This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposedissuance of rules and regulations. Thepurpose of these notices is to give interestedpersons an opportunity to participate in therule making prior to the adoption of the finalrules.Proposed RulesFederal Register11454 
Vol. 81, No. 43 
Friday, March 4, 2016 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 
10 CFR Part 430 
[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–DET–0072] 
RIN 1904–AC66 and 1904–AC51 
Energy Conservation Program for 
Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Supplemental Proposed Determination of Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products as Covered Products 
AGENCY : Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. 
ACTION : Notice of proposed rulemaking; 
supplemental notice of proposed determination. 
SUMMARY : The U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE) is proposing to treat certain miscellaneous refrigeration products (MREFs), which include coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products, as covered products under Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended. This supplemental proposed determination would modify DOE’s initial proposed scope of those products that would be considered MREFs presented in its earlier proposed determinations. As part of this supplemental proposed determination, DOE is also proposing specific definitions of the product categories that would fall within the MREF product type. In addition, DOE is proposing to amend its current definitions for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to help clarify the distinctions between the proposed covered product definitions for MREFs. The proposed amendments to these definitions (for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers) would not alter the scope or intent of the current definitions, other than for those products that would newly be covered as combination cooler refrigeration products. 
DATES : DOE will accept written 
comments, data, and information on this document, but no later than April 4, 2016. 
The coverage and definitions 
proposed in this document would be effective 30 days after publication of any final coverage determination in the Federal Register. After that date, products within the scope of MREF coverage would be subject to any applicable test procedures and energy conservation standards established for MREFs. 
ADDRESSES : This rulemaking can be 
identified by docket number EERE– 2011–BT–DET–0072 and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1904–AC66 and 1904–AC51. 
Interested persons are encouraged to 
submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number, EERE–2011–BT–DET–0072 by any of the following methods: 
•Email: to Non- 
CompressorResRefrigProd-2011-DET- 0072@ee.doe.gov. Include EERE–2011– 
BT–DET–0072 in the subject line of the message. 
•Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 0121. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please submit one signed paper original. 
•Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024. Phone: (202) 586–2945. Please submit one signed paper original. 
All submissions received must 
include the agency name and docket number or RIN for this rulemaking. 
Docket: For access to the docket to 
read background documents or comments received, go to the U.S. Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586– 2945 for additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Mr. 
Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–0371. Email: Joseph.Hagerman@ee.doe.gov. 
In the Office of General Counsel, 
contact Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: Michael.Kido@doe.gov. 
For further information on how to 
review public comments, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Table of Contents 
I. Statutory Authority 
II. Current Rulemaking Process III. Scope of Coverage IV. Evaluation of Miscellaneous Refrigeration 
Products as Covered Products 
A. Coverage Necessary or Appropriate To 
Carry Out Purposes of EPCA 
B. Energy Use Estimates 1. Coolers 2. Combination Cooler Refrigeration 
Products 
3. Conclusions 
V. Product Definitions 
A. Coolers B. Combination Cooler Refrigeration 
Products 
C. Refrigerators, Refrigerator Freezers, and 
Freezers 
D. General Terms for the Groups of 
Products Addressed in This Document 
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act 
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 
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 of 1999 
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations Act of 2001 
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under the Information Quality 
Bulletin for Peer Review 
VII. Public Participation 
A. Submission of Comments B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:02 Mar 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS11455 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 
1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 
U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A. 2On www.regulations.gov, see docket ID EERE– 
2011–BT–STD–0043 for information regarding the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking and docket ID EERE–2013–BT–TP–0029 for information regarding the test procedure rulemaking. I. Statutory Authority 
Title III of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.), sets forth various provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) established the ‘‘Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,’’ which covers consumer products and certain commercial products (hereafter referred to as ‘‘covered products’’).
1 
EPCA specifies a list of covered 
consumer products that includes refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. Although EPCA did not define any of these products, it specified that the extent of DOE’s coverage would apply to those refrigerator, refrigerator- freezers, and freezers that can be operated by alternating current (AC) electricity, are not designed to be used without doors, and include a compressor and condenser as an integral part of the cabinet assembly. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) EPCA did not preclude or otherwise foreclose the possibility that other consumer refrigeration products, such as those consumer refrigeration products addressed in this notice, could also be covered if they satisfy certain prerequisites. Those prerequisites, when met, permit the Secretary of Energy to classify additional types of consumer products as covered products. For a given product to be classified as a covered product, the Secretary must determine that: 
(1) Classifying the product as a 
covered product is necessary for the purposes of EPCA; and 
(2) the average annual per-household 
energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr). (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1)) 
When attempting to cover additional 
product types, DOE must first determine whether these criteria from 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1) are met. Once they have been satisfied, the Secretary may set standards for these additional products, subject to the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p), provided that DOE determines the four criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(l) have been met. First, the average per household energy use within the United States by the products of such type (or class) exceeded 150 kilowatt- hours (kWh) (or its British thermal unit (Btu) equivalent) for any 12-month 
period ending before such determination. Second, the aggregate household energy use within the United States by products of such type (or class) exceeded 4,200,000,000 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) for any such 12- 
month period. Third, a substantial improvement in the energy efficiency of products of such type (or class) is technologically feasible. And fourth, the application of a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 to such type (or class) is not likely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, covered products of such type (or class) that achieve the maximum energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)) This determination would be made prior to DOE’s setting of energy conservation standards for the product at issue. 
In addition, if DOE issues a final 
determination that a given product— such as a miscellaneous refrigeration product or ‘‘MREF’’—is a covered product, DOE will consider adopting test procedures to measure its energy efficiency and determine if the required criteria of 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1) are met prior to setting any energy conservation standards for that product. DOE has already started the rulemaking processes for both the test procedures and the standards for MREFs.
2 
II. Current Rulemaking Process 
On November 8, 2011, DOE published 
a notice of proposed determination of coverage (NOPD) to address the potential coverage of consumer refrigeration products without compressors in anticipation of a rulemaking to address these and related consumer refrigeration products. 76 FR 69147. 
On February 23, 2012, DOE began a 
scoping process to set potential energy conservation standards and test procedures for wine chillers, consumer refrigeration products that operate without compressors, and consumer ice makers by publishing a notice of public meeting, and providing a framework document that addressed potential standards and test procedure rulemakings for these products. 77 FR 7547. 
On October 31, 2013, DOE published 
in the Federal Register a supplemental notice of proposed determination of coverage (‘‘SNOPD’’) in which it 
tentatively determined that MREFs, which at the time included wine chillers, non-compressor refrigeration products, hybrid products (i.e. refrigeration products that combine a wine chiller with a refrigerator and/or freezer), and consumer ice makers, 
would satisfy the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1). 78 FR 65223. 
DOE published a notice of public 
meeting that also announced the availability of a preliminary technical support document (‘‘TSD’’) for MREFs on December 3, 2014 (‘‘Preliminary Analysis’’). 79 FR 71705. This preliminary analysis considered potential standards for the products proposed for coverage as MREFs in the SNOPD. DOE held a public meeting to discuss and receive comments on the preliminary analysis, which covered the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate potential standards; the results of preliminary analyses performed by DOE for these products; the potential energy conservation standard levels derived from these analyses that DOE had been considering consistent with its obligations under EPCA; and all other issues raised issues that relevant to the development of energy conservation standards for the different classes of MREFs. 
DOE also published a test procedure 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on December 16, 2014 (‘‘Test Procedure NOPR’’), that proposed establishing definitions and test procedures for MREFs, including the product categories proposed for coverage in the SNOPD. The proposed test procedures to be included at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 430, subpart B, appendix A (‘‘appendix A’’) would measure the energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated annual operating cost of MREFs during a representative average use period and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)). 79 FR 74894. 
After reviewing the comments 
received in response to both the Preliminary Analysis and the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE ultimately determined that its efforts at developing test procedures and potential energy conservation standards for these products would benefit from the direct and comprehensive input provided through the negotiated rulemaking process. On April 1, 2015, DOE published a notice of intent to establish a Working Group under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal 
Advisory Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) that would use the negotiated rulemaking process to discuss and, if possible, reach consensus on the scope of coverage, definitions, test procedures, and proposed energy conservation standards for MREFs. 80 FR 17355. Subsequently, DOE formed a Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Working Group 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:02 Mar 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS11456 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 
3See J. B. Greenblatt et al. U.S. Residential 
Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products: Results from 
Amazon Mechanical Turk Surveys. 2014. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. (Report No. LBNL–6537E) and S. M. Donovan, S. J. Young and J. B. Greenblatt. Ice-Making in the U.S.: Results from an Amazon Mechanical Turk Survey. 2015. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. (Report No. LBNL–183899). 
4See Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0043– 
0106. (‘‘MREF Working Group’’ or, in context, 
‘‘the Working Group’’) to address these issues. The Working Group consisted of 15 members, including two members from ASRAC and one DOE representative. The MREF Working Group met in-person during six sets of meetings held on May 4–5, June 11–12, July 15–16, August 11–12, September 16–17, and October 20. 
On August 11, 2015, the MREF 
Working Group reached consensus on a term sheet that recommended the relevant scope of coverage, definitions, and test procedures for MREFs. See public docket EERE–2011–BT–STD– 0043–0113 (‘‘Term Sheet #1’’). On October 20, 2015, the MREF Working Group reached consensus on a term sheet to recommend energy conservation standards for coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products. See public docket EERE– 2011–BT–STD–0043–0111 (‘‘Term Sheet #2’’). ASRAC approved the term sheets during open meetings on December 18, 2015, and January 20, 2016, and sent them to the Secretary of Energy. 
III. Scope of Coverage 
As discussed in the previous section, 
DOE’s Test Procedure NOPR and 
Preliminary Analysis for MREFs were consistent with the scope of coverage outlined in the SNOPD. 
In response to the feedback received 
from interested parties on the Preliminary Analysis and Test Procedure NOPR, the MREF Working Group was tasked with recommending a scope of coverage for MREFs. To this end, the Working Group’s Term Sheet recommended that DOE drop two product categories that DOE had initially included in its scope—non- compressor refrigerators and ice makers. For non-compressor refrigerators, the Working Group members were unaware of the existence of such products and concluded that the non-compressor 
products that do exist would be considered coolers (formerly ‘‘cooled cabinets’’) under the definitions recommended by the MREF Working Group. Accordingly, it recommended dropping the non-compressor refrigerator product category since they would already be covered as coolers. For ice makers, the Working Group made two observations. First, the Working Group noted that ice makers are fundamentally different from the other product categories considered as MREFs, as emphasized by DOE’s proposal to create a separate test procedure for them. Second, the Working Group noted that ice makers are currently covered as commercial equipment and there is no clear differentiation between consumer and 
commercial ice makers. See Term Sheet #1. 
Based on feedback from interested 
parties and recommendations from the MREF Working Group, DOE is proposing that MREF coverage would apply only to coolers (formerly cooled cabinets) and combination cooler refrigeration products (formerly hybrid refrigeration products). DOE is also proposing definitions for these product categories. 
IV. Evaluation of Miscellaneous 
Refrigeration Products as Covered 
Products 
Determining whether to treat MREFs 
as a covered product requires satisfying certain statutory criteria. As stated in section I of this notice, DOE may classify a consumer product as a covered product if (1) classifying products of such type as covered products is necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA; and (2) the average annual per household energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) per year. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1)) Additionally, to set standards for any newly covered product, the average per household energy use must exceed 150 kWh (or its British thermal unit (Btu) equivalent) for any 12-month period, and the aggregate household energy use must exceed 4.2 terawatt-hours (TWh) (or its Btu equivalent) for any such 12-month period. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)) 
A. Coverage Necessary or Appropriate 
To Carry Out Purposes of EPCA 
In this document, DOE has tentatively 
determined that the coverage of MREFs is both necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA. MREFs, which comprise a small but significant and growing sector of the consumer refrigeration market, consume energy generated from limited energy supplies and regulating their energy efficiency would be likely to help conserve these limited energy supplies. Accordingly, establishing standards for these products falls squarely within EPCA’s purposes to: (1) Conserve energy supplies through energy conservation programs; and (2) provide for improved energy efficiency of major appliances and certain other consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 6201) 
B. Energy Use Estimates 
DOE estimated the average household 
energy use for MREFs—coolers and 
combination cooler refrigeration products—to determine if the average annual per-household energy use of these products exceeds the 100 kWh/yr 
required for coverage under EPCA. For this analysis, DOE used the SNOPD analysis as a starting point and made improvements based on more recent or newly gathered data. 
1. Coolers 
DOE used market data, engineering 
models, and feedback from 
manufacturers received under non- disclosure agreements and during the MREF Working Group meetings to improve the estimates of average household energy use for coolers as determined in the SNOPD. 
While the SNOPD considered 
different product categories based on both compartment temperatures (e.g., cooler, refrigerator, or freezer) and refrigeration type (e.g., vapor- 
compression, thermoelectric, etc.), DOE has reorganized the analysis for consistency with the scope of coverage and product definitions recommended by the MREF Working Group, as described in sections III and VI of this notice, respectively. For coolers, the definition would incorporate products regardless of refrigeration system under the same product definition. However, to better account for the energy use characteristics of these products, the updated analysis separates coolers into four product categories based on refrigerated volume and installation type. 
DOE has updated several components 
of its energy use estimates since the SNOPD. DOE surveyed product owners to improve its estimate of market saturation rates.
3DOE has also revised 
its estimates of product lifetimes based on recommendations from the MREF Working Group. Finally, DOE updated its estimates of energy consumption per unit through feedback from 
manufacturers, the MREF Working Group, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers,
4as well as 
product information available on manufacturer and retailer Web sites. 
Table IV.1 shows the estimated 
annual energy use for each type of cooler. DOE found that across all cooler product types, coolers have an average lifetime of over 10 years, and an average annual energy consumption of 440 kWh per household. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:02 Mar 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS11457 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 
TABLE IV.1—C OOLERS ESTIMATED ANNUAL ENERGY USE 
Units Product type Totals or 
averages Compact FS * Compact BI * FS * BI * 
Average Energy Consump-
tion (per unit).kWh/year ............................ 450 250 370 340 440 
Stock ................................... Units, 2014 ......................... 14,500,000 55,000 610,000 120,000 15,300,000 
National Energy Consump-
tion.TWh/year ............................ 6.5 0.014 0.23 0.042 6.8 
Average Lifetime ................. years ................................... 10.3 10.3 17.4 17.4 10.6 
Annual Sales ....................... Units, 2014 ......................... 1,400,000 5,400 35,000 7,100 1,460,000 
Saturation ............................ % ........................................ 12.6 0.05 0.5 0.1 
* FS = Freestanding, BI = Built-in. 
2. Combination Cooler Refrigeration 
Products 
DOE used market data, engineering 
models, and feedback from manufacturers received under non- disclosure agreements and during the MREF Working Group meetings to improve the estimates of average household energy use for combination cooler refrigeration products as 
determined in the SNOPD. 
Similar to the updated coolers 
analysis in this notice, DOE revised its combination cooler refrigeration product analysis consistent with the scope of coverage and product definitions recommended by the MREF Working Group, as described in sections III and VI of this notice, respectively. The updated combination cooler refrigeration product definition removes the 50-percent cooler compartment volume requirement that was needed for a product to be considered a combination cooler refrigeration product in the SNOPD. The updated analysis reflects additional products being included under the ‘‘combination cooler refrigeration products’’ definition. 
DOE has updated several components 
of its combination cooler refrigeration product energy use estimates since publication of the SNOPD. DOE updated its estimate of annual shipments based on manufacturer feedback. DOE has also revised its estimates of product lifetimes based on recommendations from the MREF Working Group. Finally, DOE updated its estimates of energy consumption per unit through manufacturer and MREF Working Group-member feedback and an examination of more recent product information available on manufacturer and retailer Web sites. 
Table IV.2 shows the estimated 
annual energy use for each type of combination cooler refrigeration product. DOE found that across product types, these products have an average lifetime of about 12.6 years, and an average annual energy consumption of 222 kWh per household. 
TABLE IV.2—C OMBINATION COOLER REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS ANNUAL ENERGY USE 
Units Product type * Totals or 
averages C3A–BI C9–BI C13A C13A–BI 
Average Energy Consump-
tion (per unit).kWh/year ............................ 210 280 210 220 220 
Stock ................................... Units, 2014 ......................... 70,000 70,000 160,000 120,000 430,000 
National Energy Consump-
tion.TWh/year ............................ 0.015 0.019 0.035 0.027 0.095 
Average Lifetime ................. years ................................... 17.4 17.4 10.3 10.3 12.6 
Annual Sales ....................... Units, 2014 ......................... 4,000 4,000 16,000 12,000 36,000 
Saturation ............................ ............................................. 0.06% 0.06% 0.14% 0.11% 
Product types for combination cooler refrigeration products are based on the product class of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer that 
the product would be categorized under if it did not have a cooler compartment. 
3. Conclusions 
Based upon its evaluations of coolers 
and combination cooler refrigeration 
products, DOE has developed estimates of their annual energy use. These estimates indicate that these products, on average, consume significantly more than 100 kWh annually. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the average annual per household energy use for MREFs is likely to exceed the 100 kWh/yr threshold set by EPCA needed to classify a product as covered. Moreover, DOE has determined that MREFs on average consume more than 150 kWh/yr, and that the aggregate annual national energy use of these 
products is 6.9 TWh, which exceeds the 4.2 TWh minimum threshold. Accordingly, these data indicate that MREFs appear to satisfy at least two of the four criteria required by EPCA in order to establish energy conservation standards for a product that the Secretary chooses to add for regulatory coverage. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)(A)– (D). 
V. Product Definitions 
Consistent with the SNOPD, the Test 
Procedure NOPR laid out potential 
definitions for the following four product categories that DOE indicated would be considered as MREFs: Cooled 
cabinets, non-compressor refrigerators, hybrid refrigerators, and ice makers. DOE proposed to define ‘‘cooled cabinets’’ as products that maintain internal temperatures warmer than refrigerators; ‘‘non-compressor refrigerators’’ as products that otherwise meet the existing refrigerator definition, but do not use vapor-compression refrigeration; ‘‘hybrid refrigeration products’’ as products with a warm- temperature (i.e. a temperature lower 
than the ambient, but warmer than that which is used to safely store fresh food) 
compartment (e.g., a wine chiller) 
combined with a fresh food and/or 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:02 Mar 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS11458 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 
5A notation in the form ‘‘FSI, No. 15 at p. 1’’ 
identifies a written comment: (1) Made by Felix 
Storch, Inc. (FSI); (2) recorded in document number 15 that is filed in the docket of the test procedure rulemaking for miscellaneous refrigeration products (Docket No. EERE–2013– BT–TP–0029) and available for review at www.regulations.gov; and (3) which appears on page 1 of document number 15. freezer compartment, with the warm- 
temperature compartment comprising at least 50 percent of the product’s total refrigerated volume; and ‘‘ice makers’’ as consumer products designed to automatically produce and harvest ice that would not be considered any of the other consumer refrigeration products (e.g., refrigerator-freezer or freezer). DOE 
also proposed amending the existing ‘‘refrigerator,’’ ‘‘refrigerator-freezer,’’ and ‘‘freezer’’ product definitions for consistency and to improve their clarity when viewed in conjunction with the proposed MREF definitions. 79 FR 74894, 74899–74904 (Dec. 16, 2014). 
The MREF Working Group 
subsequently discussed how and whether to define the various terms related to MREFs. The Working Group ultimately reached a consensus that is reflected in Term Sheet #1’s recommendations, which included dropping DOE’s proposed definitions for non-compressor refrigerators and ice makers, updating the terms used to describe the covered MREF product categories based on the discussions and analyses conducted during the Working Group meetings, revising the proposed MREF product definitions, and amending the existing definitions for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers to ensure consistency with the recommended MREF definitions. See Term Sheet #1. 
Consistent with these 
recommendations, DOE is proposing new or amended definitions for the relevant product definitions that would be added to the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR 430.2. DOE is proposing new definitions for MREFs to clearly delineate which products would fall within the scope of coverage for MREFs and within which MREF product categories. DOE is also 
proposing similar conforming amendments to the existing definitions for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers for consistency with the proposed MREF definitions. The proposed amendments are intended to eliminate confusion with the proposed MREF definitions, and would not affect the scope of coverage under the existing refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer definitions, other than for those products that would be covered under DOE’s proposed determination as combination cooler refrigeration products. 
A. Coolers 
In the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE 
proposed to define a ‘‘cooled cabinet’’ as 
a product operating using only electric energy input but is not a ‘‘refrigerator’’ because its compartment temperatures are warmer than the 39 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) threshold established for refrigerators, as determined in a 72 °F 
ambient temperature. 79 FR 74894, 74901–74902 (Dec. 16, 2014). This proposal was based on the premise that such a product would adequately capture items such as beverage centers and wine coolers, which typically operate above these temperatures. 
The MREF Working Group term sheet 
(i.e., Term Sheet #1) contained a 
recommendation that DOE revise this term from ‘‘cooled cabinet’’ to ‘‘cooler’’ and incorporate a number of other changes to the proposed definition. The Working Group recommended that compartment temperatures be determined during operation in a 90 °F 
ambient temperature to maintain consistency with the test conditions used for other refrigeration products. The Working Group also recommended excluding products designed to be used without doors, consistent with the exclusions DOE had proposed for the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer definitions in the Test Procedure NOPR. See 79 FR 74894 at 74900 (Dec. 16, 2014). The purpose of the exclusion would be to differentiate between consumer products and commercial equipment (i.e., products designed for 
use without doors are commercial equipment rather than consumer products, consistent with the statutory coverage of refrigerators, refrigerator- freezers, and freezers). The Working Group further recommended the requirement that coolers operate on single-phase, alternating current rather than simply specifying operation with electric energy input. This approach would exclude those products designed for direct current or 3-phase power supplies, which would likely apply to products intended for use in mobile or commercial applications, respectively. See Term Sheet #1. 
Consistent with this approach, DOE is 
proposing to define cooler using the definition for cooled cabinet proposed in the Test Procedure NOPR—but updated to reflect the Working Group’s recommendations. 
In response to the definitions 
proposed in the Test Procedure NOPR, Felix Storch, Inc. (‘‘FSI’’) commented that it is not aware of any non- compressor freezers, but it is aware of non-compressor refrigerators that are able to have a very small portion of their volume at a temperature cold enough to freeze ice cubes. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 1)
5 FSI also commented that the proposed category for non-compressor refrigerators was overly-broad. It stressed that there are two main purposes for non-compressor units: One is to serve as a low-price compact wine cellar or dormitory cooler, and the other is for use in special markets such as camping or truck refrigerators. It noted that these units should not have the same regulations as currently in effect for compressor units and instead, any thermoelectric product with a volume less than 1 cubic foot should be exempt from regulation so that these products can continue to be marketed. Also, FSI stated that DOE should exempt units without permanently attached power cords for 110-volt operation—such as car or truck refrigerators—that use a 12- volt default power cord. (FSI, No. 15 at pp. 4–5) 
As described in section III of this 
document, DOE is not proposing separate coverage for non-compressor freezers or non-compressor refrigerators as MREFs. DOE does not agree with FSI’s characterization above. Further, DOE is unaware of any non-compressor products capable of maintaining refrigerator or freezer compartment temperatures as proposed in this document (i.e., the compartment 
temperatures determined during operation in a 90 °F ambient 
temperature as measured by appendix A). DOE expects that the products FSI identified as capable of freezing ice cubes do so either during operation at lower ambient temperatures or in a localized portion of the refrigerated compartment while the overall average compartment temperature would be higher than the range required to be considered a refrigerator. If true, DOE expects these products to fall under the cooler definition as proposed in this document instead of the refrigerator or freezer definitions because those products would need to be capable of achieving the compartment temperatures as measured by appendix A. 
Rather, all non-compressor products 
would be considered coolers under the proposed definitions in this document. Further, DOE is proposing that the cooler definition include the Working Group’s recommended requirement that coolers operate on single-phase, alternating current, which would exclude products designed for direct current power supplies, such as those mobile products equipped with a 12- 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:02 Mar 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS11459 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 
volt power cord. DOE also notes that 
non-compressor refrigeration products would not be subject to the current energy conservation standards in place for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers because the coverage of those products applies to products equipped with a compressor and condenser-based refrigeration system. 
In addition, FSI argued that 
absorption refrigerators should not be regulated. In its view, regulating these products may make them too expensive for hotels to afford them and leave them with no viable option. FSI also argued that the absorption refrigeration product market is so small that DOE should conduct an additional DOE survey to determine if these products have a market large enough to warrant regulation. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 5) Because DOE is no longer proposing a separate definition for non-compressor refrigerators, absorption refrigerators would not be separately regulated as non-compressor refrigerators under the proposed MREF coverage. However, they likely would fall under the proposed cooler definition, and, if so, would be subject to any future energy conservation standards established for coolers. 
In addition to the cooler definition 
recommended in Term Sheet #1, the MREF Working Group recommended that DOE establish definitions within the cooler product category based on total refrigerated volume and installation type. The Working Group recommended a ‘‘compact’’ designation for products with total refrigerated volumes of less than 7.75 cubic feet. The Working Group also recommended that DOE differentiate ‘‘built-in’’ from ‘‘freestanding products’’ by using definitions based on those already in place for built-in refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. See Term Sheet #1. 
Consistent with these 
recommendations, DOE is proposing definitions within the cooler definition based on refrigerated volume and configuration, consistent with the same requirements and definitions currently in place for refrigerators, refrigerator- freezers, and freezers. 
B. Combination Cooler Refrigeration 
Products 
In the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE 
proposed that the term ‘‘hybrid refrigeration product’’ would refer to products equipped with a warm- temperature compartment (e.g., a wine 
chiller), making up at least 50 percent of a product’s volume, combined with a fresh food and/or freezer compartment. 79 FR 74894, 74903–74904 (Dec. 16, 
2014). 
The MREF Working Group discussed 
the proposed definition and recommended that DOE revise the term from ‘‘hybrid refrigeration product’’ to ‘‘combination cooler refrigeration product,’’ noting that this term more clearly describes the product category. The Working Group also recommended that DOE refer to the warmer compartment within combination cooler refrigeration products as a ‘‘cooler compartment,’’ defined by the same temperature ranges as recommended for coolers described in section V.A of this document. The MREF Working Group recommended that DOE remove its proposed approach, which followed DOE’s guidance that cooler compartments must make up at least 50 percent of a combination cooler refrigeration product’s total volume. The Working Group noted that all products with cooler compartments would likely be used in the same way, and that the 50-percent threshold was an arbitrary cutoff. The Working Group further recommended that DOE exclude products designed for use without doors from the combination cooler refrigeration product definitions for the same reasons discussed for coolers (i.e., differentiating between commercial equipment and consumer products). See Term Sheet #1. 
DOE agrees with the MREF Working 
Group recommendations and the Working Group’s reasoning behind each of them and is proposing to incorporate the suggested changes into the combination cooler refrigeration product definitions. 
In response to the Test Procedure 
NOPR, FSI commented on the proposed definition of a hybrid product, stating that for compact units, if there is no freezer or ice cube section, then the entire product should be treated as a wine cellar. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 3) DOE notes that a product with a single compartment that is not a freezer would 
be classified as either a cooler or refrigerator, depending on what compartment temperatures the product maintains, rather than a combination cooler refrigeration product based on the definitions proposed in this document. 
In addition to the general combination 
cooler refrigeration product requirements, the MREF Working Group recommended that DOE define four product categories of combination cooler refrigeration products, including: ‘‘cooler-refrigerator,’’ ‘‘cooler- refrigerator-freezer,’’ and ‘‘cooler- freezer.’’ The Working Group recommended definitions for these products that are consistent with the 
non-combination cooler product definitions (e.g., refrigerator, 
refrigerator-freezer, etc.) with the 
additional requirement that they include multiple compartments, at least one of which is a cooler compartment. The Working Group also recommended that the combination cooler refrigeration product definitions not exclude non- compressor products. See Term Sheet #1. 
DOE agrees with the 
recommendations made by the MREF Working Group, since the four product categories offer specific and unique consumer utility. In contrast, in DOE’s view, refrigeration technology (compressor-based or non-compressor) alone does not appear to offer any special utility to consumers that would affect their interaction with the product when using it for its intended purpose (e.g., cool storage of beverages). 
Therefore, DOE is proposing definitions for ‘‘combination cooler refrigeration product,’’ ‘‘cooler-refrigerator,’’ ‘‘cooler- refrigerator-freezer,’’ and ‘‘cooler- freezer’’ consistent with the definitions recommended in the Working Group’s term sheet. Although DOE is not currently aware of any non-compressor combination cooler refrigeration products currently available on the market, DOE is proposing that non- compressor products would be covered under the combination cooler refrigeration product definitions to ensure that if any become available on the market in the future, they would be considered covered products, consistent with the Working Group’s recommendation. 
In this document, DOE also refers to 
the term ‘‘cooler compartment.’’ DOE intends to define this term as part of the separate MREF test procedure 
rulemaking. 
C. Refrigerators, Refrigerator Freezers, 
and Freezers 
As discussed in the Test Procedure 
NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer product definitions to create a consistent structure with the proposed MREF definitions and to improve the clarity of the distinctions among the different definitions. 79 FR 74894, 74899–74901 (Dec. 16, 2014). DOE did not propose to redefine the scope of coverage for refrigerators, refrigerator- freezers, and freezers, or to amend the definitions in a manner that would affect how a currently covered product would be classified (other than for coverage of combination cooler refrigeration products as MREFs). The proposed amendments to the definitions 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:02 Mar 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS11460 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 
for these products would establish 
consistency with the proposed MREF definitions and were intended to improve the definitions’ clarity and ensure no potential overlap between the definitions of these products and MREFs. 
In response to the Test Procedure 
NOPR, FSI commented that it would remove confusion to categorize all- refrigerators with absolutely no freezer compartments as cooled cabinets. (FSI, No. 15 at pp. 2–3) Based on the proposed definitions for coolers discussed in section V.A of this notice, and the proposed definition of refrigerator described below, DOE notes that a product without a freezer compartment would be classified as either a cooler or refrigerator based on its compartment operating temperature. Because refrigerators and coolers offer different product utilities (i.e., different 
storage temperatures) that affect energy consumption, DOE believes separate product definitions and coverage are appropriate. 
FSI also commented that the 
definition for a refrigerator should be changed to ‘‘all-refrigerator’’ to specify that the product has no freezer compartment and the definition for refrigerator-freezer should be ‘‘any cabinet that has a separate compartment for fresh food (39 °F or colder) and frozen food or ice, whether or not there is a single door or multiple doors.’’ (FSI, No. 15 at pp.4–5) As described earlier in this section, the proposed amendments to the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer definitions were not intended to change the scope of coverage for those products, other than for combination cooler refrigeration products, but were intended to improve clarity. The recommended amendment would have the potential to change the classification of certain other products currently covered as refrigerators. 
The MREF Working Group generally 
agreed with the revisions proposed in the Test Procedure NOPR, but recommended that compartment temperatures be determined during operation in a 90 °F ambient instead of 72 °F, as discussed for coolers in section 
V.A of this notice. The Working Group also recommended that DOE remove the proposed exclusion for products certified to American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI)/NSF International (NSF) 7–2009 International Standard for Food Equipment—Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers or ANSI/UL LLC (UL) 471– 2006 Standard for Commercial 
Refrigerators and Freezers, noting that these certifications do not necessarily provide a clear distinction between consumer and commercial products. See 
Term Sheet #1. 
After further examining this issue, 
DOE is proposing the following changes to the existing definitions for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer. 
First, DOE is proposing to revise the 
current definitions for ‘‘refrigerator’’ and ‘‘refrigerator-freezer’’ and to eliminate the redundant terms ‘‘electric refrigerator’’ and ‘‘electric refrigerator- freezer’’ from 10 CFR 430.2. 
Second, DOE is proposing to remove 
the phrase, ‘‘designed to be capable of achieving [the specified temperature],’’ with ‘‘capable of maintaining compartment temperatures at [the specified temperature],’’ and that this temperature condition would be based on operation in a 90 °F ambient temperature. As described in the Test Procedure NOPR, this change would help ensure that product classification would be definitively determined through testing and would rely on the product’s actual capability to serve its intended purpose rather than relying on the design intent of the manufacturer. 
Third, DOE is proposing to remove 
the current reference to the ‘‘storage of food’’ and ‘‘freezing and storage of food’’ from the product definitions to ensure accurate product classification and more effective enforcement of energy conservation standards. Similarly, and consistent with the proposed change described in the previous paragraph, DOE is proposing to amend the references to freezer compartments within the refrigerator and refrigerator- freezer definitions. The current definitions describe a freezer compartment as a compartment designed for the freezing and storage of 
food at temperatures below 8 °F which may be adjusted by the user to a temperature of 0 °F or below. DOE is proposing to amend the definitions to refer only to a compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures of 0 °F or below to limit any ambiguity regarding what would be considered a freezer compartment. DOE notes that the MREF Working Group’s definitions recommended in Term Sheet #1 included the reference to 8 °F; however, DOE expects that its proposal to eliminate this reference is consistent with the Working Group’s intent for the product definitions. 
Fourth, DOE is proposing to treat 
products designed to be used without doors, and/or that do not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly, as commercial equipment and, therefore, would be excluded from these product definitions. As discussed in section V.A of this notice for coolers, the exclusion 
for products designed to be used without doors is intended to differentiate between consumer products and commercial equipment (i.e., products designed to be used 
without doors would be commercial). DOE’s proposed approach would clarify that products without a compressor and condenser unit would be excluded from the refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer definitions because this exclusion is included in the EPCA provisions that establish coverage for these products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) 
Finally, DOE notes that the definition 
for refrigerator-freezer requires that at least one compartment has attributes consistent with a fresh food compartment and that at least one compartment has attributes consistent with a freezer compartment. DOE is proposing to clarify that the same compartment could not satisfy both of these requirements in a refrigerator- freezer. 
Similar to the intent of the Test 
Procedure NOPR, with the exception of those products that would be covered as combination cooler refrigeration products under this proposal, DOE is not proposing to redefine the scope of coverage for refrigerators, refrigerator- freezers, and freezers, or to amend the definitions in a manner that would affect how a currently covered product would be classified. The proposed amendments to the definitions for these products would establish a similar 
structure with the proposed MREF definitions. The proposed definitions are intended to improve clarity and ensure no potential overlap between the definitions of refrigerators, refrigerator- freezers, and freezers, and MREFs. 
D. General Terms for the Groups of 
Products Addressed in This Document 
In the Test Procedure NOPR, DOE 
proposed to define ‘‘miscellaneous refrigeration product’’ as a consumer refrigeration product other than a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer, which includes hybrid refrigeration products, cooled cabinets, non-compressor refrigerators, and ice makers. DOE also proposed to define ‘‘consumer refrigeration product’’ as a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer, or miscellaneous refrigeration product. 79 FR 74894, 74904 (Dec. 16, 2014). 
FSI stated that DOE could easily 
clarify a consumer refrigeration product based on the norms it can easily verify, such as the fact 90 percent of the refrigerator-freezers sold in the U.S. have a volume of 14 cubic feet or more, with the remainder mostly made up of dormitory (5 percent) or apartment (4 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:02 Mar 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS11461 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 
percent) sizes. It stated that a simple 
definition would allow DOE to cover 98 to 99 percent of the market and allow special markets to have suitable products. (FSI, No. 15 at p. 1) 
DOE notes that its definitions are 
intended to provide clear differentiation while avoiding subjective determinations for what would be covered. Although the product types mentioned in the FSI comment make up most of the consumer refrigeration market, there are no established definitions for each subset of products that would fall under the proposed consumer refrigeration product definition, leaving DOE in the position of developing more specific definitions. 
DOE has already established detailed definitions to address refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and is proposing additional definitions for coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products. DOE is proposing to refer to these products collectively as consumer refrigeration products. 
The MREF Working Group 
recommended that DOE maintain the definitions for miscellaneous refrigeration product and consumer refrigeration product, but to update them to reflect the more current product terminology and to remove references to non-compressor refrigerators and ice makers. See Term Sheet #1. 
DOE is proposing to define the terms 
‘‘miscellaneous refrigeration product’’ and ‘‘consumer refrigeration product’’ consistent with the recommended updates from the MREF Working Group. In DOE’s view, these proposed changes will better reflect the recommended approach detailed in the Working Group’s recommendations to help ensure their clarity with respect to the other proposed definitions discussed in this document. 
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 
Review 
DOE has reviewed its supplemental 
proposed determination of coverage for MREFs under the following executive orders and acts. 
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 
The Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) has determined that coverage 
determination rulemakings do not constitute ‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Additionally, the definitions proposed in this document would clarify the definitions of certain specific products already regulated by DOE and those products that are under consideration for potential regulatory coverage. No new requirements would result from the 
proposals contained in this document. Accordingly, this proposed action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB. 
B. Review Under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act 
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996) requires preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that, by law, must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing negative effects. Also, as required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking’’ 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impact of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 (Feb. 19, 2003). DOE makes its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel’s Web site at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general- 
counsel. 
DOE reviewed this proposed 
determination and proposal under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. If adopted, this proposed determination and proposal would set no standards; it would only positively determine that future standards may be warranted and should be explored in an energy conservation standards and test procedure rulemaking. Economic impacts on small entities would be considered in the context of such rulemakings. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, has no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this proposed determination and proposal. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). C. Review Under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 
This proposed determination that 
MREFs meet the criteria for a covered product for which the Secretary may prescribe an energy conservation standard, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p), imposes no new information or record-keeping requirements. Neither would any aspect of the proposal impose such requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 
D. Review Under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
In this notice, DOE proposes to 
positively determine that MREFs (as proposed to be defined in this document) meet the criteria for classification as covered products and that future energy conservation standards may be warranted to regulate their energy usage. Should DOE pursue that option, the relevant environmental impacts would be explored as part of that rulemaking. As a result, DOE has determined that this proposed action falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this proposed action would establish a class of products (MREFs) for which energy conservation standards would be appropriate. However, this proposed action would not establish energy conservation standards, and, therefore, would not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this action is covered by Categorical Exclusion A6 ‘‘Procedural rulemakings’’ under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. 
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 
Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, 
‘‘Federalism’’ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 
1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to assess carefully the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in developing 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:02 Mar 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS11462 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 
regulatory policies that have Federalism 
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process that it will follow in developing such regulations. 65 FR 13735 (Mar. 14, 2000). DOE has examined this proposed determination and proposal. On the basis of this examination, DOE concludes that the action proposed in this document would not preempt State law or have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the product that is the subject of this proposed determination and proposal. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent permitted, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by E.O. 13132. 
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 
With respect to the review of existing 
regulations and the promulgation of 
new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the duty to: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation specifies the following: (1) The preemptive effect, if any; (2) any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) the retroactive effect, if any; (5) definitions of key terms; and (6) other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether these standards are met, or whether it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed determination and proposal meet the relevant standards of E.O. 12988. G. Review Under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. For regulatory actions likely to result in a rule that may cause expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 1 year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b)) UMRA requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments on a proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental mandate.’’ UMRA also requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to small governments that may be potentially affected before establishing any requirement that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820 (Mar. 18, 1997). (This policy also is available at http:// 
energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel ). 
DOE reviewed this proposed determination pursuant to these existing authorities and its policy statement and determined that the proposed determination and proposal contain neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so the UMRA requirements do not apply. 
H. Review Under the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 
Section 654 of the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed determination and proposal would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. 
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), DOE determined that this proposed determination and proposal would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 
J. Review Under the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act of 2001 
The Treasury and General 
Government Appropriation Act of 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) requires agencies to review most disseminations of information they make to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by the OMB. The OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed determination and proposal under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that they are consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. 
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 
E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as any action by an agency that 
promulgates a final rule or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the proposal is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. 
DOE has concluded that this 
regulatory action proposing to establish or amend certain definitions and to determine that MREFs meet the criteria for a covered product for which the Secretary may prescribe an energy conservation standard pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action is also not a significant regulatory action for purposes of E.O. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:02 Mar 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS11463 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 
12866, and the OIRA Administrator has 
not designated this determination as a significant energy action under E.O. 12866 or any successor order. Therefore, this proposed determination and proposal do not comprise a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 
L. Review Under the Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 
consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government’s scientific information. DOE has determined that the analyses conducted for the regulatory action discussed in this document do not constitute ‘‘influential scientific information,’’ which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2667 (Jan. 14, 2005). The analyses were subject to pre- dissemination review prior to issuance of this rulemaking. 
DOE will determine the appropriate 
level of review that would apply to any future rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for MREFs. 
VII. Public Participation A. Submission of Comments 
DOE will accept comments, data, and 
information regarding this notice of 
proposed determination no later than the date provided at the beginning of this notice. After the close of the comment period, DOE will review the comments received and determine whether miscellaneous refrigeration products are covered products under EPCA. 
Comments, data, and information 
submitted to DOE’s email address for this proposed determination should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. Submissions should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and wherever possible comments should include the electronic signature of the author. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. According to 10 CFR part 1004.11, 
any person submitting information that 
he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: One copy of the document should have all the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination as to the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. 
Factors of interest to DOE when 
evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a 
description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known or available from public sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligations concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting persons which would result from public disclosure; (6) a date after which such information might no longer be considered confidential; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest. 
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks 
Comments 
DOE welcomes comments on all 
aspects of this proposed determination. DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments from interested parties on the following issues related to the proposed determination for MREFs detailed in this document: 
(1) The proposed scope of coverage 
for MREFs; 
(2) The proposed definitions for 
MREFs and the various individual product categories; 
(3) The calculations and 
accompanying values for household and national energy consumption of the products that would be covered on which DOE is relying in determining coverage; and 
(4) The availability or lack of 
availability of technologies for improving the energy efficiency of MREFs as DOE is proposing to define them. 
The Department is interested in 
receiving views concerning other relevant issues that participants believe would affect DOE’s ability to establish test procedures and energy conservation standards for miscellaneous refrigeration products. The Department invites all interested parties to submit in writing by April 4, 2016, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to consideration of a determination for miscellaneous refrigeration products. After the expiration of the period for 
submitting written statements, the Department will consider all comments and additional information that is obtained from interested parties or through further analyses, and it will prepare a final determination. If DOE determines that MREFs qualify as covered products, DOE will consider the development of a test procedure and energy conservation standards for MREFs. In this regard, DOE notes that it has already proposed a test procedure that would address these products and completed a substantial amount of work related to potential energy conservation standards for them. Members of the public will be given an opportunity to submit written and oral comments on any proposed test procedure and standards. 
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 
Administrative practice and 
procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 26, 
2016. 
David T. Danielson, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy. 
For the reasons stated in the 
preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 
430 of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below: 
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 
■1. The authority citation for part 430 
continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 
2461 note. 
■2. Amend § 430.2 by: 
■a. Adding, in alphabetical order, 
definitions for ‘‘built-in compact cooler,’’ ‘‘built-in cooler,’’ ‘‘combination cooler refrigeration product,’’ ‘‘consumer refrigeration product,’’ ‘‘cooler,’’ ‘‘cooler-freezer,’’ ‘‘cooler- refrigerator,’’ ‘‘cooler-refrigerator- freezer,’’ ‘‘freestanding compact cooler,’’ ‘‘freestanding cooler,’’ and ‘‘miscellaneous refrigeration product’’; 
■b. Revising the definitions for 
‘‘freezer,’’ ‘‘refrigerator,’’ and ‘‘refrigerator-freezer’’; and 
■c. Removing the definitions for 
‘‘electric refrigerator’’ and ‘‘electric refrigerator-freezer.’’ 
The additions and revisions read as 
follows: 
§ 430.2 Definitions. 
* * * * * 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:02 Mar 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS11464 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 
Built-in compact cooler means any 
cooler with a total refrigerated volume 
less than 7.75 cubic feet and no more than 24 inches in depth, excluding doors, handles, and custom front panels, that is designed, intended, and marketed exclusively to be: 
(1) Installed totally encased by 
cabinetry or panels that are attached during installation; 
(2) Securely fastened to adjacent 
cabinetry, walls or floor, 
(3) Equipped with unfinished sides 
that are not visible after installation, and 
(4) Equipped with an integral factory- 
finished face or built to accept a custom front panel. 
Built-in cooler means any cooler with 
a total refrigerated volume of 7.75 cubic feet or greater and no more than 24 inches in depth, excluding doors, handles, and custom front panels; that is designed, intended, and marketed exclusively to be: 
(1) Installed totally encased by 
cabinetry or panels that are attached during installation; 
(2) Securely fastened to adjacent 
cabinetry, walls or floor; 
(3) Equipped with unfinished sides 
that are not visible after installation; and 
(4) Equipped with an integral factory- 
finished face or built to accept a custom front panel. 
* * * * * 
Combination cooler refrigeration 
product means any cooler-refrigerator, 
cooler-refrigerator-freezer, or cooler- 
freezer. 
* * * * * 
Consumer refrigeration product 
means a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, 
freezer, or miscellaneous refrigeration product. 
* * * * * 
Cooler means a cabinet, used with one 
or more doors, that has a source of 
refrigeration capable of operating on single-phase, alternating current and is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures either: 
(1) No lower than 39 °F (3.9 °C), or 
(2) In a range that extends no lower 
than 37 °F (2.8 °C) but at least as high 
as 60 °F (15.6 °C) as determined according to the applicable provisions in § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. 
Cooler-freezer is a cabinet, used with 
one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only, and consists of two or more compartments, including at least one cooler compartment as defined in appendix A of subpart B of this part, where the remaining compartment(s) are capable of maintaining compartment temperatures at 0 °F (–17.8 °C) or below as determined according to the provisions in § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. 
Cooler-refrigerator is a cabinet, used 
with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only, and consists of two or more compartments, including at least one cooler compartment as defined in appendix A of subpart B of this part, where: 
(1) At least one of the remaining 
compartments is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as 
determined according to § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]; 
(2) The cabinet may also include a 
compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 32 °F (0 °C) as determined according to 
§ 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]; but 
(3) The cabinet does not provide a 
separate low temperature compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 0 °F (¥13.3 °C) as 
determined according to § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. 
Cooler-refrigerator-freezer is a cabinet, 
used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only, and consists of three or more compartments, including at least one cooler compartment as defined in appendix A of subpart B of this part, where: 
(1) At least one of the remaining 
compartments is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as 
determined according § 429.61(d)(2) 
[proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)], and 
(2) At least one other compartment is 
capable of maintaining compartment temperatures of 0 
°F (¥17.8 °C) or 
below as determined according to § 429.61(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. 
* * * * * 
Freestanding compact cooler means 
any cooler, excluding built-in compact 
coolers, with a total refrigerated volume less than 7.75 cubic feet. 
Freestanding cooler means any cooler, 
excluding built-in coolers, with a total refrigerated volume of 7.75 cubic feet or greater. 
Freezer means a cabinet, used with 
one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only and is capable of maintaining 
compartment temperatures of 0 °F (¥17.8 °C) or below as determined 
according to the provisions in § 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. It does not include any refrigerated cabinet that consists solely of an automatic ice maker and an ice storage bin arranged 
so that operation of the automatic icemaker fills the bin to its capacity. However, the term does not include any product that does not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly. 
* * * * * 
Miscellaneous refrigeration product 
means a consumer refrigeration product 
other than a refrigerator, refrigerator- freezer, or freezer, which includes coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products. 
* * * * * 
Refrigerator means a cabinet, used 
with one or more doors, that has a 
source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only and is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as determined according to § 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. A refrigerator may include a compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 32 °F (0 °C), but does not provide a separate low temperature compartment capable of maintaining compartment temperatures below 0 °F (¥13.3 °C) as determined according to 
§ 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. However, the term does not include any product that does not include a compressor and condenser unit as an integral part of the cabinet assembly. 
Refrigerator-freezer means a cabinet, 
used with one or more doors, that has a source of refrigeration that requires single-phase, alternating current electric energy input only and consists of two or more compartments where at least one of the compartments is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures above 32 °F (0 °C) and below 39 °F (3.9 °C) as determined according to § 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)], and at least one other compartment is capable of maintaining compartment temperatures of 0 °F (¥17.8 °C) or below as 
determined according to § 429.14(d)(2) [proposed at 79 FR 74894 (December 16, 2014)]. However, the term does not include any cabinet that does not include a compressor and condenser 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:02 Mar 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS11465 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2016 / Proposed Rules 
unit as an integral part of the cabinet 
assembly. 
* * * * * 
[FR Doc. 2016–04874 Filed 3–3–16; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
Federal Aviation Administration 
14 CFR Part 39 
[Docket No. FAA–2016–4230; Directorate 
Identifier 2015–CE–041–AD] 
RIN 2120–AA64 
Airworthiness Directives; EVECTOR, 
spol. s.r.o. Gliders 
AGENCY : Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). 
ACTION : Notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM). 
SUMMARY : We propose to adopt a new 
airworthiness directive (AD) for EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders (type certificate previously held by AEROTECHNIK s.r.o.) that would supersede AD 2000–20–12. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as insufficient material strength of the tail-fuselage attachment fitting. We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products. 
DATES : We must receive comments on 
this proposed AD by April 18, 2016. 
ADDRESSES : You may send comments by 
any of the following methods: 
•Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. 
•Fax: (202) 493–2251. 
•Mail: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
•Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
For service information identified in 
this proposed AD, contact EVEKTOR, spol. s.r.o, Letecka 1008, 686 04 Kunovice, Czech Republic; phone: +420 572 537 428; email: evektor@evektor.cz; Internet: http://www.evektor.cz/en/
sales-and-support. You may review 
copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329–4148. 
Examining the AD Docket 
You may examine the AD docket on 
the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov by searching for 
and locating Docket No. FAA–2016– 4230; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in the 
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Jim 
Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329–4165; fax: (816) 329–4090; email: jim.rutherford@faa.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Comments Invited 
We invite you to send any written 
relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the 
ADDRESSES section. Include ‘‘Docket No. 
FAA–2016–4230; Directorate Identifier 2015–CE–041–AD’’ at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. 
We will post all comments we 
receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal 
information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. 
Discussion 
On September 28, 2000, we issued AD 
2000–20–12, Amendment 39–11923 (65 
FR 61262; October 17, 2000) (‘‘AD 2000–20–12’’). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L 13 SEH VIVAT gliders and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by the Civil Aviation Authority, which is the aviation authority for the Czech Republic. That MCAI (AD CAA–AD–T– 112/1999R1, dated November 23, 1999), was issued to correct an unsafe condition for EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Models L 13 SEH VIVAT and L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and BLANIK LIMITED Models L–13 Blanik and L–13 AC Blanik gliders. The MCAI states: 
To prevent destruction of tail-fuselage 
attachment fitting which can lead to loss of 
control of the sailplane. This destruction could be caused due to lower strength of the material used during production. 
You may examine the MCAI on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov 
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA–2016–4230. 
A review of records since issuance of 
AD 2000–20–12 revealed that the FAA inadvertently did not address this MCAI for the EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders and the BLANIK LIMITED Model L–13 AC Blanik gliders. This proposed AD would supersede AD 2000–20–12 to add the EVECTOR, spol. s.r.o. Model L 13 SDM VIVAT gliders to the applicability of the AD. 
The FAA will address the BLANIK 
LIMITED Model L–13 AC Blanik gliders in another AD action. 
Related Service Information Under 1 
CFR Part 51 
AEROTECHNIK CZ s.r.o. issued 
Mandatory Service Bulletin SEH 13– 005a, dated November 18, 1999. The service information describes procedures for testing the material strength of attachment fitting part number A 102 021N and instructions for contacting the manufacturer for replacement information if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the 
ADDRESSES section of 
this NPRM. 
FAA’s Determination and Requirements 
of the Proposed AD 
This product has been approved by 
the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:02 Mar 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\04MRP1.SGM 04MRP1jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS