Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Notices 47677 

Type of Review: An extension of an 

existing information collection. 

Respondents/Affected Public: State, 

Local, or Tribal Governments. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 34. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 850. 

Abstract: The Credit Enhancement for 

Charter School Facilities Program and 

its virtually identical antecedent 

program, the Charter Schools Facilities 

Financing Demonstration Program, 

authorized as part of the reauthorization 

of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act, to have a statutory 

mandate for an annual report 

(respectively, Section 5227 and Section 

10227). This reporting is a requirement 

in order to obtain or retain benefits 

according to section 5527 part b of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965. ED will use the information 

through this report to monitor and 

evaluate competitive grants. These 

grants are made to private, non-profits; 

governmental entities; and consortia of 

these organizations. These organizations 

will use the funds to leverage private 

capital to help charter schools construct, 

acquire, and renovate school facilities. 

Dated: July 31, 2013. 

Tomakie Washington, 

Acting Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and 

Records Management Services, Office of 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18880 Filed 8–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Basic Energy Sciences Advisory 

Committee 

AGENCY: Office of Science, Department 

of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of renewal. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 

14(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, App. 2, and Section 

102–3.65(a), Title 41, Code of Federal 

Regulations, and following consultation 

with the Committee Management 

Secretariat, General Services 

Administration, notice is hereby given 

that the Basic Energy Sciences Advisory 

Committee’s (BESAC) charter will be 

renewed for a two-year period. 

The Committee will provide advice 

and recommendations to the Office of 

Science on the Basic Energy Sciences 

program. 

Additionally, the renewal of the 

BESAC has been determined to be 

essential to conduct business of the 

Department of Energy’s and to be the in 

the public interest in connection with 

the performance of duties imposed upon 

the Department of Energy, by law and 

agreement. The Committee will 

continue to operate in accordance with 

the provisions of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act, the rules and 

regulations in implementation of that 

Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Harriet Kung at (301) 903–3081. 

Issued in Washington DC on July 29, 2013. 

Carol A. Matthews, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18802 Filed 8–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–BC–0036] 

DOE Activities and Methodology for 

Assessing Compliance With Building 

Energy Codes 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information (RFI). 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is soliciting public input 

on the methodology developed by DOE 

to assist in assessing compliance with 

building energy codes at the local, state, 

and national levels. To provide 

technical assistance for states 

implementing building energy codes, 

DOE developed and piloted a 

compliance methodology across several 

U.S. states. The experiences of those 

participating in these pilot studies have 

led to a number of recommendations 

and potential changes to the DOE 

methodology. DOE is interested in 

receiving broad public input on not only 

this methodology, but also on 

fundamental assumptions and 

approaches to measuring compliance 

with building energy codes. This notice 

identifies several areas in which DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

information; however, any input and 

suggestions considered relevant to the 

topic are welcome. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

September 5, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments 

electronically. However, comments may 

be submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Email to the following address: ST

CodeCompliance2013BC0036@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2013–BT–BC–0036 in the subject 

line of the message. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Request for Information for 

Methodology for Energy Code 

Compliance Evaluation, Docket No. 

EERE–2013–BT–BC–0036, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Phone 

(202) 586–2945. Please submit one 

signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, 6th Floor, 

950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, 

DC 20024. Phone: (202) 586–2945. 

Please submit one signed paper original. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number. 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index. A link to the docket Web 

page can be found at http://

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=

EERE–2013–BT–BC–0036. The 

Regulations.gov Web site contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Kym Carey, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE– 

2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585, Telephone: 

(202) 287–1775, Email: 

Kym.Carey@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Kavita Vaidyanathan, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, Forrestal Building, 

Mailstop GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Ave, SW., Washington, DC, 20585, 

Telephone: (202) 586–0669, Email: 

Kavita.Vaidyanathan@hq.doe.gov. 

For information on how to submit or 

review public comments or view the 

docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Building Technologies Office, 

Mailstop EE–2J, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945, Email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Statutory Background 

II. Evaluating Compliance with Building 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
47678 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Notices 

Energy Codes 

III. Request for Information and Comments 

I. Statutory Background 

DOE is directed to provide technical 

assistance to states to support 

implementation of state residential and 

commercial building energy efficiency 

codes (42 U.S.C. 6833(d)). 

II. Evaluating Compliance with 

Building Energy Codes 

Building energy codes are commonly 

utilized to establish minimum levels of 

energy conservation in residential and 

commercial buildings, and greater 

compliance with code requirements 

ensures the intended efficiency 

measures are achieved. To assist states 

in their efforts, DOE developed a 

methodology that states could use to 

evaluate and measure compliance (See 

http://www.energycodes.gov/sites/ 

default/files/documents/ 

MeasuringStateCompliance.pdf). At the 

highest level, the evaluation 

methodology for code compliance 

entails 4 steps: 

(1) Identify building sample 

(2) Gather input from local 

jurisdictions 

(3) Evaluate via plan review and onsite inspections 

(4) Compile results and generate 

compliance rates. 

For each of these four steps, DOE 

provided guidance, as well as 

supplemental tools and resources (See 

http://www.energycodes.gov/ 

compliance/evaluation). In 2010 and 

2011, the methodology was tested in a 

series of eight pilot studies funded by 

DOE. Individual studies were conducted 

in the states of Georgia, Iowa, 

Massachusetts, Montana, Utah, and 

Wisconsin. The remaining two studies 

were conducted in a group of Northwest 

states (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and 

Montana). The studies were conducted 

over a 10-month period, with final 

reports from individual pilots submitted 

in June 2011. A number of 

recommendations for changes to the 

methodology resulted from these pilot 

studies, as well as were expressed by 

additional states conducting their own 

compliance evaluation activities. 

One common observation from states 

that participated in the pilot studies was 

that the methodology can be costly and 

time-consuming. More specifically, the 

methodology required significant effort 

to secure a valid building sample, 

numerous visits to each building, and 

extensive verification of individual code 

requirements. Revisions suggested to 

DOE in order to reduce state cost and 

time burden include the following 

examples: 

(1) Make the building sample 

selection process easier and/or less time 

consuming. 

(2) Reduce the number of site visits 

that must be made to each building. 

(3) Reduce the number of checklist 

items that must be evaluated at each 

building. 

(4) Reduce the number of buildings 

evaluated. 

However, each of these could have a 

potentially negative impact on the 

statistical significance of the results of 

the code compliance evaluation. 

Supporting energy code compliance is 

core to the DOE mission; providing 

technical assistance to states to 

implement building energy codes (42 

U.S.C. 6833), including verifying and 

increasing compliance to ensure 

consumer benefits. As such, DOE seeks 

stakeholder input on fundamental 

questions related to how compliance 

should be defined, evaluated, and 

implemented, and has issued this 

Request for Information (RFI). This RFI 

seeks public input not only on the DOE 

methodology, but also on a number of 

questions related to general energy code 

compliance. DOE will consider these 

comments as it seeks to revise its 

approach to energy code compliance 

evaluation and guide future 

programmatic efforts. 

Summary of the DOE Compliance 

Evaluation Methodology 

DOE has developed a number of 

resources for states to use to evaluate 

compliance with building energy codes. 

These resources may be found at the 

DOE Building Energy Codes Program 

Compliance Evaluation page (See http:// 

www.energycodes.gov/compliance/ 

evaluation). A Step-By-Step Companion 

Guide (See http://www.energycodes.gov/ 

sites/default/files/documents/ 

Step_by_Step_Companion_Guide.pdf) to 

the compliance process summarizes the 

steps in effective evaluation. The 

document Measuring State Energy Code 

Compliance (‘‘methodology report’’) 

(See http://www.energycodes.gov/sites/ 

default/files/documents/ 

MeasuringStateCompliance.pdf), 

contains a detailed methodology for 

states to determine an overall state 

metric for building energy code 

compliance. Interested parties should 

consult the full text of the methodology 

report, however, for convenience the 

key points of the methodology are listed 

below with the relevant section 

numbers from that document noted in 

parentheses: 

• Evaluate buildings using secondparty evaluators for self-assessments (a 

second-party evaluation would be 

performed by local code officials) (4.1) 

• Evaluate buildings using third-party 

evaluators for formal evaluations (a 

third-party evaluation would be 

performed by a party that has no direct 

relationship to the buildings being 

evaluated) (4.1) 

• Evaluate buildings using the DOEdeveloped checklists for the 2009 IECC 

(residential) and ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2007 (commercial)(For checklists, 

see http://www.energycodes.gov/ 

compliance/evaluation/checklists). 

Æ States which have adopted the 2009 

IECC for commercial buildings should 

use the ASHRAE 90.1–2007 checklists 

to determine compliance. (2.1) 

Æ Low-rise multifamily buildings are 

to be evaluated against the 2009 IECC 

Chapter 4 requirements instead of the 

commercial code. (2.3) 

• Generate a statistically valid sample 

across four distinct market segments 

(populations): new residential 

construction, new commercial 

construction, residential renovations, 

and commercial renovations. 

Æ A statistically valid sample size 

was determined to be approximately 44 

buildings in each population. (5.2.1) 

Æ The compliance results for the four 

populations should not be combined for 

the overall state compliance score and 

rather should be reported separately. 

(5.1) 

Æ It is recommended that a formal 

evaluation of a given population be 

completed within a 1-year time period. 

(5.1) 

Æ New commercial buildings are 

further separated into the following size 

strata definitions: (5.2.1.2, 5.2.1.3) 

■ Small: 1–2 stories, single zone, up 

to 25,000 ft2 in conditioned floor area 

■ Medium: Larger than 25,000 ft2 and 

up to 60,000 ft2

■ Large: Larger than 60,000 ft2 and 

up to 250,000 ft2

■ X-Large: Larger than 250,000 ft2

and up to 400,000 ft2

■ XX-Large: Larger than 400,000 ft2. 

Æ The sample size derivation for 

commercial buildings assumes that 44 

samples will be drawn from small, 

medium, and large, but this sample size 

may increase for states with X-large and 

XX-large buildings, and may decrease 

for states with less new commercial 

construction. (5.2.2.1) 

Æ For all four categories, if a state has 

multiple climate zones, distribute the 

sample across climate zones based on 

the average number of building starts 

over the previous 3 years. (5.2.2.2) 

Æ Vary the building samples to 

include a mix of use type, size, 

complexity, etc. For example, include 

mixed use residential/commercial 

buildings; townhouses and multifamily 

structures three stories or less above 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Notices 47679 

grade (residential); and vary sample by 

building type, size, ownership, etc. 

(commercial). (5.1, 5.2) 

To assist states in generating a 

statistically significant sample, DOE 

provided the State Sample Generator 

tool (See https://energycode.pnl.gov/ 

SampleGen). This tool contains building 

permit data for the years 2008 through 

2010 from McGraw Hill Dodge 

(‘‘Dodge’’) construction dataset for new 

commercial construction and 

renovations (See http:// 

www.dodgeprojects.construction.com), 

and building permit data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau (‘‘Census’’) for new 

residential construction (See http:// 

www.census.gov/construction/nrc). 

Residential renovation data is not 

included in the Sample Generator, as 

there is no known significant 

nationwide source of data available. The 

sample generator can be used to identify 

which counties should be sampled 

within each climate zone within a 

particular state, and in what proportion 

to generate statistically significant 

samples for each market segment 

population (i.e., new residential 

construction, new commercial 

construction, and commercial 

renovations). Note that if no commercial 

renovations permits were identified in a 

state, for example, then no commercial 

renovation sample can be determined 

using the Sample Generator tool. 

Examples of the use of the State Sample 

Generator may be found in Section 

5.2.2.2 of the methodology report. 

The methodology report describes the 

structure of the compliance evaluation 

checklists. Residential and commercial 

checklist items are each assigned to one 

of three tiers in an effort to emphasize 

the most important code requirements. 

Each tier is given a different weight in 

determining the overall building metric. 

Tier 1 requirements are worth 3 points. 

Tier 2 requirements are worth 2 points. 

Tier 3 requirements are worth 1 point. 

(5.3.2) 

The methodology report also explains 

that while the checklists are based on 

the prescriptive requirements found in 

the designated codes and standards, the 

checklists can also be used for buildings 

that demonstrated compliance using a 

trade-off approach or whole-building 

performance approach, as long as the 

appropriate documentation is available 

at the time of plan review and 

inspection. (6.1) The checklist items are 

grouped into sections corresponding to 

the phase of construction where the 

checklist item is typically inspected. 

While it is not explicitly stated in the 

methodology, a single building is 

ideally used to complete a compliance 

evaluation checklist. However, the 

methodology also allows for multiple 

buildings to represent a single 

evaluation by compiling partial 

checklists for similar buildings into a 

single representative building. Different 

buildings can be used for different 

phases of construction; this is referred 

to as the ‘‘construction phases 

approach’’ in the methodology. (6.3) 

The ‘‘primary’’ building approach can 

be used as an alternative to evaluate 

observable checklist items, with a 

separate (but similar) building used for 

items that were not observable in the 

primary building (e.g., due to timing of 

the evaluation within the construction 

process). (6.4) 

• If multiple buildings are used, they 

must be from the same jurisdiction and 

type. 

• If multiple commercial buildings 

are used, they must also fall in the same 

size stratum. 

The checklists can also be used to 

gather data during different stages of 

construction on different buildings that 

have the same general attributes in order 

to yield a resulting single composite 

building in lieu of evaluating a single 

building throughout construction. For 

example, several houses in a new 

subdivision where there are homes in 

various stages of construction might be 

evaluated. The same cautions regarding 

multiple buildings as noted for the 

‘‘primary’’ building applies to this 

approach as well. (6.3) 

DOE developed the Score + Store tool 

(See https://energycode.pnl.gov/ 

ScoreStore/login) to help states and 

local jurisdictions determine and report 

compliance rates for both individual 

buildings and at the state-level in order 

to meet compliance and efficiency goals. 

A compliance rating of 0–100% for each 

evaluated building is assigned based on 

the proportion of code requirements met 

applying the tiered weighting system. 

Scores are then averaged within a state 

to derive an overall compliance metric. 

• The overall state compliance metric 

for residential new construction is 

derived by taking a simple average of all 

individual building scores within the 

population. (5.4.1) 

• For the overall state compliance 

metric for commercial new 

construction, weighted individual 

scores for new commercial construction 

are used to estimate average compliance 

rates for each building size stratum 

within the state. These average 

compliance rates are then rated 

according to the proportion of total 

square footage constructed within each 

stratum. (5.4.1) 

• Overall state compliance metrics for 

residential and commercial renovations 

are derived by taking the total number 

of weighted checklist items evaluated 

for all buildings in the sample as the 

divisor and the number of those 

weighted items that are in compliance 

as the numerator, multiplied by 100. 

This does not result in an individual 

metric being assigned to each building, 

but does provide a state-wide metric 

that takes into account the varied 

number of code requirements against 

which each observed renovation is 

evaluated. (5.4.2) 

The methodology report also 

describes a number of pre-evaluation 

information gathering and training 

activities that could be undertaken by a 

state before it attempts to determine the 

state compliance rate. These activities 

include (3.1): 

(1) Establish a compliance working 

group to help plan the code evaluation 

process and to improve communications 

between stakeholders. 

(2) Perform self-assessments using 

building department staff to evaluate 

buildings. 

(3) Evaluate results of selfassessments to identify potential code 

compliance issues. 

(4) Train and educate stakeholders to 

address identified code compliance 

issues and barriers. 

(5) Launch third-party compliance 

evaluation only after the previous 

activities. 

The methodology also suggests two 

other possible activities prior to full 

compliance evaluation: 

(1) Survey the jurisdictions regarding 

local energy code plan review, 

inspection, and administration to assess 

the policies and processes that are 

currently established. DOE has provided 

a Jurisdictional Survey (See https:// 

www.energycodes.gov/compliance/ 

evaluation) that may be used as a 

sample. (3.2) 

(2) Conduct ‘‘spot checks’’ of code 

requirements considered problematic to 

ensure that those requirements are being 

met. (3.3) 

Summary of findings from the 

Compliance Pilot Study conducted by 

DOE 

The DOE methodology was pilot 

tested in nine U.S. states through eight 

distinct studies funded by DOE under 

the Recovery Act. In addition, three 

other states utilized parts of the 

methodology in separate, but 

concurrent, efforts, and are also 

discussed in the 90% Compliance Pilot 

Studies final report (‘‘pilot study 

report’’) (See http:// 

www.energycodes.gov/compliancepilot-studies-final-report). The primary 

purpose of these pilot studies was to 

assess the effectiveness of the DOE 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
47680 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Notices 

guidelines and tools developed under 

the Recovery Act, and to provide 

suggestions for their improvement. The 

pilot studies should not be interpreted 

to represent national or state 

compliance rates. 

The pilot study report summarizes 

observations and comments received by 

the participants regarding code 

compliance evaluations. Some of the 

observations and comments were the 

following: 

• State compliance measurement 

studies can be costly and may require 

multiple visits to the building while 

under construction. Post-construction 

evaluations were implemented in one 

study in an effort to reduce these costs, 

but many code requirements cannot be 

evaluated post-construction. 

• Data sources for generating sample 

sets of buildings to be evaluated are not 

always accurate and, in some cases, are 

not available (e.g., residential 

renovations). Generating valid sample 

sets was further complicated by the 

economic climate and the fact that new 

housing starts were significantly lower 

than past data predicted. 

• Timing onsite visits to observe all 

code requirements is difficult for thirdparty evaluators. 

• Access to buildings under 

construction is a barrier in some 

locations. 

• Consistency is difficult to obtain 

across studies and among individual 

evaluators. 

States may choose to address these 

issues by engaging in alternative, less 

costly measurement activities, some of 

which are discussed in Section 10 of the 

pilot study report. Despite problems in 

accurately measuring compliance, the 

pilot studies provided several insights 

into where states might focus their 

efforts in increasing compliance rates, 

including the following observations: 

• The top barrier to compliance 

continues to be lack of training, 

followed by lack of resources and lack 

of compliance information on plan 

submissions. While training is an 

ongoing effort, and lack of resources 

may be difficult to address, states can 

work with local enforcement 

jurisdictions to ensure adequate 

documentation is received and to 

provide training. 

• Buildings that demonstrated 

compliance using software tools showed 

a strong correlation with higher 

compliance rates. Software reports 

provide additional documentation of 

compliance, which might partially 

account for the correlation with higher 

compliance rates. 

Other Recent DOE Activity Related to 

Energy Code Compliance 

Since the methodology was published 

in 2010, DOE has taken steps to improve 

not only the methodology, but also the 

supplemental resources to assist states 

in raising compliance levels. These 

include the pilot studies, as well as 

enhancements to DOE code compliance 

software tools to make the process of 

code compliance and evaluation more 

seamless. DOE is currently adding 

functionality to the REScheck (See 

http://www.energycodes.gov/rescheck) 

and COMcheck (See http:// 

www.energycodes.gov/comcheck) 

software to augment compliance 

information pertaining to a specific 

building: 

• A Requirements Screen was added 

to capture information about code 

requirements not currently addressed in 

REScheck and COMcheck. 

• Checklists for specific REScheck 

and COMcheck buildings are being 

incorporated into the software 

compliance reports and include the 

information gathered in the 

Requirements Screen. 

DOE is also providing a way for the 

Score + Store tool to generate checklists 

that are customized for specific 

buildings based on REScheck and 

COMcheck projects. These custom 

checklists will include information 

entered into REScheck and COMcheck, 

and remove code requirements that do 

not apply to that specific building. They 

can be used to evaluate a specific 

building’s compliance rate in the same 

way that the generic checklists have 

been used in previous studies. Such 

changes serve to improve 

interoperability between the DOE 

compliance software tools and 

associated resources. 

III. Request for Information and 

Comments 

DOE has also revisited the 

methodology for measuring compliance 

in light of the pilot studies with the goal 

of identifying potential enhancements. 

DOE has received comments from 

various interested parties. Based on 

feedback already received, potential 

enhancements are incorporated into the 

list of questions for which DOE is 

seeking input in this Request for 

Information. 

DOE is particularly interested in 

receiving information on the following 

questions. The questions are sorted into 

five categories: Defining and Achieving 

Compliance, Costs and Benefits, 

Compliance Targets, Evaluating 

Compliance, and DOE Compliance 

Evaluation Resources and Actions. 

Defining and Achieving Compliance 

• How should DOE define 

compliance with energy codes? 

• What are the barriers to achieving 

compliance? 

• How can those barriers to achieving 

compliance be overcome? 

Costs and Benefits 

• What state and national policy 

benefits are related to compliance? 

• What consumer benefits are related 

to compliance? 

• What are the most cost-effective 

compliance mechanisms? 

• What methodology or assessment 

provides the highest energy savings in 

the market? 

• What is the minimum cost to do a 

valid compliance study? 

Compliance Targets 

• How should compliance be 

measured (i.e., methodology)? 

• Should DOE emphasize achieving a 

particular rate of compliance (e.g., 90%) 

similar to what was specified in ARRA? 

• How frequently should compliance 

be evaluated? 

• Should compliance be measured as 

documentation of energy savings 

associated with energy codes? 

• What metric should be used for 

measuring compliance? 

• How should progress be tracked 

and at what level (i.e., national, 

regional, state, local)? 

Evaluating Compliance 

• Who should evaluate compliance? 

(e.g., local building department, state 

building code authority, State Energy 

Office, contractors hired by the state/ 

locality, etc.) 

• What are the barriers to evaluating 

energy code compliance? 

• How can those barriers to 

evaluating compliance be overcome? 

• Are there other approaches to 

energy code compliance measurement 

(different from the existing DOE 

methodology) that have been used 

successfully? 

• How much emphasis should DOE 

put on statistical significance of 

compliance evaluation results? 

• Do residential and commercial 

compliance evaluation studies require 

fundamentally different sampling plans 

and research methodologies? 

• Are there ways to encourage owners 

and developers of poorer performing 

buildings to participate in compliance 

evaluation studies? 

• How should DOE address buildings 

that are better than or above code in 

compliance evaluation? 

• Are there other approaches to 

energy code compliance that have 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Notices 47681 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A. 

involved public utility commissions and 

public utilities? 

• What roles do public/private 

utilities have or could take in improving 

energy code compliance? Can 

evaluation of energy code compliance 

could be considered similarly to 

evaluation of utility ‘‘above code’’ 

programs. 

• Are there approaches to energy 

code compliance that have the potential 

to be financially self-sustaining (i.e., 

approaches to energy code compliance 

that do not require direct government 

funding)? 

• What is the proper way to attribute 

energy savings from compliance 

programs to various stakeholders? 

DOE Compliance Evaluation Resources 

and Actions 

• Should DOE provide resources for 

compliance evaluation, such as software 

tools, methodologies, checklists, 

training templates, etc.? 

• Are there additional resources DOE 

should be providing for energy code 

compliance that are not currently 

available? 

• How could incentive funding be 

used to facilitate states to increase 

energy code adoption and compliance 

efforts? 

• Is there a role DOE could play to 

support third-party evaluators? 

• What other suggestions would you 

have for DOE to consider, in working 

with states, municipalities, and the 

construction community to better 

understand, track, and assist with 

energy code compliance? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 31, 

2013. 

Roland Risser, 

Director, Building Technologies Office, 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18952 Filed 8–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. CAC–041] 

Notice of Petition for Waiver of ECR 

(ECR) International, Inc. From the 

Department of Energy Residential 

Central Air Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps Test Procedure, and Grant of 

Interim Waiver 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of petition for waiver, 

notice of grant of interim waiver, and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt 

of and publishes a petition for waiver 

and application for interim waiver 

(‘‘petition’’) from ECR International, Inc. 

(ECR) regarding specified portions of the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) test 

procedure for determining the energy 

consumption of residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps. In its 

petition, ECR provides an alternate test 

procedure specific to EMI multi-zone 

unitary small air conditioners and heat 

pumps. DOE solicits comments, data, 

and information concerning ECR’s 

petition and the suggested alternate test 

procedure. Today’s notice also grants 

ECR an interim waiver from the existing 

DOE test procedures for the subject EMI 

(Enviromaster International) multi-zone 

unitary small air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information with respect to the ECR 

Petition until, but no later than 

September 5, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by case number ‘‘CAC–041,’’ 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: 

AS_Waiver_Requests@ee.doe.gov 

Include the case number [Case No. 

CAC–041] in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J/ 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Please submit 

one signed original paper copy. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

review the background documents 

relevant to this matter, you may visit the 

U.S. Department of Energy, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza SW., Washington, DC, 20024; 

(202) 586–2945, between 9:00 a.m. and 

4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Available 

documents include the following items: 

(1) this notice; (2) public comments 

received; (3) the petition for waiver and 

application for interim waiver; and (4) 

prior DOE waivers and rulemakings 

regarding similar refrigerator-freezer 

products. Please call Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at the above telephone number 

for additional information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Mail Stop EE–2J, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–0371. Email: 

Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, Mail Stop GC–71, 

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0103. Telephone: (202) 287–6111. 

Email: 

mailto:Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Authority 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309, as codified), added by Public Law 

95–619, Title IV, § 441(a), established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles, a program covering most 

major household appliances, which 

includes the residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps that are 

the focus of this notice.1 Part B includes 

definitions, test procedures, labeling 

provisions, energy conservation 

standards, and the authority to require 

information and reports from 

manufacturers. Further, Part B 

authorizes the Secretary of Energy to 

prescribe test procedures that are 

reasonably designed to produce results 

which measure the energy efficiency, 

energy use, or estimated annual 

operating costs of a covered product, 

and that are not unduly burdensome to 

conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test 

procedure for residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps is 

contained in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix M (referred to in this notice 

as ‘‘Appendix M’’). 

The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 

430.27 contain provisions that enable a 

person to seek a waiver from the test 

procedure requirements for covered 

products. The Assistant Secretary for 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy (the Assistant Secretary) will 

grant a waiver if it is determined that 

the basic model for which the petition 

for waiver was submitted contains one 

or more design characteristics that 

prevents testing of the basic model 

according to the prescribed test 

procedures, or if the prescribed test 

procedures may evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative 

of its true energy consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES