[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 251 (Tuesday, December 31, 2013)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 79579-79599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31211]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024]
RIN 1904-AC46


Energy Conservation Program: Alternative Efficiency Determination 
Methods, Basic Model Definition, and Compliance for Commercial HVAC, 
Refrigeration, and WH Equipment

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: 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.

DATES: 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.

ADDRESSES: This rulemaking can be identified by docket number EERE-
2011-BT-TP-0024 and/or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904-
AC46.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, or 
comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Email: 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

[[Page 79580]]

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as 
amended (``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III 
(42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program for 
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. The National Energy 
Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), Public Law 95-619, amended EPCA to add 
Part A-1 of Title III, which established an energy conservation program 
for certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) \1\ The 
Department of Energy (``DOE'') is charged with implementing these 
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Under EPCA, this program consists essentially of four parts: (1) 
Testing; (2) labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation standards; and 
(4) certification and enforcement procedures. The testing requirements 
consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must 
use (1) as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment 
complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted 
under EPCA, and (2) for making representations about the efficiency of 
such equipment. Similarly, DOE must use these test requirements to 
determine whether the equipment complies with any relevant standards 
promulgated under EPCA. DOE's existing testing regulations allow 
manufacturers of commercial heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 
(HVAC) equipment, water heating (WH) equipment, distribution 
transformers, electric motors, and small electric motors the use of an 
alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM), in lieu of actual 
testing, to simulate the energy consumption or efficiency of certain 
basic models of covered equipment under DOE's test procedure 
conditions.
    In addition, sections 6299-6305, and 6316 of EPCA authorize DOE to 
enforce compliance with the energy and water conservation standards 
(all non-product specific references herein referring to energy use and 
consumption include water use and consumption; all references to energy 
efficiency include water efficiency) established for certain 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.

B. Background

    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 response to the initial deadline for certifying compliance 
imposed by the March 2011 Final Rule on commercial HVAC, refrigeration, 
and WH equipment manufacturers, certain manufacturers of particular 
types of commercial and industrial equipment stated that, for a variety 
of reasons, they would be unable to meet that deadline. DOE initially 
extended the deadline for certifications for commercial HVAC, WH, and 
refrigeration equipment in a final rule published June 30, 2011 
(hereafter referred to as the June 2011 Final Rule). 76 FR 38287 (June 
30, 2011). DOE subsequently extended the compliance date for 
certification by an additional 12 months to December 31, 2013, for 
these types of equipment (December 2012 Final Rule) to allow, among 
other things, the Department to explore the negotiated rulemaking 
process for setting requirements for these equipment categories. 77 FR 
72763.
    In the summer of 2012, DOE had an independent convener evaluate the 
likelihood of success, analyzing the feasibility of developing 
certification requirements for commercial HVAC, WH, and 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.
    AEDMs are computer modeling or mathematical tools that predict the 
performance of non-tested basic models. They are derived from 
mathematical models and engineering principles that govern the energy 
efficiency and energy consumption characteristics of a type of covered 
equipment. These computer modeling and mathematical tools, when 
properly developed, can provide a relatively straight-forward and 
reasonably accurate means to predict the energy usage or efficiency 
characteristics of a basic model of a given covered product or 
equipment and reduce the burden and cost associated with testing.
    Where authorized by regulation, AEDMs enable manufacturers to rate 
and certify their basic models by using the projected energy use or 
energy efficiency results derived from these simulation models in lieu 
of testing. DOE has authorized the use of AEDMs for certain covered 
products and equipment that are difficult or expensive to test in an 
effort to reduce the testing burden faced by manufacturers of expensive 
or highly customized basic models. DOE's regulations currently permit 
manufacturers of commercial HVAC,

[[Page 79581]]

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.

II. Discussion of Specific Revisions to DOE's Regulations for 
Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods and Alternative Rating 
Methods

    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=EER
E-2011-BT-TP-0024.

      Table II.1--Stakeholders That Submitted Comments on the SNOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Name                      Acronym        Organization type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAON, Inc.......................  AAON..............  Manufacturer
American Boiler Manufacturers     ABMA..............  Industry Trade
 Association.                                          Group
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and    AHRI..............  Industry Trade
 Refrigeration Institute.                              Group
American Council for an Energy    ACEEE, ASAP,        Advocacy Group
 Efficient Economy, Appliance      Earthjustice,
 Standards Awareness Project,      NEEA (Joint
 Earthjustice, and Northwest       Comment).
 Energy Efficiency Alliance.
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

[[Page 79582]]

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)
    While DOE appreciates the Joint Comment's recommendation, DOE 
currently does not plan at this time to re-evaluate the AEDM 
regulations in two years. DOE may reconsider this decision depending on 
whether new circumstances present themselves that may merit a review of 
these regulations.
    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.''

A. General Issues

1. Pre-Approval
    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.
2. Applicable Equipment
    The Working Group unanimously recommended the following types of 
covered equipment be allowed to use AEDMs.

 Commercial HVAC Equipment
    [cir] Commercial packaged air-conditioning and heating equipment 
(air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, and water-source)
    [cir] Packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps
    [cir] Computer room air conditioners
    [cir] Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps
    [cir] Variable refrigerant flow systems
 Commercial packaged boilers
 Commercial warm-air furnaces
 Commercial WH Equipment
    [cir] Commercial electric storage water heaters
    [cir] Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired storage water heaters
    [cir] Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired instantaneous water 
heaters greater than or equal to 10 gallons
    [cir] Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired hot water supply boilers 
greater than or equal to 10 gallons
    [cir] Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired instantaneous water 
heaters less than 10 gallons
    [cir] Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired hot water supply boilers 
less than 10 gallons
    [cir] Commercial unfired hot water storage tanks
 Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

    DOE currently allows the use of AEDMs for commercial HVAC 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.
    Lennox also recommended that DOE allow manufacturers to use AEDMs 
when certifying walk-in refrigeration systems. (Lennox, No. 0080.1 at 
p. 4) DOE notes that it has already proposed to allow the use of AEDMs 
for walk-in refrigeration systems in the May 2012 NOPR. See 77 FR 
32038, 32041. The issue of using AEDMs for walk-ins is outside the 
scope of this notice, but the Department will continue to address this 
issue separately.
    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.

B. Validation

    Prior to use for certifying the energy efficiency or energy use of 
a basic model, DOE generally requires AEDMs to be validated. The 
Working Group recommended the following validation process for AEDMs, 
which DOE proposed in the AEDM SNOPR. 78 FR 62472, 62474.
1. Number of Tested Units Required for Validation
    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.

             Table II.2--Commercial HVAC Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Minimum number of basic models
          Validation class               that must be tested per AEDM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged Air    2 Basic Models.
 Conditioners (ACs) and Heat Pumps
 (HPs) less than 65,000 Btu/h
 Cooling Capacity (3-Phase).
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs    2 Basic Models.
 and HPs greater than or equal to
 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity and
 Less than 760,000 Btu/h Cooling
 Capacity.
Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs  2 Basic Models.
 and HPs, All Cooling Capacities.
Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and       2 Basic Models.
 Packaged ACs and HPs, All
 Capacities.
Water-Source HPs, All Capacities....  2 Basic Models.
Single Package Vertical ACs and HPs.  2 Basic Models.
Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs.......  2 Basic Models.
Air-Cooled, Variable Refrigerant      2 Basic Models.
 Flow ACs and HPs.
Water-Cooled, Variable Refrigerant    2 Basic Models.
 Flow ACs and HPs.

[[Page 79583]]

 
Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air   2 Basic Models.
 Cooled.
Computer Room Air Conditioners,       2 Basic Models.
 Water-Cooled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


         Table II.3--Commercial Water Heaters Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Minimum number of basic models
          Validation class                    that must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot       2 Basic Models.
 Water Supply Boilers Less than 10
 Gallons.
Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot       2 Basic Models.
 Water Supply Boilers Greater than
 or Equal to 10 Gallons.
Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot       2 Basic Models.
 Water Supply Boilers Less than 10
 Gallons.
Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot       2 Basic Models.
 Water Supply Boilers Greater than
 or Equal to 10 Gallons.
Electric Water Heaters..............  2 Basic Models.
Heat Pump Water Heaters.............  2 Basic Models.
Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks.....  2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


       Table II.4--Commercial Packaged Boilers Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Minimum number of basic models
          Validation class                    that must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired, Hot Water Only Commercial  2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Gas-fired, Steam Only Commercial      2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Gas-fired Hot Water/Steam Commercial  2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired, Hot Water Only Commercial  2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired, Steam Only Commercial      2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired Hot Water/Steam Commercial  2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table II.5--Commercial Furnaces Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Minimum number of basic models
          Validation class                    that must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Furnaces..................  2 Basic Models.
Oil-fired Furnaces..................  2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table II.6--Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Minimum number of basic models
          Validation class*                   that must be tested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Contained Open Refrigerators...  2 Basic Models.
Self-Contained Open Freezers........  2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Open Refrigerators  2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Open Freezers.....  2 Basic Models.
Self-Contained Closed Refrigerators.  2 Basic Models.
Self-Contained Closed Freezers......  2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Closed              2 Basic Models.
 Refrigerators.
Remote Condensing Closed Freezers...  2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The minimum number of tests indicated above must be comprised of a
  transparent model, a solid model, a vertical model, a semi-vertical
  model, a horizontal model, and a service-over-the counter model, as
  applicable based on the equipment offering. However, manufacturers do
  not need to include all types of these models if it will increase the
  minimum number of tests that need to be conducted.

    A manufacturer may elect to develop multiple AEDMs per validation 
class and each AEDM may span multiple validation classes; however, the 
minimum number of tests must be maintained per validation class for 
each AEDM a manufacturer chooses to develop and use. An AEDM may be 
applied to any individual model within the applicable validation 
classes at the manufacturer's discretion. All documentation of test 
results for the models used to validate each AEDM, the AEDM results, 
and the subsequent comparisons to the AEDM must be maintained as part 
of both the test data underlying the certified rating and the AEDM 
validation package pursuant to 10 CFR 429.71. 78 FR 62472, 62474.
    DOE received two comments in support of the minimum number of

[[Page 79584]]

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)
    Hussmann requested that DOE clarify in the preamble that two tests, 
one per basic model, are required at a minimum for each validation 
class. (Hussmann, No. 0079 at p. 1) DOE agrees with Hussmann that DOE 
intended that the proposal indicate that only one sample is required to 
be tested for each basic model selected to validate an AEDM. The result 
of each test must be directly compared to the result for that model 
from the AEDM.
    DOE has modified the language in paragraph 429.70(a) to remove 
language that appeared to contradict this provision. Paragraph 
429.70(a) now states that testing must be conducted in accordance with 
429.11. Section 429.11 states that the general rule is that two units 
must be tested but that the testing requirement may be modified by 
another, more specific provision. Therefore, for equipment types 
permitted to use an AEDM that were not subject to the negotiated 
rulemaking, the default rule of testing two units still applies. For 
the equipment types that were subject to the negotiated rulemaking, the 
paragraphs directly applicable to those equipment types state that only 
one unit of each basic model must be tested. DOE also notes, as was 
often discussed during Working Group meetings, that these testing 
limits are absolute minimums. A manufacturer must ensure that its 
AEDM(s) accurately predict performance for the full range of equipment 
classes to which the manufacturer is applying the AEDM.
    ABMA commented that existing test data for large commercial 
packaged, built-to-order boilers are based on ASME PTC-4.1 instead of 
the DOE test procedure. ABMA requested that DOE grant a blanket waiver 
allowing these types of commercial boilers to be rated to ASME PTC-4.1 
instead of the DOE test procedure so that AEDMs can be developed around 
this existing data. Additionally, ABMA suggested that large commercial 
packaged, built-to-order boilers be reclassified as ``industrial'' 
boilers to help distinguish these equipment types from smaller, high-
volume boilers. (ABMA, No. 0075 at p. 1) DOE appreciates ABMA's 
suggestion, but clarifies that each manufacturer of a large commercial 
packaged, built-to-order boilers must individually submit a petition 
for waiver as outlined in 10 CFR 431.401. Pursuant to the test 
procedure waiver regulations, DOE cannot issue a blanket waiver for a 
test procedure waiver. While it is outside the scope of this rulemaking 
to consider a petition for waiver and propose alternative methods of 
testing requirements for commercial packaged boilers, DOE currently has 
an open rulemaking for commercial boilers where it may address the 
testing issues.
    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.
2. Tolerances
    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.
    DOE received several comments on validation tolerances. AAON 
commented in support of the one-sided tolerances for comparing test 
results to the AEDM output proposed in the SNOPR. (AAON, No. 0082.1 at 
p. 1) Zero Zone commented that DOE should provide tolerances for AEDMs, 
but requested DOE modify the regulatory language to state that test 
results used to validate an AEDM can be less than the energy efficiency 
standard or more than the energy consumption standard by the proposed 5 
percent tolerance. (Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 1) DOE does not agree 
with Zero Zone. All test results used to validate an AEDM must at least 
meet the applicable energy conservation standard--Zero Zone's approach 
would not ensure the applicable standard would be met.
    Hussmann commented that although the Working Group agreed on a one-
sided 5 percent tolerance when comparing the validation test results to 
the AEDM output, this tolerance is only acceptable if a manufacturer 
can control the test conditions. Hussmann stated that inherent 
component tolerances, fluctuation of the internal average temperature, 
and fluctuation of the test room conditions could produce test results 
that vary more than 5 percent from the rating produced by an AEDM. 
(Hussmann, No. 0079 at p. 1) In response to Hussmann's comment, DOE 
clarifies that validation testing refers only to the requirements 
manufacturers must satisfy to confirm the functionality of an AEDM 
before such AEDM can be used to produce certified ratings. DOE did not 
propose any requirements on the test labs or test process for 
validation testing. A manufacturer may conduct its own validation 
testing within its facilities and control the test conditions to the 
extent allowable by the applicable test procedure. Conversely, 
verification testing, which is discussed in more detail in section 
II.C, is testing conducted by the Department as a means of checking the 
performance of an equipment model distributed in commerce. Verification 
testing is conducted at a third-party laboratory unless extenuating 
circumstances prevent third-party testing in which case the Department 
may allow testing at a manufacturer's lab. DOE has added regulatory 
text to clarify this issue. DOE notes Hussmann's concern that 
fluctuations in test conditions can produce test results that may vary 
more than 5 percent from the estimated performance rating produced by 
an AEDM. However, this concern is more germane to verification testing 
and will be discussed in more detail in section II.C.4.
    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.
3. Certified Ratings
    For each basic model of commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 
equipment distributed in commerce, manufacturers must determine the 
certified rating based on testing or use of a validated AEDM. DOE's 
current regulations provide manufacturers with some flexibility in 
rating each basic model by allowing the manufacturer the discretion to 
rate conservatively. The Working Group recommended that in the case of 
models rated with energy consumption metrics, those values must use a 
certified rating less than or equal

[[Page 79585]]

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.
C. DOE Verification
    Once a basic model has been distributed in commerce, DOE may select 
any model and verify the equipment's performance at any time. 10 CFR 
429.104. The 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 received several comments on the verification process. 
Specifically, manufacturers commented on existing regulatory text that 
allows the Department to verify the performance of an AEDM used for 
certified ratings by observing the operation of the AEDM, collecting 
analyses of previous simulations, and/or conducting testing on units 
certified using an AEDM. Traulsen requested an explanation as to the 
purpose of this text. (Traulsen, No. 0085.1 at p. 2) AHRI commented 
that although this regulatory text currently exists in the CFR, the 
AEDM validation requirements recommended by the Working Group makes 
these regulations unnecessary and redundant. AHRI recommended that DOE 
remove this text in its entirety. (AHRI, No. 0076.1 at p. 2)
    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.
1. Witness Testing
    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 received a number of comments regarding its proposal. Some 
comments supported the witness testing process proposed in the SNOPR. 
See AAON, No. 82.1 at p. 1 and Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 3) Zero Zone 
added that a manufacturer may not be able to witness the initial 
verification test unless it knows in advance which units will be 
tested. (Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 3)
    Other commenters, however, raised specific issues regarding the 
proposal. Hoshizaki America, for example, disagreed with the proposed 
requirement that up to 10 percent of a manufacturer's certified basic 
models be subjected to witness testing because the affected units are 
so complex that slight changes could result in separate basic models. 
Instead, Hoshizaki America suggested DOE collaborate with existing 
bodies that test annually like the EPA's ENERGY STAR program. 
(Hoshizaki, No. 0087.1 at p. 1) Hussmann noted that CRE manufacturers 
have concerns about the expertise of third-party test facilities to 
either operate the CRE units under test or to conduct the DOE test 
procedure. (Hussmann, No. 0079.1 at p. 2)
    Hussmann also remarked that manufacturers are responsible for the 
expense of any retesting needed. (Hussmann, No. 0079.1 at p. 2)
    DOE has given consideration to the concerns raised by these 
commenters. In reviewing their comments, DOE now believes that its 
proposed regulatory text, which was based in large part on the Working 
Group's recommendation, may not have been sufficiently clear. 
Accordingly, DOE has decided to not finalize any regulation on witness 
testing at this time. To ensure that the regulatory text adequately 
reflects the recommendation of the Working Group, DOE will propose 
revised regulatory text for this particular aspect of the rule in order 
to provide additional clarification regarding the witness testing 
process. As part of this effort, DOE will provide interested parties 
with additional time within which to file comments before these 
particular provisions would be finalized and incorporated into DOE's 
regulations. DOE will issue a separate notice to address specifically 
this issue.
    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.
2. Verification Process
    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

[[Page 79586]]

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.
    Zero Zone agreed with the Department's proposal since, in its view, 
manufacturers should be able to provide additional test and set up 
information for third-party labs. (Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 3) 
Goodman, which also largely agreed with DOE's proposal, suggested that 
DOE amend the proposed regulatory text to allow a third-party test lab 
to use any manual that a manufacturer submits in connection with its 
certification report for verification testing. Goodman recommended this 
amendment to account for the possibility of a literature change after 
the initial production of the unit. (Goodman, No. 0086.1 at p. 2) As 
discussed in the Working Group, DOE will use supplementary information 
submitted with the certification report as long as the information was 
submitted to DOE before the unit was selected for verification testing. 
DOE will not use manuals that only reside on a manufacturer's Web site; 
DOE will only use supplementary information that is submitted with the 
certification report. DOE also notes that the supplementary information 
submitted with the certification report is only one of the types of 
information to which DOE will refer when testing. In no case shall the 
contents of these supplemental items displace the provisions specified 
in the DOE test procedure.
    If a unit is tested and determined to fall outside the rating 
tolerances described in section II.C.4, DOE will notify the 
manufacturer. The manufacturer will receive all documentation related 
to the test set up, test conditions, and test results for the unit if 
the unit falls outside the rating tolerances. At that time, a 
manufacturer may present all claims regarding any issues directly 
associated with the test and initiate a discussion regarding retesting. 
If the manufacturer was not on-site for the initial test, the 
manufacturer may request a retest of the same unit, and DOE and the 
manufacturer can be present for the retest. DOE will not retest a 
different unit of the same basic model unless DOE and the manufacturer 
determine it is necessary based on the test results, claims presented, 
and DOE regulations. 78 FR 62472, 62476.
    Lennox commented that DOE should clarify that the AEDM verification 
process codified in 429.70(c)(6) is based on a ``single unit'' unless a 
manufacturer has elected to have verification tests for up to 10 
percent of the manufacturer's certified basic models rated with an 
AEDM. DOE concurs that an invalid rating can be determined by 
conducting verification testing on a single unit; however, to clarify, 
DOE did not propose to permit a manufacturer to have 10 percent of its 
basic models tested using the verification testing process. Instead, 
DOE proposed to permit a manufacturer to designate up to 10% of its 
basic models that were certified with an AEDM for witness testing if 
selected for verification testing. As discussed in section II.C.1, DOE 
will address the witness testing arrangements in a subsequent 
rulemaking.
    Lennox also requested that DOE clarify that the verification 
provisions and tolerances proposed in this section and in section 
II.C.4, respectively, supersede and replace those in 10 CFR 429.110 
with respect to a model rated using an AEDM. (Lennox, No. 0080.1 at p. 
2) DOE notes that these proposals do not replace the enforcement 
regulatory text to which Lennox is referring. The enforcement 
regulations allow DOE to determine if a model complies with the 
applicable standard. The verification process outlined in today's final 
rule is specifically for determining if a unit was certified with a 
valid rating, i.e., that the test results for the basic model that was 
verification tested are within the permitted tolerance range from the 
AEDM-derived performance rating. The verification process also serves 
to ensure that the AEDM is generating valid results across a range of 
basic models.
    ABMA commented that, as long as no efficiency or energy use 
criteria have changed, DOE should not require a retest for built-to-
order packaged boilers on a periodic basis as there are enough checks 
and balances built into the boiler manufacturing system. Alternatively, 
company officers could issue a statement to DOE stating that no 
efficiency-related changes have been made within a certain period of 
time. (ABMA, No. 0075.1 at p. 2) DOE understands ABMA's comment to mean 
that no verification testing is necessary for built-to-order boilers. 
While it may be true that the boiler industry has a number of 
safeguards to ensure consistent energy performance from built-to-order 
boilers, the Department still reserves the right to verify a boiler's 
certified efficiency. DOE is not requiring boiler manufacturers to 
periodically retest units for the purposes of certification or AEDM 
validation, and the Department already requires manufacturers to submit 
a compliance statement with their annual certification that states, 
among other things, that all basic models included in the certification 
report comply with the applicable energy conservation standards. 10 CFR 
429.12(c). DOE also notes that the certification deadline for these 
products is being delayed an additional 18 months as part of this final 
rule.
    In today's final rule, DOE is adopting the verification process 
outlined in this section.
3. Verification Lab Requirements
    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.
    FGNA supported the Department's proposal that verification testing 
should generally take place at a third-party facility but should allow 
for equipment to be tested at the manufacturer's facility if the 
equipment cannot be tested at a third-party laboratory. (FGNA, No. 
0085.1 at p. 2) AAON also agreed that verification testing should be 
conducted at a third-party facility qualified to conduct the specific 
test procedure. (AAON, No. 0082.1 at p. 2) Goodman encouraged DOE to 
utilize laboratories that are ISO 17025-certified to reduce the 
probability of questionable or disputed test results from incorrect 
testing or test set-ups. (Goodman, No. 0086.1 at p. 1) Regarding 
Goodman's recommendation, DOE notes that 10 CFR 429.110(a)(3) requires 
all DOE enforcement testing be performed at a lab accredited to ISO 
17025:2005(E). While this requirement does not preclude verification 
testing from occurring at an unaccredited laboratory, DOE generally 
will use an ISO 17025:2005(E) accredited lab so that any verification 
test results could be used as part of an enforcement testing sample, if 
necessary, to reduce redundant testing. Therefore, DOE is not 
specifying that verification testing must occur at an ISO 17025:2005(E) 
accredited lab.
    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

[[Page 79587]]

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.
    ABMA commented that the proposal to require all testing to be 
performed at an ISO-certified, third-party test facility or witnessed 
by personnel from such a facility has the potential to pose logistical 
problems. (ABMA, No. 0075.1 at p. 2) DOE did not propose to require all 
testing to be performed at an ISO-accredited, third-party test facility 
or witnessed by personnel from such a facility. As discussed in this 
section, DOE proposed to conduct verification testing at a third-party 
test facility but does not require that facility to be ISO-accredited.
    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.
4. Verification Tolerances
    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:

Test Result <= Certified Rating x (1 + Applicable Tolerance)

    For energy efficiency metrics, the Working Group recommended:

Test Result >= Certified Rating x (1 - Applicable Tolerance)

                      Table II.7--Rating Tolerances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Applicable
            Equipment                      Metric            tolerance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Packaged Boilers......  Combustion Efficiency       5% (0.05)
                                   Thermal Efficiency...       5% (0.05)
Commercial Water Heaters or Hot    Thermal Efficiency...       5% (0.05)
 Water Supply Boilers.             Standby Loss.........       10% (0.1)
Unfired Storage Tanks............  R-Value..............       10% (0.1)
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged     Seasonal Energy-            5% (0.05)
 ACs and HPs less than 65,000 Btu/  Efficiency Ratio.          5% (0.05)
 h Cooling Capacity (3-Phase).     Heating Season              10% (0.1)
                                    Performance Factor.
                                   Energy Efficiency
                                    Ratio.
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged     Energy Efficiency           5% (0.05)
 ACs and HPs greater than or        Ratio.                     5% (0.05)
 equal to 65,000 Btu/h Cooling     Coefficient of              10% (0.1)
 Capacity and Less than 760,000     Performance.
 Btu/h Cooling Capacity.           Integrated Energy
                                    Efficiency Ratio.
Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged   Energy Efficiency           5% (0.05)
 ACs and HPs, All Cooling           Ratio.                     5% (0.05)
 Capacities.                       Coefficient of              10% (0.1)
                                    Performance.
                                   Integrated Energy
                                    Efficiency Ratio.
Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and    Energy Efficiency           5% (0.05)
 Packaged ACs and HPs, All          Ratio.                     5% (0.05)
 Capacities.                       Coefficient of              10% (0.1)
                                    Performance.
                                   Integrated Energy
                                    Efficiency Ratio.
Water-Source HPs, All Capacities.  Energy Efficiency           5% (0.05)
                                    Ratio.                     5% (0.05)
                                   Coefficient of              10% (0.1)
                                    Performance.
                                   Integrated Energy
                                    Efficiency Ratio.
Single Package Vertical ACs and    Energy Efficiency           5% (0.05)
 HPs.                               Ratio.                     5% (0.05)
                                   Coefficient of
                                    Performance.
Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs....  Energy Efficiency           5% (0.05)
                                    Ratio.                     5% (0.05)
                                   Coefficient of
                                    Performance.
Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and  Energy Efficiency           5% (0.05)
 HPs.                               Ratio.                     5% (0.05)
                                   Coefficient of              10% (0.1)
                                    Performance.
                                   Integrated Energy
                                    Efficiency Ratio.
Computer Room Air Conditioners...  Sensible Coefficient        5% (0.05)
                                    of Performance.
Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces.....  Thermal Efficiency...       5% (0.05)
Commercial Refrigeration           Daily Energy                5% (0.05)
 Equipment.                         Consumption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received several comments regarding the confidence level for 
HVAC equipment. Goodman commented in support of the verification 
tolerances in the SNOPR but commented that HVAC equipment should have a 
90% confidence level due to the uncertainty in psychrometric testing. 
(Goodman, No. 0086.1 at p. 2) MEUS and AHRI also commented that DOE 
should change the confidence level for HVAC equipment from 95% to 90% 
to match the confidence level of residential central air conditioners. 
(MEUS, No. 0083.1 at p. 1) Lennox requested that DOE change the 
confidence level for the IEER metric from 95% to 90%. (Lennox, No. 
0080.1 at p. 3) DOE assumes that the references made by Goodman, AHRI, 
MEUS, and Lennox to ``confidence level'' refers to certification 
testing instead of verification testing because ``confidence level'' is 
the term used in 10 CFR 429.43, which applies in the certification 
context. DOE notes that aspects regarding the certification testing 
process fall outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    AHRI and AAON also recommended that DOE adopt sampling procedures 
for low volume equipment as discussed in the Working Group meetings. 
(AHRI, No. 0076.1 at p. 2; AAON, No. 0082.1 at p. 2) DOE intends to 
address certification testing of low volume equipment and the remaining 
recommendations from the Working Group in a separate rulemaking. See, 
infra section IV.
    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

[[Page 79588]]

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.
    Hussmann asked what the tolerance level would be to exceed the 
Federal energy conservation standards. (Hussmann, No. 0079.1 at p. 2) 
DOE clarifies that a certified rating, calculated in accordance with 
the applicable sampling plan in part 429 or as determined using an 
AEDM, must, at a minimum, meet the applicable energy conservation 
standard. However, a rating will not be deemed invalid by a single unit 
verification test result as long as the result adheres to the 
verification tolerances described in this section. This means, for 
example, for equipment with an energy efficiency standard, a 
verification result may be less than the efficiency standard level as 
long it does not fall outside the applicable tolerance level listed in 
Table II.7. However, DOE may initiate enforcement testing--in which 
case, a basic model will be determined compliant or non-compliant with 
the energy conservation standards based on the applicable enforcement 
statistics provided in 10 CFR 429.110.
    Modine stated that the DOE test procedure for water-source heat 
pumps does not require part load tests, which result in the integrated 
energy efficiency ratio (IEER). In its view, DOE should not propose 
tolerances on IEER ratings. (Modine, No. 0084.1 at p. 1) DOE agrees 
that, at this time, part load testing is not required by the DOE test 
procedure and adds that DOE cannot verify a metric that is not 
certified to the Department. However, in light of the Working Group's 
recommended tolerances for part load metrics, the Department is not 
inclined at this time to remove these tolerances from the approach 
recommended by Working Group.
    Lennox requested DOE clarify whether the tolerances discussed above 
in this section supersede the tolerances currently found in Appendix B 
to Subpart C of 10 CFR part 429, with respect to products certified 
with an AEDM. (Lennox, No. 0080.1 at p. 3) DOE notes that the proposed 
tolerances do not replace the sampling plan for enforcement testing of 
covered equipment and certain low-volume covered products as found in 
10 CFR part 429, subpart C, appendix B. As discussed in section II.C.2, 
the regulations on enforcement testing are not superseded by today's 
verification testing proposals. Enforcement testing is the Department's 
method to determine if a model complies with the energy conservation 
standard; in contrast, verification testing determines if a model was 
rated correctly using an AEDM.
    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.
5. Invalid Rating Process
    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.
6. Consequences of an Invalid Rating
    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.

[[Page 79589]]



  Table II.8--Consequences for Invalid Ratings as Proposed in the SNOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Number of invalid certified
 ratings from the same AEDM**
   within a rolling 24 month          Required manufacturer actions
        period[dagger]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.............................  Submit different test data and reports
                                 from testing to validate that AEDM
                                 within the validation classes to which
                                 it is applied.* Adjust the rating as
                                 appropriate.
4.............................  Conduct double the minimum number of
                                 validation tests for the validation
                                 classes to which the AEDM is applied.
                                 Note, the tests required under
                                 subsection (c)(5)(H)(1) must be
                                 different tests on different models
                                 than the original tests 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.
                                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).
>=8...........................  Manufacturer has lost privilege to use
                                 AEDM. All ratings for models within the
                                 validation classes to which the AEDM
                                 applied should be rated via testing.
                                 Distribution cannot continue until
                                 certification(s) are corrected to
                                 reflect actual test data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A manufacturer may discuss with DOE's Office of Enforcement whether
  existing test data on different basic models within the validation
  classes to which that specific AEDM was applied may be used to meet
  this requirement.
** Where the same AEDM means a computer simulation or mathematical model
  that is identified by the manufacturer at the time of certification as
  having been used to rate a model or group of models.
[dagger] The twenty-four month period begins with a DOE determination
  that a rating is invalid through the process outlined above.
  Additional invalid ratings apply for the purposes of determining the
  appropriate consequences if the subsequent determination(s) is based
  on selection of a unit for testing within the twenty-four month period
  (i.e., subsequent determinations need not be made within 24 months).

    DOE received comments in support of the consequences proposed in 
the AEDM SNOPR from AAON and Zero Zone. (AAON, No. 0082.1 at p. 2; Zero 
Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 3) Hussmann commented that the penalty for six 
failures appeared less severe than the penalty for four failures. 
(Hussmann, No. 0079.1 at p. 2) DOE agrees with Hussmann that the table 
does not clearly indicate that if a manufacturer has 6 invalid 
certified ratings from the same AEDM within a rolling 24-month period 
then the manufacturer must conduct the minimum number of validation 
tests at a third-party test facility. The manufacturer must conduct 
additional testing, at least half the minimum number of validation 
tests for the validation classes to which the AEDM is applied, at 
either a third-party test facility or at the manufacturer's lab.
    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.
7. Regaining the Use of AEDMs
    If, as a result of eight or more invalid ratings, a manufacturer 
has lost the privilege of using an AEDM for rating purposes, the 
manufacturer may regain the ability to use an AEDM by (1) investigating 
the cause(s) for the failures, (2) identifying the root cause(s) for 
the failures, (3) taking corrective action to address the root 
cause(s), (4) validating the AEDM by performing six new tests 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.

III. Basic Model Definitions

    The Working Group recommended amended basic model definitions for 
commercial refrigeration equipment; commercial warm air furnaces; 
commercial packaged boilers; and commercial water heaters. 
Additionally, the Working Group recommended distinct basic model 
definitions for each type of commercial HVAC equipment, such as 
packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and heat pumps (PTHPs); 
small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment; small, large, and very large water-
cooled, evaporatively-cooled, and water source commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment; single package vertical air 
conditioners and heat pumps (SPVUs); computer room air 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,

[[Page 79590]]

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.

IV. Discussion of Specific Revisions to the Compliance Date for 
Certification of Commercial HVAC, WH, and Refrigeration Equipment

    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.

          Table IV.1--Initial Certification Compliance Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The initial certification date is
  the number of months shown below
    after the AEDM final rule is                Equipment type
 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).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Working Group also agreed to the following caveats on the above 
schedule. If, in the separate, certification rulemaking, DOE adopts 
regulations that are significantly different from the remainder of the 
Working Group recommendations, then the initial certification 
compliance dates will be based on the final rule date for the separate 
rulemaking effort. The Working Group agreed that in no instance should 
the initial certification compliance date be less than two months after 
the issuance of the final rule adopting the remainder of the Working 
Group's recommendations. Additionally, the Working Group recommended 
that DOE allow a six-month grace period following each certification 
date during which DOE will not pursue civil penalties for certification 
violations. The Working Group emphasized that a grace period would 
allow manufacturers time to gain familiarity with the certification 
process and remedy any problems. 78 FR 62472, 62478.
    Lennox commented that it is essential for DOE to extend the current 
compliance dates by the timeline outlined in the AEDM SNOPR and include 
the 6-month grace period, agreed upon by the Working Group, in the 
finalized regulatory text. Additionally, Lennox indicated that DOE 
should reiterate the caveats to the compliance date extensions that the 
Working Group recommended (Lennox, No. 0080.1 at p. 2). DOE notes that 
the six-month grace period and caveats agreed upon by the working group 
are clearly stated in the previous paragraph. Hoshizaki America 
requested that DOE give more time to allow each manufacturer to review 
and validate its AEDMs. (Hoshizaki American, No. 0087.1 at p. 1) The 
Working Group determined that the extension to the certification 
deadlines described in Table IV.1 allowed manufacturers sufficient time 
to validate AEDMs and certify compliance. The Department agrees with 
the Working Group's proposal.
    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.

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Administrative Procedure Act

    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.

C. 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 (RFA) for any 
rule that by law must be proposed for public

[[Page 79591]]

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.
    DOE reviewed the AEDM requirements being adopted 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 final rule, which adopts voluntary methods for certifying 
compliance in lieu of conducting actual physical testing, would not 
increase the testing or reporting burden of manufacturers who currently 
use, or are eligible to use, an AEDM to certify their products. 
Furthermore, the requirements for validation of an AEDM adopted in 
today's final rule 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 equipment are required 
to meet in order to substantiate the AEDM.
    DOE has also clarified in today's final rule how it intends to 
exercise its authority to verify the performance of equipment certified 
using an AEDM. DOE negotiated the process with industry, resulting in 
the requirements that are being adopted in today's final rule. Because 
testing conducted to verify AEDM performance would be DOE-initiated and 
conducted testing and the process to determine an invalid rating 
includes manufacturer involvement throughout, DOE does not believe that 
verification of ratings resulting from an AEDM will have a substantial 
impact on small businesses.
    Today's final rule also permits the manufacturer of other types of 
covered equipment that are currently not permitted to use an AEDM to 
rate and certify equipment using an AEDM. Manufacturers that are not 
eligible to use AEDMs must currently test at least two units of every 
basic model that they produce to certify compliance to the Department 
pursuant to the March 2011 Final Rule. The provisions in today's final 
rule would, if followed by a manufacturer choosing to use an AEDM 
rather than conduct a full physical test, reduce that manufacturer's 
testing burden by enabling it to simulate testing based on test data 
derived from a reduced number of units. While the Department believes 
that permitting the greater use of AEDMs will reduce the affected 
manufacturer's test burden, use of an AEDM is at the manufacturer's 
discretion. If, as a result of any of the regulations in this final 
rule, a manufacturer believes that use of an AEDM would increase rather 
than decrease its financial burden, the manufacturer may choose not to 
employ this alternative method. Should a manufacturer choose to abstain 
from using an AEDM, this provision would not apply and the manufacturer 
would continue to remain subject to the requirements of any DOE test 
procedure that applies to that product, which would result in no change 
in burden from that which is required currently.
    Finally, DOE is codifying two aspects regarding the certification 
of commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment that should further 
decrease the burden of existing DOE regulations. First, DOE is 
clarifying its basic model definitions, which allow a manufacturer to 
group individual models based on certain characteristics. The basic 
model definitions provide the manufacturer with flexibility in making 
these groupings and were negotiated as part of the Working Group's 
meetings to develop a recommended proposal for adoption by DOE. Lastly, 
DOE is extending the initial compliance date for the certification of 
commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment from the current date 
of December 31, 2013. The new compliance dates range from 6 months to 
18 months from publication of this final rule.
    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.

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    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.
    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.

E. 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 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.

[[Page 79592]]

F. 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 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.

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
this rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today's 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.

I. 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.

J. 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.

K. 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 rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with the applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

L. 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.

[[Page 79593]]

    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.

M. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition. Today's rule to amend regulations relating to AEDMs does 
not propose the use of any commercial standards.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 24, 2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    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:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.


0
2. Section 429.12 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  429.12  General requirements applicable to certification reports.

* * * * *
    (i) Compliance dates. For any product subject to an applicable 
energy conservation standard for which the compliance date has not yet 
occurred, a certification report must be submitted not later than the 
compliance date for the applicable energy conservation standard. The 
covered products enumerated below are subject to the stated compliance 
dates for initial certification:
    (1) Commercial warm air furnaces, packaged terminal air 
conditioners, and packaged terminal heat pumps, July 1, 2014;
    (2) Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired instantaneous water heaters 
less than 10 gallons and commercial gas-fired and oil-fired hot water 
supply boilers less than 10 gallons, October 1, 2014;
    (3) All other types of covered commercial water heaters except 
those specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this section, commercial 
packaged boilers with input capacities less than or equal to 2.5 
million Btu/h, and self-contained commercial refrigeration equipment 
with solid or transparent doors, December 31, 2014;
    (4) Variable refrigerant flow air conditioners and heat pumps, 
March 31, 2015;
    (5) Small, large, or very large air-cooled, water-cooled, 
evaporatively-cooled, and water-source commercial air conditioning and 
heating equipment, single package vertical units, computer room air 
conditioners, commercial packaged boilers with input capacities greater 
than 2.5 million Btu/h, and all other types of commercial refrigeration 
equipment except those specified in paragraph (i)(3) of this section, 
July 1, 2015.

0
3. Section 429.42 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  429.42  Commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers.

    (a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers can determine 
the represented value, which includes the certified rating, for each 
basic model of commercial refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-
freezer either by testing, in conjunction with the applicable sampling 
provisions, or by applying an AEDM.
    (1) Units to be tested. (i) If the represented value for a given 
basic model is determined through testing, the general requirements of 
Sec.  429.11 are applicable; and
    (ii) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of 
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
    (A) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of 
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower 
values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
    (1) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE13.157
    

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

    (2) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean 
divided by 1.10, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE13.158


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,

    (B) Any represented value of the energy efficiency or other measure 
of energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
    (1) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE13.159
    

And, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the ith sample; or,
    (2) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean 
divided by 0.90, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE13.160


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

[[Page 79594]]

(from Appendix A to subpart B of part 429).
    (2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of 
testing, a represented value of efficiency or consumption for a basic 
model of commercial refrigerator, freezer or refrigerator-freezer must 
be determined through the application of an AEDM pursuant to the 
requirements of Sec.  429.70 and the provisions of this section, where:
    (i) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of 
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower 
values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM and 
less than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model; and
    (ii) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of the AEDM and 
greater than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 429.43 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  429.43  Commercial heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC) 
equipment.

    (a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers can determine 
the represented value, which includes the certified rating, for each 
basic model of commercial HVAC equipment either by testing, in 
conjunction with the applicable sampling provisions, or by applying an 
AEDM.
    (1) Units to be tested. (i) If the represented value is determined 
through testing, the general requirements of Sec.  429.11 are 
applicable; and
    (ii) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of 
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
    (A) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of 
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower 
values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
    (1) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE13.161
    

And, x is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and 
xi is the ith sample; or,
    (2) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean 
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE13.162


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,
    (B) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
    (1) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE13.163
    

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

    (2) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean 
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE13.164


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).

    (2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of 
testing, a represented value of efficiency or consumption for a basic 
model of commercial HVAC equipment must be determined through the 
application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  429.70 and 
the provisions of this section, where:
    (i) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of 
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower 
values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM and 
less than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model; and
    (ii) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of the AEDM and 
greater than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 429.44 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  429.44  Commercial water heating equipment.

    (a) Determination of represented value. Manufacturers can determine 
the represented value, which includes the certified rating, for each 
basic model of commercial water heating equipment, either by testing, 
in conjunction with the applicable sampling provisions, or by applying 
an AEDM.
    (1) Units to be tested. (i) If the represented value for a given 
basic model is determined through testing, the general requirements of 
Sec.  429.11 are applicable; and
    (ii) For each basic model selected for testing, a sample of 
sufficient size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that--
    (A) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of 
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower 
values shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
    (1) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE13.165
    

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

    (2) The upper 95 percent confidence limit (UCL) of the true mean 
divided by 1.05, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE13.166


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,

    (B) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
higher values shall be less than or equal to the lower of:
    (1) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE13.167
    

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

    (2) The lower 95 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean 
divided by 0.95, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31DE13.168


[[Page 79595]]



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).

    (2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. In lieu of 
testing, a represented value of efficiency or consumption for a basic 
model of commercial water heating equipment must be determined through 
the application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec.  429.70 
and the provisions of this section, where:
    (i) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of 
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower 
values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM and 
less than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model; and
    (ii) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of 
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor 
higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of the AEDM and 
greater than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 429.70 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  429.70  Alternative methods for determining energy efficiency and 
energy use.

    (a) General applicability of an AEDM. A manufacturer of covered 
products or covered equipment explicitly authorized to use an AEDM in 
Sec. Sec.  429.14 through 429.54 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 Sec.  429.11 and the testing procedures in parts 430 and 
431 of this chapter.
    (c) Alternative efficiency determination method (AEDM) for 
commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment-- (1) Criteria an AEDM 
must satisfy. A manufacturer may not apply an AEDM to a basic model to 
determine its efficiency pursuant to this section unless:
    (i) The AEDM is derived from a mathematical model that estimates 
the energy efficiency or energy consumption characteristics of the 
basic model as measured by the applicable DOE test procedure;
    (ii) The AEDM is based on engineering or statistical analysis, 
computer simulation or modeling, or other analytic evaluation of 
performance data; and
    (iii) The manufacturer has validated the AEDM, in accordance with 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section with basic models that meet the 
current Federal energy conservation standards.
    (2) Validation of an AEDM. Before using an AEDM, the manufacturer 
must validate the AEDM's accuracy and reliability as follows:
    (i) The manufacturer must select at least the minimum number of 
basic models for each validation class specified in paragraph 
(c)(2)(iv) of this section to which the particular AEDM applies. Using 
the AEDM, calculate the energy use or efficiency for each of the 
selected basic models. Test a single unit of each selected basic model 
in accordance with paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section. Compare the 
results from the single unit test and the AEDM energy use or efficiency 
output according to paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section. The 
manufacturer is responsible for ensuring the accuracy and reliability 
of the AEDM.
    (ii) Individual model tolerances. (A) For those covered products 
with an energy-efficiency metric, the predicted efficiency for each 
model calculated by applying the AEDM may not be more than five percent 
greater than the efficiency determined from the corresponding test of 
the model.
    (B) For those covered products with an energy-consumption metric, 
the predicted energy consumption for each model, calculated by applying 
the AEDM, may not be more than five percent less than the energy 
consumption determined from the corresponding test of the model.
    (C) For all covered products, the predicted energy efficiency or 
consumption for each model calculated by applying the AEDM must meet or 
exceed the applicable federal energy conservation performance standard.
    (iii) Additional test unit requirements. (A) Each AEDM must be 
supported by test data obtained from physical tests of current models; 
and
    (B) Test results used to validate the AEDM must meet or exceed 
current, applicable Federal standards as specified in part 431 of this 
chapter; and
    (C) Each test must have been performed in accordance with the DOE 
test procedure specified in parts 430 or 431 of this chapter or test 
procedure waiver for which compliance is required at the time the basic 
model is distributed in commerce.
    (iv) Validation classes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Minimum number of distinct models
          Validation class               that must be tested per AEDM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged Air    2 Basic Models.
 Conditioners (ACs) and Heat Pumps
 (HPs) less than 65,000 Btu/h
 Cooling Capacity (3-Phase).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 (A) Commercial HVAC validation classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs    2 Basic Models.
 and HPs greater than or equal to
 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity and
 Less than 760,000 Btu/h Cooling
 Capacity.
Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs  2 Basic Models.
 and HPs, All Cooling Capacities.
Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and       2 Basic Models.
 Packaged ACs and HPs, All
 Capacities.
Water-Source HPs, All Capacities....  2 Basic Models.
Single Package Vertical ACs and HPs.  2 Basic Models.
Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs.......  2 Basic Models.
Air-Cooled, Variable Refrigerant      2 Basic Models.
 Flow ACs and HPs.
Water-Cooled, Variable Refrigerant    2 Basic Models.
 Flow ACs and HPs.

[[Page 79596]]

 
Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air   2 Basic Models.
 Cooled.
Computer Room Air Conditioners,       2 Basic Models.
 Water-Cooled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             (B) Commercial water heater validation classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot       2 Basic Models.
 Water Supply Boilers Less than 10
 Gallons.
Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot       2 Basic Models.
 Water Supply Boilers Greater than
 or Equal to 10 Gallons.
Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot       2 Basic Models.
 Water Supply Boilers Less than 10
 Gallons.
Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot       2 Basic Models.
 Water Supply Boilers Greater than
 or Equal to 10 Gallons.
Electric Water Heaters..............  2 Basic Models.
Heat Pump Water Heaters.............  2 Basic Models.
Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks.....  2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           (C) Commercial packaged boilers validation classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired, Hot Water Only Commercial  2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Gas-fired, Steam Only Commercial      2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Gas-fired Hot Water/Steam Commercial  2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired, Hot Water Only Commercial  2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired, Steam Only Commercial      2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired Hot Water/Steam Commercial  2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                (D) Commercial furnace validation classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Furnaces..................  2 Basic Models.
Oil-fired Furnaces..................  2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        (E) Commercial refrigeration equipment validation classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Contained Open Refrigerators...  2 Basic Models.
Self-Contained Open Freezers........  2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Open Refrigerators  2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Open Freezers.....  2 Basic Models.
Self-Contained Closed Refrigerators.  2 Basic Models.
Self-Contained Closed Freezers......  2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Closed              2 Basic Models.
 Refrigerators.
Remote Condensing Closed Freezers...  2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The minimum number of tests indicated above must be comprised of a
  transparent model, a solid model, a vertical model, a semi-vertical
  model, a horizontal model, and a service-over-the counter model, as
  applicable based on the equipment offering. However, manufacturers do
  not need to include all types of these models if it will increase the
  minimum number of tests that need to be conducted.

    (3) AEDM records retention requirements. If a manufacturer has used 
an AEDM to determine representative values pursuant to this section, 
the manufacturer must have available upon request for inspection by the 
Department records showing:
    (i) The AEDM, including the mathematical model, the engineering or 
statistical analysis, and/or computer simulation or modeling that is 
the basis of the AEDM;
    (ii) Product information, complete test data, AEDM calculations, 
and the statistical comparisons from the units tested that were used to 
validate the AEDM pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section; and
    (iii) Product information and AEDM calculations for each basic 
model to which the AEDM has been applied.
    (4) Additional AEDM requirements. If requested by the Department 
and at DOE's discretion, the manufacturer must perform at least one of 
the following:
    (i) Conduct simulations before representatives of the Department to 
predict the performance of particular basic models of the product to 
which the AEDM was applied;
    (ii) Provide analyses of previous simulations conducted by the 
manufacturer; or
    (iii) Conduct certification testing of basic models selected by the 
Department.
    (5) AEDM verification testing. DOE may use the test data for a 
given individual model generated pursuant to Sec.  429.104 to verify 
the certified rating determined by an AEDM as long as the following 
process is followed:
    (i) Selection of units. DOE will obtain units for test from retail, 
where available. If units cannot be obtained from retail, DOE will 
request that a unit be provided by the manufacturer;
    (ii) Lab requirements. DOE will conduct testing at an independent, 
third-party testing facility of its choosing. In cases where no third-
party laboratory is capable of testing the equipment, it may be tested 
at a manufacturer's facility upon DOE's request.
    (iii) Manufacturer participation. [Reserved]
    (iv) Testing. At no time during verification testing may the lab 
and the manufacturer communicate without DOE authorization. All 
verification testing will be conducted in accordance with the 
applicable DOE test procedure, as well as each of the following to the 
extent that they apply:
    (A) Any active test procedure waivers that have been granted for 
the basic model;
    (B) Any test procedure guidance that has been issued by DOE;
    (C) The installation and operations manual that is shipped with the 
unit;
    (D) Any additional information that was provided by the 
manufacturer at the time of certification (prior to DOE obtaining the 
unit for test); and

[[Page 79597]]

    (E) If during test set-up or testing, the lab indicates to DOE that 
it needs additional information regarding a given basic model in order 
to test in accordance with the applicable DOE test procedure, DOE may 
organize a meeting between DOE, the manufacturer and the lab to provide 
such information.
    (v) Failure to meet certified rating. If a model tests worse than 
its certified rating by an amount exceeding the tolerance prescribed in 
paragraph (c)(5)(vi) of this section, DOE will notify the manufacturer. 
DOE will provide the manufacturer with all documentation related to the 
test set up, test conditions, and test results for the unit. Within the 
timeframe allotted by DOE, the manufacturer may then:
    (A) Present all claims regarding testing validity; and
    (B) If the manufacturer was not on site for the initial test set-
up, request a retest of the previously tested unit with manufacturer 
and DOE representatives on-site for the test set-up. DOE will not 
conduct the retest using a different unit of the same basic model 
unless DOE and the manufacturer determine it is necessary based on the 
test results, claims presented, and DOE regulations.
    (vi) Tolerances. (A) For consumption metrics, the result from a DOE 
verification test must be less than or equal to the certified rating x 
(1 + the applicable tolerance).
    (B) For efficiency metrics, the result from a DOE verification test 
must be greater than or equal to the certified rating x (1 - the 
applicable tolerance).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Applicable
           Equipment                      Metric             tolerance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Packaged Boilers....  Combustion Efficiency..       5% (0.05)
                                 Thermal Efficiency.....       5% (0.05)
Commercial Water Heaters or Hot  Thermal Efficiency.....       5% (0.05)
 Water Supply Boilers.           Standby Loss...........       10% (0.1)
Unfired Storage Tanks..........  R-Value................       10% (0.1)
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged   Seasonal Energy-              5% (0.05)
 ACs and HPs less than 65,000     Efficiency Ratio.
 Btu/h.
Cooling Capacity (3-Phase).....  Heating Season                5% (0.05)
                                  Performance Factor.          10% (0.1)
                                 Energy Efficiency Ratio
Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged   Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 ACs and HPs greater than or     Coefficient of                5% (0.05)
 equal to 65,000 Btu/h Cooling    Performance.                 10% (0.1)
 Capacity and Less than 760,000  Integrated Energy
 Btu/h Cooling Capacity.          Efficiency Ratio.
Water-Cooled, Split and          Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 Packaged ACs and HPs, All       Coefficient of                5% (0.05)
 Cooling Capacities.              Performance.                 10% (0.1)
                                 Integrated Energy
                                  Efficiency Ratio.
Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and  Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 Packaged ACs and HPs, All       Coefficient of                5% (0.05)
 Capacities.                      Performance.                 10% (0.1)
                                 Integrated Energy
                                  Efficiency Ratio.
Water-Source HPs, All            Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 Capacities.                     Coefficient of                5% (0.05)
                                  Performance.                 10% (0.1)
                                 Integrated Energy
                                  Efficiency Ratio.
Single Package Vertical ACs and  Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 HPs.                            Coefficient of                5% (0.05)
                                  Performance.
Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs..  Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
                                 Coefficient of                5% (0.05)
                                  Performance.
Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs    Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 and HPs.                        Coefficient of                5% (0.05)
                                  Performance.                 10% (0.1)
                                 Integrated Energy
                                  Efficiency Ratio.
Computer Room Air Conditioners.  Sensible Coefficient of       5% (0.05)
                                  Performance.
Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces...  Thermal Efficiency.....       5% (0.05)
Commercial Refrigeration         Daily Energy                  5% (0.05)
 Equipment.                       Consumption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (vii) Invalid rating. If, following discussions with the 
manufacturer and a retest where applicable, DOE determines that the 
verification testing was conducted appropriately in accordance with the 
DOE test procedure, DOE will issue a determination that the rating for 
the model is invalid. The manufacturer must elect, within 15 days, one 
of the following to be completed in a time frame specified by DOE, 
which is never to exceed 180 days:
    (A) Re-rate and re-certify the model based on DOE's test data 
alone; or
    (B) Discontinue the model through the certification process; or
    (C) Conduct additional testing and re-rate and re-certify the basic 
model based on all test data collected, including DOE's test data.
    (viii) AEDM use. (A) If DOE has determined that a manufacturer made 
invalid ratings on two or more models rated using the same AEDM within 
a 24 month period, the manufacturer must take the action listed in the 
table corresponding to the number of invalid certified ratings. The 
twenty-four month period begins with a DOE determination that a rating 
is invalid through the process outlined above. Additional invalid 
ratings apply for the purposes of determining the appropriate 
consequences if the subsequent determination(s) is based on selection 
of a unit for testing within the twenty-four month period (i.e., 
subsequent determinations need not be made within 24 months).

[[Page 79598]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Number of invalid certified
ratings from the same AEDM \2\
   within a rolling 24 month          Required manufacturer actions
          period \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.............................  Submit different test data and reports
                                 from testing to validate that AEDM
                                 within the validation classes to which
                                 it is applied.\1\ Adjust the ratings 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 this
                                 paragraph (c)(5)(viii) must be
                                 performed on different models than the
                                 original tests required under paragraph
                                 (c)(2) of this section.
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.
                                Note, the tests required under this
                                 paragraph (c)(5)(viii) must be
                                 performed on different models than the
                                 original tests performed under
                                 paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
> = 8.........................  Manufacturer has lost privilege to use
                                 AEDM. All ratings for models within the
                                 validation classes to which the AEDM
                                 applied should be rated via testing.
                                 Distribution cannot continue until
                                 certification(s) are corrected to
                                 reflect actual test data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A manufacturer may discuss with DOE's Office of Enforcement whether
  existing test data on different basic models within the validation
  classes to which that specific AEDM was applied may be used to meet
  this requirement.
\2\ 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).

    (B) If, as a result of eight or more invalid ratings, a 
manufacturer has lost the privilege of using an AEDM for rating, the 
manufacturer may regain the ability to use an AEDM by:
    (1) Investigating and identifying cause(s) for failures;
    (2) Taking corrective action to address cause(s);
    (3) Performing six new tests per validation class, a minimum of two 
of which must be performed by an independent, third-party laboratory to 
validate the AEDM; and
    (4) Obtaining DOE authorization to resume use of the AEDM.
* * * * *

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
7. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.


0
8. Section 431.62 is amended by revising the definition of ``basic 
model'' to read as follows:


Sec.  431.62  Definitions concerning commercial refrigerators, freezers 
and refrigerator-freezers.

* * * * *
    Basic model means all commercial refrigeration equipment 
manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, 
having the same primary energy source, and that have essentially 
identical electrical, physical, and functional characteristics that 
affect energy consumption.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 431.72 is amended by revising the definition of ``basic 
model'' to read as follows:


Sec.  431.72  Definitions concerning commercial warm air furnaces.

* * * * *
    Basic model means all commercial warm air furnaces manufactured by 
one manufacturer within a single equipment class, that have the same 
nominal input rating and the same primary energy source (e.g. gas or 
oil) and that do not have any differing physical or functional 
characteristics that affect energy efficiency.
* * * * *

0
10. Section 431.82 is amended by revising the definition of ``basic 
model'' to read as follows:


Sec.  431.82  Definitions concerning commercial packaged boilers.

* * * * *
    Basic model means all commercial packaged boilers manufactured by 
one manufacturer within a single equipment class having the same 
primary energy source (e.g., gas or oil) and that have essentially 
identical electrical, physical and functional characteristics that 
affect energy efficiency.
* * * * *

0
11. Section 431.92 is amended by revising the definition of ``basic 
model'' to read as follows:


Sec.  431.92  Definitions concerning commercial air conditioners and 
heat pumps.

* * * * *
    Basic model includes:
    (1) Packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) or packaged terminal 
heat pump (PTHP) means all units manufactured by one manufacturer 
within a single equipment class, having the same primary energy source 
(e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same or comparable 
compressors, same or comparable heat exchangers, and same or comparable 
air moving systems that have a cooling capacity within 300 Btu/h of one 
another.
    (2) Small, large, and very large air-cooled or water-cooled 
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment means all 
units manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, 
having the same or comparably performing compressor(s), heat 
exchangers, and air moving system(s) that have a common ``nominal'' 
cooling capacity.
    (3) Single package vertical units means all units manufactured by 
one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same 
primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same 
or comparably performing compressor(s), heat exchangers, and air moving 
system(s) that have a rated cooling capacity within 1500 Btu/h of one 
another.
    (4) Computer room air conditioners means all units manufactured by 
one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same 
primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same 
or comparably

[[Page 79599]]

performing compressor(s), heat exchangers, and air moving system(s) 
that have a common ``nominal'' cooling capacity.
    (5) Variable refrigerant flow systems means all units manufactured 
by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same 
primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same 
or comparably performing compressor(s) that have a common ``nominal'' 
cooling capacity and the same heat rejection medium (e.g., air or 
water) (includes VRF water source heat pumps).
    (6) Small, large, and very large water source heat pump means all 
units manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, 
having the same primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and 
which have the same or comparable compressors, same or comparable heat 
exchangers, and same or comparable ``nominal'' capacity.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 431.102 is amended by revising the definition of ``basic 
model'' to read as follows:


Sec.  431.102  Definitions concerning commercial water heaters, hot 
water supply boilers, and unfired hot water storage tanks.

* * * * *
    Basic model means all water heaters, hot water supply boilers, or 
unfired hot water storage tanks manufactured by one manufacturer within 
a single equipment class, having the same primary energy source (e.g., 
gas or oil) and that have essentially identical electrical, physical 
and functional characteristics that affect energy efficiency.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-31211 Filed 12-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P