[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 101 (Friday, May 26, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24214-24218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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