule, among other things, imposed new or revised
reporting requirements for some types of covered products and
equipment, including a requirement that manufacturers submit annual
reports to the Department certifying compliance of their basic models
with applicable standards. See 76 FR 12428-12429 for more information.
In response to the initial deadline for certifying compliance
imposed on commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
(HVAC), water heater (WH), and commercial refrigeration equipment (CRE)
manufacturers by the March 2011 Final Rule, certain manufacturers of
particular types of commercial and industrial equipment stated that,
for a variety of reasons, they would be unable to meet that deadline.
DOE initially extended the deadline for certifications for commercial
HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment in a final rule published June
30, 2011 (hereafter referred to as the June 2011 Final Rule). 76 FR
38287 (June 30, 2011). DOE subsequently extended the compliance date
for certification by an additional 12 months to December 31, 2013, for
these types of equipment (December 2012 Final Rule) to allow, among
other things, the Department to explore the negotiated rulemaking
process for this equipment. 77 FR 72763.
In the summer of 2012, DOE had an independent convener evaluate the
likelihood of success, analyzing the feasibility of developing
certification requirements for commercial HVAC, WH, and CRE (not
including walk-in coolers and freezers) through consensus-based
negotiations among affected parties. In October 2012, the convener
issued his report based on a confidential interview process involving
forty (40) parties from a wide range of commercial HVAC, WH, and
refrigeration equipment interests. Ultimately, the convener recommended
that, with the proper scope of issues on the table surrounding
commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment certification, a
negotiated rulemaking appeared to have a reasonable likelihood of
achieving consensus based on the factors set forth in the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act because the interviewed parties believed the negotiated
rulemaking was superior to notice and comment rulemaking for
certification-related issues. Additional details of the report can be
found at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/convening_report_hvac_cre_1.pdf.
On February 26, 2013, members of the Appliance Standards and
Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) unanimously decided to
form a working group to engage in a negotiated rulemaking effort on the
certification of HVAC, WH, and commercial refrigeration equipment. A
notice of intent to form the Commercial Certification Working Group was
published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2013, to which DOE
received 35 nominations. 78 FR 15653. On April 16, 2013, the Department
published a notice of open meeting that announced the first meeting and
listed the 22 nominations that were selected to serve as members of the
Working Group, in addition to two members from ASRAC, and one DOE
representative. 78 FR 22431. The members of the Working Group were
selected to ensure a broad and balanced array of stakeholder interests
and expertise, and included efficiency advocates, manufacturers, a
utility representative, and third party laboratory representatives.
AEDMs are computer modeling or mathematical tools that predict the
performance of non-tested basic models. They are derived from
mathematical models and engineering principles that govern the energy
efficiency and energy consumption characteristics of a type of covered
equipment. These computer modeling and mathematical tools, when
properly developed, can provide a relatively straight-forward and
reasonably accurate means to predict the energy usage or efficiency
characteristics of a basic model of a given covered product or
equipment and reduce the burden and cost associated with testing.
Where authorized by regulation, AEDMs enable manufacturers to rate
and certify their basic models by using the projected energy use or
energy efficiency results derived from these simulation models in lieu
of testing. DOE has authorized the use of AEDMs for certain covered
products and equipment that are difficult or expensive to test in an
effort to reduce the testing burden faced by manufacturers of expensive
or highly customized basic models. DOE's regulations currently permit
manufacturers of commercial HVAC, WHs, distribution transformers,
electric motors, and small electric motors to use AEDMs to rate their
non-tested combinations provided they meet the Department's regulations
governing such use.
Initially, DOE undertook a conventional rulemaking to consider
expanding and revising its regulations for AEDMs. On April 18, 2011,
DOE published a Request for Information (hereafter referred to as the
April 2011 RFI). 76 FR 21673. The April 2011 RFI requested suggestions,
comments, and information relating to the Department's intent to expand
and revise its existing AEDM and ARM requirements. In response to
comments it received on the April 2011 RFI, DOE published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in the Federal Register on May 31, 2012
(hereafter referred to as the May 2012 NOPR). 77 FR 32038. DOE proposed
to permit AEDM-based ratings and certifications for additional types of
equipment, such as commercial
[[Page 62474]]
refrigeration equipment (CRE), automatic commercial ice makers (ACIMs),
beverage vending machines (BVMs), and walk-in cooler and freezer (WICF)
refrigeration systems. 77 FR 32055. Furthermore, DOE proposed a number
of requirements that manufacturers would need to meet in order to use
an AEDM. DOE also proposed a method that it would employ to determine
if an AEDM had been used appropriately by a manufacturer along with the
consequences if it had not been. 77 FR 32055-32056.
During the Working Group's first meeting, Working Group members
voted to expand the scope of the negotiated rulemaking efforts to
include developing methods of estimating equipment performance based on
AEDM simulations. The issues discussed by the the various participants
during the negotiations with DOE were those raised by the commenters in
response to the May 2012 NOPR. The discussion of those issues in the
negotiated rulemaking and the consensus reached as proposed in this
supplemental NOPR are summarized in two documents included in the
docket of this proposal and constitute DOE's response to the comments
on the May 2012 NOPR. The documents discuss the particular elements
that the AEDM simulations for each equipment should address and other
related considerations of note, including potential basic model
definitions, test procedure issues, the treatment of certain features,
and certification of these equipment. See http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=SR;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023.
As required, the Working Group submitted an interim report to ASRAC
on June 26, 2013, summarizing the group's recommendations
regarding AEDMs for commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment.
The interim report to ASRAC can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023-0046. ASRAC subsequently voted
unanimously to approve the recommendations in the interim report for
AEDMs. Subsequently, the Working Group submitted a final report on
August 30, 2013, summarizing the Working Group's recommendations for
model grouping, certification requirements and deadlines, and features
to be excluded from certification, verification, and enforcement
testing as long as specific conditions were met. ASRAC voted
unanimously to approve the recommendations in the final report. In this
notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE is proposing to adopt the Working
Group's recommendations, without modification, for AEDMs, basic model
definitions, and the initial compliance date for certification. DOE
will be addressing the remaining Working Group's recommendations for
certification requirements, and for the treatment of specific features
when testing, in a separate rulemaking or guidance document.
II. Discussion of Specific Revisions to DOE's Regulations for
Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods and Alternative Rating
Methods
On May 14-15, 2013, the Commercial Certification Working Group held
a two-day meeting at the U.S. Department of Energy's headquarters in
Washington, DC. 69 interested parties, including members of the Working
Group, attended. The Working Group's recommendations are presented in
this notice of proposed rulemaking. A more detailed discussion of the
discussions and recommendations can be found in the Commercial
Certification Working Group meeting transcripts, which are located at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023.
A. General Issues
1. Pre-Approval
The Commercial Certification Working Group unanimously recommended
that DOE not require pre-approval for AEDMs for commercial HVAC, WH, or
refrigeration equipment. This recommendation is consistent with DOE's
proposal in the May 21, 2012, notice of proposed rulemaking amending
AEDM requirements. 77 FR 32038. Thus, DOE is not proposing to adopt a
pre-approval process for AEDMs for the aforementioned equipment.
2. Applicable Equipment
The Commercial Certification Working Group unanimously recommended
the following types of covered equipment be allowed to use AEDMs.
Commercial HVAC Equipment
[cir] Commercial packaged air-conditioning and heating equipment
(air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, and water-source)
[cir] Packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps
[cir] Computer room air conditioners
[cir] Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps
[cir] Variable refrigerant flow systems
[cir] Commercial packaged boilers
[cir] Commercial warm-air furnaces
Commercial WH Equipment
[cir] Commercial electric storage water heaters
[cir] Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired storage water heaters
[cir] Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired instantaneous water
heaters greater than or equal to 10 gallons
[cir] Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired hot water supply boilers
greater than or equal to 10 gallons
[cir] Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired instantaneous water
heaters less than 10 gallons
[cir] Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired hot water supply boilers
less than 10 gallons
[cir] Commercial unfired hot water storage tanks
Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
DOE currently allows the use of AEDMs for commercial HVAC equipment
and water heating equipment. In this notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE
proposes, in alignment with the Working Group's recommendation, to also
permit manufacturers to use AEDMs when certifying CRE.
B. Validation
Prior to use for certifying the energy efficiency or energy use of
a basic model, DOE generally requires AEDMs to be validated. The
Commercial Certification Working Group recommended the following
validation process for AEDMs, which DOE proposes to adopt in today's
notice.
1. Number of Tested Units Required for Validation
To validate an AEDM, a manufacturer must select the minimum number
of basic models, specified in Table II.1 through Table II.5, for each
of the validation classes to which the AEDM is going to apply. Each
selection represents a single test conducted in accordance with the DOE
test procedure (TP) or applicable DOE TP waiver at a manufacturer's
testing facility or a third-party testing facility, whose test result
is directly compared to the result for that model from the AEDM.
[[Page 62475]]
Table II.1--Commercial HVAC Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number of basic models that
Validation class must be tested per AEDM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged 2 Basic Models.
Air Conditioners (ACs) and Heat
Pumps (HPs) less than 65,000 Btu/
h Cooling Capacity (3-Phase).
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged 2 Basic Models.
ACs and HPs greater than or
equal to 65,000 Btu/h Cooling
Capacity and Less than 760,000
Btu/h Cooling Capacity.
Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged 2 Basic Models.
ACs and HPs, All Cooling
Capacities.
Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and 2 Basic Models.
Packaged ACs and HPs, All
Capacities.
Water-Source HPs, All Capacities. 2 Basic Models.
Single Package Vertical ACs and 2 Basic Models.
HPs.
Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs.... 2 Basic Models.
Air-Cooled, Variable Refrigerant 2 Basic Models.
Flow ACs and HPs.
Water-Cooled, Variable 2 Basic Models.
Refrigerant Flow ACs and HPs.
Computer Room Air Conditioners, 2 Basic Models.
Air Cooled.
Computer Room Air Conditioners, 2 Basic Models.
Water-Cooled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.2--Commercial Water Heaters Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number of basic models that
Validation class must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot 2 Basic Models.
Water Supply Boilers Less than
10 Gallons.
Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot 2 Basic Models.
Water Supply Boilers Greater
than or Equal to 10 Gallons.
Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot 2 Basic Models.
Water Supply Boilers Less than
10 Gallons.
Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot 2 Basic Models.
Water Supply Boilers Greater
than or Equal to 10 Gallons.
Electric Water Heaters........... 2 Basic Models.
Heat Pump Water Heaters.......... 2 Basic Models.
Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks.. 2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.3--Commercial Packaged Boilers Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number of basic models that
Validation class must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired, Hot Water Only 2 Basic Models.
Commercial Packaged Boilers.
Gas-fired, Steam Only Commercial 2 Basic Models.
Packaged Boilers.
Gas-fired Hot Water/Steam 2 Basic Models.
Commercial Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired, Hot Water Only 2 Basic Models.
Commercial Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired, Steam Only Commercial 2 Basic Models.
Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired Hot Water/Steam 2 Basic Models.
Commercial Packaged Boilers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.4--Commercial Furnaces Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number of basic models that
Validation class must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Furnaces............... 2 Basic Models.
Oil-fired Furnaces............... 2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.5--Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number of basic models that
Validation class* must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Contained Open Refrigerators 2 Basic Models.
Self-Contained Open Freezers..... 2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Open 2 Basic Models.
Refrigerators.
Remote Condensing Open Freezers.. 2 Basic Models.
Self-Contained Closed 2 Basic Models.
Refrigerators.
Self-Contained Closed Freezers... 2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Closed 2 Basic Models.
Refrigerators.
Remote Condensing Closed Freezers 2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The minimum number of tests indicated above must be comprised of a
transparent model, a solid model, a vertical model, a semi-vertical
model, a horizontal model, and a service-over-the counter model, as
applicable based on the equipment offering. However, manufacturers do
not need to include all types of these models if it will increase the
minimum number of tests that need to be conducted.
[[Page 62476]]
A manufacturer may elect to develop multiple AEDMs per validation
class and each AEDM may span multiple validation classes; however, the
minimum number of tests must be maintained per validation class for
each AEDM a manufacturer chooses to develop and use. An AEDM may be
applied to any individual model within the applicable validation
classes at the manufacturer's discretion. All documentation of test
results for the models used to validate each AEDM, the AEDM results,
and the subsequent comparisons to the AEDM must be maintained as part
of both the test data underlying the certified rating and the AEDM
validation package pursuant to 10 CFR 429.71. DOE requests comment on
the minimum number of tests proposed for each validation class.
2. Tolerances
To validate the AEDM, the test results from each model required per
the validation requirements described in the previous section must be
compared to the simulated results from the applicable AEDM. The
Commercial Certification Working Group recommended that for energy
consumption metrics, the AEDM result for a model must be greater than
or equal to 95 percent of the tested results for that same model. For
energy efficiency metrics, the AEDM results for a model must be less
than or equal to 105 percent of the tested results for that same model.
DOE is proposing this one-sided 5 percent tolerance for AEDM validation
for all commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment. DOE requests
comment on the proposed tolerances on the AEDM results as compared to
the tested results for a given model.
3. Certified Ratings
For each basic model of commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration
equipment distributed in commerce, manufacturers must determine the
certified rating based on testing or use of a validated AEDM. DOE's
current regulations provide manufacturers with some flexibility in
rating each basic model by allowing the manufacturer the discretion to
rate conservatively. The Working Group recommended that for energy
consumption metrics each model's certified rating must be less than or
equal to the applicable Federal standard and greater than or equal to
the model's AEDM result. For energy efficiency metrics, each model's
certified rating must be less than or equal to the model's AEDM result
and greater than or equal to the applicable Federal standard. DOE is
proposing to retain the flexibility provided by its current regulatory
approach and is proposing the Working Group's recommendation without
modification. DOE requests comment on this method of rating.
C. DOE Verification
Once a basic model has been distributed in commerce, DOE may select
any model and verify the equipment's performance at any time. 10 CFR
429.104. The Commercial Certification Working Group recommended the
following process described in section II.C.1 through II.C.7 for DOE
verification of certified ratings determined by an AEDM. In today's
notice, DOE proposes to adopt these recommendations.
