Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment; Early Assessment Review; Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers, 37708-37719 [2021-14977]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37708
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Issue 36: DOE requests comment on if
the capacity, AWEF, condenser fan
power, and compressor types provided
by AHRI are representative of the
market for single-package and matchedpair wine cellar refrigeration systems.
DOE also seeks information on the
availability and prevalence of wine
cellar refrigeration systems between
13,000 and 18,000 Btu/h for walk-in
wine cellars with a square footage of
3,000 square feet or less.
Issue 37: DOE seeks comment on
whether the distribution channels used
in the June 2014 ECS final rule and July
2017 ECS final rule (as depicted in
Table II.16) remain relevant today, and
if not, DOE requests information on
these channels as well as the existence
of any additional channels that are used
to distribute walk-in components into
the market. Additionally, DOE requests
comment on the appropriateness of
these channels, and their respective
fractions for the following equipment:
display-panels, high-temperature
freezers, single-package refrigeration
systems, and wine cellars as described
in sections II.A.1 through II.A.4 of this
document.
Issue 38: DOE seeks comment on its
estimated equipment lifetime for WICF
refrigeration system and envelope
components. Specifically, DOE requests
data on appropriate average lifetimes
that DOE’s analyses should use for:
Display-panels, high-temperature
freezers, single-package refrigeration
systems, and wine cellars as described
in sections II.A.1 through II.A.4 of this
document.
Issue 39: DOE requests comment on
its assumption that the market share of
shipments for each equipment class
would remain constant over time.
Issue 40: DOE seeks input from
stakeholders on whether the shipments
shown for low-temperature dedicated
condensing equipment and unit coolers
are still relevant. Further, DOE seeks
data on the annual shipments of lowtemperature single-package refrigeration
systems (see section II.A.3 of this
document) and the distribution of rated
capacities as shown in Table II.15 of this
document.
Issue 41: DOE seeks input from
stakeholders on whether the shipments
shown for medium-temperature
condensing equipment and unit coolers
reflect the state of the current market.
Issue 42: DOE seeks data on the
annual shipments of mediumtemperature single-package refrigeration
systems (see section II.A.3 of this
document), high-temperature freezers
(see section II.A.2 of this document) and
wine cellar refrigeration systems (see
section II.A.4 of this document) and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Jul 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
distribution of rated capacities of each
(Btu/h). DOE also seeks data on the
fraction of high-temperature freezers
and wine cellar refrigeration systems
that are sold as single-package,
manufacturer matched-pair or split
systems. Additionally, DOE requests
data on the relative market size of
refrigeration systems used in high
temperature freezers compared to the
refrigeration system market sizes for
cooler applications (i.e., temperature
greater than 32 °F) and low-temperature
(e.g., less than or equal to ¥10 °F)
freezer applications.
Issue 43: DOE requests data on the
fraction of low-temperature and
medium-temperature panels that are
installed outdoors versus indoors.
Additionally, DOE requests data on the
fraction of low-temperature and
medium-temperature freight and
passage doors that are installed outdoors
versus indoors.
Issue 44: DOE seeks input from
stakeholders on whether the shipments
shown for panels and doors reflect the
state of the current market. Further,
DOE seeks data on the annual
shipments, in terms of units shipped, of
low-temperature and mediumtemperature display panels described in
section II.A.1 of this document.
Issue 45: DOE also requests specific
information on high-humidity mediumtemperature display door shipments
(see section II.C.1.a of this document)
and their fraction of annual display door
shipments.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on July 7, 2021, by
Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021–14902 Filed 7–15–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0007]
RIN 1904–AD82
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Certain
Commercial and Industrial Equipment;
Early Assessment Review; Commercial
Refrigerators, Freezers, and
Refrigerator-Freezers
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or ‘‘the Department’’) is
undertaking an early assessment review
for amended energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigerators,
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers
(‘‘CRE’’) to determine whether to amend
applicable energy conservation
standards for this equipment.
Specifically, through this request for
information (‘‘RFI’’), DOE seeks data
and information to evaluate whether
amended energy conservation standards
would result in significant savings of
energy; be technologically feasible; and
be economically justified. DOE
welcomes written comments from the
public on any subject within the scope
of this document (including those topics
not specifically raised in this RFI), as
well as the submission of data and other
relevant information concerning this
early assessment review.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested and will be
accepted on or before August 30, 2021.
ADDRESSES: 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–2017–BT–STD–0007], by
any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to CRE2017STD0007@
ee.doe.gov. Include docket number
[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0007] in the
subject line of the message.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
III of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted
public comment submissions through a
variety of mechanisms, including postal
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM
16JYP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
mail and hand delivery/courier, the
Department has found it necessary to
make temporary modifications to the
comment submission process in light of
the ongoing Covid–19 pandemic. DOE is
currently suspending receipt of public
comments via postal mail and hand
delivery/courier. If a commenter finds
that this change poses an undue
hardship, please contact Appliance
Standards Program staff at (202) 586–
1445 to discuss the need for alternative
arrangements. Once the Covid–19
pandemic health emergency is resolved,
DOE anticipates resuming all of its
regular options for public comment
submission, including postal mail and
hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at:
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD0007. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section III for
information on how to submit
comments through https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Stephanie Johnson, 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) 287–
1943. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email:
Peter.Cochran@Hq.Doe.Gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket,
contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Jul 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment
Classes
1. Equipment Classes
2. Potential New Equipment Categories
B. Significant Savings of Energy
1. Shipments
2. National Energy Savings
C. Technological Feasibility
1. Technology Options
2. Screening Analysis
3. Engineering Efficiency Analysis
D. Economic Justification
1. Engineering Cost Analysis
2. Markups Analysis & Distribution
Channels
3. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
4. Net Present Value
5. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
DOE has established an early
assessment review process to conduct a
more focused analysis to evaluate, based
on statutory criteria, whether a new or
amended energy conservation standard
is warranted. Based on the information
received in response to the RFI and
DOE’s own analysis, DOE will
determine whether to proceed with a
rulemaking for a new or amended
energy conservation standard. If DOE
makes an initial determination that a
new or amended energy conservation
standard would satisfy the applicable
statutory criteria or DOE’s analysis is
inconclusive, DOE would undertake the
preliminary stages of a rulemaking to
issue a new or amended energy
conservation standard. If DOE makes an
initial determination based upon
available evidence that a new or
amended energy conservation standard
would not meet the applicable statutory
criteria, DOE would engage in notice
and comment rulemaking before issuing
a final determination that new or
amended energy conservation standards
are not warranted.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 among
other things, authorizes DOE to regulate
the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA, added
by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section
441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as
codified), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020).
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37709
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. This
equipment includes CRE, the subject of
this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(E))
Under EPCA, DOE’s energy
conservation program consists
essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2)
labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and
enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6316).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE
may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited instances for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions set forth under 42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (e) (applying the
preemption waiver provisions of 42
U.S.C. 6297)).
EPCA prescribes energy conservation
standards for CRE and directs DOE to
conduct rulemakings to establish new
and amended standards. (42 U.S.C.
6313(c)(2)–(6)) DOE must follow
specific statutory criteria for prescribing
new or amended standards for covered
equipment. EPCA requires that any new
or amended energy conservation
standard prescribed by the Secretary of
Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in
energy or water efficiency that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) The
Secretary may not prescribe an amended
or new standard that will not result in
significant conservation of energy, or is
not technologically feasible or
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
EPCA also requires that, not later than
6 years after the issuance of any final
rule establishing or amending a
standard, DOE evaluate the energy
conservation standards for each type of
covered equipment, including those at
issue here, and publish either a
notification of determination that the
standards do not need to be amended,
or a NOPR that includes new proposed
energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM
16JYP1
37710
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
DOE is issuing this RFI to collect data
and information to inform its decision
of whether to propose amended energy
conservation standards consistent with
its obligations under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6313(c)(6)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m))
B. Rulemaking History
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE published a
final rule establishing amended
standards for CRE on March 28, 2014
(the ‘‘March 2014 Final Rule’’), for
which compliance was required as of
March 27, 2017. 79 FR 17725. The
current energy conservation standards
consist of maximum daily energy
consumption (‘‘MDEC’’) values as a
function of either refrigerated volume or
total display area (‘‘TDA’’) and are
located in title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 431, subpart
C.3
II. Request for Information
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect
data and information during the early
assessment review to inform its
decision, consistent with its obligations
under EPCA, as to whether the
Department should proceed with an
energy conservation standards
rulemaking. DOE has identified certain
topics for which information and data
are requested to assist in the evaluation
of the potential for amended energy
conservation standards. DOE also
welcomes comments on other issues
relevant to its early assessment that may
not specifically be identified in this
document. Specifically, for any future
rulemaking to consider amended energy
conservation standards, DOE would
likely follow an analysis approach
consistent with that used in the March
2014 Final Rule.4 DOE welcomes
comment on the applicability of that
analysis approach in addition to the
specific issues discussed in the
following sections.
A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment
Classes
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing
energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide equipment into equipment
classes by the type of energy used, or by
capacity or other performance-related
3 The currently applicable DOE test procedures
for CRE appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C,
Appendix B.
4 The analysis conducted in support of
developing the March 2014 Final Rule is available
in the Technical Support Document (‘‘TSD’’)
available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003-0102.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Jul 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
features that justify a different standard.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
In making a determination whether
capacity or another performance-related
feature justifies a different standard,
DOE must consider such factors as the
utility to the consumer of such a feature
and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. Id.
For CRE, the current energy
conservation standards in 10 CFR
431.66 are based on 49 equipment
classes, which are determined according
to the following performance-related
features that provide utility to the
consumer: Operating temperature
(refrigerator, freezer, or ice cream
freezer), presence of doors (open or
closed), door type (solid or transparent),
condensing unit type (remote or selfcontained), configuration (horizontal,
vertical, semi-vertical, or service over
counter), and temperature pull-down
capability.
Issue 1: DOE requests feedback on the
current CRE equipment classes and
whether changes to these individual
equipment classes and their
descriptions should be made or whether
certain classes should be merged or
separated. DOE also requests comment
on whether any other new equipment
classes are appropriate.
DOE has also identified certain
specific topics regarding equipment
classes and definitions on which it
requests comment, as discussed in the
following sections.
a. Door Angle
DOE differentiates equipment classes,
in part, based on whether the door angle
is horizontal or vertical. 10 CFR
431.66(e)(1). Door angle refers to: (1) For
equipment with flat doors, the angle
between a vertical line and the line
formed by the plane of the door, when
the equipment is viewed in crosssection; and (2) for equipment with
curved doors, the angle formed between
a vertical line and the straight line
drawn by connecting the top and bottom
points where the display area glass joins
the cabinet, when the equipment is
viewed in cross-section. 10 CFR 431.62.
DOE defines ‘‘horizontal closed’’ as
equipment with hinged or sliding doors
and a door angle greater than or equal
to 45 degrees. Id. ‘‘Vertical closed’’
refers to equipment with hinged or
sliding doors and a door angle less than
45 degrees. Id.
DOE has identified CRE models with
solid doors that do not create a flat
plane. For example, a refrigerated case
may have one door on the front vertical
surface and another on the top
horizontal surface, with the doors
connecting at the top front corner of the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
case (i.e., when both doors are open, the
front and top of the case have a
continuous opening similar to semivertical open equipment). In this
example, the doors do not create a flat
plane, as referenced in part 1 of the door
angle definition, and the doors are not
curved and do not include display glass
as referenced in part 2 of the door angle
definition.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on
whether it should amend the door angle
definition to address CRE models with
doors on multiple faces of the
equipment or CRE with curved solid
doors. DOE also requests comment on
the appropriate equipment class for
such equipment, including how
manufacturers are currently treating
such equipment.
b. Open Equipment With Doors
Equipment classes are also
differentiated based on whether the
equipment is ‘‘open’’ (i.e., does not have
doors) and the orientation of the air
curtain (horizontal open, semi-vertical
open, and vertical open). 10 CFR
431.66(e)(1). DOE has identified CRE
models that meet the open equipment
class definitions, except that they also
have doors that provide an alternate
method of access to the refrigerated
space. Based on a review of this
equipment, the open portion of the
equipment is intended for customer
access to the refrigerated space. The
doors are typically located at the back
of the equipment and provide an
alternate or secondary method of access
for loading product into the case. The
doors are not accessible to customers
during normal operation and may have
a means for locking.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on
whether the open equipment definitions
in 10 CFR 431.62 should be revised to
clarify treatment of open equipment
with doors providing an alternate or
secondary method of access to the
refrigerated space. DOE also seeks
information on how manufacturers are
currently treating such equipment.
c. Equipment With Pass-Through Doors
CRE with pass-through doors are
typically closed cases with doors on
both the front and rear sides of the
refrigerated case. The current DOE CRE
test procedure incorporates by reference
the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 72–
2005 (‘‘ASHRAE 72–2005’’), ‘‘Method of
Testing Commercial Refrigerators and
Freezers’’. Section 7.2 of ASHRAE 72–
2005 specifies that for ‘‘units with passthrough doors, only the doors on one
side of the unit shall be opened during
E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM
16JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
the test’’. Although equipment with
pass-through doors are subject to the
door opening requirements of ASHRAE
72–2005 and would therefore have the
same door opening sequences as nonpass-through CRE (i.e., only the door(s)
on one side of the equipment would be
opened), CRE with pass-through doors
may have a different tested energy
performance than comparable CRE
without pass-through doors. The
presence of multiple doors introduces
additional potential heat leak pathways
to the refrigerated cabinet, which could
increase energy use. For example, passthrough doors require additional door
gaskets, glass panels (for transparent
equipment classes), and, in some cases,
anti-sweat heaters.
Issue 4: DOE requests comment and
supporting data on whether passthrough doors are a performance-related
feature that justifies a different energy
conservation standard than other similar
CRE without pass-through doors. DOE
seeks data and performance information
regarding the performance impacts of
pass-through door models compared to
similar non-pass-through CRE.
2. Potential New Equipment Categories
DOE is aware of certain equipment
that meets the CRE definition at 10 CFR
431.62, but for which there are no
current DOE test procedures or energy
conservation standards (in the case of
refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and
preparation tables; additional pull-down
temperature applications; and chef
bases or griddle stands) or for which
new test procedures and equipment
classes may be appropriate (in the case
of high-temperature CRE and models
with dedicated remote condensing
units). In a separate RFI to consider
amended test procedures for CRE, DOE
requested feedback on appropriate
definitions and test procedures for these
potential new equipment categories. 86
FR 31182 (‘‘June 2021 Test Procedure
RFI’’). If DOE were to establish test
procedures for these equipment
categories, DOE requests information to
determine how to organize this
equipment into additional equipment
classes, if necessary, when considering
potential energy conservation standards.
Issue 5: DOE requests comment on
whether equipment capacity or any
other performance-related features for
these potential new equipment
categories would justify a different
energy conservation standard compared
to other CRE currently subject to energy
conservation standards or to other
equipment within that same category.
For example, refrigerated salad bars,
buffet tables, and preparation tables may
require separate equipment classes for
equipment with and without
refrigerated storage compartments. DOE
also requests comment on whether the
equipment characteristics delineating
the existing CRE equipment classes
would similarly apply to these potential
new equipment categories.
B. Significant Savings of Energy
On March 28, 2014, DOE established
an energy conservation standard for CRE
that is expected to result in 2.89
quadrillion British thermal units
(‘‘quads’’) of site energy savings over a
30-year period. Additionally, in the
March 2014 Final Rule, DOE estimated
that an energy conservation standard
established at an energy use level
equivalent to that achieved using the
maximum available technology (‘‘maxtech’’) would have resulted in 4.21
additional quads of savings. 79 FR
17726, 17806.
While DOE’s request for information
is not limited to the following issues,
DOE is particularly interested in
comment, information, and data on the
37711
following topics to inform whether
potential amended energy conservation
standards would result in a significant
savings of energy.
1. Shipments
For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE
did not obtain shipments data from a
single source, but used data from
multiple sources to estimate shipments
and cross-verify the data from one
source to another. Those sources were
2005 shipments data provided by the
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) as part
of its comments on the 2006 rulemaking
Framework document; 5 a CRE market
report by Freedonia Group, Inc.; 6 a 2008
and a 2012 market report by the North
American Association of Food
Equipment Manufacturers; 7 8 a 2009
DOE report prepared by Navigant
Consulting on CRE; 9 CRE shipments
from ENERGY STAR; 10 and CRE
saturation estimates calculated from the
Energy Information Administration
(‘‘EIA’’) Commercial Buildings Energy
Consumption Survey (‘‘CBECS’’) for
1999 11 and 2003.12 Based on these data
sources, DOE developed an allocation of
shipments for the 25 equipment classes
(‘‘primary equipment classes’’) that were
analyzed from a total of 49 overall in the
March 2014 Final Rule. In addition,
considering commercial floorspace
projections and CRE market saturations,
DOE developed an estimate of CRE
shipments projections. Table II.1 shows
the allocation of CRE for the 25 primary
equipment classes, expressed in linear
feet of shipped units 13 and Table II.2
shows total CRE shipments between
2014 and 2020, as projected in the
March 2014 Final Rule. See chapter 9 of
the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for
details on the development of
shipments estimates.
TABLE II.1—PERCENT OF SHIPPED LINEAR FEET FOR CRE BY EQUIPMENT CLASS
Equipment class
Percent
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
VOP.RC.M ........................................................................
VOP.RC.L .........................................................................
VOP.SC.M .........................................................................
VCT.RC.M .........................................................................
VCT.RC.L ..........................................................................
VCT.SC.M .........................................................................
VCT.SC.L ..........................................................................
5 Docket No. EERE–2006–STD–0126, ARI, No. 7,
Exhibit B at p. 1.
6 Freedonia Group, Inc. Commercial Refrigeration
Equipment to 2014. 2010. Cleveland, OH. Study
2261. https://www.freedoniagroup.com/
Commercial-Refrigeration-Equipment.html.
7 North American Association of Food Equipment
Manufacturers. 2008 Size and Shape of Industry.
2008. Chicago, IL.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Jul 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
10.3
0.5
1.3
0.8
10.7
4.8
0.2
Equipment class
SVO.SC.M ........................................................................
SOC.RC.M .......................................................................
SOC.SC.M ........................................................................
HZO.RC.M ........................................................................
HZO.RC.L .........................................................................
HZO.SC.M ........................................................................
HZO.SC.L .........................................................................
8 North American Association of Food Equipment
Manufacturers. 2012 Size and Shape of Industry.
2012. Chicago, IL.
9 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings
Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial
Refrigeration. 2009. Prepared by Navigant
Consulting, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, DC.
10 Energy Star. Unit Shipment and Sales Data
Archives. Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Percent
1.1
2.1
0.2
1.3
4.0
0.1
0.2
index.cfm?c=partners.unit_shipment_data_
archives.
11 Available at https://www.eia.gov/consumption/
commercial/data/1999/.
12 Available at https://www.eia.gov/consumption/
commercial/data/2003/.
13 Historical linear feet of shipped units is the
figure used by industry to depict the annual amount
of CRE capacity shipped, and is an alternative way
to express shipments data.
E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM
16JYP1
37712
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.1—PERCENT OF SHIPPED LINEAR FEET FOR CRE BY EQUIPMENT CLASS—Continued
Equipment class
Percent
VCT.SC.I ...........................................................................
VCS.SC.M .........................................................................
VCS.SC.L ..........................................................................
VCS.SC.I ...........................................................................
SVO.RC.M ........................................................................
PD.SC.M ...........................................................................
0.3
25.4
15.0
0.1
8.2
7.6
Equipment class
Percent
HCT.SC.M ........................................................................
HCT.SC.L .........................................................................
HCT.SC.I ..........................................................................
HCS.SC.M ........................................................................
HCS.SC.L .........................................................................
0.1
0.4
0.4
4.4
0.6
VOP = Vertical Open
SVO = Semi-Vertical Open
HZO = Horizontal Open
VCT = Vertical Closed Transparent
HCT = Horizontal Closed Transparent
SOC = Service Over Counter
PD = Pull-Down
HCS = Horizontal Closed Solid
VCS = Vertical Closed Solid
RC = Remote Condensing
SC = Self Contained
M = Medium Temperature
L = Low Temperature
I = Ice Cream Temperature
TABLE II.2—TOTAL ESTIMATED CRE SHIPMENTS FROM 2014 TO 2020
Year
2014
Estimated Shipments (million units) ........
Estimated Shipments (million linear ft.) ...
1.01
6.14
Issue 6: DOE requests annual sales
data (in units shipped or linear feet of
shipped units) of CRE from 2014 to
2020, disaggregated by equipment class.
DOE also seeks feedback on how the
breakdowns by equipment class
presented in Table II.1 of this document
and the annual shipments estimates
shown in Table II.2 of this document
compare to the actual shipments in
those years. If disaggregated shipments
data are not available at the equipment
class level, DOE requests shipments
data at any broader available category.
Issue 7: DOE also seeks historical and
current shipments data on any
additional CRE categories under
consideration for potential standards
(i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet
tables, and preparation tables; soliddoor equipment for pull-down
temperature applications; chef bases or
griddle stands; high-temperature CRE;
and CRE with dedicated remote
condensing units).
2. National Energy Savings
The purpose of the national impact
analysis (‘‘NIA’’) is to estimate aggregate
impacts of potential new and/or
amended efficiency standards at the
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2015
1.03
6.24
2016
2017
1.06
6.45
2018
1.11
6.72
national level in terms of national
energy savings (‘‘NES’’) and net present
value (‘‘NPV’’, discussed in section
II.D.4 of this document) of the total
consumer benefits. The NIA considers
lifetime impacts of potential standards
on equipment shipped in a 30-year
period that begins with the expected
compliance date for new and/or
amended standards.
DOE measures savings of potential
standards relative to a ‘‘no-newstandards’’ case that reflects conditions
without new and/or amended standards,
and uses current efficiency market
shares to characterize the no-newstandards case equipment efficiency
distribution. By accounting for
consumers who already purchase more
efficient CRE, DOE avoids overstating
the potential benefits from potential
standards. In the March 2014 Final
Rule, DOE developed efficiency trends
for CRE in the no-new-standards case
and the standards cases assuming that
the market would move over time to
adopt ENERGY STAR rated equipment.
To estimate the impact that energy
efficiency standards would have in the
year compliance becomes required, DOE
2019
1.16
7.00
1.21
7.30
2020
1.26
7.60
used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario. A roll-up
scenario assumes that equipment
efficiencies in the no-new-standards
case, which do not meet the standard
level under consideration, would ‘‘roll
up’’ to meet the new efficiency standard
level. Equipment shipments at
efficiencies above the efficiency
standard level under consideration are
not affected. See chapter 10 of the
March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details
on this approach.
Issue 8: DOE seeks input on whether
any market or technology changes
would warrant a different approach to
develop CRE efficiency trends than the
one followed in the March 2014 Final
Rule. DOE requests any relevant data
that could be used to project efficiency
trends for CRE.
C. Technological Feasibility
1. Technology Options
During the March 2014 Final Rule,
DOE considered a number of technology
options that manufacturers could use to
reduce energy consumption in CRE.
Table II.3 includes a complete list of
those technology options considered in
developing the March 2014 Final Rule.
TABLE II.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR CRE CONSIDERED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARCH 2014 FINAL RULE
Technology option category
Technology option
Lighting ......................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Jul 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Higher efficiency lighting (e.g., Light Emitting Diodes [LEDs]).
Higher efficiency lighting ballasts.
Remote lighting ballast location.
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM
16JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37713
TABLE II.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR CRE CONSIDERED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARCH 2014 FINAL RULE—
Continued
Technology option category
Technology option
Heat Exchangers .......................................................................
Fans ...........................................................................................
Defrost .......................................................................................
Insulation ...................................................................................
Expansion Valves ......................................................................
Doors .........................................................................................
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Other Technologies ...................................................................
Compressors .............................................................................
Issue 9: DOE seeks information on the
technologies listed in Table II.3 of this
document, including their applicability
to the current market and how these
technologies may impact the energy use
of CRE as measured according to the
DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks
information on how these technologies
may have changed since they were
considered in the March 2014 Final
Rule analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks
information on the range of efficiencies
or performance characteristics that are
currently available for each technology
option.
Issue 10: DOE seeks information on
the technologies listed in Table II.3 of
this document regarding their market
adoption, costs, and any concerns with
incorporating them into products (e.g.,
impacts on consumer utility, potential
safety concerns, manufacturing/
production/implementation issues, etc.),
particularly as to changes that may have
occurred since the March 2014 Final
Rule.
Issue 11: DOE seeks comment on any
other technology options that it should
consider for inclusion in its analysis
and if these technologies may impact
equipment features or user utility.
In a final rule published on December
20, 2011, EPA listed propane (R–290) as
acceptable for use in self-contained
CRE, subject to a charge limit of 150
grams and other appropriate safety
measures to address the flammability
risk. 76 FR 78832. In an April 10, 2015
final rule, EPA additionally listed
isobutane (R–600a) and the hydrocarbon
blend R–441A as acceptable for use in
self-contained CRE, also subject to a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Jul 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
Lighting occupancy sensors.
Improved evaporator coil design.
Improved condenser coil design (self-contained equipment only).
Low-pressure differential evaporators.
Liquid suction heat exchangers.
Higher efficiency fan motors (e.g., Electronically Commutated Motors (‘‘ECM’’)).
Variable-speed fan motors with controls.
Higher efficiency fan blades.
Hot-gas defrost.
Defrost cycle controls.
Increased insulation thickness.
Vacuum insulated panels.
Higher efficiency expansion valves.
Improved gaskets.
Inert gas fill.
Low-emissivity coating.
Additional glass panes.
Anti-fog films.
Anti-sweat heater controls.
Night Curtains.
Higher efficiency compressors (for self-contained equipment only).
150-gram charge limit and other safety
measures to address flammability. 80 FR
19454.
A review of the market indicates that
manufacturers of self-contained CRE
have begun transitioning to hydrocarbon
refrigerants, which have different
thermo-physical properties than
traditionally-used refrigerants. In
considering how manufacturers would
improve efficiencies for CRE, DOE is
interested in how equipment energy
consumption is affected by the ongoing
transition to alternative refrigerants.
Issue 12: DOE requests comment on
which refrigerant(s) DOE should
consider as potential technology options
for improving CRE efficiencies. DOE
additionally requests comment and
supporting data on the energy
consumption impact of this transition to
alternative refrigerants. DOE also seeks
information on the availability of such
alternative refrigerants and their
applicability and/or penetration in the
current market. Specifically, DOE
requests information on whether charge
limits or safety standards (e.g.,
standards issued by Underwriter’s
Laboratory) would restrict their use.
DOE also requests comment on any
additional design changes or safety
measures that may be required for CRE
to incorporate alternative refrigerants.
Issue 13: DOE similarly requests
comment on the likely alternative
refrigerant(s) for use with remote
condensing CRE. DOE specifically
requests supporting data on how such a
transition would impact the energy
consumption of remote condensing CRE
as measured under the DOE test
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
procedure and on any additional design
changes or safety measures that may be
required for some alternative
refrigerants.
CRE manufacturers may similarly be
transitioning from traditional foam
blowing agents to alternatives, which
may affect the physical properties of the
foam itself, namely its ability to resist
heat transfer (i.e., the R-value). These
differences in the R-value of insulation
foam in turn affect the energy
performance of CRE by influencing case
heat load.
Issue 14: DOE requests comment and
supporting data on the market
penetration, costs, and thermal
resistivities of insulation foams using
traditional and alternative blowing
agents. DOE additionally requests
comment on any potential safety
concerns, such as flammability, arising
from alternative foam blowing agents.
Finally, DOE requests comment and
supporting data on any additional
design changes or safety measures that
may be required to incorporate
alternative foam blowing agents in CRE.
As discussed previously in this RFI,
DOE may consider energy conservation
standards for refrigerated salad bars,
buffet tables, and preparation tables;
additional pull-down temperature
applications; chef bases or griddle
stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE
with dedicated remote condensing
units. The features and operation of
these types of equipment may introduce
additional technology options not
previously considered.
Issue 15: DOE requests comment on
any technology options not previously
E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM
16JYP1
37714
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
considered for CRE, including
technology options that could be used to
improve the energy efficiency of
refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and
preparation tables; additional pull-down
temperature applications; chef bases or
griddle stands; high-temperature CRE;
and CRE with dedicated remote
condensing units. DOE also seeks
information on how technology options
may have unique efficiency impacts on
these equipment categories. For
example, there may be greater energy
savings potential associated with
variable-speed compressors and fan
motors in pull-down temperature
applications and chef bases or griddle
stands compared to the other existing
CRE equipment classes.
2. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis
is to evaluate the technologies that
improve equipment efficiency to
determine which technologies will be
eliminated from further consideration
and which will be passed to the
engineering analysis for further
consideration. DOE determines whether
to eliminate certain technology options
from further consideration based on the
following criteria: Technological
feasibility; practicability to
manufacture, install, and service;
adverse impacts on product utility or
product availability; adverse impacts on
health or safety; and unique-pathway
proprietary technologies. 10 CFR part
430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3).
Table II.4 summarizes the technology
options that DOE screened out in the
March 2014 Final Rule, and the
applicable screening criteria.
TABLE II.4—PREVIOUSLY SCREENED OUT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FROM THE MARCH 2014 FINAL RULE
EPCA criteria
(X = basis for screening out)
Screened technology option
Technological
feasibility
Higher Efficiency Expansion Valves .....................
Variable Speed Condenser Fans and Condenser
Fan Motor Controllers.
Anti-Sweat Heater Controllers ..............................
Liquid Suction Heat Exchangers ..........................
Air Curtain Design .................................................
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on
what impact, if any, the screening
criteria described in this section would
have on each of the technology options
listed in Table II.3 of this document
with respect to CRE. Similarly, DOE
seeks information regarding how these
same criteria would affect any other
technology options not already
identified in this document with respect
to their potential use in CRE.
Issue 17: With respect to the screened
out technology options listed in Table
II.4 of this document, DOE seeks
information on whether these options
would, based on current and projected
assessments regarding each of them,
remain screened out under the
screening criteria described in this
section. With respect to each of these
technology options, what steps, if any,
could be (or have already been) taken to
facilitate the introduction of each option
as a means to improve the energy
performance of CRE and the potential to
impact consumer utility of the CRE.
3. Engineering Efficiency Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates
the cost-efficiency relationship of
equipment at different levels of
increased energy efficiency (‘‘efficiency
levels’’). This relationship serves as the
basis for the cost-benefit calculations for
commercial consumers, manufacturers,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Jul 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
Practicability to
manufacture,
install, and
service
Adverse impact
on product utility
Does not reduce
energy
consumption
measured by the
DOE test
procedure
X
X
X
X
X
X
and the Nation, as described further in
section II.D of this document.
As discussed, the current energy
conservation standard for each CRE
equipment class is based on MDEC in
kWh/day determined according to an
equation using the equipment’s chilled
volume (‘‘V’’) in cubic feet (‘‘ft3’’), or its
TDA in square feet (‘‘ft2’’). The current
standards for CRE are found at 10 CFR
431.62.
Issue 18: DOE requests feedback on
whether the current established energy
conservation standards for CRE are
appropriate baseline efficiency levels for
the existing equipment classes. DOE
further requests comment on whether
the existing energy conservation
standards are based on the appropriate
normalization metric (i.e., TDA or
volume) for the existing equipment
classes.
As mentioned in section II.A.2 of this
RFI, DOE is evaluating whether to
develop test procedures for refrigerated
salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation
buffet tables; solid-doored equipment
for pull-down applications; chef bases
or griddle stands; high-temperature
CRE; and CRE with dedicated remote
condensing units. As no energy
conservation standards currently exist
for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables,
and preparation buffet tables, soliddoored equipment for pull-down
PO 00000
Adverse impacts
on health and
safety
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
applications, chef bases or griddle
stands, and current energy conservation
standards are not specific to hightemperature CRE and CRE with
dedicated remote condensing units,
DOE is interested in data that would
allow the development of a baseline
efficiency levels for these equipment
categories (and any applicable
equipment classes).
Although existing CRE energy
conservation standards are based on
either the chilled volume or TDA for a
CRE model, for these newly considered
equipment categories, other parameters
may be more appropriate as the basis for
an equation representing how the
maximum allowable daily energy
consumption varies with equipment
size and application. For example, for
refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and
preparation tables, pan volume or
surface area (possibly in addition to the
chilled volume of any refrigerated
compartments that are not thermally
separate from the pans) may be the
appropriate capacity metric. Similarly,
for solid-doored equipment for pulldown applications, product capacity
may be the relevant metric.
Issue 19: DOE requests comment on
appropriate parameters to use as the
basis for efficiency levels to represent
potential energy conservation standards
for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables,
E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM
16JYP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
and preparation tables. DOE similarly
seeks information on appropriate
parameters to use in developing
efficiency levels for solid-door
equipment for pull-down applications,
chef bases or griddle stands, hightemperature CRE, and CRE with
dedicated remote condensing units.
Issue 20: DOE requests data
describing the energy consumption, and
storage and/or display capacity of
refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and
preparation tables; solid-door
equipment for pull-down applications;
chef bases or griddle stands; hightemperature CRE; and CRE with
dedicated remote condensing units that
could be used in assessing appropriate
baseline efficiency levels based on the
current market for this equipment. DOE
requests information on the typical
design options that would be expected
to be incorporated into a baseline model
for each equipment category.
As part of DOE’s analysis, DOE
develops efficiency levels above the
baseline as potential energy
conservation standards to evaluate in
the rulemaking analyses. Among these,
DOE typically establishes efficiency
levels at the maximum available and
max-tech efficiencies. The maximum
available efficiency level represents the
highest efficiency units currently
available on the market.
DOE has performed a preliminary
analysis of CRE models, found in the
DOE’s Compliance Certification
(‘‘CCMS’’) Database,14 to assess the
potential to improve efficiency relative
to current (i.e., baseline) standard levels.
DOE observed that models are currently
available with daily energy
consumptions significantly lower than
the baseline at the currently allowable
energy conservation standard.
Issue 21: DOE seeks input on whether
the maximum available efficiency levels
(i.e., the lowest available energy use
levels) are appropriate and
technologically feasible for
consideration as possible energy
conservation standards for CRE. DOE
seeks information on the design options
incorporated into these maximumavailable models, and also on the order
in which manufacturers incrementally
incorporate each design option when
improving efficiency from the baseline
to the maximum-available efficiency
level (i.e., which design options would
be included at incremental efficiency
levels between the baseline and
maximum available). DOE also requests
information on the design changes
implemented to achieve efficiencies
14 Available at https://www.regulations.doe.gov/
certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Jul 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
better than the max-tech considered in
the March 2014 Final Rule analysis.
Issue 22: DOE also seeks information
on the maximum-available efficiencies
for the CRE for which there are no
specific DOE energy conservation
standards, and for which DOE does not
have manufacturer-submitted efficiency
information (i.e., refrigerated salad bars,
buffet tables, and preparation tables;
solid-door equipment for pull-down
applications; chef bases or griddle
stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE
with dedicated remote condensing
units), and on the test procedures used
to determine any such efficiencies. DOE
requests feedback on which design
options are incorporated into the most
efficient equipment available in these
equipment categories.
DOE defines a max-tech efficiency
level to represent the theoretical
maximum possible efficiency if all
available design options are
incorporated in a model. In many cases,
the max-tech efficiency level is not
commercially available because it is not
economically feasible. In the March
2014 Final Rule, DOE determined maxtech efficiency levels using energy
modeling. The energy models were
based on the use of all design options
applicable to the specific equipment
classes. While some of these equipment
configurations had not likely been
tested as prototypes, all of the
individual design options had been
incorporated in available equipment.
See chapter 5 of the March 2014 Final
Rule TSD for details on this approach.
In its review of the CCMS data, DOE
identified basic models with certified
daily energy consumptions lower than
the max-tech efficiency levels
considered in the March 2014 Final
Rule analysis.
Issue 23: DOE seeks feedback on what
design options would be incorporated at
a max-tech efficiency level, and the
efficiencies associated with those levels,
for each equipment class. As part of this
request, DOE also seeks information as
to whether there are limitations on the
use of certain combinations of design
options. DOE is particularly interested
in any design options that may have
become available since the March 2014
Final Rule that would allow greater
energy savings relative to the max-tech
efficiency levels assessed for each
equipment class in that rulemaking.
Issue 24: Additionally, DOE requests
comment on what design options
should be considered for the max-tech
efficiency levels for refrigerated salad
bars, buffet tables, and preparation
tables; solid-door equipment for pulldown applications; chef bases or griddle
stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37715
with dedicated remote condensing
units, as well as other potential
equipment classes not currently subject
to a standard.
D. Economic Justification
In determining whether a proposed
energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE analyzes,
among other things, the potential
economic impact on consumers,
manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE
seeks comment on whether there are
economic barriers to the adoption of
more-stringent energy conservation
standards. DOE also seeks comment and
data on any other aspects of its
economic justification analysis from the
March 2014 Final Rule that may
indicate whether a more-stringent
energy conservation standard would be
economically justified or cost effective.
While DOE’s request for information
is not limited to the following issues,
DOE is particularly interested in
comment, information, and data on the
following.
1. Engineering Cost Analysis
For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE
developed cost-efficiency relationships
by estimating the efficiency
improvements and costs associated with
incorporating specific design options
into the assumed baseline model for
each analyzed equipment class. See
chapter 5 of the March 2014 Final Rule
TSD for details on this approach. As a
result of recent technological
innovations, costs for several design
options considered in the March 2014
Final Rule (e.g., LED lighting and ECMs
for fans) are likely to have changed
since they were previously assessed.
Issue 25: DOE requests comment on
the increase in manufacturer production
cost associated with incorporating each
particular design option from the
baseline efficiency to max-tech.
Specifically, DOE is interested in
whether and how the costs estimated for
design options in the March 2014 Final
Rule have changed since the time of that
analysis. DOE also requests information
on the investments necessary to
incorporate specific design options,
including, but not limited to, costs
related to new or modified tooling (if
any), materials, engineering and
development efforts to implement each
design option, and manufacturing/
production impacts.
Issue 26: DOE requests comment and
supporting data on the incremental
manufacturer product costs associated
with transitioning to alternative
refrigerants, including costs associated
with converting any refrigeration system
components (e.g., compressors, heat
E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM
16JYP1
37716
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
exchangers) and with any additional
safety measures (e.g., labels, ventilation
fans, or leak detection sensors) that may
be required to address the flammability
risks of some alternative refrigerants.
DOE also seeks information on
whether any updates to the approach
used in the analysis supporting the
March 2014 Final Rule would be
appropriate based on the current CRE
market. For example, customer demand
for certain equipment configurations
and sizes may have changed. For the
March 2014 Final Rule, DOE developed
cost-efficiency curves for 25 primary
equipment classes based on units with
typical sizes and configurations within
those classes See chapter 5 and
appendix 5A of the March 2014 Final
Rule TSD for details on the costefficiency analysis, including the
primary equipment class analysis and
representative model configurations.
Issue 27: DOE seeks feedback on
whether the 25 primary equipment
classes and the corresponding
representative unit configurations in the
March 2014 Final Rule analysis are still
appropriate for the current CRE market.
If not, DOE requests information on
whether representative equipment
characteristics (e.g., volume,
dimensions, operating parameters, and
controls) have significantly changed
since the March 2014 Final Rule
analysis.
2. Markups Analysis & Distribution
Channels
In generating end-user price inputs for
the life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) and payback
period (‘‘PBP’’) analysis and national
impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’), DOE must
identify distribution channels (i.e., how
the equipment are distributed from the
manufacturer to the consumer), and
estimate relative sales volumes through
each channel. By applying a multiplier
called a ‘‘markup’’ to the manufacturer
selling price, DOE estimates the
commercial consumer’s price.
For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE
defined three distribution channels for
CRE and estimated their respective
shares of shipments: (1) From
manufacturers to consumers (national
account channel); (2) from
manufacturers to wholesalers to
consumers (wholesaler channel); and (3)
from manufacturers to wholesalers to
mechanical contractors and then to
consumers (contractor channel). Table
II.5 shows the distribution channel
market shares. See chapter 6 of the
March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details
on this approach.
TABLE II.5—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS MARKET SHARES
National
account channel
(%)
Equipment type
Display Cases (VOP, SVO, HZO, VCT, HCT, SOC, and PD) ........................................
Solid-Door Equipment (VCS and HCS) ...........................................................................
Issue 28: DOE seeks input on whether
the distribution channels described, and
the percentage of shipments in each
channel, as shown in Table II.5 of this
document, are still accurate for CRE.
DOE also requests data and feedback on
the magnitude and impact of online
sales to the CRE distribution channels.
More specifically, DOE seeks input on
whether the markups for online sales
are significantly different from CRE sold
through conventional distribution
channels.
Issue 29: DOE requests similar data on
the distribution channels and
percentage of shipments in each
channel for the other categories of CRE
being considered in a potential energy
conservation standards rulemaking (i.e.,
refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and
preparation tables; solid-door
equipment for pull-down applications;
chef bases or griddle stands; hightemperature CRE; and CRE with
dedicated remote condensing units).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
DOE conducts the LCC and PBP
analysis to evaluate the economic effects
of potential energy conservation
standards for CRE on individual
consumers. For any given efficiency
level, DOE measures the PBP and the
change in LCC relative to an estimated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Jul 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
baseline level. The LCC is the total
consumer expense over the life of the
equipment, consisting of purchase,
installation, and operating costs
(expenses for energy use, maintenance,
and repair). Inputs to the calculation of
total installed cost include the cost of
the equipment—which includes the
manufacturer selling price, distribution
channel markups, and sales taxes—and
installation costs. Inputs to the
calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption,
energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs,
equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and
the year that compliance with new and
amended standards is required.
a. Efficiency Distribution
For the March 2014 Final Rule, due to
lack of data on CRE market shares by
efficiency level within each of the
equipment classes, DOE developed the
no-new-standards case efficiency
distribution of CRE according to a costbased method that used parameters and
assumptions from the EIA’s National
Energy Modeling System (‘‘NEMS’’).15
DOE also used CRE market data from
15 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration. Commercial Demand Module of the
National Energy Modeling System: Model
Documentation 2012 DOE/EIA–M066. 2012.
Washington, DC
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
70
30
Wholesaler
channel
(%)
Contractor
channel
(%)
15
60
15
10
the ENERGY STAR program. See
chapter 10 of the March 2014 Final Rule
TSD for details on this approach.
Issue 30: DOE requests data regarding
the current, historical, and future
market shares of CRE by efficiency level
(e.g., expressed in terms of increments
of 10 percent reduction below the
MDEC in kWh/day, as determined by
the current standards, specified at 10
CFR 431.62) for each equipment class.
Issue 31: DOE also seeks data on the
current, historical, and future efficiency
distribution of any additional categories
of CRE under consideration broken out
by efficiency for potential standards
(i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet
tables, and preparation tables; soliddoor equipment for pull-down
applications; chef bases or griddle
stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE
with dedicated remote condensing
units).
b. Installation Costs
For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE
estimated different installation costs for
remote condensing and self-contained
CRE but assumed that installation costs
do not vary with efficiency levels in any
equipment class. Therefore, installation
costs did not impact the LCC or PBP
analysis. See chapter 8 of the March
2014 Final Rule TSD.
Issue 32: DOE requests comment on
whether any market or technology
E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM
16JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
changes since the March 2014 Final
Rule would indicate that installation
costs vary by efficiency level, and, if so,
what the factors and technologies
affecting installation costs are, and how
costs vary as CRE efficiency increases,
for each equipment class.
Issue 33: DOE also requests comment
and data on installation costs for any
additional categories of CRE under
consideration for potential standards
(i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet
tables, and preparation tables; soliddoor equipment for pull-down
applications; chef bases or griddle
stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE
with dedicated remote condensing
units).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
c. Repair and Maintenance Costs
Maintenance costs are associated with
maintaining equipment’s operation,
whereas repair costs are associated with
repairing or replacing components that
have failed in a refrigeration system and
envelope (i.e., panels and doors). In the
March 2014 Final Rule, DOE estimated
maintenance and repair costs as
annualized values applied over the life
of the considered equipment. For
maintenance costs, DOE considered
lamp replacements and other lighting
maintenance activities as required
maintenance for CRE, with varying costs
by efficiency level. For repair costs,
DOE considered costs for component
failures (i.e., evaporator fans, condenser
fans, compressors, coils, doors) during
the lifetime of CRE, which varied by
efficiency level. 79 FR 17726, 17766; see
chapter 8 of the March 2014 Final Rule
TSD for details on this approach.
Issue 34: DOE seeks comment and
data on whether it should estimate
maintenance and repair costs for CRE
based on the March 2014 Final Rule
approach in a potential future
rulemaking for CRE, considering any
additional technology options discussed
in this RFI, and any market and
technology changes since the March
2014 Final Rule. In particular, DOE is
interested in data on the maintenance
and repair costs of CRE with alternative
refrigerants, and how those vary, if at
all, compared to CRE with traditionally
used refrigerants.
Issue 35: DOE also requests comment
and data on maintenance and repair
costs for any additional categories of
CRE under consideration for potential
standards (i.e., refrigerated salad bars,
buffet tables, and preparation tables;
solid-door equipment for pull-down
applications; chef bases or griddle
stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE
with dedicated remote condensing
units).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Jul 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
d. Equipment Lifetimes
The equipment lifetime is the age at
which the equipment is retired from
service. In the March 2014 Final Rule,
DOE based its estimates of CRE lifetime
on discussions with industry experts
and assumed a 10-year average lifetime
for most CRE in large grocery/multi-line
stores and restaurants. For small food
retail stores and other small businesses,
DOE used a 15-year average lifetime to
account for longer consumer usage of
CRE. DOE reflects the uncertainty of
equipment lifetimes in the LCC analysis
for both equipment markets by using
probability distributions. 79 FR 17726,
17766; see chapter 8 of the March 2014
Final Rule TSD for details on this
approach.
Issue 36: DOE requests comment and
data on whether any market and
technology changes since the March
2014 Final Rule would affect its
equipment lifetime estimates for CRE for
which DOE currently has standards, and
if so, how.
Issue 37: DOE also requests comment
and data on lifetimes of any additional
categories of CRE under consideration
for potential standards (i.e., refrigerated
salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation
tables; solid-door equipment for pulldown applications; chef bases or griddle
stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE
with dedicated remote condensing
units).
37717
price trend for CRE, as well as on the
merits of incorporating price trends for
certain design options that may
experience price declines during the
expected 30-year analysis period,
following potential future energy
conservation standards for CRE.
4. Net Present Value
To develop the national NPV from
potential standards, DOE calculates
annual energy expenditures and annual
equipment expenditures for the no-newstandards case and the standards case.
The discounted difference between
energy bill savings and increased
equipment expenditures in each year is
the NPV.
In the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE
developed an equipment price trend for
CRE, based on the inflation-adjusted
index of the producer price index
(‘‘PPI’’) for air conditioning,
refrigeration, and forced air heating
from 1978 to 2012,16 which showed a
slight downward trend. DOE projected a
future trend in the analysis period by
extrapolating the historic trend using
linear regression. Were DOE to conduct
a rulemaking, DOE may consider
incorporating price trends for certain
design options that may experience
price declines during the analysis
period (e.g., LED lighting and ECM fan
motors).
Issue 38: DOE requests comment on
its approach for projecting a long-term
5. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer
impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) is to estimate
the financial impact of amended energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of CRE, and to evaluate
the potential impact of such standards
on direct employment and
manufacturing capacity. As part of the
MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of
amended energy conservation standards
on subgroups of manufacturers of
covered equipment, including small
business manufacturers. DOE uses the
Small Business Administration’s
(‘‘SBA’’) small business size standards
to determine whether manufacturers
qualify as small businesses, which are
listed by the North American Industry
Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’).17
Manufacturing of CRE is classified
under NAICS 333415, ‘‘Air-conditioning
and warm air heating equipment and
commercial and industrial refrigeration
equipment manufacturing,’’ and the
SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees
or less for a domestic entity to be
considered as a small business. This
employee threshold includes all
employees in a business’ parent
company and any other subsidiaries.
One aspect of assessing manufacturer
burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE
standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal
agencies that affect the manufacturers of
a covered product or equipment. In
addition to energy conservation
standards, other regulations can
significantly affect manufacturers’
financial operations. Multiple
regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead
companies to abandon product lines or
markets with lower expected future
returns than competing products. For
these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis
of cumulative regulatory burden as part
of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency.
Issue 39: To the extent feasible, DOE
seeks the names and contact
information of any domestic or foreignbased manufacturers that distribute CRE
in the United States.
Issue 40: DOE requests the names and
contact information of small business
16 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Index
Industry Data, Series: PCU3334153334153.
17 Available online at: https://www.sba.gov/sites/
default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM
16JYP1
37718
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
CRE manufacturers, as defined by the
SBA’s size threshold that distribute
equipment in the United States. In
addition, DOE requests comment on any
other manufacturer subgroups that
could disproportionally be impacted by
amended energy conservation
standards. DOE requests feedback on
any potential approaches that could be
considered to address impacts on
manufacturers, including small
businesses.
Issue 41: DOE requests information
regarding the cumulative regulatory
burden impacts on manufacturers of
CRE associated with (1) other DOE
standards applying to different products
or equipment that these manufacturers
may also make, and (2) equipmentspecific regulatory actions of other
Federal agencies. DOE also requests
comment on its methodology for
computing cumulative regulatory
burden and whether there are any
flexibilities it can consider that would
reduce this burden while remaining
consistent with the requirements of
EPCA.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by the date under the
DATES heading, comments and
information on matters addressed in this
notification and on other matters
relevant to DOE’s early assessment of
whether more-stringent energy
conservation standards are not
warranted for CRE.
Submitting comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. The https://
www.regulations.gov web page requires
you to provide your name and contact
information. Your contact information
will be viewable to DOE Building
Technologies staff only. Your contact
information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment or in any documents
attached to your comment. Any
information that you do not want to be
publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment. If
this instruction is followed, persons
viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Jul 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to https://
www.regulations.gov information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute,
such as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter
referred to as Confidential Business
Information (CBI)). Comments
submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments
will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large
volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your
comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment
tracking number that https://
www.regulations.gov provides after you
have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email.
Comments and documents submitted
via email also will be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. Faxes
will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English, and free of
any defects or viruses. Documents
should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible,
they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email. DOE
will make its own determination about
the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to
be a very important part of the process
for developing test procedures and
energy conservation standards. DOE
actively encourages the participation
and interaction of the public during the
comment period in each stage of this
process. Interactions with and between
members of the public provide a
balanced discussion of the issues and
assist DOE in the process. Anyone who
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing
list to receive future notices and
information about this process should
contact Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or via email at
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on July 9, 2021, by
Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM
16JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021–14977 Filed 7–15–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Drug Enforcement Administration
21 CFR Part 1308
[Docket No. DEA–495]
Schedules of Controlled Substances:
Placement of N-Ethylhexedrone, alphaPyrrolidinohexanophenone, 4-Methylalpha-ethylaminopentiophenone, 4′Methyl-alphapyrrolidinohexiophenone, alphaPyrrolidinoheptaphenone, and 4′Chloro-alphapyrrolidinovalerophenone in Schedule
I
Drug Enforcement
Administration, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Drug Enforcement
Administration proposes placing six
synthetic cathinones, as identified in
this proposed rule, in schedule I of the
Controlled Substances Act. If finalized,
this action would make permanent the
existing regulatory controls and
administrative, civil, and criminal
sanctions applicable to schedule I
controlled substances on persons who
handle (manufacture, distribute, reverse
distribute, import, export, engage in
research, conduct instructional
activities or chemical analysis, or
possess), or propose to handle these six
specified controlled substances.
DATES: Comments must be submitted
electronically or postmarked on or
before August 16, 2021.
Requests for hearing and waivers of
an opportunity for a hearing or to
participate in a hearing must be
received on or before August 16, 2021.
ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling
of comments, please reference ‘‘Docket
No. DEA–495’’ on all electronic and
written correspondence, including any
attachments.
• Electronic comments: The Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA)
encourages that all comments be
submitted electronically through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal which
provides the ability to type short
comments directly into the comment
field on the web page or attach a file for
lengthier comments. Please go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 Jul 15, 2021
Jkt 253001
online instructions at that site for
submitting comments. Upon completion
of your submission you will receive a
Comment Tracking Number for your
comment. Please be aware that
submitted comments are not
instantaneously available for public
view on Regulations.gov. If you have
received a Comment Tracking Number,
your comment has been successfully
submitted and there is no need to
resubmit the same comment.
• Paper comments: Paper comments
that duplicate the electronic submission
are not necessary. Should you wish to
mail a paper comment, in lieu of an
electronic comment, it should be sent
via regular or express mail to: Drug
Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA
Federal Register Representative/DPW,
8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield,
Virginia 22152.
• Hearing requests: All requests for a
hearing and waivers of participation,
together with a written statement of
position on the matters of fact and law
asserted in the hearing, must be sent to:
Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn:
Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive,
Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests
for hearing and waivers of participation
should also be sent to: (1) Drug
Enforcement Administration, Attn:
Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette
Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and
(2) Drug Enforcement Administration,
Attn: DEA Federal Register
Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette
Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terrence L. Boos, Ph.D., Drug and
Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug
Enforcement Administration;
Telephone: (571) 362–3249.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In this proposed rule, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA)
proposes to permanently schedule the
following six controlled substances in
schedule I of the Controlled Substances
Act (CSA), including their salts,
isomers, and salts of isomers whenever
the existence of such salts, isomers, and
salts of isomers is possible within the
specific chemical designation:
• N-ethylhexedrone (other names: aethylaminohexanophenone, ethyl
hexedrone, HEXEN, 2-(ethylamino)-1phenylhexan-1-one),
• alpha-pyrrolidinohexanophenone
(other names: a-pyrrolidinohexanophenone, alpha-PHP, a-PHP,
PV7, 1-phenyl-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)hexan1-one),
• 4-methyl-alphaethylaminopentiophenone (other names:
N-ethyl-4-methylnorpentedrone, 4methyl-a-ethylaminopentiophenone, 4-
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37719
MEAP, 2-(ethylamino)-1-(4methylphenyl)pentan-1-one),
• 4′-methyl-alphapyrrolidinohexiophenone (other names:
4′-methyl-a-PHP, 4′-methyl PHP, PV4,
4-MPHP, MPHP, 4-methyl-alphapyrrolidino hexanophenone, 1-(4methylphenyl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)hexan1-one),
• alpha-pyrrolidinoheptaphenone
(other names: alphapyrrolidinoheptiophenone, alpha-PHpP,
PV8, 1-phenyl-2-(pyrrolidin-1yl)heptan-1-one), and
• 4′-chloro-alphapyrrolidinovalerophenone (other names:
4-chloro-a-pyrrolidinopentiophenone,
4-chloro-a-PVP, 4-Cl-a-PVP, 4-chloro-2(1-pyrrolidinyl)-valerophenone, 1-(4chlorophenyl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1yl)pentan-1-one).
Posting of Public Comments
Please note that all comments
received in response to this docket are
considered part of the public record.
They will, unless reasonable cause is
given, be made available by DEA for
public inspection online at https://
www.regulations.gov. Such information
includes personal identifying
information (such as your name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter. The Freedom of
Information Act applies to all comments
received. If you want to submit personal
identifying information (such as your
name, address, etc.) as part of your
comment, but do not want it to be made
publicly available, you must include the
phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph
of your comment. You must also place
all of the personal identifying
information you do not want made
publicly available in the first paragraph
of your comment and identify what
information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential
business information as part of your
comment, but do not want it to be made
publicly available, you must include the
phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph
of your comment. You must also
prominently identify the confidential
business information to be redacted
within the comment.
Comments containing personal
identifying information or confidential
business information identified as
directed above will be made publicly
available in redacted form. If a comment
has so much confidential business
information that it cannot be effectively
redacted, all or part of that comment
may not be made publicly available.
Comments posted to https://
www.regulations.gov may include any
E:\FR\FM\16JYP1.SGM
16JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 134 (Friday, July 16, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37708-37719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14977]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007]
RIN 1904-AD82
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment; Early Assessment Review;
Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'' or ``the Department'')
is undertaking an early assessment review for amended energy
conservation standards for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and
refrigerator-freezers (``CRE'') to determine whether to amend
applicable energy conservation standards for this equipment.
Specifically, through this request for information (``RFI''), DOE seeks
data and information to evaluate whether amended energy conservation
standards would result in significant savings of energy; be
technologically feasible; and be economically justified. DOE welcomes
written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of
this document (including those topics not specifically raised in this
RFI), as well as the submission of data and other relevant information
concerning this early assessment review.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before August 30, 2021.
ADDRESSES: 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-2017-BT-
STD-0007], by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to [email protected]. Include docket number
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007] in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal
[[Page 37709]]
mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary
to make temporary modifications to the comment submission process in
light of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is currently suspending
receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please
contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss
the need for alternative arrangements. Once the Covid-19 pandemic
health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its
regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail
and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents
in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit
comments through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Stephanie Johnson, 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) 287-1943. Email:
[email protected].
Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
1. Equipment Classes
2. Potential New Equipment Categories
B. Significant Savings of Energy
1. Shipments
2. National Energy Savings
C. Technological Feasibility
1. Technology Options
2. Screening Analysis
3. Engineering Efficiency Analysis
D. Economic Justification
1. Engineering Cost Analysis
2. Markups Analysis & Distribution Channels
3. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
4. Net Present Value
5. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
DOE has established an early assessment review process to conduct a
more focused analysis to evaluate, based on statutory criteria, whether
a new or amended energy conservation standard is warranted. Based on
the information received in response to the RFI and DOE's own analysis,
DOE will determine whether to proceed with a rulemaking for a new or
amended energy conservation standard. If DOE makes an initial
determination that a new or amended energy conservation standard would
satisfy the applicable statutory criteria or DOE's analysis is
inconclusive, DOE would undertake the preliminary stages of a
rulemaking to issue a new or amended energy conservation standard. If
DOE makes an initial determination based upon available evidence that a
new or amended energy conservation standard would not meet the
applicable statutory criteria, DOE would engage in notice and comment
rulemaking before issuing a final determination that new or amended
energy conservation standards are not warranted.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law
95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. This equipment includes CRE, the subject of this
document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(E))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (e) (applying the preemption waiver
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297)).
EPCA prescribes energy conservation standards for CRE and directs
DOE to conduct rulemakings to establish new and amended standards. (42
U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)-(6)) DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for
prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment. EPCA
requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard
prescribed by the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in energy or water efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) The Secretary may not prescribe an
amended or new standard that will not result in significant
conservation of energy, or is not technologically feasible or
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the
energy conservation standards for each type of covered equipment,
including those at issue here, and publish either a notification of
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to
a final rule, as
[[Page 37710]]
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
DOE is issuing this RFI to collect data and information to inform
its decision of whether to propose amended energy conservation
standards consistent with its obligations under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6313(c)(6)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
B. Rulemaking History
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE published a final rule establishing amended
standards for CRE on March 28, 2014 (the ``March 2014 Final Rule''),
for which compliance was required as of March 27, 2017. 79 FR 17725.
The current energy conservation standards consist of maximum daily
energy consumption (``MDEC'') values as a function of either
refrigerated volume or total display area (``TDA'') and are located in
title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, subpart
C.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The currently applicable DOE test procedures for CRE appear
at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Request for Information
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information during
the early assessment review to inform its decision, consistent with its
obligations under EPCA, as to whether the Department should proceed
with an energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE has identified
certain topics for which information and data are requested to assist
in the evaluation of the potential for amended energy conservation
standards. DOE also welcomes comments on other issues relevant to its
early assessment that may not specifically be identified in this
document. Specifically, for any future rulemaking to consider amended
energy conservation standards, DOE would likely follow an analysis
approach consistent with that used in the March 2014 Final Rule.\4\ DOE
welcomes comment on the applicability of that analysis approach in
addition to the specific issues discussed in the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The analysis conducted in support of developing the March
2014 Final Rule is available in the Technical Support Document
(``TSD'') available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003-0102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
1. Equipment Classes
When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE
may divide equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used,
or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify a
different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making
a determination whether capacity or another performance-related feature
justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the
utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. Id.
For CRE, the current energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.66
are based on 49 equipment classes, which are determined according to
the following performance-related features that provide utility to the
consumer: Operating temperature (refrigerator, freezer, or ice cream
freezer), presence of doors (open or closed), door type (solid or
transparent), condensing unit type (remote or self-contained),
configuration (horizontal, vertical, semi-vertical, or service over
counter), and temperature pull-down capability.
Issue 1: DOE requests feedback on the current CRE equipment classes
and whether changes to these individual equipment classes and their
descriptions should be made or whether certain classes should be merged
or separated. DOE also requests comment on whether any other new
equipment classes are appropriate.
DOE has also identified certain specific topics regarding equipment
classes and definitions on which it requests comment, as discussed in
the following sections.
a. Door Angle
DOE differentiates equipment classes, in part, based on whether the
door angle is horizontal or vertical. 10 CFR 431.66(e)(1). Door angle
refers to: (1) For equipment with flat doors, the angle between a
vertical line and the line formed by the plane of the door, when the
equipment is viewed in cross-section; and (2) for equipment with curved
doors, the angle formed between a vertical line and the straight line
drawn by connecting the top and bottom points where the display area
glass joins the cabinet, when the equipment is viewed in cross-section.
10 CFR 431.62. DOE defines ``horizontal closed'' as equipment with
hinged or sliding doors and a door angle greater than or equal to 45
degrees. Id. ``Vertical closed'' refers to equipment with hinged or
sliding doors and a door angle less than 45 degrees. Id.
DOE has identified CRE models with solid doors that do not create a
flat plane. For example, a refrigerated case may have one door on the
front vertical surface and another on the top horizontal surface, with
the doors connecting at the top front corner of the case (i.e., when
both doors are open, the front and top of the case have a continuous
opening similar to semi-vertical open equipment). In this example, the
doors do not create a flat plane, as referenced in part 1 of the door
angle definition, and the doors are not curved and do not include
display glass as referenced in part 2 of the door angle definition.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on whether it should amend the door
angle definition to address CRE models with doors on multiple faces of
the equipment or CRE with curved solid doors. DOE also requests comment
on the appropriate equipment class for such equipment, including how
manufacturers are currently treating such equipment.
b. Open Equipment With Doors
Equipment classes are also differentiated based on whether the
equipment is ``open'' (i.e., does not have doors) and the orientation
of the air curtain (horizontal open, semi-vertical open, and vertical
open). 10 CFR 431.66(e)(1). DOE has identified CRE models that meet the
open equipment class definitions, except that they also have doors that
provide an alternate method of access to the refrigerated space. Based
on a review of this equipment, the open portion of the equipment is
intended for customer access to the refrigerated space. The doors are
typically located at the back of the equipment and provide an alternate
or secondary method of access for loading product into the case. The
doors are not accessible to customers during normal operation and may
have a means for locking.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on whether the open equipment
definitions in 10 CFR 431.62 should be revised to clarify treatment of
open equipment with doors providing an alternate or secondary method of
access to the refrigerated space. DOE also seeks information on how
manufacturers are currently treating such equipment.
c. Equipment With Pass-Through Doors
CRE with pass-through doors are typically closed cases with doors
on both the front and rear sides of the refrigerated case. The current
DOE CRE test procedure incorporates by reference the American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'')
Standard 72-2005 (``ASHRAE 72-2005''), ``Method of Testing Commercial
Refrigerators and Freezers''. Section 7.2 of ASHRAE 72-2005 specifies
that for ``units with pass-through doors, only the doors on one side of
the unit shall be opened during
[[Page 37711]]
the test''. Although equipment with pass-through doors are subject to
the door opening requirements of ASHRAE 72-2005 and would therefore
have the same door opening sequences as non-pass-through CRE (i.e.,
only the door(s) on one side of the equipment would be opened), CRE
with pass-through doors may have a different tested energy performance
than comparable CRE without pass-through doors. The presence of
multiple doors introduces additional potential heat leak pathways to
the refrigerated cabinet, which could increase energy use. For example,
pass-through doors require additional door gaskets, glass panels (for
transparent equipment classes), and, in some cases, anti-sweat heaters.
Issue 4: DOE requests comment and supporting data on whether pass-
through doors are a performance-related feature that justifies a
different energy conservation standard than other similar CRE without
pass-through doors. DOE seeks data and performance information
regarding the performance impacts of pass-through door models compared
to similar non-pass-through CRE.
2. Potential New Equipment Categories
DOE is aware of certain equipment that meets the CRE definition at
10 CFR 431.62, but for which there are no current DOE test procedures
or energy conservation standards (in the case of refrigerated salad
bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables; additional pull-down
temperature applications; and chef bases or griddle stands) or for
which new test procedures and equipment classes may be appropriate (in
the case of high-temperature CRE and models with dedicated remote
condensing units). In a separate RFI to consider amended test
procedures for CRE, DOE requested feedback on appropriate definitions
and test procedures for these potential new equipment categories. 86 FR
31182 (``June 2021 Test Procedure RFI''). If DOE were to establish test
procedures for these equipment categories, DOE requests information to
determine how to organize this equipment into additional equipment
classes, if necessary, when considering potential energy conservation
standards.
Issue 5: DOE requests comment on whether equipment capacity or any
other performance-related features for these potential new equipment
categories would justify a different energy conservation standard
compared to other CRE currently subject to energy conservation
standards or to other equipment within that same category. For example,
refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables may
require separate equipment classes for equipment with and without
refrigerated storage compartments. DOE also requests comment on whether
the equipment characteristics delineating the existing CRE equipment
classes would similarly apply to these potential new equipment
categories.
B. Significant Savings of Energy
On March 28, 2014, DOE established an energy conservation standard
for CRE that is expected to result in 2.89 quadrillion British thermal
units (``quads'') of site energy savings over a 30-year period.
Additionally, in the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE estimated that an
energy conservation standard established at an energy use level
equivalent to that achieved using the maximum available technology
(``max-tech'') would have resulted in 4.21 additional quads of savings.
79 FR 17726, 17806.
While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following
issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and
data on the following topics to inform whether potential amended energy
conservation standards would result in a significant savings of energy.
1. Shipments
For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE did not obtain shipments data
from a single source, but used data from multiple sources to estimate
shipments and cross-verify the data from one source to another. Those
sources were 2005 shipments data provided by the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') as part of its comments
on the 2006 rulemaking Framework document; \5\ a CRE market report by
Freedonia Group, Inc.; \6\ a 2008 and a 2012 market report by the North
American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers; 7 8 a
2009 DOE report prepared by Navigant Consulting on CRE; \9\ CRE
shipments from ENERGY STAR; \10\ and CRE saturation estimates
calculated from the Energy Information Administration (``EIA'')
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (``CBECS'') for 1999
\11\ and 2003.\12\ Based on these data sources, DOE developed an
allocation of shipments for the 25 equipment classes (``primary
equipment classes'') that were analyzed from a total of 49 overall in
the March 2014 Final Rule. In addition, considering commercial
floorspace projections and CRE market saturations, DOE developed an
estimate of CRE shipments projections. Table II.1 shows the allocation
of CRE for the 25 primary equipment classes, expressed in linear feet
of shipped units \13\ and Table II.2 shows total CRE shipments between
2014 and 2020, as projected in the March 2014 Final Rule. See chapter 9
of the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details on the development of
shipments estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Docket No. EERE-2006-STD-0126, ARI, No. 7, Exhibit B at p.
1.
\6\ Freedonia Group, Inc. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment to
2014. 2010. Cleveland, OH. Study 2261. https://www.freedoniagroup.com/Commercial-Refrigeration-Equipment.html.
\7\ North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers.
2008 Size and Shape of Industry. 2008. Chicago, IL.
\8\ North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers.
2012 Size and Shape of Industry. 2012. Chicago, IL.
\9\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings Potential and R&D
Opportunities for Commercial Refrigeration. 2009. Prepared by
Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, DC.
\10\ Energy Star. Unit Shipment and Sales Data Archives.
Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=partners.unit_shipment_data_archives.
\11\ Available at https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/1999/.
\12\ Available at https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/.
\13\ Historical linear feet of shipped units is the figure used
by industry to depict the annual amount of CRE capacity shipped, and
is an alternative way to express shipments data.
Table II.1--Percent of Shipped Linear Feet for CRE by Equipment Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Percent Equipment class Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOP.RC.M..................... 10.3 SVO.SC.M....... 1.1
VOP.RC.L..................... 0.5 SOC.RC.M....... 2.1
VOP.SC.M..................... 1.3 SOC.SC.M....... 0.2
VCT.RC.M..................... 0.8 HZO.RC.M....... 1.3
VCT.RC.L..................... 10.7 HZO.RC.L....... 4.0
VCT.SC.M..................... 4.8 HZO.SC.M....... 0.1
VCT.SC.L..................... 0.2 HZO.SC.L....... 0.2
[[Page 37712]]
VCT.SC.I..................... 0.3 HCT.SC.M....... 0.1
VCS.SC.M..................... 25.4 HCT.SC.L....... 0.4
VCS.SC.L..................... 15.0 HCT.SC.I....... 0.4
VCS.SC.I..................... 0.1 HCS.SC.M....... 4.4
SVO.RC.M..................... 8.2 HCS.SC.L....... 0.6
PD.SC.M...................... 7.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOP = Vertical Open
SVO = Semi-Vertical Open
HZO = Horizontal Open
VCT = Vertical Closed Transparent
HCT = Horizontal Closed Transparent
SOC = Service Over Counter
PD = Pull-Down
HCS = Horizontal Closed Solid
VCS = Vertical Closed Solid
RC = Remote Condensing
SC = Self Contained
M = Medium Temperature
L = Low Temperature
I = Ice Cream Temperature
Table II.2--Total Estimated CRE Shipments From 2014 to 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Shipments (million units).......................... 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.11 1.16 1.21 1.26
Estimated Shipments (million linear ft.)..................... 6.14 6.24 6.45 6.72 7.00 7.30 7.60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 6: DOE requests annual sales data (in units shipped or linear
feet of shipped units) of CRE from 2014 to 2020, disaggregated by
equipment class. DOE also seeks feedback on how the breakdowns by
equipment class presented in Table II.1 of this document and the annual
shipments estimates shown in Table II.2 of this document compare to the
actual shipments in those years. If disaggregated shipments data are
not available at the equipment class level, DOE requests shipments data
at any broader available category.
Issue 7: DOE also seeks historical and current shipments data on
any additional CRE categories under consideration for potential
standards (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and
preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down temperature
applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and
CRE with dedicated remote condensing units).
2. National Energy Savings
The purpose of the national impact analysis (``NIA'') is to
estimate aggregate impacts of potential new and/or amended efficiency
standards at the national level in terms of national energy savings
(``NES'') and net present value (``NPV'', discussed in section II.D.4
of this document) of the total consumer benefits. The NIA considers
lifetime impacts of potential standards on equipment shipped in a 30-
year period that begins with the expected compliance date for new and/
or amended standards.
DOE measures savings of potential standards relative to a ``no-new-
standards'' case that reflects conditions without new and/or amended
standards, and uses current efficiency market shares to characterize
the no-new-standards case equipment efficiency distribution. By
accounting for consumers who already purchase more efficient CRE, DOE
avoids overstating the potential benefits from potential standards. In
the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE developed efficiency trends for CRE in
the no-new-standards case and the standards cases assuming that the
market would move over time to adopt ENERGY STAR rated equipment. To
estimate the impact that energy efficiency standards would have in the
year compliance becomes required, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario. A
roll-up scenario assumes that equipment efficiencies in the no-new-
standards case, which do not meet the standard level under
consideration, would ``roll up'' to meet the new efficiency standard
level. Equipment shipments at efficiencies above the efficiency
standard level under consideration are not affected. See chapter 10 of
the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details on this approach.
Issue 8: DOE seeks input on whether any market or technology
changes would warrant a different approach to develop CRE efficiency
trends than the one followed in the March 2014 Final Rule. DOE requests
any relevant data that could be used to project efficiency trends for
CRE.
C. Technological Feasibility
1. Technology Options
During the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE considered a number of
technology options that manufacturers could use to reduce energy
consumption in CRE. Table II.3 includes a complete list of those
technology options considered in developing the March 2014 Final Rule.
Table II.3--Technology Options for CRE Considered in the Development of the March 2014 Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology option category Technology option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lighting................................. Higher efficiency lighting (e.g., Light Emitting Diodes [LEDs]).
Higher efficiency lighting ballasts.
Remote lighting ballast location.
[[Page 37713]]
Lighting occupancy sensors.
Heat Exchangers.......................... Improved evaporator coil design.
Improved condenser coil design (self-contained equipment only).
Low-pressure differential evaporators.
Liquid suction heat exchangers.
Fans..................................... Higher efficiency fan motors (e.g., Electronically Commutated Motors (``ECM'')).
Variable-speed fan motors with controls.
Higher efficiency fan blades.
Defrost.................................. Hot-gas defrost.
Defrost cycle controls.
Insulation............................... Increased insulation thickness.
Vacuum insulated panels.
Expansion Valves......................... Higher efficiency expansion valves.
Doors.................................... Improved gaskets.
Inert gas fill.
Low-emissivity coating.
Additional glass panes.
Anti-fog films.
Anti-sweat heater controls.
Other Technologies....................... Night Curtains.
Compressors.............................. Higher efficiency compressors (for self-contained equipment only).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 9: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table
II.3 of this document, including their applicability to the current
market and how these technologies may impact the energy use of CRE as
measured according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks
information on how these technologies may have changed since they were
considered in the March 2014 Final Rule analysis. Specifically, DOE
seeks information on the range of efficiencies or performance
characteristics that are currently available for each technology
option.
Issue 10: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table
II.3 of this document regarding their market adoption, costs, and any
concerns with incorporating them into products (e.g., impacts on
consumer utility, potential safety concerns, manufacturing/production/
implementation issues, etc.), particularly as to changes that may have
occurred since the March 2014 Final Rule.
Issue 11: DOE seeks comment on any other technology options that it
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies
may impact equipment features or user utility.
In a final rule published on December 20, 2011, EPA listed propane
(R-290) as acceptable for use in self-contained CRE, subject to a
charge limit of 150 grams and other appropriate safety measures to
address the flammability risk. 76 FR 78832. In an April 10, 2015 final
rule, EPA additionally listed isobutane (R-600a) and the hydrocarbon
blend R-441A as acceptable for use in self-contained CRE, also subject
to a 150-gram charge limit and other safety measures to address
flammability. 80 FR 19454.
A review of the market indicates that manufacturers of self-
contained CRE have begun transitioning to hydrocarbon refrigerants,
which have different thermo-physical properties than traditionally-used
refrigerants. In considering how manufacturers would improve
efficiencies for CRE, DOE is interested in how equipment energy
consumption is affected by the ongoing transition to alternative
refrigerants.
Issue 12: DOE requests comment on which refrigerant(s) DOE should
consider as potential technology options for improving CRE
efficiencies. DOE additionally requests comment and supporting data on
the energy consumption impact of this transition to alternative
refrigerants. DOE also seeks information on the availability of such
alternative refrigerants and their applicability and/or penetration in
the current market. Specifically, DOE requests information on whether
charge limits or safety standards (e.g., standards issued by
Underwriter's Laboratory) would restrict their use. DOE also requests
comment on any additional design changes or safety measures that may be
required for CRE to incorporate alternative refrigerants.
Issue 13: DOE similarly requests comment on the likely alternative
refrigerant(s) for use with remote condensing CRE. DOE specifically
requests supporting data on how such a transition would impact the
energy consumption of remote condensing CRE as measured under the DOE
test procedure and on any additional design changes or safety measures
that may be required for some alternative refrigerants.
CRE manufacturers may similarly be transitioning from traditional
foam blowing agents to alternatives, which may affect the physical
properties of the foam itself, namely its ability to resist heat
transfer (i.e., the R-value). These differences in the R-value of
insulation foam in turn affect the energy performance of CRE by
influencing case heat load.
Issue 14: DOE requests comment and supporting data on the market
penetration, costs, and thermal resistivities of insulation foams using
traditional and alternative blowing agents. DOE additionally requests
comment on any potential safety concerns, such as flammability, arising
from alternative foam blowing agents. Finally, DOE requests comment and
supporting data on any additional design changes or safety measures
that may be required to incorporate alternative foam blowing agents in
CRE.
As discussed previously in this RFI, DOE may consider energy
conservation standards for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and
preparation tables; additional pull-down temperature applications; chef
bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE with dedicated
remote condensing units. The features and operation of these types of
equipment may introduce additional technology options not previously
considered.
Issue 15: DOE requests comment on any technology options not
previously
[[Page 37714]]
considered for CRE, including technology options that could be used to
improve the energy efficiency of refrigerated salad bars, buffet
tables, and preparation tables; additional pull-down temperature
applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and
CRE with dedicated remote condensing units. DOE also seeks information
on how technology options may have unique efficiency impacts on these
equipment categories. For example, there may be greater energy savings
potential associated with variable-speed compressors and fan motors in
pull-down temperature applications and chef bases or griddle stands
compared to the other existing CRE equipment classes.
2. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from
further consideration based on the following criteria: Technological
feasibility; practicability to manufacture, install, and service;
adverse impacts on product utility or product availability; adverse
impacts on health or safety; and unique-pathway proprietary
technologies. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3).
Table II.4 summarizes the technology options that DOE screened out
in the March 2014 Final Rule, and the applicable screening criteria.
Table II.4--Previously Screened Out Technology Options From the March 2014 Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA criteria (X = basis for screening out)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not reduce energy
Screened technology option Technological Practicability to Adverse impact on Adverse impacts on consumption measured
feasibility manufacture, install, product utility health and safety by the DOE test
and service procedure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher Efficiency Expansion ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... X
Valves.
Variable Speed Condenser Fans ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... X
and Condenser Fan Motor
Controllers.
Anti-Sweat Heater Controllers.. ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... X
Liquid Suction Heat Exchangers. ....................... X ...................... ...................... X
Air Curtain Design............. ....................... X ...................... ...................... ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the
technology options listed in Table II.3 of this document with respect
to CRE. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same
criteria would affect any other technology options not already
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in CRE.
Issue 17: With respect to the screened out technology options
listed in Table II.4 of this document, DOE seeks information on whether
these options would, based on current and projected assessments
regarding each of them, remain screened out under the screening
criteria described in this section. With respect to each of these
technology options, what steps, if any, could be (or have already been)
taken to facilitate the introduction of each option as a means to
improve the energy performance of CRE and the potential to impact
consumer utility of the CRE.
3. Engineering Efficiency Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship
of equipment at different levels of increased energy efficiency
(``efficiency levels''). This relationship serves as the basis for the
cost-benefit calculations for commercial consumers, manufacturers, and
the Nation, as described further in section II.D of this document.
As discussed, the current energy conservation standard for each CRE
equipment class is based on MDEC in kWh/day determined according to an
equation using the equipment's chilled volume (``V'') in cubic feet
(``ft\3\''), or its TDA in square feet (``ft\2\''). The current
standards for CRE are found at 10 CFR 431.62.
Issue 18: DOE requests feedback on whether the current established
energy conservation standards for CRE are appropriate baseline
efficiency levels for the existing equipment classes. DOE further
requests comment on whether the existing energy conservation standards
are based on the appropriate normalization metric (i.e., TDA or volume)
for the existing equipment classes.
As mentioned in section II.A.2 of this RFI, DOE is evaluating
whether to develop test procedures for refrigerated salad bars, buffet
tables, and preparation buffet tables; solid-doored equipment for pull-
down applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE;
and CRE with dedicated remote condensing units. As no energy
conservation standards currently exist for refrigerated salad bars,
buffet tables, and preparation buffet tables, solid-doored equipment
for pull-down applications, chef bases or griddle stands, and current
energy conservation standards are not specific to high-temperature CRE
and CRE with dedicated remote condensing units, DOE is interested in
data that would allow the development of a baseline efficiency levels
for these equipment categories (and any applicable equipment classes).
Although existing CRE energy conservation standards are based on
either the chilled volume or TDA for a CRE model, for these newly
considered equipment categories, other parameters may be more
appropriate as the basis for an equation representing how the maximum
allowable daily energy consumption varies with equipment size and
application. For example, for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables,
and preparation tables, pan volume or surface area (possibly in
addition to the chilled volume of any refrigerated compartments that
are not thermally separate from the pans) may be the appropriate
capacity metric. Similarly, for solid-doored equipment for pull-down
applications, product capacity may be the relevant metric.
Issue 19: DOE requests comment on appropriate parameters to use as
the basis for efficiency levels to represent potential energy
conservation standards for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables,
[[Page 37715]]
and preparation tables. DOE similarly seeks information on appropriate
parameters to use in developing efficiency levels for solid-door
equipment for pull-down applications, chef bases or griddle stands,
high-temperature CRE, and CRE with dedicated remote condensing units.
Issue 20: DOE requests data describing the energy consumption, and
storage and/or display capacity of refrigerated salad bars, buffet
tables, and preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down
applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and
CRE with dedicated remote condensing units that could be used in
assessing appropriate baseline efficiency levels based on the current
market for this equipment. DOE requests information on the typical
design options that would be expected to be incorporated into a
baseline model for each equipment category.
As part of DOE's analysis, DOE develops efficiency levels above the
baseline as potential energy conservation standards to evaluate in the
rulemaking analyses. Among these, DOE typically establishes efficiency
levels at the maximum available and max-tech efficiencies. The maximum
available efficiency level represents the highest efficiency units
currently available on the market.
DOE has performed a preliminary analysis of CRE models, found in
the DOE's Compliance Certification (``CCMS'') Database,\14\ to assess
the potential to improve efficiency relative to current (i.e.,
baseline) standard levels. DOE observed that models are currently
available with daily energy consumptions significantly lower than the
baseline at the currently allowable energy conservation standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Available at https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 21: DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available
efficiency levels (i.e., the lowest available energy use levels) are
appropriate and technologically feasible for consideration as possible
energy conservation standards for CRE. DOE seeks information on the
design options incorporated into these maximum-available models, and
also on the order in which manufacturers incrementally incorporate each
design option when improving efficiency from the baseline to the
maximum-available efficiency level (i.e., which design options would be
included at incremental efficiency levels between the baseline and
maximum available). DOE also requests information on the design changes
implemented to achieve efficiencies better than the max-tech considered
in the March 2014 Final Rule analysis.
Issue 22: DOE also seeks information on the maximum-available
efficiencies for the CRE for which there are no specific DOE energy
conservation standards, and for which DOE does not have manufacturer-
submitted efficiency information (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet
tables, and preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down
applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and
CRE with dedicated remote condensing units), and on the test procedures
used to determine any such efficiencies. DOE requests feedback on which
design options are incorporated into the most efficient equipment
available in these equipment categories.
DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the
theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available design options
are incorporated in a model. In many cases, the max-tech efficiency
level is not commercially available because it is not economically
feasible. In the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined max-tech
efficiency levels using energy modeling. The energy models were based
on the use of all design options applicable to the specific equipment
classes. While some of these equipment configurations had not likely
been tested as prototypes, all of the individual design options had
been incorporated in available equipment. See chapter 5 of the March
2014 Final Rule TSD for details on this approach. In its review of the
CCMS data, DOE identified basic models with certified daily energy
consumptions lower than the max-tech efficiency levels considered in
the March 2014 Final Rule analysis.
Issue 23: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies
associated with those levels, for each equipment class. As part of this
request, DOE also seeks information as to whether there are limitations
on the use of certain combinations of design options. DOE is
particularly interested in any design options that may have become
available since the March 2014 Final Rule that would allow greater
energy savings relative to the max-tech efficiency levels assessed for
each equipment class in that rulemaking.
Issue 24: Additionally, DOE requests comment on what design options
should be considered for the max-tech efficiency levels for
refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables; solid-
door equipment for pull-down applications; chef bases or griddle
stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE with dedicated remote condensing
units, as well as other potential equipment classes not currently
subject to a standard.
D. Economic Justification
In determining whether a proposed energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE analyzes, among other things, the potential
economic impact on consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE seeks
comment on whether there are economic barriers to the adoption of more-
stringent energy conservation standards. DOE also seeks comment and
data on any other aspects of its economic justification analysis from
the March 2014 Final Rule that may indicate whether a more-stringent
energy conservation standard would be economically justified or cost
effective.
While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following
issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and
data on the following.
1. Engineering Cost Analysis
For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE developed cost-efficiency
relationships by estimating the efficiency improvements and costs
associated with incorporating specific design options into the assumed
baseline model for each analyzed equipment class. See chapter 5 of the
March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details on this approach. As a result of
recent technological innovations, costs for several design options
considered in the March 2014 Final Rule (e.g., LED lighting and ECMs
for fans) are likely to have changed since they were previously
assessed.
Issue 25: DOE requests comment on the increase in manufacturer
production cost associated with incorporating each particular design
option from the baseline efficiency to max-tech. Specifically, DOE is
interested in whether and how the costs estimated for design options in
the March 2014 Final Rule have changed since the time of that analysis.
DOE also requests information on the investments necessary to
incorporate specific design options, including, but not limited to,
costs related to new or modified tooling (if any), materials,
engineering and development efforts to implement each design option,
and manufacturing/production impacts.
Issue 26: DOE requests comment and supporting data on the
incremental manufacturer product costs associated with transitioning to
alternative refrigerants, including costs associated with converting
any refrigeration system components (e.g., compressors, heat
[[Page 37716]]
exchangers) and with any additional safety measures (e.g., labels,
ventilation fans, or leak detection sensors) that may be required to
address the flammability risks of some alternative refrigerants.
DOE also seeks information on whether any updates to the approach
used in the analysis supporting the March 2014 Final Rule would be
appropriate based on the current CRE market. For example, customer
demand for certain equipment configurations and sizes may have changed.
For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE developed cost-efficiency curves for
25 primary equipment classes based on units with typical sizes and
configurations within those classes See chapter 5 and appendix 5A of
the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details on the cost-efficiency
analysis, including the primary equipment class analysis and
representative model configurations.
Issue 27: DOE seeks feedback on whether the 25 primary equipment
classes and the corresponding representative unit configurations in the
March 2014 Final Rule analysis are still appropriate for the current
CRE market. If not, DOE requests information on whether representative
equipment characteristics (e.g., volume, dimensions, operating
parameters, and controls) have significantly changed since the March
2014 Final Rule analysis.
2. Markups Analysis & Distribution Channels
In generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost
(``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP'') analysis and national impact
analysis (``NIA''), DOE must identify distribution channels (i.e., how
the equipment are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer),
and estimate relative sales volumes through each channel. By applying a
multiplier called a ``markup'' to the manufacturer selling price, DOE
estimates the commercial consumer's price.
For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE defined three distribution
channels for CRE and estimated their respective shares of shipments:
(1) From manufacturers to consumers (national account channel); (2)
from manufacturers to wholesalers to consumers (wholesaler channel);
and (3) from manufacturers to wholesalers to mechanical contractors and
then to consumers (contractor channel). Table II.5 shows the
distribution channel market shares. See chapter 6 of the March 2014
Final Rule TSD for details on this approach.
Table II.5--Distribution Channels Market Shares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National account Wholesaler Contractor
Equipment type channel (%) channel (%) channel (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display Cases (VOP, SVO, HZO, VCT, HCT, SOC, and PD)...... 70 15 15
Solid-Door Equipment (VCS and HCS)........................ 30 60 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 28: DOE seeks input on whether the distribution channels
described, and the percentage of shipments in each channel, as shown in
Table II.5 of this document, are still accurate for CRE. DOE also
requests data and feedback on the magnitude and impact of online sales
to the CRE distribution channels. More specifically, DOE seeks input on
whether the markups for online sales are significantly different from
CRE sold through conventional distribution channels.
Issue 29: DOE requests similar data on the distribution channels
and percentage of shipments in each channel for the other categories of
CRE being considered in a potential energy conservation standards
rulemaking (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and
preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down applications;
chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE with
dedicated remote condensing units).
3. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis to evaluate the economic
effects of potential energy conservation standards for CRE on
individual consumers. For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the
PBP and the change in LCC relative to an estimated baseline level. The
LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of the equipment,
consisting of purchase, installation, and operating costs (expenses for
energy use, maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the calculation of
total installed cost include the cost of the equipment--which includes
the manufacturer selling price, distribution channel markups, and sales
taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating
expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price
projections, repair and maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes,
discount rates, and the year that compliance with new and amended
standards is required.
a. Efficiency Distribution
For the March 2014 Final Rule, due to lack of data on CRE market
shares by efficiency level within each of the equipment classes, DOE
developed the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution of CRE
according to a cost-based method that used parameters and assumptions
from the EIA's National Energy Modeling System (``NEMS'').\15\ DOE also
used CRE market data from the ENERGY STAR program. See chapter 10 of
the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information
Administration. Commercial Demand Module of the National Energy
Modeling System: Model Documentation 2012 DOE/EIA-M066. 2012.
Washington, DC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 30: DOE requests data regarding the current, historical, and
future market shares of CRE by efficiency level (e.g., expressed in
terms of increments of 10 percent reduction below the MDEC in kWh/day,
as determined by the current standards, specified at 10 CFR 431.62) for
each equipment class.
Issue 31: DOE also seeks data on the current, historical, and
future efficiency distribution of any additional categories of CRE
under consideration broken out by efficiency for potential standards
(i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables;
solid-door equipment for pull-down applications; chef bases or griddle
stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE with dedicated remote condensing
units).
b. Installation Costs
For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE estimated different installation
costs for remote condensing and self-contained CRE but assumed that
installation costs do not vary with efficiency levels in any equipment
class. Therefore, installation costs did not impact the LCC or PBP
analysis. See chapter 8 of the March 2014 Final Rule TSD.
Issue 32: DOE requests comment on whether any market or technology
[[Page 37717]]
changes since the March 2014 Final Rule would indicate that
installation costs vary by efficiency level, and, if so, what the
factors and technologies affecting installation costs are, and how
costs vary as CRE efficiency increases, for each equipment class.
Issue 33: DOE also requests comment and data on installation costs
for any additional categories of CRE under consideration for potential
standards (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and
preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down applications;
chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE with
dedicated remote condensing units).
c. Repair and Maintenance Costs
Maintenance costs are associated with maintaining equipment's
operation, whereas repair costs are associated with repairing or
replacing components that have failed in a refrigeration system and
envelope (i.e., panels and doors). In the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE
estimated maintenance and repair costs as annualized values applied
over the life of the considered equipment. For maintenance costs, DOE
considered lamp replacements and other lighting maintenance activities
as required maintenance for CRE, with varying costs by efficiency
level. For repair costs, DOE considered costs for component failures
(i.e., evaporator fans, condenser fans, compressors, coils, doors)
during the lifetime of CRE, which varied by efficiency level. 79 FR
17726, 17766; see chapter 8 of the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for
details on this approach.
Issue 34: DOE seeks comment and data on whether it should estimate
maintenance and repair costs for CRE based on the March 2014 Final Rule
approach in a potential future rulemaking for CRE, considering any
additional technology options discussed in this RFI, and any market and
technology changes since the March 2014 Final Rule. In particular, DOE
is interested in data on the maintenance and repair costs of CRE with
alternative refrigerants, and how those vary, if at all, compared to
CRE with traditionally used refrigerants.
Issue 35: DOE also requests comment and data on maintenance and
repair costs for any additional categories of CRE under consideration
for potential standards (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables,
and preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down
applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and
CRE with dedicated remote condensing units).
d. Equipment Lifetimes
The equipment lifetime is the age at which the equipment is retired
from service. In the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE based its estimates of
CRE lifetime on discussions with industry experts and assumed a 10-year
average lifetime for most CRE in large grocery/multi-line stores and
restaurants. For small food retail stores and other small businesses,
DOE used a 15-year average lifetime to account for longer consumer
usage of CRE. DOE reflects the uncertainty of equipment lifetimes in
the LCC analysis for both equipment markets by using probability
distributions. 79 FR 17726, 17766; see chapter 8 of the March 2014
Final Rule TSD for details on this approach.
Issue 36: DOE requests comment and data on whether any market and
technology changes since the March 2014 Final Rule would affect its
equipment lifetime estimates for CRE for which DOE currently has
standards, and if so, how.
Issue 37: DOE also requests comment and data on lifetimes of any
additional categories of CRE under consideration for potential
standards (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and
preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down applications;
chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE with
dedicated remote condensing units).
4. Net Present Value
To develop the national NPV from potential standards, DOE
calculates annual energy expenditures and annual equipment expenditures
for the no-new-standards case and the standards case. The discounted
difference between energy bill savings and increased equipment
expenditures in each year is the NPV.
In the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE developed an equipment price
trend for CRE, based on the inflation-adjusted index of the producer
price index (``PPI'') for air conditioning, refrigeration, and forced
air heating from 1978 to 2012,\16\ which showed a slight downward
trend. DOE projected a future trend in the analysis period by
extrapolating the historic trend using linear regression. Were DOE to
conduct a rulemaking, DOE may consider incorporating price trends for
certain design options that may experience price declines during the
analysis period (e.g., LED lighting and ECM fan motors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Index Industry
Data, Series: PCU3334153334153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 38: DOE requests comment on its approach for projecting a
long-term price trend for CRE, as well as on the merits of
incorporating price trends for certain design options that may
experience price declines during the expected 30-year analysis period,
following potential future energy conservation standards for CRE.
5. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of CRE, and to evaluate the potential impact of such
standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. As part of
the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended energy conservation
standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered equipment, including
small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small Business
Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to determine
whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are listed by
the North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'').\17\
Manufacturing of CRE is classified under NAICS 333415, ``Air-
conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and
industrial refrigeration equipment manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a
threshold of 1,250 employees or less for a domestic entity to be
considered as a small business. This employee threshold includes all
employees in a business' parent company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Available online at: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. In addition to energy
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency.
Issue 39: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that
distribute CRE in the United States.
Issue 40: DOE requests the names and contact information of small
business
[[Page 37718]]
CRE manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's size threshold that
distribute equipment in the United States. In addition, DOE requests
comment on any other manufacturer subgroups that could
disproportionally be impacted by amended energy conservation standards.
DOE requests feedback on any potential approaches that could be
considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small
businesses.
Issue 41: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of CRE associated with (1)
other DOE standards applying to different products or equipment that
these manufacturers may also make, and (2) equipment-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment
on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory burden and
whether there are any flexibilities it can consider that would reduce
this burden while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
under the DATES heading, comments and information on matters addressed
in this notification and on other matters relevant to DOE's early
assessment of whether more-stringent energy conservation standards are
not warranted for CRE.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will
see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to https://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not
want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. Faxes will not be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English, and free of any defects or
viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these
documents via email. DOE will make its own determination about the
confidential status of the information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation
standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of
the public during the comment period in each stage of this process.
Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced
discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices
and information about this process should contact Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 9,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy.
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
[[Page 37719]]
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-14977 Filed 7-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
