[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 7, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37987-38004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08002]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 2024 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 37987]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039]
RIN 1904-AF62


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''), 
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products 
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including 
miscellaneous refrigeration products (``MREFs''). In this notice of 
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), DOE proposes new energy conservation 
standards for MREFs identical to those set forth in a direct final rule 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. If DOE 
receives adverse comment and determines that such comment may provide a 
reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule, DOE will 
publish a notice of withdrawal and will proceed with this proposed 
rule.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
NOPR no later than August 26, 2024. Comments regarding the likely 
competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the 
Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or 
before June 6, 2024.

ADDRESSES: See section IV of this document, ``Public Participation,'' 
for details. If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere 
in this issue of the Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting 
to allow for additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish 
notice of any meeting in the Federal Register.
    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number 
EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by 
docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039, by any of the following methods:
    (1) Email: [email protected]. Include the 
docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039 in the subject line of the message.
    (2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    (3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-
1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is 
not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section IV of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-020-BT-STD-0039. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section IV of this document for information on how to submit comments 
through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Division at [email protected] on or 
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the 
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this 
proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-5904 Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 597-6265. Email: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. Current Test Procedures
    3. History of Standards Rulemaking for MREFs
    4. The Joint Agreement
III. Proposed Standards
    A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for MREF Standards
    B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
IV. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Public Meeting
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

[[Page 37988]]

    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict with Other Rules and 
Regulations
    6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as 
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency 
of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA \2\ established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include miscellaneous refrigeration 
products (``MREFs''), the subject of this proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must, among other things, be designed to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    In light of the above and under the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4), DOE is proposing this rule establishing and amending the 
energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products 
and is concurrently issuing a direct final rule elsewhere in this 
Federal Register. DOE will proceed with this notice of proposed 
rulemaking only if it determines it must withdraw the direct final rule 
pursuant to the criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). The amended 
standard levels in the proposed rule and the direct final rule were 
recommended in a letter submitted to DOE jointly by groups representing 
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and 
a utility. This letter, titled ``Energy Efficiency Agreement of 2023'' 
(hereafter, the ``Joint Agreement'' \3\), recommends specific energy 
conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products that, 
in the commenters' view, would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE subsequently received letters of support from 
States including New York, California, and Massachusetts \4\ and 
utilities including San Diego Gas and Electric and Southern California 
Edison \5\ advocating for the adoption of the recommended standards. As 
discussed in more detail in the accompanying direct final rule and in 
accordance with the provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has 
determined that the recommendations contained in the Joint Agreement 
comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039-0034.
    \4\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039-0035.
    \5\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039-0036.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed 
in this document, DOE proposes new and amended energy conservation 
standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. The standards for 
miscellaneous refrigeration products are expressed in terms of 
integrated annual energy use (``AEU''), measured in kilowatt-hours per 
year (``kWh/year''), as measured according to DOE's current test 
procedure codified at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix A (``appendix A'').
    Table I.1 presents the proposed standards for MREFs. The proposed 
standards are the same as those recommended by the Joint Agreement. 
These standards would apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and 
manufactured in, or imported into the United States starting on January 
31, 2029, as recommended in the Joint Agreement.

Table I.1 Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous Refrigeration 
Products (Compliance Starting January 31, 2029)

[[Page 37989]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY24.109

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant 
historical background related to the establishment of standards for 
MREFs.

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
B of EPCA \6\ established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles, which, in addition to identifying 
particular consumer products and commercial equipment as covered under 
the statute, permits the Secretary of Energy to classify additional 
types of consumer products as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)) 
DOE added MREFs as covered products through a final determination of 
coverage published in the Federal Register on July 18, 2016 (the ``July 
2016 Final Coverage Determination''). 81 FR 46768. MREFs are consumer 
refrigeration products other than refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 
or freezers, which include coolers and combination cooler refrigeration 
products. 10 CFR 430.2. MREFs include refrigeration products such as 
coolers (e.g., wine chillers and other specialty products) and 
combination cooler refrigeration products (e.g., wine chillers and 
other specialty compartments combined with a refrigerator, 
refrigerator-freezers, or freezers). EPCA further provides that, not 
later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or 
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination 
that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR 
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a 
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Not later than 
three years after issuance of a final determination not to amend 
standards, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that 
standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR 
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a 
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy conservation program under EPCA, consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal 
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of the EPCA specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), 
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) 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 EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products 
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those

[[Page 37990]]

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these 
test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards 
adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedure 
for MREFs appears at appendix A (Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 
Energy Consumption of Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products).
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products, including MREFs. Any new or 
amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 
(``Secretary'') determines is technologically feasible and economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 
Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in 
the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
    Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard (1) for certain 
products, including MREFs, if no test procedure has been established 
for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is 
not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is 
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 
seven statutory factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
    Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption 
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that 
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying 
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three 
times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the 
consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under 
the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing 
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy 
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe 
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4))
    EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy 
conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more 
subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a 
type (or class) of product must specify a different standard level for 
a type or class of products that has the same function or intended use 
if DOE determines that products within such group (A) consume a 
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products 
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-
related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, 
DOE considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of such a 
feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. (Id.) Any rule 
prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on 
which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(2))
    Additionally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-
140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards 
promulgated after July 1, 2010, are required to address standby mode 
and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE 
adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if 
justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into 
a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate 
standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedure for MREFs addresses 
standby mode and off mode energy use. The standards proposed in this 
NOPR incorporate standby and off mode energy use.
    Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE 
authority to issue a final rule (i.e., a ``direct final rule'') 
establishing an energy conservation standard upon receipt of a 
statement submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly 
representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of 
manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), 
as determined by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with 
respect to an energy or water conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also 
determine whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or 
water conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.
    A NOPR that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must 
be published simultaneously with the direct final rule, and DOE must 
provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Based on the comments received during 
this period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE 
will withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if: (1) one 
or more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those 
comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the 
direct final rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 
direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) 
Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also trigger a DOE 
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner. (Id.) After 
withdrawing a direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the NOPR 
published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the 
Federal Register the reasons why the direct final rule was withdrawn. 
(Id.)

[[Page 37991]]

    DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final 
rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's ``Procedures, 
Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy 
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products'' at 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart C, appendix A, DOE noted that it may issue standards 
recommended by interested persons that are fairly representative of 
relative points of view as a direct final rule when the recommended 
standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But 
the direct final rule provision in EPCA, under which this proposed rule 
is issued, does not impose additional requirements applicable to other 
standards rulemakings, which is consistent with the unique 
circumstances of rules issued as consensus agreements under DOE's 
direct final rule authority. Id. DOE's discretion remains bounded by 
its statutory mandate to adopt a standard that results in the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified--a requirement found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id. 
As such, DOE's review and analysis of the Joint Agreement is limited to 
whether the recommended standards satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o).

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    In a direct final rule published on October 28, 2016 (``October 
2016 Direct Final Rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy 
conservation standards for MREFs manufactured on and after October 28, 
2019. 81 FR 75194. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations 
at 10 CFR 430.32(a)(1)-(2). These standards are consistent with a 
negotiated term sheet submitted to DOE by interested parties 
representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, and 
consumer groups.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The negotiated term sheets are available in docket ID EERE-
2011-BT-STD-0043 on www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Current Test Procedures
    On October 12, 2021, DOE published a test procedure final rule 
(``October 2021 TP Final Rule'') establishing test procedures for 
MREFs, at appendix A. 86 FR 56790. The test procedure amendments 
included adopting the latest version of the relevant industry standard 
published by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 
(``AHAM''), updated in 2019, AHAM Standard HRF-1, ``Energy and Internal 
Volume of Refrigerating Appliances'' (``HRF-1-2019''). 10 CFR 
430.3(i)(4). The standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are 
based on the annual energy use (``AEU'') metrics as measured according 
to appendix A.
3. History of Standards Rulemaking for MREFs
    On April 1, 2015, DOE published a notice announcing its intention 
to establish a negotiated rulemaking working group under the Appliance 
Standards Rulemaking Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') to negotiate energy 
conservation standards for refrigeration products such as wine 
chillers. 80 FR 17355. DOE then created a working group of interested 
parties to develop a series of recommended energy conservation 
standards for MREFs. On July 18, 2016, DOE published the July 2016 
Final Coverage Determination that added MREFs as covered products. 81 
FR 46768. In that determination, DOE noted that MREFs, on average, 
consume more than 150 kilowatt-hours per year (``kWh/yr'') and that the 
aggregate annual national energy use of these products exceeds 4.2 
terawatt hours (``TWh''). 81 FR 46768, 46775. In addition to 
establishing coverage, the July 2016 Final Coverage Determination 
established definitions for ``miscellaneous refrigeration products,'' 
``coolers,'' and ``combination cooler refrigeration products'' in 10 
CFR 430.2. 81 FR 46768, 46791-46792.
    On October 28, 2016, a negotiated term sheet containing a series of 
recommended standards and other related recommendations were submitted 
to ASRAC for approval and, subsequently, DOE published the October 2016 
Direct Final Rule adopting energy conservation standards consistent 
with the recommendations contained in the term sheet. 81 FR 75194. 
Concurrent with the October 2016 Direct Final Rule, DOE published a 
NOPR in which it proposed and requested comments on the standards set 
forth in the direct final rule. 81 FR 74950. On May 26, 2017, DOE 
published a notice in the Federal Register in which it determined that 
the comments received in response to the October 2016 Direct Final Rule 
did not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the rule and, 
therefore, confirmed the adoption of the energy conservation standards 
established in that direct final rule. 82 FR 24214.
4. The Joint Agreement
    On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement of 
recommended standards (i.e., the Joint Agreement) for various consumer 
products, including MREFs, submitted jointly by groups representing 
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and 
a utility.\8\ In addition to the recommended standards for MREFs, the 
Joint Agreement also included separate recommendations for several 
other covered products.\9\ And, while acknowledging that DOE may 
implement these recommendations in separate rulemakings, the Joint 
Agreement also stated that the recommendations were recommended as a 
complete package, and each recommendation is contingent upon the other 
parts being implemented. DOE understands this to mean that the Joint 
Agreement is contingent upon DOE initiating rulemaking processes to 
adopt all of the recommended standards in the agreement. That is 
distinguished from an agreement where issuance of an amended energy 
conservation standard for a covered product is contingent on issuance 
of amended energy conservation standards for the other covered 
products. If the Joint Agreement were so construed, it would conflict 
with the anti-backsliding provision in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it 
would imply the possibility that, if DOE were unable to issue an 
amended standard for a certain product, it would have to withdraw a 
previously issued standard for one of the other products. The anti-
backsliding provision, however, prevents DOE from withdrawing or 
amending an energy conservation standard to be less stringent. As a 
result, DOE will be proceeding with individual rulemakings that will 
evaluate each of the recommended standards separately

[[Page 37992]]

under the applicable statutory criteria. The Joint Agreement recommends 
amended standard levels for MREFs as presented in Table II.1. (Joint 
Agreement, No. 34 at p. 4) Details of the Joint Agreement 
recommendations for other products are provided in the Joint Agreement 
posted in the docket.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include AHAM, 
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water 
Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer 
Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National 
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest 
Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 
Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that manufacture the 
affected products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko 
Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH; Danby 
Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de 
C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GEA, a Haier Company; L'Atelier Paris 
Haute Design LLG; LGEUSA; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; 
Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) 
Corporation of America; Perlick Corporation; Samsung; Sharp 
Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The 
Middleby Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and 
Whirlpool.
    \9\ The Joint Agreement contained recommendations for six 
covered products: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 
freezers; residential clothes washers; consumer clothes dryers; 
dishwashers; consumer conventional cooking products; and 
miscellaneous refrigeration products.
    \10\ The Joint Agreement is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table II.1 Recommended Amended Energy Conservation Standards for 
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY24.110

    DOE has evaluated the Joint Agreement and believes that it meets 
the EPCA requirements for issuance of a direct final rule. As a result, 
DOE published a direct final rule establishing energy conservation 
standards for MREFs elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. If 
DOE receives adverse comments that may provide a reasonable basis for 
withdrawal and withdraws the direct final rule, DOE will consider those 
comments and any other comments received in determining how to proceed 
with this proposed rule.
    For further background information on these proposed standards and 
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. That document, and the 
accompanying technical support document (``TSD''). Those documents 
contain an in-depth discussion of the analyses conducted in evaluating 
the Joint Agreement, the methodologies DOE used in conducting those 
analyses, and the analytical results.
    DOE also notes that it was conducting a rulemaking to consider 
amending the standards for MREFs when the Joint Agreement was 
submitted. As part of that process, DOE published a NOPR and announced 
a public meeting on March 31, 2023 (``March 2023 NOPR'') seeking 
comment on its proposed amended standards to inform its decision 
consistent with its obligations under EPCA and the Administrative 
Procedure Act (``APA''). 88 FR 19382. DOE held a public webinar on May 
2, 2023, to discuss and receive comments on the March 2023 NOPR and 
NOPR TSD (``May 2, 2023, public meeting''). The NOPR TSD is available 
at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039-0026. The March 
2023 NOPR proposed amended standards defined in terms of the AEU 
metrics as measured according to appendix A. Id. at 88 FR 19383-19384.

III. Proposed Standards

    When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, 
to the greatest extent

[[Page 37993]]

practicable, considering the seven statutory factors discussed 
previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended standard 
must also result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(B))
    DOE considered the impacts of proposed standards for MREFs at each 
trial standard level (``TSL''), beginning with the maximum 
technologically feasible (``max-tech'') level, to determine whether 
that level was economically justified. Where the max-tech level was not 
justified, DOE then considered the next most efficient level and 
undertook the same evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency 
level that is both technologically feasible and economically justified 
and saves a significant amount of energy. DOE refers to this process as 
the ``walk-down'' analysis.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers 
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information; (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or 
aggregate benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant 
delaying or altering purchases; (4) excessive focus on the short term, 
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings 
relative to available returns on other investments; (5) computational 
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant 
tradeoffs; and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between 
renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than 
perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, 
consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher-than-
expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy 
cost savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forgo the 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to 
lost revenue is included in the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA''). 
Second, DOE accounts for energy savings attributable only to products 
actually used by consumers in the standards case; if a standard 
decreases the number of products purchased by consumers, this decreases 
the potential energy savings from an energy conservation standard. DOE 
provides estimates of shipments and changes in the volume of product 
purchases in chapter 9 of the direct final rule TSD \11\ available in 
the docket for this rulemaking. However, DOE's current analysis does 
not explicitly control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, 
preferences across subcategories of products or specific features, or 
consumer price sensitivity variation according to household income.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003-0046/document.
    \12\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883. 
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE continues to explore additional potential updates to the 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, 
and DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support 
empirical quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer 
welfare impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that 
discusses the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy 
conservation standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology 
by which these impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory 
process.\12\ DOE welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the 
potential impact of energy conservation standards on consumer choice 
and how to quantify this impact in its regulatory analysis in future 
rulemakings.

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for MREF Standards

    Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for MREFs. The national impacts are measured 
over the lifetime of MREFs purchased in the 30-year period that begins 
in the anticipated year of compliance with amended standards (2029-
2058). The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions 
reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') results. DOE is 
presenting monetized benefits of greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions 
reductions in accordance with the applicable Executive orders and DOE 
would reach the same conclusion presented in this document in the 
absence of the social cost of GHGs, including the Interim Estimates 
presented by the Interagency Working Group. The efficiency levels 
contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of the direct final 
rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

[[Page 37994]]

Table III.1 Summary of Analytical Results for Miscellaneous 
Refrigeration Product TSLs: National Impacts for Products Shipped 2029-
2058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY24.111


[[Page 37995]]



Table III.2 Summary of Analytical Results for MREFs TSLs: Manufacturer 
and Consumer Impacts
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY24.112

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. For coolers (i.e., FCC, FC, BICC, and BIC), which 
account for approximately 82 percent of MREF shipments, DOE expects 
that products would require use of vacuum insulated panels (``VIPs''), 
variable speed compressors (``VSCs''), and triple-glazed doors at this 
TSL. DOE expects that VIPs would be used in the products' side walls. 
In addition, the products would use the best-available-efficiency 
variable-speed compressors, forced-convection heat exchangers with 
multi-speed brushless-DC (``BLDC'') fans, and increase in cabinet wall 
thickness as compared to most baseline products. TSL 5 would save an 
estimated 0.55 quadrillion British thermal units (``quads'') of energy, 
an amount which DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the net present 
value (``NPV'') of consumer benefit would be negative, i.e., -$1.36 
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -$1.68 billion using a 
discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 10.0 Mt of 
CO2, 3.15 thousand tons of SO2, 18.5 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.02 tons of Hg, 83.4 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.10 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at

[[Page 37996]]

a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 5 is $0.6 billion. The estimated 
monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO2 and 
NOX emissions at TSL 5 is $0.4 billion using a 7-percent 
discount rate and $1.1 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 is -$0.4 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 is -$0.07 billion. The estimated total 
monetized NPV is provided for additional information, however, 
consistent with the statutory factors and framework for along with 
appropriate consideration of its full range of statutory factors when 
determining whether a proposed standard level is economically 
justified, DOE considers a range of quantitative and qualitative 
benefits and burdens, including the costs and cost savings for 
consumers, impacts to consumer subgroups, energy savings, emission 
reductions, and impacts on manufacturers.
    At TSL 5, for the product classes with the largest market share, 
which are FCC, FC, and C-13A and together account for approximately 92 
percent of annual shipments, the life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings are 
all negative (-$45.3, -$178.8, and -$73.4, respectively) and their 
payback periods are 13.0 years, 29.9 years, and 19.5 years, 
respectively, which are all longer than their corresponding average 
lifetimes. For these product classes, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost is 81.6 percent, 98.2 percent, and 93.9 
percent due to increases in first cost of $185.0, $420.5, and $167.5, 
respectively. Overall, a majority of MREF consumers (84.5 percent) 
would experience a net cost and the average LCC savings would be 
negative for all analyzed product classes.
    At TSL 5, the projected change in industry net present value 
(``INPV'') ranges from a decrease of $421.0 million to a decrease of 
$283.2 million, which corresponds to decreases of 51.2 percent and 35.1 
percent, respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $555.1 
million to comply with standards set at TSL 5.
    DOE estimates that approximately 2.9 percent of current MREF 
shipments meet the max-tech levels. For FCC, FC, and C-13A, which 
together account for approximately 92 percent of annual shipments, DOE 
estimates that zero shipments currently meet max-tech efficiencies.
    At TSL 5, manufacturers would likely need to implement all the most 
efficient design options analyzed in the engineering analysis. 
Manufacturers that do not currently offer products that meet TSL 5 
efficiencies would need to develop new product platforms, which would 
require significant investment. Conversion costs are driven by the need 
for changes to cabinet construction, such as increasing foam insulation 
thickness and/or incorporating VIP technology. Increasing insulation 
thickness could result in a loss of interior volume or an increase in 
exterior volume. If manufacturers chose to maintain exterior 
dimensions, increasing insulation thickness would require redesign of 
the cabinet as well as the designs and tooling associated with the 
interior of the product, such as the liner, shelving, racks, and 
drawers. Incorporating VIPs into MREF designs could also require 
redesign of the cabinet to maximize the efficiency benefit of this 
technology. In addition to insulation changes, manufacturers may need 
to implement triple-pane glass, which could require implementing 
reinforced hinges and redesigning the door structure.
    At this level, DOE estimates a 13-percent drop in shipments in the 
year the standard takes effect compared to the no-new-standards case, 
as some consumers may forgo purchasing a new MREF due to the increased 
upfront cost of baseline models.
    At TSL 5, the Secretary tentatively concludes that the benefits of 
energy savings, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value 
of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden 
on many consumers, negative NPV of consumer benefits, and the impacts 
on manufacturers, including the significant potential reduction in 
INPV. A majority of MREF consumers (84.5 percent) would experience a 
net cost and the average LCC savings would be negative. Additionally, 
manufacturers would need to make significant upfront investments to 
update product platforms. The potential reduction in INPV could be as 
high as 52.1 percent. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively 
concluded that TSL 5 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered the Recommended TSL (i.e., TSL 4) which 
represents efficiency level (``EL'') 3 for all analyzed product classes 
except for C-3A and C-3A-BI, for which this TSL corresponds to EL 1, 
and BIC, for which this TSL corresponds to EL 2. At the Recommended 
TSL, products of most classes would use high-efficiency single-speed 
compressors with forced-convection evaporators and condensers using 
brushless-DC fan motors. Doors would be double-glazed with low-
conductivity gas fill (e.g., argon) and a single low-emissivity glass 
layer. Products would not require use of VIPs, but the FC product class 
would require thicker walls than corresponding baseline products. The 
Recommended TSL would save an estimated 0.32 quads of energy, an amount 
DOE considers significant. Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV of 
consumer benefit would be $0.17 billion using a discount rate of 7 
percent, and $0.77 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL are 5.9 
Mt of CO2, 1.8 thousand tons of SO2, 10.8 
thousand tons of NOX, 0.01 tons of Hg, 48.6 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.06 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
the Recommended TSL is $0.3 billion. The estimated monetary value of 
the health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions at the Recommended TSL is $0.2 billion using a 7-percent 
discount rate and $0.6 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended 
TSL is $0.7 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits 
and costs, the estimated total NPV at the Recommended TSL is $1.7 
billion. The estimated total monetized NPV is provided for additional 
information, however, consistent with the statutory factors and 
framework for determining whether a standard level is economically 
justified, DOE considers a range of quantitative and qualitative 
benefits and burdens, including the costs and cost savings for 
consumers, impacts to consumer subgroups, energy savings, emission 
reductions, and impacts on manufacturers.
    At the Recommended TSL, for the product classes with the largest 
market share, which are FCC, FC, and C-13A, the LCC savings are $12.6, 
$28.0, and $12.0, respectively, and their payback periods are 6.8 
years, 8.5 years, and 7.3 years, respectively, which are all shorter 
than their corresponding average lifetimes. For these product classes, 
the fraction of consumers experiencing a net

[[Page 37997]]

LCC cost is 46.8 percent, 44.0 percent, and 47.2 percent, and increases 
in first cost for these classes are $91.7, $360.9, and $124.3, 
respectively. Overall, the LCC savings would be positive for all MREF 
product classes, and, while 43.7 percent of MREF consumers would 
experience a net cost, slightly more than half of MREF consumers would 
experience a net benefit (52.9 percent).
    At the Recommended TSL (i.e., TSL 4), the projected change in INPV 
ranges from a decrease of $92.1 million to a decrease of $60.3 million, 
which correspond to decreases of 11.4 percent and 7.5 percent, 
respectively. DOE estimates that industry must invest $130.7 million to 
comply with standards set at Recommended TSL.
    DOE estimates that approximately 3.9 percent of shipments currently 
meet the efficiencies required at the Recommended TSL. For most product 
classes (i.e., FCC, BICC, BIC, C-13A, C-13A-BI, C-3A, C-3A-BI), DOE 
expects manufacturers could reach the required efficiencies with 
relatively straightforward component swaps, such as implementing 
incrementally more efficient compressors, rather than the full platform 
redesigns required at max-tech. DOE expects that FC manufacturers would 
need to increase foam insulation thickness and incorporate variable-
speed compressor systems at this level. At the Recommended TSL, DOE 
estimates a 4-percent drop in shipments in the year the standard takes 
effect compared to the no-new-standards case, as some consumers may 
forgo purchasing a new MREF due to the increased upfront cost of 
baseline models.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that a potential 
standard set at the Recommended TSL for MREFs would be economically 
justified. At this TSL, the average LCC savings are positive for all 
product classes for which an amended standard is considered, with a 
shipment-weighted average of $15.2 savings. The FFC national energy 
savings are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive 
using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. The standard levels 
at TSL 4 are economically justified even without weighing the estimated 
monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions 
are included--representing $0.3 billion in climate benefits (associated 
with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $0.6 billion 
(using a 3-percent discount rate) or $0.2 billion (using a 7-percent 
discount rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes stronger 
still.
    As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL 
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative 
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of 
energy savings that are technologically feasible and economically 
justified, which would be contrary to the statute. See 86 FR 70892, 
70908. Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select 
the proposed energy conservation standards, DOE notes that the 
Recommended TSL represents the option with positive LCC savings ($15.2) 
for all product classes compared to TSL 5 (-$99.5). Further, when 
comparing the cumulative NPV of consumer benefit using a 7-percent 
discount rate, TSL 4 ($0.7 billion) has a higher benefit value than TSL 
5 (-$0.4 billion), while for a 3-percent discount rate, TSL 4 ($1.7 
billion) is also higher than TSL 5 (-$0.07 billion), which yields 
negative NPV in both cases. These additional savings and benefits at 
the Recommended TSL are significant. DOE considers the impacts to be, 
as a whole, economically justified at the Recommended TSL.
    Although DOE considered amended standard levels for MREFs by 
grouping the efficiency levels for each product class into TSLs, DOE 
evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its analysis. TSL 4, the 
Recommended TSL and the one proposed here, includes an EL for BIC that 
is lower than the EL at TSL 2. That is because TSL 2 represents ENERGY 
STAR for all product classes for which an ENERGY STAR criterion exists, 
including EL 3 for BIC and EL2 for C-3A-BI. As such, DOE analyzed TSL 2 
with a higher efficiency level for BIC than TSL 4 because of the ENERGY 
STAR criterion. TSL 4 also includes an EL for C-3A-BI, EL1, that is 
lower than another EL, EL2, considered but not discussed as part of 
DOE's consideration of TSL 5. DOE has considered standards at those ELs 
for those products and found them not to be economically justified. For 
all product classes, except for BIC and C-3A-BI, the amended standard 
level represents the maximum energy savings that does not result in 
negative LCC savings. For BIC and C-3A-BI, the standard level 
represents the maximum energy savings that is economically justified; 
for these classes, DOE examined higher ELs, which were not included in 
TSL 4 (EL3 and EL2, respectively). Although these ELs have positive LCC 
savings, they would result in a majority of purchasers experiencing a 
net cost (53 percent and 57 percent, respectively). Further, for BIC 
products, DOE expects some manufacturers would likely need to increase 
insulation thickness to meet efficiency levels above EL 2, which could 
require new cabinet designs and fixtures. Due to the high percentage of 
consumers with a net cost and the extensive redesigns that would be 
needed to support EL3 for BIC and EL2 for C-3A-BI, DOE has tentatively 
concluded that efficiency level 3 for BIC and efficiency level 2 for C-
3A-BI is not economically justified. However, at the Recommended TSL 
(EL 2 for BIC), DOE expects manufacturers could likely meet the 
efficiency level required for BIC without significant redesign. The ELs 
at the proposed standard level result in positive LCC savings for all 
product classes and reduce the decrease in INPV and conversion costs to 
the point where DOE has tentatively concluded they are economically 
justified, as discussed for the Recommended TSL in the preceding 
paragraphs.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to 
adopt the energy conservation standards for MREFs at the Recommended 
TSL.
    While DOE considered each potential TSL under the criteria laid out 
in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, DOE 
notes that the Recommended TSL for MREFs in this direct final rule is 
part of a multi-product Joint Agreement covering six rulemakings 
(refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (``RFs''); MREFs; 
conventional cooking products; residential clothes washers; consumer 
clothes dryers; and dishwashers). The signatories indicate that the 
Joint Agreement for the six rulemakings should be considered as a joint 
statement of recommended standards, to be adopted in its entirety. As 
discussed in section V.B.2.e of the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, many MREF OEMs also 
manufacture RFs, conventional cooking products, residential clothes 
washers, consumer clothes dryers, and dishwashers. Rather than 
requiring compliance with five amended standards in a single year 
(2027),\13\ the

[[Page 37998]]

negotiated multi-product Joint Agreement staggers the compliance dates 
for the five amended standards over a 4-year period (2027-2030). DOE 
understands that the compliance dates recommended in the Joint 
Agreement would help reduce cumulative regulatory burden. These 
compliance dates help relieve concern on the part of some manufacturers 
about their ability to allocate sufficient resources to comply with 
multiple concurrent amended standards, about the need to align 
compliance dates for products that are typically designed or sold as 
matched pairs, and about the ability of their suppliers to ramp up 
production of key components. The Joint Agreement also provides 
additional years of regulatory certainty for manufacturers and their 
suppliers while still achieving the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 
rulemaking (88 FR 12452); consumer conventional cooking products 
rulemaking (88 FR 6818); residential clothes washers rulemaking (88 
FR 13520); consumer clothes dryers rulemaking (87 FR 51734); and 
dishwashers rulemaking (88 FR 32514) utilized a 2027 compliance year 
for analysis at the proposed rule stage. The miscellaneous 
refrigeration products rulemaking (88 FR 12452) utilized a 2029 
compliance year for the NOPR analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed energy conservation standards for MREFs, which are 
expressed in kWh/yr, are shown in Table III.3.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

Table III.3 Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Miscellaneous 
Refrigeration Products (Compliance Starting January 31, 2029)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY24.113

B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the 
benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less 
energy), minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the 
annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits from 
emission reductions.
    Table III.4 shows the annualized values for MREFs under the 
Recommended TSL, expressed in 2022$. The results under the primary 
estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
standards for MREFs is $72.7 million per year in increased product 
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $90.6 million in reduced 
product operating costs, $18.3 million in climate benefits, and $25.6 
million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $61.7 million 
per year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated cost of the proposed standards for MREFs is $70.8 million 
per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual 
benefits are $115 million in reduced operating costs, $18.3 million in 
climate benefits, and $35.6 million in health benefits. The net benefit 
amounts to $98 million per year.

Table III.4 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards (TSL 4, 
the Recommended TSL) for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products

[[Page 37999]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY24.114


[[Page 38000]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MY24.115

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

IV. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule until the date provided in the DATES section at the 
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit 
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail will also be posted to www.regulations.gov. If 
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.

[[Page 38001]]

    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will 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, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination. It is DOE's policy that 
all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and 
as received, including any personal information provided in the 
comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public 
disclosure).

B. Public Meeting

    As stated previously, if DOE withdraws the direct final rule 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register pursuant to 
42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for 
additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of 
any meeting in the Federal Register.

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

    The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are 
identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Please see the direct 
final rule for further details.

A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required 
by E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency 
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and 
policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of 
its rules on small entities are properly considered during the proposed 
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and 
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website 
(www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has prepared the 
following IRFA for the products that are the subject of this proposed 
rulemaking.
    For manufacturers of MREFs, the Small Business Administration 
(``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those entities 
classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE 
used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any 
small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. (See 
13 CFR part 121.) The size standards are listed by North American 
Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry 
description and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Manufacturing of MREFs is classified under 335220: 
``Major Household Appliance Manufacturing'' or NAICS code 333415: 
``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and 
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a 
threshold of 1,500 employees or fewer and 1,250 employees or fewer for 
an entity to be considered as a small business for NAICS codes 335220 
and 333415, respectively. DOE used the higher (i.e., more inclusive) 
threshold of 1,500 employees to identify small business manufacturers.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    DOE is proposing amended energy conservation standards for MREFs. 
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of 
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B 
of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles which, in addition to identifying 
particular consumer products and commercial equipment as covered under 
the statute, permits the Secretary of Energy to classify additional 
types of consumer products as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)) 
DOE added MREFs as covered products through a final determination of 
coverage published in the Federal Register on July 18, 2016. 81 FR 
46768. EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the 
issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE 
must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the 
product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed 
energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new 
or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    In light of the above and the requirements under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(A)-(B), DOE is issuing this NOPR proposing energy 
conservation standards for MREFs. These standard levels were submitted 
jointly to DOE on September 25, 2023, by groups representing 
manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and 
a utility.\14\ This letter, titled ``Energy Efficiency Agreement of 
2023''

[[Page 38002]]

(hereafter, the ``Joint Agreement'' \15\), recommends specific energy 
conservation standards for MREFs that, in the commenters' view, would 
satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The signatories to the Joint Agreement include AHAM, 
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Alliance for Water 
Efficiency, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Consumer 
Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, National 
Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Northwest 
Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 
Members of AHAM's Major Appliance Division that manufacture the 
affected products include: Alliance Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko 
Appliances AB; Beko US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH; Danby 
Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; Elicamex S.A. de 
C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GEA, a Haier Company; L'Atelier Paris 
Haute Design LLG; LGEUSA; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea America Corp.; 
Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) 
Corporation of America; Perlick Corporation; Samsung; Sharp 
Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero Group, Inc.; The 
Middleby Corporation; U-Line Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and 
Whirlpool.
    \15\ This document is available in the docket at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039-0034.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles, which in addition to identifying 
particular consumer products and commercial equipment as covered under 
the statute, permits the Secretary of Energy to classify additional 
types of consumer products as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)) 
DOE added MREFs as covered products through a final determination of 
coverage published in the Federal Register on July 18, 2016 (the ``July 
2016 Final Coverage Determination''). 81 FR 46768. MREFs are consumer 
refrigeration products other than refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 
or freezers, which include coolers and combination cooler refrigeration 
products. 10 CFR 430.2. MREFs include refrigeration products such as 
coolers (e.g., wine chillers and other specialty products) and 
combination cooler refrigeration products (e.g., wine chillers and 
other specialty compartments combined with a refrigerator, 
refrigerator-freezers, or freezers). EPCA further provides that, not 
later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or 
amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination 
that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR 
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a 
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)).
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 
February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE conducted a market survey to 
identify potential small manufacturers of MREFs. DOE conducted a market 
survey to identify potential small manufacturers of MREFs. DOE reviewed 
DOE's Compliance Certification Database (``CCD''),\16\ California 
Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database 
System,\17\ individual company websites, and prior MREF rulemakings to 
identify manufacturers of the covered product. DOE then consulted 
publicly available data, such as manufacturer websites, manufacturer 
specifications and product literature, import/export logs (e.g., bills 
of lading from ImportYeti \18\), and basic model numbers to identify 
original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') of covered MREFs. DOE 
further relied on public data and subscription-based market research 
tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet reports \19\) to determine company, 
location, headcount, and annual revenue. DOE also asked industry 
representatives if they were aware of any small manufacturers during 
manufacturer interviews conducted in advance of the March 2023 NOPR. 88 
FR 19382. DOE screened out companies that do not offer products covered 
by this proposed rulemaking, do not meet the SBA's definition of a 
``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification 
Database. (Last accessed August 17, 2023.) www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*.
    \17\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance 
Efficiency Database System. (Last accessed August 17, 2023.) 
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx.
    \18\ ImportYeti, LLC. ImportYeti. (Last accessed December 4, 
2023) www.importyeti.com/%20.
    \19\ D&B Hoover. Company Profiles. Various companies. (Last 
accessed September 15, 2023.) app.dnbhoovers.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through DOE's review of its product database and other public 
sources, DOE identified 49 OEMs that sell MREFs in the United States 
for this proposed rule. Of the 49 OEMs identified, DOE determined that 
one company qualifies as a small business and is not foreign-owned and 
operated.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    The small business identified has 14 MREF models certified in DOE's 
CCD. Of those 14 models, nine models are FCCs, two are built-in 
coolers, and three are C-13A combination coolers. None of the nine FCC 
models meet the Recommended TSL (i.e., TSL 4) efficiencies. Of the two 
built-in coolers, one meets the efficiencies required at the 
Recommended TSL. However, based on a review of their product 
specifications, the two models have identical dimensions and share many 
components. Given the product similarities, DOE expects the 
manufacturer would likely discontinue the non-compliant model. None of 
the three C-13A models meet the Recommended TSL efficiencies. To meet 
the required efficiencies for their FCC models, DOE expects the 
manufacturer would likely need to incorporate incrementally more 
efficient compressors, along with other design options. DOE expects 
these updates to be relatively straight forward component replacements. 
Some product conversion costs would be necessary for sourcing, 
qualifying, and testing more efficient components. To meet the 
efficiencies required for their C-13A models, DOE expects the 
manufacturer would likely need to implement variable-speed compressors, 
along with other design options. Implementing variable-speed 
compressors could require more advanced controls and electronics and 
new test stations. DOE expects this manufacturer would incur minimal 
capital conversion costs as the design options analyzed do not require 
changes to insulation (i.e., VIPs or increased wall insulation 
thickness). DOE estimated conversion costs for this small manufacturer 
by using product platform estimates to scale-down the industry 
conversion costs. DOE estimates that the small business would incur 
product conversion costs of approximately $1.41 million related to 
sourcing and testing more efficient components and variable-speed 
compressors to meet proposed standards. Based on subscription-based 
market research reports, the small business has an annual revenue of 
approximately $85.3 million.\20\ The total conversion costs of $1.41 
million are less than 1 percent of the estimated company revenue over 
the 5-year conversion period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ D&B Hoover. Company Profiles. Various companies. (Last 
accessed November 29, 2023.) app.dnbhoovers.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small 
businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by 
TSL 4 (i.e., the Recommended TSL). In reviewing alternatives to the 
proposed rule, DOE examined energy conservation standards set at lower 
efficiency levels. While TSLs 3, 2, and 1 would reduce the impacts on 
small

[[Page 38003]]

business manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a reduction in 
energy savings. TSL 1 achieves 69 percent lower energy savings compared 
to the energy savings at TSL 4. TSL 2 achieves 38 percent lower energy 
savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 4. TSL 3 achieves 31 
percent lower energy savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 4.
    Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 4 
balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 4 with the potential 
burdens placed on MREF manufacturers, including small business 
manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE does not propose one of the other TSLs 
considered in the analysis, or the other policy alternatives examined 
as part of the regulatory impact analysis and included in chapter 17 of 
the direct final rule TSD.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue 
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an 
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a 
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final 
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, 
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to 
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain 
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, Small businesses.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 10, 
2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on April 11, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Amend Sec.  430.32 by revising paragraph (aa) to read as follows:


Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and their 
compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (aa) Miscellaneous refrigeration products. The energy standards as 
determined by the equations of the following table(s) shall be rounded 
off to the nearest kWh per year. If the equation calculation is halfway 
between the nearest two kWh per year values, the standard shall be 
rounded up to the higher of these values.
    (1) Coolers. (i) Coolers manufactured on or after October 28, 2019, 
and before January 31, 2029, shall have an Annual Energy Use (AEU) no 
more than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Product class                        AEU (kWh/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Freestanding compact..................                7.88AV + 155.8
(B) Freestanding..........................                7.88AV + 155.8
(C) Built-in compact......................                7.88AV + 155.8
(D) Built-in..............................                7.88AV + 155.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft\3\, as determined in
  appendix A to subpart B of this part.

    (ii) Coolers manufactured on or after January 31, 2029, shall have 
an Annual Energy Use (AEU) no more than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Product class                        AEU (kWh/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Freestanding compact..................                5.52AV + 109.1
(B) Freestanding..........................                5.52AV + 109.1
(C) Built-in compact......................                5.52AV + 109.1
(D) Built-in..............................                6.30AV + 124.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft\3\, as determined in
  appendix A to subpart B of this part.

    (2) Combination cooler refrigeration products. (i) Combination 
cooler refrigeration products manufactured on or after October 28, 
2019, and before January 31, 2029, shall have an Annual Energy Use 
(AEU) no more than:

[[Page 38004]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Product class                        AEU (kWh/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) C-3A. Cooler with all-refrigerator--                  4.57AV + 130.4
 automatic defrost........................
(B) C-3A-BI. Built-in cooler with all-                    5.19AV + 147.8
 refrigerator--automatic defrost..........
(C) C-9. Cooler with upright freezer with                 5.58AV + 147.7
 automatic defrost without an automatic
 icemaker.................................
(D) C-9-BI. Built-in cooler with upright                  6.38AV + 168.8
 freezer with automatic defrost without an
 automatic icemaker.......................
(E) C-9I. Cooler with upright freezer with                5.58AV + 231.7
 automatic defrost with an automatic
 icemaker.................................
(F) C-9I-BI. Built-in cooler with upright                 6.38AV + 252.8
 freezer with automatic defrost with an
 automatic icemaker.......................
(G) C-13A. Compact cooler with all-                       5.93AV + 193.7
 refrigerator--automatic defrost..........
(H) C-13A-BI. Built-in compact cooler with                6.52AV + 213.1
 all-refrigerator--automatic defrost......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft\3\, as determined in
  appendix A to subpart B of this part.

    (ii) Combination cooler refrigeration products manufactured on or 
after January 31, 2029, shall have an Annual Energy Use (AEU) no more 
than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Product class                        AEU (kWh/yr)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) C-3A. Cooler with all-refrigerator--                  4.11AV + 117.4
 automatic defrost........................
(B) C-3A-BI. Built-in cooler with all-                    4.67AV + 133.0
 refrigerator--automatic defrost..........
(C) C-5-BI. Built-in cooler with                    5.47AV + 196.2 + 28I
 refrigerator-freezer with automatic
 defrost with bottom-mounted freezer......
(D) C-9. Cooler with upright freezer with           5.58AV + 147.7 + 28I
 automatic defrost without an automatic
 icemaker.................................
(E) C-9-BI. Built-in cooler with upright            6.38AV + 168.8 + 28I
 freezer with automatic defrost without an
 automatic icemaker.......................
(F) C-13A. Compact cooler with all-                       4.74AV + 155.0
 refrigerator--automatic defrost..........
(G) C-13A-BI. Built-in compact cooler with                5.22AV + 170.5
 all-refrigerator--automatic defrost......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft\3\, as determined in
  appendix A to subpart B of this part.
I = 1 for a product with an automatic icemaker and = 0 for a product
  without an automatic icemaker.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-08002 Filed 5-6-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P