```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38287-38293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16143]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 38287]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 429

[Docket Number: EERE-2010-BT-CE-0014]
RIN 1904-AC23

Energy Conservation Program: Certification, Compliance, and 
Enforcement for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial 
Equipment

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the ``Department'') is 
adopting amendments to the compliance dates for manufacturers to submit 
certification reports for the certification provisions for commercial 
refrigeration equipment; commercial heating, ventilating, air-
conditioning (HVAC) equipment; commercial water heating (WH) equipment; 
and automatic commercial ice makers, which are covered under the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (EPCA or the ``Act''). 
Manufacturers of these products will be required to submit 
certification reports no later than December 31, 2012.

DATES: This rule is effective July 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: This rulemaking can be identified by docket number EERE-
2010-BT-CE-0014 and/or RIN number 1904-AC23.
    Docket: The docket is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, public 
meetings attendee lists, transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in 
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt 
from public disclosure.
    For further information on how to review public comments or view 
hard copies of the docket in the Resource Room, contact Ms. Brenda 
Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or e-mail: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. E-mail: Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov; and Ms. Celia Sher, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal 
Building, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. 
Telephone: (202) 287-6122. E-mail: Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Authority

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as 
amended (``EPCA'' or ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of provisions 
designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 
6291-6309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. The National Energy Conservation 
Policy Act (NECPA), Public Law 95-619, amended EPCA to add Part A-1 of 
Title III, which established an energy conservation program for certain 
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 6299-6305, and 6316 of EPCA authorize DOE to enforce 
compliance with the energy and water conservation standards (all non-
product specific references herein referring to energy use and 
consumption include water use and consumption; all references to energy 
efficiency include water efficiency) established for certain consumer 
products and commercial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6299-6305 (consumer 
products), 6316 (commercial equipment)) DOE has promulgated enforcement 
regulations that include specific certification and compliance 
requirements. See 10 CFR part 429; 10 CFR part 431, subparts B, U, and 
V.

B. Background

    On March 7, 2011, DOE published a final rule in the Federal 
Register that, among other things, modified the requirements regarding 
manufacturer submission of compliance statements and certification 
reports to DOE (March 2011 final rule). 76 FR 12421. This rule was 
largely procedural in nature; it did not amend pre-existing sampling 
provisions, test procedures, or conservation standard levels for any 
covered products or equipment. It did, however, impose new or revised 
reporting requirements for some types of covered products and 
equipment, including a requirement that manufacturers submit annual 
reports to the Department certifying compliance of their basic models 
with applicable standards. Finally, the Department emphasized that 
manufacturers could use their discretion in grouping individual models 
as a ``basic model'' such that the certified rating for the basic model 
matched the represented rating for all included models. See 76 FR 
12428-12429 for more information. This reflected a basic requirement of 
the Department's longstanding self-certification compliance regime--
that efficiency certifications and representations must be supported by 
either testing or an approved alternative method of estimating 
efficiency.
    Since the publication of the March 2011 final rule, certain 
manufacturers of particular types of commercial and industrial 
equipment have stated that they would be unable to meet the July 5th 
deadline for complying with the certification requirements. In 
particular, manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment; 
commercial HVAC equipment; commercial WH equipment; walk-in coolers; 
walk-in freezers; and automatic commercial ice makers (as defined in 10 
CFR part 431) contend that certifying supported basic model ratings 
under the revised provisions would require a cost-prohibitive amount of 
additional testing and take far longer than the time allowed. Some 
commercial manufacturers also expressed concern over DOE's regulations 
for alternative efficiency determination methods (AEDMs), which are 
intended to reduce testing burdens by allowing

[[Page 38288]]

manufacturers to use computer simulations, mathematical models, and 
other alternative methods to determine the amount of energy used or 
efficiency by a particular basic model. These manufacturers suggested 
that the AEDM provisions are too restrictive, overly burdensome, and 
unavailable for some products that would benefit from them and, as a 
result, do not permit the viable alternative to testing intended by the 
Department.
    The Department responded in part to these concerns by taking two 
immediate steps. On April 8, 2011, DOE issued a request for information 
(RFI) (available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/arm_aedms_rfi.pdf) seeking comment on, among other 
things, the use of such alternative methods for determining the 
efficiency of commercial and industrial equipment. 76 FR 21673 (April 
18, 2011). As the RFI explained, the Department intends to use this 
information to propose revisions and expansions, as necessary, to the 
existing AEDM provisions in a future rulemaking. The Department expects 
that addressing manufacturers' concerns with the AEDM provisions may 
alleviate some of industry's estimated burden of complying with DOE's 
existing testing regulations and allow the development of the data 
necessary to file the certifications and compliance reports as required 
by the March 2011 final rule.
    Given the testing burdens reported by certain commercial 
manufacturers and the Department's recent RFI on alternative ways to 
estimate efficiency in lieu of testing, on April 19, 2011, DOE 
published in the Federal Register, a notice of proposed rulemaking 
regarding the compliance date for certification of certain commercial 
and industrial equipment (April 2011 NOPR). 76 FR 21813. In the April 
2011 NOPR, DOE proposed an 18-month extension to the compliance date 
for the certification provisions for commercial refrigeration 
equipment; commercial HVAC equipment; commercial WH equipment; walk-in 
coolers; walk-in freezers; and automatic commercial ice makers. In the 
April 2011 NOPR, the Department sought comment on whether a limited 
reporting requirement should be required of manufacturers of these 
types of commercial equipment during an interim 18-month period. 
Additionally, the Department noted it was considering extending the 
compliance date for the certification provisions for other commercial 
equipment based on comments from interested parties. Id.

II. Discussion of Comments

    The Department received comments on the April 2011 NOPR from a 
number of interested commenters, including various manufacturers, trade 
associations, and advocacy groups. The comments and DOE's responses to 
them are generally discussed below.

A. Extension of Certification Deadline for Commercial Refrigeration 
Equipment; HVAC Equipment; Commercial WH Equipment; and Automatic 
Commercial Ice Makers

    As stated above, DOE proposed a tentative 18-month extension to the 
compliance date for filing complete certification reports for 
manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment; commercial HVAC 
equipment; commercial WH equipment; walk-in coolers; walk-in freezers; 
and automatic commercial ice makers in the April 2011 NOPR. 76 FR 
21815. Most commenters were in support of such an extension, including 
the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 
Traulsen, International Cold Storage (ICS), Crown Tonka, ThermalRite 
(ICS, Crown Tonka and ThermalRite hereafter referred to as ``Joint 
Manufacturers''), Carrier Corporation (Carrier), National Automatic 
Merchandising Association (NAMA), AAON, Inc. (AAON), Lennox 
International Inc. (Lennox), Heatcraft Refrigeration Products LLC 
(Heatcraft), Hill Phoenix Walk-Ins (Hill Phoenix), Royal Vendors, Inc., 
Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEE), and the Natural Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC) (ASAP, ACEEE, and NRDC hereafter referred to as ``Joint 
Advocacy Comments''). (AHRI, No. 113.1 at p. 1; Traulsen, No. 111.1 at 
p. 1; Joint Manufacturers, No. 115.1 at p. 1; Carrier, No. 114.1 at p. 
1; NAMA, No. 116.1 at p. 2; AAON, No. 118.1 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 119.1 
at p. 1; Heatcraft, No. 124.1 at p. 1; Hill Phoenix, No. 121.1 at p. 1; 
Royal Vendors, Inc., No. 123.1 at p. 1; Joint Advocacy Comments, No. 
125.1 at p. 1) For example, Traulsen commented that the proposed 
extension should provide a significant time frame required to review 
and adjust the open issues such as sample size, tolerances, and base 
models. (Traulsen, No. 111.1 at p. 1) Carrier additionally commented 
that the proposed 18-month extension is warranted to revise the AEDM 
procedures to reduce the envisioned testing burden. (Carrier, No. 114.1 
at p. 2) Carrier further requested that DOE amend the confidence level 
to be used for calculating energy efficiency levels for commercial HVAC 
equipment, noting an inconsistency in the confidence levels used for 
commercial HVAC equipment and residential central air conditioners and 
heat pumps in the March 2011 final rule. (Carrier, No. 114.1 at p. 2) 
The Joint Advocacy Comments noted their support of DOE's proposal to 
extend the certification deadline, and also suggested DOE consider 
whether a blanket 18-month extension is needed for all products and 
requirements. (Joint Advocacy Comments, No. 125.1 at p. 1)
    Some of the commenters were in favor of increasing the proposed 
compliance timeline. In particular, the Joint Manufacturers recommended 
that the extension be increased to 24 months for walk-in coolers and 
walk-in freezers, given the inherent cost burden and logistical 
challenges of the physical testing that must be absorbed by smaller 
manufacturers. (Joint Manufacturers, No. 115.1 at p. 1) AHRI suggested 
a further extension of time may be necessary depending on the extent to 
which DOE modifies its AEDM/Alternate Rating Method (ARM) provisions 
and validation requirements. (AHRI, No. 113.1 at p. 2) Along these 
lines, Zero Zone, Inc. (Zero Zone) commented that, with the current 
definition of the basic model in the March 2011 final rule and the 
exclusion of AEDM methods, 18 months is not enough time to comply with 
the regulations. (Zero Zone, No. 127.1 at p. 1) Moreover, Zero Zone 
asserted that the compliance regulations in the March 2011 final rule 
are new for the commercial refrigeration industry and burdensome. Id.
    AAON reported that the AEDM validation test tolerance stated in the 
March 2011 final rule is less than the current level of repeatability 
achievable in independent test laboratories making this validation 
impossible to achieve. Until these issues can be resolved and made 
clear, AAON stated it could not comment on the time required to comply 
with new testing burdens or AEDM requirement. (AAON, No. 118.1 at p. 1)
    While many commenters supported the certification extension for 
certain commercial equipment, Earth Justice was the sole commenter 
arguing against the proposed 18-month extension, noting that any delay 
would undermine the energy savings achieved by the standards-setting 
process. (Earth Justice, No. 120.1 at p. 1) Instead, Earth Justice 
suggested DOE consider an alternative approach that would maintain some 
certification requirements for these products but make those 
requirements

[[Page 38289]]

less onerous for the first 18 months that the rule is effective. Id.
    The Department appreciates Earth Justice's concern but declines to 
adopt interim certification requirements in this final rule. Although 
today's rule delays the reporting requirements for some products 
distributed in commerce, such products must still meet all prescribed 
energy conservation standards under DOE's regulations. As DOE has 
previously made clear, the existing energy conservation standards, test 
procedures, and sampling provisions are not affected by this rule. 
While the Department believes the certification reporting requirements 
are a good monitoring tool, their impact on energy savings should not 
be wholly undermined by a delay because the energy conservation 
standards themselves will still be enforced. Based on the volume of 
questions DOE has received since the issuance of the March 2011 final 
rule, the Department believes that a phased-in certification 
requirement is likely to result in industry confusion that would more 
than offset any benefit. The Department believes that industry should 
focus its efforts on developing a basis for future regulatory 
compliance.
    In light of most of the comments above, DOE is extending the 
compliance date for the certification provisions for commercial 
refrigeration equipment; commercial warm air furnaces, commercial 
packaged boilers, and commercial air conditioners and heat pumps 
(collectively referred to as commercial HVAC equipment); commercial 
water heaters, commercial hot water supply boilers, and unfired hot 
water storage tanks (collectively referred to as commercial WH 
equipment); and automatic commercial ice makers to 18 months from the 
publication of this final rule. Thus, the certification compliance date 
for these products will now be December 31, 2012. DOE believes 18 
months is a reasonable extension to provide manufacturers with the time 
necessary to develop the data and supporting documentation needed to 
populate the certification reports and certify compliance with DOE's 
regulations, including the existing testing and sampling procedures.
    Manufacturer responses, however, indicate that numerous 
manufacturers for certain types of commercial equipment have been 
making representations of efficiency and determining compliance with 
the applicable energy conservation standards without testing products 
in accordance with all of the provisions of the DOE test procedures, 
which include sampling plans and certification testing tolerances. As 
such, it is apparent from the comments and concerns expressed to the 
Department that a subset of manufacturers of commercial equipment now 
require additional time to comply with testing and sampling 
requirements. In addition, manufacturer comments have demonstrated to 
DOE that the existing AEDM provisions need to be carefully reviewed and 
modified, as necessary, in order to permit manufacturers to determine 
compliance without undue test burden. DOE is committed to reviewing the 
AEDM provisions quickly and to enable manufacturers to determine 
compliance through approved methodologies. To that end, any comments 
regarding the AEDM provisions, such as Carrier's request to amend the 
confidence levels for calculating energy efficiency, will be addressed 
in the current ARM/AEDM rulemaking.
    DOE emphasizes that the testing and sampling requirements for 
commercial refrigeration equipment; commercial HVAC equipment; 
commercial WH equipment; and automatic commercial ice makers were not 
adopted or revised in the March 2011 final rule and are unchanged by 
this extension. These regulations can be found on a per product basis 
in Subpart B to Part 429 (sampling plans for testing) and 431.64, 
431.76, 431.86, 431.96, 431.106, and 431.134 (uniform test methods). 
Those provisions were previously finalized in various product-specific 
rulemakings after being subject to notice and comment.
    While AAON stated its support for the proposed 18-month extension, 
it requested clarification from DOE on how the March 2011 final rule 
indicates that ``manufacturers could use their discretion in grouping 
individual models as a certified basic model such that the certified 
rating for the basic model matched the represented rating for all 
included models'' as stated in the April 2011 NOPR. (AAON, No. 118.1 at 
p. 1) DOE provided clarification of its basic model definition in the 
March 2011 final rule. See 76 FR 12428-12429 for more information.

B. Extension of Certification Deadline for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers

    In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE initially proposed an 18-month 
extension for manufacturers of walk-in coolers and freezers to certify 
compliance. As noted above, AHRI, ICS, Crown Tonka, the Joint 
Manufacturers, and Hill Phoenix all supported the certification 
extension for these products. Additionally, the Joint Manufacturers 
commented in support of an interim reporting requirement, suggesting 
mandatory registration with the Department's CCMS system for all walk-
in coolers and walk-in freezers (WICFs) manufacturers based on 
published ratings and operating characteristics of components and 
materials used in construction of these products. (Joint Manufacturers, 
No. 115.1 at p. 1) The Joint Manufacturers clarified that this 
mandatory filing should be delayed until January 1, 2012, to allow all 
parties time to become acclimated to the system and to prevent an 
influx of errors and subsequent delays in completion of the filing. Id.
    Although the Department tentatively proposed an extension to the 
certification compliance date for WICFs in the April 2011 NOPR, upon 
further consideration, DOE has determined that an 18-month extension 
for these products is not warranted. The current Federal energy 
conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers are design 
requirements prescribed under section 312(b) of the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), subsequently codified in 10 CFR 
431.306. Manufacturers of WICFs are not currently required to comply 
with a performance-based standard, which could require extensive 
testing to determine the efficiency of each WICF and/or WICF component. 
Instead, EISA 2007 prescribed a number of design requirements, only one 
of which requires the use of a testing procedure. Because determining 
compliance with the design standard does not require extensive, time-
consuming testing, DOE believes an 18-month delay to certify compliance 
with the EISA 2007 design standards is unwarranted.
    WICFs that did not meet the EISA 2007 design requirements could not 
be distributed in commerce in the United States since January 1, 2009. 
As DOE clarified in the March 2011 final rule, EISA 2007 provided the 
framework for a component-based approach since each design standard is 
based on the performance of a given component of the WICF. Accordingly, 
DOE believes manufacturers of WICF components should be able to attest 
and demonstrate their products meet the design requirements without any 
additional time. Based on manufacturers' request for additional time, 
however, DOE will delay the certification compliance date to October 1, 
2011, in order to provide manufacturers with sufficient time and notice 
to certify compliance to the Department. The new certification deadline 
is after the annual submission deadline for WICFs eliminating the need 
for manufacturers to submit two

[[Page 38290]]

complete certification reports this year and provides for a little 
extra time for component manufacturers to certify compliance to the 
design standards.

C. Extension of Certification Deadline for Other Types of Commercial or 
Industrial Equipment

    Several commenters requested that the Department extend the 
compliance date for filing certification reports to other types of 
commercial or industrial equipment, such as beverage vending machines, 
distribution transformers and metal halide lamp ballasts and fixtures. 
A discussion of the comments and DOE response is presented below by 
product.
    For instance, Royal Vendors, Inc., NAMA and Automated Merchandising 
Systems Inc. (AMS) all asserted that DOE should provide an 18-month 
extension for beverage vending machines for compliance with the 
certification provisions. Specifically, NAMA noted that manufacturers 
of beverage vending machines will be impacted by increased costs 
relating to compliance and testing; and operators will be impacted by 
increased prices for beverage vending machines, due to passed-along 
costs from manufacturers. (NAMA, No. 116.1 at p. 1) NAMA further stated 
that if the ``July 5, 2011 compliance date is allowed to stand, 
operators could also be impacted by a reduced number of compliant and 
certified vending machine models available for sale if manufacturers 
cannot bring their designs into compliance and obtain certification in 
this very short time.'' Id. Additionally, Royal Vendors, Inc. reported 
that, because it offers such a proliferation of product models, the 
quantity of testing required to verify compliance to the DOE 2012 
requirement is quite extensive and costly to achieve in the timeline 
required. (Royal Vendors, Inc., No. 123.1 at p. 1) AMS similarly 
commented that the lead times for testing and the costs involved 
necessitate additional time to obtain the necessary certifications. 
(AMS, No. 128.1 at pp. 1-2)
    The Department is clarifying that covered bottled or canned 
beverage vending machines are not required to be certified until the 
compliance date for the applicable energy conservation standards, which 
is August 31, 2012. 10 CFR 431.296. Irrespective of certification 
provisions, all manufacturers must bring their designs into compliance 
by that compliance date to continue distributing them in commerce. 
While many of the commenters suggested that the certification burden is 
large due to the compliance and testing costs, DOE considered these 
costs in the test procedure and energy conservation standards 
rulemakings for this product. See 71 FR 71340 (December 8, 2006) and 74 
FR 74 44914 (August 31, 2009), respectively. Manufacturers of bottled 
and canned beverage vending machines should have the required 
information readily available by August 31, 2012. Additionally, DOE 
notes that it uses a self-certification process, where a manufacturer 
is attesting to the compliance of its products upon submission of the 
templates in CCMS; manufacturers are not required to obtain a third-
party testing facility's certification.
    With regard to distribution transformers, the National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Transformers Products Section 
requested that DOE delay the compliance date for certification until 
120 days from May 13, 2011, the day the Compliance Certification 
Management System (CCMS) templates for distribution transformers were 
published. (NEMA, No. 117.1 at p. 2) NEMA commented that such a 120 day 
delay is justified, reasonable and absolutely necessary, as any 
reporting represents a significant effort, both in time and labor; 
initial reporting even more so. Id. at pp 1-2. Similarly, NEMA 
requested DOE delay the enforcement of compliance reporting for metal 
halide lamp ballasts and fixtures until a date no earlier than 
September 1, 2012, because of the breadth of basic models covered and 
ballast testing requirements. (NEMA, No. 122.1 at pp. 1-2) NEMA noted 
this date coincides with the annual reporting date, minimizing the 
burden of multiple reports within the same year. Id. at p. 2.
    DOE acknowledges that both distribution transformers and metal 
halide lamp ballasts and fixtures are unique markets. DOE understands, 
as noted by NEMA, that the distribution transformer market contains a 
great deal of customization, where many models are built-to-order. This 
can result in a large number of models requiring certification to DOE 
before distribution in commerce. DOE also understands it is common in 
the distribution transformer market to maintain many legacy models that 
were custom built for a given client instead of discontinuing them. DOE 
believes that manufacturers of distribution transformers will need 
sufficient time to review their records for legacy models to make sure 
that all models currently distributed in commerce are properly 
certified with the Department. As such, a large number of basic models 
may need to be certified in the initial certification report.
    Metal halide lamp ballasts and fixtures are also a unique market 
since the manufacturer of the metal halide lamp fixture is responsible 
for compliance and certification to the Department, but the standards 
are based on the ballast (i.e., one component of the fixture). While 
the testing procedures and standards for these products are already 
effective and any representations of the efficiency must be made using 
the existing test procedure, DOE believes manufacturers of metal halide 
fixtures may require additional time to submit the certification 
reports. Many of these manufacturers will need to gather data on the 
ballasts from their component suppliers before the certification 
reports can be completed.
    Rather than adopting a compliance date mid-month, DOE is delaying 
the compliance date for certification of distribution transformers and 
metal halide lamp ballasts and fixtures until October 1, 2011. This 
date provides slightly more time to allow for sufficient notice, data 
gathering, and certifying compliance, and addresses the concerns voiced 
by the manufacturers that they would be required to submit an annual 
certification report just a few months after the initial certification 
was due.

D. Reporting Requirement During Interim Period

    In the April 2011 NOPR, the Department sought comment on whether a 
limited reporting requirement should be established for manufacturers 
receiving a compliance date extension for the certification reporting 
provisions. In response, numerous commenters stated their opposition to 
any such type of interim reporting requirement. AHRI asserted that DOE 
should not require registration with CCMS and the reporting of 
efficiency ratings before reasonable testing requirements and AEDM/ARM 
authorization and validation requirements have been clearly 
established, and manufacturers have been provided adequate time for 
compliance. (AHRI, No. 113.1 at p. 2) Hill Phoenix, NAMA, Lennox and 
Heatcraft were also opposed to reporting in the interim period. (Hill 
Phoenix, No. 121.1 at p. 1; NAMA, No. 116.1 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 119.1 
at p. 2; Heatcraft, No. 124.1 at p. 2)
    AHRI further stated that manufacturers should not have to worry 
about being prosecuted for inaccurate ratings or reporting errors while 
DOE has yet to determine what product rating methods and procedures 
will be deemed acceptable. (AHRI, No. 113.1 at

[[Page 38291]]

p. 2) Lennox and Heatcraft noted that the new certification 
requirements already impose an additional significant reporting burden 
on manufacturers, and DOE should not impose still another reporting 
obligation on an interim basis. (Lennox, No. 119.1 at p. 2; Heatcraft, 
No. 124.1 at p. 2) Instead, manufacturers should be able to simply 
maintain in their files, accessible on request by DOE, records 
demonstrating that covered equipment is in compliance with applicable 
conservation standards. Id. NAMA argued that adding limited reporting 
requirements will complicate testing, cost valuable staff time and 
could slow accurate conclusion of testing procedures. (NAMA, No. 116.1 
at p. 3)
    In response to these commenters, DOE desires to clarify that all 
products distributed in commerce must comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards. Today's rule delays the reporting requirements 
only; existing energy conservation standards, test procedures and 
sampling provisions are not affected by this rule. Therefore, during 
the interim period before compliance is required for compliance 
certification, manufacturers must maintain records to demonstrate that 
covered equipment meet the applicable conservation standards--even if 
the manufacturers' determination of compliance was not made in 
accordance with DOE testing and sampling requirements.

E. Timing of Annual Filing Deadline

    The March 2011 final rule added an annual certification requirement 
for all covered products and covered equipment currently subject to 
standards. The annual reporting requirement covers: (1) All 
discontinued basic models previously certified that have not previously 
been reported as discontinued (marked as discontinued); (2) all 
previously certified basic models that are still in distribution in 
commerce that are unchanged (marked as carryover); (3) all previously 
certified basic models that are still in distribution in commerce but 
for which the manufacturer needs to report new or changed information 
(marked as modified/revised) (e.g., new brand info, new or different 
model numbers, modified rating); and (4) any new models a manufacturer 
anticipates offering for distribution in commerce (marked as new). 
Lennox and Heatcraft requested DOE clarify the timing of the annual 
filing deadline of certification-related information (pursuant to 10 
CFR 429.12(d)) and the 18-month extension. (Lennox, No. 119.1 at p. 2; 
Heatcraft, No. 124.1 at p. 2) These commenters suggested that the first 
certification reports for covered equipment should not be due until the 
DOE-specified month following the expiry of the 18-month extension (and 
any requirement for submitting a certification report before 
distributing relevant covered equipment in commerce should also be 
deferred until that date). Id. Lennox and Heatcraft believe this 
approach would preserve DOE's rolling submittal approach for annual 
reports and also clarify that a manufacturer is not required to submit 
a certification report twice in the first year that these reports are 
due. Id. With regard to timing, Carrier urged DOE to establish, once 
the AEDM procedures are amended, a subsequent effective date to 
actually conduct any required tests under the amended procedures. 
(Carrier, No. 114.1 at p. 2)
    As discussed above, DOE is delaying the compliance date for the 
submittal of certification reports for certain commercial equipment. 
The annual certification requirement does not apply until the initial 
certification requirements are required. As an example, the earliest 
annual reporting deadline for commercial WH equipment will be May 1, 
2013.

F. Compliance and Enforcement

    DOE emphasizes that all covered equipment must meet the applicable 
energy conservation standard. Furthermore, all testing procedures and 
sampling provisions are unaffected by this final rule. DOE is adopting 
a delayed compliance date only for the reporting requirements in the 
March 2011 final rule and only for the equipment types discussed above.
    DOE has also received questions regarding the compliance date for 
covered products and covered equipment, where compliance with the 
standards are not yet required, like general service incandescent lamps 
(GSILs). Covered products and covered equipment are not required to be 
certified until the compliance date of an applicable standard, so 
equipment such as GSILs and beverage vending machines are not required 
to be certified until the compliance date of the applicable energy 
conservation standard. Further, DOE is adopting clarifying language in 
today's final rule, which makes it clear that certification is required 
by the compliance date of the initial set of applicable energy 
conservation standards.
    DOE encourages manufacturers to become familiar with the CCMS prior 
to the certification deadline. The CCMS requires users to apply to use 
the system by filling out a registration form, signing a compliance 
statement, and receiving a personal password. The CCMS has templates 
for all covered products and covered equipment available for 
manufacturers to use when submitting certification data to DOE. The 
Department encourages manufacturers, to the extent possible, to fill 
out these templates in advance of the compliance date in case questions 
arise.

G. Technical Amendments

    DOE is modifying the regulatory text for cast-iron sectional 
boilers and hot water boilers (429.18), vented hearth heaters (429.22), 
general service incandescent lamps (429.27), and refrigerated bottled 
or canned beverage vending machines (429.52) to remove the reference to 
the conservation standards compliance date. Because DOE has added new 
regulatory text in section 429.12 explicitly stating for all product 
categories that certification is not required until compliance with a 
standard is required, the product-specific regulatory text is now 
redundant.
    DOE is also deleting the regulatory text in section 429.35 
requiring reporting and record retention relating to production dates 
for compact fluorescent lamps. That requirement was inadvertently added 
in the March 2011 final rule. Because there is no sampling requirement 
related to dates for compact fluorescent lamps, there is no purpose to 
this information.

III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    Today's regulatory action is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Administrative Procedure Act

    DOE has determined, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), 
that there is good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior 
notice and an opportunity for comment concerning two technical 
amendments described in section G above as such procedures would be 
unnecessary. Both technical amendments merely conform the existing text 
to previously existing or newly added regulatory text without adding 
any new substantive requirements. These amendments are of a type in 
which the public would not be particularly interested or for which an

[[Page 38292]]

opportunity for comment would serve any purpose.
    DOE has determined, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), 
that this final rule is not subject to a 30-day effective date because 
this rule extending the compliance date for requirement relieves a 
restriction.

C. 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 (IFRA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    DOE reviewed this rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003. This rule merely extends the compliance date of a rulemaking 
already promulgated. To the extent such action has any economic impact 
it would be positive in that it would allow regulated parties 
additional time to come into compliance. DOE did undertake a full 
regulatory flexibility analysis of the original Certification, 
Compliance, and Enforcement for Consumer Products and Commercial and 
Industrial Equipment rulemaking. That analysis considered the impacts 
of that rulemaking on small entities. As a result, DOE certifies that 
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions 
that are categorically excluded from review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's 
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule 
amends an existing rule without changing its environmental effect and, 
therefore, is covered by the Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR part 1021, 
subpart D, paragraph A5. Accordingly, neither an environmental 
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 429

    Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household 
appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2011.
Kathleen Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Technology 
Development, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 429 of 
chapter II of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as 
follows:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for Part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
2. Revise Sec.  429.12 by adding a new paragraph (i) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  429.12  General requirements applicable to certification reports.

* * * * *
    (i) Compliance dates. For any product subject to an applicable 
energy conservation standard for which the compliance date has not yet 
occurred, a certification report must be submitted not later than the 
compliance date for the applicable energy conservation standard. The 
following covered products are subject to delayed compliance dates for 
certification:
    (1) Commercial refrigeration equipment, December 31, 2012;
    (2) Commercial heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning 
equipment, December 31, 2012;
    (3) Commercial water heating equipment, December 31, 2012;
    (4) Walk-in coolers and freezers, October 1, 2011;
    (5) Distribution transformers, October 1, 2011; and
    (6) Metal halide lamp ballasts and fixtures, October 1, 2011.

Sec.  429.18  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  429.18(b)(2)(ii) and (b)(3) by removing the words, ``no 
later than September 1, 2012''.

Sec.  429.22  [Amended]

0
4. Amend Sec.  429.22(b)(2) by removing the last sentence.

Sec.  429.27  [Amended]

0
5. Amend Sec.  429.27(b)(2)(iii) by removing the phrase, ``On or after 
the effective dates specified in Sec.  430.32,''.

Sec.  429.35  [Amended]

0
6. Section 429.35 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing ``bare of'' and adding in its place 
``bare or'';
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2) by removing the text, ``production dates for the 
units tested,''; and
0
c. By removing paragraph (c).
0
7. Revise Sec.  429.42(b)(2)(iii) to read as follows:

Sec.  429.42  Commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Remote condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 
refrigerator-freezers, self-contained commercial refrigerators, 
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers without doors, commercial ice-cream 
freezers, and commercial refrigeration equipment with two or more 
compartments (i.e., hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, hybrid 
refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers): The 
maximum daily energy consumption in kilowatt hours per day (kWh/day), 
the total display area (TDA) in feet squared (ft\2\) or the chilled 
volume in cubic feet (ft\3\) as necessary to demonstrate compliance 
with the standards set forth in Sec.  431.66, the rating temperature in 
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), the operating temperature range in degrees 
Fahrenheit (e.g., >=32 [deg]F, day), the refrigerated volume (V) in cubic feet 
(ft\3\) used to demonstrate compliance with standards set forth in 
Sec.  431.296, the ambient temperature in degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), 
and the ambient relative humidity in percent (%) during the test.

[FR Doc. 2011-16143 Filed 6-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```