1

6450-01-P 

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 [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. See section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of 

this NOPR for details. 
2

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: 

E-mail: 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: 
3

 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. E-mail: 

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. E-mail: 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 

 

1

 For editorial reasons, Parts B (consumer products) and C (commercial equipment) of Title III of EPCA were redesignated as parts A and A-1, respectively, in the United States Code. 
4

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 
5

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 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 
6

facilitate DOE’s consideration of procedural changes to its requirements for AEDMs and ARMs 

in an effort to advance the effective implementation of DOE’s conservation standards and 

regulations. The comment period for written submissions on the RFI closed on May 18, 2011. 

This notice proposes to modify those regulations pertaining to the AEDM and ARM 

requirements within Part 429 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The 

Department’s goal is to establish a uniform, systematic, and fair approach to the use of these 

types of modeling techniques that will enable DOE to ensure that products in the marketplace are 

correctly rated -- irrespective of whether they are subject to actual physical testing or are rated 

using modeling -- without unnecessarily burdening regulated entities. 

II. Discussion of Specific Revisions to DOE’s Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Methods and Alternative Rating Methods Regulations and Comments Received in 

Response to the RFI 

DOE received comments from 21 interested parties, including manufacturers, trade 

associations, and advocacy groups. Specifically, Table II.1 lists the entities that submitted 

comments and their affiliation. These comments are discussed in more detail below, and the full 

set of comments can be found at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252

BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024. 
7

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
8

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) 
9

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 
10

Hussmann and Goodman asserted that pre-approval would provide manufacturers with 

confidence in their programs. (Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 2.1 at p. 1) 

Additionally, Bradford White viewed pre-approval as a way to prevent certain manufacturers 

from having an unfair advantage by incorrectly rating their products. (Bradford White, No. 5.1 at 

p. 1) 

Despite these expressions of support for a pre-approval process, others identified 

potential problems with this approach. NEMA stated that there is no perceived benefit in DOE 

imposing an additional burden on both the manufacturer and itself. Requiring prior approval 

would, in its view, place an inordinate burden on manufacturers. (NEMA, No. 20.1 at pp. 3-4; 

NEMA, No. 22.1 at p. 2) Modine commented that there is no need for pre-approval because it is 

the manufacturer’s responsibility to produce and certify products that comply. (Modine, No. 8.1 

at p. 2) Heatcraft remarked that a pre-approval requirement is unnecessary and the imposition of 

one would likely overwhelm DOE by virtue of the number of submitted pre-approval requests. 

(Heatcraft, No. 11.1 at p. 3) Carrier expressed concern with the potential burden involved with a 

pre-approval process and indicated that requiring pre-approval can result in time-to-market 

delays (i.e., delays in getting new products to market for sale). (Carrier, No. 7.1 at p. 6) This 

view was supported by Lennox, Traulsen, PVI Industries, AHRI, Zero Zone, and Mitsubishi. 

(Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 2; Traulsen, No. 9 at p. 4; PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 

17.1 at p. 4; Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 7; Mitsubishi, No. 19.1 at pp. 2-3) Further, Structural 

Concepts expressed concern that pre-approval would limit innovation with respect to the 

introduction of new designs and technologies, while PVI Industries mentioned that pre-approval 
11

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 
12

underlying the use of an AEDM at any time. 10 CFR § 429.71. Manufacturers must retain any 

records of testing performed to support the use of an AEDM. Id. 

DOE requests comment on its proposal to continue omitting a pre-approval process for 

AEDMs, and to no longer require pre-approval for rating methods applied to residential central 

air conditioners and heat pumps. (See Issue 1 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in 

section IV.B of this NOPR.) 

B. Products Covered by Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods and Alternative Rating 

Methods 

1. Expansion of Coverage 

Under the current DOE regulations, manufacturers of five types of commercial 

equipment are permitted to use AEDMs to generate the certified ratings of untested basic 

models, while manufacturers of residential central air conditioners and heat pumps are permitted 

to use ARMs to generate the certified ratings of untested basic models. As part of this 

rulemaking, DOE is proposing to expand the types of commercial equipment that would be 

addressed by these proposed AEDM provisions. However, in the consumer product context, 

DOE has tentatively decided not to expand the application of AEDMs beyond central air 

conditioners and heat pumps. 

American Panel commented that walk-in coolers and freezers (collectively, “walk-ins” or 

“WICFs”) should be allowed to use AEDMs for determining the envelope heat transfer 

characteristics and in selecting the condensing unit and evaporator coil. (American Panel, No. 
13

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 
14

equipment manufacturers would benefit from AEDM use. (Modine, No. 8.1 at p. 1; Traulsen, 

No. 9.1 at p. 2; Joint Comment, No. 24.1 at p. 2) 

DOE has conducted a number of rulemaking activities examining the manner in which 

manufacturers of a variety of products test and rate their products. These activities have 

addressed products such as CRE, ACIMs, small electric motors, beverage vending machines 

(BVMs), and walk-ins. Based on substantial amounts of information that DOE has collected 

through these rulemaking activities, DOE ascertained that many basic models of these product 

types have low sales volumes or are custom-built, meaning that manufacturers may have a large 

number of basic models that they would need to test in order to certify compliance under DOE’s 

current requirements. Given the potential for a high testing burden, manufacturers of these 

products may benefit from the use of an AEDM since it could be used to simulate testing under 

DOE test conditions and the results could then be used to certify compliance in lieu of 

conducting the testing that is currently required. Adopting this approach will likely significantly 

reduce manufacturer testing burdens by minimizing the number of units that a manufacturer must 

physically test in order to certify all of the basic models offered for sale in the U.S. As a result, in 

addition to those products that are already permitted to be rated and certified using modeling 

methods (i.e., commercial HVAC and WH equipment, electric motors, and distribution 

transformers), DOE is proposing to allow the manufacturers of CRE, ACIMs, small electric 

motors, and BVMs to use AEDMs to rate and certify their products. Permitting this option 

should enable these manufacturers to reduce the overall testing burdens that they would 

otherwise face. 
15

Additionally, DOE is proposing to allow the use of AEDMs for WICFs but is limiting 

this proposal to apply only to the WICF refrigeration system. As with other types of commercial 

equipment for which DOE is proposing to expand the voluntary use of AEDMs, WICF 

refrigeration systems are low-volume and custom-made for the specific installation and could be 

accurately rated using a computer simulation to predict their behavior under DOE test conditions. 

DOE is not proposing to permit a similar option for other WICF components. WICF panels are 

relatively simple pieces of equipment and results from a basic model of a given panel can be 

extrapolated to many other panel basic models under the provisions of the test procedure. As for 

WICF doors, the DOE test procedure already provides for the use of certain modeling techniques 

that are approved by the National Fenestration Rating Council (NFRC), which, in DOE’s view, 

makes a parallel AEDM provision for these components unnecessary. Consequently, DOE’s 

proposal is to expand the use of AEDMs to WICF refrigeration systems because manufacturers 

of WICF refrigeration systems would benefit from the reduced testing burden that the proposal 

would provide. 

DOE requests comment on its proposal to expand the use of AEDMs to other types of 

commercial equipment. (See Issue 2 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section 

IV.B of this NOPR.) 

In addition, DOE is proposing to retain its existing regulations that allow for the use of 

simulation or mathematical models to predict the certified ratings of residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps. The split-system air conditioner and heat pump market allows the 

pairings of a variety of different indoor and outdoor models for installation in a residence. This 
16

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 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. 
17

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 
18

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 
19

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 
20

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, 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 
21

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. 
22

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 
23

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 is the sample average, n is the number of units tested representing all basic models used 

to substantiate the AEDM and 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. 

Figure C.1 Proposed Tolerances for All Products, Except Motors and Small Electric 

Motors.
24

*This picture is meant to be an illustrative example of the minimum number of tests needed to substantiate the 

AEDM and the tolerances that must be satisfied in order to validate the AEDMs results, when there are not a 

substantial number of product classes.. 

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 
25

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 
26

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 

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. 
27

Because physical size or capacity is another characteristic that can have a significant 

effect on efficiency, DOE agrees with Bradford White’s suggestion to test both the smallest and 

largest capacity units covered by the AEDM, where applicable. DOE recognizes, however, that 

the burden associated with a requirement to test the largest capacity basic model offered may be 

prohibitive. Therefore, DOE is proposing that the models tested for substantiation include the 

smallest and largest capacity basic models, or a basic model with a capacity within 25% of the 

largest capacity basic model, for all products where physical size (e.g., total display area, 

vendible capacity, rated storage volume, etc.) or capacity (e.g., heating, cooling, etc.) is an 

integral part of the test procedure and energy use or efficiency of the product. Further, DOE 

believes that the basic models that meet these capacity criteria should be from the product class 

that has the highest sales volume because DOE believes these products would be most 

representative, less likely to be highly customized or built-to-order, and less costly to test. 

In addition to this requirement to test models from the highest sales volume product class, 

DOE proposes that the tested units include the basic model with the highest sales volume in the 

previous year or is expected to have the highest sales volume as one of the five tested basic 

models. Lastly, to ensure that the AEDM is substantiated for current, up-to-date models, DOE 

proposes to require that test data used for substantiation meet the applicable energy conservation 

standards in effect at the time that the AEDM is being used. Consequently, when the compliance 

date for amended standards comes into effect, DOE is proposing that manufacturers may need to 

re-substantiate the AEDM depending on the efficiencies of the basic models used to originally 

substantiate the AEDM. Table C.1 below summarizes the requirements proposed in this section. 
28

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 
29

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. 
30

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 AEDMrelated 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 
31

the AEDM, DOE anticipates that the review time of this material will be substantially less than if 

a non-standardized approach were used. Other information that would likely be part of this 

package includes, but is not limited to the following: information demonstrating that the 

substantiation criteria are met; supporting test data from physical tests of those basic models; 

information related to the AEDM such as its version number and applicable product classes; and 

a list of all the basic models that have been rated with the AEDM. DOE intends to address this 

topic further in the upcoming Certification, Compliance and Enforcement rulemaking. 

D. DOE Validation 

1. Evaluation 

Under the current process, manufacturers must retain documentation containing a 

description of the AEDM, supporting test data, and the AEDM itself. To avail themselves of the 

less burdensome option of using an AEDM, manufacturers must be willing to run additional 

simulations, provide further analysis of previous AEDM output, and test selected basic models 

on request. See, e.g., 10 CFR 431.17 (specifying AEDM-related requirements for electric 

motors) and 10 CFR 429.70(c)(3) (specifying AEDM-related requirements for commercial 

HVAC-WH). However, DOE does not currently require a specific frequency for validating a 

given AEDM -- e.g., annually or once every five years. To address this shortcoming, DOE 

sought comment in the RFI on how often it should, if at all, validate AEDMs without creating an 

undue burden on manufacturers or limiting the number of products in the marketplace. 

AHRI stated that there was no need for DOE to validate AEDMs or ARMs, particularly if 

a manufacturer participates in a voluntary industry certification program (VICP). Carrier, Zero 
32

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 
33

AEDM, at any point, pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104. The unit will be tested to the applicable DOE 

test procedure at an independent, third-party laboratory accredited to the International 

Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 

“General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories,” ISO/IEC 

17025:2005(E). The test results obtained from the testing of one unit will be compared to both 

the applicable Federal conservation standard as well as the manufacturer’s certified rating, which 

was developed using an AEDM. If the test result indicates that the product was rated incorrectly, 

DOE may require the manufacturer to re-substantiate their AEDM using the DOE test data, and 

re-rate and re-certify the basic model, as may be necessary. If the test result indicates that the 

product may not meet Federal conservation standards, DOE may pursue enforcement testing 

pursuant to 10 CFR 429.110. 

The following sections describe potential DOE actions in response to certain verification 

testing results. 

a. Failure to meet certified ratings 

If testing results from DOE-initiated testing indicate that the model was rated incorrectly 

by an AEDM, DOE may require the manufacturer to re-substantiate their AEDM and re-rate and 

re-certify all products that were rated using the AEDM, as the new results from the AEDM prove 

necessary. DOE would make this determination by comparing the assessment test results to the 

certified rating to determine if the specified tolerances were maintained as prescribed in 10 CFR 

429.70 (c). If a basic model is rated incorrectly, DOE proposes to require manufacturers to resubstantiate their AEDM within 30 days of being provided with test data by the Department. The 
34

manufacturer would be required to use the test data obtained through DOE testing in the resubstantiation of the AEDM. This would not require an entirely new set of testing by the 

manufacturer. However, if inclusion of test data from the Department results in new results for 

basic models that do not meet the substantiation criteria enumerated in 10 CFR 429.70 (c) (e.g., 

the specified tolerances), then a manufacturer must make additional modifications to the AEDM 

either through engineering modifications or additional testing. At this time, DOE has tentatively 

decided not to require new testing for basic models outside of the affected product class as part 

of the re-substantiation process, in order to alleviate manufacturer burden. Ultimately, if DOE 

requires re-substantiation of the AEDM, all basic models that were rated using the AEDM in 

question must be re-rated after re-substantiation and re-certified to the Department if 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 
35

basic model are deemed non-compliant. DOE will withhold a finding of noncompliance for all 

other basic models rated with the AEDM pending additional investigation. 

If the basic model that is found non-compliant was used for substantiation of the AEDM, 

the manufacturer must re-substantiate that AEDM within 30 days of notification, pursuant to the 

substantiation requirements enumerated in 10 CFR 429.70(c). DOE is not proposing to require 

the manufacturer to re-test basic models that were tested previously for substantiation if DOE has 

not determined those models to be non-compliant. 

c. Multiple instances of non-compliance 

Additionally, DOE is considering how to address those manufacturers whose AEDMs do 

not accurately rate their products on a recurring basis. One possible approach would be to restrict 

or disallow the use of AEDMs for these manufacturers. Under this approach, manufacturers 

would have an incentive to exercise greater care when developing and applying AEDMs to rate 

their products. Another option would be to impose civil penalties. DOE believes that 

manufacturers must be held accountable for the accuracy of their AEDMs and that a means of 

discouraging future attempts to circumvent the standards established either by Congress or DOE 

is necessary. However, DOE does not want to unduly burden manufacturers, adversely impact 

the ability of small businesses to compete, or otherwise impede the development and marketing 

of new and innovative compliant products for consumers to purchase. 

Responding to DOE’s RFI, numerous interested parties suggested a variety of steps DOE 

could take in dealing with an instance of non-compliance. AHRI observed that a finding of non-
36

compliance does not necessarily indicate an error in the AEDM, and that all models should not 

be found non-compliant until the reason for failure has been determined. (AHRI, No. 17.1 at p. 

3) Goodman, Lennox, Carrier, Modine, Hussmann, Heatcraft, First Company, PVI Industries, 

NEMA, and Structural Concepts all concurred with this comment. (Goodman, No. 2.1 at p. 1; 

Carrier, No. 7.1 at pp. 2-3; Modine, No. 8, at p. 1; Hussmann, No. 10.1 at p. 2; Heatcraft, No. 

11.1 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13.1 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 16.1 at p. 2; First Company; No. 14.1 at p. 2; 

PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 22.1 at p. 2; Structural Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 1). 

Zero Zone and NEMA noted that, rather than restrict AEDM usage, DOE should focus on 

finding the cause of the error and ensuring that a correction is made. (Zero Zone, No. 18.1 at p. 

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

However, some stakeholders recognized the need to more actively discourage 

manufacturers who are consistently non-compliant or intentionally non-compliant. Traulsen, 

Bradford White, First Company and EarthJustice all stated that DOE should disallow the use of 

AEDMs for manufacturers after multiple instances of non-compliance, while American Panel 

wrote that the use of AEDMs should be disallowed if there was willful intent by the 

manufacturer regarding the ratings from the AEDM. (American Panel, No. 3.1 at p. 2; Traulsen, 

No. 9.1 at p. 3; First Company, No. 14.1 at p. 2; EarthJustice, No. 21.1 at p. 1) 

 DOE concurs that finding the root cause of a non-compliance is important. As important 

as this factor is, DOE stresses that determining this cause is the manufacturer’s responsibility, 

not DOE’s. DOE remains concerned, however, that the prospect of disallowing the use of 

AEDMs following a single instance of non-compliance would place a significant burden on 
37

manufacturers, and the additional testing necessitated by this penalty potentially could lead to 

time-to-market delays. Therefore, DOE is proposing to disallow the use of an AEDM following 

multiple instances of non-compliance and/or if there is evidence that the mis-rating was willful. 

DOE requests comment on the proposal that DOE disallow the use of an AEDM if there 

is evidence that the mis-rating is willful and/or there are multiple instances of non-compliance. 

(See Issue 7 under “Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment” in section IV.B of this NOPR.) 

2. Re-substantiation 

In addition to re-substantiation required by DOE as the result of assessment testing, DOE 

is concerned about the need to update an AEDM to avoid having AEDMs based on outdated 

substantiation data, which could lead to inaccurate ratings for basic models certified using 

AEDMs, and requested comment in the RFI on the necessity and required frequency of 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) 
38

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

at p. 3; Howe, No. 12.1 at p.1; Mitsubishi, No. 19.1 at p. 3; Structural Concepts, No. 26.1 at p. 2) 

PVI Industries was the only stakeholder who suggested that re-substantiation be required after a 

specific amount of time, and it recommended that at least one sample be tested every five years 

to re-substantiate the AEDM. (PVI Industries, No. 15.1 at p. 5) 

DOE is concerned that, without some type of re-substantiation requirement, AEDMs 

could become outdated over time if they are based on old models, which have been discontinued 

and are not currently in production. However, DOE acknowledges manufacturer concerns over 

the additional test burden and is not proposing to require re-substantiation on a periodic basis. 

Instead, DOE is proposing that manufacturers must re-substantiate their AEDMs when there is a 

change either to the applicable standards or DOE test procedure. Additionally, DOE is proposing 

that the substantiation data used by the manufacturer must be obtained from physical tests of 

current models from that manufacturer. DOE is taking this approach because it agrees with 

commenters who claim that it is not necessary to re-substantiate an AEDM for products for 

which there has been no change that would cause the model to behave differently under testing. 

However, changes to the applicable standards or DOE test procedure are more likely to 
39

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 
40

13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 

16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 

potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the 

Office of the General Counsel’s website: www.gc.doe.gov. DOE reviewed the test procedures 

considered in today’s NOPR under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and 

the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. 

DOE reviewed the AEDM and ARM requirements being proposed under the provisions 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 

2003. As discussed in more detail below, DOE found that because the provisions of this rule will 

not result in increased testing and/or reporting burden for manufacturers already eligible to use 

an AEDM and will extend AEDM use to a number of manufacturers, thus reducing their testing 

burden, manufacturers will not experience increased financial burden as a result of this rule. 

Today’s proposal, which presents voluntary methods for certifying compliance in lieu of 

conducting actual physical testing, would not increase the testing or reporting burden of 

manufacturers who currently use, or are eligible to use, an AEDM to certify their products. 

Manufacturers who produce products that may be certified using ARMs must obtain approval 

from the Department prior to the use of those ARMs for certification purposes. This rule, if 

promulgated, will eliminate the ARM nomenclature and treat these methods as AEDMs. As a 

result, the pre-approval requirement will be eliminated, resulting in a reduction in reporting 

burden for those manufacturers. 
41

Furthermore, proposed requirements for substantiation of an AEDM do not require more 

testing than that required by the AEDM provisions included in the March 7, 2011 Certification, 

Compliance and Enforcement Final Rule (76 FR 12422) (“March 2011 Final Rule”), and would 

relax tolerances that tested products are required to meet in order to substantiate the AEDM. In 

this proposed rule, DOE has discussed re-substantiation requirements for manufacturers utilizing 

an AEDM. While these requirements were not directly stated in the March 2011 Final Rule, 

DOE believes that the March rule implicitly included requirements for re-substantiation within 

its AEDM requirements. DOE is explicitly including re-substantiation requirements in this 

proposed rule to provide clarity for those manufacturers using an AEDM. As such, DOE does 

not believe these requirements result in an increased burden for manufacturers who already use 

an AEDM. 

Finally, DOE has clarified in today’s proposal how it intends to exercise its authority to 

validate AEDM performance and verify the performance of products certified using an AEDM. 

This is a clarification of the process that DOE promulgated in the March 2011 Final Rule and 

would not increase burden for manufacturers currently allowed to use AEDMs to certify their 

products. 

This notice also proposes to extend the applicability of AEDMs to products that are 

currently not permitted to be certified or rated by these alternate methods. Manufacturers not 

eligible to use AEDMs must currently test at least two units of every basic model that they 

produce in order to certify compliance to the Department pursuant to the March 2011 Final Rule. 
42

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, 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
43

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.
44

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 
45

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. Pub. L. No. 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 
46

governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency 

plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE examined today’s proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and 

determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may 

result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

 Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 

105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that 

may affect family well-being. This 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. 
47

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 
48

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 e-mail 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 
49

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 
50

manufacturers of certain covered products to determine all the applicable product classes 

that would need to be tested to substantiate the AEDM. As part of these comments, the 

Department is interested in receiving feedback on how manufacturers currently develop 

any simulation tools to ensure they are applicable across a wide range of product classes. 

4. DOE seeks product specific comments on proposed overall and individual tolerance 

levels by product type. Specifically, DOE seeks data which show that the variability seen 

in the manufacturing processes, test instrumentation, and testing procedures are such that 

a different tolerance should be considered. 

5. DOE seeks comment on the criteria for selection of basic models and the number of basic 

models a manufacturer should be required to test for substantiation as well as whether the 

differences in testing requirements for distribution transformers are appropriate or 

necessary. 

6. DOE seeks comment on the appropriate course of action and the time to complete such 

steps when a model tested by DOE fails to meet its certified rating. 

7. DOE requests comment on the proposal to disallow the use of an AEDM if there is 

evidence that the mis-rating is willful and/or there are multiple instances of noncompliance. 

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 oftoday's NOPR. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business infonnation, Energy conservation, , 

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business infonnation, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, and Small businesses. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business infonnation, Energy conservation, 

Energy Conservation, Reporting and rccordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washin!.>1on, DC, on May 24, 2012. 

57 

Timothy h 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
52

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 
53

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 
54

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 splitsystem 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, 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 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
55

( 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, 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 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. 
56

(C) For split-system air conditioners and heat pumps, the condenser-evaporator coil 

combination selected for tests pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) 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— 
57

( 1 ) A sample of sufficient size, comprised of production units or representing 

production units, must be tested as complete systems with the resulting ratings for 

the outdoor unit-indoor unit(s) combination obtained in accordance with 

paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A)( 1 ) and (a)(1)(ii)(A)( 2 ) of this section; or 

( 2 ) The representative values of the measures of energy efficiency must be 

assigned as follows: 

( i ) For multi-split systems composed entirely of non-ducted indoor units, 

set equal to the system tested in accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of 

this section whose tested combination was entirely non-ducted indoor 

units; or 

( ii ) For multi-split systems composed entirely of ducted indoor units, set 

equal to the system tested in accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of 

this section when the tested combination was entirely ducted indoor units; 

or 

( iii ) For multi-split systems having a mix of non-ducted and ducted 

indoor units, set equal to the mean of the values for the two systems — 

one having the tested combination of all non-ducted units and the second 

having the tested combination of all ducted indoor units — tested in 

accordance with paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. 
58

(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. 
59

(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, 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 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). 
60

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, 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 is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95% one-tailed 

confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from Appendix D). 

(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of testing, represented values of 

efficiency or consumption of commercial refrigerators, freezers or refrigerator-freezers may be 
61

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.. 

* * * * * 

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. 
62

(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, 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 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
63

( 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, 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 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: 
64

(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— 
65

( (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, 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 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: 
66

and, 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 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 
67

(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.. 

* * * * * 

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: 
68

and, 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 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, is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; 

Or, 
69

( ii ) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean 

divided by 0.90, where: 

And 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: 
70

§ 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 is the average efficiency of the sample. 
71

(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— 
72

( 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, 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 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: 
73

and, 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 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 
74

(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 walk-in cooler or freezer refrigeration system selected for 

testing, a sample of sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that— 

( 1 ) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to: 

( i ) The mean of the sample, where: 
75

and, 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, 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: 
76

(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 
77

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 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 
78

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 is the sample average efficiency, n is the number of samples and 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; 
79

(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 
80

(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 noncompliant basic model was used to substantiate the AEDM, within 30 days the 

manufacturer must: 
81

(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 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 
82

rated using an AEDM, a manufacturer shall re-substantiate the AEDM subject to the 

following criteria in addition to those listed in paragraph (c) of this section: 

(i) The basic models used to substantiate the AEDM must be models currently in 

production; and 

(ii) All test data used to substantiate the AEDM must meet the new standard 

levels. 

(2) Discontinuance of model on which substantiation of AEDM was based: If a model 

that was used to substantiate the AEDM is discontinued, a manufacturer must replace that 

model’s data and re-substantiate such that the AEDM is based on models currently in 

production and meets the criteria of paragraph (c). 

(3) Failure to re-substantiate an AEDM subject to these criteria: If a manufacturer fails 

to re-substantiate an AEDM within 30 days of an occurrence of one of the events 

described in this section, then the AEDM becomes invalid and any certifications made 

pursuant to the AEDM are invalidated. 

§429.116 [Amended]

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 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. 
83

(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, noncompliant 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 
84

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. 
85

(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.) 

* * * * * 

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). 
86

§ 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.