This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

62472 

Vol. 78, No. 204 

Tuesday, October 22, 2013 

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. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–TP–0024] 

RIN 1904–AC46 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Methods, Basic Model Definition, and 

Compliance for Commercial HVAC, 

Refrigeration, and WH Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR). 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is proposing to revise and 

expand its existing regulations 

governing the use of particular methods 

as alternatives to testing for the 

purposes of certifying compliance with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards and the reporting of related 

ratings for commercial and industrial 

equipment covered by EPCA. The 

proposals contained in this 

supplemental notice arose from a 

negotiated rulemaking effort on issues 

regarding certification of commercial 

heating, ventilating, air-conditioning 

(HVAC), water heating (WH), and 

refrigeration equipment. In addition, 

DOE is proposing to amend the 

compliance dates for the initial 

certification of commercial HVAC, WH, 

and refrigeration equipment. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR) no later than 

November 21, 2013. See section VI, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this SNOPR 

for details. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2011–BT–TP–0024, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Email: to AEDM/ARM–2011–TP– 

0024@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–2011– 

BT–TP–0024 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Methods, Basic Model Definition, and 

Compliance for Commercial HVAC, 

Refrigeration, and WH Equipment, 

EERE–2011–BT–TP–0024, 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 or RIN for this 

rulemaking. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, or 

comments received, go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Email: 

Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov; 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 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

II. Discussion of Specific Revisions to DOE’s 

Regulations for Alternative Efficiency 

Determination Methods and Alternative 

Rating Methods 

A. General Issues 

1. Pre-Approval 

2. Applicable Equipment 

B. Validation 

1. Number of Tested Units Required for 

Validation 

2. Tolerances 

3. Certified Ratings 

C. DOE Verification 

1. Witness Testing 

2. Verification Process 

3. Verification Lab Requirements 

4. Verification Tolerances 

5. Invalid Rating Process 

6. Consequences of an Invalid Rating 

7. Regaining the Use of AEDMs 

III. Basic Model Definitions 

IV. Discussion of Specific Revisions to the 

Compliance Date for Certification of 

Commercial HVAC, WH, and 

Refrigeration Equipment 

V. 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 

VI. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 

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

forth a variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. Part A of 

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

for the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. The National Energy 

Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), 

Public Law 95–619, amended EPCA to 

add Part A–1 of Title III, which 

established an energy conservation 

program for certain industrial 

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

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is 

charged with implementing these 

provisions. 

Under EPCA, this program consists 

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

labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 62473 

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 

commercial 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, sections 6299–6305, and 

6316 of EPCA authorize DOE to enforce 

compliance with the energy and water 

conservation standards (all non-product 

specific references herein referring to 

energy use and consumption include 

water use and consumption; all 

references to energy efficiency include 

water efficiency) established for certain 

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. 

B. 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 12421. 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 heater 

(WH), and commercial refrigeration 

equipment (CRE) 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 (June 30, 

2011). DOE subsequently extended the 

compliance date for certification by an 

additional 12 months to December 31, 

2013, for these types of equipment 

(December 2012 Final Rule) to allow, 

among other things, the Department to 

explore the negotiated rulemaking 

process for this equipment. 77 FR 

72763. 

In the summer of 2012, DOE had an 

independent convener evaluate the 

likelihood of success, analyzing the 

feasibility of developing certification 

requirements for commercial HVAC, 

WH, and CRE (not including walk-in 

coolers and freezers) through consensusbased negotiations among affected 

parties. In October 2012, the convener 

issued his report based on a confidential 

interview process involving forty (40) 

parties from a wide range of commercial 

HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 

equipment interests. Ultimately, the 

convener recommended that, with the 

proper scope of issues on the table 

surrounding commercial HVAC, WH, 

and refrigeration equipment 

certification, a negotiated rulemaking 

appeared to have a reasonable 

likelihood of achieving consensus based 

on the factors set forth in the Negotiated 

Rulemaking Act because the 

interviewed parties believed the 

negotiated rulemaking was superior to 

notice and comment rulemaking for 

certification-related issues. Additional 

details of the report can be found at 

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/pdfs/convening_

report_hvac_cre_1.pdf. 

On February 26, 2013, members of the 

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking 

Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) 

unanimously decided to form a working 

group to engage in a negotiated 

rulemaking effort on the certification of 

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 

utility representative, and third party 

laboratory representatives. 

AEDMs are computer modeling or 

mathematical tools that predict the 

performance of non-tested basic models. 

They are derived from mathematical 

models and engineering principles that 

govern the energy efficiency and energy 

consumption characteristics of a type of 

covered equipment. These computer 

modeling and mathematical tools, when 

properly developed, can provide a 

relatively straight-forward and 

reasonably accurate means to predict 

the energy usage or efficiency 

characteristics of a basic model of a 

given covered product or equipment 

and reduce the burden and cost 

associated with testing. 

Where authorized by regulation, 

AEDMs enable manufacturers to rate 

and certify their basic models by using 

the projected energy use or energy 

efficiency results derived from these 

simulation models in lieu of testing. 

DOE has authorized the use of AEDMs 

for certain covered products and 

equipment that are difficult or 

expensive to test in an effort to reduce 

the testing burden faced by 

manufacturers of expensive or highly 

customized basic models. DOE’s 

regulations currently permit 

manufacturers of commercial HVAC, 

WHs, distribution transformers, electric 

motors, and small electric motors to use 

AEDMs to rate their non-tested 

combinations provided they meet the 

Department’s regulations governing 

such use. 

Initially, DOE undertook a 

conventional rulemaking to consider 

expanding and revising its regulations 

for AEDMs. On April 18, 2011, DOE 

published a Request for Information 

(hereafter referred to as the April 2011 

RFI). 76 FR 21673. The April 2011 RFI 

requested suggestions, comments, and 

information relating to the Department’s 

intent to expand and revise its existing 

AEDM and ARM requirements. In 

response to comments it received on the 

April 2011 RFI, DOE published a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in the 

Federal Register on May 31, 2012 

(hereafter referred to as the May 2012 

NOPR). 77 FR 32038. DOE proposed to 

permit AEDM-based ratings and 

certifications for additional types of 

equipment, such as commercial 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62474 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

refrigeration equipment (CRE), 

automatic commercial ice makers 

(ACIMs), beverage vending machines 

(BVMs), and walk-in cooler and freezer 

(WICF) refrigeration systems. 77 FR 

32055. Furthermore, DOE proposed a 

number of requirements that 

manufacturers would need to meet in 

order to use an AEDM. DOE also 

proposed a method that it would 

employ to determine if an AEDM had 

been used appropriately by a 

manufacturer along with the 

consequences if it had not been. 77 FR 

32055–32056. 

During the Working Group’s first 

meeting, Working Group members voted 

to expand the scope of the negotiated 

rulemaking efforts to include 

developing methods of estimating 

equipment performance based on AEDM 

simulations. The issues discussed by the 

the various participants during the 

negotiations with DOE were those raised 

by the commenters in response to the 

May 2012 NOPR. The discussion of 

those issues in the negotiated 

rulemaking and the consensus reached 

as proposed in this supplemental NOPR 

are summarized in two documents 

included in the docket of this proposal 

and constitute DOE’s response to the 

comments on the May 2012 NOPR. The 

documents discuss the particular 

elements that the AEDM simulations for 

each equipment should address and 

other related considerations of note, 

including potential basic model 

definitions, test procedure issues, the 

treatment of certain features, and 

certification of these equipment. See 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docket

Browser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=SR;D=EERE2013-BT-NOC-0023. 

As required, the Working Group 

submitted an interim report to ASRAC 

on June 26, 2013, summarizing the 

group’s recommendations regarding 

AEDMs for commercial HVAC, WH, and 

refrigeration equipment. The interim 

report to ASRAC can be found at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;

D=EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023-0046. 

ASRAC subsequently voted 

unanimously to approve the 

recommendations in the interim report 

for AEDMs. Subsequently, the Working 

Group submitted a final report on 

August 30, 2013, summarizing the 

Working Group’s recommendations for 

model grouping, certification 

requirements and deadlines, 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. In 

this notice of proposed rulemaking, 

DOE is proposing to adopt the Working 

Group’s recommendations, without 

modification, for AEDMs, basic model 

definitions, and the initial compliance 

date for certification. DOE will be 

addressing the remaining Working 

Group’s recommendations for 

certification requirements, and for the 

treatment of specific features when 

testing, in a separate rulemaking or 

guidance document. 

II. Discussion of Specific Revisions to 

DOE’s Regulations for Alternative 

Efficiency Determination Methods and 

Alternative Rating Methods 

On May 14–15, 2013, the Commercial 

Certification Working Group held a twoday meeting at the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s headquarters in Washington, 

DC. 69 interested parties, including 

members of the Working Group, 

attended. The Working Group’s 

recommendations are presented in this 

notice of proposed rulemaking. A more 

detailed discussion 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. 

A. General Issues 

1. Pre-Approval 

The Commercial Certification 

Working Group unanimously 

recommended that DOE not require preapproval for AEDMs for commercial 

HVAC, WH, or refrigeration equipment. 

This recommendation is consistent with 

DOE’s proposal in the May 21, 2012, 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

amending AEDM requirements. 77 FR 

32038. Thus, DOE is not proposing to 

adopt a pre-approval process for AEDMs 

for the aforementioned equipment. 

2. Applicable Equipment 

The Commercial Certification 

Working Group unanimously 

recommended the following types of 

covered equipment be allowed to use 

AEDMs. 

• Commercial HVAC Equipment 

Æ Commercial packaged airconditioning and heating 

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

water-source) 

Æ Packaged terminal air conditioners 

and heat pumps 

Æ Computer room air conditioners 

Æ Single package vertical air 

conditioners and heat pumps 

Æ Variable refrigerant flow systems 

Æ Commercial packaged boilers 

Æ Commercial warm-air furnaces 

• Commercial WH Equipment 

Æ Commercial electric storage water 

heaters 

Æ Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired 

storage water heaters 

Æ Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired 

instantaneous water heaters greater 

than or equal to 10 gallons 

Æ Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired 

hot water supply boilers greater 

than or equal to 10 gallons 

Æ Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired 

instantaneous water heaters less 

than 10 gallons 

Æ Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired 

hot water supply boilers less than 

10 gallons 

Æ Commercial unfired hot water 

storage tanks 

• Commercial Refrigeration Equipment 

DOE currently allows the use of 

AEDMs for commercial HVAC 

equipment and water heating 

equipment. In this notice of proposed 

rulemaking, DOE proposes, in alignment 

with the Working Group’s 

recommendation, to also permit 

manufacturers to use AEDMs when 

certifying CRE. 

B. Validation 

Prior to use for certifying the energy 

efficiency or energy use of a basic 

model, DOE generally requires AEDMs 

to be validated. The Commercial 

Certification Working Group 

recommended the following validation 

process for AEDMs, which DOE 

proposes to adopt in today’s notice. 

1. Number of Tested Units Required for 

Validation 

To validate an AEDM, a manufacturer 

must select the minimum number of 

basic models, specified in Table II.1 

through Table II.5, for each of the 

validation classes to which the AEDM is 

going to apply. Each selection 

represents a single test conducted in 

accordance with the DOE test procedure 

(TP) or applicable DOE TP waiver at a 

manufacturer’s testing facility or a thirdparty testing facility, whose test result is 

directly compared to the result for that 

model from the AEDM. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 62475 

TABLE II.1—COMMERCIAL HVAC VALIDATION CLASSES

Validation class 

Minimum number of basic 

models that must be tested 

per AEDM 

Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged Air Conditioners (ACs) and Heat Pumps (HPs) less than 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity (3-Phase).2 Basic Models. 

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

than 760,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity.

2 Basic Models. 

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

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

Water-Source HPs, All Capacities .................................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Single Package Vertical ACs and HPs .......................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs .................................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

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

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

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

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

TABLE II.2—COMMERCIAL WATER HEATERS VALIDATION CLASSES

Validation class Minimum number of basic 

models that must be tested 

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

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

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

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

Electric Water Heaters .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Heat Pump Water Heaters ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks .................................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

TABLE II.3—COMMERCIAL PACKAGED BOILERS VALIDATION CLASSES

Validation class Minimum number of basic 

models that must be tested 

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE II.4—COMMERCIAL FURNACES VALIDATION CLASSES

Validation class Minimum number of basic 

models that must be tested 

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

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

TABLE II.5—COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT VALIDATION CLASSES

Validation class* Minimum number of basic 

models that must be tested 

Self-Contained Open Refrigerators ................................................................................................................................ 2 Basic Models. 

Self-Contained Open Freezers ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Remote Condensing Open Refrigerators ....................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Remote Condensing Open Freezers .............................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Self-Contained Closed Refrigerators .............................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Self-Contained Closed Freezers .................................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Remote Condensing Closed Refrigerators ..................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

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

* The minimum number of tests indicated above must be comprised of a transparent model, a solid model, a vertical model, a semi-vertical 

model, a horizontal model, and a service-over-the counter model, as applicable based on the equipment offering. However, manufacturers do not 

need to include all types of these models if it will increase the minimum number of tests that need to be conducted. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62476 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

A manufacturer may elect to develop 

multiple AEDMs per validation class 

and each AEDM may span multiple 

validation classes; however, the 

minimum number of tests must be 

maintained per validation class for each 

AEDM a manufacturer chooses to 

develop and use. An AEDM may be 

applied to any individual model within 

the applicable validation classes at the 

manufacturer’s discretion. All 

documentation of test results for the 

models used to validate each AEDM, the 

AEDM results, and the subsequent 

comparisons to the AEDM must be 

maintained as part of both the test data 

underlying the certified rating and the 

AEDM validation package pursuant to 

10 CFR 429.71. DOE requests comment 

on the minimum number of tests 

proposed for each validation class. 

2. Tolerances 

To validate the AEDM, the test results 

from each model required per the 

validation requirements described in the 

previous section must be compared to 

the simulated results from the 

applicable AEDM. The Commercial 

Certification Working Group 

recommended that for energy 

consumption metrics, the AEDM result 

for a model must be greater than or 

equal to 95 percent of the tested results 

for that same model. For energy 

efficiency metrics, the AEDM results for 

a model must be less than or equal to 

105 percent of the tested results for that 

same model. DOE is proposing this onesided 5 percent tolerance for AEDM 

validation for all commercial HVAC, 

WH, and refrigeration equipment. DOE 

requests comment on the proposed 

tolerances on the AEDM results as 

compared to the tested results for a 

given model. 

3. Certified Ratings 

For each basic model of commercial 

HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 

equipment distributed in commerce, 

manufacturers must determine the 

certified rating based on testing or use 

of a validated AEDM. DOE’s current 

regulations provide manufacturers with 

some flexibility in rating each basic 

model by allowing the manufacturer the 

discretion to rate conservatively. The 

Working Group recommended that for 

energy consumption metrics each 

model’s certified rating must be less 

than or equal to the applicable Federal 

standard and greater than or equal to the 

model’s AEDM result. For energy 

efficiency metrics, each model’s 

certified rating must be less than or 

equal to the model’s AEDM result and 

greater than or equal to the applicable 

Federal standard. DOE is proposing to 

retain the flexibility provided by its 

current regulatory approach and is 

proposing the Working Group’s 

recommendation without modification. 

