Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-31214

Rule2024-31214

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

January 21, 2025

Effective

March 24, 2025

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended ("EPCA"), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers ("commercial refrigeration equipment" or "CRE"). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") to periodically review its existing standards to determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in significant energy savings. In this final rule, DOE is adopting new and amended energy conservation standards for CRE. It has determined that the new and amended energy conservation standards for this equipment would result in significant conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 21, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7464-7648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31214]

[[Page 7463]]

Vol. 90

Tuesday,

No. 12

January 21, 2025

Part IV

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Part 431

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers; Final
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 12 / Tuesday, January 21, 2025 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 7464]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

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

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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 commercial
refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers (``commercial
refrigeration equipment'' or ``CRE''). EPCA also requires the U.S.
Department of Energy (``DOE'') to periodically review its existing
standards to determine whether more-stringent standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in
significant energy savings. In this final rule, DOE is adopting new and
amended energy conservation standards for CRE. It has determined that
the new and amended energy conservation standards for this equipment
would result in significant conservation of energy and are
technologically feasible and economically justified.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is March 24, 2025. Compliance
with the new and amended standards established for commercial
refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers in this final rule
is required on and after Monday, January 22, 2029. The incorporation by
reference of certain material listed in this rule was approved by the
Director of the Federal Register as of March 10, 2009 and October 23,
2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket are listed
in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6e7d6d6cacfc7c8c5c3f5d2c7c8c2c7d4c2d5f7d3c3d5d2cfc9c8d5e6c3c388c2c9c388c1c9d0">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-9870. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f9b88989959098979a9caa8d98979d988b9d8aa88c9c8a8d9096978ab99c9cd79d969cd79e968f">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#400b32293334292e6e0b2f25322e29270028316e242f256e272f36">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule
A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
B. Impact on Manufacturers
C. National Benefits and Costs
D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Refrigerators,
Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers
3. Applicability of this Final Rule to Large-Capacity CRE
III. General Discussion
A. General Comments
1. General Support
2. General Opposition
a. Proposed Compliance Date
b. Proposed Standards
c. Rulemaking Process
B. Scope of Coverage
C. Test Procedure
D. Technological Feasibility
1. General
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
E. Energy Savings
1. Determination of Savings
2. Significance of Savings
F. Economic Justification
1. Specific Criteria
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC
and PBP)
c. Energy Savings
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
g. Other Factors
2. Rebuttable Presumption
IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments
A. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Equipment Classes and Definitions
a. Current Equipment Classes and Definitions
b. Modifications to Equipment Classes and Definitions
c. Equipment Without Standards Proposed in the October 2023 NOPR
d. Pull-Down Equipment
2. CRE Market
3. Technology Options
a. High-Efficiency Single-Speed Compressors
b. Expansion Valves
c. Doors for Open Units
B. Screening Analysis
1. Screened-Out Technologies
a. Increased Insulation Thickness and Other Technologies That
Affect Internal or External Dimensions
b. Vacuum-Insulated Panels
c. Linear Compressors
d. Air-Curtain Design
e. Permanent Magnet Synchronous AC Motors
f. Evaporator Fan Control
g. Microchannel Condensers
2. Remaining Technologies
a. Other Technologies Not Screened-Out
C. Engineering Analysis
1. Efficiency Analysis
a. Baseline Energy Use
b. Higher Efficiency Levels
c. Equipment Classes With Unique Energy Use Characteristics
d. DOE Test Data
e. Development of Standard Equations
f. Engineering Spreadsheet
g. Capacity Metrics
2. Cost Analysis
a. General Approach of the Cost Analysis
b. Costs of Specific Components
c. Variable-Speed Compressor
d. Doors With Krypton Gas Fill
e. Cost-Efficiency Results
f. Manufacturer Markup
D. Markups Analysis
E. Energy Use Analysis
F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Equipment Cost
2. Installation Cost
3. Annual Energy Consumption
4. Energy Prices
5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
6. Equipment Lifetime
7. Residual Value for Refurbished CRE
8. Discount Rates
9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
10. Payback Period Analysis
G. Shipments Analysis
H. National Impact Analysis
1. Equipment Efficiency Trends
2. National Energy Savings
3. Net Present Value Analysis
a. Sensitivity Analysis for Equipment With Unique Energy Use
Characteristics
I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
1. Overview
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
b. Shipments Projections
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

[[Page 7465]]

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios
3. Discussion of MIA Comments
a. Conversion Costs
b. Impacts on Direct Employment
c. Laboratory Resource Constraints
d. Supply Chain
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
f. Refrigerant Transition
K. Emissions Analysis
1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a. Social Cost of Carbon
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
M. Utility Impact Analysis
N. Employment Impact Analysis
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
A. Trial Standard Levels
B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
3. National Impact Analysis
a. National Energy Savings
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
7. Other Factors
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
C. Conclusion
1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for CRE Standards
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards
3. Removal of Obsolete Provisions
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Need for, and Objectives of, Rule
2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to
the IRFA
3. Response to Comments Filed by Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration
4. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected
5. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
6. Significant Alternatives Considered and Steps Taken To
Minimize Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Rule

EPCA, Public Law 94-163, as amended,\1\ authorizes DOE to regulate
the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified) Title III,
Part C of EPCA,\2\ added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section
441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed
to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified) Such
equipment includes CRE, the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(E))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflects 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 C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to review its existing energy
conservation standards for covered equipment no later than 6 years
after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Pursuant to that statutory
provision, DOE must publish either a notification of determination that
standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(Id.) 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. 6316(e)(1); 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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) DOE has conducted this
review of the energy conservation standards for CRE under EPCA's 6-
year-lookback authority described herein. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of six trial
standard levels (``TSLs'') for CRE. The TSLs and their associated
benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through
V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE
has determined that TSL 3 represents the maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.
The adopted standards, which are expressed in maximum daily energy
consumption (``MDEC'') as a function of the volume or total display
area (``TDA''), are shown in table I.1. These standards apply to all
equipment listed in table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into,
the United States starting on the date 4 years after the publication of
the final rule for this rulemaking. As discussed in section II.B.3 of
this document, DOE is not, at this time, amending standards for the
large-capacity CRE ranges presented in table IV.6 for the VOP.SC.M,
SVO.SC.M, HZO.SC.L, SOC.SC.M, VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, and VCS.SC.L
equipment classes.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 7466]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.089

[[Page 7467]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.090

[[Page 7468]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.092

[[Page 7469]]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
ARI Standard 1200-2006 and AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 are
referenced in the amendatory text of this document and were previously
approved for Sec. 431.66.

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2023
dollars unless indicated otherwise. For purposes of discounting
future monetary values, the present year in the analysis was 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.3 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of
the adopted standards on consumers of CRE, as measured by the average
life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period
(``PBP'').\4\ The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment
classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of CRE, which is
estimated to be 14.0 years (see section IV.F of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards
(see section IV.F.9 of this document). The simple PBP, which is
designed to compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative
to the baseline product (see section IV.C of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.093

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on consumers
is described in section IV.F of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the
end of the analysis period (2024-2058). Using a real discount rate of
10.0 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of CRE in
the case without new and amended standards is $3,022.3 million in
2023$. Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to
range from -2.6 percent to -1.7 percent, which is approximately -$77.8
million to -$51.3 million. In order to bring equipment into compliance
with new and amended standards, it is estimated that industry will
incur total conversion costs of $117.7 million.
DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on
manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

C. National Benefits and Costs

DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation
standards for CRE would save a significant amount of energy. The
adopted TSL is TSL 3. Relative to the case without new and amended
standards, the lifetime energy savings for CRE purchased during the 30-
year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the
new and amended standards (2029-

[[Page 7470]]

2058) amount to 1.11 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or
quads.\5\ This represents a savings of 6.5 percent relative to the
energy use of this equipment in the case without new and amended
standards (referred to as the ``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal,
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.H.2 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer
benefits of the standards for CRE ranges from $1.32 billion 2023$ (at a
7-percent discount rate) to $3.43 billion 2023$ (at a 3-percent
discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs
for CRE purchased during the period 2029-2058.
In addition, the adopted standards for CRE are projected to yield
significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the standards
will result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as
for energy savings) of 19.7 million metric tons (``Mt'') \6\ of carbon
dioxide (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 6.0 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(``SO<INF>2</INF>''), 36.9 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 168 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.2 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), and 0.04 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> are presented in short tons.
\7\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2023 (``AEO2023''). AEO2023 represents current federal and
state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the
time of its preparation. See chapter 13 of this final rule TSD for
further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that affect air pollutant
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in
greenhouse gases (``GHG'') using different estimates of the social cost
of CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of methane
(``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (``SC-
N<INF>2</INF>O''). Together these represent the social cost of GHG
(``SC-GHG''). DOE used an updated set of SC-GHG estimates (in terms of
benefit per ton of GHG avoided) published in 2023 by the Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA'') (``2023 SC-GHG''), as well as the interim
SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social
Cost of Greenhouse Gases (``IWG'') in 2021 (``2021 Interim SC-GHG''),
which DOE used in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule
before the updated values were available.\8\ These values are discussed
in section IV.L of this document. The climate benefits associated with
the average SC-GHG at a 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate using
the 2023 SC-GHG estimates are estimated to be $4.6 billion, and the
climate benefits associated with the average 2021 Interim SC-GHG
estimates at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $1.12
billion. DOE notes, however, that the adopted standards would be
economically justified even without inclusion of the estimated
monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane,
and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990
published in February 2021 by the IWG. (``February 2021 SC-GHG
TSD''). <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/eo12866_oil-and-gas-nsps-eg-climate-review-2060-av16-final-rule-20231130.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/eo12866_oil-and-gas-nsps-eg-climate-review-2060-av16-final-rule-20231130.pdf</a>;
<a href="https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg_2023_report_final.pdf">https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg_2023_report_final.pdf</a> (last accessed July 3, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions using benefit-per-ton estimates
from the EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program \9\ as discussed
in Section IV.L of this document. DOE did not monetize the change in
mercury emissions because the quantity is very small. DOE estimated the
present value of the health benefits would be $0.86 billion using a 7-
percent discount rate, and $2.19 billion using a 3-percent discount
rate.\10\ DOE is currently only monetizing health benefits from changes
in ambient fine particulate matter (``PM<INF>2.5</INF>'')
concentrations from two precursors (SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>),
and from changes in ambient ozone from one precursor (NO<INF>X</INF>),
but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such
as health benefits from reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF>
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted
PM<INF>2.5</INF>, PM<INF>2.5</INF> Precursors and Ozone Precursors
from 21 Sectors. Available at <a href="http://www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors">www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors</a>.
\10\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.4 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to
result from the new and amended standards for CRE. There are other
important unquantified effects, including certain unquantified climate
benefits, unquantified public health benefits from the reduction of
toxic air pollutants and other emissions, unquantified energy security
benefits, and distributional effects, among others.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 7471]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.094

[[Page 7472]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.095

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
The benefits and costs of the adopted standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the
total annualized net benefits are: (1) the reduced consumer operating
costs, minus (2) the increase in equipment purchase prices and
installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits
of emission reductions, all annualized.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, the year
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings.
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur
(e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then discounted the present value from
each year to 2024. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the
fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the
compliance year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S.
consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the
covered equipment and are measured for the lifetime of CRE shipped
during the period 2029-2058. The benefits associated with reduced
emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also
calculated based on the lifetime of CRE shipped during the period 2029-
2058. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are
presented using the average SC-GHG with a 2 percent near-term Ramsey
discount rate for the 2023 SC-GHG estimates and the average SC-GHG with
3-percent discount rate for the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ DOE notes that using consumption-based discount rates
(e.g., 2 or 3 percent) is appropriate when discounting the value of
climate impacts. Combining climate effects discounted at an
appropriate consumption-based discount rate with other costs and
benefits discounted at a capital-based rate (i.e., 7 percent) is
reasonable because of the different nature of the types of benefits
being measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table I.5 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs
associated with the adopted standard, expressed in terms of annualized
values. The results under the primary estimates are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case
or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced
GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted in this rule
is $71 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $210 million in reduced equipment
operating costs, $222 million per year in climate benefits (using the
2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $64 million per year in climate benefits
(using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates), and $90 million in health
benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $452 million
per year (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $294 million per year
(using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates).
Using a 3-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
emissions, and either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case
or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced
GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards is $68 million per
year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits
are $265 million in reduced operating costs, $222 million in climate
benefits (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $64 million in climate
benefits (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates), and $126 million in
health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $545
million per year (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $387 million per
year (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates).
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 7473]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.096

[[Page 7474]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.097

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the adopted standards is
described in sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this document.

D. Conclusion

DOE concludes that the standards adopted in this final rule
represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in
the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to
technological feasibility, design options used to achieve these
standard levels are already commercially available for all equipment
classes covered by this final rule. As for economic justification,
DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the standards exceed, to a
great extent, the burdens of the standards.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> reduction benefits, and a 2-percent
near-term Ramsey discount rate case or the 3-percent discount rate case
for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the standards for CRE is
$71 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated
annual benefits are $210 million in reduced equipment operating costs,
$222 million in climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or
$64 million in climate benefits (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG
estimates), and $90 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts
to $452 million per year (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $294
million per year (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates). DOE notes
that the net benefits are substantial even in the absence of the
climate benefits,\13\ and DOE would adopt the same standards in the
absence of such benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The information on climate benefits is provided in
compliance with Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\14\ For
example, some covered equipment have most of their energy consumption
occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these
equipment on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than the
impacts of equipment with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE
evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in
estimated national energy savings (``NES'') of 1.11 quad full-fuel-
cycle (``FFC''), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 7.4
million homes. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy
savings from the

[[Page 7475]]

standard levels adopted in this final rule are ``significant'' within
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed discussion of
the basis for these conclusions is contained in the remainder of this
document and the accompanying technical support document (``TSD'').

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317, as codified) Title III, Part C of EPCA,\15\ added by Public Law
95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317)
EPCA specifies a list of equipment that constitutes covered equipment
(hereafter referred to as ``covered equipment'').\16\ This equipment
includes commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers,
the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(E))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ As noted previously, for editorial reasons, upon
codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
\16\ ``Covered equipment'' means one of the following types of
industrial equipment: Electric motors and pumps; small commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment; large commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment; very large
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment;
commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers;
automatic commercial ice makers; walk-in coolers and walk-in
freezers; commercial clothes washers; packaged terminal air
conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps; warm air furnaces and
packaged boilers; and storage water heaters, instantaneous water
heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)-
(K))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6296(a), (b), and (d)).
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(e)(2)-(3); 42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant
waivers of Federal preemption in limited circumstances for particular
State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other
provisions set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(2)-(3); 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 covered equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r))
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures
as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with
the applicable energy conservation standards and as the basis for any
representations regarding the energy use or energy efficiency of the
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C.
6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to evaluate
whether a basic model complies with the applicable energy conservation
standard(s). (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)). The DOE test
procedures for CRE appear at 10 CFR 431, subpart C, appendix B
(``appendix B'').
EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for CRE (42 U.S.C.
6313(c)) and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine
whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)) Not later than
six years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending
a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination
(``NOPD'') that standards for the equipment 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. 6316(e)(1); 42
U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE must make the analysis on which a NOPD or NOPR
is based publicly available and provide an opportunity for written
comment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) Not later than
two years after a NOPR is issued, DOE must publish a final rule
amending the energy conservation standard for the equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A))
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment, including CRE. Any new or
amended standard for covered equipment 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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore,
DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if: (1) for certain
equipment, including CRE, no test procedure has been established for
the product; or (2) DOE determines by rule that the establishment of
such standard will not result in significant conservation of energy
(or, for certain products, water), or is not technologically feasible
or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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. 6316(e)(1); 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 equipment subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class)
compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or
maintenance expenses for the covered equipment 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 equipment 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. 6316(e)(1); 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 equipment 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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))

[[Page 7476]]

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 covered
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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 equipment 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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an
energy conservation standard for covered equipment that has two or more
subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a
type (or class) of equipment must specify a different standard level
for a type or class of equipment that has the same function or intended
use if DOE determines that equipment within such group (A) consumes a
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment
within such type (or class); or (B) has 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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining
whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard
for a group of equipment, 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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
DOE is publishing this final rule pursuant to the six-year-lookback
review requirement in EPCA described herein.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
DOE most recently completed a review of its CRE standards in a
final rule published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2014 (``March
2014 Final Rule''), through which DOE prescribed the current energy
conservation standards for CRE manufactured on and after March 27,
2017. 79 FR 17725. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations
at 10 CFR 431.66(e) and are shown in table II.1.
For CRE with two or more compartments (i.e., hybrid refrigerators,
hybrid freezers, hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid
refrigerator-freezers), 10 CFR 431.66(e)(2) specifies that the maximum
daily energy consumption for each model shall be the sum of the
applicable standard for each of the compartments, as specified in 10
CFR 431.66(e)(1). For wedge cases, 10 CFR 431.66(e)(3) specifies
instructions to comply with the applicable standards specified in 10
CFR 431.66(e)(1). Certain exclusions to the standards at 10 CFR
431.66(e)(1) are specified at 10 CFR 431.66(f).
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 7477]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.098

[[Page 7478]]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Refrigerators,
Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers
On July 16, 2021, DOE published a request for information (``RFI'')
in the Federal Register to undertake an early assessment review for
amended energy conservation standards for CRE to determine whether to
amend applicable energy conservation standards for this equipment
(``July 2021 RFI''). 86 FR 37708. Specifically, through the published
notice and RFI, DOE sought data and information that could enable the
agency to determine whether amended energy conservation standards
would: (1) result in a significant savings of energy, (2) be
technologically feasible, and (3) be economically justified. Id.
On June 28, 2022, DOE published in the Federal Register a
notification of the availability of a preliminary TSD for CRE (``June
2022 Preliminary Analysis''). 87 FR 38296. In that notification, DOE
sought comment on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE
used to evaluate potential standards for CRE, the results of
preliminary analyses performed, and the potential energy conservation
standard levels derived from these analyses, which DOE presented in the
accompanying preliminary TSD (``June 2022 Preliminary TSD'').\17\ Id.
DOE held a public meeting related to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis
on August 8, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The June 2022 Preliminary TSD is available in the docket
for this rulemaking at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0013">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0013</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On October 10, 2023, DOE published in the Federal Register a NOPR
to establish and amend energy conservation standards for CRE (``October
2023 NOPR''). 88 FR 70196. DOE also sought comment on the analytical
framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate the proposed
standards for CRE, the results of the NOPR analyses performed, and the
proposed new and amended energy conservation standard levels derived
from these analyses, which DOE presented in the accompanying NOPR TSD
(``October 2023 NOPR TSD'').\18\ Id. DOE held a public meeting related
to the October 2023 NOPR on November 7, 2023 (hereafter, the ``November
2023 Public Meeting'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ The October 2023 NOPR TSD is available in the docket for
this rulemaking at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0051">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0051</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE received comments in response to the October 2023 NOPR from the
interested parties listed in table II.2.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 7479]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.099

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
To the extent that interested parties have provided written
comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments
provided during the

[[Page 7480]]

November 2023 Public Meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout
this document. Any oral comments provided during the November 2023
Public Meeting that are not substantively addressed by written comments
are summarized and cited separately throughout this document.
On August 28, 2024, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice
of data availability (``NODA'') to provide updated analytical results
that reflect updates to the analysis that DOE is considering based on
feedback received in response to the October 2023 NOPR (``August 2024
NODA''). 89 FR 68788. DOE also sought comment, data, and information
regarding the updated analyses. Id.
DOE received comments in response to the August 2024 NODA from the
interested parties listed in table II.3.

[[Page 7481]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.100

[[Page 7482]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.101

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
energy conservation standards for CRE. (Docket NO. EERE-2017-BT-STD-
0007, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Applicability of This Final Rule to Large-Capacity CRE
As discussed in section I of this document, DOE is establishing and
amending standards in this final rule for the classes of equipment
shown in table I.1. This includes all classes of CRE currently subject
to energy conservation standards, and DOE is additionally establishing
standards for chef bases or griddle stands. However, DOE is not, at
this time, amending standards for large-capacity CRE ranges presented
in table IV. for the VOP.SC.M, SVO.SC.M, HZO.SC.L, SOC.SC.M, VCT.SC.M,
VCT.SC.L, and VCS.SC.L equipment classes. Large-capacity CRE in these
classes would remain subject to the current energy conservation
standards applicable to those classes for which compliance was required
beginning on March 27, 2017.
DOE has summarized the comments it received in response to the
October 2023 NOPR and August 2024 NODA specific to the large-capacity
analysis as follows. Zero Zone, ASAP et. al., AHRI, and Hussmann
commented in support of DOE's decision to separate self-contained units
into two groups, and of DOE's updated assumption that larger self-
contained equipment will use an A2L refrigerant, such as R-454C, when
the refrigeration cooling load of the case is more than can be achieved
using an allowable R-290 charge size. (Zero Zone, No. 114 at p. 1,
(ASAP et al., No. 106 at pp. 1-2, AHRI, No. 104 at p. 9, Hussmann, No.
108 at p. 3) Hussmann and AHRI additionally agreed with DOE's finding
that compressors using R-454C and R-455A have performance similar to
compressors with refrigerants already in use (e.g., R-404A) in larger
equipment. (Hussmann, No. 108 at p. 3, AHRI, No. 104 at p. 9)
Hillphoenix agreed with DOE's A2L compressor cost assumptions.
(Hillphoenix, No. 110 at p. 3). Hussmann, AHRI, and Continental
disagreed with DOE's A2L compressor cost assumptions and stated that
the price of an A2L compressor is similar to an R-404A compressor at
the same cooling capacity. (Hussmann, No. 108 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 104 at
p. 9; Continental, No. 107 at p. 2). Hussmann and Due North commented
with concerns that large volume units would be susceptible to
discontinuation as they face some of the most severe proposed energy
use reductions. (Hussmann, No. 80 at p. 7, Due North, No. 87, at pp. 1-
2) The CA IOUs recommended that DOE reconsider how it defines `large'
and `non-large' capacity equipment, and that DOE reconsider its
assumption that all `large' units will require A2L refrigerants. (CA
IOUs, No. 113 at p. 4)
For all comments received in response to the October 2023 NOPR and
August 2024 NODA, DOE appreciates the comments and continues to analyze
the large-capacity ranges presented in table IV.5 for the VOP.SC.M,
SVO.SC.M, HZO.SC.L, SOC.SC.M, VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, and VCS.SC.L
equipment classes.
Further, DOE is not addressing nor discussing any analytical
methodologies or results for the large-capacity ranges of these
equipment classes in this document as DOE continues to consider the
comments submitted in response to the October 2023 NOPR and August 2024
NODA.

III. General Discussion

DOE developed this final rule after considering all oral and
written comments, data, and information from interested parties that
represent a variety of interests. This document addresses issues raised
by these commenters.

A. General Comments

This section summarizes general comments received from interested
parties regarding rulemaking timing and process.
1. General Support
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Ravnitzky, ASAP et al.,
NYSERDA, NEEA and NWPCC, and Killin supported the October 2023 NOPR,
citing large national energy savings and considerable savings for
businesses. (Ravnitzky, No. 57 at p. 1; ASAP et al., No. 79 at p. 1;
NYSERDA, No. 88 at pp. 1-2; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 89 at p. 3; Killin, No.
59 at p. 1) Ravnitzky commented that the proposed rule would have
significant environmental and public health benefits and that the net
economic benefits for consumers and manufacturers would outweigh the
costs of complying with the proposed rule. (Ravnitzky, No. 57 at p. 1)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Ravnitzky also commented that
the rule creates a level playing field for manufacturers by harmonizing
standards across different types and classes of CRE. (Ravnitzky, No. 57
at p. 1) Ravnitzky urged DOE to finalize and implement the rule as soon
as possible,

[[Page 7483]]

while also continuing to monitor and evaluate its impacts and outcomes
and to seek feedback and input from stakeholders and experts. (Id. at
p. 5)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, NEEA and NWPCC supported the
proposal of TSL 5 as it represents the highest standard level that is
technically feasible and economically justified and provides a large
amount of cost-effective energy savings for the Nation. (NEEA and
NWPCC, No. 89 at p. 3)
In response to the August 2024 NODA, ASAP et al. supported DOE's
updates to the analysis presented in the NODA and believe the updated
analysis provides a strong basis for finalizing amended CRE standards,
and encourages the adoption of the highest efficiency levels (``ELs'')
that have positive life-cycle cost savings. (ASAP et al., No. 106 at p.
1) Based on DOE's updated analysis for the NODA, ASAP et al. estimated
that amended standards meeting this criteria would yield about 1.5
quads of energy savings and up to about $4.5 billion in net present
value savings for purchasers based on DOE's updated analysis for the
August 2024 NODA. (Id.)
An anonymous commenter expressed general support for adopting the
max-tech level. (Anonymous, No. 105 at p. 1)
Lepak commented in support of the rulemaking because, while it may
increase costs for consumers, without these regulations innovation
would not occur and consumers rely on regulations like this one to
ensure that they have access to quality, energy efficient products.
(Lepak, No. 116, at p. 1; Lepak, No. 117, at p. 1) Lepak added that
energy efficiency measures help the county to meet its climate goals.
(Id.)
2. General Opposition
DOE also received comments, in response to the October 2023 NOPR
and the August 2024 NODA, outlining numerous concerns with the proposed
new and amended energy conservation standards. These included concerns
about other cumulative regulatory changes the industry is currently
addressing, including a final rule published by the EPA regarding
refrigerant prohibitions in certain equipment, leading to requests to
delay the rulemaking and/or extend the compliance date of the proposed
standards; questions about the economic justification; technical
feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the proposed standards; potential
inaccuracies in the supporting analysis; potential issues regarding
food safe temperatures; and concerns with certain rulemaking processes,
including the public comment period. These comments are included and
discussed throughout section III of this document.
a. Proposed Compliance Date
In the October 2023 NOPR, DOE estimated the publication of a final
rule regarding amended energy conservation standards for CRE in the
second half of 2024; therefore, for purposes of the October 2023 NOPR,
DOE modeled a 3-year compliance period and 2028 as the first full year
of compliance with any amended standards, consistent with the
requirements of EPCA (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)(C)(i)). 88 FR 70196,
70237.
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, FMI and NACS, NAFEM, ITW, and
NAMA recommended DOE extend its compliance deadline to 5 years due to
the requirements of the AIM Act and the significant investment and
redesign associated with the ongoing EPA rulemakings. (FMI and NACS,
No. 78 at p. 2; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 2; ITW, No. 82 at p. 6; NAMA, No.
85 at p. 34)
In response to the August 2024 NODA, NAFEM, NAMA, and Hillphoenix
commented in support of additional time for compliance, and suggested a
5 year compliance period. (NAFEM, No. 101 at pp. 4-5; NAMA, No. 112 at
p. 3; Hillphoenix, No. 110 at p. 12) In response to the August 2024
NODA, Continental stated that adopting standards with a 3 year
compliance period would force them to exit the market for many
equipment configurations. (Continental, No. 107 at p. 3) Hoshizaki
commented that more than 100 of its CRE models would be affected by the
energy conservation standards proposed in the October 2023 NOPR, and
corresponding UL safety and NSF sanitation testing will be difficult or
impossible to complete within the 3-year compliance period. (Hoshizaki,
No. 76 at pp. 6-7)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, NAMA recommended that DOE
increase the time of compliance to recoup investments and alleviate the
stress of staffing, supply chain issues, and platform changes to use
low GWP refrigerants. (Id. at p. 18) NAMA suggested that DOE allow the
industry 2-3 years after the effective date of EPA's final rule
published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2023, to address HFCs
through the AIM Act (``October 2023 EPA Final Rule''; 88 FR 73098) to
absorb the costs of the refrigerant transition before redesigning their
products to the next CRE energy conservation standards. (Id. at pp. 19,
27)
DOE acknowledges the concerns raised by manufacturers regarding the
cumulative regulatory burden from the October 2023 EPA Final Rule and
DOE energy conservation standards rulemakings, which is compounded by
changes to Underwriters Laboratories (``UL'') safety standards for the
equipment covered by this rulemaking. DOE notes that it has some
flexibility under EPCA to delay the effective date of new and amended
standards: if the Secretary determines that a 3-year period is
inadequate, the Secretary may establish an effective date that would
apply to CRE on or after a date that is not later than 5 years after
the final rule is published in the Federal Register. (See 42 U.S.C.
6313(c)(6)(C)) Based on stakeholder comments and DOE's assessment of
the overlapping Federal refrigerant regulations and recent changes to
UL safety standards for CRE, DOE is extending the compliance period
from the 3-years analyzed in the October 2023 NOPR (modeled as a 2028
compliance year) to 4-years (modeled as a 2029 compliance year) for
this final rule.
Generally, DOE understands that aligning compliance dates to avoid
multiple successive redesigns can help to reduce cumulative regulatory
burden. However, stakeholder comments indicate and make clear that the
rulemaking timelines and compliance periods for DOE and EPA regulations
make it challenging to redesign and retest CRE simultaneously to meet
both the October 2023 EPA Final Rule and new and amended DOE standards.
As discussed in more detail in section IV.J.3.c of this document,
manufacturers indicated that testing facilities and engineering
resources are currently fully consumed by the transition to low-GWP
refrigerants and new UL safety standards. Many manufacturers expressed
concern that third-party laboratories already have backlogs and are
experiencing delays, meaning that requiring new and amended standards
for CRE within a short time period could exacerbate the issue. DOE has
determined that a 4-year compliance period to redesign CRE to meet the
adopted standards will help alleviate manufacturers' concerns about
engineering and laboratory resource constraints. Furthermore, the
longer compliance period will help mitigate cumulative regulatory
burden by allowing manufacturers more flexibility to spread investments
across 4 years instead of 3 years. Manufacturers will also have more
time to recoup any investments made to redesign CRE to comply with the
October 2023 EPA Final Rule as compared to a 3-year compliance period.
Regarding manufacturers' requests to extend the compliance period
to 5 years,

[[Page 7484]]

DOE notes that much of the CRE market has already transitioned to low-
GWP refrigerants and the portion of the market that has not
transitioned will likely complete the conversion to low-GWP
refrigerants 2 to 4 years prior to when compliance is required for new
and amended energy conservation standards. Furthermore, as compared to
the October 2023 NOPR, DOE is adopting generally less stringent
efficiency levels in this final rule. As such, DOE expects that a 4-
year compliance period (compliance with adopted standards required in
2029) provides industry sufficient time to redesign CRE to comply with
new and amended standards.
In the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal
Register on December 15, 2022 (``December 2022 EPA NOPR''), EPA
proposed a January 1, 2025, compliance date for the refrigeration
categories that apply to CRE. 87 FR 76738, 76773-76774 (Dec. 15, 2022).
For self-contained CRE, which account for approximately 86 percent of
industry CRE shipments covered by this final rule, the October 2023 EPA
Final Rule finalized the compliance date as proposed. 88 FR 73098,
73150. For remote-condensing CRE, which account for the remaining 14
percent of industry CRE shipments covered by this final rule, the
October 2023 EPA Final Rule finalized a compliance date of January 1,
2026 or January 1, 2027, depending on the category. Id. As discussed in
the October 2023 EPA Final Rule, EPA considered updates to UL standard
60335-2-89 and the subsequent incorporation of those updates by
electing to extend the compliance dates for many subsectors in retail
food refrigeration, including remote-condensing CRE. However, EPA
determined that self-contained CRE would not require a delayed
compliance date because low-GWP refrigerants such as R-290 have been
used in self-contained CRE applications for years, and, therefore, the
industry is much further along in the transition to low-GWP
refrigerants compared to other refrigeration subsectors. Id. at 88 FR
73154. DOE agrees with EPA and notes that it has observed, and
manufacturers concur,\20\ that a significant number of CRE models have
already been transitioned to refrigerants that comply with the October
2023 EPA Final Rule. For example, 93 percent of CRE models currently
rated to ENERGY STAR[supreg]'s CRE database use either R-290 or R-
600a.\21\ This is supported by NAFEM members and CRE industry
statements captured in the comments from NAFEM, which stated that
``most self-contained CRE today, in the commercial bar space, already
uses alternate refrigerants, (almost exclusively R-290),'' and ``we
already made the change to R-290 from R-134a more than 5 years ago.''
(NAFEM, No. 83 at pp. 3-5) This demonstrates that data and technology
are currently known and available for manufacturers to understand
performance impacts of this refrigerant transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ See Storemasters, No. 68 at pp. 1-2.
\21\ See <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-commercial-refrigerators-and-freezers/results">www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-commercial-refrigerators-and-freezers/results</a> (last accessed Oct.
23, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As previously mentioned, compared to the October 2023 NOPR, DOE is
adopting generally less stringent efficiency levels (in terms of
percent energy use below the analyzed baseline) for 22 out of the 28
directly analyzed equipment classes. DOE notes that there were several
changes made to the analysis in response to comments and data submitted
on the October 2023 NOPR and the August 2024 NODA that resulted in DOE
adopting generally less stringent standards, including but not limited
to, the updates made to single-speed and variable-speed compressors,
screening out design options such as evaporator fan controls and
microchannel condensers, and updated baseline design options. Due to
these updates and other considerations detailed throughout this final
rule, DOE is adopting generally less stringent standards than the
standards proposed in the October 2023 NOPR. As such, DOE expects fewer
CRE models would require redesign to meet the levels adopted in this
final rule compared to the levels proposed in the October 2023 NOPR.
For example, DOE estimated that approximately 11 percent of shipments
would meet the proposed TSL in the October 2023 NOPR by the analyzed
compliance date. Comparatively, DOE estimates that approximately 49
percent of shipments would meet the TSL adopted in this final rule by
the analyzed compliance date. Furthermore, DOE expects that the
investment and redesign effort required to meet the adopted standards
would be lower since fewer models would require redesign at the adopted
standard level.
As permitted under EPCA and discussed in the preceding paragraphs,
DOE is extending the compliance period from the three years analyzed in
the October 2023 NOPR (modeled as a 2028 compliance year) to four years
(modeled as a 2029 compliance year) for this final rule. (See 42 U.S.C.
6313(c)(6)(C))
b. Proposed Standards
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, FMI and NACS commented that
the proposed energy conservation standards are neither required nor
justified under EPCA. (FMI and NACS, No. 78 at p. 2) FMI and NACS
commented that DOE has not adequately demonstrated that these standards
would be technologically feasible and cost-effective, adding that, in
many cases, the proposed standards would require design elements and
technology that is not economically justified or technically feasible.
(Id.) FMI and NACS commented that DOE significantly underestimates the
costs of compliance with the proposed rule and provided an example that
one FMI member's analysis showed an increased case cost of 20-25
percent to comply with the proposed rule as well as more difficult and
costly servicing. (FMI and NACS, No. 78 at p. 4). FMI and NACS
commented that with more accurate cost and benefit information, it is
likely that DOE's rebuttable payback period analysis will result in
much longer payback periods. (Id.)
In response to the comments from FMI and NACS, DOE notes that for
the proposed levels in the October 2023 NOPR, the analyzed cost
increases were consistent with FMI and NACS' comment (i.e., up to the
20 to 25 percent increase), thus it is not clear that there is a
disconnect on technologies required to get to the proposed levels. DOE
further notes that the finalized standard levels presented in this
final rule (i.e., TSL 3) are generally less stringent and the cost
increases to attain the finalized levels are less, on average, than the
levels proposed in the October 2023 NOPR and were determined to be
cost-effective. DOE further notes that in its analysis, the servicing
costs were set proportional to the equipment cost (i.e., higher cost
for more efficient equipment--see section IV.F.5 of this document and
chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for more details on these costs).
An anonymous commenter stated that the cost benefits of the October
2023 NOPR are inflated by the assumption of social and health benefits,
which are speculative, and added that higher costs from the October
2023 NOPR will render CRE unaffordable for consumers and industry.
(Anonymous, No. 73 at p. 1)
In response to the anonymous commenter, DOE notes that the October
2023 NOPR stated that the estimated total NPV is provided for
additional information; however, DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of
consumer benefits when determining whether a

[[Page 7485]]

proposed standard level is economically justified. See 88 FR 70196,
70292.
In response to the August 2024 NODA, Bice commented that she
opposes the October 2023 NOPR, citing concerns with the multitude of
proposals being published by the DOE. (Bice, No. 92 at p. 1) Bice
commented also that these proposals are adding burdensome energy
conservation standards to products that Americans use on a regular
basis. (Id.) Bice stated her belief that the proposed standards would
increase production costs for manufacturers and retail prices for
consumers and small businesses, costing millions of dollars with few
long-term benefits. (Id.) Bice commented that past rules published by
the DOE are an unnecessary overreach of the Federal government, and
that these regulations limit consumer choice, drive up prices, and
impose onerous regulations on American manufacturers, many of whom
being small businesses. (Id.)
In response to Bice, as discussed in section II.A of this document,
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment; this equipment
includes commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers.
(42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified; 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(E)) EPCA also
includes a lookback period which directs DOE to conduct future
rulemakings to determine whether to amend standards not later than six
years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(m)(1)) DOE notes that as compared to the October 2023 NOPR, DOE is
extending the compliance period from the three years analyzed in the
October 2023 NOPR to four years for this final rule, which would allow
manufacturers an additional year to redesign equipment and comply with
the new or amended standards. Additionally, as discussed in III.A.2.a
of this document, DOE is adopting generally less stringent standards
than what DOE proposed in the October 2023 NOPR. DOE discusses the
benefits and burdens of each TSL considered in section V.C of this
document. Regarding the impacts to small businesses, DOE analyzes the
impacts to small business consumers in section V.B.1.b of this document
and small business manufacturers in section VI.B of this document.
In response to the August 2024 NODA, Zycher commented that energy
savings analyzed as a result of the proposed standards are about 2
tenths of one percent of the energy consumed in 2023 by the
residential, commercial, and industrial sectors and are trivial.
(Zycher, No. 97 at p. 3) Zycher further commented that, accordingly the
reduction in GHG emissions and resulting decline in global temperatures
are negligible. (Id. at pp. 3-4)
In response to Zycher's comment, DOE notes that CRE are one of many
regulated products and equipment within DOE's authority to set
efficiency standards, and that the appliance standards program has
helped the United States avoid 2.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide
emissions.\22\ Additionally, DOE notes that the energy savings analyzed
as a result of new and amended standards in this final rule are
compared to the overall energy use of the CRE market, not the overall
energy consumed by the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ See <a href="http://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/about-appliance-and-equipment-standards-program">www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/about-appliance-and-equipment-standards-program</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the October 2023 NOPR and the August 2024 NODA,
commenters expressed concern regarding the stringency of proposed
standards, requesting no-new standards or alternate levels, citing
technological feasibility, and expressing concern about equipment
elimination, as discussed in the following sections.
No-New-Standards
In response to the October 2023 NOPR and August 2024 NODA,
Storemasters, Kirby, Continental, NAFEM, Hoshizaki, ITW, AHRI, NAMA,
and Hussmann recommended that DOE issue a no-new-standards rule at this
time. (Storemasters, No. 68 at p. 2; Kirby, No. 66 at p. 2;
Continental, No. 86 at p. 7; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 2; NAFEM, No. 101 at
p. 5; Hoshizaki, No. 76 at p. 1; ITW, No. 82 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 81 at
p. 5; NAMA, No. 112 at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 80 at p. 13)
In response to the August 2024 NODA, Continental stated that while
the August 2024 NODA revises some analysis and provides support
documents, it does not provide updated standards levels, and
Continental could not adequately conclude whether the updated
determinations are sufficient to establish proposed energy standards
that are technologically feasible and economically justified.
(Continental, No. 107 at p. 3) Continental stated its understanding
that DOE has statutory obligations and a court mandate however requests
DOE not rush into adopting more stringent standards, and leave new
energy savings for future rulemakings. (Id.)
AHRI commented that no significant technologies have been developed
since 2017 to bring about the additional energy efficiency that DOE
expects in the October 2023 NOPR. (AHRI, No. 81 at p. 11) AHRI
commented that a no-new-standards rule would allow time to collect data
on products in the market, evaluate safety mitigation measures
associated with the refrigerant transition, reduce the burden on
manufacturers and end-users, and increase time for product re-design.
(Id.)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, ITW stated that a ``no new
standards'' decision at this time would give the industry and DOE time
to work together on analyzing the correct data and new data for the new
categories for which DOE has proposed energy use multipliers. (ITW, No.
82 at p. 6)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, notwithstanding Hussmann's
comments regarding both a pause in the rulemaking and timing of the
rulemaking, Hussmann commented that while it requests that DOE impose
no new standards, the focus should not be on timing but rather on the
proposed energy limits themselves being unachievable. (Hussmann, No. 80
at p. 13)
Hussmann commented that they are currently amending to the UL/CSA
60335-1 and 60335-2-89 standards, which consumes laboratory resources,
space, and time. (Hussmann, No. 108 at p. 2). Hussmann asserted that
this shift requires new design modifications and the addition of new
components, which may take 1-3 years of laboratory time to fulfill.
(Id.) Hussmann stated that this limits their ability to fulfill new DOE
requirements. (Id.) Hussmann stated that there is significant benefit
to all stakeholders, the retailers, as well as the consumer to abstain
from additional DOE energy efficiency regulation at this time. (Id.)
In response to the August 2024 NODA Zycher commented that the CRE
standards analyzed in the August 2024 NODA are flawed and should not be
finalized. (Zycher, No. 97 at p. 10)
With regard to stakeholders' request for DOE to adopt a ``no-new-
standards'' determination to allow industry additional time to analyze
data related to the proposed energy use multipliers, DOE notes that
manufacturers and other commenters were provided with an additional
opportunity to provide feedback on the updated results presented in the
August 2024 NODA, which offered manufacturers approximately eight
months after the October 2023 NOPR comment period ended to analyze data
related to the proposed energy use multipliers. In response to
Continental's comment about not having a proposed standard

[[Page 7486]]

level in the August 2024 NODA, DOE notes that while one specific
standard level was not proposed in the August 2024 NODA, standard
equations at each efficiency level were presented in the August 2024
NODA. The August 2024 NODA provided stakeholders an additional
opportunity to comment on the revisions to the analysis from the
October 2023 NOPR, and the revised relationships between design, cost,
and efficiency that were the basis of DOE's analysis leading to the
standards established and amended in this final rule. Furthermore, EPCA
specifies that any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE
adopts for any type (or class) of covered equipment 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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) As discussed in section V.C
of this document, DOE has determined that TSL 3 represents the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. However, DOE notes that, as discussed in
section III.A.2.a of this document, DOE is extending the compliance
period from the 3-years analyzed in the October 2023 NOPR to 4-years
for this final rule to mitigate concerns of commenters about cumulative
regulatory burden and associated engineering and laboratory resource
constraints, which have been exacerbated by the ongoing refrigerant
transition in response to the October 2023 EPA Final Rule and updated
safety standards (e.g., UL 60335-2-89).
Requested Alternate Levels
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Continental commented that if
a no-new-standards determination is not possible, DOE should publish
new standards levels that align with the ENERGY STAR Product
Specification for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers Version 5.0,
which will provide energy reductions at levels that have been
substantially evaluated by stakeholders. (Continental, No. 86 at p. 7)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR and the August 2024 NODA,
Delfield commented that, while it is reasonable for DOE to push
regulations toward the ENERGY STAR version 5.0 levels,\23\ in general,
DOE should limit reductions to no more than 20 percent compared to 2017
DOE levels. (Delfield, No. 71 at p. 1; Delfield, No. 99 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Available at: <a href="http://www.energystar.gov/products/spec/commercial_refrigerators_and_freezers_specification_version_5_0_pd">www.energystar.gov/products/spec/commercial_refrigerators_and_freezers_specification_version_5_0_pd</a>
(last accessed October 3, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE appreciates the feedback from Continental and Delfield, and
notes that out of the 11 ESTAR equipment classes analyzed in this final
rule, the amended standards for 8 classes are at similar or less
stringent levels than ENERGY STAR version 5.0 levels. In addition, in
this final rule, of the 49 equipment classes analyzed, 28 equipment
classes did not have greater than 20 percent energy use reduction from
the current standard, as suggested by Delfield, and 36 equipment
classes did not have greater than 20 percent energy use reduction from
the baseline analyzed in this final rule. However, DOE disagrees that
all equipment classes should align with these comments. All results of
this analysis are based on DOE's final rule analysis, which shows that
for 22 equipment classes, energy conservation standards more stringent
than ENERGY STAR or 20% reduction from the current standard are
technologically feasible and economically justified. For the full list
of cost-efficiency results, see chapter 5 of the final rule TSD.
In response to the August 2024 NODA, the CA IOUs commented that DOE
should set standards at the highest EL with positive LCC savings for
all equipment classes for the final rule. (CA IOUs, No. 113 at p. 6)
As discussed in section III.F of this document, the potential
impacts to individual consumers such as the changes in LCC and PBP
associated with new or amended standards is one aspect of the seven
factors that DOE evaluates when determining whether a potential energy
conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) As discussed in section V.C of
this document, DOE has determined that TSL 3 represents the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified. DOE has determined that establishing standards
at TSL 3 balances the benefits of the energy savings and impacts to
consumers at TSL 3 with the potential burdens placed on CRE
manufacturers. DOE notes that at TSL 3, affected purchasers for each
CRE equipment class experience an average LCC savings ranging from $8
to $1,868 with a payback period ranging from 0.9 years to 7.0 years.
Overall, approximately 91 percent of affected CRE purchasers would
experience a net benefit or not be affected at TSL 3.
Technological Feasibility
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Hoshizaki, ITW, SCC, and
NAFEM commented that the proposal is not technologically feasible or
economically justified, and that many technologies analyzed are already
in use. (Hoshizaki, No. 76 at pp. 1, 3; ITW, No. 82 at p. 1; SCC, No.
74 at p. 1; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 2)
Hoshizaki commented that the proposed energy standards would
require over 30-percent reductions to meet the amended standards--
VCS.SC.M, VCT.SC.M, VCS.SC.L, SOC.SC.M, and classi[filig]cations with
RT, PT, and RI doors. (Hoshizaki, No. 76 at p. 3)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Due North generally supported
the October 2023 NOPR but expressed concern regarding the severe
reductions of the proposed conservation standards to VCT.SC.L,
VCT.SC.M, VOP.SC.M, VCT.SC.M.PT, and VCT.SC.M.SDPT equipment classes.
(Due North, No. 87 at pp. 1-2) Due North commented that, based on its
analysis, the proposed energy conservation standards would reduce the
current threshold levels for VCT.SC.L by 19 percent, VCT.SC.M by 17-41
percent, depending on the unit refrigerated volume, and VOP.SC.M by 26
percent. (Id. at p. 1) Due North stated that these reductions are
severe and hard to achieve using present energy-saving technologies
such as variable-speed compressors, electronically commutated fan
motors, adaptive defrosts, efficient light-emitting diode (``LED'')
lighting, and smart controls. (Id.)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Hussmann stated that DOE's
proposed energy limits, that are up to 70 percent less than the current
DOE standard levels, are unattainable for Hussmann products. (Hussmann,
No. 80 at p. 6) Hussmann additionally commented that other Hussmann
models would be required to meet 20-to-40-percent drops in energy
limits while already using electronically commutated motors (``ECMs''),
LED lights, and optimized air curtains/doors and insulation, and, in
the face of these unattainable limits, Hussmann would need to weigh the
benefits between feasibility, increased cost, development time, and
consumer interest with the decision to discontinue certain product
lines entirely. (Id. at pp. 6-7)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Storemasters and FMI and NACS
stated their concern with the proposed changes set forth in the October
2023 NOPR on the grounds that DOE has overestimated the energy
efficiency benefits of its proposed rule because manufacturers may stop
offering certain cases in order to comply with the proposed standards.
(Storemasters, No.

[[Page 7487]]

68 at p. 1; FMI and NACS, No. 78 at p. 4).
In response to the comments from Hoshizaki, ITW, SCC, NAFEM, Due
North, Hussmann, and FMI and NACS, DOE notes that, in this final rule,
it updated its October 2023 NOPR engineering analysis based on testing
conducted, teardowns conducted, and stakeholder feedback received since
the October 2023 NOPR, including comments received from Hoshizaki, ITW,
SCC, NAFEM, Due North, Hussmann, and FMI and NACS. Furthermore, as
compared to the October 2023 NOPR, DOE is adopting generally less
stringent efficiency levels in this final rule.
NAFEM indicated its belief that DOE has made high-level changes
from the October 2023 NOPR to the August 2024 NODA and did not clearly
explain what changes result from the changes made, and if they resolve
the issues which were present in the October 2023 NOPR. (NAFEM, No. 101
at p. 2)
In response to the comment from NAFEM, DOE notes that the
engineering changes from the October 2023 NOPR to August 2024 NODA were
explained in section II.A of the August 2024 NODA and are further
detailed in section IV.C.1.a.iii of this document. 89 FR 68788, 68790-
68794. For example, in section II.A.3.a of the August 2024 NODA on
evaporator fan controls, DOE explained that ``recognizing current
uncertainty as to whether such food safety requirements could be
maintained in certain applications of self-contained, closed CRE with
the use of evaporator fan controls, DOE has tentatively screened out
evaporator fan control as a design option for CRE. As a result, this
NODA presents an updated engineering analysis that does not include
evaporator fan control as a design option.'' 89 FR 68788, 68793.
In this final rule analysis, DOE is adopting TSL 3. DOE discusses
the benefits and burdens of each TSL considered and DOE's conclusion in
section V.C of this document. As discussed in that section, TSL 3
represents the maximum energy savings that are technically feasible and
economically justified, as required by EPCA.
Food Safety
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Hillphoenix, NAMA, and NAFEM
stated that most CRE are certified to National Sanitation Foundation
(``NSF'') 7 for food safe storage, which is required by U.S. and
Canadian food safety standards and local health codes. (Hillphoenix,
No. 77 at p. 3; NAMA, No. 85 at p. 16; NAFEM, No. 83 at pp. 10-11) ITW
and NAFEM commented that to meet the energy efficiency standard
proposed in the October 2023 NOPR, equipment would require design
downgrades that would make it unable to consistently meet food safety
standards, in which safe operating temperatures are required to be
between 33 [deg]F and 40 [deg]F inside the cabinet. (ITW, No. 82 at p.
6; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 10) NAMA requested that design options be
reviewed not only for their efficiency but also for the ability to
maintain food safe performance. (NAMA, No. 85 at p. 16) ITW added that
the proposed levels threaten to mandate equipment that cannot keep food
at safe temperatures. (ITW, No. 82 at p. 1)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, FMI and NACS commented that,
according to their members, the October 2023 NOPR does not evaluate the
potential impact of the standards on food safety, because CRE that meet
the proposed standards may be unable to consistently meet the
refrigeration necessary to meet food safety standards. (FMI and NACS,
No. 78 at p. 3)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, NAFEM commented that DOE's
proposed energy limits would likely force manufacturers to make the
choice between a DOE-compliant product with a smaller refrigeration
system and a product designed with adequate capacity to maintain food
safety in the many different environmental conditions and general
product conditions. (NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 11)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR and the August 2024 NODA,
Hillphoenix suggested that DOE should categorize different CRE products
based on the type of product or food displayed, and in the August 2024
NODA stated that current energy limits for CRE displaying perishable
food products are too difficult to obtain while meeting NSF 7.
(Hillphoenix, No. 77 at p. 3 and No. 110 at p. 2) In response to the
October 2023 NOPR, Hillphoenix also commented that bottle coolers
operate at warmer temperatures than CRE displaying perishable products,
in order to maintain product temperatures at 41 [deg]F or less, but
both have the same energy limits established by a single equipment
class. (Hillphoenix No. No. 77 at p. 3)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Ravnitzky commented that the
October 2023 NOPR should consider the impacts of energy efficiency
standards on food quality and safety and balance the benefits of energy
savings with the costs of food loss and waste. (Ravnitzky, No. 57 at p.
3)
In response to comments about reviewing design options for
efficiency but also for the ability to maintain food safe performance,
and accounting for food loss and waste, DOE notes that in this final
rule, consistent with the August 2024 NODA, DOE screened out evaporator
fan controls after review of NSF 7 and other public comments stating
that evaporator fan controls could potentially lead to internal case
temperatures outside of NSF 7 tolerances, as further discussed in
section IV.B.1.f. DOE has reviewed all design options analyzed to
improve efficiency in this final rule and has determined, based on data
and information available to DOE at the time of this final rule, that
all other design options analyzed to improve efficiency would not
affect the ability of CRE equipment to maintain food safe temperatures.
In response to Hillphoenix's comment regarding categorizing
different CRE equipment based on the type of product or food displayed,
DOE notes that the CRE equipment classes do differentiate between
frozen merchandise (i.e., low-temperature freezers and ice-cream
freezers) and refrigerated merchandise (i.e., medium-temperature
refrigerators and high-temperature refrigerators).
In response to Hillphoenix's comment regarding bottle coolers
operating at warmer temperatures than CRE displaying perishable
products, DOE notes that all equipment certified to an equipment class
must test their equipment according to the rating temperature for that
equipment class, unless the equipment meets the definition of lowest
application product temperature. See 10 CFR 431.62.
Equipment Elimination
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, SCC and NAFEM expressed
concern that the October 2023 NOPR proposed standard level would force
manufacturers to discontinue products or exit the CRE space. (SCC, No.
74 at p. 4; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 2) NAFEM and Continental added this
would harm consumers, reduce competition, and may increase energy
consumption. (NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 2; Continental, No. 86 at p. 6)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Due North commented that it
still found the energy standards for the VCT.SC.M.PT and VCT.SC.M.SDPT
classes to be too stringent, given their extensive installation at
store checkout counters. (Due North, No. 87 at p. 2) Due North called
this situation a potential threat to the future existence of these
classes on the market. (Id.)
With respect to these comments regarding the stringency of the
proposed standards in the October 2023 NOPR

[[Page 7488]]

and the equipment modifications needed to meet those standards,
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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In the
October 2023 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that TSL 5 represented
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified and to establish new energy
conservation standards for covered equipment not yet subject to energy
conservation standards. 88 FR 70196, 70197. In response to the October
2023 NOPR, DOE received feedback from commenters suggesting changes to
the October 2023 NOPR analysis. After consideration of this feedback
and a review of new test data, in this final rule, DOE has adjusted
certain aspects of the October 2023 NOPR analysis approach. In this
final rule, DOE is adopting new and amended energy conservation
standards(i.e., TSL 3) that DOE has determined represent the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified based on the numerous revisions to inputs and
the analysis, resulting in revised analytical outputs since the October
2023 NOPR, discussed throughout section IV of this final rule. Further
detail on changes to the engineering analysis from the October 2023
NOPR can be found in section IV.C of this document.
As stated, in the preceding paragraphs, the results presented in
this final rule are generally less stringent than the standards
proposed in the October 2023 NOPR. In the October 2023 NOPR, the PT and
SDPT multiplier values were 1.04 and 1.11 respectively. 88 FR 70196,
70231. In the August 2024 NODA, DOE analyzed a single multiplier with
value of 1.07. 89 FR 68788, 68794. In this final rule, consistent with
the August 2024 NODA, DOE is analyzing equipment classes with features
that allow for higher energy use. As discussed further in section
IV.C.1.c of this document, the adjusted maximum daily energy use
equation for equipment classes with features is equal to 1.07
multiplied by the corresponding equipment class equation (adjusted for
backsliding if needed). Although the multiplier analyzed in this final
rule is less than that in the October 2023 NOPR for the SDPT
multiplier, at the representative capacity the amended standard for
VCT.SC.M with feature is 24.8 percent less stringent than the
VCT.SC.M.PT equation and 18.3 percent less stringent than the
VCT.SC.M.SDPT equation proposed in the October 2023 NOPR.
Hussmann commented that, several of its models would be required to
meet energy levels with energy use reductions up to 40 percent compared
to 2017 DOE levels, and that Hussmann already put in work to meet the
2017 limits, limiting its ability to further improve energy
consumption. (Hussmann, No. 80 at p. 10) Hussmann commented that if
reduced energy limits reduce door and lighting options available for
case energy performance, it will delay the conversion and prolong the
use of open cases using far more energy than saved by tighter limits on
door cases, leading to the obsolescence of some VCT equipment and
driving customers to substitute products in the VOP classes that
consume more energy, and Hussmann provided a table with additional
detail. (Id. at pp. 10-11) Hussmann commented also that it has been
continuously innovating for years due to marketplace demand. (Id. at p.
11) Hussmann pointed to a graph depicting its highest-volume dairy case
from 1985 to 2023 and indicating that energy consumption has been
reduced by 46 percent over the time period. (Id. at p. 12)
In response to the comment from Hussmann regarding door and
lighting technology, DOE notes that the screening criteria in IV.B of
this document screens out any technology options that are determined to
have ``a significant adverse impact on the utility of the equipment to
subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered
equipment type with performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are
substantially the same as equipment generally available in the United
States at the time.'' See section IV.B of this document for more
details. Further, in response to Hussmann's comment regarding their
efficiency improvements, DOE notes that the typical new consumer
refrigerator uses one-quarter the energy than in 1973, despite offering
20 percent more storage capacity and being available at half the retail
cost since EPCA was established in 1975, showing that there could be
more potential savings than already achieved for the example cited by
Hussmann.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See <a href="http://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/appliance-and-equipment-standards-fact-sheet">www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/appliance-and-equipment-standards-fact-sheet</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAMA recommended that DOE champion and celebrate the changes that
the industry has been making toward energy efficiency and reduce the
demands to make additional changes. (NAMA, No. 85 at p. 9) NAMA
commented that manufacturers have made changes that have further-
reaching, more immediate impacts on energy efficiency than the design
options being shown in the engineering analysis in the October 2023
NOPR TSD. (Id.) NAMA commented that the industry would appreciate some
acknowledgement of these improvements over the past 10 years. (Id.)
Kirby stated that changes made to comply with energy conservation
standards and low-GWP HFC restrictions that went into effect in 2017
have led to price increases. (Kirby, No. 66 at pp. 1-2)
In response to the August 2024 NODA, Storemasters commented that
equipment manufacturers have already made significant changes to
equipment to comply with the 2017 standards and much of the current
equipment incorporates new refrigerants, particularly self-contained
models that utilize R-290. (Storemasters, No. 68 at p. 1)
In response to NAMA's, Kirby's, and Storemasters' comments about
the industry improvements over the past 10 years (i.e., since the
publication of the March 2014 Final Rule), DOE does acknowledge that in
response to the March 2014 Final Rule, manufacturers generally made
several changes: changing from fluorescent to LED lighting; updating
compressors to either higher efficiency compressors using HFC
refrigerants, or compressors using hydrocarbon refrigerants; improved
evaporators and condensers; and, in some cases, higher-efficiency fan
motors. These changes are acknowledged in the October 2023 NOPR and
August 2024 NODA as DOE updated the baseline design specifications and
costs for each ``primary equipment class'' (i.e., directly analyzed
class, see IV.C.1 for further description) based on test data,
manufacturer feedback, and publicly available market data (e.g., spec
sheets). See 88 FR 70196, 70225-70231, 89 FR 68788, 68792.
Kirby and Storemasters commented that additional equipment
modifications to meet the proposed standards in the October 2023 NOPR
would represent a significant burden on their business because of
increased equipment complexity and costs coupled with the potential for
reduced equipment reliability, longevity, and consumer choice. (Kirby,
No. 66 at p. 2, Storemasters, No. 68 at p. 1)

[[Page 7489]]

Storemasters also stated that the new CRE it purchases includes
significant changes over the past 6 years to comply with the 2017
standards and low-GWP HFC restrictions. (Storemasters, No. 68 at p. 1)
An individual commenter further expressed concern with the new
technologies, stating components necessary to achieve the proposed
standards add cost, complexity to the designs, and result in limiting
availability and extended lead times. (Individual Commenter, No. 70 at
p.1)
In response to the comments from Kirby and Storemasters, DOE notes
that the commenters did not specify what design options may reduce
equipment reliability. DOE screens out technology options that would
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment
generally available in the United States at the time.
In response to the comments from Kirby, Storemasters, and an
individual commenter regarding the potential for reduced equipment
longevity and consumer choice due to increased complexity, DOE is not
aware of any data on how the analyzed design options affect equipment
lifetime and consumer choice for consumers. See section IV.B of this
document for additional information on the screening analysis and
section IV.F.6 for a discussion on CRE lifetime.
In response to the individual commenter regarding limiting
availability and extended lead times, DOE notes that the screening
analysis screens out any technology options that result in the
unavailability of any covered equipment type with performance
characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment generally
available in the United States at the time. See section IV.B of this
final rule.
c. Rulemaking Process
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, NAMA commented that while it
appreciates DOE's willingness to schedule face-to-face meetings on
these important rulemakings, questions posed by industry
representatives during the November 2023 Public Meeting went largely
unanswered by DOE and DOE consultants beyond providing information
already provided in the October 2023 NOPR TSD or the October 2023 NOPR.
(NAMA, No. 85 at p. 4) NAMA further commented that when industry
broached many of these issues at the November 2023 Public Meeting, DOE
read prepared answers but did not answer the original questions. (Id.)
NAMA stated that there does not appear to have been any contact
between DOE consultants and its manufacturing members. (Id. at p. 6)
NAMA commented that there are no records of manufacturer interviews, no
record of emails exchanged, and no attempts made to contact these
companies. (Id.) NAMA commented also that if DOE had conferred with
manufacturers, it is more likely that the information in the October
2023 NOPR TSD would be closer to accurate information and more
reflective of today's market. (Id at p. 6)
Hussmann recommended that, in future rulemakings, DOE engage
manufacturers, component suppliers, retailers, and other stakeholders
early in the process, because Hussmann alleged their equipment has
already implemented available technologies, which yielded slight
returns in energy savings with excessive cost. (Hussmann, No. 80 at p.
15)
In response to the August 2024 NODA, NAMA added that DOE turned
down its offer to work with them and DOE did not substantially change
the NODA support document based on NAMA's comments on the October 2023
NOPR TSD. (NAMA, No. 112 at p. 3, 7)
In response to the comment from NAMA about the November 2023 Public
Meeting, DOE responded to all questions asked during the November 2023
Public Meeting to the best of its ability. (See November 2023 Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 64). In response to the comment from NAMA
regarding contact with its manufacturing members and the comment from
Hussmann about engaging manufacturers, as stated in the October 2023
NOPR, DOE's contractors reached out to a range of representative
manufacturers and conducted formal manufacturer interviews with nine
manufacturers (representing approximately 60 percent of industry CRE
shipments) in advance of the October 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 70196, 70251.
During that process, DOE's contractors reached out to NAMA to inquire
about its members' interest in participating in formal manufacturer
interviews under a nondisclosure agreement but did not receive a
response from NAMA. After the October 2023 NOPR was published, DOE held
the November 2023 Public Meeting to receive comment on the standards
proposed in the October 2023 NOPR and associated analyses and results.
DOE has engaged with manufacturers through the rulemaking process,
including hosting two Ex Parte meetings with AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM; the
first on Friday, January 27, 2023,\25\ and the second on Monday,
September 16, 2024,\26\ and the October 2023 NOPR, the November 2023
Public Meeting, and the August 2024 NODA provided opportunity for NAMA
and its members to provide comment, data, and information on the
proposals and supporting analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ See <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0050">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0050</a>.
\26\ See <a href="http://www.energy.gov/gc/ex-parte-communications">www.energy.gov/gc/ex-parte-communications</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider an informal or
abbreviated negotiation to maximize energy savings for this rulemaking.
(CA IOUs, No. 84 at pp. 6-7) The CA IOUs commented that they will
support this rulemaking process by submitting test data for chef bases
or griddle stands and high-efficiency, vertical, self-contained
equipment in early 2024 and that the CA IOUs plan to send test results
for prep tables to help DOE establish energy conservation standards for
this equipment class in future rulemakings. (Id. at p. 7) In the
November 2023 Public Meeting, Continental and NAFEM recommended that
there be continued dialogue between DOE and stakeholders concerning
energy efficiency standards for CRE. (November 2023 Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 64 at pp. 150, 152) Hoshizaki similarly requested
negotiations with DOE to find realistic energy savings for this
rulemaking. (Id. at p. 21)
In response to the comments from the CA IOUs, Continental, NAFEM,
and Hoshizaki, DOE appreciates the recommendation but has not pursued a
negotiation for this rulemaking. Additionally, DOE welcomes test data
for any equipment category, including chef bases or griddle stands;
buffet tables or preparation tables; or high-efficiency, vertical,
self-contained equipment, submitted by the CA IOUs or any other
stakeholder for consideration in future rulemakings.
Continental commented that the proposed rulemaking will have a
major impact on its business and pointed out that section 3(a) of 10
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (``Process Rule'') specifies a 75-
day comment period while DOE is providing only 60 days--which is
insufficient for a small business like Continental to review the
October 2023 NOPR, the 567-page October 2023 NOPR TSD, and the many
other supporting documents. (Continental, No. 86 at pp. 1-2)
Continental commented also that DOE deviated from the requirement in
the Process Rule that the amended test

[[Page 7490]]

procedures be finalized at least 180 days prior to the close of the
comment period for the October 2023 NOPR, instead providing an interval
of 76 days for review and evaluation prior to the deadline of the
comment period, which Continental stated is insufficient. (Id. at pp.
2-3)
In response to the comment from Continental, DOE notes that the
current Process Rule at Section 6(b)(2) specifies that there will be
not less than 60 days for public comment on the NOPR, which is
consistent with the comment period in the October 2023 NOPR. This 60-
day period is also consistent with EPCA requirements. (42 U.S.C.
6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)). Further, the October 2023 NOPR stated
that given that the analysis presented in the NOPR remained largely the
same as the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, and in light of the 45-day
comment period DOE had already provided with the July 2021 RFI and the
60-day comment period DOE had already provided with its June 2022
Preliminary Analysis, DOE determined that a 60-day comment period was
appropriate and provided interested parties with a meaningful
opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. 88 FR 70196, 70205. DOE
appreciates the considerable volume of comments and information it
received in response to the October 2023 NOPR and the August 2024 NODA,
which contributed to significant revisions to the final rule analysis
and aided in DOE's ability to establish efficiency levels that would be
technologically feasible and economically justified.
DOE also notes that, in the October 2023 NOPR, DOE initially
determined that the requirement that the amended test procedures be
finalized at least 180 days prior to the close of the comment period
for the October 2023 NOPR was sufficiently met because, for the
equipment whose measured energy use was impacted by the CRE test
procedure final rule (``September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule''; 88
FR 66152 (Sept. 26, 2023)), the CRE industry has thoroughly vetted both
Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') 1200-
2023 and the proposed addendum B to American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'') 72-2022. Id.
at 88 FR 70205. Additionally, DOE believes that stakeholders have had
sufficient time for review and evaluation of the September 2023 Test
Procedure Final Rule, especially because commenters had an additional
opportunity to provide comment on this rulemaking through the August
2024 NODA, which was published more than 180 days after the publication
of the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule.
Rulemaking Timeline
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, ITW commented that if DOE
cannot issue a ``no new standards'' ruling, DOE should extend the
review period by 1 year to allow for sufficient time for manufacturers
to conduct verification tests to validate the proposed energy standards
for the various new equipment categories with different door
characteristics and to provide informed comments to DOE. (ITW, No. 82
at p. 2)
Hussmann, Hillphoenix, NAFEM, FMI and NACS, and Hoshizaki requested
a pause in DOE rulemakings due to the requirements of the AIM act and
other new regulations (Hussmann, No. 80 at p. 1; Hillphoenix, No. 77 at
p. 2; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 26; FMI and NACS, No. 78 at pp. 2-3;
Hoshizaki, No. 76 at p. 1) In response to the August 2024 NODA,
Hillphoenix commented requesting a pause in rulemakings for CRE given
the ongoing efforts to transition to new refrigerants, pursuant to the
AIM Act. (Hillphoenix, No. 110 at p. 2) In response to the October 2023
NOPR, Hoshizaki, SCC, AHRI, ITW, NAFEM, and Hussmann commented that a
delay in the rulemaking would allow additional time for manufacturers
to complete the transition to low-GWP refrigerants (Hoshizaki, No. 76
at pp. 1-2, 7; SCC, No. 74 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 81 at p. 5; ITW, No. 82
at p. 1; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 26; Hussmann, No. 80 at pp. 6-7, 10)
In response to comments requesting that DOE pause or delay the
rulemaking, DOE is statutorily required to publish either a NOPD, if it
finds that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a
NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards not later
than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Not
later than two years after a NOPR is issued, DOE must publish a final
rule amending the energy conservation standard for the equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A)) The final rule that amended
the current standards for CRE was issued in 2014. DOE is conducting
this rulemaking pursuant to these statutory requirements. Additionally,
pursuant to a consent decree entered on September 20, 2022 and amended
on September 25, 2024, DOE has agreed to sign and post on DOE's
publicly accessible website a rulemaking document for CRE by December
30, 2024, that, when effective, would be DOE's final agency action for
standards for CRE.\27\ Regarding delaying compliance due to the
transition to low-GWP refrigerants, see sections III.A.2.a and IV.J.3.f
of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Consent Decree, Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Granholm,
No. 1:20-cv-09127 (S.D.N.Y.), Sept. 20, 2022).), Amend. Consent
Decree, State of N.Y. v. Granholm, No. 1:20-cv-09362 (S.D.N.Y. Sept.
25, 2024). See <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ee-standards-settlement-20220920.pdf">www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ee-standards-settlement-20220920.pdf</a>. September 25, 2024 amendment available at
<a href="http://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/doc1/127136202802">ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/doc1/127136202802</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the August 2024 NODA, GAAS, NAMA, and Zero Zone
commented that DOE did not allow sufficient time to review the
documents, with an updated support document version published 10 days
before the end of the comment period. (GAAS, No. 96 at p. 2; NAMA, No.
112 at p. 3; Zero Zone, No. 114 at p. 1) Zero Zone also commented that
DOE should have made a comparison of changes between the October 2023
NOPR TSD and NODA support document. (Zero Zone, No. 114 at p.1)
In response to these comments, DOE notes that updates to the NODA
support document were minor clarifications, and all changes were
detailed under ``Revision History'' in Section 8. With regards to Zero
Zone's request for a list of changes, DOE detailed any changes from the
October 2023 NOPR throughout the August 2024 NODA.

B. Scope of Coverage

This final rule covers the commercial refrigeration equipment that
meet the definition of ``commercial refrigerators, freezers, and
refrigerator-freezers,'' as codified at 10 CFR 431.62.
``Commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers''
means refrigeration equipment that: (1) is not consumer equipment (as
defined in section 430.2 of part 430); (2) is not designed and marketed
exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes; (3) operates
at a chilled, frozen, combination chilled and frozen, or variable
temperature; (4) displays or stores merchandise and other perishable
materials horizontally, semi-vertically, or vertically; (5) has
transparent or solid doors, sliding or hinged doors, a combination of
hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid doors, or no doors; (6) is
designed for pull-down temperature applications or holding temperature
applications; and (7) is connected to a self-contained condensing unit
or to a remote condensing unit. 10 CFR 431.62.
In the October 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed establishing equipment
classes for high-temperature refrigerators and chef bases or griddle
stands. 88 FR 70196, 70214-70215. DOE

[[Page 7491]]

received several comments in response to the October 2023 NOPR
regarding this proposal.
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, NYSERDA and NEEA and NWPCC
supported DOE's addition of chef bases and high-temperature
refrigerators to the scope of coverage for the CRE energy conservation
standards, agreeing with DOE's assertion that there are technically
feasible opportunities for significant cost-effective energy savings
from these categories. (NYSERDA, No. 88 at p. 1; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 89
at pp. 4-5)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Continental disagreed with
DOE's proposal to include standards for refrigerated chef bases and
griddle stands at this time. (Continental, No. 86 at p. 2) Continental
commented that while it concurred with this decision in the September
2023 Test Procedure Final Rule to prescribe new test conditions for
refrigerated chef bases and griddle stands, actual testing has not been
conducted to form a basis for establishing standards efficiency levels
at the mandated conditions. (Id. at pp. 2-3)
In response to the comment from Continental comment about lack of
test data, as discussed in section IV.C.1.c of this document, DOE has
tested chef bases or griddle stands per the amended test procedure
prescribed by the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. In
addition, manufacturers have had additional time to test chef bases and
submit data since the publication of the October 2023 NOPR, and the
August 2024 NODA provided additional opportunity to comment on the chef
base or griddle stand analysis. For example, the CA IOUs commented on
the August 2024 NODA stating that they conducted testing on CRE units,
including chef bases or griddle stands. (The CA IOUs, No. 113, at p.
2). The CA IOUs tested 15 vertical solid door units (9 VCS.SC.M, 6
VCS.SC.L) and 5 chef bases or griddle stands (3 CB.SC.M, 2 CB.SC.L) to
evaluate daily energy consumption and performance. Id. The CA IOUs
commented that with DOE's test data published in the August 2024 NODA,
the CA IOUs can confirm that the daily energy consumption values for
the units they tested are consistent with DOE's data, and that the CA
IOUs plan to share anonymized test results with the public once the CA
IOUs finalize their test report. Id.
Therefore, DOE continues to include high-temperature refrigerators
and chef bases and griddle stands within the scope of this final rule.
However, the scope of this final rule does not include some types
of commercial refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that
meet the definition at 10 CFR 431.62. These include blast chillers,
blast freezers, buffet tables or preparation tables, mobile
refrigerated cabinets, refrigerated bottled- or canned-beverage vending
machines, and, as discussed in section II.B.3 of this document, the
large-capacity CRE ranges presented in table IV.6 for the VOP.SC.M,
SVO.SC.M, HZO.SC.L, SOC.SC.M, VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, and VCS.SC.L
equipment classes.
See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the equipment
classes analyzed in this final rule.

C. Test Procedure

EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a))
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures as
the basis for certifying to DOE that their product complies with the
applicable energy conservation standards and as the basis for any
representations regarding the energy use or energy efficiency of the
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s); and 42 U.S.C.
6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to evaluate
whether a basic model complies with the applicable energy conservation
standard(s). 10 CFR 429.110(e). The current test procedure for CRE is
codified at appendix B and includes provisions for determining daily
energy consumption, the metric on which current standards are based. 10
CFR 431.66(e) This test procedure was amended in the September 2023
Test Procedure Final Rule, in which DOE amended and established test
procedures for CRE as follows:

(1) Established new definitions for high-temperature
refrigerator, medium-temperature refrigerator, low-temperature
freezer, and mobile refrigerated cabinet, and amended the definition
for ice-cream freezer;
(2) Incorporated by reference the most current versions of
industry standards AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 1320;
(3) Established definitions and a new appendix C including test
procedures for buffet tables and preparation tables;
(4) Established definitions and a new appendix D including test
procedures for blast chillers and blast freezers;
(5) Amended the definition and certain test conditions for chef
bases or griddle stands;
(6) Specified refrigerant conditions for CRE that use R-744;
(7) Allowed for certification of compartment volumes based on
computer-aided design (``CAD'') models;
(8) Incorporated provisions for defrosts and customer order
storage cabinets specified in waivers and interim waivers;
(9) Adopted product-specific enforcement provisions;
(10) Clarified use of the lowest application product temperature
(``LAPT'') provisions;
(11) Removed the obsolete test procedure in appendix A; and
(12) Specified a sampling plan for volume and total display area
(``TDA'').
88 FR 66152, 66154.

In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Ravnitzky commented that the
proposed rule lacks clear and detailed guidance on the test conditions
and procedures for measuring energy consumption in CRE that use
alternative refrigerants, such as hydrocarbons or CO<INF>2</INF>.
(Ravnitzky, No. 57 at pp. 1-2) Ravnitzky added that these alternative
refrigerants have different performance characteristics than
conventional HFC refrigerants and may require different test methods to
ensure accurate and consistent results. (Id. at p. 2) Ravnitzky
suggested that DOE specify or reference the test conditions and
procedures for measuring the energy consumption of CRE that use
alternative refrigerants, and that these should be consistent with
ASHRAE or AHRI standards or best practices for testing CRE. (Id.)
In response to the comment from Ravnitzky, the DOE CRE test
procedure for CRE currently subject to energy conservation standards at
10 CFR 431.66(e) is located at appendix B and is applicable to CRE
using any type of refrigerant. DOE notes that, consistent with ASHRAE
72-2022 with Errata, testing for self-contained equipment with
hydrocarbon refrigerants (e.g., R-290), CO<INF>2</INF> refrigerant
(i.e., R-744), or A2L refrigerants does not require a different test
method than for self-contained equipment using conventional
refrigerants. In appendix B, DOE provides specific instructions for CRE
connected to a direct-expansion remote-condensing unit with R-744,
which requires different liquid refrigerant measurements than direct-
expansion remote-condensing units specified in appendix A to ASHRAE 72-
2022 with Errata. Therefore, the appendix B is applicable to CRE using
any type of refrigerant and is consistent with industry standards.
NEEA and NWPCC expressed concern that the October 2023 NOPR misses
savings opportunities for the remote condensing equipment classes.
(NEEA and NWPCC, No. 89 at p. 4) Specifically, NEEA and NWPCC
recommended that remote condenser energy be accounted for in the
testing and rating of CRE so that these energy-saving features can be
assessed in the

[[Page 7492]]

energy use analysis. (Id.).\28\ NEEA and NWPCC explained that DOE's
present analysis does not test the remote condenser; therefore, the
energy-saving design options that impact the consumption of the remote
condenser do not impact the tested rating. (Id.) NEEA and NWPCC
commented that this approach fails to consider efficiency options such
as ECMs, evaporator fans, variable-speed compressors (``VSCs''), or
controls for remote condensing CRE--all of which create opportunities
for significant energy savings. (Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Remote condenser energy use is addressed in the current
test procedure with standardized EER values rather than direct
measurement of remote condenser performance. See section 5.1 of AHRI
1200-2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the comment from NEEA and NWPCC, the definition of
``commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer'' was
established in EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(A). The definition requires
that the refrigeration equipment is connected to a self-contained
condensing unit or to a remote condensing unit. The self-contained
condensing unit is defined as an integral part of the refrigerated
equipment, whereas the remote condensing unit is defined as being
remotely located from the refrigerated equipment. Based on these
definitions, the remote condensing unit energy use is currently
accounted for by the DOE test procedure through a calculation approach
specified in section 5.1 of AHRI 1200-2023, which is incorporated by
reference in the DOE test procedure at appendix B. In the September
2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE stated it is aware of remote
condensing CRE models for which specific dedicated condensing units are
intended for use with specific refrigerated cases. 88 FR 66152, 66205.
For CRE used with dedicated condensing units, the actual compressor
used during normal operation is known (i.e., the compressor in the
dedicated condensing unit). Id. Accordingly, testing the whole system
using the same approach as required for a self-contained CRE unit may
produce energy use results that are more representative of how this
equipment actually operates in the field. Id. DOE understands that
remote CRE are most commonly installed with rack condensing systems,
and that installations with dedicated condensing units represent a very
small portion of the remote CRE market. Id. DOE is not aware of any
remote CRE that are capable of installations only with a dedicated
remote condensing unit (i.e., DOE expects that all remote CRE may be
installed with rack condensing systems). Id. In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE
requested comment on its tentative determination not to propose amended
test procedures for dedicated remote condensing units. Id. DOE only
received comments agreeing with the June 2022 NOPR approach and DOE
determined not to adopt test provisions for dedicated remote condensing
units at this time. Id.
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Continental commented that
designing commercial refrigerators and freezers with technology options
to meet energy limits in 75 [deg]F/55-percent relative humidity
(``RH'') ambient conditions has shown to cause performance issues when
these technologies are employed in real-world commercial kitchen
conditions. (Continental, No. 86 at p. 3)
In response to the August 2024 NODA, Continental disagreed with DOE
establishing test procedures and efficiency standards for commercial
refrigerators and freezers using ambient testing conditions of 75
[deg]F/55 percent RH, stating that these conditions do not correspond
with energy consumption during a representative average use period as
required by EPCA. (Continental, No. 107 at p. 2)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR and August 2024 NODA, Delfield
disagreed with the 86 [deg]F test ambient criteria for chef bases/
griddle stands because it conflicts with the recently established
Energy Star requirement, creating additional burden for manufacturers
by requiring different test rooms from other equipment that is tested
at 75/55 percent, and because it creates confusion for end-users when
comparing energy consumption between unit types. (Delfield, No. 71, p.
1; Delfield, No. 99 at p. 2) Delfield added that 75/55 percent has been
the primary ambient condition for CRE for around 40 years so they do
not see a reason that this should change. (Id.) Delfield requested that
DOE review this change and align with Energy Star version 5 regulations
for ambient conditions and energy usage. (Id. at pp. 2-3)
In response to the comments from Continental and Delfield, the test
procedure for equipment included in the scope of this rulemaking is
prescribed at 10 CFR 431.64 and appendix B, and was finalized in the
September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. As part of the test procedure
rulemaking process, DOE provided stakeholders opportunity to comment on
potential test procedure amendments, including on test conditions such
as ambient temperature and humidity for testing. The September 2023
Test Procedure Final Rule provides discussion of its deliberations in
finalizing test procedures, for example regarding test ambient
conditions for chef bases in section III.C.4 of the September 2023 Test
Procedure Final Rule. See 88 FR 66152, 66203 (Sept. 26, 2023). DOE
notes that the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule is consistent
with the proposed addendum B to ASHRAE 72-2022,\29\ which proposes the
same test conditions for chef bases or griddle stands as in the DOE
test procedure. In response to the comment from Delfield regarding end
users' comparisons of products, DOE noted in the September 2023 Test
Procedure Final Rule that manufacturers may not offer CRE in a
different CRE equipment class with similar designs to any chef base or
griddle stand, in which case end-users are likely concerned primarily
about comparing chef bases or griddle stands to each other at the same
ambient conditions. 88 FR 66152, 66200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ See <a href="http://www.ashrae.org/file%20library/technical%20resources/standards%20and%20guidelines/standards%20addenda/72_2022_b_20240830.pdf">www.ashrae.org/file%20library/technical%20resources/standards%20and%20guidelines/standards%20addenda/72_2022_b_20240830.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hoshizaki and AHRI disagreed that the DOE test procedure for
refrigerated buffet and preparation tables was a valid test procedure.
(Hoshizaki, No. 76 at p. 2; AHRI, No 81 at p.6) Hoshizaki encouraged
DOE to work with industry to make ASTM F2143, which is currently under
review for final changes and votes, a valid test procedure with changes
DOE requests. (Hoshizaki, No. 76 at p. 2)
In response to Hoshizaki and AHRI, DOE notes that the DOE test
procedure for refrigerated buffet and preparation tables, located at
appendix C to subpart C of part 431, already references the latest
version of ASTM F2143 as one of several references for the test
procedure for refrigerated buffet and preparation tables. As noted in
the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE evaluated ASTM F2143-
16 and identified the need for additional provisions or alternate
requirements. 88 FR 66152, 66175. DOE noted that NSF 7 is intended to
ensure refrigerating performance and food safety, not energy use; while
ASTM F2143-16 was developed to evaluate energy performance, and with
the additional requirements established in the September 2023 Test
Procedure Final Rule, DOE determined that referencing ASTM F2143-16 is
appropriate and meets the EPCA requirements. Id. DOE will consider any
updates to industry test standards that are currently incorporated by
reference, as well as any potential new industry test

[[Page 7493]]

standards relevant to refrigerated buffet and preparation tables in
future test procedure rulemakings.
See section IV.A.1.c for additional comments and responses on
refrigerated buffet or preparation tables and blast chillers and
freezers.
ITW and NAFEM also commented that DOE's current test procedure
tests CRE in given ambient temperature, humidity, and door opening
conditions that fall short of actual field conditions. (ITW, No. 82 at
p. 6; NAFEM, No. 83 at pp. 10-11) ITW and NAFEM commented that the
total door-open time that the ASHRAE 72 test calls for amounts to 0.6
percent of a commercial refrigerator's operating day, whereas based on
its empirical application data, a reach-in refrigerator in a 24-hour
quick-service restaurant kitchen is open nearly 25 percent of the time,
and a freezer is open nearly 12 percent of the time. (ITW, No. 82 at p.
6; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 10) NAFEM also commented that most CRE are
certified to NSF 7 for food storage, which requires passing a test at
100 [deg]F. (NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 10) ITW commented that quickly
restoring safe operating temperatures inside the cabinet requires a
sizable refrigeration system and, unfortunately, this workload requires
more electricity than the proposed regulations would allow. (ITW, No.
82 at p. 6) NAFEM stated that CRE must be designed with enough capacity
to meet both NSF and customers' requirements, meaning large enough
refrigeration systems to operate in these environments. (NAFEM, No. 83
at p. 11) NAFEM commented that CRE may not be able to keep potentially
hazardous food products at safe temperatures when conditions are
unfavorable under the proposed standards. (Id.)
In response to ITW and NAFEM's comments on the DOE test procedure
not aligning with field conditions, EPCA sets forth the criteria and
procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures
for covered equipment. 42 U.S.C. 6314. EPCA requires that any test
procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably
designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency,
energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a given type of
covered equipment during a representative average use cycle, and
requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)). With respect to CRE, EPCA requires DOE to use the
test procedures determined by the Secretary to be generally accepted
industry standards, or industry standards developed or recognized by
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (``ASHRAE'') or American National Standards Institute
(``ANSI''). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(i)) With regard to self-contained
CRE to which statutory standards are applicable, the required initial
test procedure is the ASHRAE 117 test procedure in effect on January 1,
2005. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Additionally, EPCA requires that if
ASHRAE 117 is amended, the Secretary shall, by rule, amend the test
procedure for the product as necessary to ensure that the test
procedure is consistent with the amended ASHRAE 117 test procedure,
unless the Secretary makes a determination, by rule, and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that to do so would not meet the
statutory requirements regarding representativeness and burden. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(E)) Finally, EPCA states that if a test procedure
other than the ASHRAE 117 test procedure is approved by ANSI, DOE must
review the relative strengths and weaknesses of the new test procedure
relative to the ASHRAE 117 test procedure and adopt one new test
procedure for use in the standards program. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(6)(F)(i)) In the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE
determined that the amended DOE test procedure, by reference to AHRI
1200-2023 and ASHRAE 72-2022 with Errata for conventional CRE, provides
a measure of energy use of CRE during a representative average use
cycle and is not unduly burdensome to conduct. 88 FR 66152, 66205. DOE
notes that the test procedure instructions in section 2.3 of appendix B
allow for the use of integrated average temperatures and ambient
conditions used for NSF testing in place of the DOE-prescribed
integrated average temperatures and ambient conditions provided they
result in a more stringent test.
In response to NAFEM and ITW's comments on refrigeration system
size, DOE notes that no specific information on the refrigeration size
to meet food safety requirements was received, and that DOE's
representative analysis accounts for a variety of equipment when
analyzing design specifications, including refrigeration system size.
DOE further discusses food safety in relation to design options in
section IV.B.1.f.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
As discussed, 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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A))
To determine whether potential amended standards would be
technologically feasible, DOE first develops a list of all known
technologies and design options that could improve the efficiency of
the products or equipment that are the subject of the rulemaking. DOE
considers technologies incorporated in commercially available products
or in working prototypes to be ``technologically feasible.'' 10 CFR
431.4; 10 CFR 430, subpart C, appendix A, sections 6(b)(3)(i) and
7(b)(1). Section IV.A.3 of this document discusses the technology
options identified by DOE for this analysis. For further details on the
technology assessment conducted for this final rule, see chapter 3 of
the final rule TSD.
After DOE has determined which, if any, technologies and design
options are technologically feasible, it further evaluates each
technology and design option in light of the following additional
screening criteria: (1) practicability to manufacture, install, and
service; (2) adverse impacts on product utility or availability; (3)
adverse impacts on health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway proprietary
technologies. 10 CFR 431.4; 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A,
sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5). Those technology options that
are ``screened out'' based on these criteria are not considered
further. Those technology options that are not screened out are
considered as potential design options for the basis for higher
efficiency levels that DOE could consider for potential amended
standards. Section IV.B of this document discusses the results of this
screening analysis conducted for this final rule. For further details
on the screening analysis conducted for this final rule, see chapter 4
of the final rule TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
EPCA requires that for any proposed rule that prescribes an amended
or new energy conservation standard, or prescribes no amendment or no
new standard for a type (or class) of covered equipment, DOE must
determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum
reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for each type
(or class) of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the engineering analysis, DOE identifies
the maximum efficiency level currently available on

[[Page 7494]]

the market. DOE also defines a ``max-tech'' efficiency level,
representing the maximum theoretical efficiency that can be achieved
through the application of all available technology options retained
from the screening analysis.\30\ In many cases, the max-tech efficiency
level is not commercially available because it is not currently
economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ In applying these design options, DOE would only include
those that are compatible with each other that when combined, would
represent the theoretical maximum possible efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The max-tech levels that DOE determined for this analysis are
described in section IV.C.1.b of this document and in chapter 5 of the
final rule TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings from application of the
TSL to CRE purchased during the 30-year period that begins in the year
of compliance with the new and amended standards (2029-2058).\31\ The
savings are measured over the entire lifetime of CRE purchased during
the 30-year analysis period. DOE quantified the energy savings
attributable to each TSL as the difference in energy consumption
between each standards case and the no-new-standards case. The no-new-
standards case represents a projection of energy consumption that
reflects how the market for a product would likely evolve in the
absence of new and amended energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that considers
impacts for products shipped in a 9-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet models
to estimate NES from amended or new standards for CRE. The NIA
spreadsheet model (described in section IV.H of this document)
calculates energy savings in terms of site energy, which is the energy
directly consumed by products at the locations where they are used. For
electricity, DOE reports NES in terms of primary energy savings, which
is the savings in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the
site electricity. For natural gas, the primary energy savings are
considered to be equal to the site energy savings. DOE also calculates
NES in terms of FFC energy savings. The FFC metric includes the energy
consumed in extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels
(i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus presents a more
complete picture of the impacts of energy conservation standards.\32\
DOE's approach is based on the calculation of an FFC multiplier for
each of the energy types used by covered products or equipment. For
more information on FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered equipment, DOE
must determine that such action would result in significant energy
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\33\ For
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than
the impacts of products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly,
DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case
basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative FFC national
energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, and the need
to confront the global climate crisis, among other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14,
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670) was subsequently eliminated in a final rule
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated, the standard levels adopted in this final rule are
projected to result in NES of 1.11 quad full-fuel-cycle (``FFC''), the
equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 7.4 million homes. Based
on the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in emissions,
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, DOE has determined
the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this final rule
are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
As noted previously, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in
determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss how DOE has
addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
In determining the impacts of potential new or amended standards on
manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, as discussed in section IV.J of
this document. First, DOE uses an annual cash flow approach to
determine the quantitative impacts. This step includes both a short-
term assessment--based on the cost and capital requirements during the
period between when a regulation is issued and when entities must
comply with the regulation--and a long-term assessment over a 30-year
period. The industry-wide impacts analyzed include: (1) INPV, which
values the industry on the basis of expected future cash flows; (2)
cash flows by year; (3) changes in revenue and income; and (4) other
measures of impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE analyzes and reports
the impacts on different types of manufacturers, including impacts on
small manufacturers. Third, DOE considers the impact of standards on
domestic manufacturer employment and manufacturing capacity, as well as
the potential for standards to result in plant closures and loss of
capital investment. Finally, DOE takes into account cumulative impacts
of various DOE regulations and other regulatory requirements on
manufacturers.
For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These
measures are discussed further in the following section. For consumers
in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the national NPV of the consumer
costs and benefits expected to result from particular standards. DOE
also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on identifiable
subgroups of consumers that may be affected disproportionately by a
standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC and
PBP)
EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered equipment
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC
and PBP analyses.
The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of an equipment (including
its installation) and the operating cost (including energy,
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over

[[Page 7495]]

the lifetime of the equipment. The LCC analysis requires a variety of
inputs, such as equipment prices, equipment energy consumption, energy
prices, maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount
rates appropriate for consumers. To account for uncertainty and
variability in specific inputs, such as equipment lifetime and discount
rate, DOE uses a distribution of values, with probabilities attached to
each value.
The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including
installation) of a more-efficient equipment through lower operating
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
For its LCC and PBP analyses, DOE assumes that consumers will
purchase the covered equipment in the first year of compliance with new
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and
PBP analyses are discussed in further detail in section IV.F of this
document.
c. Energy Savings
Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to
consider the total projected energy savings that are expected to result
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As discussed in section IV.H of this document,
DOE uses the NIA spreadsheet models to project NES.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
In establishing equipment classes, and in evaluating design options
and the impact of potential standard levels, DOE evaluates potential
standards that would not lessen the utility or performance of the
considered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data available to DOE, the standards
adopted in this document would not reduce the utility or performance of
the equipment under consideration in this rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is
likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result
from a standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary
within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an
analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) To assist the Department of Justice
(``DOJ'') in making such a determination, DOE transmitted copies of its
proposed rule and the October 2023 NOPR TSD to the Attorney General for
review, with a request that DOJ provide its determination on this
issue. In its assessment letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that
the proposed energy conservation standards for CRE are unlikely to have
a significant adverse impact on competition. DOE is publishing the
Attorney General's assessment at the end of this final rule.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
DOE also considers the need for national energy and water
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy savings from the adopted standards are
likely to provide improvements to the security and reliability of the
Nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand for electricity also
may result in reduced costs for maintaining the reliability of the
Nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility impact analysis to
estimate how standards may affect the Nation's needed power generation
capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of this document.
DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take
into account when considering the need for national energy
conservation. The adopted standards are likely to result in
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air
pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE
conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may
affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.K of this document;
the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section V.B.6 of this
document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions
resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section IV.L of
this document.
g. Other Factors
In determining whether an energy conservation standard is
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To the extent DOE identifies any relevant
information regarding economic justification that does not fit into the
other categories described previously, DOE could consider such
information under ``other factors.''
2. Rebuttable Presumption
EPCA creates a rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation
standard is economically justified if the additional cost to the
equipment that meets the standard is less than three times the value of
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a);
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE's LCC and PBP analyses generate
values used to calculate the effect potential amended energy
conservation standards would have on the PBP for consumers. These
analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year PBP contemplated
under the rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, DOE routinely
conducts an economic analysis that considers the full range of impacts
to consumers, manufacturers, the Nation, and the environment, as
required under 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The
results of this analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the
economic justification for a potential standard level (thereby
supporting or rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of
economic justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation
is discussed in section V.B.1.c of this document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this
rulemaking with regard to CRE. Separate subsections address each
component of DOE's analyses.
DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the
standards considered in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new
energy conservation

[[Page 7496]]

standards. The NIA uses a second spreadsheet set that provides
shipments projections and calculates NES and NPV of total consumer
costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation
standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer impacts of
potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the
DOE website for this rulemaking: <a href="http://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/commercial-refrigeration-equipment">www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/commercial-refrigeration-equipment</a>. Additionally, DOE used output from
the latest version of the Energy Information Administration's
(``EIA's'') Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO'') for the emissions and
utility impact analyses.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment
that provides an overall picture of the market for the equipment
concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the industry
structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used
in the equipment. This activity includes both quantitative and
qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available
information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology
assessment for this rulemaking include: (1) a determination of the
scope of the rulemaking and equipment classes, (2) manufacturers and
industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) market and
industry trends, and (5) technologies or design options that could
improve the energy efficiency of CRE. The key findings of DOE's market
assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of
the final rule TSD for further discussion of the market and technology
assessment.
1. Equipment Classes and Definitions
When evaluating and establishing or amending energy conservation
standards, DOE establishes separate standards for a group of covered
equipment (i.e., establish a separate equipment class) based on the
type of energy used, or if DOE determines that an equipment's capacity
or other performance-related feature justifies a different standard.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In making a determination
whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard,
DOE considers such factors as the utility of the feature to the
consumer and other factors DOE determines are appropriate. (Id.)
DOE currently sets forth energy conservation standards and relevant
definitions for CRE equipment classes at 10 CFR 431.66 and 10 CFR
431.62, respectively. The October 2023 NOPR proposed some new equipment
classes. In this final rule, DOE is maintaining the equipment classes
and definitions proposed in the October 2023 NOPR as well as adopting
several new equipment class modifications and new definitions that were
introduced in the August 2024 NODA. The current equipment classes and
the new definitions and equipment class modifications being finalized
in this document and considered in the analysis are outlined as
follows.
a. Current Equipment Classes and Definitions
DOE currently separates CRE into 49 equipment classes, which are
categorized according to the following physical and functional
attributes and equipment efficiency:

(1) operating temperature--refrigerator (>=32 [deg]F), freezer
(<32 [deg]F), or ice-cream freezer (<=-5 [deg]F);
(2) presence of doors--open (without doors) or closed (with
doors);
(3) door type--solid or transparent;
(4) condensing unit--remote or self-contained;
(5) configuration--horizontal, vertical, semivertical, or
service over counter; and
(6) temperature pull-down capability.

Definitions supporting the current equipment classes are as
follows:
Closed solid means equipment with doors, and in which more than 75
percent of the outer surface area of all doors on a unit are not
transparent.
Closed transparent means equipment with doors, and in which 25
percent or more of the outer surface area of all doors on the unit are
transparent.
Commercial freezer means a unit of commercial refrigeration
equipment in which all refrigerated compartments in the unit are
capable of operating below 32 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2 [deg]F).
Commercial refrigerator means a unit of commercial refrigeration
equipment in which all refrigerated compartments in the unit are
capable of operating at or above 32 [deg]F (<plus-minus>2 [deg]F).
Commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer means
refrigeration equipment that:

(1) is not a consumer product (as defined in section 430.2 of
part 430);
(2) is not designed and marketed exclusively for medical,
scientific, or research purposes;
(3) operates at a chilled, frozen, combination chilled and
frozen, or variable temperature;
(4) displays or stores merchandise and other perishable
materials horizontally, semivertically, or vertically;
(5) has transparent or solid doors, sliding or hinged doors, a
combination of hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid doors, or no
doors;
(6) is designed for pull-down temperature applications or
holding temperature applications; and
(7) is connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a
remote condensing unit.

Door means a movable panel that separates the interior volume of a
unit of commercial refrigeration equipment from the ambient environment
and is designed to facilitate access to the refrigerated space for the
purpose of loading and unloading product. This includes hinged doors,
sliding doors, and drawers. This does not include night curtains.
Holding temperature application means a use of commercial
refrigeration equipment other than a pull-down temperature application,
except a blast chiller or freezer.
Horizontal closed means equipment with hinged or sliding doors and
a door angle greater than or equal to 45[deg].
Horizontal open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain
angle greater than or equal to 80[deg] from the vertical.
Ice-cream freezer means:
(1) prior to the compliance date(s) of any amended energy
conservation standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 for ice-cream
freezers, a commercial freezer that is capable of an operating
temperature at or below -5.0 [deg]F and that the manufacturer designs,
markets, or intends specifically for the storing, displaying, or
dispensing of ice cream or other frozen desserts; or
(2) upon the compliance date(s) of any amended energy conservation
standard(s) issued after January 1, 2023 for ice-cream freezers, a
commercial freezer that is capable of an operating temperature at or
below -13.0 [deg]F and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or
intends specifically for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice
cream or other frozen desserts.
Low-temperature freezer means a commercial freezer that is not an
ice-cream freezer.
Medium-temperature refrigerator means a commercial refrigerator
that is capable of an operating temperature at or below 40.0 [deg]F.
Pull-down temperature application means a commercial refrigerator
with doors that, when fully loaded with 12-ounce beverage cans at 90
[deg]F, can cool those beverages to an average stable temperature of 38
[deg]F in 12 hours or less.
Remote condensing unit means a factory-made assembly of
refrigerating components designed to compress and liquefy a specific
refrigerant that is remotely located from the refrigerated equipment
and consists of one or more refrigerant compressors, refrigerant

[[Page 7497]]

condensers, condenser fans and motors, and factory-supplied
accessories.
Self-contained condensing unit means a factory-made assembly of
refrigerating components designed to compress and liquefy a specific
refrigerant that is an integral part of the refrigerated equipment and
consists of one or more refrigerant compressors, refrigerant
condensers, condenser fans and motors, and factory-supplied
accessories.
Semivertical open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain
angle greater than or equal to 10[deg] and less than 80[deg] from the
vertical.
Service over counter means equipment that has sliding or hinged
doors in the back intended for use by sales personnel, with glass or
other transparent material in the front for displaying merchandise, and
that has a height not greater than 66 inches and is intended to serve
as a counter for transactions between sales personnel and customers.
Transparent means greater than or equal to 45-percent light
transmittance, as determined in accordance with the ASTM Standard E
1084-86 (Reapproved 2009) (incorporated by reference, see section
431.63), at normal incidence and in the intended direction of viewing.
Vertical closed means equipment with hinged or sliding doors and a
door angle less than 45[deg].
Vertical open means equipment without doors and an air-curtain
angle greater than or equal to 0[deg] and less than 10[deg] from the
vertical.

10 CFR 431.62.
On March 28, 2014, DOE published the March 2014 Final Rule that
established the current equipment classes and corresponding standards
for CRE. 79 FR 17725. Table IV.1 shows the current CRE equipment
classes and standards.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 7498]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.102

[[Page 7499]]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
b. Modifications to Equipment Classes and Definitions
Since the publication of the March 2014 Final Rule, there have been
several proposed modifications to the equipment classes and definitions
for CRE.
Chef Bases or Griddle Stands and High-Temperature Refrigerators
In the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule amending and
establishing test procedures for CRE, DOE established and amended
definitions and test procedures for high-temperature refrigerators,
medium-temperature refrigerators, and chef bases or griddle stands. 88
FR 66152, 66154-66155. Specifically, DOE established definitions for
``high-temperature refrigerators'' and ``medium-temperature
refrigerators,'' amended the definition for ``chef bases or griddle
stands,'' and incorporated by reference AHRI Standard 1200-2023 (I-P),
which provides an integrated average temperature (``IAT'') of 55 [deg]F
<plus-minus> 2.0 [deg]F for which high-temperature refrigerators may be
tested. Id. DOE also established a definition for ``low-temperature
freezers'' and amended the definition for ``ice-cream freezers.'' Id.
The newly established and amended definitions in the September 2023
Test Procedure Final Rule for chef bases or griddle stand and high-
temperature refrigerator are as follows:
Chef base or griddle stand means commercial refrigeration equipment
that has a maximum height of 32 inches, including any legs or casters,
and that is designed and marketed for the express purpose of having a
griddle or other cooking appliance placed on top of it that is capable
of reaching temperatures hot enough to cook food.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ The definition for ``chef base or griddle stand'' was
established in the April 2014 CRE Test Procedure Final Rule. 79 FR
222778, 22282 (April 24, 2014). However, DOE has not, prior to this
rulemaking, established standards for chef bases or griddle stands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

High-temperature refrigerator means a commercial refrigerator that
is not capable of an operating temperature at or below 40.0 [deg]F.
In the June 2022 Preliminary TSD, DOE had initially determined that
additional equipment classes may be appropriate to address certain CRE
available on the market. Specifically, DOE initially determined to
split several commercial refrigerator equipment classes and establish
separate classes for high-temperature refrigerators. Also, DOE
indicated that it was considering establishing standards for chef bases
or griddle stands with operating temperatures of >= 32 [deg]F or < 32
[deg]F, because this equipment is currently excluded from energy
conservation standards.\35\ See chapter 3 of the June 2022 Preliminary
TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ See 10 CFR 431.66(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the October 2023 NOPR, based on CRE models certified to DOE's
Compliance Certification Database (``CCD'') under the lowest
application product temperature \36\ (``LAPT'') designation for
commercial refrigerators, DOE proposed that high-temperature
refrigerators be categorized under the self-contained and remote
condensing unit configurations and under the VCT, VCS, SOC, VOP, SVO,
and HZO equipment families. 88 FR 70196, 70213. For these equipment
families with high-temperature equipment, DOE proposed to subcategorize
them as high-temperature refrigerators (operating temperature greater
than 40.0 [deg]F) and medium-temperature refrigerators (operating
temperature greater than or equal to 32.0 [deg]F and less than or equal
to 40.0 [deg]F). Id. DOE proposed to maintain a single class for both
medium and high temperature refrigerators, commercial refrigerator
(operating temperature greater than or equal to 32.0 [deg]F), for the
remaining equipment families (i.e., any horizontal closed transparent
(``HCT''), horizontal closed solid (``HCS''), chef base or griddle
stand (``CB''), or pull-down (``PD'') equipment that operates above 40
[deg]F, if commercialized, would be considered a ``commercial
refrigerator'' and required to comply with the ``medium-temperature
refrigerator'' standard when tested at the LAPT). Id. For the October
2023 NOPR, DOE directly analyzed high-temperature refrigerators in the
self-contained condensing unit configuration for the VCT and VCS
equipment families. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ Lowest application product temperature means the integrated
average temperature (or for buffet tables or preparation tables, the
average pan temperature of all measurements taken during the test)
at which a given basic model is capable of consistently operating
that is closest to the integrated average temperature (or for buffet
tables or preparation tables, the average pan temperature of all
measurements taken during the test) specified for testing under the
DOE test procedure. 10 CFR 431.62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the October 2023 NOPR, DOE also tentatively determined that chef
bases or griddle stands can be categorized under the remote condensing
or self-contained condensing unit configurations and the >= 32 [deg]F
or < 32 [deg]F operating temperatures (i.e., commercial refrigerator or
low-temperature freezer, respectively). Id.
Therefore, in the October 2023 NOPR, DOE considered potential
equipment classes for high-temperature refrigerators and chef bases or
griddle stands and proposed potential equipment class structure
modifications as presented in table IV.2. Id. at 88 FR 70214.

[[Page 7500]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.103

[[Page 7501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.104

In response to the October 2023 NOPR, ASAP et al. commented that
they supported DOE's proposed standards for chef bases or griddle
stands, which for medium- and low-temperature chef bases or griddle
stands (CB.SC.M, CB.SC.L) would reduce energy usage by over 50 percent
versus a baseline unit and provide significant cost savings for
purchasers. (ASAP et al., No. 79 at p. 2) ASAP et al. supported DOE's
proposed standards for high-temperature refrigerators, stating that by
moving away from existing medium-temperature standards, the new
procedure better accounts for expected differences in energy use
between medium- and high-temperature units. (Id.)
In this final rule, DOE is finalizing definitions and new equipment
classes as proposed in the October 2023 NOPR for high-temperature
refrigerators, medium-temperature refrigerators, ice-cream freezers,
low-temperature freezers, and chef bases or griddle stands. In this
final rule, DOE is also finalizing the same equipment class
modifications, as proposed in the October 2023 NOPR, outlined in table
IV.2.
New and Amended Definitions Adopted in This Final Rule
To account for the unique features and different energy use
characteristics of certain types of CRE, in the October 2023 NOPR, DOE
proposed to allow certain equipment classes that contain CRE with
unique design characteristics, such as forced-air evaporators, pass-
through doors, roll-in doors, roll-through doors, and sliding doors, to
use a higher amount of energy than the newly proposed standards for
their counterpart equipment without these features, defined using a
``multiplier'' value unique for each characteristic such that maximum
energy use for a model with the characteristic is equal to the
multiplier multiplied by the unadjusted maximum energy use for the
equipment class. As proposed in the October 2023 NOPR, this equipment
has the specified performance-related features and different maximum
energy use to represent separate additional equipment classes. The
multiplier values were selected with consideration that maximum allowed
energy use for these models would comply with EPCA's ``anti-
backsliding'' provision. 88 FR 70196, 70213. Therefore, in the October
2023 NOPR, DOE proposed definitions, to distinguish models with the
unique design features, for the terms ``cold-wall evaporator,''
``forced-air evaporator,'' ``pass-through doors,'' ``roll-in door,''
``roll-through doors,'' and ``sliding door,'' at 10 CFR 431.62. 88 FR
70196. Id. at 88 FR 70212-70213. These definitions, as proposed in the
October 2023 NOPR, are as follows:
Cold-wall evaporator means an evaporator that comprises a portion
or all of the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator
freezer cabinet's interior surface that transfers heat through means
other than fan-forced convection.
Forced-air evaporator means an evaporator that employs the use of
fan-forced convection to transfer heat within the commercial
refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer cabinet.
Pass-through doors means doors located on both the front and rear
of the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer.
Roll-in door means a door that includes a door sweep to seal the
bottom of the door and may include a ramp that allows wheeled racks of
product to be rolled into the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and
refrigerator-freezer.
Roll-through doors means doors located on both the front and rear
of the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and

[[Page 7502]]

refrigerator-freezer, that includes a door sweep to seal the bottom of
the door and may include a ramp that allows wheeled racks of product to
be rolled into and through the commercial refrigerator, freezer, and
refrigerator-freezer.
Sliding door means a door that opens when a portion of the door
moves in a direction generally parallel to its surface.
Section IV.C.1.a of this document discusses energy use allowances
for CRE with the unique features defined in this section.
In the October 2023 NOPR, DOE also reviewed the current definitions
for CRE at 10 CFR 431.62 and proposed to revise the definition for
``rating temperature'' to update the reference to the required IAT or
LAPT, as applicable, as follows:
Rating temperature means the integrated average temperature a unit
must maintain during testing, as determined in accordance with section
2.1 or section 2.2 of appendix B to subpart C of part 431, as
applicable.
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, SCC agreed with DOE's
definitions for ``cold-wall evaporator,'' ``forced-air evaporator,''
``pass-through door,'' ``roll-in door,'' ``roll-through door,''
``sliding door,'' and ``rating temperature.'' (SCC, No. 74 at p. 3)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, DOE received comments
suggesting additional design features that should be provided
additional energy use allowance, and definitions to distinguish them.
ITW and Delfield recommended that DOE add definitions and energy use
allowances for cabinets with drawers. (ITW, No. 82 at pp. 2, 4;
Delfield, No. 71 at p. 2)
Based on these comments and DOE's review of energy use differences
between door and drawer units--discussed in section IV.C.1.c of this
document--DOE is establishing a definition for ``drawer unit'' in this
final rule. Commenters did not provide specific suggestions regarding a
definition for drawer, hence DOE reviewed the definition of ``drawer
unit'' at 20 California Code of Regulations (``CCR'') Sec. 1602, and
DOE is establishing the following definition for ``drawer unit'' in
this final rule:
Drawer unit means a commercial refrigerator, freezer, or
refrigerator-freezer in which all the externally accessed compartments
are drawers.
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, SCC and AHRI commented that
rear-door definitions should be added for SVO and VOP models to allow
more energy for rear door options. (SCC, No. 74 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 81
at p. 5)
DOE notes that commenters did not provide data or other information
to suggest that SVO or VOP equipment with rear doors use more energy
than the representative unit. For this reason, DOE is not expanding the
definitions to include SVO or VOP equipment classes.
In summary, in this final rule, DOE is maintaining the definitions
proposed in the October 2023 NOPR for ``cold-wall evaporator,''
``forced-air evaporator,'' ``pass-through door,'' ``sliding door,''
``rating temperature,'' ``roll-in door,'' and ``roll-through door.'' In
this final rule, DOE is also establishing the ``drawer unit''
definition. Energy conservation standards, in terms of kWh/day,
established in this final rule for equipment of certain classes which
have these performance-related features allow for a higher maximum
energy consumption (i.e., less stringent) than the standards of the
corresponding classes without these performance-related features,
consistent with EPCA's requirements for establishing separate equipment
classes. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) More detail
regarding these classes is provided in IV.C.1.c of this document.
Units Under 30 Cubic Feet
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, NAMA commented that DOE does
not fully account for the existence of smaller self-contained,
refrigerated single- and double-door beverage and food coolers. (NAMA,
No. 85 at p. 5) NAMA hypothesizes that inaccuracies in the October 2023
NOPR analysis (e.g., engineering, shipments, economic impact, and
utility impact) are due to DOE's focus on larger-capacity equipment
than 24-cubic-foot (ft\3\) CRE models that are typical of the market
for NAMA's members. (Id.) NAMA stated that what may apply in cost and
energy efficiency for a 60-ft\3\ unit may not apply to a 24-ft\3\ unit.
(Id. at p. 6) NAMA stated that doors, insulation, fan motors,
compressors, and evaporator coils would be different for 30-ft\3\
models compared to 60-ft\3\ models. (Id.) NAMA commented that, for
DOE's analysis, units under 30 ft\3\ should be considered as different
from those over 30 ft\3\ in refrigerated volume. (Id.) Furthermore,
NAMA commented that between the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis and
October 2023 NOPR, DOE changed the categories of products to include a
number of door types but did not acknowledge that the capacity also
causes a significant difference in cost and efficiency. (Id.)
Therefore, NAMA recommended that DOE split the VCT.SC.M units into two
categories because the characteristics are considerably different for
units under 30 cubic feet than for those over 30 ft\3\. (Id.) In
response the August 2024 NODA, NAMA commented that DOE did not address
its request to split VCT.SC.M, VOP.SC.M, and HZO.SC.L units under 30
cubic feet into separate categories, and that the NODA analysis has not
substantially changed the overall impact to reflect that these products
do not use as much energy as the larger units because the
characteristics are considerably different compared to larger units.
(NAMA, No. 112 at pp. 4-5)
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, NAMA and NAFEM commented that
some components that are available for large grocery store machines are
not available for smaller units using R-290 refrigerant. (Id.; NAFEM,
No. 83 at p. 16)
In response to similar comments regarding components for models
using R-290 refrigerant made by NAMA during the November 2023 public
meeting, True Manufacturing Company, Inc. (``True'') stated that, when
it comes to self-contained CRE, the component availability to
transition to R-290 is already there. (Public Meeting Transcript, No.
64 at p. 74) True added that even today, it is more expensive to buy a
shaded pole motor than an ECM, and ECMs available today all comply with
all the regulations needed for non-sparking. (Id. at p. 75)
In response to these comments, DOE notes that, based on currently
available compressors for small self-contained units, R-290 and R-600a
refrigerant compressors are the most widely available compressor types.
DOE also notes that the smallest model currently available in DOE's CCD
\37\ for VCT.SC.M uses R-600a. In addition, as described in section
IV.A.3.a, DOE analyzed an average compressor efficiency to account for
a wide range of use cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ See <a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*">www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the comment from True, DOE agrees with True that R-
290 compatible components are currently available for self-contained
CRE, including CRE that have a volume of less than 30 ft\3\. DOE
conducted a review of the CRE market, based on directly analyzed units
and publicly available information (e.g., specification sheets), and
found no evidence of a difference in availability of R-290 compatible
components used in less- than- 30- ft\3\ models compared to larger
models. Therefore, without additional data, DOE disagrees that there is
a need for smaller equipment classes to analyze a different design
option pathway than larger R-290 units.
In response to NAMA's comments regarding the applicability of the
cost

[[Page 7503]]

and energy efficiency for a 60-ft\3\ unit compared to a 24-ft\3\ unit,
DOE notes that the representative analyzed volume for the VCT.SC.M
class in the October 2023 NOPR was 49 ft\3\, not 60 ft\3\, and the
representative volume has two doors (see table 5A.2.6 in the October
2023 NOPR TSD) which is within the range of number of doors that NAMA
commented is typical of the market for NAMA's members. DOE reviewed the
list of CRE manufacturers it identified as NAMA members in chapter 3,
section 3.2.3.1 of the final rule TSD and found that these
manufacturers have VCT.SC.M models with rated volumes of up to 63.32
ft\3\ and two doors. A majority of these manufacturers also have models
with certified volumes close to the VCT.SC.M representative volume
analyzed in this final rule (e.g., 43.75 ft\3\, 41.11 ft\3\, and 40.7
ft\3\).
DOE is maintaining the 49 ft\3\ representative volume for the
VCT.SC.M (V <= 100) class in this final rule. Using information
available to DOE at the time of this final rule regarding components
and dimensions that would be used in CRE models with approximately 24
ft\3\, DOE conducted an analysis using its engineering spreadsheet to
estimate the energy use of a CRE model with 24 ft\3\ and concluded that
the analysis is representative of test results for such a model. DOE
has determined that including a representative volume of 24 ft\3\ for
the VCT.SC.M class would not significantly affect results and
conclusions for the VCT.SC.M (V <= 100) class regarding efficiency
levels that would be cost-effective. Therefore, DOE has determined that
DOE's analysis accounts for CRE across the full capacity range of the
VCT.SC.M (V <= 100) class, not just at the representative capacity,
and, in the August 2024 NODA and this final rule, DOE did not present
an analysis for CRE models with a volume of less than 30 ft\3\.
c. Equipment Without Standards Proposed in the October 2023 NOPR
In the October 2023 NOPR, due to a lack of data and information
regarding performance and related design options of refrigerated buffet
tables and preparation tables and blast chillers and blast freezers,
DOE did not conduct an analysis of potential energy conservation
standards for these equipment categories. 88 FR 70196, 70215-70216. DOE
requested comment on refrigerated buffet and preparation tables and
blast chillers and blast freezer design options, design specifications,
and energy consumption data tested per the DOE test procedures located
in appendices C and D of 10 CFR 431.64. Id.
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, SCC, Hoshizaki, AHRI, and
Continental commented that manufacturers have not had time to test
their equipment and evaluate the test procedure and agreed with DOE's
tentative determination to not include energy conservation standards
for buffet and preparation tables in this rulemaking. (SCC, No. 74 at
p. 3; Hoshizaki, No. 76 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 81 at p. 6; Continental, No.
86 at p.2) Hoshizaki offered to make chef bases or griddle stands,
preparation tables, or other model samples available to DOE to help
create the most accurate rulemaking possible. (Hoshizaki, No. 76 at p.
7)
In contrast, in response to the October 2023 NOPR, NEEA and NWPCC
recommended that DOE include blast chillers and blast freezers and
buffet tables in the scope of CRE energy conservation standards,
develop a test procedure for blast chillers/freezers, and conduct
analysis on the energy-saving potential for blast chillers/freezers and
buffet tables. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 89 at pp. 2-3) NEEA and NWPCC
commented that by developing a test procedure that is applicable for
their design intent, DOE could solve the issues of: (1) inadequate
performance data and information for blast chillers and freezers, and
(2) inapplicability of the established CRE test procedure for the
design intent of ``rapid temperature pull-down'' (versus other typical
CRE categories, which are intended for ``holding temperature
application''). (Id.) NEEA and NWPCC added that test procedures are
particularly important for these classes because they are key to
allowing the missing data to be collected, and NEEA and NWPCC
recommended that DOE gather information on test methodology from all
interested parties. (Id.) Regarding buffet tables, NEEA and NWPCC
commented that because an established test procedure exists, DOE should
gather performance data and then conduct an energy-savings analysis and
consider standards for these equipment classes. (Id.)
Consistent with the October 2023 NOPR and comments received in
response to that proposal, DOE has determined that it lacks sufficient
data and information regarding blast chillers and blast freezer
performance and related design options for units tested via the DOE
test procedure. As stated in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final
Rule, blast chillers and blast freezers are designed for ``rapid
temperature pull-down'' capable of reducing the internal temperature
from 135 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F within a period of 4 hours. 88 FR 66152,
66189. Therefore, DOE is not currently able to model expected
performance of this equipment, because the established test procedure
is significantly different from the test procedure applicable to other
CRE categories, which are intended for ``holding temperature
application.'' Due to a lack of data and information regarding
performance of blast chillers and blast freezers, DOE has not conducted
an analysis of potential energy conservation standards for these
equipment categories in this final rule.
With regard to buffet tables and preparation tables, while DOE
acknowledges that California Energy Commission's (``CEC's'') Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System (``MAEDbS'') contains data for
buffet and preparation tables, DOE notes that Title 20 of the CCR
requires refrigerated buffet and preparation tables to follow the
American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'')/American Society for
Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') F2143-01 test method.\38\ This test
method has been revised several times, with ASTM F2143-16 being the
most recent version. In the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule,
DOE stated that ASTM F2143-16 cannot be referenced as a stand-alone
test method, but it determined the approach based on ASTM F2143-16 with
additional requirements is representative for buffet and preparation
tables. 88 FR 66152, 66175. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is not
able to model expected performance of this equipment at this time
because the established test procedure is significantly different from
the test procedure applicable to other CRE categories and from the test
procedure used to measure energy consumption for CEC's MAEDbS. Due to a
lack of data and information regarding performance and related design
options of refrigerated buffet and preparation tables, DOE has not
conducted an analysis of potential energy conservation standards for
these equipment categories in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ See table A-1 in 20 CCR Sec. 1604.a.2 located at
<a href="http://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I132868504AC611EF8D0AD9C609AF9EC3?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=">govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I132868504AC611EF8D0AD9C609AF9EC3?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=</a>(sc.Default
).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this final rule, consistent with the October 2023 NOPR, DOE is
not establishing energy conservation standards for buffet tables or
preparation tables, blast chillers, or blast freezers.
However, any representations, including for certification of
compliance, made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of buffet
tables

[[Page 7504]]

or preparation tables, blast chillers, and blast freezers must be made
in accordance with the results of testing pursuant to appendices C and
D of 10 CFR 431.64.
DOE will continue to evaluate buffet tables or preparation tables,
blast chillers, and blast freezers for potential future energy
conservation standards rulemakings, and DOE continues to request data
and information for this equipment.
d. Pull-Down Equipment
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, ASAP et al. encouraged DOE to
consider amended standards for PD equipment that are consistent with
the efficiency improvements required for other CRE equipment classes,
stating that while no PD.SC.M models are certified in DOE's CCD, a unit
could be certified as a PD unit in order to be subject to a less
stringent standard--a concern stated by ASAP et al. in the past. (ASAP
et al., No. 79 at p. 4) ASAP et al. commented that current standards
for a 49-ft\3\ unit (the VCT.SC.M representative volume in the October
2023 NOPR analysis) permit about 8 percent more energy usage (6.20 kWh/
day) for a PD.SC.M versus a VCT.SC.M unit of the same volume (5.76 kWh/
day). (Id.) ASAP et al. commented that under DOE's proposal in the
October 2023 NOPR, the 49-ft\3\ PD.SC.M unit would be permitted to use
nearly 80 percent more energy than a VCT.SC.M of the same volume (3.51
kWh/day). (Id.) ASAP et al. commented that manufacturers might design
equipment that meets the ``pull-down'' definition to be subject to less
stringent standards due to the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule
establishing verification provisions for PD temperature applications.
(Id.)
With respect to the comment from ASAP et al., the ``pull-down
temperature application'' is defined in 42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(d) and the
equipment class was established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.
L. 109-58).\39\ In the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE
established verification provisions for pull-down temperature
applications based on the EPCA definition, which are intended to ensure
CRE are certified correctly as pull-down temperature applications. See
88 FR 66152, 66187-66189. DOE anticipates that it is unlikely that
manufacturers would design equipment that meets the ``pull-down
temperature application'' definition to be subject to less stringent
standards because manufacturers do not appear to be doing so in
response to the current DOE CRE standards. For example, there are no
models currently certified to DOE's CCD in the PD.SC.M class,\40\ and
the PD.SC.M energy use standard is less stringent than the comparable
VCT.SC.M- class energy use standard above 5 ft\3\. Consistent with the
October 2023 NOPR, DOE did not directly analyze the pull-down, self-
contained, medium temperature equipment class as a primary equipment
class in this final rule. DOE has determined to maintain the current
standard level for PD.SC.M because DOE did not receive any data or
feedback regarding energy use characteristics and design options of PD
equipment. DOE will continue to monitor the PD.SC.M equipment class and
any models certified to this class, including assessment testing and
verification of any model's ability to meet the pull-down temperature
application definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ See 119 STAT. 639 at <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW-109publ58.pdf">www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW-109publ58.pdf</a>.
\40\ See <a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Refrigeration_Equipment_-_Commercial__Single_Compartment.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A%22Refrigeration%20Equipment%20-%20Commercial%2C%20Single%20Compartment%22">www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/CCMS-4-Refrigeration_Equipment_-_Commercial__Single_Compartment.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A%22Refrigeration%20Equipment%20-%20Commercial%2C%20Single%20Compartment%22</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. CRE Market
In the October 2023 NOPR, DOE requested comment on publicly
available market data on CRE manufacturers or identification of any CRE
manufacturers with large market shares not identified in chapter 3 of
the October 2023 NOPR TSD. 88 FR 70196, 70218.
AHRI provided a list of known suppliers of CRE products for the
United States that are not listed on the CCD site: Amteko Industries,
Inc.; Atlantic Food Bars; Borgen Merchandising Systems; Buffalo
Outfront; Carrier; Cayuga Displays; Custom Deli's Inc.; Duke
Manufacturing Co.; Federal Industries; GTI Designs; MTL COOL, a Due
North brand; NAFCOOL; Picadeli; Pure Cold; USR Brands; Unity[supreg]
Commercial Refrigeration; and Vortex Refrigeration. (AHRI, No. 81 at p.
6)
As part of DOE's market assessment for the October 2023 NOPR and
this final rule, DOE compiled an equipment database of CRE models
available in the United States. To develop a comprehensive equipment
database of CRE basic models, DOE reviewed its CCD \41\ supplemented by
information from CEC's MAEDbS,\42\ individual company websites,
stakeholder comments (see AHRI, No. 81 at p. 6), and prior CRE
rulemakings. To identify chef bases or griddle stands and high-
temperature units, DOE reviewed publicly available data from web
scraping of retail websites. DOE then reviewed its comprehensive
equipment database to identify the original equipment manufacturers
(``OEMs'') of the CRE models identified. DOE compared the list of
suppliers provided by AHRI against its list of CRE manufacturers to
ensure completeness. Based on this comparison, DOE amended its market
assessment (see chapter 3 of the final rule TSD) to include two
additional small, domestic OEMs, Atlantic Food Bars and Borgen
Merchandising Systems, for this final rule. DOE determined that both
OEMs would qualify as small, domestic businesses. Therefore, for this
final rule, DOE updated its small business assessment and included
these companies in its small business manufacturer subgroup analysis
(i.e., ``regulatory flexibility analysis'') discussed in section VI.B
of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification
Database is available at <a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*">www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*</a> (last accessed Jan. 31, 2024).
\42\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database is available at <a href="http://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx">cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx</a> (last accessed Jan. 31, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Technology Options
In the October 2023 NOPR market analysis and technology assessment,
DOE identified technology options initially determined to improve the
efficiency of CRE, as measured by the DOE test procedure and shown in
table IV.3.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 7505]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21JA25.105

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
88 FR 70196, 70244.

DOE received several comments on the technology options presented
in the October 2023 NOPR. DOE received general comments regarding the
technology options along with comments specifically regarding single-
speed compressors, expansion valves, and doors for open units. These
are discussed in the following paragraphs.
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, and the August 2024 NODA,
Hillphoenix commented that the many other additional regulatory changes
underway have narrowed manufacturers' ability to explore new energy-
efficient technologies. (Hillphoenix, No. 77 at p. 2; Hillphoenix, No.
110 at p. 2)
DOE appreciates Hillphoenix's candor in indicating that they have
little quantitative information to provide regarding energy savings
potential for some of the newer technology options. In this final rule,
DOE has not analyzed technologies that fail the screening criteria,
including ``technologies that are not incorporated in commercial
equipment or in commercially viable, existing prototypes will not be
considered further''. DOE has undertaken its analysis based on the best
information available.
In response to the October 2023 NOPR, NAFEM commented that meeting
that the October 2023 NOPR's proposed standards may force reductions in
the capacity of certain CRE, which reduces its utility and may lead to
increased energy consumption. (NAFEM, No. 83 at pp. 22-23) NAFEM stated
that many of its members shared a concern that substantially bulking up
insulation may be the only way to meet many of the standards outlined
in the October 2023 NOPR, which eats into the capacity of CRE models
and may force customers to add more energy-using equipment to store the
same amount of product--equipment that impacts the environment. (Id. at
p. 23) NAFEM commented that this is another reason why refurbished
equipment might be the only choice for some customers. (Id.) NAFEM
added that its members fear that customers may ``tinker'' with products
to circumvent efficiency measures to achieve a better-performing
product, with the end result being that DOE's targeted energy-
efficiency gains will never materialize in practice, and that the
proposed standards may even cause an increase in energy consumption.
(Id.)
In response to this comment from NAFEM, DOE notes that the
screening criteria in section IV.B of this document screens out any
technology options that are determined to have ``a significant adverse
impact on the utility of the equipment to subgroups of consumers, or
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes,
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment
generally available in the United States at the time,'' including
increased insulation thickness and other technologies that affect
internal or external dimensions. Additionally, the baseline insulation
thicknesses analyzed in this final rule were revised from the October
2023 NOPR, consistent with comments received in response to the October
2023 NOPR. See section IV.B.1.a of this document for more details on
the screening analysis for the increased insulation thickness
technology option and section IV.C.1.a.iii of this document for more
details on the revised baseline insulation thicknesses. Additionally,
see sections IV.F.7 and IV.G of this document for a detailed discussion
on refurbished equipment.
a. High-Efficiency Single-Speed Compressors
In the October 2023 NOPR, DOE considered the design option of

[[Page 7506]]

improved compressor efficiency, which would have consisted of applying
a compressor with improved energy efficiency in comparison to the
baseline compressor analyzed. 88 FR 70196, 70228. In the October 2023
NOPR, DOE presented a baseline for self-contained equipment based on R-
290 and expected the energy efficiency improvement associated with the
change to R-290 to be due to the compressor. Id. DOE did not directly
analyze an improved compressor efficiency design option beyond the R-
290 baseline. Id.
In the August 2024 NODA, DOE updated its analysis of R-290
compressor performance to reflect the average compressor efficiency
from the database of CRE compressors it has collected, instead of the
maximum compressor efficiency as considered in the October 2023 NOPR.
89 FR 68788, 68792-68793. DOE was able to incorporate into the August
2024 NODA compressor data that was not available to DOE for the October
2023 NOPR. Id. In the August 2024 NODA, DOE presented updated baseline
energy use associated with each equipment class, expressed as a
reduction in energy compared to the currently applicable standard. Id.
Additionally, in the August 2024 NODA, based on the AHRI January 2017
white paper, Tolerances and Uncertainties in Performance Data of
Refrigerant Compressors, which is referenced by the AHRI 540 compressor
performance rating standard (``AHRI 540''),\43\ DOE revised its
calculation of energy use for all compressors to be 5 percent higher
than calculated using compressor performance coefficients, to account
for the uncertainty associated with compressor energy performance
prediction using

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on January 21, 2025.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.