rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Friday, 


December 8, 2006 


Part III 

Department of 

Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Parts 430 and 431 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures and Technical Amendment to 

Energy Conservation Standards for 

Certain Consumer Products and Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment; 

Final Rule 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71340 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Parts 430 and 431 

[Docket No. EE–RM/TP–05–500] 

RIN 1904–AB53 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Certain Consumer 

Products and Certain Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment; Technical 

Amendment to Energy Conservation 

Standards for Certain Consumer 

Products and Certain Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPACT 2005) includes amendments to 

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA) to provide for new Federal 

energy efficiency and water 

conservation test procedures, and 

related definitions, for certain consumer 

products and certain commercial and 

industrial equipment. The amendments 

direct the Department of Energy (DOE) 

to establish new test procedures for 

many of these products and certain 

equipment, in most cases EPACT 2005 

requires the new test procedures to be 

‘‘based on’’ certain identified testing 

practices generally accepted by industry 

and other government agencies. Today, 

DOE adopts test procedures for eleven 

types of products for which EPACT 

2005 identified specific test procedures 

on which the federally-mandated test 

procedures are to be based. In addition, 

DOE adopts test procedures for three 

other products for which EPACT 2005 

did not specify specific test procedures, 

and for which test procedures have not 

previously been established. 

Furthermore, DOE is adopting a new 

version of the current test procedure for 

small commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment, 

which will not change the existing 

requirements. 

DOE is also adopting technical 

corrections to the October 18, 2005, 

final rule, 70 FR 60407, which DOE 

described in detail in the July 25, 2006, 

notice of proposed rulemaking in this 

proceeding (July 2006 proposed rule), 

71 FR 42178, 42195–96. However, DOE 

is not finalizing the procedures for 

sampling during compliance testing, 

and compliance certification and 

enforcement that were included in the 

July 2006 proposed rule. Such 

procedures will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective January 8, 2007. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications in the final rule is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of January 8, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

8654. E-mail: jim.raba@ee.doe.gov. 

Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586– 

9507. E-mail: 

Francine.Pinto@ hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following standards are incorporated by 

reference: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), ‘‘ENERGY STAR Testing 

Facility Guidance Manual: Building a 

Testing Facility and Performing the 

Solid State Test Method for ENERGY 

STAR Qualified Ceiling Fans,’’ Version 

1.1, December 9, 2002; U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for [Compact 

Fluorescent Lamps] CFLs,’’ Version 3.0; 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements for Residential Light 

Fixtures,’’ Version 4.0; U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for [Compact 

Fluorescent Lamps] CFLs,’’ August 9, 

2001; Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements for Dehumidifiers,’’ 

effective January 1, 2001; AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

(ARI) Standard 810–2003, ‘‘Performance 

Rating of Automatic Commercial IceMakers;’’ American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI)/American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 29–1988 (RA 2005), ‘‘Methods 

of Testing Automatic Ice Makers;’’ 

American Society for Testing and 

Materials (ASTM) Standard F2324–03, 

‘‘Standard Test Method for Prerinse 

Spray Valves;’’ Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), ‘‘ENERGY 

STAR Program Requirements for Exit 

Signs,’’ Version 2.0; Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), ‘‘ENERGY 

STAR Program Requirements for Traffic 

Signals,’’ Version 1.1; Institute for 

Transportation Engineers (ITE), 

‘‘Vehicle Traffic Control Signal Heads: 

Light Emitting Diode (LED) Circular 

Signal Supplement,’’ June 27, 2005; 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI)/American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 32.1– 

2004, ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Vending Machines for Bottled, Canned 

and Other Sealed Beverages;’’ American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) HRF–1–2004, 

‘‘Energy, Performance and Capacity of 

Household Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers and Freezers,’’ (Revision of 

ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2002); AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

(ARI) Standard 340/360–2004, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial and 

Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and 

Heat Pump Equipment;’’ AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

(ARI) Standard 1200–2006, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets;’’ American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)/Association 

of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM) HRF–1–2004, (Revision of 

ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2002), ‘‘Energy, 

Performance and Capacity of Household 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and 

Freezers;’’ Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), ENERGY STAR ‘‘Test 

Methodology for Determining the 

Energy Performance of Battery Charging 

Systems,’’ December 2005; and 

California Energy Commission (CEC) 

‘‘Test Method for Calculating the Energy 

Efficiency of Single-Voltage External 

Ac-Dc and Ac-Ac Power Supplies,’’ 

August 11, 2004. 

I. Background 

II. Summary of Today’s Action 

III. Discussion of Comments and Final Rule— 

Energy Conservation Test Procedures for 

Certain Consumer Products and Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment 

A. Ceiling Fans 

1. Highly Decorative Ceiling Fans 

2. Hugger Ceiling Fans 

3. Products Manufactured for Export 

4. Burden Imposed by Test Procedure 

B. Ceiling Fan Light Kits 

1. Ceiling Fan Light Kits with Medium 


Screw Base Sockets 


2. Ceiling Fan Light Kits with Pin-Based 

Sockets for Fluorescent Lamps 

3. Ceiling Fan Light Kits with Sockets 

Other than Medium Screw Base or PinBased 

C. Dehumidifiers 

D. Medium Base Compact Fluorescent 


Lamps 


E. Torchieres 

1. Definition of a Torchiere 

2. Design Standard 

3. Enforcement of Design Standard 

F. Unit Heaters 

1. Definitions 

2. Automatic Vent Dampers 

G. Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 

1. Test Procedure 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71341 

2. Additional Product Classes 

H. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves 

1. Performance Test 

I. Illuminated Exit Signs 

J. Traffic Signal Modules and Pedestrian 

Modules 

1. Definitions of Nominal and Maximum 

Wattage 

2. ITE VTCSH Test Procedure Version 

3. Pedestrian Modules 

K. Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage 

Vending Machines 

1. ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004 Refrigerated 

Volume Calculation 

2. Voltage 

L. Commercial Package Air-Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment 

M. Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, 


Refrigerator-Freezers and Ice-Cream 


Freezers 


1. Use of ARI Standard 1200–2006 Test 

Procedure for Equipment for which 

EPCA Prescribes Standards 

2. Use of ARI Standard 1200–2006 Test 

Procedure for which EPACT 2005 Directs 

DOE to Develop Test Procedures 

3. Ice-Cream Freezer Rating Temperature 

4. ANSI/AHAM Standard HRF–1 

N. Battery Chargers 

1. Scope of Coverage 

2. Modes of Test, including Active Mode 

3. Definitions 

4. Test Method 

O. External Power Supplies 

1. Scope of Test Procedure 

2. Power Factor 

3. Test Method 

P. General Comments and Final Rule 

IV. Corrections to the Recent Technical 

Amendment to DOE’s Energy 

Conservation Standards 

V. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 


Environmental Policy Act of 1969 


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 (FEA) Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Background 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPACT 2005) (Pub. L. 109–58) was 

enacted on August 8, 2005. Subtitle C of 

Title I of EPACT 2005 includes 

provisions that amend part B of Title III 

of the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309), 

which provides for an energy 

conservation program for consumer 

products other than automobiles, as 

well as part C of Title III of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6311–6317), which provides for a 

program, similar to that in part B, for 

certain commercial and industrial 

equipment. EPACT 2005 prescribes new 

or amended energy conservation 

standards and test procedures and 

directs DOE to undertake rulemakings to 

promulgate such requirements. 

On October 18, 2005, DOE issued a 

final rule that placed into Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) the 

energy conservation standards and 

related definitions that EPACT 2005 

prescribed (hereafter referred to as the 

October 2005 final rule). 70 FR 60407. 

DOE also announced that it was not 

exercising the discretionary authority 

provided in EPACT 2005 for the 

Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) to 

revise product or equipment definitions 

and energy conservation standards set 

forth in the statute, but that it might 

exercise this authority later. Id. 

In the July 2006 proposed rule, DOE 

proposed test procedures for measuring 

energy efficiency and water use 

efficiency and related definitions for 

various consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment 

covered by EPACT 2005’s amendments 

to EPCA. Table 1 identifies most 1 of the 

products and equipment these 

amendments cover, and shows the ones 

for which DOE proposed to adopt test 

procedures, the sections of EPACT 2005 

and EPCA that authorize and require 

these test procedures, and the sections 

in the CFR where DOE proposed to 

place them. 

TABLE 1.—TEST PROCEDURES AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS—AUTHORITY AND PLACEMENT 

Product or equipment type EPACT 2005 

section EPCA section USC section 10 CFR section 

Ceiling fans ............................................................ 

Ceiling fan light kits ................................................ 

Dehumidifiers ......................................................... 

Medium base compact fluorescent lamps ............. 

Battery chargers ..................................................... 

External power supplies ......................................... 

Torchieres* ............................................................. 

Unit heaters** ......................................................... 

Automatic commercial ice makers ......................... 

Commercial prerinse spray valves ........................ 

Illuminated exit signs ............................................. 

Traffic signal modules and pedestrian modules .... 

Refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines. 

Very large commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment. 

Commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. 

135(b)(1) .......... 

135(b)(1) .......... 

135(b)(1) .......... 

135(b)(1) .......... 

135(c)(4) .......... 

135(c)(4) .......... 

135(c)(4) .......... 

135(c)(4) .......... 

136(f)(1) ........... 

135(b)(1) .......... 

135(b)(1) .......... 

135(b)(1) .......... 

135(b)(1) .......... 

136(f)(1) ........... 

136(f)(1) ........... 

323(b)(16)(A)(i) ...... 

323(b)(16)(A)(ii) ..... 

323(b)(13) .............. 

323(b)(12) .............. 

325(u) .................... 

325(u) .................... 

325(x) .................... 

325(aa) .................. 

343(a)(7)(A) ........... 

323(b)(14)) ............ 

323(b)(9) ................ 

323(b)(11) .............. 

323(b)(15) .............. 

343(a)(4) ................ 

343(a)(6) ................ 

42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(16)(A)(i). 

42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(16)(A)(ii). 

42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(13) ... 

42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(12) ... 

42 U.S.C. 6295(u) ......... 

42 U.S.C. 6295(u) ......... 

42 U.S.C. 6295(x) ......... 

42 U.S.C 6295(aa) ........ 

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(7)(A) 

42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(14) ... 

42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(9) ..... 

42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(11) ... 

42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(15) ... 

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4) ..... 

42 U.S.C 6314(a)(6) ...... 

430.23(w). 

430.23(x). 

430.23(z). 

430.23(y). 

430.23(aa). 

430.23(bb). 

N/A. 

Part 431, Subpart N. 

Part 431, Subpart H. 

Part 431, Subpart O. 

Part 431, Subpart L. 

Part 431, Subpart M. 

Part 431, Subpart Q. 

Part 431, Subpart F. 

Part 431, Subpart C. 

1 EPACT 2005 specified test procedures, Table 1 includes those products for which EPACT promulgated by DOE were to be based as well as 

standards, and other amendments for a variety of 2005 specified particular test procedures or certain products for which EPACT 2005 directed 

consumer products and commercial equipment. methods on which the test procedures to be DOE to develop test procedures. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71342 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1.—TEST PROCEDURES AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS—AUTHORITY AND PLACEMENT—Continued 

Product or equipment type EPACT 2005 

section EPCA section USC section 10 CFR section 

Ice-cream freezers; commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers with a selfcontained condensing unit and without doors; 

and commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers with a remote condensing 

unit. 

136(f)(1)(B) ...... 343(a)(6)(A)(i) ........ 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(A)(i). 

Part 431, Subpart C. 

* For torchieres, EPACT 2005 establishes a design standard, which does not require a test procedure. 

** DOE is adopting definitions and other general provisions for unit heaters. 

II. Summary of Today’s Action 

Today’s final rule adopts test 

procedures for various consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment as required by sections 135 

and 136 of EPACT 2005. Sections 135 

and 136 of EPACT 2005 amended EPCA 

to require DOE to promulgate certain 

test procedures or identified certain test 

methods on which the DOE test 

procedures are to be based. These 

sections direct DOE to establish test 

procedures based on specifications of 

the Federal ENERGY STAR program and 

industry consensus standards that the 

statute identifies.2 Each of these 

ENERGY STAR specifications and 

industry standards, however, contains 

not only energy test procedures, but also 

provisions that are irrelevant in 

determining the energy use, water use, 

or efficiency of the products to which 

they apply. DOE is adopting only those 

sections of the ENERGY STAR 

specifications and industry consensus 

standards that specify test procedures 

relevant to the measurement of energy 

efficiency or water consumption. DOE is 

incorporating these sections by 

reference into its rules in some cases 

with clarifying changes or additions that 

do not alter the substance of the test 

procedure. DOE is placing the test 

procedures and related definitions for 

consumer products in 10 CFR part 430 

(‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other than 

Automobiles’’), and the test procedures 

and definitions for commercial and 

industrial equipment in 10 CFR part 431 

(‘‘Certain Industrial Equipment’’). 

In addition, DOE recently 

incorporated the energy conservation 

standards prescribed by EPACT 2005 

into 10 CFR Parts 430 and 431. 70 FR 

60407 (October 18, 2005). In the July 

2 Section 135(b)(1) of EPACT 2005, for example, 

directs that the test procedure for refrigerated 

bottled or canned vending machines ‘‘shall be based 

on American National Standards Institute/ 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers Standard 32.1–2004, 

entitled ‘Method of Testing for Rating Vending 

Machines for Bottled, Canned or Other Sealed 

Beverages’.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(15)) 

2006 proposed rule, DOE identified 

several provisions of these technical 

amendments that do not accurately 

reflect the provisions of EPACT 2005, 

and discussed the changes and 

clarifications needed to correct these 

inaccuracies. 71 FR 42195–96. The 

technical amendments as discussed in 

the July 2006 proposed rule are 

included in today’s final rule. 71 FR 

42196–97. 

Finally, today’s final rule does not 

include certification, compliance, and 

enforcement procedures for the 

consumer products and commercial and 

industrial equipment covered by this 

final rule. As discussed in the July 2006 

proposed rule, DOE previously 

proposed certification, compliance, and 

enforcement provisions for commercial 

heating, air-conditioning and water 

heating products in a notice of proposed 

rulemaking published on December 13, 

1999 (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘December 1999 proposed rule’’). 64 FR 

659598. That rulemaking is still 

pending, and DOE recently published a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking that seeks comment on 

alternatives to certain aspects of those 

proposals (hereafter referred to as the 

April 2006 supplemental notice). 71 FR 

25103. The certification, compliance, 

and enforcement procedures in the July 

2006 proposed rule for the EPACT 2005 

consumer products and commercial and 

industrial equipment were modeled 

after the December 1999 proposed rule 

and existing requirements for consumer 

products found in 10 CFR Part 430. In 

the July 2006 proposed rule and in the 

April 2006 supplemental notice, DOE 

discussed how it would decide to 

publish two final rules or a single final 

rule with the certification, compliance, 

and enforcement provisions for 

consumer products and commercial and 

industrial equipment. 71 FR 42193. DOE 

has reviewed the comments on the July 

2006 proposed rule and April 2006 

supplemental notice and has decided 

the issues are so interrelated that a 

single final rule is the more appropriate 

approach. However, due to the issues 

raised, DOE believes it would be best to 

issue the final rule for certification, 

compliance, and enforcement 

provisions for consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment in 

a separate Federal Register notice. 

Therefore, today’s final rule takes no 

action on any certification, compliance, 

and enforcement provisions for 

consumer products and commercial and 

industrial equipment, including those 

provisions that were proposed in the 

July 2006 proposed rule. 

III. Discussion of Comments and Final 

Rule—Energy Conservation Test 

Procedures for Certain Consumer 

Products and Certain Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment 

A. Ceiling Fans 

Section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 

includes an amendment to section 325 

of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295) to add 

subsection (v)(1), which includes 

requirements to develop a test 

procedure for ceiling fans. Further, 

amended section 323(b) of EPCA directs 

DOE to base this test procedure on the 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Testing Facility 

Guidance Manual: Building a Testing 

Facility and Performing the Solid State 

Test Method for ENERGY STAR 

Qualified Ceiling Fans, Version 1.1’’ 

published by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(16)(A)(i)). 

In the July 2006 proposed rule, DOE 

proposed to adopt this ENERGY STAR 

test procedure, along with additional 

requirements on power measurement 

and sensors and sensor software used 

for performing the airflow test. 71 FR 

42180–42181, 42203, 42204–42205. As 

discussed in the July 2006 proposed 

rule, DOE proposed these additional 

requirements to ensure the validity of 

the methods used and because the 

Guidance Manual is too restrictive in 

their software requirements. 71 FR 

42180. DOE did not receive any 

comments regarding this proposal. DOE 

is incorporating by reference into 

Appendix U to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 

430, the applicable ENERGY STAR test 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71343 

procedure requirements, with the minor 

modifications described above, and in 

the July 2006 proposed rule. DOE has 

determined the test methods in the 

ENERGY STAR document, as modified, 

comply with the requirements of section 

325(v)(1) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(v)(1)) 

and section 323(b)(3) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3)).3 

However, stakeholders did submit 

comments on the following four issues: 

(1) A request that DOE define and 

exempt from the standards highly 

decorative ceiling fans; (2) a question 

with regard to whether hugger-type 

ceiling fans are covered by the test 

procedure; (3) a question as to whether 

ceiling fans built for export are covered 

by the standard; and (4) a comment on 

the recordkeeping associated with 

testing ceiling fans. 

1. Highly Decorative Ceiling Fans. The 

American Lighting Association (ALA) 

and Emerson Electric (Emerson) 

requested that DOE define and establish 

highly decorative ceiling fans as an 

exempted product. (ALA, No. 14 at pp. 

5–6, No. 18.8 at p. 67 and No. 97 at pp. 

3–4; Emerson, No. 18.8 at pp. 63–64) 4 

ALA suggested a definition of highly 

decorative ceiling fans based on a fan 

blade length to width ratio of less than 

3:1. (ALA, No. 14 at pp. 5–6, and No. 

97 at pp. 3–4) ALA also commented that 

traditional ceiling fans typically have 

their highest rotational speeds at more 

than 200 RPM, and for highly decorative 

fans, the highest speeds are typically 

less than 175 RPM. (ALA, No. 97 at pp. 

3–4) In this comment, ALA 

recommended addition to the definition 

that highly decorative ceiling fans have 

‘‘a maximum of 175 RPM at high speed 

down flow.’’ (ALA, No. 97 at p. 4) 

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE) submitted a 

comment stating that it agrees a 

definition for ‘‘highly decorative fans’’ 

is needed. (ACEEE, No. 59 at p. 2) 

3 As outlined and further detailed in the July 2006 

proposed rule, test procedures under EPCA for 

consumer products must be designed to ‘‘measure 

energy efficiency, energy use, * * * or estimated 

annual operating cost.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

4 A notation in the form ‘‘ALA, No. 14 at pp. 5– 

6’’ identifies a written comment the Department has 

received and has included in the docket of this 

rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a 

comment (1) by the American Lighting Association 

(ALA), (2) in document number 14 in the docket of 

this rulemaking (maintained in the Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program), and (3) 

appearing on pages 5 and 6 of document number 

14. Likewise, ‘‘Public Meeting Transcript, No. 18.8 

at p. 67,’’ for example, would refer to page 67 of 

the transcript of the ‘‘Public Meeting on Test 

Procedures and Certification, Compliance, and 

Enforcement Requirements for Consumer Products 

and Certain Commercial and Industrial 

Equipment,’’ held in Washington, DC, September 

26, 2006, which is document number 18.8 in the 

docket of this rulemaking. 

However, ACEEE expressed concern 

over the definition provided by ALA. 

They believe that ALA’s proposed 

definition is too broad and would 

expand the highly decorative ceiling fan 

exemption to products that should be 

covered by the standard. (ACEEE, No. 

59 at p. 2) 

DOE recognizes that EPCA, as 

amended by section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 

2005, provides that if DOE sets energy 

conservation standards for ceiling fans, 

it must consider ‘‘establishing separate 

or exempted product classes for highly 

decorative fans for which air movement 

performance is a secondary design 

feature.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(v)(1)) 

However, today’s final rule does not 

establish standards for ceiling fans 

beyond the design standards in EPACT 

2005. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)) Thus, the 

requirement for DOE to consider 

whether highly decorative fans should 

be a separate regulated or exempted 

product class is not relevant at this time. 

In the future, should DOE amend the 

energy conservation standards for 

ceiling fans, it will address whether to 

establish a separate or exempted 

product class for highly decorative 

ceiling fans. 

DOE also notes that the provision in 

EPCA that establishes ceiling fan design 

standards (section 325(ff) and codified 

in 10 CFR 430.32(s)(1) by the October 

2005 final rule, 70 FR 60409, 60413) 

does not contain an exemption for 

highly decorative fans. Specifically, 

section 325(ff) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(ff)) requires all ceiling fans to have 

speed controls separate from lighting 

controls, adjustable speed controls, and 

the capability of reversible fan action for 

most fans. The only exemptions 

identified in this section apply to the 

reversible fan action requirement, and 

are for ‘‘fans sold for industrial 

applications, outdoor applications, and 

cases in which safety standards would 

be violated by use of the reversible 

mode.’’ Section 325(ff) does not provide 

for separate treatment or exemption of 

highly decorative ceiling fans under 

these design standards. Therefore, the 

design standards apply to highly 

decorative ceiling fans, unless an 

exemption specified in section 325(ff) 

applies. These standards go into effect 

for ceiling fans manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2007. 

2. Hugger Ceiling Fans. Hunter Fans 

(Hunter) expressed its view that hugger 

fans are exempt from DOE’s test 

procedure, (Hunter, No. 18.8 at p. 69), 

while Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) 

was concerned about such an exemption 

from DOE’s test procedure. (PG&E, No. 

18.8 at p. 74) Hugger ceiling fans are 

typically understood to be ceiling fans 

that are not suspended from the ceiling; 

instead, they are set flush to the ceiling. 

Under section 135(a) of EPACT 2005, 

EPCA defines ‘‘ceiling fan’’ as ‘‘a 

nonportable device that is suspended 

from a ceiling for circulating air via the 

rotation of fan blades.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6291(49)) Since the statutory definition 

defines ceiling fan as ‘‘suspended from 

a ceiling’’ and a hugger fan is not 

suspended, a hugger fan is not subject 

to EPCA requirements (including test 

procedures) applicable to ceiling fans. 

3. Products Manufactured for Export. 

Hunter asked whether ceiling fans 

manufactured for export are subject to 

EPCA requirements. (Hunter, No. 18.8 at 

p. 71) 

EPCA does not apply to products 

manufactured, sold, or held for sale for 

export from the United States and that 

when distributed, either bear or are in 

a container that bears, a ‘‘stamp or label 

stating that such covered product is 

intended for export.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6300) If 

such a product is in fact distributed in 

commerce for use in the United States, 

the product is subject to EPCA. Id. 

4. Burden Imposed by Test Procedure. 

ALA and Emerson commented on the 

burden associated with testing and 

recordkeeping for ceiling fans. (ALA, 

No. 14 at pp. 6–7 and No. 97 at pp. 4– 

5; Emerson, No. 18.8 at p. 65) ALA 

estimates that the costs associated with 

complying with EPCA for one ALA 

member is $152,114. (ALA, No. 14 at p. 

7) ALA also prepared an estimate of the 

costs for a ‘‘typical ALA member,’’ 

which totals $142,755. (ALA, No. 97 at 

p. 5) ALA commented that it is 

concerned about the burden being 

imposed on small businesses, and 

requests that DOE review the impacts. 

(ALA, No. 14 at p. 7) 

DOE notes that the EPACT 2005 

design standards, as codified in the 

October 2005 final rule (70 FR 60413), 

do not require use of a test procedure for 

the purpose of demonstrating 

compliance. These requirements, which 

include separate controls for fan and 

lights, adjustable speed controls and the 

capability of reversible action, are 

design requirements and do not require 

a test procedure. 

With regard to the test procedure 

established today, DOE has yet to 

establish an accompanying standard. 

Furthermore, EPCA required DOE to 

establish a test procedure and to base 

that test procedure on an existing 

ENERGY STAR test method (version 

1.1). (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(16)(A)(i)) DOE’s 

actions to propose and adopt this test 

method are directly in response to the 

statutory requirements. Any additional 

burdens that may be imposed through 

the use of this test procedure are in 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71344 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

connection with the statutory 

requirement. Therefore, DOE does not 

believe that today’s final rule, nor the 

October 2005 final rule codifying the 

EPACT 2005 design standards, imposes 

any testing burden on manufacturers, 

beyond that resulting from EPCA as 

established by Congress. 

DOE notes that on June 21, 2006, the 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking concerning a labeling 

requirement for ceiling fans. 71 FR 

35584. As proposed, the representation 

of air flow performance of ceiling fans 

would require the use of DOE’s test 

procedure finalized today. 

B. Ceiling Fan Light Kits 

Section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 

amended section 325 of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6295) to add subsection (v)(1), 

which directs the Secretary to prescribe, 

by rule, test procedures for ceiling fan 

light kits. Additionally, section 

135(b)(1) of EPACT 2005 amended 

section 323(b) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)) to add subparagraph (16)(A)(ii), 

which states that test procedures for 

ceiling fan light kits ‘‘shall be based on’’ 

the test methods ‘‘referenced in the 

ENERGY STAR specifications for 

Residential Light Fixtures and Compact 

Fluorescent Light Bulbs,’’ as in effect on 

August 8, 2005. In the July 2006 

proposed rule, DOE proposed test 

procedures for three types of ceiling fan 

light kits: (1) Ceiling fan light kits with 

medium screw base sockets; (2) ceiling 

fan light kits with pin-based sockets for 

fluorescent lamps; and (3) ceiling fan 

light kits other than those with medium 

screw base sockets or with pin-based 

sockets for fluorescent lamps, including 

candelabra screw base sockets. 71 FR 

42180–82, 42205. The classification of 

ceiling fan light kits in the July 2006 

proposed rule is consistent with the 

classification established in subsection 

325(ff) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)) 

Stakeholders provided comment on 

various aspects of the ceiling fan light 

kit proposals, which is discussed in the 

following three sections. 

1. Ceiling Fan Light Kits with Medium 

Screw Base Sockets. Section 135(c)(4) of 

EPACT 2005 amends section 325 of 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295) to prescribe 

standards for certain ceiling fan light 

kits manufactured on or after January 1, 

2007. Specifically, new subsection 

325(ff)(2) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(2)) 

provides that ceiling fan light kits with 

medium screw base sockets must be 

packaged with screw base lamps to fill 

all of the sockets, and these lamps must 

either meet the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Compact 

Fluorescent Lamps, version 3.0,’’ or use 

light sources other than CFLs that have 

at least equivalent efficacy. These 

standards for ceiling fan light kits with 

medium screw base sockets were 

adopted by DOE in the October 18, 

2005, rulemaking. 70 FR 60413. In 

accordance with EPACT 2005, DOE 

proposed to adopt the test methods in 

version 3.0 of the ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for CFLs in the 

July 2006 proposed rule. 71 FR 42181. 

While DOE proposed to adopt the test 

methods in version 3.0 for ceiling fan 

light kits with screw base sockets, DOE 

also sought stakeholder comment on the 

uniformity of the test procedures for 

these light kits with medium base 

compact fluorescent lamps, for which 

DOE proposed the August 9, 2001 

version of the ENERGY STAR test 

requirements. 71 FR 42202. 

Concerning the test method for ceiling 

fan light kits with medium screw base 

sockets, the National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

commented both before and during the 

public meeting that NEMA 

recommended DOE adopt its proposed 

test procedure, the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for [Compact 

Fluorescent Lamps] CFLs,’’ version 3.0. 

NEMA commented that the ENERGY 

STAR test procedure version 3.0 is not 

identical to the August 9, 2001, version, 

and could yield different results for the 

same CFL model. (NEMA, No. 9 at p. 1– 

5; Public Meeting Transcript, No. 18.8 at 

p. 91) As DOE noted in its July 2006 

proposed rule, the August 9, 2001, 

version of the ENERGY STAR test 

procedure requires a sample size of five 

lamps, all tested in the base-up 5 

position, while version 3.0 requires a 

sample of ten lamps, five of which are 

tested base-up and five of which are 

tested base-down. 71 FR 42182. In its 

final comment to DOE following the 

public meeting, NEMA changed its 

recommendation, commenting that it 

now believes DOE should adopt the 

August 9, 2001 version of ENERGY 

STAR, as the preponderance of CFL 

installations in ceiling fan light kits 

would be base-up to 45 degrees from 

base-up and virtually no base-down 

applications. (NEMA, No. 71 at p. 2) 

Based, in part, on NEMA’s earlier 

comment, DOE has determined that the 

August 9, 2001, version of the ENERGY 

STAR requirements would yield 

5 The terms ‘‘base-up’’ and ‘‘base-down’’ used 

here refer to the physical orientation of the integral 

CFL during its performance test. ‘‘Base-up’’ means 

that the CFL is tested essentially upside down, with 

the screw base and the ballast at the top and the 

fluorescent tube pointed down. ‘‘Base-down’’ is the 

inverse of that orientation, in which the CFL’s 

screw base and ballast are at the bottom, and the 

fluorescent tube is at the top. 

different results than version 3.0, as the 

test setup for the lamps and sample 

sizes are different. Moreover, version 3.0 

encompasses variability in CFL base 

orientations, whereas version 2.0 only 

tests performance in one orientation 

(base up). Thus, it would be difficult for 

DOE to conclude that its adoption of the 

August 9, 2001, version would meet the 

EPCA requirement that the test 

procedure for ceiling fans be ‘‘based on’’ 

version 3.0. In addition, DOE is not 

persuaded that the August 9, 2001, 

version is the better test method to 

adopt for lamps packed with ceiling fan 

light kits with medium screw base 

sockets. Ceiling fan light kits can have 

socket configurations that would result 

in CFLs installed in any range of base 

orientation configurations, including 

base-up, base-down, horizontal, and 

degrees-off-horizontal. Ceiling fan light 

kits produced today may have a 

preponderance of base-up to 45 degrees 

from base-up configurations, but this 

could change over time, with more 

horizontal orientations due perhaps to 

CFL lamp size, which for some CFLs 

can be longer than incandescent 

medium screw base lamps. Finally, the 

referenced industry standards in version 

3.0 of the ENERGY STAR specifications 

are more current than the standards 

referenced in the August 9, 2001 

version. In particular, the industry 

methods referenced for determining the 

electrical performance of CFLs are all 

more current in version 3.0. While the 

most current version may not always be 

the most appropriate test standard, in 

this instance, Congress explicitly cited 

the latest version. For all these reasons, 

DOE is adopting version 3.0 of the 

ENERGY STAR requirements, as it had 

proposed in the July 2005 notice, rather 

than the August 9, 2001 version. 

2. Ceiling Fan Light Kits with PinBased Sockets for Fluorescent Lamps. 

Subsection 325(ff)(3) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(ff)(3)) requires that ceiling fan light 

kits that have pin-based sockets for 

fluorescent lamps manufactured on, or 

after, January 1, 2007, must be packaged 

with lamps to fill all of the sockets, and 

that these lamps must meet the 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for Residential Light Fixtures, version 

4.0.’’ These standards for ceiling fan 

light kits with pin-based sockets for 

fluorescent lamps were adopted by DOE 

in the October 18, 2005 rulemaking. 70 

FR 60413. 

Concerning the test procedure for 

ceiling fan light kits with pin-based 

sockets for fluorescent lamps, DOE 

proposed to incorporate by reference the 

test methods in the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Residential 

Light Fixtures,’’ version 4.0 to measure 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71345 

the efficacy of pin-based fluorescent 

lamps that are packaged with ceiling fan 

light kits. 71 FR 42181. DOE did not 

receive any comments on this proposal, 

and therefore is incorporating the test 

methods from the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Residential 

Light Fixtures,’’ version 4.0 in today’s 

final rule. 

Philips submitted a comment 

requiring clarification on the 

requirement for ceiling fan light kits 

with pin-based sockets for fluorescent 

lamps. Philips asked whether an 

integrally-ballasted CFL with a GU24 

pin-base would be subject to the same 

requirements as a ceiling fan light kit 

with pin-based socket for fluorescent 

lamps, if these lamps were packaged 

with a ceiling fan light kit having GU24 

sockets. (Philips, No. 18.8 at p. 93; 

Philips, No. 19 at p. 1) DOE understands 

that GU24 is a base type that has large 

pins that lock into a GU24 socket. The 

GU24 socket is a line-voltage socket and 

is capable of accommodating different 

types of lamps, including incandescent. 

Since the lamp identified by Philips has 

pins in its base, and is a fluorescent 

lamp, Philips sought clarification on 

whether this lamp would be treated as 

a pin-based fluorescent lamp, and thus 

be subject to the requirements of the 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for Residential Light Fixtures,’’ version 

4.0, under the EPCA standards for 

ceiling fan light kits with pin-based 

sockets for fluorescent lamps. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(ff)(3)) 

Section 325(ff)(2)–(4) of EPCA 

classifies ceiling fan light kits by socket 

type only, not by the lamp-type inserted 

into those sockets. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(ff)(2)–(4)) The socket types fall 

into three categories: Medium screw 

base, pin-based for fluorescent lamps, 

and all other sockets that are not 

medium screw base or pin-based for 

fluorescent lamps. Id. The socket type 

classified as pin-based for fluorescent 

lamps has been uniformly understood to 

refer to sockets which (1) receive (and 

operate) fluorescent lamps that lack an 

integral ballast and (2) transmit voltage, 

received through a ballast, to such 

lamps at levels considerably higher than 

the line voltage. The product Philips 

identified with GU24-based lamp is a 

fluorescent lamp that has pins in its 

base. Due to the fact that this lamp is 

integrally ballasted, the sockets for this 

lamp type operate at line voltage and 

such sockets are not uniquely associated 

with fluorescent lamps. DOE does not 

consider them to be ‘‘pin-based sockets 

for fluorescent lamps.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(ff)(3)) Rather, DOE considers any 

ceiling fan light kit with GU24 sockets 

as the third group of ceiling fan light 

kits, specifically, those with sockets that 

are not medium screw base or pin-based 

for fluorescent lamps. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(ff)(4)) Manufacturers could use the 

GU24 base-type for lamp technologies 

other than fluorescent technologies. For 

example, DOE recently learned that a 

manufacturer is launching a new 

product that incorporates a ballast and 

light-emitting diodes (LED) into a 

reflector lamp that has a GU24 base. 

While this new LED lamp may indeed 

be highly efficient and qualify for the 

standards imposed by EPACT 2005 on 

pin-based for fluorescent lamps, it 

clearly is not a fluorescent lamp. 

In the July 2006 proposed rule, DOE 

proposed a definition of pin-based as 

follows: ‘‘Pin-based means a fluorescent 

lamp with a plug-in lamp base, 

including multi-tube, multibend, spiral, 

and circline types.’’ 71 FR 42181, 42203. 

DOE intended that this definition reflect 

the well understood meaning of ‘‘pinbased’’ as a plug-in base, and not a 

screw base, for a CFL that was not 

integrally ballasted. In response to the 

question from Philips, DOE now 

recognizes that there could be some 

ambiguity in this definition, and has 

therefore inserted the clarifying phrase, 

‘‘that is not integrally ballasted,’’ to the 

definition of ‘‘pin-based.’’ DOE has also 

made some clarifying editorial changes 

to this definition to make clear that it 

describes the base of a lamp, not the 

lamp itself, and that it also applies to 

the sockets that receive pin-based 

fluorescent lamps. Thus, in today’s final 

rule, the definition, which will appear 

in 10 CFR 430.2, reads: ‘‘Pin-based 

means (1) the base of a fluorescent lamp, 

that is not integrally ballasted and that 

has a plug-in lamp base, including 

multi-tube, multibend, spiral, and 

circline types, or (2) a socket that holds 

such a lamp.’’ 

3. Ceiling Fan Light Kits with Sockets 

Other than Medium Screw Base or PinBased. For this group of products, 

section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 

amends section 325 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295) by adding new subsection (ff)(4), 

which directs DOE to ‘‘consider and 

issue requirements’’ for any ceiling fan 

light kits other than those with medium 

screw base or pin-based sockets, 

‘‘including candelabra screw base 

sockets.’’ For these light kits, EPACT 

2005 has two default requirements: (1) 

They shall not be capable of operating 

with lamps that total more than 190 

watts; and (2) they shall include lamps 

whose total wattage does not exceed 190 

watts. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(4)(c)) If the 

Secretary does not issue a final rule 

establishing requirements for these 

ceiling fan light kits by January 1, 2007, 

the default requirements described 

above will become law. Id. DOE will not 

be publishing requirements for these 

light kits by the statutory deadline. 

Therefore, the statutory requirements, 

that ceiling fan light kits not be capable 

of consuming more than 190 watts and 

that they include such lamps, will 

become effective for this category of 

ceiling fan light kits manufactured after 

January 1, 2009, as specified by EPCA. 

Id. 

DOE is not requiring a test procedure 

for the wattage limitation, but instead is 

requiring that the total wattage of the 

lamps packaged with a ceiling fan light 

kit not exceed 190 watts. A 

manufacturer would simply ensure that 

there are sufficient lamps packaged with 

the ceiling fan light kit to fill any and 

all sockets in the fixture and the total 

wattage of those lamps would not 

exceed 190 watts. In the July 2006 

proposed rule, DOE asked for 

stakeholder comment on whether the 

‘‘capable of operating’’ requirement 

should be considered an energy 

conservation standard (requiring a test 

procedure) or a design standard (not 

requiring a test procedure). 71 FR 

42181–2. DOE also stated in the July 

2006 proposed rule that if DOE 

considered the 190-watt limitation as a 

design requirement, manufacturers of 

these ceiling fan light kits would be 

required to incorporate some measure 

such as a fuse, circuit breaker or 

current-limiting device to ensure the 

light kit was not capable of operating 

with a lamp or lamps totaling more than 

190 watts. 71 FR 42181. 

DOE received comments from several 

stakeholders as to whether the statutory 

standard is a design requirement or an 

energy conservation standard. Hunter 

and the American Lighting Association 

(ALA) both commented that DOE 

should interpret the statutory 

requirement of ‘‘not [being] capable of 

operating with lamps [totaling] more 

than 190 watts’’ as a design 

requirement. (Hunter, No. 3 at p. 1; 

Hunter, No. 18.8 at pp. 82–83; ALA, No. 

97 at p. 5) ALA commented that there 

are various ways you can control a 

device to consume not more than 190 

watts, including fuses and circuit 

breakers. These devices have UL and 

CSA standards already in place for 

them, which would make it relatively 

straightforward to meet the 190-watt 

power limit. (ALA, No. 18.8 at pp. 83– 

84 and No. 97 at p. 5) ALA provided a 

detailed cost estimate of the impacts on 

a typical ALA member should DOE 

interpret this as an energy conservation 

standard. (ALA, No. 97 at pp. 6–7) 

ACEEE commented that it would 

consider the inclusion of a wattagelimiting device or fuse/circuit breaker as 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71346 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

adequate, provided the device has been 

tested to show that more than 190 watts 

cannot be used. (ACEEE, No. 59 at p. 2) 

Furthermore, ACEEE recommends that 

the requirements for the 190-watt 

provision be the same between this 

category of ceiling fan light kits and 

torchieres. (ACEEE, No. 59 at p. 2) 

DOE considered these comments, and 

is interpreting the 190-watt limit on 

power consumption for certain ceiling 

fan light kits as a design requirement 

(similar to the features required by 

section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 for 

ceiling fans). This approach, consistent 

with DOE’s treatment of a similar 

provision for torchieres, will require 

that manufacturers incorporate some 

measure such as a fuse, circuit breaker 

or current-limiting device to ensure the 

light kit is not capable of operating with 

a lamp or lamps totaling more than 190 

watts. Thus, today’s final rule does not 

establish a test procedure, but instead 

DOE anticipates requiring that 

manufacturers report to DOE on the 

feature or features that have been 

incorporated into the ceiling fan light 

kit (e.g., circuit breaker, fuse, or other 

current-limiting device) to ensure they 

would not draw more than 190 watts of 

power once certification and 

enforcement provisions are adopted for 

these products. 

ALA provided six examples of ceiling 

fans and ceiling fan light kits that it 

requested DOE’s clarification on how 

the 190-watt limitation should be 

applied. (ALA, No. 97 at p. 6) These six 

examples focus on the application of the 

190-watt limitation and do not include 

the mandatory performance 

requirements for ceiling fan light kits 

with medium screw base sockets or pinbased sockets for fluorescent lamps. 

These examples also do not address the 

mandatory packaging requirements 

associated with ceiling fan light kits, 

which are clearly laid out in EPACT 

2005. These six examples of ceiling fans 

and ceiling fan light kits that ALA 

outlined in their comments and DOE’s 

responses are as follows: 

•	 For ceiling fans with integrated 

lighting that are incapable of 

‘‘attachable’’ ceiling fan light kit 

installation, a 190-watt limiting 

device will be supplied with the fan 

to control the integrated lighting. 

DOE determined that supplying the 

190-watt limiting device with the fan to 

ensure that the integrated lighting not 

exceed the 190-watt limitation for 

ceiling fans with integrated lighting that 

are incapable of ‘‘attachable’’ ceiling fan 

light kit installation complies with this 

wattage limitation. This wattage 

limitation would not apply to ceiling 

fans with integrated light kits having 

medium screw base sockets or pin-based 

sockets for fluorescent lamps. 

•	 For ceiling fans with integrated 

lighting that are capable of 

‘‘attachable’’ ceiling fan light kit 

installation, a 190-watt limiting 

device will be supplied to control the 

integrated lighting. 

DOE determined that the 190-watt 

limitation applies to the integrated 

lighting and/or any other attachable 

ceiling fan light kit that could be 

installed on the ceiling fan for ceiling 

fans with integrated lighting that are 

capable of ‘‘attachable’’ ceiling fan light 

kit installation. Again, this wattage 

limitation would not apply to ceiling 

fans with integrated light kits having 

medium screw base sockets or pin-based 

sockets for fluorescent lamps. 

•	 For ceiling fans with pin base 

fluorescent lamps, a 190-watt limiting 

device will not be supplied with the 

fan. 

DOE determined that ceiling fans that 

incorporate an integral light kit with 

pin-based sockets for fluorescent lamps 

would not have to include a 190-watt 

limiting device because the lamps are 

subject to requirements for ceiling fan 

light kits with pin-based sockets for 

fluorescent lamps. 

•	 For ceiling fans without integrated 

lighting, a 190-watt limiting device 

will not be supplied with the fan. 

DOE determined that the 190-watt 

limiting device does not need to be 

supplied with a ceiling fan sold without 

integrated lighting because there is no 

light kit packaged with the ceiling fan. 

However, any ceiling fan light kits sold 

directly to consumers for installation on 

a ceiling fan without integrated lighting 

would be subject to the ceiling fan light 

kit standards established for medium 

screw base sockets, pin-based sockets 

for fluorescent lamps or any other 

socket type. 

•	 For ‘‘attachable’’ ceiling fan light kits 

with medium screw base sockets or 

pin-based sockets for fluorescent 

lamps, a 190-watt limiting device will 

not be supplied with the light kit. 

(ENERGY STAR approved medium 

screw base CFL’s and pin-based 

fluorescent lamps are supplied with 

the light kit) 

DOE determined that a 190-watt 

limiting device would not be required 

for ‘‘attachable’’ ceiling fan light kits 

with medium screw base sockets or pinbased sockets for fluorescent lamps 

because these two types of light kits 

would be subject to the requirements for 

ceiling fan light kits with medium screw 

base sockets and pin-based sockets for 

fluorescent lamps. 

•	 For ‘‘attachable’’ ceiling fan light kits 

with other than medium base or pinbased sockets for fluorescent lamps, a 

190-watt limiting device will be 

supplied with the light kit. 

DOE also determined that 

‘‘attachable’’ ceiling fan light kits with 

sockets other than medium screw base 

or pin-based for fluorescent lamps 

would be required to be supplied with 

a 190-watt limiting device. These 

‘‘attachable’’ ceiling fan light kits are 

required to meet the mandatory 

standards, as outlined in EPACT 2005. 

Litex Industries submitted a comment 

recommending that DOE eliminate the 

requirement to use a circuit breaker or 

similar limiting mechanisms for these 

ceiling fan light kits, and instead have 

a design requirement that manufacturers 

cannot have more than three candelabra 

sockets in a ceiling fan light kit. (Litex, 

No. 103 at pp. 1–2) Litex asserts that it 

would be impossible for consumers to 

install wattages in excess of 190 watts, 

as candelabra lamps are only rated up 

to 60 watts each. (Litex, No. 103 at p. 

2) In addition, Litex recommends that 

DOE eliminate the need to package 

candelabra base lamps with the ceiling 

fan light kit because consumers could 

obtain the lamps more cheaply from 

existing suppliers. (Litex, No. 103 at p. 

2) 

DOE appreciates this comment from 

Litex, but is not able to accommodate 

either recommendation. Concerning the 

design requirement, this category of 

sockets other than medium screw base 

and pin base for fluorescent lamps 

includes ceiling fan light kits with all 

other socket types, not just candelabra. 

Thus, EPCA applies to several base 

types simultaneously, some of which do 

have lamps rated higher than 60 watts. 

On the issue of eliminating the 

requirement to package the ceiling fan 

light kits with lamps, section 

325(ff)(4)(C) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(ff)(4)(C) states that these ceiling 

fan light kits manufactured after January 

1, 2009, ‘‘(ii) shall include the lamps 

described in clause (i) in the ceiling fan 

lighting kits.’’ Litex’s recommendation 

is contrary to the requirements of EPCA, 

and therefore can not be adopted. 

Hunter fan asked for clarification as to 

whether ceiling fan ‘‘up-lighting/accent 

lighting’’ would be included in the 190-

watt limitation for these ceiling fan light 

kits. (Hunter, No. 3 at p. 1) DOE is 

unclear as to what Hunter means by 

‘‘up-lighting’’ in the context of ceiling 

fan light kits. EPCA expressly subjects 

ceiling fan light kits with sockets other 

than medium screw base and pin-based 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71347 

for fluorescent lamps to the wattage 

limitation requirement. It is conceivable 

that some ceiling fan light kit designs 

could provide ‘‘up-lighting’’ if the lamps 

installed in the ceiling fan light kit are 

directed upward. Thus, these ceiling fan 

light kits would be subject to the 190-

watt limitation. However, DOE does not 

consider ceiling fan accent lighting that 

is not a significant light source to be 

part of the 190-watt limitation. 

DOE has made this determination for 

several reasons. First, pursuant to 

section 135(a)(3) of EPACT 2005, EPCA 

defines a ceiling fan light kit, in part, as 

equipment ‘‘designed to provide light.’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 6291(50)) The purpose of 

accent lighting is not to provide direct 

light; instead, it is commonly used for 

decorative purposes. As such, accent 

lighting is not covered by EPCA. 

Second, this application of the standard 

is clearly consistent with EPCA’s 

treatment of ceiling fan light kits with 

medium-screw base sockets and those 

with pin-based sockets for fluorescent 

lamps. For these two types of ceiling fan 

light kits, section 325(ff) of EPCA clearly 

regulates only lamps inserted into screw 

base or pin-based sockets, and not any 

accent lights otherwise incorporated 

into the fan. (42 U.S.C. 6295(ff)(2)–(3)) 

Third, as with the treatment of 

torchieres in today’s final rule, DOE is 

concerned with addressing energy 

consumption by light sources that are 

aligned with the primary purpose of the 

ceiling fan light kit. For ceiling fan light 

kits, the general illumination provided 

by the light kit is its principal function, 

and thus should be subject to the 190-

watt limitation. Other ancillary lighting, 

such as accent lighting serves primarily 

an aesthetic purpose and is therefore not 

part of the general illumination function 

of the ceiling fan light kit. 

C. Dehumidifiers 

Section 135(b)(1) of EPACT 2005 

amends section 323(b) of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)) to add subsection (b)(13) 

for dehumidifiers. New subsection 

323(b)(13) (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(13)) 

directs the Secretary to prescribe test 

procedures for dehumidifiers based on 

the test criteria in the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for 

Dehumidifiers,’’ as in effect on August 

8, 2005. The July 2006 proposed rule 

proposed to incorporate by reference 

into 10 CFR Part 430 the test criteria 

contained in the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for 

Dehumidifiers,’’ as in effect on August 

8, 2005. The ENERGY STAR 

requirements went into effect on 

January 1, 2001, and reference the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI)/Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard DH– 

1–2003, ‘‘Dehumidifiers,’’ for energy 

consumption measurements during 

capacity-rating tests and CAN/CSA 

Standard C749–1994, ‘‘Performance of 

Dehumidifiers,’’ for energy factor 

calculations. 71 FR 42182, 42203, and 

42206. 

DOE received one comment on this 

issue. AHAM commented that they 

agreed with the proposal as the test 

procedure for dehumidifiers. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 18.8 at p. 23) 

DOE is incorporating by reference into 

Appendix X of 10 CFR Part 430, the 

definitions, tolerances, and testing 

procedures in the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for 

Dehumidifiers,’’ January 1, 2001 

without any modifications. DOE 

believes this test procedure provides a 

sound means for determining 

compliance with the standards in 

section 325(cc) of EPCA, (42 U.S.C. 

6295(cc)), and satisfies the requirements 

of section 323(b)(3) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3)) 

D. Medium Base Compact Fluorescent 

Lamps 

Section 135(b)(1) of EPACT 2005 

amends section 323(b) of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)) to add subsections 

(b)(12)(A) through (C), for ‘‘medium 

base’’ compact fluorescent lamps 

(CFLs). (These CFLs are also commonly 

referred to as ‘‘screw base’’ CFLs.) 

Subsection 323(b)(12)(A) of EPCA 

requires test procedures for medium 

base CFLs to be based on the August 9, 

2001, version of the ENERGY STAR 

program requirements for CFLs (version 

2.0), which became effective October 1, 

2001. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(12)(A)) In the 

July 2006 proposed rule, DOE discussed 

whether it should adopt the more recent 

version of the CFL ENERGY STAR 

program requirements (version 3.0) 

which became effective January 1, 2004, 

or the version directed by EPCA, version 

2.0. 71 FR 42182. Although DOE 

proposed to adopt version 2.0, the 

August 9, 2001 version, in the proposed 

rule, DOE considered adopting version 

3.0 because: (1) It was the current 

version of the CFL ENERGY STAR test 

procedure; (2) version 3.0 was required 

in a different part of the EPACT 2005 

that established standards for CFLs 

packaged with ceiling fan light kits; and 

(3) DOE believes version 3.0 would 

result in the same measure of energy 

efficacy. 71 FR 42205. 

DOE received several comments in 

response to the July 2006 proposal to 

adopt the August 9, 2001 version of the 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for CFLs’’ as the test procedure for 

medium base compact fluorescent 

lamps. NEMA opposes DOE adopting 

version 3.0 of the CFL ENERGY STAR 

program requirements for testing CFLs 

generally, and recommended that DOE 

adopt version 2.0, as directed by EPCA. 

(NEMA, No. 18.8 at pp. 86–91; NEMA 

No. 9 at pp. 2–6) NEMA provided 

detailed reasons for its position. NEMA 

states that these are two separate testing 

regimens, intended for different 

products in different applications. The 

test method itself is different (e.g., 

version 2.0 tests five lamps base-up 

while version 3.0 tests ten lamps, five 

base-up and five base-down), and would 

therefore yield different lumen per watt 

and lamp maintenance results. (NEMA, 

No. 9 at pp. 2–3) NEMA also 

commented that EPACT 2005 

incorporated the August 9, 2001, 

ENERGY STAR program requirements 

(version 2.0) to provide a minimum 

floor for CFLs in the general lighting 

market, and intentionally adopted the 

different requirements in version 3.0 for 

CFLs shipped with ceiling fan light kits. 

(NEMA No. 9, at pp. 4–5) ALA 

commented that it agrees with NEMA 

that the appropriate test procedure for 

medium base CFLs is version 2.0. (ALA, 

No. 97 at p. 3) ACEEE disagreed with 

the viewpoint of NEMA and ALA, 

commenting that the ENERGY STAR 

version 3.0 test is more accurate since 

it includes both base-up and base-down 

testing. (ACEEE No. 59 at p. 3) 

Upon consideration of these 

comments, DOE agrees that the test 

method in version 3.0 could result in a 

different measure of energy efficiency 

than the method in version 2.0, and 

DOE recognizes that the standards set by 

EPACT 2005 for CFLs are based on the 

August 9, 2001, version of the ENERGY 

STAR program requirements for CFLs 

(version 2.0). Therefore, DOE is 

adopting version 2.0 (August 9, 2001) of 

the ENERGY STAR program 

requirements as the test method for 

CFLs generally. DOE believes this test 

procedure provides the testing setup 

and methods for determining 

compliance with the standards in 

section 325(cc) of EPCA, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(cc)), and it satisfies the 

requirements of section 323(b)(3) of 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

DOE notes that in section 135(c) of 

EPACT 2005, which amended section 

325 of EPCA to add subsection (bb), the 

statute established energy conservation 

standards for medium base CFLs. In that 

subsection, DOE was directed to adopt 

the minimum initial efficacy, lumen 

maintenance, rapid cycle stress test and 

lamp life requirements prescribed in 

version 2.0 (August 9, 2001) of the 

ENERGY STAR program requirement for 

CFLs. DOE codified these standards in 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71348 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

the October 2005 final rule. 70 FR 

60413. 

E. Torchieres 

Section 135(a) of EPACT 2005 

included an amendment to EPCA that 

defined a ‘‘torchiere’’ as ‘‘a portable 

electric lamp with a reflector bowl that 

directs light upward to give indirect 

illumination.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(42)) DOE 

codified that definition in the October 

2005 final rule. 70 FR 60412. EPACT 

2005 also amended section 325 of EPCA 

to establish an energy conservation 

standard for torchieres that they (1) 

consume not more than 190 watts of 

power and (2) shall not be capable of 

operating with lamps that total more 

than 190 watts. (42 U.S.C. 6295(x)) This 

standard, which took effect for 

torchieres manufactured on or after 

January 1, 2006, was also codified in the 

October 2005 final rule. 70 FR 60413. 

In the July 2006 proposed rule, DOE 

outlined two possible approaches to 

addressing this energy conservation 

standard. 71 FR 42183. Since EPACT 

2005 neither prescribes nor directs DOE 

to develop a test procedure for 

torchieres, DOE’s choice of approach 

will determine whether or not a test 

procedure is required for torchieres. 

One approach identified in the July 

2006 proposed rule would be for DOE 

to interpret the statutory requirement of 

‘‘not be capable of operating with lamps 

that total more than 190 watts’’ as a 

design requirement. Under this 

interpretation, DOE would not require a 

test procedure. The alternative approach 

identified in the July 2006 proposed 

rule would be for DOE to adopt a test 

procedure that would measure the 

power consumption of a torchiere. DOE 

sought stakeholder comment on these 

two possible approaches to addressing 

the energy conservation standard. 71 FR 

42202. 

Three issues were raised by 

stakeholders in this rulemaking 

proceeding that pertain to torchieres. 

First, stakeholders sought clarity on 

how DOE interprets the definition of a 

torchiere, as codified at 10 CFR 430.2. 

Second, stakeholders commented on the 

two approaches to interpreting EPCA, 

namely, whether the requirement is a 

design or energy conservation standard. 

Associated with this, stakeholders also 

requested input from DOE on the use of 

certain types of UL-listed devices (i.e., 

current-limiting devices) as design 

options to demonstrate compliance with 

the standard. And third, stakeholders 

asked if DOE had any discretion on how 

and when it might enforce the standard 

on torchieres, to allow sufficient time 

for manufacturers to incorporate 

current-limiting devices into torchiere 

product lines. 

1. Definition of a Torchiere. Several 

stakeholders commented that, for 

fixtures that provide both indirect 

lighting through a reflector bowl as well 

as other lighting, DOE should consider 

only the reflector bowl portion of the 

fixture as subject to the 190-watt energy 

consumption limitation. (ALA, No. 14 at 

p. 2, No. 18.8 at p. 96, and No. 97 at p. 

2; Progress Lighting, No. 96 at p. 1; 

Holtkotter, No. 92 at p. 1; Pacific Coast 

Lighting, No. 91 at p. 1; Lite Source, No. 

99 at p. 1) In other words, these 

stakeholders were asserting that any 

accent lighting, down-lights or other 

auxiliary energy-using features 

incorporated into the fixture would not 

be considered part of the 190-watt 

energy consumption limitation. 

PG&E and ACEEE disagreed with this 

interpretation. PG&E stated that the 190-

watt limitation, which is the California 

standard for torchieres, applies to any 

auxiliary lighting features as well the 

reflector bowl. (PG&E, No. 18.8 at p. 

106) ACEEE also disagreed, commenting 

that a narrower interpretation that 

excluded task and decorative lighting 

from the 190-watt limitation would not 

be appropriate and is beyond DOE’s 

authority. (ACEEE, No. 59 at p. 2) 

DOE considered these comments and 

determined that the EPCA provisions for 

torchieres mean that the 190-watt 

limitation applies to the energy 

consumed to produce light emanating 

from the reflector bowl, and not to any 

other direct light or light from other 

design features. DOE reached this 

conclusion based on the fact that the 

EPCA definition for torchiere focuses on 

its distinctive characteristic of having a 

reflector bowl directing light upwards. 

A lighting fixture that includes a 

torchiere and has one or more task lights 

that provide direct illumination offers 

additional consumer utility that is only 

available in certain consumer product 

models. Therefore, in today’s final rule, 

DOE interprets the mandatory 190-watt 

limitation for torchieres as a design 

standard, which is applicable only to 

the reflector bowl portion of the 

torchiere fixture. For those torchieres 

that do incorporate task lighting or other 

design features into the torchiere 

fixture, those task lights or design 

features are not considered part of the 

190-watt limitation. 

DOE recognizes that the most 

common type of torchiere is one that 

consists solely of a lamp operating in a 

reflector bowl, directing light upward. 

Therefore, DOE is interpreting the term 

‘‘torchiere’’ as including any portable 

fixture having a reflector bowl that 

directs light upward, regardless of 

whether the torchiere may also have any 

other task lights or other design features 

incorporated into the fixture. 

2. Design Standard. ALA commented 

on the use of certain types of devices 

(i.e., current-limiting devices) as design 

options to achieve compliance with the 

standard. More specifically, ALA asked 

whether using nominally-rated power 

and current-limiting devices that are 

tested and approved by organizations 

including UL and the CSA is a suitable 

approach for achieving the 190-watt 

power limitation. (ALA, No. 14 at p. 2; 

ALA, No. 18.8 at p. 97) ACEEE 

commented that it believes a wattagelimiting device would be adequate, 

provided the device has been tested to 

show that more than 190 watts cannot 

be used. (ACEEE, No. 59 at p. 2) DOE 

indicated in the July 2006 proposed rule 

that it recognizes manufacturers may 

choose to follow one of several possible 

design pathways to comply with the 

regulations, including, but not limited 

to, a fuse, circuit breaker or other 

current-limiting device. 71 FR 42183. 

Use of a current-limiting device as 

described by ALA would be one 

approach to ensuring torchieres do not 

consume more than 190 watts, and 

thereby comply with the standard. 

DOE notes that EPACT 2005 did not 

provide explicit authority to DOE for 

developing a test procedure for 

torchieres. As noted above, DOE 

determined to interpret the energy 

conservation standard for torchieres as a 

design requirement. In this way, DOE 

does not require (or adopt) a test 

procedure in today’s final rule, but 

instead, will require that manufacturers 

report on the feature or features that 

have been incorporated into the 

torchiere (e.g., circuit breaker, fuse, 

ballast) so they would not draw more 

than 190 watts of power. These 

certification requirements as proposed 

for torchieres in the July 2006 proposed 

rule will be addressed in a separate final 

rule as described above in section II. 71 

FR 42183. This approach is consistent 

with the fact that EPCA does not 

explicitly direct DOE to establish a test 

procedure. 

3. Enforcement of Design Standard. 

ALA, Progress Lighting, Holtkotter, 

Pacific Coast Lighting, Lite Source, 

Senator Talent, and Representatives 

Sessions and Gordon asked whether 

DOE had any discretion on how and 

when it might enforce the standard on 

torchieres, to allow sufficient time for 

manufacturers to incorporate the 

current-limiting devices into their 

product lines. (ALA, No. 14 at p. 4, No. 

18.8 at pp. 98–99, and No. 97 at p. 2; 

Progress Lighting, No. 96 at p. 1; 

Holtkotter, No. 92 at p. 1; Pacific Coast 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71349 

Lighting, No. 91 at p. 1; Lite Source, No. 

99 at p. 1; Senator Talent, No. 101 at p. 

1; Representatives Sessions and Gordon, 

No. 102 at p. 1) ALA, Progress Lighting, 

Holtkotter, Pacific Coast Lighting, 

Senator Talent, and Representatives 

Sessions and Gordon requested that 

DOE delay its enforcement of the 

standard until April 30, 2007. (ALA, No. 

14 at p. 4, No. 18.8 at pp. 98–99, and 

No. 97 at p. 2; Progress Lighting, No. 96 

at p. 1; Holtkotter, No. 92 at p. 1; Pacific 

Coast Lighting, No. 91 at p. 1, Senator 

Talent, No. 101 at p. 1; Representatives 

Sessions and Gordon, No. 102 at p. 1) 

Lite Source requested that DOE delay its 

enforcement of the standard until July 1, 

2007. (Lite Source, No. 99 at p. 1) 

ACEEE commented that EPCA requires 

torchiere standards to take effect 

January 1, 2006, and it does not believe 

DOE has the authority to delay the 

effective date to April 2007 as industry 

requested. (ACEEE, No. 59 at p. 3) DOE 

notes that EPCA, as amended by section 

135(c) of EPACT 2005, specifies that the 

standard applies to all torchieres 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2006. (42 U.S.C. 6295(x)) DOE does not 

have the authority to amend the 

legislated effective date. All torchieres 

imported or manufactured after that 

effective date must be compliant with 

the national standard, as set by 

Congress. 

F. Unit Heaters 

Section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 

amends section 325 of EPCA to add 

subsection (aa) (42 U.S.C. 6295(aa)), 

which requires that unit heaters 

manufactured on or after August 8, 

2008, be equipped with an intermittent 

ignition device, and have power venting 

or an automatic flue damper. DOE 

incorporated these design standards into 

10 CFR 430 in the October 2005 final 

rule. 70 FR 60407. Since EPACT 2005 

promulgated a design standard for unit 

heaters, DOE is not proposing test 

procedures for this equipment. Test 

procedures under EPCA must be 

designed to measure ‘‘energy efficiency, 

energy use, * * * or estimated annual 

operating cost.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 6 

Test procedures are not required for 

determining compliance with design 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) 

In the July 2006 proposed rule, DOE 

proposed definitions for the terms 

‘‘intermittent ignition device,’’ ‘‘power 

venting,’’ ‘‘automatic flue damper,’’ and 

‘‘fan-type heater’’ as they relate to unit 

heaters, since none of these terms are 

defined in EPCA and DOE believes that 

6 Even though unit heaters are commercial 

equipment, Congress placed them in the residential 

section of EPACT 2005. 

the definitions are necessary to clarify 

the coverage and content of the 

standards for unit heaters. 71 FR 42184. 

The term ‘‘fan-type heater’’ is part of the 

EPCA definition of ‘‘unit heater’’ 

(EPACT 2005, section 135(a)(3), and 42 

U.S.C. 6291(45)) and the terms 

‘‘intermittent ignition device,’’ ‘‘power 

venting,’’ and ‘‘automatic flue damper’’ 

are part of the standards established in 

EPCA (EPACT 2005, section 135(c)(4) 

and 42 U.S.C. 6295(aa)). DOE based the 

proposed definitions on those found in 

industry consensus standards, and 

modified the definitions to reflect their 

application to unit heaters. 71 FR 42184. 

Today’s final rule adopts the 

proposed definitions with some 

revisions to provide additional clarity. 

DOE is also clarifying the regulatory text 

to indicate that unit heaters with 

automatic vent dampers comply with 

the design requirement. 

1. Definitions. The Gas Appliance 

Manufacturer Association (GAMA) 

commented on the proposed definitions 

for unit heaters, suggesting several 

modifications to each. (GAMA, No. 7, 

pg. 1) In particular, GAMA pointed out 

that the Federal standards for unit 

heaters are design requirements and 

stated that it believes Congress’s intent 

when including these standards in 

EPACT 2005 was to eliminate standing 

pilots and limit the amount of heat loss 

during ‘‘off’’ cycles. (GAMA, No. 7 at p. 

1) 

As such, GAMA suggested that the 

definition for intermittent ignition 

device be broadened to cover several 

different types of electronic ignition 

systems including units that ignite a 

pilot and those that use a hot surface or 

a spark to directly ignite the main 

burner. (GAMA, No. 7 at p. 2) GAMA 

also stated that the definition of power 

venting needed to be broadened to 

provide clarity, and to allow for 

optional add-on mechanical venting 

systems that help draw products of 

combustion from the appliance so as to 

lower the flue gas temperature, as well 

as use a non-metallic vent pipe. (GAMA, 

No. 7 at p. 2) ACEEE commented in 

support of these suggested 

modifications to DOE’s proposed 

definitions. (ACEEE, No. 59 at p. 2) DOE 

agrees with these suggested 

modifications to its proposed 

definitions, as well as GAMA’s rationale 

for broadening these definitions to make 

them applicable to many different 

configurations of unit heaters, and has 

incorporated these modifications into 

today’s final rule. 

GAMA also asserted that the 

definition of fan-type heater is not 

needed to interpret or understand the 

design standards set forth in EPACT 

2005. GAMA stated that this term is not 

used in any federal requirement except 

the definition of unit heater and that the 

proposed definition is incorrect. GAMA 

states that the July 2006 proposed 

definition of fan-type heater describes a 

fan-type heater as providing combustion 

air, which is not the case for this type 

of equipment. (GAMA, No. 7 at p. 3) 

Upon further review, DOE agrees that 

the proposed definition of fan-type 

heater is incorrect, and also that a 

definition of this term is not needed. 

DOE reached this conclusion because 

any fan-type heater by nature is 

designed to move air and that is what 

the definition of fan-type heater 

proposed in the July 2006 proposed rule 

explicitly states. DOE feels that this 

redundancy is unnecessary; therefore, 

no such definition is included in today’s 

final rule. 

In the July 2006 proposed rule, DOE 

proposed a definition of automatic flue 

damper as follows: 

‘‘Automatic flue damper means a damper, 

usually electrically operated, which when 

fitted in the flue of a gas or oil-fired spaceor water-heating appliance and connected to 

the appliance control system opens on firing 

and shuts after the main burner has been 

extinguished.’’ 

71 FR 42212–42213. GAMA stated that 

industry practice distinguishes between 

flue dampers and vent dampers, and 

suggested that DOE modify the above 

definition to clearly recognize this 

distinction, by adopting the definition 

of automatic flue dampers from ANSI/ 

the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE)/the Illuminating 

Engineering Society of North America 

(IESNA) Standard 90.1, ‘‘Energy 

Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise 

Residential Buildings’’ (ANSI/ASHRAE/ 

IESNA Standard 90.1). (GAMA, No. 7 at 

p. 2) GAMA apparently was concerned 

that the proposed definition would 

subsume both flue dampers and vent 

dampers, and could create confusion 

because normal industry usage does not 

include automatic vent dampers within 

the category of ‘‘automatic flue 

damper.’’ Thus, GAMA suggested 

incorporating, as part of the definition 

of automatic flue damper, clarification 

that the flue damper is located, in 

relation to the direction of flow of the 

combustion products, prior to the draft 

control device. (GAMA, No. 7 at p. 2) 

Lastly, with regard to unit heaters, 

GAMA suggested adding a definition of 

‘‘automatic vent damper’’ to further 

distinguish between a flue damper and 

a vent damper, and suggested that for a 

vent damper, DOE also use the 

definition contained in ANSI/ASHRAE/ 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3ER08DE06.000</GPH>

71350 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

IESNA Standard 90.1. (GAMA, No. 7 at 

p. 2) ACEEE also commented in support 

of these proposals. (ACEEE, No. 59 at p. 

2) 

In proposing a definition of automatic 

flue damper, DOE did not explicitly 

intend to capture automatic vent 

dampers. DOE recognizes that the 

proposed definition was broad enough 

to include a design that has a similar 

function as automatic flue dampers as 

defined by industry. However, DOE 

does not want the definition to conflict 

with industry-accepted definitions. DOE 

agrees with GAMA’s suggested revisions 

to the proposed definition of automatic 

flue damper and with the addition of its 

suggested definition of automatic vent 

damper. The revised definition 

conforms to the scope of equipment 

DOE intended to include in the 

proposed July 2006 proposed rule 

definition of ‘‘automatic flue damper.’’ 

And, addition of the new definition for 

automatic vent damper will serve two 

functions. First it will delineate devices 

excluded from the definition of 

automatic flue damper. Second, it will 

provide clarification for manufacturers 

to distinguish between DOE’s treatment 

of two technologies that perform similar 

functions, but are placed in different 

locations within the venting system. 

These modifications and adoption of 

these definitions will clarify the 

coverage and the content of the design 

standards for unit heaters. Therefore, 

today’s final rule incorporates both the 

revised definition of automatic flue 

damper and the new definition of 

automatic vent damper, incorporating 

the ASHRAE definitions, into section 

431.242 of 10 CFR Part 431. 

2. Automatic Vent Dampers. As just 

discussed, DOE’s proposed definition of 

‘‘automatic flue damper’’ was broad 

enough to include automatic vent 

dampers. Although DOE did not 

explicitly address this inclusion in the 

July 2006 proposed rule that was clearly 

one possible interpretation of the 

proposed rule. As proposed, the 

definition of ‘‘automatic flue damper’’ 

would have permitted the use of 

automatic vent dampers to comply with 

the design requirement. 

In conjunction with GAMA’s 

comments that DOE modify the 

definition of automatic flue damper and 

add the definition of automatic vent 

damper, GAMA also requested in its 

written comment and at the public 

meeting that DOE interpret the EPCA 

requirements for unit heaters to allow 

the equipment to use an automatic vent 

damper instead of, or as an acceptable 

alternative to, an automatic flue damper 

for unit heaters that draw combustion 

air from conditioned space. GAMA 

asserts that the use of an automatic vent 

damper on a unit heater meets the intent 

of the legislation because it saves more 

energy than a flue damper, by 

significantly reducing building heat loss 

through the draft control device and 

venting system during off cycles. 

(GAMA, No. 7 at p. 3; Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 18.8 at pp. 18 and 54– 

55) GAMA also explained at the public 

meeting that ASHRAE is currently 

considering a proposal that would allow 

automatic vent dampers as an 

acceptable alternative to automatic flue 

dampers. (Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 18.8 at pp. 18 and 54) In support of 

the GAMA proposal, ACEEE 

commented that ‘‘automatic vent 

dampers’’ should be considered an 

acceptable alternative to ‘‘automatic flue 

dampers.’’ (ACEEE, No. 59 at p. 2) 

Section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 

amends section 325 of EPCA to add 

subsection (aa) (42 U.S.C. 6295(aa)), 

which requires that unit heaters 

manufactured on or after August 8, 

2008, ‘‘* * * have power venting or an 

automatic flue damper.’’ DOE has 

determined that an established way for 

manufacturers to reduce or minimize 

energy losses through the vent system of 

certain unit heaters, namely those that 

draw combustion air from the 

conditioned space, is to include an 

automatic vent damper in lieu of an 

automatic flue damper. In addition, 

DOE believes the intent of the EPCA 

requirement that unit heaters have 

power venting or an automatic flue 

damper, is to reduce the heat loss 

through the vent system during ‘‘off’’ 

cycles, as that is the purpose of power 

venting and of automatic flue dampers. 

An ‘‘automatic vent damper’’ in a unit 

heater performs this function of 

reducing energy losses, by restricting 

the flow of heated air out of the venting 

system during off cycles, and the 

automatic vent damper performs this 

function in a manner superior to the 

automatic flue damper. (GAMA, No. 7 at 

p. 2) In consideration of the above, DOE 

is adopting the term ‘‘automatic vent 

damper,’’ and today’s final rule will 

explicitly permit the use of an automatic 

vent dampers to comply with the 

standard for unit heaters that draw 

combustion air from the conditioned 

space. These provisions will be placed 

in sections 431.242 and 431.246 of 10 

CFR Part 431. 

G. Automatic Commercial Ice Makers 

Section 136(f)(1)(B) of EPACT 2005 

amends section 343 of EPCA to add 

subsection (a)(7)(A) (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(7)(A)), which states that the test 

procedures for automatic commercial 

ice makers ‘‘shall be the test procedures 

specified in the Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute Standard 810– 

2003, as in effect on January 1, 2005.’’ 

The title of this Standard is 

‘‘Performance Rating of Automatic 

Commercial Ice Makers.’’ 

1. Test Procedure. In the July 2006 

proposed rule, DOE stated its intention 

to adopt Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 

810–2003 as the test procedure for 

automatic commercial ice makers of 

cube-type, which references ASHRAE 

Standard 29–1988 (RA 2005), with one 

modification. 71 FR 42184–85. Section 

4, ‘‘Test Requirements,’’ of ARI 

Standard 810–2003 references the 

performance tests in ASHRAE Standard 

29, ‘‘Methods of Testing Automatic Ice 

Makers.’’ DOE stated in the July 2006 

proposed rule that it believes ARI 

Standard 810–2003 provided for use of 

the most current version of ASHRAE 

Standard 29, which at present is ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–1988 (Reaffirmed 

2005). 71 FR 42184–42185. DOE also 

proposed to require explicitly that the 

energy consumption rate calculated 

using ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 29–1988 

(RA 2005) be determined using the total 

amount of ice produced during the 

cycles in which energy consumption is 

measured in the calculation of the 

energy consumption rate. 71 FR 42185. 

The July 2006 proposed rule included 

the requirement that the energy 

consumption rate normalized to 100 

pounds (100 lbs) of ice be determined as 

follows: 

Energy Consumed During Testing (kWh) Energy Consumption Rate (per 100 lbs ice) = ×100% 

Mass of Ice Collected During Testing (lbs) 

At the September 2006 public DOE’s proposal to adopt ARI Standard automatic commercial ice makers with 

meeting, ARI commented in support of 810–2003 as the test procedure for the revised energy use rate equation. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71351 

ARI further elaborated on the modified 

energy use rate equation by stating that 

ARI believes that this method has been 

used without the clarification. ARI 

suggested that DOE submit any 

revisions and clarifications to the 

ASHRAE Standard 29 committee, which 

would ensure that ASHRAE Standard 29 

be amended to reflect and clarify this 

energy use rate situation. ARI Standard 

810–2003 references ASHRAE Standard 

29–1988 (RA 2005) for the methods of 

tests and energy consumption rate 

calculations. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 18.8 at pp. 45–46) 

DOE is incorporating by reference the 

definitions, testing methods, and rating 

requirements of ARI Standard 810– 

2003, which references the testing 

provisions from ASHRAE Standard 29– 

1988 (RA 2005), and the revised method 

of calculating the energy consumption 

rate as proposed in the July 2006 

proposed rule. The adopted test 

procedure provides a method for 

measuring the energy use and water use 

at the harvest rate levels specified in 

section 342(d) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)), and for determining 

compliance with the standard levels in 

that section. Furthermore for the reasons 

stated in the July 2006 proposed rule, 71 

FR 42184–85, the adoption of these 

provisions satisfies both the 

requirement that the test procedures for 

automatic commercial ice makers ‘‘shall 

be’’ the test procedures in ARI Standard 

810–2003 (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(7)(A)) and 

the general requirements for test 

procedures in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2). 

Finally, section 136(h)(3) of EPACT 

2005 amends section 345 of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6316) to add subsection (f)(4) 

directing the Secretary to ‘‘monitor 

whether manufacturers are reducing 

harvest rates below tested values for the 

purpose of bringing non-complying 

equipment into compliance,’’ and 

authorizing the Secretary to take steps to 

minimize manipulation if the Secretary 

determines ‘‘that there has been a 

substantial amount of manipulation 

with respect to harvest rates’’ of 

commercial ice makers. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(f)(4)) As stated in the July 2006 

proposed rule, DOE will monitor 

commercial ice maker harvest rates to 

determine if such manipulation occurs. 

2. Additional Product Classes. The 

Howe Corporation (Howe) requested 

that DOE extend the ice maker standard 

to cover other types of automatic 

commercial ice makers beyond those 

that produce cube-type ice. (Howe, No. 

6 at p. 1) Howe stated that a significant 

disparity has existed in the way 

manufacturers rate the productive 

capacities and energy consumption of 

their equipment for all types of 

automatic ice makers. Howe also noted 

that DOE’s efforts to regulate automatic 

commercial ice makers will only apply 

to cube-type ice makers, which apply 

only to a portion of all automatic 

commercial ice makers that are 

manufactured and sold. (Howe, No. 6 at 

pp. 3–4) Howe concluded by requesting 

that DOE test procedures and 

requirements be amended and expanded 

to apply a revised ARI Standard 810 to 

all automatic ice makers regardless of 

ice-cube type. (Howe, No. 6 at pp. 3–4) 

EPCA, as amended by section 136(d) 

of EPACT 2005, establishes energy and 

water conservation standards for 

automatic commercial ice makers that 

produce cube-type ice. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(1)) EPCA does not set energy 

conservation standards for other types 

of automatic commercial ice makers, 

including those that make flake-type ice. 

The purpose of adopting a test 

procedure for commercial ice makers in 

this rulemaking is to adopt methods for 

testing equipment for which EPACT 

2005 set energy conservation standards, 

and to comply with the requirement that 

the test procedure for such ice makers 

be ARI Standard 810–2003, which 

applies only to the equipment that 

produces cube-type ice. Therefore, the 

test methods proposed in the July 2006 

proposed rule provides for measuring 

the condenser water rate, harvest rate, 

and energy use of automatic commercial 

cube-type ice makers. 71 FR 42184, 85. 

DOE’s adoption of these provisions 

satisfies the general requirements for 

test procedures in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2). 

Consideration for expanding the 

standard for automatic commercial ice 

makers to include equipment that 

produces ice other than cube-type ice is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking 

proceeding. DOE acknowledged at the 

public meeting, however, that it is 

authorized to adopt standards for such 

other commercial ice makers (42 U.S.C. 

6313(d)(2)), and if and when it seeks to 

adopt such standards, it intends to 

consider ice makers that produce flaketype ice. (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

18.8 at pp. 46, 48) 

H. Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves 

Section 135(b)(1) of EPACT 2005 

amends section 323(b) of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)) to add subsection (14), 

which states that test procedures for 

measuring the flow rate for commercial 

prerinse spray valves ‘‘shall be based on 

[the] American Society for Testing and 

Materials [ASTM] Standard F2324, 

entitled ‘Standard Test Method for PreRinse Spray Valves.’ ’’ Section 135(c)(4) 

amends EPCA to require that 

commercial prerinse spray valves 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2006, have a flow rate of 1.6 gallons per 

minute or less. (42 U.S.C. 6295(dd)) 

1. Performance Test. PG&E 

commented that DOE should adopt a 

cleanability test procedure as 

cleanability is a function of the prerinse 

spray nozzle. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 18.8 at pp. 56–57) PG&E 

further suggested that DOE examine the 

characteristic of the prerinse spray valve 

because they do not want to see a 

problem with people having to use more 

hot water because of the inadequate 

capability of the nozzle. Overall, PG&E 

stated that various experts in the field 

have generated standards which are 

available for cleanability and they 

believe that cleanability does have 

energy-related consequences for the 

commercial prerinse spray valve. 

While ASTM Standard F2324–03 

covers water consumption flow rate and 

cleanability of prerinse spray valves, 

EPCA gives DOE the authority for 

establishing a standard that addresses 

flow rate only. It does not give DOE the 

authority to regulate other performance 

features of commercial prerinse spray 

valves, such as cleaning performance. 

Therefore, DOE has not considered 

adoption of the cleanability provisions 

of ASTM Standard F2324–03 and is 

adopting the test procedure as proposed 

in the July 2006 proposed rule. 71 FR 

42185, 42213. ASTM Standard F2324– 

03 provides a sound basis for 

determining the flow rate and 

compliance with the standards for 

prerinse spray valves, which thereby 

complies with the requirements of 

section 343(b)(3) of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(2)) 

I. Illuminated Exit Signs 

Section 135(b)(1) of EPACT 2005 

amends section 323(b) of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)) to add subsection (9), 

which provides that test procedures for 

illuminated exit signs ‘‘shall be based 

on the test method contained in version 

2.0 of the EPA’s ‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Exit Signs.’ ’’ 

Furthermore, section 135(c)(4) of 

EPACT 2005 added a new subsection 

(w) to 325 of EPCA, requiring 

illuminated exit signs manufactured on, 

or after January 1, 2006, to meet version 

2.0’s performance requirements. Under 

version 2.0 such signs must have an 

input power demand of five watts or 

less per face. See 70 FR 60417; 10 CFR 

431.206. EPA updated the ‘‘ENERGY 

STAR Program Requirements for Exit 

Signs’’ and published version 3.0, 

effective August 1, 2004. 

Although subsection 323(b)(9) of 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(9)), specifically 

identifies the test method in version 2.0 

as the version on which the test 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71352 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

procedure for illuminated exits signs 

‘‘shall be based,’’ DOE proposed to 

incorporate by reference, the ‘‘ENERGY 

STAR Program Requirements for Exit 

Signs,’’ version 3.0, effective August 1, 

2004, because: (1) Version 3.0 is the 

most recent version of the ENERGY 

STAR test procedure; and (2) DOE 

believed the test methods in versions 

2.0 and 3.0 are the same with regard to 

energy consumption and would result 

in the same measure of energy 

consumption. 71 FR 42186. DOE also 

proposed to include a requirement in 

the test procedure that the time duration 

of the test shall be sufficient to measure 

power consumption with a tolerance of 

±1 percent in order to provide a basis for 

comparable measurements and to clarify 

the test procedure. 71 FR 42185, 42211. 

These requirements were proposed in 

section 431.204 of 10 CFR Part 430. Id. 

NEMA, Acuity Lighting Group 

(Acuity), and Osram Sylvania 

commented that the two versions of the 

ENERGY STAR are not the same. They 

commented that version 2.0 includes 

safety requirements such as brightness 

and visibility for illuminated exit signs 

that are not included in version 3.0. 

(NEMA, No. 71 at p. 2; Acuity Lighting 

Group, No. 5 at p. 1; Osram Sylvania, 

No. 16 at p. 1) NEMA also stated that 

the safety requirements included in 

version 2.0 for brightness and visibility 

are equally important as the input 

power demand test for energy 

consumption. (NEMA, No. 71 at p. 2) 

Furthermore, ACEEE stated that it 

worked with NEMA on the development 

of the EPCA provisions for illuminated 

exit signs and asserted that Congress 

made a conscious choice to reference 

version 2.0 of the ENERGY STAR 

program requirements for illuminated 

exit signs, even though version 3.0 was 

available. (ACEEE, No. 59 at p. 3) 

Although inclusion of safety 

requirements in the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Exit Signs’’ is 

laudable, EPCA provides DOE with the 

authority to set only energy 

conservation requirements for 

illuminated exit signs. As to test 

procedures in particular, DOE’s 

authority under EPCA is limited to 

adoption of test methods and related 

provisions that concern energy 

consumption. (See 42 U.S.C. 6214) 

Thus, even though, as discussed below, 

DOE is adopting version 2.0 of the 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for Exit Signs,’’ as the DOE test 

procedure for this equipment under 

EPCA, DOE will require use only of 

those elements of version 2.0 that 

concern testing for energy consumption. 

While DOE continues to believe that 

the two versions of the ENERGY STAR 

criteria for illuminated exit signs 

provide the same measure of energy 

consumption, DOE is adopting the 

earlier version, the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Exit Signs,’’ 

version 2.0, since it was explicitly 

specified in EPACT 2005. DOE 

recognizes that several states have 

adopted the safety standards in version 

2.0 of the ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements for Exit Signs.’’ DOE 

believes that the concern for having two 

different specifications for testing the 

same product outweigh the 

consideration for using the most recent 

version of the specification. In addition, 

DOE realizes that both version 2.0 and 

version 3.0 of the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Exit Signs’’ 

are equally available from the EPA. DOE 

is adopting version 2.0, which complies 

with the requirement in EPCA that the 

test procedures for such signs ‘‘be based 

on’’ that version. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(9)) 

In addition, NEMA also commented 

that the adoption of version 3.0 would 

allow the introduction of photo 

luminescent products, and would lessen 

the value of life safety requirements, 

which allow dim, photo luminescent 

signs to meet the requirements. (NEMA, 

No. 71 at p. 3) EPCA defines an 

‘‘illuminated exit sign’’ as a ‘‘sign that 

* * * is designed to be permanently 

fixed in place to identify an exit; and 

* * * consists of an electrically 

powered integral light source * * *.’’ 

(Section 321(37) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6291(37) Photo luminescent light 

products do not include ‘‘electrically 

powered integral light sources.’’ 

Photo luminescent products are not 

covered equipment, and DOE test 

procedures and energy conservation 

standards do not apply to or affect these 

products. DOE’s adoption of version 3.0 

would not have allowed introduction of 

these products, and adoption of version 

2.0 would not preclude their 

introduction. 

NEMA has also stated that a 

requirement for time duration for the 

test is unnecessary because wattage is 

not dependent upon time, 

measurements change very little over 

time, and measurement instruments 

may not be capable of measuring within 

a ±1 percent tolerance range. (NEMA, 

No. 71 at p. 4) Based on these 

comments, DOE reconsidered its 

proposed requirement that the time 

duration of the test be sufficient to 

measure power consumption with a 

tolerance of ±1 percent. DOE agrees 

wattage is not dependent upon time and 

that measurements using different 

durations would not lack comparability 

because the input power is not a 

function of time. Therefore, DOE is not 

adopting a time duration requirement in 

today’s final rule. 

J. Traffic Signal Modules and Pedestrian 

Modules 

Section 135(b)(1) of EPACT 2005 

amends section 323(b) of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)) to add subsection (11), 

which states that test procedures for 

traffic signal modules and pedestrian 

modules shall be based on the test 

method used under the ENERGY STAR 

program for traffic signal modules, as in 

effect on August 8, 2005. Section 4 of 

the ENERGY STAR specification in 

effect at that time, the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Traffic 

Signals,’’ version 1.1, prescribes use of 

the test methods from the Institute for 

Transportation Engineers (ITE), 

‘‘Vehicle Traffic Control Signal Heads 

(VTCSH),’’ Part 2, 1985, section 6.4.2, 

‘‘Maintained Minimum Luminous 

Intensity.’’ In addition, pursuant to 

Section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005, new 

subsection 325(z) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(z)) requires that traffic signal 

modules and pedestrian modules 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2006, meet the performance 

requirements specified in the ENERGY 

STAR program requirements for traffic 

signals, version 1.1, which preclude the 

maximum wattage and nominal wattage 

of these modules from exceeding certain 

specified levels. These requirements 

were codified in 10 CFR 431.226(a). 70 

FR 60417. 

1. Definitions of Nominal and 

Maximum Wattage. In the July 2006 

proposed rule, DOE proposed to clarify 

both the standards and test conditions 

for these products by adopting the 

following definitions of nominal 

wattage and maximum wattage into 

section 431.222: 

• Nominal wattage means the power 

consumed by the module when it is 

operated within a chamber at a 

temperature of 25 °C after the signal has 

been operated for 60 minutes. 

• Maximum wattage means the power 

consumed by the module after being 

operated for 60 minutes while mounted 

in a temperature testing chamber so that 

the lensed portion of the module is 

outside the chamber, all portions of the 

module behind the lens are within the 

chamber at a temperature of 74 °C, and 

the air temperature in front of the lens 

is maintained at a minimum of 49 °C. 

71 FR 41286, 42212. DOE developed 

these definitions by drawing on 

language in the VTCSH test procedure 

and from consultations with ITE and 

proposed to place these definitions into 

§ 431.222 of 10 CFR Part 430. Id. 

ITE commented that it supported the 

definitions for ‘‘nominal wattage’’ and 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71353 

‘‘maximum wattage’’ of the traffic signal 

or pedestrian module. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 18.8 at p. 124) GELcore 

commented that it fully supports DOE’s 

desire to add definitions for wattage as 

set forth in the July 2006 proposed rule 

to reflect equal test conditions for either 

25 °C or 74 °C of green and red signal 

modules as well as for pedestrian white/ 

Portland orange signal modules. 

(GELcore, No. 60 at p. 1) However, 

GELcore also suggested modifying the 

proposed definitions under § 431.222 to 

include a duty cycle, specify a 

calibrated instrument, and specify 

‘‘Design Qualification Testing’’ for the 

set-up of the testing chamber. (GELcore, 

No. 60 at p. 2) 

DOE has determined that the 

clarifications suggested by GELcore are 

not necessary to define a traffic signal 

module or pedestrian module. The three 

clarifications suggested by GELcore are 

specifications for testing and are 

included in and accounted for in the 

VTCSH 2005 test procedure, which is 

being adopted in today’s final rule. 

VTCSH 2005 specifies the duty cycle, 

the testing-chamber set-up, the 

instrumentation to be used for testing, 

and further test criterion needed to 

determine the nominal and maximum 

wattages. Furthermore, DOE did not 

receive any comments objecting to the 

proposed definitions and believes all of 

the clarifications proposed by GELcore 

are subsumed in the methods of test in 

VTCSH 2005. DOE is therefore 

incorporating the definitions as 

proposed in the July 2006 proposed rule 

into § 431.222 of 10 CFR Part 431. 71 FR 

41286, 42212. 

2. ITE VTCSH Test Procedure 

Version. In the July 2006 proposed rule, 

DOE proposed to incorporate by 

reference the test methods for measuring 

the maximum and nominal wattages as 

contained in the test specifications in 

section 4 of the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Traffic 

Signals,’’ version 1.1, and section 6.4.2 

of VTCSH Part 2 (1985). However, in the 

July 2006 proposed rule, DOE pointed 

out that ITE recently updated the 

VTCSH to the June 27, 2005, version, 

referred to as VTCSH 2005. DOE did not 

propose to adopt the later VTCSH 

standard (VTSCH 2005) because (1) it 

would give stakeholders the perception 

that DOE extended coverage to products 

not covered by EPACT 2005; (2) it 

added a number of testing requirements 

DOE does not find necessary to meet the 

requirements of EPACT 2005; and (3) it 

wasn’t clear if the new VTCSH standard 

would give the same measure of energy 

consumption as the older version. 71 FR 

42186–42187. DOE requested comments 

on whether DOE should adopt the later 

VTCSH standard. Id. 

DOE received numerous comments 

concerning the proposed test procedure 

for traffic signal modules and pedestrian 

modules in the July 2006 proposed rule. 

Johnson City, Tennessee (Johnson City) 

stated that the VTCSH Part 2 (1985) is 

an outdated specification that has been 

superseded by VTCSH 2005 and should 

not be adopted; instead, DOE should 

adopt the later version of the VTCSH 

test procedure. Johnson City further 

stated that State and Federal agencies 

will move away from using the old 

specification and will begin using the 

VTCSH 2005 for traffic signal modules 

and that adopting the outdated 

specification would cause confusion 

and could be less comprehensive. 

Consequently, Johnson City urged the 

use of the specifications that are 

currently active, VTCSH 2005, for traffic 

signal modules and pedestrian modules 

available from ITE. (Johnson City, No. 2 

at p. 1) DOE received similar comments 

from over 106 States, cities, 

municipalities and ITE members 

echoing ITE’s comments and position 

for traffic signal modules and pedestrian 

modules. 

ITE urged DOE to adopt the 2005 

version of the VTCSH. ITE stated that 

the older version of the LED 

specification is no longer available 

through ITE and it will no longer 

publish the older version. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 18.8 at p. 124) 

In addition, ITE stated that 

approximately 80 percent of public 

agencies use the 2005 LED specification 

to procure signal systems. (ITE, No. 4 

and No. 8 at pp. 1–3) In addition, ITE 

believes that there exist technical 

difficulties in the design of LED signal 

modules that inhibit them from meeting 

two separate ITE specifications, namely, 

the 2005 version and the older version. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 18.8 at 

p. 125) ITE stated that LED traffic signal 

modules would have to qualify for 

overall design and manufacturing to the 

2005 specification to meet the need of 

the purchasing agencies and using an 

older version of the specification for 

DOE testing could require design and 

manufacturing changes. ITE urged DOE 

to use VTCSH 2005 for testing traffic 

signal modules to eliminate non-trivial 

cost increases associated with dual 

testing to two separate specifications 

and confusion within the industry. (ITE, 

No. 4 and No. 8 at pp. 1–3) 

NEMA commented in support of the 

ITE position to use the current 2005 

version of the LED circular specification 

(VTCSH 2005) because using an older 

version could cause confusion in the 

industry as agencies are beginning to 

require compliance with the new ITE 

specification. NEMA stated that the 

VTCSH 2005 has different testing 

requirements than the VTCSH Part 2 

(1985) and could conceivably require 

LED module manufacturers to provide 

additional testing to meet both the ITE 

specification (VTCSH 2005) and the 

ENERGY STAR Version 1.1 

requirements (VTCSH 1985). (NEMA, 

No. 9 at p. 3) 

Transportation and Energy Solutions, 

Inc., commented that the standards are 

ENERGY STAR specifications for LED 

traffic signals are obsolete and need to 

be updated. (Transportation and Energy 

Solutions, Inc, No. 100 at p. 1) 

Transportation and Energy Solutions 

also stated that the VTCSH 

specifications for traffic signal modules 

and pedestrian modules, regardless of 

the version, do not have any specific 

test methods for measuring wattage. 

The Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) commented that test 

requirements in VTCSH do not have any 

requirements for measuring wattage. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 18.8 at 

pp. 128–129) FHWA commented that 

the VTCSH test procedure only 

measures photometric and colormetric 

output (i.e., photometric and 

colormetric performance) and that these 

performance requirements differ in the 

VTCSH 1985, 1998, and 2005 

specifications. However, FHWA stated 

that if a product that is designed to the 

VTCSH 2005 performance specifications 

is tested under the 1998 testing 

requirements then the energy 

consumption results would be the same 

for red and green traffic signal modules 

and pedestrian modules covered by the 

EPACT 2005 standards. FHWA also 

stated that DOE would have to specify 

the watt meter or the type of tests that 

DOE requires to be conducted. FHWA 

suggests that DOE simply specify that 

during the qualification testing, the 

manufacturers conduct an RMS wattage 

measurement or do a measurement of 

the current consumption and voltage 

simultaneous to the measurement of the 

luminescence intensity. FHWA 

expressed the necessity to add the 

wattage requirements using the most 

straightforward methodology and 

concluded that the current and previous 

VTCSH specifications yield the same 

energy consumption results. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 18.8 at p. 132) 

In light of the comments received, 

DOE has reexamined the ENERGY 

STAR specifications for traffic signals in 

effect on August 8, 2005, and the 

VTCSH 2005 testing procedures it 

references. As DOE stated in the July 

2006 proposed rule, DOE did not 

propose to adopt VTCSH 2005 because 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71354 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

DOE believed the specification extended 

coverage to products not covered by 

EPACT 2005, used a format that is not 

conducive to incorporation in the DOE 

test procedure, and added a number of 

testing requirements DOE does not find 

necessary to meet the requirements of 

EPACT 2005. 71 FR 42186–42187. 

While DOE recognizes that the VTCSH 

2005 incorporates specifications for 

amber-colored modules, DOE points out 

that the energy conservation standards 

for nominal and maximum wattage 

specified by EPACT 2005 and codified 

in the October 2005 final rule are only 

applicable to red and green traffic signal 

modules and pedestrian modules, and 

thus, only the testing method for red 

and green traffic signal modules and 

pedestrian modules is applicable. 

DOE recognizes the concerns of ITE, 

FHWA, and the numerous State and 

local municipalities about using two 

different specifications for testing the 

same product, and believes these 

concerns for using two different 

specifications for testing the same 

product outweigh the considerations for 

the additional tests included in VTCSH 

2005. DOE has determined the testing 

requirements in VTCSH 2005, while 

more detailed, are a better reflection of 

current technologies used by traffic 

signal modules and pedestrian modules. 

While DOE stated in the July 2006 

proposed rule that VTCSH 2005 added 

a number of testing requirements, DOE 

has determined that these provisions are 

mostly applicable to amber traffic 

signals and pedestrian modules, which 

are not covered by EPCA. Therefore, 

DOE has since determined that the 

testing requirements in the VTCSH 2005 

will produce the same results as the 

VTCSH (1985) specification when 

testing red and green traffic signal 

modules or pedestrian modules and 

DOE is therefore adopting the 2005 

version of the VTCSH standard. In 

addition, DOE is adding a provision, as 

suggested by FHWA, to specify the use 

of a wattmeter when testing a product 

for energy consumption, as follows: 

Use a wattmeter having an accuracy of 

±1% to measure the nominal wattage and 

maximum wattage of a red or green traffic 

signal module or pedestrian module when 

conducting the photometric and colormetric 

tests as specified by the testing procedures in 

VTCSH 2005. 

The addition of the definitions of 

‘‘maximum wattage’’ and ‘‘nominal 

wattage,’’ in conjunction with the 

adoption of the test conditions in 

VTCSH 2005, and the test method 

clarification above that is specified in 

§ 431.224(b) provide a sound basis for 

measuring the maximum and nominal 

wattages for traffic signal and pedestrian 

modules. DOE’s adoption of these test 

methods satisfy the requirements of 

section 323(b)(3) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3)). Adoption of these test 

methods also complies with EPCA’s 

requirement that the test procedures for 

traffic signal modules and pedestrian 

modules be based on the ENERGY 

STAR specification in effect on August 

8, 2005. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)) For these 

reasons, DOE is incorporating by 

reference the test methods for measuring 

the maximum and nominal wattages as 

contained in the test specifications in 

section 4 of the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Traffic 

Signals,’’ version 1.1, and VTCSH 2005. 

Finally, DOE also received several 

inquiries at the public meeting about 

generically referencing the current 

version of the ITE specifications, which 

would result in the test procedure being 

automatically updated when amended 

versions of the ITE are released. Section 

553 of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) describes the rulemaking process 

that an agency must follow in order to 

adopt a rule. (5 U.S.C. 553) If an agency 

were to adopt a rule that required 

compliance with the latest version of an 

industry standard, the agency rule 

would be amended without the agency 

having to follow the notice and 

comment process set forth by the APA. 

A rule requiring a manufacturer to test 

in accordance with the ‘‘latest version’’ 

of an industry test standard would be 

delegating DOE’s rulemaking authority 

to that entity, which DOE does not have 

the authority to do. In addition, all 

incorporations by reference in rules 

must be approved by the Office of the 

Federal Register, and the regulations of 

that Office limit incorporation to the 

edition of a document that is approved 

by the Director of the Federal Register 

(10 CFR 51.1(f)). DOE, therefore, is 

adopting a specific version of the 

industry test standard. Future 

amendments to the industry test 

standard would have to be considered 

by DOE in a separate rulemaking. This 

is the approach DOE has consistently 

taken when it has incorporated industry 

or consensus test procedures by 

reference into its regulations. See 10 

CFR 430.22(a)(1). 

3. Pedestrian Modules. As detailed by 

the July 2006 proposed rule, EPCA 

provides that the test procedures for 

both traffic signal and pedestrian 

modules must be based on the ENERGY 

STAR specification for traffic signal 

modules, (i.e., 6.4.2 of VTCSH Part 2). 

71 FR 42186. DOE stated in the 

proposed rule that VTCSH Part 2 does 

not mention or, by its terms, apply to 

pedestrian modules. However, DOE 

determined upon careful consideration 

and review of VTCSH Part 2 that its test 

procedures for determining maximum 

and nominal wattages of traffic signal 

modules are equally applicable to 

testing pedestrian modules. DOE sought 

stakeholder comment on whether there 

were any technical reasons for 

developing testing requirements for 

maximum and nominal wattage for 

pedestrian modules that differ from the 

requirements for traffic signal modules. 

Id. 

ITE commented at the public meeting 

that pedestrian modules are 

fundamentally different than traffic 

signal modules. ITE also mentioned that 

it is about to update the specification for 

pedestrian LED modules and will have 

specific test criteria in the specification 

that are pertinent to pedestrian 

modules. (Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 18.8 at pp. 126–127. ITE submitted 

written comments urging DOE to use the 

most current ITE specification because 

manufacturers and public agencies will 

be confused if DOE prescribes an 

outdated version of the specification. 

(ITE, No. 18, p. 3) 

DOE has considered all of the 

comments received and continues to 

believe that the test procedures in 

VTCSH 2005 provide a sound means of 

testing pedestrian modules as described 

in the July 2006 proposed rule. 71 FR 

42186–87. ITE did not provide any 

additional data that would lead DOE to 

alter this conclusion. Further, as stated 

above, EPCA requires DOE to adopt a 

test procedure for pedestrian modules 

that is ‘‘based on’’ the ENERGY STAR 

program’s test method for traffic signal 

modules. 

DOE has not had a chance to review 

ITE’s new test procedure for pedestrian 

modules and is unable to determine if 

this test procedure is ‘‘based on’’ the 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for Traffic Signals,’’ Version 1.1. When 

appropriate, DOE prefers to adopt the 

most up-to-date industry test procedure 

that is available, but as previously 

stated, the updated test procedure 

referenced by ITE has not been 

published and DOE would be reluctant 

to adopt a draft that is still under 

consideration by industry. Furthermore, 

DOE is unwilling to delay action on 

adoption of a test procedure, to await 

ITE’s adoption of a new test procedure 

specification for pedestrian modules, 

because Federal standards for 

pedestrian modules are already in place 

under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(z)) and 

DOE needs to put a test procedure in 

place so that manufacturers have a 

uniform means of testing this 

equipment. For these reasons, DOE is 

adopting ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71355 

Requirements for Traffic Signals,’’ 

version 1.1, and VTCSH 2005, for both 

traffic signal modules and pedestrian 

modules. 

K. Refrigerated Bottled or Canned 

Beverage Vending Machines 

Section 135(c)(4) of EPACT 2005 

amends section 325 of EPCA by adding, 

in part, new subsection 325(v)(2) (42 

U.S.C. 6295(v)(2)), which directs the 

Secretary to prescribe, by rule, energy 

conservation standards for refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines. Further, section 135(b)(1) of 

EPACT 2005 amends section 323(b) of 

EPCA by adding, in part, new 

subsection 323(b)(15) (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(15)), which states that test 

procedures for this equipment ‘‘shall be 

based on ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1– 

2004, entitled ‘‘Methods of Testing for 

Rating Vending Machines for Bottled, 

Canned or Other Sealed Beverages.’’ 

Also, pursuant to section 135(b)(2) of 

EPACT 2005, new subsection 323(f) of 

EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6293(f)(1), directs the 

Secretary to prescribe testing 

requirements for refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines no 

later than two years after the enactment 

of EPACT 2005, that is, August 8, 2007. 

(42 U.S.C. 6293(f)(1)) This section also 

directs DOE to base such testing 

requirements on existing industry test 

procedures to the maximum extent 

practicable. (42 U.S.C. 6292(f)(2)) 

Pursuant to section 325(v)(2) of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(v)(2)), DOE initiated the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking for refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines on 

June 28, 2006, by publishing a Federal 

Register notice announcing the 

availability of the Framework 

Document, ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards for Refrigerated Bottled or 

Canned Beverage Vending Machines.’’ 

71 FR 36715. The Framework Document 

describes the procedural and analytical 

approaches DOE anticipates using, and 

encourages and facilitates stakeholder 

input during the rulemaking. 

DOE examined ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 32.1–2004 and concluded that 

it provides sound methods for testing 

the energy efficiency of a refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machine, and that it complies with the 

requirements of section 323(b)(3) of 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) As further 

explained in the July 2006 proposed 

rule, DOE understands that the method 

has been widely used in the industry, 

which indicates that it is not unduly 

burdensome to conduct. 71 FR 42187. 

Therefore, DOE proposed to incorporate 

this test procedure by reference into 10 

CFR Part 431 for the measurement of 

energy consumption and determination 

of capacity of this equipment. Id. 

In the July 2006 proposed rule, DOE 

also proposed that dual-voltage 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines be tested at the lower 

nameplate voltage, to characterize the 

energy consumption. 71 FR 42187; 

42214. Testing at the lower voltage is 

consistent with ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2004. DOE’s understanding is that 

test results for a given piece of dualvoltage equipment would not be 

affected by the voltage during testing. 

1. ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004 

Refrigerated Volume Calculation. ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 includes a 

method for determining the capacity of 

vending machines, referred to in ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 as 

‘‘vendible capacity.’’ Vendible capacity 

consists essentially of the maximum 

number of units of product a vending 

machine can hold for sale. DOE updated 

the proposed test procedures for 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines on October 3, 2006 

by publishing a Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (SNOPR), 71 FR 

58308, and discussing the proposals at 

the September 26, 2006 public meeting. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 18.8 at 

pp. 175–176) DOE proposed to add to its 

test procedure an additional, alternative 

means for measuring the capacity of 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines, namely the method 

to measure ‘‘refrigerated volume’’ that is 

set forth in ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004, 

‘‘Energy, Performance and Capacity of 

Household Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers and Freezers.’’ 

DOE stated that refrigerated volume 

may be a better alternative to vendible 

capacity because, among machines that 

are designed and intended for vending 

12-ounce cans, there are a variety of 

dispensing mechanisms and storage 

arrangements that lead to potentially 

different refrigerated volumes for 

different machines with the same 

vendible capacity. In addition, EPCA 

has historically used upper limits on 

energy consumption as a function of 

volume for the purposes of establishing 

energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration equipment. 71 FR 58310. 

Royal Vendors commented that it 

agrees with DOE’s proposal to use 

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 as the test 

procedure for refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 18.8 at 

p. 49) Royal Vendors further 

commented in support of using 

refrigerated volume for measuring the 

capacity of refrigerated bottled or 

canned beverage vending machines. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 18.8 at 

p. 50) There were no negative comments 

regarding either DOE’s proposal to 

adopt ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 or 

to add refrigerated volume to its test 

procedure as an additional metric for 

measuring capacity. 

DOE is adopting the updated test 

procedure, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

32.1–2004, for measuring equipment 

energy consumption and for 

determining the ‘‘vendible capacity’’ of 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines, as well as the 

method in ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004 

for measuring the ‘‘refrigerated volume’’ 

of such machines. As to the latter, DOE 

is incorporating by reference in section 

431.294 of Subpart Q to 10 CFR Part 

431, section 5.2 of ANSI/AHAM HRF– 

1–2004, excluding subsections 5.2.2.2 

through 5.2.2.4, which are not relevant 

to measuring refrigerated volume for 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines. 

In the SNOPR, DOE recognized that 

sections 4.2 and 5.2 of ANSI/AHAM 

HRF–1–2004 address the measurement 

of refrigerated volume in household 

refrigerators and freezers, respectively, 

and do not directly address refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines for which no commercial 

standards exist. Nevertheless, DOE has 

determined that the methodology 

described in section 5.2 includes 

methods for the measurement of 

refrigerated volumes that are applicable 

to refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines, namely the 

gross interior volume contained within 

the refrigerated space. Although EPCA 

defines such equipment as a type of 

commercial refrigerator, the language in 

section 5.2 for household freezers is 

more appropriate than the language in 

section 4.2 for household refrigerators. 

The methodology in section 5.2 is more 

relevant to the type of compartment(s) 

being measured in a refrigerated bottled 

or canned beverage vending machine. 

For example, section 5.2 includes the 

measurement of special features of a 

freezer such as can or package racks and 

dividers or dispensers, which are also 

found in refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines. 

2. Voltage. No comments were 

received regarding DOE’s proposal to 

test dual-voltage equipment at the lower 

voltage. DOE is adopting ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004 with a 

modification in Section 6.2, ‘‘Voltage 

and Frequency,’’ to test equipment with 

dual nameplate voltages at the lower of 

the two voltages only, as proposed into 

§ 431.294 of 10 CFR Part 431. 71 FR 

42214. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71356 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

L. Commercial Package AirConditioning and Heating Equipment 

Section 136(f)(1)(A) of EPACT 2005 

amends section 343(a)(4)(A) and (B) of 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A) and (B)) 

to require test procedures for air-cooled 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment rated at or above 240,000 

and below 760,000 British thermal units 

per hour (Btu/h) cooling capacity 

(defined as ‘‘very large’’ equipment 

under section 136(a)(3) of EPACT 2005, 

42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D)). This provision 

provides that the test procedure for such 

equipment shall be the ‘‘generally 

accepted industry testing procedures or 

rating procedures developed or 

recognized by the Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute or by the 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, as referenced in ASHRAE/ 

IES Standard 90.1 and in effect on June 

30, 1992.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) The 

provisions also provides that DOE must 

adopt any amendment to such test 

procedure, unless it determines that the 

amended test procedure would fail to 

meet EPCA’s general requirements for 

test procedures for commercial 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) 

As explained in the July 2006 

proposed rule, the test procedures in 

effect on June 30, 1992, for very large 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment were ARI 

Standard 340–1986, ‘‘Commercial and 

Industrial Unitary Heat Pump 

Equipment,’’ and ARI Standard 360– 

1986, ‘‘Commercial and Industrial 

Unitary Air-Conditioning Equipment.’’ 

71 FR 42187. In 2000, ARI replaced 

these standards with ARI Standard 340/ 

360–2000, ‘‘Commercial and Industrial 

Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment,’’ but this new version 

did not alter the efficiency test methods 

or the calculation procedures that were 

in ARI Standards 340 and 360 as in 

effect on June 30, 1992, nor the 

measured efficiencies for the equipment 

being tested. Id. Subsequently, in an 

October 21, 2004, direct final rule, ‘‘Test 

Procedures and Efficiency Standards for 

Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps,’’ DOE adopted test procedures 

for small commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment 

(cooling capacities less than 135,000 

Btu/h), and for large commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment (cooling capacities at or 

above 135,000 Btu/h and less than 

240,000 Btu/h) into section 431.96 of 10 

CFR Part 431. 69 FR 61962. Under that 

rule, DOE adopted ARI Standard 340/ 

360–2000, the most recent ARI test 

procedure at the time, for commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment with cooling capacities at or 

above 135,000 Btu/h and less than 

240,000 Btu/h. 69 FR 61971; 10 CFR 

431.96. For equipment with cooling 

capacities at or above 65,000 Btu/h and 

less than 135,000 Btu/h, other than 

water-source equipment, DOE adopted 

ARI Standard 340/360–2000 with four 

modifications (taken from ARI Standard 

210/240–2003) as the applicable test 

procedure. 69 FR 61971–72; 10 CFR 

431.96. These four modifications as 

shown in Table 2 of section 431.96 of 

10 CFR Part 431, were necessary to 

ensure the proper testing of certain 

types, or configurations, of equipment. 

69 FR 61965–66. 

ARI has since published ARI Standard 

340/360–2004, which revised ARI 

Standard 340/360–2000, by adding the 

four modifications DOE had adopted in 

the October 2004 direct final rule for 

equipment with cooling capacities at or 

above 65,000 Btu/h and less than 

135,000 Btu/h. As DOE pointed out in 

the July 2006 proposed rule, ARI 

Standard 340/360–2004, ‘‘Performance 

Rating of Commercial and Industrial 

Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment,’’ is now the most 

current industry test procedure for all 

types of this equipment, including very 

large commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment. 71 

FR 42187–88. 

In response to the publication of the 

July 2006 proposed rule, ARI 

commented in support of DOE’s 

proposal to adopt ARI Standard 340/ 

360–2004, for commercial package 

unitary air conditioners and heat pumps 

of all three size categories. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 18.8 at p. 52) 

For the reasons stated in the July 2006 

proposed rule, 71 FR 42188, in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B), 

DOE is incorporating ARI Standard 340/ 

360–2004 by reference into 10 CFR Part 

431 as the test procedure for very large 

air-cooled commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment. In 

addition, DOE is also replacing the 

references to ARI Standard 340/360– 

2000, as well as the modifications to the 

standard, with references to ARI 

Standard 340/360–2004 in the test 

procedures in § 431.96 of 10 CFR Part 

431 for all small and large commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment (cooling capacities equal to, 

and greater than, 65,000 Btu/h, but less 

than 240,000 Btu/h), except for watersource heat pumps with cooling 

capacities of less than 135,000 Btu/h. 

For the latter, the applicable test 

procedure is ISO Standard 13256–1 

1998. As indicated above, ARI Standard 

340/360–2004 changes the previous 

version of ARI Standard 340/360 only 

by incorporating the four provisions in 

Table 2 of § 431.96 of 10 CFR Part 431, 

which were already a part of DOE’s 

current test procedures. Thus, 

incorporation of ARI Standard 340/360– 

2004 will not alter DOE’s test procedure 

for small and large equipment as 

explained in the July 2006 proposed 

rule. 71 FR 42187. 

M. Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Ice-Cream 

Freezers 

1. Use of ARI Standard 1200–2006 

Test Procedure for Equipment for Which 

EPCA Prescribes Standards. Section 

136(f)(1)(B) of EPACT 2005 amends 

section 343 of EPCA by adding 

subsection (a)(6)(A)(i), (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(A)(i)), which prescribes test 

procedures for commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers, 

generally. New subsection 

343(a)(6)(A)(ii) requires that ASHRAE 

Standard 117, as in effect on January 1, 

2005, shall be the initial test procedure 

for the types of equipment to which 

standards are applicable under section 

342(c)(2)–(3) of EPCA, (Section 136(c) of 

EPACT 2005: 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)–(3)) 

including: (1) Commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers with a 

self-contained condensing unit and 

designed for holding temperature 

applications; and (2) commercial 

refrigerators with a self-contained 

condensing unit, designed for pulldown temperature applications, and 

with transparent doors. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Also new subsection 

343(a)(6)(E) provides that, if ASHRAE 

Standard 117 is amended, the Secretary 

must address whether to amend the test 

procedures for this equipment. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(E)) ASHRAE Standard 

117–2002, ‘‘Method of Testing Closed 

Refrigerators,’’ was in effect on January 

1, 2005. 

ASHRAE Standard 117–2002 was the 

initial test procedure mandated by 

subsection 343(a)(6)(A)(ii) of EPCA, (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(ii)), that is, it was 

the standard in effect on January 1, 

2005. Subsequently, ASHRAE amended 

this test procedure and adopted 

ASHRAE Standard 72–2005, ‘‘Method of 

Testing Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers,’’ which was approved by ANSI 

on July 29, 2005. Consistent with the 

statutory mandate, DOE reviewed 

ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 in the July 

2006 proposed rule, pursuant to 

subsection 343(a)(6)(E), (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(E)). ASHRAE Standard 72– 

2005 clarifies or modifies certain door 

opening requirements, definitions, and 

the reporting of results, as well as 

provides improved precision by 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71357 

delineating the exact specifications for 

testing conditions. 71 FR 42188. Based 

on the review, DOE determined in the 

July 2006 proposed rule that no basis 

exists for concluding that the latest 

ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 fails to 

meet the general requirements for test 

procedures in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and 

(3). Id. 

During the September 26, 2006, 

public meeting, ARI (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 18.8 at p. 39) and Hill 

Phoenix (Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

18.8 at p. 42) stated that EPACT 2005 

includes language that directs DOE to 

review rating procedures approved by 

ANSI, that ARI Standard 1200–2006 was 

approved by ANSI as of August 28, 2006 

(Section 136(c) of EPACT 2005: 42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(i)(II)), and that ARI 

Standard 1200–2006 includes the test 

procedures in ASHRAE Standard 72– 

2005 as well as the rating temperatures 

prescribed in the EPACT 2005 

amendments to EPCA. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 18.8 at p. 39) ARI and 

Hill Phoenix urged DOE to consider 

adoption of ARI 1200–2006 in lieu of 

ASHRAE Standard 72–2005. Id. 

DOE has reviewed ARI Standard 

1200–2006 and has found that it 

specifically references ASHRAE 

Standard 72–2005 as the method of 

testing commercial refrigeration 

equipment and would therefore give 

identical test results for the 

measurement of energy consumption. 

As stated above, DOE determined that 

ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 meets 

EPCA requirements for the DOE test 

procedure for the equipment covered by 

the standards under section 342(c)(2)– 

(3) of EPCA. Thus, ARI Standard 1200– 

2006 also meets these requirements. 

Additionally, ARI Standard 1200–2006 

is ANSI approved and includes the 

applicable rating temperatures for this 

equipment prescribed under subsection 

343(a)(6)(B) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(B)). DOE is therefore 

adopting in this final rule ARI Standard 

1200–2006 as the test procedure for 

equipment to which standards are 

applicable under section 342(c)(2)–(3) of 

EPCA. 

2. Use of ARI Standard 1200–2006 

Test Procedure for Which EPACT 2005 

Directs DOE To Develop Test 

Procedures. New section 343(a)(6)(C) of 

EPCA (Section 136(f)(1)(B) of EPACT 

2005, 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(C)), in effect, 

directs DOE to develop test procedures 

for ‘‘products for which standards will 

be established under section 342(c)(4),’’ 

i.e., (1) ice-cream freezers; (2) 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers with a selfcontained condensing unit without 

doors; and (3) commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers with a 

remote condensing unit. ARI recently 

developed methods for testing such 

commercial refrigeration equipment in 

ARI Standard 1200–2006, ‘‘Performance 

Rating of Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandisers and Storage 

Cabinets.’’ DOE reviewed ARI Standard 

1200–2006 in the July 2006 proposed 

rule and found that it includes product 

temperature rating specifications that 

require maintaining test package 

temperatures during the tests, which is 

important for a valid comparative 

evaluation of energy consumption 

among products. These rating 

temperature provisions provide a basis 

for accurate efficiency determinations, 

as required under EPCA. (Section 

136(f)(1)(B) of EPACT 2005; 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(C)). 71 FR 42188. 

In addition, ARI Standard 1200–2006 

requires performance tests to be 

conducted according to the ASHRAE 

Standard 72 test method, which DOE 

believes, as mentioned above, to be a 

sound method that will produce results 

that accurately reflect the efficiency of 

the products tested. DOE also stated in 

the July 2006 proposed rule that it 

understands that the method has been 

widely used in the industry, thus 

indicating that it is not unduly 

burdensome to conduct. 71 FR 42188. 

Finally, DOE reviewed the calculation 

methods as well as the definitions of 

terms used in the test procedure, and 

determined that they help to produce 

accurate results as to the efficiency of 

the products being tested. 

DOE proposed in the July 2006 

proposed rule to incorporate ARI 

Standard 1200–2006 by reference into 

§ 431.64 of 10 CFR Part 431 for icecream freezers; commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers with a 

self-contained condensing unit and 

without doors; and for commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers with a remote condensing unit. 

71 FR 42188. 

ARI commented that it supports 

DOE’s proposal to adopt ARI Standard 

1200–2006 as the Federal test procedure 

for ice-cream freezers; commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers with a self-contained 

condensing unit without doors; and 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers with a remote 

condensing unit. (ARI, No. 63 at p. 2) 

No other comments were received 

regarding this proposal. DOE is adopting 

ARI Standard 1200–2006 in today’s final 

rule into § 431.64 of 10 CFR Part 431. 

3. Ice-Cream Freezer Rating 

Temperature. As mentioned above, new 

section 343(a)(6) of EPCA (Section 

136(f)(1)(B) of EPACT 2005, 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)), in effect directs DOE to 

develop test procedures for ice-cream 

freezers. DOE proposed to incorporate 

ARI Standard 1200–2006 by reference 

into 10 CFR Part 431 for ice-cream 

freezers in the July 2006 proposed rule. 

71 FR 42188, 42209. 

ARI commented that it generally 

supports DOE’s proposal to adopt ARI 

Standard 1200–2006 as the federal test 

procedure for ice-cream freezers. (ARI, 

No. 63 at p. 2) ARI Standard 1200–2006 

specifies a rating temperature for icecream freezers of ¥5 °F. ARI and Hill 

Phoenix stated that they believe a 

¥15 °F rating temperature is more 

appropriate for ice-cream freezers than 

¥5 °F because there is not much 

difference between rating freezers at the 

¥5 °F ice-cream freezer rating 

temperature and 0 °F freezer rating 

temperature (the rating temperature 

used for conventional, general 

application freezers), and that the bulk 

of the equipment that is specifically 

used for the dispensing and display of 

ice-cream operates at ¥15 °F. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 18.8 at pp. 40, 

42) ARI believes that the ¥15 °F rating 

temperature would be a much better 

representation of ice-cream freezer 

operation than the 0 °F rating 

temperature. Id. Zero Zone stated that a 

survey of the industry found that 

freezers specifically designed for icecream products utilized components 

and are designed for an integrated 

average product temperature of ¥15 °F. 

(Zero Zone, No. 81 at p. 1) ACEEE, on 

the other hand, endorsed the ¥5 °F icecream freezer rating temperature 

because that is the temperature the 

ENERGY STAR criteria are based on. 

(ACEEE, No. 59 at p. 1) 

While DOE recognizes that ENERGY 

STAR criteria and claims are based on 

testing at ¥5 °F, the ENERGY STAR 

program is specific to self-contained 

commercial freezers with solid doors. 

ENERGY STAR does not include most 

ice-cream freezers, while DOE’s 

coverage of ice-cream freezers is much 

broader. In light of the new information 

presented above, DOE now believes 

testing at ¥5 °F would lead to results 

that are not representative of the true 

energy consumption of freezers 

specifically designed for ice-cream 

products. In consideration of the above, 

DOE has determined that a rating 

temperature of ¥15 °F is more 

appropriate for ice-cream freezers and is 

therefore adopting in this final rule 

¥15.0 °F (±2 °F) as the rating 

temperature for ice-cream freezers, as a 

modification to the referenced ARI 

Standard 1200–2006. 

Since ice-cream freezers generally 

operate at ¥15.0 °F, DOE believes 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71358 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

adoption of this rating temperature is 

warranted by the requirement that DOE 

test procedures ‘‘shall be reasonably 

designed to produce test results which 

reflect [the] energy efficiency’’ of the 

equipment being tested (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(2)). This is essentially the same 

reasoning that supported the NOPR 

proposal of a rating temperature of 

¥5.0 °F. Id. 

4. ANSI/AHAM Standard HRF–1. 

EPCA defines refrigeration equipment 

compartment volumes, for purposes of 

standards for all covered commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers, in terms of ANSI/AHAM 

Standard HRF–1–1979, ‘‘Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers 

Standard for Household Refrigerators, 

Combination Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Household Freezers’’ (Section 136(c) of 

EPACT 2005; 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(1)((A) 

and (B)) DOE proposed to incorporate 

ANSI/AHAM Standard HRF–1–1979 by 

reference into section 431.63 of 10 CFR 

Part 431 in the July 2006 proposed rule. 

71 FR 42208. DOE included in proposed 

§ 431.64(b)(3) of the July 2006 proposed 

rule the applicable rating temperatures 

for this equipment prescribed under 

subsection 343(a)(6)(B) of EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(B)) In the October 3, 

2006, SNOPR (71 FR 58308, 58311), 

DOE proposed to replace references to 

ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–1979, with 

references to ANSI/AHAM HRF–1– 

2004, at 10 CFR 431.63(b)(2) of the July 

2006 proposed rule for commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers, 71 FR 42208, and in the 

existing rule for such equipment under 

10 CFR 431.66(a). 

ARI commented that it agrees with the 

suggestion by AHAM that the referenced 

version of the ANSI/AHAM Standard 

HRF–1 should be updated to the latest 

2004 version. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 18.8 at p. 41) DOE has 

reviewed both versions and found that 

the methodologies for measuring 

refrigerated compartment volumes are 

identical. Aside from purely editorial 

changes, the only language changes in 

the 2004 version serve to clarify the 

testing methodology. 71 FR 58310. The 

2004 version is also more readily 

available than the 1979 version. For 

these reasons, DOE is adopting in this 

final rule ANSI/AHAM Standard HRF– 

1–2004 for determining compartment 

volumes for this equipment. 

N. Battery Chargers 

In the July 2006 proposed rule, to 

address Subsection 325(u)(1)(A) of 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(A)), which 

requires DOE to prescribe test 

procedures for battery chargers, DOE 

proposed to incorporate by reference 

into 10 CFR Part 430, with limited 

modifications, the test procedure 

presented in sections 4 and 5 of EPA’s 

ENERGY STAR ‘‘Test Methodology for 

Determining the Energy Performance of 

Battery Charging Systems, December 

2005’’ (the ENERGY STAR test method). 

Subsection 325(u)(1)(B) of EPCA directs 

the Secretary to consider existing 

definitions and test procedures for 

measuring the energy consumption of 

battery chargers in standby mode and 

other modes. DOE stated in the July 

2006 proposed rule that it believes its 

proposal fulfills the statutory 

requirements. 71 FR 42190. DOE 

received several comments on this 

proposal, spanning a range of issues 

from the scope of coverage to the test 

method itself. In today’s final rule, DOE 

is finalizing its incorporation by 

reference of sections 4 and 5 of the 

ENERGY STAR test method, with the 

modifications discussed in the proposed 

rule. 71 FR 42190–1. 

1. Scope of Coverage. In the July 2006 

proposed rule, DOE proposed to adopt 

the statutory definition of a battery 

charger without modification. In that 

notice, DOE also proposed to refine the 

scope of the test procedure, so that it 

would have the same scope of 

applicability as the test method used by 

the ENERGY STAR program. 71 FR 

42206. DOE proposed that the new 

scope of coverage be part of section 1 of 

Appendix Y to Subpart B of CFR Part 

430. 71 FR 42206. 

On the issue of scope of coverage for 

the battery charger test procedure, PG&E 

expressed concern about the limitations 

being placed by DOE on the 

applicability of the test procedure so 

early in the process. (PG&E, No. 12 at p. 

3, No. 18.8 at p. 149, and No. 77 at p. 

4) AHAM and PTI indicated that they 

believed the scope of coverage proposed 

by DOE represented the appropriate 

range of products on the market, which 

they feel should be included in DOE’s 

rulemaking for battery chargers, limiting 

the scope of coverage to the residential 

sector. (AHAM, No. 18.8 at p. 157 and 

No. 84 at pp. 2–3; PTI No. 73 at p. 2) 

AHAM and PTI also commented that 

the range of wattages considered under 

DOE’s scope should include battery 

chargers between 0 and 2 watts, so the 

complete range of power ratings would 

span from 0 to 300 watts. (AHAM, No. 

18.8 at pp. 156–157 and No. 84 at p. 3; 

PTI No. 73 at p. 2). AHAM and Philips 

commented that inductively coupled 

devices should be included in the scope 

of the test procedure, even though these 

products were exempt from the 

ENERGY STAR battery charger program. 

(AHAM, No. 18.8 at p. 156 and No. 84 

at p. 3; Philips, No. 68 at p. 2) Finally, 

AHAM commented that the scope of 

coverage should include consumer 

products and those commercial 

products that are virtually identical to 

the consumer products, such as cordless 

rechargeable hair trimmers. (AHAM, No. 

84 at p. 3) 

DOE’s proposed scope of coverage, 

proposed in Appendix Y to Subpart B 

of Part 430, Uniform Test Method for 

Measuring the Energy Consumption of 

Battery Chargers, attempted to refine the 

applicability of the test procedure to the 

same subset of battery chargers covered 

under the ENERGY STAR program. 

After careful consideration of 

stakeholder concerns and further review 

of the statute, DOE decided to remove 

the scope of coverage in Appendix Y 

from today’s final rule. DOE now 

recognizes that the test procedure itself 

is relatively simple and can apply to a 

broad range of battery chargers, not only 

those units included in the scope of the 

ENERGY STAR program. Thus, the test 

procedure will be applicable generally 

to battery chargers for consumer 

products (i.e., without limitation to 

specific wattage ranges or application 

types). 

EPCA defines ‘‘battery charger’’ as ‘‘a 

device that charges batteries for 

consumer products, including battery 

chargers embedded in other consumer 

products.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291(32)) DOE is 

adopting this definition verbatim in 

today’s final rule, and is modifying the 

scope of the test procedure to apply 

simply to battery chargers, as just 

defined. 

In parallel with this rulemaking, DOE 

is conducting a determination analysis 

to ascertain whether energy 

conservation standards are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings, for battery 

chargers (and external power supplies). 

In that proceeding, DOE will initially 

decide which products are within the 

EPCA definition of ‘‘battery charger,’’ 

and will address all such products in 

conducting its analysis. To the extent 

DOE decides that products considered 

to be external power supplies are 

actually battery chargers and should be 

regulated as such, DOE will include 

such products in its analysis for battery 

chargers. If the determination as to 

battery chargers is positive, DOE will 

refine its scope of coverage as 

appropriate, through its public 

regulatory process, so that standards 

will cover only products for which they 

are warranted. DOE will also work to 

ensure that any resulting energy 

conservation standards will be 

appropriate for the various classes of 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71359 

battery chargers operating consumer 

products. 

PG&E and NRCan both submitted 

comments in which they appear to 

advocate that DOE adopt a single, 

inclusive test procedure that would 

apply to both external power supplies 

and battery chargers, and that DOE 

make a determination later about which 

products should be classified as an 

external power supply or a battery 

charger. (PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 1–2 and 

No. 77 at p. 2; NRCan, No. 86 at p. 1) 

DOE appreciates these comments, but 

disagrees with this approach. First, the 

statute separately defines external 

power supplies and battery chargers. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(32) and (36)) Although 

EPCA sets forth in a single section the 

same process and criteria for DOE to 

develop test procedures and standards 

for these products, 42 U.S.C. 6295(u), 

the statute provides no indication that 

they should be treated as a single 

product. Second, DOE believes that to 

do so, even as a temporary measure, 

would be technically inappropriate. 

DOE’s preliminary technical analysis of 

battery chargers and external power 

supplies has shown that these two 

devices have fundamentally different 

designs because they provide 

completely different utility to 

consumers. Generally, battery chargers 

are designed to be constant current 

devices while external power supplies 

are designed to be constant voltage 

devices. Moreover, the same test method 

cannot be employed to accurately 

determine the energy use and efficiency 

of both products under normal use by 

consumers. Therefore, DOE proposed 

and is adopting today one test 

procedure for battery chargers, and a 

different one for external power 

supplies. DOE is not classifying battery 

chargers as external power supplies, or 

otherwise treating them as a single 

product, even as a temporary measure. 

This interpretation was supported by a 

comment from AHAM, which asserted 

that DOE should require that a battery 

charger, including components of a 

battery charging system that together 

constitute a battery charger, be tested by 

the test procedure DOE adopts for 

battery chargers, and not by a test 

procedure for external power supplies 

or some other test procedure. (AHAM, 

No. 84 at p. 2) 

DOE recognizes that in limited 

instances the distinction between a 

battery charger and an external power 

supply may not always be clear. For 

some power converting devices, such as 

those powering laptop computers or 

hand-held video cameras, the power 

converter can both charge a battery and 

operate the consumer product, even if 

the battery is completely discharged or 

removed. For these devices, which 

could understandably be classified 

either battery chargers or external power 

supplies, DOE will work cooperatively 

with stakeholders to develop clear 

guidelines that remove any ambiguity as 

to which of the two test procedures 

adopted today would apply. 

DOE is planning to hold a ‘‘Scoping 

Workshop’’ to receive public comment 

on the respective scope of coverage and 

applicability for battery chargers and 

external power supplies, which is a 

requirement of EPCA under subsection 

325(u)(1)(D). (42 U.S.C 6295(u)(1)(D)) 

DOE’s initial understanding of the 

principal difference between a battery 

charger and an external power supply 

concerns whether the power-converting 

device is able to operate the consumer 

product, independent of the battery. In 

other words, if the power converter can 

operate a consumer product which has 

the batteries removed (or has completely 

discharged batteries installed), then that 

power converter is considered to be an 

external power supply. If, on the other 

hand, a consumer product is not fully 

operational when the battery is removed 

or is completely discharged, even when 

the power converter is connected to the 

device and plugged into the wall outlet, 

then the device is considered to be a 

battery charger. DOE will be discussing 

this initial understanding, as well as 

other comments and clarifications 

stakeholders have about the scope of 

coverage and applicability for battery 

chargers and external power supplies, in 

the Scoping Workshop. 

2. Modes of Test, including Active 

Mode. With regard to the test method 

itself, there were dissenting viewpoints 

as to whether DOE should include 

active mode testing in its procedure. 

Under the DOE proposal, battery 

chargers would only be tested during 

standby and maintenance mode. 71 FR 

42190–42191. Several stakeholders 

commented that DOE should consider 

the measurement of active mode in its 

battery charger test procedure. (PG&E, 

No. 12 at p. 2, No. 18.8 at pp. 168 and 

173, and No. 77 at p. 3; NRCan, No. 18.8 

at pp. 164–165, CEC No. 18.8 at p. 165; 

ACEEE No. 59 at p. 3) PG&E stated that 

active mode is the second most energy 

consuming mode of operation for these 

products, and is therefore deserving of 

consideration (PG&E, No. 18.8 at pp. 

150–151; No. 77 at p. 3) PG&E informed 

DOE that the California Energy 

Commission (CEC) is working to 

develop an active mode test procedure 

for battery chargers, and provided DOE 

with copies of draft versions of the test 

method and stakeholder comments on 

those drafts. (PG&E, No. 18.8 at p. 166 

and No. 77 at pp. 3–4) PG&E asked that 

DOE acknowledge the draft CEC test 

method as a viable alternative to the 

ENERGY STAR test procedure for 

battery chargers. (PG&E, No. 77 at p. 4) 

PG&E and ACEEE also commented 

that EPCA requires DOE to evaluate 

energy consumed by battery chargers 

considering standby mode and other 

operating modes. PG&E and ACEEE 

stated that they found it problematic 

that DOE’s proposal only considers 

standby mode and maintenance mode, 

as EPCA calls for ‘‘other modes’’ and 

maintenance mode represents only one 

additional mode. (PG&E, No. 12 at p. 2, 

No. 18.8 at p. 150, No. 77 at p. 3; ACEEE 

No. 59 at p. 3) Finally, PG&E 

commented that the incremental testing 

burden of including the measurement of 

power consumption during active mode 

was small, given that the existing 

ENERGY STAR test procedure DOE 

proposed to adopt requires charging a 

battery as the first step. (PG&E, No. 18.8 

at pp. 167–168 and No. 77 at p. 4) 

AHAM, CEA, Wahl, Philips, and PTI 

commented that DOE should not 

include testing for active mode in its 

test procedure. (AHAM No. 18.8 at pp. 

159–161 and No. 84 at pp. 2, 4–5; CEA 

No. 18.8 at p. 172, Wahl, No. 67 at p. 

1; Philips No. 68 at p. 1; PTI No. 73 at 

p. 3) AHAM stated that testing active 

mode is not in keeping with the overall 

mission of reducing standby energy 

consumption. (AHAM, No. 18.8 at p. 

160) AHAM is concerned that active 

mode testing will create considerable 

complexities, stating that in order to 

have accurate tracking of active mode, a 

test procedure would need to bring in 

elements of the usage patterns of the 

products. (AHAM, No. 18.8 at p. 160 

and No. 84 at pp. 2 and 4) AHAM 

further commented that EPA considered 

active mode in its development of the 

ENERGY STAR program for battery 

chargers, and a study it completed 

found that the inclusion of active mode 

did not reveal additional energy savings 

opportunities. (AHAM, No. 18.8 at pp. 

161 and 170 and No. 84 at pp. 2 and 4) 

PTI also commented that it was 

involved in the development of the 

ENERGY STAR program for battery 

chargers, and active mode had been part 

of the scope of investigation. According 

to PTI, the ENERGY STAR development 

team came to the conclusion that active 

mode offered no benefit with respect to 

measuring that mode, so it was 

excluded from the final standard. (PTI, 

No. 18.8 at p. 163 and No. 73 at p. 3) 

Wahl and CEA commented that if DOE 

were to include active mode in its test 

procedure, it must incorporate it with 

variable timeframes for different types 

of products. (Wahl, No. 18.8 at p. 171, 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71360 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

CEA, No. 18.8 at p. 172) In particular, 

Wahl is concerned that the duty cycle 

of a rechargeable shaver is significantly 

different from that of a vacuum cleaner 

or cordless drill. (Wahl, No. 18.8 at p. 

171) 

DOE considered all the comments 

concerning the inclusion of active mode 

in its test procedure, and decided to 

finalize its test procedure as proposed, 

based on the ENERGY STAR test 

procedure for battery chargers, which 

measures stand-by mode and 

maintenance mode. 

DOE recognizes that analytical efforts 

are underway to develop and finalize 

active mode test methods for battery 

chargers; however, the statutory 

deadline for codifying a test procedure 

for this product does not allow DOE to 

postpone publication. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(u)) DOE recognizes that at least 

one draft battery charger test procedure 

including active mode does exist, but it 

is still being developed, and DOE has 

therefore not been able to review a final 

test method and determine its accuracy 

and repeatability for measuring active 

mode energy consumption by battery 

chargers. That said, DOE does recognize 

the potential importance and potential 

energy savings of regulating active 

mode, and therefore is reserving a 

section in Appendix Y to Subpart B of 

Part 430 for Active Mode measurement 

and incorporating the ENERGY STAR 

definition for Active Mode in that same 

appendix. DOE intends to continue to 

study the issue of active mode for 

battery chargers while observing the test 

procedure development processes in 

California, Canada and elsewhere. If 

DOE finds the active mode to be a 

necessary part of determining and 

capturing energy savings for battery 

chargers, DOE will work through its 

public regulatory process to explore 

development of an active mode test 

procedure that takes into consideration 

concerns from all stakeholders. 

3. Definitions. With respect to the test 

method, AHAM and PTI recommended 

that DOE include in its final rule several 

definitions contained in the ENERGY 

STAR requirements for battery chargers 

that would further clarify the 

application of DOE’s test procedure for 

battery chargers. (AHAM, No. 18.8 at p. 

159; PTI, No. 73 at p. 3) These terms 

include: ‘‘active-mode,’’ ‘‘battery,’’ 

‘‘multi-port chargers’’ and ‘‘multivoltage a la carte chargers.’’ DOE 

provided an explanation of these terms 

in the July 2006 proposed rule, which 

will be placed into Appendix Y of 10 

CFR Part 430. 71 FR 42206. However, 

DOE recognizes that moving this 

material into the definitions section of 

the test procedure would clarify the test 

procedure methodology stakeholders 

need to follow. Thus, in today’s final 

rule, DOE is including the definitions 

from the ENERGY STAR test method 

referenced for ‘‘active-mode,’’ ‘‘battery,’’ 

‘‘multi-port chargers’’ and ‘‘multivoltage a la carte chargers.’’ DOE will 

also clarify that the ‘‘standby mode’’ 

term defined in section 2(e) of proposed 

Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430 is 

also sometimes referred to as ‘no-load 

mode’. 

Wahl, Philips, and AHAM 

commented concerning definitions that 

DOE did not propose, but are part of the 

ENERGY STAR program. These 

stakeholders are seeking adoption of the 

ENERGY STAR definitions for cord/ 

cordless products and nameplate 

nominal charging input power, with 

revisions. (Wahl, No. 67 at pp. 1–2; 

Philips, No. 68 at p. 1; AHAM No. 84 

at p. 3) AHAM and Wahl commented 

that a cord/cordless product should be 

defined as a ‘‘product or appliance that 

is designed to operate on battery power, 

but also is designed such that the 

product or appliance can operate with a 

discharged battery when connected to 

charger or mains.’’ Id. Stakeholders then 

request a revision to the definition of 

nominal power, such that companies 

making cord/cordless products focus on 

the energy consumed in battery 

maintenance mode rather than the 

wattage rating on the nameplate. 

(Philips, No. 68 at p. 1) AHAM and 

Wahl proposed language to be added to 

the definition of Nameplate Nominal 

Charging Input Power as follows: ‘‘or 3) 

for cord/cordless products where the 

nameplate power may reflect power 

consumed by the product in modes 

other than charging/maintaining 

batteries, the nominal charging input 

power shall be the highest measured 

power consumed during battery 

charging alone.’’ (Wahl, No. 67 at p. 2; 

AHAM, No. 84 at p. 3) 

DOE appreciates these comments, but 

recognizes that both are directed to 

whether products could be classified as 

battery chargers. DOE will take them 

into consideration in the determination 

analysis, in which DOE will establish 

the scope of applicability for the 

analysis, and will address and clarify 

issues pertaining to product classes and 

nameplate wattages. 

4. Test Method. In the July 2006 

proposed rule, DOE stated that some 

battery charger designs draw current in 

short pulses and, therefore, the 

instrumentation requirements for testing 

such designs should be capable of fully 

measuring the energy consumed by 

these pulses. 71 FR 42191. DOE 

proposed adding a requirement in 

section 3 of proposed Appendix Y to 

Subpart B of Part 430 that addresses the 

capability of testing equipment to 

account for crest factor and frequency 

spectrum in the measurement. Id. 

Finally, with respect to the test 

method, AHAM and PTI both provided 

comments that they agreed DOE should 

include provisions in the test procedure 

for evaluating pulsing and nonsinusoidal wave form battery chargers, 

as this will enhance the technical 

accuracy of the test procedure and will 

not cause any undue burden. (AHAM, 

No. 18.8 at p. 157 and No. 84 at p. 3; 

PTI, No. 73 at p. 3) Several stakeholders 

agreed with DOE that the testing need 

only be conducted at 115 volts at 60 

hertz input power. (AHAM, No. 18.8 at 

p. 157 and No. 84 at p. 3; PSMA No. 72 

at p. 2; PTI No. 73 at p. 3) DOE 

appreciates these comments, and has 

incorporated in today’s test procedure 

final rule the requirements for 

evaluating pulsing and non-sinusoidal 

wave form battery chargers into 

Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430 as 

proposed in the July 2006 proposed 

rule. 71 FR 42206. 

AHAM also commented that they 

supported DOE’s proposal to use the 48-

hour testing period for the test 

procedure. (AHAM, No. 18.8 at p. 158 

and No. 84 at p. 3) PSMA recommended 

that DOE adopt an alternative (shorter) 

testing time period that takes only 7 

hours to complete instead of 48 hours. 

(PSMA, No. 72 at p. 2) PSMA comments 

that this shorter time period would 

reduce testing time and cost. DOE 

recognizes that the ENERGY STAR test 

method allows manufacturers to choose 

either the 7-hour or the 48-hour 

approach when rating their products. 

However, DOE believes that allowing 

two different testing time periods for the 

same battery charger, in a test method 

that would be used to determine 

compliance with a mandatory standard, 

would pose a potential problem in that 

it would diminish the repeatability of 

the procedure. Furthermore, DOE 

believes the shorter testing time period 

(7-hour) does not allow ample time for 

the circuit to stabilize, which also 

diminishes the repeatability of the test 

procedure. In the July 2006 proposed 

rule, DOE proposed to adopt the longer 

(48-hour) testing time period, which is 

supported by AHAM. 71 FR 42190, 

42206. DOE is not persuaded by PSMA’s 

arguments to change the time period to 

7 hours. Therefore, DOE is adopting this 

test procedure for battery chargers with 

the 48-hour testing time period. 

O. External Power Supplies 

In the July 2006 proposed rule, to 

address Subsection 325(u)(1)(A) of 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(A)), DOE 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71361 

proposed to incorporate by reference 

certain sections of the EPA’s ENERGY 

STAR ‘‘Test Method for Calculating the 

Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage 

External AC-DC and AC-AC Power 

Supplies (August 11, 2004)’’ (the 

ENERGY STAR test method). 71 FR 

42191. DOE received comments 

expressing concern over the scope of 

coverage and certain aspects of the 

proposed test method. 

1. Scope of Test Procedure. DOE also 

proposed to adopt the EPACT 2005 

definition of an external power supply 

without modification in the July 2006 

proposed rule. 71 FR 42191, 42206. 

Additionally, DOE proposed to make 

the scope of applicability for the test 

method consistent with that of the 

ENERGY STAR program, which was 

designed to address external power 

supplies used with consumer 

electronics. DOE stated that it believes 

that the proposed scope of coverage for 

the external power supply test method 

did not deviate substantively from the 

statutory definition, since it was drafted 

to be applicable to these devices when 

powering consumer products. DOE 

requested comment on the proposed 

scope of applicability for the test 

procedure, which was proposed to be 

incorporated into section 1 of Appendix 

Z to Subpart B of CFR Part 430. 71 FR 

42191. 

On the issue of scope of coverage, 

some stakeholders were concerned 

about some of the limitations being 

imposed by DOE in the test procedure. 

(PG&E, No. 12 at p. 4, No. 18.8 at p.174 

and No. 77 at p. 2; ACEEE, No. 59 at p. 

3; CEC, No. 75, at p. 1; NRCan No. 86 

at p. 1) ACEEE commented that at the 

test procedure stage, DOE should cover 

all products, and stated that it would be 

better for DOE to decide whether 

standards are appropriate for certain 

products in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. (ACEEE, No. 59 

at p. 3) CEA commented that they 

supported DOE’s proposal to make the 

scope of applicability for the external 

power supply test method consistent 

with that of the EPA’s ENERGY STAR 

program. (CEA, No. 79 at p. 2) CEA 

stated that it is important for DOE to 

clearly define the scope of products 

subject to the test procedure for external 

power supplies and the scope of 

products subject to the test procedure 

for battery chargers. (CEA, No. 79 at p. 

2) 

The scope of coverage, contained in 

section 1 of proposed Appendix Z to 

Subpart B of Part 430, Uniform Test 

Method for Measuring the Energy 

Consumption of External Power 

Supplies attempted to refine the 

applicability of the test procedure to the 

same subset of external power supplies 

covered under the ENERGY STAR 

program. 71 FR 42206. After careful 

consideration of stakeholder concerns 

and further review of the statute, DOE 

has decided to remove the scope of 

coverage from Appendix Z in today’s 

final rule. DOE now recognizes that the 

test procedure itself can be applied to a 

broad range of external power supplies 

for consumer products, which may be 

more expansive than those included in 

the scope of the ENERGY STAR 

program. Thus, the test procedure will 

be applicable generally to external 

power supplies for consumer products 

(i.e., without limitation to specific 

wattage ranges or application types). 

EPCA defines external power supply 

as ‘‘[a] circuit that is used to convert 

household electric current into DC 

current or lower-voltage AC current to 

operate a consumer product.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6291(36)) DOE is adopting this 

definition verbatim in today’s final rule 

into section 430.2 of 10 CFR Part 430, 

and is modifying the scope of the test 

procedure to apply simply to external 

power supplies, as just defined. 

In parallel with this rulemaking, DOE 

is conducting a determination analysis 

to ascertain whether energy 

conservation standards are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings, for 

external power supplies (and battery 

chargers). In that proceeding, DOE will 

initially decide which products are 

within the EPCA definition of ‘‘external 

power supply,’’ and will address all 

such products in conducting its 

analysis. To the extent DOE decides that 

products considered to be external 

power supplies are actually battery 

chargers and should be regulated as 

such, DOE will exclude such products 

from this analysis and consider them in 

the similar analysis it is conducting for 

battery chargers. If the determination as 

to external power supplies demonstrates 

compelling evidence that DOE should 

further investigate energy conservation 

standards for external power supplies, 

DOE will refine its scope of coverage as 

appropriate, through its public 

regulatory process, so that standards 

will cover only products for which they 

are warranted. DOE will also work to 

ensure that any resulting energy 

conservation standards would be 

appropriate for the various classes of 

external power supplies operating 

consumer products. 

PG&E’s and NRCan’s both submitted 

comments in which they appear to 

advocate that DOE adopt a single, 

inclusive test procedure that would 

apply to both external power supplies 

and battery chargers. These commenters 

also urged DOE to make a determination 

about which products should be 

classified as an external power supply 

or a battery charger in a separate 

rulemaking. (PG&E, No. 12 at pp. 1–2 

and No. 77 at p. 2; NRCan, No. 86 at p. 

1) 

As indicated above for battery 

chargers, DOE disagrees with this 

approach. EPCA separately defines 

external power supplies and battery 

chargers. (42 U.S.C. 6291(32) and (36)) 

DOE is adopting in today’s final rule 

one test procedure for external power 

supplies, and a different test procedure 

for battery chargers into Appendix Y 

and Appendix Z, respectively, of 

Subpart B to 10 CFR Part 430. 71 FR 

42206. 

The Power Sources Manufacturers 

Association (PSMA) requested that 

medical equipment be excluded from 

coverage under this rulemaking, which 

it stated would be consistent with 

California and New York regulations. 

(PSMA, No. 72 at p. 1) DOE notes that 

its mandate under this rulemaking is to 

develop test procedures for external 

power supplies for consumer products. 

As discussed in this section, DOE 

intends to develop an appropriate scope 

of coverage for this product in its 

determination analysis, and ultimately, 

if there is a positive determination, in 

the energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. DOE will consider whether, 

and to what extent, external power 

supplies for medical equipment are 

used ‘‘to operate a consumer product,’’ 

42 U.S.C. 6291(36), and if so, the extent 

to which standards are warranted for 

such external power supplies. 

As discussed in the section on battery 

chargers, DOE recognizes that in certain 

instances, the distinction between a 

battery charger and an external power 

supply may not always be clear. For 

these devices, which could 

understandably be classified as either a 

battery charger or external power 

supply, DOE will work cooperatively 

with stakeholders to develop clear 

guidelines so there would not be any 

ambiguity as to which of the two test 

procedures adopted today would apply. 

DOE’s initial understanding of the 

principal differentiating characteristic of 

an external power supply is that it is 

able to operate the consumer product 

independent of the battery, whereas a 

battery charger cannot. This initial 

understanding will be discussed in a 

separate proceeding (i.e., the ‘‘Scoping 

Workshop’’). See section N for further 

detail. 

2. Power Factor. In DOE’s proposed 

rulemaking, stakeholders were invited 

to submit comments on power factor. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71362 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

DOE understands that power factor, 

defined as the ratio of actual power 

drawn in watts to apparent power 

drawn in volt-amperes, affects the 

efficiency of electric utility distribution 

systems. Power factor correction 

processes are used to adjust this ratio 

(i.e., the power factor) towards a value 

of 1.0. DOE stated in the July 2006 

notice it was concerned that, from a 

utility distribution system perspective, 

the aggregate effect of external power 

supplies with low-power factors would 

increase distribution system losses. 71 

FR 42191. DOE received two comments 

in response to this request, both 

suggesting that DOE should include 

consideration of power factor in its test 

procedure. (PG&E, No. 77 at p. 2; 

NRCan, No. 86 at p. 1) 

In the July 2006 proposal, DOE 

expressed concern and solicited 

stakeholder input on power factor as it 

relates to external power supplies for 

consumer products. 71 FR 42191. Part of 

DOE’s motivation behind the request for 

comments on power factor was the 

European directive which requires 

power factor correction on external 

power supplies with rated capacities 

greater than 75 watts input power 

(‘‘Limits for Harmonic Current 

Emissions (Equipment Input Current Up 

To And Including 16 A Per Phase,’’ 

EN61000–3–2). However, while 

preparing the July 2006 proposed rule, 

DOE’s technical review indicated that 

power factor as it related to the typical 

wattages of external power supplies for 

consumer products was not a significant 

issue. Therefore, DOE requested 

comment from stakeholders, but did not 

propose any rule language in the test 

method for external power supplies to 

explicitly measure power factor. While 

two stakeholders did mention power 

factor, they did not provide any 

rationale or information to support its 

consideration in the test procedure. In 

addition, no other stakeholders 

commented that this should be taken 

into account. Thus, DOE is not 

persuaded that power factor should be 

an issue of concern in this test 

procedure rulemaking, and DOE is not 

including the measurement of power 

factor in today’s final rule. 

3. Test Method. Finally, DOE 

proposed to use only the U.S. voltage 

conditions in the test procedures 

specified in the July 2006 proposed rule. 

71 FR 42191; 42207. CEA submitted a 

comment supporting DOE using only 

the U.S. voltage conditions in its test 

procedure. (CEA, No. 79 at p. 2) No 

other comments were received on this 

issue. Under the test procedure adopted 

today 115 volts at 60 hertz is the only 

input power for this test procedure as 

specified in Appendix Z of Subpart B to 

10 CFR Part 430. 71 FR 42206. 

In addition, several stakeholders 

provided comment in support of the noload energy consumption and the active 

mode efficiency loading percentages 

(i.e., 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% of rated 

nameplate output) proposed by DOE in 

the July 2006 notice. (PSMA, No. 72 at 

p. 2; PG&E, No. 77 at p. 2; CEA No. 79 

at p. 2; NRCan No. 86 at p. 1) DOE is 

adopting the no-load energy 

consumption measurement and the 

active mode efficiency loading 

percentages as proposed in the July 

2006 proposed rule. 71 FR 42191. 

P. General Comments and Final Rule 

In the July 2006 proposed rule, DOE 

proposed to add a definition for energy 

conservation standard as it relates to 

commercial equipment in § 431.2 of 10 

CFR Part 431. 71 FR 42207. DOE 

initially proposed this definition 

because it thought it would add clarity 

for stakeholders when referencing the 

test procedures covered by the statute. 

However, DOE is not adopting this 

definition in today’s final rule because 

DOE feels it is unnecessary and 

confusing to have two separate 

definitions for the term ‘‘energy 

conservation standard’’ in its 

regulations. In addition, DOE believes 

the EPCA definition of energy 

conservation standard is sufficient. 

IV. Corrections to the Recent Technical 

Amendment to DOE’s Energy 

Conservation Standards 

In the July 2006 proposed rule, DOE 

announced it intended to incorporate 

minor revisions to the October 18, 2005, 

final rule in which it adopted a 

technical amendment to its energy 

conservation standards for certain 

consumer products and commercial and 

industrial equipment. 70 FR 60407. 

These revisions consist of editorial 

corrections, corrections to errors in fact, 

and clarifying language. Each of the 

revisions discussed in the July 2006 

proposed rule is added to the 

appropriate section of the CFR by 

today’s final rule. The corrections and 

clarifications to the October 2005 final 

rule are as follows: 

1. In section 430.2, in the definition 

of ‘‘Dehumidifier,’’ DOE changed ‘‘and 

mechanically encased assembly’’ to 

‘‘and mechanically refrigerated encased 

assembly.’’ 

2. In § 430.32(u), DOE made the 

following changes in the table on 

standards for medium base CFLs: 

a. In the ‘‘Requirements’’ column and 

opposite ‘‘Lamp Power (Watts) & 

Configuration,’’ change ‘‘Minimum 

Efficiency: lumen/watt’’ to ‘‘Minimum 

Efficacy: lumens/watt.’’ 

b. In the ‘‘Factor’’ column, change 

‘‘Base Lamp’’ to ‘‘Bare Lamp.’’ 

c. In the ‘‘Factor’’ column, delete the 

reference to ‘‘Covered Lamp (with 

reflector),’’ ‘‘Lamp Power <20,’’ and 

‘‘Lamp Power >20’’ because these 

products are not covered under EPACT 

2005. Correspondingly, delete ‘‘33.0’’ 

and ‘‘40.0’’ from the ‘‘Requirements’’ 

column. 

d. In the ‘‘Requirements’’ column, 

opposite ‘‘Average Rated Lamp Life,’’ 

delete ‘‘and qualification form.’’ The 

clause reads, ‘‘as declared by the 

manufacturer on packaging.’’ 

e. In footnote 1, changed ‘‘in the base 

up an/or’’ to ‘‘in the base up and/or.’’ 

3. In § 431.97(b), DOE made the 

following changes: 

a. In the text preceding Table 1 in 

paragraph (a), DOE added the words ‘‘in 

the case of air-cooled equipment with a 

capacity greater than 65,000 Btu per 

hour,’’ after the date ‘‘January 1, 2010.’’ 

b. In the text preceding the table, DOE 

added the term ‘‘Air-cooled’’ at the 

beginning, and inserted the words ‘‘with 

cooling capacities equal to or greater 

than 65,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 

Btu/h’’ after the date ‘‘January 1, 2010.’’ 

c. In the table, DOE changed ‘‘Very large 

commercial package air-conditioning 

(air-cooled)’’ to ‘‘Very large commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment (air-cooled).’’ 

4. In § 431.226(a) for traffic signal 

modules and pedestrian modules, DOE 

changed the requirements from ‘‘a 

nominal wattage no greater than’’ to ‘‘a 

nominal wattage and maximum wattage 

no greater than.’’ 

V. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office 

of Management Budget (OMB) has 

determined that today’s regulatory 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review.’’ 58 FR 51735 

(October 4, 1993). Accordingly, today’s 

action was not subject to review by 

OIRA in OMB. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis 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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71363 

number of small entities. A regulatory 

flexibility analysis examines the impact 

of the rule on small entities and 

considers alternative ways of reducing 

negative impacts. Also, 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 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of General 

Counsel’s Web site: http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to 

incorporate into DOE’s energy 

conservation program certain consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment, including the products for 

which DOE is proposing test procedures 

in this notice. On October 18, 2005, 

DOE published in the Federal Register 

a technical amendment to place in the 

CFR the energy conservation standards, 

and related definitions, that Congress 

prescribed in EPACT 2005. 70 FR 

60407. Today, DOE is publishing further 

technical amendments to certain energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment published in the Federal 

Register on October 18, 2005. DOE is 

revising the CFR to incorporate, 

essentially without substantive change, 

the energy conservation test procedures 

that Congress prescribed or otherwise 

identified in EPACT 2005 for certain 

consumer products and commercial and 

industrial equipment. DOE is also 

adopting test procedures for consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment for which EPACT did not 

identify specific test procedures. 

DOE reviewed today’s final rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the policies and 

procedures published on February 19, 

2003. DOE conducted its examination 

for the products and equipment covered 

under EPACT 2005 in several groups: 

equipment for which EPACT 2005 

amended EPCA to direct DOE to adopt 

test procedures the statute identifies; 

products or equipment for which the 

EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA do 

not specifically identify any test 

procedure; and products or equipment 

for which the EPACT 2005 amendments 

mandate that DOE base its test 

procedures on test procedures the 

statute identifies. 

EPACT 2005 establishes specific test 

procedures for automatic commercial 

ice makers; for commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers for 

which the statute prescribes standards; 

and for very large commercial package 

air-conditioning and heating equipment 

(240,000 Btu/h through 760,000 Btu/h). 

Since EPCA now mandates the test 

procedures, they are incorporated into 

today’s proposed rule. Any costs of 

complying with them are imposed by 

EPCA and not the rule. For this 

equipment, DOE is merely incorporating 

by reference into 10 CFR Part 431 the 

required test procedures as the statute 

directs. Therefore, DOE concludes that 

this rule would not impose a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

businesses producing automatic 

commercial ice makers; commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers for which the statute prescribes 

standards; or very large commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment (240,000 Btu/h through 

760,000 Btu/h). 

EPACT 2005 does not prescribe test 

procedures for all products and 

equipment it addresses. For example, 

EPACT 2005 establishes energy 

conservation design requirements for 

commercial unit heaters, torchieres, 

ceiling fan light kits with sockets other 

than medium screw base and pin-based, 

and ceiling fans. 

For the remaining products and 

equipment that EPACT 2005 covers and 

today’s final rule addresses, the test 

procedures are based on test procedures 

developed and already in general use by 

industry. Many manufacturers have 

been redesigning the products and 

equipment covered under today’s final 

rule, and testing them for compliance 

with existing voluntary performance 

standards such as the ENERGY STAR 

program requirements, using industrydeveloped test procedures that are the 

basis for the test procedures in EPACT 

2005. These products and equipment 

include dehumidifiers, commercial 

prerinse spray valves, illuminated exit 

signs, ceiling fan light kits with medium 

screw base and pin-based sockets, 

medium-base CFLs, traffic signal 

modules, and pedestrian modules. To 

the extent manufacturers already test 

their products for efficiency using the 

test procedures identified in EPACT 

2005, and incorporated into today’s 

final rule, to assure that the products 

meet existing energy conservation 

requirements, manufacturers would 

experience no additional burdens if 

DOE adopts these test procedures and 

requires manufacturers to use them. 

Furthermore, as to the test procedures 

adopted today that EPACT 2005 directs 

DOE to adopt, and arguably for the 

proposed test procedures that EPACT 

2005 specifically identifies and states 

shall be the basis for the DOE test 

procedure, any cost of complying with 

the proposed rule arises from the 

underlying statutory requirement and 

not the rule itself. Moreover, for the 

products and equipment for which 

EPACT 2005 prescribes energy 

efficiency standards, implicit in such 

requirements is that manufacturers must 

test their products to assure compliance 

with the standards. For all of these 

reasons, DOE believes today’s final rule 

would not impose significant economic 

costs on manufacturers, including small 

manufacturers, of these products. 

Certain products and equipment— 

ceiling fans, battery chargers, external 

power supplies, and refrigerated bottled 

and canned beverage vending 

machines—are the subject of voluntary 

standards and/or test procedures but are 

not yet covered by DOE energy 

conservation standards. DOE’s adoption 

of test procedures for these products 

would entail even less burden for their 

manufactures than described in the 

previous paragraph, because these 

manufacturers would not be required to 

perform testing to establish compliance 

with standards. Thus, DOE believes 

today’s final rule clearly would not 

impose significant economic costs on 

small manufacturers of these products. 

For all of these reasons, DOE certifies 

that today’s final rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE will transmit this 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

This final rule will impose no new 

information or recordkeeping 

requirements since it does not include 

the manufacturer certification and 

reporting requirements included in the 

July 2006 proposed rule. As indicated in 

the July 2006 proposed rule, the 

manufacturer certification and reporting 

requirements contain certain recordkeeping requirements. However, those 

recordkeeping requirements and 

associated burdens from manufacturer 

certification and reporting are being 

considered in a separate rulemaking. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

an agency may not conduct or sponsor 

a collection of information unless the 

collection displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. (44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(1)(B)(iii)(V)) The certification 

and record keeping requirements for 

consumer products in 10 CFR Part 430 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71364 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

have previously been assigned OMB 

control number 1910–1400. The 

certification and record keeping 

requirements for commercial and 

industrial equipment in 10 CFR Part 431 

must be approved and assigned a 

control number by OMB. DOE has 

submitted those proposed certification 

and recordkeeping requirements to 

OMB for review and approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. 

In the July 2006 proposed rule, DOE 

provided burden estimates for each of 

the products covered by the proposed 

rule and invited interested parties to 

submit comments concerning the 

estimated paperwork reporting burden 

to DOE and to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget. DOE will 

address all of the comments in the final 

rule adopting manufacturer certification 

and reporting requirements. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

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 implementation of these 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, this rule is establishing test 

procedures that will not affect the 

quality or distribution of energy and 

that will not result in any 

environmental impacts and, therefore, is 

covered by the Categorical Exclusion in 

paragraph A6 to subpart D, 10 CFR part 

1021. 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 developing 

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 

developing such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE examined this final rule 

and determined that it does 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. Executive Order 

13132 requires no further action. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) Eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard; and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive 

Order 12988 specifically requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

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

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, this rule meets 

the relevant standards of Executive 

Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires each Federal agency to 

assess the effects of Federal regulatory 

actions on State, local, and Tribal 

governments and the private sector. For 

regulatory actions likely to result in a 

rule that may cause expenditures 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) and (b). The 

UMRA 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.’’ The UMRA also requires an 

agency plan for giving notice and 

opportunity for timely input to small 

governments that may be affected before 

establishing a requirement that might 

significantly or uniquely affect them. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a 

statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at 

http://www.gc.doe.gov). Today’s 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 

under the UMRA 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. 

Today’s final rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is unnecessary 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 rule would 

not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the United States 

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. The OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s final rule under the 

OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71365 

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 the OIRA of 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 a final rule 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 reasonable alternatives to the action 

and their expected benefits on energy 

supply, distribution, and use. Because 

this final rule would not have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, the rule 

is not a significant energy action. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration (FEA) 

Act of 1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91), 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. DOE 

indicated in the July 2006 proposed rule 

that Section 32 applies to the portion of 

the proposed rule that incorporates 

testing methods in six commercial 

standards not specifically specified in 

EPACT 2005, requiring consultation 

with the Attorney General and the 

Chairman of the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) concerning the 

impact of the commercial or industry 

standards on competition. 71 FR 42178, 

42200 (July 25, 2006). Based on the 

comments, DOE is no longer 

incorporating by reference two of the six 

commercial standards, IEEE Standard 

1515–2000, ‘‘IEEE Recommended 

Practice for Electronic Power 

Subsystems; Parameter Definitions, Test 

Conditions, and Test Methods,’’ for 

battery chargers and external power 

supplies and IESNA Standard LM 45– 

2000, ‘‘Approved Method for Electrical 

and Photometric Measurements of 

General Service Incandescent Filament 

Lamps,’’ in the final rule. In addition, 

DOE has determined that the two 

ENERGY STAR test methods identified 

in the July 2006, proposed rule, 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Test Methodology for 

Determining the Performance 

Characteristics of Battery Charging 

Systems,’’ December 2005, and 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Test Method for 

Calculating the Energy Efficiency of 

Single-Voltage External Ac-Dc and AcAc Power Supplies,’’ August 11, 2004, 

are not commercial standards subject to 

the section 32 review. 

Since publication of the July 2006 

proposed rule, DOE submitted two 

commercial standards, ARI Standard 

1200–2006, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets;’’ 

and ARI Standard 340/360–2004, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial and 

Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and 

Heat Pump Equipment,’’ to the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the Federal 

Trade Commission for such review. 

Neither the Attorney General nor the 

Chairman of the Federal Trade 

Commission has recommended against 

incorporation of these standards. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s final rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Household appliances, 

Incorporation by reference. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Commercial products, 

Energy conservation test procedures, 

Incorporation by reference. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

28, 2006. 

Alexander A. Karsner, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

DOE amends Chapter II, Subchapter D, 

of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 430.2 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding to the definition of ‘‘basic 

model’’ paragraphs (21) through (26). 

■ b. Revising the definition of ‘‘covered 

product’’ and ‘‘dehumidifier.’’ 

■ c. Adding in alphabetical order the 

definition of ‘‘Battery charger,’’ 

‘‘External power supply,’’ and ‘‘Pinbased.’’ 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Basic model *** 

(21) With respect to ceiling fans, 

which have electrical characteristics 

that are essentially identical, and which 

do not have any differing physical or 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. 

(22) With respect to ceiling fan light 

kits, which have electrical 

characteristics that are essentially 

identical, and which do not have 

differing physical or functional 

characteristics that affect energy 

consumption. 

(23) With respect to medium base 

compact fluorescent lamps, which have 

electrical characteristics that are 

essentially identical, and which do not 

have any differing physical or 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. 

(24) With respect to dehumidifiers, 

which have electrical characteristics 

that are essentially identical, and which 

do not have any differing physical or 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. 

(25) With respect to battery chargers, 

which have electrical characteristics 

that are essentially identical, and which 

do not have any differing physical or 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. 

(26) With respect to external power 

supplies, which have electrical 

characteristics that are essentially 

identical, and which do not have any 

differing physical or functional 

characteristics that affect energy 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

Battery charger means a device that 

charges batteries for consumer products, 

including battery chargers embedded in 

other consumer products. 

* * * * * 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71366 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Covered product means a consumer 

product: 

(1) Of a type specified in section 322 

of the Act, or 

(2) That is a ceiling fan, ceiling fan 

light kit, medium base compact 

fluorescent lamp, dehumidifier, battery 

charger, external power supply, or 

torchiere. 

Dehumidifier means a self-contained, 

electrically operated, and mechanically 

refrigerated encased assembly consisting 

of— 

(1) A refrigerated surface (evaporator) 

that condenses moisture from the 

atmosphere; 

(2) A refrigerating system, including 

an electric motor; 

(3) An air-circulating fan; and 

(4) Means for collecting or disposing 

of the condensate. 

* * * * * 

External power supply means an 

external power supply circuit that is 

used to convert household electric 

current into DC current or lower-voltage 

AC current to operate a consumer 

product. 

* * * * * 

Pin-based means (1) the base of a 

fluorescent lamp, that is not integrally 

ballasted and that has a plug-in lamp 

base, including multi-tube, multibend, 

spiral, and circline types, or (2) a socket 

that holds such a lamp. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 430.22 is amended by 

adding new paragraphs (b)(9), (b)(10), 

and (b)(11) to read as follows: 

§ 430.22 Reference Sources. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(9) Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 272–0167. 

1. ‘‘ENERGY STAR Testing Facility 

Guidance Manual: Building a Testing Facility 

and Performing the Solid State Test Method 

for ENERGY STAR Qualified Ceiling Fans,’’ 

Version 1.1, December 9, 2002. 

2. ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for Residential Light Fixtures,’’ Version 4.0, 

issued January 10, 2005. 

3. ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for Dehumidifiers,’’ effective January 1, 2001. 

4. ‘‘Test Methodology for Determining the 

Energy Performance of Battery Charging 

Systems,’’ December 2005. 

(10) U.S. Department of Energy, Office 

of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1J–018 

(Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program), 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

9127. 

1. ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for [Compact Fluorescent Lamps] CFLs,’’ 

Version 3.0, issued October 30, 2003. 

2. ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for [Compact Fluorescent Lamps] CFLs,’’ 

Version August 9, 2001. 

(11) California Energy Commission, 

1516 Ninth Street, MS–25, Sacramento, 

CA 95814, (916) 654–4091. 

1. ‘‘Test Method for Calculating the Energy 

Efficiency of Single-Voltage External Ac-Dc 

and Ac-Ac Power Supplies,’’ August 11, 

2004. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 430.23 is amended by 

revising the section heading, adding 

new paragraphs (w), (x), (y), (z), (aa), 

and (bb) to read as follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(w) Ceiling fans. The airflow and 

airflow efficiency for ceiling fans, 

expressed in cubic feet per minute 

(CFM) and CFM per watt (CFM/watt), 

respectively, shall be measured in 

accordance with section 4 of appendix 

U of this subpart. 

(x) Ceiling fan light kits. The efficacy, 

expressed in lumens per watt (lumens/ 

watt), for ceiling fan light kits with 

sockets for medium screw base lamps or 

pin-based fluorescent lamps shall be 

measured in accordance with section 4 

of appendix V of this subpart. 

(y) Medium Base Compact 

Fluorescent Lamps. The initial efficacy, 

lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours, 

lumen maintenance at 40-percent of 

rated life, rapid cycle stress test, and 

lamp life shall be measured in 

accordance with section 4 of appendix 

W of this subpart. 

(z) Dehumidifiers. The energy factor 

for dehumidifiers, expressed in liters 

per kilowatt hour (L/kWh), shall be 

measured in accordance with section 4 

of appendix X of this subpart. 

(aa) Battery Chargers. The energy 

consumption of a battery charger, 

expressed as the nonactive energy ratio, 

shall be measured in accordance with 

section 4 of appendix Y of this subpart. 

(bb) External Power Supplies. The 

energy consumption of an external 

power supply, including active mode 

efficiency in a percentage and the noload energy consumption in watts, shall 

be measured in accordance with section 

4 of appendix Z of this subpart. 

■ 5. Subpart B of part 430 is amended 

by adding new appendices U, V, W, X, 

Y, and Z, to read as follows: 

Appendix U to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Ceiling Fans 

1. Scope. This appendix covers the test 

requirements used to measure the energy 

performance of ceiling fans. 

2. Definitions: 

a. Airflow means the rate of air movement 

at a specific fan-speed setting expressed in 

cubic feet per minute (CFM). 

b. Airflow efficiency means the ratio of 

airflow divided by power at a specific ceiling 

fan-speed setting expressed in CFM per watt 

(CFM/watt). 

3. Test Apparatus and General 

Instructions: The test apparatus and 

instructions for testing ceiling fans shall 

conform to the requirements specified in 

Chapter 3, ‘‘Air-Delivery Room Construction 

and Preparation,’’ Chapter 4, ‘‘Equipment 

Set-up and Test Procedure,’’ and Chapter 6, 

‘‘Definitions and Acronyms,’’ of the EPA’s 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Testing Facility Guidance 

Manual: Building a Testing Facility and 

Performing the Solid State Test Method for 

ENERGY STAR Qualified Ceiling Fans,’’ 

Version 1.1, December 9, 2002 (Incorporated 

by reference, see § 430.22). Record 

measurements at the resolution of the test 

instrumentation. Round off calculations to 

the same number of significant digits as the 

previous step. Round the final energy 

consumption value to the nearest whole 

number as follows: 

(i) A fractional number at or above the 

midpoint between the two consecutive whole 

numbers shall be rounded up to the higher 

of the two whole numbers; or 

(ii) A fractional number below the 

midpoint between the two consecutive whole 

numbers shall be rounded down to the lower 

of the two whole numbers. 

4. Test Measurement: Measure the airflow 

and airflow efficiency for ceiling fans, 

expressed in cubic feet per minute (CFM) and 

CFM per watt (CFM/watt), in accordance 

with the test requirements specified in 

Chapter 4, ‘‘Equipment Setup and Test 

Procedure,’’ of the EPA’s ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Testing Facility Guidance Manual: Building 

a Testing Facility and Performing the Solid 

State Test Method for ENERGY STAR 

Qualified Ceiling Fans,’’ Version 1.1, 

December 9, 2002 (Incorporated by reference, 

see § 430.22). In performing the airflow test, 

measure ceiling fan power using a RMS 

sensor capable of measuring power with an 

accuracy of ±1 %. Prior to using the sensor 

and sensor software it has selected, the test 

laboratory shall verify performance of the 

sensor and sensor software. Measure power 

input at a point that includes all power 

consuming components of the ceiling fan 

(but without any attached light kit 

energized). Measure power at the rated 

voltage that represents normal operation 

continuously over the time period for which 

the airflow test is conducted, and report the 

average value of the power measurement in 

watts (W). Use the average value of power 

input to calculate the airflow efficiency in 

CFM/W. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71367 

Appendix V to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Ceiling Fan Light 

Kits 

1. Scope: This appendix covers the test 

requirements used to measure the energy 

performance of ceiling fan light kits. 

2. Definitions: 

a. Input power means the actual total 

power used by all lamp(s) and ballast(s) of 

the light kit during operation, expressed in 

watts (W) and measured using the lamp and 

ballast packaged with the kit. 

b. Lamp ballast platform means a pairing 

of one ballast with one or more lamps that 

can operate simultaneously on that ballast. A 

unique platform is defined by the 

manufacturer and model number of the 

ballast and lamp(s) and the quantity of lamps 

that operate on the ballast. 

c. Lamp lumens means a measurement of 

luminous flux expressed in lumens and 

measured using the lamp and ballast shipped 

with the fixture. 

d. System efficacy per lamp ballast 

platform means the ratio of measured lamp 

lumens expressed in lumens and measured 

input power expressed in watts (W). 

3. Test Apparatus and General 

Instructions: 

(a) The test apparatus and instruction for 

testing screw base lamps packaged with 

ceiling fan light kits that have medium screw 

base sockets shall conform to the 

requirements specified in section 2, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ section 3, ‘‘Referenced 

Standards,’’ and section 4, ‘‘CFL 

Requirements for Testing’’ of DOE’s 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for 

[Compact Fluorescent Lamps] CFLs,’’ Version 

3.0, (Incorporated by reference, see § 430.22). 

Record measurements at the resolution of the 

test instrumentation. Round off calculations 

to the same number of significant digits as 

the previous step. Round off the final energy 

consumption value to a whole number as 

follows: 

(i) A fractional number at or above the 

midpoint between the two consecutive whole 

numbers shall be rounded up to the higher 

of the two whole numbers; or 

(ii) A fractional number below the 

midpoint between the two consecutive whole 

numbers shall be rounded down to the lower 

of the two whole numbers. 

(b) The test apparatus and instruction for 

testing pin-based fluorescent lamps packaged 

with ceiling fan light kits that have pin-based 

sockets shall conform to the requirements 

specified in section 1, ‘‘Definitions,’’ and 

section 3, ‘‘Energy Efficiency Specifications 

for Qualifying Products’’ of the EPA’s 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for 

Residential Light Fixtures,’’ Version 4.0, 

(Incorporated by reference, see § 430.22). 

Record measurements at the resolution of the 

test instrumentation. Round off calculations 

to the same number of significant digits as 

the previous step. The final energy 

consumption value shall be rounded to a 

whole number as follows: 

(i) A fractional number at or above the 

midpoint between the two consecutive whole 

numbers shall be rounded up to the higher 

of the two whole numbers; or 

(ii) A fractional number below the 

midpoint between the two consecutive whole 

numbers shall be rounded down to the lower 

of the two whole numbers. 

4. Test Measurement: 

(a) For screw base compact fluorescent 

lamps packaged with ceiling fan light kits 

that have medium screw base sockets, 

measure the efficacy, expressed in lumens 

per watt, in accordance with the test 

requirements specified in section 4, ‘‘CFL 

Requirements for Testing,’’ of the ‘‘ENERGY 

STAR Program Requirements for Compact 

Fluorescent Lamps,’’ Version 3.0 

(Incorporated by reference, see § 430.22). 

(b) For pin-based compact fluorescent 

lamps packaged with ceiling fan light kits 

that have pin-based sockets, measure the 

efficacy, expressed in lumens per watt, in 

accordance with the test requirements 

specified in section 3, ‘‘Energy-Efficiency 

Specifications for Qualifying Products’’ and 

Table 3 in section 4, ‘‘Qualification Process, 

Testing Facilities, Standards, and 

Documentation,’’ of the ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Residential Light 

Fixtures,’’ Version 4.0 (Incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.22). 

Appendix W to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Medium Base 

Compact Fluorescent Lamps 

1. Scope: This appendix covers the test 

requirements used to measure the initial 

efficacy, lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours, 

lumen maintenance at 40 percent of rated 

life, rapid cycle stress, and lamp life of 

medium base compact fluorescent lamps. 

2. Definitions: 

a. Average rated life means the length of 

time declared by the manufacturer at which 

50 percent of any large number of units of a 

lamp reaches the end of their individual 

lives. 

b. Initial performance values means the 

photometric and electrical characteristics of 

the lamp at the end of 100 hours of operation. 

Such values include the initial efficacy, the 

rated luminous flux and the rated lumen 

output. 

c. Lumen maintenance means the 

luminous flux or lumen output at a given 

time in the life of the lamp and expressed as 

a percentage of the rated luminous flux or 

rated lumen output, respectively. 

d. Rated luminous flux or rated lumen 

output means the initial lumen rating (100 

hour) declared by the manufacturer, which 

consists of the lumen rating of a lamp at the 

end of 100 hours of operation. 

e. Rated supply frequency means the 

frequency marked on the lamp. 

f. Rated voltage means the voltage marked 

on the lamp. 

g. Rated wattage means the wattage marked 

on the lamp. 

h. Self-ballasted compact fluorescent lamp 

means a compact fluorescent lamp unit that 

incorporates, permanently enclosed, all 

elements that are necessary for the starting 

and stable operation of the lamp, and does 

not include any replaceable or 

interchangeable parts. 

3. Test Apparatus and General 

Instructions: The test apparatus and 

instructions for testing medium base compact 

fluorescent lamps shall conform to the 

requirements specified in section 2, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ section 3, ‘‘Referenced 

Standards,’’ and section 4, ‘‘CFL 

Requirements for Testing,’’ of DOE’s 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for 

[Compact Fluorescent Lamps] CFLs,’’ Version 

dated August 9, 2001, (commonly referred to 

as Version 2.0), (Incorporated by reference, 

see § 430.22). Record measurements at the 

resolution of the test instrumentation. Round 

off calculations to the same number of 

significant digits as the previous step. Round 

the final energy consumption value, as 

applicable, to the nearest decimal place or 

whole number as follows: 

(i) A fractional number at or above the 

midpoint between two consecutive decimal 

places or whole numbers shall be rounded up 

to the higher of the two decimal places or 

whole numbers; or 

(ii) A fractional number below the 

midpoint between two consecutive decimal 

places or whole numbers shall be rounded 

down to the lower of the two decimal places 

or whole numbers. Round the final initial 

efficacy to one decimal place. Round the 

final lumen maintenance at 1,000 hours to a 

whole number. Round the final lumen 

maintenance at 40 percent of rated life, the 

final rapid cycle stress, and the final lamp 

life for medium base compact fluorescent 

lamps to whole numbers. 

4. Test Measurement: Measure the initial 

efficacy expressed in lumens per watt; lumen 

maintenance at 1,000 hours expressed in 

lumens; lumen maintenance at 40 percent of 

rated life expressed in lumens; rapid cycle 

stress expressed in the number of lamps that 

meet or exceed the minimum number of 

cycles; and lamp life expressed in hours in 

accordance with the test requirements 

specified in section 4, ‘‘CFL Requirements for 

Testing’’ of DOE’s ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements for [Compact Fluorescent 

Lamps] CFLs,’’ Version dated August 9, 2001 

(Incorporated by reference, see § 430.22). 

Appendix X to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Dehumidifiers 

1. Scope: This appendix covers the test 

requirements used to measure the energy 

performance of dehumidifiers. 

2. Definitions: 

a. Product capacity for dehumidifiers 

means a measure of the ability of a 

dehumidifier to remove moisture from its 

surrounding atmosphere, measured in pints 

collected per 24 hours of continuous 

operation. 

b. Energy factor for dehumidifiers means a 

measure of energy efficiency of a 

dehumidifier calculated by dividing the 

water removed from the air by the energy 

consumed, measured in liters per kilowatt 

hour (L/kWh). 

3. Test Apparatus and General 

Instructions: The test apparatus and 

instructions for testing dehumidifiers shall 

conform to the requirements specified in 

section 1, ‘‘Definitions,’’ section 2, 

‘‘Qualifying Products,’’ and section 4, ‘‘Test 

Criteria,’’ of the EPA’s ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Dehumidifiers,’’ 

effective January 1, 2001 (Incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.22). Record 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71368 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

measurements at the resolution of the test 

instrumentation. Round off calculations to 

the same number of significant digits as the 

previous step. Round the final minimum 

energy factor value to two decimal places as 

follows: 

(i) A fractional number at or above the 

midpoint between two consecutive decimal 

places shall be rounded up to the higher of 

the two decimal places; or 

(ii) A fractional number below the 

midpoint between two consecutive decimal 

places shall be rounded down to the lower 

of the two decimal places. 

4. Test Measurement: Measure the energy 

factor for dehumidifiers, expressed in liters 

per kilowatt hour (L/kWh) and product 

capacity in pints per day (pints/day), in 

accordance with the test requirements 

specified in section 4, ‘‘Test Criteria,’’ of 

EPA’s ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements for Dehumidifiers,’’ effective 

January 1, 2001 (Incorporated by reference, 

see § 430.22). 

Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Battery Chargers 

1. Scope: This appendix covers the test 

requirements used to measure battery charger 

energy consumption. 

2. Definitions: The following definitions 

are for the purposes of understanding 

terminology associated with the test method 

for measuring battery charger energy 

consumption.1 

a. Accumulated nonactive energy is the 

sum of the energy, in watt-hours, consumed 

by the battery charger in battery-maintenance 

mode and standby mode over time periods 

defined in the test procedure. 

b. Active mode is the condition in which 

the battery is receiving the main charge, 

equalizing cells, and performing other onetime or limited-time functions necessary for 

bringing the battery to the fully charged state. 

c. Battery or battery pack is an assembly of 

one or more rechargeable cells intended to 

provide electrical energy to a consumer 

product, and may be in one of the following 

forms: (a) detachable battery: a battery that is 

contained in a separate enclosure from the 

consumer product and is intended to be 

removed or disconnected from the consumer 

product for recharging; or (b) integral battery: 

a battery that is contained within the 

consumer product and is not removed from 

the consumer product for charging purposes. 

d. Battery energy is the energy, in watthours, delivered by the battery under the 

specified discharge conditions in the test 

procedure. 

e. Battery maintenance mode or 

maintenance mode is the mode of operation 

1 For clarity on any other terminology used in the 

test method, please refer to IEEE Standard 1515– 

2000. 

when the battery charger is connected to the 

main electricity supply and the battery is 

fully charged, but is still connected to the 

charger. 

f. Energy ratio or nonactive energy ratio 

means the ratio of the accumulated nonactive 

energy divided by the battery energy. 

g. Multi-port charger means a battery 

charger that is capable of simultaneously 

charging two or more batteries. These 

chargers also may have multi-voltage 

capability, allowing two or more batteries of 

different voltages to charge simultaneously. 

h. Multi-voltage a la carte charger means 

a separate battery charger that is individually 

packaged without batteries, and is able to 

charge a variety of batteries of different 

nominal voltages. 

i. Standby mode or no-load mode means 

the mode of operation when the battery 

charger is connected to the main electricity 

supply and the battery is not connected to 

the charger. 

3. Test Apparatus and General 

Instructions: The test apparatus, standard 

testing conditions, and instructions for 

testing battery chargers shall conform to the 

requirements specified in section 4, 

‘‘Standard Testing Conditions,’’ of the EPA’s 

‘‘Test Methodology for Determining the 

Energy Performance of Battery Charging 

Systems,’’ December 2005 Incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.22). The test voltage 

specified in section 4.1.1, ‘‘Voltage,’’ shall be 

115 volts, 60 Hz. The battery charger should 

be tested using the full test methodology, 

which has a test duration of 48 hours. In 

section 4.3.1, ‘‘Precision Requirements,’’ 

append this sentence to the end: ‘‘The test 

equipment must be capable of accounting for 

crest factor and frequency spectrum in its 

measurement of the UUT input current.’’ 

4. Test Measurement: 

(a) Inactive Mode Energy Consumption 

Measurement. The measurement of the 

battery charger energy ratio shall conform to 

the requirements specified in section 5, 

‘‘Determining BCS Energy Ratio,’’ of the 

EPA’s ‘‘Test Methodology for Determining 

the Energy Performance of Battery Charging 

Systems, December 2005’’ (Incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.22). 

(b) Active Mode Energy Consumption 

Measurement. [RESERVED] 

Appendix Z to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of External Power 

Supplies 

1. Scope: This appendix covers the test 

requirements used to measure the active 

mode efficiency and the no-load energy 

consumption of external power supplies. 

2. Definitions: The following definitions 

are for the purposes of understanding 

terminology associated with the test method 

for measuring external power supply energy 

consumption.1 

a. Active mode is the mode of operation 

when the external power supply is connected 

to the main electricity supply and the output 

is connected to a load. 

b. Active mode efficiency is the ratio, 

expressed as a percentage, of the total real 

output power produced by a power supply to 

the real input power required to produce it. 

c. No load mode means the mode of 

operation when the external power supply is 

connected to the main electricity supply and 

the output is not connected to a load. 

d. Single voltage external AC–AC power 

supply means an external power supply that 

is designed to convert line voltage AC input 

into lower voltage AC output and is able to 

convert to only one AC output voltage at a 

time. 

e. Single voltage external AC–DC power 

supply means an external power supply that 

is designed to convert line voltage AC input 

into lower voltage DC output and is able to 

convert to only one DC output voltage at a 

time. 

f. Total harmonic distortion, expressed as 

a percent, is the RMS value of an AC signal 

after the fundamental component is removed 

and interharmonic components are ignored, 

divided by the RMS value of the fundamental 

component. 

g. True power factor is the ratio of the 

active (also referred to as real) power 

consumed in watts to the apparent power, 

drawn in volt-amperes. 

3. Test Apparatus and General 

Instructions: The test apparatus, standard 

testing conditions, and instructions for 

testing external power supplies shall conform 

to the requirements specified in section 4, 

‘‘General Conditions for Measurement,’’ of 

the CEC’s ‘‘Test Method for Calculating the 

Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage External 

AC–DC and AC–AC Power Supplies,’’ August 

11, 2004. The test voltage specified in section 

4.d, ‘‘Test Voltage,’’ shall only be 115 volts, 

60 Hz. 

4. Test Measurement: The measurement of 

the external power supply active mode 

efficiency and no-load energy consumption 

shall conform to the requirements specified 

in section 5, ‘‘Measurement Approach,’’ of 

the CEC’s ‘‘Test Method for Calculating the 

Energy Efficiency of Single-Voltage External 

AD–DC and AC–AC Power Supplies,’’ 

August 11, 2004 (Incorporated by reference, 

see § 430.22). 

■ 6. Section 430.32 is amended by 

revising the table in paragraph (u) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(u) * * * 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71369 

Factor 

Lamp Power (Watts) & Configuration 1 .....................................................


Bare Lamp: 


Lamp Power <15 ...............................................................................


Lamp Power ≥15 ................................................................................


Covered Lamp (no reflector): 


Lamp Power <15 ...............................................................................


15≥ Lamp Power <19 ........................................................................


19≥ Lamp Power <25 ........................................................................


Lamp Power ≥25 ................................................................................


1,000-hour Lumen Maintenance ...............................................................


Lumen Maintenance .................................................................................


Rapid Cycle Stress Test ...........................................................................


Average Rated Lamp Life .........................................................................


Requirements 

Minimum Efficacy: lumens/watt(Based upon initial lumen data). 2 

45.0. 

60.0. 

40.0. 

48.0. 

50.0 

55.0. 

The average of at least 5 lamps must be a minimum 90.0% of initial 

(100-hour) lumen output @ 1,000 hours of rated life. 

80.0% of initial (100-hour) rating at 40 percent of rated life (per ANSI 

C78.5 Clause 4.10). 

Per ANSI C78.5 and IESNA LM–65 (clauses 2,3,5, and 6). 

Exception: Cycle times must be 5 minutes on, 5 minutes off. Lamp will 

be cycled once for every two hours of rated life. At least 5 lamps 

must meet or exceed the minimum number of cycles. 

≥6,000 hours as declared by the manufacturer on packaging. At 80% 

of rated life, statistical methods may be used to confirm lifetime 

claims based on sampling performance. 

1 Take performance and electrical requirements at the end of the 100-hour aging period according to ANSI Standard C78.5. The lamp efficacy 

shall be the average of the lesser of the lumens per watt measured in the base up and/or other specified positions. Use wattages place on packaging to select proper specification efficacy in this table, not measured wattage. Labeled wattages are for reference only. 2 Efficacies are based on measured values for lumens and wattages from pertinent test data. Wattages and lumens placed on packages may 

not be used in calculation and are not governed by this specification. For multi-level or dimmable systems, measurements shall be at the highest 

setting. Acceptable measurement error is ±3%. 

* * * * * canned beverage vending machine, as new §§ 431.63 and 431.64, to read as 

defined in § 431.292. follows: 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY * * * * * 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN ■ 9. Section 431.62 is amended by 

Test Procedures 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL adding, in alphabetical order, new § 431.63 Materials incorporated by EQUIPMENT definitions for ‘‘Basic model,’’ ‘‘Ice- reference. 

cream freezer,’’ and ‘‘Test package,’’ to (a) General. The Department ■ 7. The authority citation for part 431 read as follows: 

continues to read as follows: incorporates by reference the following 

§ 431.62 Definitions concerning test procedures into subpart C of part Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 431. The Director of the Federal Register 

refrigerator-freezers. has approved the material listed in 

■ 8. Section 431.2 is amended by Basic model means, with respect to paragraph (b) of this section for revising the definition of ‘‘Covered commercial refrigerators, freezers, and incorporation by reference in equipment,’’ to read as follows: refrigerator-freezers, all units of a given accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

type of commercial refrigerator, freezer, CFR part 51. Any subsequent § 431.2 Definitions. or refrigerator-freezer (or class thereof) amendment to this material by the * * * * * manufactured by one manufacturer that standard-setting organization will not 

Covered equipment means any have the same primary energy source, affect the DOE test procedures unless 

electric motor, as defined in § 431.12; which have electrical characteristics DOE amends its test procedures. The 

commercial heating, ventilating, and air that are essentially identical, and which Department incorporates the material as 

conditioning, and water heating product do not have any differing electrical, it exists on the date of the approval by 

(HVAC & WH product), as defined in physical, or functional characteristics the Federal Register and a notice of any 

§ 431.172; commercial refrigerator, that affect energy consumption. change in the material will be published 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer, as * * * * * in the Federal Register. 

defined in § 431.62; automatic Ice-cream freezer means a commercial (b) Test procedures incorporated by 

commercial ice maker, as defined in freezer that is designed to operate at or reference. (1) American National 

§ 431.132; commercial clothes washer, below ¥5 °F (¥21 °C) and that the Standards Institute (ANSI)/Association 

as defined in § 431.152; distribution manufacturer designs, markets, or of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

transformer, as defined in § 431.192; intends for the storing, displaying, or (AHAM) Standard HRF–1–2004, 

illuminated exit sign, as defined in dispensing of ice cream. ‘‘Energy, Performance and Capacity of 

§ 431.202; traffic signal module or * * * * * Household Refrigerators, Refrigeratorpedestrian module, as defined in Test package means a packaged Freezers and Freezers.’’ 

§ 431.222; unit heater, as defined in material that is used as a standard 

product temperature-measuring device. (2) Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 

§ 431.242; commercial prerinse spray Institute (ARI) Standard 1200–2006, 

valve, as defined in § 431.262; mercury ■ 10. Subpart C of part 431 is amended ‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial 

vapor lamp ballast, as defined in by revising the undesignated center Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

§ 431.282; or refrigerated bottled or heading following § 431.62 and adding Storage Cabinets.’’ 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71370 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(c) Availability of references—(1) 

Inspection of test procedures. The test 

procedures incorporated by reference 

are available for inspection at: 

(i) National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

(ii) U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 1J–018 

(Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program), 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

(2) Obtaining copies of standards. (i) 

Anyone can purchase a copy of ANSI/ 

AHAM HRF–1–2004, ‘‘Energy, 

Performance and Capacity of Household 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and 

Freezers,’’ from the American National 

Standards Institute, 1819 L Street, NW., 

6th floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 

293–8020, or http://www.ansi.org. 

(ii) Anyone can obtain a copy of ARI 

Standard 1200–2006, ‘‘Performance 

Rating of Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandisers and Storage 

Cabinets,’’ from the Air-Conditioning 

and Refrigeration Institute, 4100 N. 

Fairfax Dr., Suite 200, Arlington, VA 

22203 or http://www.ari.org/std/ 

standards.html. 

§ 431.64 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

(a) Scope. This section provides the 

test procedures for measuring, pursuant 

to EPCA, the daily energy consumption 

in kilowatt hours per day (kWh/day) for 

a given product category and volume or 

total display area of commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers. 

(b) Testing and calculations. (1) 

Determine the daily energy 

consumption of each covered 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer by conducting the 

test procedure set forth in the AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

(ARI) Standard 1200–2006, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets,’’ section 3, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ section 4, ‘‘Test 

Requirements,’’ and section 7, ‘‘Symbols 

and Subscripts.’’ (Incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.63) For each 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer with a self-contained 

condensing unit, also use ARI Standard 

1200–2006, section 6, ‘‘Rating 

Requirements for Self-contained 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.’’ 

(Incorporated by reference, see § 431.63) 

For each commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a 

remote condensing unit, also use ARI 

Standard 1200–2006, section 5, ‘‘Rating 

Requirements for Remote Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets.’’ (Incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.63) 

(2) Conduct the testing required in 

paragraphs (b)(1) of this section, and 

determine the daily energy 

consumption, at the applicable 

integrated average temperature in the 

following table. The integrated average 

temperature is determined using the 

required test method. 

Category Test procedure Integrated average temperatures 

(i) Refrigerator with Solid Door(s) ..................................... ARI Standard 1200–2006* 38 °F (±2 °F). 

(ii) Refrigerator with Transparent Door(s) ......................... ARI Standard 1200–2006* 38 °F (±2 °F). 

(iii) Freezer with Solid Door(s) .......................................... ARI Standard 1200–2006* 0 °F (±2 °F). 

(iv) Freezer with Transparent Door(s) .............................. ARI Standard 1200–2006* 0 °F (±2 °F). 

(v) Refrigerator-Freezer with Solid Door(s) ...................... ARI Standard 1200–2006* 38 °F (±2 °F) for refrigerator compartment. 

0 °F (±2 °F) for freezer compartment. 

(vi) Commercial Refrigerator with a Self-Contained Con- ARI Standard 1200–2006* 38 °F (±2 °F). 

densing Unit Designed for Pull-Down Temperature Applications and Transparent Doors. 

(vii) Ice-Cream Freezer ..................................................... ARI Standard 1200–2006* ¥15.0 °F (±2 °F). 

(viii) Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator- ARI Standard 1200–2006* (A) For low temperature applications, the integrated avFreezer with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit and erage temperature of all test package averages shall 

without Doors. be 0 °F (±2 °F). 

(B) For medium temperature applications, the integrated average temperature of all test package averages shall be 38.0 °F (±2 °F). 

(ix) Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator- ARI Standard 1200–2006* (A) For low temperature applications, the integrated avFreezer with a Remote Condensing Unit. erage temperature of all test package averages shall 

be 0 °F (±2 °F). 

(B) For medium temperature applications, the integrated average temperature of all test package averages shall be 38.0 °F (±2 °F). 

* Incorporated by reference, see § 431.63. 

(3) Determine the volume of each 

covered commercial refrigerator, freezer, 

or refrigerator-freezer using the 

methodology set forth in the ANSI/ 

AHAM HRF–1–2004, ‘‘Energy, 

Performance and Capacity of Household 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and 

Freezers,’’ (Incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.63) section 3.21, ‘‘Volume,’’ 

sections 4.1 through 4.3, ‘‘Method for 

Computing Total Refrigerated Volume 

and Total Shelf Area of Household 

Refrigerators and Household Wine 

Chillers,’’ and sections 5.1 through 5.3, 

‘‘Method for Computing Total 

Refrigerated Volume and Total Shelf 

Area of Household Freezers.’’ 

■ 11. Section 431.95 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.95 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) ARI Standard 340/360–2004, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial and 

Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and 

Heat Pump Equipment.’’ 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 431.96 is revised to read 

as follows: 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71371 

§ 431.96 Uniform test method for the EPCA, the energy efficiency of any covered product by conducting the test measurement of energy efficiency of small, small, large, or very large commercial procedure(s) listed in the rightmost large, and very large commercial package package air-conditioning and heating column of Table 1 of this section, that air conditioning and heating equipment, equipment, packaged terminal air apply to the energy efficiency descriptor packaged terminal air conditioners, and conditioner, or packaged terminal heat packaged terminal heat pumps. for that product, category, and cooling 

pump. capacity. (a) Scope. This section contains test (b) Testing and calculations. 

procedures for measuring, pursuant to Determine the energy efficiency of each 

TABLE 1 TO § 431.96.—TEST PROCEDURES FOR ALL SMALL COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AIR-CONDITIONING AND HEATING 

EQUIPMENT, FOR LARGE COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AIR-CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT, FOR VERY LARGE 

COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AIR-CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT, AND FOR PACKAGED TERMINAL AIR-CONDITIONERS, AND PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMPS 

Product Category Cooling capacity 

Energy 

efficiency 

descriptor 

Use tests, conditions and 

procedures 1 in 

Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment. 

Large Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment. 

Very Large Commercial Packaged AirConditioning and Heating Equipment. 

Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps. 

Air Cooled, 3 

Phase, AC and 

HP. 

Air Cooled AC and 

HP. 

Water Cooled and 

Evaporatively 

Cooled AC. 

Water-Source HP ... 

Air Cooled AC and 

HP. 

Water Cooled AC ... 

Evaporatively 

Cooled AC. 

Air Cooled AC and 

HP. 

AC and HP ............ 

HP .......................... 

<65,000 Btu/h ........ 

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h ........ 

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h. 

<135,000 Btu/h ...... 

≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h. 

All ........................... 

All ........................... 

SEER ........... 

HSPF ........... 

EER .............. 

COP ............. 

EER .............. 

EER .............. 

EER .............. 

COP ............. 

EER .............. 

COP ............. 

EER .............. 

EER .............. 

EER .............. 

COP ............. 

EER .............. 

COP ............. 

ARI Standard 210/240–2003. 

ARI Standard 210/240–2003. 

ARI Standard 340/360–2004. 

ARI Standard 340/360–2004. 

ARI Standard 210/240–2003. 

ARI Standard 340/360–2004. 

ISO Standard 13256–1 (1998). 

ISO Standard 13256–1 (1998). 

ARI Standard 340/360–2004. 

ARI Standard 340/360–2004. 

ARI Standard 340/360–2004. 

ARI Standard 340/360–2004. 

ARI Standard 340/360–2004. 

ARI Standard 340/360–2004. 

ARI Standard 310/380–2004. 

ARI Standard 310/380–2004. 

1 Incorporated by reference, see § 431.95. 

■ 13. Section 431.97 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) (Tables 1 and 2 

remain unchanged), (b), and amending 

the table to paragraph (b) by revising the 

third entry under the ‘‘Product’’ column 

to read as follows: 

§ 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and 

their effective dates. 

(a) Each commercial air conditioner 

and heat pump manufactured on or after 

January 1, 1994 (except for large 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment, for which the 

effective date is January 1, 1995) and 

before January 1, 2010, in the case of aircooled equipment with a capacity equal 

to or greater than 65,000 Btu per hour, 

must meet the applicable minimum 

energy efficiency standard level(s) set 

forth in Tables 1 and 2 of this section. 

* * * * * 

(b) Air-cooled commercial package 

air-conditioning and heating equipment 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2010, with cooling capacities equal to or 

greater than 65,000 Btu/h and less than 

760,000 Btu/h, shall have Energy 

Efficiency Ratio and Coefficient of 

Performance no less than: 

Cooling capacity Product (Btu/h) Category Efficiency level† 

* * * * * * * 

Very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment (air-cooled) 

* * * * * * * 

***** 

■ 14. Section 431.132 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order new 

definitions for ‘‘Basic model,’’ ‘‘Cube 

type ice,’’ ‘‘Energy use,’’ ‘‘Ice-making 

head,’’ ‘‘Maximum condenser water 

use,’’ ‘‘Remote compressor,’’ ‘‘Remote 

condensing,’’ and ‘‘Self-contained’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 431.132 Definitions concerning 

automatic commercial ice makers. 

* * * * * 

Basic model means, with respect to 

automatic commercial ice makers, all 

units of a given type of automatic 

commercial ice maker (or class thereof) 

manufactured by one manufacturer and 

which have the same primary energy 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3ER08DE06.001</GPH>

71372 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

source, which have electrical 

characteristics that are essentially 

identical, and which do not have any 

differing electrical, physical, or 

functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. 

Cube type ice means ice that is fairly 

uniform, hard, solid, usually clear, and 

generally weighs less than two ounces 

(60 grams) per piece, as distinguished 

from flake, crushed, or fragmented ice. 

Energy use means the total energy 

consumed, stated in kilowatt hours per 

one-hundred pounds (kWh/100 lb) of 

ice and stated in multiples of 0.1. For 

remote condensing automatic 

commercial ice makers, total energy 

consumed shall include condenser fan 

power. 

* * * * * 

Ice-making head means automatic 

commercial ice makers that do not 

contain integral storage bins, but are 

generally designed to accommodate a 

variety of bin capacities. Storage bins 

entail additional energy use not 

included in the reported energy 

consumption figures for these units. 

Maximum condenser water use means 

the maximum amount of water used by 

the condensing unit (if water-cooled), 

stated in gallons per 100 pounds (gal/ 

100 lb) of ice, in multiples of 1. 

Remote compressor means a type of 

automatic commercial ice maker in 

which the ice-making mechanism and 

compressor are in separate sections. 

Remote condensing means a type of 

automatic commercial ice maker in 

which the ice-making mechanism and 

condenser or condensing unit are in 

separate sections. 

Self-contained means a type of 

automatic commercial ice maker in 

which the ice-making mechanism and 

storage compartment are in an integral 

cabinet. 

■ 15. Subpart H of part 431 is amended 

by revising the undesignated center 

heading following § 431.132 and adding 

new §§ 431.133 and 431.134, to read as 

follows: 

Test Procedures 

§ 431.133 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) General. The Department 

incorporates by reference the following 

test procedures into subpart H of part 

431. The Director of the Federal Register 

has approved the material listed in 

paragraph (b) of this section for 

incorporation by reference in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. Any subsequent 

amendment to this material by the 

standard-setting organization will not 

affect the DOE test procedures unless 

DOE amends its test procedures. The 

Department incorporates the material as 

it exists on the date of the approval by 

the Federal Register and a notice of any 

change in the material will be published 

in the Federal Register. 

(b) Test procedures incorporated by 

reference. (1) Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 

810–2003, ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Automatic Commercial Ice-Makers.’’ 

(2) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI)/American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 29–1988 (RA 2005), ‘‘Methods 

of Testing Automatic Ice Makers.’’ 

(c) Availability of references—(1) 

Inspection of test procedures. The test 

procedures incorporated by reference 

are available for inspection at: 

(i) National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

(ii) U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 1J–018 

(Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program), 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

(2) Obtaining copies of test 

procedures. (i) Anyone can obtain a 

copy of ARI Standard 810–2003 from 

the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute, 4100 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 200, 

Arlington, VA 22203 or http:// 

www.ari.org/std/standards.htm. 

(ii) Anyone can purchase a copy of 

ASHRAE Standard 29–1988 (RA 2005), 

‘‘Methods of Testing Automatic Ice 

Makers,’’ from the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc., 1791 

Tullie Circle, NE, Atlanta, GA 30329, 

(404) 636–8400, or http:// 

www.ashrae.org. 

§ 431.134 Uniform test methods for the 

measurement of energy consumption and 

water consumption of automatic 

commercial ice makers. 

(a) Scope. This section provides the 

test procedures for measuring, pursuant 

to EPCA, the energy use in kilowatt 

hours per 100 pounds of ice (kWh/100 

lbs ice) and the condenser water use in 

gallons per 100 pounds of ice (gal/100 

lbs ice). 

(b) Testing and Calculations. 

Determine the energy consumed and the 

condenser water use rate of each 

covered product by conducting the test 

procedures, set forth in the AirConditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute’s Standard 810–2003, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Automatic 

Commercial Ice-Makers,’’ section 4, 

‘‘Test Requirements,’’ and section 5, 

‘‘Rating Requirements.’’ (Incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.133) Do not use 

the formula in section 8.3 of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 29–1988 (RA 2005) 

for calculating the power consumption, 

but instead calculate the energy use rate 

(kWh/100 lbs Ice) by dividing the 

energy consumed during testing by the 

total mass of the ice produced during 

the time period over which energy 

consumption is measured, normalized 

to 100 pounds of ice as follows: 

Energy Consumption Rate (per 100 lbs ice) = ×100% Energy Consumed During Testing (kWh) 

Mass of Ice Collected During Testing (lbs) 

■ 16. Section 431.202 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order new 

definitions for ‘‘Basic model,’’ ‘‘Face,’’ 

and ‘‘Input power demand’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.202 Definitions concerning 

illuminated exit signs. 

Basic model means, with respect to 

illuminated exit signs, all units of a 

given type of illuminated exit sign (or 

class thereof) manufactured by one 

manufacturer and which have the same 

primary energy source, which have 

electrical characteristics that are 

essentially identical, and which do not 

have any differing electrical, physical, 

or functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. 

Face means an illuminated side of an 

illuminated exit sign. 

* * * * * 

Input power demand means the 

amount of power required to 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71373 

continuously illuminate an exit sign 

model, measured in watts (W). For exit 

sign models with rechargeable batteries, 

input power demand shall be measured 

with batteries at full charge. 

■ 17. Subpart L of part 431 is amended 

by revising the undesignated center 

heading following § 431.202 and adding 

new §§ 431.203 and 431.204, to read as 

follows: 

Test Procedures 

§ 431.203 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) General. The Department 

incorporates by reference the following 

test procedures into subpart L of part 

431. The Director of the Federal Register 

has approved the material listed in 

paragraph (b) of this section for 

incorporation by reference in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. Any subsequent 

amendment to this material by the 

standard-setting organization will not 

affect the DOE test procedures unless 

and until DOE amends its test 

procedures. The Department 

incorporates the material as it exists on 

the date of the approval by the Federal 

Register and a notice of any change in 

the material will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

(b) Test procedure incorporated by 

reference. Environmental Protection 

Agency ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements for Exit Signs,’’ Version 

2.0 issued January 1, 1999. 

(c) Availability of reference—(1) 

Inspection of test procedure. The test 

procedure incorporated by reference are 

available for inspection at: 

(i) National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

(ii) U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 1J–018 

(Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program), 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

(2) Obtaining copies of the standard. 

Copies of the Environmental Protection 

Agency ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements for Exit Signs,’’ Version 

2.0, may be obtained from the 

Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel 

Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

(202) 272–0167 or at http:// 

www.epa.gov. 

§ 431.204 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

illuminated exit signs. 

(a) Scope. This section provides the 

test procedure for measuring, pursuant 

to EPCA, the input power demand of 

illuminated exit signs. For purposes of 

this part 431 and EPCA, the test 

procedure for measuring the input 

power demand of illuminated exit signs 

shall be the test procedure specified in 

§ 431.203(b). 

(b) Testing and Calculations. 

Determine the energy efficiency of each 

covered product by conducting the test 

procedure, set forth in the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for Exit Signs,’’ Version 2.0, section 4 

(Test Criteria), ‘‘Conditions for testing’’ 

and ‘‘Input power measurement.’’ 

(Incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.203) 

■ 18. Section 431.222 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order new 

definitions for ‘‘Basic model,’’ 

‘‘Maximum wattage,’’ and ‘‘Nominal 

wattage,’’ to read as follows: 

§ 431.222 Definitions concerning traffic 

signal modules and pedestrian modules. 

Basic model means, with respect to 

traffic signal modules and pedestrian 

modules, all units of a given type of 

traffic signal module or pedestrian 

module (or class thereof) manufactured 

by one manufacturer and which have 

the same primary energy source, which 

have electrical characteristics that are 

essentially identical, and which do not 

have any differing electrical, physical, 

or functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. 

Maximum wattage means the power 

consumed by the module after being 

operated for 60 minutes while mounted 

in a temperature testing chamber so that 

the lensed portion of the module is 

outside the chamber, all portions of the 

module behind the lens are within the 

chamber at a temperature of 74 °C and 

the air temperature in front of the lens 

is maintained at a minimum of 49 °C. 

Nominal wattage means the power 

consumed by the module when it is 

operated within a chamber at a 

temperature of 25 °C after the signal has 

been operated for 60 minutes. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Subpart M of part 431 is amended 

by revising the undesignated center 

heading following § 431.222 and adding 

new §§ 431.223 and 431.224, to read as 

follows: 

Test Procedures 

§ 431.223 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) General. The Department 

incorporates by reference the following 

test procedures into subpart M of part 

431. The Director of the Federal Register 

has approved the material listed in 

paragraph (b) of this section for 

incorporation by reference in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. Any subsequent 

amendment to this material by the 

standard-setting organization will not 

affect the DOE test procedures unless 

and until DOE amends its test 

procedures. The Department 

incorporates the material as it exists on 

the date of the approval by the Federal 

Register and a notice of any change in 

the material will be published in the 

Federal Register. 

(b) List of test procedures 

incorporated by reference. (1) 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

‘‘ENERGY STAR Program Requirements 

for Traffic Signals,’’ Version 1.1 issued 

February 4, 2003. 

(2) Institute of Transportation 

Engineers (ITE), ‘‘Vehicle Traffic 

Control Signal Heads: Light Emitting 

Diode (LED) Circular Signal 

Supplement,’’ June 27, 2005. 

(c) Availability of references—(1) 

Inspection of test procedures. The test 

procedures incorporated by reference 

are available for inspection at: 

(i) National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

(ii) U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 1J–018 

(Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program), 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

(2) Obtaining copies of standards. 

Standards incorporated by reference 

may be obtained from the following 

sources: 

(i) Copies of the Environmental 

Protection Agency ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Traffic 

Signals,’’ Version 1.1, may be obtained 

from the Environmental Protection 

Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 272–0167 

or at http://www.epa.gov. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

71374 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

(ii) Institute of Transportation 

Engineers, 1099 14th Street, NW., Suite 

300 West, Washington, DC 20005–3438, 

(202) 289–0222, or ite_staff@ite.org. 

§ 431.224 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption for 

traffic signal modules and pedestrian 

modules. 

(a) Scope. This section provides the 

test procedures for measuring, pursuant 

to EPCA, the maximum wattage and 

nominal wattage of traffic signal 

modules and pedestrian modules. For 

purposes of 10 CFR part 431 and EPCA, 

the test procedures for measuring the 

maximum wattage and nominal wattage 

of traffic signal modules and pedestrian 

modules shall be the test procedures 

specified in § 431.223(b). 

(b) Testing and Calculations. 

Determine the nominal wattage and 

maximum wattage of each covered 

traffic signal module or pedestrian 

module by conducting the test 

procedure set forth in Environmental 

Protection Agency, ‘‘ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements for Traffic 

Signals,’’ Version 1.1, section 1, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ and section 4, ‘‘Test 

Criteria.’’ (Incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.223) Use a wattmeter having an 

accuracy of ±1% to measure the 

nominal wattage and maximum wattage 

of a red and green traffic signal module, 

and a pedestrian module when 

conducting the photometric and 

colormetric tests as specified by the 

testing procedures in VTCSH 2005. 

■ 19a. Amend § 431.226 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 431.226 Energy conservation standards 

and their effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(a) Have a nominal wattage and 

maximum wattage no greater than: 

* * * * * 

■ 20. Section 431.242 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order new 

definitions for ‘‘Automatic flue 

damper,’’ ‘‘Automatic vent damper,’’ 

‘‘Intermittent ignition device,’’ ‘‘Power 

venting,’’ and ‘‘Warm air furnace’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 431.242 Definitions concerning unit 

heaters. 

Automatic flue damper means a 

device installed in the flue outlet or in 

the inlet of or upstream of the draft 

control device of an individual, 

automatically operated, fossil fuel-fired 

appliance that is designed to 

automatically open the flue outlet 

during appliance operation and to 

automatically close the flue outlet when 

the appliance is in a standby condition. 

Automatic vent damper means a 

device intended for installation in the 

venting system of an individual, 

automatically operated, fossil fuel-fired 

appliance either in the outlet or 

downstream of the appliance draft 

control device, which is designed to 

automatically open the venting system 

when the appliance is in operation and 

to automatically close off the venting 

system when the appliance is in a 

standby or shutdown condition. 

Intermittent ignition device means an 

ignition device in which the ignition 

source is automatically shut off when 

the appliance is in an off or standby 

condition. 

Power venting means a venting system 

that uses a separate fan, either integral 

to the appliance or attached to the vent 

pipe, to convey products of combustion 

and excess or dilution air through the 

vent pipe. 

* * * * * 

Warm air furnace means commercial 

warm air furnace as defined in § 431.72. 

* * * * * 

■ 20a. Amend § 431.246 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 431.246 Energy conservation standards 

and their effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(b) Have power venting or an 

automatic flue damper. An automatic 

vent damper is an acceptable alternative 

to an automatic flue damper for those 

unit heaters where combustion air is 

drawn from the conditioned space. 

■ 21. Section 431.262 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order a new 

definition for ‘‘Basic model’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.262 Definitions concerning 

commercial prerinse spray valves. 

Basic model means, with respect to 

commercial prerinse spray valves, all 

units of a given type of commercial 

prerinse spray valve (or class thereof) 

manufactured by one manufacturer and 

which have the identical flow control 

mechanism attached to or installed 

within the fixture fitting, or the 

identical water-passage design features 

that use the same path of water in the 

highest flow mode. 

* * * * * 

■ 22. Subpart O of part 431 is amended 

by revising the undesignated center 

heading following § 431.262 and adding 

new §§ 431.263 and 431.264, to read as 

follows: 

Test Procedures 

§ 431.263 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) General. The Department 

incorporates by reference the following 

test procedure into subpart O of part 

431. The Director of the Federal Register 

has approved the material listed in 

paragraph (b) of this section for 

incorporation by reference in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. Any subsequent 

amendment to this material by the 

standard-setting organization will not 

affect the DOE test procedures unless 

DOE amends its test procedures. The 

Department incorporates the material as 

it exists on the date of the approval by 

the Federal Register and a notice of any 

change in the material will be published 

in the Federal Register. 

(b) Test procedure incorporated by 

reference. American Society for Testing 

and Materials (ASTM) Standard F2324– 

03, ‘‘Standard Test Method for Prerinse 

Spray Valves,’’ October, 2003. 

(c) Availability of reference—(1) 

Inspection of the test procedure. The 

test procedure incorporated by reference 

is available for inspection at: 

(i) National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

(ii) U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 1J–018 

(Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program), 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

(2) Obtaining a copy of the standard. 

The standard incorporated by reference 

may be obtained from the following 

source: Copies of ASTM Standard 

F2324–03 can be obtained from ASTM 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, 

P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428–2959, or telephone (610) 832– 

9585. 

§ 431.264 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of flow rate for commercial 

prerinse spray valves. 

(a) Scope. This section provides the 

test procedure for measuring, pursuant 

to EPCA, the water consumption flow 

rate of commercial prerinse spray 

valves. 

(b) Testing and Calculations. The test 

procedure to determine the water 

consumption flow rate for prerinse 

spray valves, expressed in gallons per 

minute (gpm) or liters per minute (L/ 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14

rmajette on PROD1PC67 with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 236 / Friday, December 8, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 71375 

min), shall be conducted in accordance 

with the test requirements specified in 

sections 4.1 and 4.2 (Summary of Test 

Method), 5.1 (Significance and Use), 6.1 

through 6.9 (Apparatus) except 6.5, 9.1 

through 9.5 (Preparation of Apparatus), 

and 10.1 through 10.2.5. (Procedure), 

and calculations in accordance with 

sections 11.1 through 11.3.2 

(Calculation and Report) of the ASTM 

F2324–03, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Prerinse Spray Valves.’’ (Incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.263) Perform 

only the procedures pertinent to the 

measurement of flow rate. Record 

measurements at the resolution of the 

test instrumentation. Round off 

calculations to the same number of 

significant digits as the previous step. 

Round the final water consumption 

value to one decimal place as follows: 

(1) A fractional number at or above 

the midpoint between two consecutive 

decimal places shall be rounded up to 

the higher of the two decimal places; or 

(2) A fractional number below the 

midpoint between two consecutive 

decimal places shall be rounded down 

to the lower of the two decimal places. 

■ 23. Part 431 is amended by adding a 

new subpart Q to read as follows: 

Subpart Q—Refrigerated Bottled or Canned 

Beverage Vending Machines 

Sec. 

431.291 Scope. 

431.292	 Definitions concerning refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines. 

Test Procedures 

431.293	 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

431.294	 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines. 

Subpart Q—Refrigerated Bottled or 

Canned Beverage Vending Machines 

§ 431.291 Scope. 

This subpart specifies test procedures 

for certain commercial refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines, pursuant to part C of Title III 

of the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6311–6316. 

§ 431.292 Definitions concerning 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines. 

Basic model means, with respect to 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines, all units of a given 

type of refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machine (or class 

thereof) manufactured by one 

manufacturer and which have the same 

primary energy source, which have 

electrical characteristics that are 

essentially identical, and which do not 

have any differing electrical, physical, 

or functional characteristics that affect 

energy consumption. 

Refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machine means a 

commercial refrigerator that cools 

bottled or canned beverages and 

dispenses the bottled or canned 

beverages on payment. 

Test Procedures 

§ 431.293 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) General. The Department 

incorporates by reference the following 

test procedures into subpart Q of part 

431. The Director of the Federal Register 

has approved the material listed in 

paragraph (b) of this section for 

incorporation by reference in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. Any subsequent 

amendment to this material by the 

standard-setting organization will not 

affect the DOE test procedures unless 

DOE amends its test procedures. The 

Department incorporates the material as 

it exists on the date of the approval by 

the Federal Register and a notice of any 

change in the material will be published 

in the Federal Register. 

(b) Test procedures incorporated by 

reference. (1) American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)/American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 

(ASHRAE) Standard 32.1–2004, 

‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Vending 

Machines for Bottled, Canned, and 

Other Sealed Beverages.’’ 

(2) American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI)/Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 

Standard HRF–1–2004, ‘‘Energy, 

Performance and Capacity of Household 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and 

Freezers.’’ 

(c) Availability of references—(1) 

Inspection of test procedures. The test 

procedures incorporated by reference 

are available for inspection at: 

(i) National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

(ii) U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 1J–018 

(Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program), 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586– 

9127, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

(2) Obtaining copies of the standard. 

(i) Anyone can purchase a copy of 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004, 

‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Vending 

Machines for Bottled, Canned, and 

Other Sealed Beverages’’ from the 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc., 1791 Tullie Circle NE., 

Atlanta, GA 30329–2305, (404) 636– 

8400, or http://www.ashrae.org. 

(ii) Anyone can purchase a copy of 

ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004, ‘‘Energy, 

Performance and Capacity of Household 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and 

Freezers,’’ from the American National 

Standards Institute, 1819 L Street, NW., 

6th floor, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 

293–8020, or http://www.ansi.org. 

§ 431.294 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines. 

(a) Scope. This section provides test 

procedures for measuring, pursuant to 

EPCA, the energy consumption of 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines. 

(b) Testing and Calculations. (1) The 

test procedure for energy consumption 

of refrigerated bottled or canned 

beverage vending machines shall be 

conducted in accordance with the test 

procedures specified in section 4, 

‘‘Instruments,’’ section 5, ‘‘Vending 

Machine Capacity,’’ section 6, ‘‘Test 

Conditions,’’ and sections 7.1 through 

7.2.3.2, under ‘‘Test Procedures,’’ of 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004, 

‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Vending 

Machines for Bottled, Canned, and 

Other Sealed Beverages.’’ (Incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.293) In Section 

6.2, ‘‘Voltage and Frequency,’’ test 

equipment with dual nameplate 

voltages at the lower of the two voltages 

only. 

(2) Determine ‘‘vendible capacity’’ of 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines in accordance with 

the second paragraph of section 5, 

‘‘Vending Machine Capacity,’’ of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 32.1–2004, 

‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Vending 

Machines for Bottled, Canned, and 

Other Sealed Beverages,’’ (Incorporated 

by reference, see § 431.293) and measure 

‘‘refrigerated volume’’ of refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines in accordance with the 

methodology specified in section 5.2, 

‘‘Total Refrigerated Volume,’’ (excluding 

subsections 5.2.2.2 through 5.2.2.4) of 

the ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2004, ‘‘Energy, 

Performance and Capacity of Household 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and 

Freezers,’’ (Incorporated by reference, 

see §§ 431.63 and 431.293). 

[FR Doc. E6–20481 Filed 12–7–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004 COMMENT 14