82 FR 24214 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 101 (May 26, 2017)

Page Range		24214-24218
FR Document		2017-10867
On October 28, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') published in the Federal Register a direct final rule to establish new energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. DOE has determined that the comments received in response to that direct final rule do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing it. Therefore, DOE is providing notice confirming the adoption of the energy conservation standards established in that direct final rule and announces the effective date of those standards.
Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 101 (Friday, May 26, 2017)
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 101 (Friday, May 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24214-24218]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10867]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043]
RIN 1904-AC51


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Confirmation of effective date and compliance date for direct 
final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On October 28, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') 
published in the Federal Register a direct final rule to establish new 
energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. 
DOE has determined that the comments received in response to that 
direct final rule do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing it. 
Therefore, DOE is providing notice confirming the adoption of the 
energy conservation standards established in that direct final rule and 
announces the effective date of those standards.

DATES: The direct final rule for miscellaneous refrigeration products 
published on October 28, 2016 (81 FR 75194) became effective on 
February 27, 2017. Compliance with the new standards in the direct 
final rule will be required on October 28, 2019, as set forth in Table 
II.1 and Table II.2 in section II of the Supplementary Information 
section of this document.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal 
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, 
comments, 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, not all documents listed in 
the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt 
from public disclosure.
    The docket Web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043. The docket Web page contains 
simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public 
comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by 
email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority

    As amended by the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public 
Law 114-11 (April 30, 2105), the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
(``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act''), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 
6291-6309, as codified), authorizes DOE to issue a direct final rule 
establishing an energy conservation standard for a product on

[[Page 24215]]

receipt of a statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are 
fairly representative of relevant points of view (including 
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and 
efficiency advocates) as determined by the Secretary of Energy 
(``Secretary''). That statement must contain recommendations with 
respect to an energy or water conservation standard that are in 
accordance with the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. A notice of proposed rulemaking 
(``NOPR'') that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must 
be published simultaneously with the direct final rule and a public 
comment period of at least 110 days provided. 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). Not 
later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, if DOE 
receives one or more adverse comments or an alternative joint 
recommendation is received relating to the direct final rule, the 
Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative 
recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law.
    When making a determination whether to withdraw a direct final 
rule, DOE considers the substance, rather than the quantity, of 
comments. To this end, DOE weighs the substance of any adverse 
comment(s) received against the anticipated benefits of the consensus 
recommendations and the likelihood that further consideration of the 
comment(s) would change the results of the rulemaking. DOE notes that 
to the extent an adverse comment had been previously raised and 
addressed in the rulemaking proceeding, such a submission will not 
typically provide a basis for withdrawal of a direct final rule. If the 
Secretary makes such a determination, DOE must withdraw the direct 
final rule and proceed with the simultaneously published NOPR. DOE must 
publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule 
was withdrawn.
    DOE determined that it did not receive any adverse comments 
providing a basis for withdrawal as described above for the direct 
final rule that is the subject of this document--miscellaneous 
refrigeration products (``MREFs''). As such, DOE did not withdraw this 
direct final rule and allowed it to become effective. Although not 
required under EPCA, DOE customarily publishes a summary of the 
comments received during the 110-day comment period and its responses 
to those comments.\1\ This document contains such a summary, as well as 
DOE's responses to those comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., Notice of effective date and compliance dates for 
direct final rule, 76 FR 67037 (Oct. 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Direct Final Rule

A. Background

    During the rulemaking proceeding to consider new energy 
conservation standards for MREFs, DOE received a statement submitted by 
an Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee 
(``ASRAC'') negotiated rulemaking working group for MREFs (the ``MREF 
Working Group'' or, in context, the ``Working Group''). The MREF 
Working Group consisted of 15 members, including two members from ASRAC 
and one DOE representative, with the balance comprising representatives 
of manufacturers of the covered products at issue, efficiency 
advocates, and a utility representative. The MREF Working Group 
submitted to ASRAC two Term Sheets, one of which contained 
recommendations with respect to new energy conservation standards for 
MREFs that, in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA 
requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), and ASRAC subsequently adopted these 
consensus recommendations. (See ``MREF Term Sheet'', EERE-2011-BT-STD-
0043-0011).
    Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must determine 
whether a jointly submitted recommendation for an energy or water 
conservation standard is in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. As stated in the direct final 
rule, this determination is exactly the type of analysis DOE conducts 
whenever it considers potential energy conservation standards pursuant 
to EPCA. DOE applies the same principles to any consensus 
recommendations it may receive to satisfy its statutory obligation to 
ensure that any energy conservation standard that it adopts achieves 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified and will result in significant 
conservation of energy. Upon review, the Secretary determined that the 
consensus recommendations submitted in the MREF Term Sheet comports 
with the standard-setting criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 
Accordingly, the consensus recommendation efficiency levels, included 
as trial standard level (``TSL'') 2 for coolers and TSL 1 for 
combination cooler refrigeration products, were adopted as the new 
standard levels in the direct final rule. 81 FR 75194, 75252-75256 
(Oct. 28, 2016).
    As the relevant statutory criteria were satisfied, the Secretary 
adopted the new energy conservation standards for MREFs set forth in 
the direct final rule. These standards, which are expressed in maximum 
allowable annual energy use (``AEU'') in kilowatt-hours per year 
(``kWh/yr'') as a function of the calculated adjusted volume (``AV'') 
in cubic feet (``ft\3\''), are set forth in Table II.1 and Table II.2. 
The standards will apply to all products listed in Table II.1 and Table 
II.2 that are manufactured in, or imported into, the United States 
starting on October 28, 2019. For a detailed discussion of DOE's 
analysis of the benefits and burdens of the new standards pursuant to 
the criteria set forth in EPCA, please see the direct final rule. 81 FR 
75194 (Oct. 28, 2016).
    As required by EPCA, DOE also simultaneously published a NOPR 
proposing the identical standard levels contained in the direct final 
rule. 81 FR 74950 (Oct. 28, 2016). DOE considered whether any comment 
received during the 110-day comment period following the direct final 
rule was sufficiently ``adverse'' as to provide a reasonable basis for 
withdrawal of the direct final rule and continuation of this rulemaking 
under the NOPR. DOE subsequently determined that it did not receive any 
adverse comments that would provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal.

          Table II.1--Energy Conservation Standards for Coolers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Maximum allowable AEU  (kWh/
               Product class                             yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Built-in Compact...........................  7.88AV [dagger] + 155.8
Built-in.                                    ...........................

[[Page 24216]]

 
Freestanding Compact.                        ...........................
Freestanding.                                ...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] AV = Adjusted volume, in ft\3\, as calculated according to
  title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 430,
  subpart B, appendix A (Appendix A).


             Table II.2--Energy Conservation Standards for Combination Cooler Refrigeration Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Product class description            Product class designation *       Maximum allowable AEU (kWh/yr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooler with all-refrigerator--automatic   C-3A............................  4.57AV [dagger] + 130.4
 defrost.
Built-in cooler with all-refrigerator--   C-3A-BI.........................  5.19AV + 147.8
 automatic defrost.
Cooler with upright freezers with         C-9.............................  5.58AV + 147.7
 automatic defrost without an automatic
 icemaker.
Built-in cooler with upright freezer      C-9-BI..........................  6.38AV + 168.8
 with automatic defrost without an
 automatic icemaker.
Cooler with upright freezer with          C-9I............................  5.58AV + 231.7
 automatic defrost with an automatic
 icemaker.
Built-in cooler with upright freezer      C-9I-BI.........................  6.38AV + 252.8
 with automatic defrost with an
 automatic icemaker.
Compact cooler with all-refrigerator--    C-13A...........................  5.93AV + 193.7
 automatic defrost.
Built-in compact cooler with all-         C-13A-BI [dagger][dagger].......  6.52AV + 213.1
 refrigerator--automatic defrost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These product classes are consistent with the current product classes established for refrigerators,
  refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 10 CFR 430.32.
[dagger] AV = Adjusted volume, in ft\3\, as calculated according to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A.
[dagger][dagger] There is no current product class 13A-BI for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers.

B. Comments on the MREF Direct Final Rule

    As discussed in section I of this document, not later than 120 days 
after issuance of the direct final rule, if DOE receives either (1) one 
or more adverse comments or (2) an alternative joint recommendation 
relating to the direct final rule within the prescribed 110-day comment 
period, the Secretary must determine whether the comments or 
alternative recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for 
withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law.
    Of the five substantive comments received in response to the direct 
final rule, four were from interested parties supporting the standard 
levels specified in the direct final rule as well as the process used 
to develop those standards. (All comments are available for public 
viewing at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043.) 
Among these commenters, three (two manufacturers and an industry trade 
group) stated that the direct final rule standards would support the 
industry's goal of achieving a national marketplace for MREFs, prevent 
a patchwork of State regulations, and allow for future harmonization 
with Canadian regulations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DOE also received one comment from an individual that asked 
which two rules DOE was withdrawing to implement the direct final 
rule. See Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043-0127. This comment 
appears to refer to a recent Executive Order that instructs Federal 
agencies to withdraw two regulations for each new regulation they 
issue. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017) (Executive Order 13771--
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs''). The 
comment seeks clarification as to which rules DOE will withdraw and 
generally notes the need to rein in ``regulatory overkill'' by the 
Federal government. Because this direct final rule had already been 
issued three months prior to the Executive Order's signing, this 
rule falls outside of its scope. This document serves solely to 
confirm the direct final rule's applicable compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another interested party submitted comments questioning the product 
classes, standards, and analysis included in the direct final rule. The 
following sections discuss these specific comments and DOE's 
determination that the comments do not provide a reasonable basis for 
withdrawal of the direct final rule.
1. Product Classes
    The interested party who criticized the rule commented that the 
product class structure and corresponding standards for coolers as 
specified in the direct final rule are not reasonable. It stated that 
vapor-compression products (i.e. those products using a compressor/
condenser-based system) differ significantly from other non-compressor 
refrigeration products, such as thermoelectric (i.e. semiconductor-
based) or absorption refrigeration products, in terms of testing and 
energy efficiency. Accordingly, in its view, DOE's rule should have 
included additional product classes to account for these differences. 
As an example of this approach, the interested party noted that the 
European Union's Energy Efficiency Directive No. 643/2009 and testing 
standard EN 62552-2013 include separate energy efficiency requirements 
for vapor-compression and non-compressor refrigeration products.
    As discussed in the direct final rule, DOE considered whether 
separate product classes for non-compressor products were appropriate 
throughout this rulemaking. In the preliminary analysis, DOE did not 
identify any unique consumer utility associated with non-compressor 
refrigeration systems that would justify separate product classes for 
these products. The MREF Working Group discussed the topic of product 
classes, and agreed with DOE's determination from the preliminary 
analysis. Following the Working Group recommendation, DOE sought 
additional information regarding the consideration of non-compressor 
products in a notice of data availability (``NODA''). 80 FR 77589 (Dec. 
15, 2015). DOE did not receive any information in response to the NODA 
indicating that separate non-compressor product classes would be 
justified. Consequently, in the absence of any information supporting 
the creation of non-compressor-based classes, DOE adopted the approach 
recommended by the Working Group, which led to the creation of the 
specific product classes detailed in the direct final rule. See 81 FR 
75194, 75196 (Oct. 28, 2016). See also id. at 75209 (explaining the 
basis for the specific classes adopted by DOE).

[[Page 24217]]

    While DOE acknowledges that non-compressor products differ from 
vapor-compression refrigeration products, DOE was unable to determine 
any basis on which separate product classes for non-compressor products 
would be appropriate. Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), DOE may establish 
product classes for groups of products that either: (1) Consume a 
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products; 
or (2) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other 
covered products do not have, and such feature justifies a higher or 
lower standard from that which applies to other covered products. Non-
compressor products consume electric energy input, as do vapor-
compression products. DOE is also not aware of any performance-related 
feature associated with non-compressor products that vapor-compression 
products do not also offer. Accordingly, DOE maintains its 
determination in the direct final rule that separate product classes 
for non-compressor products are not appropriate.
2. Cooler Standard
    The interested party also argued that the test methods for built-in 
and freestanding products should be different, with built-in products 
tested in an enclosure leading to higher energy consumption, and 
therefore a single maximum allowable AEU is not appropriate for both 
freestanding and built-in cooler product classes.
    The MREF test procedures in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix A 
(``Appendix A'') require that both freestanding and built-in products 
be tested in a freestanding configuration. Accordingly, Appendix A does 
not specifically lead to higher energy consumption for built-in 
products compared to freestanding products. Further, the standard 
levels specified in the direct final rule are consistent with those 
recommended by the MREF Working Group. The Working Group included 
multiple manufacturers, including manufacturers of built-in products, 
who determined that the same maximum AEU was appropriate for both 
built-in and freestanding coolers. Therefore, DOE has determined that 
the single maximum allowable AEU is appropriate for both freestanding 
and built-in coolers. Should DOE receive information in the future 
demonstrating that the test procedure requires modification to better 
address built-in products, DOE may revisit the test procedure at that 
time.
    The interested party also commented that the cooler standard 
outlined in the direct final rule is too stringent. It compared the 
direct final rule standard level equation for coolers to the equation 
previously established by the California Energy Commission (``CEC'') 
for coolers sold in California, and concluded that the direct final 
rule standard is 50 percent more stringent than the CEC regulation. It 
further stated that the direct final rule standards would reduce the 
number of MREFs in the market.
    DOE notes that the standards specified in the direct final rule and 
those in the CEC regulations are not directly comparable because they 
are based on energy consumption measured by different test procedures. 
Most significantly, the DOE test procedure in Appendix A applies a 
correction factor of 0.55 to the measured energy consumption of coolers 
to account for typical household usage. The test procedure used for the 
CEC regulations applies a usage factor of 0.85. Accounting for this 
difference alone, the DOE standard level from the direct final rule is 
equivalent to approximately 70 percent of the maximum allowable energy 
use in the CEC regulations. DOE observed that many coolers already 
achieve this efficiency level, including a non-compressor cooler tested 
by a third party in support of DOE's analysis, and that manufacturer 
recommendations from the Working Group supported a cooler standard at 
this level. Therefore, DOE concludes that the cooler standard is not 
too stringent and not likely to limit consumer purchasing options.
3. Analysis Periods
    The interested party commented that for coolers at TSL 2, DOE 
forecasted results over the lifetime of products from 2019 to 2048, 
while the other TSLs considered the period from 2021 to 2050. 
Similarly, it noted that for combination cooler refrigeration products, 
DOE analyzed TSL 1 results over the lifetime of products from 2019 to 
2048, and all other TSLs over the period from 2021 to 2050. The 
commenter noted that due to the different analysis periods used by DOE, 
the economic analysis and data comparing the different TSLs are unjust 
and unequal, leading to inaccurate economic analysis conclusions.
    In the direct final rule, DOE analyzed TSLs other than TSL 2 for 
coolers and TSL 1 for combination cooler refrigeration products based 
on the 5-year compliance period typically provided when DOE establishes 
the first energy conservation standards for newly covered products. 
However, because TSL 2 for coolers and TSL 1 for combination cooler 
refrigeration products were based on the standard levels and compliance 
period recommended by the MREF Working Group, DOE analyzed a 3-year 
compliance period for these TSLs only. DOE's analysis for each TSL 
considered the 30-year period following the standards compliance date, 
so TSLs based on the Working Group recommendation considered the 
analysis period from 2019 to 2048, while the analysis period for the 
other TSLs was 2021 to 2050. In its analysis, DOE discounted future 
impacts to the year of the analysis, which allowed for a direct 
comparison of the projected impacts for each TSL despite the different 
compliance years and 30-year analysis periods. See chapter 10 of the 
direct final rule technical support document for a description of the 
national impact analysis. Therefore, DOE has determined that its 
conclusions are valid and provide sufficient support for the efficiency 
levels adopted in the direct final rule.
4. Product Lifetimes
    The interested party also requested clarification regarding the 
lifetimes of products assumed in the national impact analysis. It 
commented that a 30-year product lifetime would be too long, and 
suggested that DOE use a lifetime of approximately 12 years for 
products such as wine coolers.
    In the direct final rule analysis, DOE did not assume a 30-year 
product lifetime; rather, it analyzed products sold over a 30-year 
period with a distribution of lifetimes. For full-size products (both 
coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products), DOE estimated a 
17.4-year average lifetime, consistent with the average lifetime for 
full-size refrigerators and freezers. For compact products, DOE 
estimated a 10.3-year average lifetime based on manufacturer input. See 
81 FR at 75219 and chapter 8, section 8.2.2.5 of the direct final rule 
technical support document. DOE maintains that these lifetime estimates 
are appropriate because they were supported by manufacturer feedback in 
the MREF Working Group.

III. Department of Justice Analysis of Competitive Impacts

    EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is 
likely to result from new or amended standards. It also directs the 
Attorney General of the United States (``Attorney General'') to 
determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to 
result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to 
the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, 
together

[[Page 24218]]

with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) For the direct final rule discussed in 
this document, DOE published a NOPR containing energy conservation 
standards identical to those set forth the direct final rule and 
transmitted a copy of the direct final rule and the accompanying 
technical support document (``TSD'') to the Attorney General, 
requesting that the U.S. Department of Justice (``DOJ'') provide its 
determination on this issue. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the 
end of this document.
    DOJ reviewed the new standards in the direct final rule and the 
direct final rule TSD discussed in this document. As a result of its 
analysis, DOJ concluded that the new standards issued in the direct 
final rule are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on 
competition. DOJ further noted that the standards established in the 
direct final rule were the same as recommended standards submitted in 
the consensus recommendations signed by industry participants who 
believed they could meet the standards (as well as other interested 
parties).

IV. Social Cost of Carbon

    DOE notes that the direct final rule discussed in this document 
preceded Executive Order 16093's requirement to revise future analyses 
involving carbon monetization. See 82 FR 16093 (March 31, 2017). The 
direct final rule included an analysis that examined the impacts 
associated with the social cost of carbon. These values, which were 
ancillary to the primary analyses that DOE conducted to determine 
whether the standards adopted in the rule were justified under the 
statutory criteria prescribed under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), did not change 
the results of DOE's analyses. Accordingly, while the inclusion of 
these values helped in providing additional detail regarding the 
impacts from the rule, those details played no role in determining the 
outcome of DOE's decision under EPCA.

V. National Environmental Policy Act

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(``NEPA''), DOE has determined that this direct final rule fits within 
the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (``CX'') B5.1 
and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 
CFR part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). 
This rule fits within the category of actions because it is a 
rulemaking establishing energy conservation standards for consumer 
products or industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions 
identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX 
determination for this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an 
Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for it. 
DOE's CX determination applying to this direct final rule is available 
at http://energy.gov/nepa/categorical-exclusion-cx-determinations-cx.

VI. Conclusion

    In summary, based on the discussion above, DOE has determined that 
the comments received in response to the direct final rule for new 
energy conservation standards for MREFs do not provide a reasonable 
basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As a result, the energy 
conservation standards set forth in that direct final rule became 
effective on February 27, 2017. Compliance with the standards 
articulated in that direct final rule is required on October 28, 2019.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22, 2017.
Daniel R. Simmons,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Appendix

[The following letter from the Department of Justice will not appear 
in the Code of Federal Regulations.]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
Renata B. Hesse
Acting Assistant Attorney General
RFK Main Justice Building
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202)514-2401/(202)616-2645 (Fax)

December 27, 2016

Daniel Cohen
Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and Energy 
Efficiency
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585

Re: Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043

    Dear Assistant General Counsel Cohen:
    I am responding to your letter of October 28, 2016 seeking the 
views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on 
competition of proposed energy conservation standards for 
miscellaneous refrigeration products (MREFs).
    Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 
Sec.  6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney General to 
make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition 
that is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy 
conservation standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for 
responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a 
program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney 
General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR Sec.  0.40(g).
    In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines 
whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by 
substantially limiting consumer choice or increasing industry 
concentration. A lessening of competition could result in higher 
prices to manufacturers and consumers.
    We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking and the Direct Final Rule (81 Fed. Reg. 74950 
and 75194, Oct. 28, 2016), and the related Technical Support 
Document. We have also reviewed the transcript of the public meeting 
held on the proposed standards on January 9, 2015, and public 
comments filed with the Department of Energy, and conducted 
interviews with industry representatives.
    Based on the information currently available, we do not believe 
that the proposed energy conservation standards for MREFs are likely 
to have a significant adverse impact on competition.

Very truly yours,

Renata B. Hesse.

[FR Doc. 2017-10867 Filed 5-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
24214 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

prescribed under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), did Daniel Cohen miscellaneous refrigeration products.
not change the results of DOE’s Assistant General Counsel DOE has determined that the comments
analyses. Accordingly, while the Department of Energy received in response to that direct final
Washington, DC 20585 rule do not provide a reasonable basis
inclusion of these values helped in
providing additional detail regarding Dear Assistant General Counsel Cohen: for withdrawing it. Therefore, DOE is
I am responding to your January 13, 2017, providing notice confirming the
the impacts from the rule, those details
letter seeking the views of the Attorney
played no role in determining the adoption of the energy conservation
General about the potential impact on
outcome of DOE’s decision under EPCA. competition of proposed energy conservation standards established in that direct final
standards for residential central air rule and announces the effective date of
VI. National Environmental Policy Act those standards.
conditioners and heat pumps. Your request
Pursuant to the National was submitted under Section DATES: The direct final rule for
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and miscellaneous refrigeration products
(‘‘NEPA’’), DOE has determined that this Conservation Act, as amended (ECPA), 42 published on October 28, 2016 (81 FR
direct final rule fits within the category U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 43 U.S.C. 75194) became effective on February 27,
of actions included in Categorical 6316(a), which requires the Attorney General 2017. Compliance with the new
Exclusion (‘‘CX’’) B5.1 and otherwise to make a determination of the impact of any
lessening of competition that is likely to
standards in the direct final rule will be
meets the requirements for application required on October 28, 2019, as set
result from the imposition of proposed
of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, energy conservation standards. The Attorney forth in Table II.1 and Table II.2 in
B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, General’s responsibility for responding to section II of the Supplementary
B(1)–(5). This rule fits within the requests from other departments about the Information section of this document.
category of actions because it is a effect of a program on competition has been ADDRESSES: The docket for this
rulemaking establishing energy delegated to the Assistant Attorney General rulemaking, which includes Federal
conservation standards for consumer for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR § 0.40(g). Register notices, public meeting
products or industrial equipment, and In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust
attendee lists and transcripts,
for which none of the exceptions Division examines whether a proposed
standard may lessen competition, for comments, and other supporting
identified in CX B5.1(b) apply. documents/materials, is available for
example, by substantially limiting consumer
Therefore, DOE has made a CX choice or increasing industry concentration. review at www.regulations.gov. All
determination for this rulemaking, and A lessening of competition could result in documents in the docket are listed in
DOE does not need to prepare an higher prices to manufacturers and the www.regulations.gov index.
Environmental Assessment or consumers. However, not all documents listed in
Environmental Impact Statement for We have reviewed the proposed standards the index may be publicly available,
them. DOE’s CX determination that contained in the Direct Final Rule (82 Fed. such as information that is exempt from
applies to this direct final rule is Reg. 1786, January 6, 2017). We have also public disclosure.
available at http://energy.gov/nepa/ reviewed supplementary information The docket Web page can be found at
submitted to the Attorney General by the
categorical-exclusion-cx- http://www.regulations.gov/
Department of Energy. Based on this review,
determinations-cx. our conclusion is that the proposed energy #!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-
VII. Conclusion conservation standards for residential central 0043. The docket Web page contains
air conditioners and heat pumps are unlikely simple instructions on how to access all
In summary, based on the discussion to have a significant adverse impact on documents, including public comments,
above, DOE has determined that the competition. in the docket.
comments received in response to the Sincerely, For further information on how to
direct final rule for new energy Brent Snyder. review the docket, contact the
conservation standards for CAC and HPs Appliance and Equipment Standards
[FR Doc. 2017–10869 Filed 5–25–17; 8:45 am]
do not provide a reasonable basis for Program staff at (202) 586–6636 or by
withdrawal of the direct final rule. As BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
a result, the energy conservation ee.doe.gov.
standards set forth in this direct final
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
rule became effective on May 8, 2017.
Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of
Compliance with the standards 10 CFR Part 430 Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
articulated in this direct final rule will
[EERE–2011–BT–STD–0043] Renewable Energy, Building
be required on January 1, 2023.
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 22, RIN 1904–AC51 Independence Avenue SW.,
2017. Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Daniel R Simmons, Energy Conservation Program: Energy Telephone: (202) 586–4549. Email:
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency Conservation Standards for ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
and Renewable Energy. Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products ee.doe.gov.
Appendix AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[The following letter will not appear in the
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy. I. Authority
Code of Federal Regulations]
ACTION: Confirmation of effective date As amended by the Energy Efficiency
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division and compliance date for direct final Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES

rule. 114–11 (April 30, 2105), the Energy
BRENT SNYDER
Acting Assistant Attorney General Policy and Conservation Act (‘‘EPCA’’
Main Justice Building SUMMARY: On October 28, 2016, the U.S. or, in context, ‘‘the Act’’), Public Law
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as
Washington, D.C. 20530–0001 published in the Federal Register a codified), authorizes DOE to issue a
(202) 514–2401/(202) 616–2645 (Fax) direct final rule to establish new energy direct final rule establishing an energy
March 7, 2017 conservation standards for conservation standard for a product on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 May 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM 26MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 24215

receipt of a statement submitted jointly that is the subject of this document— may receive to satisfy its statutory
by interested persons that are fairly miscellaneous refrigeration products obligation to ensure that any energy
representative of relevant points of view (‘‘MREFs’’). As such, DOE did not conservation standard that it adopts
(including representatives of withdraw this direct final rule and achieves the maximum improvement in
manufacturers of covered products, allowed it to become effective. Although energy efficiency that is technologically
States, and efficiency advocates) as not required under EPCA, DOE feasible and economically justified and
determined by the Secretary of Energy customarily publishes a summary of the will result in significant conservation of
(‘‘Secretary’’). That statement must comments received during the 110-day energy. Upon review, the Secretary
contain recommendations with respect comment period and its responses to determined that the consensus
to an energy or water conservation those comments.1 This document recommendations submitted in the
standard that are in accordance with the contains such a summary, as well as MREF Term Sheet comports with the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 DOE’s responses to those comments. standard-setting criteria set forth under
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. A II. Miscellaneous Refrigeration 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Accordingly, the
notice of proposed rulemaking Products Direct Final Rule consensus recommendation efficiency
(‘‘NOPR’’) that proposes an identical levels, included as trial standard level
energy efficiency standard must be A. Background (‘‘TSL’’) 2 for coolers and TSL 1 for
published simultaneously with the During the rulemaking proceeding to combination cooler refrigeration
direct final rule and a public comment consider new energy conservation products, were adopted as the new
period of at least 110 days provided. 42 standards for MREFs, DOE received a standard levels in the direct final rule.
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). Not later than 120 statement submitted by an Appliance 81 FR 75194, 75252–75256 (Oct. 28,
days after issuance of the direct final Standards and Rulemaking Federal 2016).
rule, if DOE receives one or more Advisory Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) As the relevant statutory criteria were
adverse comments or an alternative joint negotiated rulemaking working group satisfied, the Secretary adopted the new
recommendation is received relating to for MREFs (the ‘‘MREF Working Group’’ energy conservation standards for
the direct final rule, the Secretary must or, in context, the ‘‘Working Group’’). MREFs set forth in the direct final rule.
determine whether the comments or The MREF Working Group consisted of These standards, which are expressed in
alternative recommendation may 15 members, including two members maximum allowable annual energy use
provide a reasonable basis for from ASRAC and one DOE (‘‘AEU’’) in kilowatt-hours per year
withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or representative, with the balance (‘‘kWh/yr’’) as a function of the
other applicable law. comprising representatives of
When making a determination calculated adjusted volume (‘‘AV’’) in
manufacturers of the covered products
whether to withdraw a direct final rule, cubic feet (‘‘ft3’’), are set forth in Table
at issue, efficiency advocates, and a
DOE considers the substance, rather II.1 and Table II.2. The standards will
utility representative. The MREF
than the quantity, of comments. To this apply to all products listed in Table II.1
Working Group submitted to ASRAC
end, DOE weighs the substance of any and Table II.2 that are manufactured in,
two Term Sheets, one of which
adverse comment(s) received against the or imported into, the United States
contained recommendations with
anticipated benefits of the consensus starting on October 28, 2019. For a
respect to new energy conservation
recommendations and the likelihood detailed discussion of DOE’s analysis of
standards for MREFs that, in the
that further consideration of the the benefits and burdens of the new
commenters’ view, would satisfy the
comment(s) would change the results of standards pursuant to the criteria set
EPCA requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o),
the rulemaking. DOE notes that to the and ASRAC subsequently adopted these forth in EPCA, please see the direct final
extent an adverse comment had been consensus recommendations. (See rule. 81 FR 75194 (Oct. 28, 2016).
previously raised and addressed in the ‘‘MREF Term Sheet’’, EERE–2011–BT– As required by EPCA, DOE also
rulemaking proceeding, such a STD–0043–0011). simultaneously published a NOPR
submission will not typically provide a Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the proposing the identical standard levels
basis for withdrawal of a direct final Secretary must determine whether a contained in the direct final rule. 81 FR
rule. If the Secretary makes such a jointly submitted recommendation for 74950 (Oct. 28, 2016). DOE considered
determination, DOE must withdraw the an energy or water conservation whether any comment received during
direct final rule and proceed with the standard is in accordance with 42 U.S.C. the 110-day comment period following
simultaneously published NOPR. DOE 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as the direct final rule was sufficiently
must publish in the Federal Register the applicable. As stated in the direct final ‘‘adverse’’ as to provide a reasonable
reasons why the direct final rule was rule, this determination is exactly the basis for withdrawal of the direct final
withdrawn. type of analysis DOE conducts rule and continuation of this rulemaking
DOE determined that it did not whenever it considers potential energy under the NOPR. DOE subsequently
receive any adverse comments conservation standards pursuant to determined that it did not receive any
providing a basis for withdrawal as EPCA. DOE applies the same principles adverse comments that would provide a
described above for the direct final rule to any consensus recommendations it reasonable basis for withdrawal.

TABLE II.1—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COOLERS
Maximum allowable
Product class AEU
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES

(kWh/yr)

Built-in Compact .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7.88AV † + 155.8
Built-in.

1 See, e.g., Notice of effective date and

compliance dates for direct final rule, 76 FR 67037
(Oct. 31, 2011).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 May 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM 26MYR1
24216 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE II.1—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COOLERS—Continued
Maximum allowable
Product class AEU
(kWh/yr)

Freestanding Compact.
Freestanding.
† AV = Adjusted volume, in ft3, as calculated according to title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 430, subpart B, appendix A
(Appendix A).

TABLE II.2—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMBINATION COOLER REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS
Maximum allowable
Product class
Product class description AEU
designation * (kWh/yr)

Cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost ............................................................................................ C–3A ................ 4.57AV † + 130.4
Built-in cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost ................................................................................. C–3A–BI ........... 5.19AV + 147.8
Cooler with upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker .................................. C–9 ................... 5.58AV + 147.7
Built-in cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker ........................ C–9–BI ............. 6.38AV + 168.8
Cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker ......................................... C–9I .................. 5.58AV + 231.7
Built-in cooler with upright freezer with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker ............................. C–9I–BI ............ 6.38AV + 252.8
Compact cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost .............................................................................. C–13A .............. 5.93AV + 193.7
Built-in compact cooler with all-refrigerator—automatic defrost .................................................................. C–13A–BI †† .... 6.52AV + 213.1
* These product classes are consistent with the current product classes established for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 10
CFR 430.32.
† AV = Adjusted volume, in ft3, as calculated according to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A.
†† There is no current product class 13A–BI for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers.

B. Comments on the MREF Direct Final Another interested party submitted that the European Union’s Energy
Rule comments questioning the product Efficiency Directive No. 643/2009 and
As discussed in section I of this classes, standards, and analysis testing standard EN 62552–2013 include
document, not later than 120 days after included in the direct final rule. The separate energy efficiency requirements
issuance of the direct final rule, if DOE following sections discuss these specific for vapor-compression and non-
receives either (1) one or more adverse comments and DOE’s determination that compressor refrigeration products.
comments or (2) an alternative joint the comments do not provide a As discussed in the direct final rule,
recommendation relating to the direct reasonable basis for withdrawal of the DOE considered whether separate
final rule within the prescribed 110-day direct final rule. product classes for non-compressor
comment period, the Secretary must 1. Product Classes products were appropriate throughout
determine whether the comments or The interested party who criticized this rulemaking. In the preliminary
alternative recommendation may the rule commented that the product analysis, DOE did not identify any
provide a reasonable basis for class structure and corresponding unique consumer utility associated with
withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or standards for coolers as specified in the non-compressor refrigeration systems
other applicable law. direct final rule are not reasonable. It that would justify separate product
Of the five substantive comments stated that vapor-compression products classes for these products. The MREF
received in response to the direct final (i.e. those products using a compressor/ Working Group discussed the topic of
rule, four were from interested parties condenser-based system) differ product classes, and agreed with DOE’s
supporting the standard levels specified significantly from other non-compressor determination from the preliminary
in the direct final rule as well as the refrigeration products, such as analysis. Following the Working Group
process used to develop those thermoelectric (i.e. semiconductor- recommendation, DOE sought
standards. (All comments are available based) or absorption refrigeration additional information regarding the
for public viewing at https:// products, in terms of testing and energy consideration of non-compressor
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE- efficiency. Accordingly, in its view, products in a notice of data availability
2011-BT-STD-0043.) Among these DOE’s rule should have included (‘‘NODA’’). 80 FR 77589 (Dec. 15, 2015).
commenters, three (two manufacturers additional product classes to account for DOE did not receive any information in
and an industry trade group) stated that these differences. As an example of this response to the NODA indicating that
the direct final rule standards would approach, the interested party noted separate non-compressor product
support the industry’s goal of achieving classes would be justified.
a national marketplace for MREFs, Order that instructs Federal agencies to withdraw Consequently, in the absence of any
prevent a patchwork of State two regulations for each new regulation they issue. information supporting the creation of
regulations, and allow for future See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017) (Executive Order non-compressor-based classes, DOE
13771—‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES

harmonization with Canadian adopted the approach recommended by
Regulatory Costs’’). The comment seeks clarification
regulations.2 as to which rules DOE will withdraw and generally the Working Group, which led to the
notes the need to rein in ‘‘regulatory overkill’’ by creation of the specific product classes
2 DOE also received one comment from an the Federal government. Because this direct final detailed in the direct final rule. See 81
individual that asked which two rules DOE was rule had already been issued three months prior to
withdrawing to implement the direct final rule. See the Executive Order’s signing, this rule falls outside
FR 75194, 75196 (Oct. 28, 2016). See
Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0043–0127. This of its scope. This document serves solely to confirm also id. at 75209 (explaining the basis
comment appears to refer to a recent Executive the direct final rule’s applicable compliance date. for the specific classes adopted by DOE).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 May 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM 26MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 101 / Friday, May 26, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 24217

While DOE acknowledges that non- compared the direct final rule standard levels and compliance period
compressor products differ from vapor- level equation for coolers to the recommended by the MREF Working
compression refrigeration products, equation previously established by the Group, DOE analyzed a 3-year
DOE was unable to determine any basis California Energy Commission (‘‘CEC’’) compliance period for these TSLs only.
on which separate product classes for for coolers sold in California, and DOE’s analysis for each TSL considered
non-compressor products would be concluded that the direct final rule the 30-year period following the
appropriate. Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q), standard is 50 percent more stringent standards compliance date, so TSLs
DOE may establish product classes for than the CEC regulation. It further stated based on the Working Group
groups of products that either: (1) that the direct final rule standards recommendation considered the
Consume a different kind of energy from would reduce the number of MREFs in analysis period from 2019 to 2048,
that consumed by other covered the market. while the analysis period for the other
products; or (2) have a capacity or other DOE notes that the standards TSLs was 2021 to 2050. In its analysis,
performance-related feature which other specified in the direct final rule and DOE discounted future impacts to the
covered products do not have, and such those in the CEC regulations are not year of the analysis, which allowed for
feature justifies a higher or lower directly comparable because they are a direct comparison of the projected
standard from that which applies to based on energy consumption measured impacts for each TSL despite the
other covered products. Non- by different test procedures. Most different compliance years and 30-year
compressor products consume electric significantly, the DOE test procedure in analysis periods. See chapter 10 of the
energy input, as do vapor-compression Appendix A applies a correction factor direct final rule technical support
products. DOE is also not aware of any of 0.55 to the measured energy document for a description of the
performance-related feature associated consumption of coolers to account for national impact analysis. Therefore,
with non-compressor products that typical household usage. The test DOE has determined that its
vapor-compression products do not also procedure used for the CEC regulations conclusions are valid and provide
offer. Accordingly, DOE maintains its applies a usage factor of 0.85. sufficient support for the efficiency
determination in the direct final rule Accounting for this difference alone, the levels adopted in the direct final rule.
that separate product classes for non- DOE standard level from the direct final
rule is equivalent to approximately 70 4. Product Lifetimes
compressor products are not
appropriate. percent of the maximum allowable The interested party also requested
energy use in the CEC regulations. DOE clarification regarding the lifetimes of
2. Cooler Standard observed that many coolers already products assumed in the national
The interested party also argued that achieve this efficiency level, including a impact analysis. It commented that a 30-
the test methods for built-in and non-compressor cooler tested by a third year product lifetime would be too long,
freestanding products should be party in support of DOE’s analysis, and and suggested that DOE use a lifetime of
different, with built-in products tested that manufacturer recommendations approximately 12 years for products
in an enclosure leading to higher energy from the Working Group supported a such as wine coolers.
consumption, and therefore a single cooler standard at this level. Therefore, In the direct final rule analysis, DOE
maximum allowable AEU is not DOE concludes that the cooler standard did not assume a 30-year product
appropriate for both freestanding and is not too stringent and not likely to lifetime; rather, it analyzed products
built-in cooler product classes. limit consumer purchasing options. sold over a 30-year period with a
The MREF test procedures in 10 CFR distribution of lifetimes. For full-size
part 430, subpart B, Appendix A 3. Analysis Periods products (both coolers and combination
(‘‘Appendix A’’) require that both The interested party commented that cooler refrigeration products), DOE
freestanding and built-in products be for coolers at TSL 2, DOE forecasted estimated a 17.4-year average lifetime,
tested in a freestanding configuration. results over the lifetime of products consistent with the average lifetime for
Accordingly, Appendix A does not from 2019 to 2048, while the other TSLs full-size refrigerators and freezers. For
specifically lead to higher energy considered the period from 2021 to compact products, DOE estimated a
consumption for built-in products 2050. Similarly, it noted that for 10.3-year average lifetime based on
compared to freestanding products. combination cooler refrigeration manufacturer input. See 81 FR at 75219
Further, the standard levels specified in products, DOE analyzed TSL 1 results and chapter 8, section 8.2.2.5 of the
the direct final rule are consistent with over the lifetime of products from 2019 direct final rule technical support
those recommended by the MREF to 2048, and all other TSLs over the document. DOE maintains that these
Working Group. The Working Group period from 2021 to 2050. The lifetime estimates are appropriate
included multiple manufacturers, commenter noted that due to the because they were supported by
including manufacturers of built-in different analysis periods used by DOE, manufacturer feedback in the MREF
products, who determined that the same the economic analysis and data Working Group.
maximum AEU was appropriate for both comparing the different TSLs are unjust
built-in and freestanding coolers. and unequal, leading to inaccurate III. Department of Justice Analysis of
Therefore, DOE has determined that the economic analysis conclusions. Competitive Impacts
single maximum allowable AEU is In the direct final rule, DOE analyzed EPCA directs DOE to consider any
appropriate for both freestanding and TSLs other than TSL 2 for coolers and lessening of competition that is likely to
built-in coolers. Should DOE receive TSL 1 for combination cooler result from new or amended standards.
information in the future demonstrating refrigeration products based on the 5- It also directs the Attorney General of
mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES

that the test procedure requires year compliance period typically the United States (‘‘Attorney General’’)
modification to better address built-in provided when DOE establishes the first to determine the impact, if any, of any
products, DOE may revisit the test energy conservation standards for newly lessening of competition likely to result
procedure at that time. covered products. However, because from a proposed standard and to
The interested party also commented TSL 2 for coolers and TSL 1 for transmit such determination to the
that the cooler standard outlined in the combination cooler refrigeration Secretary within 60 days of the
direct final rule is too stringent. It products were based on the standard publication of a proposed rule, together

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:49 May 25, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM 26MYR1
Document Created: 2017-05-26 02:24:38
Document Modified: 2017-05-26 02:24:38
Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Rules and Regulations
Action		Confirmation of effective date and compliance date for direct final rule.
Dates		The direct final rule for miscellaneous refrigeration products published on October 28, 2016 (81 FR 75194) became effective on February 27, 2017. Compliance with the new standards in the direct final rule will be required on October 28, 2019, as set forth in Table II.1 and Table II.2 in section II of the Supplementary Information section of this document.
Contact		Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. Email: [email protected]
FR Citation		82 FR 24214
RIN Number		1904-AC51