1. Witness Testing
Currently, DOE's regulations do not require a manufacturer to be
present for DOE-initiated testing to verify equipment performance of a
given basic model. The Working Group considered two options for witness
testing when certifying a basic model. A manufacturer may elect to have
a DOE representative and a manufacturer's representative on-site for
the initial verification test for up to 10 percent of the
manufacturer's certified basic models rated with an AEDM. The 10
percent requirement applies to all of the basic models certified by a
given manufacturer no matter how many AEDMs a manufacturer has used to
develop its ratings. Manufacturers who elect to select 10 percent of
their basic models must include this information as part of their
certification prior to the unit being selected for verification
testing. In general, DOE will perform testing without a manufacturer's
representative present for all basic models DOE selects for assessment
testing as long as the two following conditions are met: (1) A
manufacturer has not elected a given basic model as part of its 10
percent election allowed for witness testing; and (2) the manufacturer
does not require the basic model to be started only by a factory-
trained installer per the installation manual instructions. For the
basic models for which a manufacturer elected to have the initial
verification test witnessed, the manufacturer cannot request the unit
be retested. The results from this initial test would be used to make a
definitive determination regarding the validity of the basic model's
rating. For those basic models that are initially tested without the
manufacturer present, a manufacturer is automatically eligible to
request a retest for those basic models where the initial results
indicate a potential rating issue. DOE requests comment on the proposal
for witness testing.
2. Verification Process
The Working Group negotiated the process that DOE would use to
assess a unit's performance through third party testing. Under this
approach, DOE would begin the verification process by selecting a
single unit of a given basic model for testing either from retail or by
obtaining a sample from the manufacturer. DOE will select a third-party
testing laboratory at its discretion to test the unit selected. The lab
will adhere to the requirements recommended by the Commercial
Certification Working Group described in section II.C.3 below. DOE will
conduct the test in accordance with the witness testing arrangements
discussed above. In the cases where a factory-trained installer is
required per the installation manual instructions or the model is a
variable refrigerant flow commercial HVAC system, the manufacturer's
representative and DOE will only be on-site for test set up. In all
cases, the Department will be responsible for the logistics of
arranging a witnessed test, and the laboratory is not allowed to
communicate directly with the manufacturer.
The manufacturer will provide any additional information needed
regarding test set up or testing to DOE through the certification
process in pdf format. (This provision will be addressed in a separate
rulemaking.) DOE will provide this information to the test facility as
long as the additional instructions are not in conflict with the DOE
test procedure or applicable DOE test procedure waiver. The test
facility may not use any additional information during the testing
process that has not been approved by DOE or shipped in the packaging
of the unit. If needed, the test facility may request from DOE
additional information on test set up, installation, or testing. Upon
receiving a request from the test facility for additional information,
DOE may hold and coordinate a meeting with the manufacturer and the
test facility to discuss the additional details needed for testing.
Additional instructions may be given to the test facility as agreed
upon by DOE and the manufacturer. At no time may the test facility
discuss DOE verification testing with the manufacturer without the
Department present.
If a unit is tested and determined to be outside the rating
tolerances described in section II.C.4, DOE will notify the
manufacturer. The manufacturer will receive all
[[Page 62477]]
documentation related to the test set up, test conditions, and test
results for the unit if the unit falls outside the rating tolerances.
At that time, a manufacturer may present all claims regarding any
issues directly associated with the test and initiate a discussion
regarding retesting. If the manufacturer was not on-site for the
initial test, the manufacturer may request a retest of the same unit,
and DOE and the manufacturer can be present for the retest. DOE will
not retest a different unit of the same basic model unless DOE and the
manufacturer determine it is necessary based on the test results,
claims presented, and DOE regulations. DOE requests comment on this
proposal.
3. Verification Lab Requirements
The Commercial Certification Working Group recommended that all
AEDM verification tests should be conducted in a third-party testing
facility of DOE's choice. Commercial equipment that cannot be tested at
an independent third-party facility may be tested at a manufacturer's
facility upon DOE's request. DOE requests comment on this proposal.
4. Verification Tolerances
To verify the certified rating of a given model, the test results
from a single unit test of the model will be compared to the certified
rating in accordance with the tolerances set forth below. For energy
consumption metrics, the Commercial Certification Working Group
recommended:
Test Result <= Certified Rating x (1 + Applicable Tolerance)
For energy efficiency metrics, the Commercial Certification Working
Group recommended:
Test Result >= Certified Rating x (1 - Applicable Tolerance)
DOE requests comment on the proposed tolerances.
Table II.6--Rating Tolerances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Equipment Metric tolerance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Packaged Boilers....... Combustion 5% (0.05)
Efficiency.
Thermal Efficiency.. 5% (0.05)
Commercial Water Heaters or Hot Thermal Efficiency.. 5% (0.05)
Water Supply Boilers.
Standby Loss........ 10% (0.1)
Unfired Storage Tanks............. R-Value............. 10% (0.1)
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs Seasonal Energy- 5% (0.05)
and HPs less than 65,000 Btu/h Efficiency Ratio.
Cooling Capacity (3-Phase).
Heating Season 5% (0.05)
Performance Factor.
Energy Efficiency 10% (0.1)
Ratio.
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
and HPs greater than or equal to Ratio.
65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity and
Less than 760,000 Btu/h Cooling
Capacity.
Coefficient of 5% (0.05)
Performance.
Integrated Energy 10% (0.1)
Efficiency Ratio.
Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
ACs and HPs, All Cooling Ratio.
Capacities.
Coefficient of 5% (0.05)
Performance.
Integrated Energy 10% (0.1)
Efficiency Ratio.
Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
Packaged ACs and HPs, All Ratio.
Capacities.
Coefficient of 5% (0.05)
Performance.
Integrated Energy 10% (0.1)
Efficiency Ratio.
Water-Source HPs, All Capacities.. Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
Ratio.
Coefficient of 5% (0.05)
Performance.
Integrated Energy 10% (0.1)
Efficiency Ratio.
Single Package Vertical ACs and Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
HPs. Ratio.
Coefficient of 5% (0.05)
Performance.
Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs..... Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
Ratio.
Coefficient of 5% (0.05)
Performance.
Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
HPs. Ratio.
Coefficient of 5% (0.05)
Performance.
Integrated Energy 10% (0.1)
Efficiency Ratio.
Computer Room Air Conditioners.... Sensible Coefficient 5% (0.05)
of Performance.
Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces...... Thermal Efficiency.. 5% (0.05)
Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Daily Energy 5% (0.05)
Consumption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Invalid Rating Process
Once DOE has determined that a basic model is outside of the
tolerances based on the verification process described in sections
II.C.1 through II.C.4, the Commercial Working Group negotiated the
following process for remedying the invalid rating. First, DOE will
notify the manufacturer and the manufacturer would have 15 days to
select and report one of the following pathways: (1) Conservatively
rerate and recertify the model based on the DOE test data only, (2)
discontinue the model through the certification process, or (3) conduct
additional testing, rerate, and recertify the model using all
additional manufacturer test data and the DOE test data. The
manufacturer and DOE will determine the specific date by which the
manufacturer must complete the process for correcting the invalid
rating, but the process shall not take more than 180 days to complete.
DOE requests comment on the proposed options for addressing invalid
ratings.
6. Consequences of an Invalid Rating
The Commercial Working Group negotiated the consequences of DOE
determining that a rating is invalid for a given basic model based on
assessment testing. If the Department finds that within 24 rolling
months a manufacturer has more than one basic model with an invalid
rating whose results were derived from the same AEDM, then the
manufacturer will be subject to the requirements listed in Table II.7.
In general, to continue using the AEDM, if a manufacturer has
[[Page 62478]]
between two and seven basic models with invalid ratings that were
derived from the same AEDM, then the manufacturer must re-validate the
AEDM according to the requirements in Table II.7 by conducting new
testing of different basic models. If the manufacturer has eight or
more basic models with invalid ratings from the same AEDM, then all the
models to which the AEDM applied must be re-rated with physical testing
in accordance with the applicable sampling plans in part 429. 10 CFR
429.11. DOE requests comment on these proposed consequences that would
flow from an invalid rating.
Table II.7--Consequences for Invalid Ratings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of invalid certified ratings
from the same AEDM** within a rolling Required manufacturer actions
24 month period [dagger]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2..................................... Submit different test data and
reports from testing to
validate that AEDM within the
validation classes to which it
is applied.* Adjust the rating
as appropriate.
4..................................... Conduct double the minimum
number of validation tests for
the validation classes to which
the AEDM is applied. Note, the
tests required under subsection
(c)(5)(H)(1) must be different
tests on different models than
the original tests required
under subsection (c)(2).
6..................................... Conduct the minimum number of
validation tests for the
validation classes to which the
AEDM is applied; And
Conduct addition testing, which
is equal to \1/2\ the minimum
number of validation tests for
the validation classes to which
the AEDM is applied, at either
the manufacturer's facility or
a third-party test facility, at
the manufacturer's discretion.
Note, the tests required under
subsection (c)(5)(H)(1) must be
different tests on different
models than the original tests
required under subsection
(c)(2).
>=8................................... Manufacturer has lost privilege
to use AEDM. All ratings for
models within the validation
classes to which the AEDM
applied should be rated via
testing. Distribution cannot
continue until certification(s)
are corrected to reflect actual
test data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A manufacturer may discuss with DOE's Office of Enforcement whether
existing test data on different basic models within the validation
classes to which that specific AEDM was applied may be used to meet
this requirement.
** Where the same AEDM means a computer simulation or mathematical model
that is identified by the manufacturer at the time of certification as
having been used to rate a model or group of models.
[dagger] The twenty-four month period begins with a DOE determination
that a rating is invalid through the process outlined above.
Additional invalid ratings apply for the purposes of determining the
appropriate consequences if the subsequent determination(s) is based
on selection of a unit for testing within the twenty-four month period
(i.e., subsequent determinations need not be made within 24 months).
7. Regaining the Use of AEDMs
If, as a result of eight or more invalid ratings, a manufacturer
has lost the privilege of using an AEDM for rating purposes, the
manufacturer may regain the ability to use an AEDM by (1) Investigating
the cause(s) for the failures, (2) identifying the root cause(s) for
the failures, (3) taking corrective action to address the root
cause(s), (4) validating the AEDM by performing six new tests per
validation class with a minimum of two of the tests performed at a
third-party test facility, and (5) obtaining DOE authorization to
resume the use of the AEDM. At its discretion, DOE may reduce or waive
these requirements, in which case DOE will provide public notice and a
written explanation of the grounds for reducing or waiving the
requirements. DOE requests comment on the proposed method for regaining
the use of AEDMs.
III. Basic Model Definitions
The Working Group recommended amended basic model definitions for
commercial refrigeration equipment; commercial warm air furnaces;
commercial packaged boilers; and commercial water heaters.
Additionally, the Working Group recommended distinct basic model
definitions for each type of commercial HVAC equipment, such as
packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and heat pumps (PTHPs);
small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment; small, large, and very large water-
cooled, evaporatively-cooled, and water source commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment; single package vertical air
conditioners and heat pumps (SPVUs); computer room air conditioner; and
variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioner and heat pump
with capacities greater than 65,000 Btu/h. DOE is proposing the basic
model definitions by covered equipment type that were development by
the Working Group except DOE has included several clarifications to
harmonize the wording of the definitions for consistency purposes, but
did not change the meaning of the definitions as agreed upon by the
Working Group.
IV. Discussion of Specific Revisions to the Compliance Date for
Certification of Commercial HVAC, WH, and Refrigeration Equipment
The Working Group recommended that certification reports must be
initially submitted for all basic models distributed in commerce
according to the schedule shown in Table IV.1. After the initial
certification date, DOE's existing regulations require that
manufacturers certify: (1) New basic models before distribution in
commerce; (2) existing basic models, whose certified rating remains
valid, annually; (3) existing basic models, whose design is altered
resulting in a change in rating that is more consumptive or less
efficient, at the time the design change is made; and (4) previously
certified basic models that have been discontinued annually.
[[Page 62479]]
Table IV.1--Initial Certification Compliance Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initial certification date is the
number of months shown below after the
AEMD final rule is published in the Equipment type
Federal Register
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6..................................... Commercial Warm Air Furnaces,
PTACs and PTHPs.
9..................................... Commercial gas-fired and oil-
fired instantaneous water
heaters less than 10 gallons.
Commercial gas-fired and oil-
fired hot water supply boilers
less than 10 gallons.
12.................................... Commercial water heaters (all
others types).
Small commercial packaged
boilers (<= 2.5 million Btu/h).
Self-Contained CRE with solid or
transparent doors.
15.................................... VRFs.
18.................................... Small, large and very large air,
water, and evaporatively-cooled
and water source commercial
packaged ACs and HPs.
SPVUs.
CRACs.
Large packaged boilers (> 2.5
million Btu/h).
CRE (all other types).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Working Group also agreed to the following caveats on the
schedule proposed above. If, in the separate, certification rulemaking,
DOE adopts regulations that are significantly different from the
remainder of the Working Group recommendations, then the initial
certification compliance dates will be based on the final rule date for
the separate rulemaking effort. The Working Group agreed that in no
instance should the initial certification compliance date be less than
two months after the issuance of the final rule adopting the remainder
of the Working Group's recommendations. Additionally, the Working Group
recommended that DOE allow a six-month grace period following each
certification date during which DOE will not pursue civil penalties for
certification violations. The Working Group emphasized that a grace
period would allow manufacturers time to gain familiarity with the
certification process and remedy any problems. DOE proposes to adopt
this compliance schedule in its entirety and requests comment on this
approach to establishing compliance deadlines.
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires the
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site: www.gc.doe.gov. DOE reviewed the test procedures
considered in today's SNOPR under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) and the policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003.
DOE reviewed the AEDM requirements being proposed under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19, 2003. As discussed in more detail
below, DOE found that because the provisions of this rule will not
result in increased testing and/or reporting burden for manufacturers
already eligible to use an AEDM and will extend AEDM use to a number of
manufacturers, thus reducing their testing burden, manufacturers will
not experience increased financial burden as a result of this rule.
Today's proposal, which presents voluntary methods for certifying
compliance in lieu of conducting actual physical testing, would not
increase the testing or reporting burden of manufacturers who currently
use, or are eligible to use, an AEDM to certify their products.
Furthermore, proposed requirements for validation of an AEDM do not
require more testing than that required by the AEDM provisions included
in the March 7, 2011 Certification, Compliance and Enforcement Final
Rule (76 FR 12422) (``March 2011 Final Rule''), and would relax
tolerances that tested products are required to meet in order to
substantiate the AEDM.
DOE has also clarified in today's proposal how it intends to
exercise its authority to validate AEDM performance and verify the
performance of products certified using an AEDM. DOE negotiated the
process with industry resulting in the proposal in today's proposed
rule. Since any testing falling under this category would be DOE-
initiated testing and DOE is outlining the process to determine an
invalid rating in today's proposal which includes manufacturer
involvement throughout, DOE does not believe that this will
verification of ratings resulting from an AEDM will have a substantial
impact on small businesses.
This notice of proposed rulemaking also proposes to permit the
manufacturer of many other covered products who are currently not
permitted to use an AEDM to certify or rate their products to have the
option of doing so. Manufacturers not eligible to use AEDMs must
currently test at least two units of every basic model that they
produce in order to certify compliance to the Department pursuant to
the March 2011 Final Rule. Today's proposal would reduce a
manufacturer's testing burden by enabling these manufacturers to
simulate testing based
[[Page 62480]]
on testing data derived from a reduced number of units. While the
Department believes that permitting greater use of AEDMs will reduce
the affected manufacturer's test burden, their use is at the
manufacturer's discretion. If, as a result of any of the proposals
herein, a manufacturer believes that use of an AEDM would increase
rather than decrease their financial burden, the manufacturer may
choose not to employ the method. Should a manufacturer choose to
abstain from using an AEDM, this proposed provision would not apply and
the manufacturer would continue to remain subject to the requirements
of any DOE test procedure that applies to that product, which would
result in no change in burden from that which is required currently.
Finally, DOE is proposing two aspects of regarding certification of
commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment, which should further
decrease the burden of existing DOE regulations. First, DOE is
proposing basic model definition that allows a manufacturer to group
its individual models based on certain characteristics. The basic model
definition provides the manufacturer with flexibility in making these
groupings and was negotiated as part of the Working Group's meeting.
Lastly, DOE is proposing to extend the initial compliance date for
certification of commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment from
6 months to 18 months from publication of this final rule as compared
to the current date of December 31, 2013. This will allow manufacturer
time to implement the proposals agreed to by the Working Group, if they
are ultimately promulgated, prior to initially certifying their basic
models.
For the reasons enumerated above, DOE is certifying that the
proposed rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of the covered products addressed in today's SNOPR
must certify to DOE that their equipment comply with any applicable
energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers
must test their equipment according to the applicable DOE test
procedures for the given equipment type, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures, or use the AEDMs to develop the
certified ratings of the basic models. DOE has established regulations
for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered
consumer products and commercial equipment, including the equipment at
issue in this SNOPR. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011)). The collection-of-
information requirement for these certification and recordkeeping
provisions is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under
OMB Control Number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions
that are categorically excluded from review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and DOE's
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this
proposed rule would adopt changes for certifying certain covered
products and equipment, so it would not affect the amount, quality or
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical
Exclusion A6 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
products that are the subject of today's proposed rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further
action is required by Executive Order 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects
[[Page 62481]]
of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments
and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2
U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a
rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million
or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202
of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that
estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a
Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input
by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a
proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an
agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments before establishing any
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on
its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820;
also available at www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today's proposed rule
according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the
rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that
may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so
these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
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 proposal would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is
not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today's proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Today's proposal to establish alternate certification requirements
for certain covered equipment 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. Today's proposal to amend regulations relating to AEDMs
does not propose the use of any commercial standards.
VI. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the
proposed rule no later than the date provided at the beginning of this
notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments, data, and information
submitted to DOE's email address for this rulemaking should be provided
in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format.
Interested parties should avoid the use of special characters or any
form of encryption, and wherever possible, comments should include the
electronic signature of the author. Absent an electronic signature,
comments submitted electronically must be followed and authenticated by
submitting a signed original paper document to the address provided at
the beginning of this notice of proposed rulemaking. Comments, data,
and information submitted to DOE via mail or hand delivery/courier
should include one signed original paper copy. No telefacsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted.
According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that
he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public
disclosure should submit two copies: One copy of the document including
all the information believed to be confidential and one copy of the
document with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE
will make its own determination as to the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include (1) A description of the
items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from
[[Page 62482]]
other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made
available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality,
(5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person
which would result from public disclosure, (6) a date upon which such
information might lose its confidential nature due to the passage of
time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to
the public interest.
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. DOE requests comment on its proposal to require manufacturers to
test a minimum number of models, specified in Table II.1 through Table
II.5, from each validation class to which the AEDM is going to apply in
order to substantiate each AEDM.
2. DOE requests comment on its proposed tolerances on AEDM results
as compared to the test results for a given model.
3. DOE requests comment on its proposal to certify models rated
with an AEDM between the AEDM result and the Federal standard.
4. DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow manufacturers to
witness the testing of a maximum of 10 percent of their certified basic
models. If a basic model is not witness tested then it can be retested
at the discretion of the manufacturer according to the process outlined
in section II.C.1.
5. DOE requests comment on the proposed process for validation
test. This process outlines when a model can be witness tested, how
additional test information can be communicated to the test lab, and
how a manufacturer can request a retest.
6. DOE requests comment on its proposal that verification testing
should take place a third-party test lab unless the equipment is unable
to be tested at a third-party facility in which case testing may occur
the manufacturer's facility.
7. DOE requests comment on the tolerances proposed in Table II.6.
8. DOE requests comment on the proposed options manufacturers may
select from in order to address an invalid rating.
9. DOE requests comment on the consequences listed in Table II.7
for manufacturers found to have invalid ratings.
10. DOE requests comment on the proposed process for regaining the
use of AEDMs.
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's SNOPR.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 30, 2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
parts 429 and 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
2. Revise Sec. 429.12 paragraph (i) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.12 General requirements applicable to certification reports.
* * * * *
(i) Compliance dates. For any product subject to an applicable
energy conservation standard for which the compliance date has not yet
occurred, a certification report must be submitted not later than the
compliance date for the applicable energy conservation standard. The
covered products enumerated below are subject to the stated compliance
dates for initial certification:
(1) Commercial warm air furnaces, packaged terminal air
conditioners, and packaged terminal heat pumps, [date 6 months after
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register];
(2) Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired instantaneous water heaters
less than 10 gallons and commercial gas-fired and oil-fired hot water
supply boilers less than 10 gallons, [date 9 months after date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register];
(3) All other types of covered commercial water heaters except
those specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, commercial
packaged boilers with input capacities less than or equal to 2.5
million Btu/h, and self-contained commercial refrigeration equipment
with solid or transparent doors, [date 12 months after date of
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register];
(4) Variable refrigerant flow air conditioners and heat pumps,
[date 15 months after date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register];
(5) Small, large, or very large air-cooled, water-cooled,
evaporatively-cooled, and water-source commercial air conditioning and
heating equipment, single package vertical units, computer room air
conditioners, commercial packaged boilers with input capacities greater
than 2.5 million Btu/h, and all other types of commercial refrigeration
equipment except those specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section,
[date 18 months after date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register].
0
3. Section 429.42 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.42 Commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers.
(a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers must
determine the represented value, which includes the certified rating,
for each basic model of commercial refrigerator, freezer, or
refrigerator-freezer either by testing, in conjunction with the
applicable sampling provisions, or by applying a validated AEDM.
(1) Units to be tested. (i) If the represented value for a given
basic model is determined through testing, the general requirements of
Sec. 429.11 are applicable; and
(ii) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
(A) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower
values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(1) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC13.020
and x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and xi
is the i\th\ sample; or,
(2) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.10, where:
[[Page 62483]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC13.021
and x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95%
one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix A to subpart B of this part); and,
(B) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other measure
of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
(1) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC13.022
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the i\th\ sample; or,
(2) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.90, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC13.023
and x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95%
one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix A to subpart B of this part).
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, a represented value of efficiency or consumption for a basic
model of commercial refrigerator, freezer or refrigerator-freezer must
be determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the
requirements of Sec. 429.70 and the provisions of this section, where:
(i) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower
values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM and
less than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model; and
(ii) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of the AEDM and
greater than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 429.43 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC)
equipment.
(a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers can determine
the represented value, which includes the certified rating, for each
basic model of commercial HVAC equipment either by testing, in
conjunction with the applicable sampling provisions, or by applying a
validated AEDM.
(1) Units to be tested. (i) If the represented value is determined
through testing, the general requirements of Sec. 429.11 are
applicable; and
(ii) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
(A) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower
values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(1) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC13.024
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is 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] TP22OC13.025
and x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95%
one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix A to subpart B of this part); and,
(B) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
(1) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC13.026
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the i\th\ sample; Or,
(2) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC13.027
and x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95%
one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix A to subpart B of this part).
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, a represented value of efficiency or consumption for a basic
model of commercial HVAC equipment must be determined through the
application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 429.70 and
the provisions of this section, where:
(i) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower
values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM and
less than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model; and
(ii) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of the AEDM and
greater than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 429.44 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.44 Commercial water heating equipment.
(a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers can determine
the represented value, which includes the certified rating, for each
basic model of commercial water heating equipment, either by testing,
in conjunction with the applicable sampling provisions, or by applying
a validated AEDM.
(1) Units to be tested. (i) If the represented value for a given
basic model is determined through testing, the general requirements of
Sec. 429.11 are applicable; and
(ii) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
(A) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower
values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(1) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC13.028
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the i\th\ sample; Or,
[[Page 62484]]
(2) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC13.029
and x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95%
one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix A to subpart B of this part); and,
(B) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
(1) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC13.030
and, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and
xi is the ith sample; or,
(2) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22OC13.031
and x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95%
one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix A to subpart B of this part).
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of
testing, a represented value of efficiency or consumption for a basic
model of commercial water heating equipment must be determined through
the application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 429.70
and the provisions of this section, where:
(i) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower
values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM and
less than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model; and
(ii) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of the AEDM and
greater than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 429.70 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 429.70 Alternative methods for determining energy efficiency and
energy use.
(a) General applicability of an AEDM. A manufacturer of covered
products or covered equipment explicitly authorized to use an AEDM in
Sec. Sec. 429.14 through 429.54 of this subpart may not distribute any
basic model of such equipment in commerce unless the manufacturer has
determined the energy efficiency of the basic model, either from
testing the basic model in conjunction with DOE's certification
sampling plans and statistics or from applying an alternative method
for determining energy efficiency or energy use (AEDM) of the basic
model, in accordance with the requirements of this section. In
instances where a manufacturer has tested a basic model to validate the
alternative method the manufacturer may not knowingly use an AEDM to
overrate the efficiency (or underrate the consumption) of a basic
model.
* * * * *
(c) Alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) for
Commercial HVAC, WH, and Refrigeration Equipment--(1) Criteria an AEDM
must satisfy. A manufacturer may not apply an AEDM to a basic model to
determine its efficiency pursuant to this section unless:
(i) The AEDM is derived from a mathematical model that estimates
the energy efficiency or energy consumption characteristics of the
basic model as measured by the applicable DOE test procedure;
(ii) The AEDM is based on engineering or statistical analysis,
computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of
performance data; and
(iii) The manufacturer has validated the AEDM, in accordance with
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(2) Validation of an AEDM. Before using an AEDM, the manufacturer
must validate the AEDM's accuracy and reliability as follows:
(i) For each identified validation class specified in paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) of this section to which the particular AEDM applies, the
minimum number of basic models must be tested as specified in paragraph
(c)(2)(iv) of this section. Using the AEDM, calculate the energy use or
efficiency for each of the selected basic models. Test a single unit of
each selected basic model in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of
this section. Compare the results from the single unit test and the
AEDM energy use or efficiency output according to paragraph (c)(2)(ii)
of this section.
(ii) Individual model tolerances. (A) For those covered products
with an energy-efficiency metric, the predicted efficiency for each
model calculated by applying the AEDM may not be more than five percent
greater than the efficiency determined from the corresponding test of
the model.
(B) For those covered products with an energy-consumption metric,
the predicted energy consumption for each model, calculated by applying
the AEDM, may not be more than five percent less than the energy
consumption determined from the corresponding test of the model.
(iii) Additional test unit requirements. (A) Each AEDM must be
supported by test data obtained from physical tests of current models;
and
(B) Test results used to validate the AEDM must meet or exceed
current, applicable Federal standards as specified in part 431 of this
chapter; and
(C) Each test must have been performed in accordance with the DOE
test procedure specified in parts 430 or 431 of this chapter or test
procedure waiver for which compliance is required at the time the basic
model is distributed in commerce.
(iv) Validation classes. (A) Commercial HVAC validation classes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number of distinct models
Validation class that must be tested per AEDM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged 2 Basic Models.
Air Conditioners (ACs) and Heat
Pumps (HPs) less than 65,000 Btu/
h Cooling Capacity (3-Phase).
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged 2 Basic Models.
ACs and HPs greater than or
equal to 65,000 Btu/h Cooling
Capacity and Less than 760,000
Btu/h Cooling Capacity.
Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged 2 Basic Models.
ACs and HPs, All Cooling
Capacities.
Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and 2 Basic Models.
Packaged ACs and HPs, All
Capacities.
[[Page 62485]]
Water-Source HPs, All Capacities. 2 Basic Models.
Single Package Vertical ACs and 2 Basic Models.
HPs.
Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs.... 2 Basic Models.
Air-Cooled, Variable Refrigerant 2 Basic Models.
Flow ACs and HPs.
Water-Cooled, Variable 2 Basic Models.
Refrigerant Flow ACs and HPs.
Computer Room Air Conditioners, 2 Basic Models.
Air Cooled.
Computer Room Air Conditioners, 2 Basic Models.
Water-Cooled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Commercial water heater validation classes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number of distinct models
Validation class that must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot 2 Basic Models.
Water Supply Boilers Less than
10 Gallons.
Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot 2 Basic Models.
Water Supply Boilers Greater
than or Equal to 10 Gallons.
Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot 2 Basic Models.
Water Supply Boilers Less than
10 Gallons.
Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot 2 Basic Models.
Water Supply Boilers Greater
than or Equal to 10 Gallons.
Electric Water Heaters........... 2 Basic Models.
Heat Pump Water Heaters.......... 2 Basic Models.
Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks.. 2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) Commercial packaged boilers validation classes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number of distinct models
Validation class that must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired, Hot Water Only 2 Basic Models.
Commercial Packaged Boilers.
Gas-fired, Steam Only Commercial 2 Basic Models.
Packaged Boilers.
Gas-fired Hot Water/Steam 2 Basic Models.
Commercial Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired, Hot Water Only 2 Basic Models.
Commercial Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired, Steam Only Commercial 2 Basic Models.
Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired Hot Water/Steam 2 Basic Models.
Commercial Packaged Boilers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D) Commercial furnace validation classes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number of distinct models
Validation class that must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Furnaces............... 2 Basic Models.
Oil-fired Furnaces............... 2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(E) Commercial refrigeration equipment validation classes:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum number of distinct models
Validation class \1\ that must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Contained Open Refrigerators 2 Basic Models.
Self-Contained Open Freezers..... 2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Open 2 Basic Models.
Refrigerators.
Remote Condensing Open Freezers.. 2 Basic Models.
Self-Contained Closed 2 Basic Models.
Refrigerators.
Self-Contained Closed Freezers... 2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Closed 2 Basic Models.
Refrigerators.
Remote Condensing Closed Freezers 2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The minimum number of tests indicated above must be comprised of a
transparent model, a solid model, a vertical model, a semi-vertical
model, a horizontal model, and a service-over-the counter model, as
applicable based on the equipment offering. However, manufacturers do
not need to include all types of these models if it will increase the
minimum number of tests that need to be conducted.
[[Page 62486]]
(4) AEDM records retention requirements. (i) If a manufacturer has
used an AEDM to determine representative values pursuant to this
section, the manufacturer must have available upon request for
inspection by the Department records showing:
(A) The AEDM, including the mathematical model, the engineering or
statistical analysis, and/or computer simulation or modeling that is
the basis of the AEDM;
(B) Product information, complete test data, AEDM calculations, and
the statistical comparisons from the units tested that were used to
validate the AEDM pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section; and
(C) Product information and AEDM calculations for each basic model
to which the AEDM has been applied.
(5) Additional AEDM requirements. (i) If requested by the
Department and at DOE's discretion, the manufacturer must perform at
least one of the following:
(A) Conduct simulations before representatives of the Department to
predict the performance of particular basic models of the product to
which the AEDM was applied;
(B) Provide analyses of previous simulations conducted by the
manufacturer; or
(C) Conduct certification testing of basic models selected by the
Department.
(6) AEDM verification testing. DOE may use the test data for a
given individual model generated pursuant to Sec. 429.104 to verify
the certified rating determined by an AEDM as long as the following
process is followed:
(i) Selection of units. DOE will obtain units for test from retail,
where available. If units cannot be obtained from retail, DOE will
request that a unit be provided by the manufacturer;
(ii) Lab requirements. DOE will conduct testing at an independent,
third-party testing facility of its choosing. In cases where no third-
party laboratory is capable of testing the equipment, it may be tested
at a manufacturer's facility upon DOE's request.
(iii) Manufacturer participation: Testing will be performed without
DOE or manufacturer representatives on-site, unless:
(A) The model is specifically required to be started only by a
factory-trained installer per the installation manual instructions, in
which case DOE and the manufacturer representative will only be on-site
for the test set-up; or
(B) The manufacturer has elected, as part of their certification of
that model, to witness testing. A manufacturer may elect to have a DOE
representative and a manufacturer's representative on-site for the
initial verification test for up to 10 percent of the manufacturer's
certified basic models rated with an AEDM. The 10 percent requirement
applies to all of the basic models certified by a given manufacturer no
matter how many AEDMs a manufacturer has used to develop its ratings.
Manufacturers who elect to select 10 percent of their basic models must
include this information as part of their certification prior to the
unit being selected for verification testing.; or
(C) The model is a variable refrigerant flow system, in which case
DOE and the manufacturer representative will only be on-site for the
test set-up.
(iv) Testing. All verification testing will be conducted in
accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, as well as each of
the following to the extent that they apply:
(A) Any active test procedure waivers that have been granted for
the basic model;
(B) Any test procedure guidance that has been issued by DOE;
(C) The installation and operations manual that is shipped with the
unit;
(D) Any additional information that was provided by the
manufacturer in the pdf at the time of certification; and
(E) If during test set-up or testing, the lab indicates to DOE that
it needs additional information regarding a given basic model in order
to test in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, DOE may
organize a meeting between DOE, the manufacturer and the lab to provide
such information. At no time during the process may the lab communicate
directly with the manufacturer without DOE present.
(v) Failure to meet certified rating. If a model tests worse than
its certified rating by an amount exceeding the tolerance prescribed in
paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(F) of this section, DOE will notify the
manufacturer. Within the timeframe allotted by DOE, the manufacturer
may then:
(A) Present all claims regarding testing validity; and
(B) If the manufacturer was not on site for the initial test, may
request a retest of the previously tested unit with manufacturer and
DOE representatives on-site. DOE will not retest a different unit of
the same basic model unless DOE and the manufacturer determine it is
necessary based on the test results, claims presented, and DOE
regulations.
(vi) Tolerances. (A) For consumption metrics, the result from a DOE
verification test must be less than or equal to the certified rating x
(1 + the applicable tolerance).
(B) For efficiency metrics, the result from a DOE verification test
must be greater than or equal to the certified rating x (1--the
applicable tolerance).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Equipment Metric tolerance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Packaged Boilers....... Combustion 5% (0.05)
Efficiency.
Thermal Efficiency.. 5% (0.05)
Commercial Water Heaters or Hot Thermal Efficiency.. 5% (0.05)
Water Supply Boilers.
Standby Loss........ 10% (0.1)
Unfired Storage Tanks............. R-Value............. 10% (0.1)
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs Seasonal Energy- 5% (0.05)
and HPs less than 65,000 Btu/h Efficiency Ratio. 5% (0.05)
Cooling Capacity (3-Phase). Heating Season 10% (0.1)
Performance Factor.
Energy Efficiency
Ratio.
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
and HPs greater than or equal to Ratio. 5% (0.05)
65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity and Coefficient of 10% (0.1)
Less than 760,000 Btu/h Cooling Performance.
Capacity. Integrated Energy
Efficiency Ratio.
Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
ACs and HPs, All Cooling Ratio.
Capacities.
Coefficient of 5% (0.05)
Performance.
Integrated Energy 10% (0.1)
Efficiency Ratio.
Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
Packaged ACs and HPs, All Ratio.
Capacities.
Coefficient of 5% (0.05)
Performance.
Integrated Energy 10% (0.1)
Efficiency Ratio.
Water-Source HPs, All Capacities.. Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
Ratio.
Coefficient of 5% (0.05)
Performance.
[[Page 62487]]
Integrated Energy 10% (0.1)
Efficiency Ratio.
Single Package Vertical ACs and Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
HPs. Ratio.
Coefficient of 5% (0.05)
Performance.
Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs..... Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
Ratio.
Coefficient of 5% (0.05)
Performance.
Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and Energy Efficiency 5% (0.05)
HPs. Ratio.
Coefficient of 5% (0.05)
Performance.
Integrated Energy 10% (0.1)
Efficiency Ratio.
Computer Room Air Conditioners.... Sensible Coefficient 5% (0.05)
of Performance.
Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces...... Thermal Efficiency.. 5% (0.05)
Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Daily Energy 5% (0.05)
Consumption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(vii) Invalid rating. If, following discussions with the
manufacturer and a retest where applicable, DOE determines that the
testing was conducted appropriately in accordance with the DOE test
procedure, the rating for the model will be considered invalid. The
manufacturer must elect, within 15 days, one of the following to be
completed in a time frame specified by DOE, which is never to exceed
180 days:
(A) Re-rate and re-certify the model based on DOE's test data
alone; or
(B) Discontinue the model through the certification process; or
(C) Conduct additional testing and re-rate and re-certify the basic
model based on all test data collected, including DOE's test data.
(viii) AEDM use. (A) If DOE has determined that a manufacturer made
invalid ratings on two or more models rated using the same AEDM within
a 24 month period, the manufacturer must take the action listed in the
table corresponding to the number of invalid certified ratings. The
twenty-four month period begins with a DOE determination that a rating
is invalid through the process outlined above. Additional invalid
ratings apply for the purposes of determining the appropriate
consequences if the subsequent determination(s) is based on selection
of a unit for testing within the twenty-four month period (i.e.,
subsequent determinations need not be made within 24 months).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of invalid certified ratings
from the same AEDM \2\ within a Required manufacturer actions
rolling 24 month period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2..................................... Submit different test data and
reports from testing to
validate that AEDM within the
validation classes to which it
is applied.\1\ Adjust the
rating as appropriate.
4..................................... Conduct double the minimum
number of validation tests for
the validation classes to which
the AEDM is applied. Note, the
tests required under subsection
(c)(5)(H)(1) must be different
tests on different models than
the original tests required
under subsection (c)(2).
6..................................... Conduct the minimum number of
validation tests for the
validation classes to which the
AEDM is applied; And
Conduct addition testing, which
is equal to \1/2\ the minimum
number of validation tests for
the validation classes to which
the AEDM is applied, at either
the manufacturer's facility or
a third-party test facility, at
the manufacturer's discretion.
Note, the tests required under
subsection (c)(5)(H)(1) must be
different tests on different
models than the original tests
required under subsection
(c)(2).
>=8................................... Manufacturer has lost privilege
to use AEDM. All ratings for
models within the validation
classes to which the AEDM
applied should be rated via
testing. Distribution cannot
continue until certification(s)
are corrected to reflect actual
test data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A manufacturer may discuss with DOE's Office of Enforcement whether
existing test data on different basic models within the validation
classes to which that specific AEDM was applied may be used to meet
this requirement.
\2\ Where the same AEDM means a computer simulation or mathematical
model that is identified by the manufacturer at the time of
certification as having been used to rate a model or group of models.
(B) If, as a result of eight or more invalid ratings, a
manufacturer has lost the privilege of using an AEDM for rating, the
manufacturer may regain the ability to use an AEDM by:
(1) Investigating and identifying cause(s) for failures;
(2) Taking corrective action to address cause(s);
(3) Performing six new tests per validation class, a minimum of two
of which must be performed by an independent, third party laboratory to
validate the AEDM;
(4) Obtaining DOE authorization to resume use of the AEDM.
* * * * *
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
7. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
8. Section 431.62 is amended by revising the definition of ``basic
model'' to read as follows:
Sec. 431.62 Definitions concerning commercial refrigerators, freezers
and refrigerator-freezers.
* * * * *
Basic model means all commercial refrigeration equipment
manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class,
having the same primary energy source, and that have essentially
identical electrical, physical, and functional characteristics that
affect energy consumption.
* * * * *
0
9. Section 431.72 is amended by revising the definition of ``basic
model'' to read as follows:
[[Page 62488]]
Sec. 431.72 Definitions concerning commercial warm air furnaces.
* * * * *
Basic model means all commercial warm air furnaces manufactured by
one manufacturer within a single equipment class, that have the same
nominal input rating and the same primary energy source (e.g. gas or
oil) and that do not have any differing physical or functional
characteristics that affect energy efficiency.
* * * * *
0
10. Section 431.82 is amended by revising the definition of ``basic
model'' to read as follows:
Sec. 431.82 Definitions concerning commercial packaged boilers.
* * * * *
Basic model means all commercial packaged boilers manufactured by
one manufacturer within a single equipment class having the same
primary energy source (e.g., gas or oil) and that have essentially
identical electrical, physical and functional characteristics that
affect energy efficiency.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 431.92 is amended by revising the definition of ``basic
model'' to read as follows:
Sec. 431.92 Definitions concerning commercial air conditioners and
heat pumps.
* * * * *
Basic model includes:
(1) Packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) or packaged terminal
heat pump (PTHP) means all units manufactured by one manufacturer
within a single equipment class, having the same primary energy source
(e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same or comparable
compressors, same or comparable heat exchangers, and same or comparable
air moving systems that have a cooling capacity within 300 Btu/h of one
another.
(2) Small, large, and very large air-cooled or water-cooled
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment means all
units manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class,
having the same or comparably performing compressor(s), heat
exchangers, and air moving system(s) that have a common ``nominal''
cooling capacity.
(3) Single package vertical units means all units manufactured by
one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same
primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same
or comparably performing compressor(s), heat exchangers, and air moving
system(s) that have a rated cooling capacity within 1500 Btu/h of one
another.
(4) Computer room air conditioners means all units manufactured by
one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same
primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same
or comparably performing compressor(s), heat exchangers, and air moving
system(s) that have a common ``nominal'' cooling capacity.
(5) Variable refrigerant flow systems means all units manufactured
by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same
primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same
or comparably performing compressor(s) that have a common ``nominal''
cooling capacity and the same heat rejection medium (e.g., air or
water) (includes VRF water source heat pumps).
(6) Small, large, and very large water source heat pump means all
units manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class,
having the same primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and
which have the same or comparable compressors, same or comparable heat
exchangers, and same or comparable ``nominal'' capacity.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 431.102 is amended by revising the definition of ``basic
model'' to read as follows:
Sec. 431.102 Definitions concerning commercial water heaters, hot
water supply boilers, and unfired hot water storage tanks.
* * * * *
Basic model means all water heaters, hot water supply boilers, or
unfired hot water storage tanks manufactured by one manufacturer within
a single equipment class, having the same primary energy source (e.g.,
gas or oil) and that have essentially identical electrical, physical
and functional characteristics that affect energy efficiency.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-24351 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P