This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

65223 

Vol. 78, No. 211 

Thursday, October 31, 2013 

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

re-designated Part A for editorial reasons. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–DET–0072] 

RIN 1904–AC51 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Proposed 

Determination of Miscellaneous 

Residential Refrigeration Products as 

Covered Products 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Supplemental proposed 

determination. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) has preliminarily 

determined that wine chillers and other 

residential refrigeration products that 

incorporate a compressor but do not 

meet the current regulatory definitions 

for electric refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, and freezer, qualify for coverage 

under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA) as amended. 

This proposal also covers residential ice 

makers. Today’s notice supplements an 

earlier proposed determination in which 

DOE tentatively concluded that 

residential refrigeration products that do 

not incorporate a compressor should be 

covered by energy conservation 

standards. As part of its review of 

residential refrigeration products 

generally, DOE is soliciting public 

comment on the feasibility of covering 

compressor-based miscellaneous 

residential refrigeration products based 

on the same criteria that had been 

evaluated earlier for non-compressor 

based residential refrigeration products. 

DATES: DOE will accept written 

comments, data, and information on this 

notice, but no later than December 2, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for 

review at regulations.gov, including 

Federal Register notices, framework 

documents, public meeting attendee 

lists and transcripts, comments, and 

other supporting documents/materials. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the regulations.gov index. Not all 

documents listed in the index may be 

publicly available, such as information 

that is exempt from public disclosure. 

The docket Web page can be found at 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011-BT-DET0072. 

For further information on how to 

submit or review public comments or 

view hard copies of the docket, contact 

Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 

or email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1317. Email: 

Lucas.Adin@ee.doe.gov. 

In the Office of General Counsel, 

contact Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

Table of Contents 

I. Statutory Authority 

II. Current Rulemaking Process 

III. Scope of Coverage 

IV. Evaluation of the Annual Energy Use of 

Thermoelectric and Absorption 

Refrigeration Products 

A. Coverage Necessary or Appropriate to 

Carry Out Purposes of EPCA 

B. Average Household Energy Use 

1. Vapor Compression Wine Chillers 

2. Thermoelectric Refrigeration Products 

3. Absorption Refrigeration Products 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act of 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VI. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments 

I. Statutory Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended 

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

various provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency. Part B of Title III of 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) established 

the ‘‘Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles,’’ which covers consumer 

products and certain commercial 

products (i.e. ‘‘covered products’’).1

EPCA specifies a list of covered 

consumer products that includes 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. Although EPCA did not define 

any of these products, it specified that 

the extent of DOE’s coverage would 

apply to those refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers that can be 

operated by alternating current (AC) 

electricity, are not designed to be used 

without doors, and include a 

compressor and condenser as an integral 

part of the cabinet assembly. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(1)) EPCA did not preclude or 

otherwise foreclose the possibility that 

other consumer refrigeration products, 

such as those residential refrigeration 

products addressed in today’s notice, 

could also be covered if they satisfy 

certain prerequisites. 

Those prerequisites, when met, 

permit the Secretary of Energy to 

classify additional types of consumer 

products as covered products. For a 

given product to be classified as a 

covered product, the Secretary must 

determine that (1) covering that product 

is either necessary or appropriate to 

carry out the purposes of EPCA and (2) 

the average annual per-household 

energy use by products of such type is 

likely to exceed 100 kWh per year. (42 

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

With respect to the terms ‘‘electric 

refrigerator’’ and ‘‘electric refrigeratorfreezer,’’ DOE had defined these items 

in terms of their ability to safely store 

fresh food. In so doing, the agency has 

amended the definitions of ‘‘electric 

refrigerator’’ and ‘‘electric refrigeratorfreezer’’ in 10 CFR 430.2 to separate 

them from other miscellaneous 

residential refrigeration products such 

as wine chillers. DOE established this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65224 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2All-refrigerators, under DOE’s definition, do not 

have a compartment for the freezing and long-term 

storage of food at temperatures below 32 °F but may 

contain a compartment of 0.50 cubic feet capacity 

or less for the freezing and storage of ice. These 

products use a standardized compartment 

temperature of 38 °F in the current Appendix A1 

test procedure, and 39 °F in the Appendix A test 

procedure that will be required beginning 

September 15, 2014. 

separation using temperature as the 

means of distinguishing between these 

groups of products, with 39 °F being the 

dividing line between these groups. 

This temperature denotes the 

recommended maximum temperature 

for the safe storage of food. It also 

distinguishes these products from ‘‘allrefrigerators,’’ which are a small and 

special subset of refrigerators.2 Under 

the current regulatory approach, those 

products that can achieve this 

temperature and that otherwise meet the 

EPCA criteria for coverage as 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or 

freezers (i.e., designed to be used with 

doors and include a compressor and 

condenser as an integral part of the 

cabinet assembly) would be treated and 

regulated as electric refrigerators and 

electric refrigerator-freezers, while those 

that cannot meet the temperature 

requirements would fall outside of the 

scope of these definitions. See, e.g. 66 

FR 57845 (Nov. 19, 2001) and 75 FR 

78810 (Dec. 16, 2010). As a result, DOE 

generally views products such as wine 

chillers as a type of product not 

addressed by the original EPCA 

coverage of refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. Today’s proposed 

coverage determination addresses those 

miscellaneous residential refrigeration 

products that fall outside of this 

already-established regulatory scope. 

When attempting to cover additional 

product types, DOE must first determine 

whether the criteria described above in 

42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1) are met. Once those 

criteria have been satisfied, the 

Secretary may begin to prescribe energy 

conservation standards for a covered 

product. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p). 

In order to set standards for a given 

product that has been added as a newly 

covered product pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6292(b)(1), the Secretary must 

determine that four additional criteria 

are met. First, the average per household 

energy use within the United States by 

the products of such type (or class) 

exceeded 150 kilowatt-hours (kWh) (or 

its British thermal unit (Btu) equivalent) 

for any 12-month period ending before 

such determination. Second, the 

aggregate household energy use within 

the United States by products of such 

type (or class) exceeded 4,200,000,000 

kilowatt-hours (or its Btu equivalent) for 

any such 12-month period. Third, a 

substantial improvement in the energy 

efficiency of products of such type (or 

class) is technologically feasible. And 

fourth, the application of a labeling rule 

under 42 U.S.C. 6294 to such type (or 

class) is not likely to be sufficient to 

induce manufacturers to produce, and 

consumers and other persons to 

purchase, covered products of such type 

(or class) that achieve the maximum 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)). 

In addition to the above, if DOE issues 

a final determination that miscellaneous 

residential refrigeration products are 

covered products, DOE will consider 

test procedures for these products and 

will determine if these products satisfy 

the required criteria of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(l)(1) prior to setting any energy 

conservation standards for them. 

II. Current Rulemaking Process 

On November 8, 2011, DOE published 

a proposed coverage determination for 

non-compression equipped residential 

refrigeration products in anticipation of 

a rulemaking to address these products 

and related residential refrigeration 

products. 76 FR 69147. On February 23, 

2012, DOE began a scoping process to 

set potential energy conservation 

standards and test procedures for wine 

chillers, non-compressor equipped 

residential refrigeration products, and 

residential icemakers, by publishing a 

notice of public meeting, and providing 

a framework document that addressed 

potential standards and test procedure 

rulemakings. 77 FR 7547. Since that 

time, DOE has determined that coverage 

for these products should treat vapor 

compression wine chillers, non-vapor 

compression refrigeration products, 

hybrid refrigeration products, and 

residential ice makers as a combined 

product type distinct from the types of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers currently covered by EPCA. 

DOE reached this determination after 

evaluating the various information it 

had been able to collect and the 

comments submitted by interested 

parties in response to the earlier notices. 

If, after further public comment 

submitted in response to today’s notice, 

DOE determines that coverage of these 

products is warranted, DOE will 

consider setting both test procedures 

and energy conservation standards for 

these products, which would proceed in 

the same manner described in the 

proposed determination published on 

November 8, 2011. See 76 FR at 69149. 

III. Scope of Coverage 

DOE is proposing to adopt a 

determination that would extend 

coverage to all residential refrigeration 

products that are not currently 

addressed by those provisions 

regulating the energy efficiency of 

residential refrigeration products (42 

U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)). DOE is considering 

this course of action to examine the 

feasibility of ensuring that these 

products achieve a minimum level of 

efficiency, while meeting the prescribed 

statutory prerequisites. As a result, 

those products that (1) are not capable 

of reaching the requisite temperature for 

safe food storage (i.e. 39 °F), (2) do not 

include a condenser and compressor as 

an integral part of the product’s cabinet 

assembly, or (3) are designed solely for 

the production and storage of ice, 

would, if adopted by DOE, be treated as 

covered products. 

DOE seeks feedback from interested 

parties on this proposed scope of 

coverage. 

IV. Evaluation of the Annual Energy 

Use of Thermoelectric and Absorption 

Refrigeration Products 

The following sections describe DOE’s 

tentative evaluation of whether 

miscellaneous residential refrigeration 

products fulfill the EPCA criteria for 

being added as covered products. As 

stated previously, DOE may classify a 

consumer product as a covered product 

if (1) classifying products of such type 

as covered products is necessary and 

appropriate to carry out the purposes of 

EPCA; and (2) the average annual perhousehold energy use by products of 

such type is likely to exceed 100 

kilowatt-hours (or its Btu equivalent) 

per year. 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1). 

A. Coverage Necessary or Appropriate 

To Carry Out Purposes of EPCA 

In DOE’s tentative view, the coverage 

of miscellaneous residential 

refrigeration products is both necessary 

and appropriate to carry out the 

purposes of EPCA. These products 

consume energy generated from limited 

energy supplies and their regulation 

would be likely to result in the 

improvement of their energy efficiency. 

Accordingly, establishing standards for 

these products fall squarely within the 

overall statutory goals set out in EPCA 

to: (1) Conserve energy supplies through 

energy conservation programs; and (2) 

provide for improved energy efficiency 

of major appliances and certain other 

consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 6201) 

As discussed in the November 2011 

proposed determination, DOE is 

currently considering initiating an 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 65225 

3 Dividing 0.55 by 0.46 and subtracting 1.0 from 

the quotient results in a value roughly equal to onefifth. 

4 Greenblatt, J. B., et al. (2013). ‘‘U.S. Residential 

Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products: Results from 

Amazon Mechanical Turk Surveys,’’ Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory, Report number 

6194E, April. 

energy conservation standard 

rulemaking addressing wine chillers. As 

a prerequisite to the setting of standards 

for these products, DOE seeks to 

establish that wine chillers are a distinct 

type of covered product under EPCA. 

DOE is also interested in ensuring that 

both compressor-based and noncompressor-based products would be 

covered as part of this approach in order 

to prevent a mass shift in the market 

from compressor-based to alternative 

refrigeration technologies such as 

thermoelectric- and absorption-based 

systems that currently fall outside of 

EPCA’s scope of coverage for 

refrigeration products. Thus, DOE 

proposed in the previous notice to 

extend coverage to non-compressor 

based refrigeration products. To ensure 

that DOE is able to consider energy 

conservation standards for the other 

products that currently fall outside the 

regulatory coverage established by 

EPCA, the proposal in this notice 

addresses all other products that are not 

presently covered in addition to those 

products already addressed by the 

November 2011 notice, including wine 

chiller products that incorporate a 

compressor, and residential ice makers. 

DOE also notes that, with respect to 

the potential for labeling requirements 

to serve as an adequate inducement for 

manufacturers to produce—and 

consumers to purchase—energy efficient 

residential refrigeration products, DOE 

does not currently have sufficient 

information to determine whether such 

an approach would be likely to satisfy 

this condition. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(l)(1)(D). While DOE plans to 

investigate this issue with respect to any 

proposed rule that it may issue, the 

agency seeks information on this matter 

to help it ascertain the effectiveness of 

such an approach with respect to the 

residential refrigeration products 

addressed by today’s notice. 

B. Average Household Energy Use 

DOE estimated that the average 

household energy use for vapor 

compression wine chillers, the primary 

types of residential refrigeration 

products that do not incorporate a 

compressor (thermoelectric and 

absorption wine chillers and 

refrigerators), residential ice makers, 

and hybrid refrigeration products 

(consisting of both a wine chiller and a 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer or 

freezer). DOE found no evidence that 

non-vapor compression freezers are 

used in U.S. households, so energy use 

estimates for these products are not 

provided. 

1. Vapor Compression Wine Chillers 

DOE conducted testing on eight vapor 

compression wine chillers with rated 

capacities of 17, 48, 50, 57, 132, and 147 

bottles. These products were tested 

using the test procedures prescribed by 

the California Energy Commission (CEC) 

(2012 Appliance Efficiency Regulations, 

CEC–400–2012–019–CMF, Table A–1, p. 

70). The measured energy consumption 

of these products ranged from 161 kWh 

to 480 kWh. 

DOE compared the energy 

consumption of two vapor compression 

wine chillers measured in the field with 

the maximum allowable energy use for 

products of their size, as required under 

the California Energy Commission (CEC) 

standard for automatic defrost wine 

chillers, and found that the field energy 

use was lower by approximately onehalf. DOE also conducted closed-door 

testing of eight vapor compression wine 

chillers in typical room-temperature 

conditions of 72 °F and found that the 

energy use for this condition was also 

on average about half (46 percent) the 

energy use measured in 90 °F ambient 

conditions. This observation suggests 

that if the usage factor for vapor 

compression wine chillers (the factor 

applied to the actual energy use 

measured in a 90 °F closed-door test to 

obtain a result representative of typical 

room conditions) did not consider the 

impact of door openings, it should be 

0.46 rather than the 0.85 factor used in 

the CEC test procedure. If consideration 

is given for some limited number of 

door openings, a usage factor equal to 

0.55 may be appropriate—this factor is 

consistent with an assumption that the 

energy use associated with door 

openings is equal to roughly one-fifth of 

the closed-door energy use.3

Based on limited field data and 

laboratory testing at different ambient 

temperature conditions, DOE believes 

the energy use estimates based on the 

current CEC test procedure for these 

products are high. As discussed above, 

use of the 0.55 usage factor appears to 

be more appropriate than the 0.85 usage 

factor prescribed by the current CEC 

test. Hence, in order to estimate field 

energy use for wine chillers, DOE 

adjusted the reported energy use of wine 

chillers (which is based on the CEC test 

procedure) by dividing the reported 

energy use by 0.85 and multiplying by 

0.55. 

DOE acquired data on the distribution 

of vapor compression wine chiller 

internal volumes (or capacities) found 

in U.S. households from a study that 

used online surveys.4 However, DOE 

did not have energy use rating 

information for these products and 

instead assumed that these products all 

consume the maximum allowable 

energy as allowed by the CEC energy 

standard. Using the average capacity of 

vapor compression wine chillers from 

these data (3.6 cubic feet), and the CEC 

energy standard (adjusted for the 

differences between field and test 

procedure energy use as described 

above) to represent average energy use, 

DOE estimated that the average annual 

energy consumption of vapor 

compression wine chillers is 268 kWh. 

The online surveys in the study also 

provided information on the saturation 

of vapor compression wine chillers 

found in U.S. households. Using these 

data, DOE found a market saturation 

rate of 1.60% for vapor compression 

wine chillers, yielding a national stock 

estimate of 1,860,000. Together with the 

above information on the average 

annual energy consumption of vapor 

compression wine chillers, DOE 

estimates the national energy 

consumption of vapor compression 

wine chillers to be 0.50 terawatt-hours 

(TWh) per year. 

Finally, the online surveys provided 

data on the distribution of ages of wine 

chillers (both vapor compression and 

thermoelectric). From these data, DOE 

derived an estimate of the lifetime of 

wine chillers of approximately 4.5 

years. Together with the above estimate 

of the national stock of vapor 

compression wine chillers, DOE 

estimates annual sales of vapor 

compression wine chillers at 410,000 

units. 

2. Thermoelectric Wine Chillers 

This section provides an update to the 

estimates of energy use by residential 

thermoelectric refrigeration products 

that DOE provided in the notice of 

proposed determination published on 

November 2011. See 76 FR at 69150. 

Since that notice’s publication, DOE 

conducted laboratory testing of three 

thermoelectric wine chillers (DOE TE 

WC Data, No. 6). These products had 

rated capacities of 6, 12, and 28 bottles. 

They were tested using the CEC test 

procedure (2012 Appliance Efficiency 

Regulations, CEC–400–2012–019–CMF, 

Table A–1, p. 70). The testing yielded 

measured energy usage for these 

products ranging from 413 kWh to 550 

kWh. However, two of these three 

products were not able to maintain the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65226 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5Similar to the analysis for vapor compression 

wine chillers discussed in section III.IV.B.IV.B.1, 

this usage factor assumes that the energy use 

associated with door openings is one-fifth of the 

closed-door energy use. 

55 °F compartment temperature target 

for wine chillers in the required 90 °F 

test room temperature. When tested in 

a 72 °F room temperature and applying 

a 1.2 usage factor 5 to account for door 

openings, the measured energy use of 

the products ranged from 142 kWh to 

664 kWh. For these tests, all three 

products were able to maintain the 55 

°F compartment temperature target; 

however, the 28-bottle product just 

barely maintained this temperature in 

its coldest setting. The metered data and 

laboratory test results together indicate 

that thermoelectric wine chiller annual 

energy use exceeds the 100 kWh per 

year threshold set by EPCA as a 

prerequisite for establishing coverage. 

DOE also acquired energy 

consumption data from six 

thermoelectric wine chillers measured 

under field conditions (two in 

residential homes and four in an office 

with an average ambient temperature of 

approximately 70 °F), and gathered 

energy use data for 35 thermoelectric 

wine chillers from manufacturer and/or 

retailer Web sites. (TE CC, No. 9) Taken 

together, these products had rated 

capacities from 0.6 to 4.9 cubic feet, 

with average annual energy use ranging 

from 183 to 803 kWh. 

Including the previously discussed 

laboratory test data for three units, the 

thermoelectric wine chiller data 

represented 44 individual 

measurements, shown in Table 1. DOE 

developed a linear regression using all 

data weighted equally: 

UEC = 82.67*C + 222.6 

Where 

UEC = unit energy consumption in kWh/yr 

C = wine chiller capacity in cubic feet 

(analysis of wine chiller data from 

manufacturer Web sites indicates a 

relationship between number of wine 

bottles and capacity of 8.22 wine bottles 

per cubic foot. This factor was used to 

convert rated capacities in bottles into 

rated capacities in cubic feet.) 

TABLE 1—ENERGY CONSUMPTION

DATA FOR THERMOELECTRIC WINE

CHILLERS

Source Volume 

(Cu. Ft.) 

Annual 

energy 

consumption 

(kWh) 

Manufacturer 

Web site ........ 0.56 310 

0.56 183 

0.64 365 

0.73 183 

TABLE 1—ENERGY CONSUMPTION

DATA FOR THERMOELECTRIC WINE

CHILLERS—Continued 

Source Volume 

(Cu. Ft.) 

Annual 

energy 

consumption 

(kWh) 

0.81 183 

0.81 201 

0.81 201 

0.88 292 

0.88 292 

0.97 183 

0.99 183 

1.17 292 

1.17 219 

1.17 292 

1.20 548 

1.24 365 

1.41 548 

1.46 365 

1.46 219 

1.62 365 

1.62 237 

1.69 365 

1.69 365 

1.69 365 

1.77 365 

1.87 475 

2.05 365 

2.30 548 

2.30 402 

2.30 438 

2.40 548 

2.47 438 

2.75 475 

4.94 803 

4.94 657 

Laboratory test .. 0.64 142 

1.08 439 

2.26 664 

Field measurement .............. 0.73 427 

0.97 266 

1.46 216 

1.82 248 

3.41 608 

6.81 482 

The online surveys in the study 

described in section IV.B.1 provided 

information on the distribution of 

thermoelectric wine chiller capacities. 

Using the average capacity of 

thermoelectric wine chillers from these 

data (1.51 cubic feet), and the above 

linear regression of unit energy 

consumption versus capacity, DOE 

estimated the average annual energy 

consumption of thermoelectric wine 

chillers to be 348 kWh. Note that this 

represents 30 percent greater energy use 

than the vapor compression wine chiller 

average, whereas the average product 

volume is 58 percent less than the 

average for vapor compression wine 

chillers. 

The online surveys also provided 

saturation data for thermoelectric wine 

chillers found in U.S. households. Using 

these data, DOE found a saturation rate 

of 9.0% for thermoelectric wine chillers, 

yielding a national stock estimate of 

10,500,000. Together with the above 

information on the average annual 

energy consumption of thermoelectric 

wine chillers, DOE estimates national 

energy consumption of thermoelectric 

wine chillers to be 3.64 TWh per year. 

Using the estimate of the lifetime of 

wine chillers described above (4.5 years) 

along with the above estimate of the 

national stock of thermoelectric wine 

chillers, DOE estimates annual sales of 

these products at 2,300,000 units. 

3. Thermoelectric Refrigerators 

Very little energy consumption 

information was available for non-vapor 

compression refrigerators. DOE tested 

two thermoelectric refrigerators at 

ambient temperatures of both 72 °F and 

90 °F. Neither product was able to 

maintain a 39 °F compartment 

temperature in the 90 °F condition, and 

only one of the two was able to maintain 

this compartment temperature in the 72 

°F condition. Estimating the expected 

energy use of such products, if used in 

the field, is complicated by the inability 

of the products to maintain the 

compartment temperature. However, 

DOE estimated that the average annual 

energy consumption in field use would 

be 566 kWh. 

The online surveys conducted as part 

of the study described in the previous 

sections provided saturation data for 

thermoelectric refrigerators found in 

U.S. households. Using these data, DOE 

found a market saturation rate of 2.5% 

for thermoelectric refrigerators, yielding 

a national stock estimate of 2,900,000. 

Together with the above information on 

the average annual energy consumption 

of thermoelectric refrigerators, DOE 

estimates national annual energy 

consumption of thermoelectric wine 

chillers to be 1.64 TWh. 

However, the estimated saturation 

rate of thermoelectric refrigerators is 

uncertain, ranging from 1.1% to 3.8%. 

This uncertainty results in national 

stock estimates that range between 

1,200,000 and 4,400,000, and national 

annual energy consumption estimates 

that range from 0.68 to 2.49 TWh. 

DOE was unable to obtain data 

providing an estimate of the lifetime of 

thermoelectric refrigerators. Therefore, 

using the estimate of the lifetime of 

wine chillers described above (4.5 years) 

as a proxy, along with the central 

estimate of the national stock of 

thermoelectric refrigerators, DOE 

estimates annual sales of these products 

at 600,000 units. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 65227 

6The manufacturer (Liebherr) did not provide an 

annual energy use estimate for the freezer-cooled 

cabinet model (WF 1061: 4.5 cu. ft. cooled cabinet, 

4.5 cu ft. freezer). However, information on a unit 

of comparable volume (BF 1061: 5.5 cu. ft. fresh 

food and 4.5 cu. ft. freezer) was available with an 

annual energy use estimate of 413 kWh/yr. This 

value was used as an upper limit to the energy 

consumption of the freezer-cooled cabinet model. 

4. Absorption Refrigeration Products 

This section provides an update to the 

estimates of energy use by residential 

thermoelectric refrigeration products 

that DOE provided in the November 

2011 notice of proposed determination. 

See 76 FR at 69151. 

The online survey data that DOE 

acquired from the study discussed in 

the previous sections provided no 

evidence indicating absorption-based 

wine chillers or other refrigeration 

products are used in homes. However, 

this technology is commonly used by 

the hotel industry. DOE estimated that 

the total stock of absorption 

refrigeration products in hotels, based 

on data from Dometic Corporation (a 

provider of specially-designed 

refrigerators for, among other things, the 

storage of wine), is approximately 

400,000 units. (Dometic Group 

Company Presentation 2011–03–15, No. 

7 at pp. 40, 42) 

Information provided on 

manufacturer Web sites regarding 

absorption product energy use cited 

values between 207 and 730 kWh per 

year, but did not clarify which test 

procedures were used to determine 

these values and did not indicate the 

operating temperature ranges of the 

advertised products. (Dometic 

Screenshots, No. 8) However, DOE 

measured the energy use of a 1.4 cubic 

foot absorption refrigerator using closeddoor tests in both 72 °F and 90 °F 

ambient temperature conditions. The 

unit was not able to maintain a 39 °F 

compartment temperature in the 90 °F 

condition. For the 72 °F condition, the 

unit was able to maintain a 

compartment temperature below 39 °F. 

Not including any usage factor 

adjustment, the measured energy use 

was 461 kWh. Applying a usage 

adjustment factor for door openings of 

1.2, the projected field energy use of 

such a product would be 553 kWh. As 

discussed previously, this usage 

adjustment factor may be appropriate 

for wine chillers, but it is unclear 

whether it adequately accounts for door 

openings in refrigerators. 

Together with the above energy use 

estimate, and assuming that the Dometic 

estimate represents the national stock of 

these units, DOE estimated national 

annual energy use of absorption 

refrigeration products to be 0.22 TWh. 

DOE was unable to obtain data 

providing an estimate of the lifetime of 

absorption refrigeration products. Using 

the estimate of the lifetime of wine 

chillers described above (4.5 years) as a 

proxy, along with the above estimate of 

the national stock of absorption 

refrigeration products, DOE estimates 

annual sales of these products at 90,000 

units. 

5. Hybrid Refrigeration Products 

For the purposes of this discussion, 

the term ‘‘hybrid’’ refers to any product 

that includes compartments designed 

for storage at warmer temperatures than 

fresh food compartments and that 

otherwise serves the functions of a 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or 

freezer. DOE conducted an online 

manufacturer model search for hybrid 

refrigeration products, and found a total 

of potentially up to 23 unique models, 

including 21 hybrid refrigerator-wine 

chillers (one manual defrost unit and 20 

automatic defrost units) and two hybrid 

freezer-wine chillers. From these data, 

DOE determined that the average 

capacity of hybrid refrigerator-wine 

chillers was 7.4 cubic feet, and the 

average annual energy consumption of 

hybrid refrigerator-wine chillers was 

415 kWh—these averages are based on 

the information provided for two units 

by manufacturer Web sites (Hybrid ULine, No. 11 and Hybrid Vinotemp, No. 

12, p. 2) and a third from the petition 

for waiver from the DOE test procedure 

of Sanyo E&E Corporation for a hybrid 

wine chiller/beverage center (77 FR 

19654 (April 2, 2012)). For the two 

hybrid freezer-wine chiller models, the 

average unit capacity was 12.6 cubic 

feet, and the upper limit to the annual 

energy consumption was 413 kWh 

based on information provided for one 

unit by a manufacturer Web site.6

(Hybrid Liebherr, No. 10, p. 1) 

The online surveys from the study 

discussed in the previous sections 

provided market saturation data for 

hybrid refrigeration products found in 

U.S. households. Using these data, DOE 

found a saturation rate of 3.1% for 

hybrid refrigerator-wine chillers and 

0.8% for hybrid freezer-wine chillers, 

yielding national stock estimates of 

3,600,000 hybrid refrigerator-wine 

chillers and 900,000 hybrid freezer-wine 

chillers. 

Together with the above information 

on the average annual energy 

consumption of hybrid refrigeration 

products, DOE estimates the national 

annual energy consumption of hybrid 

refrigerator-wine chillers to be 1.49 

TWh, and of hybrid freezer-wine 

chillers to be 0.37 TWh. 

DOE was unable to obtain data 

providing an estimate of the lifetime of 

hybrid refrigeration products. Using the 

estimated lifetimes of refrigerators (17 

years) and freezers (22 years) from the 

2011 Final Rule for Residential 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers (76 FR 57516–57612) as 

proxies, along with the above estimate 

of the national stocks of hybrid 

refrigeration products, DOE estimates 

annual sales to be 200,000 hybrid 

refrigerator-wine chillers and 40,000 

hybrid freezer-wine chillers. 

6. Residential Ice Makers 

DOE measured the energy use of a 

portable and a non-portable ice maker in 

typical room temperature conditions. 

The energy use of the portable ice maker 

was 139 kWh. This includes applying a 

50% usage factor to account for the 

expectation that the unit would not be 

plugged in for the entire year. The 

energy use of the non-portable ice maker 

was 842 kWh. Both of these 

measurements incorporate energy use 

associated both with ice production and 

ice storage. In addition, the energy use 

associated with ice production is based 

on an estimated production amount of 

4 pounds of ice per day. (For the 

portable ice maker, this estimate applies 

only during times when the unit is 

plugged in.) 

DOE also acquired data on the 

numbers and types of residential ice 

makers found in U.S. households from 

the online surveys conducted as part of 

the study discussed in the previous 

sections. The data indicate that 69% of 

residential ice makers are portable units, 

with the remainder being non-portable 

built-in or freestanding units. Because 

data were unavailable on the fraction of 

the year when such portable units are 

plugged in and making ice, DOE 

estimated that the average annual usage 

factor was 50%. Using the data 

described above, DOE estimated that the 

average annual energy use of residential 

ice makers was 357 kWh. 

The online surveys in the study 

provided information on the saturation 

of residential ice makers found in U.S. 

households. Using these data, DOE 

found a saturation rate of 4.6% for 

residential ice makers, yielding a 

national stock estimate of 5,500,000. 

Together with the above information on 

the average annual energy consumption 

of residential ice makers, DOE estimates 

the national energy consumption of 

residential ice makers to be 2.0 TWh per 

year. 

However, both the estimated numbers 

and annual energy use of residential ice 

makers is uncertain. The estimated 

saturation rate ranges from 1.7% to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65228 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

7.5%, resulting in a national stock 

estimate between 2,000,000 and 

8,700,000. The uncertainty in annual 

energy use was estimated to be ±30%. 

Taken together, the range in estimated 

national annual energy consumption 

varies between 0.5 and 4.0 TWh. 

Finally, the online surveys discussed 

in previous sections provided data on 

the age distribution of residential ice 

makers. From these data, DOE derived 

an estimate of the lifetime of residential 

ice makers of approximately 1.7 years. 

The online surveys discussed in 

previous sections provided information 

on the age distribution of wine chillers. 

From these data, DOE derived an 

estimate of the lifetime of wine chillers 

of approximately 4.5 years, which is 

comparable to the estimated lifetime of 

compact refrigerators of 5.6 years used 

in the 2011 Final Rule for Residential 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers (76 FR 57516–57612). DOE 

believes that the derived lifetime of 

residential ice makers may be 

unrealistically low when compared to 

the estimated lifetimes of wine chillers 

and compact refrigerators, so it has 

adopted a range in its estimate of annual 

sales of these products by using the 

lifetime assumptions of both residential 

ice makers and wine chillers. Therefore, 

using the central value for the national 

stock of residential icemakers of 

5,500,000 units and the aforementioned 

high and low values of product lifetime 

(1.7 years and 4.5 years, respectively), 

DOE estimates that annual sales of these 

products may range from 1,200,000 to 

3,200,000 units. 

7. Conclusions 

Based upon its evaluations of vapor 

compression wine chillers, the three 

primary types of residential refrigeration 

products that do not incorporate a 

compressor (i.e. thermoelectric-based 

wine chillers, thermoelectric-based 

refrigerators and absorption-based 

refrigeration products), the hybrid 

refrigeration products described in this 

notice, and residential ice makers, DOE 

has been able to develop estimates of 

their annual energy use that indicate 

that these products on average consume 

significantly more than 100 kWh 

annually. Therefore, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the average 

annual per household energy use for 

miscellaneous residential refrigeration 

products is likely to exceed the 100 

kWh threshold set by EPCA. Moreover, 

DOE has determined that the aggregate 

annual national energy use of these 

products is 9.9 TWh, which exceeds the 

4.2 TWh minimum threshold set by 

EPCA in order to establish energy 

conservation standards for a product 

that the Secretary chooses to add for 

regulatory coverage. 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

DOE has reviewed its proposed 

determination of wine chillers and 

residential non-compressor refrigeration 

products under the following Executive 

Orders and acts. 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that coverage 

determinations do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

proposed action was not subject to 

review under the Executive Order by the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996) requires 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis for any rule that, by 

law, must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the proposed rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis 

examines the impact of the rule on 

small entities and considers alternative 

ways of reducing negative effects. Also, 

as required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003 to ensure that the potential impact 

of its rules on small entities are properly 

considered during the DOE rulemaking 

process. 68 FR 7990 (February 19, 2003). 

DOE makes its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site at http://energy.gov/ 

gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE reviewed today’s proposed 

determination under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. If adopted, today’s 

proposed determination would set no 

standards; they would only positively 

determine that future standards may be 

warranted and should be explored in an 

energy conservation standards and test 

procedure rulemaking. Economic 

impacts on small entities would be 

considered in the context of such 

rulemakings. On the basis of the 

foregoing, DOE certifies that the 

proposed determination, if adopted, 

would have no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for this proposed determination. DOE 

will transmit this certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration for 

review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

This proposed determination that 

miscellaneous residential refrigeration 

products meet the criteria for covered 

products for which the Secretary may 

prescribe energy conservation standards 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) 

will impose no new information or 

record-keeping requirements. 

Accordingly, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) clearance is not required 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this notice, DOE proposes to 

positively determine that future 

standards may be warranted and that 

environmental impacts should be 

explored in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking. DOE has 

determined that review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA), Public Law 91–190, 

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

required at this time. NEPA review can 

only be initiated ‘‘as soon as 

environmental impacts can be 

meaningfully evaluated’’ (10 CFR 

1021.213(b)). This proposed 

determination would only determine 

that future standards may be warranted, 

but would not itself propose to set any 

specific standard. DOE has, therefore, 

determined that there are no 

environmental impacts to be evaluated 

at this time. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, 

‘‘Federalism’’ 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 

1999), imposes certain requirements on 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to assess carefully the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 65229 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in developing 

regulatory policies that have Federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process that it will follow 

in developing such regulations. 65 FR 

13735 (March 14, 2000). DOE has 

examined today’s proposed 

determination and concludes that it 

would not preempt State law or have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the Federal 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. DOE notes, 

however, that if the agency determines 

that the products at issue in today’s 

notice are covered and energy 

conservation standards are subsequently 

promulgated for these products, any 

existing State standards would be 

preempted by EPCA. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the product that is the subject of today’s 

proposed determination. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent permitted, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297) No further action is 

required by E.O. 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 61 FR 

4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on 

Federal agencies the duty to: (1) 

Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; 

(2) write regulations to minimize 

litigation; (3) provide a clear legal 

standard for affected conduct rather 

than a general standard; and (4) promote 

simplification and burden reduction. 

Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation specifies the following: (1) 

The preemptive effect, if any; (2) any 

effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

definitions of key terms; and (6) other 

important issues affecting clarity and 

general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 

requires Executive agencies to review 

regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether these standards are 

met, or whether it is unreasonable to 

meet one or more of them. DOE 

completed the required review and 

determined that, to the extent permitted 

by law, this proposed determination 

meets the relevant standards of E.O. 

12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

requires each Federal agency to assess 

the effects of Federal regulatory actions 

on State, local, and tribal governments 

and the private sector. For regulatory 

actions likely to result in a rule that may 

cause expenditures by State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector of $100 million or 

more in any one year (adjusted annually 

for inflation), section 202 of UMRA 

requires a Federal agency to publish a 

written statement that estimates the 

resulting costs, benefits, and other 

effects on the national economy. (2 

U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b)) UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to develop an effective 

process to permit timely input by 

elected officers of State, local, and tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate.’’ UMRA 

also requires an agency plan for giving 

notice and opportunity for timely input 

to small governments that may be 

potentially affected before establishing 

any requirement that might significantly 

or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820 (March 18, 1997). 

(This policy also is available at http:// 

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.) 

DOE reviewed today’s proposed 

determination pursuant to these existing 

authorities and its policy statement and 

determined that the proposed 

determination contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so the UMRA requirements do 

not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed determination would not have 

any impact on the autonomy or integrity 

of the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), 

DOE determined that this proposed 

determination would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 2001 

The Treasury and General 

Government Appropriation Act of 2001 

(44 U.S.C. 3516, note) requires agencies 

to review most disseminations of 

information they make to the public 

under guidelines established by each 

agency pursuant to general guidelines 

issued by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). The OMB’s guidelines 

were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 

22, 2002), and DOE’s guidelines were 

published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 

2002). DOE has reviewed today’s 

proposed determination under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with the applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects 

for any proposed significant energy 

action. A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is 

defined as any action by an agency that 

promulgates a final rule or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule, 

and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory 

action under E.O. 12866, or any 

successor order; and (2) is likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy 

action. For any proposed significant 

energy action, the agency must give a 

detailed statement of any adverse effects 

on energy supply, distribution, or use if 

the proposal is implemented, and of 

reasonable alternatives to the proposed 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has concluded that today’s 

regulatory action proposing to 

determine that miscellaneous 

residential refrigeration products meet 

the criteria for covered products for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65230 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

which the Secretary may prescribe 

energy conservation standards pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) would not 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This action is also not a significant 

regulatory action for purposes of E.O. 

12866, and the OIRA Administrator has 

not designated this proposed 

determination as a significant energy 

action. Therefore, this proposed 

determination is not a significant energy 

action. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 

for this proposed determination. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (January 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

Bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. DOE has 

determined that the analyses conducted 

for this rulemaking do not constitute 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have or does have a clear 

and substantial impact on important 

public policies or private sector 

decisions.’’ 70 FR 2667 (January 14, 

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

of this notice. 

DOE will determine the appropriate 

level of review that would be applicable 

to any future rulemaking to establish 

energy conservation standards for 

miscellaneous residential refrigeration 

products. 

VI. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this notice of 

proposed determination no later than 

the date provided at the beginning of 

this notice. After the close of the 

comment period, DOE will review the 

comments received and determine 

whether miscellaneous residential 

refrigeration products are covered 

products under EPCA. 

Comments, data, and information 

submitted to DOE’s email address for 

this proposed determination should be 

provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. 

Submissions should avoid the use of 

special characters or any form of 

encryption, and wherever possible 

comments should include the electronic 

signature of the author. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit two copies: one copy of 

the document should have all the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination as to the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known or available from 

public sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligations 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting persons which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) a date 

after which such information might no 

longer be considered confidential; and 

(7) why disclosure of the information 

would be contrary to the public interest. 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comments 

DOE welcomes comments on all 

aspects of this proposed determination. 

DOE is particularly interested in 

receiving comments from interested 

parties on the following issues related to 

the proposed determination for 

miscellaneous residential refrigeration 

products: 

(1) Is the proposed scope of coverage 

for miscellaneous residential 

refrigeration products sufficient or are 

there aspects to this proposed scope that 

require modification? 

(2) DOE seeks information on the 

types of vapor compression and noncompressor residential refrigeration 

products currently being marketed that 

would be addressed by the coverage 

proposed in this notice, particularly 

whether such products are distributed 

to any significant extent for uses other 

than as wine or beverage chillers. 

(3) DOE seeks stock and shipment 

data for residential wine chillers cooled 

by vapor compression and for 

residential refrigeration products that do 

not incorporate a compressor, 

segregated by different product types, 

including any details regarding trends 

in shipments for each respective type of 

product. 

(4) DOE seeks information regarding 

energy test procedures suited for 

residential wine chillers cooled by 

vapor compression and for residential 

refrigeration products that do not 

incorporate a compressor. 

(5) DOE seeks information regarding 

the energy use of all of the different 

products that would be affected by 

today’s proposed coverage 

determination. 

(6) DOE seeks calculations and 

accompanying values for household and 

national energy consumption of the 

products that would be affected by 

today’s notice of proposed coverage 

determination. 

(7) DOE seeks information as to what 

technologies, if any, would be available 

to improve the energy efficiency of 

residential vapor compression wine 

chillers, residential refrigeration 

products that do not incorporate a 

compressor, and residential ice makers. 

To the extent that no technologies are 

readily available to improve the 

efficiency of these products, DOE seeks 

information on the factors that may be 

limiting the development of those 

technologies. 

(8) DOE seeks information regarding 

the factors that would cause a 

manufacturer to select a cooling 

technology other than vapor 

compression for a residential 

refrigeration product, including design 

and production costs, energy use, 

product performance, consumer 

acceptance, and any other relevant 

factors. 

(9) DOE seeks information, including 

supporting data, regarding whether 

labeling-related efforts applied to the 

residential refrigeration products 

addressed in today’s notice would be 

sufficient to induce manufacturers to 

produce and consumers and other 

persons to purchase, residential 

refrigeration products that achieve the 

minimum energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

The Department is interested in 

receiving views concerning other 

relevant issues that participants believe 

would affect DOE’s ability to establish 

test procedures and energy conservation 

standards for miscellaneous residential 

refrigeration products. The Department 

invites all interested parties to submit in 

writing by December 2, 2013, comments 

and information on matters addressed in 

this notice and on other matters relevant 

to consideration of a determination for 

miscellaneous residential refrigeration 

products. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 211 / Thursday, October 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 65231 

After the expiration of the period for 

submitting written statements, the 

Department will consider all comments 

and additional information that is 

obtained from interested parties or 

through further analyses, and it will 

prepare a final determination. If DOE 

determines that miscellaneous 

residential refrigeration products qualify 

as covered products, DOE will consider 

initiating rulemakings to develop test 

procedures and energy conservation 

standards for miscellaneous residential 

refrigeration products. Members of the 

public will be given an opportunity to 

submit written and oral comments on 

any proposed test procedure and 

standards. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

30, 2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–25943 Filed 10–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0819; Notice No. 25– 

13–06–SC] 

Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., 

Models BD–500–1A10 and BD–500– 

1A11 series airplanes; Fuselage InFlight Fire Safety and Flammability 

Resistance 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed special 

conditions. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes special 

conditions for the Bombardier Inc. 

Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500– 

1A11 series airplanes. These airplanes 

will have a novel or unusual design 

feature associated with the materials 

used to fabricate the fuselage, which 

may affect fire propagation during an inflight fire. The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for this 

design feature. These proposed special 

conditions contain the additional safety 

standards that the Administrator 

considers necessary to establish a level 

of safety equivalent to that established 

by the existing airworthiness standards. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before December 16, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number [FAA–2013–0819] 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov/, 

including any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

docket, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/ 

. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Sinclair, FAA, Airframe and Cabin 

Safety Branch, ANM–115, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, Aircraft 

Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue 

SW., Renton, Washington, 98057–3356; 

telephone 425–227–2195; facsimile 

425–227–1232. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited 

We invite interested people to take 

part in this rulemaking by sending 

written comments, data, or views. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the special 

conditions, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We may change these special 

conditions based on the comments we 

receive. 

Background 

On December 10, 2009, Bombardier 

Inc. applied for a type certificate for 

their new Model BD–500–1A10 and 

BD–500–1A11 series airplanes. The 

Model BD–500–1A10 and BD–500– 

1A11 series airplanes are swept-wing 

monoplanes with pressurized cabins, 

and they share an identical supplier 

base and significant common design 

elements. The fuselages are aluminum 

alloy material, blended double-bubble 

design, sized for nominal 5 abreast 

seating. Each airplane’s powerplant 

includes two under-wing Pratt and 

Whitney PW1524G ultra-high bypass, 

geared turbofan engines. Flight controls 

are fly-by-wire flight with two passive/ 

uncoupled side sticks. Avionics include 

five landscape primary cockpit displays. 

The dimension of the airplanes 

encompasses a wingspan of 115 feet; a 

height of 37.75 feet; and a length of 

114.75 feet for the Model BD–500–1A10 

and 127 feet for the Model BD–500– 

1A11. Passenger capacity is designated 

as 110 for the Model BD–500–1A10 and 

125 for the Model BD–500–1A11. 

Maximum takeoff weight is 131,000 

pounds for the Model BD–500–1A10 

and 144,000 pounds for the Model BD– 

500–1A11. Maximum takeoff thrust is 

21,000 pounds for the Model BD–500– 

1A10 and 23,300 pounds for the Model 

BD–500–1A11. The range is 3,394 miles 

(5,463 kilometers) for both model 

airplanes. The maximum operating 

altitude is 41,000 feet for both model 

airplanes. 

The Bombardier BD–500–1A10 and 

BD–500–1A11 series airplanes will be 

fabricated using aluminum-lithium 

materials. The performance of airplanes 

consisting of a conventional aluminum 

fuselage in an inaccessible in-flight fire 

scenario is understood based on service 

history and extensive intermediate and 

large-scale fire testing. The fuselage 

itself does not contribute to in-flight fire 

propagation. This may not be the case 

for an all-aluminum-lithium fuselage. 

Experience has shown that eliminating 

the fire propagation of the interior 

materials and insulation materials tends 

to increase survivability since other 

aspects of in-flight fire safety (e.g., toxic 

gas emission and smoke obscuration) 

are typically by-products of the 

propagating fire. The Bombardier BD– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS