Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, Webinar and Availability of the Preliminary Technical Support Document, 3229-3236 [2022-00848]
Download as PDF
3229
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 87, No. 14
Friday, January 21, 2022
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE–2020–BT–STD–0039]
RIN 1904–AF00
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products,
Webinar and Availability of the
Preliminary Technical Support
Document
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of a webinar and
availability of preliminary technical
support document.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or ‘‘the Department’’)
will hold a webinar to discuss and
receive comments on the preliminary
analysis it has conducted for purposes
of evaluating energy conservation
standards for miscellaneous
refrigeration products (‘‘MREFs’’). The
meeting will cover the analytical
framework, models, and tools that DOE
is using to evaluate potential standards
for these products; the results of
preliminary analyses performed by
DOE; the potential energy conservation
standard levels derived from these
analyses that DOE could consider for
this product should it determine that
proposed amendments are necessary;
and any other issues relevant to the
evaluation of energy conservation
standards for MREFs. In addition, DOE
encourages written comments on these
subjects. To inform interested parties
and to facilitate this process, DOE has
prepared an agenda, a preliminary
technical support document (‘‘TSD’’),
and briefing materials, which are
available on the DOE website at:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/standards.aspx?
productid=39&action=viewlive.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on
Thursday, February 17, 2022, from
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Jan 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section IV,
‘‘Public Participation,’’ for webinar
registration information, participant
instructions and information about the
capabilities available to webinar
participants.
Comments: Written comments and
information will be accepted on or
before, March 22, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2020–BT–STD–0039, by
any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: To MRP2020STD0039@
ee.doe.gov. Include docket number
EERE–2020–BT–STD–0039 in the
subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
IV of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted
public comment submissions through a
variety of mechanisms, including postal
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 corona virus 2019
(‘‘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, public meeting
transcripts, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2020-BT-STD-0039. The docket web
page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments in the docket. See section IV
for information on how to submit
comments through
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287–
1943. Email: ApplianceStandards
Questions@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email:
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, 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
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking Process
C. Deviation from Appendix A
II. Background
A. Current Standards
B. Current Process
III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by
DOE
A. Market and Technology Assessment
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
G. National Impact Analysis
IV. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
3230
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
I. Introduction
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 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 B 2 of EPCA
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles, which, in addition
to identifying particular consumer
products and commercial equipment as
covered under the statute, permits the
Secretary of Energy to classify
additional types of consumer products
as covered products. (42 U.S.C.
6292(a)(20)) DOE added MREFs as
covered products through a final
determination of coverage published in
the Federal Register on July 18, 2016
(the ‘‘July 2016 Final Coverage
Determination’’). 81 FR 46768. MREFs
are consumer refrigeration products
other than refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, or freezers, which include
coolers and combination cooler
refrigeration products. 10 CFR 430.2.
MREFs include refrigeration products
such as coolers (e.g., wine chillers and
other specialty products) and
combination cooler refrigeration
products (e.g., wine chillers and other
specialty compartments combined with
a refrigerator, freezer, or refrigeratorfreezer).
EPCA further provides that, not later
than 6 years after the issuance of any
final rule establishing or amending a
standard, DOE must publish either a
notification of determination that
standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) including new
proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Not
later than three years after issuance of
a final determination not to amend
standards, DOE must publish either a
notice of determination that standards
for the product do not need to be
amended, or a NOPR including new
proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B))
Under EPCA, any new or amended
energy conservation standard must be
designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that
DOE determines is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the
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 B was redesignated Part A.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:08 Jan 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
new or amended standard must result in
a significant conservation of energy. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
DOE is publishing this Preliminary
Analysis to collect data and information
to inform its decision consistent with its
obligations under EPCA.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered products,
including MREFs. As noted, 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 efficiency (or
water efficiency for certain products
specified by EPCA) that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may
not adopt any standard that would not
result in the significant conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) 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.
6295(o)(3))
To adopt any new or amended
standards for a covered product, DOE
must determine that such action would
result in significant energy savings. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term
‘‘significant’’ is not defined in the
EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the
District of Columbia Circuit in Natural
Resources Defense Council v.
Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C.
Cir. 1985), opined that Congress
intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings in
the context of EPCA to be savings that
were not ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’
The significance of energy savings
offered by a new or amended energy
conservation standard cannot be
determined without knowledge of the
specific circumstances surrounding a
given rulemaking.3 For example, the
United States rejoined the Paris
Agreement on February 19, 2021. As
part of that agreement, the United States
has committed to reducing GHG
emissions in order to limit the rise in
mean global temperature. As such,
energy savings that reduce GHG
emissions have taken on greater
importance. Additionally, some covered
products and equipment have most of
their energy consumption occur during
periods of peak energy demand. The
impacts of these products on the energy
infrastructure can be more pronounced
than products with relatively constant
3 See
PO 00000
86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
demand. In evaluating the significance
of energy savings, DOE considers
differences in primary energy and FFC
effects for different covered products
and equipment when determining
whether energy savings are significant.
Primary energy and FFC effects include
the energy consumed in electricity
production (depending on load shape),
in distribution and transmission, and in
extracting, processing, and transporting
primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas,
petroleum fuels), and thus present a
more complete picture of the impacts of
energy conservation standards.
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the
significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis. DOE estimates a
combined total of 0.45 quads of FFC
energy savings at the max-tech
efficiency levels for MREFs. This
represents 44.4 percent energy savings
relative to the no-new-standards case
energy consumption for MREFs. DOE
has initially determined the energy
savings for the candidate standard levels
considered in this preliminary analysis
are ‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
To determine whether a standard is
economically justified, EPCA requires
that DOE determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven
factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard
on the manufacturers and consumers of the
products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the
covered products in the type (or class)
compared to any increase in the price, initial
charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products that are likely to result
from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or
as applicable, water) savings likely to result
directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the products likely to result
from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the
Attorney General, that is likely to result from
the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water
conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy
(Secretary) considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII))
DOE fulfills these and other
applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the
rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the
individual analyses that are performed
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules
3231
to satisfy each of the requirements
within EPCA.
TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
Significant Energy Savings .......................................................................
Technological Feasibility ..........................................................................
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on manufacturers and consumers ...................
2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for
the product.
3. Total projected energy savings .....................................................
4. Impact on utility or performance ...................................................
5. Impact of any lessening of competition ........................................
6. Need for national energy and water conservation ........................
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant ............................
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable
presumption that a standard is
economically justified if the Secretary
finds that the additional cost to the
consumer of purchasing a product
complying with an energy conservation
standard level will be less than three
times the value of the energy savings
during the first year that the consumer
will receive as a result of the standard,
as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as
an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which
prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either
increases the maximum allowable
energy use or decreases the minimum
required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the
Secretary may not prescribe an amended
or new standard if interested persons
have established by a preponderance of
the evidence that the standard is likely
to result in the unavailability in the
United States in any covered product
type (or class) of performance
characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes
that are substantially the same as those
generally available in the United States.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies
requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a
covered product that has two or more
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Jan 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy Use Analysis.
Market and Technology Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
Markups for Product Price Analysis.
Energy Use Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Manufacturer Impact Analysis
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Employment Impact Analysis.
Utility Impact Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
subcategories. DOE must specify a
different standard level for a type or
class of product that has the same
function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such
group: (A) Consume a different kind of
energy from that consumed by other
covered products within such type (or
class); or (B) have a capacity or other
performance-related feature which other
products within such type (or class) do
not have and such feature justifies a
higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a
performance-related feature justifies a
different standard for a group of
products, DOE must consider such
factors as the utility to the consumer of
the feature and other factors DOE deems
appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing
such a standard must include an
explanation of the basis on which such
higher or lower level was established.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Finally, pursuant to the amendments
contained in the Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007),
Public Law 110–140, any final rule for
new or amended energy conservation
standards promulgated after July 1,
2010, is required to address standby
mode and off mode energy use. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when
DOE adopts a standard for a covered
product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and
off mode energy use into a single
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt
a separate standard for such energy use
for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current test
procedure for MREFs measures the
energy use of these products during
extended time periods that include
periods when the compressor and other
key components are cycled off. All of
the energy these products use during the
‘‘off cycles’’ is already included in the
measurements. By measuring the energy
use during ‘‘off cycles,’’ the current test
procedure already addresses EPCA’s
requirement to include standby mode
and off mode energy consumption in the
overall energy descriptor for MREFs.
See 86 FR 56790 (October 12, 2021)
(final rule amending the test procedures
for consumer refrigeration products). As
a result, DOE’s current energy
conservation standards and any
amended energy conservation standards
account for such energy use.
Before proposing a standard, DOE
typically seeks public input on the
analytical framework, models, and tools
that DOE intends to use to evaluate
standards for the product at issue and
the results of the preliminary analyses
DOE performed for the product.
DOE is examining whether to amend
the current standards pursuant to its
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
3232
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules
obligations under EPCA. This document
announces the availability of the
preliminary technical support document
(‘‘TSD’’), which details the preliminary
analyses and summarizes the
preliminary results of DOE’s analyses.
In addition, DOE is announcing a public
meeting to solicit feedback from
interested parties on its analytical
framework, models, and preliminary
results.
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A
(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is
deviating from the provision in
appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR
stages for an energy conservation
standards rulemaking. (See 86 FR 70892
(Dec. 13, 2021) (effective January 12,
2022)) Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A
states that if the Department determines
it is appropriate to proceed with a
rulemaking (after initiating the
rulemaking process through an early
assessment), the preliminary stages of a
rulemaking to issue or amend an energy
conservation standard that DOE will
undertake will be a framework
document and preliminary analysis, or
an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘ANOPR’’). DOE is opting
to deviate from this step by publishing
a preliminary analysis without a
framework document. A framework
document is intended to introduce and
summarize the various analyses DOE
conducts during the rulemaking process
and requests initial feedback from
interested parties. As discussed further
in the following section, prior to this
notification of the preliminary analysis,
DOE issued an early assessment request
for information (‘‘RFI’’) in which DOE
identified and sought comment on the
analyses conducted in support of the
most recent energy conservation
standards rulemaking (81 FR 75194;
Oct. 28, 2016 (the ‘‘October 2016 Direct
Final Rule’’)). 85 FR 78964, 78965–
78966 (Dec. 8, 2020) (the ‘‘December
2020 Early Assessment Review RFI’’).
DOE provided a 75-day comment period
for the early assessment RFI. 85 FR
78964. As DOE is intending to rely on
substantively the same analytical
methods as in the most recent
rulemaking, publication of a framework
document would be largely redundant
with the published early assessment
RFI. As such, DOE is not publishing a
framework document.
Section 6(d)(2) of appendix A
specifies that the length of the public
comment period for pre-NOPR
rulemaking documents will vary
depending upon the circumstances of
the particular rulemaking, but will not
be less than 75 calendar days. For this
preliminary analysis, DOE has opted to
instead provide a 60-day comment
period. As stated, DOE requested
comment in the December 2020 Early
Assessment Review RFI on the analysis
conducted in support of the October
2016 Direct Final Rule and provided
stakeholders a 75-day comment period.
For this preliminary analysis, DOE has
relied on many of the same analytical
assumptions and approaches as used in
the previous rulemaking and has
determined that a 60-day comment
period in conjunction with the prior 75day comment period provides sufficient
time for interested parties to review the
preliminary analysis and develop
comments.
II. Background
A. Current Standards
Final Coverage Determination. 81 FR
46768. In that determination, DOE noted
that MREFs, on average, consume more
than 150 kilowatt hours per year (‘‘kWh/
yr’’) and that the aggregate annual
national energy use of these products
exceeds 4.2 terawatt hours (‘‘TWh’’). 81
FR 46768, 46775. In addition to
establishing coverage, the July 2016
Final Coverage Determination
established definitions for
‘‘miscellaneous refrigeration products,’’
‘‘coolers,’’ and ‘‘combination cooler
refrigeration products’’ in 10 CFR 430.2.
81 FR 46768, 46791–46792.
In the October 2016 Direct Final Rule,
DOE adopted energy conservation
standards for MREFs consistent with the
recommendations from a negotiated
rulemaking working group established
under the Appliance Standards and
Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee. 81 FR 75194. Concurrent
with the October 2016 Direct Final Rule,
DOE published a NOPR in which it
proposed and requested comments on
the standards set forth in the direct final
rule. 81 FR 74950. On May 26, 2017,
DOE published a notice in the Federal
Register in which it determined that the
comments received in response to the
October 2016 Direct Final Rule did not
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawing the rule and, therefore,
confirmed the adoption of the energy
conservation standards established in
that direct final rule. 82 FR 24214.
These current standards for MREFs
are set forth in DOE’s regulations at 10
CFR 430.32(aa)(1)–(2) and are repeated
solely for reference in Table II.1 to aid
the reader.
As noted, DOE added MREFs as
covered products through its July 2016
TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR MREFS
Equations for maximum
energy use
(kWh/yr)
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Product class
1. Built-in compact coolers ............................................................................................................................................
2. Built-in coolers ...........................................................................................................................................................
3. Freestanding compact coolers ..................................................................................................................................
4. Freestanding coolers .................................................................................................................................................
C–3A. Cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost ...................................................................................................
C–3A–BI. Built-in cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost ..................................................................................
C–9. Cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker .............................................
C–9–BI. Built-in cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker ............................
C–9I. Cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker .................................................
C–9I–BI. Built-in cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker ................................
C–13A. Compact cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost ..................................................................................
C–13A–BI. Built-in compact cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost .................................................................
7.88AV
7.88AV
7.88AV
7.88AV
4.57AV
5.19AV
5.58AV
6.38AV
5.58AV
6.38AV
5.93AV
6.52AV
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
155.8.
155.8.
155.8.
155.8.
130.4.
147.8.
147.7.
168.8.
231.7.
252.8.
193.7.
213.1.
AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft3, as determined in appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Jan 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules
B. Current Process
In the December 2020 Early
Assessment Review RFI, DOE published
a notice that it was initiating an early
assessment review to determine whether
any new or amended standards would
satisfy the relevant requirements of
EPCA for a new or amended energy
conservation standard for MREFs and a
request for information. 85 FR 78964.
Comments received to date as part of
the current process have helped DOE
identify and resolve issues related to the
preliminary analyses. Chapter 2 of the
preliminary TSD summarizes and
addresses the comments received.
III. Summary of the Analyses
Performed by DOE
For the products covered in this
preliminary analysis, DOE conducted
in-depth technical analyses in the
following areas: (1) Engineering; (2)
markups to determine product price; (3)
energy use; (4) life cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’)
and payback period (‘‘PBP’’); and (5)
national impacts. The preliminary TSD
that presents the methodology and
results of each of these analyses is
available at www.regulations.gov/
docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039.
DOE also conducted, and has
included in the preliminary TSD,
several other analyses that support the
major analyses or are preliminary
analyses that will be expanded if DOE
determines that a NOPR is warranted to
propose amended energy conservation
standards. These analyses include: (1)
The market and technology assessment;
(2) the screening analysis, which
contributes to the engineering analysis;
and (3) the shipments analysis, which
contributes to the LCC and PBP analysis
and the national impact analysis
(‘‘NIA’’). In addition to these analyses,
DOE has begun preliminary work on the
manufacturer impact analysis and has
identified the methods to be used for the
consumer subgroup analysis, the
emissions analysis, the employment
impact analysis, the regulatory impact
analysis, and the utility impact analysis.
DOE will expand on these analyses in
a NOPR, should one be issued.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the
market and technology assessment that
provides an overall picture of the
market for the products concerned,
including general characteristics of the
products, the industry structure,
manufacturers, market characteristics,
and technologies used in the products.
This activity includes both quantitative
and qualitative assessments, based
primarily on publicly available
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Jan 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
information. The subjects addressed in
the market and technology assessment
include: (1) A determination of the
scope of the rulemaking and product
classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency
programs, (4) shipments information, (5)
market and industry trends, and (6)
technologies or design options that
could improve the energy efficiency of
the product.
See chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD
for further discussion of the market and
technology assessment.
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening
criteria to determine which technology
options are suitable for further
consideration in an energy conservation
standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility.
Technologies that are not incorporated
in commercial products or in working
prototypes will not be considered
further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture,
install, and service. If it is determined
that mass production and reliable
installation and servicing of a
technology in commercial products
could not be achieved on the scale
necessary to serve the relevant market at
the time of the projected compliance
date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered
further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or
product availability. If it is determined
that a technology would have a
significant adverse impact on the utility
of the product for significant subgroups
of consumers or would result in the
unavailability of any covered product
type with performance characteristics
(including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States
at the time, it will not be considered
further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or
safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant
adverse impacts on health or safety, it
will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary
technologies. If a design option utilizes
proprietary technology that represents a
unique pathway to achieving a given
efficiency level, that technology will not
be considered further due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix
A, sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b).
If DOE determines that a technology,
or a combination of technologies, fails to
meet one or more of the listed five
criteria, it will be excluded from further
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3233
consideration in the engineering
analysis.
See chapter 4 of the preliminary TSD
for further discussion of the screening
analysis.
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering
analysis is to establish the relationship
between the efficiency and cost of
MREFs. There are two elements to
consider in the engineering analysis; the
selection of efficiency levels to analyze
(i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the
determination of product cost at each
efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost
analysis’’). In determining the
performance of higher-efficiency
products, DOE considers technologies
and design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis.
For each product class, DOE estimates
the manufacturer production cost
(‘‘MPC’’) for the baseline as well as
higher efficiency levels. The output of
the engineering analysis is a set of costefficiency ‘‘curves’’ that are used in
downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and
PBP analyses and the NIA).
DOE converts the MPC to the
manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) by
applying a manufacturer markup. The
MSP is the price the manufacturer
charges its first customer, when selling
into the product distribution channels.
The manufacturer markup accounts for
manufacturer non-production costs and
profit margin. DOE developed the
manufacturer markup by examining
publicly available financial information
for manufacturers of the covered
product.
See Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD
for additional detail on the engineering
analysis.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops
appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups,
contractor markups) in the distribution
chain and sales taxes to convert MSP
estimates derived in the engineering
analysis to consumer prices, which are
then used in the LCC and PBP analysis.
At each step in the distribution channel,
companies mark up the price of the
product to cover business costs and
profit margin.
DOE develops baseline and
incremental markups for each actor in
the distribution chain (after the product
leaves the manufacturer). Baseline
markups are applied to the price of
products with baseline efficiency, while
incremental markups are applied to the
difference in price between baseline and
higher-efficiency models (the
incremental cost increase). The
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
3234
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules
incremental markup is typically less
than the baseline markup and is
designed to maintain similar per-unit
operating profit before and after new or
amended standards.4
Chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD
provides details on DOE’s development
of markups for MREFs. Chapter 12 of
the preliminary TSD provides
additional detail on the manufacturer
markup.
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use
analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of MREFs at
different efficiencies in representative
U.S. single-family homes, and multifamily residences, and to assess the
energy savings potential of increased
MREF efficiency. The energy use
analysis estimates the range of energy
use of MREFs in the field (i.e., as they
are actually used by consumers). The
energy use analysis provides the basis
for other analyses DOE performed,
particularly assessments of the energy
savings and the savings in consumer
operating costs that could result from
adoption of amended or new standards.
Chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD
addresses the energy use analysis.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses
The effect of new or amended energy
conservation standards on individual
consumers usually involves a reduction
in operating cost and an increase in
purchase cost. DOE used the following
two metrics to measure consumer
impacts:
• The LCC is the total consumer
expense of an appliance or product over
the life of that product, consisting of
total installed cost (manufacturer selling
price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus
operating costs (expenses for energy use,
maintenance, and repair). To compute
the operating costs, DOE discounts
future operating costs to the time of
purchase and sums them over the
lifetime of the product.
• The PBP is the estimated amount of
time (in years) it takes consumers to
recover the increased purchase cost
(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower
operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP
by dividing the change in purchase cost
4 Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the
price of baseline products, using the same markup
for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While
such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in
markets that are reasonably competitive it is
unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable
increase in profitability in the long run.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Jan 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
at higher efficiency levels by the change
in annual operating cost for the year that
amended or new standards are assumed
to take effect.
Chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD
addresses the LCC and PBP analyses.
G. National Impact Analysis
The NIA estimates the national energy
savings (‘‘NES’’) and the net present
value (‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer costs
and savings expected to result from
amended standards at specific efficiency
levels (referred to as candidate standard
levels).5 DOE calculates the NES and
NPV for the potential standard levels
considered based on projections of
annual product shipments, along with
the annual energy consumption and
total installed cost data from the energy
use and LCC analyses. For the present
analysis, DOE projected the energy
savings, operating cost savings, product
costs, and NPV of consumer benefits
over the lifetime of MREFs sold from
2029 through 2058.
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or
amended standards by comparing a case
without such standards with standardscase projections (‘‘no-new-standards
case’’). The no-new-standards case
characterizes energy use and consumer
costs for each product class in the
absence of new or amended energy
conservation standards. For this
projection, DOE considers historical
trends in efficiency and various forces
that are likely to affect the mix of
efficiencies over time. DOE compares
the no-new-standards case with
projections characterizing the market for
each product class if DOE adopted new
or amended standards at specific energy
efficiency levels for that class. For each
efficiency level, DOE considers how a
given standard would likely affect the
market shares of those products with
efficiencies greater than the standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to
calculate the energy savings and the
national consumer costs and savings
from each efficiency level. Interested
parties can review DOE’s analyses by
changing various input quantities
within the spreadsheet. The NIA
spreadsheet model uses typical values
(as opposed to probability distributions)
as inputs. Critical inputs to this analysis
include shipments projections,
estimated product lifetimes, product
installed costs and operating costs,
product annual energy consumption,
the base case efficiency projection, and
discount rates.
DOE estimates a combined total of
0.16 quads of site energy savings at the
5 The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states
and U.S. territories.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
max-tech efficiency levels for MREFs.
This represents 44.4 percent energy
savings relative to the no-new-standards
case energy consumption for MREFs.
Chapter 10 of the preliminary TSD
addresses the NIA.
IV. Public Participation
DOE invites public participation in
this process through participation in the
webinar and submission of written
comments and information. After the
webinar and the closing of the comment
period, DOE will consider all timelysubmitted comments and additional
information obtained from interested
parties, as well as information obtained
through further analyses. Following
such consideration, the Department will
publish either a determination that the
standards for MREFs need not be
amended or a NOPR proposing to
amend those standards. The NOPR,
should one be issued, would include
proposed energy conservation standards
for the products covered by that
rulemaking, and members of the public
would be given an opportunity to
submit written and oral comments on
the proposed standards.
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date for the webinar
meeting are listed in the DATES section
at the beginning of this document.
Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be
published on DOE’s website:
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/publicmeetings-and-comment-deadlines.
Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the
webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the
topics addressed in this document, or
who is representative of a group or class
of persons that has an interest in these
issues, may request an opportunity to
make an oral presentation at the
webinar. Such persons may submit such
request to
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a
computer file in Microsoft Word, PDF,
or text (ASCII) file format that briefly
describes the nature of their interest in
this rulemaking and the topics they
wish to discuss. Such persons should
also provide a daytime telephone
number where they can be reached.
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to
preside at the webinar and may also use
a professional facilitator to aid
discussion. The webinar will not be a
judicial or evidentiary-type public
hearing, but DOE will conduct it in
accordance with section 336 of EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will
be present to record the proceedings and
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the
right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the
procedures governing the conduct of the
webinar. There shall not be discussion
of proprietary information, costs or
prices, market share, or other
commercial matters regulated by U.S.
anti-trust laws. After the webinar and
until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further
comments on the proceedings and any
aspect of the rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an
informal, conference style. DOE will
present summaries of comments
received before the webinar, allow time
for prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all
interested parties to share their views on
issues affecting this rulemaking. Each
participant will be allowed to make a
general statement (within time limits
determined by DOE), before the
discussion of specific topics. DOE will
permit, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any
general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements
on a topic, DOE will permit participants
to clarify their statements briefly.
Participants should be prepared to
answer questions by DOE and by other
participants concerning these issues.
DOE representatives may also ask
questions of participants concerning
other matters relevant to this
rulemaking. The official conducting the
webinar will accept additional
comments or questions from those
attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification
of the above procedures that may be
needed for the proper conduct of the
webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be
included in the docket, which can be
viewed as described in the Docket
section at the beginning of this
document. In addition, any person may
buy a copy of the transcript from the
transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties,
regardless of whether they participate in
the public meeting, to submit in writing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Jan 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
by March 22, 2022, comments and
information on matters addressed in this
notification and on other matters
relevant to DOE’s consideration of
amended energy conservations
standards for MREFs. Interested parties
may submit comments, data, and other
information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will
require 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 itself 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 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
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 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 www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3235
Submitting comments via email.
Comments and documents submitted
via email also will be posted to
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. No faxes
will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, or text (ASCII) file format.
Provide documents that are not secured,
that are written in English, and that are
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. 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).
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notification of a
webinar and availability of preliminary
technical support document.
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
3236
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 / Proposed Rules
[Docket No. FAA–2020–1003; Project
Identifier MCAI–2020–00962–A]
internal structure, correcting any
damage found, and reporting the
inspection results to Viking. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by March 7, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12 140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this NPRM, contact Viking Air Ltd.,
1959 de Havilland Way, Sidney British
Columbia, Canada V8L 5V5; phone:
(800) 663–8444; email:
continuing.airworthiness@
vikingair.com; website: https://
www.vikingair.com. You may view this
service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section,
Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, MO 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call (817) 222–5110.
RIN 2120–AA64
Examining the AD Docket
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on January 12, 2022,
by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal
Deputy 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 January 12,
2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022–00848 Filed 1–20–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air
Limited (Type Certificate Previously
Held by Bombardier Inc. and de
Havilland, Inc.) Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Viking Air Limited (Viking) (type
certificate previously held by
Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.)
Model DHC–6–1, DHC–6–100, DHC–6–
200, DHC–6–300, and DHC–6–400
airplanes. This proposed AD results
from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct
an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI identifies the unsafe
condition as cracks and corrosion
damage to the aileron internal structure.
This proposed AD would require
visually inspecting the entire aileron
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:13 Jan 20, 2022
Jkt 256001
You may examine the AD docket at
https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA–2020–1003; or in person at Docket
Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this
NPRM, the MCAI, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is
listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deep Gaurav, Aviation Safety Engineer,
New York ACO Branch, FAA, 1515
Stewart Avenue, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone: (516) 228–7300; fax: (516) 794–
5331; email: deep.gaurav@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send
your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2020–1003; Project Identifier
MCAI–2020–00962–A’’ at the beginning
of your comments. The most helpful
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comments reference a specific portion of
the proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. The FAA will consider
all comments received by the closing
date and may amend this proposal
because of those comments.
Except for Confidential Business
Information (CBI) as described in the
following paragraph, and other
information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments
received, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report
summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.
Confidential Business Information
CBI is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and
actually treated as private by its owner.
Under the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt
from public disclosure. If your
comments responsive to this NPRM
contain commercial or financial
information that is customarily treated
as private, that you actually treat as
private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this NPRM, it is important
that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each
page of your submission containing CBI
as ‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such
marked submissions as confidential
under the FOIA, and they will not be
placed in the public docket of this
NPRM. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Deep Gaurav, Aviation
Safety Engineer, New York ACO Branch,
FAA, 1515 Stewart Avenue, Westbury,
NY 11590. Any commentary that the
FAA receives which is not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.
Background
Transport Canada, which is the
aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Transport Canada AD CF–2020–
05, dated March 13, 2020 (referred to
after this as ‘‘the MCAI’’), to address the
unsafe condition on Viking Model
DHC–6 series 1, DHC–6 series 100,
DHC–6 series 110, DHC–6 series 200,
DHC–6 series 210, DHC–6 series 300,
DHC–6 series 310, DHC–6 series 320,
and DHC–6 series 400 airplanes. The
MCAI states:
Viking Air Ltd. (Viking) received reports of
cracks and corrosion damage to the aileron
internal structure. During a repair of an inservice aeroplane, an aileron hinge support
rib was found cracked at the lower flange
along the bend radius near the hinge fitting
attachment at wing station 247.29.
Preliminary investigation by Viking
E:\FR\FM\21JAP1.SGM
21JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3229-3236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00848]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 3229]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039]
RIN 1904-AF00
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products, Webinar and Availability of the
Preliminary Technical Support Document
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notification of a webinar and availability of preliminary
technical support document.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'' or ``the Department'')
will hold a webinar to discuss and receive comments on the preliminary
analysis it has conducted for purposes of evaluating energy
conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products
(``MREFs''). The meeting will cover the analytical framework, models,
and tools that DOE is using to evaluate potential standards for these
products; the results of preliminary analyses performed by DOE; the
potential energy conservation standard levels derived from these
analyses that DOE could consider for this product should it determine
that proposed amendments are necessary; and any other issues relevant
to the evaluation of energy conservation standards for MREFs. In
addition, DOE encourages written comments on these subjects. To inform
interested parties and to facilitate this process, DOE has prepared an
agenda, a preliminary technical support document (``TSD''), and
briefing materials, which are available on the DOE website at:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=39&action=viewlive.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Thursday, February 17, 2022,
from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section IV, ``Public Participation,''
for webinar registration information, participant instructions and
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.
Comments: Written comments and information will be accepted on or
before, March 22, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039,
by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: To [email protected]. Include docket number EERE-
2020-BT-STD-0039 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section IV of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal 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 corona virus 2019 (``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, public meeting transcripts, and other
supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments in the docket. See
section IV for information on how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-2J, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202)
287-1943. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, 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 Process
C. Deviation from Appendix A
II. Background
A. Current Standards
B. Current Process
III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE
A. Market and Technology Assessment
B. Screening Analysis
C. Engineering Analysis
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
G. National Impact Analysis
IV. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
[[Page 3230]]
I. Introduction
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
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 B \2\ of EPCA established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, which, in
addition to identifying particular consumer products and commercial
equipment as covered under the statute, permits the Secretary of Energy
to classify additional types of consumer products as covered products.
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)) DOE added MREFs as covered products through a
final determination of coverage published in the Federal Register on
July 18, 2016 (the ``July 2016 Final Coverage Determination''). 81 FR
46768. MREFs are consumer refrigeration products other than
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers, which include
coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products. 10 CFR 430.2.
MREFs include refrigeration products such as coolers (e.g., wine
chillers and other specialty products) and combination cooler
refrigeration products (e.g., wine chillers and other specialty
compartments combined with a refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-
freezer).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE
must publish either a notification of determination that standards for
the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed
rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed energy conservation
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)) Not later than three years after issuance of a final
determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice
of determination that standards for the product do not need to be
amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B))
Under EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that
DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must
result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B))
DOE is publishing this Preliminary Analysis to collect data and
information to inform its decision consistent with its obligations
under EPCA.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered products, including MREFs. As noted, 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 efficiency (or water
efficiency for certain products specified by EPCA) that is
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would
not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)) 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.
6295(o)(3))
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term ``significant'' is
not defined in the EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the District of
Columbia Circuit in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington,
768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985), opined that Congress intended
``significant'' energy savings in the context of EPCA to be savings
that were not ``genuinely trivial.''
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\3\ For
example, the United States rejoined the Paris Agreement on February 19,
2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has committed to
reducing GHG emissions in order to limit the rise in mean global
temperature. As such, energy savings that reduce GHG emissions have
taken on greater importance. Additionally, some covered products and
equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of
peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy
infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively
constant demand. In evaluating the significance of energy savings, DOE
considers differences in primary energy and FFC effects for different
covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings
are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy
consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in
distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels),
and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy
conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a
case-by-case basis. DOE estimates a combined total of 0.45 quads of FFC
energy savings at the max-tech efficiency levels for MREFs. This
represents 44.4 percent energy savings relative to the no-new-standards
case energy consumption for MREFs. DOE has initially determined the
energy savings for the candidate standard levels considered in this
preliminary analysis are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA
requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared
to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the
standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable,
water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows
the individual analyses that are performed
[[Page 3231]]
to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA.
Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings............. Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
Energy Use Analysis.
Technological Feasibility.............. Market and Technology
Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on manufacturers Manufacturer Impact
and consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost
Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime operating cost savings Markups for Product
compared to increased cost for the Price Analysis.
product. Energy Use Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total projected energy savings.. Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
4. Impact on utility or performance Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of any lessening of Manufacturer Impact
competition. Analysis
6. Need for national energy and Shipments Analysis.
water conservation.
National Impact
Analysis.
7. Other factors the Secretary Employment Impact
considers relevant. Analysis.
Utility Impact
Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of
Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended
or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type
or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE
determines that products within such group: (A) Consume a different
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C.
6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature
justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must
consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and
other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a
standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher
or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140,
any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and
off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedure for MREFs measures the
energy use of these products during extended time periods that include
periods when the compressor and other key components are cycled off.
All of the energy these products use during the ``off cycles'' is
already included in the measurements. By measuring the energy use
during ``off cycles,'' the current test procedure already addresses
EPCA's requirement to include standby mode and off mode energy
consumption in the overall energy descriptor for MREFs. See 86 FR 56790
(October 12, 2021) (final rule amending the test procedures for
consumer refrigeration products). As a result, DOE's current energy
conservation standards and any amended energy conservation standards
account for such energy use.
Before proposing a standard, DOE typically seeks public input on
the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE intends to use to
evaluate standards for the product at issue and the results of the
preliminary analyses DOE performed for the product.
DOE is examining whether to amend the current standards pursuant to
its
[[Page 3232]]
obligations under EPCA. This document announces the availability of the
preliminary technical support document (``TSD''), which details the
preliminary analyses and summarizes the preliminary results of DOE's
analyses. In addition, DOE is announcing a public meeting to solicit
feedback from interested parties on its analytical framework, models,
and preliminary results.
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy
conservation standards rulemaking. (See 86 FR 70892 (Dec. 13, 2021)
(effective January 12, 2022)) Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that
if the Department determines it is appropriate to proceed with a
rulemaking (after initiating the rulemaking process through an early
assessment), the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend
an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a
framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (``ANOPR''). DOE is opting to deviate from this
step by publishing a preliminary analysis without a framework document.
A framework document is intended to introduce and summarize the various
analyses DOE conducts during the rulemaking process and requests
initial feedback from interested parties. As discussed further in the
following section, prior to this notification of the preliminary
analysis, DOE issued an early assessment request for information
(``RFI'') in which DOE identified and sought comment on the analyses
conducted in support of the most recent energy conservation standards
rulemaking (81 FR 75194; Oct. 28, 2016 (the ``October 2016 Direct Final
Rule'')). 85 FR 78964, 78965-78966 (Dec. 8, 2020) (the ``December 2020
Early Assessment Review RFI''). DOE provided a 75-day comment period
for the early assessment RFI. 85 FR 78964. As DOE is intending to rely
on substantively the same analytical methods as in the most recent
rulemaking, publication of a framework document would be largely
redundant with the published early assessment RFI. As such, DOE is not
publishing a framework document.
Section 6(d)(2) of appendix A specifies that the length of the
public comment period for pre-NOPR rulemaking documents will vary
depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but will
not be less than 75 calendar days. For this preliminary analysis, DOE
has opted to instead provide a 60-day comment period. As stated, DOE
requested comment in the December 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI on
the analysis conducted in support of the October 2016 Direct Final Rule
and provided stakeholders a 75-day comment period. For this preliminary
analysis, DOE has relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and
approaches as used in the previous rulemaking and has determined that a
60-day comment period in conjunction with the prior 75-day comment
period provides sufficient time for interested parties to review the
preliminary analysis and develop comments.
II. Background
A. Current Standards
As noted, DOE added MREFs as covered products through its July 2016
Final Coverage Determination. 81 FR 46768. In that determination, DOE
noted that MREFs, on average, consume more than 150 kilowatt hours per
year (``kWh/yr'') and that the aggregate annual national energy use of
these products exceeds 4.2 terawatt hours (``TWh''). 81 FR 46768,
46775. In addition to establishing coverage, the July 2016 Final
Coverage Determination established definitions for ``miscellaneous
refrigeration products,'' ``coolers,'' and ``combination cooler
refrigeration products'' in 10 CFR 430.2. 81 FR 46768, 46791-46792.
In the October 2016 Direct Final Rule, DOE adopted energy
conservation standards for MREFs consistent with the recommendations
from a negotiated rulemaking working group established under the
Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee. 81 FR
75194. Concurrent with the October 2016 Direct Final Rule, DOE
published a NOPR in which it proposed and requested comments on the
standards set forth in the direct final rule. 81 FR 74950. On May 26,
2017, DOE published a notice in the Federal Register in which it
determined that the comments received in response to the October 2016
Direct Final Rule did not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing
the rule and, therefore, confirmed the adoption of the energy
conservation standards established in that direct final rule. 82 FR
24214.
These current standards for MREFs are set forth in DOE's
regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(aa)(1)-(2) and are repeated solely for
reference in Table II.1 to aid the reader.
Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for MREFs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equations for maximum
Product class energy use (kWh/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Built-in compact coolers..................... 7.88AV + 155.8.
2. Built-in coolers............................. 7.88AV + 155.8.
3. Freestanding compact coolers................. 7.88AV + 155.8.
4. Freestanding coolers......................... 7.88AV + 155.8.
C-3A. Cooler with all-refrigerator--automatic 4.57AV + 130.4.
defrost.
C-3A-BI. Built-in cooler with all-refrigerator-- 5.19AV + 147.8.
automatic defrost.
C-9. Cooler with upright freezer with automatic 5.58AV + 147.7.
defrost without an automatic icemaker.
C-9-BI. Built-in cooler with upright freezer 6.38AV + 168.8.
with automatic defrost without an automatic
icemaker.
C-9I. Cooler with upright freezer with automatic 5.58AV + 231.7.
defrost with an automatic icemaker.
C-9I-BI. Built-in cooler with upright freezer 6.38AV + 252.8.
with automatic defrost with an automatic
icemaker.
C-13A. Compact cooler with all-refrigerator-- 5.93AV + 193.7.
automatic defrost.
C-13A-BI. Built-in compact cooler with all- 6.52AV + 213.1.
refrigerator--automatic defrost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft\3\, as determined in
appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3233]]
B. Current Process
In the December 2020 Early Assessment Review RFI, DOE published a
notice that it was initiating an early assessment review to determine
whether any new or amended standards would satisfy the relevant
requirements of EPCA for a new or amended energy conservation standard
for MREFs and a request for information. 85 FR 78964.
Comments received to date as part of the current process have
helped DOE identify and resolve issues related to the preliminary
analyses. Chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD summarizes and addresses the
comments received.
III. Summary of the Analyses Performed by DOE
For the products covered in this preliminary analysis, DOE
conducted in-depth technical analyses in the following areas: (1)
Engineering; (2) markups to determine product price; (3) energy use;
(4) life cycle cost (``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP''); and (5)
national impacts. The preliminary TSD that presents the methodology and
results of each of these analyses is available at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039.
DOE also conducted, and has included in the preliminary TSD,
several other analyses that support the major analyses or are
preliminary analyses that will be expanded if DOE determines that a
NOPR is warranted to propose amended energy conservation standards.
These analyses include: (1) The market and technology assessment; (2)
the screening analysis, which contributes to the engineering analysis;
and (3) the shipments analysis, which contributes to the LCC and PBP
analysis and the national impact analysis (``NIA''). In addition to
these analyses, DOE has begun preliminary work on the manufacturer
impact analysis and has identified the methods to be used for the
consumer subgroup analysis, the emissions analysis, the employment
impact analysis, the regulatory impact analysis, and the utility impact
analysis. DOE will expand on these analyses in a NOPR, should one be
issued.
A. Market and Technology Assessment
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products
concerned, including general characteristics of the products, the
industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and
technologies used in the products. This activity includes both
quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly
available information. The subjects addressed in the market and
technology assessment include: (1) A determination of the scope of the
rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry
structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information,
(5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options
that could improve the energy efficiency of the product.
See chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD for further discussion of the
market and technology assessment.
B. Screening Analysis
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy
conservation standards rulemaking:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will
not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is
determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on
the utility of the product for significant subgroups of consumers or
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be
considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety,
it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b).
If DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering
analysis.
See chapter 4 of the preliminary TSD for further discussion of the
screening analysis.
C. Engineering Analysis
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the
relationship between the efficiency and cost of MREFs. There are two
elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of
efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency analysis'') and
the determination of product cost at each efficiency level (i.e., the
``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of higher-efficiency
products, DOE considers technologies and design option combinations not
eliminated by the screening analysis. For each product class, DOE
estimates the manufacturer production cost (``MPC'') for the baseline
as well as higher efficiency levels. The output of the engineering
analysis is a set of cost-efficiency ``curves'' that are used in
downstream analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
DOE converts the MPC to the manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') by
applying a manufacturer markup. The MSP is the price the manufacturer
charges its first customer, when selling into the product distribution
channels. The manufacturer markup accounts for manufacturer non-
production costs and profit margin. DOE developed the manufacturer
markup by examining publicly available financial information for
manufacturers of the covered product.
See Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD for additional detail on the
engineering analysis.
D. Markups Analysis
The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution
chain and sales taxes to convert MSP estimates derived in the
engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC
and PBP analysis. At each step in the distribution channel, companies
mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit
margin.
DOE develops baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the
distribution chain (after the product leaves the manufacturer).
Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with baseline
efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in
price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental
cost increase). The
[[Page 3234]]
incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is
designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after
new or amended standards.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD provides details on DOE's
development of markups for MREFs. Chapter 12 of the preliminary TSD
provides additional detail on the manufacturer markup.
E. Energy Use Analysis
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual
energy consumption of MREFs at different efficiencies in representative
U.S. single-family homes, and multi-family residences, and to assess
the energy savings potential of increased MREF efficiency. The energy
use analysis estimates the range of energy use of MREFs in the field
(i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). The energy use analysis
provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly
assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating
costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.
Chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD addresses the energy use analysis.
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on
individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and
an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to
measure consumer impacts:
The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them
over the lifetime of the product.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
Chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD addresses the LCC and PBP
analyses.
G. National Impact Analysis
The NIA estimates the national energy savings (``NES'') and the net
present value (``NPV'') of total consumer costs and savings expected to
result from amended standards at specific efficiency levels (referred
to as candidate standard levels).\5\ DOE calculates the NES and NPV for
the potential standard levels considered based on projections of annual
product shipments, along with the annual energy consumption and total
installed cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the
present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost
savings, product costs, and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime
of MREFs sold from 2029 through 2058.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S.
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing
a case without such standards with standards-case projections (``no-
new-standards case''). The no-new-standards case characterizes energy
use and consumer costs for each product class in the absence of new or
amended energy conservation standards. For this projection, DOE
considers historical trends in efficiency and various forces that are
likely to affect the mix of efficiencies over time. DOE compares the
no-new-standards case with projections characterizing the market for
each product class if DOE adopted new or amended standards at specific
energy efficiency levels for that class. For each efficiency level, DOE
considers how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of
those products with efficiencies greater than the standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and
the national consumer costs and savings from each efficiency level.
Interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input
quantities within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses
typical values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
Critical inputs to this analysis include shipments projections,
estimated product lifetimes, product installed costs and operating
costs, product annual energy consumption, the base case efficiency
projection, and discount rates.
DOE estimates a combined total of 0.16 quads of site energy savings
at the max-tech efficiency levels for MREFs. This represents 44.4
percent energy savings relative to the no-new-standards case energy
consumption for MREFs.
Chapter 10 of the preliminary TSD addresses the NIA.
IV. Public Participation
DOE invites public participation in this process through
participation in the webinar and submission of written comments and
information. After the webinar and the closing of the comment period,
DOE will consider all timely-submitted comments and additional
information obtained from interested parties, as well as information
obtained through further analyses. Following such consideration, the
Department will publish either a determination that the standards for
MREFs need not be amended or a NOPR proposing to amend those standards.
The NOPR, should one be issued, would include proposed energy
conservation standards for the products covered by that rulemaking, and
members of the public would be given an opportunity to submit written
and oral comments on the proposed standards.
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date for the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on
DOE's website: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines. Participants are responsible for ensuring their
systems are compatible with the webinar software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
document, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that
has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an
oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit such request
to [email protected]. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in Microsoft Word,
PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes the nature of
their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they wish to discuss.
Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone number where they
can be reached.
[[Page 3235]]
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar and may
also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The webinar will
not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will
conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A
court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a
transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of
the webinar. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information,
costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by
U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end of the
comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the
proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present summaries of comments received before the webinar, allow
time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all
interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this
rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general
statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion
of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The
official conducting the webinar will accept additional comments or
questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official
will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above
procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the webinar.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of
this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript
from the transcribing reporter.
D. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties, regardless of whether they
participate in the public meeting, to submit in writing by March 22,
2022, comments and information on matters addressed in this
notification and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of
amended energy conservations standards for MREFs. Interested parties
may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the
methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require 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 itself 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 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
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 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 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 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. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and that are 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. 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).
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this
notification of a webinar and availability of preliminary technical
support document.
[[Page 3236]]
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 12,
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy 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 January 12, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-00848 Filed 1-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P