Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/12/31/2013-31211/energy-conservation-program-alternative-efficiency-determination-methods-basic-model-definition-and
Timestamp: 2018-04-20 05:14:33
Document Index: 760404901

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 431', 'art 429', 'art 431', 'art 429', 'art 429', 'art 1021', 'art 1021', 'arts 429', '§\u2009429', 'art 429', '§\u2009429', '§\u2009429', '§\u2009429', '§\u2009429', '§\u2009429', 'arts 430', '§\u2009429', '§\u2009431']

Federal Register :: Energy Conservation Program: Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods, Basic Model Definition, and Compliance for Commercial HVAC, Refrigeration, and WH Equipment
A Rule by the Energy Department on 12/31/2013
78 FR 79579
79579-79599 (21 pages)
Test Result ≤ Certified Rating × (1 + Applicable Tolerance)
Test Result ≥ Certified Rating × (1 − Applicable Tolerance)
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-31211 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-31211
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is revising its existing regulations governing the use of particular methods as alternatives to testing for the purposes of certifying compliance with the applicable energy conservation standards and the reporting of related ratings for commercial and industrial equipment covered by EPCA. These regulations arose from a negotiated rulemaking effort on issues regarding certification of commercial heating, ventilating, air-conditioning (HVAC), water heating (WH), and refrigeration equipment. In addition, DOE is amending the compliance dates for the initial certification of commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment.
Effective Dates: The amendments to 10 CFR 429.42, 429.43, 429.44, 429.70, and Part 431 are effective January 30, 2014. The amendments to 10 CFR 429.12 are effective December 31, 2013.
This rulemaking can be identified by docket number EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024 and/or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904-AC46.
Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email: Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov. Phone: (202) 586-6590; and Ms. Laura Barhydt, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, GC-32, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. Email: Laura.Barhydt@hq.doe.gov.
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA” or, in context, “the Act”) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. The National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), Public Law 95-619, amended EPCA to add Part A-1 of Title III, which established an energy conservation program for certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) [1] The Department of Energy (“DOE”) is charged with implementing these provisions.
In addition, sections 6299-6305, and 6316 of EPCA authorize DOE to enforce compliance with the energy and water conservation standards (all non-product specific references herein referring to energy use and consumption include water use and consumption; all references to energy efficiency include water efficiency) established for certain commercial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316 commercial equipment) DOE has promulgated enforcement regulations that include specific certification and compliance requirements. See 10 CFR part 429; 10 CFR part 431, subparts B, U, and V.
On March 7, 2011, DOE published a final rule in the Federal Register that, in part, modified the requirements regarding manufacturer submission of compliance statements and certification reports to DOE (hereafter referred to as the March 2011 Final Rule). 76 FR 12421. As part of this rule, DOE imposed new or revised reporting requirements for some types of covered products and equipment, including a requirement that manufacturers submit annual reports to the Department certifying compliance of their basic models with applicable standards. See 76 FR 12428-12429 for more information.
In the summer of 2012, DOE had an independent convener evaluate the likelihood of success, analyzing the feasibility of developing certification requirements for commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment (not including walk-in coolers and freezers) through consensus-based negotiations among affected parties. In October 2012, the convener issued his report based on a confidential interview process involving forty (40) parties from a wide range of commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment interests. Ultimately, the convener recommended that, with the proper scope of issues on the table surrounding commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment certification, a negotiated rulemaking appeared to have a reasonable likelihood of achieving consensus based on the factors set forth in the Negotiated Rulemaking Act because the interviewed parties believed the negotiated rulemaking was superior to notice and comment rulemaking for certification-related issues. Additional details of the report can be found at https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/convening_report_hvac_cre_1.pdf.
On February 26, 2013, members of the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) unanimously decided to form a working group to engage in a negotiated rulemaking effort on the certification of commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment. A notice of intent to form the Commercial Certification Working Group (Working Group) was published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2013, to which DOE received 35 nominations. 78 FR 15653. On April 16, 2013, the Department published a notice of open meeting that announced the first meeting and listed the 22 nominees that were selected to serve as members of the Working Group, in addition to two members from ASRAC, and one DOE representative. 78 FR 22431. The members of the Working Group were selected to ensure a broad and balanced array of stakeholder interests and expertise, and included efficiency advocates, manufacturers, a utility representative, and third-party laboratory representatives.
Where authorized by regulation, AEDMs enable manufacturers to rate and certify their basic models by using the projected energy use or energy efficiency results derived from these simulation models in lieu of testing. DOE has authorized the use of AEDMs for certain covered products and equipment that are difficult or expensive to test in an effort to reduce the testing burden faced by manufacturers of expensive or highly customized basic models. DOE's regulations currently permit manufacturers of commercial HVAC, WHs, distribution transformers, electric motors, and small electric motors to use AEDMs to rate their non-tested basic models (and combinations, where applicable) provided they meet the Department's regulations governing such use.
Initially, DOE undertook a conventional rulemaking to consider expanding and revising its regulations for AEDMs. On April 18, 2011, DOE published a Request for Information (hereafter referred to as the April 2011 RFI). 76 FR 21673. The April 2011 RFI requested suggestions, comments, and information relating to the Department's intent to expand and revise its existing AEDM and ARM requirements. In response to comments it received on the April 2011 RFI, DOE published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in the Federal Register on May 31, 2012 (hereafter referred to as the May 2012 NOPR). 77 FR 32038. DOE proposed to permit AEDM-based ratings and certifications for additional types of equipment, such as commercial refrigeration equipment (CRE), automatic commercial ice makers (ACIMs), beverage vending machines (BVMs), and walk-in cooler and freezer (WICF or walk-in) refrigeration systems. 77 FR 32055. DOE also proposed a number of requirements for manufacturers to meet to use an AEDM and laid out a method that DOE would employ to determine if an AEDM had been used appropriately by a manufacturer—along with the consequences if it had not. 77 FR 32055-32056.
During the Working Group's first meeting, Working Group members voted to expand the scope of the negotiated rulemaking efforts to include developing methods of estimating equipment performance based on AEDM simulations. The issues discussed by the various participants during the negotiations with DOE were those raised by the commenters in response to the May 2012 NOPR. The discussion of those issues in the negotiated rulemaking and the consensus reached are summarized in two documents included in the docket of this final rule and constitute DOE's response to the comments on the May 2012 NOPR. The documents discuss the particular elements that the AEDM simulations for each equipment should address and other related considerations of note, including potential basic model definitions, test procedure issues, the treatment of certain features, and certification of these equipment. See http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=SR;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023.
As required, the Working Group submitted an interim report to ASRAC on June 26, 2013, summarizing the group's recommendations regarding AEDMs for commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment. The interim report to ASRAC can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023-0046. ASRAC subsequently voted unanimously to approve the recommendations in the interim report for AEDMs. Subsequently, the Working Group submitted a final report on August 30, 2013, summarizing the Working Group's recommendations for model grouping, certification requirements and deadlines. That report also detailed the features to be excluded from certification, verification, and enforcement testing as long as specific conditions were met. ASRAC voted unanimously to approve the recommendations in the final report.
On October 22, 2013, the Department published in the Federal Register a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding AEDMs, basic model definitions, and the compliance process for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and WH equipment (AEDM SNOPR). 78 FR 62472. DOE proposed the Working Group's recommendations in the AEDM SNOPR, without modification, for AEDMs, basic model definitions, and the initial compliance date for certification. DOE will be addressing the remaining recommendations of the Working Group regarding certification requirements, and for the treatment of specific features when testing, in a separate rulemaking or guidance document. DOE will also be addressing the AEDM proposals of the May 2012 NOPR for BVM, ACIM and WICFs in a separately supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
On May 14-15, 2013, the Working Group held a two-day meeting at the U.S. Department of Energy's headquarters in Washington, DC. Sixty-nine interested parties, including members of the Working Group, attended. A more detailed account of the discussions and recommendations can be found in the Working Group meeting transcripts, which are located at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023.
As noted above, DOE published the Working Group's recommendations in an SNOPR on October 22, 2013, and received comments from 14 stakeholders including manufacturers, trade associations, advocacy groups, and a utility association. 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%252BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024.
Table II.1—Stakeholders That Submitted Comments on the SNOPR
AAON, Inc. AAON Manufacturer
American Boiler Manufacturers Association ABMA Industry Trade Group
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute AHRI Industry Trade Group
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Earthjustice, and Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ACEEE, ASAP, Earthjustice, NEEA (Joint Comment) Advocacy Group
Florida Natural Gas Association FNGA Utility Association
Goodman Global, Inc Goodman Manufacturer
Hoshizaki America, Inc Hoshizaki America Manufacturer
Hussmann Corporation Hussmann Manufacturer
Lennox International, Inc Lennox Manufacturer
Lochinvar, LLC Lochinvar Manufacturer
Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc MEUS Manufacturer
Modine Manufacturing Company Modine Manufacturer
Traulsen Refrigeration Traulsen Manufacturer
Zero Zone, Inc. Zero Zone Manufacturer
DOE received general comments on the proposals in the AEDM SNOPR. Goodman, MEUS, and AHRI expressed support for the AEDM SNOPR. (Goodman, No. 0086.1 at p.1; MEUS, No. 0083.1 at p.1; AHRI, No.0076.1 at p.1) MEUS stated that the proposals in the AEDM SNOPR were representative of the Working Group's agreements. (MEUS, No. 0083.1 at p.1) The Joint Comment supported the AEDM SNOPR to the extent that it represented the consensus agreements reached by the Working Group. The Joint Comment also recommended that DOE conduct a review of the AEDM process two years after implementation to assess whether the process is fair and prevents undue gaming of equipment ratings. (Joint Comment, No. 0081.1 at p.2)
Goodman made a general recommendation that in the regulatory text pertaining to AEDMs it is unnecessary to state “validated AEDM” because the regulations require all AEDMs to be validated before a manufacturer may use an AEDM for certification purposes. (Goodman, No. 0086.1 at p. 2) DOE agrees with Goodman and will remove the term “validated.”
The Working Group unanimously recommended that DOE not require pre-approval for AEDMs for commercial HVAC, WH, or refrigeration equipment. The SNOPR adopted this approach. 78 FR 62472. DOE did not receive any adverse comments on this proposal and thus DOE is not adopting a pre-approval process for AEDMs for the aforementioned equipment.
The Working Group unanimously recommended the following types of covered equipment be allowed to use AEDMs.
○ Commercial packaged air-conditioning and heating equipment (air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, and water-source)
Commercial WH Equipment
○ Commercial electric storage water heaters
○ Commercial unfired hot water storage tanks
DOE currently allows the use of AEDMs for commercial HVAC and WH equipment. DOE proposed in the SNOPR to also permit manufacturers to use AEDMs when certifying CRE basic models. 78 FR 62472, 62474. Zero Zone stated that it was pleased that DOE plans to allow CRE manufacturers to use AEDMs because it would be impossible for manufacturers to evaluate the efficiency of all of their models without AEDMs. (Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p.1) Lennox and Hoshizaki American both supported extending AEDMs to commercial refrigeration equipment. (Lennox, No. 0080.1 at p.2; Hoshizaki America, No. 0087.1 at p.1) In this final rule, DOE is allowing CRE manufacturers to certify their basic models using AEDMs.
Lochinvar requested that DOE allow water volume for commercial water heaters to be calculated by an AEDM and have a 5 percent tolerance. (Lochinvar, No. 0088.1 at p. 1) DOE notes that AEDMs are used specifically for determining the energy efficiency or energy consumption of covered equipment but expects that capacity or volume measurements may be generated as a step in determining the model's applicable efficiency rating. DOE did not propose tolerances on measurements other than energy efficiency descriptors, thus this issue is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
Prior to use for certifying the energy efficiency or energy use of a basic model, DOE generally requires AEDMs to be validated. The Working Group recommended the following validation process for AEDMs, which DOE proposed in the AEDM SNOPR. 78 FR 62472, 62474.
To validate an AEDM, a manufacturer must select at least the minimum number of basic models, specified in Table II.2 through Table II.6, for each of the validation classes to which the AEDM will apply. Each selection represents a single test conducted in accordance with the DOE test procedure (TP) or applicable DOE TP waiver at a manufacturer's testing facility or a third-party testing facility, whose test result is directly compared to the result for that model from the AEDM.
Minimum number of basic models that must be tested per AEDM
Minimum number of basic models that must be tested
Validation class*
* The minimum number of tests indicated above must be comprised of a transparent model, a solid model, a vertical model, a semi-vertical model, a horizontal model, and a service-over-the counter model, as applicable based on the equipment offering. However, manufacturers do not need to include all types of these models if it will increase the minimum number of tests that need to be conducted.
DOE received two comments in support of the minimum number of basic models required for each validation class. AAON commented in support of the number of validation tests for commercial HVAC equipment. (AAON, No. 0082.1 at p. 1) Zero Zone agreed with the number of basic models required for each specific validation class. (Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 2)
As DOE did not receive adverse comments regarding the AEDM SNOPR proposal for the minimum number of basic models, specified in Table II.2 through Table II.6, required to validate an AEDM, DOE is adopting these requirements as part of today's final rule.
To validate the AEDM, the test results from each model required to be tested according to the validation requirements described in the previous section must be compared to the simulated results from the applicable AEDM. The Working Group recommended that for energy consumption metrics, the AEDM result for a model must be greater than or equal to 95 percent of the tested results for that same model. Similarly, for energy efficiency metrics, the AEDM results for a model would need to be less than or equal to 105 percent of the tested results for that same model. In the AEDM SNOPR, DOE proposed this one-sided 5 percent tolerance for AEDM validation for all commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment. 78 FR 62472, 62476.
In today's final rule, DOE is adopting the one-sided five percent tolerance for AEDM validation. As previously stated, for energy consumption metrics, the AEDM result for a model must be greater than or equal to 95 percent of the tested results for that same model. For energy efficiency metrics, the AEDM results for a model must be less than or equal to 105 percent of the tested results for that same model. In addition, AEDM results must meet the applicable standard.
For each basic model of commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment distributed in commerce, manufacturers must determine the certified rating based on testing or use of a validated AEDM. DOE's current regulations provide manufacturers with some flexibility in rating each basic model by allowing the manufacturer the discretion to rate conservatively. The Working Group recommended that in the case of models rated with energy consumption metrics, those values must use a certified rating less than or equal to the applicable Federal standard and greater than or equal to the model's AEDM result. For energy efficiency metrics, each model's certified rating must be less than or equal to the model's AEDM result and greater than or equal to the applicable Federal standard. DOE proposed in the AEDM SNOPR to retain the flexibility provided by its current regulatory approach and proposed the Working Group's recommendation without modification. 78 FR 62472, 62476.
Lennox and Zero Zone agreed that DOE should allow manufacturers to rate their products conservatively. (Lennox, No. 0080.1 at p. 3; Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 3) AAON also supported the concept of rating conservatively based on AEDM results as long as such ratings are better than the applicable energy conservation standards. (AAON, No. 0082.1 at p. 1) DOE received no adverse comments and thus is continuing to allow manufacturers to rate conservatively.
Once a basic model has been distributed in commerce, DOE may select any model and verify the equipment's performance at any time. 10 CFR 429.104. The Working Group recommended the process described below in sections II.C.1 through II.C.7 for DOE's verification of certified ratings determined by an AEDM. DOE proposed this process in the AEDM SNOPR. 78 FR 62472, 62476.
DOE disagrees that these provisions are redundant with the validation requirements. The validation requirements provide for a manufacturer to ensure that its AEDM is functioning properly prior to using the AEDM. The verification testing requirements allow DOE to ensure that a specific basic model is properly rated using the AEDM. These provisions provide a mechanism for DOE to verify that a manufacturer is using its AEDM in conformance with the regulations.
Currently, DOE's regulations do not permit a manufacturer to be present for DOE-initiated testing to verify equipment performance of a given basic model. The Working Group considered a variety of approaches to ensure manufacturers have an opportunity to witness the test set-up for verification testing of a basic model.
DOE notes that the witness testing provisions are triggered by DOE performing verification testing, which ensures that certified ratings are within specified tolerances of test results. DOE notes that manufacturers are not required to certify these equipment types for six to eighteen months (depending on equipment type) plus an additional six month enforcement grace period; therefore, DOE will have sufficient time to adopt final witness testing provisions before these verification testing procedures would be triggered.
In the AEDM SNOPR, DOE proposed the Working Group's recommended verification process that DOE will use to assess a unit's performance through third-party testing. Under this approach, DOE will begin the verification process by selecting a single unit of a given basic model for testing either from retail or by obtaining a sample from the manufacturer, with a preference for a unit from retail. DOE will select a third-party testing laboratory at its discretion to test the unit selected. The lab will adhere to the requirements recommended by the Working Group described in section II.C.3. As discussed in section II.C.1, DOE will address the witness testing arrangements in a subsequent rulemaking. In all cases, the Department will be responsible for the logistics of arranging a witnessed test, and the laboratory is not allowed to communicate directly with the manufacturer. 78 FR 62472, 62476.
Further, under this process, the manufacturer will provide any additional information regarding test set up or testing to DOE through the certification process in pdf format. (This provision will be addressed in a separate rulemaking on commercial certification of HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment.) DOE will provide this information to the test facility as long as the additional instructions do not conflict with the DOE test procedure or an applicable DOE test procedure waiver. The test facility may not use any additional information during the testing process that has not been approved by DOE or shipped in the packaging of the unit. If needed, the test facility may request from DOE additional information on test set up, installation, or testing. Upon receiving a request from the test facility for additional information, DOE may hold and coordinate a meeting with the manufacturer and the test facility to discuss the additional details needed for testing. Additional instructions may be given to the test facility as agreed upon by DOE and the manufacturer. At no time may the test facility discuss DOE verification testing with the manufacturer without the Department present. 78 FR 62472, 62476.
In today's final rule, DOE is adopting the verification process outlined in this section.
The Working Group recommended that all AEDM verification tests should be conducted in a third-party testing facility of DOE's choice. Commercial equipment that cannot be tested at an independent third-party facility may be tested at a manufacturer's facility upon DOE's request. DOE proposed the Working Group's recommendation in the AEDM SNOPR. 78 FR 62472, 62477.
Zero Zone and Hoshizaki America recommended that for verification testing, a manufacturer's test facilities should be the primary facility to conduct this testing (rather than a third-party lab), in part to reduce cost. (Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 3; Hoshizaki, no. 0087.1 at p. 1) DOE does not agree that verification testing at a manufacturer's test facility should be preferred over testing at a third-party lab. Testing at a third-party lab inherently offers impartiality in the test results, which a manufacturer-run test facility does not.
DOE is adopting the Certification Working Group recommendation that all AEDM verification tests should be conducted in a third-party testing facility of DOE's choice and commercial equipment for which there is no third-party lab capable of conducting testing may be tested at a manufacturer's facility upon DOE's request.
DOE proposed in the AEDM SNOPR that to verify the certified rating of a given model, the test results from a single unit test of the model will be compared to the certified rating in accordance with the tolerances set forth below. For energy consumption metrics, the Working Group recommended:
For energy efficiency metrics, the Working Group recommended:
Commercial Packaged Boilers Combustion Efficiency Thermal Efficiency 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05)
Commercial Water Heaters or Hot Water Supply Boilers Thermal Efficiency Standby Loss 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1)
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs less than 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity (3-Phase) Seasonal Energy-Efficiency Ratio Heating Season Performance Factor Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1)
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity and Less than 760,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity Energy Efficiency Ratio Coefficient of Performance Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1)
Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All Cooling Capacities Energy Efficiency Ratio Coefficient of Performance Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1)
Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All Capacities Energy Efficiency Ratio Coefficient of Performance Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1)
Water-Source HPs, All Capacities Energy Efficiency Ratio Coefficient of Performance Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1)
Single Package Vertical ACs and HPs Energy Efficiency Ratio Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05)
Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs Energy Efficiency Ratio Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05)
Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and HPs Energy Efficiency Ratio Coefficient of Performance Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1)
Zero Zone noted that the proposed tolerances are too low to account for variability in products and testing. It asserted that DOE should have tolerances that do not penalize a manufacturer if one verification test does not meet the energy conservation standard plus the AEDM tolerance. Zero Zone recommended that DOE commission a study to evaluate the amount of experimental error in the Department's test procedures, and until its completion, DOE should include an additional 5% test tolerance to account for experimental errors. (Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at pp. 1-3) DOE notes that the verification tolerances proposed in this notice were developed by a Working Group that included representatives of CRE, HVAC, and WH manufacturers, efficiency advocates, a utility representative, and third-party laboratory representatives. The collective expertise of these different parties helped shape the provisions contained in today's final rule, which reflects the technical expertise of the different industries that will be affected by the rule. Consequently, the tolerance provisions in today's final rule account for the relevant technical factors. As a result, after careful consideration of these factors, DOE believes that the proposed tolerances—which are being adopted in today's rule—are reasonable and is declining to increase the tolerances by an additional 5% as suggested by Zero Zone.
AAON supported the proposed tolerances for product and test uncertainty. (AAON, No. 0082.1 at p. 2). For the reasons stated above, DOE is adopting the tolerances described in this section as recommended by the Working Group.
In those cases where DOE has determined that a basic model's test results fall outside of the tolerances based on the verification process described in sections II.C.1 through II.C.4, the Working Group recommended that the following process apply when remedying the invalid rating. First, DOE will notify the manufacturer and the manufacturer will have 15 days to select and report one of the following options: (1) Conservatively rerate and recertify the model based on the DOE test data only, (2) discontinue the model through the certification process, or (3) conduct additional testing, rerate, and recertify the model in accordance with the sampling provisions of part 429, subpart B, using all additional manufacturer test data and the DOE test data. The manufacturer and DOE will determine the specific date by which the manufacturer must complete the process for correcting the invalid rating, but the process shall not take more than 180 days to complete.
AAON and Zero Zone support the options manufacturers can select to address an invalid rating. (AAON, No. 0082.1 at p. 2; Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 3) Lennox remarked that DOE should clarify that any notice of noncompliance shall not be issued pursuant to 10 CFR 429.114, with respect to a model rated with an AEDM, until after a manufacturer has been provided an opportunity to respond to an invalid rating as outlined in 429.70(c)(6)(vii). (Lennox, No. 0077.1 at p. 2) DOE notes that an invalid rating, which is determined by verification testing, is not equivalent to a determination of noncompliance. A unit may be found to be noncompliant based on enforcement testing, which is codified in 10 CFR 429.110. As no adverse comments were received regarding the Working Group's recommended process for addressing invalid ratings, DOE will adopt the process in today's final rule.
The Working Group negotiated the consequences of DOE determining that a rating is invalid for a given basic model based on assessment testing, which DOE proposed in the AEDM SNOPR. If the Department finds that within 24 rolling months a manufacturer has more than one basic model with an invalid rating whose results were derived from the same AEDM, then the manufacturer will be subject to the requirements listed in Table II.8. In general, to continue using the AEDM, if a manufacturer has between two and seven basic models with invalid ratings that were derived from the same AEDM, then the manufacturer must re-validate the AEDM according to the requirements in Table II.8 by conducting new testing of different basic models. If the manufacturer has eight or more basic models with invalid ratings from the same AEDM, then all the basic models to which the AEDM applied must be re-rated with physical testing in accordance with the applicable sampling plans in part 429. 10 CFR 429.11. 78 FR 62472, 62478.
Number of invalid certified ratings from the same AEDM** within a rolling 24 month period†
2 Submit different test data and reports from testing to validate that AEDM within the validation classes to which it is applied.* Adjust the rating as appropriate.
4 Conduct double the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes to which the AEDM is applied. Note, the tests required under subsection (c)(5)(H)(1) must be different tests on different models than the original tests performed under subsection (c)(2).
6 Conduct the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes to which the AEDM is applied; and
Conduct additional testing, which is equal to 1/2 the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes to which the AEDM is applied, at either the manufacturer's facility or a third-party test facility, at the manufacturer's discretion.
>=8 Manufacturer has lost privilege to use AEDM. All ratings for models within the validation classes to which the AEDM applied should be rated via testing. Distribution cannot continue until certification(s) are corrected to reflect actual test data.
* A manufacturer may discuss with DOE's Office of Enforcement whether existing test data on different basic models within the validation classes to which that specific AEDM was applied may be used to meet this requirement.
** Where the same AEDM means a computer simulation or mathematical model that is identified by the manufacturer at the time of certification as having been used to rate a model or group of models.
† The twenty-four month period begins with a DOE determination that a rating is invalid through the process outlined above. Additional invalid ratings apply for the purposes of determining the appropriate consequences if the subsequent determination(s) is based on selection of a unit for testing within the twenty-four month period (i.e., subsequent determinations need not be made within 24 months).
Goodman commented that Table II.8 should be modified from “adjust the rating as appropriate” to “adjust the ratings as appropriate.” (Goodman, No. 0086.1 at p. 2) DOE agrees with Goodman's suggestion to correct the typographical error. In today's final rule, DOE is adopting the proposed penalties for invalid ratings with Hussmann's and Goodman's suggested modifications as discussed in further detail above.
If, as a result of eight or more invalid ratings, a manufacturer has lost the privilege of using an AEDM for rating purposes, the manufacturer may regain the ability to use an AEDM by (1) investigating the cause(s) for the failures, (2) identifying the root cause(s) for the failures, (3) taking corrective action to address the root cause(s), (4) validating the AEDM by performing six new tests for each validation class with a minimum of two of the tests performed at a third-party test facility, and (5) obtaining DOE authorization to resume the use of the AEDM. At its discretion, DOE may reduce or waive these requirements, in which case, DOE will provide public notice and a written explanation of the grounds for reducing or waiving the requirements. 78 FR 62472, 62478. AAON and Zero Zone commented in support of the process outlined for allowing manufacturers to regain the use of AEDMs. (AAON, No. 0082.1 at p. 2; Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 3) As no adverse comments were received, DOE is adopting this proposed process.
The Working Group recommended amended basic model definitions for commercial refrigeration equipment; commercial warm air furnaces; commercial packaged boilers; and commercial water heaters. Additionally, the Working Group recommended distinct basic model definitions for each type of commercial HVAC equipment, such as packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and heat pumps (PTHPs); small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment; small, large, and very large water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, and water source commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment; single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps (SPVUs); computer room air conditioners; and variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps with capacities greater than 65,000 Btu/h. The AEDM SNOPR presented the basic model definitions by covered equipment type that the Working Group developed and added several clarifications made by DOE to harmonize the wording of the definitions for consistency purposes. These clarifications did not change the meaning of the definitions as agreed upon by the Working Group. 78 FR 62472, 62478.
Goodman commented that DOE added the term “within a single equipment class” to all the definitions, and in some cases this term is not applicable. (Goodman, No. 0086.1 at p. 2) DOE does not agree with Goodman's comment. When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Currently, DOE has established a number of different equipment classes for commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment in the course of the individual standards rulemakings by considering the type of energy use, capacity, or other performance-related features of the equipment. Each equipment class has a different standard that applies. Thus, DOE does not believe manufacturers are able to group models into basic models that span equipment classes and may have different standards that apply. Consequently, DOE is clarifying that a basic model cannot extend across multiple equipment classes. In today's rule, DOE is adopting the basic model definitions as they were proposed in the AEDM SNOPR.
In the AEDM SNOPR, DOE proposed the Working Group's recommendation that certification reports must be initially submitted for all basic models distributed in commerce according to the schedule shown in Table IV.1. After the initial certification date, DOE's existing regulations require that manufacturers certify: (1) New basic models before distribution in commerce; (2) existing basic models, whose certified rating remains valid, annually; (3) existing basic models, whose design is altered resulting in a change in rating that is more consumptive or less efficient, at the time the design change is made; and (4) previously certified basic models that have been discontinued annually.
The initial certification date is the number of months shown below after the AEDM final rule is published in the Federal Register
6 Commercial Warm Air Furnaces PTACs and PTHPs.
9 Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired instantaneous water heaters less than 10 gallons. Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired hot water supply boilers less than 10 gallons.
12 Commercial water heaters (all others types). Small commercial packaged boilers (≤ 2.5 million Btu/h). Self-Contained CRE with solid or transparent doors.
15 VRFs.
18 Small, large and very large air, water, and evaporatively-cooled and water source commercial packaged ACs and HPs. SPVUs. CRACs. Large packaged boilers (> 2.5 million Btu/h). CRE (all other types).
DOE plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking containing the remaining issues from the Working Group recommendations before the end of the year, which was the target timeframe discussed by the Working Group. Accordingly, DOE is adopting the schedule in today's final rule.
DOE has determined, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), that the amendment to 10 CFR 429.12 is not subject to a 30-day delay in effective date because this rule extending the compliance date for a requirement relieves a restriction.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires the preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: www.gc.doe.gov. DOE reviewed the test procedures considered in today's final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003.
For the reasons enumerated above, DOE is certifying that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Manufacturers of the covered equipment addressed in today's final rule 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 an AEDM 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 final rule. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011)). The collection-of-information requirement for these certification and recordkeeping provisions is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
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 rule would adopt changes for certifying certain covered equipment, so it would not affect the amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical Exclusion A6 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
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 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 equipment that is the subject of today's final 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.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today's 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.
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.
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 rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with the applicable policies in those guidelines.
Today's rule to establish alternate certification requirements for certain covered equipment is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition. Today's rule to amend regulations relating to AEDMs does not propose the use of any commercial standards.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
(1) Units to be tested. (i) If the represented value for a given basic model is determined through testing, the general requirements of § 429.11 are applicable; and
And x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and xi is the ith sample; or,
And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the number of samples; and t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from Appendix A to subpart B of part 429); And,
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of testing, a represented value of efficiency or consumption for a basic model of commercial refrigerator, freezer or refrigerator-freezer must be determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of § 429.70 and the provisions of this section, where:
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of testing, a represented value of efficiency or consumption for a basic model of commercial HVAC equipment must be determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of § 429.70 and the provisions of this section, where:
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of testing, a represented value of efficiency or consumption for a basic model of commercial water heating equipment must be determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of § 429.70 and the provisions of this section, where:
(a) General applicability of an AEDM. A manufacturer of covered products or covered equipment explicitly authorized to use an AEDM in §§ 429.14 through 429.54 may not distribute any basic model of such equipment in commerce unless the manufacturer has determined the energy efficiency of the basic model, either from testing the basic model in conjunction with DOE's certification sampling plans and statistics or from applying an alternative method for determining energy efficiency or energy use (AEDM) to the basic model, in accordance with the requirements of this section. In instances where a manufacturer has tested a basic model, the manufacturer may not knowingly use an AEDM to overrate the efficiency (or underrate the consumption) of the model.
(b) Testing. Testing for each covered product or covered equipment must be done in accordance with the sampling plan provisions established in § 429.11 and the testing procedures in parts 430 and 431 of this chapter.
1 The minimum number of tests indicated above must be comprised of a transparent model, a solid model, a vertical model, a semi-vertical model, a horizontal model, and a service-over-the counter model, as applicable based on the equipment offering. However, manufacturers do not need to include all types of these models if it will increase the minimum number of tests that need to be conducted.
(5) AEDM verification testing. DOE may use the test data for a given individual model generated pursuant to § 429.104 to verify the certified rating determined by an AEDM as long as the following process is followed:
(iii) Manufacturer participation. [Reserved]
Cooling Capacity (3-Phase) Heating Season Performance Factor Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1)
Number of invalid certified ratings from the same AEDM 2 within a rolling 24 month period 3
6 Conduct the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes to which the AEDM is applied at a third-part test facility; And Conduct addition testing, which is equal to 1/2 the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes to which the AEDM is applied , at either the manufacturer's facility or a third-party test facility, at the manufacturer's discretion.
1 A manufacturer may discuss with DOE's Office of Enforcement whether existing test data on different basic models within the validation classes to which that specific AEDM was applied may be used to meet this requirement.
2 The “same AEDM” means a computer simulation or mathematical model that is identified by the manufacturer at the time of certification as having been used to rate a model or group of models.
3 The twenty-four month period begins with a DOE determination that a rating is invalid through the process outlined above. Additional invalid ratings apply for the purposes of determining the appropriate consequences if the subsequent determination(s) is based on testing of a unit that was selected for testing within the twenty-four month period (i.e., subsequent determinations need not be made within 24 months).
§ 431.72
[FR Doc. 2013-31211 Filed 12-30-13; 8:45 am]