DOE requests comment on this method 

of rating. 

C. DOE Verification 

Once a basic model has been 

distributed in commerce, DOE may 

select any model and verify the 

equipment’s performance at any time. 

10 CFR 429.104. The Commercial 

Certification Working Group 

recommended the following process 

described in section II.C.1 through II.C.7 

for DOE verification of certified ratings 

determined by an AEDM. In today’s 

notice, DOE proposes to adopt these 

recommendations. 

1. Witness Testing 

Currently, DOE’s regulations do not 

require a manufacturer to be present for 

DOE-initiated testing to verify 

equipment performance of a given basic 

model. The Working Group considered 

two options for witness testing when 

certifying a basic model. A 

manufacturer may elect to have a DOE 

representative and a manufacturer’s 

representative on-site for the initial 

verification test for up to 10 percent of 

the manufacturer’s certified basic 

models rated with an AEDM. The 10 

percent requirement applies to all of the 

basic models certified by a given 

manufacturer no matter how many 

AEDMs a manufacturer has used to 

develop its ratings. Manufacturers who 

elect to select 10 percent of their basic 

models must include this information as 

part of their certification prior to the 

unit being selected for verification 

testing. In general, DOE will perform 

testing without a manufacturer’s 

representative present for all basic 

models DOE selects for assessment 

testing as long as the two following 

conditions are met: (1) A manufacturer 

has not elected a given basic model as 

part of its 10 percent election allowed 

for witness testing; and (2) the 

manufacturer does not require the basic 

model to be started only by a factorytrained installer per the installation 

manual instructions. For the basic 

models for which a manufacturer 

elected to have the initial verification 

test witnessed, the manufacturer cannot 

request 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, a manufacturer is 

automatically eligible to request a retest 

for those basic models where the initial 

results indicate a potential rating issue. 

DOE requests comment on the proposal 

for witness testing. 

2. Verification Process 

The Working Group negotiated the 

process that DOE would use to assess a 

unit’s performance through third party 

testing. Under this approach, DOE 

would begin the verification process by 

selecting a single unit of a given basic 

model for testing either from retail or by 

obtaining a sample from the 

manufacturer. DOE will select a thirdparty testing laboratory at its discretion 

to test the unit selected. The lab will 

adhere to the requirements 

recommended by the Commercial 

Certification Working Group described 

in section II.C.3 below. DOE will 

conduct the test in accordance with the 

witness testing arrangements discussed 

above. In the cases where a factorytrained installer is required per the 

installation manual instructions or the 

model is a variable refrigerant flow 

commercial HVAC system, the 

manufacturer’s representative and DOE 

will only be on-site for test set up. In all 

cases, the Department will be 

responsible for the logistics of arranging 

a witnessed test, and the laboratory is 

not allowed to communicate directly 

with the manufacturer. 

The manufacturer will provide any 

additional information needed regarding 

test set up or testing to DOE through the 

certification process in pdf format. (This 

provision will be addressed in a 

separate rulemaking.) DOE will provide 

this information to the test facility as 

long as the additional instructions are 

not in 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 the test facility discuss DOE 

verification testing with the 

manufacturer without the Department 

present. 

If a unit is tested and determined to 

be outside the rating tolerances 

described in section II.C.4, DOE will 

notify the manufacturer. The 

manufacturer will receive all 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 62477 

documentation related to the test set up, 

test conditions, and test results for the 

unit if the unit falls outside the rating 

tolerances. At that time, a manufacturer 

may present all claims regarding any 

issues directly associated with the test 

and initiate a discussion regarding 

retesting. If the manufacturer was not 

on-site for the initial test, the 

manufacturer may request a retest of the 

same unit, and DOE and the 

manufacturer can be present for the 

retest. DOE will not retest a different 

unit of the same basic model unless 

DOE and the manufacturer determine it 

is necessary based on the test results, 

claims presented, and DOE regulations. 

DOE requests comment on this 

proposal. 

3. Verification Lab Requirements 

The Commercial Certification 

Working Group recommended that all 

AEDM verification tests should be 

conducted in a third-party testing 

facility of DOE’s choice. Commercial 

equipment that cannot be tested at an 

independent third-party facility may be 

tested at a manufacturer’s facility upon 

DOE’s request. DOE requests comment 

on this proposal. 

4. Verification Tolerances 

To verify the certified rating of a given 

model, the test results from a single unit 

test of the model will be compared to 

the certified rating in accordance with 

the tolerances set forth below. For 

energy consumption metrics, the 

Commercial Certification Working 

Group recommended: 

Test Result ≤ Certified Rating μ 

(1 + Applicable Tolerance) 

For energy efficiency metrics, the 

Commercial Certification Working 

Group recommended: 

Test Result ≥ Certified Rating μ 

(1 Ø Applicable Tolerance) 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed tolerances. 

TABLE II.6—RATING TOLERANCES

Equipment Metric Applicable 

tolerance 

Commercial Packaged Boilers ..................................................................................... Combustion Efficiency .............................. 5% (0.05) 

Thermal Efficiency .................................... 5% (0.05) 

Commercial Water Heaters or Hot Water Supply Boilers ........................................... Thermal Efficiency .................................... 5% (0.05) 

Standby Loss ............................................ 10% (0.1) 

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

Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs less than 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity (3-Phase).Seasonal Energy-Efficiency Ratio ............ 5% (0.05) 

Heating Season Performance Factor ....... 5% (0.05) 

Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................ 10% (0.1) 

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

Cooling Capacity and Less than 760,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity.

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

Coefficient of Performance ....................... 5% (0.05) 

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ........... 10% (0.1) 

Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All Cooling Capacities ................. Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................ 5% (0.05) 

Coefficient of Performance ....................... 5% (0.05) 

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ........... 10% (0.1) 

Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All Capacities .................. Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................ 5% (0.05) 

Coefficient of Performance ....................... 5% (0.05) 

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ........... 10% (0.1) 

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

Coefficient of Performance ....................... 5% (0.05) 

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ........... 10% (0.1) 

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

Coefficient of Performance ....................... 5% (0.05) 

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

Coefficient of Performance ....................... 5% (0.05) 

Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and HPs ..................................................................... Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................ 5% (0.05) 

Coefficient of Performance ....................... 5% (0.05) 

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ........... 10% (0.1) 

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

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

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

5. Invalid Rating Process 

Once DOE has determined that a basic 

model is outside of the tolerances based 

on the verification process described in 

sections II.C.1 through II.C.4, the 

Commercial Working Group negotiated 

the following process for remedying the 

invalid rating. First, DOE will notify the 

manufacturer and the manufacturer 

would have 15 days to select and report 

one of the following pathways: (1) 

Conservatively rerate and recertify the 

model based on the DOE test data only, 

(2) discontinue the model through the 

certification process, or (3) conduct 

additional testing, rerate, and recertify 

the model using all additional 

manufacturer test data and the DOE test 

data. The manufacturer and DOE will 

determine the specific date by which 

the manufacturer must complete the 

process for correcting the invalid rating, 

but the process shall not take more than 

180 days to complete. DOE requests 

comment on the proposed options for 

addressing invalid ratings. 

6. Consequences of an Invalid Rating 

The Commercial Working Group 

negotiated the consequences of DOE 

determining that a rating is invalid for 

a given basic model based on 

assessment testing. If the Department 

finds that within 24 rolling months a 

manufacturer has more than one basic 

model with an invalid rating whose 

results were derived from the same 

AEDM, then the manufacturer will be 

subject to the requirements listed in 

Table II.7. In general, to continue using 

the AEDM, if a manufacturer has 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62478 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

between two and seven basic models 

with invalid ratings that were derived 

from the same AEDM, then the 

manufacturer must re-validate the 

AEDM according to the requirements in 

Table II.7 by conducting new testing of 

different basic models. If the 

manufacturer has eight or more basic 

models with invalid ratings from the 

same AEDM, then all the models to 

which the AEDM applied must be rerated with physical testing in 

accordance with the applicable 

sampling plans in part 429. 10 CFR 

429.11. DOE requests comment on these 

proposed consequences that would flow 

from an invalid rating. 

TABLE II.7—CONSEQUENCES FOR INVALID RATINGS

Number of invalid certified ratings from the 

same AEDM** within 

a rolling 24 month 

period † 

Required manufacturer actions 

2 ................................. Submit different test data and reports from testing to validate that AEDM within the validation classes to which it is applied.* Adjust the rating as appropriate. 

4 ................................. Conduct double the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes to which the AEDM is applied. Note, 

the tests required under subsection (c)(5)(H)(1) must be different tests on different models than the original tests required under subsection (c)(2). 

6 ................................. Conduct the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes to which the AEDM is applied; And 

Conduct addition testing, which is equal to 1⁄2 the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes to which 

the AEDM is applied, at either the manufacturer’s facility or a third-party test facility, at the manufacturer’s discretion. 

Note, the tests required under subsection (c)(5)(H)(1) must be different tests on different models than the original tests 

required under subsection (c)(2). 

>=8 ............................ Manufacturer has lost privilege to use AEDM. All ratings for models within the validation classes to which the AEDM applied should be rated via testing. Distribution cannot continue until certification(s) are corrected to reflect actual test 

data. 

* A manufacturer may discuss with DOE’s Office of Enforcement whether existing test data on different basic models within the validation 

classes to which that specific AEDM was applied may be used to meet this requirement. 

** Where the same AEDM means a computer simulation or mathematical model that is identified by the manufacturer at the time of certification 

as having been used to rate a model or group of models. 

† The twenty-four month period begins with a DOE determination that a rating is invalid through the process outlined above. Additional invalid 

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

testing within the twenty-four month period (i.e., subsequent determinations need not be made within 24 months). 

7. Regaining the Use of AEDMs 

If, as a result of eight or more invalid 

ratings, a manufacturer has lost the 

privilege of using an AEDM for rating 

purposes, the manufacturer may regain 

the ability to use an AEDM by (1) 

Investigating the cause(s) for the 

failures, (2) identifying the root cause(s) 

for the failures, (3) taking corrective 

action to address the root cause(s), (4) 

validating the AEDM by performing six 

new tests per validation class with a 

minimum of two of the tests performed 

at a third-party test facility, and (5) 

obtaining DOE authorization to resume 

the use of the AEDM. At its discretion, 

DOE may reduce or waive these 

requirements, in which case DOE will 

provide public notice and a written 

explanation of the grounds for reducing 

or waiving the requirements. DOE 

requests comment on the proposed 

method for regaining the use of AEDMs. 

III. Basic Model Definitions 

The Working Group recommended 

amended basic model definitions for 

commercial refrigeration equipment; 

commercial warm air furnaces; 

commercial packaged boilers; and 

commercial water heaters. Additionally, 

the Working Group recommended 

distinct basic model definitions for each 

type of commercial HVAC equipment, 

such as packaged terminal air 

conditioners (PTACs) and heat pumps 

(PTHPs); small, large, and very large aircooled commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment; 

small, large, and very large watercooled, evaporatively-cooled, and water 

source commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment; 

single package vertical air conditioners 

and heat pumps (SPVUs); computer 

room air conditioner; and variable 

refrigerant flow multi-split air 

conditioner and heat pump with 

capacities greater than 65,000 Btu/h. 

DOE is proposing the basic model 

definitions by covered equipment type 

that were development by the Working 

Group except DOE has included several 

clarifications to harmonize the wording 

of the definitions for consistency 

purposes, but did not change the 

meaning of the definitions as agreed 

upon by the Working Group. 

IV. Discussion of Specific Revisions to 

the Compliance Date for Certification of 

Commercial HVAC, WH, and 

Refrigeration Equipment 

The Working Group recommended 

that certification reports must be 

initially submitted for all basic models 

distributed in commerce according to 

the schedule shown in Table IV.1. After 

the initial certification date, DOE’s 

existing regulations require that 

manufacturers certify: (1) New basic 

models before distribution in commerce; 

(2) existing basic models, whose 

certified rating remains valid, annually; 

(3) existing basic models, whose design 

is altered resulting in a change in rating 

that is more consumptive or less 

efficient, at the time the design change 

is made; and (4) previously certified 

basic models that have been 

discontinued annually. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 62479 

TABLE IV.1—INITIAL CERTIFICATION COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE

The initial certification 

date is the number of 

months shown below 

after the AEMD final 

rule is published in 

the Federal Register 

Equipment type 

6 ................................. Commercial Warm Air Furnaces, PTACs and PTHPs. 

9 ................................. Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired instantaneous water heaters less than 10 gallons. 

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

12 ............................... Commercial water heaters (all others types). 

Small commercial packaged boilers (≤ 2.5 million Btu/h). 

Self-Contained CRE with solid or transparent doors. 

15 ............................... VRFs. 

18 ............................... Small, large and very large air, water, and evaporatively-cooled and water source commercial packaged ACs and HPs. 

SPVUs. 

CRACs. 

Large packaged boilers (> 2.5 million Btu/h). 

CRE (all other types). 

The Working Group also agreed to the 

following caveats on the schedule 

proposed above. If, in the separate, 

certification rulemaking, DOE adopts 

regulations that are significantly 

different from the remainder of the 

Working Group recommendations, then 

the initial certification compliance dates 

will be based on the final rule date for 

the separate rulemaking effort. The 

Working Group agreed that in no 

instance should the initial certification 

compliance date be less than two 

months after the issuance of the final 

rule adopting the remainder of the 

Working Group’s recommendations. 

Additionally, the Working Group 

recommended that DOE allow a sixmonth grace period following each 

certification date during which DOE 

will not pursue civil penalties for 

certification violations. The Working 

Group emphasized that a grace period 

would allow manufacturers time to gain 

familiarity with the certification process 

and remedy any problems. DOE 

proposes to adopt this compliance 

schedule in its entirety and requests 

comment on this approach to 

establishing compliance deadlines. 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that test procedure 

rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

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

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. 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 (IRFA) 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: www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed the test procedures 

considered in today’s SNOPR under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (RFA) and the policies and 

procedures published on February 19, 

2003. 

DOE reviewed the AEDM 

requirements being proposed under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 

published on February 19, 2003. As 

discussed in more detail below, DOE 

found that because the provisions of this 

rule will not result in increased testing 

and/or reporting burden for 

manufacturers already eligible to use an 

AEDM and will extend AEDM use to a 

number of manufacturers, thus reducing 

their testing burden, manufacturers will 

not experience increased financial 

burden as a result of this rule. 

Today’s proposal, which presents 

voluntary methods for certifying 

compliance in lieu of conducting actual 

physical testing, would not increase the 

testing or reporting burden of 

manufacturers who currently use, or are 

eligible to use, an AEDM to certify their 

products. Furthermore, proposed 

requirements for validation of an AEDM 

do not require more testing than that 

required by the AEDM provisions 

included in the March 7, 2011 

Certification, Compliance and 

Enforcement Final Rule (76 FR 12422) 

(‘‘March 2011 Final Rule’’), and would 

relax tolerances that tested products are 

required to meet in order to substantiate 

the AEDM. 

DOE has also clarified in today’s 

proposal how it intends to exercise its 

authority to validate AEDM 

performance and verify the performance 

of products certified using an AEDM. 

DOE negotiated the process with 

industry resulting in the proposal in 

today’s proposed rule. Since any testing 

falling under this category would be 

DOE-initiated testing and DOE is 

outlining the process to determine an 

invalid rating in today’s proposal which 

includes manufacturer involvement 

throughout, DOE does not believe that 

this will verification of ratings resulting 

from an AEDM will have a substantial 

impact on small businesses. 

This notice of proposed rulemaking 

also proposes to permit the 

manufacturer of many other covered 

products who are currently not 

permitted to use an AEDM to certify or 

rate their products to have the option of 

doing so. Manufacturers not eligible to 

use AEDMs must currently test at least 

two units of every basic model that they 

produce in order to certify compliance 

to the Department pursuant to the 

March 2011 Final Rule. Today’s 

proposal would reduce a manufacturer’s 

testing burden by enabling these 

manufacturers to simulate testing based 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62480 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

on testing data derived from a reduced 

number of units. While the Department 

believes that permitting greater use of 

AEDMs will reduce the affected 

manufacturer’s test burden, their use is 

at the manufacturer’s discretion. If, as a 

result of any of the proposals herein, a 

manufacturer believes that use of an 

AEDM would increase rather than 

decrease their financial burden, the 

manufacturer may choose not to employ 

the method. Should a manufacturer 

choose to abstain from using an AEDM, 

this proposed provision would not 

apply and the manufacturer would 

continue to remain subject to the 

requirements of any DOE test procedure 

that applies to that product, which 

would result in no change in burden 

from that which is required currently. 

Finally, DOE is proposing two aspects 

of regarding certification of commercial 

HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 

equipment, which should further 

decrease the burden of existing DOE 

regulations. First, DOE is proposing 

basic model definition that allows a 

manufacturer to group its individual 

models based on certain characteristics. 

The basic model definition provides the 

manufacturer with flexibility in making 

these groupings and was negotiated as 

part of the Working Group’s meeting. 

Lastly, DOE is proposing to extend the 

initial compliance date for certification 

of commercial HVAC, WH, and 

refrigeration equipment from 6 months 

to 18 months from publication of this 

final rule as compared to the current 

date of December 31, 2013. This will 

allow manufacturer time to implement 

the proposals agreed to by the Working 

Group, if they are ultimately 

promulgated, prior to initially certifying 

their basic models. 

For the reasons enumerated above, 

DOE is certifying that the proposed rule, 

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 

products 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 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 

SNOPR. (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 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 proposed rule would 

adopt changes for certifying certain 

covered products and equipment, so it 

would not affect the amount, quality or 

distribution of energy usage, and, 

therefore, would not result in any 

environmental impacts. Thus, this 

rulemaking is covered by Categorical 

Exclusion A6 under 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

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 proposed rule and has 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the 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 

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, the proposed 

rule 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 62481 

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 

proposed rule according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

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 

proposal 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 

today’s proposed rule 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. 

Today’s proposal to establish alternate 

certification requirements for certain 

covered equipment is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. Moreover, it would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, nor has it 

been designated as a significant energy 

action by the Administrator of OIRA. 

Therefore, it is not a significant energy 

action, and, accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

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 proposal to amend 

regulations relating to AEDMs does not 

propose the use of any commercial 

standards. 

VI. Public Participation 

A. 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 of proposed 

rulemaking. Comments, data, and 

information submitted to 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 of proposed 

rulemaking. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62482 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to require manufacturers to test 

a minimum number of models, specified 

in Table II.1 through Table II.5, from 

each validation class to which the 

AEDM is going to apply in order to 

substantiate each AEDM. 

2. DOE requests comment on its 

proposed tolerances on AEDM results as 

compared to the test results for a given 

model. 

3. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to certify models rated with an 

AEDM between the AEDM result and 

the Federal standard. 

4. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal to allow manufacturers to 

witness the testing of a maximum of 10 

percent of their certified basic models. 

If a basic model is not witness tested 

then it can be retested at the discretion 

of the manufacturer according to the 

process outlined in section II.C.1. 

5. DOE requests comment on the 

proposed process for validation test. 

This process outlines when a model can 

be witness tested, how additional test 

information can be communicated to the 

test lab, and how a manufacturer can 

request a retest. 

6. DOE requests comment on its 

proposal that verification testing should 

take place a third-party test lab unless 

the equipment is unable to be tested at 

a third-party facility in which case 

testing may occur the manufacturer’s 

facility. 

7. DOE requests comment on the 

tolerances proposed in Table II.6. 

8. DOE requests comment on the 

proposed options manufacturers may 

select from in order to address an 

invalid rating. 

9. DOE requests comment on the 

consequences listed in Table II.7 for 

manufacturers found to have invalid 

ratings. 

10. DOE requests comment on the 

proposed process for regaining the use 

of AEDMs. 

VII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s SNOPR. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

30, 2013. 

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 parts 

429 and 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, 

of title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Revise § 429.12 paragraph (i) to 

read as follows: 

§ 429.12 General requirements applicable 

to certification reports. 

* * * * * 

(i) Compliance dates. For any product 

subject to an applicable energy 

conservation standard for which the 

compliance date has not yet occurred, a 

certification report must be submitted 

not later than the compliance date for 

the applicable energy conservation 

standard. The covered products 

enumerated below are subject to the 

stated compliance dates for initial 

certification: 

(1) Commercial warm air furnaces, 

packaged terminal air conditioners, and 

packaged terminal heat pumps, [date 6 

months after date of publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register]; 

(2) Commercial gas-fired and oil-fired 

instantaneous water heaters less than 10 

gallons and commercial gas-fired and 

oil-fired hot water supply boilers less 

than 10 gallons, [date 9 months after 

date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register]; 

(3) All other types of covered 

commercial water heaters except those 

specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this 

section, commercial packaged boilers 

with input capacities less than or equal 

to 2.5 million Btu/h, and self-contained 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

with solid or transparent doors, [date 12 

months after date of publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register]; 

(4) Variable refrigerant flow air 

conditioners and heat pumps, [date 15 

months after date of publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register]; 

(5) Small, large, or very large aircooled, water-cooled, evaporativelycooled, and water-source commercial air 

conditioning and heating equipment, 

single package vertical units, computer 

room air conditioners, commercial 

packaged boilers with input capacities 

greater than 2.5 million Btu/h, and all 

other types of commercial refrigeration 

equipment except those specified in 

paragraph (i)(3) of this section, [date 18 

months after date of publication of the 

final rule in the Federal Register]. 

■ 3. Section 429.42 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 429.42 Commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. 

(a) Determination of represented 

value. Manufacturers must determine 

the represented value, which includes 

the certified rating, for each basic model 

of commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer either by testing, in 

conjunction with the applicable 

sampling provisions, or by applying a 

validated AEDM. 

(1) Units to be tested. (i) If the 

represented value for a given basic 

model is determined through testing, 

the general requirements of § 429.11 are 

applicable; and 

(ii) For each basic model selected for 

testing, a sample of sufficient size shall 

be randomly selected and tested to 

ensure that— 

(A) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

use of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

higher of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, where: 

and x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; or, 

(2) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.10, where: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP22OC13.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 62483 

and x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix A to subpart B of this 

part); and, 

(B) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be less than or equal to the 

lower of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; or, 

(2) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.90, where: 

and x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix A to subpart B of this 

part). 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, a represented value of efficiency 

or consumption for a basic model of 

commercial refrigerator, freezer or 

refrigerator-freezer must be determined 

through the application of an AEDM 

pursuant to the requirements of § 429.70 

and the provisions of this section, 

where: 

(i) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

use of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM and less than or 

equal to the Federal standard for that 

basic model; and 

(ii) Any represented value of energy 

efficiency or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the output 

of the AEDM and greater than or equal 

to the Federal standard for that basic 

model. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 429.43 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating, 

air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. 

(a) Determination of represented 

value. Manufacturers can determine the 

represented value, which includes the 

certified rating, for each basic model of 

commercial HVAC equipment either by 

testing, in conjunction with the 

applicable sampling provisions, or by 

applying a validated AEDM. 

(1) Units to be tested. (i) If the 

represented value is determined through 

testing, the general requirements of 

§ 429.11 are applicable; and 

(ii) For each basic model selected for 

testing, a sample of sufficient size shall 

be randomly selected and tested to 

ensure that— 

(A) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

use of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

higher of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; Or, 

(2) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.05, where: 

and x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix A to subpart B of this 

part); and, 

(B) Any represented value of energy 

efficiency or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the lower 

of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; Or, 

(2) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.95, where: 

and x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix A to subpart B of this 

part). 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, a represented value of efficiency 

or consumption for a basic model of 

commercial HVAC equipment must be 

determined through the application of 

an AEDM pursuant to the requirements 

of § 429.70 and the provisions of this 

section, where: 

(i) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

use of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM and less than or 

equal to the Federal standard for that 

basic model; and 

(ii) Any represented value of energy 

efficiency or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the output 

of the AEDM and greater than or equal 

to the Federal standard for that basic 

model. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 429.44 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 429.44 Commercial water heating 

equipment. 

(a) Determination of represented 

value. Manufacturers can determine the 

represented value, which includes the 

certified rating, for each basic model of 

commercial water heating equipment, 

either by testing, in conjunction with 

the applicable sampling provisions, or 

by applying a validated AEDM. 

(1) Units to be tested. (i) If the 

represented value for a given basic 

model is determined through testing, 

the general requirements of § 429.11 are 

applicable; and 

(ii) For each basic model selected for 

testing, a sample of sufficient size shall 

be randomly selected and tested to 

ensure that— 

(A) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

use of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

higher of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; Or, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP22OC13.021</GPH> EP22OC13.022</GPH> EP22OC13.023</GPH> EP22OC13.024</GPH> EP22OC13.025</GPH> EP22OC13.026</GPH> EP22OC13.027</GPH> EP22OC13.028</GPH>
62484 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(2) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.05, where: 

and x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix A to subpart B of this 

part); and, 

(B) Any represented value of energy 

efficiency or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the lower 

of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, where: 

and, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the ith

sample; or, 

(2) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 

0.95, where: 

and x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.95 is the t 

statistic for a 95% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n¥1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix A to subpart B of this 

part). 

(2) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. In lieu of 

testing, a represented value of efficiency 

or consumption for a basic model of 

commercial water heating equipment 

must be determined through the 

application of an AEDM pursuant to the 

requirements of § 429.70 and the 

provisions of this section, where: 

(i) Any represented value of energy 

consumption or other measure of energy 

use of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be greater than or equal to the 

output of the AEDM and less than or 

equal to the Federal standard for that 

basic model; and 

(ii) Any represented value of energy 

efficiency or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be less than or equal to the output 

of the AEDM and greater than or equal 

to the Federal standard for that basic 

model. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 429.70 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.70 Alternative methods for 

determining energy efficiency and energy 

use. 

(a) General applicability of an AEDM. 

A manufacturer of covered products or 

covered equipment explicitly 

authorized to use an AEDM in §§ 429.14 

through 429.54 of this subpart may not 

distribute any basic model of such 

equipment in commerce unless the 

manufacturer has determined the energy 

efficiency of the basic model, either 

from testing the basic model in 

conjunction with DOE’s certification 

sampling plans and statistics or from 

applying an alternative method for 

determining energy efficiency or energy 

use (AEDM) of the basic model, in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this section. In instances where a 

manufacturer has tested a basic model 

to validate the alternative method the 

manufacturer may not knowingly use an 

AEDM to overrate the efficiency (or 

underrate the consumption) of a basic 

model. 

* * * * * 

(c) Alternative efficiency 

determination method (AEDM) for 

Commercial HVAC, WH, and 

Refrigeration Equipment—(1) Criteria an 

AEDM must satisfy. A manufacturer 

may not apply an AEDM to a basic 

model to determine its efficiency 

pursuant to this section unless: 

(i) The AEDM is derived from a 

mathematical model that estimates the 

energy efficiency or energy 

consumption characteristics of the basic 

model as measured by the applicable 

DOE test procedure; 

(ii) The AEDM is based on 

engineering or statistical analysis, 

computer simulation or modeling, or 

other analytic evaluation of performance 

data; and 

(iii) The manufacturer has validated 

the AEDM, in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section. 

(2) Validation of an AEDM. Before 

using an AEDM, the manufacturer must 

validate the AEDM’s accuracy and 

reliability as follows: 

(i) For each identified validation class 

specified in paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this 

section to which the particular AEDM 

applies, the minimum number of basic 

models must be tested as specified in 

paragraph (c)(2)(iv) of this section. 

Using the AEDM, calculate the energy 

use or efficiency for each of the selected 

basic models. Test a single unit of each 

selected basic model in accordance with 

paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section. 

Compare the results from the single unit 

test and the AEDM energy use or 

efficiency output according to paragraph 

(c)(2)(ii) of this section. 

(ii) Individual model tolerances. (A) 

For those covered products with an 

energy-efficiency metric, the predicted 

efficiency for each model calculated by 

applying the AEDM may not be more 

than five percent greater than the 

efficiency determined from the 

corresponding test of the model. 

(B) For those covered products with 

an energy-consumption metric, the 

predicted energy consumption for each 

model, calculated by applying the 

AEDM, may not be more than five 

percent less than the energy 

consumption determined from the 

corresponding test of the model. 

(iii) Additional test unit requirements. 

(A) Each AEDM must be supported by 

test data obtained from physical tests of 

current models; and 

(B) Test results used to validate the 

AEDM must meet or exceed current, 

applicable Federal standards as 

specified in part 431 of this chapter; and 

(C) Each test must have been 

performed in accordance with the DOE 

test procedure specified in parts 430 or 

431 of this chapter or test procedure 

waiver for which compliance is required 

at the time the basic model is 

distributed in commerce. 

(iv) Validation classes. (A) 

Commercial HVAC validation classes: 

Validation class 

Minimum number of distinct 

models that must be tested 

per AEDM 

Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged Air Conditioners (ACs) and Heat Pumps (HPs) less than 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity (3-Phase).2 Basic Models. 

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

than 760,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity.

2 Basic Models. 

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

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP22OC13.029</GPH> EP22OC13.030</GPH> EP22OC13.031</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 62485 

Validation class 

Minimum number of distinct 

models that must be tested 

per AEDM 

Water-Source HPs, All Capacities .................................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Single Package Vertical ACs and HPs .......................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs .................................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

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

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

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

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

(B) Commercial water heater 

validation classes: 

Validation class Minimum number of distinct 

models that must be tested 

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

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

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

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

Electric Water Heaters .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Heat Pump Water Heaters ............................................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks .................................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

(C) Commercial packaged boilers 

validation classes: 

Validation class Minimum number of distinct 

models that must be tested 

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

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

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

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

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

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

(D) Commercial furnace validation 

classes: 

Validation class Minimum number of distinct 

models that must be tested 

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

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

(E) Commercial refrigeration 

equipment validation classes: 

Validation class 1 Minimum number of distinct 

models that must be tested 

Self-Contained Open Refrigerators ................................................................................................................................ 2 Basic Models. 

Self-Contained Open Freezers ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Remote Condensing Open Refrigerators ....................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Remote Condensing Open Freezers .............................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Self-Contained Closed Refrigerators .............................................................................................................................. 2 Basic Models. 

Self-Contained Closed Freezers .................................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

Remote Condensing Closed Refrigerators ..................................................................................................................... 2 Basic Models. 

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

1The minimum number of tests indicated above must be comprised of a transparent model, a solid model, a vertical model, a semi-vertical 

model, a horizontal model, and a service-over-the counter model, as applicable based on the equipment offering. However, manufacturers do not 

need to include all types of these models if it will increase the minimum number of tests that need to be conducted. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62486 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(4) AEDM records retention 

requirements. (i) If a manufacturer has 

used an AEDM to determine 

representative values pursuant to this 

section, the manufacturer must have 

available upon request for inspection by 

the Department records showing: 

(A) The AEDM, including the 

mathematical model, the engineering or 

statistical analysis, and/or computer 

simulation or modeling that is the basis 

of the AEDM; 

(B) Product information, complete test 

data, AEDM calculations, and the 

statistical comparisons from the units 

tested that were used to validate the 

AEDM pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of 

this section; and 

(C) Product information and AEDM 

calculations for each basic model to 

which the AEDM has been applied. 

(5) Additional AEDM requirements. (i) 

If requested by the Department and at 

DOE’s discretion, the manufacturer 

must perform at least one of the 

following: 

(A) Conduct simulations before 

representatives of the Department to 

predict the performance of particular 

basic models of the product to which 

the AEDM was applied; 

(B) Provide analyses of previous 

simulations conducted by the 

manufacturer; or 

(C) Conduct certification testing of 

basic models selected by the 

Department. 

(6) AEDM verification testing. DOE 

may use the test data for a given 

individual model generated pursuant to 

§ 429.104 to verify the certified rating 

determined by an AEDM as long as the 

following process is followed: 

(i) Selection of units. DOE will obtain 

units for test from retail, where 

available. If units cannot be obtained 

from retail, DOE will request that a unit 

be provided by the manufacturer; 

(ii) Lab requirements. DOE will 

conduct testing at an independent, 

third-party testing facility of its 

choosing. In cases where no third-party 

laboratory is capable of testing the 

equipment, it may be tested at a 

manufacturer’s facility upon DOE’s 

request. 

(iii) Manufacturer participation: 

Testing will be performed without DOE 

or manufacturer representatives on-site, 

unless: 

(A) The model is specifically required 

to be started only by a factory-trained 

installer per the installation manual 

instructions, in which case DOE and the 

manufacturer representative will only 

be on-site for the test set-up; or 

(B) The manufacturer has elected, as 

part of their certification of that model, 

to witness testing. A manufacturer may 

elect to have a DOE representative and 

a manufacturer’s representative on-site 

for the initial verification test for up to 

10 percent of the manufacturer’s 

certified basic models rated with an 

AEDM. The 10 percent requirement 

applies to all of the basic models 

certified by a given manufacturer no 

matter how many AEDMs a 

manufacturer has used to develop its 

ratings. Manufacturers who elect to 

select 10 percent of their basic models 

must include this information as part of 

their certification prior to the unit being 

selected for verification testing.; or 

(C) The model is a variable refrigerant 

flow system, in which case DOE and the 

manufacturer representative will only 

be on-site for the test set-up. 

(iv) Testing. All verification testing 

will be conducted in accordance with 

the applicable DOE test procedure, as 

well as each of the following to the 

extent that they apply: 

(A) Any active test procedure waivers 

that have been granted for the basic 

model; 

(B) Any test procedure guidance that 

has been issued by DOE; 

(C) The installation and operations 

manual that is shipped with the unit; 

(D) Any additional information that 

was provided by the manufacturer in 

the pdf at the time of certification; and 

(E) If during test set-up or testing, the 

lab indicates to DOE that it needs 

additional information regarding a given 

basic model in order to test in 

accordance with the applicable DOE test 

procedure, DOE may organize a meeting 

between DOE, the manufacturer and the 

lab to provide such information. At no 

time during the process may the lab 

communicate directly with the 

manufacturer without DOE present. 

(v) Failure to meet certified rating. If 

a model tests worse than its certified 

rating by an amount exceeding the 

tolerance prescribed in paragraph 

(c)(4)(iii)(F) of this section, DOE will 

notify the manufacturer. Within the 

timeframe allotted by DOE, the 

manufacturer may then: 

(A) Present all claims regarding 

testing validity; and 

(B) If the manufacturer was not on site 

for the initial test, may request a retest 

of the previously tested unit with 

manufacturer and DOE representatives 

on-site. DOE will not retest a different 

unit of the same basic model unless 

DOE and the manufacturer determine it 

is necessary based on the test results, 

claims presented, and DOE regulations. 

(vi) Tolerances. (A) For consumption 

metrics, the result from a DOE 

verification test must be less than or 

equal to the certified rating × (1 + the 

applicable tolerance). 

(B) For efficiency metrics, the result 

from a DOE verification test must be 

greater than or equal to the certified 

rating × (1—the applicable tolerance). 

Equipment Metric Applicable 

tolerance 

Commercial Packaged Boilers ..................................................................................... Combustion Efficiency .............................. 5% (0.05) 

Thermal Efficiency .................................... 5% (0.05) 

Commercial Water Heaters or Hot Water Supply Boilers ........................................... Thermal Efficiency .................................... 5% (0.05) 

Standby Loss ............................................ 10% (0.1) 

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

Air-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs less than 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity (3-Phase).Seasonal Energy-Efficiency Ratio ............

Heating Season Performance Factor .......

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

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

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

Cooling Capacity and Less than 760,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity.

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

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

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

5% (0.05) 

5% (0.05) 

10% (0.1) 

Water-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All Cooling Capacities ................. Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................ 5% (0.05) 

Coefficient of Performance ....................... 5% (0.05) 

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ........... 10% (0.1) 

Evaporatively-Cooled, Split and Packaged ACs and HPs, All Capacities .................. Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................ 5% (0.05) 

Coefficient of Performance ....................... 5% (0.05) 

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ........... 10% (0.1) 

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

Coefficient of Performance ....................... 5% (0.05) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 62487 

Equipment Metric Applicable 

tolerance 

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ........... 10% (0.1) 

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

Coefficient of Performance ....................... 5% (0.05) 

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

Coefficient of Performance ....................... 5% (0.05) 

Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and HPs ..................................................................... Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................ 5% (0.05) 

Coefficient of Performance ....................... 5% (0.05) 

Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ........... 10% (0.1) 

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

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

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

(vii) Invalid rating. If, following 

discussions with the manufacturer and 

a retest where applicable, DOE 

determines that the testing was 

conducted appropriately in accordance 

with the DOE test procedure, the rating 

for the model will be considered 

invalid. The manufacturer must elect, 

within 15 days, one of the following to 

be completed in a time frame specified 

by DOE, which is never to exceed 180 

days: 

(A) Re-rate and re-certify the model 

based on DOE’s test data alone; or 

(B) Discontinue the model through the 

certification process; or 

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

on all test data collected, including 

DOE’s test data. 

(viii) AEDM use. (A) If DOE has 

determined that a manufacturer made 

invalid ratings on two or more models 

rated using the same AEDM within a 24 

month period, the manufacturer must 

take the action listed in the table 

corresponding to the number of invalid 

certified ratings. The twenty-four month 

period begins with a DOE determination 

that a rating is invalid through the 

process outlined above. Additional 

invalid ratings apply for the purposes of 

determining the appropriate 

consequences if the subsequent 

determination(s) is based on selection of 

a unit for testing within the twenty-four 

month period (i.e., subsequent 

determinations need not be made within 

24 months). 

Number of invalid certified ratings from the 

same AEDM 2 within a 

rolling 24 month period 

Required manufacturer actions 

2 ................................. Submit different test data and reports from testing to validate that AEDM within the validation classes to which it is applied.1 Adjust the rating as appropriate. 

4 ................................. Conduct double the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes to which the AEDM is applied. Note, 

the tests required under subsection (c)(5)(H)(1) must be different tests on different models than the original tests required under subsection (c)(2). 

6 ................................. Conduct the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes to which the AEDM is applied; And 

Conduct addition testing, which is equal to 1⁄2 the minimum number of validation tests for the validation classes to which 

the AEDM is applied, at either the manufacturer’s facility or a third-party test facility, at the manufacturer’s discretion. 

Note, the tests required under subsection (c)(5)(H)(1) must be different tests on different models than the original tests 

required under subsection (c)(2). 

>=8 ............................ Manufacturer has lost privilege to use AEDM. All ratings for models within the validation classes to which the AEDM applied should be rated via testing. Distribution cannot continue until certification(s) are corrected to reflect actual test 

data. 

1A manufacturer may discuss with DOE’s Office of Enforcement whether existing test data on different basic models within the validation 

classes to which that specific AEDM was applied may be used to meet this requirement. 2Where the same AEDM means a computer simulation or mathematical model that is identified by the manufacturer at the time of certification 

as having been used to rate a model or group of models. 

(B) If, as a result of eight or more 

invalid ratings, a manufacturer has lost 

the privilege of using an AEDM for 

rating, the manufacturer may regain the 

ability to use an AEDM by: 

(1) Investigating and identifying 

cause(s) for failures; 

(2) Taking corrective action to address 

cause(s); 

(3) Performing six new tests per 

validation class, a minimum of two of 

which must be performed by an 

independent, third party laboratory to 

validate the AEDM; 

(4) Obtaining DOE authorization to 

resume use of the AEDM. 

* * * * * 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 7. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 8. Section 431.62 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 431.62 Definitions concerning 

commercial refrigerators, freezers and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

* * * * * 

Basic model means all commercial 

refrigeration equipment manufactured 

by one manufacturer within a single 

equipment class, having the same 

primary energy source, and that have 

essentially identical electrical, physical, 

and functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 431.72 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ 

to read as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
62488 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 204 / Tuesday, October 22, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

§ 431.72 Definitions concerning 

commercial warm air furnaces. 

* * * * * 

Basic model means all commercial 

warm air furnaces manufactured by one 

manufacturer within a single equipment 

class, that have the same nominal input 

rating and the same primary energy 

source (e.g. gas or oil) and that do not 

have any differing physical or 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy efficiency. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Section 431.82 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 431.82 Definitions concerning 

commercial packaged boilers. 

* * * * * 

Basic model means all commercial 

packaged boilers manufactured by one 

manufacturer within a single equipment 

class having the same primary energy 

source (e.g., gas or oil) and that have 

essentially identical electrical, physical 

and functional characteristics that affect 

energy efficiency. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 431.92 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 431.92 Definitions concerning 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 

* * * * * 

Basic model includes: 

(1) Packaged terminal air conditioner 

(PTAC) or packaged terminal heat 

pump (PTHP) means all units 

manufactured by one manufacturer 

within a single equipment class, having 

the same primary energy source (e.g., 

electric or gas), and which have the 

same or comparable compressors, same 

or comparable heat exchangers, and 

same or comparable air moving systems 

that have a cooling capacity within 300 

Btu/h of one another. 

(2) Small, large, and very large aircooled or water-cooled commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment means all units 

manufactured by one manufacturer 

within a single equipment class, having 

the same or comparably performing 

compressor(s), heat exchangers, and air 

moving system(s) that have a common 

‘‘nominal’’ cooling capacity. 

(3) Single package vertical units 

means all units manufactured by one 

manufacturer within a single equipment 

class, having the same primary energy 

source (e.g., electric or gas), and which 

have the same or comparably 

performing compressor(s), heat 

exchangers, and air moving system(s) 

that have a rated cooling capacity 

within 1500 Btu/h of one another. 

(4) Computer room air conditioners 

means all units manufactured by one 

manufacturer within a single equipment 

class, having the same primary energy 

source (e.g., electric or gas), and which 

have the same or comparably 

performing compressor(s), heat 

exchangers, and air moving system(s) 

that have a common ‘‘nominal’’ cooling 

capacity. 

(5) Variable refrigerant flow systems 

means all units manufactured by one 

manufacturer within a single equipment 

class, having the same primary energy 

source (e.g., electric or gas), and which 

have the same or comparably 

performing compressor(s) that have a 

common ‘‘nominal’’ cooling capacity 

and the same heat rejection medium 

(e.g., air or water) (includes VRF water 

source heat pumps). 

(6) Small, large, and very large water 

source heat pump means all units 

manufactured by one manufacturer 

within a single equipment class, having 

the same primary energy source (e.g., 

electric or gas), and which have the 

same or comparable compressors, same 

or comparable heat exchangers, and 

same or comparable ‘‘nominal’’ 

capacity. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 431.102 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 431.102 Definitions concerning 

commercial water heaters, hot water supply 

boilers, and unfired hot water storage 

tanks. 

* * * * * 

Basic model means all water heaters, 

hot water supply boilers, or unfired hot 

water storage tanks manufactured by 

one manufacturer within a single 

equipment class, having the same 

primary energy source (e.g., gas or oil) 

and that have essentially identical 

electrical, physical and functional 

characteristics that affect energy 

efficiency. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–24351 Filed 10–21–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–TP–0044] 

RIN 1904–AD06 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Compliance Date for the Dehumidifier 

Test Procedure 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) proposes to revise the 

compliance date for the dehumidifier 

test procedures established under the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA). The proposed amendments 

would require manufacturers to test 

using only the active mode provisions 

in the test procedure for dehumidifiers 

currently found in the DOE regulations 

to determine compliance with the 

existing energy conservation standards, 

with the following exceptions. The 

appendix in its entirety would be 

required for use by manufacturers that 

make representations of standby mode 

or off mode energy use, and, after the 

compliance date for any amended 

energy conservation standards enacted 

in the future that incorporate measures 

of standby mode and off mode energy 

use, to demonstrate compliance with 

such amended standards. The proposed 

amendments would remove from use, 

30 days after publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register, the test 

procedure for dehumidifiers because 

DOE has determined that this test 

procedure would be made redundant by 

the proposed amendments, as well as 

clarify test procedure instructions. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) no later 

than November 21, 2013. See section IV, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the NOPR for Test 

Procedures for Dehumidifiers and 

provide docket number EERE–2013– 

BT–TP–0044 and/or regulatory 

information number (RIN) number 

1904–AD06. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: Dehumidifiers2013TP0044@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

and/or RIN in the subject line of the 

message. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS