57516 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EE–2008–BT–STD–0012] 

RIN 1904–AB79 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Residential Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) prescribes 

energy conservation standards for 

various consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. EPCA also 

requires the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) to determine if more stringent, 

amended standards for these products 

are technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In this 

final rule, DOE is adopting more 

stringent energy conservation standards 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers. It has determined that the 

amended energy conservation standards 

for these products would result in the 

significant conservation of energy and 

are technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

November 14, 2011. Compliance with 

the amended standards established for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers in today’s final rule is 

September 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to 

read background documents, the 

technical support document, transcripts 

of the public meetings in this 

proceeding, or comments received, visit 

the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource 

Room of the Building Technologies 

Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 6th 

Floor, 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 the above telephone number 

for additional information regarding 

visiting the Resource Room. You may 

also obtain copies of certain previous 

rulemaking documents in this 

proceeding (i.e., framework document, 

notice of public meeting and 

announcement of a preliminary 

technical support document (TSD), 

notice of proposed rulemaking), draft 

analyses, public meeting materials, and 

related test procedure documents from 

the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy’s Web site at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

refrigerators_freezers.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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, 202–287– 

1317, e-mail: Lucas.Adin@ee.doe.gov or 

Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 

586–9507, e-mail: 

Micahel.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers 

III. General Discussion 

A. Test Procedures 

1. Test Procedure Rulemaking Schedule 

2. Adjustment of the Energy Standards for 

the New Test Procedure 

a. Products with Variable Anti-Sweat 

Heater Control 

b. Products With Multiple Defrost Cycle 

Types 

c. Amendments To Capture Precooling 

Energy Use 

d. Test Procedures for Special 

Compartments 

3. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Exclusion of Wine Coolers From This 

Rulemaking 

2. Product Classes 

a. General Discussion Regarding Added 

Product Classes 

b. Possible Combination of Product Class 2 

With 1, and Class 12 With 11 

c. All-Refrigerators and Basic Refrigerators 

d. Built-In Refrigeration Products 

e. Modification of the Definition for 

Compact Products 

f. Icemaking 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. Discussion of Comments 

a. Compressors 

b. Alternative Refrigerants 

c. Alternative Foam-Blowing Agents 

d. Vacuum-Insulated Panels 

2. Technologies Considered 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Discussion of Comments 

2. Adjustment of the Baseline Energy Use 

Equations 

D. Markups To Determine Product Cost 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

1. Product Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Energy Price Projections 

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

7. Product Lifetime 

8. Discount Rates 

9. Compliance Date of Amended Standards 

10. Base Case Efficiency Distribution 

11. Inputs to Payback Period Analysis 

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

G. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. Shipments 

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case 

and Standards Cases 

3. Installed Cost per Unit 

4. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion 

5. Discount Rates 

6. Benefits From Effects of Standards on 

Energy Prices 

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Comments From Interested Parties 

2. GRIM Key Inputs 

a. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

b. Markup Scenarios 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

J. Employment Impact Analysis 

K. Utility Impact Analysis 

L. Environmental Assessment 

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

V. Discussion of Other Comments 

A. Demand Response 

B. Energy Standard Round-Off 

C. Trial Standard Levels and Proposed 

Standards 

1. Efficiency Levels 

2. Maximum Energy Use Equations 

VI. Analytical Results 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57517 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

a. Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

b. Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Sub-Group(s) of 

Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

7. Other Factors 

C. Conclusion 

1. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers 

2. Standard-Size Freezers 

3. Compact Refrigeration Products 

4. Built-In Refrigeration Products 

5. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of Amended Standards 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

M. Congressional Notification 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its 

Benefits 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; EPCA or the 

Act), as amended, provides that any 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard DOE prescribes for certain 

consumer products, such as residential 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers (collectively referred to in this 

document as ‘‘refrigeration products’’), 

shall be designed to ‘‘achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency * * * which the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

and economically justified.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) The new or amended 

standard must result in the significant 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B)) In accordance with these 

and other statutory provisions discussed 

in this notice, DOE is adopting amended 

energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration products. The standards in 

today’s final rule, which are the 

maximum allowable energy use 

expressed as a function of the calculated 

adjusted volume of a given product, are 

shown in Table I.1. These standards 

apply to all products listed in Table I.1 

and manufactured in, or imported into, 

the United States starting in 2014. 

TABLE I.1—REFRIGERATION PRODUCT ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS (EFFECTIVE STARTING 2014) 

Product class 

Equations for maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

Based on AV 

(ft 3) 

Based on av 

(L) 

1. Refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost ................... 7.99AV + 225.0 0.282av + 225.0 

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost ..................................................................................................... 6.79AV + 193.6 0.240av + 193.6 

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost ................................................................................ 7.99AV + 225.0 0.282av + 225.0 

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker 8.07AV + 233.7 0.285av + 233.7 

3–BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic 

icemaker.

9.15AV + 264.9 0.323av + 264.9 

3I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker 

without through-the-door ice service.

8.07AV + 317.7 0.285av + 317.7 

3I–BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker without through-the-door ice service.

9.15AV + 348.9 0.323av + 348.9 

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost .................................................................................................. 7.07AV + 201.6 0.250av + 201.6 

3A–BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost ................................................................................ 8.02AV + 228.5 0.283av + 228.5 

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.8.51AV + 297.8 0.301av + 297.8 

4–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.10.22AV + 357.4 0.361av + 357.4 

4I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker 

without through-the-door ice service.

8.51AV + 381.8 0.301av + 381.8 

4I–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker without through-the-door ice service.

10.22AV + 441.4 0.361av + 441.4 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.8.85AV + 317.0 0.312av + 317.0 

5–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.9.40AV + 336.9 0.332av + 336.9 

5I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service.8.85AV + 401.0 0.312av + 401.0 

5I–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service.9.40AV + 420.9 0.332av + 420.9 

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice 

service.

9.25AV + 475.4 0.327av + 475.4 

5A–BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-thedoor ice service.9.83AV + 499.9 0.347av + 499.9 

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.8.40AV + 385.4 0.297av + 385.4 

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice 

service.

8.54AV + 432.8 0.302av + 432.8 

7–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-thedoor ice service.10.25AV + 502.6 0.362av + 502.6 

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost ................................................................................................. 5.57AV + 193.7 0.197av + 193.7 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57518 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1 DOE uses discount rates of 7 and 3 percent 

based on guidance from the Office of Management 

and Budget. See section IV.G for further 

information. 

2The LCC is the total consumer expense over the 

life of a product, consisting of purchase and 

installation costs plus operating costs (expenses for 

energy use, maintenance and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating 

costs to the time of purchase and sums them over 

the lifetime of the product. The sources and 

methods used to derive purchase, installation and 

operating costs are described in section IV.F of this 

notice. 

3A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for NOX and Hg are given in short tons. 

4 DOE calculates emissions reductions relative to 

the most recent version of the Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO) Reference case forecast. This 

forecast accounts for regulatory emissions 

reductions through 2008, including the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), 

but not the Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR, 70 FR 

28606 (May 18, 2005)). Subsequent regulations, 

including the proposed CAIR replacement rule, the 

Clean Air Transport Rule (75 FR 45210 (Aug. 2, 

2010)), do not appear in the forecast. DOE notes that 

a new CAIR rule has recently been finalized. See 

http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/. 

TABLE I.1—REFRIGERATION PRODUCT ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS (EFFECTIVE STARTING 2014)—Continued 

Product class 

Equations for maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

Based on AV 

(ft 3) 

Based on av 

(L) 

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker ........................................... 8.62AV + 228.3 0.305av + 228.3 

9I. Upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker ............................................... 8.62AV + 312.3 0.305av + 312.3 

9–BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker ......................... 9.86AV + 260.9 0.348av + 260.9 

9I–BI. Built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker .............................. 9.86AV + 344.9 0.348av + 344.9 

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers ...................................................... 7.29AV + 107.8 0.257av + 107.8 

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost ........................................................................................... 10.24AV + 148.1 0.362av + 148.1 

11. Compact refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost ... 9.03AV + 252.3 0.319av + 252.3 

11A. Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost .................................................................................... 7.84AV + 219.1 0.277av + 219.1 

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost ................................................................ 5.91AV + 335.8 0.209av + 335.8 

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer .................................. 11.80AV + 339.2 0.417av + 339.2 

13I. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker.

11.80AV + 423.2 0.417av + 423.2 

13A. Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost ................................................................................ 9.17AV + 259.3 0.324av + 259.3 

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer ................................ 6.82AV + 456.9 0.241av + 456.9 

14I. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker.

6.82AV + 540.9 0.241av + 540.9 

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer ............................ 11.80AV + 339.2 0.417av + 339.2 

15I. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker.11.80AV + 423.2 0.417av + 423.2 

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost ................................................................................ 8.65AV + 225.7 0.306av + 225.7 

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost ............................................................................. 10.17AV + 351.9 0.359av + 351.9 

18. Compact chest freezers .................................................................................................................... 9.25AV + 136.8 0.327av + 136.8 

AV = adjusted volume in cubic feet; av = adjusted volume in liters. 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

amended standards would save a 

significant amount of energy–an 

estimated 4.84 quads of cumulative 

energy over 30 years (2014 through 

2043). This amount is equivalent to 

three times the total energy used 

annually for refrigeration products in 

U.S. homes. 

The cumulative national net present 

value (NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings of the amended standards for 

products shipped in 2014–2043, in 

2009$, ranges from $6.4 to $10.4 billion 

(at a 7-percent discount rate) to $28.1 to 

$36.1 billion (at a 3-percent discount 

rate).1 The NPV is the estimated total 

value of future operating-cost savings 

during the analysis period, minus the 

estimated increased product costs, 

discounted to 2010. The industry net 

present value (INPV) is the sum of the 

discounted cash flows to the industry 

from the base year through the end of 

the analysis period (2010 to 2043). 

Using a real discount rate of 7.2 percent, 

DOE estimates that INPV for 

manufacturers of all refrigeration 

products in the base case is $3.731 

billion in 2009$. By adopting the 

amended standards, DOE expects that 

manufacturers may lose 15 to 24 percent 

of their INPV, or approximately $0.573 

to $0.887 billion. Using a 7-percent 

discount rate, the NPV of consumer 

costs and savings from today’s amended 

standards would amount to 4 to 16 

times the total estimated industry 

losses. Using a 3-percent discount rate, 

the NPV would amount to 26 to 60 

times the total estimated industry 

losses. 

The projected economic impacts of 

the amended standards on individual 

consumers are generally positive. For 

example, the estimated average lifecycle cost (LCC) savings are $42 for topmount refrigerator-freezers, $22 for 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, $57 

for side-by-side refrigerator-freezers, 

$195 for upright freezers, $69 for chest 

freezers, $14 for compact refrigerators, 

$12 for compact freezers, and from $2 to 

$71 for built-in refrigeration products, 

depending on the product class.2

In addition, the amended standards 

are projected to have significant 

environmental benefits. The energy 

saved is in the form of electricity and 

DOE expects the energy savings from 

the amended standards to eliminate the 

need for approximately 4.8 gigawatts 

(GW) of generating capacity by 2043. 

The savings would result in cumulative 

greenhouse gas emission reductions of 

344 million metric tons (Mt) 3 of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) in 2014–2043. During this 

period, the amended standards would 

result in emissions reductions 4 of 

277,000 short tons (tons) of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and 1.45 tons of mercury 

(Hg). 

The value of the CO2 reductions is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as 

the Social Cost of Carbon, or SCC) 

developed by a recent interagency 

process. The derivation of the SCC 

values is discussed in section IV.M. 

DOE estimates the present monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reduction is 

between $2.8 and $27.5 billion, 

expressed in 2009$ and discounted to 

2010. DOE also estimates that the 

present monetary value of the NOX

emissions reduction, expressed in 2009$ 

and discounted to 2010, is between $35 

and $360 million at a 7-percent discount 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57519 

5The range of values at each discount rate reflects 

use of low and high estimates of the benefits of 

avoiding one ton of NOX emissions. With respect 

to mercury, DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts 

to determine the appropriate range of values used 

in evaluating the potential economic benefits of 

reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await 

further guidance regarding consistent valuation and 

reporting of Hg emissions before it once again 

monetizes Hg in its rulemakings. 

6 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2010, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of three and seven percent for all costs and 

benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For 

the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 

shown in Table I.3. From the present value, DOE 

then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30- 

year period (2014 through 2043) that yields the 

same present value. This payment includes benefits 

to consumers which accrue after 2043 from the 

refrigerators purchased from 2014 to 2043. Costs 

incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be 

incurred prior to 2014 in preparation for the rule, 

are not directly included, but are indirectly 

included as part of incremental equipment costs. 

The extent of these costs and benefits depends on 

the projected price trends of refrigerators since 

consumer demand of refrigerators is a function of 

refrigerator prices. The fixed annual payment is the 

annualized value. Although DOE calculated 

annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of cost and benefits from which the 

annualized values were determined is a steady 

stream of payments. 

rate, and between $87 and $890 million 

at a 3-percent discount rate.5

Table I.2 summarizes the national 

economic costs and benefits expected to 

result from today’s standards for 

refrigeration products. 

TABLE I.2—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF REFRIGERATION PRODUCT ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARDS

Category Present value 

billion 2009$ 

Discount rate 

(percent) 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ........................................................................................................................................... 21.7 ...............

55.4 ...............

7 

3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $4.9/t)* ........................................................................................................... 2.8 ................. 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $22.1/t)* ......................................................................................................... 9.0 ................. 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $36.3/t)* ......................................................................................................... 13.5 ............... 2.5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $67.1/t)* ......................................................................................................... 27.5 ............... 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $447/ton)* ..................................................................................................... 0.035 .............

0.087 .............

7 

3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $4,591/ton)* .................................................................................................. 0.36 ...............

0.89 ...............

7 

3 

Total Benefits† ......................................................................................................................................................... 30.9 ............... 7 

64.9 ............... 3 

Costs 

Incremental Installed Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 11.3 to 15.3 ... 7 

19.3 to 27.3 ... 3 

Net Benefits 

Including CO2 and NOX† ......................................................................................................................................... 15.6 to 19.5 ..

37.5 to 45.5 ..

7 

3 

* The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.1, and $36.3 per 

metric ton (t) are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.1/t represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. 

** The range of results for incremental product costs reflects the range of product price forecasts discussed in section IV.G.3.

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, and the average of the low 

and high NOX values used in DOE’s analysis. 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

standards, for products sold in 2014– 

2043, can also be expressed in terms of 

annualized values. The annualized 

monetary values are the sum of (1) the 

annualized national economic value, 

expressed in 2009$, of the benefits from 

operating products that meet the 

amended standards (consisting 

primarily of operating cost savings from 

using less energy, minus increases in 

equipment purchase and installation 

costs, which is another way of 

representing consumer NPV), and (2) 

the annualized monetary value of the 

benefits of emission reductions, 

including CO2 emission reductions.6

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and SCC are 

performed with different methods that 

use different time frames for analysis. 

The national operating cost savings is 

measured for the lifetime of refrigeration 

products shipped in 2014–2043. The 

SCC values, on the other hand, reflect 

the present value of future climaterelated impacts resulting from the 

emission of one ton of carbon dioxide in 

each year. These impacts continue well 

beyond 2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of today’s standards are shown in 

Table I.3. The results under the primary 

estimate, expressed in 2009$, are as 

follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate 

and the SCC series having a value of 

$22.1/ton in 2010, the cost of the 

standards in today’s rule is $1,167 to 

$1,569 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the annualized 

benefits are $2,275 million per year in 

reduced equipment operating costs, 

$515 million in CO2 reductions, and $21 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$1,241 to $1,643 million per year. Using 

a 3-percent discount rate and the SCC 

series having a value of $22.1/ton in 

2010, the cost of the standards in 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57520 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

7This part was titled Part B in EPCA, but was 

subsequently codified as Part A in the U.S. Code for 

editorial reasons. 

today’s rule is $1,081 to $1,526 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the benefits are $3,160 million per 

year in reduced operating costs, $515 

million in CO2 reductions, and $28 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$2,176 to $2,622 million per year. 

TABLE I.3—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS FOR REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN

2014–2043 * 

Discount rate 

Monetized (million 2009$/year) 

Primary 

estimate * 

Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net 

benefits 

estimate * 

Benefits: 

Operating Cost Savings ....................................................... 7% ............................. 2275 ................. 1996 ................. 2560. 

3% ............................. 3160 ................. 2720 ................. 3596. 

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t ** ................................................... 5% ............................. 162 ................... 162 ................... 162. 

CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t ** ................................................. 3% ............................. 515 ................... 515 ................... 515. 

CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t ** ................................................. 2.5% .......................... 772 ................... 772 ................... 772. 

CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t ** ................................................. 3% ............................. 1567 ................. 1567 ................. 1567. 

NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton ** .......................................... 7% ............................. 21 ..................... 21 ..................... 21. 

3% ............................. 28 ..................... 28 ..................... 28. 

Total (Operating Cost Savings, CO2 Reduction and NOX

Reduction) †.

7% plus CO2 range ...

7% .............................

2457 to 3863 ....

2810 .................

2178 to 3584 ....

2531 .................

2742 to 4148. 

3095. 

3% ............................. 3703 ................. 3263 ................. 4139. 

3% plus CO2 range ... 3350 to 4755 .... 2910 to 4315 .... 3786 to 5192. 

Costs: 

Incremental Product Costs .................................................. 7% ............................. 1167 to 1569 .... 1480 ................. 1232. 

3% ............................. 1081 to 1526 .... 1430 ................. 1147. 

Net Benefits: 

Total † .................................................................................. 7% plus CO2 range ... 888 to 2696 ...... 698 to 2103 ...... 1511 to 2916. 

7% ............................. 1241 to 1643 .... 1051 ................. 1863. 

3% ............................. 2176 to 2622 .... 1832 ................. 2993. 

3% plus CO2 range ... 1823 to 3674 .... 1479 to 2885 .... 2640 to 4045. 

*This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with refrigerators shipped between 2014 and 2043. These results include 

benefits to consumers which accrue after 2043 from the refrigerators purchased from 2014 to 2043. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of 

which may be incurred prior to 2014 in preparation for the rule, are not directly included, but are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The extent of these costs and benefits depends on the projected price trends of refrigerators since consumer demand of refrigerators 

is a function of refrigerator prices. The extent of the costs and benefits will depend on the projected price trends of refrigerators, as the consumer 

demand for refrigerators is a function of refrigerator prices. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy 

prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. In addition, incremental product 

costs reflect a medium decline rate for projected product price trends in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate for projected product price 

trends using a Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate for projected product price trends using a High Benefits Estimate. The different 

techniques used to derive projected price trends for each estimate are explained in section IV.G.3. In the Primary estimate, the range of results 

for incremental product costs reflects the range of projected price trends. 

** The CO2 values represent global monetized values (in 2009$) of the SCC in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.1, and 

$36.3 per metric ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.1/t 

represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2009$) is the average of the 

low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

† Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $22.1/t in 2010 (in 

2009$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

DOE has concluded that the standards 

in today’s rule represent the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

both technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in the significant conservation of 

energy. DOE further notes that products 

achieving these standard levels are 

already commercially available for at 

least some, if not most, product classes 

covered by today’s ruling. Based on the 

analyses described above, DOE found 

the benefits of today’s standards to the 

Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits, consumer LCC 

savings, and emission reductions) 

outweigh the burdens (loss of INPV for 

manufacturers and LCC increases for 

some consumers). 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying today’s final rule as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for refrigeration products. 

A. Authority 

Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. Part A of title III (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309) provides for the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other than 

Automobiles.7 EPCA covers consumer 

products and certain commercial 

equipment (referred to collectively 

hereafter as ‘‘covered products’’), 

including the types of refrigeration 

products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)) EPCA 

prescribed energy conservation 

standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 

6295(b)(1)–(2)), and directed DOE to 

conduct three cycles of rulemakings to 

determine whether to amend these 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(3)(A)(i), 

(b)(3)(B)–(C), and (b)(4)) As explained in 

further detail in section 0, this 

rulemaking satisfies the third round of 

amendments under 42 U.S.C. 6295(b). 

(DOE notes that under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m), the agency must periodically 

review its already established energy 

conservation standards for a covered 

product. Under this requirement, the 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57521 

8 In this context, the presumption provides a legal 

finding that the criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2) 

have been met if the specified level of savings 

within the first year occur. To ensure that it has 

fully examined the potential costs and benefits of 

a given level, DOE routinely conducts a full 

analysis of the potential standards it considers. 

next review that DOE would need to 

conduct would occur six years from the 

issuance of a final rule establishing or 

amending a standard for a covered 

product.) 

Under the Act, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

products consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. The Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) is generally 

responsible for labeling issues for 

consumer products, and DOE 

implements the remainder of the 

program. Section 323 of the Act 

(codified at 42 U.S.C. 6293) authorizes 

DOE, subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, to develop test procedures 

to measure the energy efficiency, energy 

use, or estimated annual operating cost 

of each covered product. Manufacturers 

of covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 

6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these 

test procedures to determine whether 

the products comply with standards 

adopted under EPCA. Id. The test 

procedures for refrigeration products 

currently appear at title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), part 430, 

subpart B, appendices A1 and B1, 

respectively. (These procedures have 

recently been amended and recodified 

as part of new Appendices A and B, 

which will, pending further comment 

from interested parties, be required to be 

used when certifying compliance with 

the standards detailed in today’s final 

rule. See 75 FR 78810 (December 16, 

2010)). 

EPCA prescribes specific criteria for 

DOE to consider when amending 

standards for covered products. As 

indicated above, any amended standard 

for a covered product must be designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) EPCA precludes DOE 

from adopting any standard that would 

not result in the significant conservation 

of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard for certain products, including 

refrigeration products, (1) if no test 

procedure has been established for that 

product, or (2) if DOE determines by 

rule that the amended standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) 

The Act also provides that, in deciding 

whether an amended standard is 

economically justified, DOE must 

determine whether the benefits of the 

standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must do so after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, and by considering, to the 

greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven factors: 

1. The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy savings likely to result directly 

from the imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard; 

5. The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the imposition of the 

standard; 

6. The need for national energy 

conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

EPCA also contains what is known as 

an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which 

prevents DOE from prescribing any 

amended standard that either increases 

the maximum allowable energy use or 

decreases the minimum required energy 

efficiency of a covered product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, DOE may not 

prescribe a new standard if interested 

persons have established by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the 

standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States of 

any covered product type (or class) with 

performance characteristics, features, 

sizes, capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)) 

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 

presumption that a standard is 

economically justified if the Secretary 

finds that the additional cost to the 

consumer of purchasing a product 

complying with an energy conservation 

standard level will be less than three 

times the value of the energy savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the applicable test 

procedure. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii).8

Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) 

specifies the requirements for setting 

classes of a covered product. In such 

cases, DOE may specify a different 

standard level than that which applies 

generally to such type or class of 

products ‘‘for any group of covered 

products which have the same function 

or intended use’’ if one of two 

conditions is met: (A) The specific 

group of products for which a class 

category would apply consume a 

different kind of energy from that 

consumed by other covered products 

within such type (or class); or (B) that 

specific group of products has a 

capacity or other performance-related 

feature which other products within 

such type (or class) do not have and 

such feature justifies a higher or lower 

standard’’ than applies or will apply to 

the other products within that type or 

class. Id. In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE must ‘‘consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

such a feature’’ and other factors DOE 

deems appropriate. Id. Any rule 

prescribing such a standard must 

include an explanation of the basis on 

which such higher or lower level was 

established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements generally supersede State 

laws or regulations concerning energy 

conservation testing, labeling, and 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE 

can, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions of 

section 327(d) of the Act. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) 

Section 310(3) of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110–140 (codified at 

42 U.S.C. 6295(gg))) amended EPCA to 

require that energy conservation 

standards address standby mode and off 

mode energy use. Specifically, when 

DOE adopts a standard for a covered 

product after July 1, 2010, it must, if 

justified by the criteria for adoption of 

standards in section 325(o) of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby 

mode and off mode energy use into the 

standard, if feasible, or adopt a separate 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57522 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

9The maximum annualized net benefits included 

monetized emissions savings. 

standard for such energy use for that 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) 

DOE’s current (and recently amended) 

test procedures and current standards 

for refrigeration products address 

standby and off mode energy use, as do 

the amended standards adopted in this 

final rule. Standby and off mode energy 

use is measured by the test procedures 

and integrated into the energy use 

metric, thus separate metrics for these 

quantities are not needed. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563 (76 

FR 3281, Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is 

supplemental to, and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in, Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

‘‘to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible.’’ In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include ‘‘identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.’’ For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE believes 

that today’s final rule is consistent with 

these principles, including that, to the 

extent permitted by law, agencies adopt 

a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs and select, in choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Given the range of inputs and 

parameters analyzed in this rulemaking, 

there may be multiple standards that 

would maximize annualized net 

benefits.9 For some product classes, 

depending on different assumptions, the 

standard that maximized annualized net 

benefits could fall within a range of 

TSLs. Five different TSLs were 

considered for each product class 

grouping with high and low values for 

the maximum annualized net benefits 

estimated for each TSL. For standardsize refrigerator-freezers, the TSL with 

maximum annualized net benefits with 

the highest value was TSL 3, although 

certain values for maximum annualized 

net benefits fell within the ranges 

estimated for TSL 1 to TSL 3. For 

standard-size freezers, the maximum 

annualized net benefits fell within the 

calculated ranges for TSL 3 to TSL 4. 

However, DOE noted that even using the 

low end of this range, efficiency levels 

are significantly higher than the most 

efficient products already available on 

the market (see Section VI.C.2). 

Therefore, DOE selected TSL 2, which 

DOE also notes corresponds to the 

recommended level in the Joint 

Comments. For compact refrigeration 

products, the maximum annualized net 

benefits fell within the calculated ranges 

for TSL 1 to TSL 3, and DOE selected 

TSL 2. With respect to compact 

refrigeration products, DOE estimates an 

approximately 10 percent increase in 

total installation costs as a result of the 

standard. Because DOE was unable to 

estimate the income subgroup LCC 

effects due to lack of data, the agency 

believes choosing a TSL on the lower 

end of the range of estimated cost 

impacts (i.e., TSL 2) would provide a 

more conservative approach to 

minimize any potentially negative 

consumer welfare impacts on lower 

income consumers. For built-in 

refrigeration products, the TSL with 

maximum annualized net benefits was 

TSL 2, and DOE selected TSL 2. 

Therefore, consistent with EO 13563, 

the energy efficiency standards adopted 

herein by DOE achieves maximum net 

benefits. 

B. Background 

The following discussion provides 

some background information 

describing the events leading up to 

today’s final rule. 

1. Current Standards 

In a final rule published on April 28, 

1997 (1997 Final Rule), DOE prescribed 

energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration products manufactured on 

or after July 1, 2001. 62 FR 23102. This 

1997 rule set the energy conservation 

standards that are currently in place and 

completed the second round of 

rulemaking to amend the standards for 

refrigeration products required under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(b)(3)(B)–(C). The current 

standards consist of separate equations 

for each product class. Each equation 

provides a means to calculate the 

maximum levels of energy use 

permitted under the regulations. These 

levels vary based on the storage volume 

of the refrigeration product and on the 

particular characteristics and features 

included in a given product (i.e., based 

on product class). 10 CFR 430.32(a). The 

current standards are set forth in Table 

II.1. DOE notes that the standard levels 

denoted in the additional product 

classes listed as 5A and 10A were 

established by the Office of Hearings 

and Appeals (OHA) through that 

Office’s exception relief process, and are 

applicable to basic models of those 

types if their manufacturer has applied 

for and been granted exception relief for 

them by OHA. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57523 

10The petition, submitted June 1, 2004, can be 

viewed at http://www.standardsasap.org/ 

documents/rfdoe.pdf (last accessed August 18, 

2010) and is in the docket as item No. 117. 

TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

Product class 

Energy standard equations for 

maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

Made Effective by the 1997 

Final Rule 

1. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost .................................................................................. 8.82AV+248.4 

0.31av+248.4 

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost ..................................................................................................... 8.82AV+248.4 

0.31av+248.4 

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service and 

all-refrigerator—automatic defrost.

9.80AV+276.0 

0.35av+276.0 

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service .......... 4.91AV+507.5

0.17av+507.5 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service ..... 4.60AV+459.0 

0.16av+459.0 

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service ................ 10.20AV+356.0 

0.36av+356.0 

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service ............... 10.10AV+406.0 

0.36av+406.0 

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost ...................................................................................................................... 7.55AV+258.3 

0.27av+258.3 

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost .................................................................................................................. 12.43AV+326.1 

0.44av+326.1 

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers .......................................................................... 9.88AV+143.7 

0.35av+143.7 

11. Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost .................................................................. 10.70AV+299.0 

0.38av+299.0 

12. Compact refrigerator-freezer—partial automatic defrost ...................................................................................... 7.00AV+398.0 

0.25av+398.0 

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer and compact all-refrigerator— 

automatic defrost.

12.70AV+355.0 

0.45av+355.0 

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer .................................................... 7.60AV+501.0 

0.27av+501.0 

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer ................................................ 13.10AV+367.0 

0.46av+367.0 

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost ..................................................................................................... 9.78AV+250.8 

0.35av+250.8 

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost ................................................................................................. 11.40AV+391.0 

0.40av+391.0 

18. Compact chest freezers ........................................................................................................................................ 10.45AV+152.0 

0.37av+152.0 

Product Class Made Effective Through OHA 

Exception Relief 

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service .......... 5.0AV+539.0 

0.18av+539.0 

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost ................................................................................................................ 14.76AV+211.5 

0.52av+211.5 

AV: Adjusted Volume in ft3; av: Adjusted Volume in liters (L). 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers 

The amendments made to EPCA by 

the National Appliance Energy 

Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA; Pub. 

L. 100–12) included mandatory energy 

conservation standards for refrigeration 

products and requirements that DOE 

conduct two cycles of rulemakings to 

determine whether to amend these 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1), (2), 

(3)(A)(i), and (3)(B)–(C)) DOE completed 

the first of these rulemaking cycles in 

1989 and 1990 by adopting amended 

performance standards for all 

refrigeration products manufactured on 

or after January 1, 1993. 54 FR 47916 

(November 17, 1989); 55 FR 42845 

(October 24, 1990). As indicated above, 

DOE completed a second rulemaking 

cycle to amend the standards for 

refrigeration products by issuing a final 

rule in 1997, which adopted the current 

standards for these products. 62 FR 

23102 (April 28, 1997). 

In 2005, DOE granted a petition, 

submitted by a coalition of state 

governments, utility companies, 

consumer and low-income advocacy 

groups, and environmental and energy 

efficiency organizations, requesting a 

rulemaking to amend the standards for 

residential refrigerator-freezers.10 DOE 

then conducted limited analyses to 

examine the technological and 

economic feasibility of amended 

standards at the ENERGY STAR levels 

that were in effect for 2005 for the two 

most popular product classes of 

refrigerator-freezers. These analyses not 

only identified potential energy savings, 

benefits and burdens from such 

standards, but also assessed other issues 

related to them. Most recently, DOE has 

undertaken this rulemaking to satisfy 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57524 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

11An ‘‘all-refrigerator’’ is defined as ‘‘an electric 

refrigerator which does not include a compartment 

for the freezing and long time storage of food at 

temperatures below 32 °F (0.0 °C). It may include 

a compartment of 0.50 cubic feet capacity (14.2 

liters) or less for the freezing and storage of ice.’’ 

(10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, section 

1.4). 

12 DOE Docket No. EERE–2008–BT–STD–0012, 

Comment 49. DOE considered the Joint Comments 

to supersede earlier comments by the listed parties 

regarding issues subsequently discussed in the Joint 

Comments. 

the statutory requirement that DOE 

publish a final rule to determine 

whether to amend the standards for 

refrigeration products manufactured in 

2014. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)) The limited 

2005 analyses served as background for 

the more extensive analysis conducted 

for this rulemaking. 

DOE initiated this rulemaking by 

making available on its Web site a 

framework document for refrigeration 

products, a PDF copy of which is 

available at http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

refrigerator_freezer_framework.pdf). 

DOE also published a notice 

announcing the availability of the 

framework document and a public 

meeting to discuss the document. It also 

requested public comment on the 

document. 73 FR 54089 (September 18, 

2008). The framework document 

described the procedural and analytical 

approaches that DOE anticipated using 

to evaluate energy conservation 

standards for refrigeration products and 

identified various issues to resolve 

during the rulemaking. 

On September 29, 2008, DOE held the 

framework document public meeting 

and discussed the issues detailed in the 

framework document. DOE also 

described the analyses that it planned to 

conduct during the rulemaking. 

Through the public meeting, DOE 

sought feedback from interested parties 

on these subjects and provided 

information regarding the rulemaking 

process that DOE would follow. 

Interested parties discussed the 

following major issues at the public 

meeting: Test procedure revisions; 

product classes; technology options; 

approaches to the engineering, life-cycle 

cost, and payback period analyses; 

efficiency levels analyzed in the 

engineering analysis; and the approach 

for estimating typical energy 

consumption. At the meeting, and 

during the related comment period, 

DOE received many comments that 

helped it identify and resolve issues 

involved in this rulemaking. 

DOE then gathered additional 

information and performed preliminary 

analyses for the purpose of developing 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards for refrigeration products. 

This process culminated in DOE’s 

public announcement of the preliminary 

analysis public meeting. 74 FR 58915 

(November 16, 2009) (the November 

2009 notice) At that meeting, which was 

held on December 10, 2009, DOE 

discussed the following matters: The 

product classes DOE analyzed; the 

analytical framework, models, and tools 

that DOE was using to evaluate 

standards; the results of the preliminary 

analyses performed by DOE; and 

potential standard levels that DOE could 

consider. DOE also invited written and 

verbal comments on these subjects and 

announced the availability on its Web 

site of a preliminary technical support 

document (preliminary TSD) it had 

prepared to inform interested parties 

and enable them to provide comments. 

Id. (The preliminary TSD is available at 

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

appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

ref_frz_prenopr_prelim_tsd.pdf) DOE 

also sought views concerning other 

relevant issues that participants 

believed would affect energy 

conservation standards for refrigeration 

products, or that merited addressing in 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NOPR). Id. at 58917–18. 

The preliminary TSD provided an 

overview of the activities DOE 

undertook in developing potential 

standards for refrigeration products, and 

discussed the comments DOE received 

in response to the framework document. 

It also described the analytical 

framework that DOE used, including a 

description of the methodology, the 

analytical tools, and the relationships 

among the various analyses that are part 

of the rulemaking. The preliminary TSD 

presented and described in detail each 

analysis DOE had performed up to that 

point, including descriptions of inputs, 

sources, methodologies, and results. 

These analyses included a market and 

technology assessment, a screening 

analysis, an engineering analysis, an 

energy use analysis, a markups analysis, 

a life-cycle cost analysis, a payback 

period (PBP) analysis, a shipments 

analysis, a national impact analysis, and 

a preliminary manufacturer impact 

analysis. See the NOPR for an overview 

of these assessments and analyses. 75 

FR 59470, 59477 (September 27, 2010). 

At the preliminary analysis meeting, 

DOE presented the methodologies and 

results of the analyses set forth in the 

preliminary TSD. Major topics 

discussed at the meeting included test 

procedure revisions, product classes 

(including wine coolers, allrefrigerators,11 and built-in refrigeration 

products), the use of alternative foam 

blowing agents and refrigerants, 

engineering analysis tools, the use of 

vacuum insulated panels (VIPs), markups, field energy consumption, lifecycle cost inputs, efficiency distribution 

forecasts, and trial standard level 

selection criteria. DOE also discussed 

plans for conducting the NOPR 

analyses. Comment received in response 

to the November 2009 notice, helped 

shape DOE’s resolution of the issues 

raised in the preliminary analysis 

meeting. 

In response to the preliminary 

analysis, DOE also received a comment 

submitted jointly by groups representing 

manufacturers (Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers, Whirlpool, 

General Electric Company (GE), 

Electrolux, LG Electronics, BSH, 

Alliance Laundry, Viking Range, Sub 

Zero-Wolf, Friedrich A/C, U–Line, 

Samsung, Sharp Electronics, Miele, Heat 

Controller, AGA Marvel, Brown Stove, 

Haier, Fagor America, Airwell Group, 

Arcelik, Fisher & Paykel, Scotsman Ice, 

Indesit, Kuppersbusch, Kelon, 

DeLonghi); energy and environmental 

advocates (American Council for an 

Energy Efficient Economy, Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, Alliance to 

Save Energy, Alliance for Water 

Efficiency, Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council, Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships); and consumer 

groups (Consumer Federation of 

America, National Consumer Law 

Center). This collective set of comments, 

which DOE refers to in this notice as the 

‘‘Joint Comments,’’ 12 recommended 

specific energy conservation standards 

for refrigeration products that, in the 

commenters’ view, would satisfy the 

requirements under EPCA. According to 

this submission, negotiations between 

these various groups commenced in the 

spring of 2010, resulting in a finalized 

agreement with recommended standards 

on July 30, 2010. (Joint Comments, No. 

52 at p. 8) Those recommended 

standards were reported in percentages 

of energy use reductions and in annual 

energy use based on the test procedure 

then in place but after DOE had 

published its NOPR proposing to amend 

that procedure. (Id. See also 75 FR 

29824 (May 27, 2010)) DOE neither 

organized nor was a member of the 

group but made its contractors available 

to perform data processing. Consistent 

with its legal obligations when 

developing an energy conservation 

standard, DOE provided the public with 

the opportunity to comment on the 

proposed levels that DOE considered 

adopting for refrigeration products in 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57525 

13Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

(ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 

Consumer Federation of America (CFA), National 

Consumer Law Center (NCLC), Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC), Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), and Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA). 

the NOPR, which mirror those 

recommended in the Joint Comments. 

DOE published the NOPR on 

September 27, 2010. 75 FR 59470. The 

NOPR and its accompanying NOPR TSD 

described the analyses that DOE 

conducted after the preliminary 

analyses, including revisions of analyses 

to address stakeholder comments. The 

additional analyses performed during 

the NOPR phase included the consumer 

subgroup analysis, manufacturer impact 

analysis, employment impact analysis, 

utility impact analysis, environmental 

analysis, and regulatory impact analysis. 

The NOPR discussed all of the NOPR 

analyses in depth, including the 

revision of analyses initially conducted 

in the preliminary analysis phase. (see 

75 FR at 59485–59530 (September 27, 

2010)) DOE held a public meeting to 

discuss the NOPR on October 14, 2010. 

At the meeting, DOE presented its 

analyses and raised issues for comment. 

The issues discussed at the meeting 

included the measurement changes 

associated with the new test procedures 

under consideration, product classes, 

product class definitions, status of 

specific technologies (e.g. highefficiency compressors, VIPs, and 

isobutane refrigerant), max-tech levels, 

energy use equation slope changes, 

adjustments to the methodology for field 

energy use estimates, maintenance 

costs, efficiency distributions, energy 

standard round-off, impacts on small 

manufacturers, setting built-in standards 

at levels determined to have negative 

consumer impacts, and DOE’s treatment 

of emissions reductions. DOE 

considered comments received at the 

public meeting and during the NOPR 

comment period in finalizing the 

standards. 

As discussed in greater detail in 

section IV.F.1 below, after publishing 

the NOPR, DOE more carefully 

examined trends in product prices and 

the possible impact of such trends on its 

analyses. On February 22, 2011, DOE 

published a notice of data availability 

(NODA) that discussed the approach it 

was considering to use in its forecasts of 

product prices. 76 FR 9696. DOE 

requested comments on the information 

provided in the NODA, and several 

stakeholders responded, including some 

that had not commented on the NOPR. 

Table II.2 below lists the stakeholders 

that provided comments on the NOPR 

and the NODA. 

TABLE II.2—STAKEHOLDERS PROVIDING COMMENTS ON THE NOPR AND NODA 

Name Acronym Type * NOPR oral 

comments 

Written 

comments 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ................................. AHRI ................... IR ........................ NODA 

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy ................................... ACEEE ................ EA ........................ NODA 

American Gas Association .......................................................................... AGA .................... UA ........................ NODA 

American Public Power Association ............................................................ APPA .................. UA ........................ NOPR 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) ....................................... ASAP .................. EA ✓ NODA 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) and Others 13 ................ Joint Advocates’ 

Comment (JAC).

EA, CA ........................ NOPR 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers .......................................... AHAM .................. IR ✓ NOPR, NODA 

California Investor-Owned Utilities .............................................................. IOUs .................... U ........................ NOPR, NODA 

Consumer Federation of America ............................................................... CFA ..................... CA ........................ NODA 

Earthjustice .................................................................................................. Earthjustice ......... EA ✓ NOPR 

Edison Electric Institute ............................................................................... EEI ...................... UA ........................ NOPR, NODA 

Electrolux Home Products ........................................................................... Electrolux ............ M ✓ 

General Electric Consumer and Industrial .................................................. GE ....................... M ✓ NOPR 

Ingersoll Rand Residential Solutions .......................................................... Ingersoll Rand ..... M ........................ NODA 

National Consumer Law Center .................................................................. NCLC .................. CA ........................ NODA 

Natural Resources Defense Council ........................................................... NRDC .................. EA ........................ NODA 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships ................................................... NEEP .................. EA ........................ NODA 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance .......................................................... NEEA .................. EA ........................ NODA 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council .............................................. NPCC .................. UA ✓ 

People’s Republic of China WTO/TBT National Notification & Enquiry 

Center.

PRC .................... FG ........................ NOPR 

Portland General Electric Company ............................................................ PGEC .................. U ........................ NOPR 

Sacramento Municipal Utility District ........................................................... SMUD ................. U ........................ NOPR 

Southern Company ...................................................................................... SC ....................... U ........................ NOPR, NODA 

Sub Zero-Wolf, Inc ...................................................................................... Sub Zero ............. M ........................ NOPR 

Traulsen ....................................................................................................... Traulsen .............. M ........................ NODA 

Whirlpool Corporation .................................................................................. Whirlpool ............. M ✓ NOPR 

* IR: Industry Representative; M: Manufacturer; EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; CA: Consumer Advocate; CS: Component Supplier: 

TE: Technical Expert: I: Individual; U: Utility; UA: Utility Advocate; FG: Foreign Government Agency. 

DOE notes that comments from the 

PRC indicated that it received notice of 

the September 27th NOPR on October 

27, 2010, which permitted the Chinese 

government less than 60 days to provide 

comment on the proposed regulation. In 

DOE’s view, the publication of the 

September 2010 proposal, along with its 

immediate availability on the 

Government Printing Office’s Web site 

(http://www.gpoaccess.gov), provided 

any interested party with the specified 

60 days of comment period. In future, 

however, to accommodate the PRC’s 

concerns, and to the extent feasible, 

DOE may examine possible steps to 

ensure the availability of its proposals to 

interested foreign parties. 

III. General Discussion 

The following section discusses 

various technical aspects related to this 

rulemaking. In particular, it addresses 

aspects involving the test procedures for 

refrigeration products, the technological 

feasibility of potential standards to 

assign to these products, and the 

potential energy savings and economic 

justification for prescribing the 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57526 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

14The rule was issued on November 23, 2010, not 

November 24 as indicated in AHAM’s comments. 

amended standards for refrigeration 

products. 

A. Test Procedures 

As noted above, DOE’s current test 

procedures for refrigeration products 

appear at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendices A1 (for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers) and B1 (for 

freezers). DOE recently published a 

notice containing both the test 

procedure final rule (affecting products 

manufactured prior to 2014) and an 

interim final rule (for products 

manufactured starting in 2014). The 

final/interim final rule notice amended 

Appendices A1 and B1 (which affect 

pre-2014 products) and created new 

Appendices A and B (which affect 

products starting in 2014). Appendix A 

applies to refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers covered by today’s amended 

standards (i.e., those manufactured or 

after the 2014 compliance date 

prescribed by today’s rule) and 

Appendix B applies to freezers covered 

by today’s amended standards. 75 FR 

78810 (December 16, 2010) (this notice 

contains both the final and interim final 

rules that detail the test procedures for 

refrigeration products). The new 

Appendices A and B share many of the 

same revisions and additions made in 

Appendices A1 and B1, but also include 

additional revisions not made in 

Appendices A1 and B1. See id. at 

78817–78818 DOE notes, however, that 

because the new Appendices A and B 

were issued as an interim final rule, 

these additional amendments may be 

subject to possible adjustment based on 

comments that DOE receives. DOE had 

previously provided commenters with 

60 days within which to provide 

additional feedback regarding the 

interim final rule. Id. at 78810. DOE 

may reopen this comment period for a 

limited period of time after the 

publication of today’s standards final 

rule. 

EPCA requires DOE to consider 

during a test procedure rulemaking 

whether test procedure amendments 

alter the measured energy use of 

products, and, if so, to amend the 

energy standards. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)– 

(2)) In this case, DOE simultaneously 

considered the impacts of any measured 

energy changes within the context of the 

standards rulemaking required by 

statute. Section III.A.0 discusses the 

adjustment of the final energy 

conservation standard with respect to 

any test procedure changes. The 

approach used to implement this 

adjustment is also discussed in the 

Section 0 below. 

1. Test Procedure Rulemaking Schedule 

The NOPR analysis documents were 

published, and the NOPR public 

meeting was held, prior to publication 

of the final rule describing the amended 

test procedure on which the analysis 

was based. The test procedure final/ 

interim final rule was issued and DOE 

made copies available to all interested 

parties prior to the end of the energy 

conservation standard NOPR comment 

period. 

AHAM and GE both commented that, 

despite DOE’s May 2010 publication of 

its proposed test procedure, it is 

difficult to prepare comments on an 

energy standard when the final test 

procedure is not yet known. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 

18; GE, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

67 at p. 37) AHAM clarified that 

determination of the impact on energy 

use measurement of the test procedure 

changes cannot be done without having 

a final test procedure (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 13–14, 

35) In written comments, AHAM argued 

that because the test procedure final/ 

interim final rule was not issued until 

November 24, 2010, manufacturers did 

not have a sufficient opportunity to test 

products to evaluate the impacts of the 

final test procedure changes—as a 

result, AHAM claimed it was not able to 

comment on the proposed energy 

standard equations (AHAM, No. 73 at 

pp. 1–2) 14 GE commented that the 

industry wanted to know the final test 

procedure before starting test work to 

determine whether the energy standard 

adjustments implemented by DOE in the 

NOPR sufficiently represent all of the 

test procedure changes. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 46–47) 

AHAM also asked whether any 

rulemaking process options allowed 

under EPCA could be considered to give 

the industry more time to assess the test 

procedure impacts. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 37–38) 

DOE notes that the test procedure 

NOPR was published May 27, 2010, 

roughly two months prior to the 

completion of negotiations conducted 

by industry and advocates in creating 

the standards recommended in their 

joint comments. 75 FR 29824 (May 27, 

2010). In developing those consensus 

standards, the industry and other 

stakeholders had knowledge of DOE’s 

test procedure proposals and ample 

time to consider adjustments to the 

negotiated standards to address the 

proposals for today’s final rule. DOE 

also notes that stakeholders have had 

several months since the publication of 

the test procedure NOPR to quantify the 

impacts of the proposed test procedure 

amendments. DOE again asked 

stakeholders at the energy conservation 

standard NOPR public meeting for 

information that would help quantify 

these impacts. None was provided and 

participants gave no indication that they 

had performed any such testing. In the 

absence of such information, DOE has 

developed its own information to 

finalize the energy conservation 

standards, as described in section 

III.A.0. 

DOE notes that under EPCA, an 

amended or new energy conservation 

standard may not be prescribed unless 

a test procedure for the regulated 

product has been prescribed. See 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3). DOE has met this 

requirement. 

In response to AHAM’s request 

regarding additional time to evaluate the 

test procedure impacts, DOE has issued 

the test procedure amendments affecting 

products starting in 2014 as an interim 

final rule. This approach resulted in 

providing interested parties with an 

additional 60 days to comment on the 

interim final rule’s amendments. 75 FR 

at 78810 (December 16, 2010). 

Additionally, as already indicated, DOE 

plans to provide interested parties with 

additional time to comment on the 

interim final rule. Notice of that limited 

reopening of the comment period will 

be provided in the Federal Register. 

2. Adjustment of the Energy Standards 

for the New Test Procedure 

As described above, DOE amended its 

test procedures for refrigeration 

products. These amendments will 

impact the measured energy use. DOE’s 

amended standard levels incorporated 

adjustments (called a ‘‘crosswalk’’) to 

reflect these changes in energy use 

measurements. DOE described the 

crosswalk process in its September 2010 

NOPR. See 75 FR at 59502–59505 

(September 27, 2010). In short, DOE 

applied the crosswalk to the baseline 

(current energy standard) equations, 

thus developing baseline energy use 

equations using the new test procedure. 

DOE applied the percentage energy use 

reductions representing the new energy 

standards to these baseline equations to 

determine the new energy standards. 

The NOPR also indicated that DOE 

tentatively concluded that the only test 

procedure changes that would be likely 

to impact measured energy use are those 

associated with compartment 

temperatures and the volume 

measurement method. 75 FR at 59505 

(September 27, 2010). The term ‘‘NOPR 

crosswalk’’ refers to this set of energy 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57527 

15The baseline energy use equations represent 

energy use for baseline products (i.e. products 

which are minimally compliant using the current 

test procedure) when tested using the new test 

procedure. 

standard adjustments addressing these 

two test procedure changes. 

Commenters addressed both (a) the 

NOPR crosswalk addressing test 

procedure changes in compartment 

temperatures and volume measurements 

and (b) the additional test procedure 

changes that could affect energy use 

measurements. The NOPR public 

meeting was held on October 14, 2010, 

before the publication of the test 

procedure final/interim final rule. 

Hence, stakeholder comments from the 

meeting addressed the proposed test 

procedure, rather than the final one that 

DOE ultimately adopted. 

Whirlpool indicated that it could not 

comment on the proposed standard 

levels prior to publication of the test 

procedure and comprehensive testing to 

determine the impact of the test 

procedure changes. (Whirlpool, No. 74 

at p. 7) GE echoed this comment, 

indicating that it is essential to have the 

final test procedure to allow evaluation 

of the impacts of the test procedure 

changes in order to be able to comment 

effectively on the proposed standard 

levels. (GE, No. 76 at p. 1) AHAM 

commented that the NOPR crosswalk is 

partly theoretical since it uses 

extrapolation and analysis to determine 

adjustments for some product classes. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

67 at p. 17) AHAM also commented that 

it ‘‘is critical’’ to do testing to determine 

the impact of the test procedure 

changes, and that the industry was not 

provided sufficient time between 

issuance of the final/interim final rule 

and the end of the comment period to 

conduct such testing. (AHAM, 73 at p. 

2) 

The IOUs supported DOE’s approach 

for adjustment of the energy standards 

to address test procedure changes. In 

light of the limited time available to 

complete the rulemaking, the IOUs 

commented that DOE’s approach was 

appropriate in spite of comments by 

parties at the public meeting calling for 

additional testing to perform a 

crosswalk. (IOUs, No. 77 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that the NOPR crosswalk 

was based primarily on data provided 

by AHAM—which DOE described in 

detail in its TSD. See chapter 5, 

‘‘Engineering Analysis’’, section 5.4.2. 

Because AHAM did not initially provide 

data for all product classes, DOE 

conducted additional analysis and 

developed estimates to supplement the 

gaps present in AHAM’s data. These 

additional steps helped DOE to establish 

appropriate crosswalks for the 

remaining product classes. DOE first 

presented this process in its preliminary 

TSD, which DOE posted on its Web site 

in November 2009. Stakeholders have 

had more than twelve months to 

comment on the crosswalks for these 

remaining product classes, but have not 

done so. 

Numerous commenters identified 

other test procedure changes that they 

believed would affect the measured 

energy use of refrigeration products and 

offered their views on how to address 

them in a final crosswalk. AHAM first 

indicated that the NOPR crosswalk does 

not represent all of the measurement 

impacts of the test procedure 

modifications. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 67 at p. 16; AHAM, No. 

73 at p. 2) It asserted that there are many 

test procedure changes and that some of 

these changes, other than those changes 

affecting compartment temperature and 

volume calculation, can impact 

measured energy use. (AHAM asserted 

that the impact of these changes cannot 

be determined as a sum of the impacts 

of the individual changes, but did not 

provide data illustrating this assertion, 

nor did AHAM explain why an additive 

approach is not reasonable. (Id. at p. 35– 

36)) To this end, AHAM identified four 

specific proposed test procedure 

changes that it believed would impact 

measured energy use: (1) Test 

procedures addressing products with 

variable anti-sweat heater control, (2) 

use of the highest energy use position 

for special compartments, (3) 

modification of the long-time-defrost 

test procedure to capture precooling 

energy use, and (4) test procedures 

addressing products with multiple 

defrost cycle types. (Id. at 42–43) DOE 

notes that AHAM identified these same 

four additional test procedure changes 

in its comments on the test procedure 

rulemaking NOPR (AHAM, Test 

Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 

Docket Number EERE–2009–BT–TP– 

0003, No. 16 at p. 3) In its written 

comments, AHAM indicated that the 

final test procedure that DOE developed 

for products with variable anti-sweat 

heater control does not alter measured 

energy use, since DOE adopted the 

procedure provided in waivers already 

granted to companies who manufacture 

products with such features. (AHAM, 

No. 73 at p. 3) 

Whirlpool asserted that applying the 

highest energy usage setting for special 

compartments, including procedures 

designed to capture precooling energy 

and to address products that use 

multiple defrost cycles, will alter 

measured energy use. (Whirlpool, No. 

74 at p. 7) 

The IOUs agreed that there were 

additional test procedure changes that 

could alter measured energy use that 

had not been considered in establishing 

the proposed standards, including test 

procedures for products with variable 

anti-sweat heater control, new 

procedures to capture precooling energy 

use, and new procedures for special 

compartments. The IOUs recommended 

that the energy standards should be 

adjusted to account for these test 

procedure changes. They noted that if 

the measured impacts of these test 

procedure changes have not been 

determined through testing, DOE should 

estimate their impact and direction of 

the impact (positive or negative). They 

added that if these impacts are small or 

applicable to only a small portion of the 

market, DOE should not adjust the 

baseline energy use equations 15 to 

avoid the risk of backsliding on the 

standard levels. (IOUs, No. 77 at p. 2) 

The IOUs indicated that they did not 

have any additional data regarding the 

impacts of the test procedure changes. 

(Id.) 

GE generally noted the importance of 

conducting tests to evaluate the impacts 

of the test procedure changes. It also 

expressed concerns that a number of the 

test procedure changes may have 

significant measurement impacts. GE 

did not, however, specifically identify 

these test procedure changes. (GE, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at pp. 

36–37) Whirlpool commented that the 

test procedures addressing products 

with variable anti-sweat heater controls 

represent a significant test burden (in 

some cases, an additional week of test 

time) and could impact the measured 

energy use of a given product. 

(Whirlpool, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 67 at pp. 44–45) Whirlpool further 

identified electric heaters and/or fans in 

special compartments that may be used 

to prevent freezing in such 

compartments as a factor in the 

potential energy use measurement 

impact of the test procedure 

amendments for special compartments. 

(Id.) 

When asked by DOE whether there 

are any manufacturer data that quantify 

the impacts of the cited additional test 

procedure amendments, AHAM 

indicated that they did not have such 

data. Instead, AHAM cited DOE’s own 

statement from the refrigeration product 

test procedure rulemaking public 

meeting presentation discussing the 

NOPR that the amendments to capture 

defrost precooling energy use would 

increase energy use 2 percent for one 

tested product (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 67 at pp. 44, 45–46, 43) 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57528 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

AHAM further stressed the importance 

of evaluating the entire modified test 

procedure rather than investigating the 

potential impacts from individual 

changes, because the measurement 

impacts of the changes may not be 

additive. (Id. at pp. 26–27) However, 

AHAM did not provide data illustrating 

or supporting this assertion, nor did 

AHAM explain why an additive 

approach is not reasonable. 

Stakeholders also commented on the 

approach used to apply the projected 

energy measurement impacts to the 

energy conservation standards. When 

asked by DOE during the public meeting 

if the crosswalk should apply to the 

population average of the minimally 

compliant products, AHAM agreed, 

indicating that the Joint Agreement used 

the words ‘‘average’’ and ‘‘minimally 

compliant’’, but that the crosswalk 

should also be based on evaluating lowvolume and high-volume products to 

properly reflect capacity impacts. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

67 at pp. 33–34) ASAP also agreed that 

the crosswalk should apply to the 

‘‘average’’. (ASAP, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 67 at p. 34) DOE agrees 

that a shipment-weighted average 

approach for applying the energy use 

measurement impacts of test procedure 

changes is appropriate and is consistent 

with the requirements of EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) Consistent with this 

approach, and the requirements of 42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(2), DOE applied a 

shipment-weighted approach, which 

provides the best indication across all 

shipped products of the magnitude of 

the impact. 

AHAM also commented that antibacksliding considerations would not 

apply because the changes in test 

procedures and energy standards will 

take effect simultaneously. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 

41) DOE notes that amending a test 

procedure without an accompanying 

energy standard rulemaking that 

increases stringency may result in an 

increase in the maximum allowable 

energy use for some products. Such a 

change would not be allowed if the antibacksliding provisions of EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) applied to any 

particular product rather than to the 

average for the product class 

population. However, such 

considerations do not apply in this case, 

as indicated by AHAM, because the test 

procedure and energy standard changes 

will occur simultaneously. 

DOE notes that it has received no new 

information from stakeholders 

quantifying the changes in measured 

energy use associated with any of the 

test procedure changes. Hence, DOE 

adjusted its standards using the data 

discussed above that AHAM provided 

during the preliminary analysis phase, 

as well as supplemental data and 

analysis (e.g. testing DOE conducted 

during the rulemaking) that DOE 

developed on its own. 

a. Products With Variable Anti-Sweat 

Heater Control 

DOE amended its test procedures to 

require the use of the procedure 

currently being used by manufacturers 

under waivers that DOE granted. This 

procedure, along with a change to 

assure the consistency of compartment 

temperatures during testing, will be 

required to establish compliance with 

the 2014 standards for variable antisweat heater control-equipped products. 

The change involves the description of 

the conditions that apply to the antisweat heater wattages used in the 

calculation of the anti-sweat heater 

adjustment factor: the wattages will 

apply to a 0 °F freezer compartment 

temperature and a 39 °F fresh food 

compartment temperature, rather than 

the 5 °F and 45 °F, respectively, used in 

the waivers. 75 FR at 78828–78830 

(December 16, 2010). DOE considers 

that the adjustments made to the energy 

conservation standards to account for 

compartment temperature changes also 

apply to the adjustment factor for antisweat heaters operating with variable 

control. Hence, no additional energy 

standard adjustment is needed to 

address this test procedure amendment. 

b. Products With Multiple Defrost Cycle 

Types 

DOE amended the test procedure to 

address products with multiple defrost 

cycle types. Id. at 78836–78838. As 

explained in the test procedure final 

rule, the previous procedure could not 

ensure that the entire defrost energy 

used for such products would be 

sufficiently captured. DOE received one 

test procedure waiver petition for such 

products, from Samsung, requesting 

waiver of the current test procedure of 

Appendix A1 for products 

manufactured before 2014. 76 FR 16760 

(March 25, 2011). The waiver petition 

requests use of the same test procedure 

to address multiple defrost cycle types 

that was set forth in the test procedure 

interim final rule for Appendix A. 

Samsung did not provide information 

regarding the change in measured 

energy use associated with the modified 

test procedure. Furthermore, they 

indicated that the current energy 

efficiency standards are adequate, and 

they did not request adjustment of the 

standards for the products that are the 

subject of the waiver petition. Id. at p. 

16763. DOE is unaware of any other 

manufacturer who employs this type of 

design. Accordingly, DOE is unaware of 

any impact on the measured energy use 

of these multiple defrost cycle products 

associated with this test procedure 

amendment. 

c. Amendments To Capture Precooling 

Energy Use 

DOE amended the test procedure for 

products with long-time or variable 

defrost to capture precooling and partial 

recovery energy use. Id. at 78832–78836. 

Testing performed during the 

engineering phase of this rulemaking 

indicates that capturing precooling 

energy use would yield an impact of 

roughly two percent of the total 

measured energy use. Additionally, the 

impact of capturing the energy from full 

temperature recovery (i.e. extending the 

test period until the compartment 

temperatures have recovered to their 

steady-state levels) for products 

exhibiting partial recovery may 

comprise another 0.5 percent of total 

measured energy use for those products 

that do not achieve a full temperature 

recovery within the test period 

prescribed by the current test procedure. 

Of the nine refrigerator-freezers tested 

during the engineering analysis phase, 

two of these units incorporated 

precooling. These units fell into current 

product classes 5 (refrigerator-freezers— 

automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer without through-the-door ice 

service) and 7 (refrigerator-freezers— 

automatic defrost with side-mounted 

freezer with through-the-door ice 

service). DOE is unaware of any 

significant percentage of products that 

currently do not fully recover 

temperature within the time period 

allotted by the current test procedure. 

DOE has adjusted the energy standard 

levels for these and related product 

classes using the observed measurement 

impact for capturing precooling energy 

use and applying that measured impact 

consistently with the frequency with 

which this feature has been observed in 

this group of tested products. The 

adjustment details are described in 

detail in section 0 below. 

d. Test Procedures for Special 

Compartments 

DOE amended the test procedures to 

require that products with special 

compartments using the addition of heat 

(‘‘heat addition’’) as a form of 

temperature control be tested twice. The 

energy use measurement of such 

products will be an average of 

measurements made with the special 

compartment temperature controls set 

in the warmest position for the first test 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57529 

and in the coldest position for the 

second test. Id. at 78825–78826. Of the 

eleven refrigerator-freezers purchased 

for reverse engineering analysis 

performed during the engineering 

analysis phase, two had special 

compartments with separate 

temperature control. Neither of these 

products used heat addition for 

controlling special compartment 

temperatures. In examining features of 

refrigeration products on manufacturer 

Web sites, DOE found that the 

prevalence of special compartments in 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers 

comprised 20 percent of the models 

examined. Id. at 78823. Because of the 

limited nature of these data, DOE 

conducted further study of products that 

employ heat addition. 

DOE identified thirteen basic models 

that have heated special compartments. 

In this assessment, DOE concluded that 

special compartments use heaters for 

temperature control if the high end of 

their controllable temperature range is 

significantly higher than typical fresh 

food compartment temperatures. DOE 

considered typical fresh food 

compartment temperature to be the 

default settings set at the factory. These 

default settings are in the 37 °F to 39 °F 

range. (see, e.g., GE Bottom Freezer 

Refrigerators, No. 78 at p. 4; LG Owner’s 

Manual LFX28978**, No. 79 at p. 23) 

The controllable temperature range of 

heated special compartments typically 

reaches temperatures of up to 41 °F or 

42 °F. By comparison, special 

compartments that rely on cooling air to 

manage temperatures do not exceed the 

typical fresh food compartment 

temperature range. (See, e.g., GE Bottom 

Freezer Refrigerators, No. 78 at p. 18; 

Use and Care Guide Electrolux 

242046401, No. 80 at p. 18) The thirteen 

products identified include products 

from current products classes 5 

(refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezer without 

through-the-door ice service), 5A 

(refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service), and 7 

(refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with side-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service). (Heated 

Special Compartments Web Pages, No. 

81) 

DOE does not have information on 

shipment weighting for these products. 

As a proxy for shipment weighting, DOE 

instead determined the percentage of 

available products represented by the 

identified products with heated special 

compartments for each of the 

represented product classes. To do this, 

DOE considered the number of available 

products listed in the California Energy 

Commission (CEC) database, adjusted to 

account for out-of-date product listings. 

The details of this approach are 

described in the TSD in chapter 5, 

section 5.4.2.6. The calculated 

percentages of products having heated 

special compartments are 10.6 percent 

for current product class 5A, 1.5 percent 

for current product class 5, and 0.7 

percent for current product class 7. DOE 

used these percentages to adjust the 

standards for these product classes. The 

determination of the adjustment is 

discussed in greater depth in section 0 

below. 

DOE initially conducted analysis, 

described below in section IV.C.2, to 

estimate what the projected impact from 

the relevant test procedures would be 

on the measured energy use for a 

product with a heated special 

compartment. Initial estimates indicated 

that the change would increase 

measured energy use by 5.9 percent for 

this type of product. DOE also 

conducted testing for two of the thirteen 

products that were identified as having 

heated special compartments. These 

tests compared the measured energy use 

not including icemaking energy use 

when tested using the interim final test 

procedures set forth in the new 

Appendix A with a modified test 

procedure in which the heated special 

compartment is tested only in its coldest 

setting. For both of these tests, the 

Appendix A requirement to average 

measurements representing the coldest 

and warmest setting of the compartment 

resulted in higher energy use. The 

impacts were 6.5 percent for one 

product and 1.7 percent for the other— 

the average impact determined for these 

tests was 4.1 percent, which is 

somewhat lower than the estimated 5.9 

percent impact. 

After reviewing these results, DOE 

determined that, because the test data 

represent only two products, the 

uncertainty associated with the average 

of the measured impacts is fairly high. 

As a result, DOE concluded that the 

more conservative approach of basing 

its adjustment of the energy standard on 

the calculation rather than the limited 

testing data is appropriate to ensure that 

the final standard is not overly 

aggressive. Taking such an approach is 

consistent in this instance with EPCA’s 

prohibition to make subsequent 

adjustments that would increase the 

permitted energy usage (or reduce the 

energy efficiency) of a regulated 

product. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). 

Accordingly, as described in greater 

detail in section IV.C.2, the results of 

the more conserevative calculation were 

used to adjust the energy standard. 

3. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use 

DOE notes that EPCA, as amended by 

EISA 2007, requires DOE to amend its 

test procedures for all covered products, 

including those for refrigeration 

products, to include a measurement for 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption, except where current test 

procedures fully address such energy 

consumption. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)) As 

indicated above, DOE’s test procedures 

for refrigeration products, both the 

previous and recently amended 

versions, already fully address standby 

and off mode energy use. Whirlpool 

agreed with this assessment. (Whirlpool, 

No. 74 at p. 7) No commenters 

challenged this assessment. Because the 

test procedures address standby and off 

mode energy use, the energy 

conservation standards, which are based 

on the test procedures, also address this 

energy use. 

B. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each standards rulemaking, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis based on 

information gathered on all current 

technology options and prototype 

designs that have the potential to 

improve product or equipment 

efficiency. To conduct the analysis, DOE 

typically develops a list of design 

options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of these 

options are technologically feasible. 

DOE considers a design option to be 

technologically feasible if it is currently 

in use by the relevant industry or if a 

working prototype exists. See 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 

4(a)(4)(i) (providing that ‘‘[t]echnologies 

incorporated in commercially available 

products or in working prototypes will 

be considered technologically feasible.’’) 

Once DOE has determined that 

particular design options are 

technologically feasible, it evaluates 

each one using the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, or service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; and (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety. (10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)). 

Section IV.B of this notice discusses the 

results of the screening analysis for 

refrigeration products, namely, the 

designs DOE considered, those it 

screened out, and those that are the 

basis for the trial standard levels (TSLs) 

in this rulemaking. For further details 

on the screening analysis for this 

rulemaking, see chapter 4, Screening 

Analysis, of the NOPR TSD. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57530 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

16 In other words, a product with energy usage 

that is a certain percentage below the current energy 

standard should remain the same percentage below 

the baseline energy use under the proposed test 

procedure after subtracting icemaking energy use. 

Hence, the max-tech levels expressed as a 

percentage of energy use reduction should be the 

same for both sets of test procedures. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to adopt (or not 

adopt) an amended standard for a type 

or class of covered product, it must 

‘‘determine the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency or maximum 

reduction in energy use that is 

technologically feasible’’ for such 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) 

Accordingly, DOE determined the 

maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) reductions in energy use 

for refrigeration products in the 

engineering analysis. 

As described in the preliminary TSD, 

DOE conducted a full analysis of a set 

of product classes that comprise a large 

percentage of product shipments in the 

market today. DOE’s approach for 

extending amended standard levels 

established for these product classes to 

the non-analyzed product classes is 

described in chapter 2, Analytical 

Framework, of the preliminary TSD, in 

section 2.15. Similarly, this section of 

today’s rule reports the max-tech 

efficiency levels for the fully analyzed 

product classes, which include Classes 

3 (refrigerator-freezer—automatic 

defrost with top-mounted freezer 

without through-the-door ice service), 5 

(refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezer without 

through-the-door ice service), 7 

(refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with side-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service), 9 (upright 

freezers with automatic defrost), 10 

(chest freezers), 11 (compact 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

with manual defrost), 18 (compact chest 

freezers), 3A–BI (built-in allrefrigerators—automatic defrost), 5–BI 

(built-in Refrigerator-freezers— 

automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer without through-the-door ice 

service), 7–BI (built-in Refrigeratorfreezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer with through-the-door 

ice service, and 9–BI (built-in upright 

freezers with automatic defrost). DOE 

considers the max-tech levels for these 

product classes to be representative of 

the max-tech levels of similar product 

classes. For example, product class 7 

can be considered to represent product 

class 4 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic 

defrost with side-mounted freezer 

without through-the-door ice service) 

because they are both side-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, the only difference 

being the through-the-door ice feature of 

product class 7. 

In determining the max-tech 

efficiency levels of the directly analyzed 

product classes, DOE used the amended 

test procedures that would apply once 

manufacturers are required to meet the 

new standard. The efficiency levels are 

defined as reductions in that portion of 

the energy use not associated with 

icemaking. As described in section III.A, 

above, the energy use associated with 

icemaking under the amended test 

procedure is a fixed quantity not 

correlated with an efficiency level. 

Separating this fixed quantity of energy 

use from the established efficiency level 

allows a more direct comparison of 

products, irrespective of whether a 

given product is equipped with an 

automatic icemaker. This approach also 

allows DOE to compare the efficiency 

levels based on the amended test 

procedure (i.e., projections of possible 

energy use reductions) against the 

energy use based on the existing test 

procedure and current standard.16

DOE used the full set of design 

options considered applicable to these 

directly analyzed product classes to 

determine their max-tech efficiency 

levels. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD, 

section 5.4.4.) Table III.1 lists the maxtech levels that DOE determined for this 

rulemaking. The table also presents the 

max-tech levels that are commercially 

available. The max-tech levels differ 

from those presented in the preliminary 

TSD and are generally lower (i.e., the 

percent energy use reductions are lower 

for the NOPR analysis, thus, the maxtech energy use is higher). The 

reduction in the max-tech efficiency 

levels is due to the revisions DOE 

implemented in the NOPR engineering 

analysis to address new information 

obtained during this phase of the 

rulemaking (see the discussion of 

changes made to the engineering 

analysis in the NOPR, Table IV.10. 75 

FR 59470, 59501–59502 (September 27, 

2010)). DOE obtained the new 

information through NOPR phase 

interviews with manufacturers. 

TABLE III.1—MAX-TECH EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR THE REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS RULEMAKING

Product 

class Description 

Efficiency level (percent 

energy use reduction) 

DOE analysis 

(percent) 

Max tech 

commercially 

available 

(percent) 

Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers 

3 ............... Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice 

service.

36 30 

5 ............... Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door 

ice service.

36 33 

7 ............... Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice 

service.

33 32 

Standard-Size Freezers 

9 ............... Upright freezers with automatic defrost ............................................................................................. 44 27 

10 ............. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers ....................................................... 41 16 

Compact Products 

11 ............. Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost ............................................... 59 27 

18 ............. Compact chest freezers ..................................................................................................................... 42 23 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57531 

TABLE III.1—MAX-TECH EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR THE REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS RULEMAKING—Continued 

Product 

class Description 

Efficiency level (percent 

energy use reduction) 

DOE analysis 

(percent) 

Max tech 

commercially 

available 

(percent) 

Built-In Products 

3A–BI ....... Built-In All-refrigerators—automatic defrost ....................................................................................... 28 31 

5–BI ......... Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without throughthe-door ice service.27 27 

7–BI ......... Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door 

ice service.

22 21 

9–BI ......... Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost ................................................................................ 27 27 

The max-tech efficiency levels 

identified for commercially available 

products are, in most cases, different 

from the max-tech levels shown in 

Table III.1. The levels in Table III.1 are 

significantly higher than the 

commercially available max-tech levels 

for product classes 9 (upright freezers 

with automatic defrost), 10 (chest 

freezers), 11 (compact refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers with manual 

defrost), and 18 (compact chest 

freezers). DOE determined that higher 

max-tech levels for these products were 

possible because available products 

generally do not use all of the energy 

efficient design options considered in 

the DOE max-tech analyses. Prototypes 

with the DOE max-tech levels have not 

been identified, but the design options 

are all used in commercially available 

products. 

DOE determined the max-tech levels 

using a program initially developed by 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) called the Efficient Refrigerator 

Analysis program (known simply as the 

ERA) to conduct energy modeling. DOE 

conducted this energy modeling for 

specific products examined during the 

engineering analysis. DOE created 

energy models for the existing products 

and adjusted these models to represent 

modified designs using the screened-in 

design options. The max-tech levels 

represent the most efficient design 

option combinations applicable for the 

analyzed products. This process is 

described in Chapter 5 of the NOPR 

TSD. See NOPR TSD, sections 5.4.4 and 

5.7. DOE considered different sets of 

design options for each product class, as 

indicated in Table III.2. 

Table III.2 Design Options Considered 

for Max Tech 

DOE requested comments on its maxtech efficiency levels and on the 

evaluated groups of design options 

DOE’s analyses indicated would be 

necessary to employ to achieve these 

levels. 75 FR at 59484 (September 27, 

2010). Sub Zero commented that DOE’s 

analysis leading to the max-tech feasible 

levels is reasonable. (Sub Zero, No. 69 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER15SE11.108</GPH>
57532 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

17The NIA spreadsheet model is described in 

section IV.G of this rule. 

at p. 1) Sub Zero also commented that 

many of the design options still 

available to improve the efficiency of 

freestanding products have already been 

used in built-in products that are 

available on the market. 

Whirlpool commented that some of 

the design option combinations may not 

be practical, that the resulting efficiency 

gains may not be additive, and that the 

combinations may not be cost-effective. 

Whirlpool also commented that it does 

not believe that DOE has met the 

obligation to demonstrate the technical 

and economic feasibility of these 

combinations. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at 

p. 1). Whirlpool did not identify the 

specific combinations that it believed to 

be impractical. Accordingly, DOE has 

not adjusted its max-tech analysis. DOE 

adds that max-tech efficiency levels are 

not required to be cost-effective levels, 

but that DOE is required by EPCA to 

determine the maximum improvement 

that is technologically feasible, and to 

explain why the standard is not set at 

this level, if it is not. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(1)) 

C. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

DOE used its National Impact 

Analysis (NIA) spreadsheet model to 

estimate the energy savings from 

amended standards for the refrigeration 

products covered by this rulemaking.17

For each TSL, DOE forecasted energy 

savings beginning in 2014, the year that 

manufacturers would be required to 

comply with amended standards, and 

ending in 2043. DOE quantified the 

energy savings attributable to each TSL 

as the difference in energy consumption 

between the standards case and the base 

case. The base case represents the 

forecast of energy consumption in the 

absence of amended mandatory 

efficiency standards and considers 

market demand for more-efficient 

products. 

The NIA spreadsheet model calculates 

the electricity savings in ‘‘site energy’’ 

expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh). Site 

energy is the energy directly consumed 

by refrigeration products at the locations 

where they are used. DOE reports 

national energy savings on an annual 

basis in terms of the aggregated source 

(primary) energy savings, which is the 

savings in the energy that is used to 

generate and transmit the site energy. 

(See TSD chapter 10.) To convert site 

energy to source energy, DOE derived 

annual conversion factors from the 

model used to prepare the Energy 

Information Administration’s (EIA) 

Annual Energy Outlook 2010 

(AEO2010). 

2. Significance of Savings 

As noted above, DOE must adopt a 

standard for a covered product that 

results in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). While the term 

‘‘significant’’ is not defined in the Act, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. 

Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. 

Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress 

intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings in 

this context to be savings that were not 

‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The energy savings 

for all of the TSLs considered in this 

rulemaking are nontrivial, and, 

therefore, DOE considers them 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 

section 325 of EPCA. 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted in section II.A, EPCA 

provides seven factors for DOE to 

consider when evaluating whether a 

potential energy conservation standard 

is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections 

discuss how DOE has addressed each of 

those seven factors in this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

As required by EPCA, DOE 

considered the economic impact of 

potential standards on consumers and 

manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)) For consumers, DOE 

measured the economic impact as the 

change in installed cost and life-cycle 

operating costs (i.e., the change in LCC). 

(See section 0, section 0 and chapter 8 

of the final rule TSD.) DOE investigated 

the impacts on manufacturers through 

the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA). 

(See section 0 and section 0 of today’s 

final rule, and chapter 12 of the final 

rule TSD accompanying this rule.) The 

economic impact on consumers and 

manufacturers is discussed in detail in 

the NOPR. See 75 FR at 59484–59485, 

59512–59516, 59519–59526, 59532– 

59537, and 59537–59549 (September 27, 

2010). 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback 

period (PBP) associated with new or 

amended standards. The LCC, which is 

separately specified in EPCA as one of 

the seven factors to be considered in 

determining the economic justification 

for a new or amended standard, 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), is discussed 

in the following section. For consumers 

in the aggregate, DOE also calculates the 

national net present value of the 

economic impacts on consumers over 

the forecast period used in a particular 

rulemaking. 

b. Life-Cycle Costs 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy and maintenance and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

savings for the considered efficiency 

levels are calculated relative to a base 

case that reflects likely trends in the 

absence of amended standards. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as product prices, product energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and consumer discount rates. 

DOE assumed in its analysis that 

consumers will purchase the products 

affected by this rule in 2014. 

To account for uncertainty and 

variability in specific inputs, such as 

product lifetime and discount rate, DOE 

uses a distribution of values with 

probabilities attached to each value. A 

distinct advantage of this approach is 

that DOE can identify the percentage of 

consumers estimated to receive LCC 

savings or experience an LCC increase, 

in addition to the average LCC savings 

associated with a particular standard 

level. Aside from identifying ranges of 

impacts, DOE evaluates the LCC impacts 

of potential standards on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard, such as low-income people or 

the elderly. 

c. Energy Savings 

While the significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for imposing an energy 

conservation standard, in determining 

the economic justification of a standard, 

DOE must consider the total projected 

energy savings that are expected to 

result directly from the standard. 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III). DOE uses the 

NIA spreadsheet results in its 

consideration of total projected energy 

savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing product classes, and in 

evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE 

sought to develop standards for 

refrigeration products that would not 

lessen the utility or performance of 

these products. None of the TSLs 

presented in today’s final rule would 

substantially reduce the utility or 

performance of the products under 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57533 

18BT stands for DOE’s Building Technologies 

Program. 

19The EIA allows the use of the name ‘‘NEMS’’ 

to describe only an AEO version of the model 

without any modification to code or data. Because 

the present analysis entails some minor code 

modifications and runs the model under various 

policy scenarios that deviate from AEO 

assumptions, the name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ refers to the 

model as used here. For more information on 

NEMS, refer to The National Energy Modeling 

System: An Overview, DOE/EIA–0581 (98) 

(Feb.1998), available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ 

FTPROOT/forecasting/058198.pdf. 

consideration in the rulemaking. 

However, the cost premium for features 

that increase energy use, such as 

multiple drawers, may increase, thus 

shifting their availability to higherpriced products. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV). 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA requires DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from setting new or amended 

standards for a covered product. 

Consistent with its obligations under 

EPCA, DOE sought the views of the 

United States Department of Justice 

(DOJ). DOE asked DOJ to provide a 

written determination of the impact, if 

any, of any lessening of competition 

likely to result from the amended 

standards, together with an analysis of 

the nature and extent of such impact. 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii). 

To assist DOJ in making such a 

determination, DOE provided DOJ with 

copies of both the NOPR and NOPR TSD 

for review. DOJ did not provide DOE 

with comments on this rulemaking. 

Accordingly, DOE concludes that 

today’s final rule would not be likely to 

lead to a lessening of competition. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

Certain benefits of the amended 

standards are likely to be reflected in 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the Nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

may also result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. 

Energy savings from the amended 

standards are also likely to result in 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with energy 

production. DOE reported the 

environmental effects from the amended 

standards for refrigeration products, and 

from each TSL it considered, in the 

environmental assessment contained in 

chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD. DOE also 

reported estimates of the economic 

value of emissions reductions resulting 

from the considered TSLs. 

g. Other Factors 

EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, 

in determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, to consider any 

other factors that the Secretary deems to 

be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) In developing this 

final rule, DOE also considered the 

comments of the stakeholders, including 

those raised in the Joint Comments, 

which DOE believes sets forth a 

statement by interested persons that are 

fairly representative of relevant points 

of view (including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates) and 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy conservation standard that 

are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 

rebuttable presumption that an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified if the additional cost to the 

consumer of a product that meets the 

standard is less than three times the 

value of the first-year of energy savings 

resulting from the standard, as 

calculated under the applicable DOE 

test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP 

analyses generate values used to 

calculate the payback period for 

consumers of potential amended energy 

conservation standards. These analyses 

include, but are not limited to, the 3- 

year payback period contemplated 

under the rebuttable presumption test. 

However, DOE routinely conducts an 

economic analysis that considers the 

full range of impacts to the consumer, 

manufacturer, Nation, and environment, 

as required under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level (thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). The rebuttable 

presumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.F.12 and chapter 

8 of the final rule TSD. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion 

DOE used two spreadsheet tools to 

estimate the impact of today’s amended 

standards. The first spreadsheet 

calculates LCCs and payback periods of 

new energy conservation standards. The 

second one provides shipments 

forecasts, and then calculates national 

energy savings and net present value 

impacts of new energy conservation 

standards. DOE also assessed 

manufacturer impacts, largely through 

use of the Government Regulatory 

Impact Model (GRIM). The two 

spreadsheets are available online at the 

rulemaking Web site: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/ 

refrigerators_freezers.html. 

Additionally, DOE estimated the 

impacts on utilities and the 

environment stemming from energy 

efficiency standards for refrigeration 

products. DOE used a version of EIA’s 

National Energy Modeling System 

(NEMS) for the utility and 

environmental analyses. The NEMS 

model simulates the energy sector of the 

U.S. economy. EIA uses NEMS to 

prepare its Annual Energy Outlook, a 

widely known energy forecast for the 

United States. The version of NEMS 

used for appliance standards analysis is 

called NEMS–BT18, and is based on the 

AEO version with minor 

modifications.19 The NEMS–BT offers a 

sophisticated picture of the effect of 

standards because it accounts for the 

interactions between the various energy 

supply and demand sectors and the 

economy as a whole. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

When initiating an energy 

conservation standards rulemaking, 

DOE develops information that provides 

an overall picture of the market for the 

products concerned, including the 

purpose of the products, the industry 

structure, and market characteristics. 

This activity includes both quantitative 

and qualitative assessments, based 

primarily on publicly available 

information. The subjects addressed in 

the market and technology assessment 

for this rulemaking include product 

classes and manufacturers; quantities, 

and types of products sold and offered 

for sale; retail market trends; regulatory 

and non-regulatory programs; and 

technologies or design options that 

could improve the energy efficiency of 

the product(s) under examination. See 

chapter 3, Market and Technology 

Assessment, of the TSD for further 

discussion of the market and technology 

assessment. 

Discussion presented in this section 

of today’s notice primarily addresses the 

scope of coverage of refrigeration 

products, the product class structure, 

and product class definitions. These 

issues were discussed during the NOPR 

public meeting. In response to 

comments raised during that meeting 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57534 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

20Title 10—Energy, Chapter II—Department of 

Energy, Part 430—Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products, Subpart A—General Provisions, Section 430.32—Energy and Water 

Conservation Standards and Effective Dates. 

and from written comments, DOE has 

modified the product class structure, as 

discussed in section 0, below. 

1. Exclusion of Wine Coolers from This 

Rulemaking 

The NOPR explained that wine 

coolers are not covered products under 

the definition for electric refrigerator, 

and hence, are not covered by this 

rulemaking. 75 FR at 59486 (September 

27, 2010). DOE explained that it would 

consider initiating a future rulemaking 

to establish coverage and energy 

standards for these products. Id. 

Whirlpool commented that it agrees that 

wine coolers do not meet the definition 

of electric refrigerator, but that DOE 

should reconsider its decision not to 

include these products in this 

rulemaking. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 8) 

GE commented that DOE should 

regulate these products and should 

consider the proper mechanism for 

doing so. (GE, No. 76 at p. 2) In light of 

the timetable prescribed by EPCA, 

insufficient time and resources are 

available for DOE to conduct the 

necessary analyses for these products 

within the context of the current 

rulemaking. In response to the 

preliminary analysis, the California 

Investor Owned Utilities agreed with 

DOE’s initial decision not to include 

wine coolers in this rulemaking, 

indicating that they operate at 

temperatures outside the range defined 

for refrigerators, and that they have been 

covered by California’s energy standards 

since 2002. (IOUs, No. 39 at p. 12) The 

IOUs submitted no new comments on 

this topic in response to the NOPR. Sub 

Zero indicated in the preliminary 

analysis public meeting that the 

California energy standard for these 

products has become a de-facto national 

standard. (Preliminary Analysis Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 108– 

109). As previously indicated, DOE will 

revisit the coverage of these products in 

the future. 

2. Product Classes 

In evaluating and establishing energy 

conservation standards, DOE generally 

divides covered products into classes by 

the type of energy used, or by capacity 

or other performance-related feature that 

justifies a different standard for those 

products. (See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)). In 

deciding whether a feature justifies a 

different standard, DOE must consider 

factors such as the utility of the feature 

to users. (Id.) DOE normally establishes 

different energy conservation standards 

for different product classes based on 

these criteria. DOE’s regulations 

currently set forth 18 product classes for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers.20 These classes are based on 

the following characteristics: type of 

unit (refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or 

freezer), size of the cabinet (standard or 

compact), type of defrost system 

(manual, partial, or automatic), presence 

or absence of through-the-door (TTD) 

ice service, and placement of the fresh 

food and freezer compartments for 

refrigerator-freezers (top, side, bottom). 

DOE has created 24 new product 

classes to account for the increasingly 

wider number of variants of products. 

Six new product classes were discussed 

and proposed in the preliminary 

analysis phase, and an additional 13 

were proposed in the NOPR. 75 FR at 

59486–59487 (September 27, 2010). 

Table IV.1 presents the product classes 

established in this rulemaking, 

including both current and new classes. 

DOE changed the designation of some of 

the current product classes to address 

the division of these product classes. 

The subsections below provide 

additional details and discussion of 

comments relating to the product 

classes that have been added. 

TABLE IV.1—PRODUCT CLASSES FOR REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS

Number Product class 

Classes Currently Listed in the CFR 

1 ........................................... Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost. 

2 ........................................... Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost. 

3 ........................................... Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 

4 ........................................... Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 

5 ........................................... Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 

6 ........................................... Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 

7 ........................................... Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 

8 ........................................... Upright freezers with manual defrost. 

9 ........................................... Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker. 

10 ......................................... Chest freezers with manual defrost and all other freezers except compact freezers. 

11 ......................................... Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost. 

12 ......................................... Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost. 

13 ......................................... Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer. 

14 ......................................... Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer. 

15 ......................................... Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer. 

16 ......................................... Compact upright freezers with manual defrost. 

17 ......................................... Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost. 

18 ......................................... Compact chest freezers. 

Product Classes Introduced in the Preliminary TSD 

1A ......................................... All-refrigerators—manual defrost. 

3A ......................................... All-refrigerators—automatic defrost. 

5A ......................................... Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 

10A ....................................... Chest freezers with automatic defrost. 

11A ....................................... Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost. 

13A ....................................... Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57535 

TABLE IV.1—PRODUCT CLASSES FOR REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS—Continued 

Number Product class 

Additional Product Classes Proposed in the NOPR 

3–BI ...................................... Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 

3I .......................................... Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without throughthe-door ice service. 

3I–BI ..................................... Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service. 

3A–BI .................................... Built-in all-refrigerators—automatic defrost. 

4I .......................................... Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without throughthe-door ice service. 

4–BI ...................................... Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 

4I–BI ..................................... Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service. 

5I .......................................... Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service. 

5–BI ...................................... Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker. 

5I–BI ..................................... Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without 

through-the-door ice service. 

5A–BI .................................... Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 

7–BI ...................................... Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service. 

9–BI ...................................... Built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker. 

Additional Product Classes 

9I .......................................... Upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker. 

9I–BI ..................................... Built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker. 

13I ........................................ Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker. 

14I ........................................ Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker. 

15I ........................................ Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker. 

a. General Discussion Regarding Added 

Product Classes 

DOE introduced six new product 

classes in the preliminary TSD. Two of 

these, product class 5A, ‘‘automatic 

defrost refrigerator-freezers with bottommounted freezer with through-the-door 

ice service,’’ and product class 10A, 

‘‘chest freezers with automatic defrost,’’ 

were identified in the framework 

document as product classes 19 and 20. 

DOE modified the designation of these 

product classes in order to maintain 

consistency with the product class 

designations adopted by Canada and 

ease the overall burden on 

manufacturers in ascertaining which 

standards to apply to these products. Id. 

at 59487–59488. AHAM supported 

adding the new product classes 5A and 

10A. (AHAM, No. 73 at p. 6) 

Four additional product classes 

introduced in the preliminary TSD are 

all-refrigerators. As described in the 

NOPR, the new test procedure has led 

DOE to establish separate product 

classes for these products. Id. at 59488. 

The NOPR also proposed 13 

additional new product classes. These 

classes are based on the incorporation of 

icemaking energy use into the test 

procedure and address the different 

consumer utility and energy use 

characteristics of built-in products. Id. 

at 59489–59493. 

EPCA provides that separate product 

classes be based on either (A) 

consumption of a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (B) a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have, where such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard from that 

which applies to other products within 

such type (or class). (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)). 

The second of these criteria applies to 

all of the new product classes in this 

rulemaking. DOE detailed the reasons 

for this approach in the NOPR. Id. at 

59487–59493. DOE received no 

comments challenging this approach. 

DOE also requested comment on 

whether any additional product classes 

should be established as built-in or 

automatic icemaker variants of products 

to address the range of commercially 

available products. Sub Zero 

recommended including additional 

product classes 9I and 9I–BI, 

freestanding and built-in versions of 

upright freezers with automatic defrost 

equipped with an automatic icemaker. 

The company asserted that such 

products currently are being sold (Sub 

Zero, No. 69 at p. 3) DOE’s research 

confirms the existence of these two 

product classes (Upright Freezers with 

Automatic Icemakers, No. 86). 

AHAM and Whirlpool recommended 

including product classes 9I, 9I–BI, 13I, 

14I, and 15I as variants of proposed 

products without through-the-door ice 

service that may have automatic 

icemakers. (AHAM, No. 73 at pp. 6–7; 

Whirlpool, No. 74 at pp. 1–2, 3) AHAM 

also recommended including product 

class 9A, described as ‘‘upright freezers 

with automatic defrost with an 

automatic icemaker with through-thedoor ice service’’. (AHAM, No. 73 at pp. 

6–7) DOE has adopted product classes 

9I, 9I–BI, 13I, 14I, and 15I. DOE’s 

research identified at least one existing 

compact bottom-freezer product with an 

automatic icemaker (product class 15I, 

Compact Products with Automatic 

Icemakers, No. 85 at p. 3). DOE was not 

able to positively identify any compact 

side-mount products with automatic 

icemakers (product class 14I), nor any 

compact top-mount products (product 

class 13I), but did identify one existing 

product whose product class is not 

clearly indicated in the manufacturer’s 

literature that is either a 13I or 14I 

product. (Compact Products with 

Automatic Icemakers, No. 85 at p. 1) 

The standard levels for these classes 

are equal to the standards of their 

counterparts without an icemaker plus 

the addition of 84 kWh to help account 

for the energy consumed by the 

automatic icemaker. However, the 

suggested product class 9A is not a 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57536 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

variant of any of the proposed product 

classes. Instead, it constitutes a new 

class that DOE had not considered 

within the context of this rulemaking. 

Accordingly, DOE is declining to 

incorporate this particular class as part 

of the final rule. 

Lastly, Whirlpool asserted that the 

negotiated agreement intended to 

combine product classes 13 and 15, and 

Whirlpool likewise appeared to 

recommend combining product classes 

13I and 15I, by grouping them together 

in its comments. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at 

p. 2) Whirlpool offered no support for 

this view and no other comments 

indicated that these product classes 

should be combined. Hence, DOE is 

maintaining separate classes for Classes 

13, 15, 13I, and 15I. 

b. Possible Combination of Product 

Class 2 With 1, and Class 12 With 11 

DOE also indicated in the NOPR that 

it did not propose the combination of 

two pairs of product classes that had 

been discussed in the preliminary 

TSD—specifically, a potential 

combination of product classes 1 

(refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

with manual defrost) and 2 (refrigeratorfreezers—partial automatic defrost) and, 

separately, a potential combination of 

product classes 11 (compact 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

with manual defrost) and 12 (compact 

refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic 

defrost). DOE requested comment on its 

proposal not to combine these pairs of 

product classes. Id. at 59493. AHAM 

and NPCC agreed with this proposal. 

(AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

67 at p. 52; AHAM, No. 73 at p. 6; 

NPCC, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

67 at p. 52) Whirlpool presented a table 

suggesting that they were opposed to 

keeping product classes 1 and 2 

separated. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 2), 

but noted that it had nothing 

substantive to add on this matter 

because it does not manufacture these 

products. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 3) In 

light of these comments, which 

generally favored DOE’s proposed 

approach, DOE is not combining these 

product class pairs. 

c. All-Refrigerators and Basic 

Refrigerators 

All-refrigerators are refrigerators that 

do not have a compartment for the 

freezing and long-term storage of food 

below 32 °F, but which may have a 

compartment not larger than 0.5 cubic 

foot in size for freezing and storage of 

ice. (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix A1, section 1.2) The definition 

for refrigerator appears in 10 CFR 430.2 

and it includes both all-refrigerators and 

refrigerators that are not all-refrigerators. 

This latter category of refrigerator, 

which does include a compartment for 

the storage of food below 32 °F, is given 

the name ‘‘basic refrigerator’’ in both 

AHAM standards HRF–1–1979 and 

HRF–1–2008. Appendix A1 and 

Appendix A, respectively, both 

reference these industry-developed 

definitions. 

AHAM supported establishing 

separate product classes for allrefrigerators, indicating that these new 

product classes were supported in the 

negotiated agreement described in the 

Joint Comments. (AHAM, No. 73 at p. 4) 

However, AHAM indicated that the 

product classes for refrigerators that are 

not all-refrigerators should be renamed 

using ‘‘basic refrigerator’’ to ensure that 

they exclude all-refrigerators. (Id.) 

Whirlpool supported this view. 

(Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees with AHAM that 

clarifying the product class names for 

certain classes will improve overall 

clarity. DOE notes that this change 

affects product classes 1 (refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers with manual 

defrost) and 11 (compact refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers with manual 

defrost). (These are the product class 

names as proposed—and currently used 

in the CFR.) DOE has also considered 

whether to rely on referencing the 

definition sections of HRF–1–1979 and 

HRF–1–2008, as described above, to 

provide the definition for basic 

refrigerator. The definitions for basic 

refrigerator are the same in these 

standards and they read as follows: 

3.1.1 Basic Refrigerator A refrigerator 

which includes a low temperature 

compartment for the freezing and storage of 

ice and intended for short-term storage of 

food at temperatures below 32 °F (0 °C) and 

normally above 8 °F (¥13.3 °C). It is 

characterized by a refrigerated surface(s) that 

partially encloses the low temperature 

compartment and cools the fresh food 

compartment by natural convection. It 

frequently has a partition (called the chiller 

or drip tray) which when removed or 

adjusted exposes an additional area of the 

refrigerated surface to the fresh food 

compartment. 

HRF–1–1979, HRF–1–2008, section 3.1.1. 

DOE notes two concerns regarding 

this definition of basic refrigerator. 

First, the definition does not define a 

lower size limit for the low temperature 

compartment, nor does it specify a 

temperature range for it. The clause 

‘‘short-term storage of food at 

temperatures below 32 °F’’ does not 

distinguish the temperature range of 

such a compartment from the 

compartment of an all-refrigerator that is 

‘‘for freezing and storage of ice’’, since 

freezing and storage of ice also requires 

temperatures less than 32 °F. As a 

result, it is not clear whether a product 

with a low temperature compartment 

capable of reaching temperatures less 

than 32 °F and above 8 °F and a size no 

greater than 0.5 cubic foot is an allrefrigerator or a basic refrigerator under 

the AHAM definition. 

Second, characterizing the basic 

refrigerator by describing the lowtemperature compartment’s sides and 

how they transfer cooling air to the fresh 

food compartment could exclude some 

types of refrigerators from AHAM’s 

basic refrigerator definition. For 

instance, a product that uses a fan to 

provide forced convection transfer of 

cooling air to the fresh food 

compartment from the refrigerated 

surfaces enclosing the low-temperature 

compartment would not fit the 

definition. If the product class were 

renamed using ‘‘basic refrigerators’’, 

such products that do not fit the basic 

refrigerator definition would not be 

included within the product class. A 

manufacturer could claim such a 

product is not covered, assuming it does 

not meet the requirements of the allrefrigerator definition either. 

To resolve these issues, DOE has 

decided to clarify the product class 

names for product classes 1 and 11, 

indicating that these product classes do 

not include all-refrigerators. The new 

names for these product classes are ‘‘1. 

Refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators 

other than all-refrigerators with manual 

defrost’’ and ‘‘11. Compact refrigeratorfreezers and refrigerators other than allrefrigerators with manual defrost.’’ DOE 

has taken this approach rather than 

using the term ‘‘basic refrigerator’’ and 

modifying its definition, thus allowing 

the existing definition for basic 

refrigerator to retain its current 

meaning. 

AHAM provided in its written 

comments a table (Table A) showing the 

suggested changes to all of the product 

class names. A similar table appears in 

Whirlpool’s comments. In addition to 

the suggested name changes for product 

classes 1 and 11, AHAM and Whirlpool 

included the following suggestions. 

• Inclusion of basic refrigerators in 

product class 3. 

• Correction of the proposed name for 

product class 11A. 

• Insertion of an ‘‘s’’ to pluralize ‘‘allrefrigerators’’ in the product class 13 

name. 

(AHAM, No. 73 at p. 5; Whirlpool, No. 

74 at p. 2) 

DOE notes that basic refrigerators 

have not previously been part of 

product class 3 (they instead have been 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57537 

part of product class 1), which makes 

the incorporation of this suggestion 

inappropriate. DOE notes that product 

class 3 denotes ‘‘Refrigerator-freezersautomatic defrost with top-mounted 

freezer without an automatic icemaker’’. 

Basic refrigerators do not belong in this 

product class because they are not 

refrigerator-freezers. For this reason, 

DOE is declining to adopt this 

suggestion and will retain its proposed 

name for this class —‘‘refrigeratorfreezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer without an automatic 

icemaker’’ as proposed. However, DOE 

agrees with the other two suggestions 

and has implemented them in this final 

rule. 

d. Built-In Refrigeration Products 

DOE requested comment on its 

proposal to establish separate product 

classes for built-in products. 75 FR at 

59492 (September 27, 2010). AHAM, 

Sub Zero, and Whirlpool agreed with 

this proposal. (AHAM, No. 73 at p. 3; 

Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 2; Whirlpool, No. 

74 at p. 3) DOE received no comments 

opposing the creation of built-in 

product classes. 

DOE proposed to define built-in 

products as any refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer or freezer with 7.75 cubic feet or 

greater total volume and 24 inches or 

less depth, excluding handles and 

custom front panels. Such a product 

would also be designed to be encased on 

the sides and rear by cabinetry, securely 

fastened to adjacent cabinetry, walls or 

floor, and have sides that are not fully 

finished and not designed to be visible 

after installation. See 75 FR at 59492 

(September 27, 2010). 

AHAM and NPCC noted that the 

proposed definition differed from the 

definition developed as part of the 

consensus agreement and asked why it 

was different. (AHAM, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 67 at pp. 54–55; AHAM, 

No. 73 at pp. 3–4; NPCC, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 67 at pp. 53, 55) Sub 

Zero commented that the definition 

developed during the negotiations 

should be adopted. (Sub Zero, No. 69 at 

p. 3) Whirlpool also supported this 

view. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 3) AHAM 

recommended that DOE adopt the 

consensus agreement definition. AHAM 

also pointed out that the most important 

difference between the consensus 

agreement definition and DOE’s 

proposed definition is the specification 

in the consensus definition of what is 

not part of the 24-inch depth limit— 

specifically, the doors, panels, and/or 

handles. AHAM indicated that these 

components may extend beyond 24 

inches in many built-in products. In 

AHAM’s view, DOE’s proposed 

definition would not account for such 

situations. (AHAM, No. 73 at p. 4) The 

JAC also commented that the proposed 

definition was not the same as the 

definition of the negotiated agreement, 

and suggested that DOE adopt this 

definition with any minor changes that 

DOE deems necessary. (JAC, No. 75 at 

p. 2) 

The negotiated agreement presented 

to DOE included the following 

definition for built-in products: 

Definition of ‘Built-in’ product class— 

refrigerators, freezers and refrigerators with 

freezer units that are 7.75 cubic feet or greater 

in total volume and 24 inches or less cabinet 

depth not including doors, handles and 

custom front panels; are designed to be 

totally encased by cabinetry or panels 

attached during installation; are designed to 

accept a custom front panel or equipped with 

an integral factory-finished face; are designed 

to be securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry, 

walls or floor; and have sides which are not 

fully finished and are not intended to be 

visible after installation. 

(Joint Comments, No. 52 at p. 30) 

The substantive differences between 

this definition and the definition DOE 

proposed in its NOPR are as follows. 

• The 24-inch depth allowed by the 

Joint Comments definition does not 

include the door depth. Technically, 

this removes the depth of the door edge 

and the gasket, a difference expected to 

be typically about 2 inches. 

• The Joint Comments mention being 

‘‘totally encased’’ by cabinetry or 

panels, while the proposed definition 

mentions being encased on the sides 

and rear by cabinetry. DOE did not 

propose to use the term ‘‘totally 

encased’’ as suggested in AHAM’s 

preliminary analysis comment because 

the door is not always encased. 75 FR 

at 59492 (September 27, 2010). The Joint 

Comments added ‘‘panels’’ to apply to 

the cabinetry that may encase the 

product. 

• The Joint Comments provide that 

the ‘‘panels [are] attached during 

installation’’ (emphasis added). 

• The Joint Comments include the 

clause, ‘‘are designed to accept a custom 

front panel or equipped with an integral 

factory-finished face’’ whereas the 

proposed definition did not include this 

clause. 

• The Joint Comments indicate that 

the sides ‘‘are not intended to be visible 

after installation’’, while the proposed 

definition uses ‘‘not designed to be’’. 

DOE was aware when proposing the 

definition that, although establishing a 

depth limitation is entirely consistent 

with built-in designs and their use, the 

exact dimension that would be 

appropriate for this limit would be 

subject to further refinement from 

stakeholder discussion and comment. 

DOE considers the slightly less 

restrictive definition of the Joint 

Comments to embody the consideration 

and consensus of interested parties 

regarding the appropriate dimension, 

and will for this reason adopt the 

suggested change to the depth 

limitation. 

Regarding the use of the term ‘‘totally 

encased,’’ DOE recognizes the limitation 

of its initially proposed approach and 

that the term does not necessarily mean 

fully encapsulated to the extent that 

absolutely no surface of the delivered 

product is visible after installation. 

Hence, DOE has reverted to the use of 

‘‘totally encased’’ to indicate encased on 

all surfaces but the door, which clearly 

needs to be accessible to consumers for 

the product to function properly. DOE 

also agrees to the addition of the term 

‘‘panels’’ that may also serve to encase 

the product, such as in the case where 

a product is installed at the end of a row 

of cabinets and one of the sides is 

covered with a panel. Further, DOE 

agrees with the inclusion of the words 

‘‘attached during installation’’ in 

reference to panels, since this clause 

clearly distinguishes a built-in product 

from a freestanding product, for which 

there would be no attachment of panels 

during delivery and installation. 

DOE is not convinced, however, that 

the clause ‘‘are designed to accept a 

custom front panel or equipped with an 

integral factory-finished face’’ helps 

distinguish built-in products from 

freestanding products, since 

freestanding products generally come 

with an integral factory-finished face 

that is part of the door assembly. Based 

on the language used in the Joint 

Comments definition, as well as the 

existence of built-in products that are 

not designed to accept custom front 

panels, DOE suspects that the purpose 

of including this clause is to ensure that 

built-in products that do not accept 

custom front panels are not excluded 

from the definition. Many built-in 

products have doors with a stainless 

steel finish (see, e.g., http://products.

geappliances.com/ApplProducts/

Dispatcher?REQUEST=SPECPAGE

&SKU=ZISP480DXSS&SITEID=

MON2&TABID=2). Such products are 

not designed to accept custom front 

panels, but otherwise have the same 

distinguishing design features of built-in 

products that do accept custom front 

panels. DOE has decided to use 

language to clarify that such products 

are not excluded from the built-in 

category. 

Additionally, DOE believes that the 

definition proposed by the Joint 

Commenters in their negotiated 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57538 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

21See, for example the discussion of the 

importance of product volume in the 1995 TSD 

supporting the rulemaking to establish the 2001 

energy conservation standard, in the discussion 

regarding increasing insulation thickness in Section 

3, page 3–6. 

agreement needs to be altered to 

mitigate the risk of manufacturers 

applying the built-in definition to a freestanding product. To address this risk, 

DOE is requiring that a built-in product 

be one that is designed, intended, and 

marketed exclusively in a manner that 

would be consistent with how a builtin product would be installed for 

consumer use. Factors that DOE would 

likely consider relevant in this context 

could include whether the product is 

sold in an unfinished state and how the 

product is advertised. DOE believes that 

by specifying these additional 

conditions, the definition clearly 

requires that a manufacturer take 

affirmative steps establishing the builtin nature of its products. In effect, DOE 

has taken the ‘‘intended’’ language 

presented in the negotiated agreement’s 

proposal and clarified this concept by 

specifying the conditions that must be 

met for a particular model to be 

considered a built-in product. 

Because of the problems that both 

DOE and the industry have faced with 

respect to the actions taken by certain 

manufacturers, DOE believes that it 

needs to take a stronger approach than 

that proposed in the negotiated 

agreement with respect to the 

delineation of these products. Adopting 

this stronger approach helps establish a 

clear distinction between built-in and 

free-standing products. Such a 

distinction is necessary in light of the 

considerably higher energy 

consumption of these built-in products, 

a fact that DOE views with some 

concern. Should DOE receive reports 

that manufacturers are misapplying this 

definition or otherwise abusing it, DOE 

will avail itself of all other options at its 

disposal to correct that situation and 

may re-examine this definition to assess 

whether additional modifications are 

required. 

Accordingly, based on the above 

considerations, the final definition for 

built-in products will read as follows: 

Built-in refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/ 

freezer means any refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer or freezer with 7.75 cubic feet or 

greater total volume and 24 inches or less 

depth not including doors, handles, and 

custom front panels; with sides which are not 

finished and not designed to be visible after 

installation; and that is designed, intended, 

and marketed exclusively (1) to be installed 

totally encased by cabinetry or panels that 

are attached during installation, (2) to be 

securely fastened to adjacent cabinetry, walls 

or floor, and (3) to either be equipped with 

an integral factory-finished face or accept a 

custom front panel. 

e. Modification of the Definition for 

Compact Products 

DOE proposed to eliminate the 36- 

inch height restriction in the definition 

for compact products. DOE underscored 

two reasons for this change. First, DOE 

noted that an increased height level 

provides no energy efficiency benefit. 

Second, DOE explained that the reason 

for this 36-inch height restriction, which 

applies to undercounter products, is not 

appropriate for the majority of compact 

products that are not undercounter 

products. DOE requested comment on 

this proposal. 75 FR at 59493–59494 

(September 27, 2010). 

ASAP and AHAM both indicated that 

the consensus agreement did not 

eliminate the 36-inch height limitation 

for compact products. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at pp. 57–58; 

AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

67 at p. 58; AHAM, No. 73 at p. 6) (DOE 

notes that the consensus agreement is 

silent on this definition. (See, generally, 

Joint Comments, No. 52)) Whirlpool 

commented that the current 36-inch 

limitation should be retained to 

maintain consistency with the 

consumer’s view of compact, and 

prevent ‘‘gaming’’, i.e., circumvention. 

(Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 3) The JAC 

agreed, noting that this limit helps to 

distinguish compact products from 

standard-size products and prevents the 

weakening of standards in other 

countries where products taller than 36’’ 

but within the 7.75 cubic foot volume 

limit are more prevalent. (JAC, No. 75 at 

p. 2) 

Whirlpool’s comments do not indicate 

how removing the 36-inch limitation 

could lead to circumvention. The new 

test procedure includes a modified 

volume calculation method that was 

specifically developed to limit 

circumvention associated with false 

volume claims. 75 FR at 78839–78840 

(December 16, 2010). Further, given the 

importance of volume as an attribute 

important to consumers,21 DOE does not 

believe that consumers will consider 

tall, but low-volume, products to be 

standard-size. None of the commenters 

took issue with any of the analysis or 

any of the reasons that DOE presented 

in the NOPR to support the decision to 

propose eliminating the height 

restriction. DOE notes that the impact of 

U.S. standards in other countries, while 

an important concern, are factors 

beyond the scope of DOE’s authority to 

control. Hence, DOE is eliminating the 

height restriction as proposed. 

f. Icemaking 

DOE requested comments on its 

proposal to establish product classes for 

products with automatic icemakers, 

including its proposed approach to 

account for icemakers in the product 

class structure. 75 FR at 59489 

(September 27, 2010). Sub Zero 

expressed support for AHAM’s intent to 

work cooperatively with DOE to 

develop a robust repeatable laboratorybased test procedure to measure 

automatic icemaking energy use. Sub 

Zero also encouraged DOE to conduct 

field surveys to provide information on 

consumer use of ice by icemaker type 

(automatic or manual), product class, 

demographics, time of year, etc. This 

information, when combined with the 

laboratory test and accompanying 

results, would allow determination of 

the actual energy used by consumers to 

make ice. (Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 2) Sub 

Zero did not object to DOE’s proposed 

product class structure to address 

icemaking. (Id.) DOE received no 

comments objecting to DOE’s proposed 

product class structure to integrate 

icemaking energy use. 

AHAM supported the approach 

proposed by DOE to integrate automatic 

icemaking into the product class 

structure. However, AHAM suggested 

that some additional product classes, 

not specifically proposed by DOE, have 

been sold with automatic icemakers. 

(AHAM, No. 73 at pp. 5–6) These added 

product classes were previously 

discussed in section IV.A.2.0 above. 

AHAM also commented that products 

equipped with the option to install an 

automatic icemaker (‘‘kitable models’’) 

should be considered to be products 

with icemakers, explaining that this 

approach is consistent with the test 

procedure and that lack of clarity on 

this point would create confusion 

among manufacturers. (AHAM, No. 73 

at p. 6) 

DOE disagrees that AHAM’s suggested 

approach with respect to the treatment 

of ‘‘kitable models’’ would be consistent 

with the test procedure. If such a 

product is installed in a residence 

without the icemaker installed, it will 

not use the additional energy use 

allocated for automatic icemaking, 

which is set at 84 kWh in the test 

procedure. The added energy associated 

with manual icemaking is likely to be 

significantly less, as indicated by initial 

test results conducted by the National 

Institute for Standards and Technology 

(NIST). These initial results suggest that 

the energy use associated with the 

mechanisms that are used to eject ice in 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57539 

22Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/ 

refrigerator_freezer_framework.pdf. 

automatic icemakers is significantly 

greater than the energy use associated 

with the thermal load of freezing the ice. 

(NIST, Test Procedure for Residential 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket Number EERE–2009– 

BT–TP–0003, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 10 at pp. 157–158) DOE 

agrees that some understanding of the 

energy use associated with manual 

icemaking should be developed to allow 

more accurate reporting of the energy 

use of products that do not have 

automatic icemakers but have freezers 

that allow for the freezing and storage of 

ice. However, prior to the development 

of a manual icemaking factor to account 

for this energy usage, better consistency 

with the test procedure will be 

maintained by certifying kitable models 

as two separate models (i.e., with an 

automatic icemaker and without an 

automatic icemaker), since a consumer 

may purchase either version. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following four screening 

criteria to determine which design 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in a standards 

rulemaking: 

1. Technological feasibility. DOE will 

consider technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 

2. Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If mass production 

and reliable installation and servicing of 

a technology in commercially available 

products could be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time the standard comes into effect, 

DOE would consider that technology 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service. 

3. Adverse impacts on product utility 

or product availability. If DOE 

determines that a technology would 

significantly impact in an adverse way 

the utility of the product for significant 

subgroups of consumers or would result 

in the unavailability of any covered 

product type with performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

that are substantially the same as 

products generally available in the 

United States at the time, it will not 

consider this technology further. 

4. Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If DOE determines that a 

technology will have significant adverse 

impacts on health or safety, it will not 

consider this technology further. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 

A, (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b) 

In the framework document 22 and 

accompanying public workshop held on 

September 29, 2008, DOE identified the 

energy efficient technologies under 

consideration for the rulemaking 

analyses. These technologies are listed 

below in Table IV.2. Please see chapter 

3 of the TSD for detailed descriptions of 

these technology options. 

TABLE IV.2—TECHNOLOGIES DOE CONSIDERED FOR RESIDENTIAL REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS

Insulation Expansion Valve 

Improved resistivity of insulation Improved expansion valves 

Increased insulation thickness Cycling Losses 

VIPs Fluid control or solenoid valve 

Gas-filled panels Defrost System 

Gasket and Door Design Reduced energy for automatic defrost 

Improved gaskets Adaptive defrost 

Double door gaskets Condenser hot gas 

Improved door face frame Control System 

Reduced heat load for TTD feature Temperature control 

Anti-Sweat Heater Air-distribution control 

Condenser hot gas Other Technologies 

Electric heater sizing Alternative refrigerants 

Electric heater controls Component location 

Compressor Alternative Refrigeration Cycles 

Improved compressor efficiency Lorenz-Meutzner cycle 

Variable-speed compressors Dual-loop system 

Linear compressors Two-stage system 

Evaporator Control valve system 

Increased surface area Ejector refrigerator 

Improved heat exchange Tandem system 

Condenser Alternative Refrigeration Systems 

Increased surface area Stirling cycle 

Improved heat exchange Thermoelectric 

Force convection condenser Thermoacoustic 

Fans and Fan Motor 

Evaporator fan and fan motor improvements 

Condenser fan and fan motor improvements 

DOE requested, but did not receive, 

any comments at either the framework 

workshop or during the framework 

comment period that identified 

additional technologies that DOE should 

consider. Likewise, DOE received no 

comments recommending additional 

technologies during the preliminary 

analysis or NOPR public meetings or 

comment periods. 

As described in chapter 4 of the TSD, 

Screening Analysis, DOE screened out 

several of the technologies listed in 

Table IV.2 from consideration in this 

rulemaking based on one or more of the 

screening criteria described above. A 

summary of the screening analysis 

identifying technologies that were 

screened out and the EPCA criteria used 

for the screening is presented in Table 

IV.3. The checkmarks in the table 

indicate which screening criteria were 

used to screen out the listed 

technologies. For greater detail 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57540 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

regarding the screening analysis, see 

chapter 4 of the TSD. 

Table IV.3 Summary of Screening 

Analysis 

In addition to this screening, DOE did 

not analyze a number of technologies in 

the engineering analysis because they 

were judged unsuitable for improving 

the measured energy use of refrigeration 

products for one or more of the 

following reasons: 

• Technology already used in 

baseline products and incapable of 

generating additional energy efficiency 

or reducing energy consumption; 

• Technology does not reduce energy 

use; or 

• Insufficient data available 

demonstrating benefit of the technology. 

The technologies not analyzed for 

these reasons include Improved 

Expansion Valves, Off-Cycle Valves, 

Reduced Energy for Automatic Defrost, 

Condenser Hot Gas Defrost, Reduced 

Heat Load for TTD Feature, Warm 

Liquid or Hot Gas Refrigerant AntiSweat Heating, Electric Anti-Sweat 

Heater Sizing, Electronic Temperature 

Control, Air Distribution Control, Fan 

Blade Improvements, and Dual Loop 

System. Chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD 

discusses in greater detail the reasons 

for not analyzing these technologies. 

1. Discussion of Comments 

DOE discussed several screening 

issues in the NOPR. These issues are 

summarized, along with comments 

responding to the NOPR, in the sections 

below. 

a. Compressors 

DOE explained in the NOPR that the 

proprietary status of a technology is not 

a screening criterion. 75 FR at 59495 

(September 27, 2010). However, DOE 

pointed out that selected technologies 

may be screened out if their proprietary 

status constrains their supply, and that 

DOE must consider ‘‘the impact of any 

lessening of competition * * * that is 

likely to result from the imposition of 

the standard’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)). DOE indicated in 

the NOPR that it considered potential 

supply issues of high-efficiency singlespeed and variable speed compressors, 

but concluded that the compressor 

performance levels analyzed would not 

likely be subject to significant supply 

constraints that would merit omitting 

the consideration of this particular 

design option. DOE requested comment 

on this position. Id. 

Sub Zero commented that, as a 

smaller manufacturer, it may have more 

difficulty obtaining high-efficiency and 

variable speed compressors as 

compressor vendors ramp up to meet 

refrigeration product manufacturer 

demands in 2014. In its view, because 

of the proposed increased stringency of 

the standards, larger companies will 

demand many more of these 

compressors than they are currently 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER15SE11.109</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57541 

using. (Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 3) While 

it is difficult to predict the events that 

will occur up to the 2014 transition, 

DOE notes that it reached its tentative 

conclusion based on its NOPR phase 

investigation that indicated the 

compressor industry has been working 

to develop high efficiency and variable 

speed compressors for the residential 

refrigeration market for many years. 

(See, e.g., http://www.panasonic.com/ 

industrial/includes/pdf/ 

invertercompressorsimprovingefficiency.pdf, a discussion of 

Panasonic’s development of variable 

speed compressors, including initial 

introduction of variable speed 

compressors in refrigerators in 1996.) 

These efforts led DOE to believe that the 

refrigeration industry has had sufficient 

lead time to prepare for the possible 

increased demands for higher efficiency 

and variable speed compressors. 

Although the submitted comments 

reiterated the concerns of certain 

stakeholders, none contained 

information that would help justify 

altering the analysis DOE conducted 

regarding the projected supply of 

compressors available to manufacturers. 

Whirlpool concurred with DOE’s 

findings that availability of highefficiency and variable-speed 

compressors will expand to meet 

demand, but indicated that prices might 

increase. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 3) 

Whirlpool did not, however, provide 

any specific information about 

compressor prices that would allow 

DOE to accurately revise its analysis to 

address this comment. Accordingly, the 

analysis was not altered in this respect. 

b. Alternative Refrigerants 

Most refrigeration products sold in 

the U.S. currently use HFC–134a 

refrigerant, a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) 

with a high global warming potential 

(GWP). 

The NOPR described comments from 

several stakeholders made in response 

to the preliminary analysis. These 

comments indicated that the DOE 

analysis should acknowledge the 

widespread acceptance of hydrocarbon 

refrigerants in other parts of the world 

and the growing interest in their use in 

the U.S. Id. at 59496. The NOPR cited 

the ongoing consideration of these 

refrigerants for use in residential 

refrigerators, particularly isobutane, in 

Underwriters Laboratories’ (UL’s) 

ongoing revision of UL Standard 250, 

‘‘Household Refrigerators and Freezers’’ 

(UL 250), and in the EPA’s proposed 

rule (see 75 FR 25799 (May 10, 2010)) 

to add this refrigerant to its list of 

allowed substances under the 

Significant New Alternatives Policy 

(SNAP) program. DOE explained in the 

NOPR that the EPA proposal calls for a 

total charge limit of 57 g of isobutane. 

Id. at 25803 (May 10, 2010). Neither 

effort has been finalized at the time of 

the preparation of this notice. 

The NOPR explained that DOE’s 

consideration of isobutane refrigerant 

was based on the 57 g limit proposed by 

the EPA, and that this limit was 

sufficient to allow consideration of the 

use of isobutane refrigerant only for 

compact refrigerators, based on the 

refrigerant charge amounts of the 

reverse-engineered products. The 

preliminary analyses for compact 

refrigerators, which did not include 

isobutane refrigerant as a design option, 

were adjusted during the NOPR phase to 

include this design option. DOE 

acknowledged in the NOPR that 

multiple sealed systems could 

potentially be used in larger products 

without exceeding the charge limit per 

sealed system, but that it rejected this 

approach due to the potential reduction 

of consumer utility associated with the 

extra space that the additional sealed 

system would require. 75 FR at 59496– 

7 (September 27, 2010). DOE notes that 

the EPA’s SNAP proposal did not 

clearly specify whether the 57 gram 

limit was intended to apply to each 

sealed system or each appliance. 75 FR 

at 25803 (May 10, 2010). 

DOE requested comment on its 

approach in considering isobutane only 

for compact refrigerators. 

Whirlpool commented that many 

compact and full-size refrigerators using 

hydrocarbon refrigerants are sold all 

over the world, but that the safety 

threshold in the U.S. is higher than 

many other countries. Whirlpool noted 

the possible tradeoffs of venting versus 

capturing and transporting flammable 

refrigerants—venting such refrigerants 

must be done with caution, but it 

alleviates the need for transport of 

flammable refrigerants, which may 

represent even greater risk, since many 

pounds of refrigerant captured from 

many products would be transported (as 

opposed to ounces that are in each 

individual product), and the duration of 

transport is much greater than the 

duration of the venting procedure. 

Capture and transport, however, avoid 

release of the refrigerant, thus limiting 

the small global warming impact of 

these refrigerants and avoiding concerns 

associated with volatile organic 

compound releases. Whirlpool 

suggested that DOE contact the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

and/or UL regarding the safety aspects 

related to the use of these refrigerants. 

(Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 4) DOE’s 

assessment of the use of isobutane did 

not extend to determination of the 

servicing approach. DOE notes that 

Section 608 of the Clean Air Act 

generally prohibits any person in the 

course of maintaining an appliance to 

knowingly vent refrigerants from that 

appliance. See generally, 42 U.S.C. 

7671g. EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 

82, subpart F, further clarify this 

prohibition and permit only de minimis 

releases where good faith attempts to 

recycle or recover refrigerants are made. 

GE criticized DOE’s approach. First, 

GE indicated that the UL standard and 

the EPA proposal are based on charge 

limits per sealed system, not per 

product, and that DOE did not fully 

consider the potential to use dual 

system designs to implement a switch to 

isobutane refrigerant. Second, GE 

commented that the lack of information 

regarding refrigeration product 

technologies using isobutane refrigerant 

stems to a large extent from the fact that 

this refrigerant currently is not allowed 

for use in these products. GE asserted 

that when the EPA SNAP approval is 

finalized, much more information will 

become available as products are 

commercialized. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 67 at pp. 60–61) In 

written comments, GE highlighted 

recent activities related to the 

introduction of isobutane products, 

including the EPA SNAP rulemaking 

and GE’s own plans to start selling an 

isobutane product. It also mentioned 

that manufacturers will have to redesign 

products to use this new refrigerant, 

thus reiterating its view that assessing 

current products does not provide a 

complete picture of the potential use of 

isobutane. (GE, No. 76 at p. 2) 

Sub Zero commented that some 

studies show that isobutane, when 

limited to a charge of 57 to 60 grams, 

is suitable for products up to 18 cubic 

feet in volume. Further, using multiple 

separate refrigeration systems, each 

limited to 57 to 60 grams, would allow 

the use of isobutane in many full-size 

products. Sub Zero also highlighted the 

current uncertainty about potential 

future regulation of HFC refrigerants 

and blowing agents, and suggested that 

the industry could potentially be 

compelled to use alternative substances 

by 2014, which would require 

significant additional capital 

investment. The company requested 

that DOE recognize in this rulemaking 

the possible impacts of new 

requirements for refrigerants and 

blowing agents on system efficiency and 

insulating performance when setting the 

standards. (Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 4) 

AHAM cited three issues with DOE’s 

treatment of isobutane in the NOPR: 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57542 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

• There is a pending EPA Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) 

decision that would approve 

hydrocarbons for household use and is 

expected to lead to sale of full-size 

refrigeration products in the U.S. that 

use isobutane refrigerant. 

• DOE’s review of the suitability of 

isobutane was based on review of 

existing products rather than future 

products. 

• DOE concluded that the UL limit of 

50 grams would apply to the entire 

product rather than to each refrigeration 

system of a product, thus overlooking 

the possibility that multiple systems 

could be used to produce full-size 

products using isobutane. 

(AHAM, No. 73 at pp. 7–8) 

In response, DOE agrees that a dualsystem design would be an available 

option that could, depending on the 

SNAP rulemaking, permit 

manufacturers to use isobutane 

refrigerant within the limits of the UL 

standard and the anticipated EPA rule. 

DOE also acknowledges increased 

manufacturer interest in this approach, 

as exemplified by GE’s stated intention 

to introduce such products as soon as 

the EPA rule is final (see, for example, 

GE’s announcement for such a product 

as reported by Appliance Magazine on 

October 6, 2010, http://www.

appliancemagazine.com/news.

php?article=1434814&zone=0&first=1, 

GE Designs Isobutane Fridge for Smaller 

Dwellings, No. 82 at p. 1). DOE 

explained in the NOPR that 

consideration of the potential negative 

consumer utility impact of reduced 

internal volume was a key reason for not 

adopting isobutane refrigerant as a 

design option for the larger product 

classes. 75 FR at 59497 (September 27, 

2010). Other considerations included 

the lack of information regarding (1) the 

possible emergence of new heat 

exchanger designs that would alleviate 

the need to consider dual system 

approaches and (2) the performance 

characteristics of low-charge designs 

using existing heater exchanger 

technology. As a result, although 

isobutane products may become 

available in the near future, considering 

the switch to isobutane refrigerant as a 

design option to reduce energy use 

could not be considered in the analysis, 

because of the consumer value concerns 

and the insufficient information 

regarding the energy savings 

characteristics and the costs of these 

potential new designs. 

Moreover, DOE notes that because the 

parameters of whatever limits that EPA 

or UL may consider are not yet final, 

DOE is declining to speculate what 

these final limits might be. Without 

further information regarding the 

elements described above, DOE cannot 

ascertain the overall costs and benefits 

that could be reasonably ascribed to an 

isobutane refrigerant-based design. 

Accordingly, in evaluating the standards 

set by today’s final rule, DOE is 

continuing to retain the basic approach 

laid out in its NOPR and related 

analyses. 

c. Alternative Foam-Blowing Agents 

DOE discussed in the NOPR the 

potential that legislation or newly 

enacted rules may restrict the use of 

HFC blowing agents in the future. DOE 

indicated that it was prepared to 

address this issue by evaluating the 

efficiency improvement and trial 

standard levels for products using 

alternative foam insulation materials, if 

such legislation or rules banning HFCs 

should be enacted or otherwise become 

effective. 75 FR at 59497 (September 27, 

2010). As mentioned above, Sub Zero 

commented that DOE should recognize 

the potential impacts of restriction on 

HFC blowing agent usage in this 

rulemaking. (Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 4) 

DOE recognizes that such restrictions 

may occur sometime in the future. 

However, as DOE explained in the 

NOPR, DOE believes that basing energy 

conservation standards on the uncertain 

prospect of passage of specific 

legislation would be speculative. Such 

restrictions have not emerged within the 

timeframe of the preparation of this 

final rule. Hence, DOE has not adjusted 

its analysis to account for this 

possibility. 

d. Vacuum-Insulated Panels 

The NOPR discussed DOE’s 

assessment of the potential issues 

regarding VIP supply, longevity, 

durability, and quality that stakeholders 

raised during the preliminary analysis 

comment period. DOE concluded that 

potential issues surrounding this 

technology do not rise to a level 

justifying that it be screened out. DOE 

requested comment on this tentative 

conclusion in the NOPR. 75 FR at 

59497–59500 (September 27, 2010). Sub 

Zero commented on this topic, 

reiterating concerns regarding 

availability, quality, and potential 

impact on warranty costs associated 

with the expected increase in VIP usage. 

(Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 4) Whirlpool 

commented in a similar fashion, 

indicating that VIPs are not appropriate 

for improving efficiency in all 

situations, are subject to damage during 

shipment from the supplier and during 

installation, and expressing concern 

about the ability of VIP suppliers and 

the industry to ramp up demand 

sufficiently. However, the comments 

provided no new information or 

arguments that would impact DOE’s 

conclusions regarding the viability of 

VIPs. Hence, DOE’s final analysis 

continues to include VIPs as a design 

option. 

2. Technologies Considered 

DOE has concluded that: (1) All of the 

efficiency levels discussed in today’s 

final rule are technologically feasible; 

(2) products at these efficiency levels 

could be manufactured, installed, and 

serviced on a scale needed to serve the 

relevant markets; (3) these efficiency 

levels would not force manufacturers to 

use technologies that would adversely 

affect product utility or availability; and 

(4) these efficiency levels would not 

adversely affect consumer health or 

safety. Thus, the efficiency levels that 

DOE analyzed and is discussing in this 

notice are all achievable using 

‘‘screened in’’ technology options 

identified through the screening 

analysis. The technologies DOE 

considered for each group of products 

are shown in Table IV.4. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

IV.4 Technologies Considered by DOE 

for Residential Refrigeration Products, 

by Product Group 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57543 

Note 1: Increased Insulation 

Thickness was not considered for builtin standard-size freezers. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis uses costefficiency relationships to show the 

manufacturing cost increases associated 

with achieving increased efficiency. 

DOE has identified the following three 

methodologies to generate the 

manufacturing costs needed for the 

engineering analysis: (1) The designoption approach, which provides the 

incremental costs of adding design 

options to a baseline model that will 

improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiencylevel approach, which provides the 

relative costs of achieving increases in 

energy efficiency levels, without regard 

to the particular design options used to 

achieve such increases; and (3) the costassessment (or reverse engineering) 

approach, which provides ‘‘bottom-up’’ 

manufacturing cost assessments for 

achieving various levels of increased 

efficiency, based on detailed data on 

costs for parts and material, labor, 

shipping/packaging, and investment for 

models that operate at particular 

efficiency levels. 

DOE conducted the engineering 

analysis for this rulemaking using a 

combined efficiency level/design 

option/reverse engineering approach. 

DOE defined efficiency levels using 

percentages representing energy use 

reductions. The reductions were defined 

to apply to energy use (not including 

icemaking energy use) measured using 

the new test procedure. DOE’s premise 

that efficiency levels expressed as a 

percentage of energy use lower than that 

of baseline products are equivalent 

when calculated based on both the 

current test procedure and the new test 

procedure (without icemaking energy 

use) allowed DOE to compare 

information developed from different 

sources. However, DOE’s analysis is 

based on the efficiency improvements 

associated with groups of design 

options. DOE developed estimates for 

efficiency improvements for design 

options through energy use modeling 

analysis conducted for selected reverseengineered products. The energy models 

were first established based on the 

existing product designs and the models 

were subsequently adjusted to reflect 

application of the groups of design 

options considered for analysis. DOE 

based some of the design option 

information on data gained through 

reverse-engineering analysis, but also 

used other sources, such as component 

vendor inquiries and discussions with 

manufacturers as appropriate. Details of 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER15SE11.110</GPH>
57544 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

the engineering analysis are provided in 

the NOPR TSD chapter 5. 

In the NOPR, DOE addressed 

preliminary analysis comments 

regarding the engineering analysis. DOE 

explained the selection of product 

classes for detailed analysis, adjustment 

of the analyses based on new 

information collected in preparation of 

the NOPR, development of the baseline 

energy use equations representing 

baseline product energy use using the 

new energy test procedure (less 

automatic icemaking energy use), the 

approach used to adjust the slopes of 

some of these equations, the range of 

efficiency levels considered, treatment 

of design options in the analyses, 

development of cost-efficiency curves, 

and the development of standards for 

low-volume product classes. 75 FR at 

59500–59508 (September 27, 2010). 

1. Discussion of Comments 

DOE requested comments and 

information on the following topics in 

the NOPR: 

(1) The approach used to adjust the 

slopes of the baseline energy use 

equations of some product classes. Id. at 

59505. 

(2) The treatment of design options in 

the engineering analysis. Id. at 59507. 

(3) Information that would help 

improve the ERA energy use model used 

for the engineering analysis. Id. at 

59507. 

Whirlpool commented that analyzing 

design options is an appropriate means 

of assessing technological capability, 

but that DOE should establish minimum 

efficiency standards without specifying 

particular design options to use. In its 

view, this approach would permit 

manufacturers the freedom to develop 

products in a fashion which they 

believe best meets the needs of 

consumers. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 5) 

DOE notes that the standards are 

expressed in terms of maximum energy 

use and do not specify the use of 

particular design options in satisfying 

these standards. 

DOE received no additional 

comments on these topics. 

Consequently, in the absence of any 

other comments, DOE has not adjusted 

its engineering analysis for the final 

rule. 

2. Adjustment of the Baseline Energy 

Use Equations 

Comments addressing adjustment of 

the standard to account for test 

procedure changes (the ‘‘crosswalk’’) are 

discussed in section III.A.2 above. As 

part of the engineering analysis, DOE 

adjusted the energy standard equations 

to address the modifications to the test 

procedures. DOE initially made such 

adjustments during the preliminary 

analysis based on consideration of the 

anticipated compartment temperature 

and volume calculation method 

changes. DOE used an approach to 

account for the test procedure changes 

that involved developing energy use 

equations representing baseline 

products based on testing under the new 

test procedures. Baseline products are 

those that are minimally compliant 

under the current energy standard when 

tested using the current test procedure. 

The initial baseline energy use 

equations are presented in the 

preliminary TSD in Chapter 5, 

‘‘Engineering Analysis’’ in section 5.4.2. 

The efficiency levels examined in this 

rulemaking are represented as 

percentages of energy use reductions 

from the energy use of baseline 

products. Hence, the efficiency levels 

expressed in terms of the new test 

procedures are equal to these same 

percentage reductions applied to the 

baseline energy use equations. 

Based on the comments responding to 

the preliminary analysis, as well as the 

additional information DOE obtained 

during the NOPR phase, DOE adjusted 

the baseline energy use equations for 

three product classes. These changes 

corrected the low slope of the maximum 

energy use equation of the current 

energy standards for product classes 4 

(refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with side-mounted freezer without 

through-the-door ice service), 5 

(refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezer without 

through-the-door ice service), and 5A 

(refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service). See the 

NOPR TSD, Chapter 5, section 5.4.2.4. 

The NOPR-phase adjusted baseline 

energy use equations are presented in 

the NOPR TSD in Chapter 5, in section 

5.4.2. 

Stakeholder comments recommending 

further adjustment to the baseline 

energy use equations to address test 

procedure changes are discussed in 

section III.A.2 above. These comments 

addressed both (1) extrapolating the 

analysis to product classes for which 

DOE did not have relevant test data for 

the crosswalk associated with 

compartment temperature changes and 

volume calculation method changes, 

and (2) measurement changes, including 

other test procedure changes that were 

not captured in the NOPR crosswalk. As 

discussed in section III.A.2, DOE has 

made adjustments to account for two of 

these additional test procedure 

changes—those changes that capture 

precooling energy use and that address 

the testing for products with heaterbased temperature control for special 

compartments. The analysis to 

implement these changes is discussed 

below. 

Special Compartments With HeaterBased Control 

During the NOPR public meeting, 

DOE requested information regarding 

heater-based control systems used to 

control the temperatures of special 

compartments. DOE sought this 

information to help it better understand 

and evaluate the energy use impact of 

these features and the manner in which 

the new (then proposed) test procedure 

may change the measured energy use of 

products having such compartments. 

DOE received no information. In the 

absence of any information, DOE 

developed an analysis to help represent 

the energy use of these compartments, 

including the change in measured 

energy use associated with the new test 

procedure. The calculated energy use 

impact was multiplied by the 

percentages of products that are 

believed to have such features in each 

of the applicable product classes to 

develop average impacts associated with 

the test procedure amendments. The 

determination of the prevalence of 

products with these features is 

discussed in section 0 above. 

The analysis describing the change in 

energy use for a product with a heated 

special compartment is described in the 

TSD in Chapter 5, ‘‘Engineering 

Analysis,’’ (Section 5.4.2.6). DOE 

conducted this analysis for a baselineefficiency refrigerator-freezer with 

automatic defrost and a bottommounted freezer with a total capacity of 

25 cubic feet. The baseline energy use 

for this product is 733 kWh per year, 

excluding icemaking energy use. This 

value was calculated using the baseline 

energy use equation for product class 5 

as presented in Table 5.4.12 of the 

NOPR TSD. The special compartment 

was assumed to be located at the bottom 

of the fresh food compartment and to be 

20 inches deep, 32 inches wide, and 4 

inches high. (These dimensions were 

based on one of the reverse engineered 

products evaluated by DOE during the 

engineering analysis. This product had 

a special compartment (without heaterbased control) at the bottom of the fresh 

food compartment of roughly the 

selected dimensions.) 

The analysis determined the energy 

use for the product when tested both 

with the special compartment set for its 

coldest temperature and with the 

compartment set at its warmest 

temperature (selected as 28 °F and 42 

°F, respectively, consistent with the 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57545 

23Note that multiplying a number by 1.000062 is 

equivalent to increasing it by 0.62%. Hence, the 

1.0062 factor represents the adjustment to the 

energy use equation associated with the 0. 62% 

increase to account for the heated special 

compartment shipment-weighted average 

measurement change for product class 5A. 

Similarly, the 1.0044 factor represents the 0.44% 

adjustment for the precooling shipment-weighted 

average measurement change. The resulting factor, 

1.0106, means that the energy use equation is 

increased 1.06%. 

widest range identified for special 

compartment temperature control for 

the product (see Use and Care Guide 

Electrolux 242046401, No. 80 at p. 18)), 

with the fresh food and freezer 

compartments operating at 39 °F and 0 

°F, respectively. The influences on the 

compartment temperature that DOE 

considered in the analysis include (1) 

the 39 °F fresh food compartment air 

surrounding the top, sides, back, and 

front of this special compartment, 

transferring heat through the 3⁄16-inch 

plastic compartment wall, and the air 

film thermal resistances outside and 

inside the special compartment, (2) the 

air near the top of the freezer 

compartment, at an average temperature 

of ¥5 °F (at 0 °F when the compressor 

is not operating, and at ¥10 °F when 

the compressor is operating and the 

evaporator discharge air blows forward 

along the underside of the mullion, and 

assuming a 50 percent compressor run 

time), transferring heat from the special 

compartment through the special 

compartment’s bottom surface, the 1.5- 

inch thick mullion, and through four air 

films surrounding the compartment 

bottom and the mullion, (3) ¥10 °F 

evaporator discharge air diverted to the 

special compartment, if needed to 

maintain a low temperature, and (4) 

electric resistive heating, if needed to 

maintain a high temperature. At the 28 

°F setting for the special compartment, 

a small amount of evaporator discharge 

air (less than 1 cubic foot per minute) 

is needed to maintain the compartment 

temperature, while a heater input of 5.8 

W is needed to maintain the 42 °F 

setting. DOE calculated the additional 

system energy use associated with 

removing the 5.8 W of heat input by 

assuming that the system efficiency is 5 

Btu/h-W, which represents a system 

with a compressor with an Energy 

Efficiency Ratio (EER) rating of 5.5 and 

some additional evaporator and 

condenser fan power input. As 

described in the TSD, Chapter 5, section 

5.84, standard-size baseline refrigeratorfreezers typically use compressors with 

an EER in the range 5.0 to 5.5. DOE used 

the high end of this range for the 

estimate, recognizing that a shipmentweighted average EER would also 

include higher-efficiency compressors. 

The calculated energy use impact of 

the test procedure change (measurement 

with the special compartment set at its 

coldest temperature, as is done under 

the current test procedure, as compared 

with an average of tests with the special 

compartment setting in the coldest 

position for one test and in the warmest 

position for the second test) is 43 kWh, 

a 5.9 percent energy use increase. As 

discussed above in section III.A.2, DOE 

has conducted testing for two products 

that have heated special compartments. 

The average measured impact of the test 

procedure change for these productss 

was 4.1 percent, suggesting that the 

calculated 5.9 percent impact is 

conservative. DOE chose to use the more 

conservative 5.9 percent impact in 

adjusting the energy conservation 

standards due to the uncertainty 

associated with the small data sample 

and the EPCA requirements prohibiting 

upward adjustment of maximum 

allowable energy use after such a 

standard has been set. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1). 

As discussed in section III.A.2, DOE 

assumed that this energy use impact 

applies to the percentage of products of 

applicable product classes which 

currently have such features. Hence, 

applying the calculated measurement 

impact to the product model 

percentages of 10.6 percent 

(determination of this value was 

discussed in section III.A.2) for current 

product class 5A (refrigerator-freezer— 

automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer with through-the-door ice 

service), 1.5 percent for current product 

class 5 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic 

defrost with bottom-mounted freezer 

without through-the-door ice service), 

and 0.7 percent for current product class 

7 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic 

defrost with side-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service) results in 

average impacts for these product 

classes equal to 0.62 percent for product 

class 5A, 0.088 percent for product class 

5, and 0.041 percent for product class 7. 

Precooling 

DOE conducted energy tests of nine 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers 

during the engineering analysis. Two of 

these products exhibited precooling. 

The increase in measured energy use for 

these products when using the modified 

approach that includes precooling 

energy use was 2.3 percent for one 

product and 1.7 percent for the other. 

(See docket documents Precooling 

Product 1 and Precooling Product 2, 

Nos. 82.1 and 82.2). DOE has adopted 

an average impact of 2 percent based on 

these measurements. DOE calculated the 

shipment-weighted average energy use 

impact of precooling using this value 

and the observed frequency of 

precooling as follows: 2% × (2⁄9) = 

0.44%. DOE applied this adjustment to 

all standard-size refrigerator-freezers 

with automatic defrost. 

Combined Impact 

To combine the impact of the two test 

procedure adjustments, DOE multiplied 

the factors representing their impact. 

For example, for product class 5A: 1. 

0062 × 1.0044 = 1. 0106.23 This 

approach addresses the need to consider 

the compounding of the impact inherent 

in multiple influences, similar to the 

compounding of interest in finance. 

DOE used similar calculations for other 

product classes for which one or both of 

the test-procedure-based adjustments to 

the standard apply. These adjustments 

are reflected in the table showing the 

final baseline energy use equations in 

the TSD, Chapter 5, Table 5.4.14. The 

final energy standards are based on 

applying the percentage energy use 

reductions to these adjusted baseline 

energy use equations. 

D. Markups To Determine Product Cost 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups in the distribution 

chain to convert the manufacturer cost 

estimates derived in the engineering 

analysis to consumer prices. DOE 

determined the distribution channels for 

refrigeration products and the markups 

associated with the main parties in the 

distribution chain, manufacturers and 

retailers. DOE developed an average 

manufacturer markup by examining the 

annual Securities and Exchange 

Commission (SEC) 10–K reports filed by 

four publicly-traded manufacturers 

primarily engaged in appliance 

manufacturing and whose combined 

product range includes residential 

refrigeration products. For retailers, 

DOE developed separate markups for 

baseline products (baseline markups) 

and for the incremental cost of moreefficient products (incremental 

markups). Incremental markups are 

coefficients that relate the change in the 

manufacturer sales price of higherefficiency models to the change in the 

retailer sales price. 

In response to comments that were 

received on the preliminary analysis, 

DOE extensively reviewed its 

incremental markup approach in the 

NOPR. Among the tasks DOE performed 

included assembling and analyzing 

relevant data from other retail sectors. 

DOE found that empirical evidence is 

lacking with respect to appliance 

retailer markup practices when a 

product increases in cost (due to 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57546 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

24For information on RECS, see http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/. 

increased efficiency or other factors). 

DOE understands that real-world 

retailer markup practices vary 

depending on market conditions and on 

the magnitude of the change in cost of 

goods sold (CGS) associated with an 

increase in appliance efficiency. 

Given this uncertainty with respect to 

actual markup practices in appliance 

retailing, DOE uses an approach that 

reflects two key concepts. First, changes 

in the efficiency of the appliances sold 

are not expected to increase economic 

profits. Thus, DOE calculates markups/ 

gross margins to allow cost recovery for 

retailers (including changes in the cost 

of capital) without changes in company 

profits. Second, efficiency 

improvements only impact some 

distribution costs. DOE sets markups to 

cover only the variable costs expected to 

change with efficiency. 

DOE’s separation of operating 

expenses into fixed and variable 

components to estimate an incremental 

markup follows from the above 

concepts. DOE defines fixed expenses as 

including labor and occupancy 

expenses because these costs are not 

likely to increase as a result of a rise in 

CGS due to amended efficiency 

standards. All other expenses, as well as 

the net profit, are assumed to vary in 

proportion to the change in CGS. DOE 

acknowledges that its allocation of 

expenses into fixed and variable 

categories is based largely on limited 

information and sought additional 

information from interested parties to 

help refine its allocation approach 

during the NOPR phase. DOE’s method 

results in an outcome in which retailers 

are assumed to cover their costs while 

maintaining their profit margins when 

the CGS of appliances changes. 

As part of its review, DOE developed 

a new breakdown into fixed and 

variable components using the latest 

expense data provided by the U.S. 

Census for Electronics and Appliance 

Stores, which cover 2002. The newlyderived incremental markup, which 

would be applied to an incremental 

change in CGS, is 1.17, which is slightly 

higher than the value of 1.15 that DOE 

used in the preliminary analysis. DOE 

requested information regarding the 

likely retailer responses to incremental 

changes in the CGS of appliances 

associated with the proposed standards. 

Whirlpool stated that it would not 

expect retailers to accept reduced 

margins as a result of higher costing, 

more efficient products, and asserted 

that most major retailers are publicly 

traded companies whose stockholders 

demand consistent (or increasing) 

margins (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 5) No 

information or other comments were 

received addressing this issue. Given 

the lack of quantitative information, 

DOE has decided to continue to apply 

an incremental markup to the 

incremental MSP of products with 

higher efficiency than the baseline 

products. Chapter 6 of the final rule 

TSD provides a description of both the 

method and its current application. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

DOE’s analysis of the energy use of 

refrigeration products estimated the 

annual energy use of products in the 

field that would meet the considered 

efficiency levels, i.e., as they are 

actually used by consumers. The energy 

use analysis provides the basis for other 

analyses DOE performs, particularly 

assessments of the energy-savings and 

the savings in consumer operating costs 

that could result from DOE’s adoption of 

amended standard levels. In contrast to 

the DOE test procedure, which provides 

standardized results that can serve as 

the basis for comparing the performance 

of different appliances used under the 

same conditions, the energy use analysis 

seeks to capture the range of operating 

conditions for refrigeration products in 

U.S. homes. 

To determine the field energy use of 

products that would meet possible 

amended standard levels, DOE used 

data from the Energy Information 

Administration (EIA)’s 2005 Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), 

which was the most recent such survey 

available at the time of DOE’s analysis.24

RECS is a national sample survey of 

housing units that collects statistical 

information on the consumption of, and 

expenditures for, energy in housing 

units along with data on energy-related 

characteristics of the housing units and 

occupants. RECS provides sufficient 

information to establish the type 

(product class) of refrigeration product 

used in each household, and also 

provides an estimate of the household’s 

energy consumption attributable to 

‘‘refrigerators’’ or ‘‘freezers’’. As a result, 

DOE was able to develop household 

samples for the representative product 

classes for standard-size units. DOE did 

not use RECS for compact refrigerators 

and freezers because a large fraction of 

these products are used outside the 

residential sector. Instead, it based the 

energy use for these products on the 

DOE test procedure. 

DOE believes that, in general, using 

RECS data in the estimation of field 

energy use of refrigeration products is 

valid. However, it acknowledges that 

the approach used in the preliminary 

analysis has limits. To compensate for 

these limits, DOE developed a new 

approach for the NOPR to estimate 

energy use of refrigeration products in 

U.S. homes. This approach involved 

collecting field-metered electricity use 

data for residential refrigeration 

products. Details of this approach and 

the engineering assumptions that DOE 

used to estimate energy use of 

refrigeration products in U.S. homes 

were described in chapter 7 of the 

NOPR TSD. DOE sought comment on its 

approach for developing energy use 

estimates using field-metered data. 75 

FR at 59512 (September 27, 2010). 

Commenting on the NOPR TSD, 

AHAM stated that DOE should rely on 

the test procedure, rather than RECS 

data, for determining energy use, but 

offered no reason or data. (AHAM, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 

78). 

As discussed in section IV.E of the 

NOPR (75 FR at 59510 (September 27, 

2010)), test procedures must be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average 

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

6293(b)(3)) Relying solely on a 

representative average use cycle or 

period of use does not provide an 

accurate measure of the possible energy 

savings since this approach 

inadequately evaluates the economic 

impact of the standard on consumers 

and the savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated life of the 

product—two factors under EPCA that 

DOE must consider when promulgating 

an amended energy conservation 

standard. Further, the approach 

suggested by AHAM would not account 

for the variability stemming from 

household differences or be consistent 

with the above-cited guidance contained 

in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 

A. In contrast, the approach that DOE 

has used in residential product 

rulemakings for over a decade, and 

continues to apply here, accounts for all 

of these factors. 

Sub Zero and AHAM also indicated 

that more comprehensive field data be 

collected, including data on ice usage 

and icemaker energy consumption, for 

use in future rulemakings (Sub Zero, 

No. 69 at pp. 4–5; AHAM, No. 73 at p. 

8). DOE has retained the approach 

detailed in the NOPR for the final rule. 

In future rulemakings, DOE may 

evaluate the appropriateness of 

collecting additional field data as 

suggested by these commenters. 

In order to make the 2005 RECS 

sample more representative of current 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57547 

25California Energy Commission, Appliances 

Database—Refrigeration, 1998–2009. http:// 

www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/database/ 

excel_based_files/Refrigeration/ (Last accessed 

April 25, 2009); The NPD Group, Inc., The NPD 

Group/NPD Houseworld—POS, Refrigerators, 

January–December 2008, 2007–2008, Port 

Washington, NY; and Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers, data from 2005–2008, 

memoranda dated January 19, 2009 and March 26, 

2010, Washington, DC. 

refrigeration products, DOE made two 

modifications for the NOPR analysis. 

First, DOE modified the RECS weights 

for top- vs. bottom-mount refrigerators 

in order to reflect current information 

on the relationship between income and 

refrigerator door style (i.e., top- or 

bottom-mount) provided by AHAM in 

2010. Second, DOE examined recent 

data from three sources 25 to scale the 

average interior volume of standard-size 

refrigerator-freezers from the 2005 RECS 

data. DOE requested comments on the 

weighting of the RECS sample using 

income relationships and volume 

scaling. 

Whirlpool supported efforts to reweight the RECS data to better reflect 

income and volume; however, it 

reiterated its previously stated 

reservations regarding the outdated 

nature of RECS. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 

5) AHAM did not view the weighting of 

the RECS sample as having 

meaningfully contributed to the 

proposed levels, and as a result, did not 

comment on these approaches. Instead, 

it emphasized that the lack of comment 

on its part did not signify agreement 

with the approaches. (AHAM, No. 73 at 

p. 8) 

Given the value of continuing to 

apply the RECS-based approach, the 

analysis modifications to address the 

limits of the RECS data, and the analysis 

DOE performed using updated data from 

AHAM and other sources, DOE believes 

that this approach sufficiently accounts 

for the full range of estimated energy 

savings experienced by households. 

Accordingly, DOE has retained its 

above-described approach for the final 

rule. However, DOE did revise its usage 

adjustment factor (UAF) formulas, 

which raised the average UAF by 6 to 

14 percent, depending on the product 

class. The revision is described in 

chapter 7 of the final rule TSD. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for refrigeration products. The LCC is 

the total consumer expense over the life 

of a product, consisting of purchase and 

installation costs plus operating costs 

(expenses for energy use, maintenance 

and repair). To compute the operating 

costs, DOE discounts future operating 

costs to the time of purchase and sums 

them over the lifetime of the product. 

The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a more 

efficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

(normally higher) due to a more 

stringent standard by the change in 

average annual operating cost (normally 

lower) that results from the standard. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the PBP and the change in 

LCC relative to an estimate of the basecase appliance efficiency levels. The 

base-case estimate reflects the market in 

the absence of amended energy 

conservation standards, including the 

market for products that exceed the 

current energy conservation standards. 

For each considered efficiency level 

in each product class, DOE calculated 

the LCC and PBP for a nationally 

representative set of housing units. For 

both the NOPR and final rule analyses, 

DOE developed household samples 

from the 2005 RECS. For each sampled 

household, DOE determined the energy 

consumption for the refrigeration 

product and the electricity price. By 

developing a representative sample of 

households, the analysis captured the 

variability in energy consumption and 

energy prices associated with the use of 

residential refrigeration products. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes manufacturer 

selling prices, retailer markups, and 

sales taxes—and installation costs. 

Inputs to the calculation of operating 

costs include annual energy 

consumption, energy prices and price 

projections, repair and maintenance 

costs, product lifetimes, discount rates, 

and the year that amended standards 

take effect. DOE determined the 

operating costs for each sampled 

household using that household’s 

unique energy consumption and the 

household’s energy price. DOE created 

distributions of values for some inputs, 

with probabilities attached to each 

value, to account for their uncertainty 

and variability. DOE used probability 

distributions to characterize product 

lifetime, discount rates, and sales taxes. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC and PBP, which 

incorporates Crystal Ball (a 

commercially available software 

program), relies on a Monte Carlo 

simulation to incorporate uncertainty 

and variability into the analysis. The 

Monte Carlo simulations randomly 

sample input values from the 

probability distributions and household 

samples. The model calculated the LCC 

and PBP for products at each efficiency 

level for 10,000 housing units per 

simulation run. Details of the 

spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs 

to the LCC and PBP analyses, are 

contained in the final rule TSD chapter 

8 and its appendices. 

Table IV.5 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The table 

provides the data and approach DOE 

used for the NOPR TSD, as well as the 

changes made for today’s final rule. The 

subsections that follow discuss the 

initial inputs and the changes DOE 

made to them. Unless otherwise 

specified, DOE received no comments 

on these inputs. 

TABLE IV.5—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Installed Costs 

Product Cost ....................................................... Derived by multiplying manufacturer cost by 

manufacturer and retailer markups and 

sales tax, as appropriate.

Applied a price trend to estimate equipment 

prices in 2014. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57548 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

26A draft paper, ‘‘Using the Experience Curve 

Approach for Appliance Price Forecasting,’’ posted 

on the DOE Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards, provides a 

summary of the data and literature currently 

available to DOE that is relevant to price forecasts 

for selected appliances and equipment. 

27Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern 

California Gas Company, and San Diego Gas and 

Electric submitted a joint letter, while Southern 

California Edison submitted an identical letter; 

comments from these letters are referred to as made 

by IOUs. 

TABLE IV.5—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *—Continued 

Inputs NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Operating Costs 

Annual Energy Use ............................................ Based on a multiple linear regression of fieldmetered energy use data, adjusted using a 

UAF function based on 2005 RECS household characteristics.

Revised UAF function, raising average UAF 

values by 6 to 14 percent, depending on 

product class. 

Energy Prices ..................................................... Electricity: Based on EIA’s Form 861 data for 

2007.

No change. 

Variability: Regional energy prices determined 

for 13 regions. 

Energy Price Trends .......................................... Forecasted using Annual Energy Outlook 

2010 (AEO2010).

No change. 

Repair and Maintenance Costs .......................... Used repair cost estimation method that estimates the rate of failure for selected components along with the incremental cost of 

repair or replacement compared to the 

baseline product.

No change. 

Present Value of Operating Cost Savings 

Product Lifetime ................................................. Estimated using survey results from RECS 

(1990, 1993, 1997, 2001, 2005) and the 

U.S. Census American Housing Survey 

(2005, 2007), along with historic data on 

appliance shipments.

No change. 

Variability: Characterized using Weibull probability distributions. 

Discount Rates ................................................... Approach involves identifying all possible debt 

or asset classes that might be used to purchase the considered appliances, or might 

be affected indirectly. Primary data source 

was the Federal Reserve Board’s SCF ** for 

1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004 and 

2007.

No change. 

Compliance Date of New Standard .................... 2014 ................................................................. No change. 

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the TSD. 

** Survey of Consumer Finances. 

1. Product Cost 

To calculate consumer product costs, 

DOE multiplied the manufacturer 

selling prices developed in the 

engineering analysis by the supplychain markups described in section IV.E 

(along with sales taxes). DOE used 

different retail markups for baseline 

products and higher-efficiency products 

because DOE applies an incremental 

markup to the MSP increase associated 

with higher-efficiency products. 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE assumed 

that the manufacturer selling prices and 

retail prices of products meeting various 

efficiency levels remain fixed, in real 

terms, after 2010 (the year for which the 

engineering analysis estimated costs) 

and throughout the analysis period. 

Subsequently, examination of historical 

price data for various appliances and 

equipment indicates that the 

assumption of constant real prices and 

costs may, in many cases, over-estimate 

long-term appliance and equipment 

price trends. Economic literature and 

historical data suggest that the real costs 

of these products may in fact trend 

downward over time, partially because 

of ‘‘learning’’ or ‘‘experience.’’ 26

In light of the historical data and 

DOE’s aim to improve the accuracy and 

robustness of its analyses, on February 

22, 2011, DOE published a notice that 

discussed the approach it was 

considering to use to incorporate 

experience in its forecasts of product 

prices. 76 FR 9696. DOE requested 

public comment on the potential 

inclusion of this approach for its future 

rulemaking activities, as well as on the 

merits of adopting this approach within 

the context of its ongoing rulemaking to 

set standards for refrigeration products. 

DOE received a number of comments 

on the merits of incorporating 

experience in its forecasts of product 

prices. Support for the inclusion of 

experience in appliance standards 

rulemakings was expressed by NEEP, 

NCLC, ACEEE, ASAP, NRDC, CFA, 

NEEA, and the IOUs.27 (NEEP, No. 107 

at p. 2; NCLC, No. 100 at pp. 1–2; 

ACEEE, No. 109 at p. 1; ASAP, No. 108 

at p. 1; NRDC, No. 104 at p. 2; CFA, No. 

105 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 101 at p. 4; IOUs, 

No. 111 and 112 at p. 1) The IOUs, 

ASAP, NRDC, and CFA specifically 

noted that incorporation of an 

experience curve would align with other 

analyses that contribute to analysis of 

appliance standards, such as the 

approach used in NEMS. (IOUs, No. 111 

and 112 at p. 1; ASAP, No. 108 at p. 2; 

NRDC, No. 104 at p. 4; CFA, No. 105 at 

p. 4) ASAP and NRDC included as part 

of their comments an appendix that 

found that the model described in the 

NODA offers appropriate methodology. 

(ASAP, No. 108 at p. 10; NRDC, No. 104 

at p. 5) 

DOE also received a number of 

comments expressing opposition to, or 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57549 

28See the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Handbook of 

Methods (Chapter 14: Producer Prices). http:// 

www.bls.gov/opub/hom/homch14.htm. 

concern with, the proposed 

incorporation of experience into 

forecasts of product prices. (AHAM, No. 

113 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 106 at p. 2; EEI, 

No. 102 at pp. 2–5; SC, No. 110 at p. 1) 

The American Gas Association (AGA) 

criticized the use of experience curves, 

stating that the current approach offers 

better opportunities to transparently 

assess costs. (AGA, No. 115 at p. 2) 

Traulsen, a manufacturer of commercial 

refrigerators, contended that a price 

decrease for technology over time only 

holds true if market forces prevail. 

(Traulsen, No. 99 at p. 3) 

The comments that expressed 

opposition or reservation regarding 

application of the experience curve 

approach cited several factors. Ingersoll 

Rand noted that the experience curve is 

at best a heuristic model, and it urged 

more extensive examination of several 

points related to experience curves. 

(Ingersoll Rand, No. 103 at p. 2) AHAM 

and AHRI noted that experience curves 

apply only to specific products or 

companies and should not be inflated to 

industry wide cases. (AHAM, No. 113 at 

pp. 53–54; AHRI, No. 106 at p. 2) AGA 

noted that experience curves could be 

useful for some DOE regulated products 

at the early stages of development and 

commercialization, but would not be 

relevant to a wide range of equipment 

with mature designs and markets, 

including space heating and water 

heating. (AGA, No. 115 at p. 2) 

Similarly, AHAM stated that the 

experience curve came from early-stage 

industries, and at current cost reduction 

rates is not reliable enough to apply in 

mature industries with large cumulative 

production. (AHAM, No. 113 at p. 54) 

AHRI and SC noted that past 

performance does not necessarily 

indicate future performance, as past 

trends may have reached a plateau. 

(AHRI, No. 106 at pp. 2–3; SC, No. 110 

at p. 2) DOE’s proposed approach used 

experience curves that reflect broad 

industry-wide changes resulting from 

many factors. The historical data over 

lengthy periods (not only early-stage 

industries) suggest that experience 

curves are mathematically applicable to 

mature products as well as newer 

products. The historic decline in 

inflation-adjusted PPI of household 

appliances has slowed since 2000, but 

there is no evidence of a plateau. 

AHAM and AHRI opposed DOE’s 

analysis using prices, when experience 

or experience curves are actually based 

on cost. (AHAM, No. 113 at p. 55; AHRI, 

No. 106 at p. 3) Ingersoll Rand stated 

that while variable manufacturing costs 

may assume an experience curve, fixed 

costs and retail price do not. (Ingersoll 

Rand, No. 103 at p. 2) EEI stated that the 

primary cause of experience is 

outsourcing, so the domestic Producer 

Price Index (PPI) should not be used 

when a significant fraction of 

manufacturers are overseas. (EEI, No. 

102 at pp. 3–5) In response, DOE 

acknowledges that the literature 

generally approaches these effects 

through the costs of production and that 

the price of the relevant good will not 

reflect learning as directly as the costs. 

This is because the price is a reflection 

of market conditions. Nevertheless, DOE 

notes that experience curves can be 

based on either cost or price, and that 

the historical data in the case of 

refrigerators show that real price 

declines occurred well before 

outsourcing became a significant factor 

in manufacturing. DOE does not attempt 

to forecast the impact of future 

outsourcing of production in its 

forecasts of appliance manufacturing 

costs. 

SC noted that the PPI incorporates a 

performance correction so it would not 

reflect a true price change. (SC, No. 110 

at p. 4) EEI stated that refrigerators and 

freezers have undergone significant 

changes over the years in terms of types 

and features and DOE did not explain 

how they accounted for this. (EEI, No. 

102 at pp. 2–3) Ingersoll Rand stated 

that product performance has changed 

dramatically over many years, and 

therefore it is unclear what the PPI is 

actually measuring. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 

103 at p. 4) In response, DOE notes that 

the PPI includes a quality adjustment, 

which attempts to factor out physical 

changes in the product that affect the 

price.28 For that reason, the PPI is a 

better measure of the trends in prices 

than actual wholesale prices would be 

without quality adjustment. 

DOE also received several comments 

related to forecasting error and the time 

period of the data used. Ingersoll Rand 

urged consideration of the expanding 

uncertainty band as the forecast period 

expands, and AHAM also noted that 

error in forecasts increases with time. 

(Ingersoll Rand, No. 103 at p. 1; AHAM, 

No. 113 at pp. 59–62) EEI stated that for 

refrigerators, the starting period used by 

DOE corresponds to a unique, post-war 

boom. (EEI, No. 102 at p. 2) SC stated 

that the choice of time period for PPI 

changes results. (SC, No. 110 at p. 4) In 

response to these comments, DOE 

conducted a sensitivity analysis that 

considers different time periods for 

estimating product price trends. DOE 

also notes that potentially growing 

forecast error is diminished by the 

discounting used in DOE’s analysis. 

AHRI and Ingersoll Rand expressed 

concern related to products that use 

significant quantities of commodities, as 

these prices have been volatile and 

cannot be predicted. (AHRI, No. 106 at 

p. 3; Ingersoll Rand, No. 103 at pp. 5– 

6) DOE will rely on historical data to 

determine whether commodity price 

volatility is a concern when estimating 

experience curves for specific products. 

Some of the parties generally 

supporting DOE’s proposed approach to 

incorporating experience into price 

forecasting for appliance standards 

requested specific changes to the 

proposed approach. ACEEE, NEEA, 

ASAP, NRDC, and the IOUs expressed 

concern with the proposal to assume no 

experience curve in cases with limited 

or no data; instead they recommended 

using scenarios or running sensitivity 

analyses to examine a range of 

experience rates. (ACEEE, No. 109 at p. 

1; NEEA, No. 101 at p. 5; ASAP, No. 108 

at p. 3; NRDC, No. 104. at p. 5; IOUs, 

No. 111 and 112 at p. 2) EEI expressed 

agreement with the IOUs with respect to 

running sensitivity analyses. (EEI 

Supplemental Comments, No. 116 at p. 

2) ASAP and NRDC also requested that, 

where possible, DOE should attempt to 

analyze the more efficient models of 

certain products separately from the 

baseline models. (ASAP, No. 108 at p. 

27; NRDC, No. 104 at p. 31) Similarly, 

the IOUs suggested that separate 

experience coefficients should be used 

for the base case and the standards case. 

(IOUs, No. 111 and 112 at p. 2) In cases 

with limited or no data, DOE is 

considering using data at a higher level 

of aggregation to estimate future product 

prices. DOE’s approach in future 

rulemakings will be based on available 

data. At this time DOE is not aware of 

data sufficient to separately analyze 

baseline models and efficient models. 

In conclusion, DOE evaluated the 

concerns expressed about its proposed 

approach for incorporating experience 

in its forecasts of product prices and 

determined that retaining an 

assumption-based approach of a 

constant real price trend was not 

consistent with the historical data for 

the products covered in this rule. In its 

stead, DOE developed a range of 

potential price trends that was 

consistent with the available data. For 

the default price trend for this final rule, 

DOE estimated an experience rate for 

residential refrigerators and freezers 

based on an analysis of long-term 

historical data. DOE derived a 

refrigerator/freezer price index from 

1947 to 2010 by creating a hybrid index 

that changed proportional to PPI data 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

29U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

Annual Energy Outlook 2010. Washington, DC. 

April 2010. 

for the period when PPI data were 

available, and changed proportional to 

the relevant CPI data for the period 

where CPI data were available. DOE 

then divided the results by the GDP 

deflator for the relevant year to produce 

an inflation-adjusted index. This proxy 

for historic price data was then 

regressed on the quantity of refrigerators 

and freezers produced: a corresponding 

series for total shipments of refrigerators 

and freezers. 

To calculate an experience rate, a 

least-squares power-law fit was 

performed on the refrigerator/freezer 

price index versus cumulative 

shipments. DOE then derived an index, 

with 2010 equal to 1, to forecast prices 

(using PPI and CPI data as proxies) in 

2014, the compliance date for amended 

energy conservation standards in the 

LCC and PBP analysis, and for the NIA, 

for each subsequent year through 2043. 

The index value in each year is a 

function of the experience rate and the 

cumulative production through that 

year. Projected shipments were obtained 

from the base case projections made for 

the NIA (see section IV.G.1 of this 

notice). The average annual rate of price 

decline in the default case is 1.87 

percent. DOE applied the same index 

value to forecast prices for each group 

of refrigeration products at each 

considered efficiency level. 

DOE notes that experience rates may 

decrease over time since returns from 

experience about a single technology 

may diminish over time. As part of its 

sensitivity analysis, DOE included 

models that derive an experience rate 

based on different time periods, which 

may reflect such a ‘‘flattening’’ of the 

experience curve across time, as well as 

a model with an explicit term that 

incorporates ‘‘flattening.’’ These models 

usually incorporate the decrease in 

learning through a variable representing 

time. DOE includes in the suite of 

modeling results for learning in this 

analysis models that do and do not 

reflect such a ‘‘flattening’’ of learning 

across time; however, the models near 

the middle range of estimates in its 

analysis do reflect this effect. DOE will 

continue to explore the basis and the 

appropriateness of incorporating for 

compounding changing learning effects 

for future rulemaking analyses. 

For the NIA, DOE also analyzed two 

sensitivity cases that use a price trend 

based on an exponential in time 

extrapolation of refrigeration equipment 

PPI data. Because cumulative shipments 

for refrigerators can be fit to an 

exponential function of time for long 

time periods, the experience curve 

formulation and an exponential in time 

extrapolation of PPI data provide 

mathematically very similar price trend 

forecasts in many cases. In addition to 

the default price trend, the NIA 

considered a high price decline case and 

a low price decline case. See section 

IV.G.3 for further discussion. 

In recognition of the uncertainty 

regarding estimation of the future 

product price trends, DOE will continue 

to review the relevant literature and 

seek to continually improve and refine 

its methodology through research, 

enhancements to its models and by 

seeking public input. DOE will also 

work to ensure the robustness of its data 

sets as a means to ensure the reliability 

of its projections. 

For further information on the method 

and data sources used to develop price 

trends for residential refrigeration 

products, see appendix 8E of the final 

rule TSD. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

equipment. DOE did not include an 

installation cost for refrigeration 

products because it understands that 

this cost would be the same at all of the 

considered efficiency levels. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each sampled household, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

a refrigeration product at different 

efficiency levels using the approach 

described above in section IV.E. 

4. Energy Prices 

DOE derived average energy prices for 

13 geographic areas consisting of the 

nine U.S. Census divisions, with four 

large States (New York, Florida, Texas, 

and California) treated separately. For 

Census divisions containing one of 

these large States, DOE calculated the 

regional average excluding the data for 

the large State. 

DOE estimated average residential 

electricity prices for each of the 13 

geographic areas based on data from EIA 

Form 861, ‘‘Annual Electric Power 

Industry Database.’’ DOE calculated an 

average annual regional residential 

electricity price by: (1) Estimating an 

average residential price for each utility 

(by dividing the residential revenues by 

residential sales); and (2) weighting 

each utility by the number of residential 

consumers served in that region (based 

on EIA Form 861). DOE calculated 

average commercial electricity prices in 

a similar manner. For both the NOPR 

and final rule analyses, DOE used EIA 

data for 2007. 

5. Energy Price Projections 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years for the NOPR, DOE multiplied the 

above average regional electricity prices 

by the forecast of annual average 

residential electricity price changes in 

the Reference Case using AEO2010, 

which has an end year of 2035.29 To 

estimate the electricity price trend after 

2035, DOE used the average annual rate 

of change in prices from 2020 to 2035. 

DOE used the same energy price 

forecasts for the final rule. 

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing components that 

have failed in the appliance, whereas 

maintenance costs are associated with 

maintaining the operation of the 

equipment. For the NOPR, DOE 

developed a repair cost estimation 

method that estimates the rate of failure 

for selected components (compressor, 

evaporator, condenser, evaporator fan, 

condenser fan, electronics and 

automatic icemaker). The estimated 

average annual repair cost for a given 

efficiency level can be expressed as the 

product of two elements: the average 

rate of repair of a component (expressed 

as an annual probability of failure) times 

the incremental cost of repair or 

replacement compared to the baseline 

product. DOE requested comment on its 

approach used for estimating repair 

costs. 75 FR at 59514 (September 27, 

2010). 

Sub Zero commented that VIPs could 

add repair and/or replacement costs that 

have not been adequately evaluated or 

estimated (Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 5). 

However, they did not provide estimates 

that would allow DOE to modify its 

approach. 

Whirlpool supported DOE’s approach 

to estimate repair costs for more 

efficient refrigerators and freezers. 

However, it pointed out that the data 

shown in Table IV.14 of the NOPR did 

not appear to be consistent with the 

logic expressed in section IV.F.6 of the 

NOPR. It added that the use of 

commercial refrigeration failure rates, 

may lead to inaccuracies (Whirlpool, 

No. 74 at pp. 5–6). 

With regard to the alleged 

inconsistency between Table IV.14 of 

the NOPR (75 FR at 59514 (September 

27, 2010)) and the accompanying 

discussion, DOE has checked the 

accuracy of the table and notes that the 

table indicated only incremental repair 

costs, not total repair costs, which add 

between $7.66 and $21.90 depending on 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57551 

30U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing 

Survey. Available at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/ 

www/housing/ahs/ahs.html. 

standard-size refrigerator-freezer 

product class. DOE also acknowledges 

the potential inaccuracy of using 

commercial failure rate data, but notes 

that (a) no other data were available, 

and (b) these data were scaled 

downward so that the total failure rate 

(sum of all component failure rates) was 

equal to observed rates for residential 

refrigeration products as reported in 

Consumer Reports (see chapter 8 of 

TSD). 

Accordingly, DOE retained the 

approach for the final rule. Details of 

this approach can be found in chapter 

8 of the final rule TSD. 

7. Product Lifetime 

Because the basis for lifetime 

estimates in the literature for 

refrigeration products is uncertain, DOE 

used other data sources to estimate the 

distribution of standard-size refrigerator 

and freezer lifetimes in the field for both 

the NOPR and today’s final rule. By 

combining survey results from various 

years of RECS and the U.S. Census’s 

American Housing Survey 30 with the 

known history of appliance shipments, 

DOE estimated the fraction of 

appliances of a given age still in 

operation. The survival function, which 

DOE assumed has the form of a 

cumulative Weibull distribution, 

provides an average and median 

appliance lifetime. 

For compact refrigerators, DOE 

estimated an average lifetime of 5.6 

years in the NOPR using data on 

shipments and the stock-in-place (i.e., 

the number of units in use). DOE found 

that, given the data on historic 

shipments of compact refrigerators, 

using a longer lifetime would result in 

an equipment stock that is far larger 

than the stock given by 2005 RECS and 

EIA’s 2003 Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey. See chapter 8 of 

the final rule TSD for further details on 

the method and sources DOE used to 

develop product lifetimes for this final 

rule. 

8. Discount Rates 

To establish discount rates for the 

LCC analysis, DOE identified all debt or 

asset classes that might be used to 

purchase refrigeration products, 

including household assets that might 

be affected indirectly. DOE used data 

from the Federal Reserve Board’s 

‘‘Survey of Consumer Finances’’ (SCF) 

for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 

and 2007 to estimate the average 

percentages of the various debt and 

equity classes in the average U.S. 

household portfolios. DOE used SCF 

data and other sources to develop 

distributions of interest or return rates 

associated with each type of equity and 

debt. The average rate across all types of 

household debt and equity, weighted by 

the shares of each class, is 5.1 percent. 

While this value corresponds to the 

average discount rate, DOE assigned 

each sample household a specific 

discount rate drawn from the 

distributions. 

DOE derived the discount rate for 

commercial-sector compact refrigeration 

products from the cost of capital of 

publicly-traded firms in the sectors that 

purchase those products (including 

lodging and other commercial sectors). 

The firms typically finance equipment 

purchases through debt and/or equity 

capital. DOE estimated the cost of the 

firms’ capital as the weighted average of 

the cost of equity financing and the cost 

of debt financing for recent years for 

which data were available (2001 

through 2008). The estimated average 

discount rate for companies that 

purchase compact refrigeration products 

is 6.2 percent. 

See chapter 8 in the final rule TSD for 

further details on the development of 

discount rates for refrigeration products. 

9. Compliance Date of Amended 

Standards 

In the context of EPCA, the 

compliance date is the future date when 

parties subject to the requirements of a 

new standard must begin to comply 

with that standard. As described in 

DOE’s semi-annual implementation 

report for energy conservation standards 

activities submitted to Congress, a final 

rule for the refrigeration products that 

are the subject of this rulemaking is 

scheduled for completion. Compliance 

with amended standards for 

refrigeration products promulgated by 

DOE is required in 2014. DOE 

calculated the LCC and PBP for 

refrigeration products as if consumers 

would purchase new products in the 

year compliance with the standard is 

required. 

10. Base Case Efficiency Distribution 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

standard at a particular efficiency level, 

DOE’s LCC analysis considered the 

projected distribution of product 

efficiencies that consumers purchase 

under the base case (i.e., the case 

without new energy efficiency 

standards). DOE refers to this 

distribution of product of efficiencies as 

a base-case efficiency distribution. DOE 

developed base-case efficiency 

distributions for each of the seven 

representative product classes. These 

distributions were developed from 

industry-supplied data for the year 2007 

and were comprised of product 

efficiencies ranging from existing 

baseline levels (i.e., meeting existing 

energy conservation standards) to levels 

meeting and exceeding ENERGY STAR 

levels. DOE then projected these 

distributions to the year that today’s 

standards would become effective 

(2014). 

DOE modified its approach for 

estimating base-case efficiency 

distributions for the NOPR analysis for 

certain product classes. DOE believes 

that, because the current ENERGY STAR 

efficiency level is higher than it was 

prior to the requirements established in 

2008, the growth in market share may be 

slower than before due to the reduction 

in sales generally associated with higher 

cost, more efficient products. For the 

NOPR, DOE adopted a projected market 

share of ENERGY STAR models in 2014 

(under current requirements) that is 

equal to the average of ENERGY STAR 

market shares in 2007 (the last year 

under the old requirements) and 2008 

(when current requirements took effect). 

With this approach, the ENERGY STAR 

market shares for product class 3 

(refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost 

with top-mounted freezer without 

through-the-door ice service) and 

product class 5 (refrigerator-freezers— 

automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer without through-the-door ice 

service) are projected to grow more 

slowly between 2008 and 2014 than 

they had under the old requirements 

before 2008. ENERGY STAR products 

reach a market share in 2014 of 8 

percent for product class 3 and 68 

percent for bottom-mount refrigeratorfreezers. 

DOE requested comment on its 

approach for estimating base case 

efficiency distributions. 75 FR at 59515 

(September 27, 2010). Whirlpool stated 

it had no comment on the approach 

(Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 6), and no other 

comments were received. In light of the 

absence of any comments on its 

approach, DOE maintained the same 

approach for the final rule as it used in 

the NOPR for all of the product classes. 

For further information on DOE’s 

estimate of base-case efficiency 

distributions, see chapter 8 of the final 

rule TSD. 

11. Inputs To Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time it takes the consumer to recover the 

additional installed cost of moreefficient products, compared to baseline 

products, through energy cost savings. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57552 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

31MS Excel is the most widely used spreadsheet 

calculation tool in the United States and there is 

general familiarity with its basic features. Thus, 

DOE’s use of MS Excel as the basis for the 

spreadsheet models provides interested parties with 

access to the models within a familiar context. 

The simple payback period does not 

account for changes in operating 

expense over time or the time value of 

money. Payback periods are expressed 

in years. Payback periods that exceed 

the life of the product indicate that the 

increased total installed cost is not 

recovered in reduced operating 

expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation are 

the total installed cost of the equipment 

to the customer for each efficiency level 

and the average annual operating 

expenditures for each efficiency level. 

The PBP calculation uses the same 

inputs as the LCC analysis, except that 

discount rates are not needed. 

12. Rebuttable-Presumption Payback 

Period 

As noted above, EPCA, as amended, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

(and, as applicable, water) savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the test procedure 

in place for that standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered 

efficiency level, DOE determined the 

value of the first year’s energy savings 

by calculating the quantity of those 

savings in accordance with the 

applicable DOE test procedure, and 

multiplying that amount by the average 

energy price forecast for the year in 

which compliance with the amended 

standard would be required. 

G. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

The national impact analysis (NIA) 

assesses the national energy savings 

(NES) and the national net present value 

(NPV) of total consumer costs and 

savings that would be expected to result 

from new or amended standards at 

specific efficiency levels. (‘‘Consumer’’ 

in this context refers to consumers of 

the product being regulated.) DOE 

calculates the NES and NPV based on 

projections of annual appliance 

shipments, along with the annual 

energy consumption and total installed 

cost data from the energy use and LCC 

analyses. For the present analysis, DOE 

forecasted the energy savings, operating 

cost savings, product costs, and NPV of 

consumer benefits for products sold 

from 2014 through 2043. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new and 

amended standards by comparing basecase projections with standards-case 

projections. The base-case projections 

characterize energy use and consumer 

costs for each product class in the 

absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE compares 

these projections with projections 

characterizing the market for each 

product class if DOE adopted new or 

amended standards at specific energy 

efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or 

standards cases) for that class. For the 

base case forecast, DOE considers 

historical trends in efficiency and 

various forces that are likely to affect the 

mix of efficiencies over time. For the 

standards cases, DOE also considers 

how a given standard would likely 

affect the market shares of efficiencies 

greater than the standard. 

To make the analysis more accessible 

and transparent to all interested parties, 

DOE uses an MS Excel spreadsheet 

model to calculate the energy savings 

and the national consumer costs and 

savings from each TSL.31 The TSD and 

other documentation that DOE provides 

during the rulemaking help explain the 

models and how to use them, and 

interested parties can review DOE’s 

analyses by changing various input 

quantities within the spreadsheet. The 

NIA spreadsheet model uses typical 

values as inputs (as opposed to 

probability distributions). 

For the current analysis, the NIA used 

projections of energy prices and housing 

starts from the AEO2010 Reference case. 

In addition, DOE analyzed scenarios 

that used inputs from the AEO2010 Low 

Economic Growth and High Economic 

Growth cases. These cases have higher 

and lower energy price trends compared 

to the Reference case, as well as higher 

and lower housing starts, which result 

in higher and lower appliance 

shipments to new homes. NIA results 

based on these cases are presented in 

appendix 10–A of the final rule TSD. 

Table IV.6 summarizes the inputs and 

key assumptions DOE used for the NIA 

analysis contained in the overall NOPR 

analysis and the changes to the analyses 

for the final rule. Discussion of these 

inputs and changes follows the table. 

See chapter 10 of the final rule TSD for 

further details. 

TABLE IV.6—APPROACH AND DATA USED FOR NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND CONSUMER NET PRESENT VALUE

ANALYSES

Inputs NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Shipments ........................................................... Annual shipments from shipments model, 

using 2008 data to estimate the ratio of bottom-mount share to side-by-side share.

No change. 

Compliance Date of Standard ............................ 2014 ................................................................. No change. 

Base-Case Forecasted Efficiencies ................... Used a ‘‘roll-up + ENERGY STAR’’ scenario 

to establish the distribution of efficiencies.

No change. 

Standards-Case Forecasted Efficiencies ........... Used a ‘‘roll-up + ENERGY STAR’’ scenario 

to establish the distribution of efficiencies.

No change. 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ................ Annual weighted-average values as a function 

of SWEUF *.

No change. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit ............................... Annual weighted-average values as a function 

of SWEUF *.

Applied a price trend to estimate future product prices. 

Energy Cost per Unit .......................................... Annual weighted-average values as a function 

of the annual energy consumption per unit 

and energy prices.

No change. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit .............. Annual values as a function of efficiency level No change. 

Escalation of Energy Prices ............................... AEO2010 forecasts (to 2035) and extrapolation through 2043.No change. 

Energy Site-to-Source Conversion Factor ......... Varies yearly and is generated by DOE/EIA’s 

NEMS.

No change. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57553 

TABLE IV.6—APPROACH AND DATA USED FOR NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND CONSUMER NET PRESENT VALUE

ANALYSES—Continued 

Inputs NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Discount Rate ..................................................... Three and seven percent real ......................... No change. 

Present Year ...................................................... Future expenses are discounted to 2010 ........ No change. 

* Shipments-Weighted Energy Use Factor. 

1. Shipments 

Forecasts of product shipments are 

needed to calculate the national impacts 

of standards on energy use, NPV, and 

future manufacturer cash flows. DOE 

develops shipment forecasts based on 

an analysis of key market drivers for 

each considered product. In DOE’s 

shipments model, product shipments 

are driven by new construction, stock 

replacements, and other types of 

purchases. The shipments models take 

an accounting approach, tracking 

market shares of each product class and 

the vintage of units in the existing stock. 

Stock accounting uses product 

shipments as inputs to estimate the age 

distribution of in-service product stocks 

for all years. The age distribution of inservice product stocks is a key input to 

calculations of both the NES and NPV, 

because operating costs for any year 

depend on the age distribution of the 

stock. DOE also considers the impacts 

on shipments from changes in product 

purchase price and operating cost 

associated with higher energy efficiency 

levels. 

In projecting shipments for 

refrigeration products, DOE accounted 

for installations in new homes and 

replacement of failed equipment. In 

addition, for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers, DOE estimated purchases 

driven by the conversion of a first 

refrigerator to a second refrigerator. It 

also estimated purchases by existing 

household consumers who enter the 

market as new owners for standard-size 

freezers. 

In conducting the analysis for today’s 

rule, DOE examined the historical 

trends in the market shares of different 

refrigerator-freezer configurations to 

disaggregate the total shipments of 

refrigerator-freezers into the three 

considered refrigerator-freezer product 

categories (top-mount, bottom-mount 

and side-by-side configurations). The 

market share of side-by-side refrigeratorfreezer models has grown significantly 

during the past two decades. Bottomfreezer models historically had a small 

market share, but that share has also 

grown in recent years. However, 

because DOE had insufficient data to 

forecast long-term growth of this 

product class, it made the assumption, 

based on past sales trends, that 

consumer behavior related to bottommount models in the future would 

mirror behavior regarding side-by-side 

models. DOE developed a model to 

forecast the combined bottom-mount 

and side-by-side market shares 

throughout the 30-year forecast period 

(beginning in 2014), and assumed that 

the ratio of bottom-mount share to sideby-side share would remain constant at 

the 2008 level (the last year for which 

DOE had disaggregated data). 

To estimate the effects on product 

shipments from increases in product 

price projected to accompany amended 

standards at higher efficiency levels, 

DOE applied a price elasticity 

parameter. It estimated this parameter 

with a regression analysis that used 

purchase price and efficiency data 

specific to residential refrigerators, 

clothes washers, and dishwashers over 

the period 1980–2002. The estimated 

‘‘relative price elasticity’’ incorporates 

the impacts from purchase price, 

operating cost, and household income, 

and it also declines over time. DOE 

estimated shipments in each standards 

case using the relative price elasticity 

along with the change in the relative 

price between a standards case and the 

base case. For details on the shipments 

analysis, see chapter 9 of the final rule 

TSD. 

2. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case 

and Standards Cases 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency forecasted for 

the base case (without new or amended 

standards) and each of the standards 

cases. Section IV.X described how DOE 

developed a base-case energy efficiency 

distribution (which yields a shipmentweighted average efficiency) for each of 

the considered product classes for the 

first year of the forecast period. Based 

on recent trends, DOE assumed no 

improvement of energy efficiency in the 

base case and held the base-case energy 

efficiency distribution constant 

throughout the forecast period. 

To estimate efficiency trends in the 

standards cases, DOE used a ‘‘roll-up’’ 

scenario in its standards rulemakings. 

Under the ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario, DOE 

assumes: (1) Product efficiencies in the 

base case that do not meet the standard 

level under consideration would ‘‘rollup’’ to meet the new standard level; and 

(2) product efficiencies above the 

standard level under consideration 

would not be affected. 

For the NOPR, DOE refined its 

forecast for the base case and each of the 

standards cases using information 

obtained from ENERGY STAR program 

staff. To project the efficiency 

distributions after 2014 for the base 

case, DOE first considered the potential 

for changes to the ENERGY STAR 

qualification levels. DOE assumed that, 

in the absence of a new standard, the 

ENERGY STAR program would reexamine and possibly revise its 

qualification levels regardless of the 

market share in 2014. When setting a 

minimum product efficiency level to 

qualify for ENERGY STAR, one 

important metric is that the average 

payback period compared to the current 

standard level should not exceed five 

years. Using the payback period 

calculation described in section IV.F, 

DOE applied this criterion to all product 

classes to evaluate the extent to which 

the current ENERGY STAR efficiency 

levels would be increased in the future. 

DOE then estimated the market shares 

for ENERGY STAR products in 2021 

based on past experience in the market 

for these products. Rather than make 

long-term projections based on limited 

information, DOE assumed there would 

be no further change in market shares 

between 2021 and the end of the 

forecast period. DOE recognizes that 

some change in shares is likely to occur 

in reality. However, since DOE used the 

same assumption in the standards cases, 

the accuracy of the assumption makes 

no difference to the analysis of energy 

savings. 

For the standards cases (also referred 

to as candidate standard levels, or 

CSLs), DOE used the same approach as 

for the base case and assumed that in 

the case of amended standards, the 

ENERGY STAR program would reevaluate its qualifying levels for all 

product classes using the five-year 

payback period criterion. For each CSL, 

DOE identified the maximum efficiency 

level with a payback period of five years 

or less. If that level was below the 

current ENERGY STAR level, DOE 

maintained the current ENERGY STAR 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57554 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

32The National Academies, Board on Energy and 

Environmental Systems, Letter to Dr. John Mizroch, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, U.S. DOE, Office of 

EERE from James W. Dally, Chair, Committee on 

Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement 

Approaches to Energy Efficiency Standards, May 

15, 2009. 

level. At higher CSLs, there is no 

efficiency level above the standard level 

with a payback period of less than 5 

years. DOE assumed that the ENERGY 

STAR program would be suspended 

with standards at higher CSLs on a 

product-class specific basis. This result 

is projected to occur for all product 

classes at CSL 3 and above; for product 

classes 9 (upright freezers with 

automatic defrost) and 10 (chest freezers 

and all other freezers except compact 

freezers), it occurs at lower CSLs. The 

market share estimates for ENERGY 

STAR products in 2021 and beyond 

were based on a similar approach as for 

the base case. 

DOE requested comment on its 

approach for forecasting base case and 

standards case efficiency distributions. 

75 FR at 59518 (September 27, 2010). 

Whirlpool stated it had no comment on 

the approach (Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 6), 

and no other comments were received. 

As a result, DOE retained its approach 

for the final rule. For further details 

about the forecasted efficiency 

distributions, see chapter 10 of the final 

rule TSD. 

3. Installed Cost per Unit 

In the NOPR analysis, DOE followed 

its past practice and assumed that the 

manufacturer costs and retail prices of 

products meeting various efficiency 

levels remain fixed, in real terms, after 

2008 (the year for which the engineering 

analysis estimated costs) and 

throughout the period of the analysis. 

As discussed in section IV.F.1, for the 

final rule DOE used a price trend based 

on an experience curve derived using 

historical data on shipments and 

refrigeration equipment PPI. DOE 

applied the same price trend to forecast 

prices for each group of refrigeration 

products at each considered efficiency 

level. The average projected annual rate 

of price decline in the default case is 

1.87 percent. 

For the NIA, DOE also analyzed two 

cases that use a price trend based on an 

exponential in time extrapolation of 

refrigeration equipment PPI data. DOE 

selected a high projected price trend 

decline case and a low projected price 

trend decline case from among a 

number of price trends that it analyzed 

(see appendix 8E of the final rule TSD). 

The high projected price trend decline 

case is based on the upper end of the 95 

percent confidence interval for an 

exponential fit to the PPI series in 1991– 

2010 divided by the relevant GDP 

deflator data from those years. The low 

projected price trend decline case is 

based on the lower end of the 95 percent 

confidence interval for an exponential 

fit to the PPI series in 1976–2010 before 

dividing it by the relevant GDP deflator 

data from those years. The annual rate 

of projected price trend decline is 3.12 

percent in the high projected price trend 

decline case and 1.14 percent in the low 

projected price trend decline case. 

4. Site-to-Source Energy Conversion 

For each year in the forecast period, 

DOE calculates the NES for each 

standard level by multiplying the stock 

of equipment affected by the energy 

conservation standards by the per-unit 

annual energy savings. 

To estimate the national energy 

savings expected from appliance 

standards, DOE uses a multiplicative 

factor to convert site energy 

consumption (at the home or 

commercial building) into primary or 

source energy consumption (the energy 

required to convert and deliver the site 

energy). These conversion factors 

account for the energy used at power 

plants to generate electricity and losses 

in transmission and distribution, as well 

as for natural gas losses from pipeline 

leakage and energy used for pumping. 

For electricity, the conversion factors 

vary over time due to projected changes 

in generation sources (i.e., the power 

plant types projected to provide 

electricity to the country). The factors 

that DOE developed are marginal 

values, which represent the response of 

the system to an incremental decrease in 

consumption associated with appliance 

standards. 

For the NOPR and today’s final rule, 

DOE updated its annual site-to-source 

conversion factors based on the version 

of NEMS that corresponds to AEO2010, 

which provides energy forecasts through 

2035. For 2036–2043, DOE used 

conversion factors that remain constant 

at the 2035 values. 

In response to a request from DOE’s 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EERE), the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS), appointed 

a committee on ‘‘Point-of-Use and FullFuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to 

Energy Efficiency Standards’’ to conduct 

a study required by section 1802 of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109– 

58 (August 8, 2005)). The fundamental 

task before the committee was to 

evaluate the methodology used for 

setting energy efficiency standards and 

to comment on whether site (point-ofuse) or source (full-fuel-cycle) measures 

of energy savings would better support 

rulemaking efforts to achieve energy 

conservation goals. The NAS committee 

defined full-fuel-cycle energy 

consumption as including, in addition 

to site energy use, the following: energy 

consumed in the extraction, processing, 

and transport of primary fuels such as 

coal, oil, and natural gas; energy losses 

in thermal combustion in power 

generation plants; and energy losses in 

transmission and distribution to homes 

and commercial buildings.32

In evaluating the merits of using 

point-of-use and full-fuel-cycle 

measures, the NAS committee noted 

that DOE uses what the committee 

referred to as ‘‘extended site’’ energy 

consumption to assess the impact of 

energy use on the economy, energy 

security, and environmental quality. 

The extended site measure of energy 

consumption includes the energy 

consumed during the generation, 

transmission, and distribution of 

electricity but, unlike the full-fuel-cycle 

measure, does not include the energy 

consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels. A majority of 

the NAS committee concluded that 

extended site energy consumption 

understates the total energy consumed 

to make an appliance operational at the 

site. As a result, the NAS committee 

recommended that DOE consider 

shifting its analytical approach over 

time to use a full-fuel-cycle measure of 

energy consumption when assessing 

national and environmental impacts, 

especially with respect to the 

calculation of greenhouse gas emissions. 

The NAS committee also recommended 

that DOE provide more comprehensive 

information to the public through labels 

and other means, such as an enhanced 

Web site. For those appliances that use 

multiple fuels (e.g., water heaters), the 

NAS committee indicated that 

measuring full-fuel-cycle energy 

consumption would provide a more 

complete picture of energy consumed 

and permit comparisons across many 

different appliances, as well as an 

improved assessment of impacts. 

In response to the NAS 

recommendations, DOE issued, on 

August 20, 2010, (75 FR 51423), a 

Notice of Proposed Policy proposing to 

incorporate a full-fuel cycle analysis 

into the methods it uses to estimate the 

likely impacts of energy conservation 

standards on energy use and emissions. 

Specifically, DOE proposed to use fullfuel-cycle (FFC) measures of energy and 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, rather 

than the primary (extended site) energy 

measurement it currently uses. 

Additionally, DOE proposed to work 

collaboratively with the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) to make FFC energy 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57555 

33OMB Circular A–4 (Sept. 17, 2003), section E, 

‘‘Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs. 

Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

memoranda/m03-21.html. 

and GHG emissions data available to the 

public to enable consumers to make 

cross-class comparisons. On October 7, 

2010, DOE held an informal public 

meeting to discuss and receive 

comments on its planned approach. The 

materials related to this proposed policy 

are available at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/ 

home.html#docketDetail?R=EERE-2010- 

BT-NOA-0028. Following the close of 

the public comment period, DOE 

intends to develop a final policy 

statement on these subjects and then 

take steps to begin implementing that 

policy in rulemakings and other 

activities that are undertaken during 

2011. 

5. Discount Rates 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers of the 

considered appliances are: (1) Total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

savings in operating costs, and (3) a 

discount factor. DOE calculates net 

savings each year as the difference 

between the base case and each 

standards case in total savings in 

operating costs and total increases in 

installed costs. DOE calculates operating 

cost savings over the life of each 

product shipped in the forecast period. 

DOE multiplies the net savings in 

future years by a discount factor to 

determine their present value. For 

today’s final rule, DOE estimated the 

NPV of appliance consumer benefits 

using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 

real discount rate. DOE uses these 

discount rates in accordance with 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.33 The discount rates 

for the determination of NPV are in 

contrast to the discount rates used in the 

LCC analysis, which are designed to 

reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7- 

percent real value is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 

3-percent real value represents the 

‘‘societal rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

6. Benefits From Effects of Standards on 

Energy Prices 

A decrease in electricity consumption 

associated with amended standards for 

refrigeration products could reduce the 

electricity prices charged to consumers 

in all sectors of the economy and 

thereby reduce their electricity 

expenditures. In chapter 2 of the 

preliminary analysis TSD, DOE 

explained that, because the power 

industry is a complex mix of fuel and 

equipment suppliers, electricity 

producers and distributors, it did not 

plan to estimate the value of potentially 

reduced electricity costs for all 

consumers associated with amended 

standards for refrigeration products. In 

response, the Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships urged DOE to 

quantify electricity demand reductions 

achieved by these updated standards in 

financial terms. (NEEP, No. 41 at p. 1) 

For the NOPR and today’s final rule, 

DOE used NEMS–BT to assess the 

impacts of the reduced need for new 

electric power plants and infrastructure 

projected to result from standards. In 

NEMS–BT, changes in power generation 

infrastructure affect utility revenue 

requirements, which in turn affect 

electricity prices. DOE estimated the 

impact on electricity prices associated 

with each considered TSL. Although the 

aggregate benefits for electricity users 

are potentially large, there may be 

negative effects on some of the actors 

involved in the supply of electricity, 

particularly power plant providers and 

fuel suppliers. Because there is 

uncertainty about the extent to which 

the benefits for electricity users from 

reduced electricity prices would be a 

transfer from actors involved in 

electricity supply to electricity 

consumers, DOE has concluded that, at 

present, because of this uncertainty, it 

should not give a heavy weight to this 

factor in its consideration of the 

economic justification of new or 

amended standards. DOE is continuing 

to investigate the extent to which 

electricity price changes projected to 

result from standards represent a net 

gain to society. 

H. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended standards on 

consumers, DOE evaluates the impact 

on identifiable sub-groups of consumers 

that may be disproportionately affected 

by a national standard. DOE evaluates 

impacts on particular sub-groups of 

consumers primarily by analyzing the 

LCC impacts and PBP for those 

particular consumers from alternative 

standard levels. For both the NOPR and 

today’s final rule, DOE analyzed the 

impacts of the considered standard 

levels on low-income consumers and 

senior citizens. DOE did not estimate 

the impacts for compact refrigeration 

products because the household sample 

sizes were not large enough to yield 

meaningful results. For further details 

on DOE’s consumer sub-group analysis, 

see Chapter 11 in the final rule TSD. 

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

DOE conducted the MIA to estimate 

the financial impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of residential 

refrigeration products, and to assess the 

impacts of such standards on 

employment and manufacturing 

capacity. 

The MIA is both a quantitative and 

qualitative analysis. The quantitative 

part of the MIA relies on the 

Government Regulatory Impact Model 

(GRIM), an industry cash-flow model 

customized for the residential 

refrigeration products covered in this 

rulemaking. The key MIA output is 

industry net present value (INPV). DOE 

used the GRIM to calculate cash flows 

using standard accounting principles 

and to compare changes in INPV 

between a base case and various TSLs 

(the standards cases). The difference in 

INPV between the base and standards 

cases represents the financial impact of 

the amended standard on 

manufacturers. Different sets of 

assumptions (scenarios) produce 

different results. DOE reports the MIA 

impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards by grouping 

together the impacts on manufacturers 

of certain product classes. DOE presents 

the industry impacts by the major 

product types (i.e., standard size 

refrigerator-freezers, standard size 

freezers, compact refrigerators and 

freezers, and built-in refrigeration 

products). These product groupings 

represent markets that are served by the 

same manufacturers. By segmenting the 

results into these product types, DOE is 

able to discuss how these subgroups of 

manufacturers will be impacted by 

amended energy conservation 

standards. 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses factors such as product 

characteristics, characteristics of 

particular firms, and market trends. The 

qualitative discussion also includes an 

assessment of the impacts of standards 

on subgroups of manufacturers. DOE 

outlined its complete methodology for 

the MIA in the NOPR. 75 FR at 59519– 

59526 (September 27, 2010). The 

complete MIA is presented in chapter 

12 of the NOPR and final rule TSD. 

1. Comments From Interested Parties 

DOE received a number of comments 

from interested parties in response to 

the NOPR. Sub Zero commented that 

while it is not a small business, it is a 

small refrigerator manufacturer 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57556 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

34See http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/

documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf 

for a list of SBA size standards. 

compared to its competition. It argued 

that its smaller size places it at a 

disadvantage compared to larger 

competitors with respect to the supply 

chain for compressors, which could 

cause Sub Zero to experience supply 

disruptions that would seriously impact 

their business and ability to compete. 

(Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 3) Sub Zero 

added that its cost and distribution 

structures are different from the 

majority of the industry, and its small 

scale results in higher costs per unit 

production, including engineering 

related expenses. (Sub Zero, No. 69 at 

p. 2) Sub Zero commented that the new 

standards on smaller manufacturers in 

any segment of the appliance industry 

introduce costs and personnel 

requirements that represent a larger 

percentage of resources than those 

required by larger competitors. (Sub 

Zero, No. 69 at p. 3) Whirlpool simply 

stated that it was not a small business 

and offered no comment on the 

proposal’s impact on small 

manufacturers. (Whirlpool, No. 74 at 

p. 6) 

DOE agrees that a smaller 

manufacturer could face all of the 

additional challenges raised by Sub 

Zero relative to a larger competitor. DOE 

also notes that while many larger 

refrigerator manufacturers also produce 

built-in units and could experience 

some benefits in the built-in market 

from their overall scale, built-in 

production volumes for any 

manufacturer are likely to be much 

lower for built-in products than freestanding products. While a smaller 

manufacturer could face all the 

challenges listed by Sub Zero, DOE 

believes that the separate analysis and 

presentation of results for built-in 

products adequately addresses Sub 

Zero’s concerns about the potential 

impacts on built-in manufacturers. DOE 

continues to believe that presenting the 

built-in analysis results separately from 

other categories is the most appropriate 

way to analyze the lower production 

volumes and different cost structure for 

built-in manufacturing. 

In the NOPR, DOE investigated 

whether small business manufacturers 

should be analyzed as a manufacturer 

subgroup. 75 FR at 59520, 59548 

(September 27, 2010). As part of this 

effort, DOE identified one company that 

manufactures products covered by this 

rulemaking and qualifies as a small 

business under the applicable Small 

Business Administration (SBA) 

definition.34 DOE did not analyze a 

separate subgroup of small business 

manufacturers in the NOPR because it 

determined this rulemaking would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Id. at 59571–59572. DOE requested 

comment on this determination and 

sought any information concerning 

small businesses that could be impacted 

by this rulemaking as well as the nature 

and extent of those potential impacts of 

the proposed energy conservation 

standards on small residential 

refrigeration product manufacturers. Id. 

at 59572 and 59575. DOE received no 

information regarding these issues. DOE 

received comments from Whirlpool and 

Sub Zero that supported its initial 

classification of the number of small 

business manufacturers of residential 

refrigeration products. (Whirlpool No. 

74, at p. 6; Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 3) 

Therefore, the final rule continues to 

refrain from treating small business 

manufacturers as a manufacturer 

subgroup but also maintains the 

separate analysis and presentation of 

results for built-in products. 

Sub Zero also commented that the 

proposed standards would have 

implications for their company. At the 

proposed built-in standard levels, it 

asserted that the company will be 

pressed to meet the necessary efficiency 

levels, remain a viable business, and 

achieve profitability. Sub Zero also 

argued that the new standards could 

also impact the number of products that 

meet high visibility programs such as 

ENERGY STAR and indicated that these 

challenges are in addition to attempting 

to recover from a difficult business 

environment. Sub Zero added that 

different regulations in other areas of 

the world, notably Canada and Europe, 

that involve more than energy and are 

not harmonized with U.S. requirements, 

pose significant challenges and noted 

that this regulatory burden is the biggest 

challenge for the future. (Sub Zero, No. 

69 at p. 3) Sub Zero agreed that DOE’s 

analysis presented in the NOPR 

confirms that new standards will impact 

built-in designs more stringently than 

conventional free-standing products to 

meet any given efficiency level. Sub 

Zero stated it was also concerned that 

built-ins be separated as distinct 

product classes with different efficiency 

levels from conventional product 

classes, in order to continue to offer 

consumers the utility they desire at 

reasonable added costs. (Sub Zero, No. 

69 at pp. 1–2) 

DOE agrees that manufacturers such 

as Sub Zero face challenges. For 

example, because Sub Zero holds a large 

market share of the premium, built-in 

market, DOE expects that a significant 

portion of the $65 million in product 

conversion costs and $55 million in 

capital conversion costs calculated for 

built-in product classes will be borne by 

Sub Zero. However, DOE believes that 

the INPV impacts calculated in the MIA 

analyze the potential impacts on builtin manufacturers due to amended 

energy conservation standards. This 

adjustment, along with providing 

separate product classes for built-in 

products to help preserve the utility that 

these products offer, will help mitigate 

the potential adverse financial impact 

that would result from this rule. 

DOE also received a number of 

comments about possible refrigerant and 

blowing agent changes. Whirlpool, GE, 

and AHAM all noted possible changes 

to the regulatory landscape for the 

refrigerants available in residential 

refrigeration products. (Whirlpool, No. 

74 at p. 4; GE, No. 76 at p. 2; AHAM, 

No. 73 at pp. 7–8) Sub Zero also 

highlighted the current uncertainty 

about potential future regulation of HFC 

refrigerants and blowing agents. It 

suggested that the industry could 

potentially be faced with enforced 

conversion to other substances by 2014, 

which would require significant 

additional capital investment. (Sub 

Zero, No. 69 at p. 4) 

These comments are addressed above 

in section 0. Because these comments 

also relate to the cumulative regulatory 

burden, DOE reiterates that it concluded 

isobutane products may soon become 

available. However, DOE did not 

consider the switch to isobutane 

refrigerant as a design option to reduce 

energy use because sufficient 

information regarding the energy 

savings characteristics and the costs of 

the new designs was not available. DOE 

did not consider the possible capital 

investment needed by conversions to 

other substances by 2014 because DOE 

believes that basing energy conservation 

standards on the uncertain prospect of 

pending regulations or legislation would 

be speculative. 

2. GRIM Key Inputs 

The GRIM inputs are data 

characterizing the industry cost 

structure, investments, shipments, and 

markups. DOE updates the MIA to 

reflect changes in the outputs of two 

other key DOE analyses that feed into 

the GRIM: The engineering analysis and 

the NIA. For the final rule, DOE did not 

receive any relevant comments that 

would necessitate such changes to the 

engineering analysis. Similarly, DOE 

did not receive comments from 

interested parties that would change 

assumptions or shipments in the NIA. 

DOE did not request specific comment 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57557 

35 Data on industry employment, hours, labor 

compensation, value of production, and the implicit 

price deflator for output for these industries are 

available upon request by calling the Division of 

Industry Productivity Studies (202–691–5618) or by 

sending a request by e-mail to dipsweb@bls.gov. 

Available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ 

prin1.nr0.htm. 

36See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional 

Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional 

Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). 

Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Commerce, 

1992. 

on the inputs to the MIA in the NOPR 

and is maintaining the same 

methodology for the final rule. 

For the final rule, DOE incorporated 

trends in prices over time into the 

analysis. These prices trends in every 

year also impact the MIA results. DOE 

used the same price trends in the NIA 

from the base year of the analysis 

through the end of the analysis period. 

DOE also assumed that manufacturer 

product costs (MPCs) and MSPs were 

similarly impacted by the price trends 

in both the base case and standards 

cases. See section 0 for a description of 

how DOE implemented price trends into 

the analysis. The other major GRIM 

assumptions and inputs that are not part 

of the engineering analysis or NIA are 

outlined below. 

a. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

Amended energy conservation 

standards will cause manufacturers to 

incur one-time conversion costs to bring 

their production facilities and product 

designs into compliance. For the MIA, 

DOE classified these one-time 

conversion costs into two major groups: 

(1) Product conversion costs and (2) 

capital conversion costs. Product 

conversion costs are one-time 

investments in research, development, 

testing, marketing, and other noncapitalized costs focused on making 

product designs comply with the 

amended energy conservation standard. 

Capital conversion costs are one-time 

investments in property, plant, and 

equipment to adapt or change existing 

production facilities so that new 

product designs can be fabricated and 

assembled. 

DOE based its estimates of the 

product conversion costs that would be 

required to meet each TSL on 

information obtained from manufacturer 

interviews, the design pathways 

analyzed in the engineering analysis, 

and market information about the 

number of platform and product 

families for each manufacturer. DOE 

based its capital conversion cost 

estimates on manufacturer interviews 

and assumptions from the engineering 

analysis. 75 FR at 59521 (September 27, 

2010). DOE’s estimates of the product 

and capital conversion costs for all of 

the refrigeration products addressed in 

this rulemaking can be found in section 

0, of today’s final rule and in chapter 12 

of the final rule TSD. 

b. Markup Scenarios 

For the MIA, DOE modeled two 

standards-case markup scenarios to 

represent the uncertainty regarding the 

potential impacts on prices and 

profitability for manufacturers following 

the implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards: (1) A flat 

markup scenario, and (2) a preservation 

of operation profit scenario. These 

scenarios lead to different markup 

values, which, when applied to the 

inputted MPCs, result in varying 

revenue and cash flow impacts. 

The flat markup scenario assumes that 

the cost of goods sold for each product 

is marked up by a flat percentage to 

cover standard SG&A expenses, R&D 

expenses, and profit. This scenario 

represents the upper bound of industry 

profitability in the standards case 

because manufacturers are able to fully 

pass through to their customers the 

additional costs due to compliance with 

applicable standards. DOE also modeled 

the preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario. In this scenario, the 

manufacturer markups are lowered such 

that, in the standards case, 

manufacturers are only able to maintain 

the base-case total operating profit in 

absolute dollars, despite higher product 

costs and investment. DOE 

implemented this scenario in GRIM by 

lowering the manufacturer markups at 

each TSL to yield approximately the 

same earnings before interest and taxes 

in the standards case in the year after 

the compliance date of the amended 

standards as in the base case. This 

scenario represents the lower bound of 

industry profitability following 

amended energy conservation standards 

because higher MPCs and the 

investments required to comply with 

the amended energy conservation 

standard do not yield additional 

operating profit. 75 FR at 59522 

(September 27, 2010). 

3. Manufacturer Interviews 

DOE interviewed manufacturers 

representing more than 95 percent of 

standard-size refrigerator-freezer sales, 

approximately 95 percent of standardsize freezer sales, about 75 percent of 

compact refrigerator and freezer sales, 

and more than 95 percent of built-in 

refrigeration products. These interviews 

were in addition to those DOE 

conducted as part of the engineering 

analysis. DOE outlined the key issues in 

the rulemaking for manufacturers in the 

NOPR. 75 FR at 59524–59526 

(September 27, 2010). 

J. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting an amended standard. 

Employment impacts consist of direct 

and indirect impacts. Direct 

employment impacts are any changes in 

the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the appliance products 

that are the subject of this rulemaking, 

their suppliers, and related service 

firms. Indirect employment impacts are 

changes in national employment that 

occur due to the shift in expenditures 

and capital investment caused by the 

purchase and operation of moreefficient appliances. The MIA addresses 

the direct employment impacts that 

concern manufacturers of refrigeration 

products. The employment impact 

analysis addresses the indirect 

employment impacts. 

Indirect employment impacts from 

standards consist of the net jobs created 

or eliminated in the national economy, 

other than in the manufacturing sector 

being regulated, due to: (1) Reduced 

spending by end users on energy; (2) 

reduced spending on new energy 

supplies by the utility industry; (3) 

increased spending on new products to 

which the new standards apply; and (4) 

the effects of those three factors 

throughout the economy. DOE expects 

the net monetary savings from standards 

to be redirected to other forms of 

economic activity. DOE also expects 

these shifts in spending and economic 

activity to affect the demand for labor in 

the short term, as explained below. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sectoral employment statistics 

developed by the Labor Department’s 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).35 The 

BLS regularly publishes its estimates of 

the number of jobs per million dollars 

of economic activity in different sectors 

of the economy, as well as the jobs 

created elsewhere in the economy by 

this same economic activity. Data from 

BLS indicate that expenditures in the 

utility sector generally create fewer jobs 

(both directly and indirectly) than 

expenditures in other sectors of the 

economy. There are many reasons for 

these differences, including wage 

differences and the fact that the utility 

sector is more capital intensive and less 

labor intensive than other sectors.36

Energy conservation standards have 

the effect of reducing consumer utility 

bills. Because reduced consumer 

expenditures for energy likely lead to 

increased expenditures in other sectors 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57558 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

37 J. M. Roop, M. J. Scott, and R. W. Schultz, 

ImSET 3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, 

PNNL–18412, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory, 2009. Available at: http://www.pnl.gov/ 

main/publications/external/technical_reports/ 

PNNL-18412.pdf. 

38 DOE notes that future iterations of the NEMS– 

BT model will incorporate any changes necessitated 

by issuance of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 

of the economy, the general effect of 

efficiency standards is to shift economic 

activity from a less labor-intensive 

sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more 

labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the retail 

and service sectors). Thus, based on the 

BLS data alone, DOE believes net 

national employment will increase due 

to shifts in economic activity resulting 

from amended standards for 

refrigeration products. 

For the standards considered in 

today’s final rule, DOE estimated 

indirect national employment impacts 

using an input/output model of the U.S. 

economy called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies (ImSET). ImSET is a 

spreadsheet model of the U.S. economy 

that focuses on 187 sectors most 

relevant to industrial, commercial, and 

residential building energy use.37

ImSET is a special purpose version of 

the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National InputOutput’’ (I–O) model, which has been 

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model with structural coefficients to 

characterize economic flows among the 

187 sectors. ImSET’s national economic 

I–O structure is based on a 2002 U.S. 

benchmark table, specially aggregated to 

the 187 sectors. DOE estimated changes 

in expenditures using the NIA 

spreadsheet. Using ImSET, DOE then 

estimated the net national, indirect 

employment impacts by sector of 

potential amended efficiency standards 

for refrigeration products. 

For more details on the employment 

impact analysis, see the final rule TSD, 

chapter 13. 

K. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

several important effects on the utility 

industry that would result from the 

adoption of new or amended standards. 

For both the NOPR final rule analyses, 

DOE used the NEMS–BT model to 

generate forecasts of electricity 

consumption, electricity generation by 

plant type, and electric generating 

capacity by plant type, that would result 

from each TSL. DOE obtained the 

energy savings inputs associated with 

efficiency improvements to considered 

products from the NIA. DOE conducts 

the utility impact analysis as a scenario 

that departs from the latest AEO2010 

Reference case. In other words, the 

estimated impacts of an amended 

standard are the differences between 

values forecasted by NEMS–BT and the 

values in the AEO2010 Reference case. 

As part of the utility impact analysis, 

DOE used NEMS–BT to assess the 

impacts on electricity prices of the 

reduced need for new electric power 

plants and infrastructure projected to 

result from the considered standards. In 

NEMS–BT, changes in power generation 

infrastructure affect utility revenue 

requirements, which in turn affect 

electricity prices. DOE estimated the 

change in electricity prices projected to 

result over time from each TSL. 

Chapter 14 of the final rule TSD 

presents more information on the utility 

impact analysis. 

L. Environmental Assessment 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the 

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI), DOE has prepared 

an environmental assessment (EA) of 

the impacts of the standards for 

refrigeration products in today’s final 

rule, which it has included as chapter 

15 of the TSD. DOE found that the 

environmental effects associated with 

the standards for refrigeration products 

were not significant. Therefore, DOE is 

issuing a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI), pursuant to NEPA, the 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for 

compliance with NEPA (10 CFR part 

1021). The FONSI is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In the EA, DOE estimated the 

reduction in power sector emissions of 

CO2, NOX, and Hg using the NEMS–BT 

computer model. In the EA, NEMS–BT 

is run similarly to the AEO NEMS, 

except that refrigeration product energy 

use is reduced by the amount of energy 

saved (by fuel type) due to each TSL. 

The inputs of national energy savings 

come from the NIA spreadsheet model, 

while the output is the forecasted 

physical emissions. The net benefit of 

each TSL in today’s final rule is the 

difference between the forecasted 

emissions estimated by NEMS–BT at 

each TSL and the AEO 2010 Reference 

Case. NEMS–BT tracks CO2 emissions 

using a detailed module that provides 

results with broad coverage of all sectors 

and inclusion of interactive effects. 

DOE has determined that SO2

emissions from affected fossil fuel fired 

combustion devices (also known as 

Electric Generating Units (EGUs)) are 

subject to nationwide and regional 

emissions cap and trading programs that 

create uncertainty about the standards’ 

impact on SO2 emissions. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q, 

sets an annual emissions cap on SO2 for 

affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous 

states and the District of Columbia 

(D.C.). SO2 emissions from 28 eastern 

states and DC are also limited under the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 

25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an 

allowance-based trading program. 

Although CAIR has been remanded to 

EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. 

Circuit), see North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008), it remains in 

effect temporarily, consistent with the 

D.C. Circuit’s earlier opinion in North 

Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). On August 2, 2010, EPA issued 

the Transport Rule proposal, a 

replacement for CAIR, which would 

limit emissions from EGUs in 32 states, 

and may allow some amount of 

interstate trading. 75 FR 45210. EPA 

issued the final transport rule, entitled 

the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, on 

July 6, 2011.38 See http://www.epa.gov/ 

crossstaterule/. 

The attainment of emissions caps is 

typically flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. Under 

existing EPA regulations, any excess 

SO2 emissions allowances resulting 

from the lower electricity demand 

caused by the imposition of an 

efficiency standard could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by any regulated EGU. 

However, if the standard resulted in a 

permanent increase in the quantity of 

unused emissions allowances, there 

would be an overall reduction in SO2

emissions from the standards. While 

there remains some uncertainty about 

the ultimate effects of efficiency 

standards on SO2 emissions covered by 

the existing cap and trade system, the 

NEMS–BT modeling system that DOE 

uses to forecast emissions reductions 

currently indicates that no physical 

reductions in power sector emissions 

would occur for SO2. Because the 

Transport Rule has not been finalized, 

there is no way to predict the effect of 

this rulemaking on SO2 emissions after 

the Transport Rule goes into effect. 

A cap on NOX emissions, affecting 

electric generating units in the CAIR 

region, means that standards on 

refrigeration products may have little or 

no physical effect on NOX emissions in 

the 28 eastern States and the District of 

Columbia covered by CAIR. Again, as 

noted above, because the Transport Rule 

has not been finalized, there is no way 

to predict the effect of this rulemaking 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57559 

39National Research Council. Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use. National Academies Press: 

Washington, DC. 2009. 

on NOx emissions after the Transport 

Rule goes into effect. 

Today’s standards would, however, 

reduce NOX emissions in those 22 States 

not affected by the CAIR. As a result, 

DOE used NEMS–BT to forecast 

emission reductions from the standards 

that are considered in today’s final rule. 

Similar to emissions of SO2 and NOX, 

future emissions of Hg would have been 

subject to emissions caps. In May 2005, 

EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule 

(CAMR). 70 FR 28606 (May 18, 2005). 

CAMR would have permanently capped 

emissions of mercury for new and 

existing coal-fired power plants in all 

States by 2010. However, on February 8, 

2008, the DC Circuit issued a decision 

in New Jersey v. Environmental 

Protection Agency, in which it vacated 

CAMR. 517 F.3d 574 (D.C. Cir. 2008). 

EPA has decided to develop emissions 

standards for power plants under the 

Clean Air Act (Section 112), consistent 

with the DC Circuit’s opinion on CAMR. 

See http://www.epa.gov/air/ 

mercuryrule/pdfs/ 

certpetition_withdrawal.pdf. Pending 

EPA’s forthcoming revisions to the rule, 

DOE is excluding CAMR from its 

Environmental Analysis. In the absence 

of CAMR, a DOE standard would likely 

reduce Hg emissions and DOE plans to 

use NEMS–BT to estimate these 

emission reductions. However, DOE 

continues to review the impact of rules 

that reduce energy consumption on Hg 

emissions, and may revise its 

assessment of Hg emission reductions in 

future rulemakings. 

M. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and 

Other Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

final rule, DOE considered the estimated 

monetary benefits likely to result from 

the reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX

that are expected to result from each of 

the TSLs considered. In order to make 

this calculation similar to the 

calculation of the NPV of consumer 

benefit, DOE considered the reduced 

emissions expected to result over the 

lifetime of products shipped in the 

forecast period for each TSL. This 

section summarizes the basis for the 

monetary values used for each of these 

emissions and presents the benefits 

estimates considered. 

For today’s final rule, DOE is relying 

on a set of values for the social cost of 

carbon (SCC) that were developed by an 

interagency process. A summary of the 

basis for these new values is provided 

below, and a more detailed description 

of the methodologies used is provided 

in appendix 16–A of the final rule TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

Under Executive Order 12866, 

agencies must, to the extent permitted 

by law, ‘‘assess both the costs and the 

benefits of the intended regulation and, 

recognizing that some costs and benefits 

are difficult to quantify, propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs.’’ 

The purpose of the SCC estimates 

presented here is to allow agencies to 

incorporate the monetized social 

benefits of reducing CO2 emissions into 

cost-benefit analyses of regulatory 

actions that have small, or ‘‘marginal,’’ 

impacts on cumulative global emissions. 

The estimates are presented with an 

acknowledgement of the many 

uncertainties involved and with a clear 

understanding that they should be 

updated over time to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed these SCC estimates, 

technical experts from numerous 

agencies met on a regular basis to 

consider public comments, explore the 

technical literature in relevant fields, 

and discuss key model inputs and 

assumptions. The main objective of this 

process was to develop a range of SCC 

values using a defensible set of input 

assumptions grounded in the existing 

scientific and economic literatures. In 

this way, key uncertainties and model 

differences transparently and 

consistently inform the range of SCC 

estimates used in the rulemaking 

process. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services. Estimates of the 

social cost of carbon are provided in 

dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide. 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of carbon 

dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a 

number of serious challenges. A recent 

report from the National Research 

Council 39 points out that any 

assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information 

about (1) Future emissions of 

greenhouse gases, (2) the effects of past 

and future emissions on the climate 

system, (3) the impact of changes in 

climate on the physical and biological 

environment, and (4) the translation of 

these environmental impacts into 

economic damages. As a result, any 

effort to quantify and monetize the 

harms associated with climate change 

will raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the serious limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing carbon 

dioxide emissions. Consistent with the 

directive quoted above, the purpose of 

the SCC estimates presented here is to 

make it possible for agencies to 

incorporate the social benefits from 

reducing carbon dioxide emissions into 

cost-benefit analyses of regulatory 

actions that have small, or ‘‘marginal,’’ 

impacts on cumulative global emissions. 

Most Federal regulatory actions can be 

expected to have marginal impacts on 

global emissions. 

For such policies, the agency can 

estimate the benefits from reduced (or 

costs from increased) emissions in any 

future year by multiplying the change in 

emissions in that year by the SCC value 

appropriate for that year. The net 

present value of the benefits can then be 

calculated by multiplying each of these 

future benefits by an appropriate 

discount factor and summing across all 

affected years. This approach assumes 

that the marginal damages from 

increased emissions are constant for 

small departures from the baseline 

emissions path, an approximation that 

is reasonable for policies that have 

effects on emissions that are small 

relative to cumulative global carbon 

dioxide emissions. For policies that 

have a large (non-marginal) impact on 

global cumulative emissions, there is a 

separate question of whether the SCC is 

an appropriate tool for calculating the 

benefits of reduced emissions. DOE does 

not attempt to answer that question 

here. 

At the time of the preparation of the 

notice, the most recent interagency 

estimates of the potential global benefits 

resulting from reduced CO2 emissions in 

2010, expressed in 2009$, were $4.9, 

$22.1, $36.3, and $67.1 per metric ton 

avoided. For emission reductions that 

occur in later years, these values grow 

in real terms over time. Additionally, 

the interagency group determined that a 

range of values from 7 percent to 23 

percent should be used to adjust the 

global SCC to calculate domestic 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57560 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

40 It is recognized that this calculation for 

domestic values is approximate, provisional, and 

highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why 

domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 

net global damages over time. 

41 Values per ton of CO2 given in this section refer 

to metric tons. 

42The models are described in appendix 16–A of 

the final rule TSD. 

effects,40 although preference is given to 

consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

change and its impacts on society 

improves over time. Specifically, the 

interagency group has set a preliminary 

goal of revisiting the SCC values within 

two years or at such time as 

substantially updated models become 

available, and to continue to support 

research in this area. In the meantime, 

the interagency group will continue to 

explore the issues raised by this analysis 

and consider public comments as part of 

the ongoing interagency process. 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

To date, economic analyses for 

Federal regulations have used a wide 

range of values to estimate the benefits 

associated with reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. In the final model year 2011 

CAFE rule, the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) used both a 

‘‘domestic’’ SCC value of $2 per ton of 

CO2 and a ‘‘global’’ SCC value of $33 per 

ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions 

(in 2007 dollars), increasing both values 

at 2.4 percent per year.41 See Average 

Fuel Economy Standards Passenger 

Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011, 

74 FR 14196 (March 30, 2009); Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards, Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks, Model Years 2011–2015 at 3–90 

(Oct. 2008) (Available at: http:// 

www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). It also 

included a sensitivity analysis at $80 

per ton of CO2. A domestic SCC value 

is meant to reflect the value of damages 

in the United States resulting from a 

unit change in carbon dioxide 

emissions, while a global SCC value is 

meant to reflect the value of damages 

worldwide. 

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT 

assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per 

ton of CO2 (in 2006 dollars) for 2011 

emission reductions (with a range of 

$0–$14 for sensitivity analysis), also 

increasing at 2.4 percent per year. See 

Average Fuel Economy Standards, 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model 

Years 2011–2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 

2008); Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and 

Light Trucks, Model Years 2011–2015 at 

3–58 (June 2008) (Available at: http:// 

www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A 

regulation for packaged terminal air 

conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps finalized by DOE in October 

of 2008 used a domestic SCC range of 

$0 to $20 per ton CO2 for 2007 emission 

reductions (in 2007 dollars). 73 FR 

58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 2008) In addition, 

EPA’s 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases 

identified what it described as ‘‘very 

preliminary’’ SCC estimates subject to 

revision. See Regulating Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act, 

73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008). EPA’s 

global mean values were $68 and $40 

per ton CO2 for discount rates of 

approximately 2 percent and 3 percent, 

respectively (in 2006 dollars for 2007 

emissions). 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. To ensure consistency in 

how benefits are evaluated across 

agencies, the Administration sought to 

develop a transparent and defensible 

method, specifically designed for the 

rulemaking process, to quantify avoided 

climate change damages from reduced 

CO2 emissions. The interagency group 

did not undertake any original analysis. 

Instead, it combined SCC estimates from 

the existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The 

outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: Global SCC 

estimates for 2007 (in 2006 dollars) of 

$55, $33, $19, $10, and $5 per ton of 

CO2. 

These interim values represent the 

first sustained interagency effort within 

the U.S. government to develop an SCC 

for use in regulatory analysis. The 

results of this preliminary effort were 

presented in several proposed and final 

rules and were offered for public 

comment in connection with proposed 

rules, including the joint EPA–DOT fuel 

economy and CO2 tailpipe emission 

proposed rules. See CAFE Rule for 

Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Draft 

EIS and Final EIS, cited above. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

Since the release of the interim 

values, the interagency group 

reconvened on a regular basis to 

generate improved SCC estimates 

considered for this amended rule. 

Specifically, the group considered 

public comments and further explored 

the technical literature in relevant 

fields. 

The interagency group relied on three 

integrated assessment models (IAMs) 

commonly used to estimate the SCC: 

The FUND, DICE, and PAGE models.42

These models are frequently cited in the 

peer-reviewed literature and were used 

in the last assessment of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. Each model was given equal 

weight in the SCC values that were 

developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

Climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

The interagency group selected four 

SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three values are based on the 

average SCC from the three IAMs, at 

discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. 

The fourth value, which represents the 

95th percentile SCC estimate across all 

three models at a 3 percent discount 

rate, is included to represent higherthan-expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution. For emissions (or 

emission reductions) that occur in later 

years, the SCC values grow in real terms 

over time, as depicted in Table IV.7. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57561 

43Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050. 

For DOE’s calculation, it derived values after 2050 

using the 3-percent per year escalation rate used by 

the interagency group. 

44For additional information, refer to U.S. Office 

of Management and Budget, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, ‘‘2006 Report to Congress on 

the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and 

Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 

Entities,’’ Washington, DC. 

45OMB, Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 

17, 2003). 

TABLE IV.7—SCC VALUES FROM INTERAGENCY PROCESS, 2010–2050 

[2007 Dollars per metric ton] 

Discount rate 

5% Avg 3% Avg 2.5% Avg 3% 95th 

2010 ................................................................................................. 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 ................................................................................................. 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 

2020 ................................................................................................. 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 ................................................................................................. 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 

2030 ................................................................................................. 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 ................................................................................................. 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 

2040 ................................................................................................. 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 

2045 ................................................................................................. 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 

2050 ................................................................................................. 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

since they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points 

out that there is tension between the 

goal of producing quantified estimates 

of the economic damages from an 

incremental ton of carbon and the limits 

of existing efforts to model these effects. 

There are a number of concerns and 

problems that should be addressed by 

the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of 

the agencies participating in the 

interagency process to estimate the SCC. 

The U.S. Government intends to 

periodically review and reconsider 

estimates of the SCC used for costbenefit analyses to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. In this 

context, statements recognizing the 

limitations of the analysis and calling 

for further research take on exceptional 

significance. The interagency group 

offers the new SCC values with all due 

humility about the uncertainties 

embedded in them and with a sincere 

promise to continue work to improve 

them. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

most recent values identified by the 

interagency process, adjusted to 2009$ 

using the GDP price deflator values for 

2008 and 2009. For each of the four 

cases specified, the values used for 

emissions in 2010 were $4.9, $22.1, 

$36.3, and $67.1 per metric ton avoided 

(values expressed in 2009$). To 

monetize the CO2 emissions reductions 

expected to result from amended 

standards for refrigeration products in 

2014–2043, DOE used the values 

identified in Table A1 of the ‘‘Social 

Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Under Executive Order 

12866,’’ which is reprinted in appendix 

15–A of the final rule TSD, 

appropriately escalated to 2009$.43 To 

calculate a present value of the stream 

of monetary values, DOE discounted the 

values in each of the four cases using 

the specific discount rate that had been 

used to obtain the SCC values in each 

case. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

DOE investigated the potential 

monetary benefit of reduced NOX

emissions from the TSLs it considered. 

As noted above, new or amended energy 

conservation standards would reduce 

NOX emissions in those 22 States that 

are not affected by the CAIR. DOE 

estimated the monetized value of NOX

emissions reductions resulting from 

each of the TSLs considered for today’s 

NOPR based on environmental damage 

estimates from the literature. Available 

estimates suggest a very wide range of 

monetary values, ranging from $370 per 

ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX from 

stationary sources, measured in 2001$ 

(equivalent to a range of $447 to $4,591 

per ton in 2009$).44 In accordance with 

OMB guidance, DOE conducted two 

calculations of the monetary benefits 

derived using each of the economic 

values used for NOX, one using a real 

discount rate of 3 percent and another 

using a real discount rate of 7 percent.45

DOE is aware of multiple agency 

efforts to determine the appropriate 

range of values used in evaluating the 

potential economic benefits of reduced 

Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await 

further guidance regarding consistent 

valuation and reporting of Hg emissions 

before it once again monetizes Hg in its 

rulemakings. 

V. Discussion of Other Comments 

The following section discusses 

comments received by DOE related to 

other issues. In general, these issues 

involved subjects that generally fell 

outside of the framework described in 

detail above. 

A. Demand Response 

This section discusses comments 

received regarding demand response or 

smart grid controls. These are controls 

that can react to signals from utilities or 

other external organizations and alter 

the product’s operation. This capability 

might be used to allow utilities to 

reduce energy use during peak demand 

hours by reducing the power input of 

many connected appliances. 

DOE received comments on this topic 

during the preliminary analysis phase 

from LG, the U.S. Navy, and the IOUs. 

(LG, No. 44 at p. 5; USN, No. 35 at p. 

2; IOUs, No. 39 at p. 13). DOE explained 

in the NOPR that it did not consider a 

demand response feature, in part 

because of the uncertainty of overall 

benefits and the limitations of the legal 

framework under which DOE would be 

able to pursue such a design 

requirement approach. 75 FR at 59530 

(September 27, 2010). 

AHAM disagreed with DOE’s 

conclusion that demand response would 

not contribute significantly to energy 

use. (AHAM, No. 73 at p. 9) However, 

AHAM’s comments did not provide any 

information quantifying the potential 

energy savings associated with 

implementation of demand response in 

refrigeration products. The highlighted 

conclusions of the Electric Power 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57562 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

46The inclusion of a demand response feature 

within these products would also require 

considerable analysis for which DOE has no data. 

Research Institute study cited by AHAM 

do not even explicitly indicate that 

refrigeration product demand response 

contributed to energy savings. (Id.) 

AHAM further indicates that demand 

response applied to appliances 

including refrigeration products would 

help to enable use of renewable energy 

sources. (AHAM, No. 73 at pp. 9–10) 

DOE notes that this rulemaking 

involves the amending of an energy 

conservation standard for refrigeration 

products. The term ‘‘energy 

conservation standard’’ is defined as 

either a performance standard that 

prescribes a minimum level of energy 

efficiency or maximum amount of 

energy use or a design standard for 

certain specified products. As DOE 

stated previously, creating a design 

standard as an energy conservation 

standard is limited to specific 

enumerated consumer products under 

42 U.S.C. 6291(6). See 75 FR at 59530 

(September 27, 2010). Since setting a 

demand response feature requirement 

would be the same as setting a design 

standard, DOE must look to those 

products for which it has the authority 

to set design standards. As DOE also 

pointed out, refrigeration products are 

not within this list. Commenters made 

no effort to challenge the validity of this 

view, citing instead to policy-related 

initiatives that highlighted the potential 

benefits associated with smart grid 

approaches. While the issues cited by 

commenters are clearly important 

issues, they do not obviate the 

requirement that DOE act within the 

boundaries of its authority within the 

context of this rulemaking. Accordingly, 

DOE did not incorporate a demand 

response feature requirement as part of 

today’s final rule.46

B. Energy Standard Round-Off 

The NOPR discussed the adoption of 

a round-off when reporting energy test 

results. This approach, explained in 

greater detail in the test procedure 

NOPR, would require manufacturers to 

report the measured energy 

consumption to the nearest kWh/year 

based on consideration of achievable 

measurement accuracy. 75 FR at 29849 

(May 27, 2010). The energy standard 

NOPR explained that similar round-off 

was necessary to avoid meaningless 

indications of non-compliance. DOE 

also requested comment on the 

implementation of energy standard 

round-off. 75 FR at 59570 (September 

27, 2010). 

AHAM supported using a round-off 

when calculating the energy standard 

using the energy standard equations for 

refrigeration products. (AHAM, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 94; 

AHAM, No. 73 at p. 10) Whirlpool 

concurred with this approach. 

(Whirlpool, No. 74 at p. 6) No 

commenter objected to the round-off 

approach. 

DOE has implemented the energy use 

round-off approach as part of the test 

procedure final rule. As a result, 

manufacturers must follow this 

approach when reporting the energy 

consumption of its refrigeration 

products. The test procedure rule 

includes a round-off for the calculation 

of the energy standard when using the 

appropriate energy standard equations. 

See 75 FR at 78831–78832 (December 

16, 2010). 

C. Trial Standard Levels and Proposed 

Standards 

1. Efficiency Levels 

Many stakeholders supported DOE’s 

selection of efficiency levels that 

mirrored the levels of the negotiated 

agreement. (AHAM, No. 73 at p. 1; 

IOUs, No. 77 at p. 1; PGEC, No. 68 at 

p. 1; JAC, No. 75 at p. 1) Sub Zero 

supported the selection of efficiency 

levels for built-ins that mirrored the 

negotiated agreement while indicating 

that the analyses suggest that less 

stringent levels would also have been 

appropriate. (Sub Zero, No. 69 at p. 5) 

Whirlpool supported the selection of 

efficiency levels for built-in products, 

subject to DOE’s adoption of the builtin product definition developed for the 

consensus agreement. (Whirlpool, No. 

74 at p. 6) 

However, concerns about the 

negotiated levels for numerous products 

were expressed by other stakeholders, 

primarily utilities and organizations 

representing utilities. EEI and APPA 

expressed concern about the standard 

levels chosen for bottom-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, built-in bottommount refrigerator-freezers, and 

compact refrigerators and did not 

endorse the standard levels chosen for 

top-mount refrigerator-freezers, side-byside refrigerator-freezers, built-in allrefrigerators, built-in side-by-side 

refrigerators, and built-in upright 

freezers. (EEI, No. 71 at pp. 3–4; APPA, 

No. 72 at pp. 2–3) SC expressed concern 

about selection of any standard levels 

above the levels of reasonable life cycle 

costs . (SC, No. 70 at p. 2) These 

concerns are based on (1) the percentage 

of consumers determined to experience 

life cycle cost benefits being uncertain 

or too high, and (2) the implication that 

DOE used the social cost of carbon 

dioxide emissions combined with 

consumer economics to justify the 

chosen standard levels. (EEI, No. 71 at 

p. 2; APPA, No. 72 at pp. 1–2; SC, No. 

70 at p. 2) Moreover, SC argued that 

replacement of an older refrigerator with 

one meeting the current 2001 standard 

would save 23 times more energy. (SC, 

No. 70 at p. 2) 

Responding to the concern about the 

percentage of consumers determined to 

experience a net life cycle cost, DOE 

must consider a range of factors in 

setting efficiency levels (see section 

II.A), and for almost all product classes, 

the net savings per consumer is positive. 

Regarding the implication that DOE 

used the societal cost of carbon dioxide 

emissions to help justify the chosen 

standard levels, DOE did not, in fact, 

combine the societal cost of carbon with 

consumer economics in any of its 

calculations, but rather considered the 

positive benefit of reducing the societal 

cost of carbon, as part of a general 

assessment of environmental benefits, in 

making its final determination. 

Environmental benefits are an important 

rationale for national energy 

conservation, especially because the 

energy prices paid by consumers do not 

include some of the environmental costs 

associated with their use of energy. 

Energy savings from energy 

conservation standards often result in 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with energy 

production. DOE analyzed the 

environmental effects from the amended 

standards for refrigeration products, and 

from each TSL it considered, in the 

environmental assessment, which is 

described in section IV.L of this notice 

and in chapter 15 of the TSD. As a 

companion to the quantitative analysis 

in the environmental assessment, DOE 

also estimated a range of the economic 

value of emissions reductions resulting 

from the considered TSLs, as described 

in section IV.M of this notice. 

With respect to the replacement of old 

refrigerators in lieu of a more stringent 

standard, this case was considered as an 

alternative regulatory policy in chapter 

16 of the TSD. DOE found that the 

impact of such a policy would be, in all 

cases, much less effective than a new 

standard. 

The PRC commented that the 

maximum energy use of the proposed 

standards was lower than the current 

ENERGY STAR levels for product 

classes 8, 9, 10, 10A, and 13A, suggested 

that the current ENERGY STAR levels 

reflect current advanced technologies 

and achieve the purpose of ‘‘protection 

of the environment and consumers’’, 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57563 

and recommended that the maximum 

allowable energy use be no lower than 

the current ENERGY STAR levels. (PRC, 

No. 87 at p. 3) In response, DOE first 

notes that ENERGY STAR is a voluntary 

program. As such, manufacturers do not 

need to meet these levels unless they 

wish to produce ENERGY STARqualified products. Second, DOE is 

required by EPCA to consider all 

feasible technology levels, regardless of 

whether they represent less energy use 

than current ENERGY STAR levels, and 

to set a standard at the most efficient 

and feasible level that is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) 

Accordingly, the non-mandatory nature 

of ENERGY STAR, coupled with the 

mandatory nature of EPCA’s statutory 

requirement to promulgate new 

standards cut in favor of today’s action. 

The PRC also commented that the 

standard levels proposed for product 

classes 5A, 6, 7, and 7–BI were not very 

stringent, being very close to their 

current standard levels expressed in 

kWh/year, even though the ENERGY 

STAR efficiency level has been set at a 

level representing 20 percent less energy 

consumption. The PRC provided an 

example of a product class 7 product 

with 500 liter adjusted volume, for 

which the proposed energy standard is 

581.1 kWh/year, while the current 

standard is only slightly higher at 283.7 

kWh/year. (PRC, No. 87 at p. 4) DOE 

believes that the PRC’s 283.7 kWh/year 

value is in error and should have been 

583.7 kWh/year. DOE notes that these 

values cannot be directly compared, 

because the new energy standard is 

based on the new test procedure, for 

which both measured energy use and 

the calculated adjusted volume are 

altered. 

SMUD made two comments regarding 

the selection of standard levels. First, 

SMUD noted that DOE indicated that it 

was considering either increasing or 

decreasing the stringency of the 

proposed levels based on stakeholder 

comments. It recommended that DOE 

not consider any decreased stringency. 

(SMUD, No. 88 at pp. 1, 2) DOE has not 

altered the standards from those 

proposed in the NOPR. Second, SMUD 

noted that the NOPR stated that 

products of the efficiency levels of the 

proposed standards are already 

commercially available for some, if not 

most, of the product classes. (See 75 FR 

at 59474 (September 27, 2010)) SMUD 

recommended moving the standards to 

efficiency levels more stringent than 

those of commercially available 

products, since these higher levels 

should be viable. (Id. at p. 2) As 

described above, DOE is required by 

EPCA to consider all feasible technology 

levels and that it must set the standard 

at the most efficient of these feasible 

levels that is economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) The commercial 

availability of products at a specific 

efficiency level, alone, is not sufficient 

justification for setting the standard at a 

more stringent efficiency level, since the 

more stringent level may not be 

economically justified. 

2. Maximum Energy Use Equations 

Several stakeholders indicated that 

they could not comment on the specific 

values represented by the maximum 

energy use equations because they did 

not have sufficient time after the 

issuance of the test procedure final/ 

interim final rule to conduct tests to 

evaluate the equation levels. (AHAM, 

No. 73 at pp. 1–2 ; Whirlpool, No. 74 

at p. ; GE, No. 76 at pp. 1–2) This is 

discussed in greater detail in section 0. 

VI. Analytical Results 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to potential energy efficiency 

standards for the various product 

classes examined as part of this 

rulemaking. Issues discussed include 

the trial standard levels examined by 

DOE, the projected impacts of each of 

these levels if adopted as energy 

efficiency standards for refrigeration 

products, and the standards levels that 

DOE is adopting in today’s final rule. 

Additional details regarding the 

analyses conducted by the agency are 

contained in the publicly available TSD 

supporting this rulemaking. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

DOE analyzed the benefits and 

burdens of a number of TSLs for the 

refrigeration products that are the 

subject of today’s final rule. A 

description of each TSL DOE analyzed 

is provided below. DOE attempted to 

limit the number of TSLs considered for 

today’s final rule by excluding 

efficiency levels that do not exhibit 

significantly different economic and/or 

engineering characteristics from the 

efficiency levels already selected as a 

TSL. While DOE only presents the 

results for those efficiency levels in TSL 

combinations in today’s final rule, DOE 

presents the results for all efficiency 

levels that it analyzed in the final rule 

TSD. 

Table VI.1 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding product class efficiencies 

for standard-size refrigerator-freezers. 

TSL 1 consists of those efficiency levels 

that meet current ENERGY STAR 

criteria. TSL 2 consists of incrementally 

higher efficiency levels than the 

preceding TSL. TSL 3 consists of the 

highest efficiency levels for which the 

consumer NPV is positive, using a 7- 

percent discount rate, as well as the 

levels recommended in the Joint 

Comments. TSL 4 consists of those 

efficiency levels that yield energy use 30 

percent below the baseline products, as 

well as the highest efficiency levels for 

which the consumer NPV is positive, 

using a 3-percent discount rate. TSL 5 

consists of the max-tech efficiency 

levels. 

TABLE VI.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS

Trial standard level 

Efficiency level (% less than baseline energy use) 

Top-mount 

refrigerator-freezers and allrefrigerators Bottom-mount 

refrigeratorfreezers 

Side-by-side 

refrigeratorfreezers 

Product classes 

1, 1A, 2, 3, 3A, 

3I and 6 

Product classes 

5, 5A, and 5I 

Product classes 

4, 4I, and 7 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 (20) 3 (20) 3 (20) 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 3(20) 3 (20) 4 (25) 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... * 4 (25) 3 (20) 4 (25) 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 5 (30) 5 (30) 5 (30) 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 6 (36) 6 (36) 6 (33) 

* Level for product classes 1, 1A, and 2 is 20%. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57564 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Table VI.2 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding product class efficiencies 

for standard-size freezers. TSL 1 

consists of those efficiency levels that 

yield energy use 20 percent below the 

baseline products. TSL 2 consists of the 

levels recommended in the Joint 

Comments. TSL 3 consists of 

incrementally higher efficiency levels 

than the preceding TSL. TSL 4 consists 

of incrementally higher efficiency levels 

than the preceding TSL. TSL 5 consists 

of the max-tech efficiency levels, which 

are also the highest efficiency levels for 

which the consumer NPV is positive, 

using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 

discount rate. 

TABLE VI.2—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS

Trial standard level 

Efficiency level (% less than baseline energy use) 

Upright freezers Chest freezers 

Product classes 

9 and 9I Product class 8 Product classes 10 and 10A 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 (20) 3 (20) 3 (20) 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 5 (30) 4 (25) * 4 (25) 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 6 (35) 5 (30) 5 (30) 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 7 (40) 6 (35) 6 (35) 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 8 (44) 7 (41) 7 (41) 

* Level for product class 10A is 30%. 

Table VI.3 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding product class efficiencies 

for compact refrigeration products. TSL 

1 consists of efficiency levels that meet 

current ENERGY STAR criteria for some 

compact refrigerators (product classes 

11, 11A, and 12), and efficiency levels 

that are 10 percent below the baseline 

energy use for other compact 

refrigerators (product classes 13, 13I, 

13A, 14, 14I, 15 and 15I) and compact 

freezers (product classes 16, 17, and 18). 

TSL 2 consists of the levels 

recommended in the Joint Comments. 

TSL 3 consists of incrementally higher 

efficiency levels than the previous TSL. 

TSL 4 consists of the highest efficiency 

levels for which the consumer NPV is 

positive, using both a 3-percent and a 7- 

percent discount rate. TSL 5 consists of 

the max-tech efficiency levels. 

TABLE VI.3—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS

Trial standard level 

Efficiency level (% less than baseline energy use) 

Compact refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers Compact 

freezers 

Product classes 

11, 11A, 12 

Product classes 

13, 13I, 13A, 14, 

14I, 15, 15I 

Product classes 

16, 17, 18 

1 ....................................................................................................................................... 3 (20) 1 (10) 1 (10) 

2 ....................................................................................................................................... 4 (25) * 2 (15) 1 (10) 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 5 (30) 2 (15) 2 (15) 

4 ....................................................................................................................................... 7 (40) 4 (25) 4 (25) 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 10 (59) 7 (42) 7 (42) 

* Level for product class 13A is 25 percent, and for product classes 14 and 14I is 20 percent. 

Table VI.4 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding product class efficiencies 

for built-in refrigeration products. TSL 1 

consists of the efficiency levels that are 

10 percent better than the current 

standard. TSL 2 consists of the highest 

efficiency levels for which the consumer 

NPV is positive, using both a 3-percent 

and a 7-percent discount rate. TSL 3 

consists of the levels recommended in 

the Joint Comments. TSL 4 consists of 

incrementally higher efficiency levels 

than TSL 3. TSL 5 consists of the maxtech efficiency levels. 

TABLE VI.4—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS

Trial standard level 

Efficiency level (% less than baseline energy use) 

Built-in 

top-mount 

refrigerator-freezers and 

all-refrigerators 

Built-in 

bottom-mount 

refrigeratorfreezers 

Built-in 

side-by-side 

refrigeratorfreezers 

Built-in upright 

freezers 

Product classes 

3–BI, 3I–BI, and 

3A–BI 

Product classes 

5–BI, 5I–BI, and 

5A–BI 

Product classes 

4–BI, 4I–BI and 

7–BI 

Product classes 

9–BI and 9I–BI 

1 ....................................................................................................... 1 (10) 1 (10) 1 (10) 1 (10) 

2 ....................................................................................................... 2 (15) 2 (15) 1 (10) 3 (20) 

3 ....................................................................................................... 3 (20) 2 (15) 3 (20) 4 (25) 

4 ....................................................................................................... 4 (25) 4 (25) 3 (20) 4 (25) 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57565 

TABLE VI.4—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS—Continued 

Trial standard level 

Efficiency level (% less than baseline energy use) 

Built-in 

top-mount 

refrigerator-freezers and 

all-refrigerators 

Built-in 

bottom-mount 

refrigeratorfreezers 

Built-in 

side-by-side 

refrigeratorfreezers 

Built-in upright 

freezers 

Product classes 

3–BI, 3I–BI, and 

3A–BI 

Product classes 

5–BI, 5I–BI, and 

5A–BI 

Product classes 

4–BI, 4I–BI and 

7–BI 

Product classes 

9–BI and 9I–BI 

5 ....................................................................................................... 5 (29) 5 (27) 4 (22) 5 (27) 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Consumers affected by new or 

amended standards usually experience 

higher purchase prices and lower 

operating costs. DOE evaluates these 

impacts on individual consumers by 

calculating changes in LCC and the PBP 

associated with potential standard 

levels. Using the approach described in 

section IV.F, DOE calculated the LCC 

impacts and PBPs for the efficiency 

levels considered in this rulemaking. 

For each representative product class, 

DOE’s analysis provided several outputs 

for each TSL, which are reported in 

Table VI.5 through Table VI.15. Each 

table includes the average total LCC and 

the average LCC savings, as well as the 

fraction of product consumers for which 

the LCC will either decrease (net 

benefit), increase (net cost), or exhibit 

no change (no impact) relative to the 

product purchased in the base case. The 

last output in the tables is the median 

PBP for the consumer purchasing a 

design that complies with a given TSL. 

The results for each TSL are relative to 

the energy efficiency distribution in the 

base case (no amended standards). DOE 

based the LCC and PBP analyses on 

energy consumption under conditions 

of actual product use, whereas it based 

the rebuttable presumption PBPs on 

energy consumption under conditions 

prescribed by the DOE test procedure, as 

required by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) 

TABLE VI.5—PRODUCT CLASS 3, TOP-MOUNT REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard 

level 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

% of households that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline .......... $491 $787 $1,278 .................. .................... .................... .................. ..................

1 (10) .............. 501 730 1,231 46 0 .28 21 .9 77.8 2.3 

2 (15) .............. 508 701 1,209 69 0 .60 17 .6 81.8 2.6 

1, 2 .................. 3 (20) .............. 564 671 1,235 44 34 .0 8 .31 57.7 8.0 

3 ...................... 4 (25) .............. 602 634 1,236 42 45 .7 0 .0 54.3 9.5 

4 ...................... 5 (30) .............. 686 598 1,284 ¥6 65 .1 0 .0 34.9 13.3 

5 ...................... 6 (36) .............. 806 560 1,365 ¥87 79 .7 0 .0 20.3 17.8 

TABLE VI.6—PRODUCT CLASS 5, BOTTOM-MOUNT REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard 

level 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

% of households that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline .......... $858 $970 $1,828 .................. .................... .................... .................. ..................

1 (10) .............. 860 961 1,820 9 0 .02 86 .9 13.1 2.1 

2 (15) .............. 861 956 1,817 14 0 .05 86 .9 13.1 2.3 

1, 2, 3 .............. 3 (20) .............. 867 943 1,809 22 2 .53 67 .8 29.7 4.2 

4 (25) .............. 926 901 1,827 5 67 .9 0 .03 32.0 14.9 

4 ...................... 5 (30) .............. 1,023 862 1,885 ¥53 82 .8 0 .03 17.2 21.0 

5 ...................... 6 (36) .............. 1,157 810 1,968 ¥136 89 .0 0 .00 11.1 24.7 

TABLE VI.7—PRODUCT CLASS 7, SIDE-BY-SIDE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS WITH THROUGH-THE-DOOR ICE SERVICE: LCC 

AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard 

level 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

% of households that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline .......... $1,040 $1,252 $2,292 .................. .................... .................... .................. ..................


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57566 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.7—PRODUCT CLASS 7, SIDE-BY-SIDE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS WITH THROUGH-THE-DOOR ICE SERVICE: LCC 

AND PBP RESULTS—Continued 

Trial standard 

level 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

% of households that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

1 (10) .............. 1,043 1,228 2,271 22 0 .00 78 .1 21.9 1.3 

2 (15) .............. 1,048 1,202 2,249 44 0 .06 51 .7 48.3 2.1 

1 ...................... 3 (20) .............. 1,064 1,167 2,232 62 4 .27 36 .9 58.8 4.0 

2, 3 .................. 4 (25) .............. 1,123 1,114 2,237 57 41 .5 0 .00 58.6 9.2 

4 ...................... 5 (30) .............. 1,251 1,061 2,312 ¥18 69 .7 0 .00 30.3 15.6 

5 ...................... 6 (33) .............. 1,351 1,026 2,377 ¥83 79 .5 0 .00 20.5 19.1 

TABLE VI.8—PRODUCT CLASS 9, UPRIGHT FREEZERS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard 

level 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

Period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

% of households that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline .......... $505 $1,098 $1,603 .................. .................... .................... .................. ..................

1 (10) .............. 516 1,015 1,530 73 0 .25 19 .9 79.9 1.9 

2 (15) .............. 535 964 1,499 105 5 .02 1 .67 93.3 3.6 

1 ...................... 3 (20) .............. 552 912 1,464 140 6 .03 0 .59 93.4 4.0 

4 (25) .............. 578 859 1,437 166 9 .58 0 .41 90.0 4.9 

2 ...................... 5 (30) .............. 602 806 1,408 195 11 .5 0 .22 88.2 5.3 

3 ...................... 6 (35) .............. 656 758 1,414 189 21 .9 0 .00 78.1 7.1 

4 ...................... 7 (40) .............. 731 711 1,442 161 34 .6 0 .00 65.4 9.3 

5 ...................... 8 (44) .............. 898 673 1,570 33 59 .7 0 .00 40.3 14.7 

TABLE VI.9—PRODUCT CLASS 10, CHEST FREEZER: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard 

level 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

% of households that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline .......... $367 $623 $990 .................. .................... .................... .................. ..................

1 (10) .............. 373 573 947 43 0 .20 16 .2 83.6 2.0 

2 (15) .............. 383 544 927 63 3 .01 1 .18 95.8 3.2 

1 ...................... 3 (20) .............. 393 515 908 82 5 .14 0 .22 94.6 3.9 

2 ...................... 4 (25) .............. 436 485 921 69 27 .3 0 .22 72.5 8.1 

3 ...................... 5 (30) .............. 456 455 911 79 29 .1 0 .22 70.6 8.5 

4 ...................... 6 (35) .............. 510 433 943 47 48 .7 0 .00 51.4 12.1 

5 ...................... 7 (41) .............. 620 395 1,015 ¥25 69 .1 0 .00 31.0 17.8 

TABLE VI.10—PRODUCT CLASS 11, COMPACT REFRIGERATORS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard 

level 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

% of households that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline .......... $131 $167 $298 .................. .................... .................... .................. ..................

1 (10) .............. 137 151 287 11 9 .01 1 .60 89.4 1.8 

2 (15) .............. 141 143 284 14 13 .6 1 .39 85.0 2.1 

1 ...................... 3 (20) .............. 146 135 281 17 19 .7 1 .39 79.0 2.5 

2 ...................... 4 (25) .............. 157 127 284 14 36 .8 1 .00 62.3 3.5 

3 ...................... 5 (30) .............. 166 119 285 13 43 .4 0 .92 55.6 3.9 

6 (35) .............. 192 112 304 ¥6 71 .3 0 .00 28.7 6.0 

4 ...................... 7 (40) .............. 199 104 303 ¥5 69 .8 0 .00 30.2 5.8 

8 (45) .............. 230 97 327 ¥29 83 .5 0 .00 16.5 7.7 

9 (50) .............. 247 89 336 ¥38 85 .4 0 .00 14.6 8.0 

5 ...................... 10 (59) ............ 308 75 383 ¥85 92 .2 0 .00 7.85 10.4 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57567 

TABLE VI.11—PRODUCT CLASS 18, COMPACT FREEZERS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard 

level 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

% of households that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline .......... $182 $200 $382 .................. .................... .................... .................. ..................

1, 2 .................. 1 (10) .............. 189 182 370 12 7 .98 4 .66 87.4 2.2 

3 ...................... 2 (15) .............. 201 172 373 9 33 .9 0 .00 66.1 4.2 

3 (20) .............. 242 163 404 ¥22 87 .4 0 .00 12.6 9.8 

4 ...................... 4 (25) .............. 252 153 405 ¥23 84 .5 0 .00 15.5 9.1 

5 (30) .............. 282 146 428 ¥46 92 .4 0 .00 7.6 11.4 

6 (35) .............. 289 137 426 ¥44 89 .6 0 .00 10.4 10.4 

5 ...................... 7 (42) .............. 360 124 484 ¥102 96 .7 0 .00 3.3 14.4 

TABLE VI.12—PRODUCT CLASS 3A–BI, BUILT-IN ALL-REFRIGERATORS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard 

level 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

% of households that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline .......... $4,316 $828 $5,144 .................. .................... .................... .................. ..................

1 ...................... 1 (10) .............. 4,323 769 5,091 52 0 .02 22 .6 77.4 1.4 

2 ...................... 2 (15) .............. 4,334 739 5,073 71 0 .94 18 .4 80.7 2.6 

3 ...................... 3 (20) .............. 4,452 703 5,155 ¥11 61 .5 9 .10 29.4 13.7 

4 ...................... 4 (25) .............. 4,625 670 5,295 ¥151 91 .0 0 .00 9.02 25.5 

5 ...................... 5 (29) .............. 4,756 646 5,402 ¥258 95 .0 0 .00 5.01 31.4 

TABLE VI.13—PRODUCT CLASS 5–BI, BUILT-IN BOTTOM-MOUNT REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard 

level 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

% of households that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ......... $4,968 $960 $5,928 .................. .................... .................... .................... ..................

1 ..................... 1 (10) ............. 4,972 951 5,923 $8 0 .60 87 .1 12 .3 3.8 

2, 3 ................. 2 (15) ............. 4,982 957 5,939 2 7 .03 87 .0 5 .94 11.1 

3 (20) ............. 5,013 943 5,955 ¥14 27 .4 67 .5 5 .09 22.3 

4 ..................... 4 (25) ............. 5,168 911 6,079 ¥138 98 .0 0 .00 2 .03 52.8 

5 ..................... 5 (27) ............. 5,257 891 6,148 ¥207 98 .5 0 .00 1 .50 52.2 

TABLE VI.14—PRODUCT CLASS 7–BI, BUILT-IN SIDE-BY-SIDE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS WITH THROUGH-THE-DOOR ICE

SERVICE: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard 

level 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

% of households that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ......... $7,134 $1,494 $8,628 .................. .................... .................... .................... ..................

1, 2 ................. 1 (10) ............. 7,147 1,476 8,623 $10 5 .77 78 .5 15 .7 7.5 

2 (15) ............. 7,188 1,459 8,647 ¥9 36 .4 52 .4 11 .2 17.6 

3, 4 ................. 3 (20) ............. 7,307 1,423 8,729 ¥91 58 .5 37 .2 4 .28 31.0 

5 ..................... 4 (22) ............. 7,414 1,405 8,820 ¥182 97 .6 0 .00 2 .40 50.4 

TABLE VI.15—PRODUCT CLASS 9–BI, BUILT-IN UPRIGHT FREEZERS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS

Trial standard 

level 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

% of households that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ......... $3,928 $1,071 $4,999 .................. .................... .................... .................... ..................

1 ..................... 1 (10) ............. 3,943 990 4,933 $66 1 .53 19 .9 78 .6 2.9 

2 (15) ............. 3,956 942 4,898 101 3 .99 1 .70 94 .3 3.6 

2 ..................... 3 (20) ............. 4,042 898 4,940 59 42 .9 0 .57 56 .5 10.7 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57568 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.15—PRODUCT CLASS 9–BI, BUILT-IN UPRIGHT FREEZERS: LCC AND PBP RESULTS—Continued 

Trial standard 

level 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline 

energy use) 

Life-cycle cost 2009$ Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

2009$ 

% of households that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

3, 4 ................. 4 (25) ............. 4,176 847 5,023 ¥23 68 .8 0 .49 30 .7 17.8 

5 ..................... 5 (27) ............. 4,278 822 5,100 ¥101 79 .8 0 .27 20 .0 22.6 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

As described in section IV.H, DOE 

determined the impact of the considered 

TSLs on low-income households and 

senior-only households. DOE did not 

estimate impacts for compact 

refrigeration products because the 

household sample sizes were not large 

enough to yield meaningful results. 

Table VI.16 through Table VI.18 

compare the average LCC savings at 

each efficiency level for the two 

consumer subgroups with the average 

LCC savings for the entire sample for 

each representative product class. In 

general, the average LCC savings for 

low-income households and senior-only 

households at the considered efficiency 

levels are not substantially different 

from the average for all households. 

Chapter 11 of the final rule TSD 

presents the complete LCC and PBP 

results for the two subgroups. 

TABLE VI.16—STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER

SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS

Efficiency level (% less 

than baseline energy 

use) 

Top-mount refrigerator-freezers Bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers Side-by-side refrigerator-freezers 

Product class 3 Product class 5 Product class 7 

Senior Lowincome All Senior Lowincome All Senior Lowincome All 

1 (10) .......................... $43 $49 $46 $9 $10 $9 $22 $23 $22 

2 (15) .......................... 64 73 69 13 15 14 42 46 44 

3 (20) .......................... 36 48 43 21 24 22 59 64 62 

4 (25) .......................... 31 47 41 ¥1 6 5 48 56 57 

5 (30) .......................... ¥20 0 ¥7 ¥63 ¥52 ¥54 ¥31 ¥23 ¥18 

6 (36/36/33) ................ ¥105 ¥81 ¥89 ¥151 ¥136 ¥137 ¥100 ¥91 ¥85 

TABLE VI.17—STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND

ALL HOUSEHOLDS

Efficiency level (% less than baseline energy use) 

Upright freezers Chest freezers 

Product class 9 Product class 10 

Senior Lowincome All Senior Lowincome All 

1 (10) ............................................................................................ $69 $69 $73 $45 $42 $43 

2 (15) ............................................................................................ 98 98 105 66 61 63 

3 (20) ............................................................................................ 130 129 139 86 79 82 

4 (25) ............................................................................................ 153 153 166 74 65 68 

5 (30) ............................................................................................ 179 179 195 $85 $75 79 

6 (35) ............................................................................................ 170 170 189 54 42 47 

7 (40/41) ....................................................................................... 139 139 160 ¥18 ¥32 ¥26 

8 (44) ............................................................................................ 8 8 32 .................. .................. ..................

TABLE VI.18—BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS FOR CONSUMER

SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS

Efficiency level (% less 

than baseline energy use) 

Built-in all refrigerators Built-in bottom-mount 

refrigerator-freezers 

Built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers 

Built-in upright freezers 

Product class 3A–BI 

Product class 5–BI Product class 7–BI 

Product class 9–BI 

Senior Lowincome All Senior Lowincome All Senior Lowincome All Senior Lowincome All 

1 (10) ................................ $48 $54 $52 $7 $8 $8 $8 $9 $10 $61 $61 $66 

2 (15) ................................ 65 74 71 0 2 2 ¥15 ¥14 ¥9 93 92 101 

3 (20) ................................ ¥25 ¥14 ¥12 ¥19 ¥17 ¥15 ¥107 ¥109 ¥92 47 46 58 

4 (25/25/22/25) ................. ¥170 ¥155 ¥152 ¥148 ¥141 ¥139 ¥199 ¥201 ¥183 ¥39 ¥41 ¥24 

5 (29/27/-/27) .................... ¥280 ¥263 ¥260 ¥219 ¥210 ¥208 ............ ............ ............ ¥119 ¥121 ¥102 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57569 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section III.D.2, EPCA 

provides a rebuttable presumption that 

an energy conservation standard is 

economically justified if the increased 

purchase cost for a product that meets 

the standard is less than three times the 

value of the first-year energy savings 

resulting from the standard. In 

calculating a rebuttable presumption 

payback period for the considered 

standard levels, DOE used discrete 

values rather than distributions for 

input values, and, as required by EPCA, 

based the energy use calculation on the 

DOE test procedures for refrigeration 

products. As a result, DOE calculated a 

single rebuttable presumption payback 

value, and not a distribution of payback 

periods, for each efficiency level. Table 

VI.19 through Table VI.22 present the 

average rebuttable presumption payback 

periods for those efficiency levels where 

the increased purchase cost for a 

product that meets a standard at that 

level is less than three times the value 

of the first-year energy savings resulting 

from the standard. 

TABLE VI.19—STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS: EFFICIENCY LEVELS WITH REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD LESS

THAN THREE YEARS

Product class 3: Top-mount refrigerator-freezer Product class 5: Bottom-mount refrigeratorfreezer Product class 7: 

Side-by-side refrigerator-freezer with TTD * 

Efficiency level 

(% less than baseline 

energy use) 

PBP 

Years 

Efficiency level 

(% less than baseline 

energy use) 

PBP 

Years 

Efficiency level 

(% less than baseline 

energy use) 

PBP 

Years 

1 (10) 2.4 1 (10) 2.1 1 (10) 1.4 

2 (15) 2.6 2 (15) 2.4 2 (15) 1.7 

................................... ................................... ................................... 3 (20) 2.9 

* Through-the-door ice service. 

TABLE VI.20—STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS: EFFICIENCY LEVELS WITH REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD LESS THAN THREE

YEARS

Product class 9: Upright freezer Product class 10: Chest freezer 

Efficiency level 

(% less than baseline energy use) 

PBP 

Years 

Efficiency level 

(% less than baseline energy use) 

PBP 

Years 

1 (10) 1.9 1 (10) 1.8 

....................................................... 2 (15) 2.7 

TABLE VI.21—COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS: EFFICIENCY LEVELS WITH REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD LESS

THAN THREE YEARS

Product class 11: Compact refrigerator Product class 18: Compact freezer 

Efficiency level 

(% less than baseline energy use) 

PBP 

Years 

Efficiency level 

(% less than baseline energy use) 

PBP 

Years 

1 (10) 1.8 1 (10) 2.0 

2 (15) 2.1 ....................................................... .......................................................

3 (20) 2.7 ....................................................... .......................................................

TABLE VI.22—BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS: EFFICIENCY LEVELS WITH REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD LESS THAN

THREE YEARS

Product class 3A–BI: Built-in 

all-refrigerator 

Product class 5–BI: Built-in 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezer 

Product class 7–BI: Built-in sideby-side refrigerator-freezer with 

TTD * 

Product class 9–BI: Built-in 

upright freezer 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline energy 

use) 

PBP 

Years 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline energy 

use) 

PBP 

Years 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline energy 

use) 

PBP 

Years 

Efficiency level 

(% less than 

baseline energy 

use) 

PBP 

Years 

1 (10) 1.5 1 (10) .......................... 1 (10) .......................... 1 (10) 2.7 

2 (15) 2.6 .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

* Through-the-door ice service. 

While DOE examined the rebuttablepresumption criterion, it considered 

whether the standard levels considered 

for today’s rule are economically 

justified through a more detailed 

analysis of the economic impacts of 

these levels pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this 

analysis serve as the basis for DOE to 

definitively evaluate the economic 

justification for a potential standard 

level (thereby supporting or rebutting 

the results of any preliminary 

determination of economic 

justification). 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57570 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

The NOPR MIA used changes in INPV 

to compare the financial impacts of 

different TSLs on manufacturers. 75 FR 

at 59537–59546 (September 27, 2010) 

(describing the MIA used by DOE in its 

analysis). DOE presented the industry 

impacts by the major product types (i.e., 

standard size refrigerator-freezers, 

standard size freezers, compact 

refrigerators and freezers, and built-in 

refrigeration products). DOE used the 

GRIM to compare the INPV of the base 

case (no new energy conservation 

standards) to that of each TSL for each 

product grouping. The INPV is the sum 

of all net cash flows discounted by the 

industry’s cost of capital (discount rate). 

The difference in INPV between the 

base case and the standards case is an 

estimate of the economic impacts that 

implementing that standard level would 

have on the entire industry. For today’s 

final rule, DOE continues to use the 

methodology presented in the NOPR (75 

FR at 59519–59526 (September 27, 

2010)) and in section 0. The major 

methodology change DOE made for the 

final rule was incorporating long term 

product price trends into the analysis. 

Since the price trend for residential 

refrigeration products declines over the 

analysis period, the base case industry 

value is lower for all product groupings. 

Thus, incorporating price trends in the 

MIA increases the impacts on INPV due 

to standards. 

a. Cash-Flow Analysis Results 

The tables below depict the financial 

impacts on manufacturers (represented 

by changes in INPV) and the conversion 

costs DOE estimates manufacturers 

would incur at each TSL. DOE shows 

four sets of results, corresponding to the 

four sets of TSLs considered in this 

rulemaking. Each set of TSLs reflects the 

impacts on manufacturers of a certain 

group of product classes. 

Each set of results below shows two 

tables of INPV impacts: the first table 

reflects the lower (less severe) bound of 

impacts and the second represents the 

upper bound. To evaluate this range of 

cash-flow impacts on the residential 

refrigeration products industry, DOE 

modeled two different scenarios using 

different markup assumptions. These 

assumptions correspond to the bounds 

of a range of market responses that DOE 

anticipates could occur in the standards 

case (i.e. where amended energy 

conservation standards apply). Each 

scenario results in a unique set of cash 

flows and corresponding industry value 

at each TSL. 

To assess the lower (less severe) end 

of the range of potential impacts, DOE 

modeled the flat markup scenario. The 

flat markup scenario assumes that in the 

standards case manufacturers would be 

able to pass the higher production costs 

required for more efficient products on 

to their customers. Specifically, the 

industry would be able to maintain its 

average base-case gross margin, as a 

percentage of revenue, despite higher 

product costs. In general, the larger the 

product price increases, the less likely 

manufacturers are able to achieve the 

cash flow from operations calculated in 

this scenario because manufacturers 

would be less likely to be able to fully 

recoup these costs through larger price 

increases. 

Through its discussions with 

manufacturers, DOE found that overall 

profit is driven more by the bundling of 

product features, such as stainless steel 

exteriors, ice dispensers, and digital 

displays, than by energy efficiency 

characteristics. In other words, more 

efficient products command higher 

prices, but these prices are driven by the 

many other features that are also 

bundled with increased efficiency. 

However, the overall profit margin 

percentage does not vary widely even if 

the dollar profit per unit increases for 

products with these additional features. 

Manufacturers are skeptical that 

customers would accept higher prices 

for increased energy efficiency because 

it does not command higher margins in 

the current market. Under such a 

scenario, it follows that the large 

retailers that compose the relatively 

concentrated customer base of the 

industry would not accept 

manufacturers fully passing through the 

additional cost of improved efficiency 

because consumers would be wary of 

higher prices without additional 

features. Therefore, to assess the higher 

(more severe) end of the range of 

potential impacts, DOE modeled the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario in which higher energy 

conservation standards result in lower 

manufacturer markups. This scenario 

models manufacturers’ concerns that the 

higher costs of more efficient technology 

would harm profitability if the full cost 

increases cannot be passed on. The 

scenario represents the upper end of the 

range of potential impacts on 

manufacturers because higher 

production costs erode profit margins 

and result in lower cash flows from 

operations. 

DOE used the main NIA shipment 

scenario for both the lower- and higherbound MIA scenarios that were used to 

characterize the potential INPV impacts. 

The shipment forecast is an important 

driver of the INPV results below. The 

main NIA shipment scenario includes a 

price elasticity effect, meaning higher 

prices in the standards case result in 

lower shipments. Lower shipments also 

reduce industry revenue, and, in turn, 

INPV. 

i. Cash-Flow Analysis Results for 

Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers 

As part of its cash-flow analysis for 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers, DOE 

applied two different scenarios to 

project the impacts on manufacturers 

from standards at the various TSLs that 

DOE considered. The following tables 

provide those projected impacts under 

the flat-markup and preservation of 

operating profit markup scenarios. 

TABLE VI.23—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS—FLAT MARKUP

SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV .................................. (2009$ millions) ................ 2,670.1 2,552.2 2,450.9 2,325.1 1,885.1 1,627.9 

Change in INPV ................ (2009$ millions) ................ .................... (117.8) (219.2) (345.0) (784.9) (1,042.2) 

(%) .................................... .................... ¥4.4% ¥8.2% ¥12.9% ¥29.4% ¥39.0% 

Product Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 153 197 229 348 406 

Capital Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 229 393 620 1,405 2,013 

Total Conversion 

Costs.

(2009$ millions) ................ .................... 382 590 848 1,753 2,419 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57571 

TABLE VI.24—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS—PRESERVATION OF

OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV .................................. (2009$ millions) ................ 2,670.1 2,417.5 2,274.2 2,089.4 1,360.8 828.6 

Change in INPV ................ (2009$ millions) ................ .................... (252.6) (395.9) (580.7) (1,309.3) (1,841.5) 

(%) .................................... .................... ¥9.5% ¥14.8% ¥21.7% ¥49.0% ¥69.0% 

Product Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 153 197 229 348 406 

Capital Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 229 393 620 1,405 2,013 

Total Conversion 

Costs.

(2009$ millions) ................ .................... 382 590 848 1,753 2,419 

TSL 1 represents the current ENERGY 

STAR level for standard-size 

refrigerator-freezers or a 20-percent 

reduction in measured energy 

consumption over the current energy 

conservation standards for the analyzed 

standard-size top-mount product class 

3, a 20-perecent reduction for the 

analyzed standard-size bottom-mount 

product class 5, and a 20-percent 

reduction for the analyzed standard-size 

side-by-side product class 7. At TSL 1, 

DOE estimates impacts on INPV to range 

from ¥$117.8 million to ¥$252.6 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥4.4 

percent to ¥9.5 percent. At this TSL, 

industry free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 71.8 percent 

to $51.5 million, compared to the basecase value of $182.8 million in the year 

leading up to the amended energy 

conservation standards. 

The INPV impacts at TSL 1 are 

relatively minor, in part because the 

vast majority of manufacturers produce 

ENERGY STAR units in significant 

volumes, particularly for product 

classes 5 and 7. Approximately 42 

percent of product class 7 shipments 

and 47 percent of product class 5 

shipments currently meet this TSL. By 

contrast, the vast majority of product 

class 3 shipments are baseline units. 

Additionally, most of the design options 

DOE analyzed at this TSL are one-forone component swaps, including more 

efficient compressors and brushless DC 

condenser and evaporator fan motors, 

which require only modest changes to 

the manufacturing process at TSL 1. As 

such, DOE estimated total product 

conversion costs of $153 million and 

capital conversion costs of $229 million. 

While substantial on a nominal basis, 

the total conversion costs are relatively 

low compared to the industry value of 

$2.7 billion. The total conversion costs 

at TSL 1 are mostly driven by the design 

options that manufacturers could use to 

improve the efficiency of the smallersized units of the product classes 

analyzed. For example, the analyzed 

design options for the 22-cubic foot 

product class 7 unit included a VIP in 

the freezer door, while the 26-cubic foot 

product class 7 unit only analyzed less 

costly component swaps. VIP 

implementation would require 

significant capital and product 

conversion costs because additional 

production steps are required to hold 

and bind each panel in its location 

before the product is foamed. Each 

additional step requires more 

equipment to lengthen production lines 

and, because of lower throughput, more 

production lines for each manufacturer 

to maintain similar shipment volumes. 

Some manufacturers have experience 

with VIPs, but DOE expects substantial 

engineering and testing resources would 

be required for their use in new 

platforms and/or at higher production 

volumes. 

Similarly, the 16-cubic foot product 

class 3 unit uses a variable speed 

compressor as a design option. While 

not a capital intensive solution, variable 

speed compressors would require 

substantial engineering time to integrate 

the complex component, especially if 

electronic control systems would also be 

required. Because these changes are 

more complex than the other analyzed 

design options, more than three-quarters 

of the conversion costs for TSL 1 are 

attributable to the use of the VIPs and 

variable speed compressors in the 

smaller-volume product class 7 and 

product class 3 units, respectively. 

The flat markup scenario shows 

slightly negative impacts at TSL 1, 

indicating that the outlays for 

conversion costs marginally outweigh 

any additional profit earned on 

incrementally higher variable costs. On 

a shipment-weighted basis, the average 

MPC for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers increases by 10 percent at TSL 

1 after standards. These small 

component cost changes are not 

significant enough to fully recoup these 

investments even if manufacturers earn 

additional profit on these costs, as the 

flat markup scenario assumes. Hence, 

there is a slight negative impact, even in 

the upper-bound scenario, at TSL 1. 

The efficiency requirements for 

product class 3 and product class 5 

refrigerator-freezers are the same at TSL 

2 as TSL 1. However, the efficiency 

requirements for product class 7 

increase to a 25-percent reduction in 

measured energy consumption from 

current energy conservation standards. 

DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 

2 range from ¥$219.2 million to 

¥$395.9 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥8.2 percent to ¥14.8 percent. At 

this TSL, the industry cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

113.9 percent to ¥$25.4 million, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$182.8 million in the year leading up to 

the amended energy conservation 

standard. 

The additional impacts at TSL 2 

relative to TSL 1 result from the further 

improvements manufacturers must 

make to product class 7 refrigeratorfreezers to achieve a 25-percent energy 

reduction, as very few shipments of 

product class 7 currently exceed the 

ENERGY STAR level. Specifically, for 

the 22-cubic foot products, the design 

options DOE analyzed include a 

variable speed compressor and a VIP in 

the freezer cabinet, instead of the door 

as in TSL 1. For the 26-cubic foot 

product class 7 unit, the design options 

analyzed include a VIP in the freezer 

door in addition to additional 

component swaps and the component 

swaps needed to meet TSL 1. Total 

conversion costs increase by $208 

million compared to TSL 1, which is 

largely driven by the initial use of VIPs 

in the 26-cubic foot product class 7 unit. 

Besides these specific changes to sideby-side units, at TSL 2 most production 

lines of standard-size refrigeratorfreezers do not use VIPs or other very 

costly components, which mitigates 

some of the disruption to current 

facilities. Consequently, the INPV 

impacts, while greater than at TSL 1, are 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57572 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

47Throughout the document, the terms ‘‘max 

available’’ or ‘‘max-tech available’’ are intended to 

mean the maximum efficiency level of available 

products. 

still relatively moderate compared to the 

value of the industry as a whole. 

At TSL 2, the INPV in the flat markup 

is lower than at TSL 1, which means the 

additional conversion costs to add more 

VIPs leaves manufacturers worse off 

even if they can earn additional profit 

on these costly components. In the 

preservation of operating profit markup 

scenario, the industry earns no 

additional profit on this greater 

investment, lowering cash flow from 

operations in the standards case and 

resulting in greater INPV impacts. 

The efficiency requirements for 

product class 5 and product class 7 

refrigerator-freezers are the same at TSL 

3 as TSL 2. However, the efficiency 

requirements for product class 3 

increase to a 25-percent reduction in 

measured energy consumption from 

current energy conservation standards. 

TSL 3 represents a 25-percent reduction 

in measured energy consumption over 

the current energy conservation 

standards for both product class 3 and 

product class 7. In addition, TSL 3 

represents a 20-percent reduction in 

measured energy consumption for 

product classes 1, 1A, and 2. DOE 

estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 3 to 

range from ¥$345.0 million to ¥$580.7 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥12.9 

percent to ¥21.7 percent. At this TSL, 

the industry cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 168.0 

percent to ¥$124.3 million, compared 

to the base-case value of $182.8 million 

in the year leading up to the standards. 

The additional negative impacts on 

industry cash flow result from the 

changes to product class 3 refrigeratorfreezers to reach a 25-percent reduction 

in energy use (side-by-side products met 

this efficiency level at TSL 2). 

Specifically, the design options DOE 

analyzed at TSL 3 for 16-cubic foot topmount refrigerator-freezers included the 

use of VIPs for the first time (in the 

freezer cabinet), in addition to the 

component swaps discussed above. In 

total, DOE estimates product conversion 

costs of $229 million and capital 

conversion costs of $620 million at TSL 

3. The high cost to purchase new 

production equipment and the large 

engineering effort to manufacture new 

platforms for these smaller-sized 

product class 3 units drive the vast 

majority of this additional $258 million 

in conversion costs that DOE estimates 

manufacturers would incur at TSL 3. 

Because the smaller size top-mounted 

units account for a large percentage of 

total shipments, the production 

equipment necessary to implement new 

platforms for these products is costly. 

While production of units meeting 

TSL 3 is fairly limited, several 

manufacturers have introduced 

products that meet these efficiency 

levels in response to Federal production 

tax credits. This experience mitigates 

some of the product conversion costs by 

giving manufacturers some experience 

with the newer technologies. However, 

the more severe impacts at TSL 3, 

relative to TSL 2, are due to the 

incremental outlays for conversion costs 

to make the changes described above. In 

particular, any experience with VIPs on 

some products does not lower the 

substantial capital conversion necessary 

to purchase production equipment 

necessary to manufacture products that 

are substantially different from existing 

products. 

As mentioned above, the preservation 

of operating profit markup scenario 

assumes no additional profit is earned 

on the higher production costs. This 

assumption lowers profit margins as a 

percentage of revenue and leads to 

worse impacts on INPV. In the flat 

markup scenario, the impact of the 

investments is mitigated by the 

assumption that manufacturers can earn 

a similar profit margin as a percentage 

of revenues on their higher variable 

costs. At TSL 3, MPCs increase by an 

average of 16 percent after standards, 

leading to additional per-unit profit in 

this scenario. However, the magnitude 

of the conversion investments still leads 

to negative INPV impacts even if 

additional profit is earned on the 

incremental manufacturing costs. The 

lower industry shipments driven by the 

relative price elasticity assumption 

account for approximately $45 million 

of the impact in the flat markup 

scenario. 

TSL 4 represents a 30-percent 

reduction in measured energy 

consumption over the current energy 

conservation standards for product class 

3, product class 5, and product class 7. 

DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 

4 to range from ¥$784.9 million to 

¥$1,309.3 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥29.4 percent to ¥49.0 percent. At 

this TSL, the industry cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

a factor of 3.6 to ¥$469.3 million, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$182.8 million in the year leading up to 

the amended energy conservation 

standards. 

At TSL 4, significant changes to the 

manufacturing process are necessary for 

all refrigerator-freezers. A 30-percent 

reduction in energy consumption is the 

maximum-efficiency top-mounted 

products available on the market; 47 the 

maximum available side-by-side and 

bottom-mount only slightly exceed a 30- 

percent reduction. The design options 

DOE analyzed for all standard-size 

products—with the exception of the 25- 

cubic foot product class 5 unit—use 

multiple VIPs in the fresh food 

compartment, freezer doors, and 

cabinets to reach the 30-percent 

efficiency level. The design options also 

include the use of variable speed 

compressors for all units analyzed 

except the 21-cubic foot product class 3 

unit. These product changes 

substantially increase the variable costs 

across nearly all platforms at this TSL. 

While products that meet the 

efficiency requirements of TSL 4 are not 

in widespread production, several 

manufacturers produce units at these 

efficiencies due to tax credit incentives. 

However, at TSL 4, most manufacturers 

expect to completely redesign existing 

production lines if the amended energy 

conservation standards were set at 

levels that necessitated these changes 

across most or all of their products. 

Manufacturers would need to purchase 

injection molding equipment, cabinet 

bending equipment, and other 

equipment for interior tooling as they 

would need to create new molds for 

these production lines. These changes 

drive DOE’s estimate of the large 

product and capital conversion costs at 

TSL 4 ($348 million and $1,405 million, 

respectively). The significant 

incremental investment relative to TSL 

3 results, in large part, from the design 

option of adding VIPs to the 21-cubic 

foot analyzed product class 3 unit. This 

top-mounted refrigerator-freezer 

represents a substantial portion of the 

market and manufacturers would have 

to completely redesign these platforms. 

As a result of the large investment 

necessary to meet this TSL, some 

manufacturers could move production 

to lower-labor-costs countries to achieve 

cost savings for labor expenditures. 

(More information on employment 

impacts is provided in section 0.) In 

addition to the large capital conversion 

costs, the shipment-weighted average 

MPC increases by approximately 36 

percent at TSL 4 after standards 

compared to the base case. However, the 

magnitude of the conversion costs at 

TSL 4 are so large that even if 

manufacturers can reap additional profit 

from these higher product costs (as in 

the flat markup scenario), they would 

still be substantially impacted, as shown 

by the negative INPV results in the flat 

markup scenario. Additionally, the 36- 

percent increase in MPC drives 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57573 

shipments lower due to the price 

elasticity. Lower industry volume from 

the decline in shipments accounts for a 

change in industry value of 

approximately 16 percent in the flat 

markup scenario. The large, negative 

impact on INPV is even greater under 

the preservation of operating profit 

markup scenario due to the inability to 

pass on the higher costs of expensive 

design options such as variable speed 

compressors and VIPs. 

TSL 5 represents max tech for all 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers. The 

max-tech level corresponds to 

reductions in measured energy 

consumption compared to the current 

energy conservation standards for 

product class 3 (36 percent), product 

class 5 (36 percent), and product class 

7 (33 percent), respectively. DOE 

estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 5 to 

range from ¥$1,042.2 million to 

¥$1,841.5 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥39.0 percent to ¥69.0 percent. At 

this TSL, the industry cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by a factor of 

approximately 5.0 to ¥$727.5 million, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$182.8 million in the year leading up to 

the amended energy conservation 

standards. 

No products that meet TSL 5 are 

currently offered on the U.S. market. At 

TSL 5, the changes required to meet this 

TSL are similar to those at TSL 4, as 

complete redesigns of all platforms 

would be required. TSL 5 requires much 

more extensive use of VIPs, however. 

The higher conversion costs at TSL 5 are 

primarily due to the use of VIPs in 

additional locations in the door, cabinet 

and freezer, whereas at TSL 4 some of 

the analyzed design options of the 

larger-sized units included limited or no 

VIP use. This level would require 

manufacturers to further lengthen 

assembly lines and even modify or 

move their facilities outside of the 

United States. These factors drive the 

projected $2,419 million conversion 

cost estimate at this TSL. As with TSL 

4, at TSL 5 some manufacturers could 

elect to move production out of the U.S. 

to offset some of the additional product 

costs. At TSL 5, DOE estimates MPCs 

increase by approximately 58 percent 

after standards compared to the base 

case. Similar to TSL 4, this substantially 

reduces shipments due to the price 

elasticity effect and exacerbates the 

industry impacts in both markup 

scenarios. 

As with other TSLs, the impact on 

INPV is mitigated under the flat markup 

scenario because manufacturers are able 

to fully pass on the large increase in 

MPC to consumers, thereby increasing 

manufacturers’ gross profit in absolute 

terms. However, even assuming 

manufacturers could earn the same 

gross margin percentage per unit on 

those higher costs, the capital and 

product conversion costs cause negative 

INPV impacts, as shown by the 39 

percent decline in INPV in the flat 

markup scenario. This large impact even 

in the lower bound scenario 

demonstrates that the large conversion 

costs to redesign all existing platforms 

results in substantial harm. The result is 

predicted even if manufacturers earn a 

historical margin on these additional 

costs. Due to the extremely large cost 

increases at the max-tech level, it is less 

likely at TSL 5 than at other examined 

levels that manufacturers could fully 

pass through the increase in production 

costs. If margins are impacted, TSL 5 

would result in a substantial INPV loss 

under this scenario. 

ii. Cash-Flow Analysis Results for 

Standard-Size Freezers 

As part of its cash-flow analysis for 

standard-size freezers, DOE applied two 

different scenarios to project the 

impacts on manufacturers from 

standards at the various TSLs that DOE 

considered. The following tables 

provide those projected impacts under 

the flat-markup and preservation of 

operating profit markup scenarios. 

TABLE VI.25—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV .................................. (2009$ millions) ................ 337.8 308.0 214.1 225.3 252.4 192.7 

Change in INPV ................ (2009$ millions) ................ .................... (29.8) (123.7) (112.5) (85.4) (145.0) 

(%) .................................... .................... ¥8.8% ¥36.6% ¥33.3% ¥25.3% ¥42.9% 

Product Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 22 51 55 63 70 

Capital Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 50 175 182 183 320 

Total Conversion 

Costs.

(2009$ millions) ................ .................... 72 226 237 247 390 

TABLE VI.26—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS—PRESERVATION OF OPERATING

PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV .................................. (2009$ millions) ................ 337.8 287.7 167.3 159.6 155.3 39.0 

Change in INPV ................ (2009$ millions) ................ .................... (50.0) (170.5) (178.1) (182.4) (298.8) 

(%) .................................... .................... ¥14.8% ¥50.5% ¥52.7% ¥54.0% ¥88.5% 

Product Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 22 51 55 63 70 

Capital Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 50 175 182 183 320 

Total Conversion 

Costs.

(2009$ millions) ................ .................... 72 226 237 247 390 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57574 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TSL 1 represents a 20-percent 

reduction in measured energy use over 

the current energy conservation 

standards for the analyzed standard-size 

upright freezer product class 9 and a 20- 

percent reduction for the analyzed 

standard-size chest freezer product class 

10. DOE estimates the INPV impacts at 

TSL 1 to range from ¥$29.8 million to 

¥$50.0 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥8.8 percent to ¥14.8 percent. At this 

TSL, the industry cash flow is estimated 

to decrease by approximately 111.2 

percent to ¥$2.6 million, compared to 

the base-case value of $23.2 million in 

the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards. 

While products meeting TSL 1 are 

currently produced only in limited 

volumes, the changes in the 

manufacturing process would not 

require completely new platforms to 

meet the energy requirements at this 

TSL. For most standard-size freezer 

platforms, the design options DOE 

analyzed include the use of brushless 

direct current (DC) evaporator fan 

motors and compressors with higher 

EERs. However, the design options to 

meet this efficiency level also include 

increasing door insulation thickness for 

all analyzed products except the 20- 

cubic foot product class 10 unit. 

Increasing door insulation thickness 

drives the majority of the conversion 

cost outlay DOE estimates 

manufacturers would incur at TSL 1. To 

increase door insulation thickness, 

manufacturers would need to purchase 

new tooling for their door assemblies. 

DOE estimates that these changes would 

result in product conversion costs of 

$22 million and capital conversion costs 

of $50 million at TSL 1. However, the 

conversion costs are somewhat 

mitigated at TSL 1 because the design 

options analyzed would not change the 

production equipment for the cabinet. 

At TSL 1, variable costs increase by 

approximately 10 percent after 

standards relative to base case MPCs. 

The flat markup scenario shows less 

severe impacts because it assumes 

manufacturers can pass on these 

substantially higher product costs and 

maintain gross margin percentages. 

Additionally, the reduction in 

shipments due to the price elasticity has 

only a marginally negative effect at this 

TSL. The relatively large conversion 

costs decrease industry value under 

both markup scenarios and account for 

a substantial portion of the INPV 

impacts. This is especially the case if 

manufacturers are unable to earn any 

additional profit on the higher 

production costs (the preservation of 

operating profit scenario). 

TSL 2 represents a reduction in 

measured energy consumption over the 

current standards of 30 percent for 

product class 9 and 25 percent for 

product class 10. TSL 2 also represents 

reductions for the other product classes 

as well—product class 8 (upright 

freezers with manual defrost, 25 

percent) and product class 10A (chest 

freezers with automatic defrost, 30 

percent). DOE estimates the INPV 

impacts at TSL 2 to range from ¥$123.7 

million to ¥$170.5 million, or a change 

in INPV of ¥36.6 percent to ¥50.5 

percent. At this TSL, the industry cash 

flow is estimated to decrease by 

approximately a factor of 3.6 to ¥$60.0 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $23.2 million in the year 

leading up to the amended energy 

conservation standards. 

The vast majority of the standard-size 

freezer market does not currently meet 

the efficiency requirements at TSL 2. 

DOE’s design options assume that, in 

addition to the component swaps noted 

above, manufacturers would increase 

the insulation thickness of both the door 

and cabinet. As a result, product 

redesigns are expected across most 

platforms, which could substantially 

disrupt current manufacturing 

processes. These changes account for 

the majority of DOE’s estimates for total 

product conversion costs of $51 million 

and capital conversion costs of $175 

million, an increase over TSL 1 of $29 

million and $125 million, respectively. 

The magnitude of the investments, 

relative to the industry value, results in 

severe INPV impacts. Even if 

manufacturers are able to pass on the 

estimated 24-percent increase in 

product costs onto their customers after 

standards, the large product and capital 

conversion costs resulting from 

increased insulation thickness decrease 

INPV. If manufacturers are not able to 

pass on these costs, as shown by the 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario, INPV impacts are projected to 

be severe. 

TSL 3 represents a 35-percent 

reduction in measured energy use over 

the current energy conservation 

standards for product class 9 and a 30- 

percent reduction for product class 10. 

DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 

3 to range from ¥$112.5 million to 

¥$178.1 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥33.3 percent to ¥52.7 percent. At 

this TSL, the industry cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by a factor of 

approximately 3.7 to ¥$63.8 million, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$23.2 million in the year leading up to 

the amended energy conservation 

standards. 

The efficiency requirements at TSL 3 

are more stringent than the max 

available products in the market for 

product class 9 and product class 10. 

The impacts at TSL 3 are similar to 

those at TSL 2 because the design 

options analyzed by DOE already 

required platform redesigns at TSL 2. 

However, the additional design options 

analyzed at TSL 3 also include a 

variable speed compressor in the 14- 

cubic foot product class 9 unit and VIPs 

in the bottom wall of the 20-cubic foot 

product class 10 unit. These design 

options substantially increase the 

variable costs associated with these 

products but do not greatly change the 

product and capital conversion costs. 

DOE estimates that under TSL 3, the 

average MPC of a standard-size freezer 

is roughly 34 percent higher after 

standards than in the base case, leading 

to a 9-percent drop in shipments from 

the price elasticity assumption for 2014 

alone. 

The impacts at TSL 3 under the flat 

markup scenario become less severe 

than at TSL 2 because the scenario 

assumes manufacturers can fully pass 

on the added cost to consumers, while 

investments do not significantly 

increase from TSL 2 to TSL 3. However, 

under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario, manufacturers 

do not receive any extra profit on units 

of higher cost, resulting in worse INPV 

impacts at TSL 3 than at TSL 2. 

TSL 4 represents a 40-percent 

reduction in measured energy use over 

the current energy conservation 

standards for product class 9 and a 35- 

percent reduction for product class 10. 

DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 

4 to range from ¥$85.4 million to 

¥$182.4 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥25.3 percent to ¥54.0 percent. At 

this TSL, the industry cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by a factor of 

approximately 3.9 to ¥$66.5 million, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$23.2 million in the year leading up to 

the amended energy conservation 

standards. 

At TSL 4, the design options DOE 

analyzed include the addition of a 

variable speed compressor for the 20- 

cubic foot product class 9 unit, the 15- 

cubic foot product class 10 unit, and the 

20-cubic foot product class 10 unit. For 

the 14-cubic foot product class 9 unit, 

the design options analyzed were even 

thicker wall cabinet insulation and the 

implementation of VIPs. 

The relative impacts at TSL 4 are also 

caused by the incremental MPCs 

compared to the conversion costs to 

implement these design options. 

Outlays for conversion costs increase 

only slightly at TSL 4 (by 4 percent, 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57575 

compared to TSL 3) while variable costs 

increase substantially (by approximately 

52 percent after standards compared to 

the baseline) due to the addition of 

variable speed compressors and VIPs. 

Because manufacturers earn 

incrementally more profit on each unit 

at TSL 4 compared to TSL 3 in the flat 

markup scenario—without substantial 

changes to conversion costs—further 

declines in industry value, though still 

substantial, are mitigated in this 

scenario. However, manufacturers 

expressed skepticism that such large 

cost increases could be passed on. This 

view is reflected by the severely 

negative results in the preservation of 

operating profit scenario. 

TSL 5 represents max tech for the 

standard-size freezer product classes. 

This TSL reflects a 44-percent reduction 

in measured energy use for product 

class 9 and a 41-percent reduction for 

product class 10. DOE estimates the 

INPV impacts at TSL 5 to range from 

¥$145.0 million to ¥$298.8 million, or 

a change in INPV of ¥42.9 percent to 

¥88.5 percent. At this TSL, the industry 

cash flow is estimated to decrease by a 

factor of approximately 6.3 to ¥$122.8 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $23.2 million in the year 

leading up to the amended energy 

conservation standards. 

To achieve the max-tech level at TSL 

5, DOE analyzed design options that 

include the widespread implementation 

of multiple VIPs on all standard-size 

freezers, in addition to the use of more 

efficient components and thicker 

insulation already necessary to achieve 

the efficiency requirements at TSL 4. 

DOE estimated that TSL 5 would require 

product and capital conversion costs of 

$70 million and $320 million, 

respectively. These large conversion 

costs result from the changes associated 

with multiple VIP implementation and 

wall thickness increases. In addition, 

DOE estimates that product costs would 

almost double base-case MPCs after 

standards, driven by the use of variable 

speed compressors and VIPs in the 

doors and cabinet of all product lines. 

As a result, INPV decreases 

substantially from TSL 4 to TSL 5. 

iii. Cash-Flow Analysis Results for 

Compact Refrigeration Products 

As part of its cash-flow analysis for 

compact refrigeration products, DOE 

applied two different scenarios to 

project the impacts on manufacturers 

from standards at the various TSLs that 

DOE considered. The following tables 

provide those projected impacts under 

the flat-markup and preservation of 

operating profit markup scenarios. 

TABLE VI.27—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV .................................. (2009$ millions) ................ 169.4 152.8 133.3 106.5 127.9 14.5 

Change in INPV ................ (2009$ millions) ................ .................... (16.6) (36.2) (62.9) (41.5) (154.9) 

(%) .................................... .................... ¥9.8% ¥21.4% ¥37.1% ¥24.5% ¥91.4% 

Product Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 15 35 41 48 67 

Capital Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 24 46 76 71 220 

Total Conversion 

Costs.

(2009$ millions) ................ .................... 39 80 118 119 287 

TABLE VI.28—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS—PRESERVATION OF

OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV .................................. (2009$ millions) ................ 169.4 141.6 110.8 80.1 76.6 (73.2) 

Change in INPV ................ (2009$ millions) ................ .................... (27.8) (58.7) (89.3) (92.8) (242.6) 

(%) .................................... .................... ¥16.4% ¥34.6% ¥52.7% ¥54.8% ¥143.2% 

Product Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 15 35 41 48 67 

Capital Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 24 46 76 71 220 

Total Conversion 

Costs.

(2009$ millions) ................ .................... 39 80 118 119 287 

TSL 1 represents a 20-percent 

reduction in measured energy use over 

the current energy conservation 

standards for compact refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers (product class 11) 

and a 10-percent reduction for compact 

freezers (product class 18) analyzed by 

DOE. DOE estimates the INPV impacts 

at TSL 1 to range from ¥$16.6 million 

to ¥$27.8 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥9.8 percent to ¥16.4 percent. At 

this TSL, industry cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by approximately 

125.1 percent to ¥$2.7 million, 

compared to the base-case value of 

$10.7 million in the year leading up to 

the amended energy conservation 

standards. A small percentage of 

product class 18 shipments currently 

meet this TSL, but most product class 

11 shipments are baseline units. 

The design options analyzed by DOE 

at TSL 1 assumed that more significant 

changes in the manufacturing process 

would be required for product class 11, 

while product class 18 would only 

require increased compressor efficiency. 

For product class 11, DOE analyzed 

several design options that represent 

component changes, such as a more 

efficient compressor and increased heat 

exchanger area, which do not have a 

significant impact on consumer prices 

or conversion costs. However, DOE also 

analyzed increasing door insulation 

thickness for product class 11, which 

drives the bulk of the estimated $15 

million and $24 million outlays for 

product conversion and capital 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57576 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

conversion costs, respectively. As 

described for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers and standard-size freezers, 

increasing insulation thickness requires 

manufacturers to invest in injection 

molding equipment and other 

equipment for interior tooling to 

manufacture products with different 

door dimensions. The overall impacts at 

TSL 1 are relatively moderate because 

the conversion costs are still small 

compared to the industry value of 

$169.4 million. 

The higher production costs at TSL 1 

do not have a substantial impact on 

INPV at TSL 1. The MPC of compact 

refrigeration products on a shipmentweighted basis increases 11 percent over 

the base case at TSL 1 after standards. 

The combined INPV impacts are greater 

under the preservation of operating 

profit scenario since manufacturers 

cannot pass on any of the added cost to 

consumers under that scenario, 

resulting in lower cash flows from 

operations. However, because 

production costs do not greatly increase 

at TSL 1, the impacts on INPV are 

relatively low under this scenario as 

well. 

TSL 2 represents a 25-percent 

reduction in measured energy use over 

the current energy conservation 

standards for product class 11 and a 10- 

percent reduction for product class 18. 

TSL 2 also represents a 15-percent 

reduction in measured energy 

consumption for the analyzed product 

classes 13, 13I, 15, and 15I, and a 20- 

percent reduction for the unanalyzed 

product classes 14 and 14I. DOE 

estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 2 to 

range from ¥$36.2 million to ¥$58.7 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥21.4 

percent to ¥34.6 percent. At this TSL, 

the industry cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by approximately 254.9 

percent to ¥$16.6 million, compared to 

the base-case value of $10.7 million in 

the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards. 

At TSL 2, further changes are required 

for product class 11. In addition to 

component swaps, the design options 

analyzed by DOE include thicker 

cabinet insulation. As discussed for TSL 

1, increasing insulation thickness 

significantly impacts product and 

capital conversion costs, but much more 

so when adding insulation to the 

cabinet (as opposed to the door). To 

increase the insulation thickness of the 

cabinet, manufacturers must replace 

virtually all stamping equipment, which 

greatly increases the capital conversion 

costs. Additionally, DOE analyzed the 

use of isobutane refrigerant as a design 

option for the 4-cubic foot product class 

11 unit. At TSL 2, a substantial portion 

of the investment to reach TSL 2 would 

likely be for training service technicians 

to handle this volatile refrigerant. As a 

result of thicker cabinet insulation and 

conversion to isobutane, product 

conversion and capital conversion costs 

roughly double at TSL 2 (to $35 million 

for product conversion costs and $46 

million for capital conversion costs). 

The shipment-weighted MPC increased 

22 percent at TSL 2 after standards 

compared to baseline costs, which also 

contributed to the more severe impacts 

projected under the preservation of 

operation profit scenario if 

manufacturers do not earn additional 

profit on these higher costs. 

TSL 3 represents a 30-percent 

reduction in measured energy 

consumption over the current energy 

conservation standards for product class 

11 and a 15-percent reduction for 

product class 18. DOE estimates the 

INPV impacts at TSL 3 to range from 

¥$62.9 million to ¥$89.3 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥37.1 percent to 

¥52.7 percent. At this TSL, the industry 

cash flow is estimated to decrease by a 

factor of approximately 3.9 to ¥$30.6 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $10.7 million in the year 

leading up to the amended energy 

conservation standards. 

At TSL 3, the design options analyzed 

for both product class 18 units include 

thicker door insulation, which further 

increases the capital conversion costs 

over TSL 1 and TSL 2, where this was 

not analyzed as a design option. The 

additional impacts at TSL 3 are also due 

to more stringent requirements for 

product class 11. A 30-percent 

reduction for product class 11 is greater 

than the most efficient units on the 

market today. For both analyzed sizes of 

product class 11, DOE analyzed the 

design option of thicker insulation in 

the cabinet for both units analyzed. The 

net effect is a large increase in 

conversion costs due to the much higher 

cost of the equipment necessary to 

manufacture the cabinet. At TSL 3, DOE 

estimated total product conversion costs 

of $41 million and capital conversion 

costs of $76 million, a 46 percent total 

increase in conversion costs over TSL 2. 

The effect of the design changes at TSL 

3 on shipment-weighted unit cost is a 

27-percent increase over the average 

baseline MPC after standards. The 

magnitude of the investments relative to 

the industry value leads to significant 

impacts, although they are moderated 

somewhat in the flat markup because 

manufacturers earn additional profit on 

the investments. 

TSL 4 represents a 40-percent 

reduction in measured energy use over 

the current energy conservation 

standards for product class 11 and a 25- 

percent reduction for product class 18. 

DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 

4 to range from ¥$41.5 million to 

¥$92.8 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥24.5 percent to ¥54.8 percent. At this 

TSL, the industry cash flow is estimated 

to decrease by a factor of approximately 

3.9 to ¥$30.5 million, compared to the 

base-case value of $10.7 million in the 

year leading up to the amended energy 

conservation standards. 

The design options analyzed at TSL 4 

would also severely disrupt current 

manufacturing processes. For the 1.7- 

cubic foot product class 11 unit, DOE 

analyzed a variable speed compressor 

and isobutane refrigerant as design 

options. For the 4-cubic foot product 

class 11 unit and the 7-cubic foot 

product class 18 unit, DOE analyzed 

thicker insulation in the cabinets. For 

3.4-cubic foot product class 18 unit, 

DOE analyzed both an increase to 

cabinet insulation thickness and VIPs in 

the bottom wall as design options. 

Although increasing insulation 

thickness, converting to isobutane, and 

implementing VIPs all would 

necessitate large conversion costs, 

capital conversion costs decrease 

slightly from TSL 3 to TSL 4 because of 

the removal of all previous design 

options in the 1.7-cubic foot unit. In 

other words, the design options 

analyzed for this unit cause less 

substantial changes to existing 

production equipment, but would also 

require a large investment by 

manufacturers to train service 

technicians to deal with the refrigerant. 

Because this task would require a large 

outlay for product conversion costs, 

total conversion costs are roughly the 

same at TSL 3 and TSL 4. Adding a 

variable speed compressor in the 

smaller product class 11 unit analyzed 

also has a substantial impact on unit 

price because of its high component 

cost. At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted 

MPC is 60-percent higher than the 

baseline MPC after standards. These 

cost increases are projected to cause a 

16-percent decrease in shipments at TSL 

4 in 2014 alone. Over time, this decline 

significantly contributes to the negative 

impacts on INPV in both markup 

scenarios. 

The large conversion costs and higher 

prices leading to lower shipments cause 

a decrease in INPV from TSL 3 to TSL 

4 under the preservation of operating 

profit markup scenario (since this 

scenario assumes higher production 

costs are not passed on to consumers). 

However, under the flat markup 

scenario, manufacturers are able to earn 

additional profit on the new high-cost 

components such as variable speed 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57577 

compressors, resulting in an increase in 

INPV from TSL 3 to TSL 4. 

TSL 5 represents max tech for both 

product classes 11 and 18. The max-tech 

level corresponds to a 59-percent and 

42-percent reduction in measured 

energy use for product class 11 and 

product class 18, respectively. DOE 

estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 5 to 

range from ¥$154.9 million to ¥$242.6 

million, or a change in INPV of ¥91.4 

percent to ¥143.2 percent. At this TSL, 

the industry cash flow is estimated to 

decrease approximately ten-fold to 

¥$97.6 million, compared to the basecase value of $10.7 million in the year 

leading up to the amended energy 

conservation standards. 

The design options DOE analyzed 

include the use of VIPs for all analyzed 

product class 11 and 18 units to reach 

max-tech efficiency levels. Additionally, 

the design options analyzed for some 

products also included other costly 

changes. For the 1.7-cubic foot product 

class 11 unit, the design options 

analyzed included multiple VIPs, a 

larger heat exchanger, and thicker 

insulation. The design options analyzed 

for the 4-cubic foot product class 11 unit 

also included a variable speed 

compressor and thicker insulation. For 

product class 18, DOE assumed that 

manufacturers would remove the design 

options necessary to meet TSLs 1 

through 4 and add a variable speed 

compressor and thicker insulation for 

both analyzed products. These 

significant changes greatly increase the 

investment required to manufacture 

standards-compliant products. DOE 

estimated that product conversion costs 

would be $67 million at TSL 5, an 

increase of almost 40 percent over TSL 

4. DOE also estimated that capital 

conversion costs would be $220 million, 

a more than three-fold increase over 

TSL 4. This drastic increase in 

conversion costs demonstrates the 

significant investments required by 

implementing widespread use of VIPs 

and increasing wall thickness. 

At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted 

MPC increases by over 150 percent over 

the baseline after standards due to the 

high material costs of VIPs and variable 

speed compressors. These large jumps 

cause shipments to decrease by 42 

percent due to the price elasticity in 

2014 alone. As a result of lower industry 

shipments and extremely high 

conversion costs, INPV decreases 

substantially from TSL 4 to TSL 5 and 

becomes negative under the 

preservation of operating profit 

scenario, which indicates the industry 

loses more than its base-case value in 

the standards case under this scenario. 

iv. Cash-Flow Analysis Results for BuiltIn Refrigeration Products 

As part of its cash-flow analysis for 

built-in refrigeration products, DOE 

applied two different scenarios to 

project the impacts on manufacturers 

from standards at the various TSLs that 

DOE considered. The following tables 

provide those projected impacts under 

the flat-markup and preservation of 

operating profit markup scenarios. 

TABLE VI.29—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV .................................. (2009$ millions) ................ 554.1 502.2 499.0 486.1 471.2 464.2 

Change in INPV ................ (2009$ millions) ................ .................... (51.9) (55.1) (68.0) (82.9) (89.9) 

(%) .................................... .................... ¥9.4% ¥9.9% ¥12.3% ¥15.0% ¥16.2% 

Product Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 41 51 65 75 87 

Capital Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 40 38 55 74 84 

Total Conversion 

Costs.

(2009$ millions) ................ .................... 81 89 119 149 171 

TABLE VI.30—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS—PRESERVATION OF

OPERATING PROFIT MARKUP SCENARIO

Units Base case 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 

INPV .................................. (2009$ millions) ................ 554.1 501.5 497.6 477.0 456.5 442.0 

Change in INPV ................ (2009$ millions) ................ .................... (52.6) (56.5) (77.2) (97.6) (112.1) 

(%) .................................... .................... ¥9.5% ¥10.2% ¥13.9% ¥17.6% ¥20.2% 

Product Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 41 51 65 75 87 

Capital Conversion Costs (2009$ millions) ................ .................... 40 38 55 74 84 

Total Conversion 

Costs.

(2009$ millions) ................ .................... 81 89 119 149 171 

TSL 1 represents a 10-percent 

reduction in measured energy use over 

the current energy conservation 

standards for the analyzed built-in allrefrigerator product class 3A–BI, the 

analyzed built-in bottom-mount product 

class 5–BI, the analyzed built-in side-byside product class 7–BI, and for the 

analyzed built-in freezer product class 

9–BI. DOE estimates the INPV impacts 

at TSL 1 to range from ¥$51.9 million 

to ¥$52.6 million, or a change in INPV 

of ¥9.4 percent to ¥9.5 percent. At this 

TSL, the industry cash flow is estimated 

to decrease by approximately 70.7 

percent to $11.0 million, compared to 

the base-case value of $37.5 million in 

the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards. 

At TSL 1, the design options that DOE 

analyzed result in moderate changes in 

the manufacturing process for built-in 

refrigeration products. For product 

classes 3A–BI and 9–BI, the design 

options that DOE analyzed to reach TSL 

1 included the use of more efficient 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57578 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

components that do not require 

significant changes to the manufacturing 

process. However, for product class 5– 

BI and product class 7–BI, the design 

options DOE analyzed also include the 

use of VIPs in the freezer door. While 

these components add to the overall 

costs of production, the added costs 

represent a small percentage of the total 

cost of a built-in refrigeration product. 

These cost deltas are low compared to 

the overall cost of the products and 

result in small impacts even if no 

additional profit is earned on the 

incremental MPCs. The estimated 

product conversion costs for all built-in 

refrigeration products at TSL 1 are $41 

million and the estimated capital 

conversion costs are $40 million. The 

implementation of VIPs represents a 

substantial part of the conversion costs, 

but several built-in refrigeration 

manufacturers have products that use 

similar technology, which helps to 

mitigate some of the product conversion 

costs that would be required to design 

products from the ground up. 

TSL 2 represents a 15-percent 

reduction in measured energy use for 

product class 3A–BI and product class 

5–BI. For product classes 7–BI and 9–BI, 

TSL 2 represents a reduction of 10 

percent and 20 percent, respectively. 

DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 

2 to range from ¥$55.1 million to 

¥$56.5 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥9.9 percent to ¥10.2 percent. At this 

TSL, the industry cash flow is estimated 

to decrease by approximately 75.2 

percent to $9.3 million, compared to the 

base-case value of $37.5 million in the 

year leading up to the amended energy 

conservation standards. 

The efficiency requirements for 

product class 7–BI refrigerator-freezers 

do not change from TSL 1 to TSL 2, but 

the efficiency requirements for all other 

analyzed built-in product classes 

increase. The design options that DOE 

analyzes at TSL 2 for product classes 

3A–BI and 7–BI still only include 

component swaps to reach a 15-percent 

efficiency improvement. Product class 

5–BI uses a variable speed compressor 

in the freezer with a brushless DC 

condenser fan motor, but no longer use 

the VIPs used to reach TSL 1. The 

design options analyzed for product 

class 9–BI include a brushless DC 

evaporator and condenser fan motor, a 

larger condenser, a variable speed 

compressor, and a VIP in the upper 

door. Because product class 5–BI no 

longer uses VIPs and fewer changes to 

existing products are necessary, the 

overall impact is a slight decrease in 

capital conversion costs from $40 

million at TSL 1 to $38 million at TSL 

2. Product conversion costs increase to 

$51 million at TSL 2 because additional 

engineering time would be required to 

implement the additional component 

changes. However, because the 

complexity of the changes to the 

products and production facilities are 

similar at TSL 1 and TSL 2, there is only 

a small decrease in INPV from TSL 1 to 

TSL 2. 

TSL 3 represents a 20-percent 

reduction in measured energy use for 

product class 3A–BI and product class 

7–BI. For product classes 5–BI and 9–BI, 

TSL 3 represents a reduction of 15 

percent and 25 percent, respectively. 

DOE estimates the INPV impacts at TSL 

3 to range from ¥$68.0 million to 

¥$77.2 million, or a change in INPV of 

¥12.3 percent to ¥13.9 percent. At this 

TSL, the industry cash flow is estimated 

to decrease by approximately 102.9 

percent to ¥$1.1 million, compared to 

the base-case value of $37.5 million in 

the year leading up to the amended 

energy conservation standards. 

The efficiency requirements for 

product class 5–BI do not change from 

TSL 2 to TSL 3. However, the design 

options for all other built-in 

refrigeration products at TSL 3 include 

the implementation of VIPs. The 

widespread implementation of VIPs 

increases product and capital 

conversion costs, which are estimated to 

be $65 million and $55 million at TSL 

3, respectively. Substantial changes to 

existing production facilities would be 

required to manufacture products that 

meet the required efficiencies at TSL 3. 

Most of the capital conversion costs 

involve purchasing new production 

equipment and would result in high 

stranded assets. The extensive changes 

that manufacturers would be required to 

make to existing facilities and the 

projected erosion of profitability if the 

additional production cost of 

implementing VIPs does not yield 

additional profit result in a projected 

decrease in INPV from TSL 3 to TSL 4. 

However, the industry value is high 

relative to the required capital 

conversion costs and the cost of the 

additional VIP panels is relatively small 

compared to the overall cost of the 

products, which helps to mitigate some 

of the negative impacts caused by these 

changes. 

TSL 4 represents a 25-percent 

reduction in measured energy use over 

the current energy conservation 

standards for the following product 

classes: 3A–BI, 5–BI, and 9–BI. For 

product class 7–BI, TSL 4 represents a 

20-percent reduction in measured 

energy use from current energy 

conservation standards. DOE estimates 

the INPV impacts at TSL 4 to range from 

¥$82.9 million to ¥$97.6 million, or a 

change in INPV of ¥15.0 percent to 

¥17.6 percent. At this TSL, the industry 

cash flow is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 130.3 percent to ¥$11.4 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $37.5 million in the year 

leading up to the amended energy 

conservation standards. 

The efficiency requirements for 

product class 7–BI do not change from 

TSL 3 to TSL 4. The design options for 

the other built-in refrigeration products 

all include the addition of more VIPs to 

reach TSL 4. The design options 

analyzed for product classes 3A–BI and 

5–BI also include using a variable speed 

compressor. The complexity of 

implementing multiple component 

swaps and the additional production 

equipment necessary to use additional 

VIPs increases both the product and 

capital conversion costs. These costs are 

estimated to be $75 million and $74 

million at TSL 4, respectively, and 

result in a decrease in INPV from TSL 

3 to TSL 4. 

TSL 5 represents max tech for the four 

built-in product classes. This TSL 

represents a reduction in measured 

energy use of 29 percent, 27 percent, 22 

percent, and 27 percent, respectively, 

for product classes 3A–BI, 5–BI, 7–BI, 

and 9–BI. DOE estimates the INPV 

impacts at TSL 5 to range from ¥$89.9 

million to ¥$112.1 million, or a change 

in INPV of ¥16.2 percent to ¥20.2 

percent. At this TSL, the industry cash 

flow is estimated to decrease by 

approximately 149.5 percent to ¥$18.6 

million, compared to the base-case 

value of $37.5 million in the year 

leading up to the amended energy 

conservation standards. 

The design options analyzed by DOE 

include the widespread use of VIPs to 

achieve the max-tech efficiency levels at 

TSL 5. Additionally, product class 3A– 

BI uses multiple variable speed 

compressors. Since the implementation 

of VIPs is both research and capital 

intensive, product and capital 

conversion costs increase to $87 million 

and $84 million, respectively. The 

complexity of implementing multiple 

component swaps and the additional 

production equipment necessary to use 

additional VIPs increases both the 

product and capital costs. 

b. Impacts on Employment 

DOE quantitatively assessed the 

impacts of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on employment. 

DOE used the GRIM to estimate the 

domestic labor expenditures and 

number of domestic production workers 

in the base case and at each TSL from 

2010 to 2043. DOE used statistical data 

from the most recent U.S. Census 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57579 

Bureau’s 2007 Economic Census, the 

results of the engineering analysis, and 

interviews with manufacturers to 

determine the inputs necessary to 

calculate industry-wide labor 

expenditures and domestic employment 

levels. Labor expenditures involved 

with the manufacture of the product are 

a function of the labor intensity of the 

product, the sales volume, and an 

assumption that wages remain fixed in 

real terms over time. 

In each GRIM, DOE used the labor 

content of each product and the 

manufacturing production costs from 

the engineering analysis to estimate the 

annual labor expenditures in the 

residential refrigeration product 

industry. DOE used Census data and 

interviews with manufacturers to 

estimate the portion of the total labor 

expenditures that is attributable to U.S. 

(i.e., domestic) labor. 

The production worker estimates in 

this section only cover workers up to 

the line-supervisor level who are 

directly involved in fabricating and 

assembling a product within an Original 

Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) facility. 

Workers performing services that are 

closely associated with production 

operations, such as material handing 

with a forklift, are also included as 

production labor. DOE’s estimates only 

account for production workers who 

manufacture the specific products 

covered by this rulemaking. For 

example, a worker on a wine cooler line 

would not be included with the estimate 

of the number of residential 

refrigeration workers. 

The employment impacts shown in 

Table VI.31 through Table VI.33 

represent the potential production 

employment that could result following 

amended energy conservation 

standards. The upper end of the results 

in these tables estimates the maximum 

change in the number of production 

workers after amended energy 

conservation standards must be met. 

The upper end of the results assumes 

manufacturers would continue to 

produce the same scope of covered 

products in the same production 

facilities. The upper end of the range 

also assumes that domestic production 

does not shift to lower-labor-cost 

countries. Because there is a real risk of 

manufacturers evaluating sourcing 

decisions in response to amended 

energy conservation standards, the 

lower end of the range of employment 

results in Table VI.31 through Table 

VI.33 includes the estimated total 

number of U.S. production workers in 

the industry who could lose their jobs 

if all existing production were moved 

outside of the U.S. While the results 

present a range of employment impacts 

following the compliance date of 

amended energy conservation 

standards, the discussion below also 

includes a qualitative discussion of the 

likelihood of negative employment 

impacts at the various TSLs. Finally, the 

employment impacts shown are 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, which 

are documented in chapter 13, 

Employment Impact Analysis, of the 

final rule TSD. 

i. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezer 

Employment Impacts 

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that, 

in the absence of amended energy 

conservation standards, there would be 

7,351 domestic production workers 

involved in manufacturing standard-size 

refrigerator-freezers in 2014. Using 2007 

Census Bureau data and interviews with 

manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately 42 percent of standardsize refrigerator-freezers sold in the 

United States are manufactured 

domestically. Table VI.31 shows the 

range of the impacts of potential 

amended energy conservation standards 

on U.S. production workers in the 

standard-size refrigerator-freezer market. 

TABLE VI.31—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZER

PRODUCTION WORKERS IN 2014 

Trial standard level 

Base case 1 2 3 4 5 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2014 (without changes in production locations) ......................................... 7,351 7,164 7,127 7,172 7,109 6,981 

Potential Changes in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2014 * ... .......................... (187)–(7,351) (224)–(7,351) (179)–(7,351) (242)–(7,351) (307)–(7,351) 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers. 

All examined TSLs show relatively 

minor impacts on domestic employment 

levels at the lower end of the range. 

Most of the design options used in the 

engineering analysis involve the 

swapping of components in baseline 

units with more efficient parts for topmounted, side-by-side, and bottommounted refrigerator-freezers. These 

component swaps for these design 

options add primarily material costs and 

do not greatly impact the labor content 

of the baseline products. The relatively 

small decreases in domestic production 

employment for the lower end of the 

range of the employment impacts arise 

from higher product prices lowering 

shipments the year the standard 

becomes effective. At these higher TSLs, 

the effects of lower shipments more 

than offset the additional product labor 

that is required to manufacture products 

that use VIP panels. 

During interviews, manufacturers 

indicated that their domestic 

employment levels could be impacted 

under two scenarios: (1) The 

widespread adoption of VIPs or (2) 

significant capital conversion costs that 

would force them to consider nondomestic manufacturing locations once 

the compliance date for the amended 

energy conservation standards arrive. 

The widespread adoption of VIPs would 

increase the labor content of today’s 

products. The labor content of products 

with VIPs increases because of the extra 

handling steps that would be required to 

ensure that VIPs are not damaged during 

production. Because of the competitive 

nature of the industry, manufacturers 

believed the extra labor costs could 

force them to move their remaining 

domestic production to lower labor cost 

countries to take advantage of the 

cheaper labor they offer. 

Manufacturers also indicated that 

large conversion costs would likely 

force them to consider investing in 

lower-labor-cost countries. For most 

product categories, there is a range of 

efficiency levels that can be met with 

relatively low-cost components (as 

analyzed in the engineering analysis). 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57580 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Beyond these levels, manufacturers 

would need to decide to follow the MPC 

design options analyzed in the 

engineering analysis for each product 

category. Manufacturers indicated the 

analyzed design options that use 

multiple VIPs would involve significant 

capital conversion costs and add very 

large material costs to their products 

that would likely result in the relocation 

of their production facilities abroad. 

However, manufacturers indicated they 

would face even larger capital 

conversion costs at lower efficiencies if 

they redesigned their products with 

thicker walls. While not analyzed as a 

design option for standard-size 

refrigerator-freezers, increasing wall 

thickness would likely result in moving 

domestic production outside of the U.S. 

at lower efficiency levels. 

ii. Standard-Size Freezer Employment 

Impacts 

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that, 

in the absence of amended energy 

conservation standards, there would be 

1,643 standard-size freezer production 

workers in the U.S. in 2014. Using the 

2007 Census data and interviews with 

manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately 80 percent of standardsize freezers sold in the United States 

are manufactured domestically. Table 

VI.32 shows the impacts of amended 

energy conservation standards on U.S. 

production workers in the standard-size 

freezer market. 

TABLE VI.32—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC STANDARD-SIZE FREEZER PRODUCTION

WORKERS IN 2014 

Trial standard level 

Base case 1 2 3 4 5 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2014 (without changes in production locations) ......................................... 1,643 1,597 1,537 1,497 1,410 1,303 

Potential Changes in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2014* ... .......................... (46)–(1,643) (106)–(1,643) (146)–(1,643) (233)–(1,643) (340)–(1,643) 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers. 

Similar to standard-size refrigeratorfreezers, there are relatively small 

decreases in employment at the lower 

end of the range of employment 

impacts. These slight declines are 

caused by higher prices that drive lower 

shipments once manufacturers must 

meet the amended energy conservation 

standard. Standard-size freezer 

manufacturers also indicated that 

domestic production could be shifted 

abroad with any efficiency level that 

required large capital conversion costs. 

At TSL 1, DOE does not expect 

substantial changes to domestic 

employment in the standard-size freezer 

market if manufacturers use the design 

options listed in the engineering 

analysis to reach the efficiency 

requirements at this TSL. 

However, at TSL 2 through TSL 5, 

manufacturers indicated that there 

could be domestic employment impacts 

depending on the design pathway used 

to reach the required efficiencies. At 

TSL 2 and above, the engineering 

analysis assumes that manufacturers 

would have to change wall thicknesses 

to reach the required efficiencies. 

Manufacturers indicated that because 

these products are typically low-end, 

they would likely follow the design 

pathways in the engineering analysis 

and increase the wall insulation 

thickness to reach higher efficiencies in 

order to avoid having to pass large price 

increases on to consumers. While this 

approach would result in extremely 

large conversion costs and would be 

more likely lead to manufacturers 

moving production abroad, 

manufacturers believed this strategy 

would help to maintain sales volumes. 

iii. Compact Refrigeration Product 

Employment Impacts 

DOE’s research suggests that a limited 

percentage of compact refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers are made 

domestically (see Table VI.33). The 

overwhelming majority of products are 

imported. Manufacturers with domestic 

manufacturing facilities tend to source 

or import their compact products. The 

small employment numbers are mostly 

from remaining domestic production of 

compact chest freezers. As a result, 

amended energy conservation standards 

for compact refrigerators or refrigeratorfreezers are unlikely to noticeably alter 

domestic employment levels. 

TABLE VI.33—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCT

PRODUCTION WORKERS IN 2014 

Trial standard level 

Base case 1 2 3 4 5 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2014 (without changes in production locations) ......................................... 27 26 26 25 24 40 

Potential Changes in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2014* ... .......................... (1)–(27) (1)–(27) (2)–(27) (3)–(27) 13–(27) 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57581 

iv. Built-In Refrigeration Product 

Employment Impacts 

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates that, 

in the absence of amended energy 

conservation standards, there would be 

1,139 U.S. works manufacturing built-in 

refrigeration products in 2014. Using the 

2007 Census data and interviews with 

manufacturers, DOE estimates that 

approximately 94 percent of the built-in 

refrigeration products sold in the United 

States are manufactured domestically. 

Table VI.34 shows the impacts of 

amended energy conservation standards 

on U.S. production workers in the builtin refrigeration market. 

TABLE VI.34—POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCT PRODUCTION

WORKERS IN 2014 

Trial standard level 

Base case 1 2 3 4 5 

Total Number of Domestic Production Workers in 2014 (without changes in production locations) ......................................... 1,139 1,139 1,138 1,145 1,148 1,171 

Potential Changes in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2014* ... .......................... 0–(1,139) (1)–(1,139) 6–(1,139) 9–(1,139) 32–(1,139) 

* DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses indicate negative numbers. 

Employment in the built-in 

refrigeration market follows a pattern 

similar to that seen in the market for 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers and 

standard-size freezers at lower TSLs. At 

TSL 1 and TSL 2, higher prices result 

in fewer shipments, and a consequent 

reduction in labor expenditures that 

more than offsets the additional labor 

required to manufacture products with 

VIPs. However, at TSL 3 and above, the 

use of additional VIPs in built-in 

refrigeration products requires enough 

additional labor to cause a slight 

increase in the number of domestic 

production workers. Because built-in 

products are high-end products with far 

fewer shipments, it is less likely that 

manufacturers would choose to move all 

production facilities in response to 

amended energy conservation 

standards. The higher margins and 

profit earned in this market also make 

it more likely that manufacturers could 

earn a return on the investments 

required to reach the amended energy 

conservation standards and invest in 

existing facilities rather than move 

production abroad. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

Manufacturers indicated that design 

changes involving thicker walls or 

multiple VIP panels would require 

substantial changes to their current 

manufacturing process. While these 

technologies would require the 

purchase of millions of dollars of 

production equipment, most 

manufacturers indicated they would 

likely be able to make even these 

substantial changes in between the 

announcement of the final rule and 

compliance date of an amended energy 

conservation standard. Manufacturers 

have had experience with the design 

options involving VIPs (even if not at 

the scale that would be required if the 

higher efficiency levels were adopted) 

and thickening walls. In addition, the 

design changes and investments 

analyzed at the levels required by the 

amended energy conservation standards 

for most product classes are more 

similar in magnitude to the introduction 

of a new product line—rather than 

complete redesigning of all products. 

Therefore, a larger capacity concern of 

manufacturers is the ability of their 

suppliers, particularly manufacturers of 

VIPs and more efficient compressors, to 

ramp up production in time to meet the 

amended energy conservation standard. 

d. Impacts on Sub-Group(s) of 

Manufacturers 

For this rulemaking, DOE used the 

results of the industry characterization 

to identify any subgroups of refrigerator 

manufacturers that exhibit similar 

characteristics different from the 

industry as a whole. The only such 

subgroup DOE identified was built-in 

manufacturers. DOE is establishing 

separate product classes for built-in 

products and is presenting separate 

analytical results for those products 

classes. Therefore, the MIA results DOE 

presents for those product classes 

already allow DOE to examine the MIA 

impacts on these manufacturers. Section 

0 presents a more detailed discussion of 

the results for built-in product classes. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

While any one regulation may not 

impose a significant burden on 

manufacturers, the combined effects of 

several impending regulations may have 

serious consequences for some 

manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 

or an entire industry. Assessing the 

impact of a single regulation may 

overlook this cumulative regulatory 

burden. In addition to energy 

conservation standards, other 

regulations can significantly affect 

manufacturers’ financial health. 

Multiple regulations affecting the same 

manufacturer can strain profits and can 

lead companies to abandon product 

lines or markets with lower expected 

future returns than competing products. 

For these reasons, DOE conducts an 

analysis of cumulative regulatory 

burden as part of its rulemakings 

pertaining to appliance efficiency. 

During previous stages of this 

rulemaking DOE identified a number of 

requirements with which manufacturers 

of these refrigeration products must 

comply and which take effect within 

three years of the anticipated effective 

date of the amended standards. DOE 

discusses these and other requirements, 

and includes the full details of the 

cumulative regulatory burden, in 

chapter 12 of the final rule’s TSD. In 

chapter 12, DOE shows that many of the 

same products produced by residential 

refrigeration product manufacturers are 

also regulated by DOE and have a 

compliance date within 3 years of the 

compliance date of this rulemaking. 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the national energy 

savings attributable to potential 

standards for refrigeration products, 

DOE compared the energy consumption 

of these products under the base case to 

their anticipated energy consumption 

under each TSL. Table VI–35 through 

Table VI–38 present DOE’s forecasts of 

the national energy savings for each 

TSL, which were calculated using the 

approach described in section IV.G. 

Chapter 10 of the final rule TSD 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57582 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

presents tables that also show the 

magnitude of the energy savings if the 

savings are discounted at rates of seven 

and three percent. Discounted energy 

savings represent a policy perspective in 

which energy savings realized farther in 

the future are less significant than 

energy savings realized in the nearer 

term. 

TABLE VI.35—STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS IN QUADS

Trial standard level 

Top-mount refrigerator-freezers and 

all-refrigerators 

Bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers Side-by-side refrigerator-freezers 

Product classes 1, 

1A, 2, 3, 3A, 3I 

and 6 

Product classes 5, 

5A, and 5I 

Product classes 4, 

4I, and 7 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 1.73 0.10 0.58 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 1.73 0.10 0.95 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 2.22 0.10 0.95 

4 ........................................................................................................................... 2.67 0.48 1.30 

5 ........................................................................................................................... 3.11 0.70 1.50 

TABLE VI.36—STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS IN QUADS

Trial standard level 

Upright freezers Chest freezers 

Product classes 8, 9 

and 9I 

Product classes 10 

and 10A 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.49 0.31 

2 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.75 0.38 

3 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.87 0.46 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.98 0.53 

5 ............................................................................................................................................... 1.01 0.60 

TABLE VI.37—COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS IN QUADS

Trial standard level 

Compact refrigerators Compact freezers 

Product classes 11, 

11A, 12, 13, 13I, 13A, 

14, 14I, 15 and 15I 

Product classes 

16, 17, 18 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.28 0.03 

2 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.35 0.03 

3 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.39 0.04 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.48 0.07 

5 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.51 0.09 

TABLE VI.38—BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS IN QUADS

Trial standard level 

Built-in all 

refrigerators 

Built-in bottommount refrigeratorfreezers Built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers 

Built-in upright 

freezers 

Product class 

3A–BI Product classes 

5–BI and 5I–BI 

Product classes 

4–BI, 4I–BI and 

7–BI 

Product classes 

9–BI and 9I–BI 

1 ....................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 

2 ....................................................................................... 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 

3 ....................................................................................... 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01 

4 ....................................................................................... 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 

5 ....................................................................................... 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.02 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV to 

the Nation of the total costs and savings 

for consumers that would result from 

particular standard levels for 

refrigeration products. In accordance 

with the OMB’s guidelines on regulatory 

analysis (OMB Circular A–4, section E, 

September 17, 2003), DOE calculated 

NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent real discount rate. The 7-percent 

rate is an estimate of the average beforetax rate of return on private capital in 

the U.S. economy and reflects the 

returns on real estate and small business 

capital as well as corporate capital. DOE 

used this discount rate to approximate 

the opportunity cost of capital in the 

private sector, since a recent OMB 

analysis has found the average rate of 

return on capital to be near this rate. See 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ 

circulars_a004_a-4/. In addition, DOE 

used the 3-percent rate to capture the 

potential effects of standards on private 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57583 

consumption (e.g., through higher prices 

for products and the purchase of 

reduced amounts of energy). This rate 

represents the rate at which society 

discounts future consumption flows to 

their present value. It can be 

approximated by the real rate of return 

on long-term government debt (i.e. yield 

on Treasury notes minus annual rate of 

change in the Consumer Price Index), 

which has averaged about 3 percent on 

a pre-tax basis for the last 30 years. 

Table VI–39 through Table VI–46 

show the default consumer NPV results 

for each TSL DOE considered for 

refrigeration products, using both a 7- 

percent and a 3-percent discount rate. In 

each case, the impacts cover the lifetime 

of products purchased in 2014–2043. 

See chapter 10 of the final rule TSD for 

more detailed NPV results. 

TABLE VI.39—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATORFREEZERS, 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009 dollars 

Top-mount refrigerator-freezers and 

all-refrigerators 

Bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers Side-by-side refrigerator-freezers 

Product classes 1, 

1A, 2, 3, 3A, 3I 

and 6 

Product classes 5, 

5A, and 5I 

Product classes 4, 

4I, and 7 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 11.45 0.94 5.43 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 11.45 0.94 6.34 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 12.91 0.94 6.34 

4 ........................................................................................................................... 9.11 (0.47) 3.52 

5 ........................................................................................................................... 1.87 (2.52) 0.83 

TABLE VI.40—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATORFREEZERS, 7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009 dollars 

Top-mount refrigerator-freezers and 

all-refrigerators 

Bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers Side-by-side refrigerator-freezers 

Product classes 1, 

1A, 2, 3, 3A, 3I 

and 6 

Product classes 5, 

5A, and 5I 

Product classes 4, 

4I, and 7 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 2.99 0.34 1.88 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 2.99 0.34 1.67 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 2.81 0.34 1.67 

4 ........................................................................................................................... (0.31) (1.17) (0.60) 

5 ........................................................................................................................... (5.28) (2.74) (2.53) 

TABLE VI.41—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS, 3-PERCENT

DISCOUNT RATE

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009 dollars 

Upright freezers Chest freezers 

Product classes 8, 9 

and 9I 

Product classes 10 

and 10A 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.03 3.25 

2 ............................................................................................................................................... 7.37 3.33 

3 ............................................................................................................................................... 7.69 3.94 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 7.51 3.52 

5 ............................................................................................................................................... 5.17 2.42 

TABLE VI.42—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS, 7-PERCENT

DISCOUNT RATE

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009 dollars 

Upright freezers Chest freezers 

Product classes 8, 9 

and 9I 

Product classes 10 

and 10A 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1.70 1.11 

2 ............................................................................................................................................... 2.38 0.96 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57584 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.42—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS, 7-PERCENT

DISCOUNT RATE—Continued 

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009 dollars 

Upright freezers Chest freezers 

Product classes 8, 9 

and 9I 

Product classes 10 

and 10A 

3 ............................................................................................................................................... 2.30 1.12 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 1.96 0.75 

5 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.56 (0.04) 

TABLE VI.43—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS, 3- 

PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009 dollars 

Compact refrigerators Compact freezers 

Product classes 11, 

11A, 12, 13, 13I, 13A, 

14, 14I, 15 and 15I 

Product classes 

16, 17, 

18 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 1.61 0.20 

2 ............................................................................................................................................... 1.42 0.20 

3 ............................................................................................................................................... 1.62 0.21 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.81 (0.01) 

5 ............................................................................................................................................... (1.86) (0.48) 

TABLE VI.44—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS, 7- 

PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009 dollars 

Compact refrigerators Compact freezers 

Product classes 11, 

11A, 12, 13, 13I, 13A, 

14, 14I, 15 and 15I 

Product classes 

16, 17, 

18 

1 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.67 0.09 

2 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.51 0.09 

3 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.59 0.08 

4 ............................................................................................................................................... 0.08 (0.07) 

5 ............................................................................................................................................... (1.44) (0.36) 

TABLE VI.45—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS, 3- 

PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009 dollars 

Built-in all 

refrigerators 

Built-in bottommount refrigeratorfreezers Built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers Built-in upright 

freezers 

Product class 

3A–BI 

Product classes 

5–BI and 5I–BI 

Product classes 

4–BI, 4I–BI and 

7–BI 

Product classes 

9–BI and 9I–BI 

1 ....................................................................................... 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.05 

2 ....................................................................................... 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.07 

3 ....................................................................................... 0.02 0.01 (0.17) 0.05 

4 ....................................................................................... (0.04) (0.20) (0.17) 0.05 

5 ....................................................................................... (0.08) (0.31) (0.43) 0.02 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57585 

TABLE VI.46—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS, 7- 

PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009 dollars 

Built-in all 

refrigerators 

Built-in bottommount refrigeratorfreezers Built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers Built-in upright 

freezers 

Product class 

3A–BI 

Product classes 

5–BI and 5I–BI 

Product classes 

4–BI, 4I–BI and 

7–BI 

Product classes 

9–BI and 9I–BI 

1 ....................................................................................... 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 

2 ....................................................................................... 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 

3 ....................................................................................... 0.00 0.00 (0.16 ) 0.00 

4 ....................................................................................... (0.04 ) (0.14 ) (0.16 ) 0.00 

5 ....................................................................................... (0.07 ) (0.21 ) (0.32 ) (0.02 ) 

The NPV results presented above are 

based on a product price trend that 

reflects the default price trend. As 

discussed in section IV.G.3, DOE 

investigated the impact of different 

price trends on the NPV for the 

considered TSLs. DOE selected a high 

price decline case and a low price 

decline case from among a number of 

price trends that it analyzed. Table 

VI.47 through Table VI.54 provide the 

annualized NPV of consumer benefits at 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, 

combined with the annualized present 

value of monetized benefits from CO2

and NOX emissions reductions, for each 

of the considered TSLs for the default 

price trend and the two sensitivity 

cases. (DOE’s method for annualization 

is described in section VI.C.5 of this 

notice. Section VI.B.6 provides a 

complete description and summary of 

the monetized benefits from CO2 and 

NOX emissions reductions.) For details 

on the combined NPV results, see 

appendix 10–C of the final rule TSD. 

TABLE VI.47—STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS

(7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) AND ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS * FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043 

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009$ 

Medium price 

decline (default) High price decline Low price decline 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 0.825 0.902 0.726 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 0.845 0.948 0.715 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 0.881 1.017 0.708 

4 ........................................................................................................................... 0.288 0.593 (0.100 ) 

5 ........................................................................................................................... (0.507 ) (0.029 ) (1.114 ) 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* The economic benefits from reduced CO2 emissions were calculated using a SCC value of $22.1/metric ton in 2010 (in 2009$) for CO2, increasing at 3% per year, and a discount rate of 3%. The economic benefits from reduced NOX emissions were calculated using a value of 

$2,519/ton (in 2009$), which is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis, and a 7-percent discount rate. 

TABLE VI.48—STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS

(3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) AND ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS * FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043 

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009$ 

Medium price 

decline (default) High price decline Low price decline 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 1.302 1.389 1.195 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 1.397 1.513 1.255 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 1.537 1.691 1.349 

4 ........................................................................................................................... 1.213 1.560 0.791 

5 ........................................................................................................................... 0.626 1.171 (0.036 ) 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* The economic benefits from reduced CO2 emissions were calculated using a SCC value of $22.1/metric ton in 2010 (in 2009$) for CO2, increasing at 3% per year, and a discount rate of 3%. The economic benefits from reduced NOX emissions were calculated using a value of 

$2,519/ton (in 2009$), which is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis, and a 3-percent discount rate. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57586 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.49—STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS (7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) AND ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS * FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043 

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009$ 

Medium price 

decline (default) High price decline Low price decline 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 0.387 0.398 0.372 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 0.482 0.508 0.448 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 0.513 0.550 0.465 

4 ........................................................................................................................... 0.459 0.516 0.387 

5 ........................................................................................................................... 0.239 0.333 0.118 

* The economic benefits from reduced CO2 emissions were calculated using a SCC value of $22.1/metric ton in 2010 (in 2009$) for CO2, increasing at 3% per year, and a discount rate of 3%. The economic benefits from reduced NOX emissions were calculated using a value of 

$2,519/ton (in 2009$), which is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis, and a 7-percent discount rate. 

TABLE VI.50—STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS (3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) AND ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS * FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043 

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009$ 

Medium price 

decline (default) High price decline Low price decline 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 0.566 0.579 0.551 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 0.745 0.775 0.708 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 0.822 0.865 0.770 

4 ........................................................................................................................... 0.808 0.873 0.729 

5 ........................................................................................................................... 0.623 0.730 0.492 

* The economic benefits from reduced CO2 emissions were calculated using a SCC value of $22.1/metric ton in 2010 (in 2009$) for CO2, increasing at 3% per year, and a discount rate of 3%. The economic benefits from reduced NOX emissions were calculated using a value of 

$2,519/ton (in 2009$), which is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis, and a 3-percent discount rate. 

TABLE VI.51—COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS (7- 

PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) AND ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS * FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043 

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009$ 

Medium price 

decline (default) High price decline Low price decline 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 0.105 0.112 0.096 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 0.094 0.107 0.077 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 0.106 0.122 0.086 

4 ........................................................................................................................... 0.045 0.077 0.006 

5 ........................................................................................................................... (0.142 ) (0.083 ) (0.216 ) 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* The economic benefits from reduced CO2 emissions were calculated using a SCC value of $22.1/metric ton in 2010 (in 2009$) for CO2, increasing at 3% per year, and a discount rate of 3%. The economic benefits from reduced NOX emissions were calculated using a value of 

$2,519/ton (in 2009$), which is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis, and a 7-percent discount rate. 

TABLE VI.52—COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS (3- 

PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) AND ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS * FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043 

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009$ 

Medium price 

decline (default) High price decline Low price decline 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 0.129 0.137 0.119 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 0.124 0.139 0.105 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 0.141 0.159 0.119 

4 ........................................................................................................................... 0.091 0.127 0.047 

5 ........................................................................................................................... (0.085 ) (0.018 ) (0.166 ) 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* The economic benefits from reduced CO2 emissions were calculated using a SCC value of $22.1/metric ton in 2010 (in 2009$) for CO2, increasing at 3% per year, and a discount rate of 3%. The economic benefits from reduced NOX emissions were calculated using a value of 

$2,519/ton (in 2009$), which is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis, and a 3-percent discount rate. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57587 

TABLE VI.53—BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS (7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) AND ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS

REDUCTIONS * FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043 

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009$ 

Medium price 

decline (default) High price decline Low price decline 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 0.008 0.009 0.008 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 0.009 0.010 0.008 

3 ........................................................................................................................... (0.011 ) (0.005 ) (0.018 ) 

4 ........................................................................................................................... (0.028 ) (0.019 ) (0.040 ) 

5 ........................................................................................................................... (0.056 ) (0.043 ) (0.074 ) 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* The economic benefits from reduced CO2 emissions were calculated using a SCC value of $22.1/metric ton in 2010 (in 2009$) for CO2, increasing at 3% per year, and a discount rate of 3%. The economic benefits from reduced NOX emissions were calculated using a value of 

$2,519/ton (in 2009$), which is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis, and a 7-percent discount rate. 

TABLE VI.54—BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS: ANNUALIZED NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS (3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) AND ANNUALIZED PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS

REDUCTIONS * FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2014–2043 

Trial standard level 

Billion 2009$ 

Medium price 

decline (default) High price decline Low price decline 

1 ........................................................................................................................... 0.012 0.013 0.012 

2 ........................................................................................................................... 0.015 0.016 0.014 

3 ........................................................................................................................... 0.002 0.008 (0.006 ) 

4 ........................................................................................................................... (0.013 ) (0.002 ) (0.025 ) 

5 ........................................................................................................................... (0.036 ) (0.021 ) (0.056 ) 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* The economic benefits from reduced CO2 emissions were calculated using a SCC value of $22.1/metric ton in 2010 (in 2009$) for CO2, increasing at 3% per year, and a discount rate of 3%. The economic benefits from reduced NOX emissions were calculated using a value of 

$2,519/ton (in 2009$), which is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis, and a 3-percent discount rate. 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

DOE develops estimates of the 

indirect employment impacts of 

potential standards on the economy in 

general. As discussed above, DOE 

expects amended energy conservation 

standards for refrigeration products to 

reduce energy bills for consumers and 

the resulting net savings to be redirected 

to other forms of economic activity. 

These expected shifts in spending and 

economic activity could affect the 

demand for labor. As described in 

section IV.J, above, to estimate these 

effects, DOE used an input/output 

model of the U.S. economy. Table VI.55 

presents the estimated net indirect 

employment impacts in 2020 and 2043 

for the TSLs that DOE considered in this 

rulemaking. Chapter 13 of the final rule 

TSD presents more detailed results. 

TABLE VI.55—NET INCREASE IN JOBS FROM INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT EFFECTS UNDER REFRIGERATION PRODUCT TSLS

Thousands 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: 

2020 .............................................................................. 2.35 2.34 2.33 ¥0.06 ¥3.18 

2043 .............................................................................. 16.24 18.45 21.33 26.31 28.85 

Standard-Size Freezers: 

2020 .............................................................................. 0.93 1.06 1.06 0.82 ¥0.05 

2043 .............................................................................. 5.18 7.24 8.38 9.19 9.12 

Compact Refrigeration Products: 

2020 .............................................................................. 0.51 0.52 0.60 0.50 ¥0.04 

2043 .............................................................................. 1.44 1.64 1.88 2.02 1.53 

Built-In Refrigeration Products: 

2020 .............................................................................. 0.02 0.02 ¥0.05 ¥0.11 ¥0.21 

2043 .............................................................................. 0.14 0.19 0.29 0.31 ¥0.30 

The input/output model suggests that 

today’s amended standards are likely to 

increase the net demand for labor in the 

economy. However, the model suggests 

that the projected gains are very small 

relative to total national employment 

(currently approximately 120 million). 

Moreover, neither the BLS data nor the 

input/output model DOE uses includes 

the quality or wage level of the jobs. 

Therefore, because the analysis 

indicates an increased demand for labor 

would likely result from the amended 

energy conservation standards in this 

rulemaking, DOE has concluded that the 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57588 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

amended standards are likely to 

produce employment benefits sufficient 

to offset fully any adverse impacts on 

employment in the manufacturing 

industry for the refrigeration products 

that are the subject of this rulemaking. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

As presented in section III.D.1.d of 

this notice, DOE concluded that none of 

the TSLs considered in this notice 

would substantially reduce the utility or 

performance of the products under 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

However, the availability of features that 

increase energy use, such as multiple 

drawers, might shift to higher-price 

products because the cost premium for 

implementing such features will likely 

increase. Manufacturers currently offer 

refrigeration products that meet or 

exceed the amended standards for most 

of the product classes. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE has also considered any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from amended standards. The 

Attorney General determines the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 

competition likely to result from an 

amended standard, and transmits such 

determination to the Secretary, together 

with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of such impact. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) 

To assist the Attorney General in 

making such determination, DOE has 

provided DOJ with copies of this final 

rule and the TSD for review. As 

indicated earlier, DOE did not receive 

comments from DOJ. Accordingly, DOE 

does not believe that there is likely to 

be any lessening of competition as a 

result of today’s final rule. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

An improvement in the energy 

efficiency of the products subject to 

today’s rule is likely to improve the 

security of the Nation’s energy system 

by reducing overall demand for energy. 

Reduced electricity demand may also 

improve the reliability of the electricity 

system. As a measure of this reduced 

demand, Table VI–56 presents the 

estimated reduction in generating 

capacity in 2043 for the TSLs that DOE 

considered in this rulemaking. 

TABLE VI.56—REDUCTION IN ELECTRIC GENERATING CAPACITY IN 2043 UNDER REFRIGERATION PRODUCT TSLS

Gigawatts 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers ......................... 2 .62 3 .03 3 .56 4 .86 5 .82 

Standard-Size Freezers ............................................. 0 .83 0 .83 1 .40 1 .59 1 .71 

Compact Refrigeration Products ................................ 0 .273 0 .335 0 .386 0 .480 0 .511 

Built-In Refrigeration Products ................................... 0 .021 0 .031 0 .062 0 .077 0 .092 

DOE used NEMS–BT to assess the 

impacts on electricity prices of the 

reduced need for new electric power 

plants and infrastructure projected to 

result from standards. The projected 

impacts on prices, and their value to 

electricity consumers, are presented in 

chapter 14 and chapter 10, respectively, 

of the final rule TSD. Although the 

aggregate benefits for all electricity users 

are potentially large, there may be 

negative effects on the actors involved 

in electricity supply. Because there is 

uncertainty about the extent to which 

the calculated impacts from reduced 

electricity prices would be a transfer 

from the actors involved in electricity 

supply to electricity consumers, DOE 

has concluded that, at present, it should 

not assign a heavy weight to this factor 

in considering the economic 

justification of standards on 

refrigeration products. 

Energy savings from amended 

standards for refrigeration products 

could also produce environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with 

electricity production. Table VI.57 

provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative 

CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions 

projected to result from the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking. DOE 

reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg 

emissions reductions for each TSL in 

chapter 15 of the final rule TSD. 

As discussed in section V.M, DOE did 

not report SO2 emissions reductions 

from power plants because there is 

uncertainty about the effect of energy 

conservation standards on the overall 

level of SO2 emissions in the United 

States due to SO2 emissions caps. DOE 

also did not include NOX emissions 

reduction from power plants in States 

subject to CAIR because an energy 

conservation standard would not affect 

the overall level of NOX emissions in 

those States due to the emissions caps 

mandated by CAIR. 

TABLE VI.57—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR REFRIGERATION PRODUCT TSLS

[Cumulative for 2014 through 2043] 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers: 

CO2 (Mt) .............................................................. 175 202 238 323 386 

NOX (1000 tons) ................................................. 141 162 191 260 310 

Hg (tons) ............................................................. 0 .79 0 .91 1 .07 1 .45 1 .73 

Standard-Size Freezers: 

CO2 (Mt) .............................................................. 54 77 91 103 110 

NOX (1000 tons) ................................................. 43 62 73 83 89 

Hg (tons) ............................................................. 0 .24 0 .34 0 .41 0 .47 0 .50 

Compact Refrigeration Products: 

CO2 (Mt) .............................................................. 20 24 28 35 39 

NOX (1000 tons) ................................................. 16 20 23 29 32 

Hg (tons) ............................................................. 0 .10 0 .12 0 .15 0 .19 0 .21 

Built-In Refrigeration Products: 

CO2 (Mt) .............................................................. 1 .41 2 .05 4 .10 5 .09 6 .09 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57589 

TABLE VI.57—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR REFRIGERATION PRODUCT TSLS—Continued 

[Cumulative for 2014 through 2043] 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

NOX (1000 tons) ................................................. 1 .14 1 .65 3 .30 4 .09 4 .90 

Hg (tons) ............................................................. 0 .01 0 .01 0 .02 0 .02 0 .03 

As part the analysis for this final rule, 

DOE estimated monetary benefits likely 

to result from the reduced emissions of 

CO2 and NOX that DOE estimated for 

each of the TSLs considered. As 

discussed in section IV.M, DOE used 

values for the SCC developed by an 

interagency process. The four values for 

CO2 emissions reductions resulting from 

that process (expressed in 2009$) are 

$4.9/ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 5-percent 

discount rate), $22.1/ton (the average 

value from a distribution that uses a 3- 

percent discount rate), $36.3/ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and 

$67.1/ton (the 95th-percentile value 

from a distribution that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate). These values correspond 

to the value of emission reductions in 

2010; the values for later years are 

higher due to increasing damages as the 

magnitude of climate change increases. 

Table VI–58 through Table VI–61 

present the global values of CO2

emissions reductions at each TSL. For 

each of the four cases, DOE calculated 

a present value of the stream of annual 

values using the same discount rate as 

was used in the studies upon which the 

dollar-per-ton values are based. DOE 

calculated domestic values as a range 

from 7 percent to 23 percent of the 

global values, and these results are 

presented in Table VI–62 through Table 

VI–65. 

TABLE VI.58—STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS: ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS

REDUCTION UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Billion 2009$ 

5% discount rate, 

average * 

3% discount rate, 

average * 

2.5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile * 

1 ....................................................................................................... 1.45 4.60 6.90 14.0 

2 ....................................................................................................... 1.67 5.31 7.96 16.16 

3 ....................................................................................................... 1.96 6.24 9.36 19.00 

4 ....................................................................................................... 2.68 8.51 12.76 25.90 

5 ....................................................................................................... 3.20 10.18 15.26 30.98 

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the 

distribution. Values presented in the table incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time. 

TABLE VI.59—STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS: ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION

UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Billion 2009$ 

5% discount rate, 

average * 

3% discount rate, 

average * 

2.5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile * 

1 ....................................................................................................... 0.48 1.51 2.25 4.58 

2 ....................................................................................................... 0.69 2.16 3.24 6.59 

3 ....................................................................................................... 0.81 2.55 3.81 7.76 

4 ....................................................................................................... 0.92 2.89 4.32 8.80 

5 ....................................................................................................... 0.98 3.09 4.62 9.41 

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the 

distribution. Values presented in the table incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time. 

TABLE VI.60—COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS: ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS

REDUCTION UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Billion 2009$ 

5% discount rate, 

average * 

3% discount rate, 

average * 

2.5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile * 

1 ....................................................................................................... 0.12 0.41 0.63 1.26 

2 ....................................................................................................... 0.15 0.51 0.77 1.54 

3 ....................................................................................................... 0.18 0.59 0.89 1.79 

4 ....................................................................................................... 0.22 0.74 1.12 2.25 

5 ....................................................................................................... 0.24 0.81 1.23 2.47 

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the 

distribution. Values presented in the table incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57590 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.61—BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS: ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS

REDUCTION UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Billion 2009$ 

5% discount rate, 

average * 

3% discount rate, 

average * 

2.5% discount 

rate, average * 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile * 

1 ................................................................................................... 0.012 0 .038 0 .057 0.12 

2 ................................................................................................... 0.017 0 .055 0 .083 0.17 

3 ................................................................................................... 0.035 0 .11 0 .17 0.34 

4 ................................................................................................... 0.043 0 .014 0 .20 0.41 

5 ................................................................................................... 0.051 0 .16 0 .24 0.50 

* Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the 

distribution. Values presented in the table incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time. 

TABLE VI.62—STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS: ESTIMATES OF DOMESTIC PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS

REDUCTION UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Billion 2009$ * 

5% discount rate, average ** 3% discount rate, average ** 2.5% discount rate, average ** 3% discount rate, 95th 

percentile ** 

1 ......................................... 0.10 to 0.33 ....................... 0.32 to 1.06 ....................... 0.48 to 1.59 ....................... 0.98 to 3.22. 

2 ......................................... 0.12 to 0.38 ....................... 0.37 to 1.22 ....................... 0.56 to 1.83 ....................... 1.13 to 3.72. 

3 ......................................... 0.14 to 0.45 ....................... 0.44 to 1.44 ....................... 0.66 to 2.15 ....................... 1.33 to 4.37. 

4 ......................................... 0.19 to 0.62 ....................... 0.60 to 1.96 ....................... 0.89 to 2.93 ....................... 1.81 to 5.96. 

5 ......................................... 0.22 to 0.74 ....................... 0.71 to 2.34 ....................... 1.07 to 3.51 ....................... 2.17 to 7.13. 

* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7% and 23% of the global values. 

** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the 

distribution. Values presented in the table incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time. 

TABLE VI.63—STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS: ESTIMATES OF DOMESTIC PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION

UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Billion 2009$ * 

5% discount rate, average ** 3% discount rate, average ** 2.5% discount rate, average ** 3% discount rate, 95th 

percentile ** 

1 ......................................... 0.033 to 0.11 ..................... 0.11 to 0.35 ....................... 0.16 to 0.52 ....................... 0.32 to 1.05. 

2 ......................................... 0.048 to 0.16 ..................... 0.15 to 0.50 ....................... 0.23 to 0.74 ....................... 0.46 to 1.51. 

3 ......................................... 0.057 to 0.19 ..................... 0.057 to 0.19 ..................... 0.057 to 0.19 ..................... 0.057 to 0.19. 

4 ......................................... 0.064 to 0.21 ..................... 0.20 to 0.67 ....................... 0.30 to 0.99 ....................... 0.62 to 2.02. 

5 ......................................... 0.069 to 0.23 ..................... 0.22 to 0.71 ....................... 0.32 to 1.06 ....................... 0.069 to 0.23. 

* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7% and 23% of the global values. 

** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the 

distribution. Values presented in the table incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time. 

TABLE VI.64—COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS: ESTIMATES OF DOMESTIC PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS

REDUCTION UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Billion 2009$ * 

5% discount rate, average ** 3% discount rate, average ** 2.5% discount rate, average ** 3% discount rate, 95th 

percentile ** 

1 ......................................... 0.0087 to 0.029 ................. 0.029 to 0.095 ................... 0.044 to 0.14 ..................... 0.09 to 0.29. 

2 ......................................... 0.011 to 0.035 ................... 0.035 to 0.12 ..................... 0.054 to 0.18 ..................... 0.11 to 0.36. 

3 ......................................... 0.012 to 0.041 ................... 0.041 to 0.14 ..................... 0.062 to 0.21 ..................... 0.13 to 0.41. 

4 ......................................... 0.016 to 0.051 ................... 0.052 to 0.17 ..................... 0.078 to 0.26 ..................... 0.16 to 0.52. 

5 ......................................... 0.017 to 0.056 ................... 0.057 to 0.19 ..................... 0.086 to 0.28 ..................... 0.17 to 0.57. 

* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7% and 23% of the global values. 

** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the 

distribution. Values presented in the table incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57591 

TABLE VI.65—BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS: ESTIMATES OF DOMESTIC PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS

REDUCTION UNDER TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS

TSL 

Billion 2009$ * 

5% discount rate, average ** 3% discount rate, average ** 2.5% discount rate, average ** 3% discount rate, 95th 

percentile ** 

1 ......................................... 0.00083 to 0.0027 ............. 0.0026 to 0.0087 ............... 0.0040 to 0.013 ................. 0.0081 to 0.026. 

2 ......................................... 0.0012 to 0.0040 ............... 0.0039 to 0.013 ................. 0.0058 to 0.019 ................. 0.012 to 0.039. 

3 ......................................... 0.0024 to 0.0080 ............... 0.0077 to 0.025 ................. 0.012 to 0.038 ................... 0.023 to 0.077. 

4 ......................................... 0.0030 to 0.010 ................. 0.010 to 0.031 ................... 0.014 to 0.047 ................... 0.029 to 0.10. 

5 ......................................... 0.0036 to 0.012 ................. 0.011 to 0.037 ................... 0.017 to 0.056 ................... 0.035 to 0.11. 

* Domestic values are presented as a range between 7% and 23% of the global values. 

** Columns are labeled by the discount rate used to calculate the SCC and whether it is an average value or drawn from a different part of the 

distribution. Values presented in the table incorporate the escalation of the SCC over time. 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed in this rulemaking on 

reducing CO2 emissions is subject to 

change. DOE, together with other 

Federal agencies, will continue to 

review various methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other GHG 

emissions. This ongoing review will 

consider the comments on this subject 

that are part of the public record for this 

and other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues. 

However, consistent with DOE’s legal 

obligations, and taking into account the 

uncertainty involved with this 

particular issue, DOE has included in 

this final rule the most recent values 

and analyses resulting from the ongoing 

interagency review process. 

DOE also estimated a range for the 

cumulative monetary value of the 

economic benefits associated with NOX

emissions reductions anticipated to 

result from amended standards for 

refrigeration products. The dollar-perton values that DOE used are discussed 

in section IV.M. Table VI.66 presents 

the cumulative present values for each 

TSL calculated using seven-percent and 

three-percent discount rates. 

TABLE VI.66—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER REFRIGERATION PRODUCT TRIAL

STANDARD LEVELS

Billion 2009$ 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Standard-Size RefrigeratorFreezers: 

7% discount rate ................. 0.018 to 0.18 ......... 0.020 to 0.21 ......... 0.024 to 0.25 ......... 0.033 to 0.34 ......... 0.039 to 0.40. 

3% discount rate ................. 0.044 to 0.45 ......... 0.051 to 0.52 ......... 0.060 to 0.62 ......... 0.082 to 0.84 ......... 0.097 to 1.00. 

Standard-Size Freezers: 

7% discount rate ................. 0.0055 to 0.056 ..... 0.008 to 0.081 ....... 0.009 to 0.095 ....... 0.011 to 0.107 ....... 0.011 to 0.12. 

3% discount rate ................. 0.014 to 0.15 ......... 0.020 to 0.21 ......... 0.024 to 0.25 ......... 0.027 to 0.28 ......... 0.029 to 0.30. 

Compact Refrigeration Products: 

7% discount rate ................. 0.002 to 0.021 ....... 0.003 to 0.026 ....... 0.003 to 0.030 ....... 0.004 to 0.038 ....... 0.004 to 0.042. 

3% discount rate ................. 0.004 to 0.044 ....... 0.005 to 0.054 ....... 0.006 to 0.063 ....... 0.008 to 0.079 ....... 0.009 to 0.088. 

Built-In Refrigeration Products: 

7% discount rate ................. 0.000 to 0.002 ....... 0.001 to 0.002 ....... 0.000 to 0.004 ....... 0.001 to 0.005 ....... 0.001 to 0.006. 

3% discount rate ................. 0.000 to 0.004 ....... 0.001 to 0.005 ....... 0.001 to 0.018 ....... 0.001 to 0.013 ....... 0.002 to 0.016. 

The NPV of the monetized benefits 

associated with emissions reductions 

can be viewed as a complement to the 

NPV of the consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking. Table VI.67 shows an 

example of the calculation of the 

combined NPV including benefits from 

emissions reductions for the case of TSL 

3 for standard-size refrigerator-freezers. 

Table VI.68 and Table VI.69 present the 

NPV values that would result if DOE 

were to add the estimates of the 

potential economic benefits resulting 

from reduced CO2 and NOX emissions 

in each of four valuation scenarios to 

the NPV of consumer savings calculated 

for each TSL considered in this 

rulemaking, at both a seven-percent and 

three-percent discount rate. The CO2

values used in the columns of each table 

correspond to the four scenarios for the 

valuation of CO2 emission reductions 

presented in section IV.M. 

TABLE VI.67—ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS TO PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT TSL 3 FOR STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS

Category Present value 

billion 2009$ 

Discount rate 

(percent) 

Benefits: 

Operating Cost Savings ............................................................................................................................. 14 .65 7 

37 .41 3 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57592 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.67—ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS TO PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS

FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT TSL 3 FOR STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS—Continued 

Category Present value 

billion 2009$ 

Discount rate 

(percent) 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $4.9/t) * ............................................................................................. 1 .96 5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $22.1/t) * ........................................................................................... 6 .24 3 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $36.3/t) * ........................................................................................... 9 .36 2 .5 

CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $67.1/t) * ........................................................................................... 19 .0 3 

NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,519/ton) * .................................................................................... 0.136 7 

0 .338 3 

Total Monetary Benefits ** .......................................................................................................................... 21 .02 7 

43 .99 3 

Costs: 

Total Incremental Installed Costs ............................................................................................................... 9 .83 7 

17 .22 3 

Net Benefits: 

Including CO2 and NOX** ........................................................................................................................... 11 .19 7 

26 .77 3 

* These values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, 

$22.1, and $36.3 per metric ton (t) are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The 

value of $67.1/t represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. See section IV.M for details. The 

value for NOX (in 2009$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. 

** Total Monetary Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of CO2 emissions calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is equal to $22.1/t in 2010 (in 2009$). 

TABLE VI.68—ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS (AT 7% DISCOUNT RATE) TO PRESENT VALUE OF

MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 7% discount rate added with 

SCC Value of 

$4.9/metric ton 

CO2* and low 

value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$22.1/metric ton 

CO2* and 

medium value for 

NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$36.3/metric ton 

CO2* and 

medium value for 

NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$67.1/metric ton 

CO2* and high 

value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

1 ....................................................................................................... 10.92 15.53 18.81 29.06

2 ....................................................................................................... 11.55 17.20 21.22 33.77

3 ....................................................................................................... 11.75 18.42 23.17 37.99

4 ....................................................................................................... 4.20 12.83 18.97 38.14 

5 ....................................................................................................... (7.93 ) 2.08 9.20 31.45 

* These label values represent the global SCC of CO2 in 2010, in 2009$. Their present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent 

discount rates. See section IV.M for a discussion of the derivation of these values. 

** Low Value corresponds to $447 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,519 per ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,591 per ton of NOX emissions. 

TABLE VI.69—ADDING NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS (AT 3% DISCOUNT RATE) TO PRESENT VALUE OF

MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS

TSL 

Consumer NPV at 3% discount rate added with 

SCC Value of 

$4.9/metric ton 

CO2* and low 

value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$22.1/metric ton 

CO2* and 

medium value for 

NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$36.31/metric ton 

CO2* and 

medium value for 

NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

SCC Value of 

$67.1/metric ton 

CO2* and high 

value for NOX** 

billion 2009$ 

1 ....................................................................................................... 30.20 34.99 38.27 48.69

2 ....................................................................................................... 33.85 39.71 43.73 56.50

3 ....................................................................................................... 36.64 43.57 48.31 63.39

4 ....................................................................................................... 27.59 36.56 42.69 62.19

5 ....................................................................................................... 9.25 19.65 26.76 49.39 

* These label values represent the global SCC of CO2 in 2010, in 2009$. Their present values have been calculated with scenario-consistent 

discount rates. See section IV.M for a discussion of the derivation of these values. 

** Low Value corresponds to $447 per ton of NOX emissions. Medium Value corresponds to $2,519 per ton of NOX emissions. High Value corresponds to $4,591 per ton of NOX emissions. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57593 

Although adding the value of 

consumer savings to the values of 

emission reductions provides a valuable 

perspective, two issues should be 

considered. First, the national operating 

savings are domestic U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of market transactions while the value 

of CO2 reductions is based on a global 

value. Second, the assessments of 

operating cost savings and CO2 savings 

are performed with different methods 

that use quite different time frames for 

analysis. The national operating cost 

savings is measured for the lifetime of 

refrigeration products shipped in 2014– 

2043. The SCC values, on the other 

hand, reflect the present value of future 

climate-related impacts resulting from 

the emission of one ton of carbon 

dioxide in each year. These impacts 

continue well beyond 2100. 

7. Other Factors 

The Secretary, in determining 

whether a standard is economically 

justified, may consider any other factors 

that he deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI))) DOE is aware of 

pending legislation that proposes to 

phase out substances with significant 

GWP and that HFCs are included in the 

list of substances to be phased out. DOE 

recognizes the significance that such 

legislation would have to the 

refrigeration products industry and the 

impact it would have on the ability of 

manufacturers to meet energy 

conservation standards. Given the 

uncertainty regarding such legislation, 

however, DOE did not factor the impact 

of potential HFC limitations in 

developing the standard levels 

presented in today’s final rule. 

DOE has also considered the Joint 

Comments submitted to DOE containing 

the various recommended standard 

levels for refrigeration products. DOE 

recognizes the value of consensus 

agreements submitted by parties in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) 

and has weighed the value of such 

consensus in establishing the standards 

set forth in today’s final rule. 

C. Conclusion 

When prescribing new or amended 

standards, the standard that DOE adopts 

for any type (or class) of covered 

product shall be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary determines 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, the 

Secretary must determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens to the greatest extent 

practicable, in light of the seven 

statutory factors discussed previously. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 

amended standard must also ‘‘result in 

significant conservation of energy.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

For today’s final rule, DOE considered 

the impacts of standards at each trial 

standard level, beginning with the 

maximum technologically feasible level, 

to determine whether that level was 

economically justified. Where the maxtech level was not justified, DOE then 

considered the next most efficient level 

and undertook the same evaluation until 

it reached the most efficient level that 

is both technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

For ease of presentation, DOE 

separately discusses the benefits and/or 

burdens of each trial standard level for 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers, 

standard-size freezers, compact 

refrigeration products, and built-in 

refrigeration products. Tables that 

present a summary of the results of 

DOE’s quantitative analysis for each 

TSL have been provided to aid the 

reader as DOE discusses the benefits 

and/or burdens of each trial standard 

level. 

In addition to the quantitative results 

presented in the tables, DOE also 

considers other burdens and benefits 

that affect economic justification. These 

include the impacts on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers, such as lowincome households and seniors, who 

may be disproportionately affected by a 

national standard. Section VI.B.1.b 

presents the estimated impacts of each 

TSL for these subgroups. 

DOE notes that the proposed 

standards set forth in the Joint 

Comments were also carefully 

considered by the agency. These 

suggested standards, along with the 

comments from all interested parties 

and the agency’s analytical work 

developed in preparation of today’s 

final rule, were considered during the 

development of the standards being 

adopted today. 

DOE also notes that the economics 

literature provides a wide-ranging 

discussion of how consumers trade off 

upfront costs and energy savings in the 

absence of government intervention. 

Much of this literature attempts to 

explain why consumers appear to 

undervalue energy efficiency 

improvements. This undervaluation 

suggests that regulation that promotes 

energy efficiency can produce 

significant net private gains (as well as 

producing social gains by, for example, 

reducing pollution). There is evidence 

that consumers undervalue future 

energy savings as a result of (1) A lack 

of information, (2) a lack of sufficient 

salience of the long-term or aggregate 

benefits, (3) a lack of sufficient savings 

to warrant delaying or altering 

purchases (e.g. an inefficient ventilation 

fan in a new building or the delayed 

replacement of a water pump), (4) 

excessive focus on the short term, in the 

form of inconsistent weighting of future 

energy cost savings relative to available 

returns on other investments, (5) 

computational or other difficulties 

associated with the evaluation of 

relevant tradeoffs, and (6) a divergence 

in incentives (e.g., renter versus 

building owner; builder vs. home 

buyer). Other literature indicates that 

with less than perfect foresight and a 

high degree of uncertainty about the 

future, consumers may trade off these 

types of investments at a higher than 

expected rate between current 

consumption and uncertain future 

energy cost savings. 

In DOE’s current regulatory analysis, 

potential changes in the benefits and 

costs of a regulation due to changes in 

consumer purchase decisions are 

included in two ways. First, if 

consumers forego a purchase of a 

product in the standards case, this 

decreases sales for product 

manufacturers, and the cost to 

manufacturers is included in the MIA. 

Second, DOE accounts for energy 

savings attributable only to products 

actually used by consumers in the 

standards case; if a regulatory option 

decreases the number of products used 

by consumers, this decreases the 

potential energy savings from an energy 

conservation standard. DOE provides 

detailed estimates of shipments and 

changes in the volume of product 

purchases in chapter 9 of the final rule 

TSD. However, DOE’s current analysis 

does not explicitly control for 

heterogeneity in consumer preferences, 

preferences across subcategories of 

products or specific features, or 

consumer price sensitivity variation 

according to household income. 

While DOE is not prepared at present 

to provide a fuller quantifiable 

framework for estimating the benefits 

and costs of changes in consumer 

purchase decisions due to an energy 

conservation standard, DOE has posted 

a paper that discusses the issue of 

consumer welfare impacts of appliance 

energy efficiency standards, and 

potential enhancements to the 

methodology by which these impacts 

are defined and estimated in the 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57594 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

48Alan Sanstad, Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 2010. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf. 

regulatory process.48 DOE is committed 

to developing a framework that can 

support empirical quantitative tools for 

improved assessment of the consumer 

welfare impacts of appliance standards. 

DOE welcomes comments on how to 

more fully assess the potential impact of 

energy conservation standards on 

consumer choice and how to quantify 

this impact in its regulatory analysis in 

future rulemakings. 

1. Standard-Size Refrigerator-Freezers 

Table VI–70 presents a summary of 

the quantitative impacts estimated for 

each TSL for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers. The efficiency levels contained 

in each TSL are described in section 

VI.A. The range of results for NPV of 

consumer benefits reflects the range of 

product price forecasts discussed in 

section IV.G.3. 

TABLE VI.70—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

National Energy Savings (quads) ........... 2.41 .................... 2.78 .................... 3.27 .................... 4.45 .................... 5.30. 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion) 

3% discount rate ..................................... 15.96 to 19.35 .... 16.26 to 20.76 .... 16.92 to 22.88 .... 4.800 to 18.20 .... (11.4) to 9.67. 

7% discount rate ..................................... 4.272 to 5.940 .... 3.764 to 5.973 .... 3.173 to 6.104 .... (5.756) to 0.804 .. (16.30) to (6.03). 

Industry Impacts 

Industry NPV (2009$ million) .................. (117.8) to (252.6) (219.2) to (395.9) (345.0) to (580.7) (784.9) to 

(1,309.3).

(1,042.2) to 

(1,841.5). 

Industry NPV (% change) ....................... (4.4) to (9.5) ....... (8.2) to (14.8) ..... (12.9) to (21.7) ... (29.4) to (49.0) ... (39.0) to (69.0). 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (Mt) .................................................. 175 ..................... 202 ..................... 238 ..................... 323 ..................... 386. 

NOX (1000 tons) ..................................... 141 ..................... 162 ..................... 191 ..................... 260 ..................... 310. 

Hg (tons) ................................................. 0.79 .................... 0.91 .................... 1.07 .................... 1.45 .................... 1.73. 

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2009$ billion) * ............................... 1.45 to 14.0 ........ 1.67 to 16.2 ........ 1.96 to 19.0 ........ 2.68 to 25.9 ........ 3.20 to 31.0. 

NOX—3% discount rate (2009$ billion) .. 0.044 to 0.45 ...... 0.051 to 0.52 ...... 0.060 to 0.62 ...... 0.082 to 0.84 ...... 0.097 to 1.00. 

NOX—7% discount rate (2009$ billion) .. 0.018 to 0.18 ...... 0.020 to 0.21 ...... 0.024 to 0.25 ...... 0.033 to 0.34 ...... 0.039 to 0.40. 

Mean LCC Savings ** (2009$) 

Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers ........... 44 ....................... 44 ....................... 42 ....................... (6) ....................... (87). 

Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers ...... 22 ....................... 22 ....................... 22 ....................... (53) ..................... (136). 

Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers ........ 62 ....................... 57 ....................... 57 ....................... (18) ..................... (83). 

Median PBP (years) 

Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers ........... 8.0 ...................... 8.0 ...................... 9.5 ...................... 13.3 .................... 17.8. 

Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers ...... 4.2 ...................... 4.2 ...................... 4.2 ...................... 21.0 .................... 24.7. 

Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers ........ 4.0 ...................... 9.2 ...................... 9.2 ...................... 15.6 .................... 19.1. 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts 

Top-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers: 

Net Cost (%) .................................... 34 ....................... 34 ....................... 46 ....................... 65 ....................... 80. 

No Impact (%) .................................. 8.3 ...................... 8.3 ...................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0. 

Net Benefit (%) ................................ 58 ....................... 58 ....................... 54 ....................... 35 ....................... 20. 

Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers: 

Net Cost (%) .................................... 2.5 ...................... 2.5 ...................... 2.5 ...................... 83 ....................... 89. 

No Impact (%) .................................. 68 ....................... 68 ....................... 68 ....................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0. 

Net Benefit (%) ................................ 30 ....................... 30 ....................... 30 ....................... 17 ....................... 11. 

Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers: 

Net Cost (%) .................................... 4.3 ...................... 42 ....................... 42 ....................... 70 ....................... 80. 

No Impact (%) .................................. 37 ....................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0. 

Net Benefit (%) ................................ 59 ....................... 59 ....................... 59 ....................... 30 ....................... 21. 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) † 2.62 .................... 3.03 .................... 3.56 .................... 4.86 .................... 5.82. 

Employment Impacts 

Total Potential Changes in Domestic 

Production Workers in 2014 (thousands).

(0.19) to (7.35) ... (0.22) to (7.35) ... (0.18) to (7.35) ... (0.24) to (7.35) ... (0.37) to (7.35). 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57595 

TABLE VI.70—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) † ..... 16.24 .................. 18.45 .................. 21.33 .................. 26.31 .................. 28.85. 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

† Changes in 2043. 

DOE first considered TSL 5, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 5 would save 5.30 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be ¥$6.03 

billion to ¥$16.3 billion, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and ¥$11.4 

to $9.67 billion, using a discount rate of 

3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 386 Mt of CO2, 310,000 tons 

of NOX, and 1.73 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 5 ranges from $3.20 billion to 

$30.98 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 5.82 

GW under TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is 

a cost (LCC increase) of $87 for topmount refrigerator-freezers, a cost of 

$136 for bottom-mount refrigeratorfreezers, and a cost of $83 for side-byside refrigerator-freezers. The median 

payback period is 17.8 years for topmount refrigerator-freezers, 24.7 years 

for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 

and 19.1 years for side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 20 percent for top-mount refrigeratorfreezers, 11 percent for bottom-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, and 21 percent for 

side-by-side refrigerator-freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 80 percent for top-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, 89 percent for 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, and 

80 percent for side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $1,042.2 

million to a decrease of $1,841.5 

million. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes the 

risk of very large negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning 

reduced profit margins are realized. If 

the high end of the range of impacts is 

reached as DOE expects, TSL 5 could 

result in a net loss of 69.0 percent in 

INPV to standard-size refrigeratorfreezer manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 5 for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers, the benefits of energy savings, 

generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

negative NPV of consumer benefits, the 

economic burden on a significant 

fraction of consumers due to the large 

increases in product cost, and the 

capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

very large reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 

would save 4.45 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be ¥$5.76 billion to 

$0.80 billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $4.80 billion to $18.2 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 323 Mt of CO2, 260,000 tons 

of NOX, and 1.45 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 4 ranges from $2.68 billion to $25.9 

billion. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 4.86 

GW under TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, DOE projects that the 

average LCC impact is a cost (LCC 

increase) of $6 for top-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, a cost of $53 for 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, and 

a cost of $18 for side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers. The median 

payback period is 13.3 years for topmount refrigerator-freezers, 21.0 years 

for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 

and 15.6 years for side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 35 percent for top-mount refrigeratorfreezers, 17 percent for bottom-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, and 30 percent for 

side-by-side refrigerator-freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 65 percent for top-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, 83 percent for 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, and 

70 percent for side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $784.9 

million to a decrease of $1,309.3 

million. DOE recognizes the risk of large 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. If the high end of 

the range of impacts is reached as DOE 

expects, TSL 4 could result in a net loss 

of 49.0 percent in INPV to standard-size 

refrigerator-freezer manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 4 for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers, the benefits of energy savings, 

positive NPV of consumer benefits at 3- 

percent discount rate, generating 

capacity reductions, and emission 

reductions and the estimated monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reductions 

would be outweighed by the negative 

NPV of consumer benefits at 7-percent 

discount rate, the economic burden on 

a significant fraction of consumers due 

to the large increases in product cost, 

and the capital conversion costs and 

profit margin impacts that could result 

in a substantial reduction in INPV for 

the manufacturers. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 4 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 

would save 3.27 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $3.17 billion to $6.10 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $16.9 billion to $22.9 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 238 Mt of CO2, 191,000 tons 

of NOX, and 1.07 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 3 ranges from $1.96 billion to $19.0 

billion. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 3.56 

GW under TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a gain (consumer savings) of $42 for topmount refrigerator-freezers, a gain of $22 

for bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 

and a gain of $57 for side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers. The median 

payback period is 9.5 years for topmount refrigerator-freezers, 4.2 years for 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, and 

9.2 years for side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 54 

percent for top-mount refrigeratorfreezers, 30 percent for bottom-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, and 59 percent for 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57596 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

side-by-side refrigerator-freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 46 percent for top-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, 2.5 percent for 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, and 

42 percent for side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $345.0 

million to a decrease of $580.7 million. 

DOE recognizes the risk of negative 

impacts if manufacturers’ expectations 

concerning reduced profit margins are 

realized. If the high end of the range of 

impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 

3 could result in a net loss of 21.7 

percent in INPV to standard-size 

refrigerator-freezer manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 3 for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers, the benefits of energy savings, 

positive NPV of consumer benefits, 

generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions outweigh the economic 

burden on a significant fraction of 

consumers due to the increases in 

product cost, and the capital conversion 

costs and profit margin impacts that 

could result in a reduction in INPV for 

the manufacturers. In addition to the 

aforementioned benefits of the amended 

standards, DOE notes that the efficiency 

levels in TSL 3 correspond to the 

recommended levels presented in the 

Joint Comments and, as stated 

previously, DOE recognizes the value of 

consensus agreements submitted in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). 

After considering the analysis, 

comments responding to the September 

2010 NOPR, and the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 3, the Secretary has 

concluded that this trial standard level 

will offer the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

will result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE 

is adopting TSL 3 for standard-size 

refrigerator-freezers. The amended 

energy conservation standards for 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers, 

expressed as equations for maximum 

energy use, are shown in Table VI.71. 

TABLE VI.71—AMENDED STANDARDS FOR STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATORS AND REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS

Product class 

Equations for maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

Based on AV (ft 3) Based on av (L) 

1. Refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost ..................... 7.99AV + 225.0 ..... 0.282av + 225.0 

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost ....................................................................................................... 6.79AV + 193.6 ..... 0.240av + 193.6 

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost .................................................................................. 7.99AV + 225.0 ..... 0.282av + 225.0 

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker .. 8.07AV + 233.7 ..... 0.285av + 233.7 

3I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker 

without through-the-door ice service.

8.07AV + 317.7 ..... 0.285av + 317.7 

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost ................................................................................................... 7.07AV + 201.6 ..... 0.250av + 201.6 

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker 8.51AV + 297.8 ..... 0.301av + 297.8 

4I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker 

without through-the-door ice service.

8.51AV + 381.8 ..... 0.301av + 381.8 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.8.85AV + 317.0 ..... 0.312av + 317.0 

5I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker 

without through-the-door ice service.

8.85AV + 401.0 ..... 0.312av + 401.0 

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice 

service.

9.25AV + 475.4 ..... 0.327av + 475.4 

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.8.40AV + 385.4 ..... 0.297av + 385.4 

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.8.54AV + 432.8 ..... 0.302av + 432.8 

AV = adjusted volume in cubic feet; av = adjusted volume in liters. 

2. Standard-Size Freezers 

Table VI.72 presents a summary of the 

quantitative impacts estimated for each 

TSL for standard-size freezers. The 

efficiency levels contained in each TSL 

are described in section VI.A. The range 

of results for NPV of consumer benefits 

reflects the range of product price 

forecasts discussed in section IV.G.3. 

TABLE VI.72—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

National Energy Savings (quads) ................ 0.79 .................... 1.14 .................... 1.34 .................... 1.52 .................... 1.62. 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion) 

3% discount rate .......................................... 8.00 to 8.50 ........ 10.1 to 11.2 ........ 10.7 to 12.4 ........ 9.66 to 12.2 ........ 5.32 to 9.46. 

7% discount rate .......................................... 2.67 to 2.92 ........ 3.02 to 3.59 ........ 2.96 to 3.77 ........ 2.03 to 3.25 ........ (0.63) to 1.41. 

Industry Impacts 

Industry NPV (2009$ million) ....................... (29.8) to (50.0) ... (123.7) to (170.5) (112.5) to (178.1) (85.4) to (182.4) (145.0) to 

(298.8). 

Industry NPV (% change) ............................ (8.8) to (14.8) ..... (36.6) to (50.5) ... (33.3) to (52.7) ... (25.3) to (54.0) ... (42.9) to (88.5). 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57597 

TABLE VI.72—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (Mt) ....................................................... 54 ....................... 77 ....................... 91 ....................... 103 ..................... 110. 

NOX (1000 tons) .......................................... 43 ....................... 62 ....................... 73 ....................... 83 ....................... 89. 

Hg (tons) ...................................................... 0.24 .................... 0.34 .................... 0.41 .................... 0.47 .................... 0.50. 

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2009$ billion) * .................................... 0.48 to 4.58 ........ 0.69 to 6.59 ........ 0.81 to 7.76 ........ 0.92 to 8.80 ........ 0.98 to 9.41. 

NOX—3% discount rate (2009$ billion) ....... 0.014 to 0.15 ...... 0.020 to 0.21 ...... 0.024 to 0.25 ...... 0.027 to 0.28 ...... 0.029 to 0.30. 

NOX—7% discount rate (2009$ billion) ....... 0.006 to 0.056 .... 0.008 to 0.081 .... 0.009 to 0.095 .... 0.011 to 0.107 .... 0.011 to 0.115.

Mean LCC Savings** (2009$) 

Upright Freezers .......................................... 140 ..................... 195 ..................... 189 ..................... 161 ..................... 33. 

Chest Freezers ............................................ 82 ....................... 69 ....................... 79 ....................... 47 ....................... (25). 

Median PBP (years) 

Upright Freezers .......................................... 4.0 ...................... 5.3 ...................... 7.1 ...................... 9.3 ...................... 14.7. 

Chest Freezers ............................................ 3.9 ...................... 8.1 ...................... 8.5 ...................... 12.1 .................... 17.8. 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts 

Upright Freezers: 

Net Cost (%) ......................................... 6.0 ...................... 12 ....................... 22 ....................... 35 ....................... 60. 

No Impact (%) ....................................... 0.6 ...................... 0.2 ...................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0. 

Net Benefit (%) ..................................... 93 ....................... 88 ....................... 78 ....................... 65 ....................... 40. 

Chest Freezers: 

Net Cost (%) ......................................... 5 ......................... 27 ....................... 29 ....................... 49 ....................... 69. 

No Impact (%) ....................................... 0.2 ...................... 0.2 ...................... 0.2 ...................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0. 

Net Benefit (%) ..................................... 95 ....................... 73 ....................... 71 ....................... 51 ....................... 31. 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) † ...... 0.83 .................... 0.83 .................... 1.40 .................... 1.59 .................... 1.71. 

Employment Impacts 

Total Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 2014 (thousands).(0.05) to (1.64) ... (0.11) to (1.64) ... (0.15) to (1.64) ... (0.23) to (1.64) ... (0.34) to (1.64). 

Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) † .......... 5.18 .................... 7.24 .................... 8.38 .................... 9.19 .................... 9.12. 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

† Changes in 2043. 

DOE first considered TSL 5, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 5 would save 1.62 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be ¥$0.63 

billion to $1.41 billion, using a discount 

rate of 7 percent, and $5.32 billion to 

$9.46 billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 110 Mt of CO2, 89,000 tons 

of NOX, and 0.50 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 5 ranges from $0.98 billion to $9.41 

billion. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.71 

GW under TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is 

a gain (LCC decrease) of $33 for upright 

freezers, and a cost of $25 for chest 

freezers. The median payback period is 

14.7 years for upright freezers and 17.8 

years for chest freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 40 percent for upright freezers and 31 

percent for chest freezers. The fraction 

of consumers experiencing an LCC cost 

is 60 percent for upright freezers and 69 

percent for chest freezers. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $145.0 

million to a decrease of $298.8 million. 

DOE recognizes the risk of very large 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. Standards at TSL 

5 would require efficiency levels that 

are far higher than the most efficient 

products currently available on the 

market. Manufacturing products to meet 

standards at TSL 5 would require large 

investments in product redesign and 

conversion of facilities. Because 

standard-size freezers are currently lowcost, low-margin products, there is a 

limited ability to pass on to consumers 

the required conversion costs and added 

product costs associated with efficiencyimproving technologies for freezers. If 

the high end of the range of impacts is 

reached as DOE expects, TSL 5 could 

result in a net loss of 88.5 percent in 

INPV to standard-size freezer 

manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 5 for standard-size freezers, the 

benefits of energy savings, positive NPV 

of consumer benefits, generating 

capacity reductions, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reductions 

would be outweighed by the economic 

burden on a significant fraction of 

consumers due to the large increases in 

product cost, and the capital conversion 

costs and profit margin impacts that 

could result in a very large reduction in 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57598 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

INPV for manufacturers. Consequently, 

the Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 

is not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 

would save 1.52 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $2.03 billion to $3.25 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $9.66 billion to $12.2 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 103 Mt of CO2, 83,000 tons 

of NOX, and 0.47 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 4 ranges from $0.92 billion to $8.80 

billion. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.59 

GW under TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is 

a gain (consumer savings) of $161 for 

upright freezers and a gain of $47 for 

chest freezers. The median payback 

period is 9.3 years for upright freezers 

and 12.1 years for chest freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC benefit is 65 percent for upright 

freezers and 51 percent for chest 

freezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 35 percent 

for upright freezers and 49 percent for 

chest freezers. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $85.4 

million to a decrease of $182.4 million. 

DOE recognizes the risk of very large 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. Standards at TSL 

4 would require efficiency levels that 

are substantially higher than the most 

efficient products currently available on 

the market. Manufacturing products to 

meet standards at TSL 4 would require 

large investments in product redesign 

and conversion of facilities. Because 

standard-size freezers are currently lowcost, low-margin products, there is a 

limited ability to pass on to consumers 

the required conversion costs and added 

product costs associated with efficiencyimproving technologies for freezers. If 

the high end of the range of impacts is 

reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could 

result in a net loss of 54.0 percent in 

INPV to standard-size freezer 

manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 4 for standard-size freezers, the 

benefits of energy savings, positive NPV 

of consumer benefits, generating 

capacity reductions, emission 

reductions, the estimated monetary 

value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

reductions, and the economic benefit on 

a significant fraction of upright freezer 

consumers would be outweighed by the 

economic burden on a significant 

fraction of chest freezer consumers due 

to the increase in product cost, and the 

large capital conversion costs and 

margin impacts that could result in a 

large reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. 

DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 

would save 1.34 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $2.96 billion to $3.77 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $10.7 billion to $12.4 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 91 Mt of CO2, 73,000 tons 

of NOX, and 0.41 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 3 ranges from $0.81 billion to $7.76 

billion. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 1.40 

GW under TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a gain (consumer savings) of $189 for 

upright freezers and a gain of $79 for 

chest freezers. The median payback 

period is 7.1 years for upright freezers 

and 8.5 years for chest freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC benefit is 78 percent for upright 

freezers and 71 percent for chest 

freezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 22 percent 

for upright freezers and 29 percent for 

chest freezers. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $112.5 

million to a decrease of $178.1 million. 

DOE recognizes the risk of very large 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. Standards at TSL 

3 would require efficiency levels that 

are substantially higher than the most 

efficient products currently available on 

the market. Similar to the case of TSL 

4, manufacturing products to meet 

standards at TSL 3 would require large 

investments in product redesign and 

conversion of facilities. Because 

standard-size freezers are currently lowcost, low-margin products, there is a 

limited ability to pass on to consumers 

the required conversion costs and added 

product costs associated with more 

energy efficient technologies for 

freezers. If the high end of the range of 

impacts is reached, as DOE expects, TSL 

3 could result in a net loss of 52.7 

percent in INPV to standard-size freezer 

manufacturers. 

DOE notes that TSL 3 is not at the 

level recommended in the consensus 

agreement. DOE also notes that the TSL 

3 efficiency levels are significantly 

higher than the maximum-efficiency 

products on the market: From 8% 

higher for product class 9 (upright 

freezers with automatic defrost) to 15% 

higher for product class 10 (chest 

freezers). Hence, DOE believes that there 

may be other factors, including 

additional burdens, that the parties to 

that agreement may have considered 

that are not reflected in DOE’s analysis. 

Given this possibility, the strong 

support expressed by commenters in 

favor of the consensus agreement levels, 

and the lack of product on the market 

that is close to meeting the requirements 

of this level, DOE is declining to adopt 

TSL 3 as part of today’s final rule. It 

may, however, reconsider this level as 

part of a future review of the standards 

set by today’s rulemaking as part of the 

agency’s required review under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(m). 

Accordingly, the Secretary has 

concluded that at TSL 3 for standardsize freezers, the benefits of energy 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, the estimated 

monetary value of the cumulative CO2

emissions reductions, and the economic 

benefit for a significant fraction of 

freezer consumers would be outweighed 

by the large capital conversion costs and 

profit margin impacts and other burdens 

that manufacturers would bear in order 

to produce freezers that meet efficiency 

requirements substantially more 

stringent than what products on the 

market presently can satisfy. 

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 

would save 1.14 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $3.02 billion to $3.59 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $10.1 billion to $11.2 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 2 are 77 Mt of CO2, 62,000 tons 

of NOX, and 0.34 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 2 ranges from $0.69 billion to $6.59 

billion. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.83 

GW under TSL 2. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is 

a gain (consumer savings) of $195 for 

upright freezers and a gain of $69 for 

chest freezers. The median payback 

period is 5.3 years for upright freezers 

and 8.1 years for chest freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC benefit is 88 percent for upright 

freezers and 73 percent for chest 

freezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 12 percent 

for upright freezers and 27 percent for 

chest freezers. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57599 

DOE estimated the projected change 

in INPV ranges from a decrease of 

$123.7 million to a decrease of $170.5 

million. At TSL 2, DOE recognizes the 

risk of negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning 

reduced profit margins are realized. 

Standards at TSL 2 would pose many of 

the same issues as discussed above for 

TSL3, but the projected negative 

impacts are somewhat less. If the high 

end of the range of impacts is reached 

as DOE expects, TSL 2 could result in 

a net loss of 50.5 percent in INPV to 

standard-size freezer manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 2 for standard-size freezers, the 

benefits of energy savings, positive NPV 

of consumer benefits, generating 

capacity reductions, emission 

reductions, the estimated monetary 

value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

reductions, and the economic benefit for 

a significant fraction of freezer 

consumers would outweigh the capital 

conversion costs and profit margin 

impacts that could result in a reduction 

in INPV for the manufacturers. In 

addition to the aforementioned benefits, 

DOE notes that the efficiency levels in 

TSL 2 correspond to the recommended 

levels in the Joint Comments and, as 

stated previously, DOE recognizes the 

value of consensus agreements 

submitted in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4). 

After considering the analysis, 

comments responding to the September 

2010 NOPR, and the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 2, the Secretary has 

concluded that this trial standard level 

will offer the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

will result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE 

today is adopting TSL 2 for standardsize freezers. The amended energy 

conservation standards for standard-size 

freezers, expressed as equations for 

maximum energy use, are shown in 

Table VI.73. 

TABLE VI.73—AMENDED STANDARDS FOR STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS

Product class 

Equations for maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

Based on AV (ft 3) Based on av (L) 

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost ................................................................................................... 5.57AV + 193.7 ..... 0.197av + 193.7 

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker ............................................. 8.62AV + 228.3 ..... 0.305av + 228.3 

9I. Upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker ................................................. 8.62AV + 312.3 ..... 0.305av + 312.3 

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers ........................................................ 7.29AV + 107.8 ..... 0.257av + 107.8 

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost ............................................................................................. 10.24AV + 148.1 ... 0.362av + 148.1 

AV = adjusted volume in cubic feet; av = adjusted volume in liters. 

3. Compact Refrigeration Products 

Table VI.74 presents a summary of the 

quantitative impacts estimated for each 

TSL for compact refrigeration products. 

The efficiency levels contained in each 

TSL are described in section VI.A. The 

range of results for NPV of consumer 

benefits reflects the range of product 

price forecasts discussed in section 

IV.G.3. 

TABLE VI.74—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

National Energy Savings (quads) ................ 0.30 .................... 0.37 .................... 0.43 .................... 0.54 .................... 0.59. 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion) 

3% discount rate .......................................... 1.64 to 1.95 ........ 1.29 to 1.89 ........ 1.45 to 2.15 ........ 0.046 to 1.43 ...... (3.75) to (1.17). 

7% discount rate .......................................... 0.675 to 0.821 .... 0.439 to 0.724 .... 0.482 to 0.819 .... (0.363) to 0.304 .. (2.51) to (1.25). 

Industry Impacts 

Compact Refrigeration Products: 

Industry NPV (2009$ million) ................ (16.6) to (27.8) ... (36.2) to (58.7) ... (62.9) to (89.3) ... (41.5) to (92.8) ... (154.9) to 

(242.6). 

Industry NPV (% change) ..................... (9.8) to (16.4) ..... (21.4) to (34.6) ... (37.1) to (52.7) ... (24.5) to (54.8) ... (91.4) to (143.2). 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (Mt) ....................................................... 20 ....................... 24 ....................... 28 ....................... 35 ....................... 39. 

NOX (1000 tons) .......................................... 16 ....................... 20 ....................... 23 ....................... 29 ....................... 31. 

Hg (tons) ...................................................... 0.10 .................... 0.12 .................... 0.15 .................... 0.19 .................... 0.21. 

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2009$ billion)* ..................................... 0.12 to 1.26 ........ 0.15 to 1.54 ........ 0.18 to 1.79 ........ 0.22 to 2.25 ........ 0.24 to 2.47. 

NOX—3% discount rate (2009$ billion) ....... 0.004 to 0.044 .... 0.005 to 0.054 .... 0.006 to 0.063 .... 0.008 to 0.079 .... 0.009 to 0.088.

NOX—7% discount rate (2009$ billion) ....... 0.002 to 0.021 .... 0.003 to 0.026 .... 0.003 to 0.030 .... 0.004 to 0.038 .... 0.004 to 0.042.

Mean LCC Savings ** (2009$) 

Compact Refrigerators ................................. 17 ....................... 14 ....................... 13 ....................... (5) ....................... (85). 

Compact Freezers ....................................... 12 ....................... 12 ....................... 9 ......................... (23) ..................... (102). 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57600 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.74—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Median PBP (years) 

Compact Refrigerators ................................. 2.5 ...................... 3.5 ...................... 3.9 ...................... 5.8 ...................... 10.4. 

Compact Freezers ....................................... 2.2 ...................... 2.2 ...................... 4.2 ...................... 9.1 ...................... 14.4. 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts 

Compact Refrigerators: 

Net Cost (%) ......................................... 20 ....................... 37 ....................... 44 ....................... 70 ....................... 92. 

No Impact (%) ....................................... 1.4 ...................... 1.0 ...................... 0.9 ...................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0. 

Net Benefit (%) ..................................... 79 ....................... 62 ....................... 56 ....................... 30 ....................... 7.9. 

Compact Freezers: 

Net Cost (%) ......................................... 8 ......................... 8 ......................... 34 ....................... 85 ....................... 97. 

No Impact (%) ....................................... 5 ......................... 5 ......................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0. 

Net Benefit (%) ..................................... 87 ....................... 87 ....................... 66 ....................... 16 ....................... 3.3. 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) † ...... 0.27 .................... 0.34 .................... 0.39 .................... 0.48 .................... 0.51. 

Employment Impacts 

Total Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 2014 (thousands).(0.00) to (0.03) ... (0.00) to (0.03) ... (0.00) to (0.03) ... (0.00) to (0.03) ... (0.01) to (0.03). 

Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) † .......... 1.44 .................... 1.64 .................... 1.88 .................... 2.02 .................... 1.53. 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

† Changes in 2043. 

DOE first considered TSL 5, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 5 would save 0.59 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be ¥$2.51 

billion to ¥$1.25 billion, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and ¥$3.75 

billion to ¥$1.17 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 39 Mt of CO2, 31,000 tons 

of NOX, and 0.21 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 5 ranges from $0.24 billion to $2.47 

billion. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.51 

GW under TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is 

a cost (LCC increase) of $85 for compact 

refrigerators and a cost of $102 for 

compact freezers. The median payback 

period is 10.4 years for compact 

refrigerators and 14.4 years for compact 

freezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 7.9 

percent for compact refrigerators and 3.3 

percent for compact freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 92 percent for compact 

refrigerators and 97 percent for compact 

freezers. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $154.9 

million to a decrease of $242.6 million. 

DOE recognizes the risk of very large 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. Manufacturing 

products to meet standards at TSL 5 

would require large investments in 

product redesign and conversion of 

facilities. Because compact refrigeration 

products are currently low-cost, lowmargin products, there is a limited 

ability to pass on to consumers the 

required conversion costs and added 

product costs associated with efficiencyimproving technologies. If the high end 

of the range of impacts is reached as 

DOE expects, TSL 5 could result in a net 

loss of 143.2 percent in INPV to 

compact refrigeration product 

manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 5 for compact refrigeration 

products, the benefits of energy savings, 

generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

negative NPV of consumer benefits, the 

economic burden on a significant 

fraction of consumers due to the 

increases in product cost, the capital 

conversion costs and profit margin 

impacts that could result in a large 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers. 

Consequently, the Secretary has 

concluded that TSL 5 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 

would save 0.54 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be ¥$0.363 billion to 

$0.304 billion, using a discount rate of 

7 percent, and $0.46 billion to $1.43 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 35 Mt of CO2, 29,000 tons 

of NOX, and 0.19 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 4 ranges from $0.22 billion to $2.25 

billion. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.48 

GW under TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is 

a cost (LCC increase) of $5 for compact 

refrigerators and a cost of $23 for 

compact freezers. The median payback 

period is 5.8 years for compact 

refrigerators and 9.1 years for compact 

freezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 30 

percent for compact refrigerators and 16 

percent for compact freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 70 percent for compact 

refrigerators and 85 percent for compact 

freezers. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $41.5 

million to a decrease of $92.8 million. 

DOE recognizes the risk of very large 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations about reduced profit 

margins are realized. Manufacturing 

products to meet standards at TSL 4 

would require large investments in 

product redesign and conversion of 

facilities. Because compact refrigeration 

products are currently low-cost, lowmargin products, there is a limited 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57601 

ability to pass on to consumers the 

required conversion costs and added 

product costs associated with efficiencyimproving technologies. If the high end 

of the range of impacts is reached as 

DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net 

loss of 54.8 percent in INPV to compact 

refrigeration product manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 4 for compact refrigeration 

products, the benefits of energy savings, 

generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

negative NPV of consumer benefits, the 

economic burden on a significant 

fraction of consumers due to the 

increases in product costs, and the 

capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

large reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 4 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 

would save 0.43 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $0.482 billion to 

$0.819 billion, using a discount rate of 

7 percent, and $1.45 to $2.15 billion, 

using a discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 28 Mt of CO2, 23,000 tons 

of NOX, and 0.15 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 3 ranges from $0.18 billion to $1.79 

billion. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.39 

GW under TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a gain (consumer savings) of $13 for 

compact refrigerators and a gain of $9 

for compact freezers. The median 

payback period is 3.9 years for compact 

refrigerators and 4.2 years for compact 

freezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 56 

percent for compact refrigerators and 66 

percent for compact freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 44 percent for compact 

refrigerators and 34 percent for compact 

freezers. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $62.9 

million to a decrease of $89.3 million. 

DOE recognizes the risk of large 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations about reduced profit 

margins are realized. Manufacturing 

products to meet standards at TSL 3 

would require large investments in 

product redesign and conversion of 

facilities. Because compact refrigeration 

products are currently low-cost, lowmargin products, there is a limited 

ability to pass on to consumers the 

required conversion costs and added 

product costs associated with efficiencyimproving technologies. If the high end 

of the range of impacts is reached as 

DOE expects, TSL 3 could result in a net 

loss of 52.7 percent in INPV to compact 

refrigeration product manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 3 for compact refrigeration 

products, the benefits of energy savings, 

positive NPV of consumer benefits, 

generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the cumulative CO2

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the economic burden on 

a significant fraction of consumers due 

to the increases in product costs, and by 

the capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

large reduction in INPV for 

manufacturers. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 3 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 

would save 0.37 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $0.439 billion to 

$0.724 billion, using a discount rate of 

7 percent, and $1.29 billion to $1.89 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 2 are 24 Mt of CO2, 20,000 tons 

of NOX, and 0.12 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 2 ranges from $0.15 billion to $1.54 

billion. Total generating capacity in 

2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.34 

GW under TSL 2. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is 

a gain (consumer savings) of $14 for 

compact refrigerators and a gain of $12 

for compact freezers. The median 

payback period is 3.5 years for compact 

refrigerators and 2.2 years for compact 

freezers. The fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 62 

percent for compact refrigerators and 87 

percent for compact freezers. The 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 37 percent for compact 

refrigerators and 8 percent for compact 

freezers. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $36.2 

million to a decrease of $58.7 million. 

DOE recognizes the risk of negative 

impacts if manufacturers’ expectations 

about reduced profit margins are 

realized. Manufacturing products to 

meet standards at TSL 2 would require 

investments in product redesign and 

conversion of facilities. Because 

compact refrigeration products are 

currently low-cost, low-margin 

products, there is a limited ability to 

pass on to consumers the required 

conversion costs and added product 

costs associated with efficiencyimproving technologies. If the high end 

of the range of impacts is reached as 

DOE expects, TSL 2 could result in a net 

loss of 34.6 percent in INPV to compact 

refrigeration product manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 2 for compact refrigeration 

products, the benefits of energy savings, 

positive NPV of consumer benefits, 

generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, the estimated 

monetary value of the cumulative CO2

emissions reductions, and the economic 

benefit to a significant fraction of 

consumers would outweigh the capital 

conversion costs that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for manufacturers. In 

addition to the aforementioned benefits 

of the amended standards, DOE notes 

that the efficiency levels in TSL 2 

correspond to the recommended levels 

in the Joint Comments 

AHAM and ASAP both commented 

that the proposed standard energy 

efficiency equation for product class 15 

(compact refrigerator-freezers— 

automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer) was inconsistent with the 

consensus agreement, which had 

recommended that both product class 

15 and product class 13 (compact 

refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost 

with top-mounted freezer) should have 

identical standards. (ASAP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 67 at p. 91; 

AHAM, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

67 at p. 92) DOE agrees that the 

standards of these two product classes 

should be the same, based on the 

similarities between these classes. 

Commenters favored this approach and 

none offered any information suggesting 

an alternative approach. As stated 

previously, DOE recognizes the value of 

consensus agreements submitted in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). 

After considering the analysis, 

comments responding to the September 

2010 NOPR, and the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 2, the Secretary has 

concluded that this trial standard level 

will offer the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

will result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE 

today is adopting TSL 2 for compact 

refrigeration products. The amended 

energy conservation standards for 

compact refrigeration products, 

expressed as equations for maximum 

energy use, are shown in Table VI–75. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57602 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.75—AMENDED STANDARDS FOR COMPACT REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS

Product class 

Equations for maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

Based on AV (ft 3) Based on av (L) 

11. Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost ................................................ 9.03AV + 252.3 ..... 0.319av + 252.3 

11A. Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost ...................................................................................... 7.84AV + 219.1 ..... 0.277av + 219.1 

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost .................................................................. 5.91AV + 335.8 ..... 0.209av + 335.8 

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer .................................... 11.80AV + 339.2 ... 0.417av + 339.2 

13I. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker.

11.80AV + 423.2 ... 0.417av + 423.2 

13A. Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost .................................................................................. 9.17AV + 259.3 ..... 0.324av + 259.3 

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer .................................. 6.82AV + 456.9 ..... 0.241av + 456.9 

14I. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker.

6.82AV + 540.9 ..... 0.241av + 540.9 

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer .............................. 11.80AV + 339.2 ... 0.417av + 339.2 

15I. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker.

11.80AV + 423.2 ... 0.417av + 423.2 

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost .................................................................................. 8.65AV + 225.7 ..... 0.306av + 225.7 

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost .............................................................................. 10.17AV + 351.9 ... 0.359av + 351.9 

18. Compact chest freezers. .................................................................................................................... 9.25AV + 136.8 ..... 0.327av + 136.8 

AV = adjusted volume in cubic feet; av = adjusted volume in liters. 

4. Built-In Refrigeration Products 

Table V–76 presents a summary of the 

quantitative impacts estimated for each 

TSL for built-in refrigeration products. 

The efficiency levels contained in each 

TSL are described in section VI.A. The 

range of results for NPV of consumer 

benefits reflects the range of product 

price forecasts discussed in section 

IV.G.3. 

TABLE VI.76—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

National Energy Savings (quads) ................ 0.02 .................... 0.03 .................... 0.058 .................. 0.071 .................. 0.085. 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion) 

3% discount rate .......................................... 0.166 to 0.184 .... 0.183 to 0.226 .... (0.228) to 0.029 .. (0.580) to (0.185) (1.14) to (0.531). 

7% discount rate .......................................... 0.053 to 0.062 .... 0.045 to 0.066 .... (0.237) to (0.111) (0.455) to (0.261) (0.791) to 

(0.495). 

Industry Impacts 

Industry NPV (2009$ million) ....................... (51.9) to (52.6) ... (55.1) to (56.5) ... (68.0) to (77.2) ... (82.9) to (97.6) ... (89.9) to (112.1). 

Industry NPV (% change) ............................ (9.4) to (9.5) ....... (9.9) to (10.2) ..... (12.3) to (13.9) ... (15.0) to (17.6) ... (16.2) to (20.2). 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (Mt) ....................................................... 1.41 .................... 2.05 .................... 4.1 ...................... 5.09 .................... 6.09. 

NOX (1000 tons) .......................................... 1.14 .................... 1.65 .................... 3.3 ...................... 4.09 .................... 4.9. 

Hg (tons) ...................................................... 0.01 .................... 0.01 .................... 0.02 .................... 0.02 .................... 0.03. 

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2009$ billion) * .................................... 0.012 to 0.12 ...... 0.017 to 0.17 ...... 0.035 to 0.34 ...... 0.043 to 0.41 ...... 0.051 to 0.50. 

NOX—3% discount rate (2009$ billion) ....... 0.000 to 0.004 .... 0.001 to 0.005 .... 0.001 to 0.011 .... 0.001 to 0.013 .... 0.002 to 0.016.

NOX—7% discount rate (2009$ billion) ....... 0.000 to 0.002 .... 0.000 to 0.002 .... 0.000 to 0.004 .... 0.001 to 0.005 .... 0.001 to 0.006.

Mean LCC Savings ** (2009$) 

Built-in All-Refrigerators ............................... 52 ....................... 71 ....................... (11) ..................... (151) ................... (258). 

Built-in Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 8 ......................... 2 ......................... 2 ......................... (138) ................... (207). 

Built-in Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers 10 ....................... 10 ....................... (91) ..................... (91) ..................... (182). 

Built-in Upright Freezers .............................. 66 ....................... 59 ....................... (23) ..................... (23) ..................... (101). 

Median PBP (years) 

Built-in All-Refrigerators ............................... 1.4 ...................... 2.6 ...................... 13.7 .................... 25.5 .................... 31.4. 

Built-in Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers 3.8 ...................... 11.1 .................... 11.1 .................... 52.8 .................... 52.2. 

Built-in Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers 7.5 ...................... 7.5 ...................... 31.0 .................... 31.0 .................... 50.4. 

Built-in Upright Freezers .............................. 2.9 ...................... 10.7 .................... 17.8 .................... 17.8 .................... 22.6. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57603 

TABLE VI.76—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts 

Built-in All-Refrigerators: 

Net Cost (%) ......................................... 0.0 ...................... 0.9 ...................... 62 ....................... 91 ....................... 95. 

No Impact (%) ....................................... 23 ....................... 18. ...................... 9.1 ...................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0. 

Net Benefit (%) ..................................... 77. ...................... 81 ....................... 29 ....................... 9.0 ...................... 5.0. 

Built-in Bottom-Mount Refrigerator-Freezers: 

Net Cost (%) ......................................... 0.6 ...................... 7.0 ...................... 7.0 ...................... 98 ....................... 99. 

No Impact (%) ....................................... 87 ....................... 87 ....................... 87 ....................... 0.0 ...................... 0.0. 

Net Benefit (%) ..................................... 12 ....................... 5.9 ...................... 5.9 ...................... 2.0 ...................... 1.5. 

Built-in Side-by-Side Refrigerator-Freezers: 

Net Cost (%) ......................................... 5.8 ...................... 5.8 ...................... 59 ....................... 59 ....................... 98. 

No Impact (%) ....................................... 79 ....................... 79 ....................... 37 ....................... 37 ....................... 0.0. 

Net Benefit (%) ..................................... 16 ....................... 16 ....................... 4.3 ...................... 4.3 ...................... 2.4. 

Built-in Upright Freezers: 

Net Cost (%) ......................................... 1.5 ...................... 43 ....................... 69 ....................... 69 ....................... 80. 

No Impact (%) ....................................... 20 ....................... 0.6 ...................... 0.5 ...................... 0.5 ...................... 0.3. 

Net Benefit (%) ..................................... 79 ....................... 57 ....................... 31 ....................... 31 ....................... 20. 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) † ...... 0.02 .................... 0.03 .................... 0.06 .................... 0.08 .................... 0.09. 

Employment Impacts 

Total Potential Changes in Domestic Production Workers in 2014 (thousands).0.00 to (1.14) ...... (0.00) to (1.14) ... 0.01 to (1.14) ...... 0.01 to (1.14) ...... 0.03 to (1.14). 

Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) † .......... 0.14 .................... 0.19 .................... 0.29 .................... 0.31 .................... 0.30. 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

** For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 

† Changes in 2043. 

DOE first considered TSL 5, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 5 would save 0.085 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be ¥$0.791 

billion to ¥$0.495 billion, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and ¥$1.14 

billion to ¥$0.531 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 6.09 Mt of CO2, 4,900 tons 

of NOX, and 0.03 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 5 ranges from $0.051 billion to 

$0.50 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.09 

GW under TSL 5. 

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is 

a cost (LCC increase) of $258 for builtin all-refrigerators, a cost of $207 for 

built-in bottom-mount refrigeratorfreezers, a cost of $182 for built-in sideby-side refrigerator-freezers, and a cost 

of $101 for built-in upright freezers. The 

median payback period is 31.4 years for 

built-in all-refrigerators, 52.2 years for 

built-in bottom-mount refrigeratorfreezers, 50.4 years for built-in side-byside refrigerator-freezers, and 22.6 years 

for built-in upright freezers. The fraction 

of consumers experiencing an LCC 

benefit is 5 percent for built-in allrefrigerators, 1.5 percent for built-in 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 2.4 

percent for built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers, and 20 percent for 

built-in upright freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

95 percent for built-in all-refrigerators, 

99 percent for built-in bottom-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, 98 percent for 

built-in side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers, and 80 percent for built-in 

upright freezers. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $89.9 

million to a decrease of $112.1 million. 

If the high end of the range of impacts 

is reached as DOE expects, TSL 5 could 

result in a net loss of 20.2 percent in 

INPV to built-in refrigeration product 

manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 5 for built-in refrigeration products, 

the benefits of energy savings, 

generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

negative NPV of consumer benefits, the 

economic burden on a significant 

fraction of consumers due to the large 

increases in product cost, and the 

capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 

would save 0.071 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be ¥$0.455 billion to 

¥$0.261 billion, using a discount rate of 

7 percent, and ¥$0.580 billion to 

¥$0.185 billion, using a discount rate of 

3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 4 are 5.09 Mt of CO2, 4,090 tons 

of NOX, and 0.02 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 4 ranges from $0.043 billion to 

$0.41 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.08 

GW under TSL 4. 

At TSL 4, DOE projects that the 

average LCC impact is a cost (LCC 

increase) of $151 for built-in allrefrigerators, a cost of $138 for built-in 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, a 

cost of $91 for built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers, and a cost of $23 

for built-in upright freezers. The median 

payback period is 25.5 years for built-in 

all-refrigerators, 52.8 years for built-in 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 31.0 

years for built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers, and 17.8 years for 

built-in upright freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 9 percent for built-in all-refrigerators, 

2 percent for built-in bottom-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, 4.3 percent for 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57604 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

built-in side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers, and 31 percent for built-in 

upright freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

91 percent for built-in all-refrigerators, 

98 percent for built-in bottom-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, 59 percent for 

built-in side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers, and 69 percent for built-in 

upright freezers. 

At TSL 4, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $82.9 

million to a decrease of $97.6 million. 

If the high end of the range of impacts 

is reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could 

result in a net loss of 17.6 percent in 

INPV to built-in refrigeration product 

manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 4 for built-in refrigeration products, 

the benefits of energy savings, 

generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

negative NPV of consumer benefits, the 

economic burden on a significant 

fraction of consumers due to the 

increases in product cost, and the 

capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 4 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 

would save 0.058 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be ¥0.237 billion to 

¥$0.111 billion, using a discount rate of 

7 percent, and ¥$0.228 billion to 

$0.029 billion, using a discount rate of 

3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 4.1 Mt of CO2, 3,300 tons 

of NOX, and 0.02 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reduction at 

TSL 3 ranges from $0.035 billion to 

$0.34 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.06 

GW under TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a cost (LCC increase) of $11 for built-in 

all-refrigerators, a gain of $2 for built-in 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, a 

cost of $91 for built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers, and a cost of $23 

for built-in upright freezers. The median 

payback period is 13.7 years for built-in 

all-refrigerators, 11.1 years for built-in 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 31.0 

years for built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers, and 17.8 years for 

built-in upright freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 29 percent for built-in allrefrigerators, 5.9 percent for built-in 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 4.3 

percent for built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers, and 31 percent for 

built-in upright freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

62 percent for built-in all-refrigerators, 7 

percent for built-in bottom-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, 59 percent for 

built-in side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers, and 69 percent for built-in 

upright freezers. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $68.0 

million to a decrease of $77.2 million. 

If the high end of the range of impacts 

is reached as DOE expects, TSL 3 could 

result in a net loss of 13.9 percent in 

INPV to built-in refrigeration product 

manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 3 for built-in refrigeration products, 

the benefits of energy savings, 

generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

negative NPV of of consumer benefits, 

the slight economic burden on a 

significant fraction of consumers due to 

the increases in product cost, and the 

capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 3 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 

would save 0.03 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $0.045 billion to 

$0.066 billion, using a discount rate of 

7 percent, and $0.183 billion to $0.226 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 2 are 2.05 Mt of CO2, 1,650 tons 

of NOX, and 0.01 tons of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reduction at 

TSL 2 ranges from $0.017 billion to 

$0.17 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2043 is estimated to decrease by 0.03 

GW under TSL 2. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is 

a gain (LCC decrease) of $71 for builtin all-refrigerators, a gain of $2 for builtin bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, a 

gain of $10 for built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers, and a gain of $59 

for built-in upright freezers. The median 

payback period is 2.6 years for built-in 

all-refrigerators, 11.1 years for built-in 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 7.5 

years for built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers, and 10.7 years for 

built-in upright freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 81 percent for built-in allrefrigerators, 5.9 percent for built-in 

bottom-mount refrigerator-freezers, 16 

percent for built-in side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers, and 57 percent for 

built-in upright freezers. The fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

0.9 percent for built-in all-refrigerators, 

7 percent for built-in bottom-mount 

refrigerator-freezers, 5.8 percent for 

built-in side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers, and 43 percent for built-in 

upright freezers. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $55.1 

million to a decrease of $56.5 million. 

If the high end of the range of impacts 

is reached as DOE expects, TSL 2 could 

result in a net loss of 10.2 percent in 

INPV to built-in refrigeration product 

manufacturers. 

The Secretary has concluded that at 

TSL 2 for built-in refrigeration products, 

the benefits of energy savings, positive 

NPV of consumer benefits, generating 

capacity reductions, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reductions 

would outweigh the slight economic 

burden on a small fraction of consumers 

due to the increases in product cost, and 

the capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers. 

After considering the analysis, 

comments responding to the September 

2010 NOPR, and the benefits and 

burdens of TSL 2, the Secretary has 

concluded that this trial standard level 

will offer the maximum improvement in 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

will result in significant conservation of 

energy. Therefore, DOE today is 

adopting TSL 2 for built-in refrigeration 

products. The amended energy 

conservation standards for built-in 

refrigeration products, expressed as 

equations for maximum energy use, are 

shown in Table VI.77. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57605 

49 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2010, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of three and seven percent for all costs and 

benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For 

the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 

shown in Table I.2. From the present value, DOE 

then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 30- 

year period (2014 through 2043) that yields the 

same present value. The fixed annual payment is 

the annualized value. Although DOE calculated 

annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of cost and benefits from which the 

annualized values were determined is a steady 

stream of payments. 

TABLE VI.77—AMENDED STANDARDS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS

Product class 

Equations for maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

Based on AV (ft3) Based on av (L) 

3–BI. Built-in Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic 

icemaker.

9.15AV + 264.9 ..... 0.323av + 264.9 

3I–BI. Built-in Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker without through-the-door ice service.

9.15AV + 348.9 ..... 0.323av + 348.9 

3A–BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost .................................................................................. 8.02AV + 228.5 ..... 0.283av + 228.5 

4–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.10.22AV + 357.4 ... 0.361av + 357.4 

4I–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker without through-the-door ice service.

10.22AV + 441.4 ... 0.361av + 441.4 

5–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.9.40AV + 336.9 ..... 0.332av + 336.9 

5I–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service.9.40AV + 420.9 ..... 0.332av + 420.9 

5A–BI. Built-in Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-thedoor ice service.9.83AV + 499.9 ..... 0.347av + 499.9 

7–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-thedoor ice service.10.25AV + 502.6 ... 0.362av + 502.6 

9–BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker ........................... 9.86AV + 260.9 ..... 0.348av + 260.9 

9I–BI. Built-in Upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker ............................... 9.86AV + 344.9 ..... 0.348av + 344.9 

AV= adjusted volume in cubic feet; av = adjusted volume in liters. 

5. Summary of Benefits and Costs 

(Annualized) of Amended Standards 

The benefits and costs of today’s 

amended standards can also be 

expressed in terms of annualized values. 

The annualized monetary values are the 

sum of (1) the annualized national 

economic value, expressed in 2009$, of 

the benefits from operating products 

that meet the amended standards 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in equipment purchase costs, 

which is another way of representing 

consumer NPV), and (2) the monetary 

value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission 

reductions.49 The value of the CO2

reductions (i.e. SCC) is calculated using 

a range of values per metric ton of CO2

developed by a recent interagency 

process. The monetary costs and 

benefits of cumulative emissions 

reductions are reported in 2009$ to 

permit comparisons with the other costs 

and benefits in the same dollar units. 

Although combining the values of 

operating savings and CO2 reductions 

provides a useful perspective, two 

issues should be considered. First, the 

national operating savings are domestic 

U.S. consumer monetary savings that 

occur as a result of market transactions 

while the value of CO2 reductions is 

based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings 

and SCC are performed with different 

methods that use quite different time 

frames for analysis. The national 

operating cost savings is measured for 

the lifetime of refrigeration products 

shipped in 2014–2043. The SCC values, 

on the other hand, reflect the present 

value of future climate-related impacts 

resulting from the emission of one ton 

of carbon dioxide in each year. These 

impacts continue well beyond 2100. 

Estimates of annualized values are 

shown in Table VI.78. The results under 

the primary estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate and the 

SCC series having a value of $22.1/ton 

in 2010 (in 2009$), the cost of the 

standards in today’s rule is $1,167 to 

$1,569 million per year in increased 

equipment costs, while the annualized 

benefits are $2,275 million per year in 

reduced equipment operating costs, 

$515 million in CO2 reductions, and $21 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$1,241 to $1,643 million per year. Using 

a 3-percent discount rate and the SCC 

series having a value of $22.1/ton in 

2010, the cost of the standards in 

today’s rule is $1,081 to $1,526 million 

per year in increased equipment costs, 

while the benefits are $3,160 million per 

year in reduced operating costs, $515 

million in CO2 reductions, and $28 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$2,176 to $2,622 million per year. 

TABLE VI–78—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS FOR REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS SOLD IN

2014–2043 

Discount rate 

Monetized (million 2009$/year) 

Primary estimate * Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

Benefits: 

Operating Cost Savings ............................ 7% ............................. 2275 .......................... 1996 .......................... 2560. 

3% ............................. 3160 .......................... 2720 .......................... 3596. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57606 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI–78—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF AMENDED STANDARDS FOR REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS SOLD IN

2014–2043—Continued 

Discount rate 

Monetized (million 2009$/year) 

Primary estimate * Low net benefits 

estimate * 

High net benefits 

estimate * 

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t ** ............................... 5% ............................. 162 ............................ 162 ............................ 162. 

CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t ** ............................. 3% ............................. 515 ............................ 515 ............................ 515. 

CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t ** ............................. 2.5% .......................... 772 ............................ 772 ............................ 772. 

CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t ** ............................. 3% ............................. 1567 .......................... 1567 .......................... 1567. 

NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton ** ....................... 7% ............................. 21 .............................. 21 .............................. 21. 

3% ............................. 28 .............................. 28 .............................. 28. 

Total † ....................................................... 7% plus CO2 range ... 2457 to 3863 ............. 2178 to 3584 ............. 2742 to 4148. 

7% ............................. 2810 .......................... 2531 .......................... 3095. 

3% ............................. 3703 .......................... 3263 .......................... 4139. 

3% plus CO2 range ... 3350 to 4755 ............. 2910 to 4315 ............. 3786 to 5192. 

Costs: 

Incremental Product Costs ....................... 7% ............................. 1167 to 1569 ............. 1480 .......................... 1232. 

3% ............................. 1081 to 1526 ............. 1430 .......................... 1147. 

Net Benefits/Costs: 

Total † ....................................................... 7% plus CO2 range ... 888 to 2696 ............... 698 to 2103 ............... 1511 to 2916. 

7% ............................. 1241 to 1643 ............. 1051 .......................... 1863. 

3% ............................. 2176 to 2622 ............. 1832 .......................... 2993. 

3% plus CO2 range ... 1823 to 3674 ............. 1479 to 2885 ............. 2640 to 4045. 

* The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference 

case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a medium decline rate for product prices in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate for product prices in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline rate 

for product prices in the High Benefits Estimate. In the Primary estimate, the range of results for incremental product costs reflects the range of 

product price forecasts. 

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, 

$22.1, and $36.3 per metric ton (t) are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The 

value of $67.1/t represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2009$) is the 

average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. †Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $22.1/t in 2010 (in 

2009$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that today’s 

standards address are as follows: 

(1) There is a lack of consumer 

information and/or information 

processing capability about energy 

efficiency opportunities in the home 

appliance market. 

(2) There is asymmetric information 

(one party to a transaction has more and 

better information than the other) and/ 

or high transactions costs (costs of 

gathering information and effecting 

exchanges of goods and services). 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of refrigeration products that 

are not captured by the users of such 

products. These benefits include 

externalities related to environmental 

protection and energy security that are 

not reflected in energy prices, such as 

reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

section 6(a)(3) of the Executive Order 

requires that DOE prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) on today’s rule 

and that the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) 

review this rule. DOE presented to OIRA 

for review the draft rule and other 

documents prepared for this 

rulemaking, including the RIA, and has 

included these documents in the 

rulemaking record. The assessments 

prepared pursuant to Executive Order 

12866 can be found in the technical 

support document for this rulemaking. 

They are available for public review in 

the Resource Room of DOE’s Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281, 

Jan. 21, 2011). EO 13563 is 

supplemental to, and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in, Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57607 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

We emphasize as well that Executive 

Order 13563 requires agencies ‘‘to use 

the best available techniques to quantify 

anticipated present and future benefits 

and costs as accurately as possible.’’ In 

its guidance, the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

‘‘identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes.’’ 

DOE emphasizes that Executive Order 

13563 calls for ‘‘periodic review of 

existing significant regulations,’’ with 

close reference to empirical evidence. 

Moreover, with respect to energy 

conservation standards, EPCA mandates 

that DOE review its regulations, ‘‘not 

later than 6 years after issuance of any 

final rule establishing or amending an 

energy efficiency standard. As part of 

the retrospective review, DOE will 

review its data on refrigerator prices and 

costs and, as part of that review, will 

consider tracking additional data on 

retail refrigerator prices and costs for the 

product classes identified in the rule as 

a means of comparing actual refrigerator 

prices and costs to prices and costs 

forecasted as a result of the standards 

imposed by today’s and any future rule. 

Such a review will likely be a part of the 

periodic review of energy efficiency 

standards for refrigerators called for 

under Executive Order 13563. DOE’s 

plan for conducting periodic review, 

which will be updated regularly, should 

be consulted for further information. 

See: http://energy.gov/gc/reportappliance-regulation-violation/ex-partecommunications/restrospectiveregulatory-review. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE believes that today’s 

final rule is consistent with these 

principles, including that, to the extent 

permitted by law, agencies adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs and select, in choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

and a final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(FRFA) for any such rule that an agency 

adopts as a final rule, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As required by Executive Order 

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 impacts of its rules on small 

entities are properly considered during 

the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. 

DOE has made its procedures and 

policies available on the Office of the 

General Counsel’s Web site (http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov). 

For manufacturers of residential 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) has set a size 

threshold, which defines those entities 

classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the 

purposes of the statute. DOE used the 

SBA’s small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 

the rule. 65 FR 30836, 30850 (May 15, 

2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 

53545 (September 5, 2000) and codified 

at 13 CFR part 121.The size standards 

are listed by North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code and 

industry description and are available at 

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/ 

documents/sba_homepage/ 

serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf . Residential 

refrigeration product manufacturing is 

classified under NAICS 335222, 

‘‘Household Refrigerator and Home 

Freezer Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 1,000 employees or less for 

an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

DOE reviewed its September 2010 

NOPR under the provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedure and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. In the NOPR, DOE 

certified that the standards for 

residential refrigeration products set 

forth in the proposed rule, if 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

DOE made this determination because 

only one small business manufacturer 

would potentially be impacted by the 

proposed energy conservation 

standards, and that manufacturer 

represents a small percentage of covered 

products and is a leader in a niche 

market. 75 FR at 59571–59572 

(September 27, 2010). 

DOE also sought comment on the 

impacts of the proposed amended 

energy conservation standards on small 

business manufacturers of residential 

refrigeration products. DOE received no 

comments on the certification or its 

additional requests for comment on 

small business impacts in response to 

the NOPR. Thus, DOE reaffirms the 

certification and has not prepared a 

FRFA for this final rule. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of refrigeration 

products must certify to DOE that those 

products comply with any applicable 

energy conservation standard. In 

certifying compliance, manufacturers 

must test their refrigeration products 

according to the DOE test procedure for 

refrigeration products, including any 

amendments adopted for that test 

procedure. DOE has proposed 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including 

refrigeration products (i.e. refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers). 75 FR 

56796 (Sept. 16, 2010). The information 

collection requirement for the 

certification and recordkeeping is 

subject to review and approval by OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA). DOE received OMB approval for 

collecting certification, compliance, and 

enforcement information for all covered 

products and covered equipment on 

February 3, 2011 under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. 

Public reporting burden for the 

certification is estimated to average 20 

hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate or any 

other aspect of this collection of 

information, including suggestions for 

reducing this burden, to Office of the 

Chief Information Officer, Records 

Management Division, IM–23, 

Paperwork Reduction Project (1910– 

1400), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Ave., SW., Washington, 

DC 20585–1290; and to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), OIRA, 

Paperwork Reduction Project (1910– 

1400), Washington, DC 20503. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE has prepared an environmental 

assessment (EA) of the impacts of the 

amended rule pursuant to the National 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57608 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the regulations of 

the Council on Environmental Quality 

(40 CFR parts 1500–1508), and DOE’s 

regulations for compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (10 CFR part 1021). This 

assessment includes an examination of 

the potential effects of emission 

reductions likely to result from the rule 

in the context of global climate change, 

as well as other types of environmental 

impacts. The final EA has been included 

as chapter 15 of the final rule TSD. 

Before issuing this final rule for 

refrigeration products, DOE considered 

public comments. A finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI) accompanies 

the final EA. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 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 carefully assess 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 the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of 

policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. EPCA governs and prescribes 

Federal preemption of State regulations 

as to energy conservation for the 

products that are the subject of today’s 

final rule. States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further 

action is required by Executive Order 

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 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 

(February 7, 1996). Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this final 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, 

section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 

For an amended regulatory action likely 

to result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure 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), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

http://www.gc.doe.gov. 

Although today’s final rule does not 

contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, it may impose expenditures of 

$100 million or more on the private 

sector. Specifically, the final rule will 

likely result in a final rule that could 

impose expenditures of $100 million or 

more. Such expenditures may include 

(1) investment in research and 

development and in capital 

expenditures by refrigeration product 

manufacturers in the years between the 

final rule and the compliance date for 

the new standard, and (2) incremental 

additional expenditures by consumers 

to purchase higher-efficiency 

refrigeration products, starting in 2014. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes an 

agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the final rule. 2 U.S.C. 1532(c). The 

content requirements of section 202(b) 

of UMRA relevant to a private sector 

mandate substantially overlap the 

economic analysis requirements that 

apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and 

Executive Order 12866. The 

Supplementary Information section of 

the notice of final rulemaking and the 

‘‘Regulatory Impact Analysis’’ section of 

the TSD for this final rule respond to 

those requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, the 

Department is obligated to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule for which a written 

statement under section 202 is required. 

2 U.S.C. 1535(a). DOE is required to 

select from those alternatives the most 

cost-effective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule unless DOE publishes an 

explanation for doing otherwise or the 

selection of such an alternative is 

inconsistent with law. As required by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(h) and (o), 6313(e), and 

6316(a), today’s final rule would 

establish energy conservation standards 

for residential refrigeration products 

that are designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that DOE has determined to 

be both technologically feasible and 

economically justified. A full discussion 

of the alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact 

Analysis’’ section of the TSD for today’s 

final rule. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule 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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57609 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

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, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. 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 final rule 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 

Executive Order 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 OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

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 OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any significant energy 

action, the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that today’s 

regulatory action, which sets forth 

energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration products, is not a 

significant energy action because the 

amended standards are not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, 

nor has it been designated as such by 

the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a Statement of 

Energy Effects on the final rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology (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. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘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. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/peer_review.html. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

submit to Congress a report regarding 

the issuance of today’s final rule prior 

to the effective date set forth at the 

outset of this notice. The report will 

state that it has been determined that 

the rule is a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 

5 U.S.C. 804(2). DOE will also submit 

the supporting analyses to the 

Comptroller General in the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) and make them available to each 

House of Congress. 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s amended rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, and Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 25, 

2011. 

Henry Kelly, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends chapter II, 

subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 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. In § 430.2, add the definition for 

‘‘Built-in refrigerator/refrigeratorfreezer/freezer,’’ in alphabetical order, 

and revise the definition for ‘‘Compact 

refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Built-in refrigerator/refrigeratorfreezer/freezer means any refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer or freezer with 7.75 

cubic feet or greater total volume and 24 

inches or less depth not including 

doors, handles, and custom front panels; 

with sides which are not finished and 

not designed to be visible after 

installation; and that is designed, 

intended, and marketed exclusively (1) 

To be installed totally encased by 

cabinetry or panels that are attached 

during installation, (2) to be securely 

fastened to adjacent cabinetry, walls or 

floor, and (3) to either be equipped with 

an integral factory-finished face or 

accept a custom front panel. 

* * * * * 

Compact refrigerator/refrigeratorfreezer/freezer means any refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer or freezer with total 

volume less than 7.75 cubic foot (220 

liters) (rated volume as determined in 

appendices A1 and B1 of subpart B of 

this part before appendices A and B 

become mandatory and as determined 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57610 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

in appendices A and B of this subpart 

once appendices A and B become 

mandatory (see the notes at the 

beginning of appendices A and B)). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 430.32 revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(a) Refrigerators/refrigerator-freezers/ 

freezers. These standards do not apply 

to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

with total refrigerated volume exceeding 

39 cubic feet (1104 liters) or freezers 

with total refrigerated volume exceeding 

30 cubic feet (850 liters). The energy 

standards as determined by the 

equations of the following table(s) shall 

be rounded off to the nearest kWh per 

year. If the equation calculation is 

halfway between the nearest two kWh 

per year values, the standard shall be 

rounded up to the higher of these 

values. 

The following standards remain in 

effect from July 1, 2001 until September 

15, 2014: 

Product class 

Energy standard 

equations for maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

1. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost ................................................................................................... 8.82AV + 248.4 

0.31av + 248.4 

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost ...................................................................................................................... 8.82AV + 248.4 

0.31av + 248.4 

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service and all-refrigerator—automatic defrost.9.80AV + 276.0 

0.35av + 276.0 

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service ........................... 4.91AV + 507.5 

0.17av + 507.5 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without through-the-door ice service ...................... 4.60AV + 459.0 

0.16av + 459.0 

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service ................................. 10.20AV + 356.0 

0.36av + 356.0 

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service ................................ 10.10AV + 406.0 

0.36av + 406.0 

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost ....................................................................................................................................... 7.55AV + 258.3 

0.27av + 258.3 

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost ................................................................................................................................... 12.43AV + 326.1 

0.44av + 326.1 

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers ........................................................................................... 9.88AV + 143.7 

0.35av + 143.7 

11. Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost ................................................................................... 10.70AV + 299.0 

0.38av + 299.0 

12. Compact refrigerator-freezer—partial automatic defrost ....................................................................................................... 7.00AV + 398.0 

0.25av + 398.0 

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer and compact all-refrigerator—automatic defrost.12.70AV + 355.0 

0.45av + 355.0 

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer ...................................................................... 7.60AV + 501.0 

0.27av + 501.0 

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer ................................................................. 13.10AV + 367.0 

0.46av + 367.0 

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost ...................................................................................................................... 9.78AV + 250.8 

0.35av + 250.8 

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost .................................................................................................................. 11.40AV + 391.0 

0.40av + 391.0 

18. Compact chest freezers ......................................................................................................................................................... 10.45AV + 152.0 

0.37av + 152.0 

AV: Adjusted Volume in ft3; av: Adjusted Volume in liters (L). 

The following standards apply to 

products manufactured starting on 

September 14, 2014: 

Product class 

Equations for maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

Based on AV (ft3) Based on av (L) 

1. Refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost ..................... 7.99AV + 225.0 ..... 0.282av + 225.0 

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost ....................................................................................................... 6.79AV + 193.6 ..... 0.240av + 193.6 

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost .................................................................................. 7.99AV + 225.0 ..... 0.282av + 225.0 

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker .. 8.07AV + 233.7 ..... 0.285av + 233.7 

3–BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer without an automatic 

icemaker.

9.15AV + 264.9 ..... 0.323av + 264.9 

3I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker 

without through-the-door ice service.

8.07AV + 317.7 ..... 0.285av + 317.7 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 57611 

Product class 

Equations for maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

Based on AV (ft3) Based on av (L) 

3I–BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker without through-the-door ice service.

9.15AV + 348.9 ..... 0.323av + 348.9 

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost ................................................................................................... 7.07AV + 201.6 ..... 0.250av + 201.6 

3A–BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost .................................................................................. 8.02AV + 228.5 ..... 0.283av + 228.5 

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker 8.51AV + 297.8 ..... 0.301av + 297.8 

4–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.10.22AV + 357.4 ... 0.361av + 357.4 

4I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker 

without through-the-door ice service.

8.51AV + 381.8 ..... 0.301av + 381.8 

4I–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker without through-the-door ice service.

10.22AV + 441.4 ... 0.361av + 441.4 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.8.85AV + 317.0 ..... 0.312av + 317.0 

5–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer without an automatic icemaker.9.40AV + 336.9 ..... 0.332av + 336.9 

5I. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker 

without through-the-door ice service.

8.85AV + 401.0 ..... 0.312av + 401.0 

5I–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic icemaker without through-the-door ice service.9.40AV + 420.9 ..... 0.332av + 420.9 

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice 

service.

9.25AV + 475.4 ..... 0.327av + 475.4 

5A–BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with through-thedoor ice service.9.83AV + 499.9 ..... 0.347av + 499.9 

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.8.40AV + 385.4 ..... 0.297av + 385.4 

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.8.54AV + 432.8 ..... 0.302av + 432.8 

7–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-thedoor ice service.10.25AV + 502.6 ... 0.362av + 502.6 

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost ................................................................................................... 5.57AV + 193.7 ..... 0.197av + 193.7 

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker ............................................. 8.62AV + 228.3 ..... 0.305av + 228.3 

9I. Upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker ................................................. 8.62AV + 312.3 ..... 0.305av + 312.3 

9–BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost without an automatic icemaker ........................... 9.86AV + 260.9 ..... 0.348av + 260.9 

9I–BI. Built-in upright freezers with automatic defrost with an automatic icemaker ................................ 9.86AV + 344.9 ..... 0.348av + 344.9 

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers ........................................................ 7.29AV + 107.8 ..... 0.257av + 107.8 

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost ............................................................................................. 10.24AV + 148.1 ... 0.362av + 148.1 

11. Compact refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost ..... 9.03AV + 252.3 ..... 0.319av + 252.3 

11A.Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost ....................................................................................... 7.84AV + 219.1 ..... 0.277av + 219.1 

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost .................................................................. 5.91AV + 335.8 ..... 0.209av + 335.8 

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer .................................... 11.80AV + 339.2 ... 0.417av + 339.2 

13I. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker.

11.80AV + 423.2 ... 0.417av + 423.2 

13A. Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost .................................................................................. 9.17AV + 259.3 ..... 0.324av + 259.3 

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer .................................. 6.82AV + 456.9 ..... 0.241av + 456.9 

14I. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker.

6.82AV + 540.9 ..... 0.241av + 540.9 

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer .............................. 11.80AV + 339.2 ... 0.417av + 339.2 

15I. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with an automatic 

icemaker.

11.80AV + 423.2 ... 0.417av + 423.2 

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost .................................................................................. 8.65AV + 225.7 ..... 0.306av + 225.7 

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost .............................................................................. 10.17AV + 351.9 ... 0.359av + 351.9 

18. Compact chest freezers ..................................................................................................................... 9.25AV + 136.8 ..... 0.327av + 136.8 

AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft3, as determined in appendices A and B of subpart B of this part. 

av = Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3
57612 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 179 / Thursday, September 15, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–22329 Filed 9–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003] 

RIN 1904–AB92 

Energy Efficiency Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedures 

for Residential Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Interim final rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document announces a 

limited reopening of the comment 

period for interested parties seeking to 

submit comments on the December 16, 

2011 interim final rule to amend the test 

procedures for residential refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that 

will apply to products that are 

manufactured starting in 2014. The 

comment period is extended until 

October 17, 2011. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted no 

later than October 17, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the ‘‘Interim Final Rule on 

Test Procedures for Residential 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers’’ and provide the appropriate 

docket number EERE–2009–BT–TP– 

0003 and/or RIN number 1904–AB92. 

Comments may be submitted using any 

of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: Refrig-2009-TP-0003@ee.

doe.gov. Include docket number EERE– 

BT–TP–0003 and/or RIN number 1904– 

AB92 in the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mail-stop EE–2J, 

Interim Final Rule for Test Procedures 

for Refrigerators and RefrigeratorFreezers, docket number EERE–2009– 

BT–TP–0003 and/or RIN number 1904– 

AB92, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. Please submit one 

signed paper original. 

The public may review copies of all 

materials related to this rulemaking at 

the U.S. Department of Energy, Resource 

Room of the Building Technologies 

Program, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 

600, Washington, DC, (202) 586–2945, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the 

above telephone number 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. E-mail: 

Lucas.Adin@ee.doe.gov. 

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. E-mail: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

For information on how to submit or 

review public comments, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards, 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) 586–2945. E-mail: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 16, 2010, the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) published in the 

Federal Register a Final Rule that 

amended the test procedures for 

residential refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers (collectively, 

‘‘refrigeration products’’). 75 FR 78810. 

The amended test procedures for 

residential refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers are found in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix A1 and the test 

procedures for residential freezers are 

found in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix B1. These revised test 

procedures, which do not affect 

measured energy use, became effective 

on January 18, 2011. Consistent with 42 

U.S.C. 6293(c)(2), however, 

manufacturers do not need to use these 

procedures for making representations 

regarding energy usage until June 14, 

2011. 

Concurrently with this Final Rule, 

DOE published an Interim Final Rule 

establishing new amended test 

procedures for these products, 

Appendix A and Appendix B, that 

incorporate the same revisions made to 

Appendix A1 and Appendix B1. 75 FR 

78810. The Interim Final Rule also 

included amendments to these 

procedures that will, once finalized, 

apply to refrigeration products starting 

in 2014. It also provided interested 

parties with an opportunity to submit 

comments on the Interim Final Rule by 

February 14, 2011—i.e., an extra 60 days 

within which to provide comment. 

On February 7, 2011, prior to the 

closing of that comment period, DOE 

received an emailed request from the 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) requesting that 

DOE extend the comment period 

deadline to ‘‘30 days after the 

[refrigeration products] standards final 

rule is made available to the public.’’ 

That email noted that AHAM had also 

consulted with the American Council 

for an Energy Efficient Economy 

regarding this request. 

The AHAM request explained that the 

group required additional time to 

provide comment to the agency. AHAM 

asserted that: 

The Department released the test 

procedure for refrigerator/freezers as a final 

rule and interim final rule in order to allow 

stakeholders to comment on the necessary 

revisions to the energy conservation 

standards. DOE’s strategy, as discussed with 

AHAM, assumed that the standards final rule 

would be released no later than the 

statutorily mandated deadline of December 

31, 2010. But that final rule has not been 

released. Thus, stakeholders cannot provide 

substantive comments and data on whether 

the equations are accurate or require some 

revision. (Emphasis in original.) 

DOE notes that once it issues a final 

rule promulgating the energy 

conservation standards for a particular 

product type, the agency is prohibited 

by statute from altering those standards 

in any way that would permit either an 

increase in the maximum energy 

consumption of that product or a 

decrease in that product’s minimum 

energy efficiency. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1). As a result, to the extent that 

interested parties seek a wholesale 

revision of the standards that DOE has 

set, barring the presence of calculation 

or typographical error, those standards 

cannot be altered in a manner that 

would result in refrigeration products 

that consume more energy—or that are 

less efficient. 

However, to ensure that the test 

procedure accurately captures as 

reasonably as possible the energy 

consumption of those products that are 

addressed in the Interim Final Rule, 

DOE is re-opening the comment period 

for that test procedure proceeding to 

enable interested parties to comment 

given that the energy conservation 

standards rule has been issued. The 

purpose of this limited re-opening is to 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES3