Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 69147 

posted without change, including any 

personal information, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: For access to background 

documents or comments received, go to 

the FSIS Docket Room at the address 

listed above between 8:30 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, Director, 

Labeling and Program Delivery Division, 

Office of Policy and Program 

Development, FSIS, USDA, (301) 504– 

0879. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

27, 2011, FSIS published the proposed 

rule ‘‘Common or Usual Name for Raw 

Meat and Poultry Products Containing 

Added Solutions’’ (76 FR 44855) to 

amend its regulations to establish a 

common or usual name for raw meat 

and poultry products that do not meet 

standard of identity regulations and to 

which solutions have been added. The 

Agency proposed that the common or 

usual name for such products include 

an accurate description of the raw meat 

or poultry component, the percentage of 

added solution incorporated into the 

raw meat or poultry product, and the 

individual ingredients or multiingredient components in the solution 

listed in the descending order of 

predominance by weight. FSIS also 

proposed that the print for all words in 

the common or usual name appear in a 

single font size, color, and style of print 

and that the name appear on a singlecolor contrasting background. In 

addition, the Agency proposed to 

remove the standard of identity 

regulation for ‘‘ready-to-cook poultry 

products to which solutions are added.’’ 

The comment period for the proposed 

rule ended on September 26, 2011. 

The Agency received a request for a 

60 day extension of the comment 

period. The letter explained that 

additional time to comment was 

necessary because the proposed 

amendments are important to many 

meat and poultry companies. FSIS 

agrees that the proposed amendments 

are important, and, to provide more 

time for constructive comment, the 

Agency is reopening the comment 

period for the proposed rule. The 

comment period will close on January 9, 

2012. 

The letter also requested the 

information, data, and evidence that 

FSIS considered in developing the 

proposed rule. In addition, the request 

asked the Agency for examples of 

specific labels in the marketplace about 

which it has concerns. 

The Agency responded that the 

information, data, and evidence on 

which it based the proposed 

amendments can be found in the 

Truthful Labeling Coalition’s (TLC) 

petition and attachments referenced in 

the proposed rule (76 FR 44857). The 

TLC petition and its attachments are 

available in the FSIS Docket Room and 

on its Web site (http://

www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_

Policies/Proposed_Rules/index.asp). 

In response to the request for specific 

labels in the marketplace that FSIS has 

concerns about, examples of such labels 

are included in the Sorensen Associates 

Consumer Research Study (http://

www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Petition_

Truthful_Labeling_Coalition_

Attachments.pdf) and ‘‘Attachment B’’ 

of the TLC petition (http://www.fsis.

usda.gov/PDF/Petition_Truthful_

Labeling_Coalition.pdf). To provide 

further examples, the Agency posted 

additional representative samples of 

marketplace labels (http://

www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/2010-0012_

Examples.pdf). 

The Agency’s response to the request 

for information, data, and evidence that 

FSIS considered in developing the 

proposed rule is posted on its Web site 

at (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations

_&_policies/Proposed_Rules/index.asp). 

Additional Public Notification 

FSIS will announce this notice online 

through the FSIS Web page located at 

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regulations_&_

policies/Federal_Register_Publications_

&_Related_Documents/index.asp. 

FSIS will also make copies of this 

Federal Register publication available 

through the FSIS Constituent Update, 

which is used to provide information 

regarding FSIS policies, procedures, 

regulations, Federal Register notices, 

FSIS public meetings, and other types of 

information that could affect or would 

be of interest to constituents and 

stakeholders. The Update is 

communicated via Listserv, a free 

electronic mail subscription service for 

industry, trade groups, consumer 

interest groups, health professionals, 

and other individuals who have asked 

to be included. The Update is also 

available on the FSIS Web page. 

Through the Listserv and Web page, 

FSIS is able to provide information to a 

much broader and more diverse 

audience. In addition, FSIS offers an 

electronic mail subscription service 

which provides automatic and 

customized access to selected food 

safety news and information. This 

service is available at http://www.fsis.

usda.gov/News_&_Events/Email_

Subscription/. Options range from 

recalls to export information to 

regulations, directives and notices. 

Customers can add or delete 

subscriptions themselves, and have the 

option to password protect their 

accounts. 

USDA Nondiscrimination Statement 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) prohibits discrimination in all 

its programs and activities on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, gender, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, 

sexual orientation, and marital or family 

status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to 

all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of 

program information (Braille, large 

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA’s Target Center at (202) 720–2600 

(voice and TTY). 

To file a written complaint of 

discrimination, write USDA, Office of 

the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–941 or call (202) 

720–5964 (voice and TTY). 

Done at Washington, DC, on November 1, 

2011. 

Alfred V. Almanza, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28796 Filed 11–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–DET–0072] 

RIN 1904–AC66 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Proposed 

Determination To Treat NonCompressor Residential Refrigeration 

Products as Covered Products 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Proposed determination. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) has preliminarily 

determined that residential refrigeration 

products that do not incorporate a 

compressor qualify as covered products 

under Part B of Title III of the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as 

amended. DOE reached this preliminary 

conclusion because classifying products 

of such type as covered products is 

necessary or appropriate to carry out the 

purposes of EPCA, and the average U.S. 

household energy use for such products, 

(e.g., thermoelectric wine chillers) is 

likely to exceed the 100 kilowatt-hour 

(kWh) per year threshold required for 

coverage. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

69148 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part B was 

re-designated Part A for editorial reasons. 

DATES: DOE will accept written 

comments, data, and information on this 

notice, but no later than December 8, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2011–BT–DET–0072, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Include EERE–2011–BT–DET–0072 and/ 

or RIN 1904–AC66 in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Proposed Determination for Residential 

Refrigeration Products that do not 

Incorporate a Compressor, EERE–2011– 

BT–DET–0072 and/or RIN 1904–AC66, 

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. 

Instructions: 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 a.m. 

and 4 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. 

Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1317. Email: 

Lucas.Adin@ee.doe.gov. 

In the Office of General Counsel, 

contact Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov; or Ms. 

Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6111. Email: 

Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. Statutory Authority 

II. Current Rulemaking Process 

III. Scope of Coverage 

IV. Evaluation of the Annual Energy Use of 

Thermoelectric and Absorption 

Refrigeration Products 

A. Coverage Necessary or Appropriate To 

Carry Out Purposes of EPCA 

B. Average Household Energy Use 

V. 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 

VI. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments 

I. Statutory Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.), sets forth 

various provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. Part B 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 (referred to collectively as 

‘‘residential refrigeration products’’) 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)) This proposed coverage 

determination addresses those 

residential refrigeration products that do 

not meet these specific criteria. 

In addition to specifying a list of 

covered residential and commercial 

products, EPCA permits the Secretary of 

Energy to classify additional types of 

consumer products as covered products 

when certain prerequisites have been 

met. For a given product to be classified 

as a covered product, the Secretary must 

determine that (1) Covering that product 

is either necessary or 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 per year. (42 

U.S.C. 6292(b)(1)). 

After first determining whether the 

above criteria are met, the Secretary may 

prescribe energy conservation standards 

for a covered product. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o) and (p). In order to set standards 

for a given product that has been added 

as a newly covered product pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1), the Secretary must 

determine that four additional criteria 

are met. First, the average per household 

energy use within the United States by 

the products of such type (or class) 

exceeded 150 kilowatt-hours (or its 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 kilowatt-hours 

(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)). 

In addition to the above, if DOE issues 

a final determination that noncompressor residential refrigeration 

products are covered products, DOE 

will consider test procedures for these 

products and will determine if they 

satisfy the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(l)(1) during the course of any 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. 

II. Current Rulemaking Process 

DOE has not previously conducted an 

energy conservation standard 

rulemaking for non-compressor 

equipped residential refrigeration 

products. If, after public comment, DOE 

issues a final determination of coverage 

for this product, DOE will consider both 

test procedures and energy conservation 

standards for these products. 

Additionally, assuming that DOE 

determines that the criteria for 

extending coverage to non-compressor 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 69149 

residential refrigeration products are 

met and that accompanying energy 

conservation standards are warranted, 

DOE will, consistent with EPCA, 

propose a test procedure for these 

products. In developing an appropriate 

procedure, DOE will take steps to help 

ensure that the procedure is not unduly 

burdensome to conduct for measuring 

the energy efficiency, energy use or 

estimated annual operating cost of these 

products during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3)) In carrying out this process, 

DOE initially prepares a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and 

allows interested parties to present oral 

and written data, views, and arguments 

with respect to such procedures. DOE 

also considers relevant information, 

including technological developments 

relating to energy use or energy 

efficiency of the covered products. 

With respect to energy conservation 

standards, DOE typically prepares an 

Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Framework Document (the 

framework document). The framework 

document explains the issues, analyses, 

and process that it is considering for the 

development of energy conservation 

standards for the product(s) to be 

addressed by the standard. After DOE 

receives comments on the framework 

document, DOE typically prepares an 

Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking preliminary analysis, and 

an accompanying technical support 

document (TSD) that provides the 

details of DOE’s analysis. The 

preliminary analysis typically provides 

initial draft analyses of potential 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards on consumers, manufacturers, 

and the nation. Neither of these steps is 

legally required and DOE may, 

depending on the circumstances of a 

particular case, combine these steps 

when preparing a new standards 

rulemaking. 

DOE also typically publishes a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) as part 

of the energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. The NOPR provides DOE’s 

proposal for potential energy 

conservation standards and a summary 

of the results of DOE’s supporting 

technical analysis. The details of DOE’s 

energy conservation standards analysis 

are provided in an accompanying TSD. 

DOE’s analysis describes both the 

burdens and benefits of potential 

standards, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). Because non-compressor 

residential refrigeration products would 

be newly covered under 42 U.S.C. 

6292(b)(1), DOE would also consider, as 

noted above, whether these products 

satisfy certain specified criteria before 

prescribing standards for them. See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(l)(1). After the publication 

of the NOPR, DOE affords interested 

persons an opportunity during a period 

of not less than 60 days to provide oral 

and written comment. After receiving 

and considering the comments on the 

NOPR, and not less than 90 days after 

the publication of the NOPR, DOE 

would issue the final rule prescribing 

any new energy conservation standards 

for residential refrigeration products 

that do not incorporate a compressor. 

III. Scope of Coverage 

DOE proposes in this determination to 

extend coverage to refrigeration 

products that are not currently covered 

under existing authority for residential 

refrigeration products (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(1)) because they use alternative 

refrigeration technologies that do not 

include a compressor and condenser 

unit as an integral part of the cabinet 

assembly. Hence, DOE is proposing to 

extend coverage to those residential 

refrigeration products that operate using 

AC electricity but use either 

thermoelectric-based or absorptionbased systems. In addition, while some 

non-compressor refrigeration products 

operate using energy sources other than 

AC electricity, it is DOE’s understanding 

that most, if not all, of these products 

would likely fall outside the scope of 

coverage as consumer products under 

EPCA because they are primarily used 

in mobile applications such as 

recreational vehicles. See 42 U.S.C. 

6292(a) (excluding from coverage ‘‘those 

consumer products designed solely for 

use in recreational vehicles and other 

mobile equipment’’). 

DOE seeks feedback from interested 

parties on this scope of coverage. 

IV. Evaluation of the Annual Energy 

Use of Thermoelectric and Absorption 

Refrigeration Products 

The following sections describe DOE’s 

evaluation of whether residential 

refrigeration products that do not 

incorporate a compressor fulfill the 

EPCA criteria for being added as 

covered products. As stated previously, 

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 kilowatt-hours (or 

its Btu equivalent) per year. 42 U.S.C. 

6292(b)(1). 

A. Coverage Necessary or Appropriate 

To Carry Out Purposes of EPCA 

To satisfy the purposes of EPCA, the 

coverage of non-compressor residential 

refrigeration products is both necessary 

and appropriate to carry out the 

purposes of EPCA. These products 

consume energy generated from limited 

energy supplies and their regulation 

would be likely to result in the 

improvement of their energy efficiency. 

Accordingly, establishing standards for 

these products fall squarely within the 

overall statutory goals set out in EPCA 

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) 

In a related matter, DOE recently set 

energy conservation standards and 

accompanying test procedures for 

residential refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers (collectively, 

refrigeration products). See 76 FR 57516 

(Sept. 15, 2011) (amending energy 

conservation standards for residential 

refrigeration products) and 75 FR 78810 

(Dec. 16, 2010) (amending current test 

procedures and issuing an interim final 

rule to create revised test procedures for 

products manufactured starting in 

2014). During DOE’s efforts to amend 

the standards for these products, 

interested parties urged DOE to include 

wine chillers as part of this effort. See 

75 FR 59470, 59486 (Sept. 27, 2010) 

(residential refrigeration products 

NOPR, noting industry’s urging that 

DOE consider wine storage products 

within the scope of the standards 

rulemaking). Wine chillers are devices 

used to store bottles of wine at 

temperatures that are higher than those 

used to store fresh food. Wine chillers, 

which typically use either a 

conventional compressor-condenser or a 

thermoelectric-based system, have a 

temperature range of between 45 °F and 

55 °F, compared to 39 °F for the safe 

storage of fresh food used in 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. 

Given the different purposes served by 

these products and their accompanying 

performance characteristic differences, 

DOE decided to generally address these 

wine chiller products in a separate 

rulemaking. 76 FR at 57534. 

Consistent with this approach, DOE is 

currently considering initiating an 

energy conservation standard 

rulemaking addressing wine chillers. As 

a prerequisite to the setting of standards 

for these products, DOE is interested in 

ensuring that both compressor-based 

and non-compressor-based products 

would be covered as part of this 

approach in order to prevent a mass 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

69150 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2See, for example, the residential refrigeration 

product energy conservation standard rulemaking 

TSD, Chapter 4, Screening Analysis, http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

refrig_nopr_tsd_2010-09-23.pdf. 

3The Peltier effect refers to the creation of a 

temperature differential across a device comprised 

of two dissimilar electrical conductors by passing 

an electric current through the junction between 

them. 

4NPD Group, Inc., available at http:// 

www.npd.com/ 

corpServlet?nextpage=corp_welcome.html. 

5Haier America Trading. (http:// 

www.haieramerica.com/wine-beer-beverage). 

6 Vinotemp International. (http:// 

www.vinotemp.com/Browse.aspx/387/WineCoolers?gclid=CPSvs57hlaoCFQo0QgodCEEOxQ). 

7California Energy Commission, 2010 Appliance 

Efficiency Regulations, December 2010. CEC–400– 

2010–012. http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 

2010publications/CEC-400-2010-012/CEC-400- 

2010-012.PDF. 

8U.S. Department of Energy. Final Rule Technical 

Support Document. 2011. p. 4–12. Available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/pdfs/refrig_finalrule_tsd.pdf. 

shift in the market from compressorbased to alternative refrigeration 

technologies such as thermoelectricand absorption-based systems that 

currently fall outside of EPCA’s scope of 

coverage for refrigeration products. As 

explained below, DOE has reason to 

believe that products that use these 

alternative technologies are less efficient 

than products using conventional 

compressor-based refrigeration systems. 

As a result, a shift by manufacturers to 

use these alternative technologies could 

have an adverse impact on overall 

energy efficiency. To address this 

potential problem, and to provide a 

more comprehensive approach to the 

treatment of wine chillers generally, 

DOE seeks to establish coverage over 

products that employ these alternative 

technologies pursuant to the Agency’s 

authority under 42 U.S.C. 6292(b). 

Available information collected by 

DOE suggests that products using 

thermoelectric technology will be much 

less efficient than their compressorequipped counterparts.2 DOE is also 

aware that residential refrigeration 

products using thermoelectric 

technology have become commercially 

available—particularly, wine chillers. 

Similarly, a limited number of products 

using absorption technology, which is 

also less energy efficient than 

compressor-based refrigeration 

technology, are also commercially 

available. Hence, DOE believes that 

coverage and energy standards for these 

products are necessary in order to 

ensure that the existing standards for 

compressor-based refrigeration products 

and potential future standards for 

compressor-based wine chillers are not 

undermined by a switch to less-efficient 

technologies. 

B. Average Household Energy Use 

DOE estimated the average household 

energy use for two of the primary types 

of residential refrigeration products that 

do not incorporate a compressor— 

thermoelectric wine chillers and 

absorption refrigeration products. 

Thermoelectric wine chillers 

incorporate cooling modules that utilize 

the Peltier effect.3 DOE obtained limited 

data to estimate their average household 

energy use and deduced the magnitude 

of thermoelectric wine chiller energy 

use from a combination of (1) 

Thermoelectric wine chiller market 

data, (2) energy use data for vapor 

compression (i.e., conventional 

compressor/condenser-based) wine 

chillers, and (3) thermoelectric module 

efficiency. 

To estimate the size of the 

thermoelectric wine chiller market, DOE 

purchased data on wine chiller sales in 

the U.S. from 2007 to 2010 from the 

NPD Group, Inc. (NPD), a marketing 

research firm.4 NPD reports that these 

data represent 30- to 45-percent of the 

total wine chiller market, yielding a 

total estimate of between 580,000 to 

880,000 unit sales in the U.S. for the 

year 2009. Unfortunately, the NPD data 

do not differentiate between vapor 

compression and thermoelectric 

products. Therefore, DOE researched 

manufacturer product offerings to 

approximate the thermoelectric share of 

the wine chiller market. 

Specifically, DOE researched two of 

the three largest wine chiller brands 

based on sales figures in the NPD 

database, Haier 5 and Vinotemp,6 and 

determined that 69-percent and 82- 

percent, respectively, of their wine 

chiller product offerings for capacities 

of fewer than 30 bottles are 

thermoelectric. Because the NPD data 

also indicate that 80 percent of the wine 

chiller market is comprised of products 

with capacities of fewer than 30 bottles, 

DOE surmised that thermoelectric wine 

chillers represent a large fraction of the 

wine chiller market, specifically within 

the portion of the market comprised of 

products with capacities of fewer than 

30 bottles. 

To estimate vapor compression wine 

chiller energy use, DOE relied on the 

annual energy use of vapor compression 

wine chiller products permitted under 

California’s maximum energy use 

standards 7 as well as the NPD sales data 

cited above. The California Energy 

Commission (CEC) currently specifies a 

maximum allowable energy use for wine 

chillers as a function of internal volume. 

From the purchased NPD sales data, 

which cover the years 2007 to 2010, 

DOE deduced an internal volume for 

each model listed in the database. Using 

this information, DOE developed a 

range of vapor compression annual 

energy use values for the range of 

internal volumes of models in the NPD 

database, assuming that the energy use 

of these products is the maximum 

allowed by the CEC standard. This 

derived annual energy use ranges from 

305 to 392 kWh for wine chillers with 

capacities of fewer than 30 bottles. 

Additionally, during the recent 

standards rulemaking for residential 

refrigeration products, DOE tested a 

thermoelectric refrigerator. The results 

from those tests showed that this 

particular product’s efficiency was an 

order of magnitude lower than that of a 

conventional comparable vapor 

compression product.8 These results 

suggest that the energy use of 

thermoelectric refrigeration products 

could be much higher than that of vapor 

compression products. 

However, because these observations 

are based on limited testing of a single 

thermoelectric product purchased in 

2008, DOE recently performed metering 

of four thermoelectric wine chillers with 

capacities of six, 12, 15, and 28 bottles 

during the period from May 27, 2011 to 

June 28, 2011. While the metering was 

conducted in a non-controlled ambient 

environment with room temperatures 

varying between 64 °F and 85 °F, DOE 

believed that the additional 

measurements would improve DOE’s 

understanding of typical thermoelectric 

wine chiller energy use, since a greater 

number of data points would be likely 

to improve the confidence of the 

measured values, because the initial 

product was not a wine chiller, and 

because thermoelectric refrigeration 

technology may have evolved in the 

past three years. The measured energy 

use for the four units over the 

approximately one-month time period 

varied between 18 to 50 kWh, with the 

high value associated with the 28 bottle 

capacity wine chiller. Assuming wine 

chillers are powered year-round, i.e., 

consumers do not unplug the units for 

extended periods of time, the monthly 

consumption translates into annual 

energy use values of 218 to 598 kWh, 

which closely match the values derived 

for vapor compression units from the 

NPD and CEC data. 

The limited metered data clearly 

indicate that thermoelectric wine chiller 

annual energy use exceeds the 100 kWh 

per year threshold set by EPCA for 

establishing coverage. DOE notes that 

the range of thermoelectric wine chiller 

energy use based on the metering is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 69151 

9 ‘‘Compress’’ in this context has a different 

meaning that in conventional compressor-based 

refrigeration products because, for the absorption 

systems in most of these products, the refrigerant 

is moved from a region of low partial pressure to 

a region of high partial pressure rather than actually 

being compressed. 

10A sorbent fluid is one that absorbs gas of 

another substance (in this case the refrigerant) in an 

exothermic process similar to condensation. 

11 Dometic Corporation. (https:// 

www.dometic.com/enus/Americas/USA/HotelEquipment/Wine-Cellars/products/ 

?productdataid=68705). 

12The Bartender AMB–302 1.1 cu. ft. refrigerator 

is reported to consume 840 Wh per day, or 307 

kWh/yr (http://www.atlanticminifridge.com/ 

Brochures/AMF_Minibar_Brochure.pdf). 

13 DOE also undertook field monitoring of 

absorption-cooled hotel ‘‘mini’’ refrigerators (the 

Dometic RH 341 LD with 1.4 cu. ft. capacity, and 

the Bartender AMB–302 with 1.1 cu. ft. capacity) 

in two hotels in the San Francisco Bay Area in 

March-April 2010. A total of 48 refrigerators were 

metered over a period of approximately two weeks, 

resulting in annualized energy use measurements 

from 307 to 528 kWh/yr. 

approximately the same as the derived 

range for vapor compression wine 

chillers. Although the implication is 

that thermoelectric units may have a 

level of energy consumption comparable 

to their vapor compression counterparts, 

DOE emphasizes that the test data are 

not conclusive and a prescribed test 

procedure to comprehensively measure 

their energy use is currently 

unavailable. As an example of the 

limitations of the recorded data, the 

metered tests likely indicate the low end 

of possible energy use because they did 

not capture the energy impacts from 

door openings, nor did they include 

steps to verify that compartment 

temperatures were maintained at 55 °F 

per CEC test procedure requirements. 

Had these steps been included as part of 

the measurements, the measured energy 

consumption of the thermoelectric 

products examined by DOE would have 

likely been significantly higher. 

Consequently, DOE believes that the 

limited metering data should not be the 

sole basis for estimating energy use for 

products of this type. 

In contrast with thermoelectric 

refrigeration products, absorption 

refrigeration products use a fluid-based 

refrigeration cycle that relies upon heat 

addition, which is typically provided by 

electric resistance heaters or fuels such 

as natural gas and propane. Such 

systems ‘‘compress’’ 9 the refrigerant, 

which is typically ammonia, using a 

sorbent fluid, which is typically water.10

The refrigerant is absorbed by the fluid, 

creating a liquid solution containing the 

refrigerant. This solution is transferred 

from the ‘‘low-pressure’’ to the ‘‘highpressure’’ sides of the system as a 

liquid, and the refrigerant is 

subsequently boiled out of the solution 

by heating it. Most absorption systems 

used for small refrigeration products 

employ an inert gas on the low-pressure 

side of the system, usually hydrogen or 

helium for ammonia-water systems, 

which allows the partial pressure of the 

refrigerant gas to remain low while 

boosting the total gas pressure. This 

significantly reduces the total pressure 

difference between the ‘‘high pressure’’ 

and ‘‘low pressure’’ sides. The system 

eliminates the expansion valve and 

replaces the pumping action of a 

mechanical compressor with the 

thermal siphon driven by the heat input, 

similar to the arrangement used in 

coffee makers to lift the boiling water to 

the top of the coffee maker. By 

generating By moving the refrigerant 

from the evaporator back to the 

condenser using the sorbent, an 

absorption system generates 

refrigeration using heat input. 

Electric-powered absorption units are 

commonly used by the hotel industry 

since they are much quieter than 

products with a compressor. These 

products would be part of the coverage 

determination proposed in this notice. 

Natural gas- or propane-fired absorption 

units are used primarily in mobile 

applications, remote areas, and mobile 

residences that do not have reliable 

access to electricity—these products 

would not be part of the coverage 

determination as proposed. Electricpowered absorption products tend to 

have a fairly significant level of energy 

use. As an example, the energy use of 

the Dometic CS 52 DV, a representative 

absorption refrigeration wine chiller 

product, is reported by the manufacturer 

to use 1.25 kWh per day in a 68 °F 

ambient environment,11 which 

translates into an annual energy use of 

456 kWh, assuming these products are 

powered year-round. Very small (< 1.5 

cubic foot) absorption-cooled 

refrigerators provided by hotels for their 

guests use approximately 310 kWh/yr as 

reported by the manufacturer, or up to 

530 kWh/yr in limited field testing.12 13

DOE seeks comment on the market 

share and penetration of all absorption 

refrigeration products. DOE also seeks 

comment on whether coverage should 

also be considered for fuel-fired units. 

Based upon these evaluations of the 

two primary types of residential 

refrigeration products that do not 

incorporate a compressor (i.e. 

thermoelectric-based wine chillers and 

absorption-based refrigeration 

products), DOE has been able to develop 

estimates of their annual energy use that 

indicate that these products consume 

significantly more than 100 kWh 

annually. Therefore, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the average 

annual per household energy use for 

residential refrigeration products that do 

not incorporate a compressor is likely to 

exceed the 100 kWh threshold set by 

EPCA. 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

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). 

Accordingly, this proposed action was 

not subject to review under the 

Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (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 an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis for any rule that, by 

law, must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the proposed 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 

(August 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 (February 19, 2003). 

DOE makes its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site at http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed today’s proposed 

determination under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. If adopted, today’s 

proposed determination would set no 

standards; they 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

69152 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

foregoing, DOE certifies that the 

proposed determination, if adopted, 

would have no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for this proposed determination. 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 

residential refrigeration products that do 

not incorporate a compressor meet the 

criteria for covered products for which 

the Secretary may prescribe energy 

conservation standards pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) will impose no 

new information or record-keeping 

requirements. Accordingly, the Office of 

Management and Budget (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 future 

standards may be warranted and that 

environmental impacts should be 

explored in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. DOE has 

determined that review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), Public Law 91–190, 

codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. is not 

required at this time. NEPA review can 

only be initiated ‘‘as soon as 

environmental impacts can be 

meaningfully evaluated’’ (10 CFR 

1021.213(b)). This proposed 

determination would only determine 

that future standards may be warranted, 

but would not itself propose to set any 

specific standard. DOE has, therefore, 

determined that there are no 

environmental impacts to be evaluated 

at this time. 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 (August 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 

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 (March 14, 2000). DOE has 

examined today’s proposed 

determination and concludes that it 

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. DOE notes, 

however, that if the agency determines 

that the products at issue in today’s 

notice are covered and energy 

conservation standards are subsequently 

promulgated for these products, any 

existing State standards would be 

preempted by EPCA. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the product that is the subject of today’s 

proposed determination. 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 (February 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 

meets 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 one 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 (March 18, 1997). 

(This policy also is available at http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov). DOE reviewed today’s 

proposed determination pursuant to 

these existing authorities and its policy 

statement and determined that the 

proposed determination contains 

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 would not have 

any impact on the autonomy or integrity 

of the family as an institution. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 69153 

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 (March 15, 1988), 

DOE determined that this proposed 

determination 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 Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). The OMB’s guidelines 

were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 

22, 2002), and DOE’s guidelines were 

published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 

2002). DOE has reviewed today’s 

proposed determination under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is 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 today’s 

regulatory action proposing to 

determine that residential refrigeration 

products that do not incorporate a 

compressor meet the criteria for covered 

products for which the Secretary may 

prescribe energy conservation standards 

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. 12866, and the OIRA 

Administrator has not designated this 

proposed determination as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, this proposed 

determination is not a significant energy 

action. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 

for this proposed determination. 

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 (January 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 this rulemaking 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 (January 14, 

2005). The analyses were subject to predissemination review prior to issuance 

of this rulemaking. 

DOE will determine the appropriate 

level of review that would be applicable 

to any future rulemaking to establish 

energy conservation standards for settop boxes and network equipment. 

VI. 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 residential refrigeration 

products that do not incorporate a 

compressor 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 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 

residential refrigeration products that do 

not incorporate a compressor: 

(1) Is the proposed scope of coverage 

for residential refrigeration products 

that do not incorporate a compressor 

sufficient or are there aspects to this 

proposed scope that require 

modification? 

(2) Should the scope of coverage be 

extended to also include products that 

are not powered or activated solely by 

AC power input, for instance products 

that are fired with natural gas or 

propane? What are the annual 

shipments of such products? 

(3) DOE notes that since the statutory 

definition of a refrigerator excludes 

certain products—namely, those devices 

that are designed to be used without 

doors—DOE is interested in whether its 

scope of coverage should also include 

products that are designed to be used 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

69154 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

without doors. DOE is also interested in 

information regarding the existence and 

examples of these types of products. 

Assuming that these types of products 

exist, what are their annual shipments? 

(4) DOE is interested in whether 

classifying residential refrigeration 

products that do not incorporate a 

compressor as covered products is 

necessary or appropriate to carry out the 

purposes of EPCA. 

(5) DOE seeks stock and shipment 

data for residential refrigeration 

products that do not incorporate a 

compressor, segregated by different 

product types. 

(6) DOE seeks information regarding 

energy test procedures suited for 

residential refrigeration products that do 

not incorporate a compressor. 

(7) DOE seeks information regarding 

energy use of these products. 

(8) DOE seeks information concerning 

the extent to which similar coverage 

may be appropriate for commercial or 

industrial products that utilize similar 

refrigeration technologies. 

(9) DOE seeks calculations and 

accompanying values for household and 

national energy consumption. 

(10) DOE seeks information as to the 

availability or lack of availability of 

technologies for improving energy 

efficiency of residential refrigeration 

products that do not incorporate a 

compressor. 

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 residential refrigeration 

products that do not incorporate a 

compressor. The Department invites all 

interested parties to submit in writing 

by December 8, 2011, comments and 

information on matters addressed in this 

notice and on other matters relevant to 

consideration of a determination for 

residential refrigeration products that do 

not incorporate a compressor. 

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 residential refrigeration 

products that do not incorporate a 

compressor qualify as covered products, 

DOE will consider initiating 

rulemakings to develop test procedures 

and energy conservation standards for 

residential refrigeration products that do 

not incorporate a compressor. 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 November 1, 

2011. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–28928 Filed 11–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Parts 121, 124, 125, 126, and 

127 

RIN 3245–AG23 

Small Business Size and Status 

Integrity 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: SBA is reopening the 

comment period for the proposed rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 7, 2011. In that rule SBA 

proposed to amend its regulations to 

implement provisions of the Small 

Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Jobs Act) 

pertaining to small business size and 

status integrity. SBA proposed to amend 

its program regulations to implement 

statutory provisions establishing that 

there is a presumption of loss equal to 

the value of the contract or other 

instrument when a concern willfully 

seeks and receives an award by 

misrepresentation. SBA proposed to 

amend its program regulations to 

implement statutory provisions that 

provide that the submission of an offer 

or application for an award intended for 

small business concerns will be deemed 

a size or status certification or 

representation in certain circumstances. 

SBA proposed to amend its program 

regulations to implement statutory 

provisions that provide that an 

authorized official must sign in 

connection with a size or status 

certification or representation for a 

contract or other instrument. SBA 

proposed to amend its regulations to 

implement statutory provisions that 

provide that concerns that fail to update 

their size or status in the Online 

Representations and Certifications 

Application (ORCA) database (or any 

successor thereto) at least annually shall 

no longer be identified in the database 

as small or some other socioeconomic 

status, until the representation is 

updated. SBA proposed to amend its 

regulations to clarify when size is 

determined for purposes of entry into 

the 8(a) Business Development and 

HUBZone programs. The proposed rule 

provided a 30-day comment period 

closing on November 7, 2011. 

SBA is reopening the comment period 

for an additional 30 days in response to 

the significant level of interest generated 

by the proposed rule among small 

businesses. Given the scope of the 

proposed rule and the nature of the 

issues raised by the comments received 

to date, SBA believes that affected 

businesses need more time to review the 

proposal and prepare their comments. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published on October 7, 

2011 (76 FR 62313) is extended through 

December 8, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN: 3245–AG23, by any of 

the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail, for paper, disk, or CD/ROM 

submissions: Dean Koppel, U.S. Small 

Business Administration, Office of 

Government Contracting, 409 Third 

Street SW., 8th Floor, Washington, DC 

20416. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Dean 

Koppel, U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Office of Government 

Contracting, 409 Third Street SW., 8th 

Floor Washington, DC 20416. 

SBA will post all comments on 

http://www.regulations.gov. If you wish 

to submit confidential business 

information (CBI) as defined in the User 

Notice at http://www.Regulations.gov, 

please submit the information to Dean 

Koppel, U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Office of Government 

Contracting, 409 Third Street SW., 8th 

Floor, Washington, DC 20416, or send 

an email to Dean.Koppel@sba.gov. 

Highlight the information that you 

consider to be CBI and explain why you 

believe SBA should hold this 

information as confidential. SBA will 

review the information and make the 

final determination on whether it will 

publish the information or not. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dean Koppel, Office of Government 

Contracting, 409 Third Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20416; (202) 205–9751; 

Dean.Koppel@sba.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS