Source: http://www.regulations.gov/?_escaped_fragment_=documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-CE-0014-0107
Timestamp: 2015-10-04 12:45:31
Document Index: 311995066

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 429', '§ 429', 'art 430', 'art 430', '§ 429', 'art 430', 'art 430', 'art 429', '§ 429', '§ 429', 'art 430', 'art 431', 'arts 430', 'art 429', 'art 429', 'art 429', 'art 429', 'art 429', 'art 429', 'art 429']

Skip Navigation HomeHelpResourcesContact Us Advanced Search Start of Main Content 2011-03-07 Energy Conservation Program: Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment This Rule document was issued by the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office (EERE)For related information, Open Docket Folder Show agency attachment(s) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
SummaryThe U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the “Department”) is adopting revisions to its existing certification, compliance, and enforcement regulations for certain consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment covered under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (EPCA or the “Act”). These regulations provide for sampling plans used in determining compliance with existing standards, manufacturer submission of compliance statements and certification reports to DOE, maintenance of compliance records by manufacturers, and the availability of enforcement actions for improper certification or noncompliance with an applicable standard. Ultimately, the provisions being adopted in this final rule will allow DOE to enforce systematically the applicable energy and water conservation standards for covered products and covered equipment and provide for more accurate, comprehensive information about the energy and water use characteristics of products sold in the United States.
Dates Effective Dates: The amendments to Parts 429 (except §§ 429.12 through 429.54), 430 (except Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 430 and Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 430), and 431 are effective April 6, 2011.
The amendments to §§ 429.12 through 429.54 are effective July 5, 2011.
The amendments to Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 430 and Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 430 are effective November 28, 2011.
The incorporation by reference of the standards listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 6, 2011.
AddressesThis rulemaking can be identified by docket number EERE-2010-BT-CE-0014 and/or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904-AC23.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, or comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. For Further Information ContactMs. 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. Telephone: 202-586-6590. E-mail: Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov; and Ms. Laura Barhydt, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal Building, GC-32, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 202-287-6122. E-mail: Laura.Barhydt@hq.doe.gov. Supplementary InformationThis final rule incorporates by reference into Part 429 the following industry standards: ANSI/AHAM DW-1-1992, American National Standard, Household Electric Dishwashers, approved February 6, 1992, IBR approved for § 429.19.Copies of ANSI/AHAM DW-1-1992 is available from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, 1111 19th Street, NW., Suite 402, Washington, DC 20036, 202-872-5955, or go to http://www.aham.org. International Organization for Standardization (ISO)/International Electrotechnical Commission, (“ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E)”), “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories”, Second edition, May 15, 2005, IBR approved for § 429.104.Copies of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E) are available from the International Standards Organziation1, ch. de la Voie-Creuse CP 56 CH-1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland, telephone +41 22 749 01 11, or go to http://www.iso.org/iso. Table of ContentsI. Authority and Background
B. Enforcement Testing
A. Annual Certification Requirement
B. Revisions to Reporting Requirements
1. Reporting Sample Size and Total Number of Tests Performed
2. Reporting of Testing Data
3. Reporting Use of an ARM/AEDM or Other Alternative Method of Rating
4. Defining “distribute in commerce”
5. Product-Specific Revisions to Reporting Requirements
C. Certifying Entities and Third-Party Representation
D. Submission of Certification Reports
E. New Basic Model Filing, Basic Model Concept, and Notice of Discontinuance
1. New Model Filing and Basic Model Concept
2. Basic Model Numbering
3. Notice of Discontinuance
F. Certification Testing, Generally
G. Certification Testing Specific to Commercial HVAC and WH Equipment, Including the Use of AEDMs and VICPs
H. Records Retention and Confidentiality
1. Records Retention by Manufacturers
I. Enforcement Testing
1. Initiation of an Enforcement Action
2. Process Provided to Manufacturers During Enforcement Testing
3. Test Notice
4. Sampling for Enforcement Testing
5. Testing Done for Other Agencies
6. Test Unit Selection
7. Testing at Manufacturer's Option
8. Cost Allocation for Testing
9. Third-Party Laboratory Requirements for Enforcement Testing
10. Enforcement for Imports and Exports
3. Imposition of Additional Certification Testing Requirements as Remedy for Non-Compliance
4. Compromise and Settlement
L. Additional Product Specific Issues
1. Entity Responsible for Certification and Compliance for Walk-In Coolers or Freezers (WICFs)
2. Basic Model Definition for Walk-In Coolers or Freezers (WICFs)
3. Basic Model and Manufacturer Model Number Reporting for Distribution Transformers, WICFs, and External Power Supplies.
M. Additional Issues for Which DOE Sought Comment in September 2010 NOPR
2. Voluntary Industry Certification Programs
3. Certification, Compliance and Enforcement for Electric Motors
4. Revisions to Sampling Plans for Certification Testing
1. Reasons for the Final Rule
2. Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Final Rule
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
1. Description of the Requirements
V. Approval of the Office of the SecretaryI. Authority and BackgroundTitle III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (“EPCA” or, in context, “the Act”) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. The National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA), Public Law 95-619, amended EPCA to add Part A-1 of Title III, which established an energy conservation program for certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) (1)
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 430, subpart F; 10 CFR 430.23-25; 10 CFR part 431, subparts B, J, K, S, T, U, and V.
On September 16, 2010, the Department published in theFederal Registera Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding Certification, Compliance, and Enforcement for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment (September 2010 NOPR). 75 FR 56796. DOE subsequently published two correction notices, which addressed the public meeting date and an omission in the regulatory text. 75 FR 57410 (September 21, 2010) and 75 FR 61361 (October 5, 2010), respectively. A public meeting was held in Washington, DC, on September 30, 2010. The comment period for written submissions was scheduled to close on October 18. In response to multiple requests, DOE extended the comment period to close on October 29, 2010.
The September 2010 NOPR proposed to revise, consolidate and streamline the Department's existing certification, compliance, and enforcement regulations for certain consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment covered under EPCA.II. Summary of the Final RuleA. CertificationToday's rule revises the Department's current certification regulations to ensure that the Department has the information it needs to ensure that regulated products sold in the United States comply with the law. Currently, manufacturers of covered consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment must certify, by means of a compliance statement and a certification report, that each basic model meets the applicable energy conservation, water conservation, and/or design standard before distributing it in commerce within the United States. See 10 CFR 430.62 (consumer products); 431.327 (metal halide lamp ballast) and 430.371 (certain commercial equipment). As proposed in the September 2010 NOPR, DOE is adopting an annual certification reporting requirement for all covered products and covered equipment. Additional details are discussed below. Such annual filings will provide DOE with comprehensive, up-to-date efficiency information about the regulated products sold in the United States at any given time—a necessary predicate to an effective enforcement program.
DOE believes it is also appropriate to provide more transparency in the certification report itself. In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to expand the information submitted by manufacturers, including general requirements applicable to all products and product-specific requirements. DOE also proposed to make clear that all non-proprietary certification information will be considered public information. As a result of stakeholder comments, DOE made some modifications to the product-specific information it is collecting and the public disclosure of such information in the final rule. These changes are discussed in more detail below. By requiring additional relevant data that affects the energy or water efficiency of a product to be supplied in the certification report, DOE will be able to more effectively enforce compliance with the conservation standards.
To provide manufacturers with sufficient time to transition to these new certification provisions, the effective date of the certification requirements is 120 days from the publication of the final rule in theFederal Register. Each basic model of covered product or covered equipment that has not previously been certified with the Department must be certified on or before July 5, 2011 using DOE's on-line certification tool (i.e., the Compliance Certification Management System or CCMS) and the pre-formatted EXCEL templates. See https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms/ for additional information. For those basic models of covered products or covered equipment that have previously been certified with the Department, manufacturers are required to submit revised certification data pursuant to regulations being adopted as part of today's final rule in accordance with the annual report table in 10 CFR 429.12.B. Enforcement TestingThe Department is modifying its regulations for enforcement testing to allow the Department to enforce the Federal efficiency standards proactively and fairly based on the circumstances of each case. In particular, today's rule makes three revisions to DOE's approach to enforcement testing that, although relatively minor, will significantly improve the effectiveness of DOE's enforcement program. First, the Department is removing the current regulatory provision that requires DOE to receive a written complaint alleging a violation of the standard before it can perform enforcement testing to determine a model's compliance. EPCA affords DOE with broad enforcement discretion, and DOE must be able to exercise that discretion proactively to ensure compliance and deter violations effectively. Second, today's rule allows the Department to select units for enforcement testing from retail, distribution, or manufacturer sources, depending on the circumstances, to ensure enforcement test results that are as unbiased, accurate, and representative as possible. Finally, the Department recognizes that the current regulatory approach to enforcement testing—involving DOE selected units and third party testing—may be impracticable for low-volume, custom-built products or where adequate laboratory facilities are unavailable. Thus, today's rule adopts an alternative approach to enforcement testing in such exceptional cases—allowing DOE-witnessed testing at the manufacturer's lab and/or reduced sample sizes—to permit effective enforcement testing without imposing unreasonable burdens on manufacturers.C. ReorganizationWith the exception of electric motors, in the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to move all of the existing certification, compliance, and enforcement regulations currently scattered throughout parts 430 and 431 to a new Part 429. DOE additionally proposed to consolidate similar provisions for both consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment.
In response to DOE's proposed new structure, DOE received several comments from interested parties on its September 2010 NOPR, some of which were organizational in nature. For example, a comment submitted by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) suggested grouping all the regulations that were relevant to a single product in a discrete portion of Part 429. (NEMA, No. 85.1 at p. 2) In response to these comments, and to provide additional clarity to Part 429 requirements, DOE has made the following changes to Part 429 in today's final rule: Consolidated general requirements into Subpart A.
Consolidated all certification requirements into Subpart B, with the creation of product-specific sections for sampling plans and certification requirements. This is intended to simplify the presentation for manufacturers and others who need information on a single product. Also, each of the product-specific sections now specifies the relevant sampling equations to ensure certification requirements are clear;
Added Appendix D to Subpart B which includes Student's t-distribution values for one-tailed confidence level calculations for product certification;
Reorganized Subpart C to distinguish between enforcement measures and verification measures; and
Incorporated a variety of editorial changes addressing certification, sampling plans, and enforcement.DOE is adopting Part 429 in its entirety today and expects to integrate electric motors into this Part in a subsequent rulemaking.III. Discussion of CommentsA. Annual Certification RequirementExisting certification requirements direct most manufacturers of covered consumer products and commercial and industrial equipment to certify, by means of a compliance statement and a certification report, that each basic model meets the applicable energy conservation, water conservation, and/or design standard before distributing it in commerce within the United States. See 10 CFR 430.62 (consumer products); 10 CFR 431.36, 430.371 (commercial equipment). In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed moving to an annual certification reporting requirement for each basic model of covered product and covered equipment. Additionally, DOE proposed an annual filing schedule based generally upon the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) schedule for similar product types subject to annual reporting under the FTC's Appliance Labeling Rule. For commercial and industrial equipment, DOE proposed to align similar equipment types with the FTC schedule for consumer products.
Today's rule adopts a mandatory annual certification filing requirement (as opposed to an annual testing requirement) and sets out a reporting schedule aligned as closely as possible with the current FTC schedule for consumer products. Under DOE's self-certification enforcement framework, only products that have been certified to DOE by manufacturers as compliant with the applicable standards can be distributed in commerce in the United States. Annual filings will provide the Department with up-to-date and comprehensive efficiency information about regulated products sold in the United States—a necessary predicate to an effective enforcement program. Recognizing this, many commenters, including the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE), Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL), Alliance Laundry Systems LLC (ALS), Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Earthjustice, and the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), supported an annual filing requirement. (AWE, No. 38.1 at p. 3; UL, No. 60.1 at p. 1; ALS, No. 66.1 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 67.1 at p. 2; Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 103 at pp. 42-43; AHAM, No. 98.1 at p. 4) As one commenter put it: “Knowledge of what products are being distributed in commerce at any given time is the foundation of an effective certification and enforcement program. A one-time initial certification of compliance does not provide the needed level of knowledge.” (NEEA, No. 67.1 at p. 2)
A few commenters objected to the proposal, arguing that annual filing was not needed and would increase reporting burdens. The International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) and IAPMO R&T, for example, commented that the Department's existing certification requirements already provide sufficient assurance of compliance. (IAPMO, No. 36.1 at p. 1) Similarly, AO Smith opposed an annual certification requirement, commenting that such a requirement would unduly increase the level of reporting required by manufacturers. (AO Smith, No. 81.1 at p. 2) Although DOE recognizes that annual filing will increase the frequency with which manufactures must file reports, the record reflects that the increase in cost burden will be minimal. As NAMA explained, “annual certification does not cause an extreme economic burden and harm.” (NAMA, No. 72.1 at p. 2; See also Traulsen, No. 52.1, at p. 4 (“Annual certification should not be a major burden”)) DOE also believes that electronic reporting will reduce the burden of preparing certification reports. Accordingly, the Department believes that this minimal increase in cost burden is outweighed by the need to ensure that the Department and the public have accurate and comprehensive efficiency information. In addition, an annual filing establishes a set date for manufacturers to fulfill this reporting obligation, which should allow manufacturers to regularize their annual reporting practices, thereby lowering costs and enhancing compliance.
Several commenters suggested that DOE should impose annual testing requirements in addition to the proposed annual filing requirement. In particular, UL, ALS, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Earthjustice commented that while they are in support of establishing an annual certification requirement, such a requirement should include mandatory re-testing to validate the annual certification submissions, rather than merely re-submission of the original test data. (UL, No. 60.1 at p. 1; ALS, No. 66.1 at p. 2; NRDC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 103 at p. 39; Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 103 at pp. 43-44) NRDC proposed regular recertification of basic models that would require new laboratory testing of currently produced models and not simply resubmission of old test data from the initial certification. NRDC stated that the frequency of such recertification should depend on product-specific factors as well as a production cycle, and whether there is any change in energy usage above a de minimus threshold. (NRDC, No. 39.1 at p. 2) Earthjustice further contended that since determining when a model has been modified can be very difficult, a re-testing, as opposed to a re-submission, requirement would help to alleviate this problem. (Earthjustice, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 103 at pp. 43-44)
While DOE recognizes these commenters' call for additional testingafter the initial certification to ensure continued compliance, the Department declines to adopt an annual testing requirement whereby manufacturers must annually re-test all certified products and equipment. As several commenters point out, such a requirement would impose considerable burdens on manufacturers. (See, e.g., AHAM, No. 98.1 at p. 4; ALS, No. 66.1 at p. 2; Traulsen, No. 52.1 at p. 4) As AHAM further explains, requiring “costly and time consuming” annual re-certification testing “would likely be detrimental to innovation,” and “might threaten the viability to small manufacturers.” (AHAM, No. 98.1 at p. 4.) AHAM also pointed out that in light of DOE's additional testing and industry verification programs, the benefit to consumers from manufacturers' retesting certified products would be minimal. DOE agrees that the burdens of such a requirement would likely outweigh the benefits and is not requiring any new or additional testing to be performed as part of the annual filing requirement. It is instead a yearly submission of the ratings for all models a manufacturer has in distribution in that year. As discussed below, DOE continues to consider approaches to verification testing that would require subsequent testing of previously certified products, without an across the board annual re-testing requirement.
With regard to DOE's proposal in the September 2010 NOPR to align the annual certification reporting deadlines with the FTC's schedule, ALS, NEEA, IAMPO, the American Lighting Association (ALA), and AHAM submitted comments supporting harmonization with the FTC's reporting requirements. (ALS, No. 66.1 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 67.1 at p. 2; IAMPO, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 103 at p. 42; ALA, No. 97.1 at p. 1; AHAM, No. 98.1 at p. 4) Specifically, ALA commented that such consolidation of reporting requirements would improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of compliance. (ALA, No. 97.1 at p. 1) Delta Faucet submitted comments requesting that efforts be made to reduce the reporting burden and cost on manufacturers by combining the DOE and FTC reports into one template. (Delta Faucet, No. 94.1 at p. 2) Today's final rule consolidates the Department's certification reporting requirements with FTC's schedule only. DOE will continue to consider consolidating filings with the FTC or other government agencies in a future certification, compliance, and enforcement rulemaking.B. Revisions to Reporting RequirementsIn the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to revise what information must be submitted as a part of a certification filing for DOE to better enforce its conservation standards. Specifically, DOE proposed to standardize to the extent possible the basic information required for certification of all covered products and covered equipment, setting out the basic requirements for every certification filing, followed by product-specific information requirements. DOE also proposed to require manufacturers to submit information related to waivers, exemptions, and approved alternative rating methodologies along with their certification submissions as appropriate. Lastly, DOE proposed to expand the product-specific information it was collecting with respect to each of the covered products and covered equipment to help DOE better understand the underlying attributes of the basic model's efficiency that impact the testing and certification data.
DOE generally received comments on the following issues related to its proposed revisions to the certification reporting requirements: (1) Reporting sample size and total number of tests performed; (2) reporting of testing data; (3) reporting use of an Alternate Rating Method (ARM)/Alternative Efficiency Determination Method (AEDM) or other alternative method of rating; (4) defining “distribute in commerce”; (5) product-specific revisions to reporting requirements. With the exception of the requirement for reporting the total number of tests performed, DOE is adopting all of the revisions to its reporting requirements proposed in the September 2010 NOPR. A discussion of specific stakeholder comments on these issues is presented below.1. Reporting Sample Size and Total Number of Tests PerformedUnder the rule adopted today, manufacturers must report the size of the sample tested, but need not report the number of tests performed. With regard to DOE's proposal to require annual reporting of sample size, DOE received comments in opposition from AHAM and NEEA. (AHAM, No. 98.1 at p. 4; NEEA, No. 67.1 at p. 6) NEEA argued that there are no compelling reasons to require submission of sampling plan information or data as part of certification. (NEEA, No. 67.1 at p. 6) The Department disagrees.
For purposes of certification testing, the determination that a basic model complies with the applicable conservation standard must be based on the sampling procedures, which are now found, by product, in 10 CFR Part 429. The sampling procedures provide that “a sample of sufficient size shall be tested to insure [compliance].” Unless the product-specific regulations specify otherwise, a minimum of two units must be tested to certify a basic model as compliant. This minimum is implicit in the requirement to calculate a mean—an average—which requires at least two values. Under no circumstances is a sample size of one (1) authorized. Manufacturers may need to test more than two samples depending on the variability of their sample. Therefore, the sample size can be an important element when evaluating the compliance of a basic model.
Consequently, the Department believes it is still important to request information regarding the sample size used in calculating the certification values submitted to DOE. As DOE has previously found, see http://www.gc.energy.gov/documents/certification_samplingplan.pdf, there is a significant amount of confusion in this area and DOE has attempted to clarify the sampling provisions, while maintaining the same level of tolerances, in the final rule. Sample size information that is submitted with the certification report will allow the Department to better understand how manufacturers are calculating their certified values. In the event the Department requests the test data underlying certification, manufacturers must provide the test data for each sample. DOE strongly encourages manufacturers to maintain records that clearly distinguished between each sample using unique identifiers like serial numbers and that provide a clear summary of how the appropriate statistics were applied to generate the certified ratings.
The September 2010 NOPR also proposed to require that manufacturers report the total number of tests per sample. AHAM, the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) and ALS objected to reporting the total number of tests performed in the annual certification report. (AHAM, No. 98.1 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 91.1 at pp. 9-10; ALS, No. 66.1 at p. 2) Specifically, AHAM commented that it failed to see how this information is necessary or useful to DOE. As the commenters suggest, this information may not be as helpful to understanding the certified values since the number of tests performed by unit can vary widely based upon a number of factors, including manufacturing practices and production lots. Therefore, DOE will not require the manufacturer to report thetotal number of tests performed per sample. Manufacturers may not use multiple tests of a single unit as separate samples when applying the sampling procedures.2. Reporting of Testing DataA number of commenters urged DOE to require that manufacturers report all test data for all covered products and equipment in support of the certified value reported to DOE. (See, e.g., NRDC, No. 80.1 at 4) NEEA stated that it supports the submission of non-regulatory metrics data from which the metric is derived. (NEEA, No. 67.1 at p. 2) Several manufacturers, however, strongly opposed reporting test results as part of the annual certification requirement. (Traulsen, No. 52.1 at p. 4; ALS, No. 66.1 at p. 2; BSH, No. 89.1 at p. 4) Specifically, Traulsen noted that providing such detailed data would compromise its product designs and competitive advantage. (Traulsen, No. 52.1 at p. 4) ALS stated that such a requirement would necessitate a huge undertaking by DOE to manage the submission and recordkeeping of all data for all the covered products under DOE's charge. (ALS, No. 66.1 at p. 2)
The Department did not propose in the September 2010 NOPR to require submission of test data in the certification report, and such a requirement is not part of this final rule. While the Department believes that test data is a key factor in helping the Department understand the certified rating, DOE does not believe it is necessary to collect test data from all manufacturers at this time. Instead, DOE is hoping that by expanding the certification data that the Department is collecting and providing additional clarity in the regulations as to the processes manufacturers must follow to determine the certified ratings DOE will be in a better position to understand the data underlying compliance. Although DOE is not mandating that manufacturers submit test data along with each certification report at this time, the Department's regulations continue to require manufacturers to retain test data records in an easily accessible format and provide them to the Department upon request.3. Reporting Use of an ARM/AEDM or Other Alternative Method of RatingFrom the comments, it appears there is general support for requiring manufacturers to submit information related to waivers, exemptions, and approved alternative rating methodologies along with their certification submissions. (See, e.g., NEEA No. 67.1 at 3) NEEA, for example, strongly supported the requirement that manufacturers report this information as part of the certification process. GE Prolec Distribution Transformers (GE Prolec) commented that, due to high volume designs and volume variations, manufacturers that use an AEDM for certification should have to update the AEDM substantiation each year and include this in the annual recertification process. (GE Prolec, No. 95.1 at p. 4) ABB Inc (ABB) noted that there is no approval process for an AEDM and, as such, the requirement to include the approval date should be removed from the certification report. (ABB, No. 53.1 at pp. 11-12) Currently, the regulations provide for use of an alternative rating method only for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps, commercial heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and water heating equipment (HVAC and WH), electric motors, and distribution transformers. While ABB is correct that certain products, such as commercial HVAC and WH equipment do not require approval of the AEDM before it is used, other products, like residential central air conditioners and heat pumps, do. Thus, these approvals are product-specific. DOE has clarified this in the final rule, which states that the information should be submitted, if applicable. The product-specific templates, which will be available for use with the new online submission system, will also be product-specific and consistent with DOE's regulations.
DOE also believes that manufacturers need the ability to specify that they have not performed actual testing but have modeled or simulated testing through the use of an ARM or AEDM or have used an alternative testing method authorized through a test procedure waiver, as the certification report itself requires the manufacturer to certify that it has tested the model. Providing alternative rating or alternative testing information in the certification report allows the manufacturer to make a more accurate certification statement to the Department. Similarly, in order to make an accurate certification statement to the Department, a manufacturer needs to identify any basic model that is being certified in accordance with an exception to the applicable standard. Accordingly, DOE adopts this requirement in today's final rule to provide an accurate reflection of the test procedures or exceptions used as a basis for the certification.4. Defining “distribute in commerce”EPCA's standards and DOE's certification and compliance requirements apply to covered products and equipment that are “distribute[d] in commerce.” A number of commenters requested that the Department adopt a definition of “distribution in commerce” in its regulations. Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. (MEUS) stated its concern that the definition of “introduction into commerce” is so broad it requires manufacturers to certify before providing information to the distribution base. As a solution, MEUS recommended that DOE de-link certification with “introduce into commerce.” (MEUS, No. 86.1 at p. 5) Additionally, NEEA expressed its concern that the definition of “distribute in commerce” would require certification prior to a decision to actually market the product. (NEEA, Public Meeting Transcript No. 67.1 at p. 336) Traulsen commented that DOE should define “distribution in commerce” as a published price. (Traulsen, No. 52.1 at p. 4)
EPCA defines “distribute in commerce” as “to sell in commerce, to import, to introduce or deliver for introduction into commerce, or to hold for sale or distribution after introduction into commerce.” (See 42 U.S.C. 6291 (16).) The Department recognizes that products may be imported for prototyping, research, field testing, or trade shows while the product is still being developed or before it may be available to the general public for a price. But the Department's interpretation of this term and the application of the statute's definition will necessarily depend on a particular manufacturer's production practices, business decisions, and the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Therefore, DOE is reluctant to dictate a single point in time for all manufacturers when the product development process stops and when distribution in commerce begins. As such, the Department declines to add a precise definition of “distribution in commerce” into its regulations. Instead, in each case, DOE will look to a number of factors to determine whether a model of a regulated product has been “distributed in commerce.” Such factors will include the following: Whether units of the model have been sold or offered for sale in exchange for monetary compensation;
Whether units have been included in marketing material made available to the public (e.g., on Web sites or in catalogs);
Whether the manufacturer has distributed marketing material that includes a claim or statements regarding the product's efficiency;
Whether a unit has been shown at trade show; and
The number of units produced, distributed, imported, and/or sold.A model must be certified to DOE as compliant with the applicable standard prior to distribution in commerce, but the exact point at which any particular model has, in fact, been distributed in commerce may vary considerably across product types and manufacturers.5. Product-Specific Revisions to Reporting RequirementsIn the September 2010 NOPR, the Department proposed including reporting requirements for products that did not previously have to submit information, including those added to DOE's programs by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In addition, the Department sought comment on expanding its sampling plans for certification to “features” other than the regulatory metrics. As an example, DOE suggested that the actual storage volume of a residential water heater may be a metric that should be subject to sampling requirements.
Today's rule extends the reporting requirements to all products regulated under EPCA, but does not impose sampling plans for features other than the regulatory metric. The Department's certification requirements are the foundation of DOE's compliance and enforcement framework and will be mandatory for all products regulated by EPCA.
Commenters generally disagreed, however, with the approach of extending the sampling plans beyond the regulatory metrics. For example, AO Smith commented that DOE should only test products for values that are covered in the current regulations, such as energy efficiency. (AO Smith, No. 81.1 at p. 3) Similarly, Bradford White Corporation commented that adding sampling plans and tolerances for other features of products is redundant and burdensome. (BWC, No. 45.1 at p. 2) While DOE is not adopting sampling plans for features other than the regulatory metrics at this time, DOE is expanding its product-specific certification requirements to require this type of information in the certification report.
DOE believes information about features that affect the energy-efficiency of the product is essential for DOE to audit compliance and for consumers to make informed decisions about product purchases. In addition, DOE notes that manufacturers have this information on hand and typically provide it in their marketing materials, on their Web site, or to product retailers. DOE's current regulations already request this type of information for certain products and equipment and requiring this information in the certification report is consistent with DOE's adoption of a more uniform approach to certification. In some instances, product or equipment feature information is necessary to determine how to apply DOE's test procedures. Thus, DOE believes this type of information is essential to any verification testing and enforcement testing that may be conducted by the Department. To help interested parties identify the new product-specific information to be submitted in certification reports, DOE has included this on a product-by-product basis throughout Part 429.C. Certifying Entities and Third-Party RepresentationCurrent certification regulations allow either the manufacturer or private labeler to submit certification reports and compliance statements for each basic model. DOE proposed, in the September 2010 NOPR, to require that manufacturers be solely responsible for submitting the certification reports to DOE. Under this proposal, the certification burden would be placed on the manufacturer, and not the private labeler, although the manufacturer would still have the option of electing to have its private labeler act as a third-party filer and submit the certification report on the manufacturer's behalf. With regard to third-party filers, DOE proposed in the September 2010 NOPR to make clear in its regulations that it may refuse to accept certification reports from a third party with a history of poor performance. A discussion of comments on this issue is below.
In today's rule, DOE is adopting its proposed requirement that manufacturers be solely responsible for submitting certification reports, which would include manufacturer information, as well as private labeler information and/or brand information, where appropriate. AWE and BWC submitted comments supporting DOE's proposal to hold the manufacturer solely responsible for submitting certification reports to DOE. (AWE, No. 38.1 at p. 2; BWC, No. 45.1 at p. 2) The Department considered NEEA's suggestion that the party responsible for introducing the product into commerce in the U.S. should be responsible for certification, whether that is a manufacturer, third-party private labeler, or an importer. (NEEA, No. 67.1 at p. 3) The Department notes that, pursuant to EPCA, an importer is a manufacturer and is included in DOE's proposal. While NEEA's suggestion has some conceptual appeal, the Department believes that such an approach would create confusion and be difficult to administer as it may be unclear who is the party responsible for introducing the product into commerce in a particular case. (See, e.g., above discussion regarding the definition of distribution in commerce.) Another commenter, the NEMA Motor & Generator Section, argued that DOE should continue to permit the private labeler to submit certification reports on electric motors as the information required is well known by the private labelers. (NEMA, No. 85.1 at p. 23) DOE believes that, in most cases, the manufacturer, rather than the private labeler, is one that tests a model and therefore is in the best position to provide certification information to the Department and to retain the underlying test data as required by the rules. DOE reiterates, however, that under today's rule, a manufacturer may elect to have its private labeler act as a third-party filer and submit the certification report on the manufacturer's behalf.
Commenters generally supported DOE's proposal to continue to allow third parties to submit certification reports to DOE on behalf of the manufacturer, as long as the third party does not have a history of poor performance. (See, e.g., AHAM, No. 98.1 at p. 6; BWC, No. 45.1 at p. 3) The Department notes that although a manufacturer is ultimately responsible for submission of the certification reports to DOE, it is a criminal violation for third parties to make knowingly false statements to the government. AHAM and BSH suggest that DOE notify the manufacturer or private labeler when the third-party it has selected has not met DOE's requirements given that the manufacturer or private labeler is the party that bears the ultimate liability for the report. (AHAM, No. 98.1 at p. 6; BSH, No. 89.1 at p. 4) DOE agrees that manufacturers should be notified in such cases by the third-party certified barred from submitting on behalf of manufacturers. DOE may also publish on its Web site a list of third-party certifiers barred from submitting certification reports. Intertek, UL and Earthjustice requested that DOE provide more specificity regarding when DOE will deem a third-party submitter to have a history of poor performance. (Intertek, No. 88.1 at p. 2; UL, No. 60.1 at p. 2; Earthjustice, No. 83.1 at p. 3) DOE clarifies that there is not a set of specific circumstances that must be met for a third-party certifier to have a history of poor performance. However, in each case, DOE will look at circumstances, such as the number of certification violations involving thethird party, including number of reoccurrences, the scope and type of the violations (e.g., was certain data missing or was there a failure to file altogether), the willingness of a third-party certifier to cooperate with DOE, and any corrective actions taken to prevent recurring problems.D. Submission of Certification ReportsIn the September 2010 NOPR, DOE proposed to remove the certified mail and e-mail options for filing certification data that are currently allowed in DOE's regulations and make electronic submission of certification reports through the Compliance and Certification Management System (CCMS) found at http://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms the sole method of submission. CCMS will have sample templates for all covered products and covered equipment available for manufacturers to use when submitting certification data to DOE.
The Department received few comments on this issue, with the majority of commenters supporting the move to exclusive use of the CCMS for certification. Specifically, NEEA commented that the proposed move to electronic filing for certification will reduce manufacturer compliance burdens and should allow for consistency of filed data from one Federal agency to another (NEEA, No. 67.1 at p. 3). Similarly, GE Prolec supported the CCMS approach, but also noted that there is currently no CCMS template for distribution transformers. (GE Prolec, No. 95.1 at p. 11; Public Meeting Transcript, No. 103 at p. 143) GE Prolec requested that it be able to review and comment on a proposed template for distribution transformers before it is finalized. DOE received one comment from First Co. opposing the use of CCMS as the sole method of certification because it would take time and a significant amount of work for manufacturers. First Co. suggested that the new CCMS only filing requirement should not become effective prior to July 1, 2011, to allow a reasonable period of time before converting to an electronic-only filing system. (First Co., No. 76.1 at p. 2)
DOE believes the availability of electronic filing through the CCMS system should reduce compliance burdens, streamline the process, and provide the Department with needed information in a standardized, more accessible form. This electronic filing system will also ensure that records are recorded in a permanent, systematic way and enable the Department to move towards a public, searchable database. Thus, in this final rule DOE removes the certified mail and e-mail options for filing certification data that are currently allowed in DOE's regulations. DOE notes that 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. Due to the number of user requests the Department expects to receive by the compliance date of the certification requirements being adopted in today's final rule, DOE strongly encourages users to set-up their accounts well in advance of the deadline. In addition, the CCMS templates with the new requirements for all covered products and covered equipment should be online shortly after the publication of today's final rule. The Department also encourages manufacturers, to the extent possible, to fill out these templates in advance of the compliance date in case questions arise.E. New Basic Model Filing, Basic Model Concept, and Notice of Discontinuance1. New Model Filing and Basic Model ConceptIn addition to the new annual certification requirement discussed above, DOE's September 2010 NOPR retained the existing regulatory requirement that any new basic model be certified before distribution in commerce. The Department explained that this requirement would apply to newly manufactured and produced basic models, as well as models that have been modified in a way that decreases a model's efficiency or increases its consumption and thus constitutes a new basic model. In connection with this requirement, the Department solicited comments on whether, and if so how, the Department should clarify the basic model concept to better identify whether and how energy or water use characteristics of a product may vary across different models in a basic model group. The Department's current regulations provide product-specific basic model definitions, which typically state that models within the same basic model group have “essentially identical” energy or water use characteristics. 10 CFR 430.2; 431.62, 431.172, 431.192, 431.202, 431.222, and 431.292. In the September 2010 NOPR, DOE asked how manufacturers determine that a particular model constitutes a new basic model, the difference in the energy use characteristics a typical change may have on a per product basis, and whether DOE should adopt a regulation requiring that a model be recertified as a new basic model if modifications impact the energy or water characteristics by a given de minimus percentage.
In response to DOE's questions, several manufacturers provided detailed product and manufacturer-specific information as to how they determine and make changes to basic model groupings. (See, e.g., Rheem, No. 79.1 at pp. 1-3; First Co., No. 76.1 at p. 1) Others, like NRDC, urged DOE to adopt specific and stringent product-specific thresholds for increases in energy consumption or decreases in energy efficiency that must be deemed a new basic model. (See, e.g., NRDC, No. 80.1 at p. 2)
More generally, commenters recognized the importance of the basic model concept and sought additional clarification on the matter. (See, e.g., AHAM, No. 98.1 at pp. 2-3 (seeking “clear and uniform rules” for “determining that a particular model constitutes a new basic model”); NRDC, No. 80.1 at pp. 2-3) Some commenters offered ideas for adopting a general definition of the basic model concept. Consumers Union, for example, urged DOE to establish that any differences in electrical and mechanical parts and any significant changes in functional volumes, capacity or water usage should be categorized as different basic models. (Consumers Union, No. 74.1 at p. 2) Along similar lines, NRDC suggested that DOE look to California's definition of `basic model” as a model along with an additional requirement that products within a basic model have similar efficiency and energy performance. (NRDC No. 80.1 at p. 2) NEEA cited California's approach, but also recommended that DOE allow for conservative ratings and simply require that all models in a basic model grouping have the same certified efficiency rating, on the ground that manufacturers certify compliance with a minimum standard rather than a performance level. (NEEA, No. 67.1 at pp. 4-5)
A number of manufacturers and trade associations urged DOE to allow manufacturers to rate their products conservatively, so long as the ratings are supported by the test results and comply with the applicable standard. As Rheem explained, conservative ratings ensure performance for consumers that is the same or better than the rating, while giving manufacturers “the flexibility to address fluctuations in component pricing or availability without the added burden of re-rating an appliance for every change.” (Rheem, No. 79.1 at p. 3) Whirlpool similarly noted that manufacturers may rate products conservatively “to allow for natural fluctuation in componen