Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 79579 

originate from an area designated as free 

of C. funebrana in accordance with 

§ 319.56–5. 

(2) Area of low pest prevalence and 

pest management. Under this mitigation 

measure, the NPPO of Spain must visit 

and visually inspect registered places of 

production during the growing season 

and harvest period for signs of C. 

funebrana to demonstrate that the 

places of production have a low 

prevalence of C. funebrana and to verify 

that the growers are complying with the 

requirements of this paragraph. The 

NPPO of Spain must also sample and 

visually inspect a quantity of fruit 

specified in the workplan. Trapping 

must also be conducted in the places of 

production to demonstrate that the 

places of production have a low 

prevalence of C. funebrana. If the 

prevalence of any life stage of C. 

funebrana rises above levels specified in 

the bilateral workplan, remedial 

measures approved jointly by APHIS 

and the NPPO of Spain must be 

implemented. The NPPO of Spain must 

keep records of the placement of traps, 

trap visits, trap counts, and treatments 

for each registered place of production 

and make the records available to 

APHIS upon request. 

(g) C. capitata. (1) Trapping must be 

conducted in the places of production to 

demonstrate that those places of 

production have a low prevalence of C. 

capitata. Specific trapping requirements 

are included in the bilateral workplan. 

If the prevalence rises above levels 

specified in the bilateral workplan, 

remedial measures approved jointly by 

APHIS and the NPPO of Spain must be 

implemented. The NPPO of Spain must 

keep records of the placement of traps, 

trap visits, trap counts, and treatments 

for each registered place of production 

and make the records available to 

APHIS upon request. 

(2) All apricots for export from 

continental Spain to the United States 

must be treated for C. capitata in 

accordance with part 305 of this 

chapter. 

(h) Post-harvest procedures. The 

apricots must be safeguarded by a pestproof screen, plastic tarpaulin, or by 

some other pest-proof barrier while in 

transit to the packinghouse and while 

awaiting packing. They must be packed 

within 24 hours of harvest into pestproof cartons or containers or covered 

with pest-proof mesh or a plastic 

tarpaulin for transport to the United 

States. These safeguards must remain 

intact until arrival of the consignment in 

the United States. 

(i) Packinghouse requirements. 

Packing of apricots for export to the 

United States must be conducted within 

a packinghouse registered and approved 

by the NPPO of Spain. Packinghouses in 

which apricots are packed for export to 

the United States must be able to 

exclude quarantine pests. All openings 

to the outside of the packinghouse must 

be covered by screening with openings 

of not more than 1.6 mm or by some 

other barrier that prevents pests from 

entering. The packinghouse must have 

double self-closing doors at the entrance 

to the facility and at the interior 

entrance to the area where the apricots 

are to be packed. During the time 

registered packinghouses are in use for 

packing apricots for export to the United 

States in accordance with the 

requirements of this section, packing 

lines must be cleared of all other articles 

and plant debris prior to packing such 

apricots, and such apricots must be 

stored in a room separate from any other 

fruits or plant articles while the apricots 

are at the packinghouse. 

(j) Phytosanitary inspection. (1) A 

biometric sample of apricot fruit jointly 

agreed upon by APHIS and the NPPO of 

Spain must be inspected in Spain by the 

NPPO of Spain following post-harvest 

processing. The sample must be visually 

inspected for the quarantine pests A. 

erythrostoma, C. funebrana, and M. 

fructigena. A portion of the fruit must be 

cut open and inspected for C. capitata. 

If any of these quarantine pests are 

found, the entire consignment of apricot 

fruit will be prohibited from 

importation into the United States. 

(2) Fruit presented for inspection at a 

U.S. port of entry must be identified in 

the shipping documents accompanying 

each lot of fruit that specify the place of 

production in which the fruit was 

produced and the packinghouse in 

which the fruit was processed. This 

identification must be maintained until 

the fruit is released for entry into the 

United States. 

(k) Phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of apricot fruit must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate issued by the NPPO of Spain 

that states that the fruit has been treated 

for C. capitata in accordance with 7 CFR 

part 305 and includes an additional 

declaration that the fruit in the 

consignment was inspected and found 

free from A. erythrostoma, C. capitata, 

C. funebrana, and M. fructigena. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0402) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of 

December 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31189 Filed 12–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

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, airconditioning (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: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79580 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1For editorial reasons, Parts B (consumer 

products) and C (commercial equipment) of Title III 

of EPCA were re-designated as parts A and A–1, 

respectively, in the United States Code. 

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. 

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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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/#!docket

Browser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=SR;D=EERE2013-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/#!document

Detail;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. Sixtynine 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-NOC0023. 

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%252

BPR%252BN%252BO%

252BSR%252BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=

EERE-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 Association.

ABMA ..... Industry 

Trade 

Group 

Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute.

AHRI ....... Industry 

Trade 

Group 

American Council for 

an Energy Efficient 

Economy, Appliance Standards 

Awareness 

Project, 

Earthjustice, and 

Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance.

ACEEE, 

ASAP, 

Earthjustice, 

NEEA 

(Joint 

Comment).

Advocacy 

Group 

Florida Natural Gas 

Association.

FNGA ..... Utility Association 

Goodman Global, 

Inc.

Goodman Manufacturer 

Hoshizaki America, 

Inc.

Hoshizaki 

America.

Manufacturer 

Hussmann Corporation.Hussmann.Manufacturer 

Lennox International, 

Inc.

Lennox ... Manufacturer 

Lochinvar, LLC ........ Lochinvar Manufacturer 

Mitsubishi Electric 

US, Inc.

MEUS ..... Manufacturer 

Modine Manufacturing Company.Modine ... Manufacturer 

Traulsen Refrigeration.Traulsen Manufacturer 

Zero Zone, Inc. ........ Zero Zone Manufacturer 

DOE received general comments on 

the proposals in the AEDM SNOPR. 

Goodman, MEUS, and AHRI expressed 

support for the AEDM SNOPR. 

(Goodman, No. 0086.1 at p.1; MEUS, 

No. 0083.1 at p.1; AHRI, No.0076.1 at 

p.1) MEUS stated that the proposals in 

the AEDM SNOPR were representative 

of the Working Group’s agreements. 

(MEUS, No. 0083.1 at p.1) The Joint 

Comment supported the AEDM SNOPR 

to the extent that it represented the 

consensus agreements reached by the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79582 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 preapproval 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 

Æ Commercial packaged airconditioning and heating 

equipment (air-cooled, watercooled, evaporatively-cooled, and 

water-source) 

Æ Packaged terminal air conditioners 

and heat pumps 

Æ Computer room air conditioners 

Æ Single package vertical air 

conditioners and heat pumps 

Æ Variable refrigerant flow systems 

• Commercial packaged boilers 

• Commercial warm-air furnaces 

• Commercial WH Equipment 

Æ Commercial electric storage water 

heaters 

Æ Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired 

storage water heaters 

Æ Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired 

instantaneous water heaters greater 

than or equal to 10 gallons 

Æ Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired 

hot water supply boilers greater 

than or equal to 10 gallons 

Æ Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired 

instantaneous water heaters less 

than 10 gallons 

Æ Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired 

hot water supply boilers less than 

10 gallons 

Æ 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 thirdparty testing facility, whose test result is 

directly compared to the result for that 

model from the AEDM. 

TABLE II.2—COMMERCIAL HVAC VALIDATION CLASSES

Validation class 

Minimum number of 

basic models that 

must be tested per 

AEDM 

Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged Air Conditioners (ACs) and Heat Pumps (HPs) less than 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity 

(3-Phase).

2 Basic Models. 

Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity and Less than 

760,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity.

2 Basic Models. 

Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All Cooling Capacities ............................................................................ 2 Basic Models. 

Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All Capacities .............................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

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 Flow ACs and HPs .............................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Water-Cooled, Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and HPs ........................................................................................................ 2 Basic Models. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 79583 

TABLE II.2—COMMERCIAL HVAC VALIDATION CLASSES—Continued 

Validation class 

Minimum number of 

basic models that 

must be tested per 

AEDM 

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

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

TABLE II.3—COMMERCIAL WATER HEATERS VALIDATION CLASSES

Validation class 

Minimum number of 

basic models that 

must be tested 

Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers Less than 10 Gallons ..................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers Greater than or Equal to 10 Gallons ............................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers Less than 10 Gallons ....................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers Greater than or Equal to 10 Gallons ............................................... 2 Basic Models. 

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

Validation class 

Minimum number of 

basic models that 

must be tested 

Gas-fired, Hot Water Only Commercial Packaged Boilers ..................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Gas-fired, Steam Only Commercial Packaged Boilers ........................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Gas-fired Hot Water/Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers ................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Oil-fired, Hot Water Only Commercial Packaged Boilers ....................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Oil-fired, Steam Only Commercial Packaged Boilers ............................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Oil-fired Hot Water/Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers ...................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

TABLE II.5—COMMERCIAL FURNACES VALIDATION CLASSES

Validation class 

Minimum number of 

basic models that 

must be tested 

Gas-fired Furnaces .................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Oil-fired Furnaces .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

TABLE II.6—COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT VALIDATION CLASSES

Validation class* 

Minimum number of 

basic models 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 Refrigerators .............................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79584 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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-toorder 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 onesided 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 onesided 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 thirdparty 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79586 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 thirdparty 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 ISOaccredited, 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 ISOaccredited. 

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 thirdparty 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 μ 

(1 + Applicable Tolerance) 

For energy efficiency metrics, the 

Working Group recommended: 

Test Result ≥ Certified Rating μ 

(1 Ø Applicable Tolerance) 

TABLE II.7—RATING TOLERANCES

Equipment Metric Applicable 

tolerance 

Commercial Packaged Boilers .................................................... Combustion Efficiency ...............................................................

Thermal Efficiency .....................................................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

Commercial Water Heaters or Hot Water Supply Boilers .......... Thermal Efficiency .....................................................................

Standby Loss .............................................................................

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Unfired Storage Tanks ................................................................ R-Value ...................................................................................... 10% (0.1) 

Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs less than 65,000 

Btu/h Cooling Capacity (3-Phase).

Seasonal Energy-Efficiency Ratio .............................................

Heating Season Performance Factor ........................................

Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs greater than or 

equal to 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity and Less than 

760,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity.

Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All Cooling 

Capacities.

Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All 

Capacities.

Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Water-Source HPs, All Capacities .............................................. Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Single Package Vertical ACs and HPs ....................................... Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs .............................................. Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and HPs .................................... Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Computer Room Air Conditioners ............................................... Sensible Coefficient of Performance ......................................... 5% (0.05) 

Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces ................................................ Thermal Efficiency ..................................................................... 5% (0.05) 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment ......................................... Daily Energy Consumption ........................................................ 5% (0.05) 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79588 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 rerated with physical testing in 

accordance with the applicable 

sampling plans in part 429. 10 CFR 

429.11. 78 FR 62472, 62478. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 

period† 

Required manufacturer actions 

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. 

† 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 aircooled commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment; 

small, large, and very large watercooled, 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, 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79590 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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 published in 

the Federal 

Register 

Equipment type 

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 sixmonth 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 DOEinitiated 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79592 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 429.12 is amended by 

revising paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 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 aircooled, water-cooled, evaporativelycooled, 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. 

■ 3. Section 429.42 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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: 

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: 

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: 

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: 

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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULESER31DE13.157</GPH> ER31DE13.158</GPH> ER31DE13.159</GPH> ER31DE13.160</GPH>
79594 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 429.43 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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: 

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: 

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: 

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: 

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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 429.44 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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: 

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: 

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: 

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: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULESER31DE13.161</GPH> ER31DE13.162</GPH> ER31DE13.163</GPH> ER31DE13.164</GPH> ER31DE13.165</GPH> ER31DE13.166</GPH> ER31DE13.167</GPH> ER31DE13.168</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 429.70 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 §§ 429.14 

through 429.54 may not distribute any 

basic model of such equipment in 

commerce unless the manufacturer has 

determined the energy efficiency of the 

basic model, either from testing the 

basic model in conjunction with DOE’s 

certification sampling plans and 

statistics or from applying an alternative 

method for determining energy 

efficiency or energy use (AEDM) to the 

basic model, in accordance with the 

requirements of this section. In 

instances where a manufacturer has 

tested a basic model, the manufacturer 

may not knowingly use an AEDM to 

overrate the efficiency (or underrate the 

consumption) of the model. 

(b) Testing. Testing for each covered 

product or covered equipment must be 

done in accordance with the sampling 

plan provisions established in § 429.11 

and the testing procedures in parts 430 

and 431 of this chapter. 

(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. 

Validation class 

Minimum number of 

distinct models that 

must be tested per 

AEDM 

Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged Air Conditioners (ACs) and Heat Pumps (HPs) less than 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity 

(3-Phase).

2 Basic Models. 

(A) Commercial HVAC validation classes 

Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity and Less than 

760,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity.

2 Basic Models. 

Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All Cooling Capacities ............................................................................ 2 Basic Models. 

Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All Capacities .............................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

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 Flow ACs and HPs .............................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Water-Cooled, Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and HPs ........................................................................................................ 2 Basic Models. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79596 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Validation class 

Minimum number of 

distinct models that 

must be tested per 

AEDM 

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

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

(B) Commercial water heater validation classes 

Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers Less than 10 Gallons ..................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers Greater than or Equal to 10 Gallons ............................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers Less than 10 Gallons ....................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers Greater than or Equal to 10 Gallons ............................................... 2 Basic Models. 

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 Packaged Boilers ..................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Gas-fired, Steam Only Commercial Packaged Boilers ........................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Gas-fired Hot Water/Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers ................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Oil-fired, Hot Water Only Commercial Packaged Boilers ....................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Oil-fired, Steam Only Commercial Packaged Boilers ............................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Oil-fired Hot Water/Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers ...................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

(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 Refrigerators .............................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Remote Condensing Closed Freezers .................................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

1The 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 

§ 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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 × (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 × (1 ¥ the applicable tolerance). 

Equipment Metric Applicable 

tolerance 

Commercial Packaged Boilers .................................................... Combustion Efficiency ...............................................................

Thermal Efficiency .....................................................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

Commercial Water Heaters or Hot Water Supply Boilers .......... Thermal Efficiency .....................................................................

Standby Loss .............................................................................

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Unfired Storage Tanks ................................................................ R-Value ...................................................................................... 10% (0.1) 

Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs less than 65,000 

Btu/h.

Seasonal Energy-Efficiency Ratio ............................................. 5% (0.05) 

Cooling Capacity (3-Phase) ........................................................ Heating Season Performance Factor ........................................

Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs greater than or 

equal to 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity and Less than 

760,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity.

Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All Cooling 

Capacities.

Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All 

Capacities.

Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Water-Source HPs, All Capacities .............................................. Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Single Package Vertical ACs and HPs ....................................... Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs .............................................. Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and HPs .................................... Energy Efficiency Ratio ..............................................................

Coefficient of Performance ........................................................

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Computer Room Air Conditioners ............................................... Sensible Coefficient of Performance ......................................... 5% (0.05) 

Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces ................................................ Thermal Efficiency ..................................................................... 5% (0.05) 

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment ......................................... Daily Energy Consumption ........................................................ 5% (0.05) 

(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 rerate 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). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
79598 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Number of invalid 

certified ratings 

from the same 

AEDM 2 within a 

rolling 24 month 

period 3

Required manufacturer actions 

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. 

1A 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. 2The ‘‘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. 3The 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 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 8. Section 431.62 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 431.72 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 431.82 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 431.92 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 aircooled 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 431.102 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0023; Directorate 

Identifier 96–CE–072–AD; Amendment 

39–17688; AD 99–01–05 R1] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Various 

Aircraft Equipped With Wing Lift Struts 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an 

airworthiness directive (AD) that 

published in the Federal Register. That 

AD applies to certain aircraft equipped 

with wing lift struts. The list of affected 

airplanes in the Applicability section is 

incorrect. Several Piper Aircraft, Inc. 

Model PA–18 airplanes were 

inadvertently omitted from the final 

rule; however, those models were 

included in the notice of proposed 

rulemaking. This document corrects that 

error. In all other respects, the original 

document remains the same. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 14, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating it in Docket No. FAA– 

2013–00023; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

Piper Aircraft, Inc. airplanes, contact: 

Gregory ‘‘Keith’’ Noles, Aerospace 

Engineer, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft 

Certification Office, 1701 Columbia 

Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; 

phone: (404) 474–5551; fax: (404) 474– 

5606; email: gregory.noles@faa.gov. 

For FS 2000 Corp, FS 2001 Corp, FS 

2002 Corporation, and FS 2003 

Corporation airplanes, contact: Jeff 

Morfitt, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057; phone: (425) 917– 

6405; fax: (245) 917–6590; email: 

jeff.morfitt@faa.gov. 

For LAVIA ARGENTINA S.A. 

(LAVIASA) airplanes, contact: S.M. 

Nagarajan, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, 

Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 

telephone: (816) 329–4145; fax: (816) 

329–4090; email: sarjapur.nagarajan@

faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Airworthiness Directive 99–01–05 R1, 

Amendment 39–17688 (78 FR 73997, 

December 10, 2013), will require 

repetitively inspecting the wing lift 

struts for corrosion; repetitively 

inspecting the wing lift strut forks for 

cracks; replacing any corroded wing lift 

strut; replacing any cracked wing lift 

strut fork; repetitively replacing the 

wing lift strut forks at a specified time 

for certain airplanes; and incorporating 

a ‘‘NO STEP’’ placard on the wing lift 

strut. 

As published, table 1 of paragraph (c) 

in the Applicability section is incorrect. 

Several Piper Aircraft, Inc. Model PA– 

18 airplanes were inadvertently omitted 

from the final rule; however, those 

models were included in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3356). 

No other part of the preamble or 

regulatory information has been 

changed; therefore, only the changed 

portion of the final rule is being 

published in the Federal Register. 

The effective date of this AD remains 

January 14, 2013. 

Correction of Regulatory Text 

§ 39.13 [Corrected] 

In the Federal Register of December 

10, 2013, on page 73999, in Table 1 to 

Paragraph (c) of this AD—Applicability, 

paragraph (c) of AD 99–01–05 R1; 

Amendment 39–17688 is corrected as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (C) OF THIS AD—APPLICABILITY

Type certificate holder Aircraft model Serial numbers 

FS 2000 Corp .................................................... L–14 .................................................................. All. 

FS 2001 Corp .................................................... J5A (Army L–4F), J5A–80, J5B (Army L–4G), 

J5C, AE–1, and HE–1.

All. 

FS 2002 Corporation ......................................... PA–14 ............................................................... 14–1 through 14–523. 

FS 2003 Corporation ......................................... PA–12 and PA–12S ......................................... 12–1 through 12–4036. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES