Tuesday, 

January 5, 2010 

Part V 

Department of 

Energy 

10 CFR Parts 430 and 431 

Energy Conservation Program 

Requirements for Certain Consumer 

Products and Commercial and Industrial 

Equipment; Proposed Information 

Collection; Comment Request; 

Certification, Compliance, and 

Enforcement Requirements for Consumer 

Products and Certain Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment; Final Rule and 

Notice 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
652 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1For editorial reasons, Parts B (consumer 

products) and C (commercial equipment) of Title III 

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

respectively, in the United States Code. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 430 and 431 

[Docket Nos. EE–RM/TP–99–450 and EE– 

RM/TP–05–500] 

RIN 1904–AA96 and 1904–AB53 

Energy Conservation Program: 

Certification, Compliance, and 

Enforcement Requirements for Certain 

Consumer Products and Commercial 

and Industrial Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, 

establishes energy and water 

conservation standards and test 

procedures for certain consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment. The Energy Policy Act of 

1992 (EPACT 1992) (Pub. L. 102–486) 

and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPACT 2005) (Pub. L. 109–58) 

amended EPCA and included new 

Federal energy and water conservation 

standards and test procedures for 

certain consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment. 

In today’s final rule, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) adopts 

regulations to implement reporting 

requirements for energy conservation 

standards and energy use, and to 

address other matters, including 

compliance certification, prohibited 

actions, and enforcement procedures for 

specific consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment 

covered by EPACT 2005, as well as 

commercial heating, air-conditioning, 

and water heating equipment covered 

under EPACT 1992. In addition, DOE is 

adopting provisions for manufacturer 

certification for distribution 

transformers. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 4, 

2010 except for § 431.371 which 

contains information collection 

requirements which have not been 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). The Department of 

Energy will publish a document in the 

Federal Register announcing the 

effective date. 

Manufacturers (or third-party 

organizations) of consumer products 

subject to today’s final rule are required 

to submit a compliance statement and 

the first certification report to DOE on 

or before July 6, 2010. Manufacturers (or 

third-party organizations) of commercial 

and industrial equipment subject to 

today’s final rule are required to submit 

a compliance statement and the first 

certification report to DOE on or before 

the date 180 days after publication of 

the notice announcing OMB approval of 

the information collection requirements. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael McCabe, 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– 

9155. E-mail: 

Michael.McCabe@ee.doe.gov. 

Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 

586–9507. E-mail: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Summary of Today’s Action 

III. Discussion of Comments 

A. Energy Policy Act of 1992—Commercial 

Heating, Ventilating, Air-Conditioning 

and Water Heating Equipment; Energy 

Policy Act of 2005—Very Large 

Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment 

1. Voluntary Industry Certification Program 

Requirements 

2. Criteria for Validation of Alternative 

Efficiency Determination Methods 

3. Differences in Treatment Between 

Voluntary Industry Certification Program 

Participants and Non-Participants 

4. Reporting for Voluntary Industry 

Certification Programs 

5. Enforcement Testing 

B. Energy Policy Act of 2005—Consumer 

Products 

C. Energy Policy Act of 2005—Commercial 

Equipment 

D. Distribution Transformers 

E. General Requirements 

IV. 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. Congressional Notification 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Background 

Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

Public Law 94–163, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309, established the 

‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles.’’ Similarly, Part A–1 of 

Title III of EPCA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

6311–6317, established an energy 

efficiency program for ‘‘Certain 

Industrial Equipment,’’ which included 

certain commercial equipment.1 Subtitle 

C of Title I of the Energy Policy Act of 

1992 (EPACT 1992), Public Law 102– 

486, amended EPCA to add energy 

conservation standards and test 

procedures for commercial central airconditioning equipment, furnaces, and 

other types of commercial and 

industrial equipment. Further, Subtitle 

C of Title I of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (EPACT 2005), Public Law 109–58, 

amended EPCA by providing 

definitions, test procedures, labeling 

provisions, and energy conservation 

standards for particular consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment. EPACT 2005 also required 

manufacturers of commercial equipment 

covered by this final rule to submit 

information and reports for a variety of 

purposes, including ensuring 

compliance with the energy 

conservation standards. See 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a). 

In implementing the series of changes 

introduced by EPACT 1992 and EPACT 

2005, DOE issued a number of notices, 

including two notices of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR), a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) 

and a final rule. These rulemakings are 

further described in detail below. 

To implement EPACT 1992, DOE 

published a NOPR on December 13, 

1999 (hereafter referred to as the 

December 1999 NOPR) that proposed: 

(1) Methods for manufacturers to use (in 

conjunction with DOE test procedures) 

to rate the energy efficiency or use of, 

determine compliance with energy 

conservation standards for, and make 

energy representations regarding 

commercial heating, ventilating, airconditioning, and water heating (HVAC 

and WH) equipment; (2) procedures for 

certifying compliance with applicable 

energy conservation standards to DOE; 

and (3) criteria and procedures for DOE 

enforcement of the energy conservation 

standards for this equipment. 64 FR 

69598, 69603–06, and 69612–18. 

Subsequently, DOE published a SNOPR 

on April 28, 2006 (April 2006 SNOPR), 

which proposed alternatives to the 

proposed requirements for items (1) and 

(3) described above. See generally 71 FR 

25103, 25104–13, and 25115–17. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 653 

2Enforcement provisions for distribution 

transformers were established in the test procedures 

final rule for distribution transformers published on 

April 27, 2006. 71 FR 24972. Certification and 

enforcement for electric motors are set forth in 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 431. Certification 

procedures for battery chargers and external power 

supplies were included in the July 2006 proposed 

rule but are not included in today’s final rule 

because the energy conservation standards 

rulemaking addressing those products remains 

pending. 

3The compliance statement must be submitted by 

each manufacturer subject to the energy 

conservation standards in 10 CFR parts 430 and 

431. The compliance statement is signed by the 

company official submitting the statement (e.g., the 

point of contact for the company or 3rd party 

representative), certifying that all basic models 

currently produced, and those that will be 

produced in the future, are (or will be) in 

compliance with the applicable energy or water 

conservation standards and does not need to be 

resubmitted unless the information on the 

compliance statement changes. 

2The certification report must be submitted for 

each basic model distributed for sale. The 

certification report must be updated and 

resubmitted when any change is made to a basic 

model, which affects the energy or water 

consumption. However, if such change to a basic 

model reduces the energy or water consumption, 

the new basic model shall be considered in 

compliance. The certification report should include 

the applicable energy-efficiency or energy-use 

ratings as tested using DOE’s test procedures along 

with the other information requested in appendix 

A to subpart F of part 430, appendix B to subpart 

T of part 431, or appendix C to subpart T of part 

431. 

To implement EPACT 2005, DOE first 

codified the prescribed energy 

conservation standards and related 

definitions on October 18, 2005 

(October 2005 final rule). 70 FR 60407; 

Title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (10 CFR) Parts 430 

(consumer products) and 431 

(commercial and industrial equipment). 

DOE subsequently proposed test 

procedures for measuring energy and 

water-use efficiency and related 

definitions, as well as certification, 

compliance, and enforcement 

requirements for various consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment covered by EPACT 2005’s 

amendments to EPCA. 71 FR 42178 

(July 25, 2006) (July 2006 NOPR). On 

December 8, 2006, DOE issued a final 

rule (December 2006 final rule) adopting 

the test procedures for measuring energy 

and water-use efficiency and related 

definitions for consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment 

covered by EPACT 2005. 71 FR 71340; 

10 CFR parts 430 and 431. 

In the April 2006 SNOPR and July 

2006 NOPR, DOE discussed how to 

address the certification, compliance, 

and enforcement provisions raised in 

these notices and the December 1999 

NOPR. In particular, DOE considered 

whether to publish two final rules or a 

single final rule containing the 

certification, compliance, and 

enforcement provisions for consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment. See 71 FR 25104 and 71 FR 

42193. DOE reviewed the comments 

responding to the April 2006 SNOPR 

and the July 2006 NOPR and, as stated 

in the preamble to the December 2006 

final rule, determined that the issues 

raised were sufficiently related to each 

other and merited resolution as a single 

final rule. 71 FR 71341–42. However, 

DOE did not include the certification, 

compliance, and enforcement 

procedures for the EPACT 2005 

consumer products and commercial and 

industrial equipment, or for commercial 

heating, air-conditioning and water 

heating products in the December 2006 

final rule. Id. at 71342. Instead, DOE 

stated its intention to issue a separate 

final rule to establish certification, 

compliance, and enforcement 

provisions for consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment. 

These provisions are the subject of 

today’s final rule. 

DOE previously adopted certification 

and enforcement procedures for the 

consumer products originally covered 

by EPCA, as amended by the National 

Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 

1987 (Pub. L. 100–12) and National 

Appliance Energy Conservation 

Amendments of 1988 (Pub. L. 100–357). 

These procedures, which are applicable 

only to consumer products, are found in 

10 CFR 430.24 and 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart F. The certification, compliance, 

and enforcement procedures in the 

December 1999 NOPR, April 2006 

SNOPR, and July 2006 NOPR were 

based on these existing provisions. 

Today’s final rule sets forth the 

certification, compliance, and 

enforcement provisions for the EPACT 

1992 and EPACT 2005 consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment, which DOE discussed in 

detail in the December 1999 NOPR, 

April 2006 SNOPR, and July 2006 

NOPR. Today’s final rule also sets out 

the certification procedures for 

distribution transformers that DOE 

proposed in the July 2006 NOPR. 

II. Summary of Today’s Action 

DOE adopts certification, compliance 

and enforcement procedures for the 

consumer products and commercial and 

industrial equipment covered by the 

December 2006 final rule, including 

ceiling fans, ceiling fan light kits, 

dehumidifiers, medium base compact 

fluorescent lamps, torchieres, unit 

heaters, automatic commercial ice 

makers, commercial prerinse spray 

valves, traffic and pedestrian signal 

modules, distribution transformers, 

certain types of commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers. DOE also adopts certification, 

compliance and enforcement 

procedures for the commercial HVAC 

and WH equipment covered by the 

December 1999 NOPR and the April 

2006 SNOPR.2 The adoption of these 

procedures, explained in more detail 

below, provides a method by which to 

measure the energy efficiency of, and 

determine compliance with the 

standards established for, the products 

covered by this final rule. Today’s final 

rule generally follows the same 

approach that currently exists for 

regulations covering consumer products 

under 10 CFR part 430. 

For each consumer product covered 

by the December 2006 final rule, DOE is 

adopting sampling requirements. These 

sampling requirements address the 

number of units of each basic model a 

manufacturer must test as the basis for 

rating the model and determining 

whether it complies with the applicable 

energy conservation standard. As stated 

above, these sampling plans follow the 

approach for sampling found in 10 CFR 

part 430. Today’s final rule also applies 

to each of these products the existing 

manufacturer certification and 

enforcement provisions in 10 CFR part 

430. These provisions are set forth in 

section 430.62 for certification, and 

sections 430.61, 430.71, 430.72, 430.73, 

and 430.74 for enforcement. Today’s 

final rule also includes an amendment 

to section 430.62(a)(4) about 

information that manufacturers of these 

products must include in certification 

reports for the consumer products the 

rule covers. 

For each type of commercial or 

industrial equipment covered by the 

December 2006 final rule, the December 

1999 NOPR, or the April 2006 SNOPR, 

DOE is adopting sampling requirements 

for manufacturer testing. DOE is also 

requiring in today’s rule that each 

manufacturer of commercial or 

industrial equipment file a compliance 

statement and certification reports. The 

compliance statement adopted today is 

essentially a one-time filing in which 

the manufacturer or private labeler 

states that all basic models currently 

produced, as well as any basic models 

manufactured in the future, are (or will 

be) in compliance with applicable 

energy conservation requirements.3 The 

certification reports will generally 

provide the efficiency, or energy or 

water use, as applicable, for each 

covered basic model that a manufacturer 

or private labeler distributes.2

Manufacturers of consumer products 

subject to today’s final rule must submit 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
654 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

3The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) is the trade 

association representing a majority of air 

conditioning and heating equipment manufacturers 

subject to today’s rule. Formerly, the AirConditioning and Refrigeration Instititute (ARI) 

represented the air conditioning manufacturers and 

GAMA (Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association) 

represented the heating manufacturers. GAMA and 

the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

(ARI) announced on December 17, 2007, that their 

members had voted to approve the merger of the 

two trade associations to represent the interests of 

cooling, heating, and commercial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturers. The merged association 

became AHRI on Jan. 1, 2008. Since GAMA and ARI 

submitted comments to this rulemaking prior to the 

merger, DOE is attributing each comment to its 

respective organization. 

the first compliance statement and 

certification on or before July 6, 2010, 

and manufacturers of commercial or 

industrial equipment subject to today’s 

final rule must submit the first 

compliance statement and certification 

on or before 180 days after notification 

of OMB approval of the information 

collection requirements is published in 

the Federal Register. As set forth in 

Subpart T, the certification provisions 

adopted in today’s final rule would also 

apply to distribution transformers. 

Today’s final rule also includes 

provisions for DOE enforcement of the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. These provisions include 

DOE’s initial steps in an enforcement 

action and a requirement for 

manufacturer cessation of distribution 

of non-complying equipment. 

Consumer products and commercial 

and industrial equipment covered by 

DOE’s regulations are subject to various 

provisions in 10 CFR parts 430 and 431, 

respectively. These provisions address a 

variety of matters, such as waivers of 

applicable test procedures, treatment of 

imported and exported equipment, 

maintenance of records, subpoenas, 

confidentiality of information, and 

petitions to exempt state regulations 

from preemption. Today’s final rule 

applies these provisions to consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment covered by this rule. For 

consumer products, those provisions are 

in sections 430.27, 430.40 through 

430.49, 430.50 through 430.57, 430.64, 

430.65, 430.72, and 430.75 of 10 CFR 

part 430. For commercial equipment, 

those provisions are in sections 431.401, 

431.403 through 431.407, and 431.421 

through 431.430. 

III. Discussion of Comments 

The agency received comments from 

a variety of interested parties including 

the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 3; various 

manufacturers, and the China WTO/ 

TBT National Notification & Enquiry 

Center, an agency within the 

Government of the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC). These entities generally 

addressed a range of issues and offered 

alternatives to DOE’s proposal. Issues 

addressed by the commenters included 

the use and validation of alternative 

efficiency determination methods 

(AEDMs), voluntary industry 

certification program (VICP) 

requirements, the treatment of non-VICP 

participants, reporting requirements for 

VICPs, enforcement testing, sampling, 

certification, and enforcement for 

commercial equipment in EPACT 2005, 

certification requirements for 

distribution transformers, and general 

requirements for consumer products 

and commercial equipment. The 

comments and DOE’s responses to them 

are discussed below. 

A. Energy Policy Act of 1992— 

Commercial Heating, Ventilating, AirConditioning and Water Heating 

Equipment; Energy Policy Act of 2005— 

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment 

The December 1999 NOPR proposed 

sampling requirements for manufacturer 

testing of commercial HVAC and WH 

equipment, as well as provisions that 

would generally allow manufacturers to 

use AEDMs to calculate the energy 

performance of equipment in lieu of 

testing. 64 FR 69604–05, 69612–14. DOE 

proposed less stringent sampling and 

AEDM requirements for manufacturers 

participating in a DOE-approved VICP, 

which is a voluntary program (usually 

run by a manufacturer trade association) 

that collects, disseminates, and verifies 

information about the performance of 

one or more types of equipment. 64 FR 

69603–05. DOE proposed less stringent 

sampling and AEDM requirements for 

manufacturers that participate in a VICP 

because a VICP verifies the accuracy of 

the manufacturer’s certification claims. 

Non-VICP participants are not subject to 

verification testing and, therefore, have 

a more stringent sampling requirement 

to ensure the accuracy of the 

manufacturer’s certification claims. 

Under DOE’s proposal, a VICP would be 

eligible to use these new requirements 

if it included features such as the 

collection and dissemination of 

efficiency ratings for each basic model 

of equipment, periodic testing of each 

basic model to determine the accuracy 

of the manufacturer’s efficiency rating 

for the model, a process for taking 

corrective actions when a 

manufacturer’s rating is inconsistent 

with the test results, and reporting of 

certain information to DOE. 64 FR 

69604–05, 69613–14. These conditions 

would, to some extent, reflect 

provisions of existing VICPs and were 

designed to give greater assurance that 

the programs will work as intended to 

help justify less stringent requirements 

for VICP participants. 

In the April 2006 SNOPR, DOE 

supplemented its NOPR by: (1) 

Proposing specific, and slightly more 

stringent criteria where a VICP 

participant uses testing to determine 

equipment ratings, 71 FR 25105, 25115; 

(2) requiring that a VICP participant 

perform the same amount of testing as 

a non-participant to establish the 

validity of its AEDM(s), 71 FR 25105– 

06, 25115; (3) reducing the tolerance 

level (i.e., the amount by which AEDM 

and test results could vary) for a 

manufacturer to determine that an 

AEDM is valid, id.; (4) requiring that 

any AEDM is validated using test results 

to rate the efficiency the equipment, id.; 

and (5) requiring that a VICP have 

specific and stringent criteria for its 

verification of manufacturer efficiency 

and energy use ratings. See generally 71 

FR 25108–09, 25115–16. The notice also 

indicated that DOE was considering 

prohibiting knowingly using an AEDM 

to overrate a basic model’s energy 

efficiency. See 71 FR 25107. 

In addition, EPACT 2005 created a 

new category of covered equipment and 

set forth definitions, test procedures, 

and energy conservation standards for 

very large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment. 

DOE has codified the definitions and 

energy conservation standards in 10 

CFR part 431. 70 FR 60407. In the April 

2006 SNOPR, DOE proposed to apply 

the proposed compliance and 

enforcement requirements to very large 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment. 71 FR 25104. 

DOE received numerous comments 

responding to the December 1999 NOPR 

and the five proposed changes detailed 

in the April 2006 SNOPR, which are 

summarized in the subsections below. 

Together, the December 1999 NOPR and 

the April 2006 SNOPR notices proposed 

a testing framework that would help 

ensure the accuracy of energy efficiency 

ratings while formalizing the use of 

VICPs for certification purposes. By 

providing incentives for manufacturers 

to voluntarily participate in VICPs 

through less burdensome sampling and 

certification procedures, DOE, through 

the VICPs, can better monitor and 

ensure the accuracy of energy ratings 

reported by individual manufacturers. 

1. Voluntary Industry Certification 

Program Requirements 

In the December 1999 NOPR, DOE 

proposed tolerances for validating an 

AEDM by comparing the efficiency 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 655 

4A note in the form ‘‘EE–RM/TP–99–450, 

Lennox, No. 10 at p. 1’’ refers to: (1) To a statement 

that was submitted by Lennox and is recorded in 

the docket under ‘‘Energy Efficiency Program for 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency 

Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement 

Requirements for Commercial Heating, Air 

Conditioning and Water Heating Equipment,’’ 

Docket Number EE–RM/TP–99–450, as comment 

number 10; and (2) a passage that appears on page 

1 of that statement. 

ratings derived from applying the 

AEDM to the tested models, which were 

used to derive the AEDM. For VICP 

participants who made the comparison 

for only one basic model, DOE proposed 

that the difference between the AEDM 

and test results must be within 1 

percent for the AEDM to be valid. 64 FR 

69613. In the comments from interested 

parties summarized below, the ‘‘1- 

percent rule’’ refers to the December 

1999 proposal that the predicted 

efficiencies calculated for the tested 

basic model(s) must on average be 

within 1 percent of the efficiencies 

determined from testing such basic 

model(s). The 1-percent rule requires a 

level of tolerance that is greater than the 

tolerance in the basic certification 

requirements. 

The April 2006 SNOPR proposed 

revisions to the proposals that DOE 

initially outlined in the December 1999 

NOPR to the required criteria to receive 

DOE approval of a VICP. These 

revisions to the criteria were proposed 

partly on the grounds that the initially 

proposed amendments to sections 

431.484(a)(9) and (13) were ‘‘overly 

vague’’ and might not sufficiently 

convey that a VICP must use verification 

methods and criteria sufficiently 

rigorous to give reasonable assurance 

that a given rating claim would apply to 

all units of the tested basic model. 71 FR 

25108. 

In the December 1999 NOPR (64 FR 

69613–14), DOE had initially proposed 

that these sections read as follows: ‘‘The 

program has an appropriate standard for 

determining whether the efficiency 

rating a manufacturer claims for a 

product is valid. * * * the VICP 

provides to the Department annually 

data on the results of its verification 

testing during the previous 12 months, 

including the following for each basic 

model on which the VICP has 

performed verification testing: The 

measured efficiency from the 

verification testing, the manufacturer’s 

efficiency rating, and either the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

or a description of the model sufficient 

to enable the Department to determine 

such standard.’’ 

In contrast, the April 2006 SNOPR (71 

FR 25116) proposed to revise section 

431.484(a)(9) to read as follows: ‘‘The 

program includes appropriate standards 

for the accuracy of its verification 

testing results and for determining 

whether the efficiency rating of a 

manufacturer claims for equipment is 

valid. Such standards must include 

criteria which give reasonable assurance 

that a manufacturer’s efficiency rating 

for a basic model represents the mean 

performance for all units it 

manufactures of that model, and could 

include, for example, statistically valid 

methods, such as a sampling plan, for 

determining the efficiency of a basic 

model. If the program provides that a 

manufacturer’s rating for equipment 

will be valid so long as the verification 

test results under the VICP are within a 

given percentage of the rating, then the 

program must meet the following 

requirements: It must specify the 

percentage(s) it uses and the equipment 

categories to which each such 

percentage applies; each such 

percentage must correspond to the 

normal manufacturing variability and 

measurement uncertainty for the 

equipment to which the percentage 

applies; and the program must provide 

that if, during a calendar year, the 

average of the manufacturers’ efficiency 

ratings found valid under the VICP is 

more than one percent above (or more 

than one percent below for energy use 

ratings) the average of the efficiencies 

from the verification tests under the 

VICP, the program will be revised to 

provide reasonable assurance that in the 

future ratings under the VICP will 

average no more than one percent above 

verification test results.’’ 

Lennox International, Inc. (Lennox), 

the Gas Appliance Manufacturers 

Association (GAMA) and the AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

(ARI) commented on the proposed 

requirements for VICPs in the April 

2006 SNOPR. Lennox asserted that 

while a general limit on the accuracy of 

efficiency ratings under a VICP, such as 

1 percent, may be obtained for one class 

of equipment, it may not be practical for 

other classes of equipment. Lennox 

urged DOE to prescribe the tolerance 

placed on the accuracy of an efficiency 

rating on a case-by-case basis, rather 

than impose a ‘‘one-size fits all’’ 

approach. To this end, Lennox 

requested that DOE, in consultation 

with the VICP, establish an acceptable 

percentage of accuracy for each class of 

covered equipment. (EE–RM/TP–99– 

450, Lennox, No. 10 at p. 1) 4

Additionally, ARI and GAMA stated 

that DOE should reconsider its proposal 

that a VICP revise its certification 

program when the disparity between 

average verification test results and 

average manufacturers’ rating claims 

during a calendar year exceeds 1 

percent. Without this modification, 

these commenters asserted that the 

DOE-proposed ‘‘1-percent rule’’ could 

be overly burdensome to the industry, 

particularly in light of the steps already 

taken to avoid overrating products and 

the likely additional costs needed to 

reevaluate each industry certification 

program. Commenters also pointed to 

the inherent variability of the test 

procedure results, e.g., instrument 

accuracy, and manufacturing variability 

for each product. (EE–RM/TP–99–450, 

ARI, No. 12 at p. 2, and EE–RM/TP–99– 

450, GAMA, No. 11 at p. 3) 

GAMA supported the criteria at 

sections 431.484(a)(9) and (13) in the 

December 1999 NOPR, but objected to 

the April 2006 SNOPR revisions to 

section 431.484(a)(9). GAMA opined 

that the original language of section 

431.484(a)(9) is not vague, but would 

produce reasonable assurance that a 

VICP-verified efficiency rating is truly 

representative of all units of the tested 

basic model. In addition, GAMA 

supported the proposed section 

431.484(a)(14) changes contained in the 

April 2006 SNOPR, which would permit 

manufacturers to challenge a 

competitor’s erroneous efficiency 

ratings. (EE–RM/TP–99–450, GAMA, 

No. 11 at p. 2) The April 2006 SNOPR 

(71 FR 25116) proposed that section 

431.484(a)(14) read as follows: ‘‘The 

program contains provisions under 

which each participating manufacturer 

can challenge ratings submitted by other 

manufacturers, which it believes to be 

in error.’’ 

ARI, GAMA, and Lennox each 

contended that a ‘‘one size fits all’’ 

methodology is inappropriate given the 

different types of commercial 

equipment experience, manufacturing 

variability, test procedure accuracy, and 

measurement uncertainty. (EE–RM/TP– 

99–450, ARI, No. 12 at p. 2; EE–RM/TP– 

99–450, GAMA, No. 11 at p. 2; and EE– 

RM/TP–99–450, Lennox, No. 10 at p. 1) 

Additionally, GAMA asserted that such 

a provision would require changing a 

VICP when ‘‘any disparity’’ between 

average test results and ratings exceeds 

1 percent. (EE–RM/TP–99–450, GAMA 

No. 11 at p. 2) 

The April 2006 SNOPR proposals are 

based on the underlying assumption 

that each type of equipment would have 

a normal distribution of ratings, with 

comparable degrees of error on the high 

and low sides. 71 FR 25108. With the 

sampling in DOE’s test procedures for a 

given piece of commercial equipment, 

on average, the ratings would closely 

match the VICP’s verification test results 

so long as the ratings were not biased. 

If these ratings were significantly 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
656 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

5The source of variation between various types 

of commercial HVAC and WH equipment depends 

on the size of the equipment, the number of units 

manufactured, the variation in equipment design, 

and any manufacturing variations. 

higher, however, this would appear to 

indicate that many ratings were 

inaccurate, implying that the VICP had 

validated manufacturer overrating of 

equipment. In such a situation, by 

systematically rating products at levels 

above what was warranted by test 

results, these results would likely 

indicate that manufacturers were taking 

advantage of the VICP’s practice of 

holding valid all ratings that were 

within a given percentage above the 

verification test results. 

In view of the above concerns, DOE 

recognizes that the proposed ‘‘one size 

fits all’’ methodology may not be 

appropriate for all commercial HVAC 

and WH equipment. Therefore, DOE 

adopts the methodology for VICP 

participants as originally proposed in 

the December 1999 NOPR, which 

includes a reporting of verification test 

results to DOE to provide assurance that 

VICP-verified efficiency ratings are 

representative of the units of the model 

offered for sale. Nevertheless, DOE 

believes that the published ratings must 

accurately reflect the energy efficiency 

of the models participating in the VICP. 

For example, DOE expects the 

differences between rated values and 

tested values to have a normal 

(Gaussian) distribution around the rated 

value (i.e., the proportion of the 

verification test results that are higher 

than the rating submitted by the 

manufacturer is approximately equal to 

the proportion that are lower). Thus, if 

DOE reviews the results of a VICP’s tests 

and found a skewed distribution of 

efficiency levels, DOE would closely 

examine the validity of the VICP and, 

based on that examination, determine 

whether the VICP is qualified under the 

requirements being issued today. 

2. Criteria for Validation of Alternative 

Efficiency Determination Methods 

Lennox asserted that the criteria for 

validation of an AEDM, as proposed in 

the April 2006 SNOPR, are inadequate 

to verify the robustness of an AEDM for 

use on all equipment models. It 

indicated that correlating an AEDM to 

the manufacturer’s three highest selling 

basic models would not be sufficient to 

validate its use for predicting the 

efficiency of other basic models with 

different characteristics because there is 

no assurance that the basic models 

chosen are capable of accounting for the 

impact of all critical variables inherent 

in the product type being modeled by 

the AEDM. Instead, Lennox 

recommended that, in addition to the 

proposed requirements in the April 

2006 SNOPR, the review and 

qualification for use of an AEDM be 

judged against a uniform set of criteria 

established by the VICP for participants, 

and by DOE for non-VICP participants. 

(EE–RM/TP–99–450, Lennox, No. 10 at 

pp. 1–2) 

ARI disagreed with the proposed 

requirement in the April 2006 SNOPR 

that a VICP participant validate its 

AEDM by comparing test results and 

AEDM results for three or more basic 

models. ARI asserted that the AEDM 

validation should be performed against 

no more than one basic model for VICP 

participants. For non-VICP participants, 

ARI recommended that DOE require 

AEDM validation to be made against 

three or more basic models. (EE–RM/ 

TP–99–450, ARI, No. 12 at p. 2) 

In view of ARI’s and Lennox’s 

comments, DOE will require a VICP 

participant to apply its AEDM to one or 

more basic models that have been tested 

according to the applicable test 

procedure, and that each basic model 

produced by a manufacturer be tested at 

least once every five years. The 

provisions being adopted today, which 

were originally proposed in the 

December 1999 NOPR for subsection 

431.484(a)(4), require each organization 

operating a VICP to report to DOE 

annually on verification testing results 

under the VICP. 64 FR 69603, 69613. In 

addition, DOE approval of a VICP 

requires that each basic model covered 

by a VICP be tested under the program 

at least once every five years. Id. By 

reviewing these test data, DOE will be 

able to validate a manufacturer’s 

AEDMs and the appropriate VICP. 

In the April 2006 SNOPR, DOE also 

proposed to modify the tolerance band 

to ± 2 percent for comparing the 

predicted efficiency calculated with an 

AEDM to the test results. 71 FR 25106. 

DOE stated in the April 2006 SNOPR 

that the December 1999 NOPR proposal, 

which permitted an AEDM to have a 

margin of error of 5 percent for the 

validation points, could create an 

increased potential for an AEDM to 

produce erroneous results. Id. To reduce 

this possibility, DOE proposed to 

modify the tolerance band from ± 5 

percent as originally proposed in the 

December 1999 NOPR to a tolerance 

band of ± 2 percent. 71 FR 25106. 

ARI disagreed with the ± 2 percent 

tolerance band proposed in the April 

2006 SNOPR. ARI commented that 

tightening the AEDM’s tolerance to ± 2 

percent for VICP participants is not 

justified, unnecessary, and overly 

burdensome. Instead, ARI 

recommended that DOE keep the 

tolerance at ± 5 percent for VICP 

participants and retain the ± 2 percent 

tolerance for non-VICP participants to 

account for the very limited testing that 

is done to verify product efficiency. 

(EE–RM/TP–99–450, ARI, No. 12 at p. 3) 

The PRC commented that commercial 

HVAC and WH equipment efficiency is 

influenced by several factors, including 

the ambient temperature, room 

structure, and the parts of the 

refrigeration systems. Because of the 

variability created by these factors, and 

the inability of mathematical models to 

describe accurately how they affect 

product performance, it asserted that it 

is difficult to keep the tolerance within 

± 2 percent between the anticipated 

efficiency value and the actual test 

value. Instead, the PRC suggested that 

the tolerance be set according to the 

different types and classifications of 

products. (EE–RM/TP–99–450, PRC, No. 

13 at p. 1) 

DOE agrees that the 2-percent 

tolerance level for VICP participants 

could be overly burdensome and VICP 

participants are already subject to more 

stringent tolerance requirements due to 

the nature of the VICP certification 

program. DOE also acknowledges the 

PRC’s view that a large variation 

between various types of commercial 

HVAC and WH equipment exists that 

warrants the use of different tolerances.5

In view of the above comments, DOE 

establishes a tolerance level of 5 percent 

for VICP participants and 3 percent for 

non-VICP participants. DOE 

understands that there is sufficient 

variation in testing and repeatability in 

test results from one laboratory to 

another that a 3 to 5 percent difference 

between the tested value and rated 

value could occur. Nevertheless, DOE 

expects the variability in test results to 

be a distribution that is centered around 

the rated value of the equipment, rather 

than a skewed distribution. 

Consequently, DOE will monitor VICPs 

and AEDMs to determine if they satisfy 

the goals of the VICP program and the 

testing requirements adopted by today’s 

final rule. 

3. Differences in Treatment Between 

Voluntary Industry Certification 

Program Participants and NonParticipants 

The proposals detailed in the 

December 1999 NOPR specified that 

participation in a VICP would allow a 

manufacturer to follow either: (1) The 

DOE sampling plan; or (2) a DOE 

approved AEDM. A VICP participant 

must still test its products, validate its 

AEDM (if applicable), and file a 

compliance statement and certification 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 657 

6Manufacturer trade organizations, such as 

GAMA, maintain a certified directory, which 

includes the efficiency ratings of certified 

equipment. The information contained within the 

certified directory for VICP participants includes 

manufacturer, model number, input or capacity 

rating, efficiency rating, and other applicable 

footnotes such as when the efficiency information 

was revised. In addition, the directory indicates 

where a model is current or discontinued. One 

example of a certified directory currently 

maintained by AHRI (formerly ARI and GAMA) is 

the ‘‘Consumers’ Directory of Certified Efficiency 

Ratings for Heating and Water Heating Equipment’’ 

(see http://www.ahrinet.org/ARI/util/ 

showdoc.aspx?doc=710). 

report, either directly to DOE, or 

through the VICP, which will file these 

documents on the manufacturers’ 

behalf. DOE also included specific 

criteria that a VICP must meet to gain 

recognition. The program would have to 

include, for example, provisions for the 

collection and dissemination of 

efficiency ratings of each basic model of 

equipment, periodic testing of each 

basic model to determine the accuracy 

of the manufacturer’s efficiency rating 

for the model, a process for taking 

corrective action (e.g., deleting or 

decertifying equipment) when a 

manufacturer’s rating conflicts with the 

test results, and the reporting of certain 

information to DOE. The December 1999 

NOPR also addressed how the 

organization operating a VICP could 

obtain DOE approval of the VICP and 

the duration of that approval. 64 FR 

69605. 

Further, the December 1999 NOPR 

proposed more stringent criteria for 

testing and the use of AEDMs for those 

manufacturers opting not to participate 

in a VICP. DOE proposed to require that 

non-VICP manufacturers would have to 

conduct independent testing, use DOEprescribed sampling plans, and obtain 

DOE approval of its AEDMs (if 

applicable) before those methods could 

be used for compliance certification 

purposes. Non-VICP manufacturers 

would also need to file a compliance 

statement and certification report 

directly to DOE. 

In the December 1999 NOPR, DOE 

also proposed to require a non-VICP 

manufacturer that uses an AEDM under 

this subpart to validate that method by 

subjecting to testing three or more of its 

basic models, which must be the 

highest-selling basic models. These test 

results would then be compared with 

the results from the AEDM model. (In 

contrast, a VICP participant would have 

to compare the test results for only one 

or more basic models with the results of 

the AEDM model.) Under the December 

1999 NOPR, the test results would have 

needed to be within 1 percent of the 

AEDM model results for the AEDM to be 

valid. 64 FR 69613. The April 2006 

SNOPR maintained these aspects of the 

proposal. 71 FR 25107. 

