This document, concerning Alternative Efficiency Determination Methods, Basic Model 

Definition, and Compliance for Commercial HVAC, Refrigeration, and WH Equipment, is a 

rulemaking action issued by the Department of Energy. Though it is not intended or expected, 

should any discrepancy occur between the document posted here and the document published in 

the Federal Register, the Federal Register publication controls. This document is being made 

available through the Internet solely as a means to facilitate the public's access to this document.
1

[6450-01-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, 

air-conditioning (HVAC), water heating (WH), and refrigeration equipment. In addition, DOE is 

amending the compliance dates for the initial certification of commercial HVAC, WH, and 

refrigeration equipment.
2

DATES: Effective Dates: The amendments to 10 CFR 429.42, 429.43, 429.44, 429.70, and Part 

431 are effective [INSERT DATE 30 days AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. The amendments to 10 CFR 429.12 are effective [INSERT DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

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. E-mail: Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov; and Ms. Laura Barhydt, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, GC–32, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585. E-mail: Laura.Barhydt@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority and Background

A. Authority

Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA” or, in 

context, “the Act”) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part 
3

A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. The National Energy Conservation Policy Act 

(NECPA), Pub. L. 95-619, amended EPCA to add Part A-1 of Title III, which established an 

energy conservation program for certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317)1 The 

Department of Energy (“DOE”) is charged with implementing these provisions.

Under EPCA, this program consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing; (2) labeling; (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 

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 

 

1

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

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 
5

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 
6

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, WHs, distribution 

transformers, electric motors, and small electric motors to use AEDMs to rate their non-tested
7

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 
8

consensus reached are summarized in two documents included in the docket of this final rule and 

constitute DOE’s response to the comments on the May 2012 NOPR. The documents discuss the 

particular elements that the AEDM simulations for each equipment should address and other 

related considerations of note, including potential basic model definitions, test procedure issues, 

the treatment of certain features, and certification of these equipment. See 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=SR;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC0023. 

As required, the Working Group submitted an interim report to ASRAC on June 26,

2013, summarizing the group’s recommendations regarding AEDMs for commercial HVAC, 

WH, and refrigeration equipment. The interim report to ASRAC can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023-0046. ASRAC 

subsequently voted unanimously to approve the recommendations in the interim report for 

AEDMs. Subsequently, the Working Group submitted a final report on August 30, 2013, 

summarizing the Working Group’s recommendations for model grouping, certification 

requirements and deadlines. That report also detailed the features to be excluded from 

certification, verification, and enforcement testing as long as specific conditions were met. 

ASRAC voted unanimously to approve the recommendations in the final report. 

On October 22, 2013, the Department published in the Federal Register a Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding AEDMs, basic model definitions, and the compliance 

process for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and WH equipment (AEDM SNOPR). 78 FR 

62472. DOE proposed the Working Group’s recommendations in the AEDM SNOPR, without 
9

modification, for AEDMs, basic model definitions, and the initial compliance date for 

certification. DOE will be addressing the remaining recommendations of the Working Group 

regarding certification requirements, and for the treatment of specific features when testing, in a 

separate rulemaking or guidance document. DOE will also be addressing the AEDM proposals 

of the May 2012 NOPR for BVM, ACIM and WICFs in a separately supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking.

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

Determination Methods and Alternative Rating Methods 

On May 14-15, 2013, the Working Group held a two-day meeting at the U.S. Department 

of Energy’s headquarters in Washington, DC. Sixty-nine interested parties, including members 

of the Working Group, attended. A more detailed account of the discussions and 

recommendations can be found in the Working Group meeting transcripts, which are located at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023.

As noted above, DOE published the Working Group’s recommendations in an SNOPR 

on October 22, 2013, and received comments from 14 stakeholders including manufacturers, 

trade associations, advocacy groups, and a utility association. Table II.1 lists the entities that 

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

and the full set of comments can be found at: 

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

BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=EERE-2011-BT-TP-0024.
10

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 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)
11

While DOE appreciates the Joint Comment’s recommendation, DOE currently does not 

plan at this time to re-evaluate the AEDM regulations in two years. DOE may reconsider this 

decision depending on whether new circumstances present themselves that may merit a review of 

these regulations.

Goodman made a general recommendation that in the regulatory text pertaining to 

AEDMs it is unnecessary to state “validated AEDM” because the regulations require all AEDMs 

to be validated before a manufacturer may use an AEDM for certification purposes. (Goodman, 

No. 0086.1 at p. 2) DOE agrees with Goodman and will remove the term “validated.”

A. General Issues

1. Pre-Approval

The Working Group unanimously recommended that DOE not require pre-approval for 

AEDMs for commercial HVAC, WH, or refrigeration equipment. The SNOPR adopted this 

approach. 78 FR 62472. DOE did not receive any adverse comments on this proposal and thus

DOE is not adopting a pre-approval process for AEDMs for the aforementioned equipment.

2. Applicable Equipment

The Working Group unanimously recommended the following types of covered 

equipment be allowed to use AEDMs.

 Commercial HVAC Equipment
12

o Commercial packaged air-conditioning and heating equipment (air-cooled, watercooled, evaporatively-cooled, and water-source)

o Packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps

o Computer room air conditioners

o Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps

o Variable refrigerant flow systems

 Commercial packaged boilers

 Commercial warm-air furnaces

 Commercial WH Equipment

o Commercial electric storage water heaters

o Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired storage water heaters

o Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired instantaneous water heaters greater than or 

equal to 10 gallons

o Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired hot water supply boilers greater than or equal 

to 10 gallons

o Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired instantaneous water heaters less than 10 

gallons 

o Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired hot water supply boilers less than 10 gallons

o Commercial unfired hot water storage tanks

 Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

DOE currently allows the use of AEDMs for commercial HVAC and WH equipment. 
13

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.
14

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

Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air Cooled 2 Basic Models
15

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. 
16

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 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. 
17

DOE has modified the language in paragraph 429.70(a) to remove language that appeared 

to contradict this provision. Paragraph 429.70(a) now states that testing must be conducted in 

accordance with 429.11. Section 429.11 states that the general rule is that two units must be 

tested but that the testing requirement may be modified by another, more specific provision. 

Therefore, for equipment types permitted to use an AEDM that were not subject to the negotiated 

rulemaking, the default rule of testing two units still applies. For the equipment types that were 

subject to the negotiated rulemaking, the paragraphs directly applicable to those equipment types 

state that only one unit of each basic model must be tested. DOE also notes, as was often 

discussed during Working Group meetings, that these testing limits are absolute minimums. A 

manufacturer must ensure that its AEDM(s) accurately predict performance for the full range of 

equipment classes to which the manufacturer is applying the AEDM.

ABMA commented that existing test data for large commercial packaged, built-to-order 

boilers are based on ASME PTC-4.1 instead of the DOE test procedure. ABMA requested that 

DOE grant a blanket waiver allowing these types of commercial boilers to be rated to ASME 

PTC-4.1 instead of the DOE test procedure so that AEDMs can be developed around this 

existing data. Additionally, ABMA suggested that large commercial packaged, built-to-order 

boilers be reclassified as “industrial” boilers to help distinguish these equipment types from 

smaller, high-volume boilers. (ABMA, No. 0075 at p.1) DOE appreciates ABMA’s suggestion, 

but clarifies that each manufacturer of a large commercial packaged, built-to-order boilers must 

individually submit a petition for waiver as outlined in 10 CFR 431.401. Pursuant to the test 

procedure waiver regulations, DOE cannot issue a blanket waiver for a test procedure waiver. 

While it is outside the scope of this rulemaking to consider a petition for waiver and propose 
18

alternative methods of testing requirements for commercial packaged boilers, DOE currently has 

an open rulemaking for commercial boilers where it may address the testing issues. 

As DOE did not receive adverse comments regarding the AEDM SNOPR proposal for 

the minimum number of basic models, specified in Table II.2 through Table II.6, required to 

validate an AEDM, DOE is adopting these requirements as part of today’s final rule.

2. Tolerances

To validate the AEDM, the test results from each model required to be tested according 

to the validation requirements described in the previous section must be compared to the 

simulated results from the applicable AEDM. The Working Group recommended that for energy 

consumption metrics, the AEDM result for a model must be greater than or equal to 95 percent 

of the tested results for that same model. Similarly, for energy efficiency metrics, the AEDM 

results for a model would need to be less than or equal to 105 percent of the tested results for that 

same model. In the AEDM SNOPR, DOE proposed this one-sided 5 percent tolerance for 

AEDM validation for all commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment. 78 FR 62472, 

62476.

DOE received several comments on validation tolerances. AAON commented in support 

of the one-sided tolerances for comparing test results to the AEDM output proposed in the 

SNOPR. (AAON, No. 0082.1 at p.1) Zero Zone commented that DOE should provide tolerances 

for AEDMs, but requested DOE modify the regulatory language to state that test results used to 

validate an AEDM can be less than the energy efficiency standard or more than the energy 
19

consumption standard by the proposed 5 percent tolerance. (Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 1) DOE 

does not agree with Zero Zone. All test results used to validate an AEDM must at least meet the 

applicable energy conservation standard – Zero Zone’s approach would not ensure the applicable 

standard would be met.

Hussmann commented that although the Working Group agreed on a one-sided 5 percent

tolerance when comparing the validation test results to the AEDM output, this tolerance is only 

acceptable if a manufacturer can control the test conditions. Hussmann stated that inherent 

component tolerances, fluctuation of the internal average temperature, and fluctuation of the test 

room conditions could produce test results that vary more than 5 percent from the rating 

produced by an AEDM. (Hussmann, No.0079 at p.1) In response to Hussmann’s comment, 

DOE clarifies that validation testing refers only to the requirements manufacturers must satisfy 

to confirm the functionality of an AEDM before such AEDM can be used to produce certified 

ratings. DOE did not propose any requirements on the test labs or test process for validation 

testing. A manufacturer may conduct its own validation testing within its facilities and control 

the test conditions to the extent allowable by the applicable test procedure. Conversely, 

verification testing, which is discussed in more detail in section II.C, is testing conducted by the 

Department as a means of checking the performance of an equipment model distributed in 

commerce. Verification testing is conducted at a third-party laboratory unless extenuating 

circumstances prevent third-party testing in which case the Department may allow testing at a 

manufacturer's lab. DOE has added regulatory text to clarify this issue. DOE notes Hussmann’s 

concern that fluctuations in test conditions can produce test results that may vary more than 5
20

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 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.
21

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 
22

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 DOEinitiated 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) 
23

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.
24

DOE notes that the witness testing provisions are triggered by DOE performing 

verification testing, which ensures that certified ratings are within specified tolerances of test 

results. DOE notes that manufacturers are not required to certify these equipment types for six to 

eighteen months (depending on equipment type) plus an additional six month enforcement grace 

period; therefore, DOE will have sufficient time to adopt final witness testing provisions before 

these verification testing procedures would be triggered.

2. Verification Process

In the AEDM SNOPR, DOE proposed the Working Group’s recommended verification 

process that DOE will use to assess a unit’s performance through third-party testing. Under this 

approach, DOE will begin the verification process by selecting a single unit of a given basic 

model for testing either from retail or by obtaining a sample from the manufacturer, with a 

preference for a unit from retail. DOE will select a third-party testing laboratory at its discretion 

to test the unit selected. The lab will adhere to the requirements recommended by the Working 

Group described in section II.C.3. As discussed in section II.C.1, DOE will address the witness 

testing arrangements in a subsequent rulemaking. In all cases, the Department will be 

responsible for the logistics of arranging a witnessed test, and the laboratory is not allowed to 

communicate directly with the manufacturer. 78 FR 62472, 62476.

Further, under this process, the manufacturer will provide any additional information 

regarding test set up or testing to DOE through the certification process in pdf format. (This 
25

provision will be addressed in a separate rulemaking on commercial certification of HVAC, WH, 

and refrigeration equipment.) DOE will provide this information to the test facility as long as the 

additional instructions do not conflict with the DOE test procedure or an applicable DOE test 

procedure waiver. The test facility may not use any additional information during the testing 

process that has not been approved by DOE or shipped in the packaging of the unit. If needed, 

the test facility may request from DOE additional information on test set up, installation, or 

testing. Upon receiving a request from the test facility for additional information, DOE may hold 

and coordinate a meeting with the manufacturer and the test facility to discuss the additional 

details needed for testing. Additional instructions may be given to the test facility as agreed upon

by DOE and the manufacturer. At no time may the test facility discuss DOE verification testing 

with the manufacturer without the Department present. 78 FR 62472, 62476.

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 website; DOE will only use supplementary

information that is submitted with the certification report. DOE also notes that the 
26

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.
27

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 
28

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 
29

requirement does not preclude verification testing from occurring at an unaccredited laboratory, 

DOE generally will use an ISO 17025:2005(E) accredited lab so that any verification test results 

could be used as part of an enforcement testing sample, if necessary, to reduce redundant testing. 

Therefore, DOE is not specifying that verification testing must occur at an ISO 17025:2005(E) 

accredited lab.

Zero Zone and Hoshizaki America recommended that for verification testing, a

manufacturer’s test facilities should be the primary facility to conduct this testing (rather than a 

third-party lab), in part to reduce cost. (Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 3; Hoshizaki, no. 0087.1 at p. 

1) DOE does not agree that verification testing at a manufacturer’s 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 ISOcertified, third-party test facility or witnessed by personnel from such a facility has the potential 

to pose logistical problems. (ABMA, No. 0075.1 at p. 2) DOE did not propose to require all 

testing to be performed at an ISO-accredited, third-party test facility or witnessed by personnel 

from such a facility. As discussed in this section, DOE proposed to conduct verification testing at 

a third-party test facility but does not require that facility to be ISO-accredited.

DOE is adopting the Certification Working Group recommendation that all AEDM 

verification tests should be conducted in a third-party testing facility of DOE’s choice and 
30

commercial equipment for which there is no third-party lab capable of conducting testing may be 

tested at a manufacturer’s facility upon DOE’s request.

4. Verification Tolerances 

DOE proposed in the AEDM SNOPR that to verify the certified rating of a given model, 

the test results from a single unit test of the model will be compared to the certified rating in 

accordance with the tolerances set forth below. For energy consumption metrics, the Working 

Group recommended:

 

For energy efficiency metrics, the Working Group recommended:

 

Table II.7. Rating Tolerances

Equipment Metric Applicable Tolerance 

Commercial Packaged Boilers Combustion Efficiency 5% (0.05)

Thermal Efficiency 5% (0.05)

Commercial Water Heaters or Hot 

Water Supply Boilers

Thermal Efficiency 5% (0.05)

Standby Loss 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

5% (0.05)

Heating Season Performance 

Factor

5% (0.05)

Energy Efficiency Ratio 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 5% (0.05)

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Integrated Energy Efficiency 

Ratio

10% (0.1)

Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged 

ACs and HPs, All Cooling Capacities

Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05)

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Integrated Energy Efficiency 

Ratio

10% (0.1)

Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05)
31

Packaged ACs and HPs, All 

Capacities

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Integrated Energy Efficiency 

Ratio

10% (0.1)

Water-Source HPs, All Capacities Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05)

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Integrated Energy Efficiency 

Ratio

10% (0.1)

Single Package Vertical ACs and HPs Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05)

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05)

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and 

HPs

Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05)

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Integrated Energy Efficiency 

Ratio

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. 
32

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 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. 
33

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 
34

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 
35

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 
36

according to the requirements in Table II.8 by conducting new testing of different basic models. 

If the manufacturer has eight or more basic models with invalid ratings from the same AEDM,

then all the basic models to which the AEDM applied must be re-rated with physical testing in

accordance with the applicable sampling plans in part 429. 10 CFR 429.11. 78 FR 62472, 62478.

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 
37

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 
38

outlined for allowing manufacturers to regain the use of AEDMs. (AAON, No. 0082.1 at p.2; 

Zero Zone, No. 0077.1 at p. 3) As no adverse comments were received, DOE is adopting this 

proposed process.

III. Basic Model Definitions 

The Working Group recommended amended basic model definitions for commercial 

refrigeration equipment; commercial warm air furnaces; commercial packaged boilers; and 

commercial water heaters. Additionally, the Working Group recommended distinct basic model 

definitions for each type of commercial HVAC equipment, such as packaged terminal air 

conditioners (PTACs) and heat pumps (PTHPs); small, large, and very large air-cooled 

commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment; small, large, and very large 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)
39

DOE does not agree with Goodman’s comment. When evaluating and establishing energy 

conservation standards, DOE divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of

energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify a different standard. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Currently, DOE has established a number of different equipment classes for 

commercial HVAC, WH, and refrigeration equipment in the course of the individual standards 

rulemakings by considering the type of energy use, capacity, or other performance-related 

features of the equipment. Each equipment class has a different standard that applies. Thus, 

DOE does not believe manufacturers are able to group models into basic models that span 

equipment classes and may have different standards that apply. Consequently, DOE is clarifying 

that a basic model cannot extend across multiple equipment classes. In today’s rule, DOE is 

adopting the basic model definitions as they were proposed in the AEDM SNOPR.

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. 
40

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 

six-month grace period following each certification date during which DOE will not pursue civil 

penalties for certification violations. The Working Group emphasized that a grace period would 
41

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.
42

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 

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 website: www.gc.doe.gov. DOE reviewed the test procedures 
43

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

the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003.

DOE reviewed the AEDM requirements being adopted under the provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. As 

discussed in more detail below, DOE found that because the provisions of this rule will not result 

in increased testing and/or reporting burden for manufacturers already eligible to use an AEDM 

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

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

Today’s final rule, which adopts voluntary methods for certifying compliance in lieu of 

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

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

Furthermore, the requirements for validation of an AEDM adopted in today’s final rule do not 

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

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

Rule”), and would relax tolerances that tested equipment are required to meet in order to 

substantiate the AEDM.

DOE has also clarified in today’s final rule how it intends to exercise its authority to verify

the performance of equipment certified using an AEDM. DOE negotiated the process with 

industry, resulting in the requirements that are being adopted in today’s final rule. Because 

testing conducted to verify AEDM performance would be DOE-initiated and conducted testing 
44

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 
45

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 
46

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.

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 
47

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 
48

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. Pub. L. No. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed 

regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 

year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish 

a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national 

economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an 

effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal 

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. 
49

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 
50

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. 

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.
51

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 to day's final rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

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

Reporting and rccordkecping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 431 

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

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 24, 2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efliciency 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

52 
53

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, [INSERT DATE 6 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER];

(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, [INSERT 

DATE 9 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER];
54

(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, [INSERT DATE 12 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER];

(4) Variable refrigerant flow air conditioners and heat pumps, [INSERT DATE 15 MONTHS 

AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER];

(5) Small, large, or very large air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, and water-source 

commercial air conditioning and heating equipment, single package vertical units, computer 

room air conditioners, commercial packaged boilers with input capacities greater than 2.5 million 

Btu/h, and all other types of commercial refrigeration equipment except those specified in 

paragraph (i)(3) of this section, [INSERT DATE 18 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

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 
55

(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 ̅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 ̅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, ̅is the sample mean; n is the number of samples; and xi is the ith sample; Or,
56

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

divided by 0.90, where:

 ̅ 

 

√ 

 

And ̅is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is the number of samples; and 

t0.95 is the t statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from 

Appendix 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 refrigeratorfreezer 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.
57

(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, ̅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 ̅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, 
58

(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, ̅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 ̅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
59

(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:
60

 ̅ 

 

 

∑ 

 

 

and, ̅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 ̅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, ̅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 ̅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).
61

(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 
62

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 
63

(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
64

(A) Commercial HVAC 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

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

Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air Cooled 2 Basic Models

Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled 2 Basic Models

(B) Commercial water heater validation classes:

Validation Class Minimum Number of Distinct 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

(C) Commercial packaged boilers validation classes:

Validation Class Minimum Number of Distinct 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 2 Basic Models
65

Boilers

(D) Commercial furnace validation classes:

Validation Class Minimum Number of Distinct Models 

that Must be Tested

Gas-fired Furnaces 2 Basic Models

Oil-fired Furnaces 2 Basic Models

(E) Commercial refrigeration equipment validation classes:

Validation Class* Minimum Number of Distinct 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. 

(3) AEDM Records Retention Requirements

(i) 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:

(A) The AEDM, including the mathematical model, the engineering or 

statistical analysis, and/or computer simulation or modeling that is the basis of the AEDM;

(B) 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

(C) Product information and AEDM calculations for each basic model to 

which the AEDM has been applied.
66

(4) Additional AEDM Requirements

(i) If requested by the Department and at DOE’s discretion, the manufacturer 

must perform at least one of the following:

(A) Conduct simulations before representatives of the Department to 

predict the performance of particular basic models of the product to which the AEDM was 

applied;

(B) Provide analyses of previous simulations conducted by the 

manufacturer; or

(C) 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 
67

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

(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.
68

(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 5% (0.05)

Thermal Efficiency 5% (0.05)

Commercial Water Heaters or Hot 

Water Supply Boilers

Thermal Efficiency 5% (0.05)

Standby Loss 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

5% (0.05)

Heating Season Performance 

Factor

5% (0.05)

Energy Efficiency Ratio 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 5% (0.05)

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Integrated Energy Efficiency 

Ratio

10% (0.1)

Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged 

ACs and HPs, All Cooling Capacities

Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05)

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Integrated Energy Efficiency 

Ratio

10% (0.1)

Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and 

Packaged ACs and HPs, All 

Capacities

Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05)

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Integrated Energy Efficiency 

Ratio

10% (0.1)

Water-Source HPs, All Capacities Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05)

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Integrated Energy Efficiency 

Ratio

10% (0.1)

Single Package Vertical ACs and HPs Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05)

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05)

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and 

HPs

Energy Efficiency Ratio 5% (0.05)

Coefficient of Performance 5% (0.05)

Integrated Energy Efficiency 

Ratio

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)
69

(vii) Invalid Rating: If, following discussions with the manufacturer and a retest 

where applicable, DOE determines that the verification testing was conducted appropriately in 

accordance with the DOE test procedure, DOE will issue a determination that the rating for the 

model is invalid. The manufacturer must elect, within 15 days, one of the following to be 

completed in a time frame specified by DOE, which is never to exceed 180 days:

(A) Re-rate and re-certify the model based on DOE’s test data alone; or

(B) Discontinue the model through the certification process; or

(C) Conduct additional testing and re-rate and re-certify the basic model 

based on all test data collected, including DOE’s test data.

(viii) AEDM Use: 

(A) If DOE has determined that a manufacturer made invalid ratings on 

two or more models rated using the same AEDM within a 24 month period, the manufacturer

must take the action listed in the table corresponding to the number of invalid certified ratings. 

The twenty-four month period begins with a DOE determination that a rating is invalid through 

the process outlined above. Additional invalid ratings apply for the purposes of determining the 

appropriate consequences if the subsequent determination(s) is based on selection of a unit for 

testing within the twenty-four month period (i.e., subsequent determinations need not be made 

within 24 months).

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 ratings as appropriate.
70

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.

*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. 

**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 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.

* * * * *
71

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.
72

* * * * *

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 air-cooled or water-cooled commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment means all units manufactured by one manufacturer 

within a single equipment class, having the same or comparably performing 
73

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 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.

* * * * *

13. Section 431.102 is amended by revising the definition of “basic model” to read as follows:
74

§ 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.

* * * * *