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.

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 walk-in coolers and freezers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(G))

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(a); 42 U.S.C. 6299).

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) (applying the preemption waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297).

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 efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 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 specifies standards for walk-ins. First, all walk-in doors narrower than 3 feet 9 inches and shorter than 7 feet must have automatic door closers that firmly close all walk-in doors that have been closed to within 1 inch of full closure, and must also have strip doors, spring hinged doors, or other methods of minimizing infiltration when doors are open. Additionally, walk-ins must contain wall, ceiling, and door insulation of at least R-25 for coolers and R-32 for freezers, excluding glazed portions of doors and structural members, and floor insulation of at least R-28 for freezers. Walk-in evaporator fan motors of under 1 horsepower (“hp”) and less than 460 volts must be electronically commutated motors (brushless direct current motors) or three-phase motors, and walk-in condenser fan motors of under 1 horsepower must use permanent split capacitor motors, electronically commutated motors, or three-phase motors. Interior light sources must have an efficacy of 40 lumens per watt or more, including any ballast losses; less-efficacious lights may only be used in conjunction with a timer or device that turns off the lights within 15 minutes of when the walk-in is unoccupied. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(1).

Second, walk-ins have requirements related to electronically commutated motors used in them. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)). Specifically, in those walk-ins that use an evaporator fan motor with a rating of under 1 hp and less than 460 volts, that motor must be either a three-phase motor or an electronically commutated motor. 3 (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(2)(A))

Third, EPCA requires that walk-in freezers with transparent reach-in doors must have triple-pane glass with either heat-reflective treated glass or gas fill for doors and windows. Transparent walk-in cooler doors must have either double-pane glass with heat-reflective treated glass and gas fill or triple-pane glass with heat-reflective treated glass or gas fill. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)(A)-(B)) For walk-ins with transparent reach-in doors, EPCA also prescribes specific anti-sweat heater-related requirements: Walk-ins without anti-sweat heater controls must have a heater power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts per square foot of door opening for freezers and coolers, respectively. Walk-ins with anti-sweat heater controls must either have a heater power draw of no more than 7.1 or 3.0 watts per square foot of door opening for freezers and coolers, respectively, or the anti-sweat heater controls must reduce the energy use of the heater in a quantity corresponding to the relative humidity of the air outside the door or to the condensation on the inner glass pane. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)(C)-(D).

Additionally, EPCA prescribed two cycles of WICF-specific rulemakings; the first to establish performance-based standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified, and the second to determine whether to amend those standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(4) and (5)) 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 notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that includes new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE is publishing this RFI to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.

On June 3, 2014, DOE published a final rule (“June 2014 ECS final rule”) establishing performance-based standards for the components of a walk-in: Doors, panels, and refrigeration systems. 79 FR 32050. The standards were expressed in terms of daily energy consumption for walk-in doors, R-value for walk-in panels, and annual walk-in energy factor (“AWEF”) for walk-in refrigeration systems. Id.

After publication of the June 2014 ECS final rule, the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) and Lennox International, Inc. (“Lennox”), a manufacturer of walk-in refrigeration systems, filed petitions for review of DOE's final rule and DOE's subsequent denial of a petition for reconsideration of the rule (79 FR 59090 (October 1, 2014)) with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Lennox Int'l v. Dep't of Energy, Case No. 14-60535 (5th Cir.). As a result of this litigation, a settlement agreement was reached to address, and a controlling order from the Fifth Circuit vacated, standards for six of the refrigeration system equipment classes—the two energy conservation standards applicable to multiplex condensing refrigeration systems (subsequently re-named as “unit coolers”) operating at medium and low temperatures and the four energy conservation standards applicable to dedicated condensing refrigeration systems operating at low temperatures. 4 After the Fifth Circuit issued its order, DOE established a Working Group to negotiate energy conservation standards to replace the six vacated standards. 80 FR 46521 (August 5, 2015). The Working Group assembled their recommendations into a Term Sheet (See Docket EERE-2015-BT-STD-0016-0056)  5 that was presented to, and approved by, the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) on December 18, 2015.

The Term Sheet contained recommended energy conservation standards to replace the six vacated standards, definitions for a number of WICF-related terms, and test procedure changes to implement the recommended energy conservation standards. Consequently, DOE initiated both an energy conservation standard rulemaking and a test procedure rulemaking in 2016 to implement these recommendations. The Term Sheet also recommended additional specific test procedure changes for future rulemaking to help improve its ability to be fully representative of walk-in energy use.

On July 10, 2017, DOE published a final rule adopting energy conservation standards for the six classes of walk-in refrigeration systems for which the prior standards were vacated. 82 FR 31808 (“July 2017 ECS final rule”). The energy conservation standards established in the July 2017 ECS final rule were consistent with those recommended by the Working Group and approved by ASRAC. 82 FR 31808, 31878. The current energy conservation standards for walk-ins are codified at 10 CFR 431.306.

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.

This RFI covers equipment meeting the walk-in definition codified in 10 CFR 431.302: An enclosed storage space ( i.e., box) refrigerated to temperatures (1) above 32 °F for walk-in coolers and (2) at or below 32 °F for walk-in freezers, that can be walked into, and has a total chilled storage area of less than 3,000 square feet, but excluding equipment designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes. 10 CFR 431.302. (See also 42 U.S.C. 6311(20)) DOE has codified and established energy conservation standards applicable to the principal components that make up a walk-in ( i.e., doors, panels, and refrigeration systems). In addition to the prescriptive requirements for walk-ins established by EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313(f)(3)(A)-(D)) and codified at 10 CFR 431.306(a)-(b), DOE established performance-based energy conservation standards for doors and refrigeration systems. 10 CFR 431.306(c)-(e).

When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE may divide covered equipment into classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that would justify a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In making a determination whether capacity or another performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate. Id.

DOE established standards for walk-in doors based on (1) whether they are used in a walk-in cooler ( i.e., medium-temperature) or walk-in freezer ( i.e., low-temperature), (2) whether they are display or non-display doors, 6 and (3) if non-display, whether they are passage or freight doors. 7 10 CFR 431.306(c)-(d). Table II.1 presents the equipment classes for all walk-in doors.

DOE codified standards for non-display panels: Based on (1) whether they are used in a walk-in cooler ( i.e., medium-temperature) or walk-in freezer ( i.e., low-temperature), and (2) whether they are structural (wall or ceiling) or floor panels. 10 CFR 431.306(a)(3)-(4). Table II.2 presents the equipment classes for walk-in panels.

DOE established equipment classes for walk-in refrigeration systems based on (1) whether they are dedicated condensing systems  8 or unit coolers, 9 and (2) whether they are used in a walk-in cooler ( i.e., medium-temperature) or walk-in freezer ( i.e., low-temperature). 10 CFR 431.306(e). DOE further divided dedicated condensing refrigeration systems into “indoor” and “outdoor” equipment classes. 10 Id. “Indoor, low temperature” dedicated condensing systems, “outdoor, low temperature” dedicated condensing systems,” and “low temperature” unit coolers are further divided based on net capacity. See 10 CFR 431.306(e). Table II.3 lists the equipment classes for WICF refrigeration systems.

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.

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))

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 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))

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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 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).

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).

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).

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).

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.

The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) is to estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards on manufacturers of CRE, and to evaluate the potential impact of such standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small Business Administration's (“SBA”) small business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are listed by the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”). 17 Manufacturing of CRE is classified under NAICS 333415, “Air-conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment manufacturing,” and the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. This employee threshold includes all employees in a business' parent company and any other subsidiaries.

One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. In addition to energy conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance efficiency.

Issue 39: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that distribute CRE in the United States.

Issue 40: DOE requests the names and contact information of small business 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.

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 ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

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 .

In this proposed rule, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) proposes to permanently schedule the following six controlled substances in schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:

• N -ethylhexedrone (other names: α-ethylaminohexanophenone, ethyl hexedrone, HEXEN, 2-(ethylamino)-1-phenylhexan-1-one),

• alpha -pyrrolidinohexanophenone (other names: α-pyrrolidino-hexanophenone, alpha -PHP, α-PHP, PV7, 1-phenyl-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)hexan-1-one),

• 4-methyl- alpha -ethylaminopentiophenone (other names: N -ethyl-4-methylnorpentedrone, 4-methyl-α-ethylaminopentiophenone, 4-MEAP, 2-(ethylamino)-1-(4-methylphenyl)pentan-1-one),

• 4′-methyl- alpha -pyrrolidinohexiophenone (other names: 4′-methyl-α-PHP, 4′-methyl PHP, PV4, 4-MPHP, MPHP, 4-methyl- alpha -pyrrolidino hexanophenone, 1-(4-methylphenyl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)hexan-1-one),

• alpha -pyrrolidinoheptaphenone (other names: alpha -pyrrolidinoheptiophenone, alpha -PHpP, PV8, 1-phenyl-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)heptan-1-one), and

• 4′-chloro- alpha -pyrrolidinovalerophenone (other names: 4-chloro-α-pyrrolidinopentiophenone, 4-chloro-α-PVP, 4-Cl-α-PVP, 4-chloro-2-(1-pyrrolidinyl)-valerophenone, 1-(4-chlorophenyl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)pentan-1-one).

Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by DEA for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter. The Freedom of Information Act applies to all comments received. If you want to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also place all of the personal identifying information you do not want made publicly available in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want redacted.

If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify the confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.

Comments containing personal identifying information or confidential business information identified as directed above will be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to http://www.regulations.gov may include any personal identifying information (such as name, address, and phone number) included in the text of your electronic submission that is not identified as directed above as confidential.

An electronic copy of this document and supplemental information to this proposed rule are available at http://www.regulations.gov for easy reference.

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this action is a formal rulemaking “on the record after opportunity for a hearing.” Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-559. 21 CFR 1308.41-1308.45; 21 CFR part 1316, subpart D. Interested persons may file requests for hearing or notices of intent to participate in a hearing in conformity with the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(a) or (b), and include a statement of interest in the proceeding and the objections or issues, if any, concerning which the person desires to be heard. Any interested person may file a waiver of an opportunity for a hearing or to participate in a hearing together with a written statement regarding the interested person's position on the matters of fact and law involved in any hearing as set forth in 21 CFR 1308.44(c).

All requests for a hearing and waivers of participation, together with a written statement of position on the matters of fact and law involved in such hearing, must be sent to DEA using the address information provided above.

The CSA provides that proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of the scheduling of any drug or other substance may be initiated by the Attorney General on his own motion. 21 U.S.C. 811(a). This proposed action is supported by a recommendation from the Assistant Secretary for Health of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and an evaluation of all other relevant data by DEA. If finalized, this action would make permanent the existing temporary regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions for schedule I controlled substances on any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, imports, exports, engages in research, conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis, or possesses) or proposes to handle N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP.

On July 18, 2019, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(1), DEA published an order in the Federal Register (84 FR 34291) temporarily placing N -ethylhexedrone, alpha -pyrrolidinohexanophenone (α-PHP), 4-methyl- alpha -ethylaminopentiophenone (4-MEAP), 4′-methyl- alpha -pyrrolidinohexiophenone (MPHP), alpha -pyrrolidinoheptaphenone (PV8), and 4′-chloro- alpha -pyrrolidinovalerophenone (4-chloro-α-PVP) in schedule I of the CSA upon finding that these synthetic cathinones pose an imminent hazard to the public safety. That temporary order was effective on the date of publication. Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2), the temporary control of these substances is set to expire on July 18, 2021. However, this same subsection also provides that, during the pendency of proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) with respect to a substance, the temporary scheduling of that substance may be extended for up to one year. Proceedings for the scheduling of a substance under 21 U.S.C. 811(a) may be initiated by the Attorney General (delegated to the Administrator of DEA (Administrator) pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100) on his own motion, at the request of the Secretary of HHS, 1 or on the petition of any interested party. An extension of the existing temporary order is being ordered by the Administrator in a separate action, and is being simultaneously published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register .

The Administrator, on her own motion, is initiating proceedings under 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) to permanently schedule N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP. DEA has gathered and reviewed the available information regarding the pharmacology, chemistry, trafficking, actual abuse, pattern of abuse, and the relative potential for abuse for these synthetic cathinones. On October 22, 2020, the Acting Administrator of DEA submitted a request to the Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS (Assistant Secretary) to provide DEA with a scientific and medical evaluation of available information and a scheduling recommendation for N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP, in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(b) and (c). Upon evaluating the scientific and medical evidence, on July 8, 2021, the Assistant Secretary submitted to the Acting Administrator HHS's scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation for these substances. Upon receipt of the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from HHS, DEA reviewed the document and all other relevant data, and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP in accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(c).

As discussed in the background section, the Administrator is initiating proceedings, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1), to add N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP permanently to schedule I. DEA has reviewed the scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation, received from HHS, and all other relevant data and conducted its own eight-factor analysis of the abuse potential of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(c). Included below is a brief summary of each factor as analyzed by HHS and DEA, and as considered by DEA in its proposed scheduling action. Please note that both the DEA and the HHS 8-Factor analyses and the Assistant Secretary's July 8, 2021 letter are available in their entirety under the tab “Supporting Documents” of the public docket of this rulemaking action at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket Number “DEA-495.”

1. The Drug's Actual or Relative Potential for Abuse: Both the DEA and the HHS 8-factor analyses found that N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP have abuse potential associated with its abilities to produce psychoactive effects that are similar to those produced by schedule I synthetic cathinones such as methcathinone, mephedrone, methylone, pentylone, and 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and schedule II stimulants such as methamphetamine and cocaine that have a high potential for abuse. In particular, the responses in humans to N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP are stimulant-like and include paranoia, agitation, palpitations, tachycardia, hypertension, and hyperthermia.

N -Ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP have no approved medical uses in the United States but there have been reports of individuals experiencing adverse outcomes after taking these substances. Because these substances are not approved drug products, a practitioner may not legally prescribe them, and they cannot be dispensed to an individual. The use of these substances without medical advice leads to the conclusion that these synthetic cathinones are being abused for their psychoactive properties.

Reports from public health and law enforcement state that these substances are being abused and taken in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to an individual's health. This hazard is evidenced by emergency department admissions or deaths, representing a significant safety issue for those in the community. Further, from January 2012 through December 2020 (query date: May 3, 2021), the National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) databases registered a total of 2,289 reports by participating DEA, State, local, and other forensic laboratories, as applicable, pertaining to N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP. 2 NFLIS registered these reports identifying these substances in drug-related exhibits from more than 40 States. MPHP was first identified in June 2012 in seized drug evidence (although MPHP was identified in blood samples from a 27-year-old decedent in 2011), followed by 4-MEAP and PV8 (August and December 2013, respectively), alpha-PHP (May 2014), 4-chloro-α-PVP (December 2015) and most recently N -ethylhexedrone (August 2016). Consequently, the data indicate that N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP are being abused, and they present safety hazards to the health of individuals who consume them due to their stimulant properties.

2. Scientific Evidence of the Drug's Pharmacological Effects, if Known: As described by HHS, studies show that N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP produce pharmacological effects that are similar to those produced by schedule I and II substances such as methamphetamine (II), cocaine (II), mephedrone (I), MDPV (I), and methylone (I). Similar to these schedule I and II substances, N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP bind to monoamine transporters for dopamine and norepinephrine, and block the uptake of these neurotransmitters at their transporters. N -Ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, and MPHP (4-MEAP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP were not tested in this assay) do not promote the release of these monoamines. Additionally, behavioral studies in animals demonstrate that N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP produce locomotor behavior and discriminative stimulus effects that are similar to those of methamphetamine and cocaine. Overall, these data indicate that N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP produce pharmacological effects and stimulant-like behaviors that are similar to those of other schedule I synthetic cathinones such as methcathinone, mephedrone, MDPV, and methylone, as well as schedule II stimulants methamphetamine and cocaine.

3. The State of Current Scientific Knowledge Regarding the Drug or Other Substance: N -Ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP are designer drugs of the phenethylamine class and they are structurally similar to permanently controlled schedule I synthetic cathinones and schedule II stimulants like methamphetamine.

Pharmacokinetic studies show that humans, in general, metabolize synthetic cathinones to their corresponding amphetamines followed by reduction of the beta-keto group to the corresponding alcohol which can involve hydrogenation, deethylation, demethylation, or hydroxylation. Given that N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP are synthetic cathinones, it is likely that these six synthetic cathinones are also metabolized to their corresponding amphetamines and alcohols.

Neither DEA nor HHS is aware of any currently accepted medical use for N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP. According to HHS's 2021 scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved marketing applications for drug products containing N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP for any therapeutic indication, nor is HHS aware of any reports of clinical studies or claims of accepted medical use for N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP in the United States.

A drug has a “currently accepted medical use” if DEA concludes that it satisfies a five-part test. Specifically, with respect to a drug that has not been approved by FDA, all of the following must be demonstrated: The drug's chemistry is known and reproducible; there are adequate safety studies; there are adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy; the drug is accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is widely available. 3 Based on this analysis, N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP have no currently accepted medical use in the United States. Furthermore, DEA has not found any references regarding clinical testing of these substances in the scientific and medical literature. Although the chemistry of synthetic cathinones, in general, is known and has been reproduced, as mentioned above there are no clinical studies involving N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP. Taken together with HHS's conclusion, DEA finds that there is no legitimate medical use for N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP in the United States.

4. History and Current Pattern of Abuse: Available evidence suggests that the history and pattern of abuse of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP parallel that of permanently controlled schedule I cathinone stimulants. N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP are synthetic cathinones of the phenethylamine class and they are structurally and pharmacologically similar to schedule I and II substances such as methcathinone (I) and methamphetamine (II). Like these schedule I and II substances, N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP are most likely ingested by swallowing capsules or tablets or snorted by nasal insufflation of the powder tablets. As reported by DEA and HHS, products containing N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP, similar to schedule I synthetic cathinones, are likely to be falsely marketed as “research chemicals,” “jewelry cleaner,” “stain remover,” “plant food or fertilizer,” “insect repellants,” or “bath salts;” sold at smoke shops, head shops, convenience stores, adult book stores, or gas stations; and purchased on the internet. Like those seen with commercial products that contain synthetic cathinones, the packages of products that contain N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP also probably contain the warning “not for human consumption,” most likely in an effort to circumvent statutory restrictions for these substances. Law enforcement data indicate that N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP are available for illicit use and are being abused. Demographic data collected from published reports and mortality records suggest that the main users of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP, similar to other schedule I synthetic cathinones permanently placed in schedule I, are young adults. Toxicology reports also revealed that N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP are being ingested with other substances including other synthetic cathinones, common cutting agents, or other recreational substances. Consequently, products containing synthetic cathinones, including N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP, are distributed to users, often with unpredictable outcomes. Thus, the recreational abuse of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP is a significant concern. These data indicate that N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP have a history and current pattern of abuse.

5. Scope, Duration and Significance of Abuse: N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP are recreational drugs that emerged on the United States' illicit drug market after the scheduling of other synthetic cathinones ( e.g., N -ethylpentylone, ethylone, mephedrone, methylone, pentylone, and MDPV) ( see DEA's Eight Factor Analysis for a full discussion). Forensic laboratories have confirmed the presence of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP in drug exhibits received from Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies. MPHP was first identified in June 2012 in seized drug evidence (although MPHP was identified in blood samples from a 27-year-old decedent in 2011— see Factor 6 for details), followed by 4-MEAP and PV8 (August and December 2013, respectively), alpha-PHP (May 2014), 4-chloro-α-PVP (December 2015) and most recently N -ethylhexedrone (August 2016). From January 2012 through December 2020 (query date: May 3, 2021), NFLIS database registered a total of 2,289 reports from forensic laboratories pertaining to the 6 synthetic cathinones ( N -ethylhexedrone, 613 reports; α-PHP—984 reports; 4-MEAP—131 reports; MPHP—92 reports; PV8—174 reports; and 4-chloro-α-PVP—295 reports). HHS reported that there were 13,238 calls to United States poison control centers (PCCs)  4 involving synthetic cathinones from 2010 to 2019 and 39 mentions of cathinones of which 23 were for α-PHP on the Dashboard  5 from July 2018 to July 2020. Accordingly, concerns over the continuing abuse of synthetic cathinones have led to the control of many synthetic cathinones. A full presentation of the NFLIS reports by substance and year, PCC, and Dashboard data are available in both DEA's and HHS's eight-factor analyses within the Supporting Documents section of the public docket available at http://www.regulations.gov.

6. What, if Any, Risk There Is to the Public Health: HHS reported that the public health risks of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP result from their ability to induce stimulant-like responses, which may lead to impaired judgement and dangerous behavior. Adverse health effects associated with the abuse of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP include a number of stimulant-like adverse health effects such as diaphoresis, insomnia, mydriasis, hyperthermia, vomiting, agitation, disorientation, paranoia, and abdominal pain. Serious adverse events such as acute kidney failure, cardiac arrest, rhabdomyolysis, and coma have been associated with the use of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, and PV8. In addition, N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, MPHP, and PV8 have been involved in the deaths of individuals. The identification of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP in toxicological samples associated with fatal and non-fatal overdoses as reported in the medical and scientific literature, forensic laboratory reports, and public health documents confirms these adverse effects of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP. Like schedule I synthetic cathinones, N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP have caused acute health problems leading to emergency department (ED) admissions, violent behaviors causing harm to self or others, and/or death. Specifically, evidence demonstrate that all six synthetic cathinones have resulted in ED visits that required medical attention, but only N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, MPHP, and PV8 abuse have been associated with the deaths of individuals. It remains highly likely that additional cases of adverse health effects involving N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP in the United States have occurred and will continue to be under-reported as these substances are not part of standard panels for toxicological analyses of biological specimens. Thus, the abuse of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP, like that of the abuse of schedule I synthetic cathinones and stimulant drugs, poses significant adverse health risks including death.

Furthermore, because abusers of synthetic cathinones obtain these substances through unregulated sources, the identity, purity, and quantity are uncertain and inconsistent. These unknown factors pose an additional risk for significant adverse health effects to the end user.

Based on information received by DEA, the abuse of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP has led to, at least, the same qualitative public health risks as other schedule I synthetic cathinones and the schedule II stimulant methamphetamine. The public health risks attendant to the abuse of synthetic cathinones, including N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP, are well established and have resulted in large numbers of ED visits and fatal overdoses.

7. Its Psychic or Physiological Dependence Liability: According to HHS, the psychic or physiological dependence liability of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP is demonstrated by their positive abuse-related studies in animals and reported stimulant effects in humans. The results from two behavioral studies (drug discrimination and locomotor studies) demonstrate that N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP produced behavioral effects that are similar to those of substances with stimulant effects such as the schedule II stimulants cocaine and methamphetamine. Thus, based on the structural and pharmacological similarities of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP to schedule II stimulant substances that have demonstrated psychic or physiological dependence liability, it is anticipated that the stimulant properties of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP produce psychic dependence liability.

8. Whether the Substance is an Immediate Precursor of a Substance Already Controlled Under the CSA: N -Ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP are not immediate precursors of any controlled substance under the CSA as defined by 21 U.S.C. 802(23).

Conclusion: After considering the scientific and medical evaluation conducted by HHS, HHS's scheduling recommendation, and DEA's own eight-factor analysis, DEA finds that the facts and all relevant data constitute substantial evidence of the potential for abuse of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP. As such, DEA hereby proposes to permanently schedule N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP as controlled substances under the CSA.

The CSA establishes five schedules of controlled substances known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. The CSA also outlines the findings required to place a drug or other substance in any particular schedule. 21 U.S.C. 812(b). After consideration of the analysis and recommendation of the Assistant Secretary for Health of HHS and review of all other available data, the Administrator of DEA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 811(a) and 812(b)(1), finds that:

1. N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP have a high potential for abuse;

2. N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and

3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP under medical supervision.

Based on these findings, the Administrator concludes that N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP, including their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers, whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation, warrant control in schedule I of the CSA. 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1).

If this rule is finalized as proposed, N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP would continue  6 to be subject to the CSA's schedule I regulatory controls and administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions applicable to the manufacture, distribution, reverse distribution, importation, exportation, research, and conduct of instructional activities involving the handling of schedule I controlled substances including the following:

1. Registration. Any person who handles (manufactures, distributes, reverse distributes, imports, exports, engages in research, or conducts instructional activities or chemical analysis with, or possesses) or who desires to handle N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP is required to be registered with DEA to conduct such activities pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 822, 823, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1301 and 1312.

2. Security. N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP are subject to schedule I security requirements and must be handled and stored pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.71-1301.76. Non-practitioners handling N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP must also comply with the employee screening requirements of 21 CFR 1301.90-1301.93.

3. Labeling and Packaging. All labels, labeling, and packaging for commercial containers of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 825, and be in accordance with 21 CFR part 1302.

4. Quota. Only registered manufacturers are permitted to manufacture N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP in accordance with a quota assigned pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 826 and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1303.

5. Inventory. Any person registered with DEA to handle N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP must have an initial inventory of all stocks of controlled substances (including N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP) on hand on the date the registrant first engages in the handling of controlled substances pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

After the initial inventory, every DEA registrant must take an inventory of all controlled substances (including N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP) on hand every two years, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR 1304.03, 1304.04, and 1304.11.

6. Records and Reports. Every DEA registrant is required to maintain records and submit reports with respect to N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.74(b) and (c) and parts 1304, 1312, and 1317. Manufacturers and distributors must submit reports regarding these substances to the Automation of Reports and Consolidated Order System pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 827 and in accordance with 21 CFR parts 1304 and 1312.

7. Order Forms. Every DEA registrant who distributes N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP is required to comply with the order form requirements, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 828 and 21 CFR part 1305.

8. Importation and Exportation. All importation and exportation of N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP must be in compliance with 21 U.S.C. 952, 953, 957, and 958, and in accordance with 21 CFR part 1312.

9. Liability. Any activity involving N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP not authorized by, or in violation of the CSA or its implementing regulations, is unlawful, and could subject the person to administrative, civil, and/or criminal sanctions.

In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811(a), this proposed scheduling action is subject to formal rulemaking procedures performed “on the record after opportunity for a hearing,” which are conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The CSA sets forth the criteria for scheduling a drug or other substance. Such actions are exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to section 3(d)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the principles reaffirmed in E.O. 13563.

This proposed regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize litigation, provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, and promote simplification and burden reduction.

This proposed rulemaking does not have federalism implications warranting the application of E.O. 13132. The proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications warranting the application of E.O. 13175. It does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.

The Administrator, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has reviewed this proposed rule and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. On July 18, 2019, DEA published an order to temporarily place N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP in schedule I of the CSA pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of 21 U.S.C. 811(h). DEA estimates that all entities handling or planning to handle these substances have already established and implemented the systems and processes required to handle N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP. There are currently 34 unique registrations authorized to handle N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP specifically, as well as a number of registered analytical labs that are authorized to handle schedule I controlled substances generally. From review of entity names, DEA estimates these 34 registrations represent 29 entities. Some of these entities are likely to be large entities. However, since DEA does not have information of registrant size and the majority of DEA registrants are small entities or are employed by small entities, DEA estimates a maximum of 29 entities are small entities. Therefore, DEA conservatively estimates as many as 29 small entities are affected by this proposed rule.

A review of the 34 registrations indicates that all entities that currently handle N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, or 4-chloro-α-PVP also handle other schedule I controlled substances, and thus they have established and implemented (or maintain) the systems and processes required to handle N -ethylhexedrone, α-PHP, 4-MEAP, MPHP, PV8, and 4-chloro-α-PVP as a schedule I substance. Therefore, DEA anticipates that this proposed rule will impose minimal or no economic impact on any affected entities, and, thus, will not have a significant economic impact on any of the 29 affected small entities. Therefore, DEA has concluded that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq., DEA has determined and certifies that this proposed action would not result in any Federal mandate that may result “in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year * * * .” Therefore, neither a Small Government Agency Plan nor any other action is required under UMRA of 1995.

This proposed action does not impose a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521. This proposed action would not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

For the reasons set out above, DEA proposes to amend 21 CFR part 1308 as follows:

The additions to read as follows:

The Namekagon and St. Croix Rivers flow through some of the most scenic and least developed country in the Upper Midwest. The free-flowing character and exceptional water quality of these waterways serve as a unique ecological corridor in northwest Wisconsin and eastern Minnesota that sustains a diversity of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and habitats.

In 1968, to preserve, protect, and enhance this unique national resource for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations, Congress established the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway, a 230-mile long protected area that includes the Namekagon River, as one of the original eight rivers protected under the national Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. In 1972, the Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway was added to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Together, these areas form the Riverway.

Today, the rivers continue to flow unimpeded for considerable distances as they have for millennia, through the river corridor, growing and changing in character from their headwaters to the St. Croix's confluence with the Mississippi. The Riverway offers exceptional recreational opportunities for visitors to paddle, boat, camp, hike, fish, explore, and find solitude in a natural setting close to the major metropolitan area of Minneapolis-Saint Paul. The National Park Service (NPS) and state partners work with local communities to maintain the aquatic, cultural, recreational, riparian, scenic-aesthetic, and geologic values of the rivers for the benefit and enjoyment of more than 600,000 annual visitors.

The NPS proposes to construct a 0.25-mile connector trail through the Riverway near Cable, Wisconsin. The trail would be designed for hiking, trail running, and bicycle and electric bicycle (e-bike) use, and silent sports in the winter such as fat-tire bicycling, snowshoeing, and cross-country skiing. It would be the first trail at the Riverway open to bicycle use. Construction of the trail would respond to a specific opportunity identified by the NPS and local partners to create a link across public land to provide direct access to the Riverway and new recreational opportunities within the Riverway and on the Chequamegon Area Mountain Bike Association (CAMBA) trail network in Bayfield County, Wisconsin. The trail would be built from the end of a segment of CAMBA's Wild River Trail on a former railroad grade near the Town of Cable, connecting to Parker Road. The trail would provide a critical link to adjoining trails and would serve an important role providing connectivity for several local trail running and biking events that start or finish in the Cable area. The bare soil trail would be built using sustainable trail construction techniques to protect natural and cultural resources. The trail would utilize landforms and natural features exhibiting the natural beauty of the area and would feature a slight crown, shallow grades, open sight lines, and gentle turns to support user safety, provide adequate drainage to minimize braiding, seasonal muddiness, and erosion, and reduce the overall maintenance costs associated with more complex trail features. Signage would clearly indicate allowed uses on the trail. Equestrian and motorized use would not be allowed.

On September 22, 2020, the NPS published the Cable Connector Trail Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA describes one action alternative (the preferred alternative) and the no-action alternative. Under the preferred alternative, the NPS would construct the 0.25 mile Cable Connector Trail to accommodate bicycle and e-bike use. The EA evaluates (1) the suitability of the Cable Connector Trail for bicycle and e-bike use; and (2) life cycle maintenance costs, safety considerations, methods to prevent or minimize user conflict, and methods to protect natural and cultural resources and mitigate impacts associated with bicycle and e-bike use on the trail. The EA contains a full description of the purpose and need for taking action, the alternatives considered, a map of the affected area, and the environmental impacts associated with the project. After a public review period, on February 1, 2021, the Regional Director for DOI Unified Regions 3, 4 and 5 (Great Lakes) signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) that identified the preferred alternative in the EA as the selected alternative. The EA and FONSI may be viewed on the Riverway's planning website at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/sacn by clicking the link entitled “Cable Connector Trail” and then clicking the link entitled “Document List.”

This proposed rule would implement the selected alternative in the FONSI and authorize the Superintendent to designate the new Cable Connector Trail for traditional bicycle use. This action would comply with NPS regulations 36 CFR 4.30, which require a special regulation to designate new bicycle trails that require construction activities off park roads and outside of developed areas. The proposed rule would add a new paragraph (g) to 36 CFR 7.9, which contains the special regulations for the Riverway. After the trail is constructed, the rule would require the Superintendent to notify the public prior to designating the trail for bicycle use through one or more of the methods listed in 36 CFR 1.7, and identify the designation on maps available at Riverway visitor centers and posted on the Riverway's website ( www.nps.gov/sacn ). The proposed rule would also authorize the superintendent to establish closures, conditions, or restrictions for bicycle use on the trail after considering public health and safety, resource protection, and other management activities and objectives.

Bicycle use would not be authorized by the Superintendent until the NPS completes the planning and environmental review process required by NPS regulations at 36 CFR 4.30, including the preparation of a written determination that bicycle use on the new trail is consistent with the protection of the park area's natural, scenic and aesthetic values, safety considerations and management objectives, and will not disturb wildlife or park resources. Consistent with NPS regulations at 36 CFR 4.30(i)(1), after the Cable Connector Trail is opened to traditional bicycles, the Superintendent may open the trail to e-bikes, or specific classes of e-bikes, and will notify the public of any such action pursuant to 36 CFR 1.7. This rule would not affect the use of any existing trails in the Riverway, all of which would remain closed to bicycles.

The proposed rule would also revise the section heading from “St. Croix National Scenic Rivers” to “St. Croix National Scenic Riverway.” This change is consistent with the commonly used and official name of the Riverway.

Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rulemaking is not significant.

Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The NPS has developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This rulemaking would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). This certification is based on information contained in the economic analyses found in the report entitled “Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Threshold Analyses: Proposed Rule to Designate a New Trail Connection for Bicycle Use at St. Croix National Scenic Riverway.” The report may be viewed on the Riverway's planning website at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/sacn by clicking the link entitled “Cable Connector Trail” and then clicking the link entitled “Document List.”

This rulemaking is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule:

(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

This rulemaking does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public use of national park lands and imposes no requirements on other agencies or governments. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) is not required.

This rulemaking does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, the rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This proposed rule only affects use of federally-administered lands and waters. It has no direct effects on other areas. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

This rulemaking complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. This rule:

(a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

(b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. The NPS has evaluated this rulemaking under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the Department's tribal consultation policy and have determined that tribal consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. Nevertheless, in support of the Department of the Interior and NPS commitment for government-to-government consultation, during the EA process, the NPS shared information about the proposed action with 18 federally recognized American Indian Tribes and invited them to consult on the project. None of the 18 Tribes expressed interest in consultation.

This rulemaking does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act is not required. The NPS may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The NPS has prepared the EA to determine whether this rule will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the NEPA is not required because of the FONSI. A copy of the EA and FONSI can be found online at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/sacn by clicking the link entitled “Cable Connector Trail” and then clicking the link entitled “Document List.”

This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211; the rule is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, and the rule has not otherwise been designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. A Statement of Energy Effects in not required.

The NPS is required by Executive Orders 12866 (section 1(b)(12)) and 12988 (section 3(b)(1)(B)), and 13563 (section 1(a)), and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule the NPS publishes must:

(a) Be logically organized;

(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

(c) Use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon;

(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

If you feel that the NPS has not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help the NPS revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should identify the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that you find unclear, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

It is the policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever practicable, to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written comments regarding this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time.

In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR part 7 as set forth below: