[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38287-38293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16143]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 38287]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 429
[Docket Number: EERE-2010-BT-CE-0014]
RIN 1904-AC23
Energy Conservation Program: Certification, Compliance, and
Enforcement for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial
Equipment
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the ``Department'') is
adopting amendments to the compliance dates for manufacturers to submit
certification reports for the certification provisions for commercial
refrigeration equipment; commercial heating, ventilating, air-
conditioning (HVAC) equipment; commercial water heating (WH) equipment;
and automatic commercial ice makers, which are covered under the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (EPCA or the ``Act'').
Manufacturers of these products will be required to submit
certification reports no later than December 31, 2012.
DATES: This rule is effective July 5, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This rulemaking can be identified by docket number EERE-
2010-BT-CE-0014 and/or RIN number 1904-AC23.
Docket: The docket is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, public
meetings attendee lists, transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
For further information on how to review public comments or view
hard copies of the docket in the Resource Room, contact Ms. Brenda
Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or e-mail: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. E-mail: [email protected]; and Ms. Celia Sher,
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, Forrestal
Building, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Telephone: (202) 287-6122. E-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Authority
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as
amended (``EPCA'' or ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C.
6291-6309) provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles. The National Energy Conservation
Policy Act (NECPA), Public Law 95-619, amended EPCA to add Part A-1 of
Title III, which established an energy conservation program for certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, Parts B (consumer products) and C
(commercial equipment) of Title III of EPCA were re-designated as
parts A and A-1, respectively, in the United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 6299-6305, and 6316 of EPCA authorize DOE to enforce
compliance with the energy and water conservation standards (all non-
product specific references herein referring to energy use and
consumption include water use and consumption; all references to energy
efficiency include water efficiency) established for certain consumer
products and commercial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6299-6305 (consumer
products), 6316 (commercial equipment)) DOE has promulgated enforcement
regulations that include specific certification and compliance
requirements. See 10 CFR part 429; 10 CFR part 431, subparts B, U, and
V.
B. Background
On March 7, 2011, DOE published a final rule in the Federal
Register that, among other things, modified the requirements regarding
manufacturer submission of compliance statements and certification
reports to DOE (March 2011 final rule). 76 FR 12421. This rule was
largely procedural in nature; it did not amend pre-existing sampling
provisions, test procedures, or conservation standard levels for any
covered products or equipment. It did, however, impose new or revised
reporting requirements for some types of covered products and
equipment, including a requirement that manufacturers submit annual
reports to the Department certifying compliance of their basic models
with applicable standards. Finally, the Department emphasized that
manufacturers could use their discretion in grouping individual models
as a ``basic model'' such that the certified rating for the basic model
matched the represented rating for all included models. See 76 FR
12428-12429 for more information. This reflected a basic requirement of
the Department's longstanding self-certification compliance regime--
that efficiency certifications and representations must be supported by
either testing or an approved alternative method of estimating
efficiency.
Since the publication of the March 2011 final rule, certain
manufacturers of particular types of commercial and industrial
equipment have stated that they would be unable to meet the July 5th
deadline for complying with the certification requirements. In
particular, manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment;
commercial HVAC equipment; commercial WH equipment; walk-in coolers;
walk-in freezers; and automatic commercial ice makers (as defined in 10
CFR part 431) contend that certifying supported basic model ratings
under the revised provisions would require a cost-prohibitive amount of
additional testing and take far longer than the time allowed. Some
commercial manufacturers also expressed concern over DOE's regulations
for alternative efficiency determination methods (AEDMs), which are
intended to reduce testing burdens by allowing
[[Page 38288]]
manufacturers to use computer simulations, mathematical models, and
other alternative methods to determine the amount of energy used or
efficiency by a particular basic model. These manufacturers suggested
that the AEDM provisions are too restrictive, overly burdensome, and
unavailable for some products that would benefit from them and, as a
result, do not permit the viable alternative to testing intended by the
Department.
The Department responded in part to these concerns by taking two
immediate steps. On April 8, 2011, DOE issued a request for information
(RFI) (available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/arm_aedms_rfi.pdf) seeking comment on, among other
things, the use of such alternative methods for determining the
efficiency of commercial and industrial equipment. 76 FR 21673 (April
18, 2011). As the RFI explained, the Department intends to use this
information to propose revisions and expansions, as necessary, to the
existing AEDM provisions in a future rulemaking. The Department expects
that addressing manufacturers' concerns with the AEDM provisions may
alleviate some of industry's estimated burden of complying with DOE's
existing testing regulations and allow the development of the data
necessary to file the certifications and compliance reports as required
by the March 2011 final rule.
Given the testing burdens reported by certain commercial
manufacturers and the Department's recent RFI on alternative ways to
estimate efficiency in lieu of testing, on April 19, 2011, DOE
published in the Federal Register, a notice of proposed rulemaking
regarding the compliance date for certification of certain commercial
and industrial equipment (April 2011 NOPR). 76 FR 21813. In the April
2011 NOPR, DOE proposed an 18-month extension to the compliance date
for the certification provisions for commercial refrigeration
equipment; commercial HVAC equipment; commercial WH equipment; walk-in
coolers; walk-in freezers; and automatic commercial ice makers. In the
April 2011 NOPR, the Department sought comment on whether a limited
reporting requirement should be required of manufacturers of these
types of commercial equipment during an interim 18-month period.
Additionally, the Department noted it was considering extending the
compliance date for the certification provisions for other commercial
equipment based on comments from interested parties. Id.
II. Discussion of Comments
The Department received comments on the April 2011 NOPR from a
number of interested commenters, including various manufacturers, trade
associations, and advocacy groups. The comments and DOE's responses to
them are generally discussed below.
A. Extension of Certification Deadline for Commercial Refrigeration
Equipment; HVAC Equipment; Commercial WH Equipment; and Automatic
Commercial Ice Makers
As stated above, DOE proposed a tentative 18-month extension to the
compliance date for filing complete certification reports for
manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment; commercial HVAC
equipment; commercial WH equipment; walk-in coolers; walk-in freezers;
and automatic commercial ice makers in the April 2011 NOPR. 76 FR
21815. Most commenters were in support of such an extension, including
the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI),
Traulsen, International Cold Storage (ICS), Crown Tonka, ThermalRite
(ICS, Crown Tonka and ThermalRite hereafter referred to as ``Joint
Manufacturers''), Carrier Corporation (Carrier), National Automatic
Merchandising Association (NAMA), AAON, Inc. (AAON), Lennox
International Inc. (Lennox), Heatcraft Refrigeration Products LLC
(Heatcraft), Hill Phoenix Walk-Ins (Hill Phoenix), Royal Vendors, Inc.,
Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEE), and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) (ASAP, ACEEE, and NRDC hereafter referred to as ``Joint
Advocacy Comments''). (AHRI, No. 113.1 at p. 1; Traulsen, No. 111.1 at
p. 1; Joint Manufacturers, No. 115.1 at p. 1; Carrier, No. 114.1 at p.
1; NAMA, No. 116.1 at p. 2; AAON, No. 118.1 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 119.1
at p. 1; Heatcraft, No. 124.1 at p. 1; Hill Phoenix, No. 121.1 at p. 1;
Royal Vendors, Inc., No. 123.1 at p. 1; Joint Advocacy Comments, No.
125.1 at p. 1) For example, Traulsen commented that the proposed
extension should provide a significant time frame required to review
and adjust the open issues such as sample size, tolerances, and base
models. (Traulsen, No. 111.1 at p. 1) Carrier additionally commented
that the proposed 18-month extension is warranted to revise the AEDM
procedures to reduce the envisioned testing burden. (Carrier, No. 114.1
at p. 2) Carrier further requested that DOE amend the confidence level
to be used for calculating energy efficiency levels for commercial HVAC
equipment, noting an inconsistency in the confidence levels used for
commercial HVAC equipment and residential central air conditioners and
heat pumps in the March 2011 final rule. (Carrier, No. 114.1 at p. 2)
The Joint Advocacy Comments noted their support of DOE's proposal to
extend the certification deadline, and also suggested DOE consider
whether a blanket 18-month extension is needed for all products and
requirements. (Joint Advocacy Comments, No. 125.1 at p. 1)
Some of the commenters were in favor of increasing the proposed
compliance timeline. In particular, the Joint Manufacturers recommended
that the extension be increased to 24 months for walk-in coolers and
walk-in freezers, given the inherent cost burden and logistical
challenges of the physical testing that must be absorbed by smaller
manufacturers. (Joint Manufacturers, No. 115.1 at p. 1) AHRI suggested
a further extension of time may be necessary depending on the extent to
which DOE modifies its AEDM/Alternate Rating Method (ARM) provisions
and validation requirements. (AHRI, No. 113.1 at p. 2) Along these
lines, Zero Zone, Inc. (Zero Zone) commented that, with the current
definition of the basic model in the March 2011 final rule and the
exclusion of AEDM methods, 18 months is not enough time to comply with
the regulations. (Zero Zone, No. 127.1 at p. 1) Moreover, Zero Zone
asserted that the compliance regulations in the March 2011 final rule
are new for the commercial refrigeration industry and burdensome. Id.
AAON reported that the AEDM validation test tolerance stated in the
March 2011 final rule is less than the current level of repeatability
achievable in independent test laboratories making this validation
impossible to achieve. Until these issues can be resolved and made
clear, AAON stated it could not comment on the time required to comply
with new testing burdens or AEDM requirement. (AAON, No. 118.1 at p. 1)
While many commenters supported the certification extension for
certain commercial equipment, Earth Justice was the sole commenter
arguing against the proposed 18-month extension, noting that any delay
would undermine the energy savings achieved by the standards-setting
process. (Earth Justice, No. 120.1 at p. 1) Instead, Earth Justice
suggested DOE consider an alternative approach that would maintain some
certification requirements for these products but make those
requirements
[[Page 38289]]
less onerous for the first 18 months that the rule is effective. Id.
The Department appreciates Earth Justice's concern but declines to
adopt interim certification requirements in this final rule. Although
today's rule delays the reporting requirements for some products
distributed in commerce, such products must still meet all prescribed
energy conservation standards under DOE's regulations. As DOE has
previously made clear, the existing energy conservation standards, test
procedures, and sampling provisions are not affected by this rule.
While the Department believes the certification reporting requirements
are a good monitoring tool, their impact on energy savings should not
be wholly undermined by a delay because the energy conservation
standards themselves will still be enforced. Based on the volume of
questions DOE has received since the issuance of the March 2011 final
rule, the Department believes that a phased-in certification
requirement is likely to result in industry confusion that would more
than offset any benefit. The Department believes that industry should
focus its efforts on developing a basis for future regulatory
compliance.
In light of most of the comments above, DOE is extending the
compliance date for the certification provisions for commercial
refrigeration equipment; commercial warm air furnaces, commercial
packaged boilers, and commercial air conditioners and heat pumps
(collectively referred to as commercial HVAC equipment); commercial
water heaters, commercial hot water supply boilers, and unfired hot
water storage tanks (collectively referred to as commercial WH
equipment); and automatic commercial ice makers to 18 months from the
publication of this final rule. Thus, the certification compliance date
for these products will now be December 31, 2012. DOE believes 18
months is a reasonable extension to provide manufacturers with the time
necessary to develop the data and supporting documentation needed to
populate the certification reports and certify compliance with DOE's
regulations, including the existing testing and sampling procedures.
Manufacturer responses, however, indicate that numerous
manufacturers for certain types of commercial equipment have been
making representations of efficiency and determining compliance with
the applicable energy conservation standards without testing products
in accordance with all of the provisions of the DOE test procedures,
which include sampling plans and certification testing tolerances. As
such, it is apparent from the comments and concerns expressed to the
Department that a subset of manufacturers of commercial equipment now
require additional time to comply with testing and sampling
requirements. In addition, manufacturer comments have demonstrated to
DOE that the existing AEDM provisions need to be carefully reviewed and
modified, as necessary, in order to permit manufacturers to determine
compliance without undue test burden. DOE is committed to reviewing the
AEDM provisions quickly and to enable manufacturers to determine
compliance through approved methodologies. To that end, any comments
regarding the AEDM provisions, such as Carrier's request to amend the
confidence levels for calculating energy efficiency, will be addressed
in the current ARM/AEDM rulemaking.
DOE emphasizes that the testing and sampling requirements for
commercial refrigeration equipment; commercial HVAC equipment;
commercial WH equipment; and automatic commercial ice makers were not
adopted or revised in the March 2011 final rule and are unchanged by
this extension. These regulations can be found on a per product basis
in Subpart B to Part 429 (sampling plans for testing) and 431.64,
431.76, 431.86, 431.96, 431.106, and 431.134 (uniform test methods).
Those provisions were previously finalized in various product-specific
rulemakings after being subject to notice and comment.
While AAON stated its support for the proposed 18-month extension,
it requested clarification from DOE on how the March 2011 final rule
indicates that ``manufacturers could use their discretion in grouping
individual models as a certified basic model such that the certified
rating for the basic model matched the represented rating for all
included models'' as stated in the April 2011 NOPR. (AAON, No. 118.1 at
p. 1) DOE provided clarification of its basic model definition in the
March 2011 final rule. See 76 FR 12428-12429 for more information.
B. Extension of Certification Deadline for Walk-In Coolers and Freezers
In the April 2011 NOPR, DOE initially proposed an 18-month
extension for manufacturers of walk-in coolers and freezers to certify
compliance. As noted above, AHRI, ICS, Crown Tonka, the Joint
Manufacturers, and Hill Phoenix all supported the certification
extension for these products. Additionally, the Joint Manufacturers
commented in support of an interim reporting requirement, suggesting
mandatory registration with the Department's CCMS system for all walk-
in coolers and walk-in freezers (WICFs) manufacturers based on
published ratings and operating characteristics of components and
materials used in construction of these products. (Joint Manufacturers,
No. 115.1 at p. 1) The Joint Manufacturers clarified that this
mandatory filing should be delayed until January 1, 2012, to allow all
parties time to become acclimated to the system and to prevent an
influx of errors and subsequent delays in completion of the filing. Id.
Although the Department tentatively proposed an extension to the
certification compliance date for WICFs in the April 2011 NOPR, upon
further consideration, DOE has determined that an 18-month extension
for these products is not warranted. The current Federal energy
conservation standards for walk-in coolers and freezers are design
requirements prescribed under section 312(b) of the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), subsequently codified in 10 CFR
431.306. Manufacturers of WICFs are not currently required to comply
with a performance-based standard, which could require extensive
testing to determine the efficiency of each WICF and/or WICF component.
Instead, EISA 2007 prescribed a number of design requirements, only one
of which requires the use of a testing procedure. Because determining
compliance with the design standard does not require extensive, time-
consuming testing, DOE believes an 18-month delay to certify compliance
with the EISA 2007 design standards is unwarranted.
WICFs that did not meet the EISA 2007 design requirements could not
be distributed in commerce in the United States since January 1, 2009.
As DOE clarified in the March 2011 final rule, EISA 2007 provided the
framework for a component-based approach since each design standard is
based on the performance of a given component of the WICF. Accordingly,
DOE believes manufacturers of WICF components should be able to attest
and demonstrate their products meet the design requirements without any
additional time. Based on manufacturers' request for additional time,
however, DOE will delay the certification compliance date to October 1,
2011, in order to provide manufacturers with sufficient time and notice
to certify compliance to the Department. The new certification deadline
is after the annual submission deadline for WICFs eliminating the need
for manufacturers to submit two
[[Page 38290]]
complete certification reports this year and provides for a little
extra time for component manufacturers to certify compliance to the
design standards.
C. Extension of Certification Deadline for Other Types of Commercial or
Industrial Equipment
Several commenters requested that the Department extend the
compliance date for filing certification reports to other types of
commercial or industrial equipment, such as beverage vending machines,
distribution transformers and metal halide lamp ballasts and fixtures.
A discussion of the comments and DOE response is presented below by
product.
For instance, Royal Vendors, Inc., NAMA and Automated Merchandising
Systems Inc. (AMS) all asserted that DOE should provide an 18-month
extension for beverage vending machines for compliance with the
certification provisions. Specifically, NAMA noted that manufacturers
of beverage vending machines will be impacted by increased costs
relating to compliance and testing; and operators will be impacted by
increased prices for beverage vending machines, due to passed-along
costs from manufacturers. (NAMA, No. 116.1 at p. 1) NAMA further stated
that if the ``July 5, 2011 compliance date is allowed to stand,
operators could also be impacted by a reduced number of compliant and
certified vending machine models available for sale if manufacturers
cannot bring their designs into compliance and obtain certification in
this very short time.'' Id. Additionally, Royal Vendors, Inc. reported
that, because it offers such a proliferation of product models, the
quantity of testing required to verify compliance to the DOE 2012
requirement is quite extensive and costly to achieve in the timeline
required. (Royal Vendors, Inc., No. 123.1 at p. 1) AMS similarly
commented that the lead times for testing and the costs involved
necessitate additional time to obtain the necessary certifications.
(AMS, No. 128.1 at pp. 1-2)
The Department is clarifying that covered bottled or canned
beverage vending machines are not required to be certified until the
compliance date for the applicable energy conservation standards, which
is August 31, 2012. 10 CFR 431.296. Irrespective of certification
provisions, all manufacturers must bring their designs into compliance
by that compliance date to continue distributing them in commerce.
While many of the commenters suggested that the certification burden is
large due to the compliance and testing costs, DOE considered these
costs in the test procedure and energy conservation standards
rulemakings for this product. See 71 FR 71340 (December 8, 2006) and 74
FR 74 44914 (August 31, 2009), respectively. Manufacturers of bottled
and canned beverage vending machines should have the required
information readily available by August 31, 2012. Additionally, DOE
notes that it uses a self-certification process, where a manufacturer
is attesting to the compliance of its products upon submission of the
templates in CCMS; manufacturers are not required to obtain a third-
party testing facility's certification.
With regard to distribution transformers, the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (NEMA) Transformers Products Section
requested that DOE delay the compliance date for certification until
120 days from May 13, 2011, the day the Compliance Certification
Management System (CCMS) templates for distribution transformers were
published. (NEMA, No. 117.1 at p. 2) NEMA commented that such a 120 day
delay is justified, reasonable and absolutely necessary, as any
reporting represents a significant effort, both in time and labor;
initial reporting even more so. Id. at pp 1-2. Similarly, NEMA
requested DOE delay the enforcement of compliance reporting for metal
halide lamp ballasts and fixtures until a date no earlier than
September 1, 2012, because of the breadth of basic models covered and
ballast testing requirements. (NEMA, No. 122.1 at pp. 1-2) NEMA noted
this date coincides with the annual reporting date, minimizing the
burden of multiple reports within the same year. Id. at p. 2.
DOE acknowledges that both distribution transformers and metal
halide lamp ballasts and fixtures are unique markets. DOE understands,
as noted by NEMA, that the distribution transformer market contains a
great deal of customization, where many models are built-to-order. This
can result in a large number of models requiring certification to DOE
before distribution in commerce. DOE also understands it is common in
the distribution transformer market to maintain many legacy models that
were custom built for a given client instead of discontinuing them. DOE
believes that manufacturers of distribution transformers will need
sufficient time to review their records for legacy models to make sure
that all models currently distributed in commerce are properly
certified with the Department. As such, a large number of basic models
may need to be certified in the initial certification report.
Metal halide lamp ballasts and fixtures are also a unique market
since the manufacturer of the metal halide lamp fixture is responsible
for compliance and certification to the Department, but the standards
are based on the ballast (i.e., one component of the fixture). While
the testing procedures and standards for these products are already
effective and any representations of the efficiency must be made using
the existing test procedure, DOE believes manufacturers of metal halide
fixtures may require additional time to submit the certification
reports. Many of these manufacturers will need to gather data on the
ballasts from their component suppliers before the certification
reports can be completed.
Rather than adopting a compliance date mid-month, DOE is delaying
the compliance date for certification of distribution transformers and
metal halide lamp ballasts and fixtures until October 1, 2011. This
date provides slightly more time to allow for sufficient notice, data
gathering, and certifying compliance, and addresses the concerns voiced
by the manufacturers that they would be required to submit an annual
certification report just a few months after the initial certification
was due.
D. Reporting Requirement During Interim Period
In the April 2011 NOPR, the Department sought comment on whether a
limited reporting requirement should be established for manufacturers
receiving a compliance date extension for the certification reporting
provisions. In response, numerous commenters stated their opposition to
any such type of interim reporting requirement. AHRI asserted that DOE
should not require registration with CCMS and the reporting of
efficiency ratings before reasonable testing requirements and AEDM/ARM
authorization and validation requirements have been clearly
established, and manufacturers have been provided adequate time for
compliance. (AHRI, No. 113.1 at p. 2) Hill Phoenix, NAMA, Lennox and
Heatcraft were also opposed to reporting in the interim period. (Hill
Phoenix, No. 121.1 at p. 1; NAMA, No. 116.1 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 119.1
at p. 2; Heatcraft, No. 124.1 at p. 2)
AHRI further stated that manufacturers should not have to worry
about being prosecuted for inaccurate ratings or reporting errors while
DOE has yet to determine what product rating methods and procedures
will be deemed acceptable. (AHRI, No. 113.1 at
[[Page 38291]]
p. 2) Lennox and Heatcraft noted that the new certification
requirements already impose an additional significant reporting burden
on manufacturers, and DOE should not impose still another reporting
obligation on an interim basis. (Lennox, No. 119.1 at p. 2; Heatcraft,
No. 124.1 at p. 2) Instead, manufacturers should be able to simply
maintain in their files, accessible on request by DOE, records
demonstrating that covered equipment is in compliance with applicable
conservation standards. Id. NAMA argued that adding limited reporting
requirements will complicate testing, cost valuable staff time and
could slow accurate conclusion of testing procedures. (NAMA, No. 116.1
at p. 3)
In response to these commenters, DOE desires to clarify that all
products distributed in commerce must comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards. Today's rule delays the reporting requirements
only; existing energy conservation standards, test procedures and
sampling provisions are not affected by this rule. Therefore, during
the interim period before compliance is required for compliance
certification, manufacturers must maintain records to demonstrate that
covered equipment meet the applicable conservation standards--even if
the manufacturers' determination of compliance was not made in
accordance with DOE testing and sampling requirements.
E. Timing of Annual Filing Deadline
The March 2011 final rule added an annual certification requirement
for all covered products and covered equipment currently subject to
standards. The annual reporting requirement covers: (1) All
discontinued basic models previously certified that have not previously
been reported as discontinued (marked as discontinued); (2) all
previously certified basic models that are still in distribution in
commerce that are unchanged (marked as carryover); (3) all previously
certified basic models that are still in distribution in commerce but
for which the manufacturer needs to report new or changed information
(marked as modified/revised) (e.g., new brand info, new or different
model numbers, modified rating); and (4) any new models a manufacturer
anticipates offering for distribution in commerce (marked as new).
Lennox and Heatcraft requested DOE clarify the timing of the annual
filing deadline of certification-related information (pursuant to 10
CFR 429.12(d)) and the 18-month extension. (Lennox, No. 119.1 at p. 2;
Heatcraft, No. 124.1 at p. 2) These commenters suggested that the first
certification reports for covered equipment should not be due until the
DOE-specified month following the expiry of the 18-month extension (and
any requirement for submitting a certification report before
distributing relevant covered equipment in commerce should also be
deferred until that date). Id. Lennox and Heatcraft believe this
approach would preserve DOE's rolling submittal approach for annual
reports and also clarify that a manufacturer is not required to submit
a certification report twice in the first year that these reports are
due. Id. With regard to timing, Carrier urged DOE to establish, once
the AEDM procedures are amended, a subsequent effective date to
actually conduct any required tests under the amended procedures.
(Carrier, No. 114.1 at p. 2)
As discussed above, DOE is delaying the compliance date for the
submittal of certification reports for certain commercial equipment.
The annual certification requirement does not apply until the initial
certification requirements are required. As an example, the earliest
annual reporting deadline for commercial WH equipment will be May 1,
2013.
F. Compliance and Enforcement
DOE emphasizes that all covered equipment must meet the applicable
energy conservation standard. Furthermore, all testing procedures and
sampling provisions are unaffected by this final rule. DOE is adopting
a delayed compliance date only for the reporting requirements in the
March 2011 final rule and only for the equipment types discussed above.
DOE has also received questions regarding the compliance date for
covered products and covered equipment, where compliance with the
standards are not yet required, like general service incandescent lamps
(GSILs). Covered products and covered equipment are not required to be
certified until the compliance date of an applicable standard, so
equipment such as GSILs and beverage vending machines are not required
to be certified until the compliance date of the applicable energy
conservation standard. Further, DOE is adopting clarifying language in
today's final rule, which makes it clear that certification is required
by the compliance date of the initial set of applicable energy
conservation standards.
DOE encourages manufacturers to become familiar with the CCMS prior
to the certification deadline. The CCMS requires users to apply to use
the system by filling out a registration form, signing a compliance
statement, and receiving a personal password. The CCMS has templates
for all covered products and covered equipment available for
manufacturers to use when submitting certification data to DOE. The
Department encourages manufacturers, to the extent possible, to fill
out these templates in advance of the compliance date in case questions
arise.
G. Technical Amendments
DOE is modifying the regulatory text for cast-iron sectional
boilers and hot water boilers (429.18), vented hearth heaters (429.22),
general service incandescent lamps (429.27), and refrigerated bottled
or canned beverage vending machines (429.52) to remove the reference to
the conservation standards compliance date. Because DOE has added new
regulatory text in section 429.12 explicitly stating for all product
categories that certification is not required until compliance with a
standard is required, the product-specific regulatory text is now
redundant.
DOE is also deleting the regulatory text in section 429.35
requiring reporting and record retention relating to production dates
for compact fluorescent lamps. That requirement was inadvertently added
in the March 2011 final rule. Because there is no sampling requirement
related to dates for compact fluorescent lamps, there is no purpose to
this information.
III. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Today's regulatory action is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Administrative Procedure Act
DOE has determined, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
that there is good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior
notice and an opportunity for comment concerning two technical
amendments described in section G above as such procedures would be
unnecessary. Both technical amendments merely conform the existing text
to previously existing or newly added regulatory text without adding
any new substantive requirements. These amendments are of a type in
which the public would not be particularly interested or for which an
[[Page 38292]]
opportunity for comment would serve any purpose.
DOE has determined, pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1),
that this final rule is not subject to a 30-day effective date because
this rule extending the compliance date for requirement relieves a
restriction.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site: http://www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE reviewed this rule under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February
19, 2003. This rule merely extends the compliance date of a rulemaking
already promulgated. To the extent such action has any economic impact
it would be positive in that it would allow regulated parties
additional time to come into compliance. DOE did undertake a full
regulatory flexibility analysis of the original Certification,
Compliance, and Enforcement for Consumer Products and Commercial and
Industrial Equipment rulemaking. That analysis considered the impacts
of that rulemaking on small entities. As a result, DOE certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions
that are categorically excluded from review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule
amends an existing rule without changing its environmental effect and,
therefore, is covered by the Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR part 1021,
subpart D, paragraph A5. Accordingly, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 429
Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household
appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 2011.
Kathleen Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Office of Technology
Development, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 429 of
chapter II of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as
follows:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for Part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
2. Revise Sec. 429.12 by adding a new paragraph (i) to read as
follows:
Sec. 429.12 General requirements applicable to certification reports.
* * * * *
(i) Compliance dates. For any product subject to an applicable
energy conservation standard for which the compliance date has not yet
occurred, a certification report must be submitted not later than the
compliance date for the applicable energy conservation standard. The
following covered products are subject to delayed compliance dates for
certification:
(1) Commercial refrigeration equipment, December 31, 2012;
(2) Commercial heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning
equipment, December 31, 2012;
(3) Commercial water heating equipment, December 31, 2012;
(4) Walk-in coolers and freezers, October 1, 2011;
(5) Distribution transformers, October 1, 2011; and
(6) Metal halide lamp ballasts and fixtures, October 1, 2011.
Sec. 429.18 [Amended]
0
3. Amend Sec. 429.18(b)(2)(ii) and (b)(3) by removing the words, ``no
later than September 1, 2012''.
Sec. 429.22 [Amended]
0
4. Amend Sec. 429.22(b)(2) by removing the last sentence.
Sec. 429.27 [Amended]
0
5. Amend Sec. 429.27(b)(2)(iii) by removing the phrase, ``On or after
the effective dates specified in Sec. 430.32,''.
Sec. 429.35 [Amended]
0
6. Section 429.35 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(1) by removing ``bare of'' and adding in its place
``bare or'';
0
b. In paragraph (b)(2) by removing the text, ``production dates for the
units tested,''; and
0
c. By removing paragraph (c).
0
7. Revise Sec. 429.42(b)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.42 Commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Remote condensing commercial refrigerators, freezers, and
refrigerator-freezers, self-contained commercial refrigerators,
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers without doors, commercial ice-cream
freezers, and commercial refrigeration equipment with two or more
compartments (i.e., hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, hybrid
refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers): The
maximum daily energy consumption in kilowatt hours per day (kWh/day),
the total display area (TDA) in feet squared (ft\2\) or the chilled
volume in cubic feet (ft\3\) as necessary to demonstrate compliance
with the standards set forth in Sec. 431.66, the rating temperature in
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), the operating temperature range in degrees
Fahrenheit (e.g., >=32 [deg]F, <32 [deg]F, and <=-5 [deg]F), the
equipment family designation as described in Sec. 431.66, and the
condensing unit configuration.
0
8. Revise Sec. 429.52(b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.52 Refrigerated bottled or canned beverage vending machines.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Pursuant to Sec. 429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall
include the following public product-specific information: The maximum
average daily energy consumption in kilowatt
[[Page 38293]]
hours per day (kWh/day), the refrigerated volume (V) in cubic feet
(ft\3\) used to demonstrate compliance with standards set forth in
Sec. 431.296, the ambient temperature in degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F),
and the ambient relative humidity in percent (%) during the test.
[FR Doc. 2011-16143 Filed 6-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P