Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Supplemental Proposed Determination of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products as Covered Products, 11454-11465 [2016-04874]
Download as PDF
11454
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 81, No. 43
Friday, March 4, 2016
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–DET–0072]
RIN 1904–AC66 and 1904–AC51
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products and Certain
Commercial and Industrial Equipment:
Supplemental Proposed Determination
of Miscellaneous Refrigeration
Products as Covered Products
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking;
supplemental notice of proposed
determination.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is proposing to treat
certain miscellaneous refrigeration
products (MREFs), which include
coolers and combination cooler
refrigeration products, as covered
products under Part A of Title III of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(EPCA), as amended. This supplemental
proposed determination would modify
DOE’s initial proposed scope of those
products that would be considered
MREFs presented in its earlier proposed
determinations. As part of this
supplemental proposed determination,
DOE is also proposing specific
definitions of the product categories that
would fall within the MREF product
type. In addition, DOE is proposing to
amend its current definitions for
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers to help clarify the distinctions
between the proposed covered product
definitions for MREFs. The proposed
amendments to these definitions (for
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers) would not alter the scope or
intent of the current definitions, other
than for those products that would
newly be covered as combination cooler
refrigeration products.
DATES: DOE will accept written
comments, data, and information on this
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
document, but no later than April 4,
2016.
The coverage and definitions
proposed in this document would be
effective 30 days after publication of any
final coverage determination in the
Federal Register. After that date,
products within the scope of MREF
coverage would be subject to any
applicable test procedures and energy
conservation standards established for
MREFs.
ADDRESSES: This rulemaking can be
identified by docket number EERE–
2011–BT–DET–0072 and/or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) 1904–AC66
and 1904–AC51.
Interested persons are encouraged to
submit comments using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number, EERE–2011–BT–DET–0072 by
any of the following methods:
• Email: to NonCompressorResRefrigProd-2011-DET0072@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–2011–
BT–DET–0072 in the subject line of the
message.
• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585– 0121. Phone:
(202) 586–2945. Please submit one
signed paper original.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 6th
Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW.,
Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202)
586–2945. Please submit one signed
paper original.
All submissions received must
include the agency name and docket
number or RIN for this rulemaking.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to the U.S.
Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950
L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC
20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. Please
call Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–
2945 for additional information
regarding visiting the Resource Room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–0371. Email:
Joseph.Hagerman@ee.doe.gov.
In the Office of General Counsel,
contact Mr. Michael Kido, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC–33, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email:
Michael.Kido@doe.gov.
For further information on how to
review public comments, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by
email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Statutory Authority
II. Current Rulemaking Process
III. Scope of Coverage
IV. Evaluation of Miscellaneous Refrigeration
Products as Covered Products
A. Coverage Necessary or Appropriate To
Carry Out Purposes of EPCA
B. Energy Use Estimates
1. Coolers
2. Combination Cooler Refrigeration
Products
3. Conclusions
V. Product Definitions
A. Coolers
B. Combination Cooler Refrigeration
Products
C. Refrigerators, Refrigerator Freezers, and
Freezers
D. General Terms for the Groups of
Products Addressed in This Document
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act of 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act of 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
I. Statutory Authority
Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.), sets
forth various provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. Part A of
Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309)
established the ‘‘Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles,’’ which covers
consumer products and certain
commercial products (hereafter referred
to as ‘‘covered products’’).1
EPCA specifies a list of covered
consumer products that includes
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers. Although EPCA did not define
any of these products, it specified that
the extent of DOE’s coverage would
apply to those refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers that can be
operated by alternating current (AC)
electricity, are not designed to be used
without doors, and include a
compressor and condenser as an integral
part of the cabinet assembly. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(1)) EPCA did not preclude or
otherwise foreclose the possibility that
other consumer refrigeration products,
such as those consumer refrigeration
products addressed in this notice, could
also be covered if they satisfy certain
prerequisites. Those prerequisites, when
met, permit the Secretary of Energy to
classify additional types of consumer
products as covered products. For a
given product to be classified as a
covered product, the Secretary must
determine that:
(1) Classifying the product as a
covered product is necessary for the
purposes of EPCA; and
(2) the average annual per-household
energy use by products of such type is
likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours per
year (kWh/yr). (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1))
When attempting to cover additional
product types, DOE must first determine
whether these criteria from 42 U.S.C.
6292(b)(1) are met. Once they have been
satisfied, the Secretary may set
standards for these additional products,
subject to the provisions in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o) and (p), provided that DOE
determines the four criteria of 42 U.S.C.
6295(l) have been met. First, the average
per household energy use within the
United States by the products of such
type (or class) exceeded 150 kilowatthours (kWh) (or its British thermal unit
(Btu) equivalent) for any 12-month
period ending before such
determination. Second, the aggregate
household energy use within the United
States by products of such type (or
class) exceeded 4,200,000,000 kWh (or
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
its Btu equivalent) for any such 12month period. Third, a substantial
improvement in the energy efficiency of
products of such type (or class) is
technologically feasible. And fourth, the
application of a labeling rule under 42
U.S.C. 6294 to such type (or class) is not
likely to be sufficient to induce
manufacturers to produce, and
consumers and other persons to
purchase, covered products of such type
(or class) that achieve the maximum
energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)) This determination
would be made prior to DOE’s setting of
energy conservation standards for the
product at issue.
In addition, if DOE issues a final
determination that a given product—
such as a miscellaneous refrigeration
product or ‘‘MREF’’—is a covered
product, DOE will consider adopting
test procedures to measure its energy
efficiency and determine if the required
criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1) are met
prior to setting any energy conservation
standards for that product. DOE has
already started the rulemaking processes
for both the test procedures and the
standards for MREFs.2
II. Current Rulemaking Process
On November 8, 2011, DOE published
a notice of proposed determination of
coverage (NOPD) to address the
potential coverage of consumer
refrigeration products without
compressors in anticipation of a
rulemaking to address these and related
consumer refrigeration products. 76 FR
69147.
On February 23, 2012, DOE began a
scoping process to set potential energy
conservation standards and test
procedures for wine chillers, consumer
refrigeration products that operate
without compressors, and consumer ice
makers by publishing a notice of public
meeting, and providing a framework
document that addressed potential
standards and test procedure
rulemakings for these products. 77 FR
7547.
On October 31, 2013, DOE published
in the Federal Register a supplemental
notice of proposed determination of
coverage (‘‘SNOPD’’) in which it
tentatively determined that MREFs,
which at the time included wine
chillers, non-compressor refrigeration
products, hybrid products (i.e.
refrigeration products that combine a
wine chiller with a refrigerator and/or
2 On www.regulations.gov, see docket ID EERE–
2011–BT–STD–0043 for information regarding the
energy conservation standards rulemaking and
docket ID EERE–2013–BT–TP–0029 for information
regarding the test procedure rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11455
freezer), and consumer ice makers,
would satisfy the provisions of 42
U.S.C. 6292(b)(1). 78 FR 65223.
DOE published a notice of public
meeting that also announced the
availability of a preliminary technical
support document (‘‘TSD’’) for MREFs
on December 3, 2014 (‘‘Preliminary
Analysis’’). 79 FR 71705. This
preliminary analysis considered
potential standards for the products
proposed for coverage as MREFs in the
SNOPD. DOE held a public meeting to
discuss and receive comments on the
preliminary analysis, which covered the
analytical framework, models, and tools
that DOE used to evaluate potential
standards; the results of preliminary
analyses performed by DOE for these
products; the potential energy
conservation standard levels derived
from these analyses that DOE had been
considering consistent with its
obligations under EPCA; and all other
issues raised issues that relevant to the
development of energy conservation
standards for the different classes of
MREFs.
DOE also published a test procedure
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR)
on December 16, 2014 (‘‘Test Procedure
NOPR’’), that proposed establishing
definitions and test procedures for
MREFs, including the product
categories proposed for coverage in the
SNOPD. The proposed test procedures
to be included at Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 430,
subpart B, appendix A (‘‘appendix A’’)
would measure the energy efficiency,
energy use, and estimated annual
operating cost of MREFs during a
representative average use period and
would not be unduly burdensome to
conduct, as required under 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3)). 79 FR 74894.
After reviewing the comments
received in response to both the
Preliminary Analysis and the Test
Procedure NOPR, DOE ultimately
determined that its efforts at developing
test procedures and potential energy
conservation standards for these
products would benefit from the direct
and comprehensive input provided
through the negotiated rulemaking
process. On April 1, 2015, DOE
published a notice of intent to establish
a Working Group under the Appliance
Standards and Rulemaking Federal
Advisory Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) that
would use the negotiated rulemaking
process to discuss and, if possible, reach
consensus on the scope of coverage,
definitions, test procedures, and
proposed energy conservation standards
for MREFs. 80 FR 17355. Subsequently,
DOE formed a Miscellaneous
Refrigeration Products Working Group
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
11456
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(‘‘MREF Working Group’’ or, in context,
‘‘the Working Group’’) to address these
issues. The Working Group consisted of
15 members, including two members
from ASRAC and one DOE
representative. The MREF Working
Group met in-person during six sets of
meetings held on May 4–5, June 11–12,
July 15–16, August 11–12, September
16–17, and October 20.
On August 11, 2015, the MREF
Working Group reached consensus on a
term sheet that recommended the
relevant scope of coverage, definitions,
and test procedures for MREFs. See
public docket EERE–2011–BT–STD–
0043–0113 (‘‘Term Sheet #1’’). On
October 20, 2015, the MREF Working
Group reached consensus on a term
sheet to recommend energy
conservation standards for coolers and
combination cooler refrigeration
products. See public docket EERE–
2011–BT–STD–0043–0111 (‘‘Term Sheet
#2’’). ASRAC approved the term sheets
during open meetings on December 18,
2015, and January 20, 2016, and sent
them to the Secretary of Energy.
III. Scope of Coverage
As discussed in the previous section,
DOE’s Test Procedure NOPR and
Preliminary Analysis for MREFs were
consistent with the scope of coverage
outlined in the SNOPD.
In response to the feedback received
from interested parties on the
Preliminary Analysis and Test
Procedure NOPR, the MREF Working
Group was tasked with recommending a
scope of coverage for MREFs. To this
end, the Working Group’s Term Sheet
recommended that DOE drop two
product categories that DOE had
initially included in its scope—noncompressor refrigerators and ice makers.
For non-compressor refrigerators, the
Working Group members were unaware
of the existence of such products and
concluded that the non-compressor
products that do exist would be
considered coolers (formerly ‘‘cooled
cabinets’’) under the definitions
recommended by the MREF Working
Group. Accordingly, it recommended
dropping the non-compressor
refrigerator product category since they
would already be covered as coolers.
For ice makers, the Working Group
made two observations. First, the
Working Group noted that ice makers
are fundamentally different from the
other product categories considered as
MREFs, as emphasized by DOE’s
proposal to create a separate test
procedure for them. Second, the
Working Group noted that ice makers
are currently covered as commercial
equipment and there is no clear
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
differentiation between consumer and
commercial ice makers. See Term Sheet
#1.
Based on feedback from interested
parties and recommendations from the
MREF Working Group, DOE is
proposing that MREF coverage would
apply only to coolers (formerly cooled
cabinets) and combination cooler
refrigeration products (formerly hybrid
refrigeration products). DOE is also
proposing definitions for these product
categories.
IV. Evaluation of Miscellaneous
Refrigeration Products as Covered
Products
Determining whether to treat MREFs
as a covered product requires satisfying
certain statutory criteria. As stated in
section I of this notice, DOE may
classify a consumer product as a
covered product if (1) classifying
products of such type as covered
products is necessary and appropriate to
carry out the purposes of EPCA; and (2)
the average annual per household
energy use by products of such type is
likely to exceed 100 kWh (or its Btu
equivalent) per year. (42 U.S.C.
6292(b)(1)) Additionally, to set
standards for any newly covered
product, the average per household
energy use must exceed 150 kWh (or its
British thermal unit (Btu) equivalent) for
any 12-month period, and the aggregate
household energy use must exceed 4.2
terawatt-hours (TWh) (or its Btu
equivalent) for any such 12-month
period. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1))
A. Coverage Necessary or Appropriate
To Carry Out Purposes of EPCA
In this document, DOE has tentatively
determined that the coverage of MREFs
is both necessary and appropriate to
carry out the purposes of EPCA. MREFs,
which comprise a small but significant
and growing sector of the consumer
refrigeration market, consume energy
generated from limited energy supplies
and regulating their energy efficiency
would be likely to help conserve these
limited energy supplies. Accordingly,
establishing standards for these
products falls squarely within EPCA’s
purposes to: (1) Conserve energy
supplies through energy conservation
programs; and (2) provide for improved
energy efficiency of major appliances
and certain other consumer products.
(42 U.S.C. 6201)
B. Energy Use Estimates
DOE estimated the average household
energy use for MREFs—coolers and
combination cooler refrigeration
products—to determine if the average
annual per-household energy use of
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
these products exceeds the 100 kWh/yr
required for coverage under EPCA. For
this analysis, DOE used the SNOPD
analysis as a starting point and made
improvements based on more recent or
newly gathered data.
1. Coolers
DOE used market data, engineering
models, and feedback from
manufacturers received under nondisclosure agreements and during the
MREF Working Group meetings to
improve the estimates of average
household energy use for coolers as
determined in the SNOPD.
While the SNOPD considered
different product categories based on
both compartment temperatures (e.g.,
cooler, refrigerator, or freezer) and
refrigeration type (e.g., vaporcompression, thermoelectric, etc.), DOE
has reorganized the analysis for
consistency with the scope of coverage
and product definitions recommended
by the MREF Working Group, as
described in sections III and VI of this
notice, respectively. For coolers, the
definition would incorporate products
regardless of refrigeration system under
the same product definition. However,
to better account for the energy use
characteristics of these products, the
updated analysis separates coolers into
four product categories based on
refrigerated volume and installation
type.
DOE has updated several components
of its energy use estimates since the
SNOPD. DOE surveyed product owners
to improve its estimate of market
saturation rates.3 DOE has also revised
its estimates of product lifetimes based
on recommendations from the MREF
Working Group. Finally, DOE updated
its estimates of energy consumption per
unit through feedback from
manufacturers, the MREF Working
Group, the Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers,4 as well as
product information available on
manufacturer and retailer Web sites.
Table IV.1 shows the estimated
annual energy use for each type of
cooler. DOE found that across all cooler
product types, coolers have an average
lifetime of over 10 years, and an average
annual energy consumption of 440 kWh
per household.
3 See J. B. Greenblatt et al. U.S. Residential
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products: Results from
Amazon Mechanical Turk Surveys. 2014. Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. (Report
No. LBNL–6537E) and S. M. Donovan, S. J. Young
and J. B. Greenblatt. Ice-Making in the U.S.: Results
from an Amazon Mechanical Turk Survey. 2015.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley,
CA. (Report No. LBNL–183899).
4 See Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0043–
0106.
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
11457
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.1—COOLERS ESTIMATED ANNUAL ENERGY USE
Product type
Totals or
averages
Units
Compact FS *
Average Energy Consumption (per unit).
Stock ...................................
National Energy Consumption.
Average Lifetime .................
Annual Sales .......................
Saturation ............................
Compact BI *
FS *
BI *
kWh/year ............................
450
250
370
340
440
Units, 2014 .........................
TWh/year ............................
14,500,000
6.5
55,000
0.014
610,000
0.23
120,000
0.042
15,300,000
6.8
years ...................................
Units, 2014 .........................
% ........................................
10.3
1,400,000
12.6
10.3
5,400
0.05
17.4
35,000
0.5
17.4
7,100
0.1
10.6
1,460,000
* FS = Freestanding, BI = Built-in.
2. Combination Cooler Refrigeration
Products
DOE used market data, engineering
models, and feedback from
manufacturers received under nondisclosure agreements and during the
MREF Working Group meetings to
improve the estimates of average
household energy use for combination
cooler refrigeration products as
determined in the SNOPD.
Similar to the updated coolers
analysis in this notice, DOE revised its
combination cooler refrigeration
product analysis consistent with the
scope of coverage and product
definitions recommended by the MREF
Working Group, as described in sections
III and VI of this notice, respectively.
The updated combination cooler
refrigeration product definition removes
the 50-percent cooler compartment
volume requirement that was needed for
a product to be considered a
combination cooler refrigeration
product in the SNOPD. The updated
analysis reflects additional products
being included under the ‘‘combination
cooler refrigeration products’’
definition.
DOE has updated several components
of its combination cooler refrigeration
product energy use estimates since
publication of the SNOPD. DOE updated
its estimate of annual shipments based
on manufacturer feedback. DOE has also
revised its estimates of product lifetimes
based on recommendations from the
MREF Working Group. Finally, DOE
updated its estimates of energy
consumption per unit through
manufacturer and MREF Working
Group-member feedback and an
examination of more recent product
information available on manufacturer
and retailer Web sites.
Table IV.2 shows the estimated
annual energy use for each type of
combination cooler refrigeration
product. DOE found that across product
types, these products have an average
lifetime of about 12.6 years, and an
average annual energy consumption of
222 kWh per household.
TABLE IV.2—COMBINATION COOLER REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS ANNUAL ENERGY USE
Product type *
Units
C3A–BI
Average Energy Consumption (per unit).
Stock ...................................
National Energy Consumption.
Average Lifetime .................
Annual Sales .......................
Saturation ............................
C9–BI
C13A
C13A–BI
Totals or
averages
kWh/year ............................
210
280
210
220
220
Units, 2014 .........................
TWh/year ............................
70,000
0.015
70,000
0.019
160,000
0.035
120,000
0.027
430,000
0.095
years ...................................
Units, 2014 .........................
.............................................
17.4
4,000
0.06%
17.4
4,000
0.06%
10.3
16,000
0.14%
10.3
12,000
0.11%
12.6
36,000
Product types for combination cooler refrigeration products are based on the product class of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer that
the product would be categorized under if it did not have a cooler compartment.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Conclusions
Based upon its evaluations of coolers
and combination cooler refrigeration
products, DOE has developed estimates
of their annual energy use. These
estimates indicate that these products,
on average, consume significantly more
than 100 kWh annually. Therefore, DOE
has tentatively determined that the
average annual per household energy
use for MREFs is likely to exceed the
100 kWh/yr threshold set by EPCA
needed to classify a product as covered.
Moreover, DOE has determined that
MREFs on average consume more than
150 kWh/yr, and that the aggregate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
annual national energy use of these
products is 6.9 TWh, which exceeds the
4.2 TWh minimum threshold.
Accordingly, these data indicate that
MREFs appear to satisfy at least two of
the four criteria required by EPCA in
order to establish energy conservation
standards for a product that the
Secretary chooses to add for regulatory
coverage. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)(A)–
(D).
V. Product Definitions
Consistent with the SNOPD, the Test
Procedure NOPR laid out potential
definitions for the following four
product categories that DOE indicated
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would be considered as MREFs: Cooled
cabinets, non-compressor refrigerators,
hybrid refrigerators, and ice makers.
DOE proposed to define ‘‘cooled
cabinets’’ as products that maintain
internal temperatures warmer than
refrigerators; ‘‘non-compressor
refrigerators’’ as products that otherwise
meet the existing refrigerator definition,
but do not use vapor-compression
refrigeration; ‘‘hybrid refrigeration
products’’ as products with a warmtemperature (i.e. a temperature lower
than the ambient, but warmer than that
which is used to safely store fresh food)
compartment (e.g., a wine chiller)
combined with a fresh food and/or
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11458
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
freezer compartment, with the warmtemperature compartment comprising at
least 50 percent of the product’s total
refrigerated volume; and ‘‘ice makers’’
as consumer products designed to
automatically produce and harvest ice
that would not be considered any of the
other consumer refrigeration products
(e.g., refrigerator-freezer or freezer). DOE
also proposed amending the existing
‘‘refrigerator,’’ ‘‘refrigerator-freezer,’’
and ‘‘freezer’’ product definitions for
consistency and to improve their clarity
when viewed in conjunction with the
proposed MREF definitions. 79 FR
74894, 74899–74904 (Dec. 16, 2014).
The MREF Working Group
subsequently discussed how and
whether to define the various terms
related to MREFs. The Working Group
ultimately reached a consensus that is
reflected in Term Sheet #1’s
recommendations, which included
dropping DOE’s proposed definitions
for non-compressor refrigerators and ice
makers, updating the terms used to
describe the covered MREF product
categories based on the discussions and
analyses conducted during the Working
Group meetings, revising the proposed
MREF product definitions, and
amending the existing definitions for
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers to ensure consistency with the
recommended MREF definitions. See
Term Sheet #1.
Consistent with these
recommendations, DOE is proposing
new or amended definitions for the
relevant product definitions that would
be added to the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR 430.2. DOE
is proposing new definitions for MREFs
to clearly delineate which products
would fall within the scope of coverage
for MREFs and within which MREF
product categories. DOE is also
proposing similar conforming
amendments to the existing definitions
for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers,
and freezers for consistency with the
proposed MREF definitions. The
proposed amendments are intended to
eliminate confusion with the proposed
MREF definitions, and would not affect
the scope of coverage under the existing
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and
freezer definitions, other than for those
products that would be covered under
DOE’s proposed determination as
combination cooler refrigeration
products.
A. Coolers
In the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE
proposed to define a ‘‘cooled cabinet’’ as
a product operating using only electric
energy input but is not a ‘‘refrigerator’’
because its compartment temperatures
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
are warmer than the 39 degrees
Fahrenheit (°F) threshold established for
refrigerators, as determined in a 72 °F
ambient temperature. 79 FR 74894,
74901–74902 (Dec. 16, 2014). This
proposal was based on the premise that
such a product would adequately
capture items such as beverage centers
and wine coolers, which typically
operate above these temperatures.
The MREF Working Group term sheet
(i.e., Term Sheet #1) contained a
recommendation that DOE revise this
term from ‘‘cooled cabinet’’ to ‘‘cooler’’
and incorporate a number of other
changes to the proposed definition. The
Working Group recommended that
compartment temperatures be
determined during operation in a 90 °F
ambient temperature to maintain
consistency with the test conditions
used for other refrigeration products.
The Working Group also recommended
excluding products designed to be used
without doors, consistent with the
exclusions DOE had proposed for the
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and
freezer definitions in the Test Procedure
NOPR. See 79 FR 74894 at 74900 (Dec.
16, 2014). The purpose of the exclusion
would be to differentiate between
consumer products and commercial
equipment (i.e., products designed for
use without doors are commercial
equipment rather than consumer
products, consistent with the statutory
coverage of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers). The Working
Group further recommended the
requirement that coolers operate on
single-phase, alternating current rather
than simply specifying operation with
electric energy input. This approach
would exclude those products designed
for direct current or 3-phase power
supplies, which would likely apply to
products intended for use in mobile or
commercial applications, respectively.
See Term Sheet #1.
Consistent with this approach, DOE is
proposing to define cooler using the
definition for cooled cabinet proposed
in the Test Procedure NOPR—but
updated to reflect the Working Group’s
recommendations.
In response to the definitions
proposed in the Test Procedure NOPR,
Felix Storch, Inc. (‘‘FSI’’) commented
that it is not aware of any noncompressor freezers, but it is aware of
non-compressor refrigerators that are
able to have a very small portion of their
volume at a temperature cold enough to
freeze ice cubes. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 1) 5
FSI also commented that the proposed
category for non-compressor
refrigerators was overly-broad. It
stressed that there are two main
purposes for non-compressor units: One
is to serve as a low-price compact wine
cellar or dormitory cooler, and the other
is for use in special markets such as
camping or truck refrigerators. It noted
that these units should not have the
same regulations as currently in effect
for compressor units and instead, any
thermoelectric product with a volume
less than 1 cubic foot should be exempt
from regulation so that these products
can continue to be marketed. Also, FSI
stated that DOE should exempt units
without permanently attached power
cords for 110-volt operation—such as
car or truck refrigerators—that use a 12volt default power cord. (FSI, No. 15 at
pp. 4–5)
As described in section III of this
document, DOE is not proposing
separate coverage for non-compressor
freezers or non-compressor refrigerators
as MREFs. DOE does not agree with
FSI’s characterization above. Further,
DOE is unaware of any non-compressor
products capable of maintaining
refrigerator or freezer compartment
temperatures as proposed in this
document (i.e., the compartment
temperatures determined during
operation in a 90 °F ambient
temperature as measured by appendix
A). DOE expects that the products FSI
identified as capable of freezing ice
cubes do so either during operation at
lower ambient temperatures or in a
localized portion of the refrigerated
compartment while the overall average
compartment temperature would be
higher than the range required to be
considered a refrigerator. If true, DOE
expects these products to fall under the
cooler definition as proposed in this
document instead of the refrigerator or
freezer definitions because those
products would need to be capable of
achieving the compartment
temperatures as measured by appendix
A.
Rather, all non-compressor products
would be considered coolers under the
proposed definitions in this document.
Further, DOE is proposing that the
cooler definition include the Working
Group’s recommended requirement that
coolers operate on single-phase,
alternating current, which would
exclude products designed for direct
current power supplies, such as those
mobile products equipped with a 12-
5 A notation in the form ‘‘FSI, No. 15 at p. 1’’
identifies a written comment: (1) Made by Felix
Storch, Inc. (FSI); (2) recorded in document number
15 that is filed in the docket of the test procedure
rulemaking for miscellaneous refrigeration products
(Docket No. EERE–2013– BT–TP–0029) and
available for review at www.regulations.gov; and (3)
which appears on page 1 of document number 15.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
volt power cord. DOE also notes that
non-compressor refrigeration products
would not be subject to the current
energy conservation standards in place
for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or
freezers because the coverage of those
products applies to products equipped
with a compressor and condenser-based
refrigeration system.
In addition, FSI argued that
absorption refrigerators should not be
regulated. In its view, regulating these
products may make them too expensive
for hotels to afford them and leave them
with no viable option. FSI also argued
that the absorption refrigeration product
market is so small that DOE should
conduct an additional DOE survey to
determine if these products have a
market large enough to warrant
regulation. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 5) Because
DOE is no longer proposing a separate
definition for non-compressor
refrigerators, absorption refrigerators
would not be separately regulated as
non-compressor refrigerators under the
proposed MREF coverage. However,
they likely would fall under the
proposed cooler definition, and, if so,
would be subject to any future energy
conservation standards established for
coolers.
In addition to the cooler definition
recommended in Term Sheet #1, the
MREF Working Group recommended
that DOE establish definitions within
the cooler product category based on
total refrigerated volume and
installation type. The Working Group
recommended a ‘‘compact’’ designation
for products with total refrigerated
volumes of less than 7.75 cubic feet. The
Working Group also recommended that
DOE differentiate ‘‘built-in’’ from
‘‘freestanding products’’ by using
definitions based on those already in
place for built-in refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. See
Term Sheet #1.
Consistent with these
recommendations, DOE is proposing
definitions within the cooler definition
based on refrigerated volume and
configuration, consistent with the same
requirements and definitions currently
in place for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers.
B. Combination Cooler Refrigeration
Products
In the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE
proposed that the term ‘‘hybrid
refrigeration product’’ would refer to
products equipped with a warmtemperature compartment (e.g., a wine
chiller), making up at least 50 percent
of a product’s volume, combined with a
fresh food and/or freezer compartment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
79 FR 74894, 74903–74904 (Dec. 16,
2014).
The MREF Working Group discussed
the proposed definition and
recommended that DOE revise the term
from ‘‘hybrid refrigeration product’’ to
‘‘combination cooler refrigeration
product,’’ noting that this term more
clearly describes the product category.
The Working Group also recommended
that DOE refer to the warmer
compartment within combination cooler
refrigeration products as a ‘‘cooler
compartment,’’ defined by the same
temperature ranges as recommended for
coolers described in section V.A of this
document. The MREF Working Group
recommended that DOE remove its
proposed approach, which followed
DOE’s guidance that cooler
compartments must make up at least 50
percent of a combination cooler
refrigeration product’s total volume. The
Working Group noted that all products
with cooler compartments would likely
be used in the same way, and that the
50-percent threshold was an arbitrary
cutoff. The Working Group further
recommended that DOE exclude
products designed for use without doors
from the combination cooler
refrigeration product definitions for the
same reasons discussed for coolers (i.e.,
differentiating between commercial
equipment and consumer products). See
Term Sheet #1.
DOE agrees with the MREF Working
Group recommendations and the
Working Group’s reasoning behind each
of them and is proposing to incorporate
the suggested changes into the
combination cooler refrigeration
product definitions.
In response to the Test Procedure
NOPR, FSI commented on the proposed
definition of a hybrid product, stating
that for compact units, if there is no
freezer or ice cube section, then the
entire product should be treated as a
wine cellar. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 3) DOE
notes that a product with a single
compartment that is not a freezer would
be classified as either a cooler or
refrigerator, depending on what
compartment temperatures the product
maintains, rather than a combination
cooler refrigeration product based on
the definitions proposed in this
document.
In addition to the general combination
cooler refrigeration product
requirements, the MREF Working Group
recommended that DOE define four
product categories of combination
cooler refrigeration products, including:
‘‘cooler-refrigerator,’’ ‘‘coolerrefrigerator-freezer,’’ and ‘‘coolerfreezer.’’ The Working Group
recommended definitions for these
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11459
products that are consistent with the
non-combination cooler product
definitions (e.g., refrigerator,
refrigerator-freezer, etc.) with the
additional requirement that they
include multiple compartments, at least
one of which is a cooler compartment.
The Working Group also recommended
that the combination cooler refrigeration
product definitions not exclude noncompressor products. See Term Sheet
#1.
DOE agrees with the
recommendations made by the MREF
Working Group, since the four product
categories offer specific and unique
consumer utility. In contrast, in DOE’s
view, refrigeration technology
(compressor-based or non-compressor)
alone does not appear to offer any
special utility to consumers that would
affect their interaction with the product
when using it for its intended purpose
(e.g., cool storage of beverages).
Therefore, DOE is proposing definitions
for ‘‘combination cooler refrigeration
product,’’ ‘‘cooler-refrigerator,’’ ‘‘coolerrefrigerator-freezer,’’ and ‘‘coolerfreezer’’ consistent with the definitions
recommended in the Working Group’s
term sheet. Although DOE is not
currently aware of any non-compressor
combination cooler refrigeration
products currently available on the
market, DOE is proposing that noncompressor products would be covered
under the combination cooler
refrigeration product definitions to
ensure that if any become available on
the market in the future, they would be
considered covered products, consistent
with the Working Group’s
recommendation.
In this document, DOE also refers to
the term ‘‘cooler compartment.’’ DOE
intends to define this term as part of the
separate MREF test procedure
rulemaking.
C. Refrigerators, Refrigerator Freezers,
and Freezers
As discussed in the Test Procedure
NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to
the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and
freezer product definitions to create a
consistent structure with the proposed
MREF definitions and to improve the
clarity of the distinctions among the
different definitions. 79 FR 74894,
74899–74901 (Dec. 16, 2014). DOE did
not propose to redefine the scope of
coverage for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, or to amend the
definitions in a manner that would
affect how a currently covered product
would be classified (other than for
coverage of combination cooler
refrigeration products as MREFs). The
proposed amendments to the definitions
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11460
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
for these products would establish
consistency with the proposed MREF
definitions and were intended to
improve the definitions’ clarity and
ensure no potential overlap between the
definitions of these products and
MREFs.
In response to the Test Procedure
NOPR, FSI commented that it would
remove confusion to categorize allrefrigerators with absolutely no freezer
compartments as cooled cabinets. (FSI,
No. 15 at pp. 2–3) Based on the
proposed definitions for coolers
discussed in section V.A of this notice,
and the proposed definition of
refrigerator described below, DOE notes
that a product without a freezer
compartment would be classified as
either a cooler or refrigerator based on
its compartment operating temperature.
Because refrigerators and coolers offer
different product utilities (i.e., different
storage temperatures) that affect energy
consumption, DOE believes separate
product definitions and coverage are
appropriate.
FSI also commented that the
definition for a refrigerator should be
changed to ‘‘all-refrigerator’’ to specify
that the product has no freezer
compartment and the definition for
refrigerator-freezer should be ‘‘any
cabinet that has a separate compartment
for fresh food (39 °F or colder) and
frozen food or ice, whether or not there
is a single door or multiple doors.’’ (FSI,
No. 15 at pp.4–5) As described earlier in
this section, the proposed amendments
to the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer,
and freezer definitions were not
intended to change the scope of
coverage for those products, other than
for combination cooler refrigeration
products, but were intended to improve
clarity. The recommended amendment
would have the potential to change the
classification of certain other products
currently covered as refrigerators.
The MREF Working Group generally
agreed with the revisions proposed in
the Test Procedure NOPR, but
recommended that compartment
temperatures be determined during
operation in a 90 °F ambient instead of
72 °F, as discussed for coolers in section
V.A of this notice. The Working Group
also recommended that DOE remove the
proposed exclusion for products
certified to American National
Standards Institute (ANSI)/NSF
International (NSF) 7–2009
International Standard for Food
Equipment—Commercial Refrigerators
and Freezers or ANSI/UL LLC (UL) 471–
2006 Standard for Commercial
Refrigerators and Freezers, noting that
these certifications do not necessarily
provide a clear distinction between
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
consumer and commercial products. See
Term Sheet #1.
After further examining this issue,
DOE is proposing the following changes
to the existing definitions for
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and
freezer.
First, DOE is proposing to revise the
current definitions for ‘‘refrigerator’’ and
‘‘refrigerator-freezer’’ and to eliminate
the redundant terms ‘‘electric
refrigerator’’ and ‘‘electric refrigeratorfreezer’’ from 10 CFR 430.2.
Second, DOE is proposing to remove
the phrase, ‘‘designed to be capable of
achieving [the specified temperature],’’
with ‘‘capable of maintaining
compartment temperatures at [the
specified temperature],’’ and that this
temperature condition would be based
on operation in a 90 °F ambient
temperature. As described in the Test
Procedure NOPR, this change would
help ensure that product classification
would be definitively determined
through testing and would rely on the
product’s actual capability to serve its
intended purpose rather than relying on
the design intent of the manufacturer.
Third, DOE is proposing to remove
the current reference to the ‘‘storage of
food’’ and ‘‘freezing and storage of food’’
from the product definitions to ensure
accurate product classification and more
effective enforcement of energy
conservation standards. Similarly, and
consistent with the proposed change
described in the previous paragraph,
DOE is proposing to amend the
references to freezer compartments
within the refrigerator and refrigeratorfreezer definitions. The current
definitions describe a freezer
compartment as a compartment
designed for the freezing and storage of
food at temperatures below 8 °F which
may be adjusted by the user to a
temperature of 0 °F or below. DOE is
proposing to amend the definitions to
refer only to a compartment capable of
maintaining compartment temperatures
of 0 °F or below to limit any ambiguity
regarding what would be considered a
freezer compartment. DOE notes that the
MREF Working Group’s definitions
recommended in Term Sheet #1
included the reference to 8 °F; however,
DOE expects that its proposal to
eliminate this reference is consistent
with the Working Group’s intent for the
product definitions.
Fourth, DOE is proposing to treat
products designed to be used without
doors, and/or that do not include a
compressor and condenser unit as an
integral part of the cabinet assembly, as
commercial equipment and, therefore,
would be excluded from these product
definitions. As discussed in section V.A
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of this notice for coolers, the exclusion
for products designed to be used
without doors is intended to
differentiate between consumer
products and commercial equipment
(i.e., products designed to be used
without doors would be commercial).
DOE’s proposed approach would clarify
that products without a compressor and
condenser unit would be excluded from
the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and
freezer definitions because this
exclusion is included in the EPCA
provisions that establish coverage for
these products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1))
Finally, DOE notes that the definition
for refrigerator-freezer requires that at
least one compartment has attributes
consistent with a fresh food
compartment and that at least one
compartment has attributes consistent
with a freezer compartment. DOE is
proposing to clarify that the same
compartment could not satisfy both of
these requirements in a refrigeratorfreezer.
Similar to the intent of the Test
Procedure NOPR, with the exception of
those products that would be covered as
combination cooler refrigeration
products under this proposal, DOE is
not proposing to redefine the scope of
coverage for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, or to amend the
definitions in a manner that would
affect how a currently covered product
would be classified. The proposed
amendments to the definitions for these
products would establish a similar
structure with the proposed MREF
definitions. The proposed definitions
are intended to improve clarity and
ensure no potential overlap between the
definitions of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, and MREFs.
D. General Terms for the Groups of
Products Addressed in This Document
In the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE
proposed to define ‘‘miscellaneous
refrigeration product’’ as a consumer
refrigeration product other than a
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or
freezer, which includes hybrid
refrigeration products, cooled cabinets,
non-compressor refrigerators, and ice
makers. DOE also proposed to define
‘‘consumer refrigeration product’’ as a
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer,
or miscellaneous refrigeration product.
79 FR 74894, 74904 (Dec. 16, 2014).
FSI stated that DOE could easily
clarify a consumer refrigeration product
based on the norms it can easily verify,
such as the fact 90 percent of the
refrigerator-freezers sold in the U.S.
have a volume of 14 cubic feet or more,
with the remainder mostly made up of
dormitory (5 percent) or apartment (4
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
percent) sizes. It stated that a simple
definition would allow DOE to cover 98
to 99 percent of the market and allow
special markets to have suitable
products. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 1)
DOE notes that its definitions are
intended to provide clear differentiation
while avoiding subjective
determinations for what would be
covered. Although the product types
mentioned in the FSI comment make up
most of the consumer refrigeration
market, there are no established
definitions for each subset of products
that would fall under the proposed
consumer refrigeration product
definition, leaving DOE in the position
of developing more specific definitions.
DOE has already established detailed
definitions to address refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and is
proposing additional definitions for
coolers and combination cooler
refrigeration products. DOE is proposing
to refer to these products collectively as
consumer refrigeration products.
The MREF Working Group
recommended that DOE maintain the
definitions for miscellaneous
refrigeration product and consumer
refrigeration product, but to update
them to reflect the more current product
terminology and to remove references to
non-compressor refrigerators and ice
makers. See Term Sheet #1.
DOE is proposing to define the terms
‘‘miscellaneous refrigeration product’’
and ‘‘consumer refrigeration product’’
consistent with the recommended
updates from the MREF Working Group.
In DOE’s view, these proposed changes
will better reflect the recommended
approach detailed in the Working
Group’s recommendations to help
ensure their clarity with respect to the
other proposed definitions discussed in
this document.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
DOE has reviewed its supplemental
proposed determination of coverage for
MREFs under the following executive
orders and acts.
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that coverage
determination rulemakings do not
constitute ‘‘significant regulatory
actions’’ under section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
Additionally, the definitions proposed
in this document would clarify the
definitions of certain specific products
already regulated by DOE and those
products that are under consideration
for potential regulatory coverage. No
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
new requirements would result from the
proposals contained in this document.
Accordingly, this proposed action was
not subject to review under the
Executive Order by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996) requires
preparation of a regulatory flexibility
analysis 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. A regulatory
flexibility analysis examines the impact
of the rule on small entities and
considers alternative ways of reducing
negative effects. Also, as required by
E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of
Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking’’
67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003 to ensure that the
potential impact of its rules on small
entities are properly considered during
the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR
7990 (Feb. 19, 2003). DOE makes its
procedures and policies available on the
Office of the General Counsel’s Web site
at https://energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel.
DOE reviewed this proposed
determination and proposal under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and the policies and procedures
published on February 19, 2003. If
adopted, this proposed determination
and proposal would set no standards; it
would only positively determine that
future standards may be warranted and
should be explored in an energy
conservation standards and test
procedure rulemaking. Economic
impacts on small entities would be
considered in the context of such
rulemakings. On the basis of the
foregoing, DOE certifies that the
proposed determination, if adopted, has
no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
regulatory flexibility analysis for this
proposed determination and proposal.
DOE will transmit this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration for
review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11461
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed determination that
MREFs meet the criteria for a covered
product for which the Secretary may
prescribe an energy conservation
standard, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)
and (p), imposes no new information or
record-keeping requirements. Neither
would any aspect of the proposal
impose such requirements. Accordingly,
OMB clearance is not required under
the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this notice, DOE proposes to
positively determine that MREFs (as
proposed to be defined in this
document) meet the criteria for
classification as covered products and
that future energy conservation
standards may be warranted to regulate
their energy usage. Should DOE pursue
that option, the relevant environmental
impacts would be explored as part of
that rulemaking. As a result, DOE has
determined that this proposed action
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 proposed action would
establish a class of products (MREFs) for
which energy conservation standards
would be appropriate. However, this
proposed action would not establish
energy conservation standards, and,
therefore, would not result in any
environmental impacts. Thus, this
action is covered by Categorical
Exclusion A6 ‘‘Procedural rulemakings’’
under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D.
Accordingly, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental
impact statement is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order (E.O.) 13132,
‘‘Federalism’’ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10,
1999), imposes certain requirements on
agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt
State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order
requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the
States and to assess carefully the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in developing
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
11462
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
regulatory policies that have Federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental
consultation process that it will follow
in developing such regulations. 65 FR
13735 (Mar. 14, 2000). DOE has
examined this proposed determination
and proposal. On the basis of this
examination, DOE concludes that the
action proposed in this document
would not preempt State law or have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the Federal
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for
the product that is the subject of this
proposed determination and proposal.
States can petition DOE for exemption
from such preemption to the extent
permitted, and based on criteria, set
forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No
further action is required by E.O. 13132.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O.
12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ 61 FR
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the duty to: (1) Eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; (3)
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
E.O. 12988 specifically requires that
Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation specifies the following: (1)
The preemptive effect, if any; (2) any
effect on existing Federal law or
regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4)
the retroactive effect, if any; (5)
definitions of key terms; and (6) other
important issues affecting clarity and
general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988
requires Executive agencies to review
regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to
determine whether these standards are
met, or whether it is unreasonable to
meet one or more of them. DOE
completed the required review and
determined that, to the extent permitted
by law, this proposed determination and
proposal meet the relevant standards of
E.O. 12988.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104–4, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
requires each Federal agency to assess
the effects of Federal regulatory actions
on State, local, and tribal governments
and the private sector. For regulatory
actions likely to result in a rule that may
cause expenditures by State, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector of $100 million or
more in any 1 year (adjusted annually
for inflation), section 202 of UMRA
requires a Federal agency to publish a
written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other
effects on the national economy. (2
U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b)) UMRA requires
a Federal agency to develop an effective
process to permit timely input by
elected officers of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate.’’ UMRA
also requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input
to small governments that may be
potentially affected before establishing
any requirement that might significantly
or uniquely affect them. On March 18,
1997, DOE published a statement of
policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA. 62 FR 12820 (Mar. 18, 1997).
(This policy also is available at https://
energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this proposed
determination pursuant to these existing
authorities and its policy statement and
determined that the proposed
determination and proposal contain
neither an intergovernmental mandate
nor a mandate that may result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more in
any year, so the UMRA requirements do
not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
proposed determination and proposal
would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as
an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988),
DOE determined that this proposed
determination and proposal would not
result in any takings that might require
compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 2001
The Treasury and General
Government Appropriation Act of 2001
(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) requires agencies
to review most disseminations of
information they make to the public
under guidelines established by each
agency pursuant to general guidelines
issued by the OMB. The OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed
this proposed determination and
proposal under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that they
are consistent with applicable policies
in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66
FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires
Federal agencies to prepare and submit
to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects
for any proposed significant energy
action. A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is
defined as any action by an agency that
promulgates a final rule or is expected
to lead to promulgation of a final rule,
and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory
action under E.O. 12866, or any
successor order; and (2) is likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy; or
(3) is designated by the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy
action. For any proposed significant
energy action, the agency must give a
detailed statement of any adverse effects
on energy supply, distribution, or use if
the proposal is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has concluded that this
regulatory action proposing to establish
or amend certain definitions and to
determine that MREFs meet the criteria
for a covered product for which the
Secretary may prescribe an energy
conservation standard pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) would not have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
This action is also not a significant
regulatory action for purposes of E.O.
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
11463
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
12866, and the OIRA Administrator has
not designated this determination as a
significant energy action under E.O.
12866 or any successor order. Therefore,
this proposed determination and
proposal do not comprise a significant
energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not
prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under the Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued
its Final Information Quality Bulletin
for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR
2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin
establishes that certain scientific
information shall be peer reviewed by
qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal
government, including influential
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
Bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. DOE has
determined that the analyses conducted
for the regulatory action discussed in
this document do not constitute
‘‘influential scientific information,’’
which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific
information the agency reasonably can
determine will have or does have a clear
and substantial impact on important
public policies or private sector
decisions.’’ 70 FR 2667 (Jan. 14, 2005).
The analyses were subject to predissemination review prior to issuance
of this rulemaking.
DOE will determine the appropriate
level of review that would apply to any
future rulemaking to establish energy
conservation standards for MREFs.
VII. Public Participation
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this notice of
proposed determination no later than
the date provided at the beginning of
this notice. After the close of the
comment period, DOE will review the
comments received and determine
whether miscellaneous refrigeration
products are covered products under
EPCA.
Comments, data, and information
submitted to DOE’s email address for
this proposed determination should be
provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft
Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format.
Submissions should avoid the use of
special characters or any form of
encryption, and wherever possible
comments should include the electronic
signature of the author. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
According to 10 CFR part 1004.11,
any person submitting information that
he or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from public disclosure
should submit two copies: One copy of
the document should have all the
information believed to be confidential
deleted. DOE will make its own
determination as to the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include (1) a
description of the items; (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known or available from
public sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligations
concerning its confidentiality; (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting persons which would
result from public disclosure; (6) a date
after which such information might no
longer be considered confidential; and
(7) why disclosure of the information
would be contrary to the public interest.
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comments
DOE welcomes comments on all
aspects of this proposed determination.
DOE is particularly interested in
receiving comments from interested
parties on the following issues related to
the proposed determination for MREFs
detailed in this document:
(1) The proposed scope of coverage
for MREFs;
(2) The proposed definitions for
MREFs and the various individual
product categories;
(3) The calculations and
accompanying values for household and
national energy consumption of the
products that would be covered on
which DOE is relying in determining
coverage; and
(4) The availability or lack of
availability of technologies for
improving the energy efficiency of
MREFs as DOE is proposing to define
them.
The Department is interested in
receiving views concerning other
relevant issues that participants believe
would affect DOE’s ability to establish
test procedures and energy conservation
standards for miscellaneous
refrigeration products. The Department
invites all interested parties to submit in
writing by April 4, 2016, comments and
information on matters addressed in this
notice and on other matters relevant to
consideration of a determination for
miscellaneous refrigeration products.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
After the expiration of the period for
submitting written statements, the
Department will consider all comments
and additional information that is
obtained from interested parties or
through further analyses, and it will
prepare a final determination. If DOE
determines that MREFs qualify as
covered products, DOE will consider the
development of a test procedure and
energy conservation standards for
MREFs. In this regard, DOE notes that
it has already proposed a test procedure
that would address these products and
completed a substantial amount of work
related to potential energy conservation
standards for them. Members of the
public will be given an opportunity to
submit written and oral comments on
any proposed test procedure and
standards.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 26,
2016.
David T. Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
430 of chapter II of title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
2. Amend § 430.2 by:
a. Adding, in alphabetical order,
definitions for ‘‘built-in compact
cooler,’’ ‘‘built-in cooler,’’ ‘‘combination
cooler refrigeration product,’’
‘‘consumer refrigeration product,’’
‘‘cooler,’’ ‘‘cooler-freezer,’’ ‘‘coolerrefrigerator,’’ ‘‘cooler-refrigeratorfreezer,’’ ‘‘freestanding compact cooler,’’
‘‘freestanding cooler,’’ and
‘‘miscellaneous refrigeration product’’;
■ b. Revising the definitions for
‘‘freezer,’’ ‘‘refrigerator,’’ and
‘‘refrigerator-freezer’’; and
■ c. Removing the definitions for
‘‘electric refrigerator’’ and ‘‘electric
refrigerator-freezer.’’
The additions and revisions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 430.2
*
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
Definitions.
*
*
04MRP1
*
*
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
11464
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
Built-in compact cooler means any
cooler with a total refrigerated volume
less than 7.75 cubic feet and no more
than 24 inches in depth, excluding
doors, handles, and custom front panels,
that is designed, intended, and
marketed exclusively to be:
(1) Installed totally encased by
cabinetry or panels that are attached
during installation;
(2) Securely fastened to adjacent
cabinetry, walls or floor,
(3) Equipped with unfinished sides
that are not visible after installation, and
(4) Equipped with an integral factoryfinished face or built to accept a custom
front panel.
Built-in cooler means any cooler with
a total refrigerated volume of 7.75 cubic
feet or greater and no more than 24
inches in depth, excluding doors,
handles, and custom front panels; that
is designed, intended, and marketed
exclusively to be:
(1) Installed totally encased by
cabinetry or panels that are attached
during installation;
(2) Securely fastened to adjacent
cabinetry, walls or floor;
(3) Equipped with unfinished sides
that are not visible after installation; and
(4) Equipped with an integral factoryfinished face or built to accept a custom
front panel.
*
*
*
*
*
Combination cooler refrigeration
product means any cooler-refrigerator,
cooler-refrigerator-freezer, or coolerfreezer.
*
*
*
*
*
Consumer refrigeration product
means a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer,
freezer, or miscellaneous refrigeration
product.
*
*
*
*
*
Cooler means a cabinet, used with one
or more doors, that has a source of
refrigeration capable of operating on
single-phase, alternating current and is
capable of maintaining compartment
temperatures either:
(1) No lower than 39 °F (3.9 °C), or
(2) In a range that extends no lower
than 37 °F (2.8 °C) but at least as high
as 60 °F (15.6 °C) as determined
according to the applicable provisions
in § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR
74894 (December 16, 2014)].
Cooler-freezer is a cabinet, used with
one or more doors, that has a source of
refrigeration that requires single-phase,
alternating current electric energy input
only, and consists of two or more
compartments, including at least one
cooler compartment as defined in
appendix A of subpart B of this part,
where the remaining compartment(s) are
capable of maintaining compartment
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 Mar 03, 2016
Jkt 238001
temperatures at 0 °F (–17.8 °C) or below
as determined according to the
provisions in § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at
79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)].
Cooler-refrigerator is a cabinet, used
with one or more doors, that has a
source of refrigeration that requires
single-phase, alternating current electric
energy input only, and consists of two
or more compartments, including at
least one cooler compartment as defined
in appendix A of subpart B of this part,
where:
(1) At least one of the remaining
compartments is capable of maintaining
compartment temperatures above 32 °F
(0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as
determined according to § 429.61(d)(2)
[proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16,
2014)];
(2) The cabinet may also include a
compartment capable of maintaining
compartment temperatures below 32 °F
(0 °C) as determined according to
§ 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894
(December 16, 2014)]; but
(3) The cabinet does not provide a
separate low temperature compartment
capable of maintaining compartment
temperatures below 0 °F (¥13.3 °C) as
determined according to § 429.61(d)(2)
[proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16,
2014)].
Cooler-refrigerator-freezer is a cabinet,
used with one or more doors, that has
a source of refrigeration that requires
single-phase, alternating current electric
energy input only, and consists of three
or more compartments, including at
least one cooler compartment as defined
in appendix A of subpart B of this part,
where:
(1) At least one of the remaining
compartments is capable of maintaining
compartment temperatures above 32 °F
(0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as
determined according § 429.61(d)(2)
[proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16,
2014)], and
(2) At least one other compartment is
capable of maintaining compartment
temperatures of 0 °F (¥17.8 °C) or
below as determined according to
§ 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894
(December 16, 2014)].
*
*
*
*
*
Freestanding compact cooler means
any cooler, excluding built-in compact
coolers, with a total refrigerated volume
less than 7.75 cubic feet.
Freestanding cooler means any cooler,
excluding built-in coolers, with a total
refrigerated volume of 7.75 cubic feet or
greater.
Freezer means a cabinet, used with
one or more doors, that has a source of
refrigeration that requires single-phase,
alternating current electric energy input
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
only and is capable of maintaining
compartment temperatures of 0 °F
(¥17.8 °C) or below as determined
according to the provisions in
§ 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894
(December 16, 2014)]. It does not
include any refrigerated cabinet that
consists solely of an automatic ice
maker and an ice storage bin arranged
so that operation of the automatic
icemaker fills the bin to its capacity.
However, the term does not include any
product that does not include a
compressor and condenser unit as an
integral part of the cabinet assembly.
*
*
*
*
*
Miscellaneous refrigeration product
means a consumer refrigeration product
other than a refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, or freezer, which includes
coolers and combination cooler
refrigeration products.
*
*
*
*
*
Refrigerator means a cabinet, used
with one or more doors, that has a
source of refrigeration that requires
single-phase, alternating current electric
energy input only and is capable of
maintaining compartment temperatures
above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9
°C) as determined according to
§ 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894
(December 16, 2014)]. A refrigerator may
include a compartment capable of
maintaining compartment temperatures
below 32 °F (0 °C), but does not provide
a separate low temperature
compartment capable of maintaining
compartment temperatures below 0 °F
(¥13.3 °C) as determined according to
§ 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894
(December 16, 2014)]. However, the
term does not include any product that
does not include a compressor and
condenser unit as an integral part of the
cabinet assembly.
Refrigerator-freezer means a cabinet,
used with one or more doors, that has
a source of refrigeration that requires
single-phase, alternating current electric
energy input only and consists of two or
more compartments where at least one
of the compartments is capable of
maintaining compartment temperatures
above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9
°C) as determined according to
§ 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894
(December 16, 2014)], and at least one
other compartment is capable of
maintaining compartment temperatures
of 0 °F (¥17.8 °C) or below as
determined according to § 429.14(d)(2)
[proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16,
2014)]. However, the term does not
include any cabinet that does not
include a compressor and condenser
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules
unit as an integral part of the cabinet
assembly.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–04874 Filed 3–3–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Examining the AD Docket
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2016–4230; Directorate
Identifier 2015–CE–041–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; EVECTOR,
spol. s.r.o. Gliders
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for
EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH
VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders
(type certificate previously held by
AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.) that would
supersede AD 2000–20–12. This
proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify
and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes
the unsafe condition as insufficient
material strength of the tail-fuselage
attachment fitting. We are issuing this
proposed AD to require actions to
address the unsafe condition on these
products.
SUMMARY:
We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by April 18, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact EVEKTOR,
spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686 04
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:02 Mar 03, 2016
Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420
572 537 428; email: evektor@evektor.cz;
Internet: https://www.evektor.cz/en/
sales-and-support. You may review
copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call (816) 329–4148.
Jkt 238001
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2016–
4230; or in person at the Docket
Management Facility between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim
Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816)
329–4090; email: jim.rutherford@
faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposed AD. Send your comments
to an address listed under the
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2016–4230; Directorate Identifier
2015–CE–041–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
regulations.gov, including any personal
information you provide. We will also
post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
Discussion
On September 28, 2000, we issued AD
2000–20–12, Amendment 39–11923 (65
FR 61262; October 17, 2000) (‘‘AD
2000–20–12’’). That AD required actions
intended to address an unsafe condition
on EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L 13
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SEH VIVAT gliders and was based on
mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by the
Civil Aviation Authority, which is the
aviation authority for the Czech
Republic. That MCAI (AD CAA–AD–T–
112/1999R1, dated November 23, 1999),
was issued to correct an unsafe
condition for EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o.
Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM
VIVAT gliders and BLANIK LIMITED
Models L–13 Blanik and L–13 AC
Blanik gliders. The MCAI states:
To prevent destruction of tail-fuselage
attachment fitting which can lead to loss of
control of the sailplane. This destruction
could be caused due to lower strength of the
material used during production.
You may examine the MCAI on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA–2016–4230.
A review of records since issuance of
AD 2000–20–12 revealed that the FAA
inadvertently did not address this MCAI
for the EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L
13 SDM VIVAT gliders and the BLANIK
LIMITED Model L–13 AC Blanik gliders.
This proposed AD would supersede AD
2000–20–12 to add the EVECTOR, spol.
s.r.o. Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders to
the applicability of the AD.
The FAA will address the BLANIK
LIMITED Model L–13 AC Blanik gliders
in another AD action.
Related Service Information Under 1
CFR Part 51
Comments Invited
PO 00000
11465
AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. issued
Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13–
005a, dated November 18, 1999. The
service information describes
procedures for testing the material
strength of attachment fitting part
number A 102 021N and instructions for
contacting the manufacturer for
replacement information if necessary.
This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties
have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section of
this NPRM.
FAA’s Determination and Requirements
of the Proposed AD
This product has been approved by
the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation
in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with this State of
Design Authority, they have notified us
of the unsafe condition described in the
MCAI and service information
referenced above. We are proposing this
AD because we evaluated all
information and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or
E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM
04MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11454-11465]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04874]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 11454]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-DET-0072]
RIN 1904-AC66 and 1904-AC51
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain
Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Supplemental Proposed
Determination of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products as Covered
Products
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; supplemental notice of proposed
determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing to treat
certain miscellaneous refrigeration products (MREFs), which include
coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products, as covered
products under Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended. This supplemental proposed
determination would modify DOE's initial proposed scope of those
products that would be considered MREFs presented in its earlier
proposed determinations. As part of this supplemental proposed
determination, DOE is also proposing specific definitions of the
product categories that would fall within the MREF product type. In
addition, DOE is proposing to amend its current definitions for
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to help clarify the
distinctions between the proposed covered product definitions for
MREFs. The proposed amendments to these definitions (for refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers) would not alter the scope or
intent of the current definitions, other than for those products that
would newly be covered as combination cooler refrigeration products.
DATES: DOE will accept written comments, data, and information on this
document, but no later than April 4, 2016.
The coverage and definitions proposed in this document would be
effective 30 days after publication of any final coverage determination
in the Federal Register. After that date, products within the scope of
MREF coverage would be subject to any applicable test procedures and
energy conservation standards established for MREFs.
ADDRESSES: This rulemaking can be identified by docket number EERE-
2011-BT-DET-0072 and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1904-AC66
and 1904-AC51.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket number, EERE-2011-BT-DET-0072
by any of the following methods:
Email: to Non-CompressorResRefrigProd-2011-DET-0072@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE-2011-BT-DET-0072 in the subject line of
the message.
Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585- 0121. Phone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit
one signed paper original.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza
SW., Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one
signed paper original.
All submissions received must include the agency name and docket
number or RIN for this rulemaking.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to the U.S. Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9:00
a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 for additional
information regarding visiting the Resource Room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Joseph.Hagerman@ee.doe.gov.
In the Office of General Counsel, contact Mr. Michael Kido, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202)
586-8145. Email: Michael.Kido@doe.gov.
For further information on how to review public comments, contact
Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Statutory Authority
II. Current Rulemaking Process
III. Scope of Coverage
IV. Evaluation of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products as Covered
Products
A. Coverage Necessary or Appropriate To Carry Out Purposes of
EPCA
B. Energy Use Estimates
1. Coolers
2. Combination Cooler Refrigeration Products
3. Conclusions
V. Product Definitions
A. Coolers
B. Combination Cooler Refrigeration Products
C. Refrigerators, Refrigerator Freezers, and Freezers
D. General Terms for the Groups of Products Addressed in This
Document
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act of 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
VII. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments
[[Page 11455]]
I. Statutory Authority
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the
Act), as amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.), sets forth various
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III
of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) established the ``Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,'' which covers
consumer products and certain commercial products (hereafter referred
to as ``covered products'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was re-designated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA specifies a list of covered consumer products that includes
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Although EPCA did
not define any of these products, it specified that the extent of DOE's
coverage would apply to those refrigerator, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers that can be operated by alternating current (AC) electricity,
are not designed to be used without doors, and include a compressor and
condenser as an integral part of the cabinet assembly. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(1)) EPCA did not preclude or otherwise foreclose the
possibility that other consumer refrigeration products, such as those
consumer refrigeration products addressed in this notice, could also be
covered if they satisfy certain prerequisites. Those prerequisites,
when met, permit the Secretary of Energy to classify additional types
of consumer products as covered products. For a given product to be
classified as a covered product, the Secretary must determine that:
(1) Classifying the product as a covered product is necessary for
the purposes of EPCA; and
(2) the average annual per-household energy use by products of such
type is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr). (42
U.S.C. 6292(b)(1))
When attempting to cover additional product types, DOE must first
determine whether these criteria from 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1) are met.
Once they have been satisfied, the Secretary may set standards for
these additional products, subject to the provisions in 42 U.S.C.
6295(o) and (p), provided that DOE determines the four criteria of 42
U.S.C. 6295(l) have been met. First, the average per household energy
use within the United States by the products of such type (or class)
exceeded 150 kilowatt-hours (kWh) (or its British thermal unit (Btu)
equivalent) for any 12-month period ending before such determination.
Second, the aggregate household energy use within the United States by
products of such type (or class) exceeded 4,200,000,000 kWh (or its Btu
equivalent) for any such 12-month period. Third, a substantial
improvement in the energy efficiency of products of such type (or
class) is technologically feasible. And fourth, the application of a
labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 to such type (or class) is not
likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce, and
consumers and other persons to purchase, covered products of such type
(or class) that achieve the maximum energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(l)(1)) This determination would be made prior to DOE's setting of
energy conservation standards for the product at issue.
In addition, if DOE issues a final determination that a given
product--such as a miscellaneous refrigeration product or ``MREF''--is
a covered product, DOE will consider adopting test procedures to
measure its energy efficiency and determine if the required criteria of
42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1) are met prior to setting any energy conservation
standards for that product. DOE has already started the rulemaking
processes for both the test procedures and the standards for MREFs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ On www.regulations.gov, see docket ID EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043
for information regarding the energy conservation standards
rulemaking and docket ID EERE-2013-BT-TP-0029 for information
regarding the test procedure rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Current Rulemaking Process
On November 8, 2011, DOE published a notice of proposed
determination of coverage (NOPD) to address the potential coverage of
consumer refrigeration products without compressors in anticipation of
a rulemaking to address these and related consumer refrigeration
products. 76 FR 69147.
On February 23, 2012, DOE began a scoping process to set potential
energy conservation standards and test procedures for wine chillers,
consumer refrigeration products that operate without compressors, and
consumer ice makers by publishing a notice of public meeting, and
providing a framework document that addressed potential standards and
test procedure rulemakings for these products. 77 FR 7547.
On October 31, 2013, DOE published in the Federal Register a
supplemental notice of proposed determination of coverage (``SNOPD'')
in which it tentatively determined that MREFs, which at the time
included wine chillers, non-compressor refrigeration products, hybrid
products (i.e. refrigeration products that combine a wine chiller with
a refrigerator and/or freezer), and consumer ice makers, would satisfy
the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1). 78 FR 65223.
DOE published a notice of public meeting that also announced the
availability of a preliminary technical support document (``TSD'') for
MREFs on December 3, 2014 (``Preliminary Analysis''). 79 FR 71705. This
preliminary analysis considered potential standards for the products
proposed for coverage as MREFs in the SNOPD. DOE held a public meeting
to discuss and receive comments on the preliminary analysis, which
covered the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to
evaluate potential standards; the results of preliminary analyses
performed by DOE for these products; the potential energy conservation
standard levels derived from these analyses that DOE had been
considering consistent with its obligations under EPCA; and all other
issues raised issues that relevant to the development of energy
conservation standards for the different classes of MREFs.
DOE also published a test procedure notice of proposed rulemaking
(NOPR) on December 16, 2014 (``Test Procedure NOPR''), that proposed
establishing definitions and test procedures for MREFs, including the
product categories proposed for coverage in the SNOPD. The proposed
test procedures to be included at Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), part 430, subpart B, appendix A (``appendix A'')
would measure the energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated annual
operating cost of MREFs during a representative average use period and
would not be unduly burdensome to conduct, as required under 42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3)). 79 FR 74894.
After reviewing the comments received in response to both the
Preliminary Analysis and the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE ultimately
determined that its efforts at developing test procedures and potential
energy conservation standards for these products would benefit from the
direct and comprehensive input provided through the negotiated
rulemaking process. On April 1, 2015, DOE published a notice of intent
to establish a Working Group under the Appliance Standards and
Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') that would use the
negotiated rulemaking process to discuss and, if possible, reach
consensus on the scope of coverage, definitions, test procedures, and
proposed energy conservation standards for MREFs. 80 FR 17355.
Subsequently, DOE formed a Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Working
Group
[[Page 11456]]
(``MREF Working Group'' or, in context, ``the Working Group'') to
address these issues. The Working Group consisted of 15 members,
including two members from ASRAC and one DOE representative. The MREF
Working Group met in-person during six sets of meetings held on May 4-
5, June 11-12, July 15-16, August 11-12, September 16-17, and October
20.
On August 11, 2015, the MREF Working Group reached consensus on a
term sheet that recommended the relevant scope of coverage,
definitions, and test procedures for MREFs. See public docket EERE-
2011-BT-STD-0043-0113 (``Term Sheet #1''). On October 20, 2015, the
MREF Working Group reached consensus on a term sheet to recommend
energy conservation standards for coolers and combination cooler
refrigeration products. See public docket EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043-0111
(``Term Sheet #2''). ASRAC approved the term sheets during open
meetings on December 18, 2015, and January 20, 2016, and sent them to
the Secretary of Energy.
III. Scope of Coverage
As discussed in the previous section, DOE's Test Procedure NOPR and
Preliminary Analysis for MREFs were consistent with the scope of
coverage outlined in the SNOPD.
In response to the feedback received from interested parties on the
Preliminary Analysis and Test Procedure NOPR, the MREF Working Group
was tasked with recommending a scope of coverage for MREFs. To this
end, the Working Group's Term Sheet recommended that DOE drop two
product categories that DOE had initially included in its scope--non-
compressor refrigerators and ice makers. For non-compressor
refrigerators, the Working Group members were unaware of the existence
of such products and concluded that the non-compressor products that do
exist would be considered coolers (formerly ``cooled cabinets'') under
the definitions recommended by the MREF Working Group. Accordingly, it
recommended dropping the non-compressor refrigerator product category
since they would already be covered as coolers. For ice makers, the
Working Group made two observations. First, the Working Group noted
that ice makers are fundamentally different from the other product
categories considered as MREFs, as emphasized by DOE's proposal to
create a separate test procedure for them. Second, the Working Group
noted that ice makers are currently covered as commercial equipment and
there is no clear differentiation between consumer and commercial ice
makers. See Term Sheet #1.
Based on feedback from interested parties and recommendations from
the MREF Working Group, DOE is proposing that MREF coverage would apply
only to coolers (formerly cooled cabinets) and combination cooler
refrigeration products (formerly hybrid refrigeration products). DOE is
also proposing definitions for these product categories.
IV. Evaluation of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products as Covered
Products
Determining whether to treat MREFs as a covered product requires
satisfying certain statutory criteria. As stated in section I of this
notice, DOE may classify a consumer product as a covered product if (1)
classifying products of such type as covered products is necessary and
appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA; and (2) the average
annual per household energy use by products of such type is likely to
exceed 100 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) per year. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1))
Additionally, to set standards for any newly covered product, the
average per household energy use must exceed 150 kWh (or its British
thermal unit (Btu) equivalent) for any 12-month period, and the
aggregate household energy use must exceed 4.2 terawatt-hours (TWh) (or
its Btu equivalent) for any such 12-month period. (42 U.S.C.
6295(l)(1))
A. Coverage Necessary or Appropriate To Carry Out Purposes of EPCA
In this document, DOE has tentatively determined that the coverage
of MREFs is both necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of
EPCA. MREFs, which comprise a small but significant and growing sector
of the consumer refrigeration market, consume energy generated from
limited energy supplies and regulating their energy efficiency would be
likely to help conserve these limited energy supplies. Accordingly,
establishing standards for these products falls squarely within EPCA's
purposes to: (1) Conserve energy supplies through energy conservation
programs; and (2) provide for improved energy efficiency of major
appliances and certain other consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 6201)
B. Energy Use Estimates
DOE estimated the average household energy use for MREFs--coolers
and combination cooler refrigeration products--to determine if the
average annual per-household energy use of these products exceeds the
100 kWh/yr required for coverage under EPCA. For this analysis, DOE
used the SNOPD analysis as a starting point and made improvements based
on more recent or newly gathered data.
1. Coolers
DOE used market data, engineering models, and feedback from
manufacturers received under non-disclosure agreements and during the
MREF Working Group meetings to improve the estimates of average
household energy use for coolers as determined in the SNOPD.
While the SNOPD considered different product categories based on
both compartment temperatures (e.g., cooler, refrigerator, or freezer)
and refrigeration type (e.g., vapor-compression, thermoelectric, etc.),
DOE has reorganized the analysis for consistency with the scope of
coverage and product definitions recommended by the MREF Working Group,
as described in sections III and VI of this notice, respectively. For
coolers, the definition would incorporate products regardless of
refrigeration system under the same product definition. However, to
better account for the energy use characteristics of these products,
the updated analysis separates coolers into four product categories
based on refrigerated volume and installation type.
DOE has updated several components of its energy use estimates
since the SNOPD. DOE surveyed product owners to improve its estimate of
market saturation rates.\3\ DOE has also revised its estimates of
product lifetimes based on recommendations from the MREF Working Group.
Finally, DOE updated its estimates of energy consumption per unit
through feedback from manufacturers, the MREF Working Group, the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers,\4\ as well as product
information available on manufacturer and retailer Web sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See J. B. Greenblatt et al. U.S. Residential Miscellaneous
Refrigeration Products: Results from Amazon Mechanical Turk Surveys.
2014. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. (Report
No. LBNL-6537E) and S. M. Donovan, S. J. Young and J. B. Greenblatt.
Ice-Making in the U.S.: Results from an Amazon Mechanical Turk
Survey. 2015. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA.
(Report No. LBNL-183899).
\4\ See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043-0106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table IV.1 shows the estimated annual energy use for each type of
cooler. DOE found that across all cooler product types, coolers have an
average lifetime of over 10 years, and an average annual energy
consumption of 440 kWh per household.
[[Page 11457]]
Table IV.1--Coolers Estimated Annual Energy Use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product type
Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- Totals or
Compact FS * Compact BI * FS * BI * averages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Energy Consumption (per unit)..... kWh/year.................... 450 250 370 340 440
Stock..................................... Units, 2014................. 14,500,000 55,000 610,000 120,000 15,300,000
National Energy Consumption............... TWh/year.................... 6.5 0.014 0.23 0.042 6.8
Average Lifetime.......................... years....................... 10.3 10.3 17.4 17.4 10.6
Annual Sales.............................. Units, 2014................. 1,400,000 5,400 35,000 7,100 1,460,000
Saturation................................ %........................... 12.6 0.05 0.5 0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* FS = Freestanding, BI = Built-in.
2. Combination Cooler Refrigeration Products
DOE used market data, engineering models, and feedback from
manufacturers received under non-disclosure agreements and during the
MREF Working Group meetings to improve the estimates of average
household energy use for combination cooler refrigeration products as
determined in the SNOPD.
Similar to the updated coolers analysis in this notice, DOE revised
its combination cooler refrigeration product analysis consistent with
the scope of coverage and product definitions recommended by the MREF
Working Group, as described in sections III and VI of this notice,
respectively. The updated combination cooler refrigeration product
definition removes the 50-percent cooler compartment volume requirement
that was needed for a product to be considered a combination cooler
refrigeration product in the SNOPD. The updated analysis reflects
additional products being included under the ``combination cooler
refrigeration products'' definition.
DOE has updated several components of its combination cooler
refrigeration product energy use estimates since publication of the
SNOPD. DOE updated its estimate of annual shipments based on
manufacturer feedback. DOE has also revised its estimates of product
lifetimes based on recommendations from the MREF Working Group.
Finally, DOE updated its estimates of energy consumption per unit
through manufacturer and MREF Working Group-member feedback and an
examination of more recent product information available on
manufacturer and retailer Web sites.
Table IV.2 shows the estimated annual energy use for each type of
combination cooler refrigeration product. DOE found that across product
types, these products have an average lifetime of about 12.6 years, and
an average annual energy consumption of 222 kWh per household.
Table IV.2--Combination Cooler Refrigeration Products Annual Energy Use
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product type *
Units ---------------------------------------------------------------- Totals or
C3A-BI C9-BI C13A C13A-BI averages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Energy Consumption (per unit)..... kWh/year.................... 210 280 210 220 220
Stock..................................... Units, 2014................. 70,000 70,000 160,000 120,000 430,000
National Energy Consumption............... TWh/year.................... 0.015 0.019 0.035 0.027 0.095
Average Lifetime.......................... years....................... 17.4 17.4 10.3 10.3 12.6
Annual Sales.............................. Units, 2014................. 4,000 4,000 16,000 12,000 36,000
Saturation................................ ............................ 0.06% 0.06% 0.14% 0.11%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product types for combination cooler refrigeration products are based on the product class of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer that the
product would be categorized under if it did not have a cooler compartment.
3. Conclusions
Based upon its evaluations of coolers and combination cooler
refrigeration products, DOE has developed estimates of their annual
energy use. These estimates indicate that these products, on average,
consume significantly more than 100 kWh annually. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined that the average annual per household energy use
for MREFs is likely to exceed the 100 kWh/yr threshold set by EPCA
needed to classify a product as covered. Moreover, DOE has determined
that MREFs on average consume more than 150 kWh/yr, and that the
aggregate annual national energy use of these products is 6.9 TWh,
which exceeds the 4.2 TWh minimum threshold. Accordingly, these data
indicate that MREFs appear to satisfy at least two of the four criteria
required by EPCA in order to establish energy conservation standards
for a product that the Secretary chooses to add for regulatory
coverage. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)(A)-(D).
V. Product Definitions
Consistent with the SNOPD, the Test Procedure NOPR laid out
potential definitions for the following four product categories that
DOE indicated would be considered as MREFs: Cooled cabinets, non-
compressor refrigerators, hybrid refrigerators, and ice makers. DOE
proposed to define ``cooled cabinets'' as products that maintain
internal temperatures warmer than refrigerators; ``non-compressor
refrigerators'' as products that otherwise meet the existing
refrigerator definition, but do not use vapor-compression
refrigeration; ``hybrid refrigeration products'' as products with a
warm-temperature (i.e. a temperature lower than the ambient, but warmer
than that which is used to safely store fresh food) compartment (e.g.,
a wine chiller) combined with a fresh food and/or
[[Page 11458]]
freezer compartment, with the warm-temperature compartment comprising
at least 50 percent of the product's total refrigerated volume; and
``ice makers'' as consumer products designed to automatically produce
and harvest ice that would not be considered any of the other consumer
refrigeration products (e.g., refrigerator-freezer or freezer). DOE
also proposed amending the existing ``refrigerator,'' ``refrigerator-
freezer,'' and ``freezer'' product definitions for consistency and to
improve their clarity when viewed in conjunction with the proposed MREF
definitions. 79 FR 74894, 74899-74904 (Dec. 16, 2014).
The MREF Working Group subsequently discussed how and whether to
define the various terms related to MREFs. The Working Group ultimately
reached a consensus that is reflected in Term Sheet #1's
recommendations, which included dropping DOE's proposed definitions for
non-compressor refrigerators and ice makers, updating the terms used to
describe the covered MREF product categories based on the discussions
and analyses conducted during the Working Group meetings, revising the
proposed MREF product definitions, and amending the existing
definitions for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to
ensure consistency with the recommended MREF definitions. See Term
Sheet #1.
Consistent with these recommendations, DOE is proposing new or
amended definitions for the relevant product definitions that would be
added to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR 430.2. DOE is
proposing new definitions for MREFs to clearly delineate which products
would fall within the scope of coverage for MREFs and within which MREF
product categories. DOE is also proposing similar conforming amendments
to the existing definitions for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers,
and freezers for consistency with the proposed MREF definitions. The
proposed amendments are intended to eliminate confusion with the
proposed MREF definitions, and would not affect the scope of coverage
under the existing refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer
definitions, other than for those products that would be covered under
DOE's proposed determination as combination cooler refrigeration
products.
A. Coolers
In the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to define a ``cooled
cabinet'' as a product operating using only electric energy input but
is not a ``refrigerator'' because its compartment temperatures are
warmer than the 39 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) threshold established
for refrigerators, as determined in a 72[emsp14][deg]F ambient
temperature. 79 FR 74894, 74901-74902 (Dec. 16, 2014). This proposal
was based on the premise that such a product would adequately capture
items such as beverage centers and wine coolers, which typically
operate above these temperatures.
The MREF Working Group term sheet (i.e., Term Sheet #1) contained a
recommendation that DOE revise this term from ``cooled cabinet'' to
``cooler'' and incorporate a number of other changes to the proposed
definition. The Working Group recommended that compartment temperatures
be determined during operation in a 90[emsp14][deg]F ambient
temperature to maintain consistency with the test conditions used for
other refrigeration products. The Working Group also recommended
excluding products designed to be used without doors, consistent with
the exclusions DOE had proposed for the refrigerator, refrigerator-
freezer, and freezer definitions in the Test Procedure NOPR. See 79 FR
74894 at 74900 (Dec. 16, 2014). The purpose of the exclusion would be
to differentiate between consumer products and commercial equipment
(i.e., products designed for use without doors are commercial equipment
rather than consumer products, consistent with the statutory coverage
of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers). The Working
Group further recommended the requirement that coolers operate on
single-phase, alternating current rather than simply specifying
operation with electric energy input. This approach would exclude those
products designed for direct current or 3-phase power supplies, which
would likely apply to products intended for use in mobile or commercial
applications, respectively. See Term Sheet #1.
Consistent with this approach, DOE is proposing to define cooler
using the definition for cooled cabinet proposed in the Test Procedure
NOPR--but updated to reflect the Working Group's recommendations.
In response to the definitions proposed in the Test Procedure NOPR,
Felix Storch, Inc. (``FSI'') commented that it is not aware of any non-
compressor freezers, but it is aware of non-compressor refrigerators
that are able to have a very small portion of their volume at a
temperature cold enough to freeze ice cubes. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 1) \5\
FSI also commented that the proposed category for non-compressor
refrigerators was overly-broad. It stressed that there are two main
purposes for non-compressor units: One is to serve as a low-price
compact wine cellar or dormitory cooler, and the other is for use in
special markets such as camping or truck refrigerators. It noted that
these units should not have the same regulations as currently in effect
for compressor units and instead, any thermoelectric product with a
volume less than 1 cubic foot should be exempt from regulation so that
these products can continue to be marketed. Also, FSI stated that DOE
should exempt units without permanently attached power cords for 110-
volt operation--such as car or truck refrigerators--that use a 12-volt
default power cord. (FSI, No. 15 at pp. 4-5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A notation in the form ``FSI, No. 15 at p. 1'' identifies a
written comment: (1) Made by Felix Storch, Inc. (FSI); (2) recorded
in document number 15 that is filed in the docket of the test
procedure rulemaking for miscellaneous refrigeration products
(Docket No. EERE-2013- BT-TP-0029) and available for review at
www.regulations.gov; and (3) which appears on page 1 of document
number 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described in section III of this document, DOE is not proposing
separate coverage for non-compressor freezers or non-compressor
refrigerators as MREFs. DOE does not agree with FSI's characterization
above. Further, DOE is unaware of any non-compressor products capable
of maintaining refrigerator or freezer compartment temperatures as
proposed in this document (i.e., the compartment temperatures
determined during operation in a 90[emsp14][deg]F ambient temperature
as measured by appendix A). DOE expects that the products FSI
identified as capable of freezing ice cubes do so either during
operation at lower ambient temperatures or in a localized portion of
the refrigerated compartment while the overall average compartment
temperature would be higher than the range required to be considered a
refrigerator. If true, DOE expects these products to fall under the
cooler definition as proposed in this document instead of the
refrigerator or freezer definitions because those products would need
to be capable of achieving the compartment temperatures as measured by
appendix A.
Rather, all non-compressor products would be considered coolers
under the proposed definitions in this document. Further, DOE is
proposing that the cooler definition include the Working Group's
recommended requirement that coolers operate on single-phase,
alternating current, which would exclude products designed for direct
current power supplies, such as those mobile products equipped with a
12-
[[Page 11459]]
volt power cord. DOE also notes that non-compressor refrigeration
products would not be subject to the current energy conservation
standards in place for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or
freezers because the coverage of those products applies to products
equipped with a compressor and condenser-based refrigeration system.
In addition, FSI argued that absorption refrigerators should not be
regulated. In its view, regulating these products may make them too
expensive for hotels to afford them and leave them with no viable
option. FSI also argued that the absorption refrigeration product
market is so small that DOE should conduct an additional DOE survey to
determine if these products have a market large enough to warrant
regulation. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 5) Because DOE is no longer proposing a
separate definition for non-compressor refrigerators, absorption
refrigerators would not be separately regulated as non-compressor
refrigerators under the proposed MREF coverage. However, they likely
would fall under the proposed cooler definition, and, if so, would be
subject to any future energy conservation standards established for
coolers.
In addition to the cooler definition recommended in Term Sheet #1,
the MREF Working Group recommended that DOE establish definitions
within the cooler product category based on total refrigerated volume
and installation type. The Working Group recommended a ``compact''
designation for products with total refrigerated volumes of less than
7.75 cubic feet. The Working Group also recommended that DOE
differentiate ``built-in'' from ``freestanding products'' by using
definitions based on those already in place for built-in refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. See Term Sheet #1.
Consistent with these recommendations, DOE is proposing definitions
within the cooler definition based on refrigerated volume and
configuration, consistent with the same requirements and definitions
currently in place for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and
freezers.
B. Combination Cooler Refrigeration Products
In the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that the term ``hybrid
refrigeration product'' would refer to products equipped with a warm-
temperature compartment (e.g., a wine chiller), making up at least 50
percent of a product's volume, combined with a fresh food and/or
freezer compartment. 79 FR 74894, 74903-74904 (Dec. 16, 2014).
The MREF Working Group discussed the proposed definition and
recommended that DOE revise the term from ``hybrid refrigeration
product'' to ``combination cooler refrigeration product,'' noting that
this term more clearly describes the product category. The Working
Group also recommended that DOE refer to the warmer compartment within
combination cooler refrigeration products as a ``cooler compartment,''
defined by the same temperature ranges as recommended for coolers
described in section V.A of this document. The MREF Working Group
recommended that DOE remove its proposed approach, which followed DOE's
guidance that cooler compartments must make up at least 50 percent of a
combination cooler refrigeration product's total volume. The Working
Group noted that all products with cooler compartments would likely be
used in the same way, and that the 50-percent threshold was an
arbitrary cutoff. The Working Group further recommended that DOE
exclude products designed for use without doors from the combination
cooler refrigeration product definitions for the same reasons discussed
for coolers (i.e., differentiating between commercial equipment and
consumer products). See Term Sheet #1.
DOE agrees with the MREF Working Group recommendations and the
Working Group's reasoning behind each of them and is proposing to
incorporate the suggested changes into the combination cooler
refrigeration product definitions.
In response to the Test Procedure NOPR, FSI commented on the
proposed definition of a hybrid product, stating that for compact
units, if there is no freezer or ice cube section, then the entire
product should be treated as a wine cellar. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 3) DOE
notes that a product with a single compartment that is not a freezer
would be classified as either a cooler or refrigerator, depending on
what compartment temperatures the product maintains, rather than a
combination cooler refrigeration product based on the definitions
proposed in this document.
In addition to the general combination cooler refrigeration product
requirements, the MREF Working Group recommended that DOE define four
product categories of combination cooler refrigeration products,
including: ``cooler-refrigerator,'' ``cooler-refrigerator-freezer,''
and ``cooler-freezer.'' The Working Group recommended definitions for
these products that are consistent with the non-combination cooler
product definitions (e.g., refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, etc.)
with the additional requirement that they include multiple
compartments, at least one of which is a cooler compartment. The
Working Group also recommended that the combination cooler
refrigeration product definitions not exclude non-compressor products.
See Term Sheet #1.
DOE agrees with the recommendations made by the MREF Working Group,
since the four product categories offer specific and unique consumer
utility. In contrast, in DOE's view, refrigeration technology
(compressor-based or non-compressor) alone does not appear to offer any
special utility to consumers that would affect their interaction with
the product when using it for its intended purpose (e.g., cool storage
of beverages). Therefore, DOE is proposing definitions for
``combination cooler refrigeration product,'' ``cooler-refrigerator,''
``cooler-refrigerator-freezer,'' and ``cooler-freezer'' consistent with
the definitions recommended in the Working Group's term sheet. Although
DOE is not currently aware of any non-compressor combination cooler
refrigeration products currently available on the market, DOE is
proposing that non-compressor products would be covered under the
combination cooler refrigeration product definitions to ensure that if
any become available on the market in the future, they would be
considered covered products, consistent with the Working Group's
recommendation.
In this document, DOE also refers to the term ``cooler
compartment.'' DOE intends to define this term as part of the separate
MREF test procedure rulemaking.
C. Refrigerators, Refrigerator Freezers, and Freezers
As discussed in the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to
the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer product definitions
to create a consistent structure with the proposed MREF definitions and
to improve the clarity of the distinctions among the different
definitions. 79 FR 74894, 74899-74901 (Dec. 16, 2014). DOE did not
propose to redefine the scope of coverage for refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, or to amend the definitions in a
manner that would affect how a currently covered product would be
classified (other than for coverage of combination cooler refrigeration
products as MREFs). The proposed amendments to the definitions
[[Page 11460]]
for these products would establish consistency with the proposed MREF
definitions and were intended to improve the definitions' clarity and
ensure no potential overlap between the definitions of these products
and MREFs.
In response to the Test Procedure NOPR, FSI commented that it would
remove confusion to categorize all-refrigerators with absolutely no
freezer compartments as cooled cabinets. (FSI, No. 15 at pp. 2-3) Based
on the proposed definitions for coolers discussed in section V.A of
this notice, and the proposed definition of refrigerator described
below, DOE notes that a product without a freezer compartment would be
classified as either a cooler or refrigerator based on its compartment
operating temperature. Because refrigerators and coolers offer
different product utilities (i.e., different storage temperatures) that
affect energy consumption, DOE believes separate product definitions
and coverage are appropriate.
FSI also commented that the definition for a refrigerator should be
changed to ``all-refrigerator'' to specify that the product has no
freezer compartment and the definition for refrigerator-freezer should
be ``any cabinet that has a separate compartment for fresh food (39
[deg]F or colder) and frozen food or ice, whether or not there is a
single door or multiple doors.'' (FSI, No. 15 at pp.4-5) As described
earlier in this section, the proposed amendments to the refrigerator,
refrigerator-freezer, and freezer definitions were not intended to
change the scope of coverage for those products, other than for
combination cooler refrigeration products, but were intended to improve
clarity. The recommended amendment would have the potential to change
the classification of certain other products currently covered as
refrigerators.
The MREF Working Group generally agreed with the revisions proposed
in the Test Procedure NOPR, but recommended that compartment
temperatures be determined during operation in a 90 [deg]F ambient
instead of 72 [deg]F, as discussed for coolers in section V.A of this
notice. The Working Group also recommended that DOE remove the proposed
exclusion for products certified to American National Standards
Institute (ANSI)/NSF International (NSF) 7-2009 International Standard
for Food Equipment--Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers or ANSI/UL
LLC (UL) 471-2006 Standard for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,
noting that these certifications do not necessarily provide a clear
distinction between consumer and commercial products. See Term Sheet
#1.
After further examining this issue, DOE is proposing the following
changes to the existing definitions for refrigerator, refrigerator-
freezer, and freezer.
First, DOE is proposing to revise the current definitions for
``refrigerator'' and ``refrigerator-freezer'' and to eliminate the
redundant terms ``electric refrigerator'' and ``electric refrigerator-
freezer'' from 10 CFR 430.2.
Second, DOE is proposing to remove the phrase, ``designed to be
capable of achieving [the specified temperature],'' with ``capable of
maintaining compartment temperatures at [the specified temperature],''
and that this temperature condition would be based on operation in a 90
[deg]F ambient temperature. As described in the Test Procedure NOPR,
this change would help ensure that product classification would be
definitively determined through testing and would rely on the product's
actual capability to serve its intended purpose rather than relying on
the design intent of the manufacturer.
Third, DOE is proposing to remove the current reference to the
``storage of food'' and ``freezing and storage of food'' from the
product definitions to ensure accurate product classification and more
effective enforcement of energy conservation standards. Similarly, and
consistent with the proposed change described in the previous
paragraph, DOE is proposing to amend the references to freezer
compartments within the refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer
definitions. The current definitions describe a freezer compartment as
a compartment designed for the freezing and storage of food at
temperatures below 8 [deg]F which may be adjusted by the user to a
temperature of 0 [deg]F or below. DOE is proposing to amend the
definitions to refer only to a compartment capable of maintaining
compartment temperatures of 0 [deg]F or below to limit any ambiguity
regarding what would be considered a freezer compartment. DOE notes
that the MREF Working Group's definitions recommended in Term Sheet #1
included the reference to 8 [deg]F; however, DOE expects that its
proposal to eliminate this reference is consistent with the Working
Group's intent for the product definitions.
Fourth, DOE is proposing to treat products designed to be used
without doors, and/or that do not include a compressor and condenser
unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly, as commercial
equipment and, therefore, would be excluded from these product
definitions. As discussed in section V.A of this notice for coolers,
the exclusion for products designed to be used without doors is
intended to differentiate between consumer products and commercial
equipment (i.e., products designed to be used without doors would be
commercial). DOE's proposed approach would clarify that products
without a compressor and condenser unit would be excluded from the
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer definitions because
this exclusion is included in the EPCA provisions that establish
coverage for these products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1))
Finally, DOE notes that the definition for refrigerator-freezer
requires that at least one compartment has attributes consistent with a
fresh food compartment and that at least one compartment has attributes
consistent with a freezer compartment. DOE is proposing to clarify that
the same compartment could not satisfy both of these requirements in a
refrigerator-freezer.
Similar to the intent of the Test Procedure NOPR, with the
exception of those products that would be covered as combination cooler
refrigeration products under this proposal, DOE is not proposing to
redefine the scope of coverage for refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, and freezers, or to amend the definitions in a manner that
would affect how a currently covered product would be classified. The
proposed amendments to the definitions for these products would
establish a similar structure with the proposed MREF definitions. The
proposed definitions are intended to improve clarity and ensure no
potential overlap between the definitions of refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and MREFs.
D. General Terms for the Groups of Products Addressed in This Document
In the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to define ``miscellaneous
refrigeration product'' as a consumer refrigeration product other than
a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer, which includes hybrid
refrigeration products, cooled cabinets, non-compressor refrigerators,
and ice makers. DOE also proposed to define ``consumer refrigeration
product'' as a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer, or
miscellaneous refrigeration product. 79 FR 74894, 74904 (Dec. 16,
2014).
FSI stated that DOE could easily clarify a consumer refrigeration
product based on the norms it can easily verify, such as the fact 90
percent of the refrigerator-freezers sold in the U.S. have a volume of
14 cubic feet or more, with the remainder mostly made up of dormitory
(5 percent) or apartment (4
[[Page 11461]]
percent) sizes. It stated that a simple definition would allow DOE to
cover 98 to 99 percent of the market and allow special markets to have
suitable products. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 1)
DOE notes that its definitions are intended to provide clear
differentiation while avoiding subjective determinations for what would
be covered. Although the product types mentioned in the FSI comment
make up most of the consumer refrigeration market, there are no
established definitions for each subset of products that would fall
under the proposed consumer refrigeration product definition, leaving
DOE in the position of developing more specific definitions. DOE has
already established detailed definitions to address refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and is proposing additional
definitions for coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products.
DOE is proposing to refer to these products collectively as consumer
refrigeration products.
The MREF Working Group recommended that DOE maintain the
definitions for miscellaneous refrigeration product and consumer
refrigeration product, but to update them to reflect the more current
product terminology and to remove references to non-compressor
refrigerators and ice makers. See Term Sheet #1.
DOE is proposing to define the terms ``miscellaneous refrigeration
product'' and ``consumer refrigeration product'' consistent with the
recommended updates from the MREF Working Group. In DOE's view, these
proposed changes will better reflect the recommended approach detailed
in the Working Group's recommendations to help ensure their clarity
with respect to the other proposed definitions discussed in this
document.
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
DOE has reviewed its supplemental proposed determination of
coverage for MREFs under the following executive orders and acts.
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that
coverage determination rulemakings do not constitute ``significant
regulatory actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
Additionally, the definitions proposed in this document would clarify
the definitions of certain specific products already regulated by DOE
and those products that are under consideration for potential
regulatory coverage. No new requirements would result from the
proposals contained in this document. Accordingly, this proposed action
was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996)
requires preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis 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. A regulatory
flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on small entities
and considers alternative ways of reducing negative effects. Also, as
required by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003 to ensure that the
potential impact of its rules on small entities are properly considered
during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 (Feb. 19, 2003). DOE
makes its procedures and policies available on the Office of the
General Counsel's Web site at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this proposed determination and proposal under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and
procedures published on February 19, 2003. If adopted, this proposed
determination and proposal would set no standards; it would only
positively determine that future standards may be warranted and should
be explored in an energy conservation standards and test procedure
rulemaking. Economic impacts on small entities would be considered in
the context of such rulemakings. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE
certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, has no
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for
this proposed determination and proposal. DOE will transmit this
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This proposed determination that MREFs meet the criteria for a
covered product for which the Secretary may prescribe an energy
conservation standard, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p), imposes
no new information or record-keeping requirements. Neither would any
aspect of the proposal impose such requirements. Accordingly, OMB
clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this notice, DOE proposes to positively determine that MREFs (as
proposed to be defined in this document) meet the criteria for
classification as covered products and that future energy conservation
standards may be warranted to regulate their energy usage. Should DOE
pursue that option, the relevant environmental impacts would be
explored as part of that rulemaking. As a result, DOE has determined
that this proposed action 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 proposed action
would establish a class of products (MREFs) for which energy
conservation standards would be appropriate. However, this proposed
action would not establish energy conservation standards, and,
therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this
action is covered by Categorical Exclusion A6 ``Procedural
rulemakings'' under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D. Accordingly, neither
an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, ``Federalism'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10,
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to assess carefully the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in developing
[[Page 11462]]
regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14,
2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process that it will follow in
developing such regulations. 65 FR 13735 (Mar. 14, 2000). DOE has
examined this proposed determination and proposal. On the basis of this
examination, DOE concludes that the action proposed in this document
would not preempt State law or have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
product that is the subject of this proposed determination and
proposal. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to
the extent permitted, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by E.O. 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies
the duty to: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard
for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote
simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation specifies the following: (1) The
preemptive effect, if any; (2) any effect on existing Federal law or
regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for affected conduct while
promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) the retroactive
effect, if any; (5) definitions of key terms; and (6) other important
issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines
issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether these
standards are met, or whether it is unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE completed the required review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this proposed determination and proposal meet
the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub.
L. 104-4, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires each Federal
agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and tribal governments and the private sector. For regulatory
actions likely to result in a rule that may cause expenditures by
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more in any 1 year (adjusted annually
for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to
publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs,
benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a)
and (b)) UMRA requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.''
UMRA also requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for
timely input to small governments that may be potentially affected
before establishing any requirement that might significantly or
uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of
policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62
FR 12820 (Mar. 18, 1997). (This policy also is available at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE reviewed this proposed
determination pursuant to these existing authorities and its policy
statement and determined that the proposed determination and proposal
contain neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may
result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so the
UMRA requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a
Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family
well-being. This proposed determination and proposal would not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a
Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15,
1988), DOE determined that this proposed determination and proposal
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
of 2001
The Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act of 2001 (44
U.S.C. 3516, note) requires agencies to review most disseminations of
information they make to the public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by the OMB. The OMB's
guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's
guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed this proposed determination and proposal under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that they are consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB a
Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action.
A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates a final rule or is expected to lead to promulgation of
a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
E.O. 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy
action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must
give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use if the proposal is implemented, and of reasonable
alternatives to the proposed action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has concluded that this regulatory action proposing to
establish or amend certain definitions and to determine that MREFs meet
the criteria for a covered product for which the Secretary may
prescribe an energy conservation standard pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)
and (p) would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action is also not a significant
regulatory action for purposes of E.O.
[[Page 11463]]
12866, and the OIRA Administrator has not designated this determination
as a significant energy action under E.O. 12866 or any successor order.
Therefore, this proposed determination and proposal do not comprise a
significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14,
2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. DOE has determined that the
analyses conducted for the regulatory action discussed in this document
do not constitute ``influential scientific information,'' which the
Bulletin defines as ``scientific information the agency reasonably can
determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private sector decisions.'' 70 FR 2667
(Jan. 14, 2005). The analyses were subject to pre-dissemination review
prior to issuance of this rulemaking.
DOE will determine the appropriate level of review that would apply
to any future rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for
MREFs.
VII. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
notice of proposed determination no later than the date provided at the
beginning of this notice. After the close of the comment period, DOE
will review the comments received and determine whether miscellaneous
refrigeration products are covered products under EPCA.
Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE's email address
for this proposed determination should be provided in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. Submissions should
avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and
wherever possible comments should include the electronic signature of
the author. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
According to 10 CFR part 1004.11, any person submitting information
that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from
public disclosure should submit two copies: One copy of the document
should have all the information believed to be confidential deleted.
DOE will make its own determination as to the confidential status of
the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known or available from public sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligations concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting persons which would result from
public disclosure; (6) a date after which such information might no
longer be considered confidential; and (7) why disclosure of the
information would be contrary to the public interest.
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments
DOE welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed
determination. DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments
from interested parties on the following issues related to the proposed
determination for MREFs detailed in this document:
(1) The proposed scope of coverage for MREFs;
(2) The proposed definitions for MREFs and the various individual
product categories;
(3) The calculations and accompanying values for household and
national energy consumption of the products that would be covered on
which DOE is relying in determining coverage; and
(4) The availability or lack of availability of technologies for
improving the energy efficiency of MREFs as DOE is proposing to define
them.
The Department is interested in receiving views concerning other
relevant issues that participants believe would affect DOE's ability to
establish test procedures and energy conservation standards for
miscellaneous refrigeration products. The Department invites all
interested parties to submit in writing by April 4, 2016, comments and
information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters
relevant to consideration of a determination for miscellaneous
refrigeration products.
After the expiration of the period for submitting written
statements, the Department will consider all comments and additional
information that is obtained from interested parties or through further
analyses, and it will prepare a final determination. If DOE determines
that MREFs qualify as covered products, DOE will consider the
development of a test procedure and energy conservation standards for
MREFs. In this regard, DOE notes that it has already proposed a test
procedure that would address these products and completed a substantial
amount of work related to potential energy conservation standards for
them. Members of the public will be given an opportunity to submit
written and oral comments on any proposed test procedure and standards.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 26, 2016.
David T. Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
430 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 430.2 by:
0
a. Adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for ``built-in compact
cooler,'' ``built-in cooler,'' ``combination cooler refrigeration
product,'' ``consumer refrigeration product,'' ``cooler,'' ``cooler-
freezer,'' ``cooler-refrigerator,'' ``cooler-refrigerator-freezer,''
``freestanding compact cooler,'' ``freestanding cooler,'' and
``miscellaneous refrigeration product'';
0
b. Revising the definitions for ``freezer,'' ``refrigerator,'' and
``refrigerator-freezer''; and
0
c. Removing the definitions for ``electric refrigerator'' and
``electric refrigerator-freezer.''
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 430.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
[[Page 11464]]
Built-in compact cooler means any cooler with a total refrigerated
volume less than 7.75 cubic feet and no more than 24 inches in depth,
excluding doors, handles, and custom front panels, that is designed,
intended, and marketed exclusively to be:
(1) Installed totally encased by cabinetry or panels that are
attached during installation;
(2) Securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry, walls or floor,
(3) Equipped with unfinished sides that are not visible after
installation, and
(4) Equipped with an integral factory-finished face or built to
accept a custom front panel.
Built-in cooler means any cooler with a total refrigerated volume
of 7.75 cubic feet or greater and no more than 24 inches in depth,
excluding doors, handles, and custom front panels; that is designed,
intended, and marketed exclusively to be:
(1) Installed totally encased by cabinetry or panels that are
attached during installation;
(2) Securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry, walls or floor;
(3) Equipped with unfinished sides that are not visible after
installation; and
(4) Equipped with an integral factory-finished face or built to
accept a custom front panel.
* * * * *
Combination cooler refrigeration product means any cooler-
refrigerator, cooler-refrigerator-freezer, or cooler-freezer.
* * * * *
Consumer refrigeration product means a refrigerator, refrigerator-
freezer, freezer, or miscellaneous refrigeration product.
* * * * *
Cooler means a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a
source of refrigeration capable of operating on single-phase,
alternating current and is capable of maintaining compartment
temperatures either:
(1) No lower than 39 [deg]F (3.9 [deg]C), or
(2) In a range that extends no lower than 37 [deg]F (2.8 [deg]C)
but at least as high as 60 [deg]F (15.6 [deg]C) as determined according
to the applicable provisions in Sec. 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR
74894 (December 16, 2014)].
Cooler-freezer is a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has
a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating
current electric energy input only, and consists of two or more
compartments, including at least one cooler compartment as defined in
appendix A of subpart B of this part, where the remaining
compartment(s) are capable of maintaining compartment temperatures at 0
[deg]F (-17.8 [deg]C) or below as determined according to the
provisions in Sec. 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16,
2014)].
Cooler-refrigerator is a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that
has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating
current electric energy input only, and consists of two or more
compartments, including at least one cooler compartment as defined in
appendix A of subpart B of this part, where:
(1) At least one of the remaining compartments is capable of
maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C) and
below 39 [deg]F (3.9 [deg]C) as determined according to Sec.
429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)];
(2) The cabinet may also include a compartment capable of
maintaining compartment temperatures below 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C) as
determined according to Sec. 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894
(December 16, 2014)]; but
(3) The cabinet does not provide a separate low temperature
compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 0
[deg]F (-13.3 [deg]C) as determined according to Sec. 429.61(d)(2)
[proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)].
Cooler-refrigerator-freezer is a cabinet, used with one or more
doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase,
alternating current electric energy input only, and consists of three
or more compartments, including at least one cooler compartment as
defined in appendix A of subpart B of this part, where:
(1) At least one of the remaining compartments is capable of
maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C) and
below 39 [deg]F (3.9 [deg]C) as determined according Sec. 429.61(d)(2)
[proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)], and
(2) At least one other compartment is capable of maintaining
compartment temperatures of 0 [deg]F (-17.8 [deg]C) or below as
determined according to Sec. 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894
(December 16, 2014)].
* * * * *
Freestanding compact cooler means any cooler, excluding built-in
compact coolers, with a total refrigerated volume less than 7.75 cubic
feet.
Freestanding cooler means any cooler, excluding built-in coolers,
with a total refrigerated volume of 7.75 cubic feet or greater.
Freezer means a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has a
source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current
electric energy input only and is capable of maintaining compartment
temperatures of 0 [deg]F (-17.8 [deg]C) or below as determined
according to the provisions in Sec. 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR
74894 (December 16, 2014)]. It does not include any refrigerated
cabinet that consists solely of an automatic ice maker and an ice
storage bin arranged so that operation of the automatic icemaker fills
the bin to its capacity. However, the term does not include any product
that does not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral
part of the cabinet assembly.
* * * * *
Miscellaneous refrigeration product means a consumer refrigeration
product other than a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer,
which includes coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products.
* * * * *
Refrigerator means a cabinet, used with one or more doors, that has
a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating
current electric energy input only and is capable of maintaining
compartment temperatures above 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C) and below 39 [deg]F
(3.9 [deg]C) as determined according to Sec. 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at
79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. A refrigerator may include a
compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 32
[deg]F (0 [deg]C), but does not provide a separate low temperature
compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 0
[deg]F (-13.3 [deg]C) as determined according to Sec. 429.14(d)(2)
[proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. However, the term does
not include any product that does not include a compressor and
condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly.
Refrigerator-freezer means a cabinet, used with one or more doors,
that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase,
alternating current electric energy input only and consists of two or
more compartments where at least one of the compartments is capable of
maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 [deg]F (0 [deg]C) and
below 39 [deg]F (3.9 [deg]C) as determined according to Sec.
429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)], and at
least one other compartment is capable of maintaining compartment
temperatures of 0 [deg]F (-17.8 [deg]C) or below as determined
according to Sec. 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16,
2014)]. However, the term does not include any cabinet that does not
include a compressor and condenser
[[Page 11465]]
unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-04874 Filed 3-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P