[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 134 (Friday, July 16, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37708-37719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14977]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007]
RIN 1904-AD82


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment; Early Assessment Review; 
Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'' or ``the Department'') 
is undertaking an early assessment review for amended energy 
conservation standards for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 
refrigerator-freezers (``CRE'') to determine whether to amend 
applicable energy conservation standards for this equipment. 
Specifically, through this request for information (``RFI''), DOE seeks 
data and information to evaluate whether amended energy conservation 
standards would result in significant savings of energy; be 
technologically feasible; and be economically justified. DOE welcomes 
written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of 
this document (including those topics not specifically raised in this 
RFI), as well as the submission of data and other relevant information 
concerning this early assessment review.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be 
accepted on or before August 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested 
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number [EERE-2017-BT-
STD-0007], by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: to [email protected]. Include docket number 
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007] in the subject line of the message.
    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section III of this document.
    Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions 
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal

[[Page 37709]]

mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary 
to make temporary modifications to the comment submission process in 
light of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. DOE is currently suspending 
receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. 
If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please 
contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss 
the need for alternative arrangements. Once the Covid-19 pandemic 
health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its 
regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail 
and hand delivery/courier.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents 
in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    The docket web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit 
comments through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1943. Email: 
[email protected].
    Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other 
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information
    A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes
    1. Equipment Classes
    2. Potential New Equipment Categories
    B. Significant Savings of Energy
    1. Shipments
    2. National Energy Savings
    C. Technological Feasibility
    1. Technology Options
    2. Screening Analysis
    3. Engineering Efficiency Analysis
    D. Economic Justification
    1. Engineering Cost Analysis
    2. Markups Analysis & Distribution Channels
    3. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    4. Net Present Value
    5. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
III. Submission of Comments

I. Introduction

    DOE has established an early assessment review process to conduct a 
more focused analysis to evaluate, based on statutory criteria, whether 
a new or amended energy conservation standard is warranted. Based on 
the information received in response to the RFI and DOE's own analysis, 
DOE will determine whether to proceed with a rulemaking for a new or 
amended energy conservation standard. If DOE makes an initial 
determination that a new or amended energy conservation standard would 
satisfy the applicable statutory criteria or DOE's analysis is 
inconclusive, DOE would undertake the preliminary stages of a 
rulemaking to issue a new or amended energy conservation standard. If 
DOE makes an initial determination based upon available evidence that a 
new or amended energy conservation standard would not meet the 
applicable statutory criteria, DOE would engage in notice and comment 
rulemaking before issuing a final determination that new or amended 
energy conservation standards are not warranted.

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\ 
among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 
95-619, Title IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial 
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve 
energy efficiency. This equipment includes CRE, the subject of this 
document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(E))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020).
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially 
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy 
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 
6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the 
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 
U.S.C. 6316).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or 
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set 
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (e) (applying the preemption waiver 
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297)).
    EPCA prescribes energy conservation standards for CRE and directs 
DOE to conduct rulemakings to establish new and amended standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)-(6)) DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for 
prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment. EPCA 
requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard 
prescribed by the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') be designed to 
achieve the maximum improvement in energy or water efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) The Secretary may not prescribe an 
amended or new standard that will not result in significant 
conservation of energy, or is not technologically feasible or 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
    EPCA also requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance 
of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE evaluate the 
energy conservation standards for each type of covered equipment, 
including those at issue here, and publish either a notification of 
determination that the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR 
that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to 
a final rule, as

[[Page 37710]]

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
    DOE is issuing this RFI to collect data and information to inform 
its decision of whether to propose amended energy conservation 
standards consistent with its obligations under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(c)(6)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m))

B. Rulemaking History

    Pursuant to EPCA, DOE published a final rule establishing amended 
standards for CRE on March 28, 2014 (the ``March 2014 Final Rule''), 
for which compliance was required as of March 27, 2017. 79 FR 17725. 
The current energy conservation standards consist of maximum daily 
energy consumption (``MDEC'') values as a function of either 
refrigerated volume or total display area (``TDA'') and are located in 
title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, subpart 
C.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The currently applicable DOE test procedures for CRE appear 
at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Request for Information

    DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information during 
the early assessment review to inform its decision, consistent with its 
obligations under EPCA, as to whether the Department should proceed 
with an energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE has identified 
certain topics for which information and data are requested to assist 
in the evaluation of the potential for amended energy conservation 
standards. DOE also welcomes comments on other issues relevant to its 
early assessment that may not specifically be identified in this 
document. Specifically, for any future rulemaking to consider amended 
energy conservation standards, DOE would likely follow an analysis 
approach consistent with that used in the March 2014 Final Rule.\4\ DOE 
welcomes comment on the applicability of that analysis approach in 
addition to the specific issues discussed in the following sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The analysis conducted in support of developing the March 
2014 Final Rule is available in the Technical Support Document 
(``TSD'') available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003-0102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment Classes

1. Equipment Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
may divide equipment into equipment classes by the type of energy used, 
or by capacity or other performance-related features that justify a 
different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making 
a determination whether capacity or another performance-related feature 
justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the 
utility to the consumer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems 
appropriate. Id.
    For CRE, the current energy conservation standards in 10 CFR 431.66 
are based on 49 equipment classes, which are determined according to 
the following performance-related features that provide utility to the 
consumer: Operating temperature (refrigerator, freezer, or ice cream 
freezer), presence of doors (open or closed), door type (solid or 
transparent), condensing unit type (remote or self-contained), 
configuration (horizontal, vertical, semi-vertical, or service over 
counter), and temperature pull-down capability.
    Issue 1: DOE requests feedback on the current CRE equipment classes 
and whether changes to these individual equipment classes and their 
descriptions should be made or whether certain classes should be merged 
or separated. DOE also requests comment on whether any other new 
equipment classes are appropriate.
    DOE has also identified certain specific topics regarding equipment 
classes and definitions on which it requests comment, as discussed in 
the following sections.
a. Door Angle
    DOE differentiates equipment classes, in part, based on whether the 
door angle is horizontal or vertical. 10 CFR 431.66(e)(1). Door angle 
refers to: (1) For equipment with flat doors, the angle between a 
vertical line and the line formed by the plane of the door, when the 
equipment is viewed in cross-section; and (2) for equipment with curved 
doors, the angle formed between a vertical line and the straight line 
drawn by connecting the top and bottom points where the display area 
glass joins the cabinet, when the equipment is viewed in cross-section. 
10 CFR 431.62. DOE defines ``horizontal closed'' as equipment with 
hinged or sliding doors and a door angle greater than or equal to 45 
degrees. Id. ``Vertical closed'' refers to equipment with hinged or 
sliding doors and a door angle less than 45 degrees. Id.
    DOE has identified CRE models with solid doors that do not create a 
flat plane. For example, a refrigerated case may have one door on the 
front vertical surface and another on the top horizontal surface, with 
the doors connecting at the top front corner of the case (i.e., when 
both doors are open, the front and top of the case have a continuous 
opening similar to semi-vertical open equipment). In this example, the 
doors do not create a flat plane, as referenced in part 1 of the door 
angle definition, and the doors are not curved and do not include 
display glass as referenced in part 2 of the door angle definition.
    Issue 2: DOE requests comment on whether it should amend the door 
angle definition to address CRE models with doors on multiple faces of 
the equipment or CRE with curved solid doors. DOE also requests comment 
on the appropriate equipment class for such equipment, including how 
manufacturers are currently treating such equipment.
b. Open Equipment With Doors
    Equipment classes are also differentiated based on whether the 
equipment is ``open'' (i.e., does not have doors) and the orientation 
of the air curtain (horizontal open, semi-vertical open, and vertical 
open). 10 CFR 431.66(e)(1). DOE has identified CRE models that meet the 
open equipment class definitions, except that they also have doors that 
provide an alternate method of access to the refrigerated space. Based 
on a review of this equipment, the open portion of the equipment is 
intended for customer access to the refrigerated space. The doors are 
typically located at the back of the equipment and provide an alternate 
or secondary method of access for loading product into the case. The 
doors are not accessible to customers during normal operation and may 
have a means for locking.
    Issue 3: DOE requests comment on whether the open equipment 
definitions in 10 CFR 431.62 should be revised to clarify treatment of 
open equipment with doors providing an alternate or secondary method of 
access to the refrigerated space. DOE also seeks information on how 
manufacturers are currently treating such equipment.
c. Equipment With Pass-Through Doors
    CRE with pass-through doors are typically closed cases with doors 
on both the front and rear sides of the refrigerated case. The current 
DOE CRE test procedure incorporates by reference the American Society 
of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'') 
Standard 72-2005 (``ASHRAE 72-2005''), ``Method of Testing Commercial 
Refrigerators and Freezers''. Section 7.2 of ASHRAE 72-2005 specifies 
that for ``units with pass-through doors, only the doors on one side of 
the unit shall be opened during

[[Page 37711]]

the test''. Although equipment with pass-through doors are subject to 
the door opening requirements of ASHRAE 72-2005 and would therefore 
have the same door opening sequences as non-pass-through CRE (i.e., 
only the door(s) on one side of the equipment would be opened), CRE 
with pass-through doors may have a different tested energy performance 
than comparable CRE without pass-through doors. The presence of 
multiple doors introduces additional potential heat leak pathways to 
the refrigerated cabinet, which could increase energy use. For example, 
pass-through doors require additional door gaskets, glass panels (for 
transparent equipment classes), and, in some cases, anti-sweat heaters.
    Issue 4: DOE requests comment and supporting data on whether pass-
through doors are a performance-related feature that justifies a 
different energy conservation standard than other similar CRE without 
pass-through doors. DOE seeks data and performance information 
regarding the performance impacts of pass-through door models compared 
to similar non-pass-through CRE.
2. Potential New Equipment Categories
    DOE is aware of certain equipment that meets the CRE definition at 
10 CFR 431.62, but for which there are no current DOE test procedures 
or energy conservation standards (in the case of refrigerated salad 
bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables; additional pull-down 
temperature applications; and chef bases or griddle stands) or for 
which new test procedures and equipment classes may be appropriate (in 
the case of high-temperature CRE and models with dedicated remote 
condensing units). In a separate RFI to consider amended test 
procedures for CRE, DOE requested feedback on appropriate definitions 
and test procedures for these potential new equipment categories. 86 FR 
31182 (``June 2021 Test Procedure RFI''). If DOE were to establish test 
procedures for these equipment categories, DOE requests information to 
determine how to organize this equipment into additional equipment 
classes, if necessary, when considering potential energy conservation 
standards.
    Issue 5: DOE requests comment on whether equipment capacity or any 
other performance-related features for these potential new equipment 
categories would justify a different energy conservation standard 
compared to other CRE currently subject to energy conservation 
standards or to other equipment within that same category. For example, 
refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables may 
require separate equipment classes for equipment with and without 
refrigerated storage compartments. DOE also requests comment on whether 
the equipment characteristics delineating the existing CRE equipment 
classes would similarly apply to these potential new equipment 
categories.

B. Significant Savings of Energy

    On March 28, 2014, DOE established an energy conservation standard 
for CRE that is expected to result in 2.89 quadrillion British thermal 
units (``quads'') of site energy savings over a 30-year period. 
Additionally, in the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE estimated that an 
energy conservation standard established at an energy use level 
equivalent to that achieved using the maximum available technology 
(``max-tech'') would have resulted in 4.21 additional quads of savings. 
79 FR 17726, 17806.
    While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following 
issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and 
data on the following topics to inform whether potential amended energy 
conservation standards would result in a significant savings of energy.
1. Shipments
    For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE did not obtain shipments data 
from a single source, but used data from multiple sources to estimate 
shipments and cross-verify the data from one source to another. Those 
sources were 2005 shipments data provided by the Air-Conditioning, 
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') as part of its comments 
on the 2006 rulemaking Framework document; \5\ a CRE market report by 
Freedonia Group, Inc.; \6\ a 2008 and a 2012 market report by the North 
American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers; 7 8 a 
2009 DOE report prepared by Navigant Consulting on CRE; \9\ CRE 
shipments from ENERGY STAR; \10\ and CRE saturation estimates 
calculated from the Energy Information Administration (``EIA'') 
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (``CBECS'') for 1999 
\11\ and 2003.\12\ Based on these data sources, DOE developed an 
allocation of shipments for the 25 equipment classes (``primary 
equipment classes'') that were analyzed from a total of 49 overall in 
the March 2014 Final Rule. In addition, considering commercial 
floorspace projections and CRE market saturations, DOE developed an 
estimate of CRE shipments projections. Table II.1 shows the allocation 
of CRE for the 25 primary equipment classes, expressed in linear feet 
of shipped units \13\ and Table II.2 shows total CRE shipments between 
2014 and 2020, as projected in the March 2014 Final Rule. See chapter 9 
of the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details on the development of 
shipments estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Docket No. EERE-2006-STD-0126, ARI, No. 7, Exhibit B at p. 
1.
    \6\ Freedonia Group, Inc. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment to 
2014. 2010. Cleveland, OH. Study 2261. https://www.freedoniagroup.com/Commercial-Refrigeration-Equipment.html.
    \7\ North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers. 
2008 Size and Shape of Industry. 2008. Chicago, IL.
    \8\ North American Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers. 
2012 Size and Shape of Industry. 2012. Chicago, IL.
    \9\ Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings Potential and R&D 
Opportunities for Commercial Refrigeration. 2009. Prepared by 
Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy, 
Washington, DC.
    \10\ Energy Star. Unit Shipment and Sales Data Archives. 
Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=partners.unit_shipment_data_archives.
    \11\ Available at https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/1999/.
    \12\ Available at https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/.
    \13\ Historical linear feet of shipped units is the figure used 
by industry to depict the annual amount of CRE capacity shipped, and 
is an alternative way to express shipments data.

  Table II.1--Percent of Shipped Linear Feet for CRE by Equipment Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Equipment class           Percent    Equipment class    Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOP.RC.M.....................         10.3  SVO.SC.M.......          1.1
VOP.RC.L.....................          0.5  SOC.RC.M.......          2.1
VOP.SC.M.....................          1.3  SOC.SC.M.......          0.2
VCT.RC.M.....................          0.8  HZO.RC.M.......          1.3
VCT.RC.L.....................         10.7  HZO.RC.L.......          4.0
VCT.SC.M.....................          4.8  HZO.SC.M.......          0.1
VCT.SC.L.....................          0.2  HZO.SC.L.......          0.2

[[Page 37712]]

 
VCT.SC.I.....................          0.3  HCT.SC.M.......          0.1
VCS.SC.M.....................         25.4  HCT.SC.L.......          0.4
VCS.SC.L.....................         15.0  HCT.SC.I.......          0.4
VCS.SC.I.....................          0.1  HCS.SC.M.......          4.4
SVO.RC.M.....................          8.2  HCS.SC.L.......          0.6
PD.SC.M......................          7.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOP = Vertical Open
SVO = Semi-Vertical Open
HZO = Horizontal Open
VCT = Vertical Closed Transparent
HCT = Horizontal Closed Transparent
SOC = Service Over Counter
PD = Pull-Down
HCS = Horizontal Closed Solid
VCS = Vertical Closed Solid
RC = Remote Condensing
SC = Self Contained
M = Medium Temperature
L = Low Temperature
I = Ice Cream Temperature


                                               Table II.2--Total Estimated CRE Shipments From 2014 to 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Year                                  2014         2015         2016         2017         2018         2019         2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Shipments (million units)..........................         1.01         1.03         1.06         1.11         1.16         1.21         1.26
Estimated Shipments (million linear ft.).....................         6.14         6.24         6.45         6.72         7.00         7.30         7.60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 6: DOE requests annual sales data (in units shipped or linear 
feet of shipped units) of CRE from 2014 to 2020, disaggregated by 
equipment class. DOE also seeks feedback on how the breakdowns by 
equipment class presented in Table II.1 of this document and the annual 
shipments estimates shown in Table II.2 of this document compare to the 
actual shipments in those years. If disaggregated shipments data are 
not available at the equipment class level, DOE requests shipments data 
at any broader available category.
    Issue 7: DOE also seeks historical and current shipments data on 
any additional CRE categories under consideration for potential 
standards (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 
preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down temperature 
applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and 
CRE with dedicated remote condensing units).
2. National Energy Savings
    The purpose of the national impact analysis (``NIA'') is to 
estimate aggregate impacts of potential new and/or amended efficiency 
standards at the national level in terms of national energy savings 
(``NES'') and net present value (``NPV'', discussed in section II.D.4 
of this document) of the total consumer benefits. The NIA considers 
lifetime impacts of potential standards on equipment shipped in a 30-
year period that begins with the expected compliance date for new and/
or amended standards.
    DOE measures savings of potential standards relative to a ``no-new-
standards'' case that reflects conditions without new and/or amended 
standards, and uses current efficiency market shares to characterize 
the no-new-standards case equipment efficiency distribution. By 
accounting for consumers who already purchase more efficient CRE, DOE 
avoids overstating the potential benefits from potential standards. In 
the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE developed efficiency trends for CRE in 
the no-new-standards case and the standards cases assuming that the 
market would move over time to adopt ENERGY STAR rated equipment. To 
estimate the impact that energy efficiency standards would have in the 
year compliance becomes required, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario. A 
roll-up scenario assumes that equipment efficiencies in the no-new-
standards case, which do not meet the standard level under 
consideration, would ``roll up'' to meet the new efficiency standard 
level. Equipment shipments at efficiencies above the efficiency 
standard level under consideration are not affected. See chapter 10 of 
the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details on this approach.
    Issue 8: DOE seeks input on whether any market or technology 
changes would warrant a different approach to develop CRE efficiency 
trends than the one followed in the March 2014 Final Rule. DOE requests 
any relevant data that could be used to project efficiency trends for 
CRE.

C. Technological Feasibility

1. Technology Options
    During the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE considered a number of 
technology options that manufacturers could use to reduce energy 
consumption in CRE. Table II.3 includes a complete list of those 
technology options considered in developing the March 2014 Final Rule.

                            Table II.3--Technology Options for CRE Considered in the Development of the March 2014 Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Technology option category                                                       Technology option
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lighting.................................  Higher efficiency lighting (e.g., Light Emitting Diodes [LEDs]).
                                           Higher efficiency lighting ballasts.
                                           Remote lighting ballast location.

[[Page 37713]]

 
                                           Lighting occupancy sensors.
Heat Exchangers..........................  Improved evaporator coil design.
                                           Improved condenser coil design (self-contained equipment only).
                                           Low-pressure differential evaporators.
                                           Liquid suction heat exchangers.
Fans.....................................  Higher efficiency fan motors (e.g., Electronically Commutated Motors (``ECM'')).
                                           Variable-speed fan motors with controls.
                                           Higher efficiency fan blades.
Defrost..................................  Hot-gas defrost.
                                           Defrost cycle controls.
Insulation...............................  Increased insulation thickness.
                                           Vacuum insulated panels.
Expansion Valves.........................  Higher efficiency expansion valves.
Doors....................................  Improved gaskets.
                                           Inert gas fill.
                                           Low-emissivity coating.
                                           Additional glass panes.
                                           Anti-fog films.
                                           Anti-sweat heater controls.
Other Technologies.......................  Night Curtains.
Compressors..............................  Higher efficiency compressors (for self-contained equipment only).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 9: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table 
II.3 of this document, including their applicability to the current 
market and how these technologies may impact the energy use of CRE as 
measured according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks 
information on how these technologies may have changed since they were 
considered in the March 2014 Final Rule analysis. Specifically, DOE 
seeks information on the range of efficiencies or performance 
characteristics that are currently available for each technology 
option.
    Issue 10: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table 
II.3 of this document regarding their market adoption, costs, and any 
concerns with incorporating them into products (e.g., impacts on 
consumer utility, potential safety concerns, manufacturing/production/
implementation issues, etc.), particularly as to changes that may have 
occurred since the March 2014 Final Rule.
    Issue 11: DOE seeks comment on any other technology options that it 
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies 
may impact equipment features or user utility.
    In a final rule published on December 20, 2011, EPA listed propane 
(R-290) as acceptable for use in self-contained CRE, subject to a 
charge limit of 150 grams and other appropriate safety measures to 
address the flammability risk. 76 FR 78832. In an April 10, 2015 final 
rule, EPA additionally listed isobutane (R-600a) and the hydrocarbon 
blend R-441A as acceptable for use in self-contained CRE, also subject 
to a 150-gram charge limit and other safety measures to address 
flammability. 80 FR 19454.
    A review of the market indicates that manufacturers of self-
contained CRE have begun transitioning to hydrocarbon refrigerants, 
which have different thermo-physical properties than traditionally-used 
refrigerants. In considering how manufacturers would improve 
efficiencies for CRE, DOE is interested in how equipment energy 
consumption is affected by the ongoing transition to alternative 
refrigerants.
    Issue 12: DOE requests comment on which refrigerant(s) DOE should 
consider as potential technology options for improving CRE 
efficiencies. DOE additionally requests comment and supporting data on 
the energy consumption impact of this transition to alternative 
refrigerants. DOE also seeks information on the availability of such 
alternative refrigerants and their applicability and/or penetration in 
the current market. Specifically, DOE requests information on whether 
charge limits or safety standards (e.g., standards issued by 
Underwriter's Laboratory) would restrict their use. DOE also requests 
comment on any additional design changes or safety measures that may be 
required for CRE to incorporate alternative refrigerants.
    Issue 13: DOE similarly requests comment on the likely alternative 
refrigerant(s) for use with remote condensing CRE. DOE specifically 
requests supporting data on how such a transition would impact the 
energy consumption of remote condensing CRE as measured under the DOE 
test procedure and on any additional design changes or safety measures 
that may be required for some alternative refrigerants.
    CRE manufacturers may similarly be transitioning from traditional 
foam blowing agents to alternatives, which may affect the physical 
properties of the foam itself, namely its ability to resist heat 
transfer (i.e., the R-value). These differences in the R-value of 
insulation foam in turn affect the energy performance of CRE by 
influencing case heat load.
    Issue 14: DOE requests comment and supporting data on the market 
penetration, costs, and thermal resistivities of insulation foams using 
traditional and alternative blowing agents. DOE additionally requests 
comment on any potential safety concerns, such as flammability, arising 
from alternative foam blowing agents. Finally, DOE requests comment and 
supporting data on any additional design changes or safety measures 
that may be required to incorporate alternative foam blowing agents in 
CRE.
    As discussed previously in this RFI, DOE may consider energy 
conservation standards for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 
preparation tables; additional pull-down temperature applications; chef 
bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE with dedicated 
remote condensing units. The features and operation of these types of 
equipment may introduce additional technology options not previously 
considered.
    Issue 15: DOE requests comment on any technology options not 
previously

[[Page 37714]]

considered for CRE, including technology options that could be used to 
improve the energy efficiency of refrigerated salad bars, buffet 
tables, and preparation tables; additional pull-down temperature 
applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and 
CRE with dedicated remote condensing units. DOE also seeks information 
on how technology options may have unique efficiency impacts on these 
equipment categories. For example, there may be greater energy savings 
potential associated with variable-speed compressors and fan motors in 
pull-down temperature applications and chef bases or griddle stands 
compared to the other existing CRE equipment classes.
2. Screening Analysis
    The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the 
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which 
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which 
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration. 
DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from 
further consideration based on the following criteria: Technological 
feasibility; practicability to manufacture, install, and service; 
adverse impacts on product utility or product availability; adverse 
impacts on health or safety; and unique-pathway proprietary 
technologies. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3).
    Table II.4 summarizes the technology options that DOE screened out 
in the March 2014 Final Rule, and the applicable screening criteria.

                                  Table II.4--Previously Screened Out Technology Options From the March 2014 Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       EPCA criteria (X = basis for screening out)
                                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                  Does not reduce energy
   Screened technology option         Technological          Practicability to       Adverse impact on      Adverse impacts on     consumption measured
                                       feasibility         manufacture, install,      product utility        health and safety        by the DOE test
                                                                and service                                                              procedure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Higher Efficiency Expansion      .......................  ......................  ......................  ......................  X
 Valves.
Variable Speed Condenser Fans    .......................  ......................  ......................  ......................  X
 and Condenser Fan Motor
 Controllers.
Anti-Sweat Heater Controllers..  .......................  ......................  ......................  ......................  X
Liquid Suction Heat Exchangers.  .......................  X                       ......................  ......................  X
Air Curtain Design.............  .......................  X                       ......................  ......................  ......................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the 
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the 
technology options listed in Table II.3 of this document with respect 
to CRE. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same 
criteria would affect any other technology options not already 
identified in this document with respect to their potential use in CRE.
    Issue 17: With respect to the screened out technology options 
listed in Table II.4 of this document, DOE seeks information on whether 
these options would, based on current and projected assessments 
regarding each of them, remain screened out under the screening 
criteria described in this section. With respect to each of these 
technology options, what steps, if any, could be (or have already been) 
taken to facilitate the introduction of each option as a means to 
improve the energy performance of CRE and the potential to impact 
consumer utility of the CRE.
3. Engineering Efficiency Analysis
    The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship 
of equipment at different levels of increased energy efficiency 
(``efficiency levels''). This relationship serves as the basis for the 
cost-benefit calculations for commercial consumers, manufacturers, and 
the Nation, as described further in section II.D of this document.
    As discussed, the current energy conservation standard for each CRE 
equipment class is based on MDEC in kWh/day determined according to an 
equation using the equipment's chilled volume (``V'') in cubic feet 
(``ft\3\''), or its TDA in square feet (``ft\2\''). The current 
standards for CRE are found at 10 CFR 431.62.
    Issue 18: DOE requests feedback on whether the current established 
energy conservation standards for CRE are appropriate baseline 
efficiency levels for the existing equipment classes. DOE further 
requests comment on whether the existing energy conservation standards 
are based on the appropriate normalization metric (i.e., TDA or volume) 
for the existing equipment classes.
    As mentioned in section II.A.2 of this RFI, DOE is evaluating 
whether to develop test procedures for refrigerated salad bars, buffet 
tables, and preparation buffet tables; solid-doored equipment for pull-
down applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; 
and CRE with dedicated remote condensing units. As no energy 
conservation standards currently exist for refrigerated salad bars, 
buffet tables, and preparation buffet tables, solid-doored equipment 
for pull-down applications, chef bases or griddle stands, and current 
energy conservation standards are not specific to high-temperature CRE 
and CRE with dedicated remote condensing units, DOE is interested in 
data that would allow the development of a baseline efficiency levels 
for these equipment categories (and any applicable equipment classes).
    Although existing CRE energy conservation standards are based on 
either the chilled volume or TDA for a CRE model, for these newly 
considered equipment categories, other parameters may be more 
appropriate as the basis for an equation representing how the maximum 
allowable daily energy consumption varies with equipment size and 
application. For example, for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, 
and preparation tables, pan volume or surface area (possibly in 
addition to the chilled volume of any refrigerated compartments that 
are not thermally separate from the pans) may be the appropriate 
capacity metric. Similarly, for solid-doored equipment for pull-down 
applications, product capacity may be the relevant metric.
    Issue 19: DOE requests comment on appropriate parameters to use as 
the basis for efficiency levels to represent potential energy 
conservation standards for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables,

[[Page 37715]]

and preparation tables. DOE similarly seeks information on appropriate 
parameters to use in developing efficiency levels for solid-door 
equipment for pull-down applications, chef bases or griddle stands, 
high-temperature CRE, and CRE with dedicated remote condensing units.
    Issue 20: DOE requests data describing the energy consumption, and 
storage and/or display capacity of refrigerated salad bars, buffet 
tables, and preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down 
applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and 
CRE with dedicated remote condensing units that could be used in 
assessing appropriate baseline efficiency levels based on the current 
market for this equipment. DOE requests information on the typical 
design options that would be expected to be incorporated into a 
baseline model for each equipment category.
    As part of DOE's analysis, DOE develops efficiency levels above the 
baseline as potential energy conservation standards to evaluate in the 
rulemaking analyses. Among these, DOE typically establishes efficiency 
levels at the maximum available and max-tech efficiencies. The maximum 
available efficiency level represents the highest efficiency units 
currently available on the market.
    DOE has performed a preliminary analysis of CRE models, found in 
the DOE's Compliance Certification (``CCMS'') Database,\14\ to assess 
the potential to improve efficiency relative to current (i.e., 
baseline) standard levels. DOE observed that models are currently 
available with daily energy consumptions significantly lower than the 
baseline at the currently allowable energy conservation standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Available at https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 21: DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available 
efficiency levels (i.e., the lowest available energy use levels) are 
appropriate and technologically feasible for consideration as possible 
energy conservation standards for CRE. DOE seeks information on the 
design options incorporated into these maximum-available models, and 
also on the order in which manufacturers incrementally incorporate each 
design option when improving efficiency from the baseline to the 
maximum-available efficiency level (i.e., which design options would be 
included at incremental efficiency levels between the baseline and 
maximum available). DOE also requests information on the design changes 
implemented to achieve efficiencies better than the max-tech considered 
in the March 2014 Final Rule analysis.
    Issue 22: DOE also seeks information on the maximum-available 
efficiencies for the CRE for which there are no specific DOE energy 
conservation standards, and for which DOE does not have manufacturer-
submitted efficiency information (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet 
tables, and preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down 
applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and 
CRE with dedicated remote condensing units), and on the test procedures 
used to determine any such efficiencies. DOE requests feedback on which 
design options are incorporated into the most efficient equipment 
available in these equipment categories.
    DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the 
theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available design options 
are incorporated in a model. In many cases, the max-tech efficiency 
level is not commercially available because it is not economically 
feasible. In the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE determined max-tech 
efficiency levels using energy modeling. The energy models were based 
on the use of all design options applicable to the specific equipment 
classes. While some of these equipment configurations had not likely 
been tested as prototypes, all of the individual design options had 
been incorporated in available equipment. See chapter 5 of the March 
2014 Final Rule TSD for details on this approach. In its review of the 
CCMS data, DOE identified basic models with certified daily energy 
consumptions lower than the max-tech efficiency levels considered in 
the March 2014 Final Rule analysis.
    Issue 23: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be 
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the efficiencies 
associated with those levels, for each equipment class. As part of this 
request, DOE also seeks information as to whether there are limitations 
on the use of certain combinations of design options. DOE is 
particularly interested in any design options that may have become 
available since the March 2014 Final Rule that would allow greater 
energy savings relative to the max-tech efficiency levels assessed for 
each equipment class in that rulemaking.
    Issue 24: Additionally, DOE requests comment on what design options 
should be considered for the max-tech efficiency levels for 
refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables; solid-
door equipment for pull-down applications; chef bases or griddle 
stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE with dedicated remote condensing 
units, as well as other potential equipment classes not currently 
subject to a standard.

D. Economic Justification

    In determining whether a proposed energy conservation standard is 
economically justified, DOE analyzes, among other things, the potential 
economic impact on consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE seeks 
comment on whether there are economic barriers to the adoption of more-
stringent energy conservation standards. DOE also seeks comment and 
data on any other aspects of its economic justification analysis from 
the March 2014 Final Rule that may indicate whether a more-stringent 
energy conservation standard would be economically justified or cost 
effective.
    While DOE's request for information is not limited to the following 
issues, DOE is particularly interested in comment, information, and 
data on the following.
1. Engineering Cost Analysis
    For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE developed cost-efficiency 
relationships by estimating the efficiency improvements and costs 
associated with incorporating specific design options into the assumed 
baseline model for each analyzed equipment class. See chapter 5 of the 
March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details on this approach. As a result of 
recent technological innovations, costs for several design options 
considered in the March 2014 Final Rule (e.g., LED lighting and ECMs 
for fans) are likely to have changed since they were previously 
assessed.
    Issue 25: DOE requests comment on the increase in manufacturer 
production cost associated with incorporating each particular design 
option from the baseline efficiency to max-tech. Specifically, DOE is 
interested in whether and how the costs estimated for design options in 
the March 2014 Final Rule have changed since the time of that analysis. 
DOE also requests information on the investments necessary to 
incorporate specific design options, including, but not limited to, 
costs related to new or modified tooling (if any), materials, 
engineering and development efforts to implement each design option, 
and manufacturing/production impacts.
    Issue 26: DOE requests comment and supporting data on the 
incremental manufacturer product costs associated with transitioning to 
alternative refrigerants, including costs associated with converting 
any refrigeration system components (e.g., compressors, heat

[[Page 37716]]

exchangers) and with any additional safety measures (e.g., labels, 
ventilation fans, or leak detection sensors) that may be required to 
address the flammability risks of some alternative refrigerants.
    DOE also seeks information on whether any updates to the approach 
used in the analysis supporting the March 2014 Final Rule would be 
appropriate based on the current CRE market. For example, customer 
demand for certain equipment configurations and sizes may have changed. 
For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE developed cost-efficiency curves for 
25 primary equipment classes based on units with typical sizes and 
configurations within those classes See chapter 5 and appendix 5A of 
the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details on the cost-efficiency 
analysis, including the primary equipment class analysis and 
representative model configurations.
    Issue 27: DOE seeks feedback on whether the 25 primary equipment 
classes and the corresponding representative unit configurations in the 
March 2014 Final Rule analysis are still appropriate for the current 
CRE market. If not, DOE requests information on whether representative 
equipment characteristics (e.g., volume, dimensions, operating 
parameters, and controls) have significantly changed since the March 
2014 Final Rule analysis.
2. Markups Analysis & Distribution Channels
    In generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost 
(``LCC'') and payback period (``PBP'') analysis and national impact 
analysis (``NIA''), DOE must identify distribution channels (i.e., how 
the equipment are distributed from the manufacturer to the consumer), 
and estimate relative sales volumes through each channel. By applying a 
multiplier called a ``markup'' to the manufacturer selling price, DOE 
estimates the commercial consumer's price.
    For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE defined three distribution 
channels for CRE and estimated their respective shares of shipments: 
(1) From manufacturers to consumers (national account channel); (2) 
from manufacturers to wholesalers to consumers (wholesaler channel); 
and (3) from manufacturers to wholesalers to mechanical contractors and 
then to consumers (contractor channel). Table II.5 shows the 
distribution channel market shares. See chapter 6 of the March 2014 
Final Rule TSD for details on this approach.

                                 Table II.5--Distribution Channels Market Shares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            National account     Wholesaler        Contractor
                      Equipment type                           channel (%)       channel (%)       channel (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Display Cases (VOP, SVO, HZO, VCT, HCT, SOC, and PD)......                70                15                15
Solid-Door Equipment (VCS and HCS)........................                30                60                10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 28: DOE seeks input on whether the distribution channels 
described, and the percentage of shipments in each channel, as shown in 
Table II.5 of this document, are still accurate for CRE. DOE also 
requests data and feedback on the magnitude and impact of online sales 
to the CRE distribution channels. More specifically, DOE seeks input on 
whether the markups for online sales are significantly different from 
CRE sold through conventional distribution channels.
    Issue 29: DOE requests similar data on the distribution channels 
and percentage of shipments in each channel for the other categories of 
CRE being considered in a potential energy conservation standards 
rulemaking (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 
preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down applications; 
chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE with 
dedicated remote condensing units).
3. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis to evaluate the economic 
effects of potential energy conservation standards for CRE on 
individual consumers. For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the 
PBP and the change in LCC relative to an estimated baseline level. The 
LCC is the total consumer expense over the life of the equipment, 
consisting of purchase, installation, and operating costs (expenses for 
energy use, maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the calculation of 
total installed cost include the cost of the equipment--which includes 
the manufacturer selling price, distribution channel markups, and sales 
taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating 
expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price 
projections, repair and maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, 
discount rates, and the year that compliance with new and amended 
standards is required.
a. Efficiency Distribution
    For the March 2014 Final Rule, due to lack of data on CRE market 
shares by efficiency level within each of the equipment classes, DOE 
developed the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution of CRE 
according to a cost-based method that used parameters and assumptions 
from the EIA's National Energy Modeling System (``NEMS'').\15\ DOE also 
used CRE market data from the ENERGY STAR program. See chapter 10 of 
the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 
Administration. Commercial Demand Module of the National Energy 
Modeling System: Model Documentation 2012 DOE/EIA-M066. 2012. 
Washington, DC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 30: DOE requests data regarding the current, historical, and 
future market shares of CRE by efficiency level (e.g., expressed in 
terms of increments of 10 percent reduction below the MDEC in kWh/day, 
as determined by the current standards, specified at 10 CFR 431.62) for 
each equipment class.
    Issue 31: DOE also seeks data on the current, historical, and 
future efficiency distribution of any additional categories of CRE 
under consideration broken out by efficiency for potential standards 
(i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation tables; 
solid-door equipment for pull-down applications; chef bases or griddle 
stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE with dedicated remote condensing 
units).
b. Installation Costs
    For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE estimated different installation 
costs for remote condensing and self-contained CRE but assumed that 
installation costs do not vary with efficiency levels in any equipment 
class. Therefore, installation costs did not impact the LCC or PBP 
analysis. See chapter 8 of the March 2014 Final Rule TSD.
    Issue 32: DOE requests comment on whether any market or technology

[[Page 37717]]

changes since the March 2014 Final Rule would indicate that 
installation costs vary by efficiency level, and, if so, what the 
factors and technologies affecting installation costs are, and how 
costs vary as CRE efficiency increases, for each equipment class.
    Issue 33: DOE also requests comment and data on installation costs 
for any additional categories of CRE under consideration for potential 
standards (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 
preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down applications; 
chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE with 
dedicated remote condensing units).
c. Repair and Maintenance Costs
    Maintenance costs are associated with maintaining equipment's 
operation, whereas repair costs are associated with repairing or 
replacing components that have failed in a refrigeration system and 
envelope (i.e., panels and doors). In the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE 
estimated maintenance and repair costs as annualized values applied 
over the life of the considered equipment. For maintenance costs, DOE 
considered lamp replacements and other lighting maintenance activities 
as required maintenance for CRE, with varying costs by efficiency 
level. For repair costs, DOE considered costs for component failures 
(i.e., evaporator fans, condenser fans, compressors, coils, doors) 
during the lifetime of CRE, which varied by efficiency level. 79 FR 
17726, 17766; see chapter 8 of the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for 
details on this approach.
    Issue 34: DOE seeks comment and data on whether it should estimate 
maintenance and repair costs for CRE based on the March 2014 Final Rule 
approach in a potential future rulemaking for CRE, considering any 
additional technology options discussed in this RFI, and any market and 
technology changes since the March 2014 Final Rule. In particular, DOE 
is interested in data on the maintenance and repair costs of CRE with 
alternative refrigerants, and how those vary, if at all, compared to 
CRE with traditionally used refrigerants.
    Issue 35: DOE also requests comment and data on maintenance and 
repair costs for any additional categories of CRE under consideration 
for potential standards (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, 
and preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down 
applications; chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and 
CRE with dedicated remote condensing units).
d. Equipment Lifetimes
    The equipment lifetime is the age at which the equipment is retired 
from service. In the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE based its estimates of 
CRE lifetime on discussions with industry experts and assumed a 10-year 
average lifetime for most CRE in large grocery/multi-line stores and 
restaurants. For small food retail stores and other small businesses, 
DOE used a 15-year average lifetime to account for longer consumer 
usage of CRE. DOE reflects the uncertainty of equipment lifetimes in 
the LCC analysis for both equipment markets by using probability 
distributions. 79 FR 17726, 17766; see chapter 8 of the March 2014 
Final Rule TSD for details on this approach.
    Issue 36: DOE requests comment and data on whether any market and 
technology changes since the March 2014 Final Rule would affect its 
equipment lifetime estimates for CRE for which DOE currently has 
standards, and if so, how.
    Issue 37: DOE also requests comment and data on lifetimes of any 
additional categories of CRE under consideration for potential 
standards (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 
preparation tables; solid-door equipment for pull-down applications; 
chef bases or griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE with 
dedicated remote condensing units).
4. Net Present Value
    To develop the national NPV from potential standards, DOE 
calculates annual energy expenditures and annual equipment expenditures 
for the no-new-standards case and the standards case. The discounted 
difference between energy bill savings and increased equipment 
expenditures in each year is the NPV.
    In the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE developed an equipment price 
trend for CRE, based on the inflation-adjusted index of the producer 
price index (``PPI'') for air conditioning, refrigeration, and forced 
air heating from 1978 to 2012,\16\ which showed a slight downward 
trend. DOE projected a future trend in the analysis period by 
extrapolating the historic trend using linear regression. Were DOE to 
conduct a rulemaking, DOE may consider incorporating price trends for 
certain design options that may experience price declines during the 
analysis period (e.g., LED lighting and ECM fan motors).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Index Industry 
Data, Series: PCU3334153334153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 38: DOE requests comment on its approach for projecting a 
long-term price trend for CRE, as well as on the merits of 
incorporating price trends for certain design options that may 
experience price declines during the expected 30-year analysis period, 
following potential future energy conservation standards for CRE.
5. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to 
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards 
on manufacturers of CRE, and to evaluate the potential impact of such 
standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. As part of 
the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended energy conservation 
standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered equipment, including 
small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small Business 
Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to determine 
whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are listed by 
the North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'').\17\ 
Manufacturing of CRE is classified under NAICS 333415, ``Air-
conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and 
industrial refrigeration equipment manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a 
threshold of 1,250 employees or less for a domestic entity to be 
considered as a small business. This employee threshold includes all 
employees in a business' parent company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Available online at: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. In addition to energy 
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the 
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon 
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than 
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of 
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
appliance efficiency.
    Issue 39: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact 
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that 
distribute CRE in the United States.
    Issue 40: DOE requests the names and contact information of small 
business

[[Page 37718]]

CRE manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's size threshold that 
distribute equipment in the United States. In addition, DOE requests 
comment on any other manufacturer subgroups that could 
disproportionally be impacted by amended energy conservation standards. 
DOE requests feedback on any potential approaches that could be 
considered to address impacts on manufacturers, including small 
businesses.
    Issue 41: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative 
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of CRE associated with (1) 
other DOE standards applying to different products or equipment that 
these manufacturers may also make, and (2) equipment-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment 
on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory burden and 
whether there are any flexibilities it can consider that would reduce 
this burden while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.

III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date 
under the DATES heading, comments and information on matters addressed 
in this notification and on other matters relevant to DOE's early 
assessment of whether more-stringent energy conservation standards are 
not warranted for CRE.
    Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will 
see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence 
containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to https://www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through 
https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through https://www.regulations.gov 
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of 
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being 
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to 
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your 
comment.
    Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via 
email also will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not 
want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not 
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, 
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first 
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing 
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it 
does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. Faxes will not be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English, and free of any defects or 
viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these 
documents via email. DOE will make its own determination about the 
confidential status of the information and treat it according to its 
determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing test procedures and energy conservation 
standards. DOE actively encourages the participation and interaction of 
the public during the comment period in each stage of this process. 
Interactions with and between members of the public provide a balanced 
discussion of the issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who 
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices 
and information about this process should contact Appliance and 
Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at 
[email protected].

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 9, 
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. 
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by 
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with 
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE 
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit 
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official 
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no 
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.


[[Page 37719]]


    Signed in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-14977 Filed 7-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P