Lennox and ARI asserted that the 

December 1999 NOPR and the April 

2006 SNOPR would put VICP 

participants at a disadvantage relative to 

non-participants. ARI stated that a VICP 

participant must incur ‘‘significant cost’’ 

and risk ongoing verification testing of 

its products, whereas a non-participant 

need only test three basic models to 

validate its AEDM(s). (EE–RM/TP–99– 

450, ARI, No. 12 at p. 4) In addition, 

Lennox claimed that, for a nonparticipant’s products, consumers are 

only assured that a tested sample of 

units performs at the level of the 

manufacturer’s efficiency ratings. (EE– 

RM/TP–99–450, Lennox, No. 10 at p. 2) 

GAMA also opined that provisions in 

the April 2006 SNOPR ‘‘provide 

disincentives to participate in VICPs,’’ 

although it did not identify which 

provisions. Further, GAMA stated that a 

VICP polices a manufacturer’s efficiency 

claims at no cost to taxpayers, and that 

a manufacturer participates in a VICP at 

significant cost and considerable risk 

because of the penalties levied if 

verification testing does not support its 

efficiency ratings.6 (EE–RM/TP–99–450, 

GAMA, No. 11 at p. 4) 

Lennox requested that DOE require 

non-VICP manufacturers to participate 

in a DOE-administered verification 

program that would be based on DOE’s 

requirements and funded at a VICPequivalent level by the non-VICP 

participants. (EE–RM/TP–99–450, 

Lennox, No. 10 at p. 2) ARI 

recommended that a non-VICP 

participant be required to show 

compliance and the accuracy of its 

efficiency representations through 

verification testing conducted by an 

independent laboratory. (EE–RM/TP– 

99–450, ARI, No. 12 at p. 4) 

The proposals detailed in the 

December 1999 NOPR and April 2006 

SNOPR were tailored for non-VICP 

participants and participants of a VICP. 

Note that while the requirements for 

VICP participants include less initial 

testing, the requirements specify third 

party verification testing. In contrast, 

non-VICP participants must perform 

more rigorous initial testing because 

third party verification testing is not 

required. As stated above, non-VICP 

manufacturers are required to conduct 

independent testing, use DOEprescribed sampling plans, gain DOE’s 

approval of AEDMs, and file their own 

compliance statements and certification 

reports. For the reasons provided above, 

DOE believes that the procedures for 

VICP participants and non-VICP 

manufacturers being adopted in today’s 

final rule are appropriate. 

4. Reporting for Voluntary Industry 

Certification Programs 

The December 1999 NOPR proposed 

to require a VICP to report annually 

verification test results, each 

manufacturer’s rated efficiency, and 

either the applicable energy 

conservation standard or information 

that would enable DOE to determine the 

standard for each basic model on which 

the VICP performed verification testing. 

The April 2006 SNOPR, which carried 

over the annual reporting requirement, 

proposed to require that a VICP also 

report model numbers for tested 

products, which would enable DOE to 

monitor whether the VICP is doing 

verification testing of each basic model 

at least once every five years. See 71 FR 

25109. 

ARI commented that the April 2006 

SNOPR’s proposed annual model 

number reporting requirement is overly 

burdensome. Instead, ARI suggested that 

VICPs provide aggregate results by type 

of equipment only. DOE agrees that 

requiring annual reporting could be 

unduly burdensome, to both the VICP 

and DOE due to the vast number of 

models offered by manufacturers of a 

given product type. By providing 

aggregate results, DOE will be able to 

discern any trends contained in the 

testing data. In addition, DOE is 

requiring VICPs to make test data 

records available for DOE inspection. 

DOE believes that, in light of all of these 

factors, the added detail from annual 

reporting does not add any useful value 

that would significantly enhance DOE’s 

ability to monitor manufacturer 

compliance with the energy 

conservation standards. Therefore, DOE 

intends to review a VICP on an asneeded basis and has withdrawn its 

proposed requirement for including 

model numbers in the annual reporting. 

A VICP will be required to maintain the 

records of test results and applicable 

compliance information, all of which 

would be made available to DOE for 

inspection as set forth in the 

regulations. In the case, for example, 

where DOE is investigating an energy 

performance certification, the records of 

test results would be made available to 

DOE as set forth in the regulations. 

5. Enforcement Testing 

DOE proposed in the December 1999 

NOPR to test initially two units of a 

basic model to determine its compliance 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standard, except that under certain 

circumstances DOE would test one unit. 

64 FR 69616. The December 1999 NOPR 

also provided that a model would be in 

compliance if the average result for the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
658 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

two tested units (or the result from 

testing a single unit) fell within a 5- 

percent tolerance range (i.e., 95 percent 

or more of the applicable efficiency 

standard or 105 percent or less of an 

energy use standard). 64 FR 69617. If 

the test results fall outside the 5-percent 

tolerance range, resulting in a noncompliance determination, a 

manufacturer could request that DOE 

conduct additional testing. DOE would 

then conduct the additional testing and 

determine compliance by averaging the 

results from both rounds of testing and 

applying the 5-percent criterion. 

DOE revised this approach for 

enforcement testing in the April 2006 

SNOPR by making three changes. First, 

DOE would generally test four units of 

a basic model, but would test fewer if 

only a lesser number were available, or 

if testing of such lesser number were 

otherwise warranted (e.g., if a basic 

model is very large or has unusual 

testing requirements) as described in 

section 431.373(a)(3)(ii)(B). If DOE were 

to test three or four units, it would test 

each unit once; if it tested two units it 

would test each twice; and if it tested 

one unit it would test that unit four 

times. Second, DOE would compute the 

mean of the test results, as provided in 

the NOPR, but would also calculate a 

lower control limit for energy efficiency 

or an upper control limit for energy use. 

The lower control limit, for example, 

would be the greater of either: (a) 97.5 

percent of the applicable energy 

efficiency standard, or (b) the applicable 

energy efficiency standard minus the 

product of the sample standard error 

and the t-value for a 97.5-percent, onesided confidence limit. The upper 

control limit would be calculated in a 

similar fashion (See Appendix D to 

Subpart T of Part 431.). Finally, the 

April 2006 SNOPR proposed that a basic 

model would be in compliance only if 

the mean measurement for the sample 

meets or exceeds the lower control limit 

in the case of an efficiency standard or 

is less than or equal to the upper control 

limit in the case of an energy use 

standard. 71 FR 25110. 

GAMA disagreed with DOE’s proposal 

to tighten the enforcement testing 

tolerance for commercial equipment. 

Specifically, it preferred the 95 percent 

confidence limit proposed in the 

December 1999 NOPR. GAMA noted 

that while its certification programs 

employ test tolerances of 2 percent for 

commercial equipment and 3.5 percent 

for residential products, DOE’s citing of 

these tolerances in support of the 

proposed tightened tolerances is 

inaccurate and inappropriate because 

the 2-percent tolerance only applies to 

verification testing of commercial 

boilers and commercial water heater 

thermal efficiencies. Further, GAMA 

pointed out that the 2-percent tolerance 

is not included in its certification 

program for commercial furnaces. For 

residential products, GAMA’s 

certification program allows a 3.5- 

percent tolerance for residential water 

heaters and a 5-percent tolerance for 

furnaces. GAMA cautioned DOE not to 

prescribe uniform compliance and 

enforcement criteria for all products. 

(EE–RM/TP–99–450, GAMA, No. 11 at 

p. 4) 

Notwithstanding GAMA’s comments, 

DOE continues to believe that it is 

unnecessary and would be unduly 

burdensome to prescribe unique 

tolerances for each type of equipment 

that could undergo enforcement testing. 

DOE also notes that the 97.5-percent 

tolerance proposed in the April 2006 

SNOPR is intended to ensure that DOE 

has a high degree of certainty when 

making a determination of noncompliance. This is not a requirement 

for the manufacturers but an effort by 

DOE to help mitigate false positives by 

tightening the tolerances during 

enforcement testing; DOE believes that 

the lower degree of certainty of 95 

percent is not appropriate because it 

would more likely lead to 

determinations of non-compliance 

when, in fact, the basic model complies 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards. Therefore, DOE rejects 

GAMA’s comment and is establishing 

the tolerance specified for enforcement 

testing at 97.5 percent for all types of 

commercial HVAC and WH equipment. 

GAMA also commented that the April 

2006 SNOPR proposed to significantly 

change the enforcement testing 

requirements by proposing the selection 

and testing of four samples. GAMA 

opined that adopting such a 

requirement would be burdensome and 

out of proportion to the reality of the 

commercial equipment market. Instead, 

GAMA supported DOE’s approach in 

the December 1999 NOPR, which based 

enforcement testing on two samples 

instead of four. (EE–RM/TP–99–450, 

GAMA, No. 11 at p. 4; EE–RM/TP–05– 

500, GAMA, No. 7 at p. 3–4) 

In view of GAMA’s comment, DOE 

believes that there are very few units 

produced in any given year for certain 

types of commercial HVAC and WH 

equipment, and that it would be 

impossible to find, much less test, a 

sample of four units. For example, small 

commercial package air conditioners 

and heat pumps are manufactured on a 

larger scale with less variation, whereas 

very large commercial package air 

conditioners and heat pumps are 

manufactured on a small scale, made-toorder basis with more specific variations 

based upon the commercial customer’s 

design preferences for a given project. 

DOE acknowledges there can be large 

variations in the number of units 

produced in a given year depending on 

the specific projects being developed by 

the commercial customer. Therefore, 

DOE adopts the approach outlined in 

the December 1999 NOPR, which 

requires enforcement testing to be based 

upon two samples instead of four. 

Additionally, GAMA disagreed with 

DOE’s assertion and proposal that 

multiple testing of the same unit would 

provide greater assurance of standards 

compliance. Instead, GAMA asserted 

that conducting multiple tests of the 

same unit becomes an evaluation of the 

test procedure accuracy and test setup, 

rather than an evaluation of the model’s 

efficiency rating. (EE–RM/TP–99–450, 

GAMA, No. 11 at p. 4; EE–RM/TP–05– 

500, GAMA, No. 7 at p. 3–4) 

In view of GAMA’s comment, DOE 

understands that multiple testing of a 

single unit does not accurately reflect 

the energy efficiency or performance of 

the basic model. DOE believes testing 

multiple units of a basic model gives an 

indication of the manufacturing 

variability within a basic model. While 

testing one unit multiple times indicates 

the ability of the test procedure to 

provide repeatable results, testing 

multiple units captures the variability of 

the manufacturing process. As a result, 

DOE concludes that such multiple 

testing of an individual unit is 

inappropriate for enforcement testing 

and is removing that requirement from 

today’s final rule. 

GAMA also commented on the 

definition of a ‘‘defective unit’’ as it 

applies to water heaters that DOE 

proposed in the July 2006 SNOPR. 

Under proposed section 

431.373(a)(5)(iii), a defective unit is one 

that is inoperative. A defective unit can 

also be one that is in noncompliance 

due to a manufacturing defect or the 

failure of the unit to operate according 

to the manufacturer’s design and 

operating instructions, and where the 

manufacturer demonstrates by 

statistically valid means that, with 

respect to such defect or failure, the unit 

is not representative of the population 

of production units from which it is 

obtained. GAMA recommended that a 

water heater found to have one or more 

significant insulation voids should be 

considered a defective unit and should 

not be included in an enforcement test 

sample, because it is not representative 

of the manufacturer’s production. 

GAMA further recommended that for 

commercial water heaters, the criteria 

for a significant insulation void should 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 659 

7 DOE issued several final rules relating to test 

procedures on October 21, 2004—Test Procedures 

and Efficiency Standards for Commercial Warm Air 

Furnaces, 69 FR 61916; Test Procedures and 

Efficiency Standards for Commercial Water Heaters, 

Hot Water Supply Boilers and Unfired Hot Water 

Storage Tanks, 69 FR 61974; Test Procedures and 

Efficiency Standards for Commercial Packaged 

Boilers, 69 FR 61949; Test Procedures and 

Efficiency Standards for Commercial Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 69 FR 61962. 

8The sampling plans reviewed for consumer 

products are those found in 10 CFR Part 430 and 

the sampling plans reviewed for commercial and 

industrial equipment are those found in 10 CFR 

Part 431 and the December 1999 NOPR. See 

generally 64 FR 69602–06. 

be one-third of 1 percent or more of the 

tank surface area that is exposed. GAMA 

included in its comment a detailed 

proposal based on nominal tank size, 

but ultimately, GAMA indicated that 

DOE should address the issue of water 

heater insulation voids. (EE–RM/TP– 

99–450, GAMA, No. 11 at p. 4; EE–RM/ 

TP–05–500, GAMA, No. 7 at p. 3–4) 

DOE disagrees with GAMA on the 

matter of water heater insulation voids. 

DOE believes that a unit with an 

insulation void so large as to materially 

affect the measure of efficiency, the unit 

should, in the normal course of 

manufacturing, be identified and either 

the insulation void corrected or the unit 

scrapped. Such a unit would, therefore, 

not be subject to testing for either 

certification or demonstration of 

compliance. However, if a unit with an 

insulation void is not identified through 

normal inspection procedures and 

rejected for sale to consumers, then it 

should not be rejected for testing for 

certification purposes or demonstration 

of compliance since it is representative 

of units offered for sale. Therefore, DOE 

rejects GAMA’s comment and will not 

include any additional requirements to 

identify and exclude a water heater with 

an insulation void from compliance 

certification or enforcement testing. 

GAMA also asked that the agency 

clarify what it would consider ‘‘the date 

of last determination of compliance’’ 

under the proposed section 

431.508(a)(2). 64 FR 69617. GAMA 

asserted that the date of last 

determination of compliance means the 

most recent date when the efficiency of 

a particular model has been checked, 

which could include either normal 

verification testing by an approved VICP 

or efficiency checks done in a 

manufacturer’s own quality control 

program. (EE–RM/TP–99–450, GAMA, 

No. 11 at p. 4; EE–RM/TP–05–500, 

GAMA, No. 7 at p. 3–4) Consequently, 

determining this date largely depends 

on the individual practices followed by 

the manufacturer. 

Consistent with GAMA’s concerns, 

DOE will notify the manufacturer of the 

applicable date on a case-by-case basis 

when DOE, or the manufacturer, or the 

private labeler determines that the 

HVAC or WH equipment is 

noncompliant. Otherwise, if there have 

been no noncompliance issues for a 

particular manufacturer’s model of 

HVAC or WH equipment that was 

certified by DOE, then the date of last 

determination of compliance would be 

the date the manufacturer had last 

certified compliance of that product to 

DOE. 

The PRC suggested that ‘‘definite 

standards used for testing and sampling 

be specified to facilitate testing 

procedures.’’ (EE–RM/TP–99–450, PRC, 

No. 13 at p. 1) DOE understands the 

PRC’s comment as asking DOE to 

specify a test procedure in addition to 

the sampling plan for each equipment 

class. If correct, DOE believes the PRC 

has misunderstood the purpose of the 

April 2006 SNOPR, since the test 

procedures for commercial HVAC and 

WH equipment were finalized in 

previous final rules.7 The purpose of the 

April 2006 SNOPR was to set forth the 

revisions to the certification and 

enforcement provisions for commercial 

HVAC and WH equipment for the test 

procedures that already exist. 

B. Energy Policy Act of 2005—Consumer 

Products 

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

6293(b)(3), requires a test procedure be 

reasonably designed to produce results 

measuring energy efficiency or energy 

use and not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. In the July 2006 NOPR, DOE 

proposed the use of a statistically 

meaningful sampling procedure for 

selecting test specimens of consumer 

products to reduce the testing burden on 

manufacturers, while giving sufficient 

assurance that the true mean energy 

efficiency of a basic model meets or 

exceeds the rated measure of energy 

efficiency or energy use. DOE stated that 

it reviewed sampling plans for 

consumer products and commercial and 

industrial equipment which could 

provide guidance on how many and 

which units to test to determine 

compliance.8 71 FR 42193. DOE 

considered four factors when proposing 

sampling plans: (1) Minimizing a 

manufacturer’s testing time and costs; 

(2) assuring compatibility with other 

sampling plans DOE has promulgated; 

(3) providing a highly valid statistical 

probability that basic models that are 

tested meet the applicable energy 

conservation standards; and (4) 

providing a highly valid statistical 

probability that a manufacturer 

preliminarily found to be in 

noncompliance will actually be in 

noncompliance. 71 FR 42193. 

After review of the sampling plans for 

consumer products in 10 CFR Part 430, 

sections 430.63, 430.70, and appendix B 

to subpart F, DOE proposed that the 

manufacturer select a sample at random 

from a production line and, after each 

unit or group of units is tested, either 

accept the sample, reject the sample, or 

continue sampling and testing 

additional units until a compliance 

determination can be made. Id. DOE did 

not propose a sample size in the July 

2006 NOPR because the sample size is 

determined by the validity of the sample 

and how the mean compares to the 

standard, factors which cannot be 

determined in advance. Moreover, DOE 

believed that testing a randomly 

selected sample until a determination is 

reached is a method that arrives at a 

statistically valid decision on the basis 

of fewer tests than fixed-number 

sampling, which is the basis for most of 

the statistical sampling procedures for 

consumer products under 10 CFR 

430.24, Units to be Tested. 

The July 2006 NOPR proposed to 

require at section 430.24 that 

manufacturers randomly select and test 

a sample of production units of a 

representative basic model, and then 

calculate a simple average of the values 

to determine the actual mean value of 

the sample. 71 FR 42204. For each 

representative model, a sample of 

sufficient size would be selected at 

random and tested to ensure that any 

represented value of energy efficiency 

is, for example, no greater than the 

lower of (A) the mean of the sample; or 

(B) the lower 95-percent confidence 

limit of the mean of the entire 

population of that basic model, divided 

by a coefficient applicable to the 

represented value. The coefficients in 

the July 2006 NOPR are product specific 

and intended to reasonably reflect 

variations in materials, the 

manufacturing process, and testing 

tolerances. 71 FR 42193. 

Additionally, the July 2006 NOPR 

sought comments and data concerning 

the accuracy and workability of the 

sampling plan for ceiling fans, ceiling 

fan light kits, torchieres, medium base 

compact fluorescent lamps, and 

dehumidifiers, including the confidence 

limits and coefficients, and invited 

discussion about improvements or 

alternatives. 71 FR 42193. DOE did not 

receive any comments regarding its 

proposed sampling plans and continues 

to believe that the sampling plans and 

procedures would minimize the 

manufacturers’ testing time and cost, 

while providing statistical validity that 

the true mean energy efficiency of a 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
660 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

9The compliance statement must be submitted by 

each manufacturer subject to the energy 

conservation standards in 10 CFR parts 430 and 

431. The compliance statement is signed by the 

company official submitting the statement (e.g., the 

point of contact for the company or 3rd party 

representative), certifying that the basic model is in 

compliance with the applicable energy or water 

conservation standards and does not need to be 

resubmitted unless the information on the 

compliance statement changes. 

basic model meets or exceeds the rated 

measure of energy efficiency or energy 

use and that the basic models comply 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards. Based on a consideration of 

the above, DOE is adopting the sampling 

plans as proposed in the July 2006 

NOPR for ceiling fans, ceiling fan light 

kits, torchieres, medium base compact 

fluorescent lamps, and dehumidifiers. 

Today’s rule would also apply to these 

products the provisions in 10 CFR part 

430, subpart F. The relevant provisions 

are section 430.62 for certification, and 

sections 430.61, 430.71, 430.72, 430.73, 

and 430.74 for enforcement. Today’s 

final rule amends section 430.62(a)(4) to 

require manufacturer reporting for 

ceiling fans, ceiling fan light kits, 

torchieres, medium base compact 

fluorescent lamps, and dehumidifiers. 

The existing section 430.62(a)(1) 

includes general instructions for 

manufacturer submission of certification 

data to DOE, including the mailing 

address for submitting certification data. 

Those directions apply to the products 

added by today’s final rule. 

C. Energy Policy Act of 2005— 

Commercial Equipment 

As part of the July 2006 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to adopt sampling 

requirements for manufacturer testing 

similar to those in part 430 for 

consumer products for each type of 

commercial or industrial equipment 

EPACT 2005 covers and for which DOE 

finalized test procedures in the 

December 8, 2006 final rule. For 

certification reporting on covered 

commercial equipment, the procedures 

proposed in the July 2006 NOPR would 

require manufacturers to report the 

energy efficiency, energy use, or water 

use of each basic model. 71 FR 42192. 

DOE proposed to require that each 

manufacturer of commercial or 

industrial equipment file a compliance 

statement and certification report. The 

compliance statement would be a onetime filing 9 in which the manufacturer 

or private labeler states that it complies 

with applicable energy conservation 

requirements, and the certification 

reports generally provide the efficiency, 

or energy or water use, as applicable, for 

each covered basic model that a 

manufacturer distributes. A basic model 

refers to those models with no differing 

electrical, physical, or functional 

features that affect energy consumption. 

These requirements take the same 

approach as the certification procedures 

in part 430 and incorporate, with some 

modifications, certification provisions 

that DOE proposed for commercial 

heating, air conditioning, and water 

heating equipment in the December 

1999 NOPR (64 FR 69602, 69611) and 

the April 2006 SNOPR (71 FR 25104, 

25116). 

DOE also set forth provisions for 

enforcement of the EPACT 2005 

standards for commercial equipment in 

the July 2006 NOPR. 71 FR 42192, 

42214. The enforcement proposals 

address DOE’s initial steps in an 

enforcement action and would require a 

manufacturer to cease distribution of 

non-complying equipment, following 

the approach in Part 430. They are the 

same procedures for HVAC and WH 

equipment contained in the December 

1999 NOPR. 64 FR 69604, 69617. For 

enforcement testing, including sampling 

provisions during enforcement testing 

and compliance determinations, DOE 

proposed two procedures based on the 

volume of shipments produced for 

commercial equipment. 71 FR 42192. 

For commercial prerinse spray valves, 

illuminated exit signs, traffic signal 

modules and pedestrian modules, and 

refrigerated bottled or canned beverage 

vending machines, DOE understands 

that each basic model is manufactured 

in relatively large quantities, similar to 

the quantities of consumer products 

covered by 10 CFR part 430. As a result 

of this understanding, DOE proposed to 

adopt the same sampling provisions that 

apply to consumer products under 10 

CFR part 430 for use during 

enforcement testing of commercial 

equipment under 10 CFR part 431. Id. 

For automatic commercial ice makers, 

as well as commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers, DOE 

understands each basic model is 

manufactured in smaller quantities, 

similar to the quantities of commercial 

heating, air conditioning and water 

heating equipment covered by 10 CFR 

part 431. Therefore, DOE proposed to 

adopt the same sampling provisions for 

use during enforcement testing as those 

proposed in the April 2006 SNOPR for 

commercial equipment. Id. 

In comments filed in response to the 

July 2006 NOPR, ARI agreed with DOE 

that automatic commercial ice makers 

and commercial refrigerators, freezers, 

and refrigerator-freezers are 

manufactured in small quantities and 

therefore, should have the same 

certification and enforcement provisions 

as commercial HVAC and WH 

equipment. (EE–RM/TP–05–500, ARI, 

No. 63 at p. 3) ARI requested that DOE 

review the comments it submitted to 

DOE in response to the publication of 

the April 2006 SNOPR and apply them 

to automatic commercial ice makers and 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

ARI argued that requiring commercial 

refrigeration equipment and automatic 

commercial ice makers to be subject to 

similar sampling procedures for 

certification and enforcement in 10 CFR 

part 430 would be unduly burdensome 

because of the small quantities of 

equipment that are manufactured. ARI 

urged DOE to abandon this concept for 

automatic commercial ice makers, 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

and commercial HVAC and WH 

equipment. (EE–RM/TP–05–500, ARI, 

No. 63 at p. 4) 

DOE recognizes that modeling its 

certification and enforcement provisions 

for commercial refrigeration equipment 

and automatic commercial ice makers 

on those provisions already established 

for consumer products has certain 

drawbacks. For example, consumer 

products are generally manufactured in 

greater quantities than commercial 

refrigeration equipment and automatic 

commercial ice makers. Because of the 

smaller population available for 

sampling, DOE has decided to adopt 

certification and enforcement provisions 

for commercial refrigeration equipment 

and automatic commercial ice makers 

with sampling procedures based on 

commercial HVAC and WH equipment. 

DOE is adopting some of these 

provisions from the December 1999 

NOPR and some from the July 2006 

NOPR in response to commenters, like 

ARI and others listed above in section 

III.A, which this final rule applies to for 

these two types of equipment. 64 FR 

69603–06 and 71 FR 42191–93. 

D. Distribution Transformers 

Section 325(y) of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 

6295(y), establishes energy conservation 

standards for low-voltage dry-type 

distribution transformers that are 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2007. The July 2006 NOPR provided 

until January 1, 2008, before 

certification requirements for such 

transformers would become effective. 71 

FR 42193–95. Today’s final rule 

modifies the proposed schedule and 

applies an effective date of 180 days 

after publication of notice announcing 

OMB approval of the information 

collection requirements for 

manufacturers of low-voltage, dry-type, 

liquid-immersed, and medium-voltage 

dry-type distribution transformers to 

comply with these certification 

requirements. This change is consistent 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 661 

10The design changes made to distribution 

transformers affect the amount and quality of the 

material used for the core or winding and have a 

direct impact on the basic model. As the amount 

increased, and the quality improved of the material 

that is used in the core or winding of the 

distribution transformer, the electrical resistance 

decreases and the system efficiency of the 

distribution transformer increases. 

with the requirements of other EPACT 

2005 products and equipment covered 

under today’s final rule. 

The certification requirements for 

distribution transformers have two 

elements: A compliance statement and a 

certification report. In the July 2006 

NOPR, DOE proposed a single format 

and set of requirements for compliance 

statements for all covered commercial 

and industrial equipment (except 

electric motors), including distribution 

transformers. 71 FR 42193–95. The 

certification report for distribution 

transformers being adopted today is 

similar to that which currently exists for 

electric motors at 10 CFR 431.36(b) and 

appendix C to subpart B, due to the 

large number of distribution transformer 

basic models that each manufacturer 

typically produces. 

For distribution transformers in 

general, each time a design change is 

made to a core or winding, the energy 

consumption of the transformer can 

change, making that design a different 

basic model.10 Due to the way in which 

distribution transformers are specified 

and manufactured, customized 

transformer designs will virtually 

always be a different basic model. 

Customized designs are necessary to 

meet customer requirements and to 

accommodate price changes in the raw 

materials used in the production of a 

distribution transformer. Distribution 

transformer manufacturers could 

produce thousands of basic models each 

year, and DOE is concerned that 

applying the same certification and 

reporting requirements as found in 10 

CFR Part 430 to them could place a 

significant burden on these 

manufacturers. 

In light of the heavy burdens 

manufacturers would face if a 

compliance certification process similar 

to the one used for consumer products 

were followed for distribution 

transformers, DOE proposed in the July 

2006 NOPR that each distribution 

transformer manufacturer submit a 

certification report on the efficiency of 

the least efficient basic model within a 

certain kilovolt-ampere (kVA) group. 71 

FR 42194. For low-voltage dry-type 

distribution transformers, kVA groups 

are defined as the combination of a kVA 

rating and number of phases for a 

transformer, as presented in the table of 

efficiency values in 10 CFR 431.196, as 

amended by the October 2005 final rule. 

70 FR 60417. For liquid-immersed 

distribution transformers, like lowvoltage dry-type transformers, kVA 

groups are based on the insulation type 

(liquid-immersed), kVA rating, and 

number of phases. For medium-voltage 

dry-type distribution transformers, kVA 

groups are based on the insulation type 

(dry-type), kVA rating, number of 

phases (single or three), and the basic 

impulse insulation level (BIL) rating, 

such as 20–45 kV BIL, 46–95 kV BIL, 

and greater than 96 kV BIL. 

In response to the compliance testing 

and certification requirements for drytype distribution transformers addressed 

in the July 2006 NOPR, Federal Pacific 

Transformer (Federal Pacific) asserted 

that the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ in 

the distribution transformer final rule, at 

71 FR 24972 (April 27, 2006), increased 

the number of basic models for testing 

to an ‘‘unbearable amount,’’ and that the 

number of basic models to be tested has 

‘‘broadened exponentially’’ because of 

how the term ‘‘basic model’’ is defined. 

(EE–RM/TP–05–500, Federal Pacific, 

No. 70 at pp. 3 and 4) DOE is aware of 

this issue, and it is the basis for the rule 

being adopted today, which establishes 

kVA groupings (described above), the 

requirement that manufacturers 

maintain records on all basic models 

sold, and that only compliance reports 

on the least efficient basic model within 

a kVA grouping are required to be 

submitted to DOE. This approach is 

consistent with the approach DOE 

adopted for electric motors, another 

industry with a large diversity of basic 

models. 

In addition, Federal Pacific, GE 

Energy and the National Electrical 

Equipment Manufacturers Association 

(NEMA) commented on test procedures 

for distribution transformers which 

were outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. Federal Pacific questioned 

DOE’s proposal to require reporting the 

least efficient basic model within a kVA 

group and sought clarification as to 

whether ‘‘least efficient’’ refers to the 

average efficiency of a newer, less 

efficient basic model within a kVA 

group or the highest individual unit 

within the group. (EE–RM/TP–05–500, 

Federal Pacific, No. 70 at p. 5) Federal 

Pacific proposed revisions to the draft 

rule language at 10 CFR 431.371(a)(6)(ii) 

and (b)(1), which affect sample size 

requirements and periodic reporting of 

compliance to DOE. (EE–RM/TP–05– 

500, Federal Pacific, No. 70 at p. 6). 

For distribution transformers, the test 

procedure rulemaking addressed 

sampling and other testing issues 

regarding representations and 

compliance with the energy 

conservation standards. See 10 CFR part 

431.197; 71 FR 24972 (April 27, 2006). 

Today’s final rule is limited to reporting 

requirements, which include submitting 

the compliance statement and 

certification reports. While DOE 

appreciates Federal Pacific’s comments, 

changes to incorporate kVA groupings 

or sampling sizes suggested by Federal 

Pacific is a test procedure issue. Test 

procedures for distribution 

transformers, including the applicable 

sampling plans for compliance testing, 

can be found in 10 CFR 431.197 and 

were finalized in a final rule published 

in the Federal Register on April 27, 

2006. 71 FR 24972. 

Similarly, GE Energy and NEMA both 

recommended that DOE adopt a linear 

interpolation method to determine the 

appropriate energy efficiency 

requirement for a unit with a kVA rating 

that does not appear in the tables. (EE– 

RM/TP–05–500, GE Energy, No. 145 at 

p. 1; EE–RM/TP–05–500, NEMA, No. 

174 at p. 4) DOE understands that 

efficiency levels can be scaled between 

any two kVA ratings, and that similar 

techniques are used by the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers and 

the American National Standards 

Institute to derive requirements for 

unusual (i.e., non-standard) kVA 

ratings. This issue also falls outside the 

scope of this rulemaking as it deals with 

the application of the energy 

conservation standards for distribution 

transformers. This issue was dealt with 

in the October 12, 2007 final rule 

regarding test procedures for 

distribution transformers. In the October 

12, 2007 final rule, DOE adopted the 

linear interpolation method proposed by 

GE Energy and NEMA. (72 FR 58217) 

E. General Requirements 

Consumer products and commercial 

and industrial equipment covered under 

10 CFR parts 430 and 431, respectively, 

are subject to a variety of regulatory 

provisions, including those involving 

Petitions for Waiver from a particular 

test procedure, imported and exported 

products and equipment, maintenance 

of records, subpoenas, confidentiality of 

information, and petitions to exempt a 

State regulation from preemption. 

Today’s final rule applies these 

provisions to the consumer products 

and commercial and industrial 

equipment it covers. For consumer 

products, the provisions are in sections 

430.27, 430.40 through 430.57, 430.64, 

430.65, 430.72, and 430.75 of 10 CFR 

part 430. For commercial equipment, 

the provisions are in sections 431.401, 

431.403 through 431.407, and 431.421 

through 431.430. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
662 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

11Since the enactment of EPACT 2005, Congress 

subsequently amended EPCA through the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 

110–140 (Dec. 19, 2007). As a result of this 

legislative change, 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg) was 

redesignated as 42 U.S.C. 6295(ii). 

In addition, our July 2006 NOPR 

proposed provisions for the preemption 

of State energy use and efficiency 

regulations for the consumer products 

and commercial or industrial equipment 

covered by EPACT 2005. The 

regulations implement EPACT 2005 

amendments to EPCA that include 

various provisions concerning 

preemption with respect to these 

products and equipment. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(ff)(7), 6295(ii), and 6316(e).11 All 

of the provisions applicable to 

consumer products provide that, once 

Federal energy conservation standards 

take effect for a product, the preemption 

requirements of section 327 of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6297) become applicable to any 

State or local standard for that product. 

42 U.S.C. 6295(ff) and (ii) (as amended 

by EPACT 2005) DOE’s existing rules for 

covered consumer products set forth 

such a requirement, providing that any 

Federal standard that is in effect for ‘‘a 

covered product’’ preempts any State 

standard for the product that is not 

identical to the Federal standard, except 

as otherwise provided in section 327 of 

EPCA. 10 CFR 430.33. Consistent with 

EPCA’s preemption provisions, DOE 

proposed to apply the same 

requirements for consumer products to 

the commercial or industrial equipment. 

71 FR 42195. 

IV. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

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 the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule that by law must 

be proposed for public comment, and a 

final regulatory flexibility analysis for 

any such rule that an agency adopts as 

a final rule, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial 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 1992 and EPACT 2005 

amended EPCA to incorporate into 

DOE’s energy conservation program 

certain consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment. 

Today, DOE establishes certification, 

compliance, and enforcement 

requirements for these products and 

types of commercial and industrial 

equipment, as described above and 

proposed in the December 1999 NOPR, 

April 2006 SNOPR, and July 2006 

NOPR. 

DOE reviewed the certification, 

compliance, and enforcement 

provisions in today’s final rule, for the 

products and equipment covered, under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the policies and 

procedures published on February 19, 

2003. DOE estimates approximately 350 

manufacturing firms could be 

potentially impacted by the 

certification, compliance, and 

enforcement provisions in today’s final 

rule. DOE estimated the total number of 

manufacturing firms by using AHRI’s 

Directory of Certified Product 

Performance, the ENERGY STAR 

databases of qualifying products, 

AHAM’s Directory of Certified Products, 

and manufacturers’ product literature. 

Of these 350 manufacturing firms, DOE 

did not explicitly identify the number of 

small entities that could potentially be 

impacted by the provisions in today’s 

final rule because DOE believes the 

burden will be small. DOE’s estimates 

include both small and large businesses, 

and the actual number of small business 

is likely to be smaller. The provisions of 

this final rule, described below and in 

further detail elsewhere in the 

preamble, would apply to all of those 

small businesses. 

Today’s final rule adopts procedures 

for manufacturers to certify compliance 

with the energy conservation standards 

in EPCA or set forth by DOE pursuant 

to EPCA, using applicable test 

procedures established by DOE. These 

procedures require manufacturers of 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment to submit 

information and reports for a variety of 

purposes, including ensuring 

compliance with requirements. These 

certification requirements, as well as the 

enforcement provisions, are new for 

manufacturers of consumer products 

and commercial equipment subject to 

today’s final rule and will affect both 

small and large enterprises. 

The final rule has been drafted to 

minimize the certification, compliance 

and enforcement burden for 

manufacturers and relies heavily on 

current industry practice. For example, 

the statistical sampling procedures 

being adopted in today’s final rule are 

based on procedures established for 

consumer appliance products at 10 CFR 

430.24. These procedures are designed 

to keep the testing burden on 

manufacturers as low as possible, while 

still providing confidence that the test 

results can be applied to all units of the 

same basic model. To minimize the 

testing burden further, manufacturers 

are permitted to use analytical 

procedures, such as computer 

simulation, to determine the efficiencies 

of their products. Manufacturers are also 

given the option of certifying their 

products to DOE independently or 

through trade associations, which can 

minimize costs by reporting on large 

numbers of individual products at one 

time. Finally, the certification forms and 

enforcement procedures are similar to 

those already required for consumer 

products, and several of the same 

manufacturers produce both consumer 

products and commercial equipment. 

The cost of establishing compliance 

will depend on the number of basic 

models a manufacturer produces. The 

cost of completing the certification 

report should be small once testing for 

each basic model has occurred pursuant 

to test procedures prescribed by DOE; 

the manufacturer must input the data 

required by, for consumer products, 10 

CFR 430.62 and, for commercial and 

industrial equipment, 10 CFR 

431.371(a)(6)(i) (or, in the case of 

distribution transformers, (ii)) into the 

report and provide it to DOE. Some of 

the information required by 10 CFR 

430.62 and 431.371 is product-specific; 

manufacturers would be required to 

provide only that information that is 

generally applicable or specific to the 

products they manufacture. DOE 

estimated in previous rules that the 

testing, certification, compliance, and 

enforcement procedures would take the 

average firm 160 hours to complete. 71 

FR 42197–98. DOE also believes that at 

least 90 percent of these burden hours 

can be attributed to complying with 

DOE’s test procedures, which have 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 663 

14The compliance statement must be submitted 

by each manufacturer subject to the energy 

conservation standards in 10 CFR parts 430 and 

431. The compliance statement is signed by the 

company official submitting the statement (e.g., the 

point of contact for the company or 3rd party 

representative), certifying that the basic model is in 

compliance with the applicable energy or water 

conservation standards and does not need to be 

resubmitted unless the information on the 

compliance statement changes. 

already been established. DOE believes 

the resulting 10 percent (i.e., 16 hours) 

would be the most that it would take the 

average firm to develop the necessary 

testing documentation, complete the 

certification and compliance reports, 

and then either mail or e-mail them to 

DOE; the costs of e-mail would be 

negligible and the costs of mailing 

would depend on the number of basic 

models manufactured but are not 

expected to be significant given 

prevailing postal rates. 

The maintenance of records and the 

compliance reporting requirements are 

also based largely on current industry 

practices for similar products and 

equipment under 10 CFR part 430 and 

10 CFR part 431. Moreover, for the 

products and equipment covered by this 

notice, manufacturers participating in 

the ENERGY STAR program already 

report the energy performance of their 

products to the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), and many 

report such performance to industry 

trade associations such as ARI. DOE 

concludes that reporting this same 

information to DOE would not result in 

a significant impact. DOE also 

understands that, as a matter of sound 

business practice, manufacturers 

routinely maintain the types of records 

as to product and equipment testing that 

today’s rule would require. For all of 

these reasons, DOE believes that the cost 

of complying with today’s final rule will 

not be significant for small 

manufacturers of these products. 

DOE sought public comment in the 

December 1999 NOPR and the July 2006 

NOPR conclusion that the incremental 

costs of complying with the 

certification, compliance and 

enforcement requirements would not 

impose a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small businesses. 

DOE did not receive any comments on 

this conclusion; comments on the 

economic impacts of the proposed rules 

generally are discussed above and do 

not change this conclusion. Based on 

the foregoing factual basis, DOE certifies 

that today’s final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on 

substantial number of small entities. 

DOE will transmit the certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration for 

review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Adoption of today’s final rule requires 

manufacturers of covered consumer 

products and commercial and industrial 

equipment to maintain records about 

how they determined the energy 

efficiency or energy consumption of 

their products. The final rule also 

requires manufacturers to submit a 

compliance statement indicating that all 

basic models currently produced, as 

well as any basic models produced in 

the future, comply (or will comply) with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards using applicable test 

procedures,14 as well as certification 

reports that set forth the energy 

performance of the basic models it 

manufactures. The certification reports 

are submitted for each basic model, 

either when the requirements go into 

effect (for models already in 

distribution) or when the manufacturer 

begins distribution of that model; the 

reports must be updated when a new 

model is introduced or a change 

affecting energy efficiency or use is 

made to an existing model. The 

collection of information is necessary 

for monitoring compliance with the 

efficiency standards and testing 

requirements for the consumer products 

and commercial and industrial 

equipment mandated by EPCA. 

The certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for consumer products in 

10 CFR part 430 have previously been 

approved by OMB and assigned OMB 

control number 1910–1400. The 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements being adopted in today’s 

final rule for the commercial and 

industrial equipment in 10 CFR part 431 

must be approved and assigned a 

control number by OMB. DOE 

submitted these proposed certification 

and recordkeeping requirements to 

OMB for review and approval under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., and will publish notice of 

the approval, and the effective date of 

the information collection requirements, 

in a subsequent Federal Register notice. 

DOE initially developed burden 

estimates for the EPACT 2005 

commercial equipment in the July 2006 

NOPR; given that the requirements in 

this final rule do not differ significantly 

from those proposed in the July 2006 

NOPR, these burden estimates continue 

to remain accurate. 71 FR 42197–198. In 

addition, DOE believes that these 

burden estimates would apply equally 

for manufacturers of the EPACT 1992 

commercial equipment because the 

compliance requirements would be the 

same for these manufacturers. DOE also 

believes that at least 90 percent of these 

burden hours can be attributed to 

complying with DOE’s test procedures, 

which have already been established 

through separate rulemakings. DOE 

believes the resulting 10 percent (i.e., 16 

hours) would be the most that it would 

take the average firm to comply with the 

certification, compliance, and 

enforcement requirements in today’s 

final rule. The following are the DOE 

estimates of the total annual reporting 

and recordkeeping burden imposed on 

manufacturers of commercial and 

industrial equipment by today’s final 

rule to develop the necessary testing 

documentation, complete the 

certification and compliance reports, 

and then either mail or e-mail them to 

DOE. 

• For unit heaters, the estimated 

number of covered manufacturing firms 

is 15. The total annual reporting and 

recordkeeping burden from compliance 

with the final rule is expected to be 240 

hours per year (15 firms × 16 hours per 

firm). 

• For automatic commercial ice 

makers, the estimated number of 

covered manufacturing firms is 10. The 

total annual reporting and 

recordkeeping burden from compliance 

with the final rule is expected to be 160 

hours per year (10 firms × 16 hours per 

firm). 

• For commercial prerinse spray 

valves, the estimated number of covered 

manufacturing firms is five. The total 

annual reporting and recordkeeping 

burden from compliance with the final 

rule is expected to be 80 hours per year 

(5 firms × 16 hours per firm). 

• For illuminated exit signs, the 

estimated number of covered 

manufacturing firms is 49. The total 

annual reporting and recordkeeping 

burden from compliance with the final 

rule is expected to be 784 hours per year 

(49 firms × 16 hours per firm). 

• For traffic signal modules and 

pedestrian modules, the estimated 

number of covered manufacturing firms 

is eight. The total annual reporting and 

recordkeeping burden from compliance 

with the final rule is expected to be 128 

hours per year (8 firms × 16 hours per 

firm). 

• For commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers, the 

estimated number of covered 

manufacturing firms is 23. The total 

annual reporting and recordkeeping 

burden from compliance with the final 

rule is expected to be 368 hours per year 

(23 firms × 16 hours per firm). 

• For commercial boilers, the 

estimated number of covered 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
664 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

manufacturing firms is 26. The total 

annual reporting and recordkeeping 

burden from compliance with the final 

rule is expected to be 416 hours per year 

(26 firms × 16 hours per firm). 

• For commercial furnaces, the 

estimated number of covered 

manufacturing firms is 15. The total 

annual reporting and recordkeeping 

burden from compliance with the final 

rule is expected to be 240 hours per year 

(15 firms × 16 hours per firm). 

• For packaged terminal equipment, 

the estimated number of covered 

manufacturing firms is 9. The total 

annual reporting and recordkeeping 

burden from compliance with the final 

rule is expected to be 144 hours per year 

(9 firms × 16 hours per firm). 

• For commercial air conditioning 

and heating equipment, the estimated 

number of covered manufacturing firms 

is 30. The total annual reporting and 

recordkeeping burden from compliance 

with the final rule is expected to be 480 

hours per year (30 firms × 16 hours per 

firm). 

• For commercial water heating 

equipment, the estimated number of 

covered manufacturing firms is 14. The 

total annual reporting and 

recordkeeping burden from compliance 

with the final rule is expected to be 224 

hours per year (14 firms × 16 hours per 

firm). 

In developing the burden estimates, 

DOE considered that the required 

compliance certification would contain 

the type of information that many 

manufacturers already submit to trade 

associations or government agencies, 

such as EPA under the ENERGY STAR 

program. Those manufacturers should 

be able to comply with the proposed 

certification without undue burden 

because they are already collecting and 

reporting data to other organizations. 

Moreover, DOE understands that 

manufacturers already maintain the 

types of records the proposed rule 

would require them to keep. 

In response to the burden hour 

estimates in the July 2006 proposed 

rule, DOE received several comments 

from various ceiling fan manufacturers. 

The manufacturers stated their concerns 

that the testing burden hour estimates 

were inadequate to accurately reflect the 

number of hours they would need to 

comply with the airflow efficiency test 

included in the July 2006 proposed rule. 

(EE–RM/TP–05–500, American Lighting 

Association, No. 14 at Part II at pp. 2 

and 3, No. 18.8 at pp. 63–65, and No. 

97 at pp. 3–5.) 

At this time, the only requirement for 

ceiling fans are the design standards set 

forth in EPACT 2005 and codified in the 

October 2005 final rule. Manufacturers 

of these products would simply have to 

certify compliance with the applicable 

design requirements. If DOE establishes 

energy conservation standards for 

ceiling fans by setting a minimum 

airflow efficiency rating in a separate 

rulemaking proceeding, then 

manufacturers would be subject to the 

other types of certification, compliance, 

and enforcement provisions, such as 

sampling procedures. Note that ceiling 

fans are a consumer product, the 

information collection requirements of 

which were approved by OMB under 

control number 1904–1400. 

DOE believes that the collection of 

information required by this final rule is 

the least burdensome method of meeting 

the statutory requirements and 

achieving the program objectives of the 

DOE compliance certification program 

for these products and equipment. 

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)). As stated in the 

EFFECTIVE DATE line of this notice of 

final rulemaking, the information 

collection requirements of today’s final 

rule will be effective 180 days after the 

publication of a notice announcing 

OMB approval of the information 

collection requirements. DOE will 

provide notice of OMB approval and the 

OMB control number in a subsequent 

Federal Register notice. 

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.), the regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (10 CFR Part 

1021). Specifically, this rule 

establishing test procedures will not 

affect the quality or distribution of 

energy, nor will it result in any 

environmental impacts, and, therefore, 

is covered by the Categorical Exclusion 

at 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 

DOE reviewed this rule pursuant to 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), which 

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 today’s final rule 

and determined that it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are subject of today’s 

final rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further 

action required by Executive Order 

13132. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 665 

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 final rule 

meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

DOE reviewed this regulatory action 

under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, which requires each Federal 

agency to assess the effects of Federal 

regulatory actions on State, local, and 

Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Today’s rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector 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 

DOE determined that, for this 

rulemaking, it need not prepare a 

Family Policymaking Assessment under 

section 654 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

(Pub. L. 105–277). 71 FR 42199. DOE 

received no comments concerning 

section 654 in response to the July 2006 

proposed rule and therefore, is taking no 

further action in today’s final rule with 

respect to this provision. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that today’s rule 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 71 FR 42199. DOE 

received no comments concerning 

Executive Order 12630 in response to 

the July 2006 proposed rule and, 

therefore, is taking no further action in 

today’s final rule with respect to this 

Executive Order. 

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 each agency 

establishes pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. 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 

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 Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for 

any proposed significant energy action. 

DOE determined that the proposed rule 

was not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ 

within the meaning of Executive Order 

13211. 71 FR 42199. In addition, the 

Administrator of OIRA did not 

designate this action as a significant 

energy action. Accordingly, DOE did not 

prepare a Statement of Energy Effects on 

the proposed rule. DOE received no 

comments on this issue in response to 

the July 2006 proposed rule. As with the 

proposed rule, DOE has concluded that 

today’s final rule is not a significant 

energy action within the meaning of 

Executive Order 13211, and has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 

on the rule. 

L. Congressional Notification 

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

report to Congress a report regarding the 

issuance of today’s final rule prior to the 

effective dates set forth at the outset of 

this notice. 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). 

V. 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. 

10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Commercial products, 

Energy conservation test procedures. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 9, 

2009. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations is 

amended to read 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 430.24 is amended by 

revising the introductory paragraph and 

by adding new paragraphs (w), (x), (y), 

(z), (aa), and (bb) to read as follows: 

§ 430.24 Units to be tested. 

When testing of a covered product is 

required to comply with section 323(c) 

of the Act, or to comply with rules 

prescribed under sections 324 or 325 of 

the Act, a sample shall be selected and 

tested comprised of units, or be 

representative of production units of the 

basic model being tested, and shall meet 

the following applicable criteria. 

Components of similar design may be 

substituted without requiring additional 

testing if the represented measures of 

energy consumption, or, in the case of 

showerheads, faucets, water closets and 

urinals, water use, continue to satisfy 

the applicable sampling provision. 

* * * * * 

(w) For each basic model of ceiling 

fan with sockets for medium screw base 

lamps or pin-based fluorescent lamps 

selected for testing, a sample of 

sufficient size shall be selected at 

random and tested to ensure that— 

(1) Any represented value of 

estimated energy consumption or other 

measure of energy consumption of a 

basic model for which consumers would 

favor lower values shall be no less than 

the higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, or 

(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 1.10; 

and 

(2) Any represented value of the 

airflow efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be no greater than the lower 

of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, or 

(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 0.90. 

(x) For each basic model of ceiling fan 

light kit with sockets for medium screw 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
666 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

base lamps or pin-based fluorescent 

lamps selected for testing, a sample of 

sufficient size shall be selected at 

random and tested to ensure that— 

(1) Any represented value of 

estimated energy consumption or other 

measure of energy consumption of a 

basic model for which consumers would 

favor lower values shall be no less than 

the higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, or 

(ii) The upper 97.5 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 1.05, 

and 

(2) Any represented value of the 

efficacy or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be no greater than the lower of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, or 

(ii) The lower 97.5 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 0.95. 

(y) For each basic model of bare or 

covered (no reflector) medium base 

compact fluorescent lamp selected for 

testing, a sample of sufficient size shall 

be selected at random and tested to 

ensure that— 

(1) Any represented value of 

estimated energy consumption or other 

measure of energy consumption of a 

basic model for which consumers would 

favor lower values shall be no less than 

the higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, or 

(ii) The upper 97.5 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 1.05; 

and 

(2) Any represented value of the 

efficacy or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be no greater than the lower of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, or 

(ii) The lower 97.5 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 0.95. 

(z) For each basic model of 

dehumidifier selected for testing, a 

sample of sufficient size shall be 

selected at random and tested to ensure 

that— 

(1) Any represented value of 

estimated energy consumption or other 

measure of energy consumption of a 

basic model for which consumers would 

favor lower values shall be no less than 

the higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, or 

(ii) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 1.10; 

and 

(2) Any represented value of the 

energy factor or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be no greater than the lower of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, or 

(ii) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 0.90. 

(aa) For each basic model of battery 

charger selected for testing, a sample of 

sufficient size shall be selected at 

random and tested to ensure that— 

(1) Any represented value of the 

estimated non-active energy ratio or 

other measure of energy consumption of 

a basic model for which consumers 

would favor lower values shall be no 

less than the higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, or 

(ii) The upper 97.5 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 1.05; 

and 

(2) Any represented value of the 

estimated nonactive energy ratio or 

other measure of energy consumption of 

a basic model for which consumers 

would favor higher values shall be no 

greater than the lower of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, or 

(ii) The lower 97.5 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 0.95. 

(bb) For each basic model of external 

power supply selected for testing, a 

sample of sufficient size shall be 

selected at random and tested to ensure 

that— 

(1) Any represented value of the 

estimated energy consumption of a basic 

model for which consumers would favor 

lower values shall be no less than the 

higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, or 

(ii) The upper 97.5 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 1.05; 

and 

(2) Any represented value of the 

estimated energy consumption of a basic 

model for which consumers would favor 

higher values shall be no greater than 

the lower of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, or 

(ii) The lower 97.5 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 0.95. 

■ 3. Section 430.62 is amended by 

adding new paragraphs (a)(4)(xviii), 

(a)(4)(xix), (a)(4)(xx), (a)(4)(xxi), and 

(a)(4)(xxii) to read as follows: 

§ 430.62 Submission of data. 

(a) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(xviii) Ceiling fans, the model 

number. 

(xix) Ceiling fan light kits with 

sockets for medium screw base lamps or 

pin-based fluorescent lamps, the 

efficacy in lumens per watt. Ceiling fan 

light kits with sockets other than 

medium screw base lamps or pin-based 

fluorescent lamps, the model number. 

(xx) Medium base compact 

fluorescent lamps, the minimum initial 

efficacy in lumens per watt, the lumen 

maintenance at 1,000 hours in lumens, 

the lumen maintenance at 40 percent of 

rated life in lumens, the rapid cycle 

stress test, and the lamp life in hours. 

(xxi) Dehumidifiers, the energy factor 

in liters per kilowatt hour, and capacity 

in pints per day. 

(xxii) Torchieres, the model number. 

* * * * * 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 5. Section 431.2 is amended by 

adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definitions of ‘‘Independent laboratory’’ 

and ‘‘Manufacturer’s model number’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 431.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Independent laboratory means a 

laboratory or test facility not controlled 

by, affiliated with, having financial ties 

with, or under common control with the 

manufacturer or distributor of the 

covered equipment being evaluated. 

* * * * * 

Manufacturer’s model number means 

the identifier used by a manufacturer to 

uniquely identify the group of identical 

or essentially identical commercial 

equipment to which a particular unit 

belongs. The manufacturer’s model 

number typically appears on equipment 

nameplates, in equipment catalogs and 

in other product advertising literature. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Add a new § 431.65 to subpart C of 

part 431 to read as follows: 

§ 431.65 Units to be tested. 

For each basic model of commercial 

refrigerator, freezer, or refrigeratorfreezer selected for testing, a sample of 

sufficient size shall be selected at 

random and tested to ensure that— 

(a) Any represented value of 

estimated energy consumption or other 

measure of energy consumption of a 

basic model for which consumers would 

favor lower values shall be no less than 

the higher of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, or 

(2) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 1.10; 

and 

(b) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be no greater than the lower 

of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, or 

(2) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 0.90. 

(Components of similar design may be 

substituted without requiring additional 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 667 

testing if the represented measures of 

energy continue to satisfy the applicable 

sampling provision.) 

■ 7. Add a new § 431.135 to subpart H 

of part 431 to read as follows: 

§ 431.135 Units to be tested. 

For each basic model of automatic 

commercial ice maker selected for 

testing, a sample of sufficient size shall 

be selected at random and tested to 

ensure that— 

(a) Any represented value of 

estimated maximum energy use or other 

measure of energy consumption of a 

basic model for which consumers would 

favor lower values shall be no less than 

the higher of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, or 

(2) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 1.10; 

and 

(b) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be no greater than the lower 

of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, or 

(2) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 0.90. 

(Components of similar design may be 

substituted without requiring additional 

testing if the represented measures of 

energy continue to satisfy the applicable 

sampling provision.) 

■ 8. Section 431.172 is amended by 

revising the introductory text, and 

adding the definition of ‘‘Alternate 

efficiency determination method or 

AEDM’’ in alphabetical order to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.172 Definitions. 

The following definitions apply for 

purposes of subparts D through G, J 

through K and subpart T of this part. 

Other terms in these subparts shall be 

defined elsewhere in this Part and, if 

not defined in this part, shall have the 

meaning set forth in section 340 of the 

Act. 

Alternate efficiency determination 

method or AEDM means a method of 

calculating the efficiency of a 

commercial HVAC and WH product, in 

terms of the descriptor used in or under 

section 342(a) of the Act to state the 

energy conservation standard for that 

product. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Revise subpart J of part 431 to read 

as follows: 

Subpart J—Provisions for Commercial 

Heating, Ventilating, Air-Conditioning and 

Water Heating Products 

Sec. 

431.174 Additional requirements applicable 

to Voluntary Independent Certification 

Program participants. 

431.175 Additional requirements applicable 

to non-Voluntary Independent 

Certification Program participants. 

431.176 Voluntary Independent 

Certification Programs. 

Subpart J—Provisions for Commercial 

Heating, Ventilating, Air-Conditioning 

and Water Heating Products 

§ 431.173 Requirements applicable to all 

manufacturers. 

(a) General. A manufacturer of a 

HVAC and WH product may not 

distribute any basic model of such 

equipment in commerce unless the 

manufacturer has determined the 

efficiency of the basic model either from 

testing of the basic model or from 

application of an alternative efficiency 

determination method (AEDM) to the 

basic model, in accordance with the 

requirements of this section. In 

instances where a manufacturer has 

tested that basic model to validate an 

AEDM, the efficiency of that basic 

model must be determined and rated 

according to results from actual testing. 

(For purposes of this subpart, the 

‘‘efficiency’’ of a commercial HVAC and 

WH product means the energy 

efficiency or energy use of that product, 

expressed in terms of the descriptor that 

referenced in section 342(a) of the Act 

to state the energy conservation 

standard for that product.) 

(b) Testing. If a manufacturer tests a 

basic model pursuant to this section to 

determine its efficiency, the 

manufacturer must: 

(1) Select at random the unit(s) to be 

tested, which must be representative of 

the basic model, 

(2) Perform the testing in accordance 

with the applicable Department of 

Energy test procedure, 

(3) Meet industry standards for the 

measurement accuracy of testing for the 

equipment being tested. This includes 

accuracy requirements in applicable test 

procedures, accuracy achieved by 

laboratory-grade equipment, and the 

accuracy of calibration standards, and 

(4) Meet the requirements of either 

§ 431.174(b) or § 431.175(a), whichever 

is applicable. 

(c) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods—(1) Criteria an 

AEDM must satisfy. You may not apply 

an AEDM to a basic model to determine 

its efficiency pursuant to this subpart 

unless: 

(i) The AEDM is derived from a 

mathematical model that represents the 

energy consumption characteristics of 

the basic model; and 

(ii) The AEDM is based on 

engineering or statistical analysis, 

computer simulation or modeling, or 

other analytic evaluation of performance 

data. 

(2) Subsequent verification of an 

AEDM. If you have used an AEDM 

pursuant to this subpart, 

(i) You must have available for 

inspection by the Department records 

showing: 

(A) The method or methods used; 

(B) The mathematical model, the 

engineering or statistical analysis, 

computer simulation or modeling, and 

other analytic evaluation of performance 

data on which the AEDM is based; 

(C) Complete test data, product 

information, and related information 

that you generated or acquired under 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section and 

§§ 431.174(c) or 431.(b)(1), as 

applicable; and 

(D) The calculations used to 

determine the average efficiency and 

energy consumption of each basic 

model to which an AEDM was applied. 

(ii) If requested by the Department, 

you must perform at least one of the 

following: 

(A) Conduct simulations to predict 

the performance of particular basic 

models of the commercial HVAC and 

WH product; 

(B) Provide analyses of previous 

simulations conducted by you; 

(C) Conduct sample testing of basic 

models selected by the Department; or 

(D) Conduct a combination of these. 

(3) Limitation on use of an AEDM. A 

manufacturer may not knowingly use an 

AEDM to overrate the efficiency of a 

basic model. 

§ 431.174 Additional requirements 

applicable to Voluntary Independent 

Certification Program participants. 

(a) Description of Voluntary 

Independent Certification Program 

participant. For purposes of this 

subpart, a manufacturer that participates 

in a Voluntary Independent 

Certification Program (VICP) approved 

by the Department for a commercial 

HVAC and WH product, as described in 

§ 431.176, and that complies with all 

requirements imposed by that program, 

is a ‘‘VICP participant’’ with respect to 

that product. 

(b) Testing. A VICP participant that 

tests a basic model pursuant to this 

subpart must use statistically valid and 

accurate methods to arrive at the 

efficiency rating of such basic model. 

(c) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. Before using an 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
668 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

AEDM to determine the efficiency of a 

basic model pursuant to this subpart, a 

VICP participant must apply the AEDM 

to one or more basic models that have 

been tested in accordance with 

§§ 431.173(b) and 431.174(b) of this 

subpart, and the predicted efficiency 

calculated for each such basic model 

from application of the AEDM must be 

within 5 percent of the efficiency 

determined from testing that basic 

model. In addition, the predicted 

efficiency(ies) calculated for the tested 

basic model(s) must on average be 

within one percent of the efficiency(ies) 

determined from testing such basic 

model(s). 

(d) Limitation on use of an Alternative 

Efficiency Determination Method. A 

manufacturer may not use an AEDM to 

overrate the efficiency of a basic model. 

§ 431.175 Additional requirements 

applicable to non-Voluntary Independent 

Certification Program participants. 

If you are a manufacturer that is not 

a VICP participant with respect to a 

particular type of commercial HVAC 

and WH product, you must meet the 

following requirements as to that 

product. 

(a) Testing. You must perform any 

testing of a basic model pursuant to this 

subpart under the supervision of 

independent testing personnel, or have 

such testing performed at an 

independent laboratory. In addition, 

you must test a sufficient number of 

units of the basic model, and the 

efficiency rating of the basic model must 

be determined, such that, 

(1) Any represented value of energy 

efficiency is no greater than the lower of 

the mean of the sample, or the lower 95 

percent confidence limit of the true 

mean divided by 0.95, and 

(2) Any represented value of energy 

usage is no less than the greater of the 

mean of the sample, or the upper 95 

percent confidence limit of the true 

mean divided by 1.05. 

(b) Alternative efficiency 

determination methods. Before using an 

AEDM to determine the efficiency of a 

basic model pursuant to this subpart, 

you must first: 

(1) Apply the AEDM to three or more 

basic models that have been tested in 

accordance with §§ 431.173(b) and 

431.175(a) of this subpart. The predicted 

efficiency calculated for each such basic 

model from application of the AEDM 

must be within three percent of the 

efficiency determined from testing that 

basic model, and the predicted 

efficiencies calculated for the tested 

basic models must on average be within 

one percent of the efficiencies 

determined from testing such basic 

models; and 

(2) Obtain from the Department 

approval of the AEDM. The Department 

will provide such approval after 

receiving from you documentation 

which establishes that the AEDM 

satisfies the requirements of 

§§ 431.173(c)(1) and 431.175(b)(1) of 

this subpart. 

(3) Validation of an AEDM. To use an 

AEDM under this subpart, the 

manufacturer must validate it as 

follows: 

(i) Using the AEDM, the manufacturer 

must calculate the efficiency of three or 

more of its basic models. They must be 

the manufacturer’s highest-selling basic 

models to which the AEDM could 

apply. 

(ii) The manufacturer must test each 

of these basic models in accordance 

with § 431.173(b) of this subpart, and 

either §§ 431.174(b) or 431.175(a), 

whichever is applicable. 

(iii) The predicted efficiency 

calculated for each such basic model 

from application of the AEDM must be 

within three percent of the efficiency 

determined from testing that basic 

model, and the average of the predicted 

efficiencies calculated for the tested 

basic models must be within one 

percent of the average of the efficiencies 

determined from testing these basic 

models. 

(4) Limitation on use of an AEDM. A 

manufacturer may not use an AEDM to 

overrate the efficiency of a basic model. 

§ 431.176 Voluntary Independent 

Certification Programs. 

(a) The Department will approve a 

Voluntary Independent Certification 

Program (VICP) for a commercial HVAC 

and WH product if the VICP meets all 

of the following criteria: 

(1) The program publishes its 

operating procedures in written form, 

and permits participation by all 

manufacturers of products covered by 

the program so long as they comply 

with the VICP’s requirements 

concerning operation of the program. 

(2) The program requires each 

participant to report to the program the 

efficiency of each basic model that the 

participant manufactures and that is 

covered by the program. The participant 

must determine such efficiency based 

on measurement of the basic model’s 

performance. 

(3) The program publishes the 

efficiency ratings received from each 

participant, or otherwise makes the 

ratings readily available to the general 

public and to the Department. 

(4) The program conducts periodic 

verification testing on listed equipment, 

by testing the efficiency of each basic 

model at least once every five years and 

comparing its rated efficiency to the test 

results. 

(5) An independent laboratory 

conducts the tests, or independent 

laboratory personnel supervise the tests. 

(6) For verification testing, the testing 

personnel select units randomly from 

the manufacturer’s stock. 

(7) The program uses efficiency 

testing in accordance with the 

applicable Department test procedures. 

(8) The program’s verification testing 

meets industry standards for the 

accuracy of testing and of rating results 

for the equipment being tested, and the 

program satisfactorily describes how it 

meets these standards. 

(9) The program has a standard for 

determining whether the efficiency 

rating a manufacturer claims for a 

product is valid. 

(10) The program requires that, if a 

basic model fails verification testing 

conducted by the VICP, the 

manufacturer of the basic model must 

remove it from production and sale if 

the verification testing results show it is 

not in compliance with EPCA efficiency 

standards, or correctly re-rate it if it 

complies with such standards. The 

program must also provide that a 

participating manufacturer will be 

expelled from the VICP if it does not 

comply with such requirements, and 

that the VICP will report to the 

Department certification test results that 

find the performance of a basic model 

not to meet EPCA efficiency standards. 

(A basic model ‘‘fails’’ verification 

testing when the VICP has compared the 

basic model’s efficiency rating resulting 

from completion of that testing with the 

efficiency rating claimed by the 

manufacturer, and has determined that 

the rating claimed by the manufacturer 

is not valid.) 

(11) The program provides for 

penalties or other incentives to 

encourage manufacturers to report 

accurate and reliable efficiency ratings. 

(12) The program provides to the 

manufacturer copies of all records of 

completed verification testing 

performed on the manufacturer’s 

equipment covered by the program. 

(13) The VICP makes available for 

DOE review, data on the results of its 

verification testing, including the 

following for each basic model on 

which the VICP has performed 

verification testing: 

(i) The measured efficiency from the 

verification testing, 

(ii) The manufacturer’s efficiency 

rating, and 

(iii) Either the applicable energy 

conservation standard or a description 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 669 

of the model sufficient to enable the 

Department to determine such standard. 

(14) The program contains provisions 

under which each participating 

manufacturer can challenge ratings 

submitted by other manufacturers, 

which it believes to be in error. 

(b) If the organization operating an 

approved VICP makes any changes in its 

program, the organization must notify 

the Department of such changes within 

30 days of their occurrence, and the 

Department may then rescind or 

continue its approval. 

■ 10. Add a new § 431.205 to subpart L 

of part 431 to read as follows: 

§ 431.205 Units to be tested. 

For each basic model of illuminated 

exit sign selected for testing, a sample 

of sufficient size shall be selected at 

random and tested to ensure that— 

(a) Any represented value of 

estimated input power demand or other 

measure of energy consumption of a 

basic model for which consumers would 

favor lower values shall be no less than 

the higher of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, or 

(2) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 1.10; 

and 

(b) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be no greater than the lower 

of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, or 

(2) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 0.90. 

(Components of similar design may be 

substituted without requiring additional 

testing if the represented measures of 

energy continue to satisfy the applicable 

sampling provision.) 

■ 11. Add a new § 431.225 to subpart M 

of part 431 to read as follows: 

§ 431.225 Units to be tested. 

For each basic model of traffic signal 

module or pedestrian module selected 

for testing, a sample of sufficient size 

shall be selected at random and tested 

to ensure that— 

(a) Any represented value of 

estimated maximum and nominal 

wattage or other measure of energy 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor lower values 

shall be no less than the higher of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, or 

(2) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 1.10; 

and 

(b) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be no greater than the lower 

of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, or 

(2) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 0.90. 

(Components of similar design may be 

substituted without requiring additional 

testing if the represented measures of 

energy continue to satisfy the applicable 

sampling provision.) 

■ 12. Add a new § 431.265 to subpart O 

of part 431 to read as follows: 

§ 431.265 Units to be tested. 

For each basic model of commercial 

prerinse spray valves selected for 

testing, a sample of sufficient size shall 

be selected at random and tested to 

ensure that– 

(a) Any represented value of 

estimated water consumption or other 

measure of water consumption of a 

basic model for which consumers would 

favor lower values shall be no less than 

the higher of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, or 

(2) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 1.10; 

and 

(b) Any represented value of the water 

efficiency or other measure of water 

consumption of a basic model for which 

consumers would favor higher values 

shall be no greater than the lower of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, or 

(2) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 0.90. 

(Components of similar design may be 

substituted without requiring additional 

testing if the represented measures of 

energy continue to satisfy the applicable 

sampling provision.) 

■ 13. Add a new § 431.295 to subpart Q 

of part 431 to read as follows: 

§ 431.295 Units to be tested. 

For each basic model of refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machine selected for testing, a sample of 

sufficient size shall be selected at 

random and tested to ensure that— 

(a) Any represented value of 

estimated energy consumption or other 

measure of energy consumption of a 

basic model for which consumers would 

favor lower values shall be no less than 

the higher of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, or 

(2) The upper 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 1.10; 

and 

(b) Any represented value of the 

energy efficiency or other measure of 

energy consumption of a basic model for 

which consumers would favor higher 

values shall be no greater than the lower 

of: 

(1) The mean of the sample, or 

(2) The lower 95 percent confidence 

limit of the true mean divided by 0.90. 

(Components of similar design may be 

substituted without requiring additional 

testing if the represented measures of 

energy continue to satisfy the applicable 

sampling provision.) 

■ 14. Add a new subpart T to part 431 

to read as follows: 

Subpart T—Certification and Enforcement 

Sec. 

431.370 Purpose and scope. 

431.371 Submission of data. 

431.372 Sampling. 

431.373 Enforcement. 

Appendix A to Subpart T of Part 431— 

Compliance Statement for Certain 

Commercial Equipment 

Appendix B to Subpart T of Part 431— 

Certification Report for Certain 

Commercial Equipment 

Appendix C to Subpart T of Part 431— 

Certification Report for Distribution 

Transformers 

Appendix D to Subpart T of Part 431— 

Enforcement for Performance Standards; 

Compliance Determination Procedure for 

Certain Commercial Equipment 

Subpart T—Certification and 

Enforcement 

§ 431.370 Purpose and scope. 

This subpart sets forth the procedures 

to be followed for manufacturer 

compliance certifications of all covered 

equipment except electric motors, and 

for the Department’s enforcement action 

to determine whether a basic model of 

covered equipment, other than electric 

motors and distribution transformers, 

complies with the applicable energy or 

water conservation standard set forth in 

this part. Energy and water conservation 

standards include minimum levels of 

efficiency and maximum levels of 

consumption (also referred to as 

performance standards), and 

prescriptive design requirements (also 

referred to as design standards). This 

subpart does not apply to electric 

motors. 

§ 431.371 Submission of data. 

(a) Certification. (1) Except as 

provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section, each manufacturer or private 

labeler before distributing into the 

stream of commerce any basic model of 

covered equipment covered by this 

subpart and subject to an energy or 

water conservation standard set forth in 

this part, shall certify by means of a 

compliance statement and a certification 

report that each basic model meets the 

applicable energy or water conservation 

standard. Except as provided in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section, each 

manufacturer or private labeler shall file 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
670 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

a compliance statement and its first 

certification report with the Department 

on or before (180 days after the 

Department of Energy publishes a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing OMB approval of the 

information collection requirements in 

§ 431.371). The compliance statement, 

signed by the company official 

submitting the statement, and the 

certification report(s) shall be sent by 

certified mail to: U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Mailstop EE–2J, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121, or e-mailed to the Department at: 

certification.report@ee.doe.gov. 

(2) Each manufacturer or private 

labeler of a basic model of commercial 

clothes washer, distribution 

transformer, traffic signal module, 

pedestrian module, and commercial 

prerinse spray valve shall file a 

compliance statement and its first 

certification report with the Department 

on or before (180 days after the 

Department of Energy publishes a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing OMB approval of the 

information collection requirements in 

§ 431.371). 

(3) Amendment of information. If 

information in a compliance statement 

or certification report previously 

submitted to the Department under this 

section is found to be incorrect, each 

manufacturer or private labeler (or an 

authorized representative) must submit 

the corrected information to the 

Department at the address and in the 

manner described in this section. 

(4) Notices designating a change of 

third-party representative must be sent 

to the Department at the address and in 

the manner described in this section. 

(5) The compliance statement, which 

each manufacturer or private labeler 

need not submit more than once unless 

the information on the report changes, 

shall include all information specified 

in the format set forth in appendix A of 

this subpart and shall certify, with 

respect to each basic model currently 

produced by the manufacturer and new 

basic models it introduces in the future, 

that: 

(i) Each basic model complies and 

will comply with the applicable energy 

or water conservation standard; 

(ii) All representations as to efficiency 

in the manufacturer’s certification 

report(s) are and will be based on testing 

and/or use of an AEDM in accordance 

with 10 CFR Part 431; 

(iii) All information reported in the 

certification report(s) is and will be true, 

accurate, and complete; and 

(iv) The manufacturer or private 

labeler is aware of the penalties 

associated with violations of the Act, 

the regulations thereunder, and 18 

U.S.C. 1001, which prohibits knowingly 

making false statements to the Federal 

Government. 

(6) Each manufacturer must submit to 

the Department a certification report for 

all of its basic models. 

(i) For covered equipment that are 

subject to standards other than 

distribution transformers and electric 

motors, the certification report (for 

which a suggested format is set forth in 

appendix B of this subpart) shall 

include for each basic model the 

product type, product class, 

manufacturer’s name, private labeler’s 

name(s) (if applicable), and the 

manufacturer’s model number(s), and: 

(A) The thermal efficiency as a 

percentage and the maximum rated 

capacity (rated maximum input) in 

Btu/h of commercial warm air furnaces; 

(B) The combustion efficiency as a 

percentage and the capacity (rated 

maximum input) in Btu/h of 

commercial package boilers; 

(C) The seasonal energy efficiency 

ratio and the cooling capacity in Btu/h 

of small commercial, air cooled, threephase, packaged air conditioners less 

than 65,000 Btu/h; 

(D) The energy efficiency ratio and the 

cooling capacity in Btu/h of small 

commercial water-cooled and 

evaporatively cooled packaged air 

conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h; 

(E) The energy efficiency ratio and the 

cooling capacity in Btu/h of large and 

very large commercial air cooled, watercooled, and evaporatively cooled 

packaged air conditioners; 

(F) The energy efficiency ratio and the 

cooling capacity in Btu/h of packaged 

terminal air conditioners; 

(G) The seasonal energy efficiency 

ratio, the heating seasonal performance 

factor and the cooling capacity in 

Btu/h of small commercial air cooled, 

three-phase packaged air conditioning 

heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h; 

(H) The energy efficiency ratio, the 

coefficient of performance and the 

cooling capacity in Btu/h of small 

commercial water-source packaged air 

conditioning heat pumps; 

(I) The energy efficiency ratio, the 

coefficient of performance and the 

cooling capacity in Btu/h of large and 

very large air cooled commercial 

package air conditioning heat pumps; 

(J) The energy efficiency ratio, 

coefficient of performance and the 

cooling capacity in Btu/h of packaged 

terminal heat pumps; 

(K) The maximum standby loss in 

percent per hour of electric storage 

water heaters; 

(L) The minimum thermal efficiency 

in percent, the maximum standby loss 

in Btu/h, and the size (input capacity) 

in Btu/h of gas- and oil-fired storage 

water heaters; 

(M) The minimum thermal efficiency 

in percent, maximum standby loss in 

Btu/h, and the size (storage capacity) in 

gallons of gas- and oil-fired 

instantaneous water heaters and gasand oil-fired hot water supply boilers 

greater than or equal to 10 gallons; 

(N) The minimum thermal efficiency 

in percent and the size (storage 

capacity) in gallons of gas- and oil-fired 

instantaneous water heaters and gasand oil-fired hot water supply boilers 

less than 10 gallons; 

(O) The minimum thermal insulation 

and the storage capacity of unfired hot 

water storage tanks; 

(P) The maximum daily energy 

consumption in kilowatt hours per day 

and volume in cubic feet of refrigerators 

with solid doors, refrigerators with 

transparent doors, freezers with solid 

doors, and freezers with transparent 

doors; 

(Q) The maximum daily energy 

consumption in kilowatt hours per day 

and adjusted volume in cubic feet of 

refrigerator-freezers with solid doors; 

(R) The equipment type, type of 

cooling, maximum energy use in 

kilowatt hours per 100 pounds of ice, 

maximum condenser water use in 

gallons per 100 pounds of ice, and 

harvest rate in pounds of ice per 24 

hours of commercial ice makers; 

(S) The modified energy factor and 

water consumption factor of commercial 

clothes washers; 

(T) The input power demand in watts 

of illuminated exit signs; 

(U) The nominal and maximum 

wattage in watts and signal type of 

traffic signal modules and pedestrian 

modules; and 

(V) The flow rate in gallons per 

minute of commercial prerinse spray 

valves. 

(ii) For the least efficient basic model 

of distribution transformer within each 

‘‘kilovolt ampere (kVA) grouping’’ for 

which this part prescribes an efficiency 

standard, the certification report (for 

which a suggested format is set forth in 

appendix C of this subpart shall include 

the kVA rating, the insulation type (i.e., 

low-voltage dry-type, medium-voltage 

dry-type or liquid-immersed), the 

number of phases (i.e., single-phase or 

three-phase), the basic impulse 

insulation level (BIL) group rating (for 

medium-voltage dry-types), the model 

number(s), the efficiency, and the 

method used to determine the efficiency 

(i.e., actual testing or an AEDM). As 

used in this section, a ‘‘kVA grouping’’ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 671 

is a group of basic models which all 

have the same kVA rating, have the 

same insulation type (i.e., low-voltage 

dry-type, medium-voltage dry-type or 

liquid-immersed), have the same 

number of phases (i.e., single-phase or 

three-phase), and, for medium-voltage 

dry-types, have the same BIL group 

rating (i.e., 20–45 kV BIL, 46–95 kV BIL 

or greater than 96 kV BIL). 

(7) Copies of reports to the Federal 

Trade Commission that include the 

information specified in paragraph (a)(6) 

of this section could serve in lieu of the 

certification report. 

(b) Model Modifications. Any change 

to a basic model that affects energy or 

water consumption (in the case of 

prerinse spray valves) constitutes the 

addition of a new basic model. If such 

a change reduces consumption, the new 

model shall be considered in 

compliance with the standard without 

any additional testing. If, however, such 

a change increases consumption while 

meeting the standard, then 

(1) For distribution transformers, the 

manufacturer must submit all 

information required by paragraph 

(a)(6)(ii) of this section for the new basic 

model, unless the manufacturer has 

previously submitted to the Department 

a certification report for a basic model 

of distribution transformer that is in the 

same kVA grouping as the new basic 

model, and that has a lower efficiency 

than the new basic model; 

(2) For other equipment, the 

manufacturer must submit all 

information required by paragraph (a)(6) 

of this section for the new basic model; 

and 

(3) Any such submission shall be by 

certified mail, to: Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Forrestal 

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, or 

e-mailed to the Department at: 

certification.report@ee.doe.gov. 

(c) Discontinued model. For 

equipment other than distribution 

transformers, when production of a 

basic model has ceased and is no longer 

being distributed, the manufacturer 

shall report this, by certified mail, to: 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, or 

e-mailed to the Department at: 

certification.report@ee.doe.gov. For each 

basic model, the report shall include: 

equipment type, equipment class, the 

manufacturer’s name, the private 

labeler’s name(s), if applicable, and the 

manufacturer’s model number. If the 

reporting of discontinued models 

coincides with the submittal of a 

certification report, such information 

can be included in the certification 

report. 

(d) Third-party representation. A 

manufacturer or private labeler may 

elect to use a third party (such as a trade 

association or other authorized 

representative) to submit the 

certification report to the Department. 

Such certification reports shall include 

all the information specified in 

paragraph (a)(6) of this section. Third 

parties submitting certification reports 

shall include the names of the 

manufacturers or private labelers who 

authorized the submittal of the 

certification reports to the Department 

on their behalf. The third-party 

representative also may submit 

discontinued model information on 

behalf of an authorizing manufacturer. 

§ 431.372 Sampling. 

For purposes of a certification of 

compliance, the determination that a 

basic model complies with the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

or water conservation standard shall be 

based upon the testing and sampling 

procedures, and other applicable rating 

procedures set forth in this part. For 

purposes of a certification of 

compliance, the determination that a 

basic model complies with the 

applicable design standard shall be 

based on the incorporation of specific 

design requirements specified in this 

part. 

§ 431.373 Enforcement. 

For covered equipment other than 

electric motors, this section sets forth 

procedures the Department will follow 

in pursuing alleged non-compliance 

with an applicable energy or water 

conservation standard. Paragraph (c) of 

this section applies to all such covered 

equipment, paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) 

of this section apply to all such 

equipment except for distribution 

transformers and commercial heating, 

ventilating, and air conditioning 

equipment and commercial water 

heating equipment. 

(a) Performance standards—(1) Test 

notice. Upon receiving information in 

writing concerning the energy 

performance or water performance (in 

the case of commercial prerinse spray 

valves) of a particular covered 

equipment sold by a particular 

manufacturer or private labeler, which 

indicates that the covered equipment 

may not be in compliance with the 

applicable energy- or water-performance 

standard, the Secretary may conduct a 

review of the test records. The Secretary 

may then conduct enforcement testing 

of that equipment by means of a test 

notice addressed to the manufacturer or 

private labeler in accordance with the 

following requirements: 

(i) The test notice procedure will only 

be followed after the Secretary or his/ 

her designated representative has 

examined the underlying test data (or, 

where appropriate, data about the use of 

an alternative efficiency determination 

method (AEDM)) provided by the 

manufacturer, and after the 

manufacturer has been offered the 

opportunity to meet with the 

Department to verify compliance with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standard or water conservation 

standard. When compliance of a basic 

model was certified based on an AEDM, 

the Department has the discretion to 

pursue other steps provided under this 

part for verifying the AEDM before 

invoking the test notice procedure. A 

representative designated by the 

Secretary must be permitted to observe 

any reverification procedures 

undertaken according to this subpart, 

and to inspect the results of such 

reverification. 

(ii) The test notice will be signed by 

the Secretary or his/her designee and 

will be mailed or delivered by the 

Department to the plant manager or 

other responsible official designated by 

the manufacturer. 

(iii) The test notice will specify the 

model or basic model to be selected for 

testing, the number of units to be tested, 

the method for selecting these units, the 

date and time at which testing is to 

begin, the date when testing is 

scheduled to be completed, and the 

facility at which testing will be 

conducted. The test notice may also 

provide for situations in which the 

selected basic model is unavailable for 

testing, and it may include alternative 

basic models. For equipment that this 

part allows to be rated by use of an 

AEDM, the specified basic model may 

be one that the manufacturer has rated 

by actual testing or that it has rated by 

the use of an AEDM. 

(iv) The Secretary may require in the 

test notice that the manufacturer of a 

covered equipment shall ship at his 

expense a reasonable number of units of 

each basic model specified in the test 

notice to a testing laboratory designated 

by the Secretary. The number of units of 

a basic model specified in a test notice 

shall not exceed 20. 

(v) Within five working days of the 

time the units are selected, the 

manufacturer must ship the specified 

test units of a basic model to the 

designated testing laboratory. 

(2) Testing laboratory. Whenever the 

Department conducts enforcement 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
672 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

testing at a designated laboratory in 

accordance with a test notice under this 

section, the resulting test data shall 

constitute official test data for that basic 

model. The Department will use such 

test data to make a determination of 

compliance or noncompliance. 

(3) Sampling. The Secretary will base 

the determination of whether a 

manufacturer’s basic model complies 

with the applicable energy- or waterperformance standard on testing 

conducted in accordance with the 

applicable test procedures specified in 

this part, and with the following 

statistical sampling procedures: 

(i) For commercial prerinse spray 

valves, illuminated exit signs, traffic 

signal modules and pedestrian modules, 

refrigerated bottled or canned vending 

machines, and commercial clothes 

washers, the methods are described in 

appendix B to subpart F of part 430 

(Sampling Plan for Enforcement 

Testing). 

(ii) For automatic commercial ice 

makers, as well as commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorsfreezers, the methods are described in 

appendix C to subpart T of part 431 and 

include the following provisions: 

(A) Except as required or provided in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(ii)(B) and (a)(3)(ii)(C) 

of this section, initially, the Department 

will test two units. 

(B) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(3)(ii)(C) of this section, if fewer than 

two units of basic model are available 

for testing when the manufacturer 

receives the test notice, then: 

(1) If only one unit of a basic model 

is available for testing, the Department 

will test that unit, and will base the 

compliance determination on the results 

for that unit in a manner otherwise in 

accordance with this section. Available 

units are those, which are available for 

commercial distribution within the 

United States. 

(2) If a basic model is very large or has 

unusual testing requirements, the 

Department may decide to base the 

determination of compliance on the 

testing of one unit, if the manufacturer 

so requests and provides sufficient 

justification for the request. 

(i) The available unit(s) and one or 

more of the other units that 

subsequently become available (up to a 

maximum of four); or 

(ii) Up to four of the other units that 

subsequently become available. 

(C) Notwithstanding paragraphs 

(a)(3)(ii)(A) and (a)(3)(ii)(B) of this 

section, if testing of the available or 

subsequently available units of a basic 

model would be impractical, as for 

example when a basic model is very 

large, has unusual testing requirements, 

or has limited production, the 

Department may in its discretion decide 

to base the determination of compliance 

on the testing of fewer than the available 

number of units, if the manufacturer so 

requests and demonstrates that the 

criteria of this paragraph are met. 

(iii) For commercial HVAC and WH 

products, the methods are described in 

appendix C to subpart T of part 431 and 

include the following provisions: 

(A) Except as required or provided in 

paragraphs (a)(3)(iii)(B) and (a)(3)(iii)(C) 

of this section, initially, the Department 

will test two units. 

(B) Except as provided in paragraph 

(a)(3)(iii)(C) of this section, if fewer than 

two units of basic model are available 

for testing when the manufacturer 

receives the test notice, then: 

(1) The Department will test the 

available unit(s); or 

(2) If one or more other units of the 

basic model are expected to become 

available within six months, the 

Department may instead at its 

discretion, test either: 

(i) The available unit(s) and one or 

more of the other units that 

subsequently become available (up to a 

maximum of four); or 

(ii) Up to four of the other units that 

subsequently become available. 

(C) Notwithstanding paragraphs 

(a)(3)(iii)(A) and (a)(3)(iii)(B) of this 

section, if testing of the available or 

subsequently available units of a basic 

model would be impractical, as for 

example when a basic model is very 

large, has unusual testing requirements, 

or has limited production, the 

Department may in its discretion decide 

to base the determination of compliance 

on the testing of fewer than the available 

number of units, if the manufacturer so 

requests and demonstrates that the 

criteria of this paragraph are met. 

(iv) For the purposes of paragraphs 

(a)(3)(ii)(A) through (a)(3)(ii)(C) and 

(a)(3)(iii)(A) through (a)(3)(iii)(C) of this 

section, when it tests three or fewer 

units, the Department will base the 

compliance determination on the results 

of such testing in a manner otherwise in 

accordance with this section. 

(v) For the purposes of paragraphs 

(a)(3)(ii)(A) through (a)(3)(ii)(C) and 

(a)(3)(iii)(A) through (a)(3)(iii)(C) of this 

section, available units are those that are 

available for commercial distribution 

within the United States. 

(4) Test unit selection. (i) For 

commercial prerinse spray valves, 

illuminated exit signs, traffic signal 

modules and pedestrian modules, 

refrigerated bottled or canned vending 

machines, and commercial clothes 

washers, the following applies: 

(A) The Department shall select a 

batch, a batch sample, and test units 

from the batch sample in accordance 

with the following provisions of this 

paragraph and the conditions specified 

in the test notice. 

(B) The batch may be subdivided by 

the Department using criteria specified 

in the test notice. 

(C) The Department will then 

randomly select a batch sample of up to 

20 units from one or more subdivided 

groups within the batch. The 

manufacturer shall keep on hand all 

units in the batch sample until the basic 

model is determined to be in 

compliance or non-compliance. 

(D) The Department will randomly 

select individual test units comprising 

the test sample from the batch sample. 

(E) All random selection shall be 

achieved by sequentially numbering all 

of the units in a batch sample and then 

using a table of random numbers to 

select the units to be tested. 

(ii) For automatic commercial ice 

makers, as well as commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers, the following applies: 

(A) The Department will select a 

batch from all available units, and a test 

sample (i.e., the units to be tested) from 

the batch, in accordance with the 

provisions of this paragraph and the 

conditions specified in the test notice. 

(B) The Department may select the 

batch by utilizing the criteria specified 

in the test notice (date of manufacture, 

component-supplier, location of 

manufacturing facility, or other criteria) 

which may differentiate one unit from 

another within a basic model. 

(C) The Department will randomly 

select individual units to be tested, 

comprising the test sample, from the 

batch. The Department will achieve 

random selection by sequentially 

numbering all of the units in a batch 

and then using a table of random 

numbers to select the units to be tested. 

The manufacturer must keep on hand 

all units in the batch until such time as 

the inspector determines that the unit(s) 

selected for testing is (are) operative. 

Thereafter, once a manufacturer 

distributes or otherwise disposes of any 

unit in the batch, it may no longer claim 

under paragraph (a)(5)(iii) of this section 

that a unit selected for testing is 

defective due to a manufacturing defect 

or failure to operate in accordance with 

its design and operating instructions. 

(5) Test unit preparation. (i) Before 

and during the testing, a test unit 

selected in accordance with paragraph 

(a)(4) of this section shall not be 

prepared, modified, or adjusted in any 

manner unless such preparation, 

modification, or adjustment is allowed 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 673 

by the applicable Department test 

procedure. The Department will test 

each unit in accordance with the 

applicable test procedures. 

(ii) No one may perform any quality 

control, testing, or assembly procedures 

on a test unit, or any parts and 

subassemblies thereof, that is not 

performed during the production and 

assembly of all other units included in 

the basic model. 

(iii) A test unit shall be considered 

defective if it is inoperative. A test unit 

is also defective if it is found to be in 

noncompliance due to a manufacturing 

defect or due to failure of the unit to 

operate according to the manufacturer’s 

design and operating instructions, and 

the manufacturer demonstrates by 

statistically valid means that, with 

respect to such defect or failure, the unit 

is not representative of the population 

of production units from which it is 

obtained. Defective units, including 

those damaged due to shipping or 

handling, must be reported immediately 

to the Department. The Department will 

authorize testing of an additional unit 

on a case-by-case basis. 

(6) Testing at manufacturer’s option. 

(i) If the Department determines a basic 

model to be in noncompliance with the 

applicable energy performance standard 

or water performance standard at the 

conclusion of its initial enforcement 

sampling plan testing, the manufacturer 

may request that the Department 

conduct additional testing of the basic 

model. Additional testing under this 

paragraph must be in accordance with 

the applicable test procedure, and: 

(A) For commercial prerinse spray 

valves, illuminated exit signs, traffic 

signal modules and pedestrian modules, 

refrigerated bottled or canned vending 

machines, and commercial clothes 

washers, the applicable provisions in 

appendix B to subpart F of part 430; 

(B) For automatic commercial ice 

makers, as well as commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers, the applicable provisions in 

appendix C of this subpart, and limited 

to a maximum of six additional units of 

basic model. 

(ii) All units tested under this 

paragraph shall be selected and tested in 

accordance with paragraphs (a)(1)(v), 

(a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(5) of this section. 

(iii) The manufacturer shall bear the 

cost of all testing under this paragraph. 

(iv) The Department will advise the 

manufacturer of the method for 

selecting the additional units for testing, 

the date and time at which testing is to 

begin, the date by which testing is 

scheduled to be completed, and the 

facility at which the testing will occur. 

(v) The manufacturer shall cease 

distribution of the basic model tested 

under the provisions of this paragraph 

from the time the manufacturer elects to 

exercise the option provided in this 

paragraph until the basic model is 

determined to be in compliance. The 

Department may seek civil penalties for 

all units distributed during such period. 

(vi) If the additional testing results in 

a determination of compliance, the 

Department will issue a notice of 

allowance to resume distribution. 

(b) Design standard. In the case of a 

design standard, the Department can 

determine that a model is noncompliant 

after the Department has examined the 

underlying design information from the 

manufacturer and has offered the 

manufacturer the opportunity to verify 

compliance with the applicable design 

standard. 

(c) Cessation of distribution of a basic 

model of commercial equipment other 

than electric motors. (1) In the event the 

Department determines, in accordance 

with enforcement provisions set forth in 

this subpart, a model of covered 

equipment is noncompliant, or if a 

manufacturer or private labeler 

determines one of its models to be in 

noncompliance, the manufacturer or 

private labeler shall: 

(i) Immediately cease distribution in 

commerce of all units of the basic model 

in question; 

(ii) Give immediate written 

notification of the determination of 

noncompliance to all persons to whom 

the manufacturer has distributed units 

of the basic model manufactured since 

the date of the last determination of 

compliance; and 

(iii) If requested by the Secretary, 

provide the Department within 30 days 

of the request, records, reports and other 

documentation pertaining to the 

acquisition, ordering, storage, shipment, 

or sale of a basic model determined to 

be in noncompliance. 

(2) The manufacturer may modify the 

noncompliant basic model in such 

manner as to make it comply with the 

applicable performance standard. The 

manufacturer or private labeler must 

treat such a modified basic model as a 

new basic model and certify it in 

accordance with the provisions of this 

subpart. In addition to satisfying all 

requirements of this subpart, the 

manufacturer must also maintain 

records that demonstrate that 

modifications have been made to all 

units of the new basic model before its 

distribution in commerce. 

(3) If a manufacturer or private labeler 

has a basic model that is not properly 

certified in accordance with the 

requirements of this subpart, the 

Secretary may seek, among other 

remedies, injunctive action to prohibit 

distribution in commerce of the basic 

model. 

Appendix A to Subpart T of Part 431— 

Compliance Statement for Certain 

Commercial Equipment 

Equipment Type: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Manufacturer’s or Private Labeler’s Name and 

Address: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

[Company name] (‘‘the company’’) submits 

this Compliance Statement under 10 CFR 

Part 431 (Energy Efficiency Program for 

Certain Commercial and Industrial 

Equipment) and Part C of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94–163), and 

amendments thereto. I am signing this on 

behalf of and as a responsible official of the 

company. All basic models of commercial or 

industrial equipment subject to energy 

conservation standards specified in 10 CFR 

part 431 that this company manufacturers 

comply with the applicable energy or water 

conservation standard(s). We have complied 

with the applicable testing requirements 

(prescribed in 10 CFR part 431) in making 

this determination, and in determining the 

energy efficiency, energy use, or water use 

that is set forth in any accompanying 

Certification Report. All information in such 

Certification Report(s) and in this 

Compliance Statement is true, accurate, and 

complete. The company pledges that all this 

information in any future Compliance 

Statement(s) and Certification Report(s) will 

meet these standards, and that the company 

will comply with the energy conservation 

requirements in 10 CFR part 431 with regard 

to any new basic model it distributes in the 

future. The company is aware of the penalties 

associated with violations of the Act and the 

regulations there under, and is also aware of 

the provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. 1001, 

which prohibits knowingly making false 

statements to the Federal Government. 

Name of Company Official: llllllll

Signature of Company Official: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Firm or Organization: llllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Name of Person to Contact for Further Information: lllllllllllllllll

Address: llllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Telephone Number: lllllllllll

Facsimile Number: llllllllllll

Third-Party Representation (if applicable) 

For a certification report prepared and 

submitted by a third-party organization 

under the provisions of 10 CFR part 431, the 

company official who authorized said thirdparty representation is: 

Name: lllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Address: llllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Telephone Number: lllllllllll

Facsimile Number: llllllllllll


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
674 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1Provide specific equipment information for each 

basic model required in 431.371(a)(6)(i), including 

the product class and manufacturer’s model 

number(s). 

2Provide manufacturer’s model number(s). 

The third-party organization authorized to 

act as representative: 

Third-Party Organization: llllllll

Address: llllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Telephone Number: lllllllllll

Facsimile Number: llllllllllll

The Compliance Statement needs to be 

resubmitted if information on the form 

changes. 

Appendix B to Subpart T of Part 431— 

Certification Report for Certain 

Commercial Equipment 

All information reported in this 

Certification Report(s) is true, accurate, and 

complete. The company is aware of the 

penalties associated with violations of the 

Act, the regulations hereunder, and is also 

aware of the provisions contained in 18 

U.S.C. 1001, which prohibits knowingly 

making false statements to the Federal 

Government. 

Name of Company Official or Third-Party 

Representative: lllllllllllll

Signature of Company Official or Third-Party 

Representative: 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Equipment Type: llllllllllll

Manufacturer: llllllllllllll

Private Labeler (if applicable): llllll

Name of Person to Contact for Further Information: lllllllllllllllll

Address: llllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Telephone Number: lllllllllll

Facsimile Number: llllllllllll

For Existing, New, or Modified Models: 1

For Discontinued Models: 2

Submit by Certified Mail to: U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Submit by E-mail to: 

certification.report@ee.doe.gov. 

Appendix C to Subpart T of Part 431— 

Certification Report for Distribution 

Transformers 

All information reported in this 

Certification Report(s) is true, accurate, and 

complete. The company is aware of the 

penalties associated with violations of the 

Act, the regulations thereunder, and is also 

aware of the provisions contained in 18 

U.S.C. 1001, which prohibits knowingly 

making false statements to the Federal 

Government. 

Name of Company Official or Third-Party 

Representative: lllllllllllll

Signature of Company Official or Third-Party 

Representative: lllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Title: llllllllllllllllll

Date: llllllllllllllllll

Equipment Type: llllllllllll

Manufacturer: llllllllllllll

Private Labeler (if applicable): llllll

Name of Person to Contact for Further Information: lllllllllllllllll

Address: llllllllllllllll

lllllllllllllllllllll

Telephone Number: lllllllllll

Facsimile Number: llllllllllll

For Existing, New, or Modified Models: 1

Prepare tables that will list distribution 

transformer efficiencies. Each table should 

have a heading that provides the name of the 

manufacturer, as well as the type of 

transformer (i.e., low-voltage dry-type, 

liquid-immersed, or medium-voltage drytype) and the number of phases for the 

transformers reported in that table. Each table 

should also have five columns, labeled ‘‘kVA 

rating,’’ ‘‘BIL rating’’ for medium-voltage 

units, ‘‘Least efficient basic model (model 

number(s)),’’ ‘‘Efficiency (%)’’ and ‘‘Test 

Method Used.’’ Each table should have one 

row for each of the kVA groups that are 

produced by the manufacturer and that are 

subject to minimum efficiency standards. In 

the ‘‘Test Method Used’’ column, the 

manufacturer should report whether the 

efficiency of the reported least efficient basic 

model in that kVA grouping was determined 

by testing or through the application of an 

alternative efficiency determination method. 

Submit by Certified Mail to: U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J), 

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Submit by E-mail to: 

certification.report@ee.doe.gov. 

Appendix D to Subpart T of Part 431— 

Enforcement for Performance 

Standards; Compliance Determination 

Procedure for Certain Commercial 

Equipment 

The Department will determine 

compliance as follows: 

(a) The first sample size (n1) must be four 

or more units, except as provided by 

§ 431.373(a)(3). 

(b) Compute the mean of the measured 

energy performance (x1) for all tests as 

follows: 

x

n

xi

i

n

1

1 1

1 1

= ⎛

⎝

⎜

⎜

⎞

⎠

⎟

⎟ =

∑ [1]

where xi is the measured energy efficiency or 

consumption from test i, and n1 is the 

total number of tests. 

(c) Compute the standard deviation (s1) of 

the measured energy performance from the n1

tests as follows: 

s

x x

n

i

i

n

1

1

2

1

1

1

1 =

( ) −

−

=

∑

[2]

(d) Compute the standard error (sx1) of the 

measured energy performance from the n1

tests as follows: 

s

s

n x1

1

1

= [3]

(e)(1) For an energy efficiency standard, 

compute the lower control limit (LCL1) 

according to: 

LCL EPS ts 1 x1 = − [4a]

or 

LCL EPS 1= 95 0. , (whichever is greater). [4b]

(2) For an energy use standard, compute 

the upper control limit (UCL1) according to: 

UCL EPS +ts 1 x1 = [5a] or 

UCL EPS 1=1 05 . , (whichever is less), [5b]

where EPS is the energy performance 

standard and t is a statistic based on a 

97.5 percent, one-sided confidence limit 

and a sample size of n1. 

(f)(1) Compare the sample mean to the 

control limit. The basic model is in 

compliance and testing is at an end if, for an 

energy efficiency standard, the sample mean 

is equal to or greater than the lower control 

limit or, for an energy consumption standard, 

the sample mean is equal to or less than the 

upper control limit. If, for an energy 

efficiency standard, the sample mean is less 

than the lower control limit or, for an energy 


ER05JA10.005</MATH> ER05JA10.006</MATH> ER05JA10.007</MATH> ER05JA10.008</MATH> ER05JA10.009</MATH> ER05JA10.010</MATH> ER05JA10.011</MATH>srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 675 

consumption standard, the sample mean is 

greater than the upper control limit, 

compliance has not been demonstrated. 

Unless the manufacturer requests 

manufacturer-option testing and provides the 

additional units for such testing, the basic 

model is in noncompliance and the testing is 

at an end. 

(2) If the manufacturer does request 

additional testing, and provides the 

necessary additional units, the Department 

will test each unit the same number of times 

it tested previous units. The Department will 

then compute a combined sample mean, 

standard deviation, and standard error as 

described above. (The ‘‘combined sample’’ 

refers to the units the Department initially 

tested plus the additional units the 

Department has tested at the manufacturer’s 

request.) The Department will determine 

compliance or noncompliance from the mean 

and the new lower or upper control limit of 

the combined sample. If, for an energy 

efficiency standard, the combined sample 

mean is equal to or greater than the new 

lower control limit or, for an energy 

consumption standard, the sample mean is 

equal to or less than the upper control limit, 

the basic model is in compliance, and testing 

is at an end. If the combined sample mean 

does not satisfy one of these two conditions, 

the basic model is in noncompliance and the 

testing is at an end. 

■ 15. Section 431.403 is amended by 

removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the end of 

paragraph (a)(2); removing the period at 

the end of paragraph (a)(3) and adding 

a semicolon in its place; and adding 

new paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(5) to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.403 Maintenance of records. 

(a) * * * 

(4) For commercial HVAC and WH 

products, the test data for all testing 

conducted pursuant to 10 CFR part 431, 

including any testing conducted by a 

VICP; and 

(5) For commercial HVAC and WH 

products, the development, 

substantiation, application, and 

subsequent verification of any AEDM. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Section 431.408 is added to 

subpart V to read as follows: 

§ 431.408 Preemption of State regulations 

for covered equipment other than electric 

motors and commercial heating, ventilating, 

air-conditioning and water heating 

products. 

This section concerns State 

regulations providing for any energy 

conservation standard, or water 

conservation standard (in the case of 

commercial prerinse spray valves or 

commercial clothes washers), or other 

requirement with respect to the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or water use (in 

the case of commercial prerinse spray 

valves or commercial clothes washers), 

for any covered equipment other than 

an electric motor or commercial HVAC 

and WH product. Any such regulation 

that contains a standard or requirement 

that is not identical to a Federal 

standard in effect under this subpart is 

preempted by that standard, except as 

provided for in sections 327(b) and (c) 

and 345(e), (f) and (g) of the Act. 

[FR Doc. E9–30887 Filed 1–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4