Source: http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2010-01-05-E9-30887
Timestamp: 2013-05-23 22:29:30
Document Index: 608387801

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 430', 'arts 430', 'arts 430', 'art 430', 'art 430', 'art 431', 'art 430', 'art 430', 'arts 430', 'art 430', 'art 431', 'art 431', 'arts 430', 'art 430', 'art 431', 'art 431', 'art 430', 'art 431', 'art 430', 'art 430', 'art 430', 'art 430', 'arts 430', 'art 430', 'art 430', 'art 430', 'art 431', 'art 431', 'art 430']

DOCID: fr05ja10-12
FR Doc E9-30887
CFR Citation: 10 CFR Parts 430 and 431
Docket ID: [Docket Nos. EE-RM/TP-99-450 and EE-RM/TP-05-500]
RIN ID: RIN 1904-AA96 and 1904-AB53
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Energy Conservation Program: Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement Requirements for Certain Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment DATES: This rule is effective February 4, 2010 except for Sec. 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 thirdparty 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 thirdparty 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.
DOCUMENT 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. 102486) and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) (Pub. L. 10958) 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, airconditioning, and water heating equipment covered under EPACT 1992. In addition, DOE is adopting provisions for manufacturer certification for distribution transformers.
SUMMARY: Energy Department
I. Background II. Summary of Today's Action
A. Energy Policy Act of 1992Commercial Heating, Ventilating, AirConditioning and Water Heating Equipment; Energy Policy Act of 2005Very 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 NonParticipants 4. Reporting for Voluntary Industry Certification Programs 5. Enforcement Testing B. Energy Policy Act of 2005Consumer Products C. Energy Policy Act of 2005Commercial 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
Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), Public Law 94163, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 62916309, established the ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.'' Similarly, Part A1 of Title III of EPCA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 63116317, 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 102486, amended EPCA to add energy conservation standards and test procedures for commercial central air
conditioning 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 10958, 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).
\1\ For editorial reasons, Parts B (consumer products) and C (commercial equipment) of Title III of EPCA were redesignated as parts A and A1, respectively, in the United States Code. 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, air
conditioning, 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 6961218. 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, 2510413, and 2511517.
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 wateruse 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 wateruse 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 7134142. 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, airconditioning 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. 10012) 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.
\2\ Enforcement 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. 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 onetime 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 [[Page 654]]
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 noncomplying equipment.
\3\ The 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.
\2\ The 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 energyefficiency or energyuse 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. 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.
The agency received comments from a variety of interested parties including the AirConditioning, 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 nonVICP 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.
\3\ The AirConditioning, 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 AirConditioning 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.
A. Energy Policy Act of 1992Commercial Heating, Ventilating, Air
Conditioning 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 6960405, 6961214. DOE proposed less stringent sampling and AEDM requirements for manufacturers participating in a DOEapproved 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. NonVICP 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 6960405, 6961314. 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 nonparticipant to establish the validity of its AEDM(s), 71 FR 2510506, 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 2510809, 2511516. 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 [[Page 655]]
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 ``1percent 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 1percent 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 6961314), 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
bycase basis, rather than impose a ``onesize 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. (EERM/TP99450, Lennox, No. 10 at p. 1) \4\
\4\ A note in the form ``EERM/TP99450, 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 EERM/TP
99450, as comment number 10; and (2) a passage that appears on page 1 of that statement. 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 ``1percent 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. (EERM/TP99450, ARI, No. 12 at p. 2, and EERM/TP99450, 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 VICPverified 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. (EERM/TP99450, 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. (EERM/TP99450, ARI, No. 12 at p. 2; EERM/TP99450, GAMA, No. 11 at p. 2; and EERM/TP99450, 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. (EERM/TP99450, 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 [[Page 656]]
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 VICPverified 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 nonVICP participants. (EERM/TP99450, Lennox, No. 10 at pp. 12) 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 nonVICP participants, ARI recommended that DOE require AEDM validation to be made against three or more basic models. (EERM/TP99450, 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. (EERM/TP99450, 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. (EERM/TP99450, PRC, No. 13 at p. 1) DOE agrees that the 2percent 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 nonVICP 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.
\5\ The 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.
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 [[Page 657]]
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 nonVICP manufacturers would have to conduct independent testing, use DOE
prescribed sampling plans, and obtain DOE approval of its AEDMs (if applicable) before those methods could be used for compliance certification purposes. NonVICP 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 nonVICP 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 highestselling 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 nonparticipants. ARI stated that a VICP participant must incur ``significant cost'' and risk ongoing verification testing of its products, whereas a nonparticipant need only test three basic models to validate its AEDM(s). (EERM/TP99450, 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. (EERM/TP99450, 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\ (EERM/TP99450, GAMA, No. 11 at p. 4)
\6\ Manufacturer 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). Lennox requested that DOE require nonVICP manufacturers to participate in a DOEadministered verification program that would be based on DOE's requirements and funded at a VICPequivalent level by the nonVICP participants. (EERM/TP99450, Lennox, No. 10 at p. 2) ARI recommended that a nonVICP participant be required to show compliance and the accuracy of its efficiency representations through verification testing conducted by an independent laboratory. (EERM/TP 99450, ARI, No. 12 at p. 4) The proposals detailed in the December 1999 NOPR and April 2006 SNOPR were tailored for nonVICP 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, nonVICP participants must perform more rigorous initial testing because third party verification testing is not required. As stated above, nonVICP 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 nonVICP 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 [[Page 658]]
two tested units (or the result from testing a single unit) fell within a 5percent 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 5percent 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 5percent 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 tvalue 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 2percent tolerance is not included in its certification program for commercial furnaces. For residential products, GAMA's certification program allows a 3.5percent tolerance for residential water heaters and a 5percent tolerance for furnaces. GAMA cautioned DOE not to prescribe uniform compliance and enforcement criteria for all products. (EERM/TP99450, 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 97.5percent 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 noncompliance 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. (EERM/TP99450, GAMA, No. 11 at p. 4; EERM/TP05500, GAMA, No. 7 at p. 34) 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, madetoorder 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. (EERM/TP99450, GAMA, No. 11 at p. 4; EERM/TP05 500, GAMA, No. 7 at p. 34) 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 [[Page 659]]
be onethird 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. (EERM/TP99450, GAMA, No. 11 at p. 4; EERM/TP05500, GAMA, No. 7 at p. 34) 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. (EERM/TP
99450, GAMA, No. 11 at p. 4; EERM/TP05500, GAMA, No. 7 at p. 34) 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 casebycase 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.'' (EERM/TP99
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.
\7\ DOE issued several final rules relating to test procedures on October 21, 2004Test 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.
B. Energy Policy Act of 2005Consumer 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.
\8\ The 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 6960206.
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 95percent 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 [[Page 660]]
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 2005Commercial 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).
\9\ The 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. 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 noncomplying 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 refrigeratorfreezers, 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 refrigeratorfreezers are manufactured in small quantities and therefore, should have the same certification and enforcement provisions as commercial HVAC and WH equipment. (EERM/TP
05500, 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. (EERM/ TP05500, 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 fin
Michael McCabe, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 205850121, (202) 5869155. Email: Michael.McCabe@ee.doe.gov.
Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585
0121, (202) 5869507. Email: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.