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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

32038 

Vol. 77, No. 105 

Thursday, May 31, 2012 

1For 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. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429, 430, and 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–TP–0024] 

RIN 1904–AC46 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Methods and Alternative Rating 

Methods 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is proposing to revise and 

expand its existing regulations 

governing the use of particular methods 

as alternatives to testing for the 

purposes of certifying compliance with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards and the reporting of related 

ratings for certain consumer products 

and commercial and industrial 

equipment covered by energy 

conservation standards. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) no later 

than July 2, 2012. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ of this NOPR for details. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024, by any 

of the following methods: 

• Email: to AED/ARM–2011–TP– 

0024@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE-2011- 

BT-TP-0024 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Revisions to Energy Efficiency 

Enforcement Regulations, EERE–2011– 

BT–TP–0024, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 

586–2945. Please submit one signed 

paper original. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this 

rulemaking. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, or 

comments received, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: 202–586–6590. Email: 

Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov; and Ms. 

Laura Barhydt, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Forrestal Building, GC–32, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 

(202) 287–5772. Email: 

Laura.Barhydt@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’ or, in context, ‘‘the Act’’) sets 

forth a variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. Part A of 

Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides 

for the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. The National Energy 

Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), Pub. 

L. 95–619, amended EPCA to add Part 

A–1 of Title III, which established an 

energy conservation program for certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311– 

6317) 1 The Department of Energy 

(‘‘DOE’’) is charged with implementing 

these provisions. 

Under EPCA, this program consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) 

labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation 

standards; and (4) certification and 

enforcement procedures. The Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily 

responsible for labeling consumer 

products, and DOE implements the 

remainder of the program. The testing 

requirements consist of test procedures 

that manufacturers of covered products 

and equipment must use (1) as the basis 

for certifying to DOE that their products 

comply with the applicable energy 

conservation standards adopted under 

EPCA, and (2) for making 

representations about the efficiency of 

those products and equipment. 

Similarly, DOE must use these test 

requirements to determine whether the 

products comply with any relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. For 

certain consumer products and 

commercial equipment, DOE’s existing 

testing regulations include allowing the 

use of an alternative efficiency 

determination method (AEDM) or an 

alternative rating method (ARM), in lieu 

of actual testing, to simulate the energy 

consumption or efficiency of certain 

basic models of covered products under 

DOE’s test procedure conditions. 

B. Background 

AEDMs and ARMs are computer 

modeling or mathematical tools that 

predict the performance of non-tested 

basic models. They are derived from 

mathematical models and engineering 

principles that govern the energy 

efficiency and energy consumption 

characteristics of a type of covered 

product. (In the context of this 

discussion, the term ‘‘covered product’’ 

applies both to consumer products and 

commercial equipment that are covered 

under EPCA.) These computer modeling 

and mathematical tools, when properly 

developed, can provide a relatively 

straight-forward and reasonably 

accurate means to predict the energy 

usage or efficiency characteristics of a 

basic model of a given covered product. 

Where authorized by regulation, 

AEDMs and ARMs enable 

manufacturers to rate and certify their 

basic models by using the projected 

energy use or energy efficiency results 

derived from these simulation models. 

DOE has authorized the use of AEDMs 

or ARMs for certain covered products 

that are difficult or expensive to test in 

an effort to reduce the testing burden 

faced by the manufacturers of expensive 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32039 

or highly customized basic models. The 

primary difference between these two 

simulation methods is that ARMs must 

be approved by DOE prior to use while 

AEDMs do not require prior DOE 

approval. From a technical perspective, 

there are no substantive differences 

between these two simulation methods. 

DOE’s regulations currently permit 

manufacturers of commercial heating, 

ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) 

equipment, commercial water heating 

(WH) equipment, distribution 

transformers, and electric motors to use 

AEDMs, while manufacturers of 

residential central air conditioners 

(CACs) and central heat pumps (CHPs) 

may use an ARM to rate their non-tested 

combinations. 

DOE believes other similar products 

that must currently be rated and 

certified through testing, such as 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

automatic commercial ice makers, 

beverage vending machines, walk-in 

cooler and freezer refrigeration systems 

and small electric motors, could also be 

rated and certified through the use of 

computer or mathematical modeling. 

Permitting the use of these modeling 

techniques for certification and rating 

purposes would require DOE to 

explicitly permit manufacturers to use 

an AEDM or ARM through regulation. 

DOE sought comment on this topic and 

other issues in a Request for Information 

(RFI), which was published in the 

Federal Register on April 18, 2011. 76 

FR 21673. 

The RFI requested suggestions, 

comments, and information relating to 

the Department’s intent to expand and 

revise its existing AEDM and ARM 

requirements for consumer products 

and commercial and industrial 

equipment covered under EPCA. This 

rulemaking is intended to facilitate 

DOE’s consideration of procedural 

changes to its requirements for AEDMs 

and ARMs in an effort to advance the 

effective implementation of DOE’s 

conservation standards and regulations. 

The comment period for written 

submissions on the RFI closed on May 

18, 2011. This notice proposes to 

modify those regulations pertaining to 

the AEDM and ARM requirements 

within Part 429 of Title 10 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR). The 

Department’s goal is to establish a 

uniform, systematic, and fair approach 

to the use of these types of modeling 

techniques that will enable DOE to 

ensure that products in the marketplace 

are correctly rated—irrespective of 

whether they are subject to actual 

physical testing or are rated using 

modeling—without unnecessarily 

burdening regulated entities. 

II. Discussion of Specific Revisions to 

DOE’s Alternative Efficiency 

Determination Methods and Alternative 

Rating Methods Regulations and 

Comments Received in Response to the 

RFI 

DOE received comments from 21 

interested parties, including 

manufacturers, trade associations, and 

advocacy groups. Specifically, Table II.1 

lists the entities that submitted 

comments and their affiliation. These 

comments are discussed in more detail 

below, and the full set of comments can 

be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252

BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=

25;po=0;D=EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024. 

TABLE II.1—STAKEHOLDERS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENT ON THE RFI 

Name Acronym Organization type 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ...... AHRI ................................... Industry Trade Group. 

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, and Natural 

Resources Defense Council.

ACEEE, ASAP, and NRDC 

(Joint Comment).

Advocacy Group. 

American Panel Corporation ............................................ American Panel .................. Manufacturer of refrigeration panels. 

Bradford White Water Heaters ......................................... Bradford White ................... Manufacturer of water heaters. 

Carrier Corporation ........................................................... Carrier ................................ Manufacturer of Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment. 

Earthjustice ....................................................................... Earthjustice ......................... Advocacy Group. 

First Company .................................................................. First .................................... Manufacturer of Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment. 

Goodman Manufacturing Company .................................. Goodman ............................ Manufacturer of Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment. 

Heatcraft Refrigeration Products ...................................... Heatcraft ............................. Manufacturers of Commercial Refrigeration Equipment. 

Howe Corporation ............................................................. Howe .................................. Manufacturer of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers. 

Hussmann ......................................................................... Hussmann .......................... Manufacturer of Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment and CRE. 

Lennox International, Inc .................................................. Lennox ................................ Manufacturers of Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment. 

Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc .................... MEUS ................................. Manufacturer of Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment. 

Modine Manufacturing Company ...................................... Modine ................................ Manufacturer of Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment. 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association ................. NEMA ................................. Industry Trade Group. 

Natural Resources Defense Council ................................ NRDC ................................. Advocacy Group. 

Omega Magnetics Engineering, LLC ............................... Omega ................................ Manufacturer of Distribution Transformers. 

PVI Industries, LLC ........................................................... PVI ...................................... Manufacturer of Commercial Water Heaters. 

Scotsman Ice Systems ..................................................... Scotsman ........................... Manufacturer of Automatic Commercial Ice Makers. 

Structural Concepts Corporation ...................................... Structural Concepts ............ Manufacturer of CRE. 

Traulsen ............................................................................ Traulsen ............................. Manufacturer of Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment and CRE. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32040 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

A. Distinction Between Alternative 

Efficiency Determination Method and 

Alternative Rating Method 

1. Naming Convention 

DOE is contemplating combining 

AEDMs and ARMs under a single term 

to avoid confusion, particularly with 

respect to air conditioning products that 

currently are subject to different 

regulations depending on whether the 

unit is consumer or commercial. The 

RFI sought comment on the need to 

have two alternatives to testing or if 

both alternative methods could be 

covered by one term with the inclusion 

of additional product specific 

requirements. 

Both Carrier and AHRI believe the 

distinction is necessary because ARMs 

require the highest sales volume tested 

combination for the indoor coil, while 

AEDMs are better for low volume, high 

variety commercial products where 

testing multiple samples is not feasible. 

(Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 17.1 

at p. 3) Lennox and Mitsubishi agreed 

and pointed out that the two methods 

are designed for different purposes, 

applications and capacity ranges. 

(Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 1; Mitsubishi, 

No. 19.1 at p. 1) PVI Industries provided 

a similar observation that an ARM 

allows for adjustments to address a 

shortcoming of the test method, while 

AEDMs are calculated substitutes for 

testing. (PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 3) 

However, not all stakeholders agreed 

with the need for separately named 

methods. Hussmann commented that 

only AEDMs are needed, and Goodman 

stated that in order to reduce confusion 

there should only be one method, which 

should be ARMs because they have been 

in place for years. (Hussmann, No. 10.1 

at p. 1; Goodman, No 2.1 at p. 1) 

DOE tentatively agrees with the 

commenters suggesting a single term to 

apply to those modeling techniques 

used to rate and certify any covered 

products that would be permitted to use 

these alternate methods. DOE intends to 

use AEDM, instead of ARM, to refer to 

these methods because the provisions 

DOE proposes to adopt are more similar 

to the current provisions for AEDMs. 

DOE also notes that the term ARM is 

used only for simulations used by 

manufacturers of residential air 

conditioners and heat pumps, whereas 

AEDMs are used by a wider range of 

industries. Given that these two 

methods are conceptually identical, 

DOE is applying the term ‘‘AEDM’’ to 

refer to any simulation method used to 

determine the efficiency or energy usage 

of a given product or equipment. DOE, 

however, agrees with Carrier, AHRI, 

Lennox, and Mitsubishi in that there are 

product-specific considerations that 

should guide the development and 

application of an AEDM. In response to 

these comments, DOE is proposing 

product-specific substantiation 

requirements in this notice which DOE 

believes will address the concerns about 

the current differences between the two 

methods. 

2. Pre-Approval by the Department 

In light of the approval process 

currently in place for ARMs, DOE’s RFI 

sought comment regarding the 

feasibility of applying a similar 

requirement for AEDMs or, 

alternatively, eliminating the approval 

process for ARMs. EarthJustice 

supported the adoption of a prior 

approval-type process. (EarthJustice, No. 

21.1 at p. 2) American Panel also 

supported this approach and noted that 

it would give both manufacturers and 

DOE a level of security regarding the 

development of testing simulations. 

(American Panel, No. 3.1 at p. 2) Zero 

Zone echoed this view, expressing 

support for a ‘‘pre-approved’’ option 

since it would reduce the likelihood of 

a given manufacturer using an 

‘‘unapproved’’ AEDM. (Zero Zone, No. 

18.1 at p. 7) Similarly, both Hussmann 

and Goodman asserted that pre-approval 

would provide manufacturers with 

confidence in their programs. 

(Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 2; Goodman, 

No. 2.1 at p. 1) Additionally, Bradford 

White viewed pre-approval as a way to 

prevent certain manufacturers from 

having an unfair advantage by 

incorrectly rating their products. 

(Bradford White, No. 5.1 at p. 1) 

Despite these expressions of support 

for a pre-approval process, others 

identified potential problems with this 

approach. NEMA stated that there is no 

perceived benefit in DOE imposing an 

additional burden on both the 

manufacturer and itself. Requiring prior 

approval would, in its view, place an 

inordinate burden on manufacturers. 

(NEMA, No. 20.1 at pp. 3–4; NEMA, No. 

22.1 at p. 2) Modine commented that 

there is no need for pre-approval 

because it is the manufacturer’s 

responsibility to produce and certify 

products that comply. (Modine, No. 8.1 

at p. 2) Heatcraft remarked that a preapproval requirement is unnecessary 

and the imposition of one would likely 

overwhelm DOE by virtue of the number 

of submitted pre-approval requests. 

(Heatcraft, No. 11.1 at p. 3) Carrier 

expressed concern with the potential 

burden involved with a pre-approval 

process and indicated that requiring 

pre-approval can result in time-tomarket delays (i.e., delays in getting 

new products to market for sale). 

(Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 6) This view was 

supported by Lennox, Traulsen, PVI 

Industries, AHRI, Zero Zone, and 

Mitsubishi. (Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 2; 

Traulsen, No. 9 at p. 4; PVI Industries, 

No. 15.1 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 17.1 at p. 4; 

Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 7; Mitsubishi, 

No. 19.1 at pp. 2–3) Further, Structural 

Concepts expressed concern that preapproval would limit innovation with 

respect to the introduction of new 

designs and technologies, while PVI 

Industries mentioned that pre-approval 

would discourage product innovation. 

(Structural Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 2; 

PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 4) 

While a broad AEDM pre-approval 

process could help provide 

manufacturers with an added sense of 

security that their AEDMs comply with 

DOE’s requirements, the available facts 

indicate that this added benefit would 

be unlikely to outweigh both the 

additional burden placed on 

manufacturers and DOE as well as the 

drawbacks inherent with increased 

market delays created by requiring a 

pre-approval process. DOE notes that 

the substantiation process, an integral 

part of the validation of the AEDM, 

should provide manufacturers and 

consumers with confidence in ratings 

derived from the AEDM. The 

substantiation process requires a 

manufacturer to test several basic 

models to validate the accuracy of the 

AEDM, making DOE pre-approval 

unnecessary. Furthermore, DOE uses a 

self-certification process for most 

covered products, whereby 

manufacturers are responsible for 

ensuring that the testing is done in 

accordance with DOE’s regulations. The 

Department does not review all 

manufacturers’ test data to confirm that 

the testing was performed correctly and 

that the basic model was rated correctly; 

therefore, an approval process for 

AEDMs could be construed as an 

advantage to those manufacturers who 

are permitted to use them. In light of 

these factors, as well as the potential 

risks that manufacturers face for using 

an inaccurate or otherwise faulty 

AEDM, which includes civil penalties 

and prohibitions on marketing 

noncompliant products, DOE is not 

proposing to add a pre-approval process 

for AEDMs and is proposing to drop the 

current pre-approval requirement for 

methods used to rate residential central 

air conditioners and heat pumps. While 

DOE does not plan to review AEDMs 

prior to their use, DOE may request the 

records underlying the use of an AEDM 

at any time. 10 CFR 429.71. 

Manufacturers must retain any records 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32041 

of testing performed to support the use 

of an AEDM. Id. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to continue omitting a preapproval process for AEDMs, and to no 

longer require pre-approval for rating 

methods applied to residential central 

air conditioners and heat pumps. (See 

Issue 1 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment’’ in section IV.B of this 

NOPR.) 

B. Products Covered by Alternative 

Efficiency Determination Methods and 

Alternative Rating Methods 

1. Expansion of Coverage 

Under the current DOE regulations, 

manufacturers of five types of 

commercial equipment are permitted to 

use AEDMs to generate the certified 

ratings of untested basic models, while 

manufacturers of residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps are 

permitted to use ARMs to generate the 

certified ratings of untested basic 

models. As part of this rulemaking, DOE 

is proposing to expand the types of 

commercial equipment that would be 

addressed by these proposed AEDM 

provisions. However, in the consumer 

product context, DOE has tentatively 

decided not to expand the application of 

AEDMs beyond central air conditioners 

and heat pumps. 

American Panel commented that 

walk-in coolers and freezers 

(collectively, ‘‘walk-ins’’ or ‘‘WICFs’’) 

should be allowed to use AEDMs for 

determining the envelope heat transfer 

characteristics and in selecting the 

condensing unit and evaporator coil. 

(American Panel, No. 3.1 at p. 1) 

Similarly, Zero Zone, Hussmann, PVI 

Industries, and Structural Concepts 

remarked that commercial refrigeration 

equipment (CRE) would also benefit 

from the use of AEDMs. (Zero Zone, No. 

18.1 at p. 2; Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 

1; PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 2; 

Structural Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 2) 

PVI Industries also suggested extending 

AEDM coverage to automated 

commercial ice-makers (ACIMs) and 

residential water heaters. (PVI 

Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 2) AHRI 

concurred with the need to permit the 

use of AEDMs for walk-ins, CRE units, 

ACIMs, and commercial water heaters 

but also indicated that manufacturers of 

residential boilers and water heaters, 

furnaces, pool heaters and direct heating 

equipment should also be permitted to 

use AEDMs to certify and rate those 

products. (AHRI, No. 17.1 at p. 2) Zero 

Zone and Structural Concepts went 

further and favored permitting the use 

of AEDMs for all products. (Zero Zone, 

No. 18.1 at p. 2; Structural Concepts, 

No. 26.1 at p. 1) Scotsman asserted that 

AEDMs are not cost-effective for ACIMs 

because some ACIMs have non-steady 

operation, which makes them difficult 

to model with accuracy. It added that 

testing is not overly burdensome for 

ACIM manufacturers to conduct. 

(Scotsman, No. 6.1 at p. 1) 

Numerous commenters also stressed 

that DOE should continue permitting 

manufacturers to use AEDMs or ARMs 

with respect to those products that the 

agency currently permits to be certified 

and rated with these alternative 

methods. (Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 1; 

Mitsubishi, No 19.1 at p. 1; Heatcraft, 

No. 11.1 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 13.1 at p. 

2; PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 2; 

Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 17.1 

at pp. 2,4; NEMA, No. 20.1 at p. 2; 

NEMA, No. 22.1 at p. 2; Bradford White, 

No 5.1 at p. 1) Modine, NRDC, ACEEE, 

ASAP and Traulsen did not provide 

product-specific recommendations, but 

commented that large, low-volume, 

custom equipment manufacturers would 

benefit from AEDM use. (Modine, No. 

8.1 at p. 1; Traulsen, No. 9.1 at p. 2; 

Joint Comment, No. 24.1 at p. 2) 

DOE has conducted a number of 

rulemaking activities examining the 

manner in which manufacturers of a 

variety of products test and rate their 

products. These activities have 

addressed products such as CRE, 

ACIMs, small electric motors, beverage 

vending machines (BVMs), and walkins. Based on substantial amounts of 

information that DOE has collected 

through these rulemaking activities, 

DOE ascertained that many basic 

models of these product types have low 

sales volumes or are custom-built, 

meaning that manufacturers may have a 

large number of basic models that they 

would need to test in order to certify 

compliance under DOE’s current 

requirements. Given the potential for a 

high testing burden, manufacturers of 

these products may benefit from the use 

of an AEDM since it could be used to 

simulate testing under DOE test 

conditions and the results could then be 

used to certify compliance in lieu of 

conducting the testing that is currently 

required. Adopting this approach will 

likely significantly reduce manufacturer 

testing burdens by minimizing the 

number of units that a manufacturer 

must physically test in order to certify 

all of the basic models offered for sale 

in the U.S. As a result, in addition to 

those products that are already 

permitted to be rated and certified using 

modeling methods (i.e., commercial 

HVAC and WH equipment, electric 

motors, and distribution transformers), 

DOE is proposing to allow the 

manufacturers of CRE, ACIMs, small 

electric motors, and BVMs to use 

AEDMs to rate and certify their 

products. Permitting this option should 

enable these manufacturers to reduce 

the overall testing burdens that they 

would otherwise face. 

Additionally, DOE is proposing to 

allow the use of AEDMs for WICFs but 

is limiting this proposal to apply only 

to the WICF refrigeration system. As 

with other types of commercial 

equipment for which DOE is proposing 

to expand the voluntary use of AEDMs, 

WICF refrigeration systems are lowvolume and custom-made for the 

specific installation and could be 

accurately rated using a computer 

simulation to predict their behavior 

under DOE test conditions. DOE is not 

proposing to permit a similar option for 

other WICF components. WICF panels 

are relatively simple pieces of 

equipment and results from a basic 

model of a given panel can be 

extrapolated to many other panel basic 

models under the provisions of the test 

procedure. As for WICF doors, the DOE 

test procedure already provides for the 

use of certain modeling techniques that 

are approved by the National 

Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC), 

which, in DOE’s view, makes a parallel 

AEDM provision for these components 

unnecessary. Consequently, DOE’s 

proposal is to expand the use of AEDMs 

to WICF refrigeration systems because 

manufacturers of WICF refrigeration 

systems would benefit from the reduced 

testing burden that the proposal would 

provide. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand the use of AEDMs to 

other types of commercial equipment. 

(See Issue 2 under ‘‘Issues on Which 

DOE Seeks Comment’’ in section IV.B of 

this NOPR.) 

In addition, DOE is proposing to 

retain its existing regulations that allow 

for the use of simulation or 

mathematical models to predict the 

certified ratings of residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps. The splitsystem air conditioner and heat pump 

market allows the pairings of a variety 

of different indoor and outdoor models 

for installation in a residence. This 

approach results in a proliferation of 

basic models for which a manufacturer 

must determine the correct rating to 

certify compliance to the Department. If 

all of these basic model combinations 

had to be tested, manufacturers of CACs 

and CHPs would likely face significant 

increased testing burden. DOE believes 

it is necessary to continue to allow the 

use of alternatives to testing to predict 

the performance of all the different 

combinations of CACs and CHPs that 

are offered for sale in the U.S. DOE is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32042 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

clarifying that its proposal allows 

manufacturers of CACs and CHPs to use 

an AEDM to predict the energy 

efficiency of various outdoor units 

paired with different indoor units as 

long as the substantiation criteria are 

met (see section C below for additional 

discussion). 

As for those comments suggesting that 

DOE expand the use of AEDMs to other 

consumer products such as residential 

water heaters and furnaces, DOE does 

not agree with this approach. Basic 

models of consumer products such as 

water heaters and furnaces are typically 

high-volume, with little to no 

customization from model-to-model. 

Many of these products can be found 

off-the-shelf or are regularly stocked by 

distributors. As a result, manufacturers 

of these products do not face the same 

challenges of testing and rating 

potentially hundreds of different 

variations as faced by manufacturers of 

many commercial products. Unlike 

manufacturers of many types of 

commercial equipment that had 

apparently not performed the required 

testing of each basic model, 

manufacturers of consumer products 

have been regularly conducting the 

testing necessary to certify compliance 

to the Department without the use of 

simulation tools. The Department is 

unaware of any undue burden caused by 

testing a large number of basic models, 

or an issue with obtaining two samples 

for testing, due to the high-volume 

nature of the manufacturing for these 

consumer products. 

2. Use Across Product Classes 

Because AEDMs are models based on 

engineering principles, it may be 

possible to use a single AEDM to 

simulate testing of basic models from 

multiple product classes. Since many of 

the engineering principles underlying 

the performance characteristics of 

different pieces of equipment are the 

same, DOE believes it is reasonable for 

a manufacturer to develop an AEDM 

that could apply across multiple 

product classes and accurately simulate 

the energy efficiency or energy use of 

various basic models. An AEDM used to 

model energy consumption across 

multiple product classes, however, will 

be significantly more complex and will 

have to account for more variables than 

an AEDM used to model energy 

consumption within a single product 

class. While DOE does not want to 

restrict manufacturer development and 

use of AEDMs, the inherent complexity 

of an AEDM used to rate basic models 

across multiple product classes requires 

sufficient safeguards to ensure the 

accuracy of an AEDM with respect to 

predicting the energy consumption of a 

basic model from any product class for 

which the AEDM will be used. 

Consequently, DOE sought comment on 

the best approach to verify the accuracy 

and applicability of AEDMs and ARMs 

across multiple product classes without 

unduly burdening manufacturers. 

All interested parties who commented 

on this issue agreed that AEDMs and 

ARMs can and should be used across 

multiple product classes. (Goodman, 

No. 2.1 at p. 1; American Panel, No. 3.1 

at p. 2; Bradford White, No. 5.1 at p. 1; 

Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 2; Modine, No. 8.1 

at p.1; Traulsen, No. 9.1 at p. 2; 

Hussmann, No. 10.1 at pp. 1–2; 

Heatcraft, No. 11.1 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 

13.1 at p. 2; PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at 

p. 3; Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 

17.1 at p. 3; Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 

7; Mitsubishi, No. 19.1 at p. 2; NEMA, 

No. 20.1 at p. 3; Structural Concepts, 

No. 26.1 at p. 1) However, stakeholders 

were divided about the need to 

substantiate the method for every 

product class. Carrier, Hussmann, AHRI, 

Mitsubishi and Structural Concepts all 

commented that the amount of required 

testing should not depend on the 

number of covered product classes, 

while Modine, Lennox, and NEMA 

noted that AEDMs and ARMs should be 

verified for each covered product class. 

(Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 2; Hussmann, No. 

10.1 at pp. 1–2; AHRI, No. 17.1 at p. 3; 

Mitsubishi, No. 19.1 at p. 2; Structural 

Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 1; Modine, No. 

8.1 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 13.1 at p. 2; 

NEMA, No. 20.1 at p. 3) 

While DOE acknowledges that 

AEDMs and ARMs could be applied 

across product classes, differences in 

products and operating conditions may 

hinder the capability of AEDMs to rate 

products from multiple product classes 

within the necessary tolerances. DOE 

believes that manufacturers can build 

AEDMs that would apply across a 

variety of product classes and maintain 

the appropriate tolerances proposed in 

this NOPR, but DOE also believes that 

AEDMs should be substantiated in such 

a manner as to demonstrate that 

capability. DOE tentatively agrees with 

the comments, made by Modine, 

Lennox and NEMA, supporting 

verification of an AEDM for each 

product class to which the AEDM will 

be applied. Consequently, DOE is 

proposing to require, as part of the 

substantiation process, testing of at least 

one basic model from each DOE product 

class to which the AEDM is to be 

applied in addition to the other 

requirements, which are discussed in 

section II.C. DOE does not believe this 

added requirement will significantly 

increase testing burden because, as 

stated by Goodman, manufacturers 

should already be continuously 

validating their AEDMs. (Goodman, No. 

2.1 at p. 1) DOE may, however, amend 

aspects of this proposal based on 

information and feedback presented by 

interested parties or that DOE discovers 

through further research of this issue in 

preparation of any final rule that may be 

issued. As a result, DOE urges all 

interested parties to provide specific 

and detailed information regarding the 

proposed substantiation process as well 

as specific requirements that the agency 

should consider when developing the 

final rule. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require at least one basic 

model from each product class be tested 

to substantiate the AEDM. DOE is 

particularly interested in whether 

additional clarification is needed for 

manufacturers of certain covered 

products to determine all the applicable 

product classes that would need to be 

tested to substantiate the AEDM. As part 

of these comments, the Department is 

interested in receiving feedback on how 

manufacturers currently develop any 

simulation tools to ensure they are 

applicable across a wide range of 

product classes. (See Issue 3 under 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ 

in section IV.B of this NOPR.) Based on 

these comments and data, DOE may 

consider and adopt other substantiation 

criteria from those contained in today’s 

proposal that aid manufacturers in 

identifying the applicable number of 

product classes required for testing. 

C. Substantiation Requirements 

1. Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method Tolerances 

Currently, DOE requires that 

manufacturers test a specified number 

of basic models, apply the AEDM to 

those same basic models, and compare 

the results. In order to substantiate the 

AEDM—i.e., validate the accuracy of the 

model—the results obtained from the 

AEDM output must be within a 

specified tolerance of the results 

obtained from testing. The comparison 

is generally required between test 

results for each individual basic model 

and the AEDM output for the same basic 

model, as well as between the average 

of the test results for all tested basic 

models, and the average of the AEDM 

output for all tested basic models. For 

electric motors, a comparison is only 

required between individual test results 

and individual AEDM outputs for the 

basic models tested. For commercial 

HVAC and water heaters, the AEDM 

output for each basic model must be 

within five percent of the tested value, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32043 

and the overall average of AEDM 

outputs must be within one percent of 

the average of tested values. For 

distribution transformers, the individual 

tolerance is also five percent, but the 

overall tolerance is three percent. 

Electric motors are subject only to an 

individual tolerance of ten percent 

between the AEDM and tested values. 

The current modeling approach for 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps do not have any specific 

required tolerances because the ARM 

must be approved by DOE prior to use. 

Interested stakeholders provided 

numerous suggestions regarding the 

appropriate product-specific tolerances. 

Bradford White and PVI Industries 

commented that tolerances for 

commercial water heaters should be five 

percent because of instrumentation 

tolerances as well as lab to lab variation. 

(Bradford White, No. 5.1 at p. 2; PVI 

Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 5) AHRI 

commented that the one percent overall 

tolerance for commercial HVAC and 

water heaters that currently applies was 

not appropriate and should be relaxed, 

while Heatcraft indicated that a one 

percent overall tolerance is not realistic 

for walk-ins because of equipment 

tolerances and testing variation inherent 

in the test procedure. (AHRI, No. 17.1 at 

p. 5; Heatcraft, No. 11.1 at p. 4) 

Additionally, AHRI commented in a 

later proposal that the individual 

tolerance for residential and commercial 

HVAC and WH equipment, ACIMs, 

walk-ins and commercial refrigeration 

equipment should be 5 percent. (AHRI, 

No. 31.1 at p. 3) Regarding HVAC 

products, Mitsubishi remarked that the 

tolerance should be 5 percent, and both 

First Company and Carrier concurred 

with this suggested level. (Mitsubishi, 

No. 19.1 at p. 4; First Company, No. 14.1 

at p. 3; Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 5) However, 

Carrier went further and commented 

that the overall average of AEDM ratings 

should be within five percent of the 

overall average of tested ratings. 

(Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 5) NEMA pointed 

out that electric motor tolerances may 

need to be tightened to test in 

accordance with Institute of Electrical 

and Electronics Engineer (IEEE) 

Standard 114 or Standard 112 (the two 

protocols used to measure the efficiency 

of electric and small electric motors) 

because these test methods are based on 

the measured output power divided by 

input power. (NEMA, No. 20. 1 at pp. 

5–6) NEMA also suggested DOE should 

limit the tolerance for overall averages 

at three percent for distribution 

transformers and that the tolerance for 

individual ratings should allow the 

AEDM output to be up to 5 percent 

more efficient than the test results. It 

added, however, that the tolerance 

should not apply if the AEDM output 

was conservative. (NEMA, No. 22.1 at p. 

3) Similarly, Modine commented that 

the output from AEDMs should be 

permitted for rating purposes only if the 

AEDM output is no more than five 

percent more efficient than the tested 

value. (Modine, No. 8.1 at p. 2) None of 

these commenters explained the basis 

for their recommendations. 

With respect to CREs, commenter 

views were even more varied. Traulsen 

recommended a 15 percent tolerance, 

while Hussmann suggested that a ten 

percent tolerance was appropriate. Zero 

Zone remarked that the tolerance should 

be five percent. (Traulsen, No. 9.1 at p. 

4; Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 3; Zero 

Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 11) None of the 

commenters specified why they 

believed their recommended tolerance 

was appropriate. 

Regarding potential tolerance levels 

for CRE-related AEDMs, there are no 

technical reasons that would compel the 

application of larger or less stringent 

tolerances for these products compared 

to others. In view of this, and the 

complete absence at this time of any 

contradictory data or information that 

would justify a different approach, DOE 

is proposing to set individual tolerances 

between the test results of a basic model 

and AEDM output for that basic model 

for CREs at five percent. For the same 

reasons, DOE is proposing to set this 

same tolerance for refrigeration systems 

of walk-ins, BVMs, ACIMs, and 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps. DOE is not currently 

planning to amend the tolerances for 

electric motors and proposes to apply 

the same ten percent tolerance to small 

electric motors. 

With respect to distribution 

transformers, DOE agrees with NEMA’s 

view in favor of an overall tolerance, but 

disagrees with NEMA’s suggestion that 

the AEDM outputs for individual basic 

models should be limited only to being 

no more than five percent more efficient 

than the test results for that basic model. 

DOE is concerned with confirming the 

accuracy of an AEDM and having no 

tolerance for AEDM outputs that are 

more conservative than the test results 

could potentially allow for less accurate 

results from the AEDMs. Consequently, 

DOE intends to retain the current 

tolerance on how much the AEDM 

output can diverge from the test results. 

With regard to commercial HVAC 

equipment, DOE agrees with 

stakeholders who claimed that the one 

percent overall average tolerance was 

unnecessarily stringent. However, DOE 

disagrees with Carrier’s comment 

suggesting that the overall average 

tolerance should be five percent. Testing 

different types of commercial 

equipment has similar limitations with 

respect to instrumentation and testing 

variation in the DOE test procedures as 

found for other product types, and 

applying a consistent tolerance across 

all of these covered products (excluding 

electric and small electric motors) 

would help ensure that a consistent, 

predictable and accurate method is used 

by manufacturers. This is also seen in 

the consistency between the 

certification statistics of different types 

of commercial air conditioning and 

heating equipment. Consequently, DOE 

is proposing to expand this three 

percent average tolerance to all products 

that use AEDMs. The overall averages 

are calculated using the following 

equation: 

where x ̄ is the sample average, n is the 

number of units tested representing all 

basic models used to substantiate the 

AEDM and xi is the ith sample. 

Figure C.1, below, provides a visual 

representation of DOE’s proposed 

substantiation tolerances for all 

products proposed for AEDM use, 

excluding motors and small electric 

motors. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP31MY12.000</GPH>
32044 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

DOE seeks product specific comments 

and supporting data on these proposed 

overall and individual tolerance levels 

by product type. Specifically, DOE seeks 

data showing that the variability seen in 

the manufacturing processes, test 

instrumentation, and testing procedures 

merits consideration and adoption of 

different tolerances. (See Issue 4 under 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ 

in section IV.B of this NOPR.) Based on 

these data, DOE may consider and adopt 

different tolerance levels from those 

contained in today’s proposal. 

2. Number of Tested Units 

In addition to achieving certain 

tolerances with their AEDMs, 

manufacturers are required to test a 

specific number of basic models to 

demonstrate that the AEDM is 

sufficiently accurate for determining the 

ratings of their products. Currently, the 

required number of models and units 

that must be tested varies by product 

and are as follows: Six basic models for 

commercial HVAC and water heaters; 25 

units for distribution transformers (five 

units of five different basic models); five 

basic models for electric motors; and 

four mixed systems for residential 

central air conditioners and heat pumps. 

DOE received considerable feedback 

from interested parties on the necessary 

sample sizes for these products as well 

as for other products that manufacturers 

may be permitted to certify and rate 

using an AEDM as part of today’s 

proposal. 

Bradford White suggested that the 

appropriate sample size for commercial 

water heaters is two units, with the 

smallest and largest input capacity 

models being tested, and that a 

manufacturer should not be required to 

substantiate an AEDM using a number 

of basic models that a manufacturer 

does not have in stock. (Bradford White, 

No. 5.1 at p. 2) PVI agreed that testing 

two water heaters was adequate for 

AEDM substantiation. (PVI Industries, 

No. 15.1 at p. 3) Similarly, Structural 

Concepts recommended two units as the 

necessary sample size for CRE, while 

Hussmann suggested one unit per DOE 

product class to which the AEDM is 

applied. (Structural Concepts, No. 26.1 

at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 3) 

Regardless of sample size, American 

Panel cautioned DOE to be aware of the 

increased cost to manufacturers of 

testing more units. (American Panel, No. 

3.1 at p. 3) NEMA observed that the 

current sample size and testing for both 

electric motors and transformers is 

appropriate. (NEMA, No. 20.1 at p. 4; 

NEMA, No. 22.1 at p. 3) Carrier 

mentioned that a sample of three basic 

models is sufficient and added that DOE 

should consider permitting 

manufacturers to decide how to 

substantiate their AEDMs and how to 

select models—other than the highest 

sales volume tested combination—in 

order to enable them to validate an 

AEDM across the manufacturer’s entire 

product range. (Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 4) 

AHRI submitted a proposal that the 

sample size for residential and 

commercial HVAC and WH equipment, 

ACIMs, walk-ins and CRE should be two 

units. (AHRI, No. 31.1 at p. 2) However, 

Lennox remarked that the current 

sample size for ARMs is reasonable, 

while Modine supported leaving the 

decision of how to substantiate an 

AEDM to the manufacturer. (Lennox, 

No. 13.1 at p. 4; Modine, No. 8.1 at p. 

4) Zero Zone was alone in believing that 

AEDMs do not need to be substantiated 

at all. (Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 10) 

DOE is reluctant to omit a 

substantiation process or to leave this 

process entirely to manufacturer 

discretion without some form of 

reasonable confirmation regarding the 

accuracy and validity of the underlying 

AEDM. While DOE is sensitive to the 

costs associated with equipment testing 

and the fact that some manufacturers 

may have a high degree of familiarity 

with how to substantiate their AEDMs, 

DOE wants to ensure that the AEDM’s 

accuracy is confirmed across the entire 

range of product classes to which it is 

applied. Additionally, DOE wants to 

ensure consistency with regard to the 

minimum testing requirements needed 

to substantiate the AEDM across 

manufacturers of a given equipment 

type to provide a fair and consistent 

approach in allowing the use of 

simulations and mathematical models. 

For these reasons, DOE is proposing 

changes to the selection of models used 

to substantiate an AEDM. Consequently, 

in DOE’s view, to ensure this accuracy, 

a minimum amount of testing should be 

conducted to substantiate a given 

AEDM. Manufacturers may always elect 

to conduct additional testing to validate 

the accuracy of the AEDM. 

To this end, DOE proposes that at 

least five basic models be tested to 

substantiate an AEDM with a minimum 

of one unit tested of each basic model 

for all products except distribution 

transformers. With regard to distribution 

transformers, DOE proposes to retain the 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP31MY12.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32045 

current requirement to test 25 units (five 

units of five different basic models). 

DOE also proposes other criteria 

discussed below that will help ensure 

that the AEDM is sufficiently reliable for 

all product classes to which the AEDM 

will be applied. Consistent with 

Hussmann’s suggestion regarding the 

number of models that should be tested 

to substantiate an AEDM, DOE is 

proposing that at least one basic model 

be tested from each product class to 

which the AEDM will be applied as 

explained above. While differences 

among products in different product 

classes may be minimal, DOE wants to 

ensure that the AEDM is able to account 

for differences in test conditions for 

different product classes (e.g., coolers 

and freezers) and still accurately predict 

product performance. 

Because physical size or capacity is 

another characteristic that can have a 

significant effect on efficiency, DOE 

agrees with Bradford White’s suggestion 

to test both the smallest and largest 

capacity units covered by the AEDM, 

where applicable. DOE recognizes, 

however, that the burden associated 

with a requirement to test the largest 

capacity basic model offered may be 

prohibitive. Therefore, DOE is 

proposing that the models tested for 

substantiation include the smallest and 

largest capacity basic models, or a basic 

model with a capacity within 25% of 

the largest capacity basic model, for all 

products where physical size (e.g., total 

display area, vendible capacity, rated 

storage volume, etc.) or capacity (e.g., 

heating, cooling, etc.) is an integral part 

of the test procedure and energy use or 

efficiency of the product. Further, DOE 

believes that the basic models that meet 

these capacity criteria should be from 

the product class that has the highest 

sales volume because DOE believes 

these products would be most 

representative, less likely to be highly 

customized or built-to-order, and less 

costly to test. 

In addition to this requirement to test 

models from the highest sales volume 

product class, DOE proposes that the 

tested units include the basic model 

with the highest sales volume in the 

previous year or is expected to have the 

highest sales volume as one of the five 

tested basic models. Lastly, to ensure 

that the AEDM is substantiated for 

current, up-to-date models, DOE 

proposes to require that test data used 

for substantiation meet the applicable 

energy conservation standards in effect 

at the time that the AEDM is being used. 

Consequently, when the compliance 

date for amended standards comes into 

effect, DOE is proposing that 

manufacturers may need to resubstantiate the AEDM depending on 

the efficiencies of the basic models used 

to originally substantiate the AEDM. 

Table C.1 below summarizes the 

requirements proposed in this section. 

TABLE C.1—PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTING UNITS FOR SUBSTANTIATION FOR ALL APPLICABLE COVERED

PRODUCTS AND EQUIPMENT

Proposed requirement Applicable products 

Test a minimum of five basic models ............................................................................................................................. All. 

Test at least one basic model from each product class to which the AEDM will be applied ........................................ All. 

Test the smallest and largest capacity basic models from the product class with the highest sales volume .............. Residential AC/HP, Commercial HVAC and WH, 

ACIM, WICF refrigeration 

systems, CRE. 

Test the basic model with the highest sales volume the previous year, or the basic model which is expected to 

have the highest sales volume for newly introduced basic models.

All. 

Test data used for substantiation must meet applicable Federal energy conservation standards and applicable 

DOE testing procedures.

All. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposed 

criteria for selecting basic models and 

the number of basic models that should 

be required for substantiation as well as 

whether the differences in testing 

requirements for distribution 

transformers are appropriate or 

necessary. (See Issue 5 under ‘‘Issues on 

Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in section 

IV.B of this NOPR.) 

3. Required Number of Testing Rounds 

To substantiate their AEDMs pursuant 

to DOE’s current regulations, 

manufacturers of commercial HVAC and 

water heaters must first apply the 

AEDM to three or more basic models, 

which then must be tested. Following 

this initial round of testing, 

manufacturers must apply the AEDM to 

at least three additional models and test 

them as well. For each round of testing, 

the ratings predicted by the AEDM must 

be within a specified percentage of the 

tested ratings. 10 CFR 429.70. These 

products are the only products which 

have to undergo two rounds of testing 

to substantiate the AEDM. 

Consequently, DOE is considering 

altering the number of testing rounds to 

make AEDM substantiation 

requirements for these products align 

with those for other products and 

sought comment in the RFI on the 

benefits of a second round of testing 

because the available data indicate that 

a reduction in testing burden consistent 

with DOE’s proposal would be unlikely 

to affect the accuracy of the predicted 

efficiency levels provided by the 

appropriate AEDM. 

Both Carrier and PVI Industries 

mentioned that one round of testing is 

sufficient, while Mitsubishi remarked 

that two sets of testing do not add any 

significant benefit. (Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 

6; PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 6; 

Mitsubishi, No. 19.1 at p. 4) Considering 

DOE’s proposal to change the number of 

models necessary for substantiation of 

an AEDM for commercial HVAC and 

water heaters, DOE believes that the 

AEDM would be substantiated for every 

applicable product class following one 

round of substantiation testing. Given 

that the manufacturer may test more 

than the minimum number of basic 

models during substantiation, DOE 

believes that a single round of testing is 

sufficient. Additionally, a manufacturer 

is free to conduct further testing during 

the lifetime of an AEDM that is in 

addition to those substantiation tests 

being proposed. Requiring this added 

testing, however, is unnecessary since 

DOE believes manufacturers are best 

positioned to assess whether they need 

to run additional substantiation testing 

for newly designed or redesigned basic 

models on a case-by-case basis. DOE is 

proposing a framework that allows 

manufacturers to weigh the risk of 

noncompliance against the increased 

testing burden and is providing them 

with the discretion to choose the extent 

to which they want to conduct 

additional testing beyond the 

requirements of this proposal. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32046 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Additionally, DOE is proposing new 

provisions that will require 

manufacturers to perform additional 

testing and re-substantiation if changes 

occur that may impact the validity of 

the AEDM. These proposals are 

discussed further below. Because of 

these additional changes, as well as 

more stringent substantiation 

requirements, DOE agrees with 

commenters that the second round of 

testing is unnecessary to substantiate 

the AEDM and is proposing to eliminate 

the second round of testing for 

commercial HVAC and water heaters. 

4. Standardized Substantiation Package 

Establishing a standardized 

substantiation package would provide a 

number of benefits, including 

predictability and consistency with 

respect to the submission and review of 

AEDM-related records. Under today’s 

proposal, manufacturers would know 

what materials to maintain regarding the 

AEDM-based certifications of their 

products and DOE would be able to 

more readily discern the validity and 

completeness of these submissions. 

Adopting a standardized 

substantiation package approach would 

provide a number of benefits. First, this 

approach would clearly inform 

manufacturers regarding the underlying 

materials they need to maintain in 

support of their certified ratings for each 

basic model that has been certified and 

rated using an AEDM. With this 

clarification, manufacturer confusion 

regarding document retention issues 

would be eliminated. Second, 

information packages submitted in 

response to a request under 10 CFR 

429.71 would be comparable in content 

and lend themselves more readily to 

DOE’s review of those technical 

materials supporting a given 

manufacturer’s AEDM. By creating an 

approach that involves the submission 

of a standardized set of materials, which 

would likely include a summary of the 

basic models used to substantiate the 

AEDM, DOE anticipates that the review 

time of this material will be 

substantially less than if a nonstandardized approach were used. Other 

information that would likely be part of 

this package includes, but is not limited 

to the following: information 

demonstrating that the substantiation 

criteria are met; supporting test data 

from physical tests of those basic 

models; information related to the 

AEDM such as its version number and 

applicable product classes; and a list of 

all the basic models that have been rated 

with the AEDM. DOE intends to address 

this topic further in the upcoming 

Certification, Compliance and 

Enforcement rulemaking. 

D. DOE Validation 

1. Evaluation 

Under the current process, 

manufacturers must retain 

documentation containing a description 

of the AEDM, supporting test data, and 

the AEDM itself. To avail themselves of 

the less burdensome option of using an 

AEDM, manufacturers must be willing 

to run additional simulations, provide 

further analysis of previous AEDM 

output, and test selected basic models 

on request. See, e.g., 10 CFR 431.17 

(specifying AEDM-related requirements 

for electric motors) and 10 CFR 

429.70(c)(3) (specifying AEDM-related 

requirements for commercial HVAC– 

WH). However, DOE does not currently 

require a specific frequency for 

validating a given AEDM—e.g., annually 

or once every five years. To address this 

shortcoming, DOE sought comment in 

the RFI on how often it should, if at all, 

validate AEDMs without creating an 

undue burden on manufacturers or 

limiting the number of products in the 

marketplace. 

AHRI stated that there was no need 

for DOE to validate AEDMs or ARMs, 

particularly if a manufacturer 

participates in a voluntary industry 

certification program (VICP). Carrier, 

Zero Zone, NEMA, Mitsubishi, and 

Goodman supported this view. (AHRI, 

No. 17.1 at p. 4; Carrier, No 7.1 at p. 6; 

Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 12; Mitsubishi, 

No. 19.1 at p. 3–4; Goodman, No. 2.1 at 

p. 2) Structural Concepts asserted that 

the initial validation of AEDMs is all 

that is needed to ensure the accuracy of 

the AEDM, while Modine and Lennox 

argued that validation is unnecessary. 

(Structural Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 3; 

Modine, No. 8.1 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 

16.1 at p. 4) While NEMA also indicated 

that validation was unnecessary, it 

noted that if DOE still chooses to 

validate AEDMs, it should be done at 

most annually. (NEMA, No. 22.1 at p. 4) 

Traulsen suggested the same validation 

frequency (i.e., annually) as NEMA. 

(Traulsen, No. 9.1 at p. 4) Bradford 

White supported validation testing 

every three to five years and Hussmann 

favored testing at least 4 models 

annually—but at DOE’s expense. 

(Bradford White, No. 5.1 at p. 2; 

Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 3) 

In DOE’s view, an AEDM validation 

measure is a necessary component of 

ensuring the accuracy of product ratings 

based on AEDMs. However, DOE 

recognizes that too frequent validation 

could be unnecessary. Accordingly, 

rather than specify a particular 

validation frequency requirement, DOE 

is reserving the right to request the 

documentation supporting the AEDM 

and to test a basic model at any point, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104. 

2. Assessment Testing 

As part of today’s notice, DOE also 

seeks to clarify how it would conduct 

assessment testing to evaluate whether 

basic models rated with the use of an 

AEDM comply with conservation 

standards. When conducting assessment 

testing, DOE will exercise its authority 

to select and test a single unit of a basic 

model, including those that have been 

certified using an AEDM, at any point, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104. The unit 

will be tested to the applicable DOE test 

procedure at an independent, thirdparty laboratory accredited to the 

International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO)/International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 

‘‘General requirements for the 

competence of testing and calibration 

laboratories,’’ ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E). 

The test results obtained from the 

testing of one unit will be compared to 

both the applicable Federal 

conservation standard as well as the 

manufacturer’s certified rating, which 

was developed using an AEDM. If the 

test result indicates that the product was 

rated incorrectly, DOE may require the 

manufacturer to re-substantiate their 

AEDM using the DOE test data, and rerate and re-certify the basic model, as 

may be necessary. If the test result 

indicates that the product may not meet 

Federal conservation standards, DOE 

may pursue enforcement testing 

pursuant to 10 CFR 429.110. 

The following sections describe 

potential DOE actions in response to 

certain verification testing results. 

a. Failure to Meet Certified Ratings 

If testing results from DOE-initiated 

testing indicate that the model was rated 

incorrectly by an AEDM, DOE may 

require the manufacturer to resubstantiate their AEDM and re-rate and 

re-certify all products that were rated 

using the AEDM, as the new results 

from the AEDM prove necessary. DOE 

would make this determination by 

comparing the assessment test results to 

the certified rating to determine if the 

specified tolerances were maintained as 

prescribed in 10 CFR 429.70 (c). If a 

basic model is rated incorrectly, DOE 

proposes to require manufacturers to resubstantiate their AEDM within 30 days 

of being provided with test data by the 

Department. The manufacturer would 

be required to use the test data obtained 

through DOE testing in the resubstantiation of the AEDM. This would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32047 

not require an entirely new set of testing 

by the manufacturer. However, if 

inclusion of test data from the 

Department results in new results for 

basic models that do not meet the 

substantiation criteria enumerated in 10 

CFR 429.70 (c) (e.g., the specified 

tolerances), then a manufacturer must 

make additional modifications to the 

AEDM either through engineering 

modifications or additional testing. At 

this time, DOE has tentatively decided 

not to require new testing for basic 

models outside of the affected product 

class as part of the re-substantiation 

process, in order to alleviate 

manufacturer burden. Ultimately, if 

DOE requires re-substantiation of the 

AEDM, all basic models that were rated 

using the AEDM in question must be rerated after re-substantiation and recertified to the Department if resubstantiation resulted in a rating 

change for those models. 

DOE requests comment on the 

appropriate course of action and 

necessary time to complete such steps 

when a basic model tested by DOE fails 

to meet its certified rating generated 

using an AEDM. (See Issue 6 under 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ 

in section IV.B of this NOPR.) 

b. Non-Compliance With Federal 

Standards 

Based on the results of this initial 

assessment testing, DOE may initiate an 

investigation that a basic model may not 

comply with an applicable conservation 

standard pursuant to 10 CFR 429.106 

and/or undertake enforcement testing 

pursuant to 10 CFR 429.110. If, 

following enforcement testing, a model 

is determined to be non-compliant, all 

other models within that basic model 

are deemed non-compliant. DOE will 

withhold a finding of noncompliance 

for all other basic models rated with the 

AEDM pending additional investigation. 

If the basic model that is found noncompliant was used for substantiation of 

the AEDM, the manufacturer must resubstantiate that AEDM within 30 days 

of notification, pursuant to the 

substantiation requirements enumerated 

in 10 CFR 429.70(c). DOE is not 

proposing to require the manufacturer to 

re-test basic models that were tested 

previously for substantiation if DOE has 

not determined those models to be noncompliant. 

c. Multiple Instances of NonCompliance 

Additionally, DOE is considering how 

to address those manufacturers whose 

AEDMs do not accurately rate their 

products on a recurring basis. One 

possible approach would be to restrict 

or disallow the use of AEDMs for these 

manufacturers. Under this approach, 

manufacturers would have an incentive 

to exercise greater care when developing 

and applying AEDMs to rate their 

products. Another option would be to 

impose civil penalties. DOE believes 

that manufacturers must be held 

accountable for the accuracy of their 

AEDMs and that a means of 

discouraging future attempts to 

circumvent the standards established 

either by Congress or DOE is necessary. 

However, DOE does not want to unduly 

burden manufacturers, adversely impact 

the ability of small businesses to 

compete, or otherwise impede the 

development and marketing of new and 

innovative compliant products for 

consumers to purchase. 

Responding to DOE’s RFI, numerous 

interested parties suggested a variety of 

steps DOE could take in dealing with an 

instance of non-compliance. AHRI 

observed that a finding of noncompliance does not necessarily 

indicate an error in the AEDM, and that 

all models should not be found noncompliant until the reason for failure 

has been determined. (AHRI, No. 17.1 at 

p. 3) Goodman, Lennox, Carrier, 

Modine, Hussmann, Heatcraft, First 

Company, PVI Industries, NEMA, and 

Structural Concepts all concurred with 

this comment. (Goodman, No. 2.1 at p. 

1; Carrier, No. 7.1 at pp. 2–3; Modine, 

No. 8, at p. 1; Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 

2; Heatcraft, No. 11.1 at p. 2; Lennox, 

No. 13.1 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 

2; First Company; No. 14.1 at p. 2; PVI 

Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 

22.1 at p. 2; Structural Concepts, No. 

26.1 at p. 1). Zero Zone and NEMA 

noted that, rather than restrict AEDM 

usage, DOE should focus on finding the 

cause of the error and ensuring that a 

correction is made. (Zero Zone, No. 18.1 

at p. 7; NEMA, No. 20.1 at p. 3) 

However, some stakeholders 

recognized the need to more actively 

discourage manufacturers who are 

consistently non-compliant or 

intentionally non-compliant. Traulsen, 

Bradford White, First Company and 

EarthJustice all stated that DOE should 

disallow the use of AEDMs for 

manufacturers after multiple instances 

of non-compliance, while American 

Panel wrote that the use of AEDMs 

should be disallowed if there was 

willful intent by the manufacturer 

regarding the ratings from the AEDM. 

(American Panel, No. 3.1 at p. 2; 

Traulsen, No. 9.1 at p. 3; First Company, 

No. 14.1 at p. 2; EarthJustice, No. 21.1 

at p. 1) 

DOE concurs that finding the root 

cause of a non-compliance is important. 

As important as this factor is, DOE 

stresses that determining this cause is 

the manufacturer’s responsibility, not 

DOE’s. DOE remains concerned, 

however, that the prospect of 

disallowing the use of AEDMs following 

a single instance of non-compliance 

would place a significant burden on 

manufacturers, and the additional 

testing necessitated by this penalty 

potentially could lead to time-to-market 

delays. Therefore, DOE is proposing to 

disallow the use of an AEDM following 

multiple instances of non-compliance 

and/or if there is evidence that the misrating was willful. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal that DOE disallow the use of 

an AEDM if there is evidence that the 

mis-rating is willful and/or there are 

multiple instances of non-compliance. 

(See Issue 7 under ‘‘Issues on Which 

DOE Seeks Comment’’ in section IV.B of 

this NOPR.) 

2. Re-Substantiation 

In addition to re-substantiation 

required by DOE as the result of 

assessment testing, DOE is concerned 

about the need to update an AEDM to 

avoid having AEDMs based on outdated 

substantiation data, which could lead to 

inaccurate ratings for basic models 

certified using AEDMs, and requested 

comment in the RFI on the necessity 

and required frequency of resubstantiation. 

Carrier and Goodman asserted that a 

given manufacturer’s familiarity and 

understanding of both its products and 

AEDMs makes them better equipped 

than DOE to decide when resubstantiation is necessary. (Carrier, No. 

7.1 at p. 5; Goodman, No. 2.1 at p. 1) 

Goodman also noted that there would be 

an additional burden placed on 

manufacturers by mandatory resubstantiation, and several other 

stakeholders, including American Panel, 

Heatcraft, First Company, and Lennox 

voiced similar concerns about the added 

burden. (Goodman, No. 2.1 at p. 1; 

American Panel, No. 3.1 at p. 3; 

Heatcraft, No. 11.1 at p. 3; First 

Company, No. 14.1 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 

16.1 at p. 3) 

In contrast, a variety of stakeholders— 

American Panel, First Company, 

Lennox, NEMA and AHRI—all 

remarked that significant changes in a 

test method would justify resubstantiation. (American Panel, No. 3.1 

at p. 3; First Company, No. 14.1 at p. 2; 

Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 17.1 

at p. 5; NEMA, No. 20.1 at p. 5). Several 

commenters, including Modine, 

Hussmann, Howe, Mitsubishi and 

Structural Concepts, disagreed with this 

opinion and believed that there is no 

need for re-substantiation. (Modine, No. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32048 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8.1 at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 3; 

Howe, No. 12.1 at p. 1; Mitsubishi, No. 

19.1 at p. 3; Structural Concepts, No. 

26.1 at p. 2) PVI Industries was the only 

stakeholder who suggested that resubstantiation be required after a 

specific amount of time, and it 

recommended that at least one sample 

be tested every five years to resubstantiate the AEDM. (PVI Industries, 

No. 15.1 at p. 5) 

DOE is concerned that, without some 

type of re-substantiation requirement, 

AEDMs could become outdated over 

time if they are based on old models, 

which have been discontinued and are 

not currently in production. However, 

DOE acknowledges manufacturer 

concerns over the additional test burden 

and is not proposing to require resubstantiation on a periodic basis. 

Instead, DOE is proposing that 

manufacturers must re-substantiate their 

AEDMs when there is a change either to 

the applicable standards or DOE test 

procedure. Additionally, DOE is 

proposing that the substantiation data 

used by the manufacturer must be 

obtained from physical tests of current 

models from that manufacturer. DOE is 

taking this approach because it agrees 

with commenters who claim that it is 

not necessary to re-substantiate an 

AEDM for products for which there has 

been no change that would cause the 

model to behave differently under 

testing. However, changes to the 

applicable standards or DOE test 

procedure are more likely to necessitate 

changes to a given AEDM that would 

result in a different output. When a 

model used for substantiation of the 

AEDM is discontinued or becomes 

obsolete, a manufacturer will need to 

replace that model with a new model 

and re-rate or re-certify as necessary. 

DOE requests comment on the 

necessity of requiring re-substantiation 

when there is a change in standards or 

test procedure and requiring that 

AEDMs be substantiated with active 

models. (See Issue 8 under ‘‘Issues on 

Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in section 

IV.B of this NOPR.) 

III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that test procedure 

rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires the 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule 

that by law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed the test procedures 

considered in today’s NOPR under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) and the policies and 

procedures published on February 19, 

2003. 

DOE reviewed the AEDM and ARM 

requirements being proposed under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 

published on February 19, 2003. As 

discussed in more detail below, DOE 

found that because the provisions of this 

rule will not result in increased testing 

and/or reporting burden for 

manufacturers already eligible to use an 

AEDM and will extend AEDM use to a 

number of manufacturers, thus reducing 

their testing burden, manufacturers will 

not experience increased financial 

burden as a result of this rule. 

Today’s proposal, which presents 

voluntary methods for certifying 

compliance in lieu of conducting actual 

physical testing, would not increase the 

testing or reporting burden of 

manufacturers who currently use, or are 

eligible to use, an AEDM to certify their 

products. Manufacturers who produce 

products that may be certified using 

ARMs must obtain approval from the 

Department prior to the use of those 

ARMs for certification purposes. This 

rule, if promulgated, will eliminate the 

ARM nomenclature and treat these 

methods as AEDMs. As a result, the preapproval requirement will be 

eliminated, resulting in a reduction in 

reporting burden for those 

manufacturers. 

Furthermore, proposed requirements 

for substantiation of an AEDM do not 

require more testing than that required 

by the AEDM provisions included in the 

March 7, 2011 Certification, Compliance 

and Enforcement Final Rule (76 FR 

12422) (‘‘March 2011 Final Rule’’), and 

would relax tolerances that tested 

products are required to meet in order 

to substantiate the AEDM. In this 

proposed rule, DOE has discussed resubstantiation requirements for 

manufacturers utilizing an AEDM. 

While these requirements were not 

directly stated in the March 2011 Final 

Rule, DOE believes that the March rule 

implicitly included requirements for resubstantiation within its AEDM 

requirements. DOE is explicitly 

including re-substantiation 

requirements in this proposed rule to 

provide clarity for those manufacturers 

using an AEDM. As such, DOE does not 

believe these requirements result in an 

increased burden for manufacturers who 

already use an AEDM. 

Finally, DOE has clarified in today’s 

proposal how it intends to exercise its 

authority to validate AEDM 

performance and verify the performance 

of products certified using an AEDM. 

This is a clarification of the process that 

DOE promulgated in the March 2011 

Final Rule and would not increase 

burden for manufacturers currently 

allowed to use AEDMs to certify their 

products. 

This notice also proposes to extend 

the applicability of AEDMs to products 

that are currently not permitted to be 

certified or rated by these alternate 

methods. Manufacturers not eligible to 

use AEDMs must currently test at least 

two units of every basic model that they 

produce in order to certify compliance 

to the Department pursuant to the 

March 2011 Final Rule. Today’s 

proposal would reduce a manufacturer’s 

testing burden by enabling these 

manufacturers to simulate testing based 

on testing data derived from a reduced 

number of units. While the Department 

believes that permitting greater use of 

AEDMs will reduce the affected 

manufacturer’s test burden, their use is 

at the manufacturer’s discretion. If, as a 

result of any of the proposals herein, a 

manufacturer believes that use of an 

AEDM would increase rather than 

decrease their financial burden, the 

manufacturer may choose not to employ 

the method. Should a manufacturer 

choose to abstain from using an AEDM, 

this proposed provision would not 

apply and the manufacturer would 

continue to remain subject to the 

requirements of any DOE test procedure 

that applies to that product, which 

would result in no change in burden 

from that which is required currently. 

For the reasons enumerated above, 

DOE is certifying that the proposed rule, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32049 

if promulgated, would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of the covered 

products addressed in today’s NOPR 

must certify to DOE that their 

equipment comply with any applicable 

energy conservation standards. In 

certifying compliance, manufacturers 

must test their equipment according to 

the applicable DOE test procedures for 

the given equipment type, including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures, or use the AEDMs to 

develop the certified ratings of the basic 

models. DOE has established regulations 

for the certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including the equipment at issue in this 

NOPR. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011)). 

The collection-of-information 

requirement for these certification and 

recordkeeping provisions is subject to 

review and approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This 

requirement has been approved by OMB 

under OMB control number 1910–1400. 

Public reporting burden for the 

certification is estimated to average 20 

hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

DOE has determined that this rule 

falls into a class of actions that are 

categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, this proposed rule would 

adopt changes for certifying certain 

covered appliances, so it would not 

affect the amount, quality or 

distribution of energy usage, and, 

therefore, would not result in any 

environmental impacts. Thus, this 

rulemaking is covered by Categorical 

Exclusion A6 under 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this proposed rule and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) No further action is required by 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today’s 

proposed rule according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32050 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s proposed rule under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action to establish 

alternate certification requirements for 

certain covered appliances is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

IV. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding the proposed rule 

no later than the date provided at the 

beginning of this notice. Comments, 

data, and information submitted to 

DOE’s email address for this rulemaking 

should be provided in WordPerfect, 

Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Interested parties should avoid 

the use of special characters or any form 

of encryption, and wherever possible, 

comments should include the electronic 

signature of the author. Absent an 

electronic signature, comments 

submitted electronically must be 

followed and authenticated by 

submitting a signed original paper 

document to the address provided at the 

beginning of this notice. Comments, 

data, and information submitted to DOE 

via mail or hand delivery/courier 

should include one signed original 

paper copy. No telefacsimiles (faxes) 

will be accepted. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit two copies: one copy of 

the document including all the 

information believed to be confidential 

and one copy of the document with the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination as to the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include (1) a 

description of the items, (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry, (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources, (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality, (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure, (6) a date 

upon which such information might 

lose its confidential nature due to the 

passage of time, and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal not to add a pre-approval 

process for AEDMs and its proposal to 

no longer require pre-approval for use of 

an alternative rating method for 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps. 

2. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to expand the use of AEDMs to 

other commercial products. 

3. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require at least one basic 

model from each product class to be 

tested to substantiate the AEDM. 

Specifically, DOE requests comments 

from manufacturers as to whether 

additional clarification is needed for 

manufacturers of certain covered 

products to determine all the applicable 

product classes that would need to be 

tested to substantiate the AEDM. As part 

of these comments, the Department is 

interested in receiving feedback on how 

manufacturers currently develop any 

simulation tools to ensure they are 

applicable across a wide range of 

product classes. 

4. DOE seeks product specific 

comments on proposed overall and 

individual tolerance levels by product 

type. Specifically, DOE seeks data 

which show that the variability seen in 

the manufacturing processes, test 

instrumentation, and testing procedures 

are such that a different tolerance 

should be considered. 

5. DOE seeks comment on the criteria 

for selection of basic models and the 

number of basic models a manufacturer 

should be required to test for 

substantiation as well as whether the 

differences in testing requirements for 

distribution transformers are 

appropriate or necessary. 

6. DOE seeks comment on the 

appropriate course of action and the 

time to complete such steps when a 

model tested by DOE fails to meet its 

certified rating. 

7. DOE requests comment on the 

proposal to disallow the use of an 

AEDM if there is evidence that the misrating is willful and/or there are 

multiple instances of non-compliance. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32051 

8. DOE requests comment on the 

necessity of requiring re-substantiation 

when there is a change in standards or 

test procedure and requiring that 

AEDMs be re-substantiated with active 

models. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s NOPR. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, and Small 

businesses. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 24, 

2012. 

Timothy Unruh, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 

429, 430 and 431 of chapter II, 

subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

2. Section 429.1 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.1 Purpose and scope. 

This part sets forth the procedures to 

be followed for certification, 

determination and enforcement of 

compliance of covered products and 

covered equipment with the applicable 

conservation standards set forth in parts 

430 and 431 of this subchapter. 

3. Section 429.2 is amended by 

adding the definition for ‘‘ Alternative 

Efficiency Determination Method or 

AEDM’’ in alphabetical order to 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 429.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method or AEDM is a simulation, 

calculation or engineering algorithm for 

determining the efficiency or 

consumption of a basic model of 

consumer product or commercial 

equipment, in terms of the appropriate 

descriptor used in or under section 325 

or 342(a) of the Act to state the standard 

for that product. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 429.12 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(12) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.12 General requirements applicable 

to certification reports. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(12) Whether certification is based 

upon the use of an AEDM, where 

permitted, for determining measures of 

energy conservation and the name or 

version of any such AEDM; and 

* * * * * 

5. Section 429.16 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and removing 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 429.16 Central air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 

(a) Determination of Certified Rating. 

Manufacturers can determine the 

certified rating for each basic model 

either by testing or by applying a 

substantiated AEDM in conjunction 

with the applicable sampling 

procedures. 

(1) Units to be tested. 

(i) If represented values are 

determined through testing, the general 

requirements of § 429.11 are applicable 

to central air conditioners and heat 

pumps; and 

(ii)(A) For central air conditioners and 

heat pumps, each single-package system 

and each condensing unit (outdoor unit) 

of a split-system, when combined with 

a selected evaporator coil (indoor unit) 

or a set of selected indoor units, must 

have a sample of sufficient size tested in 

accordance with the applicable 

provisions of this subpart. The 

represented values for any model of a 

single-package system, any model of a 

tested split-system combination, any 

model of a tested mini-split system 

combination, or any model of a tested 

multi-split system combination must be 

assigned such that— 

(1) Any represented value of annual 

operating cost, energy consumption or 

other measure of energy consumption of 

the central air conditioner or heat pump 

for which consumers would favor lower 

values shall be greater than or equal to 

the higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) The upper 90 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.05, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.90 is the t 

statistic for a 90% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix D). 

and 

(2) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of the central air 

conditioner or heat pump for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the lower 

of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) The lower 90 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.95, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.90 is the t 

statistic for a 90% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix D). 

(B) For heat pumps, all units of the 

sample population must be tested in 

both the cooling and heating modes and 

the results used for determining the heat 

pump’s certified Seasonal Energy 

Efficiency Ratio (SEER) and Heating 

Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF) 

ratings in accordance with paragraph 

(a)(1)(ii)(A)(2) of this section. 

(C) For split-system air conditioners 

and heat pumps, the condenserevaporator coil combination selected for 

tests pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP31MY12.002</GPH> EP31MY12.003</GPH> EP31MY12.004</GPH> EP31MY12.005</GPH>
32052 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

of this section shall include the 

evaporator coil that is likely to have the 

largest volume of retail sales with the 

particular model of condensing unit. For 

mini-split condensing units that are 

designed to always be installed with 

more than one indoor unit, a ‘‘tested 

combination’’ as defined in 10 CFR 

430.2 shall be used for tests pursuant to 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. 

For multi-split systems, each model of 

condensing unit shall be tested with two 

different sets of indoor units. For one 

set, a ‘‘tested combination’’ composed 

entirely of non-ducted indoor units 

shall be used. For the second set, a 

‘‘tested combination’’ composed entirely 

of ducted indoor units shall be used. 

However, for any split-system air 

conditioner having a single-speed 

compressor, the condenser-evaporator 

coil combination selected for tests 

pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of 

this section shall include the indoor 

coil-only unit that is likely to have the 

largest volume of retail sales with the 

particular model of outdoor unit. This 

coil-only requirement does not apply to 

split-system air conditioners that are 

only sold and installed with blower-coil 

indoor units, specifically mini-splits, 

multi-splits, and through-the-wall units. 

This coil-only requirement does not 

apply to any split-system heat pumps. 

For every other split-system 

combination that includes the same 

model of condensing unit but a different 

model of evaporator coil and for every 

other mini-split and multi-split system 

that includes the same model of 

condensing unit but a different set of 

evaporator coils, whether the evaporator 

coil(s) is manufactured by the same 

manufacturer or by a component 

manufacturer, either— 

(1) A sample of sufficient size, 

comprised of production units or 

representing production units, must be 

tested as complete systems with the 

resulting ratings for the outdoor unitindoor unit(s) combination obtained in 

accordance with paragraphs 

(a)(1)(ii)(A)(1) and (a)(1)(ii)(A)(2) of this 

section; or 

(2) The representative values of the 

measures of energy efficiency must be 

assigned as follows: 

(i) For multi-split systems composed 

entirely of non-ducted indoor units, set 

equal to the system tested in accordance 

with paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this 

section whose tested combination was 

entirely non-ducted indoor units; or 

(ii) For multi-split systems composed 

entirely of ducted indoor units, set 

equal to the system tested in accordance 

with paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this 

section when the tested combination 

was entirely ducted indoor units; or 

(iii) For multi-split systems having a 

mix of non-ducted and ducted indoor 

units, set equal to the mean of the 

values for the two systems—one having 

the tested combination of all non-ducted 

units and the second having the tested 

combination of all ducted indoor 

units—tested in accordance with 

paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, represented values of efficiency 

or consumption of central air 

conditioners and heat pumps may be 

certified as based on a single unit when 

determined through the application of 

an AEDM pursuant to the requirements 

of § 429.70 and the provisions of this 

section, where: 

(i) Any represented value of estimated 

maximum daily energy consumption or 

other measure of energy consumption of 

a basic model for which consumers 

would favor lower values shall be 

greater than or equal to the output of the 

AEDM; and 

(ii) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be less than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 429.42 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 429.42 Commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. 

(a) Determination of Certified Rating. 

Manufacturers can determine the 

certified rating for each basic model 

either by testing or by applying a 

substantiated AEDM in conjunction 

with the applicable sampling 

procedures. 

(1) Units to be tested. 

(i) If represented values are 

determined through testing, the general 

requirements of § 429.11 are applicable 

to commercial refrigeration equipment; 

and 

(ii)(A) For each basic model of 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer selected for testing, a 

sample of sufficient size shall be 

randomly selected and tested to ensure 

that—to ensure that— 

(1) Any represented value of 

estimated maximum daily energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.10, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n ¥ 1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix D). 

and 

(2) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be less than or equal to the 

lower of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.90, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n ¥ 1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix D). 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, represented values of efficiency 

or consumption of commercial 

refrigerators, freezers or refrigeratorfreezers may be certified as based on a 

single unit when determined through 

the application of an AEDM pursuant to 

the requirements of § 429.70 and the 

provisions of this section, where: 

(i) Any represented value of estimated 

maximum daily energy consumption or 

other measure of energy consumption of 

a basic model for which consumers 

would favor lower values shall be 

greater than or equal to the output of the 

AEDM; and 

(ii) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP31MY12.006</GPH> EP31MY12.007</GPH> EP31MY12.008</GPH> EP31MY12.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32053 

values shall be less than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM. 

* * * * * 

7. Section 429.43 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and removing 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating, 

air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. 

(a) Determination of Certified Rating. 

Manufacturers can determine the 

certified rating for each basic model 

either by testing or by applying a 

substantiated AEDM in conjunction 

with the applicable sampling 

procedures. 

(1) Units to be tested. 

(i) If represented values are 

determined through testing, the general 

requirements of § 429.11 are applicable 

to commercial HVAC equipment; and 

(ii)(A) For each basic model of 

commercial HVAC equipment, a sample 

of sufficient size shall be selected and 

tested to ensure that— 

(1) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

usage of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.05, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n ¥ 1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix D). 

and 

(2) Any represented value of energy 

efficiency or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the lower 

of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.95, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n ¥ 1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix D). 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, represented values of efficiency 

or consumption of commercial HVAC 

equipment may be certified as based on 

a single unit when determined through 

the application of an AEDM pursuant to 

the requirements of § 429.70 and the 

provisions of this section, where: 

(i) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

usage of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM; and 

(ii) Any represented value of energy 

efficiency or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the output 

of the AEDM. 

* * * * * 

8. Section 429.44 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and removing 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 429.44 Commercial water heating 

equipment. 

(a) Determination of Certified Rating. 

Manufacturers can determine the 

certified rating for each basic model 

either by testing or by applying a 

substantiated AEDM in conjunction 

with the applicable sampling 

procedures. 

(1) Units to be tested. 

(i) If represented values are 

determined through testing, the general 

requirements of § 429.11 are applicable 

to commercial WH equipment; and 

(ii)(A) For each basic model of 

commercial WH equipment, a sample of 

sufficient size shall be selected and 

tested to ensure that— 

(1) Any represented value of 

maximum standby loss or other measure 

of energy usage of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor lower 

values shall be greater than or equal to 

the higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.05, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix D). 

and 

(2) Any represented value of 

minimum thermal efficiency or other 

measure of energy consumption of a 

basic model for which consumers would 

favor higher values shall be less than or 

equal to the lower of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.95, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix D). 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, represented values of efficiency 

or consumption of commercial WHWH 

equipment may be certified as based on 

a single unit when determined through 

the application of an AEDM pursuant to 

the requirements of § 429.70 and the 

provisions of this section, where: 

(i) Any represented value of 

maximum standby loss or other measure 

of energy usage of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor lower 

values shall be greater than or equal to 

the output of the AEDM; and 

(ii) Any represented value of 

minimum thermal efficiency or other 

measure of energy consumption of a 

basic model for which consumers would 

favor higher values shall be less than or 

equal to the output of the AEDM. 

* * * * * 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP31MY12.010</GPH> EP31MY12.011</GPH> EP31MY12.012</GPH> EP31MY12.013</GPH> EP31MY12.014</GPH> EP31MY12.015</GPH> EP31MY12.016</GPH> EP31MY12.017</GPH>
32054 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

9. Section 429.45 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 429.45 Automatic commercial ice 

makers. 

(a) Determination of Certified Rating. 

Manufacturers can determine the 

certified rating for each basic model 

either by testing or by applying a 

substantiated AEDM in conjunction 

with the applicable sampling 

procedures. 

(1) Units to be tested. 

(i) If represented values are 

determined through testing, the general 

requirements of § 429.11 are applicable 

to automatic commercial ice makers; 

and 

(ii)(A) For each basic model of 

automatic commercial ice maker 

selected for testing, a sample of 

sufficient size shall be randomly 

selected and tested to ensure that— 

(1) Any represented value of 

maximum energy use or other measure 

of energy consumption of a basic model 

for which consumers would favor lower 

values shall be greater than or equal to 

the higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.10, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix D). 

and 

(2) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be less than or equal to the 

lower of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.90, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix D). 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, represented values of efficiency 

or consumption of automatic 

commercial ice makers may be certified 

as based on a single unit when 

determined through the application of 

an AEDM pursuant to the requirements 

of § 429.70 and the provisions of this 

section, where: 

(i) Any represented value of 

maximum energy use or other measure 

of energy consumption of a basic model 

for which consumers would favor lower 

values shall be greater than or equal to 

the output of the AEDM; and 

(ii) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be less than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM. 

* * * * * 

10. Section 429.47 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and removing 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 429.47 Distribution transformers. 

(a) Determination of Certified Rating. 

Manufacturers can determine the 

certified rating for each basic model 

either by testing or by applying a 

substantiated AEDM in conjunction 

with the applicable sampling 

procedures. 

(1) Units to be tested. 

(i) If represented values are 

determined through testing, the general 

requirements of § 429.11 are applicable 

to distribution transformers; and 

(ii)(A) For each basic model selected 

for testing: 

(1) If the manufacturer produces five 

or fewer units of a basic model over 6 

months, each unit must be tested. A 

manufacturer may not use a basic model 

with a sample size of fewer than five 

units to substantiate an AEDM pursuant 

to § 429.70. 

(2) If the manufacturer produces more 

than five units over 6 months, a sample 

of at least five units must be selected 

and tested; and 

(B) Any represented value of 

efficiency of a basic model must satisfy 

the condition: 

where x ̄ is the average efficiency of the 

sample. 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, represented values of efficiency 

of distribution transformers may be 

certified as based on a single unit when 

determined through the application of 

an AEDM pursuant to the requirements 

of § 429.70 and the provisions of this 

section, where any represented value of 

the energy efficiency or other measure 

of energy consumption of a basic model 

for which consumers would favor 

higher values shall be less than or equal 

to the output of the AEDM. 

* * * * * 

11. Section 429.52 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 429.52 Refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines. 

(a) Determination of Certified Rating. 

Manufacturers can determine the 

certified rating for each basic model 

either by testing or by applying a 

substantiated AEDM in conjunction 

with the applicable sampling 

procedures. 

(1) Units to be tested. 

(i) If represented values are 

determined through testing, the general 

requirements of § 429.11 are applicable 

to refrigerated bottled or canned 

vending machines; and 

(ii)(A) For each basic model of 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machine selected for testing, a 

sample of sufficient size shall be 

randomly selected and tested to ensure 

that— 

(1) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.10, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP31MY12.018</GPH> EP31MY12.019</GPH> EP31MY12.020</GPH> EP31MY12.021</GPH> EP31MY12.022</GPH> EP31MY12.023</GPH> EP31MY12.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32055 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix D). 

and 

(2) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be less than or equal to the 

lower of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.90, where: 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix D). 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, represented values of efficiency 

or consumption of refrigerated bottled 

or canned vending machines may be 

certified as based on a single unit when 

determined through the application of 

an AEDM pursuant to the requirements 

of § 429.70 and the provisions of this 

section, where: 

(i) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM; and 

(ii) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be less than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM. 

* * * * * 

12. Section 429.53 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 429.53 Walk-in coolers and walk-in 

freezers. 

(a) Determination of Certified Rating. 

Manufacturers can determine the 

certified rating for each basic model 

either by testing or by applying a 

substantiated AEDM in conjunction 

with the applicable sampling 

procedures. 

(1) Units to be tested. 

(i) If represented values are 

determined through testing, the general 

requirements of § 429.11 are applicable 

to walk-in cooler or freezer refrigeration 

systems; and 

(ii)(A) For each basic model of walkin cooler or freezer refrigeration system 

selected for testing, a sample of 

sufficient size shall be randomly 

selected and tested to ensure that— 

(1) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to: 

(i ) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) Reserved. and 

(2) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be less than or equal to: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 

(ii) Reserved. 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, represented values of efficiency 

or consumption of walk-in cooler or 

freezer refrigeration systems may be 

certified as based on a single unit when 

determined through the application of 

an AEDM pursuant to the requirements 

of § 429.70 and the provisions of this 

section, where: 

(i) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM; and 

(ii) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be less than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM. 

* * * * * 

13. Section 429.70 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (e) 

to read as follows: 

§ 429.70 Alternative methods for 

determining energy efficiency and energy 

use. 

(a) General Applicability of an AEDM. 

A manufacturer of commercial HVAC 

and WH equipment, distribution 

transformers, central air conditioners 

and heat pumps, commercial 

refrigeration equipment, refrigeration 

systems of walk-in coolers and freezers, 

automatic commercial ice makers, 

beverage vending machines, electric 

motors, and small electric motors may 

not distribute any basic model of such 

equipment in commerce unless the 

manufacturer has determined the energy 

efficiency of the basic model, either 

from testing the basic model or from 

applying an alternative method for 

determining energy efficiency or energy 

use (AEDM) to the basic model, in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this section. In instances where a 

manufacturer has tested a basic model 

to substantiate the alternative method, 

the energy efficiency of that basic model 

must be determined and rated according 

to results from actual testing and 

application of the sampling plans. In 

addition, a manufacturer may not 

knowingly use an AEDM to overrate the 

efficiency of a basic model. For each 

basic model of distribution transformer 

that has a configuration of windings that 

allows for more than one nominal rated 

voltage, the manufacturer must 

determine the basic model’s efficiency 

either at the voltage at which the highest 

losses occur or at each voltage at which 

the transformer is rated to operate. 

* * * * * 

(c) Substantiation of an AEDM. Before 

using an AEDM, the manufacturer must 

substantiate the AEDM’s accuracy and 

reliability as follows: 

(1) Apply the AEDM to at least five of 

the manufacturer’s basic models that 

have been selected for testing in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(5) of this 

section, and calculate the efficiency for 

each of these basic models. In any 

instance where a manufacturer has 

produced fewer than five basic models 

in the previous 6 months, select one 

model from each basic model and 

additional individual models to meet 

the minimum of five; 

(2) Test at least one unit of each basic 

model to which the AEDM was applied 

in accordance with the applicable 

provisions of Part 430 or 431 and 

determine the efficiency (or 

consumption) for each of these basic 

models, except that, for distribution 

transformer AEDMs, test five units of 

each basic model selected for testing. 

(3) Individual Model Tolerances: 

(i) For electric motors and small 

electric motors, the efficiency predicted 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP31MY12.025</GPH> EP31MY12.026</GPH> EP31MY12.027</GPH> EP31MY12.028</GPH>
32056 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

by the AEDM for each basic model must 

be within plus or minus 10 percent of 

the efficiency determined from the 

corresponding test of the basic model; 

(ii) For all other products where an 

AEDM is authorized for use in 

paragraph (a) of this section, the 

efficiency predicted by the AEDM for 

each basic model must be within plus 

or minus 5 percent of the efficiency 

determined from the corresponding test 

of the basic model. 

(4) Averaged Tolerances: The average 

of the predicted efficiencies of the five 

or more basic models determined in 

accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section must be within plus or minus 3 

percent of the average of the tested 

efficiencies of the five or more basic 

models determined in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section, where: 

where x ̄ is the sample average 

efficiency, n is the number of samples 

and x ̄i is the efficiency of the ith sample. 

(5) Additional Test Unit 

Requirements. 

(i) Each AEDM must be supported by 

test data obtained from physical tests of 

current models. The tested basic models 

underlying an AEDM must meet the 

following criteria: 

(A) There must be at least one basic 

model selected from each DOE product 

class to which the AEDM will be 

applied; 

(B) Two basic models must be from 

the product class with the highest sales 

volume. For residential AC/HP, 

Commercial HVAC, Commercial WH, 

ACIM, WICF refrigeration systems, CRE 

and BVMs; one of these two selected 

models must be the smallest capacity 

(e.g., cooling capacity or total display 

area), and one must be within 25% of 

the largest capacity of the models to be 

covered by the AEDM; 

(C) One tested model must be the 

basic model which either has the 

highest sales volume of the models 

covered by the AEDM during the prior 

year or is expected to have the highest 

sales volume in the coming year; 

(D) Each selected model must meet 

the current applicable energy or water 

conservation standards for that product; 

and 

(E) Each test must have been 

performed in accordance with the test 

procedure for which compliance is 

required at the time the basic model is 

distributed in commerce. 

(ii) In any instance where it is not 

possible for a manufacturer to select 

basic models for testing in accordance 

with all of these criteria, the criteria 

shall be given priority in the order in 

which they are listed. Within the limits 

imposed by the criteria, basic models 

shall be selected randomly. 

(d) AEDM Records and Procedures 

(1) If a manufacturer has used an 

AEDM pursuant to this section; 

(i) The manufacturer must have 

available for inspection by the 

Department records showing: 

(A) The method or methods used; 

(B) The mathematical model, the 

engineering or statistical analysis, 

computer simulation or modeling, and 

other analytic evaluation of performance 

data on which the AEDM is based; 

(C) Complete test data, product 

information, and related information 

that the manufacturer generated or 

acquired through testing and AEDM 

calculations for each basic model; and 

(D) The calculations used to 

determine the average efficiency, energy 

consumption, or power loss of each 

basic model to which an AEDM was 

applied. 

(ii) If requested by the Department 

and at DOE’s discretion, the 

manufacturer must perform at least one 

of the following: 

(A) Conduct simulations before 

representatives of the Department to 

predict the performance of particular 

basic models of the product to which 

the AEDM was applied with DOE 

witnessing; 

(B) Provide analyses of previous 

simulations conducted by the 

manufacturer; or 

(C) Conduct certification testing of 

basic models selected by the 

Department. 

(2) Assessment Testing: Pursuant to 

§ 429.104, DOE may, at any time, test a 

basic model to assess whether the basic 

model is in compliance with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. 

(i) Indication of non-compliance: 

Should the assessment testing suggest 

the basic model may not comply with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards, DOE may initiate an 

investigation pursuant to § 429.106 and/ 

or undertake enforcement testing 

pursuant to § 429.110; 

(ii) Finding of non-compliance: The 

provisions of § 429.114 apply, and if the 

non-compliant basic model was used to 

substantiate the AEDM, within 30 days 

the manufacturer must: 

(A) Re-substantiate the AEDM based 

on a completely new set of test data 

from the product class affected by the 

determination of non-compliance 

subject to the applicable provisions of 

Part 430 and 431, § 429.116, and 

paragraph (c) of this section, and 

(B) Re-rate and re-certify, as 

necessary, with the re-substantiated 

AEDM, all basic models that were 

certified using the AEDM. 

(iii) Failure to meet certified ratings: 

If DOE testing demonstrates that the 

basic model does not test within 10 

percent of its certified rating for electric 

motors and small electric motors or 

within 5 percent of its certified rating 

for all other products, the manufacturer 

shall within 30 days of receipt of DOE 

test data; 

(A) Re-substantiate the AEDM used to 

certify the model; 

(1) Pursuant to paragraph (c) of this 

section, and 

(2) Incorporate the DOE test data into 

the substantiation package for the 

AEDM and recalculate a certified rating 

for each basic models from the product 

class for which the tested model failed 

to achieve its rating. New test data is not 

required for models in unaffected 

product classes. 

(B) Re-rate and re-certify with the 

updated AEDM, as necessary, all basic 

models that used the original AEDM. 

(e) Re-substantiation of an AEDM. 

(1) Change in applicable standards or 

DOE test procedure: Following a change 

in energy conservation or water use 

standards or DOE test procedure for 

products which are rated using an 

AEDM, a manufacturer shall resubstantiate the AEDM subject to the 

following criteria in addition to those 

listed in paragraph (c) of this section: 

(i) The basic models used to 

substantiate the AEDM must be models 

currently in production; and 

(ii) All test data used to substantiate 

the AEDM must meet the new standard 

levels. 

(2) Discontinuance of model on which 

substantiation of AEDM was based: If a 

model that was used to substantiate the 

AEDM is discontinued, a manufacturer 

must replace that model’s data and resubstantiate such that the AEDM is 

based on models currently in 

production and meets the criteria of 

paragraph (c). 

(3) Failure to re-substantiate an 

AEDM subject to these criteria: If a 

manufacturer fails to re-substantiate an 

AEDM within 30 days of an occurrence 

of one of the events described in this 

section, then the AEDM becomes 

invalid and any certifications made 

pursuant to the AEDM are invalidated. 

14. Section 429.116 is amended to 

read as follows: 

§ 429.116 Additional certification testing 

requirements. 

(a) If DOE determines that 

independent, third-party testing is 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP31MY12.029</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 105 / Thursday, May 31, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32057 

necessary to ensure a manufacturer’s 

compliance with the rules of this part, 

part 430, or part 431, a manufacturer 

must base its certification of a basic 

model under subpart B of this part on 

independent, third-party laboratory 

testing. 

(b) If DOE determines that a 

manufacturer has used an AEDM to 

certify compliance and either has 

willfully certified the product at an 

unsupported rating or has distributed 

multiple, non-compliant basic models 

in commerce as a result of a faulty 

AEDM, DOE may prohibit continued 

use of an AEDM and require the 

manufacturer to base its certifications of 

compliance on physical testing of each 

basic model. 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

15. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

§ 430.2 [Amended] 

16. Section 430.2 is amended by 

removing the definition of ‘‘ARM/ 

simulation adjustment factor’’. 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

17. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

18. Section 431.2 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘alternative 

efficiency determination method or 

AEDM’’ to read as follows: 

§ 431.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method or AEDM is a simulation, 

calculation or engineering algorithm for 

determining the efficiency or 

consumption of a basic model of 

consumer product or commercial 

equipment, in terms of the appropriate 

descriptor used in or under section 325 

or 342(a) of the Act to state the standard 

for that product. 

* * * * * 

19. Section 431.17 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 431.17 Determination of efficiency. 

* * * * * 

(a) Provisions applicable to all electric 

motors— (1) General requirements. The 

average full load efficiency of each basic 

model of electric motor must be 

determined either by testing in 

accordance with § 431.16 of this 

subpart, or by application of an 

alternative efficiency determination 

method (AEDM) that meets the 

requirements of § 429.70, provided, 

however, that an AEDM may be used to 

determine the average full load 

efficiency of one or more of a 

manufacturer’s basic models only if the 

average full load efficiency of at least 

five of its other basic models is 

determined through testing. 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination method. An AEDM 

applied to a basic model must comply 

with § 429.70. 

(3) Use of a certification program or 

accredited laboratory. (i) A 

manufacturer may have a certification 

program, that DOE has classified as 

nationally recognized under § 431.20, 

certify the nominal full load efficiency 

of a basic model of electric motor, and 

issue a certificate of conformity for the 

motor. 

(ii) For each basic model for which a 

certification program is not used as 

described in paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this 

section, any testing of the motor 

pursuant to paragraphs (a)(1) through (2) 

of this section to determine its energy 

efficiency must be carried out in 

accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

section, in an accredited laboratory that 

meets the requirements of § 431.18. 

(This includes testing of the basic 

model, pursuant to § 429.70, to 

substantiate an AEDM.) 

* * * * * 

§ 431.442 [Amended] 

20. Section 431.442 is revised by 

removing the definition of ‘‘Alternative 

efficiency determination method’’. 

* * * * * 

21. Section 431.445 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (b); and 

b. Removing paragraph (c). 

§ 431.445 Determination of small electric 

motor efficiency. 

* * * * * 

(b) Provisions applicable to all small 

electric motors—(1) General 

requirements. The average full load 

efficiency of each basic model of electric 

motor must be determined either by 

testing in accordance with § 431.444 of 

this subpart, or by application of an 

alternative efficiency determination 

method (AEDM) that meets the 

requirements of § 429.70, provided, 

however, that an AEDM may be used to 

determine the average full load 

efficiency of one or more of a 

manufacturer’s basic models only if the 

average full load efficiency of at least 

five of its other basic models is 

determined through testing. 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination method. To use an AEDM 

to rate a basic model, the AEDM must 

comply with § 429.70. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13108 Filed 5–30–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–0497; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–140–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) 

that applies to certain The Boeing 

Company Model 777–200, –200LR, 

–300, and –300ER series airplanes. The 

existing AD currently requires 

inspecting for scribe lines in the skin 

along lap joints, butt joints, certain 

external doublers, and the large cargo 

door hinges, and related investigative 

and corrective actions if necessary. 

Since we issued that AD, we have 

determined that scribe lines could occur 

where external decals are installed or 

removed across lap joints, large cargo 

door hinges, or external doublers. This 

proposed AD would add inspecting for 

scribe lines where external decals have 

been applied or removed across lap 

joints, large cargo door hinges, and 

external doublers, and related 

investigative and corrective actions if 

necessary. We are proposing this AD to 

detect and correct scribe lines which 

can develop into fatigue cracks in the 

skin. Undetected fatigue cracks can 

grow and cause sudden decompression 

of the airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by July 16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS