57842 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; 

the NRC is adopting the following 

amendments to 10 CFR part 70. 

PART 70—DOMESTIC LICENSING OF 

SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 70 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Atomic Energy Act secs. 51, 53, 

161, 182, 183, 193, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2071, 

2073, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2243, 2273, 2282, 

2297f); secs. 201, 202, 204, 206, 211 (42 

U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5845, 5846, 5851); 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act sec. 

1704 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note); Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109–58, 119 Stat. 194 

(2005). 

Sections 70.1(c) and 70.20a (b) also issued 

under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97–425, 96 Stat. 

2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). 

Section 70.21(g) also issued under Atomic 

Energy Act sec. 122 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 

70.31 also issued under Atomic Energy Act 

sec. 57(d) (42 U.S.C. 2077(d)). Sections 70.36 

and 70.44 also issued under Atomic Energy 

Act sec. 184 (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 70.81 

also issued under Atomic Energy Act secs. 

186, 187 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237). Section 

70.82 also issued under Atomic Energy Act 

sec. 108 (42 U.S.C. 2138). 

■ 2. In § 70.50, revise the first sentence 

of the introductory text of paragraph 

(c)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 70.50 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Written report. Each licensee that 

makes a report required by paragraph (a) 

or (b) of this section shall submit a 

written follow-up report within 30 days 

of the initial report. * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 70.74, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 70.74 Additional reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Written reports. Each licensee that 

makes a report required by paragraph 

(a)(1) of this section shall submit a 

written follow-up report within 60 days 

of the initial report. The written report 

must be sent to the NRC’s Document 

Control Desk, using an appropriate 

method listed in § 70.5(a), with a copy 

to the appropriate NRC regional office 

listed in appendix D to part 20 of this 

chapter. The reports must include the 

information as described in 

§ 70.50(c)(2)(i) through (iv). 

Appendix A to Part 70—[Amended] 

■ 4. Amend appendix A to part 70 by: 

■ a. In the introductory text to 

paragraph (a), removing the number 

‘‘30’’ and adding, in its place, the 

number ‘‘60;’’ 

■ b. Removing paragraph (a)(5); 

■ c. In the introductory text to 

paragraph (b), removing the number 

‘‘30’’ and adding, in its place, the 

number ‘‘60;’’ and 

■ d. Removing paragraph (b)(5). 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day 

of September, 2014. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Mark A. Satorius, 

Executive Director for Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2014–22865 Filed 9–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 

[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 Water Heating 

Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is proposing to revise its 

regulations governing DOE verification 

testing of industrial equipment covered 

by EPCA rated with alternative 

efficiency determination methods 

(AEDMs). 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. 

DATES: Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) no later 

than October 27, 2014. See section IV, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, 

interested persons may submit 

comments, identified by docket number 

EERE–2011–BT–TP–0024 and/or RIN 

1904–AC46, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Email: AED-ARM-2011-TP-0024@

ee.doe.gov Include EERE–2011–BT–TP– 

0024 and/or RIN 1904–AC46 in the 

subject line of the message. Submit 

electronic comments in WordPerfect, 

Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file 

format, and avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption. 

• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585- 0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., 6th Floor, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section IV of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendee lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-TP0024. This Web page contains a link to 

the docket for this notice on the 

www.regulations.gov site. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page contains 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for information on how 

to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For information on how to submit a 

comment or review other public 

comments and the docket, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Email: 

Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov; and Ms. 

Laura Barhydt, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Forrestal Building, GC–32, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. Email: 

Laura.Barhydt@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority and Background 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 57843 

1For editorial reasons, Parts B (consumer 

products) and C (commercial equipment) of Title III 

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

respectively, in the United States Code. 

2Walk-in coolers and freezers, which are treated 

as a separate equipment type by statute, were not 

part of this analysis. 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Discussion of Specific Revisions to DOE’s 

Regulations for Alternative Efficiency 

Determination Methods Verification 

Testing 

III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

IV. Public Participation 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’ or, in context, ‘‘the Act’’) sets 

forth a variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. Part A of 

Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides 

for the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. The National Energy 

Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), 

Public Law 95–619, amended EPCA to 

add Part A–1 of Title III, which 

established an energy conservation 

program for certain industrial 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) 1 The 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is 

charged with implementing these 

provisions. 

Under EPCA, this program consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) 

labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation 

standards; and (4) certification and 

enforcement procedures. The Federal 

Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily 

responsible for labeling of consumer 

products, and DOE implements the 

remainder of the program. The testing 

requirements consist of test procedures 

that manufacturers of covered products 

and equipment must use (1) as the basis 

for certifying to DOE that their products 

comply with the applicable energy 

conservation standards adopted under 

EPCA, and (2) for making 

representations about the efficiency of 

those products and equipment. 

Similarly, DOE must use these test 

requirements to determine whether the 

products comply with any relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. For 

certain consumer products and 

industrial equipment, DOE’s existing 

testing regulations allow the use of an 

alternative efficiency determination 

method (AEDM) or an alternative rating 

method (ARM), in lieu of actual testing, 

to simulate the energy consumption or 

efficiency of certain basic models of 

covered products under DOE’s test 

procedure conditions. 

In addition, EPCA (through 42 U.S.C. 

6299–6305 and 6316) authorizes DOE to 

enforce compliance with the energy and 

water conservation standards (all nonproduct specific references herein 

referring to energy use and consumption 

include water use and consumption; all 

references to energy efficiency include 

water efficiency) established for certain 

consumer products and commercial 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6299–6305 

(consumer products), 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. 

Background 

On March 7, 2011, DOE published a 

final rule in the Federal Register that, 

among other things, 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 12422. This rule, 

among other things, 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 on 

commercial heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning (HVAC), water heating 

(WH), and refrigeration equipment 

manufacturers by the March 2011 Final 

Rule, 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. DOE subsequently 

extended the compliance date for 

certification by an additional 12 months 

to December 31, 2013, for these types of 

equipment (December 2012 Final Rule) 

to allow, among other things, the 

Department to explore the negotiated 

rulemaking process for this equipment. 

77 FR 76825 (Dec. 31, 2012). 

Earlier, in the summer of 2012, DOE 

had an independent convener evaluate 

the likelihood of success of using the 

negotiated rulemaking process to 

develop a consensus-based approach 

with respect to the regulation of 

commercial HVAC, WH, and 

refrigeration equipment by analyzing 

the feasibility of developing certification 

requirements for these equipment 

types.2 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 (5 U.S.C. 561–570) 

because the interviewed parties believed 

the negotiated rulemaking was superior 

to notice and comment rulemaking for 

certification-related issues. For 

additional details of the report, see 

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 

HVAC, WH, and commercial 

refrigeration equipment. A notice of 

intent to form the Commercial 

Certification Working Group was 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 12, 2013, to which DOE received 

35 nominations. 78 FR 15653. On April 

16, 2013, the Department published a 

notice of open meeting that announced 

the first meeting and listed the 22 

nominations 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57844 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

utility representative, and third-party 

laboratory representatives. 

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. AEDMs are computer 

modeling or mathematical tools that 

predict the performance of non-tested 

basic models. They are derived from 

mathematical and engineering 

principles that govern the energy 

efficiency and energy consumption 

characteristics of a type of covered 

equipment. AEDMs, when properly 

developed, can provide a relatively 

straightforward 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 the 

compliance of their basic models by 

using the projected energy use or energy 

efficiency results derived from these 

simulation models in lieu of testing. 

The Working Group discussed the 

particular elements that the AEDM 

simulations should address for each 

equipment type and other related 

considerations of note, including 

validation requirements for AEDMs, 

DOE verification of models rated with 

an AEDM, and the consequences for 

misuse of the AEDM construct. 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-BTNOC-0023-0046. 

ASRAC subsequently voted 

unanimously to approve the 

recommendations in the interim report 

for AEDMs. Later, the Working Group 

submitted a final report on August 30, 

2013, summarizing the Working Group’s 

recommendations for model grouping, 

certification requirements and 

deadlines, and 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 (hereafter referred to as the 

October 2013 AEDM SNOPR) regarding 

alternative efficiency determination 

methods, basic model definitions, and 

certification compliance dates for 

commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and 

WH equipment. 78 FR 62472. The 

October 2013 AEDM SNOPR also 

proposed a process for DOE to conduct 

verification testing to ensure that 

models rated with an AEDM perform to 

their certified ratings. As part of the 

verification testing process, the Working 

Group recommended that a 

manufacturer may elect to have a DOE 

representative and a manufacturer’s 

representative on site for the initial test 

of up to 10 percent of all basic models 

that they have rated with an AEDM. 

However, commenters raised concerns 

over the Department’s proposal allowing 

manufacturers to witness verification 

tests. In reviewing their comments, DOE 

determined 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 decided not to 

finalize any regulation regarding 

witness testing when issuing the 

December 31, 2013 Final Rule on AEDM 

requirements for commercial HVAC, 

refrigeration, and WH equipment. See 

78 FR 79579, 79585 for additional 

details. 

DOE is proposing regulations to allow 

manufacturers to witness the test set-up 

as part of the AEDM verification 

process. The Department’s intent is to 

establish a clear process while ensuring 

that the regulatory text reflects the 

recommendations of the Working 

Group. 

II. Discussion of Specific Revisions to 

DOE’s Regulations for Alternative 

Efficiency Determination Methods 

Verification Testing 

Between April 30, 2013, and August 

28, 2013, the Commercial Certification 

Working Group held nine meetings in 

Washington, DC in which sixty-nine 

interested parties participated. More 

details of the discussions and 

recommendations can be found in the 

Commercial Certification Working 

Group meeting transcripts, which are 

located at http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC0023. DOE published the Working 

Group’s recommendations regarding 

AEDM validation and verification in the 

October 2013 AEDM SNOPR (78 FR 

62472) and then subsequently finalized 

most of these recommendations, 

excluding the provisions regarding 

witness testing, in a Final Rule. (78 FR 

79579). 

The Working Group negotiated the 

process that DOE would use, through 

third-party testing, to verify a given 

basic model’s certified rating when 

established by an AEDM; DOE codified 

this process in the December 31, 2013 

AEDM final rule. 78 FR 79579. Under 

this approach, DOE will first select a 

single unit of a given basic model for 

testing either from retail or, if not 

available from retail, by obtaining a 

sample from the manufacturer. DOE will 

then test the unit at an independent, 

third-party testing facility of the 

Department’s choosing, unless no thirdparty laboratory is capable of testing the 

equipment, in which case it may be 

tested at a manufacturer’s facility. For 

some equipment, the manufacturer may 

provide additional information to DOE 

for test set-up or testing by uploading a 

Portable Document Format (pdf) file as 

part of their certification report. DOE 

will provide this information to the test 

facility as long as the additional 

instructions do not conflict with the 

DOE test procedure or 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 a representative of the test 

facility discuss DOE verification testing 

with the manufacturer without a 

representative of the Department 

present. 10 CFR 429.70(c). 

With respect to the AEDM verification 

process, the industry representatives 

within the Working Group expressed 

their desire for increased manufacturer 

involvement in this process. ([Docket 

No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023], 

Department of Energy, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 0040 pp. 19–39; 59–65; 

69–91; 103–105; 113; 117–119) 

Manufacturers expressed their collective 

belief that the complexity of some of 

this equipment will require 

manufacturer involvement in testing setup even if such involvement is not 

necessary for field installation. ([Docket 

No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023], 

Department of Energy, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 0040 pp. 15–39; 76–91; 

98–99; 103–105; 117–126) As a 

compromise, the Working Group 

negotiated a solution that would allow 

manufacturers to elect to be present 

during the set-up for AEDM verification 

testing for 10% of their equipment 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 57845 

certified to DOE as compliant based 

upon an AEDM. Further, for equipment 

that is verification tested without a 

manufacturer representative witnessing 

test set-up that then fails to perform 

within the specified tolerances, DOE 

would automatically allow a re-test with 

the manufacturer present for set-up. 

In the October 2013 AEDM SNOPR, 

DOE proposed to allow commercial 

HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers to elect to 

have a manufacturer’s representative onsite for the initial verification test for up 

to 10 percent of the manufacturer’s 

certified basic models rated with an 

AEDM. Based on the comments DOE 

received regarding the October 2013 

AEDM SNOPR proposal, DOE 

determined that the proposed witness 

testing provisions required clarification. 

In response to the October 2013 

AEDM SNOPR proposal, Hussmann 

noted that CRE manufacturers have 

concerns about the expertise of thirdparty test facilities to operate the CRE 

units under test or conduct the DOE test 

procedure. (Hussmann, No. 0079.1 at p. 

2) At the May 28, 2013 Working Group 

negotiations meeting, DOE stated its 

view that third-party test facilities 

should have sufficient expertise in 

conducting the relevant test and that the 

Department’s test procedures are 

already written in a manner that they 

should be able to be administered 

without the Department’s or a 

manufacturer’s supervision. ([Docket 

No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023], 

Department of Energy, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 0041 pp. 34 and 36) 

However, DOE appreciates that 

commercial HVAC, WH and 

refrigeration equipment may have 

inherent complexities that justify 

additional manufacturer participation in 

the set-up of such a unit for verification 

testing. Thus, the Department agreed 

with the negotiated solution to this 

issue and is proposing regulations that 

allow such participation. 

In order to clarify its October 2013 

AEDM SNOPR proposal, the 

Department is revising the proposed 

regulatory text to state explicitly that 

manufacturers may elect to witness the 

test set-up. DOE did not intend in its 

October 2013 AEDM SNOPR proposal to 

allow manufacturers to witness the 

actual verification testing (e.g., the 

period during which the test facility is 

collecting data). As described in greater 

detail, adopting this clarification would 

better align with the Working Group’s 

recommendation on this issue. 

During the May 15, 2014 and May 28, 

2014 Working Group meetings, 

manufacturer discussions of verification 

testing indicated that set-up may be the 

most problematic part of a verification 

test and manufacturers would be more 

confident with test results if they had a 

representative present at the set-up. 

AHRI opined that if a manufacturer was 

able to confirm that a unit was set up 

properly, then the manufacturer could 

determine if the test results were 

accurate or anomalous by reviewing the 

test data. ([Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0023], AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 0040 pp. 104–105) 

Daikin suggested DOE adopt regulations 

to allow manufacturers to witness the 

set-up of a unit under test and clarified 

that the manufacturer should not 

witness actual testing of the unit. 

([Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC– 

0023], Daikin, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 0040 pp. 59 and 62–63) 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 

expressed the position that if equipment 

requires factory installation then the 

personnel that would ordinarily install 

the unit should install the unit at the 

test site. ([Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0023], NEEA, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 0040 pp. 78–79) 

Hoshizaki remarked that the test set-up 

process can be lengthy, typically taking 

two days for commercial refrigeration 

equipment, and that there are many 

things that can go wrong. Hoshizaki 

added that being present during the test 

set-up allows manufacturers to address 

questions quickly and accurately. 

Hoshizaki also stated that they would at 

least like to be allowed to inspect the 

unit visually that arrives at the test lab 

to ensure it is in good condition because 

of the risk of damage in shipping and to 

be able to address any questions that 

arise. ([Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0023], Hoshizaki, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 0040 pp. 84–85, 113, 

and 125) Hussman and Goodman both 

commented that slight variation in test 

set-up, like air flow settings or air 

sampler location, could impact test 

results. ([Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0023], Hussman, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 0040 p. 20; [Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023], Goodman, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0040 p. 

22) In response to Hussman’s and 

Goodman’s comments, Lochinvar 

supported having a manufacturer’s 

representative present at the test facility 

to address these concerns. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023], Lochinvar, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0040 p. 

23) Hussman stated that manufacturers 

should be given the option to be present 

at the third-party test facility and make 

sure the set-up is correct. ([Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023], Hussman, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 0041 p. 

19) Rheem commented that to conduct 

assessment tests efficiently then the 

manufacturer should at least be present 

for the set-up and start-up of the unit. 

([Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–NOC– 

0023], Rheem, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 0041 pp. 41–42) 

Based on comments made by the 

manufacturers during the negotiation 

public meetings, DOE’s understanding 

is that the intent of the Working Group 

was to allow manufacturers to be on-site 

solely for the set-up of the verification 

test. In today’s notice, DOE is proposing 

regulatory text that allows 

manufacturers to elect, as part of the 

certification of that basic model, to have 

the opportunity to witness the test setup. A manufacturer may elect to witness 

the test set-up for the initial verification 

test for up to 10 percent of the 

manufacturer’s certified basic models 

rated through the use of an AEDM. That 

would mean in those instances where 

DOE conducts a verification test on a 

basic model that a manufacturer elected 

to witness, DOE would alert the 

manufacturer to the basic model’s 

selection for verification testing and 

provide the manufacturer with the 

opportunity to witness the set-up of the 

unit prior to test. 

DOE is also clarifying that the 

assessment or enforcement testing of 

variable refrigerant flow (VRF) systems 

is governed by the rules in 10 CFR 

431.96(f). These systems would not be 

subject to the requirements proposed in 

today’s rulemaking. While DOE’s 

regulations proposed in the October 

2013 AEDM SNOPR may have been 

unclear in this regard, the public 

meeting transcripts show that VRF 

systems should be excluded from the 

verification witness testing proposal. 

Mitsubishi requested that DOE add a 

clause to the presentation summarizing 

the Working Group’s proposals that 

stated that VRF systems should follow 

the procedures already codified in the 

CFR. ([Docket No. EERE–2013–BT– 

NOC–0023], Mitsubishi, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 0040 p. 117) DOE agreed 

to that request. ([Docket No. EERE– 

2013–BT–NOC–0023], Department of 

Energy, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

0040 pp. 117) 

One interested party commented on 

the potential for logistical problems in 

arranging to have a manufacturer’s 

representative on-site for verification 

testing. Zero Zone commented 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 at p. 3) To 

address Zero Zone’s concern, the 

Department is proposing the following 

scenarios for notifying the manufacturer 

if DOE conducts AEDM verification 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57846 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

testing on a basic model for which a 

manufacturer elected to witness the test 

set-up. If the unit is obtained through 

retail channels, DOE proposes to notify 

the manufacturer of the basic model’s 

selection for testing and provide the 

manufacturer the option to be present 

for test set-up once the unit has arrived 

at the test laboratory and is scheduled 

to be tested. If the manufacturer does 

not respond within five calendar days, 

the manufacturer would waive the 

option to be present for test set-up, and 

DOE would then proceed with the test 

set-up without a manufacturer’s 

representative present. If DOE has 

obtained a unit directly from the 

manufacturer, under today’s proposed 

approach, DOE would provide the 

manufacturer with the option to be 

present for test set-up at the time the 

unit is ordered. DOE would then specify 

the date (not less than five calendar 

days) by which the manufacturer would 

notify DOE whether the manufacturer 

chooses to have a representative 

present. A failure to notify DOE by the 

date specified would be treated by DOE 

as a waiver of the manufacturer’s option 

to be present for test set-up, and DOE 

would then proceed with the test set-up 

without a manufacturer’s representative 

present. DOE also notes that any time a 

manufacturer’s representative requests 

to be on-site for the test set-up, a DOE 

representative would also be present at 

the third-party test facility. 

Additionally, 10 CFR 429.70(c)(5)(iv)(A) 

would continue to apply prior to, during 

and after the manufacturer’s 

representative is on site; that is, the 

manufacturer’s representative cannot 

communicate with a third-party test 

facility regarding verification testing 

without the DOE representative present. 

In response to the October 2013 

SNOPR, Hoshizaki 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 suggested DOE collaborate 

with existing bodies that test annually 

like the EPA’s ENERGY STAR program. 

(Hoshizaki, No. 0087 at p. 1) The 

Department reads Hoshizaki’s comment 

as expressing concern with the number 

of basic models that would be eligible 

for witness testing. In today’s notice, 

DOE proposes to maintain that 

manufacturers may select up to 10 

percent of its certified basic models 

rated with an AEDM because this 

threshold was negotiated as an 

acceptable amount by participants in 

the Working Group. DOE agreed that 

this level was not overly burdensome 

for the Department while increasing 

manufacturer involvement in the 

verification process. DOE notes that 

manufacturers are not required to select 

10 percent of eligible basic models and 

that manufacturers can decline to attend 

the test set-up when notified. DOE also 

notes that the 10 percent is a limit on 

how many basic models a manufacturer 

may pre-select for witnessing test setup; it is not an indication that DOE will 

test 10 percent of that manufacturer’s 

basic models. 

The Department is also proposing a 

framework to address a situation where 

a manufacturer selects more than 10 

percent of its certified basic models 

rated with an AEDM. At the time DOE 

selects a basic model for testing, DOE 

will review the certification 

submissions from the manufacturer to 

determine if the manufacturer has 

indicated that it wants to be present for 

testing of the selected basic model. DOE 

will also verify that the manufacturer 

has not selected more than 10 percent 

of the manufacturer’s certified basic 

models rated with an AEDM. If DOE 

discovers that the manufacturer has 

exceeded the 10 percent limit, DOE will 

notify the manufacturer of this fact and 

deny its request to be present for the 

testing of the selected basic model. The 

manufacturer must update its 

certification submission to ensure it has 

selected no more than 10 percent of the 

manufacturer’s certified basic models 

rated with an AEDM to witness the test 

set-up for any future selections. 

In the October 2013 AEDM SNOPR, 

DOE proposed that the 10 percent 

requirement would apply to all of the 

basic models certified by a given 

manufacturer using an AEDM no matter 

how many AEDMs a manufacturer has 

used to develop its ratings. DOE 

proposed that it would perform testing 

without a manufacturer’s representative 

present for each basic model DOE 

selects for assessment testing unless 

either: (1) The manufacturer has elected 

to have the opportunity to witness the 

test set-up as part of its allocated 10 

percent; or (2) the manufacturer requires 

the basic model to be started only by a 

factory-trained installer per the 

installation manual instructions. For the 

basic models for which a manufacturer 

requested to witness the initial 

verification test set-up, the 

manufacturer would be unable to 

request that the unit be retested. The 

results from this initial test would be 

used to make a definitive determination 

regarding the validity of the basic 

model’s rating. For those basic models 

that are initially tested without the 

manufacturer present for test set-up, a 

manufacturer would be automatically 

eligible to request a retest for those basic 

models where the initial results indicate 

a potential rating issue. See 78 FR 

62472, 62476. DOE is retaining these 

proposals. 

The Department requests comment on 

its proposed regulations to allow a 

manufacturer’s representative on-site to 

witness the test set-up for the initial 

verification test for up to 10 percent of 

the manufacturer’s certified basic 

models rated with an AEDM. 

DOE is also proposing to amend its 

regulations to provide that information 

necessary for testing of certain products 

(such as the override code for controls 

that would otherwise prevent the 

completion of testing in accordance 

with the applicable DOE test procedure) 

must accompany the certification 

submission for a basic model of those 

products. DOE notes that, under this 

proposal, failure to provide this 

information would preclude a 

manufacturer being present for testing of 

a basic model of its product. If, in the 

course of testing a selected basic model, 

DOE discovers that the necessary 

information for completing the test has 

not been provided, DOE will contact the 

manufacturer to obtain that information 

and complete the testing. However, as 

DOE is proposing to amend its 

regulations to make clear the 

information required to be submitted as 

part of a certification report includes the 

equipment-specific, supplemental 

information necessary to operate the 

basic model, failure to provide such 

information would be a prohibited act 

as described at 10 CFR 429.102(a)(1), 

subject to the maximum civil penalty 

described at 10 CFR 429.120. 

Finally, DOE is proposing to clarify its 

treatment of private model numbers 

under 10 CFR 429.7(b)(3). In the 

negotiated rulemaking, the working 

group agreed that, in limited 

circumstances, manufacturers should be 

able to identify when disclosure of an 

individual model number would reveal 

confidential business information and 

that, in those instances, DOE should 

treat the individual model number as 

confidential. It has recently come to 

DOE’s attention that, as drafted, the 

language at 429.7 may permit a much 

broader range of model numbers to be 

identified as ‘‘private’’ than had been 

intended, which would result in many 

more models not being published in 

DOE’s public Compliance Certification 

database. Specifically, the current 

language could be interpreted to permit 

a manufacturer to mark as ‘‘private’’ any 

model number that is not available in 

public marketing materials. 

Accordingly, DOE is proposing to revise 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 57847 

the regulatory text to better reflect the 

negotiated position of the working 

group. DOE requests comment regarding 

this proposed revision. 

III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that test procedure 

rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires the 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (RFA) for any rule 

that by law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: http://

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/

documents/eo13272.pdf 

DOE reviewed the proposed 

requirements in today’s SNOPR 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 SNOPR will not result 

in increased testing and/or reporting 

burden. Accordingly, manufacturers 

will not experience increased financial 

burden as a result of this proposed 

rulemaking. 

The SNOPR proposes to clarify how 

DOE intends to exercise its authority to 

validate AEDM performance and verify 

the performance of commercial HVAC, 

WH, and refrigeration equipment 

certified using an AEDM. Specifically, 

DOE is proposing to allow 

representatives of commercial HVAC, 

WH, and refrigeration equipment 

manufacturers to witness the test set-up 

for DOE-initiated verification testing for 

up to 10 percent of a manufacturer’s 

basic models certified to the Department 

and that are rated with an AEDM. The 

selection of basic models and the 

decision to witness the test set-up for 

verification testing is at the discretion of 

the manufacturer. Thus, because these 

proposed changes would apply 

irrespective of a manufacturer’s size and 

would provide these entities with added 

flexibility to witness the testing set-up 

of their equipment, DOE certifies that 

this proposed rulemaking, if 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of the covered 

equipment addressed in today’s SNOPR 

must certify to DOE that their 

equipment comply with any applicable 

energy conservation standards. In 

certifying compliance, manufacturers 

must test their equipment according to 

the applicable DOE test procedures for 

the given equipment type, including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures, or use the appropriate 

AEDMs to develop the certified ratings 

of the basic models. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including the equipment at issue in this 

proposed rule. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 

2011)). The collection-of-information 

requirement for these certification and 

recordkeeping provisions is subject to 

review and approval by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This 

requirement has been approved by OMB 

under OMB Control Number 1910–1400. 

Public reporting burden for the 

certification is estimated to average 20 

hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

DOE has determined that this 

proposed 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 SNOPR is 

proposing changes to DOE’s verification 

testing regulations 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. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this SNOPR and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) No further action is required by 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57848 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this SNOPR 

meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)-(b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

www.gc.doe.gov. DOE examined today’s 

SNOPR 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. Accordingly, these 

requirements do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

SNOPR would not have any impact on 

the autonomy or integrity of the family 

as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this proposed 

regulation would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

the SNOPR under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that: 

(1) Is a significant regulatory action 

under Executive Order 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

The SNOPR would allow 

manufacturers of commercial HVAC, 

WH, and refrigeration equipment the 

opportunity to witness the set-up DOE 

verification testing for up to 10 percent 

of basic models rated with an AEDM 

and 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. 

L. 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 proposed rule to 

amend regulations relating to the 

verification test of commercial HVAC, 

WH, and refrigeration equipment rated 

with an AEDM does not propose the use 

of any commercial standards. 

IV. Public Participation 

Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding the proposed rule 

no later than the date provided at the 

beginning of this notice. Comments, 

data, and information submitted to 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 57849 

DOE’s email address for this rulemaking 

should be provided in WordPerfect, 

Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Interested parties should avoid 

the use of special characters or any form 

of encryption, and wherever possible, 

comments should include the electronic 

signature of the author. Absent an 

electronic signature, comments 

submitted electronically must be 

followed and authenticated by 

submitting a signed original paper 

document to the address provided at the 

beginning of this notice. Comments, 

data, and information submitted to DOE 

via mail or hand delivery/courier 

should include one signed original 

paper copy. No telefacsimiles (faxes) 

will be accepted. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit two copies: one copy of 

the document including all the 

information believed to be confidential 

and one copy of the document with the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination as to the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include (1) a 

description of the items, (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry, (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources, (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality, (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure, (6) a date 

upon which such information might 

lose its confidential nature due to the 

passage of time, and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this supplemental notice 

of proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

18, 2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

429 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. Amend § 429.7 by removing the 

words ‘‘it is’’ from the introductory text 

of paragraph (b) and by revising 

paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 429.7 Confidentiality. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Disclosure of the individual, 

manufacturer model number would 

reveal confidential business information 

as described at 10 CFR 1004.11—in 

which case, under these limited 

circumstances, a manufacturer may 

identify the individual manufacturer 

model number as a private model 

number on a certification report 

submitted pursuant to § 429.12(b)(6). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 429.41 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.41 Commercial warm air furnaces. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report may include 

supplemental testing instructions in 

PDF format. If necessary to run a valid 

test, the equipment-specific, 

supplemental information must include 

any additional testing and testing set up 

instructions (e.g., specific operational or 

control codes or settings), which would 

be necessary to operate the basic model 

under the required conditions specified 

by the relevant test procedure. A 

manufacturer may also include with a 

certification report other supplementary 

items in PDF format (e.g., manuals) for 

DOE consideration in performing testing 

under subpart C of this part. 

■ 4. Section 429.42 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.42 Commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report must include 

supplemental information submitted in 

PDF format. The equipment-specific, 

supplemental information must include 

any additional testing and testing set up 

instructions (e.g., charging instructions) 

for the basic model; identification of all 

special features that were included in 

rating the basic model; and all other 

information (e.g., any specific settings or 

controls) necessary to operate the basic 

model under the required conditions 

specified by the relevant test procedure. 

A manufacturer may also include with 

a certification report other 

supplementary items in PDF format 

(e.g., manuals) for DOE consideration in 

performing testing under subpart C of 

this part. 

■ 5. Section 429.43 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating, 

air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report must include 

supplemental information submitted in 

PDF format. The equipment-specific, 

supplemental information must include 

any additional testing and testing set up 

instructions (e.g., charging instructions) 

for the basic model; identification of all 

special features that were included in 

rating the basic model; and all other 

information (e.g. operational codes or 

component settings) necessary to 

operate the basic model under the 

required conditions specified by the 

relevant test procedure. A manufacturer 

may also include with a certification 

report other supplementary items in 

PDF format (e.g., manuals) for DOE 

consideration in performing testing 

under subpart C of this part. The 

equipment-specific, supplemental 

information must include at least the 

following: 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 429.44 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.44 Commercial water heating 

equipment. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report may include 

supplemental testing instructions in 

PDF format. If necessary to run a valid 

test, the equipment-specific, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
57850 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 187 / Friday, September 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

supplemental information must include 

any additional testing and testing set up 

instructions (e.g., whether a bypass loop 

was used for testing) for the basic model 

and all other information (e.g. 

operational codes or overrides for the 

control settings) necessary to operate the 

basic model under the required 

conditions specified by the relevant test 

procedure. A manufacturer may also 

include with a certification report other 

supplementary items in PDF format (e.g. 

manuals) for DOE consideration in 

performing testing under subpart C of 

this part. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 429.60 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.60 Commercial packaged boilers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report may include 

supplemental testing instructions in 

PDF format. If necessary to run a valid 

test, the equipment-specific, 

supplemental information must include 

any additional testing and testing set up 

instructions (e.g., specific operational or 

control codes or settings), which would 

be necessary to operate the basic model 

under the required conditions specified 

by the relevant test procedure. A 

manufacturer may also include with a 

certification report other supplementary 

items in PDF format (e.g. manuals) for 

DOE consideration in performing testing 

under subpart C of this part. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 429.70 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(5)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.70 Alternative methods for 

determining energy efficiency and energy 

use. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(iii) Manufacturer participation. (A) 

Except when testing variable refrigerant 

flow systems (which are governed by 

the rules found at § 431.96(f)), testing 

will be completed without a 

manufacturer representative on-site. In 

limited instances further described in 

paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(B) of this section, a 

manufacturer and DOE representative 

may be present to witness the test setup. 

(B) A manufacturer’s representative 

may request to be on-site to witness the 

test set-up if: 

(1) The installation manual for the 

basic model specifically requires it to be 

started only by a factory-trained 

installer; or 

(2) The manufacturer has elected, as 

part of the certification of that basic 

model, to have the opportunity to 

witness the test set-up. A manufacturer 

may elect to witness the test set-up for 

the initial verification test for no more 

than 10 percent of the manufacturer’s 

certified basic models rated with an 

AEDM. The 10-percent limit applies to 

all of the eligible basic models certified 

by a given manufacturer no matter how 

many AEDMs a manufacturer has used 

to develop its ratings. A manufacturer 

must identify the basic models it wishes 

to witness as part of its certification 

report(s) prior to the basic model being 

selected for verification testing. 

(3) In those instances in which a 

manufacturer has not provided the 

required information as specified in 

§ 429.12(b)(13) for a given basic model 

that has been rated and certified as 

compliant with the applicable 

standards, a manufacturer is precluded 

from witnessing the testing set up for 

that basic model. 

(C) A DOE representative will be 

present for the test set-up in all cases 

where a manufacturer representative 

requests to be on-site for the test set-up. 

The manufacturer’s representative 

cannot communicate with a lab 

representative outside of the DOE 

representative’s presence. 

(D) If DOE has obtained a unit for test 

through retail channels that meets either 

of the conditions in paragraph 

(c)(5)(iii)(B) of this section, DOE will 

notify the manufacturer of the basic 

model’s selection for testing and that the 

manufacturer may have a representative 

present for the test set-up. If the 

manufacturer does not respond within 

five calendar days of receipt of that 

notification, the manufacturer waives 

the option to be present for test set-up, 

and DOE will proceed with the test setup without a manufacturer’s 

representative present. 

(E) If DOE has obtained a unit for test 

directly from the manufacturer that 

meets either of the conditions in 

paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(B) of this section, 

DOE will notify the manufacturer of the 

option to be present for the test set-up 

at the time the unit is purchased. DOE 

will specify the date (not less than five 

calendar days) by which the 

manufacturer must notify DOE whether 

a manufacturer’s representative will be 

present. If the manufacturer does not 

notify DOE by the date specified, the 

manufacturer waives the option to be 

present for the test set-up, and DOE will 

proceed with the test set-up without a 

manufacturer’s representative present. 

(F) DOE will review the certification 

submissions from the manufacturer that 

were on file as of the date DOE 

purchased a basic model (under 

paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(D) of this section) or 

the date DOE notifies the manufacturer 

that the basic model has been selected 

for testing (under paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(E) 

of this section) to determine if the 

manufacturer has indicated that it 

intends to witness the test set-up of the 

selected basic model. DOE will also 

verify that the manufacturer has not 

selected more than 10 percent of the 

manufacturer’s certified basic models 

rated with an AEDM. If DOE discovers 

that the manufacturer has selected more 

than 10 percent, DOE will notify the 

manufacturer of this fact and deny its 

request to be present for the test set-up 

of the selected basic model. The 

manufacturer must update its 

certification submission to ensure it has 

selected no more than 10 percent of the 

manufacturer’s certified basic models 

rated with an AEDM to be present at setup for future selections. 

(G) If DOE determines, pursuant to 

paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section, that 

the model should be tested at the 

manufacturer’s facility, a DOE 

representative will be present on site to 

observe the test set-up and testing with 

the manufacturer’s representative. All 

testing will be conducted at DOE’s 

direction, which may include DOEcontracted personnel from a third-party 

lab, as well as the manufacturer’s 

technicians. 

(H) As further explained in paragraph 

(c)(5)(v)(B) of this section, if a 

manufacturer’s representative is present 

for the initial test set-up for any reason, 

the manufacturer forfeits any 

opportunity to request a retest of the 

basic model. Furthermore, if the 

manufacturer requests to be on-site for 

test set-up pursuant to paragraph 

(c)(5)(iii)(B) of this section but is not 

present on site, the manufacturer forfeits 

any opportunity to request a retest of the 

basic model. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–22890 Filed 9–25–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN 

COMMISSION 

18 CFR Part 806 

Review and Approval of Projects 

AGENCY: Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and public hearing. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

proposed rules that would amend the 

regulations of the Susquehanna River 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS