3026 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0003] 

RIN 1904–AF56 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 

and Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. In this direct final 

rule, the U.S. Department of Energy 

(‘‘DOE’’) is adopting amended energy 

conservation standards for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. DOE 

has determined that the amended 

energy conservation standards for these 

products would result in significant 

conservation of energy, and are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

May 16, 2024. The incorporation by 

reference of certain material listed in the 

rule was approved by the Director as of 

May 21, 2014, and November 12, 2021. 

If adverse comments are received by 

May 6, 2024, and DOE determines that 

such comments may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o), a timely withdrawal of this rule 

will be published in the Federal 

Register. If no such adverse comments 

are received, compliance with the 

amended standards established for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers in this direct final rule is 

required on and after January 31, 2029, 

for the product classes listed in Table I.1 

and January 31, 2030, for the product 

classes listed in Table I.2. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking, which includes Federal 

Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2017-BT-STD-0003. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: ApplianceStandards

Questions@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287– 

5904. Email: ApplianceStandards

Questions@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Matthew Schneider, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (240) 597– 

6265. Email: matthew.schneider@

hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

D. Conclusion 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Consumer Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers 

3. Joint Agreement Recommended 

Standard Levels 

III. General Discussion 

A. General Comments 

B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage 

C. Test Procedure 

D. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

E. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

F. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to 

Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

c. Energy Savings 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

f. Need for National Energy Conservation 

g. Other Factors 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Product Classes 

a. Product Classes With Automatic 

Icemakers 

b. Special Door and Multi-Door Designs 

c. Product Certification 

d. Addition of Product Class 9A–BI 

2. Technology Options 

B. Screening Analysis 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

2. Remaining Technologies 

C. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

a. Built-in Products 

b. Baseline Efficiency/Energy Use 

c. Higher Efficiency Levels 

d. VIP Analysis and Max-Tech Levels 

e. Variable-Speed Compressor Supply 

Chain 

f. Product Classes 11 and 12 Alignment 

2. Cost Analysis 

3. Cost-Efficiency Results 

4. Manufacturer Selling Price 

D. Markups Analysis 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. Adjusted Volume Distribution 

2. Product Cost 

3. Installation Cost 

4. Annual Energy Consumption 

5. Energy Prices 

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

7. Product Lifetime 

8. Discount Rates 

9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case 

10. Payback Period Analysis 

G. Shipments Analysis 

H. National Impact Analysis 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

1. Overview 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

b. Shipments Projections 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 

3. Discussion of MIA Comments 

K. Emissions Analysis 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in 

DOE’s Analysis 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

a. Social Cost of Carbon 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3027 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

3This document is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0003-0103. 

4This document is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0003-0104. 

5This document is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2017-BT-STD0003-0107. 

6This document is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0003-0105. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

3. National Impact Analysis 

a. 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 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

C. Conclusion 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Refrigerator, RefrigeratorFreezer, and Freezer Standards 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Adopted Standards 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 

13563, and 14094 

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 Executive Order 12630 

I. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

K. Information Quality 

L. Congressional Notification 

M. Materials Incorporated by Reference 

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Direct Final Rule 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate 

the energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317) Title III, Part B of EPCA 2

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309) These products include 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, the subject of this direct final 

rule. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(7)) 

Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

must, among other things, be designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that DOE 

determines is technologically feasible 

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

6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or 

amended standard must result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

In light of the above and under the 

authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this direct 

final rule amending energy conservation 

standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. 

The adopted standard levels in this 

direct final rule were proposed in a 

letter submitted to DOE jointly by 

groups representing manufacturers, 

energy and environmental advocates, 

consumer groups, and a utility. This 

letter, titled ‘‘Energy Efficiency 

Agreement of 2023’’ (hereafter, the 

‘‘Joint Agreement’’),3 recommends 

specific energy conservation standards 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers that, in the commenters’ 

view, would satisfy the EPCA 

requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE 

subsequently received letters of support 

from states including California, 

Massachusetts, and New York 4 and 

utilities including San Diego Gas and 

Electric (‘‘SDG&E’’) and Southern 

California Edison (‘‘SCE’’) 5 advocating 

for the adoption of the recommended 

standards and a follow-up letter from 

the parties to the Joint Agreement that 

more specifically described the 

recommended standards for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, and their rationale for entering 

into a negotiation to develop them.6

In accordance with the direct final 

rule provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), 

DOE has determined that the 

recommendations contained in the Joint 

Agreement are compliant with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). As required by 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)(i), DOE is also 

simultaneously publishing a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) that 

contains identical standards to those 

adopted in this direct final rule. 

Consistent with the statute, DOE is 

providing a 110-day public comment 

period on the direct final rule. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) If DOE determines 

that any comments received provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) 

or any other applicable law, DOE will 

publish the reasons for withdrawal and 

continue the rulemaking under the 

NOPR. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) See 

section II.A of this document for more 

details on DOE’s statutory authority. 

The amended standards that DOE is 

adopting in this direct final rule are the 

efficiency levels recommended in the 

Joint Agreement (shown in Tables I.1 

and I.2) expressed in terms of kilowatt 

hours per year (‘‘kWh/yr’’) as measured 

according to DOE’s current refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer test 

procedures codified at title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’), 

part 430, subpart B, appendices A 

(‘‘appendix A’’) and B (‘‘appendix B’’). 

The amended standards 

recommended in the Joint Agreement 

are represented as trial standard level 

(‘‘TSL’’) 4 in this document (hereinafter 

the ‘‘Recommended TSL’’) and are 

described in section V.A of this 

document. These standards apply to all 

products listed in Table I.1 and 

manufactured in, or imported into the 

United States starting on January 31, 

2029, and all products listed in Table I.2 

and manufactured in, or imported into, 

the United States starting on January 31, 

2030. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3028 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE I.1—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND

FREEZERS WITH CORRESPONDING DOOR COEFFICIENT TABLE

[Compliance starting January 31, 2029] 

Product class 

(‘‘PC’’) 

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.8.24AV + 238.4 + 28I ...................... 0.291av + 238.4 + 28I. 

3A–BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost ............................ (7.22AV + 205.7)*K3ABI .................. (0.255av + 205.7)*K3ABI. 

4–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer.(8.79AV + 307.4)*K4BI + 28I ........... (0.310av + 307.4)*K4BI + 28I. 

5–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer.(8.65AV + 309.9)*K5BI + 28I ........... (0.305av + 309.9)*K5BI + 28I. 

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer with through-the-door ice service.

(7.76AV + 351.9)*K5A ..................... (0.274av + 351.9)*K5A. 

5A–BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.(8.21AV + 370.7)*K5ABI .................. (0.290av + 370.7)*K5ABI. 

7–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer.(8.82AV + 384.1)*K7BI .................... (0.311av + 384.1)*K7BI. 

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

9–BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost ........................ (9.37AV + 247.9)*K9BI + 28I ........... (0.331av + 247.9)*K9BI + 28I. 

9A–BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost with throughthe-door ice service.9.86AV + 288.9 ................................ 0.348av + 288.9. 

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.7.68AV + 214.5 ................................ 0.271av + 214.5. 

11A. Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost ................................ 6.66AV + 186.2 ................................ 0.235av + 186.2. 

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost ............ (5.32AV + 302.2)*K12 ..................... (0.188av + 302.2)*K12. 

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer.10.62AV + 305.3 + 28I .................... 0.375av + 305.3 + 28I. 

13A. Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost ............................ (8.25AV + 233.4)*K13A ................... (0.291av + 233.4)*K13A. 

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer.6.14AV + 411.2 + 28I ...................... 0.217av + 411.2 + 28I. 

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer.10.62AV + 305.3 + 28I .................... 0.375av + 305.3 + 28I. 

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost ............................ 7.35AV + 191.8 ................................ 0.260av + 191.8. 

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost ........................ 9.15AV + 316.7 ................................ 0.323av + 316.7. 

18. Compact chest freezers ............................................................... 7.86AV + 107.8 ................................ 0.278av + 107.8. 

AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft3, as determined in appendices A and B of subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. 

av = Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters. 

I = 1 for a product with an automatic icemaker and = 0 for a product without an automatic icemaker. 

Door Coefficients (e.g., K3ABI) are as defined in the following table. 

Door coefficient 

Products with a 

transparent 

door 

Products without 

a transparent 

door with a 

door-in-door 

Products without a 

transparent door or 

door-in-door with 

added external doors 

K3ABI ............................................................................................................ 1.10 1.0 1.0. 

K4BI ............................................................................................................... 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K5BI ............................................................................................................... 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K5A ................................................................................................................ 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥3). 

K5ABI ............................................................................................................ 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥3). 

K7BI ............................................................................................................... 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K9BI ............................................................................................................... 1.0 1.0 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

K12 ................................................................................................................ 1.0 1.0 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

K13A .............................................................................................................. 1.10 1.0 1.0.

Notes: 

1 Nd is the number of external doors. 2The maximum Nd values are 2 for K12, 3 for K9BI, and 5 for all other K values. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3029 

7The average LCC savings refer to consumers that 

are affected by a standard and are measured relative 

to the efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case, which depicts the market in the 

compliance year in the absence of new or amended 

standards (see section IV.F.9 of this document). The 

simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific 

efficiency levels, is measured relative to the 

baseline product (see section IV.C of this 

document). 

TABLE I.2—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND

FREEZERS WITH CORRESPONDING DOOR COEFFICIENT TABLE

[Compliance starting January 31, 2030] 

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.

6.79AV + 191.3 ................................ 0.240av + 191.3. 

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost ................................................. 5.77AV + 164.6 ................................ 0.204av + 164.6. 

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost ............................ (6.79AV + 191.3)*K2 ....................... (0.240av + 191.3)*K2. 

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer.6.86AV + 198.6 + 28I ...................... 0.242av + 198.6 + 28I. 

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost ............................................. (6.01AV + 171.4)*K3A ..................... (0.212av + 171.4)*K3A. 

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer.(7.28AV + 254.9)*K4 + 28I .............. (0.257av + 254.9)*K4 + 28I. 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer.

(7.61AV + 272.6)*K5 + 28I .............. (0.269av + 272.6)*K5 + 28I. 

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.7.14AV + 280.0 ................................ 0.252av + 280.0. 

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.(7.31AV + 322.5)*K7 ....................... (0.258av + 322.5)*K7. 

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost ......................................... (7.33AV + 194.1)*K9 + 28I .............. (0.259av + 194.1)*K9 + 28I. 

AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft3, as determined in appendices A and B of subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. 

Av = Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters. 

I = 1 for a product with an automatic icemaker and = 0 for a product without an automatic icemaker. 

Door Coefficients (e.g., K3A) are as defined in the following table. 

Door coefficient 

Products with a 

transparent 

door 

Products without 

a transparent 

door with a 

door-in-door 

Products without a 

transparent door or 

door-in-door with 

added external doors 

K2 .................................................................................................................. 1.0 1.0 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

K4 .................................................................................................................. 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K3A ................................................................................................................ 1.10 1.0 1.0. 

K5 .................................................................................................................. 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K7 .................................................................................................................. 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K9 .................................................................................................................. 1.0 1.0 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

Notes: 

1 Nd is the number of external doors. 2The maximum Nd values are 2 for K2, and 5 for all other K values. 

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 

Table I.3 summarizes DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic impacts of 

the adopted standards on consumers of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, as measured by the average 

life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) savings and the 

simple payback period (‘‘PBP’’).7 The 

average LCC savings are positive for all 

product classes for which a standard is 

proposed, and the PBP is less than the 

average lifetime of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, which 

varies by product class (see section 

IV.F.7 of this document). 

TABLE I.3—IMPACTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATORFREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

[The recommended TSL] 

Product class 

Average LCC 

savings 

(2022$) 

Simple payback 

period 

(years) 

PC 3 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 50.91 4.8 

PC 5 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 55.23 5.6 

PC 5BI ................................................................................................................................................................. 91.13 2.1 

PC 5A .................................................................................................................................................................. 133.27 4.1 

PC 7 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 142.56 1.6 

PC 9 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 56.17 6.6 

PC 10 ................................................................................................................................................................... N/A N/A 

PC 11A (residential) ............................................................................................................................................ 8.35 2.1 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3030 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

8All monetary values in this document are 

expressed in 2022 dollars. 

9 DOE’s analysis period extends 30-years from the 

compliance year. The analysis period ranges from 

2023–2056 for the no-new-standards case and all 

TSLs, except for TSL 4 (the Recommended TSL). 

The analysis period for TSL 4 ranges from 2023– 

2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 

2023–2059 for the product classes listed in Table 

I.2. 

10The no-new-standards case INPV of $4.91 

billion reflects the sum of discounted free cash 

flows from 2023–2056 (from direct final rule 

publication to 30 years from the 2027 compliance 

date) plus a discounted terminal value. 

11The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) 

energy savings. FFC energy savings includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, processing, and 

transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, 

petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of energy efficiency 

standards. For more information on the FFC metric, 

see section of this document. 

12A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. 

Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented 

in short tons. 

13 DOE calculated emissions reductions relative 

to the no-new-standards-case, which reflects key 

assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook 2023 

(‘‘AEO2023’’). AEO2023 represents current Federal 

and State legislation and final implementation of 

regulations as of the time of its preparation. See 

section IV.K of this document for further discussion 

of AEO2023 assumptions that affect air pollutant 

emissions. 

14To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG 

emissions this analysis uses the interim estimates 

presented in the Technical Support Document: 

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide 

Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 

published in February 2021 by the IWG (‘‘February 

2021 SC–GHG TSD’’). www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupport

Document_SocialCostofCarbon

MethaneNitrousOxide.pdf. 

TABLE I.3—IMPACTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATORFREEZERS, AND FREEZERS—Continued 

[The recommended TSL] 

Product class 

Average LCC 

savings 

(2022$) 

Simple payback 

period 

(years) 

PC 11A (commercial) .......................................................................................................................................... 3.16 3.2 

PC 17 ................................................................................................................................................................... 36.86 4.1 

PC 18 ................................................................................................................................................................... 23.55 4.1 

Note: The compliance year for the Recommended TSL (i.e., TSL 4) varies by product class: 

2029: PCs 5BI, 5A, 10, 11A, 17, and 18. 

2030: PCs 3, 5, 7, and 9. 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

adopted standards on consumers is 

described in section IV.F of this 

document. 

B. Impact on Manufacturers 8

The industry net present value 

(‘‘INPV’’) is the sum of the discounted 

cash flows to the industry from the base 

year (2023) through the end of the 

analysis period, which is 30 years from 

the analyzed compliance date.9 Using a 

real discount rate of 9.1 percent, DOE 

estimates that the INPV for 

manufacturers of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in the 

case without amended standards is 

$4.91 billion.10 Under the adopted 

standards, which align with the 

Recommended TSL for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE 

estimates the change in INPV to range 

from ¥10.3 percent to ¥7.8 percent, 

which is approximately ¥$504.4 

million to ¥$383.5 million. In order to 

bring products into compliance with 

amended standards, it is estimated that 

industry will incur total conversion 

costs of $830.3 million. 

DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the 

adopted standards on manufacturers is 

described in sections IV.J and V.B.2 of 

this document. 

C. National Benefits and Costs 

DOE’s analyses indicate that the 

adopted energy conservation standards 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers would save a significant 

amount of energy. Relative to the case 

without amended standards, the lifetime 

energy savings for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the anticipated year of 

compliance with amended standards 

(2029–2058 for the product classes 

listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the 

product classes listed in Table I.2), 

amount to 5.6 quadrillion British 

thermal units (‘‘Btu’’), or quads.11 This 

represents a savings of 11 percent 

relative to the energy use of these 

products in the case without amended 

standards (referred to as the ‘‘no-newstandards case’’). 

The cumulative net present value 

(‘‘NPV’’) of total consumer benefits of 

the standards for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers ranges 

from $9.0 billion (at a 7-percent 

discount rate) to $27.0 billion (at a 3- 

percent discount rate). This NPV 

expresses the estimated total value of 

future operating cost savings minus the 

estimated increased product costs for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers purchased in 2029–2058 for the 

product classes listed in Table I.1 and 

2030–2059 for the product classes listed 

in Table I.2. 

In addition, the adopted standards for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers are projected to yield significant 

environmental benefits. DOE estimates 

that the standards will result in 

cumulative emission reductions (over 

the same period as for energy savings) 

of 100.8 million metric tons (‘‘Mt’’) 12 of 

carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’), 31.6 thousand 

tons of sulfur dioxide (‘‘SO2’’), 186.1 

thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 

(‘‘NOX’’), 846.5 thousand tons of 

methane (‘‘CH4’’), 1.0 thousand tons of 

nitrous oxide (‘‘N2O’’), and 0.2 tons of 

mercury (‘‘Hg’’).13

DOE estimates the value of climate 

benefits from a reduction in greenhouse 

gases (‘‘GHG’’) using four different 

estimates of the social cost of CO2 (‘‘SC– 

CO2’’), the social cost of methane (‘‘SC– 

CH4’’), and the social cost of nitrous 

oxide (‘‘SC–N2O’’). Together these 

represent the social cost of GHG (‘‘SC– 

GHG’’). DOE used interim SC–GHG 

values developed by an Interagency 

Working Group on the Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases (‘‘IWG’’).14 The 

derivation of these values is discussed 

in section IV.L of this document. For 

presentational purposes, the climate 

benefits associated with the average SC– 

GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are 

estimated to be $5.0 billion. DOE does 

not have a single central SC–GHG point 

estimate and it emphasizes the 

importance and value of considering the 

benefits calculated using all four sets of 

SC–GHG estimates. 

DOE estimated the monetary health 

benefits of SO2 and NOX emissions 

reductions, using benefit-per-ton 

estimates from the scientific literature, 

as discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. DOE estimated the present 

value of the health benefits would be 

$3.4 billion using a 7-percent discount 

rate, and $9.8 billion using a 3-percent 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3031 

15 DOE estimates the economic value of these 

emissions reductions resulting from the considered 

TSLs for the purpose of complying with the 

requirements of Executive Order 12866. 

discount rate.15 DOE is currently only 

monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5

precursor health benefits and (for NOX) 

ozone precursor health benefits, but will 

continue to assess the ability to 

monetize other effects such as health 

benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5

emissions. 

Table I.4 summarizes the monetized 

benefits and costs expected to result 

from the amended standards for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. There are other important 

unquantified effects, including certain 

unquantified climate benefits, 

unquantified public health benefits from 

the reduction of toxic air pollutants and 

other emissions, unquantified energy 

security benefits, and distributional 

effects, among others. 

TABLE I.4—SUMMARY OF MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ADOPTED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

[The recommended TSL] 

Billion 

(2022$) 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ..................................................................................................................................................... 36.4 

Climate Benefits * ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5.0 

Health Benefits ** ................................................................................................................................................................................. 9.8 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................................................................................. 51.2 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .............................................................................................................................................. 9.4 

Net Benefits .................................................................................................................................................................................. 41.8 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡ ............................................................................................................................................ (0.50)–(0.38) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ..................................................................................................................................................... 14.0 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) .................................................................................................................................................. 5.0 

Health Benefits ** ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3.4 

Total Benefits † ............................................................................................................................................................................. 22.5 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .............................................................................................................................................. 5.0 

Net Benefits .................................................................................................................................................................................. 17.5 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡ ............................................................................................................................................ (0.50)–(0.38) 

Note: This table presents present value (in 2022$) of the costs and benefits associated with refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

shipped in 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and shipped in 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. These results include benefits which accrue after 2058/9 from the products shipped in 2029/30–2058/9. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2), methane (SC–CH4), and nitrous oxide 

(SC–N2O) (model average at 2.5-percent, 3-percent, and 5-percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3-percent discount rate) (see section IV.L of 

this document). Together these represent the global SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the 

average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; however DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates 

presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 

13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include those consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be quantified and monetized. For presentation purposes, 

total and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but 

DOE does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated 

using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. 

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life-cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See 

sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE’s national impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’) includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced 

by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE models manufacturers’ pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, 

cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the 

present value of all changes in industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. 

Change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 9.1 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule technical support document (‘‘TSD’’) for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, those values are ¥$504 million to ¥$383 million. DOE accounts for 

that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range 

of impacts to the INPV under two markup scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario 

used in the calculation of Consumer Operating Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this direct final rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, 

which is consistent with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the net benefit calculation for this direct final 

rule, the net benefits would range from $41.3 billion to $41.4 billion at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $17.0 billion to $17.1 billion 

at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate negative values. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3032 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

16To convert the time-series of costs and benefits 

into annualized values, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2022, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 

benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 

with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 

shipments occur (e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then 

discounted the present value from each year to 

2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated 

the fixed annual payment over a 30-year period, 

starting in the compliance year, that yields the same 

present value. 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The monetary 

values for the total annualized net 

benefits are (1) the reduced consumer 

operating costs, minus (2) the increase 

in product purchase prices and 

installation costs, plus (3) the value of 

climate and health benefits of emission 

reductions, all annualized.16

The national operating cost savings 

are domestic private U.S. consumer 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered products and 

are measured for the lifetime of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers shipped in 2029–2058 for the 

product classes listed in Table I.1 and 

shipped in 2030–2059 for the product 

classes listed in Table I.2. The benefits 

associated with reduced emissions 

achieved as a result of the adopted 

standards are also calculated based on 

the lifetime of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers shipped in 2029– 

2058 for the product classes listed in 

Table I.1 and shipped in 2030–2059 for 

the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 

7-percent cases are presented using the 

average GHG social costs with 3-percent 

discount rate. Estimates of SC–GHG 

values are presented for all four 

discount rates in section IV.L of this 

document. 

Table I.5 presents the total estimated 

monetized benefits and costs associated 

with the proposed standard, expressed 

in terms of annualized values. The 

results under the primary estimate are 

as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced NOX and SO2

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

cost of the standards adopted in this 

rule is $590.5 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual monetized benefits are 

$1.7 billion in reduced equipment 

operating costs, $303.8 million in 

climate benefits, and $410.6 million in 

health benefits. In this case, the net 

benefit would amount to $1.8 billion per 

year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the standards is $567.5 million per year 

in increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual monetized benefits are 

$2.2 billion in reduced operating costs, 

$303.8 million in climate benefits, and 

$592.9 million in health benefits. In this 

case, the net benefit would amount to 

$2.5 billion per year. 

TABLE I.5—ANNUALIZED MONETIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ADOPTED STANDARDS FOR REFRIGERATORS, 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

[TSL 4, the recommended TSL] 

Million 

(2022$/year) 

Primary 

estimate 

Low-net-benefits 

estimate 

High-net-benefits 

estimate 

3% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................................... 2,200.5 2,023.9 2,326.6

Climate Benefits * ..................................................................................................... 303.8 291.8 307.9 

Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................................... 592.9 569.7 600.7 

Total Benefits † ................................................................................................. 3,097.2 2,885.4 3,235.2 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .................................................................. 567.5 666.6 547.8 

Net Benefits ...................................................................................................... 2,529.6 2,218.8 2,687.4 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡ ................................................................ (49)–(37) (49)–(37) (49)–(37) 

7% discount rate 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......................................................................... 1,667.0 1,541.9 1,758.5

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ...................................................................... 303.8 291.8 307.9 

Health Benefits ** ..................................................................................................... 410.6 395.8 415.7 

Total Benefits † ................................................................................................. 2,381.4 2,229.5 2,482.0 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .................................................................. 590.5 677.9 569.6 

Net Benefits ...................................................................................................... 1,790.9 1,551.6 1,912.5 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV) ‡‡ ................................................................ (49)–(37) (49)–(37) (49)–(37) 

Note: This table presents present value (in 2022$) of the costs and benefits associated with refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

shipped in 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and shipped in 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. These results include benefits which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and shipped in 

2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high 

decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational 

purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3033 

17Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

18The TSD is available in the docket for this 

rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2017-BT-STD-0003/document. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE 

does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. 

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life-cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See 

sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE’s NIA includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the 

increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also 

separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE 

models manufacturers’ pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry 

cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 9.1 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, those values are ¥$48.7 million to ¥$37.0 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL 

is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup 

scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating 

Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to 

increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized 

change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this direct final rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent 

with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this direct final rule, the 

annualized net benefits would range from $2,480.9 million to $2,492.6 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $1,742.2 million to 

$1,753.9 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate negative values. 

DOE’s analysis of the national impacts 

of the adopted standards is described in 

sections IV.H, IV.K, and IV.L of this 

document. 

D. Conclusion 

DOE has determined that the Joint 

Agreement was submitted jointly by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of 

view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A). After considering the 

recommended standards and weighing 

the benefits and burdens, DOE has 

determined that the recommended 

standards are in accordance with 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o), which contains the 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards. Specifically, the Secretary 

has determined that the adoption of the 

recommended standards would result in 

the significant conservation of energy 

and is the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. In 

determining whether the recommended 

standards are economically justified, the 

Secretary has determined that the 

benefits of the recommended standards 

exceed the burdens. The Secretary has 

further concluded that the 

recommended standards, when 

considering the benefits of energy 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, emission reductions, the 

estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions, and positive 

average LCC savings, would yield 

benefits that outweigh the negative 

impacts on some consumers and on 

manufacturers, including the conversion 

costs that could result in a reduction in 

INPV for manufacturers. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and NOX

and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3- 

percent discount rate case for GHG 

social costs, the estimated cost of the 

standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers is $590.5 million 

per year in increased product costs, 

while the estimated annual monetized 

benefits are $1.7 billion in reduced 

product operating costs, $303.8 million 

in climate benefits, and $410.6 million 

in health benefits. The net monetized 

benefit amounts to $1.8 billion per year. 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.17 For example, some 

covered products and equipment have 

most of their energy consumption occur 

during periods of peak energy demand. 

The impacts of these products on the 

energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 

relatively constant demand. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis. 

As previously mentioned, the 

standards are projected to result in 

estimated national energy savings of 5.6 

quads (full-fuel cycle (‘‘FFC’’)), the 

equivalent of the primary annual energy 

use of 37 million homes. In addition, 

they are projected to reduce CO2

emissions by 100.8 Mt. Based on these 

findings, DOE has determined the 

energy savings from the standard levels 

adopted in this direct final rule are 

‘‘significant’’ within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more detailed 

discussion of the basis for these 

conclusions is contained in the 

remainder of this document and the 

accompanying TSD.18

Under the authority provided by 42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE is issuing this 

direct final rule amending the energy 

conservation standards for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 

Consistent with this authority, DOE is 

also simultaneously publishing 

elsewhere in this Federal Register a 

NOPR proposing standards that are 

identical to those contained in this 

direct final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)(i). 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this direct final rule, as well 

as some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of 

EPCA established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles. 

These products include refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, the 

subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(1)) EPCA prescribed energy 

conservation standards for these 

products (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(1)), and 

directed DOE to conduct future 

rulemakings to determine whether to 

amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(b)(3)) EPCA further provides that, 

not later than 6 years after the issuance 

of any final rule establishing or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3034 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

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

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6296). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant 

waivers of Federal preemption in 

limited instances for particular State 

laws or regulations, in accordance with 

the procedures and other provisions set 

forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6297(d)) 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(Ir)) 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 pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers appear at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix A, Uniform Test 

Method for Measuring the Energy 

Consumption of Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products 

(‘‘appendix A’’), and appendix B, 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Freezers 

(‘‘appendix B’’). 

DOE must follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. Any new or 

amended standard for a covered product 

must be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 

determines is technologically feasible 

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

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

6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may 

not adopt any standard that would not 

result in the significant conservation of 

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

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard (1) for certain products, 

including refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, if no test 

procedure has been established for the 

product, or (2) if DOE determines by 

rule that the standard is not 

technologically feasible or economically 

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

In deciding whether a proposed 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 

this determination after receiving 

comments on the proposed standard, 

and by considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, the following seven 

statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the 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 standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) considers relevant. 

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

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing 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. (42 U.S.C. 

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

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that 

the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States in 

any covered product type (or class) of 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the 

United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

EPCA specifies requirements when 

promulgating an energy conservation 

standard for a covered product that has 

two or more subcategories. A rule 

prescribing an energy conservation 

standard for a type (or class) of product 

must specify a different standard level 

for a type or class of products that has 

the same function or intended use if 

DOE determines that products within 

such group (A) consume a different kind 

of energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE 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)) 

Additionally, pursuant to the 

amendments contained in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(‘‘EISA 2007’’), Public Law 110–140, 

final rules for new or amended energy 

conservation standards promulgated 

after July 1, 2010, are required to 

address standby mode and off mode 

energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) 

Specifically, when DOE adopts a 

standard for a covered product after that 

date, it must, if justified by the criteria 

for adoption of standards under EPCA 

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

mode and off mode energy use into a 

single standard, or, if that is not feasible, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3035 

adopt a separate standard for such 

energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) DOE’s current test 

procedures and standards for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers address standby mode and off 

mode energy use, as do the amended 

standards adopted in this direct final 

rule. 

Finally, EISA 2007 amended EPCA, in 

relevant part, to grant DOE authority to 

issue a final rule (i.e., a ‘‘direct final 

rule’’) establishing an energy 

conservation standard upon receipt of a 

statement submitted jointly by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

(including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates), as 

determined by the Secretary, that 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy or water conservation 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the 

Secretary must also determine whether 

a jointly-submitted recommendation for 

an energy or water conservation 

standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 

The direct final rule must be 

published simultaneously with a NOPR 

that proposes an energy or water 

conservation standard that is identical 

to the standard established in the direct 

final rule, and DOE must provide a 

public comment period of at least 110 

days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)–(B)) While DOE typically 

provides a comment period of 60 days 

on proposed standards, for a NOPR 

accompanying a direct final rule, DOE 

provides a comment period of the same 

length as the comment period on the 

direct final rule—i.e., 110 days. Based 

on the comments received during this 

period, the direct final rule will either 

become effective, or DOE will withdraw 

it not later than 120 days after its 

issuance if: (1) one or more adverse 

comments is received, and (2) DOE 

determines that those comments, when 

viewed in light of the rulemaking record 

related to the direct final rule, may 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal of the direct final rule under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B), or any other applicable 

law. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of 

an alternative joint recommendation 

may also trigger a DOE withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the same manner. 

(Id.) 

DOE has previously explained its 

interpretation of its direct final rule 

authority. In a final rule amending the 

Department’s ‘‘Procedures, 

Interpretations and Policies for 

Consideration of New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards for Consumer 

Products’’ at 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

C, appendix A, DOE noted that it may 

issue standards recommended by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relative points of view 

as a direct final rule when the 

recommended standards are in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 

6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 

70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But the 

direct final rule provision in EPCA does 

not impose additional requirements 

applicable to other standards 

rulemakings, which is consistent with 

the unique circumstances of rules 

issued as consensus agreements under 

DOE’s direct final rule authority. Id. 

DOE’s discretion remains bounded by 

its statutory mandate to adopt a 

standard that results in the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified—a requirement 

found in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Id. As such, 

DOE’s review and analysis of the Joint 

Agreement is limited to whether the 

recommended standards satisfy the 

criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In a final rule published on 

September 15, 2011 (‘‘September 2011 

Final Rule’’), DOE prescribed the 

current energy conservation standards 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers manufactured on and after 

September 15, 2014. 76 FR 57516. These 

standards are set forth in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(a). 

2. Current Test Procedure 

On December 23, 2019, DOE 

published a test procedure NOPR 

(‘‘December 2019 TP NOPR’’) proposing 

to amend residential refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer test 

procedure. 84 FR 70842. On October 12, 

2021, DOE published a test procedure 

final rule (‘‘October 2021 TP Final 

Rule’’) establishing test procedures for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendices A (‘‘appendix A’’) and B 

(‘‘appendix B’’). 86 FR 56790. The test 

procedure adopted the latest version of 

the relevant industry standard 

published by the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’), 

updated in 2019, AHAM Standard HRF– 

1, ‘‘Energy and Internal Volume of 

Refrigerating Appliances’’ (‘‘HRF–1– 

2019’’). 10 CFR 430.3(i)(4). The standard 

levels proposed in the NOPR are based 

on the annual energy use (‘‘AEU’’) 

metrics as measured according to 

appendices A and B. 

History of Standards Rulemaking for 

Consumer Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers 

The National Appliance Energy 

Conservation Act of 1987 (‘‘NAECA’’), 

Public Law 100–12, amended EPCA to 

establish prescriptive standards for 

refrigeration products, with 

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). 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. 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. 

DOE initiated a rulemaking and also 

published a notice announcing the 

availability of the framework document 

and a public meeting to discuss the 

document in September 2008. It also 

requested public comment on the 

published 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. DOE 

published a final rule on September 15, 

2011, to satisfy 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 final 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3036 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

19The signatories to the Joint Agreement include 

AHAM, American Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, Alliance for Water Efficiency, Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project, Consumer Federation 

of America, Consumer Reports, Earthjustice, 

National Consumer Law Center, Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 

Members of AHAM’s Major Appliance Division that 

manufacture the affected products include: Alliance 

Laundry Systems, LLC; Asko Appliances AB; Beko 

US Inc.; Brown Stove Works, Inc.; BSH; Danby 

Products, Ltd.; Electrolux Home Products, Inc.; 

Elicamex S.A. de C.V.; Faber; Fotile America; GEA, 

a Haier Company; L’Atelier Paris Haute Design LLG; 

LG Electronics USA; Liebherr USA, Co.; Midea 

America Corp.; Miele, Inc.; Panasonic Appliances 

Refrigeration Systems (PAPRSA) Corporation of 

America; Perlick Corporation; Samsung; Sharp 

Electronics Corporation; Smeg S.p.A; Sub-Zero 

Group, Inc.; The Middleby Corporation; U-Line 

Corporation; Viking Range, LLC; and Whirlpool. 

20The Joint Agreement contained 

recommendations for 6 covered products: 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; 

clothes washers; clothes dryers; dishwashers; 

cooking products; and miscellaneous refrigeration 

products. 

21The term sheet is available in the docket at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BTSTD-0003-0103. 

rule published on September 15, 2011. 

76 FR 57516. 

4. The Joint Agreement 

On September 25, 2023, DOE received 

a joint statement (i.e., the Joint 

Agreement) recommending standards 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers that was submitted by 

groups representing manufacturers, 

energy and environmental advocates, 

consumer groups, and a utility.19 In 

addition to the recommended standards 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers, the Joint Agreement also 

included separate recommendations for 

several other covered products.20 And, 

while acknowledging that DOE may 

implement these recommendations in 

separate rulemakings, the Joint 

Agreement also stated that the 

recommendations were recommended 

as a complete package and each 

recommendation is contingent upon the 

other parts being implemented. DOE 

understands this to mean that the Joint 

Agreement is contingent upon DOE 

initiating rulemaking processes to adopt 

all of the recommended standards in the 

agreement. That is distinguished from 

an agreement where issuance of an 

amended energy conservation standard 

for a covered product is contingent on 

issuance of amended energy 

conservation standards for the other 

covered products. If the Joint Agreement 

were so construed, it would conflict 

with the anti-backsliding provision in 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1), because it would 

imply the possibility that, if DOE were 

unable to issue an amended standard for 

a certain product, it would have to 

withdraw a previously issued standard 

for one of the other products. The antibacksliding provision, however, 

prevents DOE from withdrawing or 

amending an energy conservation 

standard to be less stringent. As a result, 

DOE will be proceeding with individual 

rulemakings that will evaluate each of 

the recommended standards separately 

under the applicable statutory criteria. 

The Joint Agreement recommends 

amended standard levels for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers as presented in Table II.3. (Joint 

Agreement, No. 103 at p. 4) Details of 

the Joint Agreement recommendations 

for other products are provided in the 

Joint Agreement posted in the docket.21

TABLE II.3—RECOMMENDED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL REFRIGERATORS, 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

Product class Level 

(Based on AV (ft3)) Compliance date 

1. Refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators 

with manual defrost.

6.79AV + 191.3 ................................ January 31, 2030. 

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost ................................................. 5.77AV + 164.6.

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost ............................ (6.79AV + 191.3)*K2.

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer.6.86AV + 198.6 +28I.

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost ............................................. (6.01AV + 171.4)*K3A.

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer.7.28AV + 254.9 ................................ January 31, 2030. 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer.

(7.61AV +272.6)*K5 + 28I ............... January 31, 2030. 

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer with through-the-door ice service.

(7.76AV + 351.9)*K5A ..................... January 31, 2029. 

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.7.14AV + 280.0 ................................ January 31, 2030. 

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.(7.31AV + 322.5)*K7 ....................... January 31, 2030. 

8. Upright freezers with manual defrost ............................................. 5.57AV + 193.7 ................................ January 31, 2029. 

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost ......................................... 7.33AV + 194.1 + 28I ...................... January 31, 2030. 

10. Chest freezers and all other freezers except compact freezers .. 7.29AV + 107.8 ................................ January 31, 2029. 

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost ....................................... 10.24AV + 148.1 .............................. January 31, 2029. 

11. Compact refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost.7.68AV + 214.5 ................................ January 31, 2029. 

11A. Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost ................................ 6.66AV + 186.2.

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost ............ (5.32AV + 302.2)*K12 ..................... January 31, 2029. 

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with topmounted freezer.10.62AV + 305.3 +28I ..................... January 31, 2029. 

13A. Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost ............................ (8.25AV + 233.4)*K13A.

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer.6.14AV + 411.2 + 28I.

15. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer.10.62AV + 305.3 + 28I.

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost ............................ 7.35AV + 191.8 ................................ January 31, 2029. 

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost ........................ 9.15AV + 316.7 ................................ January 31, 2029. 

18. Compact chest freezers ............................................................... 7.86AV + 107.8 ................................ January 31, 2029. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3037 

22The parenthetical reference provides a 

reference for information located in the docket of 

DOE’s rulemaking to develop energy conservation 

standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers (Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–STD–0003, 

which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The 

references are arranged as follows: (commenter 

name, comment docket ID number, page of that 

document). 

TABLE II.3—RECOMMENDED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL REFRIGERATORS, 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS—Continued 

Product class Level 

(Based on AV (ft3)) Compliance date 

3–BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer.8.24AV + 238.4 + 28I ...................... January 31, 2029. 

3A–BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost ............................ (7.22AV + 205.7)*K3ABI.

4–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer.8.79AV + 307.4 + 28I ...................... January 31, 2029. 

5–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer.(8.65AV + 309.9)*K5BI + 28I ........... January 31, 2029. 

5A–BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottommounted freezer with through-the-door ice service.(8.21AV + 370.7)*K5ABI .................. January 31, 2029. 

7–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with sidemounted freezer.(8.82AV + 384.1)*K7BI .................... January 31, 2029. 

9–BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost ........................ 9.37AV + 247.9 + 28I ...................... January 31, 2029. 

9A–BI. NEW PRODUCT CLASS: Upright built-in freezer w/auto defrost and through-door-ice.9.86AV + 288.9 ................................ January 31, 2029. 

AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft3, as determined in appendices A and B of subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. 

Av = Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters. 

I = 1 for a product with an automatic icemaker and = 0 for a product without an automatic icemaker. Door Coefficients (e.g., K3A) are as defined in Table I.2. 

Door coefficient 

Products with a 

transparent 

door 

Products without 

a transparent 

door with a 

door-in-door 

Products without a 

transparent door or 

door-in-door with 

added external doors 

K2 .................................................................................................................. N/A N/A 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

K3A ................................................................................................................ 1.10 N/A N/A. 

K3ABI ............................................................................................................ 1.10 N/A N/A. 

K13A .............................................................................................................. 1.10 N/A N/A.

K4 .................................................................................................................. 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K4BI ............................................................................................................... 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K5 .................................................................................................................. 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K5BI ............................................................................................................... 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K5A ................................................................................................................ 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥3). 

K5ABI ............................................................................................................ 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥3). 

K7 .................................................................................................................. 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K7BI ............................................................................................................... 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K9 .................................................................................................................. N/A N/A 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

K9BI ............................................................................................................... N/A N/A 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

K12 ................................................................................................................ N/A N/A 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

Note: Nd is the number of external doors. 

DOE notes that it was conducting a 

rulemaking to consider amending the 

standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers when the Joint 

Agreement was submitted. As part of 

that process, on February 27, 2023, DOE 

published a NOPR and announced a 

public webinar (‘‘February 2023 

NOPR’’) seeking comment on its 

proposed amended standard to inform 

its decision consistent with its 

obligations under EPCA and the 

Administrative Procedure Act (‘‘APA’’). 

88 FR 12452. DOE held a public 

webinar on April 11, 2023, to discuss 

and receive comments on the NOPR and 

NOPR TSD. The NOPR TSD is available 

at: www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003-0045. 

Although DOE is adopting the Joint 

Agreement as a direct final rule and no 

longer proceeding with its own 

rulemaking, DOE did consider relevant 

comments, data, and information 

obtained during that rulemaking process 

in determining whether the 

recommended standards from the Joint 

Agreement are in accordance with 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). Any discussion of 

comments, data, or information in this 

direct final rule that were obtained 

during DOE’s own prior rulemaking will 

include a parenthetical reference that 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.22

III. General Discussion 

DOE is issuing this direct final rule 

after determining that the recommended 

standards submitted in the Joint 

Agreement meet the requirements in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). More specifically, 

DOE has determined that the 

recommended standards were submitted 

by interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

and the recommended standards satisfy 

the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

A. Scope of Coverage 

This direct final rule covers those 

consumer products that meet the 

definition of ‘‘refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, and freezer’’ as codified at 10 

CFR 430.2. 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered products into product 

classes by the type of energy used, or by 

capacity, or based upon performancerelated features that justify a higher or 

lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In 

making a determination whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3038 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

23 DOE also presents a sensitivity analysis that 

considers impacts for products shipped in a 9-year 

period. 

24The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s 

statement of policy and notice of policy 

amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 

amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). 

different standard, DOE must consider 

such factors as the utility of the feature 

to the consumer and other factors DOE 

determines are appropriate. Id. 

The Joint Agreement proposed special 

door and multi-door energy allowances 

for product classes if manufacturers 

offer models with those features. Energy 

allowances applied to energy use 

equations correspond to performancerelated features that would then justify 

new product classes for those 

configurations with special door and 

multi-door designs. The proposed 

approach also embeds within the energy 

use equations the difference between 

classes that are otherwise identical 

except for presence of an icemaker, 

using a logical variable I (equal to 1 for 

a product with an icemaker and equal 

to 0 for a product without an icemaker) 

multiplied by the constant icemaker 

energy use adder. 

The structure simplification and 

amendments in the Joint Agreement are 

consistent with those proposed by DOE 

in the February 2023 NOPR. Based on 

the comments received in response to 

the February 2023 NOPR and DOE’s 

evaluation of the Joint Agreement, the 

direct final rule adopts these changes. 

See section IV.A.1 of this document for 

further detail and discussion regarding 

the product classes analyzed in this 

direct final rule. 

B. Fairly Representative of Relevant 

Points of View 

Under the direct final rule provision 

in EPCA, recommended energy 

conservation standards must be 

submitted by interested persons that are 

fairly representative of relevant points 

of view (including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates) as 

determined by DOE. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)) With respect to this 

requirement, DOE notes that the Joint 

Agreement included a trade association, 

AHAM, which represents 20 

manufacturers of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The 

Joint Agreement also included 

environmental and energy-efficiency 

advocacy organizations, consumer 

advocacy organizations, and a gas and 

electric utility company. Additionally, 

DOE received a letter in support of the 

Joint Agreement from the States of New 

York, California, and Massachusetts (see 

comment No. 104). DOE also received a 

letter in support of the Joint Agreement 

from the gas and electric utility, SDG&E, 

and the electric utility, SCE (see 

comment No. 107). As a result, DOE has 

determined that the Joint Agreement 

was submitted by interested persons 

who are fairly representative of relevant 

points of view. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In each energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, DOE conducts a screening 

analysis based on information gathered 

on all current technology options and 

prototype designs that could improve 

the efficiency of the products or 

equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. As the first step in such an 

analysis, DOE develops a list of 

technology options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

DOE then determines which of those 

means for improving efficiency are 

technologically feasible. DOE considers 

technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. Sections 

6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C (‘‘Process 

Rule’’). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety and (4) unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. Section 

7(b)(2)–(5) of the Process Rule. Section 

IV.B of this document discusses the 

results of the screening analysis for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, particularly the designs DOE 

considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the standards 

considered in this rulemaking. For 

further details on the screening analysis 

for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

When DOE proposes to 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(o)(2)(A)) Accordingly, in the 

engineering analysis, DOE determined 

the maximum technologically feasible 

(‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy 

efficiency for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 

working prototypes. The max-tech 

levels that DOE determined for this 

rulemaking are described in section IV.C 

of this document and in chapter 5 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each trial standard level (‘‘TSL’’), 

DOE projected energy savings from 

application of the TSL to refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

purchased in the 30-year period that 

begins in the year of compliance with 

the amended standards (2027–2056 for 

all TSLs other than TSL 4; for TSL 4, 

2029–2058 for the product classes listed 

in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the 

product classes listed in Table I.2).23

The savings are measured over the 

entire lifetime of products purchased in 

the 30-year analysis period. DOE 

quantified the energy savings 

attributable to each TSL as the 

difference in energy consumption 

between each standards case and the nonew-standards case. The no-newstandards case represents a projection of 

energy consumption that reflects how 

the market for a product would likely 

evolve in the absence of amended 

energy conservation standards. 

DOE used its national impact analysis 

(‘‘NIA’’) spreadsheet models to estimate 

national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) from 

potential amended standards for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. The NIA spreadsheet model 

(described in section IV.H of this 

document) calculates energy savings in 

terms of site energy, which is the energy 

directly consumed by products at the 

locations where they are used. For 

electricity, DOE reports national energy 

savings in terms of primary energy 

savings, which is the savings in the 

energy that is used to generate and 

transmit the site electricity. For natural 

gas, the primary energy savings are 

considered to be equal to the site energy 

savings. DOE also calculates NES in 

terms of full-fuel cycle (‘‘FFC’’) energy 

savings. The FFC metric includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 

fuels), and thus presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards.24 DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products or 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3039 

25Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration in New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for 

Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment, 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

equipment. For more information on 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.H.2 

of this document. 

2. Significance of Savings 

To adopt any new or amended 

standards for a covered product, DOE 

must determine that such action would 

result in significant energy savings. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

The significance of energy savings 

offered by a new or amended energy 

conservation standard cannot be 

determined without knowledge of the 

specific circumstances surrounding a 

given rulemaking.25 For example, some 

covered products and equipment have 

most of their energy consumption occur 

during periods of peak energy demand. 

The impacts of these products on the 

energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 

relatively constant demand. However, 

residential refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers have loads that are 

more consistent throughout the year. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis, taking into account the 

significance of cumulative FFC national 

energy savings, the cumulative FFC 

emissions reductions, and the need to 

confront the global climate crisis, among 

other factors. 

As stated, the standard levels adopted 

in this direct final rule are projected to 

result in national energy savings of 5.6 

quads (FFC), the equivalent of the 

primary annual energy use of 37 million 

homes. Based on the amount of FFC 

savings, the corresponding reduction in 

emissions, and need to confront the 

global climate crisis, DOE has 

determined the energy savings from the 

standard levels adopted in this direct 

final rule are ‘‘significant’’ within the 

meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Specific Criteria 

As noted previously, EPCA provides 

seven factors to be evaluated in 

determining whether a potential energy 

conservation standard is economically 

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

(VII)) The following sections discuss 

how DOE has addressed each of those 

seven factors in this rulemaking. 

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of 

potential amended standards on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts an MIA, 

as discussed in section IV.J of this 

document. DOE first uses an annual 

cash flow approach to determine the 

quantitative impacts. This step includes 

both a short-term assessment—based on 

the cost and capital requirements during 

the period between when a regulation is 

issued and when entities must comply 

with the regulation—and a long-term 

assessment over a 30-year period. The 

industry-wide impacts analyzed include 

(1) INPV, which values the industry on 

the basis of expected future cash flows; 

(2) cash flows by year; (3) changes in 

revenue and income; and (4) other 

measures of impact, as appropriate. 

Second, DOE analyzes and reports the 

impacts on different types of 

manufacturers, including impacts on 

small manufacturers. Third, DOE 

considers the impact of standards on 

domestic manufacturer employment and 

manufacturing capacity, as well as the 

potential for standards to result in plant 

closures and loss of capital investment. 

Finally, DOE takes into account 

cumulative impacts of various DOE 

regulations and other regulatory 

requirements on manufacturers. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and payback period (‘‘PBP’’) 

associated with new or amended 

standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value of the consumer costs and 

benefits expected to result from 

particular standards. DOE also evaluates 

the impacts of potential standards on 

identifiable subgroups of consumers 

that may be affected disproportionately 

by a standard. 

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

To Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price of, or in the 

initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of, the covered product that 

are likely to result from a standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts 

this comparison in its LCC and PBP 

analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating cost 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as product prices, product energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and discount rates appropriate 

for consumers. 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. 

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 

due to a more stringent standard by the 

change in annual operating cost for the 

year that standards are assumed to take 

effect. 

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the covered products in the first year of 

compliance with new or amended 

standards. The LCC savings for the 

considered efficiency levels are 

calculated relative to the case that 

reflects projected market trends in the 

absence of new or amended standards. 

DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.F of this document. 

c. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) 

As discussed in section IV.H of this 

document, DOE uses the NIA 

spreadsheet models to project national 

energy savings. 

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE 

evaluates potential standards that would 

not lessen the utility or performance of 

the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data 

available to DOE, the standards adopted 

in this document would not reduce the 

utility or performance of the products 

under consideration in this rulemaking. 

e. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General, that is likely to result 

from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the 

Attorney General to determine the 

impact, if any, of any lessening of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3040 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

competition likely to result from a 

standard and to transmit such 

determination to the Secretary within 60 

days of the publication of a proposed 

rule, together with an analysis of the 

nature and extent of the impact. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will 

transmit a copy of this direct final rule 

to the Attorney General with a request 

that the Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOE will consider DOJ’s comments on 

the rule in determining whether to 

withdraw the direct final rule. DOE will 

also publish and respond to the DOJ’s 

comments in the Federal Register in a 

separate document. 

f. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

DOE also considers the need for 

national energy and water conservation 

in determining whether a new or 

amended standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) 

The energy savings from the adopted 

standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the Nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity, as discussed in section IV.M of 

this document. 

DOE maintains that environmental 

and public health benefits associated 

with the more efficient use of energy are 

important to take into account when 

considering the need for national energy 

conservation. The adopted standards are 

likely to result in environmental 

benefits in the form of reduced 

emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases (‘‘GHGs’’) associated 

with energy production and use. DOE 

conducts an emissions analysis to 

estimate how potential standards may 

affect these emissions, as discussed in 

section IV.K of this document; the 

estimated emissions impacts are 

reported in section V.B.6 of this 

document. DOE also estimates the 

economic value of emissions reductions 

resulting from the considered TSLs, as 

discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. 

g. Other Factors 

In determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified, DOE may consider any other 

factors that the Secretary deems to be 

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

To the extent DOE identifies any 

relevant information regarding 

economic justification that does not fit 

into the other categories described 

previously, DOE could consider such 

information under ‘‘other factors.’’ 

2. Rebuttable Presumption 

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’s 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 effect potential amended 

energy conservation standards would 

have on the payback period for 

consumers. These analyses include, but 

are not limited to, the 3-year payback 

period contemplated under the 

rebuttable-presumption test. In addition, 

DOE routinely conducts an economic 

analysis that considers the full range of 

impacts to consumers, manufacturers, 

the Nation, and the environment, as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 

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

analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s 

evaluation of the economic justification 

for a potential standard level (thereby 

supporting or rebutting the results of 

any preliminary determination of 

economic justification). The rebuttablepresumption payback calculation is 

discussed in section IV.F of this 

document. 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this rulemaking 

with regard to refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. Separate 

subsections address each component of 

DOE’s analyses, including relevant 

comments DOE received during its 

separate rulemaking to amend the 

energy conservation standards for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers prior to receiving the Joint 

Agreement. 

DOE used several analytical tools to 

estimate the impact of the standards 

considered in this document. The first 

tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the 

LCC savings and PBP of potential 

amended or new energy conservation 

standards. The national impacts 

analysis uses a second spreadsheet set 

that provides shipments projections and 

calculates national energy savings and 

net present value of total consumer 

costs and savings expected to result 

from potential energy conservation 

standards. DOE uses the third 

spreadsheet tool, the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model (‘‘GRIM’’), to 

assess manufacturer impacts of potential 

standards. These three spreadsheet tools 

are available on the DOE website for this 

rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/ 

docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003. 

Additionally, DOE used output from the 

latest version of the Energy Information 

Administration’s (‘‘EIA’s’’) Annual 

Energy Outlook (‘‘AEO’’) for the 

emissions and utility impact analyses. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the products. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this 

rulemaking include (1) a determination 

of the scope of the rulemaking and 

product classes, (2) manufacturers and 

industry structure, (3) existing 

efficiency programs, (4) shipments 

information, (5) market and industry 

trends, and (6) technologies or design 

options that could improve the energy 

efficiency of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. The key findings 

of DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized in the following sections. 

See chapter 3 of the direct final rule 

TSD for further discussion of the market 

and technology assessment. 

1. Product Classes 

The Joint Agreement specifies 32 

product classes for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. (Joint 

Agreement, No. 103 at p. 15–16) In 

particular, the Joint Agreement 

recommends a consolidated product 

class representation which incorporates 

icemaker energy adders and door 

allowances into the energy use 

equations for product classes in which 

they are applicable. In addition, the Join 

Agreement proposes a new product 

class—upright built-in freezers with 

automatic defrost and through-the-door 

ice service (‘‘9A–BI’’). (Id.) In this direct 

final rule, DOE is adopting the product 

classes from the Joint Agreement, as 

listed in Table IV.1. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3041 

26EPCA specifies that DOE may not prescribe an 

amended or new standard if the Secretary finds 

(and publishes such finding) that interested persons 

have established by a preponderance of the 

evidence that the standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States in any covered 

product type (or class) of performance 

characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the United 

States at the time of the Secretary’s finding. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) 

TABLE IV.1—RECOMMENDED AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL REFRIGERATORS, 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

Product class 

1. Refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators with manual defrost. 

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost. 

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost. 

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

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost. 

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

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer. 

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

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. 

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

10A. Chest freezers with automatic defrost. 

11. Compact refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators other than all-refrigerators 

with manual defrost. 

11A. Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost. 

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost. 

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

13A. Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost 

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. 

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

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

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

5–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer. 

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. 

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

9A–BI. NEW PRODUCT CLASS: 

Upright built-in freezer w/auto defrost and through-door-ice. 

DOE further notes that product classes 

established through EPCA’s direct final 

rule authority are not subject to the 

criteria specified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) 

for establishing product classes. 

Nevertheless, in accordance with 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)—which is applicable 

to direct final rules—DOE has 

concluded that the standards adopted in 

this direct final rule will not result in 

the unavailability in any covered 

product type (or class) of performance 

characteristics, features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as those generally 

available in the United States 

currently.26 DOE’s findings in this 

regard are discussed in detail in section 

V.B.4 of this document. 

a. Product Classes With Automatic 

Icemakers 

The Joint Agreement includes a 

proposed simplification of maximum 

allowable energy and would express the 

maximum allowable energy use for both 

icemaking and non-icemaking classes in 

the same equation, thus consolidating 

the presentation of classes and their 

energy conservation standards. The 

energy use equations will, for those 

classes that may or may not have an 

icemaker, include a term equal to the 

icemaking energy use adder multiplied 

by a factor that is defined to equal 1 for 

products with icemakers and to equal 

zero for products without icemakers. 

This approach does not combine classes 

that are the same other than the 

presence of an icemaker, but does 

simplify the list of classes and 

representation of their maximum 

allowable energy use, providing for each 

set of classes with and without ice 

makers a single equation for maximum 

energy use. (88 FR 12452) 

DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement 

proposal to express the maximum 

allowable energy use for any set of 

classes differing only in whether the 

class includes an icemaker or not within 

a single equation. The single equation 

does this by including the icemaker 

energy use adder multiplied by logical 

variable I that is set equal to 1 for a 

product with an icemaker present and 0 

for a product without an icemaker. 

b. Special Door and Multi-Door Designs 

The Joint Agreement made 

recommendations to establish new 

product classes for models that 

implement special and multi-door 

designs. The standards for these product 

classes include energy allowances (i.e., 

specific increases in maximum 

allowable energy use) corresponding to 

the specific performance-related 

features (i.e., door-in-door designs, 

transparent doors, and multi-door 

designs). The allowances include a 2- 

percent energy use allowance for each 

externally opening door in excess of the 

typical minimum for the class, a 6- 

percent total energy use allowance for a 

product with a door-in-door feature 

implemented in one or more of its 

doors, and a 10-percent total energy use 

allowance for a product with a 

transparent door or doors. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3042 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

27CERA is an updated version of the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Refrigerator 

Analysis (‘‘ERA’’) program. Earlier versions have 

been used in previous refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, and freezer energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. CERA allows for the simulation of 

thermal load on refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers based of the inputs given for various 

parameters including cabinet design, compartment 

dimensions, door design, operating temperatures, 

controls, anti-sweat heat, and more. More 

information regarding the software is found in the 

direct final rule TSD. 

In this direct final rule, DOE is 

implementing the recommended special 

door and multi-door energy allowances. 

DOE’s direct rulemaking authority 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) is 

constrained only by the requirements of 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o), which does not 

include the product class requirements 

in 42 U.S.C. 6295(q). DOE is relying on 

the product classes provided in the Joint 

Agreement for consideration in this 

rule, but DOE notes that special doors 

(i.e., transparent doors and door-in-door 

features) and multi-door setups 

constitute performance-related features 

that provide consumer utility when 

implemented. Transparent doors allow 

for partial view into the interior of fresh 

food compartments without the need for 

a door opening. Door-in-door features 

generally allow for access to a partially 

separated fresh food compartment 

without the need to fully expose the 

main interior fresh food compartment. 

Multi-door setups provide at least one 

additional externally opening door 

accessing either an existing 

compartment or a separate 

compartment, thus providing additional 

options for storage and access to food 

for the consumer. 

Furthermore, DOE’s analysis of these 

features suggests that special door and 

multi-door designs impact energy usage 

with some combinations accounting for 

additional energy consumption of up to 

25 percent (based on CERA 

simulations).27 DOE notes that the 

additional energy usage results from 

additional thermal load associated with 

additional gasket length necessary for 

multi-door and door-in-door features, 

and associated with the higher thermal 

conductivity of transparent doors 

compared to solid doors of the same 

size. DOE also proposed similar special 

door and multi-door energy allowances 

in the February 2023 NOPR and finds 

that the recommended allowances in the 

Joint Agreement are justifiable on a 

similar basis in light of the analysis DOE 

performed to develop the allowances 

proposed in the NOPR. See chapter 5 of 

the direct final rule TSD for more 

information on DOE’s analysis of special 

door and multi-door features. 

For the reasons previously discussed, 

DOE is adopting the Joint Agreement 

recommendations to establish new 

product classes for models that 

implement special and multi-door 

designs. 

Energy Use Allowance—Application 

AHAM, Sub Zero Group, Inc. (‘‘Sub 

Zero’’), and Samsung also recommended 

that DOE apply the door coefficient to 

PC 4, PC 4–BI, PC 9, and PC 9–BI, as 

these classes have products offering 

multi-door setups or special doors that 

provide similar customer utility. 

(AHAM, No. 69 at p. 8; Sub Zero, No. 

77 at p. 4; Samsung, No. 78 at p. 3) True 

Manufacturing (‘‘TRUE’’) similarly 

stated that PC 4I and PC 4, and any 

other product classes with transparent 

doors, should have the same transparent 

door allowance as PC 5A and PC 5. 

(TRUE, No. 57 at pp. 1–2) 

DOE’s assessment regarding the 

energy impact of designs featuring 

multi-door and special door setups 

warranted the proposal of energy 

allowances for classes where such 

features are offered. DOE reviewed the 

market and requested input from 

commenters related to existing models 

on the market in an effort to assess the 

prevalence of multi-door designs or 

special doors in products on the market 

today and concluded that there likely 

exist such models in PC 4I, PC 4I–BI, PC 

9, and PC 9–BI that implement multidoor setups, special doors, or both. 

Therefore, DOE is adopting the multidoor and transparent door energy 

allowances for PC 4, PC 4I, PC 4–BI, PC 

4I–BI, PC 9, and PC 9–BI consistent with 

feature availability. PC 4, PC 4I, PC 4– 

BI, and PC 4I–BI will be eligible for 

transparent door and multi-door 

allowances, while PC 9, and PC 9–BI 

will be eligible for the multi-door 

allowance. The magnitude and 

application of the allowances adopted 

for the aforementioned product classes 

are consistent with those recommended 

in the Joint Agreement. DOE notes that 

PC 4 and PC 4–BI will be eligible for a 

2 percent allowance for each additional 

door for products without a transparent 

door or door-in-door with added 

external doors, a 6 percent allowance for 

products without a transparent door 

with a door-in-door, or a 10 percent 

transparent door allowance for the use 

of a qualifying transparent door. PC 9 

and PC 9–BI will be eligible for a 2 

percent allowance for each additional 

door up to two additional doors. 

Energy Use Allowance—Definitions 

The Joint Agreement includes the 

following recommended definition for a 

transparent door: 

• Transparent door means a door for 

which 40 percent or more of the surface 

area—as determined based on the area 

of the transparent portion of the door 

divided by the product of the maximum 

width and height dimension of the 

door—is transparent to allow viewing 

into the refrigerated compartment. 

• Conceptually, the parties 

recommend that DOE clarify that 

products with only very small door or 

drawers that are transparent should not 

be included in this definition—i.e., the 

door must be large enough to justify the 

allowance. 

Upon further consideration of the 

February 2023 NOPR proposed 

transparent door definition, the 

feedback received from stakeholders, 

and the Joint Agreement submitted by 

interested parties, including AHAM, 

DOE conducted further market research 

into available models with transparent 

panels, generating a list of models from 

various manufacturers and product 

classes representative of the units 

currently on the market that implement 

transparent doors. From this list, DOE 

determined transparent panel and door 

area based on product literature, inperson measurements, or use of scaled 

photographs. DOE then determined the 

percentage of the door covered by the 

transparent area for each model 

considered. DOE found that the 

transparent door on a French door 

configuration typically had roughly 40 

percent or more of the total outer door 

area transparent, consistent with the 

percentage recommended in the Joint 

Agreement. Other configurations, such 

as two door bottom-mount refrigeratorfreezers and compact refrigerators had 

54 percent or more of their outer door 

area transparent. Based on this 

assessment and consideration of the 

Joint Agreement recommendations, DOE 

is adopting a modified definition from 

the February 2023 NOPR for transparent 

doors to better align with the products 

on the market, as follows: 

Transparent door means an external 

fresh food compartment door which 

meets the following criteria: 

• The area of the transparent portion 

of the door is at least 40 percent of the 

area of the door. 

• The area of the door is at least 50 

percent of the sum of the areas of all the 

external doors providing access to the 

fresh food compartments and cooler 

compartments. 

• For the purposes of this evaluation, 

the area of a door is determined as the 

product of the maximum height and 

maximum width dimensions of the 

door, not considering potential 

extension of flaps used to provide a seal 

to adjacent doors. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3043 

DOE notes that this amended 

transparent door definition not only 

aligns with the typical implementation 

on the market, as previously described, 

but also is a more straightforward 

approach compared to those 

recommended and referenced by 

commenters. Specifically, DOE expects 

that the suggested approach based on 

the internal cabinet dimensions has 

some potential for questions about 

interpretation, given the fact that the 

interior dimensions could vary from the 

front of the cabinet to the rear. This 

could lead to varying internal cabinet 

area determinations. Therefore, in order 

to eliminate this potential variation, 

DOE is adopting the above definition 

and approach that simplifies the 

determination of the transparent door 

area by measuring and determining the 

area of the transparent portion divided 

by the product of the maximum height 

and width dimensions of the door. 

Energy Use Allowance—Summary 

In summary, in this direct final rule 

DOE is adopting the multi-door and 

special door energy use allowances as 

proposed in the Joint Agreement, with 

the specified amendments as previously 

discussed. 

c. Addition of Product Class 9A–BI 

The Joint Agreement recommends the 

addition of a new product class 9A–BI 

(i.e., built-in upright freezers with 

automatic defrost and with through-thedoor ice service) and specific energy 

efficiency standards for the new product 

class. The current energy conservation 

standards for freezers do not include a 

separate product class for products of 

this configuration, and DOE has not 

previously considered establishing a 

separate product class for them because 

it has not been aware of the existence of 

such products on the market, nor has it 

previously been notified by any 

manufacturer of the potential 

introduction of such a product. Under 

the current product class structure, any 

such product would most appropriately 

fit into current class 9I–BI (i.e., built-in 

upright freezers with automatic defrost 

with an automatic icemaker), since there 

is no class that fits this description and 

also has through-the-door ice service. 

Hence, in the absence of a product class 

for this configuration, such products 

would be subject to the current PC 9I– 

BI standards, which would, under the 

approach for designating classes and 

standards provided in this direct final 

rule, correspond to class grouping 9–BI 

with the icemaker variable I in the 

standards equation equal to 1, 

indicating addition of the 28 kWh/year 

icemaker energy use. 

Considering that the recommendation 

carries support from a broad crosssection of interests, including trade 

associations representing these 

manufacturers, environmental and 

energy-efficiency advocacy 

organizations, consumer advocates, and 

electric utility providers as well as the 

support of several States, DOE believes 

it appropriate to adopt this new product 

class, 9A–BI. DOE notes that the 

addition of a PC 9A–BI, as suggested by 

the Joint Agreement, is warranted as the 

application of a through-the-door 

icemaker constitutes a performance 

related feature with consumer utility 

and is likely to be introduced on the 

market in the near future. 

DOE notes the standard as 

recommended by the Joint Agreement 

for PC 9A–BI is 5 percent higher than 

that of PC 9I–BI (built-in upright 

freezers with automatic defrost with an 

automatic icemaker). When considering 

class 9A–BI and 9I–BI, the key 

difference is the addition of throughthe-door ice service, and the potential 

additional thermal load associated with 

its addition. Therefore, the 5 percent 

adjustment between 9I–BI and 9A–BI 

can be attributed mainly to the addition 

of through-the-door ice service. When 

comparing recommended standards to 

other product classes in which the key 

difference is the addition of throughthe-door ice (i.e., 5I vs. 5A and 4I vs. 7), 

the 5 percent adjustment remains 

consistent with DOE’s adopted 

standards. As a result of this 

consistency, DOE believes the 

recommended standard is appropriate 

in its application. 

Given the indication from the 

aforementioned stakeholders that such a 

product class standard would be 

beneficial in its implementation, the 

classification of through-the-door ice as 

a performance related feature, and the 

recommendation’s consistency with the 

other adopted standards, DOE is 

adopting a PC 9A–BI standard in this 

direct final rule. 

See section V of this document for 

more information regarding the TSL 

configuration and discussion of the 

adopted level for this product class. See 

chapter 5 of the direct final rule TSD for 

more discussion regarding the addition 

of this product class. 

2. Technology Options 

In the preliminary market analysis 

and technology assessment, DOE 

identified 37 technology options 

initially determined to improve the 

efficiency of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, as measured by 

the DOE test procedure: 

TABLE IV.1—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE NOPR 

Insulation: 

1. Improved resistivity of insulation (insulation type). 

2. Inert blowing fluid CO2. 

3. Increased insulation thickness. 

4. Gas-filled insulation panels. 

5. Vacuum-insulated panels (‘‘VIP’’). 

Gasket and Door Design: 

6. Improved gaskets. 

7. Double door gaskets. 

8. Improved door face frame. 

9. Reduced heat load for through-the-door (‘‘TTD’’) feature. 

Anti-Sweat Heater: 

10. Condenser hot gas (Refrigerant anti-sweat heating). 

11. Electric anti-sweat heater sizing. 

12. Electric heater controls. 

Compressor: 

13. Improved compressor efficiency. 

14. Variable-speed compressors. 

15. Linear compressors. 

Evaporator: 

16. Increased surface area. 

17. Improved heat exchange. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3044 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.1—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE NOPR—Continued 

Condenser: 

18. Increased surface area. 

19. Microchannel condenser. 

20. Improved heat exchange. 

21. Force convection condenser. 

Defrost System: 

22. Reduced energy for automatic defrost. 

23. Adaptive defrost. 

24. Condenser hot gas defrost. 

Control System: 

25. Electronic Temperature control. 

26. Anti-Distribution control. 

Other Technologies: 

27. Fan and fan motor improvements. 

28. Improved expansion valve. 

29. Fluid control or solenoid off-cycle valve. 

30. Alternative refrigerants. 

31. Component location. 

32. Phase change materials. 

Alternative Refrigeration Cycles: 

33. Ejector refrigerator. 

34. Dual-evaporator systems. 

35. Two-stage system. 

36. Dual-loop system. 

37. Lorenz-Meutzner cycle. 

B. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following four screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies 

that are not incorporated in commercial 

products or in commercially viable, existing 

prototypes will not be considered further. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, 

and service. If it is determined that mass 

production of a technology in commercial 

products and reliable installation and 

servicing of the technology could not be 

achieved on the scale necessary to serve the 

relevant market at the time of the projected 

compliance date of the standard, then that 

technology will not be considered further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility. If a 

technology is determined to have a 

significant adverse impact on the utility of 

the product to subgroups of consumers, or 

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 be considered further. 

(4) Safety of technologies. If it is 

determined that a technology would have 

significant adverse impacts on health or 

safety, it will not be considered further. 

(5) Unique-pathway proprietary 

technologies. If a technology has proprietary 

protection and represents a unique pathway 

to achieving a given efficiency level, it will 

not be considered further, due to the 

potential for monopolistic concerns. 

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix 

A, sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b). 

In summary, if DOE determines that a 

technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the listed five criteria, it will be 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. The reasons 

for eliminating any technology are 

discussed in the following sections. 

The subsequent sections include 

comments from interested parties 

pertinent to the screening criteria, 

DOE’s evaluation of each technology 

option against the screening analysis 

criteria, and whether DOE determined 

that a technology option should be 

excluded (‘‘screened out’’) based on the 

screening criteria. 

1. Screened-Out Technologies 

In conducting the screening analysis 

for this direct final rule, DOE 

considered comments it had received in 

response to the screening analysis 

conducted for the February 2023 NOPR. 

In the February 2023 NOPR, DOE 

screened out the technologies presented 

in Table II.2 on the basis of 

technological feasibility, practicability 

to manufacture, install, and service, 

adverse impacts on utility or 

availability, adverse impacts on health 

and safety, and/or unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. 

TABLE IV.2—TECHNOLOGIES SCREENED-OUT IN THE NOPR 

Improved Gaskets, Double Gaskets, and Improved Door Face Frame. 

Linear Compressors. 

Fluid Control or Solenoid Off-Cycle Valves. 

Improved Evaporator Heat Exchange. 

Improved Condenser Heat Exchange. 

Forced-Convection Condenser. 

Condenser Hot Gas Defrost. 

Compressor Location at Top. 

Evaporator Fan Motor Location Outside Cabinet. 

Air Distribution Control. 

Phase Change Materials. 

Lorenz-Meutzner Cycle. 

Dual-Loop Systems. 

Two-Stage System. 

Ejector Refrigerator. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3045 

28Whirlpool. ‘‘Whirlpool Corporation Partners 

with Honeywell, Announces Use of Next 

Generation Solstice® Liquid Blowing Agent in U.S. 

Refrigerators,’’ January 2014. www.prnewswire.com/ 

news-releases/whirlpool-corporation-partners-withhoneywell-announces-use-of-next-generationsolstice-liquid-blowing-agent-in-us-refrigerators241489581.html (accessed July 13, 2023). 

29Rametta, R.S., Boeng, J., and Melo, C. 

‘‘Theoretical and Experimental Evaluation of 

Microchannel Condensers Applied to Household 

Refrigerators,’’ International Refrigeration and Air 

Conditioning Conference, 2018, Paper 1843. 

TABLE IV.2—TECHNOLOGIES SCREENED-OUT IN THE NOPR—Continued 

Improved VIPs. 

Inert Blowing Fluid CO2. 

GEA recommended that DOE screen 

out ‘‘improved resistivity of foam,’’ 

which is primarily hydrofluoro-olefin 

(‘‘HFO’’) foams, as a technology option. 

GEA stated that HFO foams represent a 

unique and proprietary technology 

pathway and that the two listed by DOE 

in the February 2023 NOPR TSD— 

Solstice LBA and Ecomate—should be 

excluded through the technology 

screening analysis. GEA stated that 

Solstice LBA, an HFO foam blowing 

agent is only produced by a single 

manufacturer, Honeywell, and should 

therefore be screened out from 

consideration in DOE’s technology 

assessment in this rulemaking. GEA 

noted that Ecomate has no proven 

commercialization in modern consumer 

refrigerators or freezers. (GEA, No. 75 at 

pp. 4–5) 

As discussed in the February 2023 

NOPR, HFO foams are retained as a 

design option and passed the screening 

analysis because the technology option 

meets the five criteria previously 

mentioned. While GEA notes Ecomate 

has no proven commercialization in 

modern consumer refrigerators or 

freezer, as discussed in more detail in 

section 3.4.2.1 of the February 2023 

NOPR TSD, improved resistivity foams 

such as Solstice have been implemented 

in refrigerator-freezer models in the 

United States, as of at least 2014 28 and 

DOE has not received information 

regarding negative impacts to product 

utility or impracticability to 

manufacture or service products using 

improved resistivity foam. Some of the 

improved blowing agents reviewed by 

DOE (e.g., CO2) have been found to be 

non-flammable and lower in GWP than 

traditional insulation. DOE 

acknowledges that Solstice LBA is 

patented by Honeywell but included 

other potential technologies such as 

added carbon black and CO2 blowing 

agents in its assessment. Therefore, as a 

technology option, DOE maintains that 

HFO foams meet the prerequisites to be 

included past the screening analysis. 

However, because DOE could not 

determine the type of foam used in the 

directly analyzed models from 

teardowns or based on the feedback 

from manufacturers, DOE found that 

there was an insufficient basis to 

implement this design option as a 

means to increase energy efficiency in 

either the February 2023 NOPR or this 

direct final rule analysis. 

An individual commented that 

microchannel condensers should not be 

retained as a design option, citing issues 

with implementation in the HVAC 

industry. The individual also stated that 

increased insulation thickness should 

not be retained as a design option, citing 

lessening of consumer utility. 

(Individual Commenter, No. 59 at p. 1) 

DOE has observed implementation of 

microchannel heat exchangers in PC 5I, 

PC 5A, and several built-in product 

classes. DOE has also received no 

information regarding negative impacts 

in consumer utility or safety, and 

therefore, DOE retained microchannel 

condensers as a design option in this 

analysis As with the HFO foam design 

option, while microchannel condensers 

passed the screening analysis, this 

design option was not included as a 

design pathway to achieve higher 

efficiency levels in the direct final rule 

analysis due to potential system 

operation drawbacks including irregular 

refrigerant distribution, greater 

refrigerant-side pressure drop, and 

greater air-side pressure drop.29

DOE expects that increased insulation 

thickness would impact either the 

interior or exterior dimensions of a 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or 

freezer, and as a result did not consider 

increased insulation thickness as a 

design option to achieve the higher 

efficiency levels for standard-size 

refrigerator-freezers. However, DOE 

expects that there is potential to 

increase insulation thickness for some 

types of freezers and compact 

refrigerators, given their typical use in 

in spaces that allow increased exterior 

dimensions, and therefore continues to 

consider increased thickness as a design 

option to achieve higher efficiency 

levels for PC 10, PC 11A, and PC 18. 

2. Remaining Technologies

Through a review of each technology,

DOE concludes that all of the other 

identified technologies listed in section 

IV.B.1 met all five screening criteria to

be examined further as design options

in DOE’s direct final rule analysis. In

summary, DOE did not screen out the

following technology options:

TABLE IV.3—TECHNOLOGIES REMAINING IN THE DIRECT FINAL RULE

Insulation: 

1. Improved resistivity of insulation (insulation type.

2. Increased insulation thickness.

3. Gas-filled insulation panels.

4. Vacuum-insulated panel.

Gasket and Door Design: 

5. Reduced heat load for TTD feature.

Anti-Sweat Heater: 

6. Refrigerant anti-sweat heating.

7. Electric anti-sweat heater sizing.

8. Electric heater controls.

Compressor: 

9. Improved compressor efficiency.

10. Variable-speed compressors.

Evaporator: 

11. Improved expansion valve.


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3046 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.3—TECHNOLOGIES REMAINING IN THE DIRECT FINAL RULE—Continued 

12. Increased surface area. 

13. Dual-evaporator systems. 

Condenser: 

14. Increased surface area. 

15. Microchannel condenser. 

Defrost System: 

16. Reduced energy for automatic defrost. 

17. Adaptive defrost. 

Control System: 

18. Electronic Temperature control. 

Other Technologies: 

19. Fan and fan motor improvements. 

20. Alternative refrigerants. 

DOE determined that these 

technology options are technologically 

feasible because they are being used or 

have previously been used in 

commercially available products or 

working prototypes. DOE also finds that 

all of the remaining technology options 

meet the other screening criteria (i.e., 

practicable to manufacture, install, and 

service and do not result in adverse 

impacts on consumer utility, product 

availability, health, or safety). For 

additional details, see chapter 4 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

C. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. There are two elements to 

consider in the engineering analysis: the 

selection of efficiency levels to analyze 

(i.e., the ‘‘efficiency analysis’’) and the 

determination of product cost at each 

efficiency level (i.e., the ‘‘cost 

analysis’’). In determining the 

performance of higher-efficiency 

products, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each product class, DOE estimates 

the baseline cost, as well as the 

incremental cost for the product/ 

equipment at efficiency levels above 

baseline. The output of the engineering 

analysis is a set of cost-efficiency 

‘‘curves’’ that are used in downstream 

analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses 

and the NIA). 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing products (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for the analysis are 

determined through detailed 

engineering calculations and/or 

computer simulations of the efficiency 

improvements from implementing 

specific design options that have been 

identified in the technology assessment. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual products on the market) may be 

extended using the design option 

approach either to establish ‘‘gap fill’’ 

levels (to bridge large gaps between 

other identified efficiency levels) and/or 

to extrapolate to the ‘‘max-tech’’ level 

(particularly in cases where the ‘‘maxtech’’ level exceeds the maximum 

efficiency level currently available on 

the market). 

In defining the efficiency levels for 

this direct final rule, DOE considered 

comments it had received in response to 

the efficiency levels proposed in the 

February 2023 NOPR. 

For its analysis in this rulemaking, 

DOE used a combined efficiency level 

and design option approach. First, an 

efficiency-level approach was used to 

establish an analysis tied to existing 

products on the market. A design option 

approach was used to extend the 

analysis through ‘‘built-down’’ 

efficiency levels and ‘‘built-up’’ 

efficiency levels where there were gaps 

in the range of efficiencies of products 

that were reverse engineered. Products 

from PC 3, PC 5, PC 5A, PC 5-BI, PC 7, 

PC 9, PC 10, PC 11A, and PC 18 were 

tested and torn down to provide 

information to lay the groundwork for 

the analysis. Other product classes such 

as 9-BI (and the new PC 9A-BI 

recommended by the Joint Agreement) 

were not directly analyzed as a part of 

DOE’s analysis, as they were not 

deemed sufficiently representative of 

the market. A number of other product 

classes were indirectly analyzed, based 

on relevant directly analyzed product 

classes. DOE’s analysis for PC-9BI, for 

example, is based on the directly 

analyzed PC 9. 

DOE used design option analysis 

techniques to extend the analysis to 

higher efficiency levels and to fill any 

efficiency level gaps. DOE generally 

focuses its analysis on product classes 

with higher market share as their energy 

impact and associated energy savings 

are the most significant. Therefore, for 

this direct final rule analysis DOE chose 

to test and teardown units from the 

product classes listed above that 

represent a significant market share, and 

extrapolated the analysis to all other 

product classes that were not directly 

analyzed, as appropriate. 

a. Built-In Products 

For the analysis supporting this direct 

final rule, DOE used an assessment of 

PC 5-BI (built-in refrigerator-freezer 

with bottom-mounted freezer) to 

address built-in products. DOE 

conducted analysis for a representative 

5-BI product and compared it to 

analysis conducted for freestanding 

models of class 5. DOE concluded that 

a built-in model that is comparable to a 

freestanding model except the built-in 

configuration would have 5 percent 

higher energy use. Therefore, for 

example, the potential reduction in 

energy use for built-in PC 5 units would 

be 5 percent lower than their 

freestanding counterparts, based on the 

implementation of the same design 

options to satisfy a higher efficiency 

level. DOE has applied this 5-percent 

differential in selecting standard levels 

for other built-in classes for which DOE 

did not conduct direct analysis (e.g., PC 

3A, PC 7, and PC 9). More information 

on the analysis of built-in product 

classes is available in the direct final 

rule TSD. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3047 

30See the October 12, 2021, final rule for test 

procedures for refrigeration products for more 

information regarding the adoption of the 28 kWh/ 

yr icemaker adder. 86 FR 56790. 

31See www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQOAR-2021-0044-0223 for more information 

regarding the environmental protection agency’s 

final rule regarding the phasedown of 

hydrofluorocarbons. 

32EnergyStar, ‘‘Refrigerators & Freezers Key 

Product Criteria,’’ www.energystar.gov/products/ 

appliances/refrigerators/key_product_criteria 

(accessed July 14, 2023). 

b. Baseline Efficiency/Energy Use 

For each product/equipment class, 

DOE generally selects a baseline model 

as a reference point for each class, and 

measures changes resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

against the baseline. The baseline model 

in each product/equipment class 

represents the characteristics of a 

product/equipment typical of that class 

(e.g., capacity, physical size). Generally, 

a baseline model is one that just meets 

current energy conservation standards, 

or, if no standards are in place, the 

baseline is typically the most common 

or least efficient unit on the market. 

When selecting units for the analysis 

DOE selects units at baseline from 

various manufacturers for each directly 

analyzed product class. 

In determining the baseline efficiency 

level for this direct final rule analysis, 

DOE maintained the same approach as 

the February 2023 NOPR, and 

considered the current Federal energy 

conservation standards as the baseline 

level, expressed as maximum annual 

energy consumption as a function of the 

product’s adjusted volume, adjusting for 

the change in the automatic icemaker 

energy contribution for product classes 

that include this feature. The current 

standards incorporate an allowance of a 

constant 84 kWh/yr icemaker adder for 

product classes with automatic 

icemakers, consistent with the current 

test procedure, which requires adding 

this amount of annual energy use to the 

product’s tested performance if the 

product has an automatic icemaker. 

DOE adjusted the baseline energy usage 

levels for each class to account for the 

planned revision in the test procedure 

to reduce the icemaker energy use adder 

to 28 kWh/yr.30

DOE directly analyzed a sample of 

market representative models from 

within nine product classes from 

multiple manufactures. For most 

product classes a single representative 

adjusted volume was analyzed, though 

for PC 3, PC 5, and PC 11, DOE directly 

analyzed two representative adjusted 

volumes within the product class. DOE 

tested and tore down 13 baseline units 

to provide a basis for development of 

the cost-efficiency curves. DOE’s 

analysis assumed that all baseline 

models implement R-600a refrigerant, 

based on feedback during manufacturer 

interviews suggesting the industry has 

or is in the process of shifting to lowGWP refrigerants, in particular away 

from R-134a, in accordance with 

regulatory efforts to phasedown of 

hydrofluorocarbons.31 Further 

information on the design 

characteristics of specific analyzed 

baseline models is summarized in the 

direct final rule TSD. 

BSH disagreed with DOE’s use of HFO 

foam as representative of a baseline 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and/or 

freezer’s insulation in the February 2023 

NOPR, citing high environmental 

impact of the insulation, and 

encouraged DOE to remove HFO foam 

from baseline analysis. (BSH, No. 64 at 

pp. 1-2) AHAM also suggested that 

considering HFO foam at baseline 

efficiency levels is inappropriate and 

result in an artificially high baseline 

efficiency, excessively stringent 

standards for high-volume product 

classes, and negative environmental 

impacts. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 4-5) 

DOE was unable to determine the type 

of insulation used in teardown models 

and subsequently considered PU 

insulation at the baseline level for all 

product classes in the February 2023 

NOPR and in this direct final rule. 

Furthermore, as described in section 

IV.B.2 of this document, DOE retained 

the improved insulation resistivity 

design option (i.e., HFOs) through the 

screening analysis, though DOE did not 

utilize it as a design to achieve higher 

efficiency levels in the engineering 

analysis. DOE further notes, that BSH 

and AHAM are parties to the Joint 

Agreement and are supportive of the 

recommended standard adopted in this 

direct final rule. 

c. Higher Efficiency Levels 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

maintained the same approach as the 

February 2023 NOPR, and analyzed up 

to five incremental efficiency levels 

beyond the baseline for each of the 

analyzed product classes. For PC 3 and 

PC 7, DOE considered an efficiency 

level at roughly 5 percent more efficient 

than the current energy conservation 

standard. For all product classes, DOE 

considered a level near 10 percent more 

efficient than the current energy 

conservation standard, equivalent to the 

current ENERGY STAR® level for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers.32 DOE then extended the 

efficiency levels (‘‘ELs’’) in steps of 

close to 5 percent of the current energy 

conservation standard up to EL 4, using 

applicable technologies as discussed in 

sections IV.A.2 and IV.B of this 

document. Finally, for all product 

classes, EL 5 represents ‘‘max-tech,’’ 

using design option analysis to extend 

the analysis beyond EL 4 using all 

applicable design options, including the 

most efficient variable-speed 

compressors available on the market, 

and considerable use of vacuuminsulated panels (‘‘VIPs’’) in key areas of 

the cabinet walls and doors. The 

efficiency levels analyzed beyond the 

baseline are shown in Table IV.4. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3048 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.4—INCREMENTAL

EFFICIENCY

LEVELS FOR

ANALYZED

PRODUCTS

[% Energy use less than baseline] 33

Product 

Class 

(AV, ft) 

Standard-size refrigerator Standard-size 

freezers 

Compact refrigerators 

and freezers 

3 

(11.9) 

(%) 

3 

(20.6) 

(%) 

5** 

(23.0) 

(%) 

5** 

(30.0) 

(%) 

5A** 

(35.0) 

(%) 

5–BI 

(26.0) 

(%) 

7 

(31.5) 

(%) 

9 

(29.3) 

(%) 

10 

(26.0) 

(%) 

11A 

(1.7) 

(%) 

11A 

(4.4) 

(%) 

17 

(9.0) 

(%) 

18 

(8.9) 

(%) 

EL 1 .......... 5% 5% 8% 7% * 11% * 10% 5% * 10% * 10% * 10% * 10% * 10% 10% EL 2 .......... * 10% * 10% * 13% * 11% 16% 15% * 10% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% EL 3 .......... 15% 15% 18% 15% 22% 16% 15% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% EL 4 .......... 20% 20% 20% 17% ..................... ..................... 19% 25% 23% 32% 30% ..................... 30% EL 5 .......... 27% 28% ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... 22% ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... ..................... .....................

* Efficiencies at or slightly better than the ENERGY STAR® efficiency of 10% 

** Percentages are based on a 3-door configuration. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3049 

33 DOE notes the recommended TSL for this 

direct final rule is TSL 4, discussed further in 

section V.A of this document. 

34 ‘‘Development of Nanoporous Materials for the 

Production of Vacuum-Insulated Panels (VIPs),’’ 

European Commission, January 2017. Available at 

cordis.europa.eu/article/id/190833-insulationnanomaterials-for-energyefficient-refrigerators (last 

accessed October 15, 2020). 

d. VIP Analysis and Max-Tech Levels 

As discussed in the previous section, 

DOE’s NOPR analysis considered the 

use of VIPs placed throughout the side 

walls and doors at max-tech levels for 

many product classes. 

AHAM disagreed with the extent of 

VIP use at higher efficiency levels in the 

engineering analysis, asserting that DOE 

overestimates the use and impact of 

VIPs in its analysis, despite 

acknowledging the technology’s 

limitations. AHAM cited panel cost, in 

the form of labor and production costs, 

which are significant due to complex 

installation requirements, processing 

controls, and quality checks. AHAM 

also cited lower effectiveness in smaller 

units due to ‘‘edge effects’’ (i.e., heat 

around the edges caused by the 

membrane film that forms the walls of 

the VIP). AHAM suggested that DOE not 

overestimate the impact of VIPs in its 

analysis, considering that VIPs are not 

used in a majority of products and 

manufacturers have reported varied 

levels of success using the technology. 

(AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 5–6) 

DOE’s implementation of VIPs in the 

analyses at each stage of this rulemaking 

is based on a combination of the best 

information gathered from multiple 

sources related to cost, use, and energy 

efficiency impacts. DOE did not 

specifically account for edge effect 

impacts on thermal load for compact 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or 

freezer models in its analysis. Regarding 

VIP pricing, DOE estimated VIP panel, 

installation, processing, and quality 

check costs based on a number of 

discussions with refrigerator 

manufacturers, VIP producers, and 

market research. DOE conducted 

additional interviews and research in 

support of this direct final rule, which 

further supported and solidified the VIP 

cost estimates. 

In manufacturer interviews, DOE also 

gathered information regarding the 

implementation of VIPs (e.g., locations, 

number of panels, panel area), and 

based on that information, DOE 

performed simulations to estimate the 

energy impacts using CERA. CERA 

allowed DOE to analyze the thermal 

load impact on a fresh food and/or 

freezer cabinet due to different 

placements of VIP paneling throughout 

a cabinet (e.g., side panels, doors, or 

both). DOE then compared the results 

from these simulations to existing 

research into load reductions (which 

estimates energy savings at around 30 

percent) 34 and based on both sources, 

estimated that the full implementation 

of VIPs in existing cabinets can reduce 

heat load by up to 23 percent. DOE did 

not specifically account for edge effect 

impacts on thermal load for compact 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or 

freezer models in its analysis. However, 

DOE notes that the engineering analysis 

halves the thermal load impact as 

observed in simulations in order to be 

conservative with energy savings and to 

account for factors that are not captured 

in testing and/or simulation (e.g., 

differences in VIP core material, VIP 

installation method and location). DOE 

also notes VIPs are not implemented in 

most classes until efficiency levels 

above that proposed in the February 

2023 NOPR and adopted in this direct 

final rule. 

Sub Zero commented that as a small, 

low-volume manufacturer of niche 

built-in style refrigeration products, it is 

concerned that the standards proposed 

in the February 2023 NOPR will create 

a significant supply chain burden for 

them, as components like vacuum 

insulation panels are supplied by a 

limited number of manufacturers, which 

will impede their ability to deliver 

products to their consumers in a timely 

manner. Sub Zero requested that DOE 

reduce the stringency level of adopted 

standards for built-in products, to 

reduce these concerns. (Sub Zero, No. 

77 at p. 2) 

To better characterize and understand 

the VIP market, DOE conducted 

research and interviewed relevant VIP 

manufacturers to gather more data 

regarding the current global VIP market, 

and to identify any potential supply 

chain constraints related to the adoption 

of more stringent energy conservation 

standards. DOE estimates that the 

current demand for VIPs in the U.S. 

refrigerator market is roughly 1 to 3 

million VIP panels, whereas the global 

supply for VIPs is estimated to exceed 

10 million panels. Despite relatively low 

demand for VIPs in the U.S. market, 

there is notable VIP use in the European 

and Asian markets, with supply 

available from at least three major VIP 

manufacturers. Based on the 

information gathered, DOE expects that 

VIP production lines can be quickly 

scaled up to meet demand of future 

amended standards (within 1 to 2 years 

depending on the specific VIP design), 

well within 3-year lead time between 

publication of amended standards and 

the compliance date for those standards. 

In response to stakeholder feedback 

on the February 2023 NOPR, DOE 

carefully considered the use of VIPs in 

its analysis, generally implementing 

VIPs at the highest efficiency levels as 

one of the last design options 

considered. Therefore, based on the 

engineering analysis and its 

consideration of VIPs, DOE expects that 

to meet the adopted standards, 

manufacturers are likely to implement 

VIPs only in PC 5 (for three-door, 30 AV 

configuration) and PC 5A, with partial 

VIP usage for both classes. 

e. Variable-Speed Compressor Supply 

Chain 

Numerous commenters on the 

February 2023 NOPR suggested that 

supply chains for VIPs and variablespeed compressor (‘‘VSC’’) may not 

support the quantities of those 

components that may be required at the 

efficiency levels proposed in the NOPR. 

AHAM recommended that DOE conduct 

a review of component availability and 

supply chain capacity for VSCs given 

the general global market trends for 

increasingly stringent standards for 

cooling appliances, including both air 

conditioning and refrigeration. (AHAM, 

No. 69 at p. 5) Whirlpool further noted 

that the proposed standards may result 

in increased component costs to 

manufacturers due to those same supply 

chain constraints, especially given that 

VSCs would be necessary for nearly all 

evaluated product classes. (Whirlpool, 

No. 70 at p. 5) Sub Zero also expressed 

concern that the proposed standards 

will create a significant supply chain 

burden for small, low-volume 

manufacturer of niche market built-in 

style refrigeration products because 

VSCs are provided by a limited number 

of suppliers. Sub Zero commented that 

the proposed standards will impede the 

ability of these small manufacturers to 

deliver to their niche consumers in a 

timely manner. (Sub Zero, No. 77 at p. 

2) 

Samsung supported DOE’s proposed 

energy conservation standards for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers and the use of VSC technology 

as a significant energy-saving option. 

Samsung stated that there is already 

significant market availability of VSCs, 

and a regulatory certainty and 3-year 

compliance period would provide 

ample time for manufacturers and 

suppliers to establish sufficient supply 

availability of VSCs. (Samsung, No. 78 

at p. 2) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

interviewed relevant compressor 

manufacturers to gather information 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3050 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

regarding the level of VSC 

implementation that would be required 

at the efficiency levels in this rule, the 

current and predicted supply of VSCs 

into the U.S. market, the predicted time 

to ramp up production of VSCs, and 

pricing of VSC compressors and 

components. DOE notes that the VSC 

compressors focused on in this supply 

chain analysis differ from those utilized 

in air conditioners and other nonrelated cooling appliances. VSC 

compressors utilized in refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are 

generally different designs, are 

manufactured in different factories, and 

are generally produced by different 

manufacturers. Thus, based on the 

information provided by these 

manufacturers, DOE has determined 

that the industry is able to meet the 

increased demand of VSCs amid likely 

growing demand in the U.S. market. 

Based on manufacturer interviews, 

DOE estimates the current total global 

demand for refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, and freezer compressors (all 

compressors, not just VSCs) is 230 

million. Total compressor production 

capacity is much higher than demand, 

with global capacity for compressors 

estimated at over 400 million. Globally, 

there has been a shift towards VSC 

utilization in response to increasing 

energy efficiency regulations in the 

European Union (‘‘EU’’) and Japan. 

Estimates project upwards of a quarter 

of the global market and a third of the 

U.S. market currently utilize VSCs in 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. Considering the U.S. market 

accounts for an estimated 12 million 

consumer refrigeration products, a 

conservative estimate puts U.S. current 

demand for VSC compressors at roughly 

4 million. 

Given DOE’s understanding of the 

compressor marketplace, the expected 

time to build capacity to meet the new 

demand is expected to be significantly 

shorter than the 5 and 6-year lead time 

between direct final rule publication 

and the compliance date, with estimates 

ranging from 8 months to 1 year. 

Compressor manufacturers indicated 

that VSC production capacity has been 

increasing by 7 million per year 

between 2018 and 2022. Additionally, 

high-efficiency VSC compressor designs 

are already developed and do not 

require additional qualification testing 

before production. Research and 

development (‘‘R&D’’) time to develop 

compressor designs is not required and 

thus would not be a factor affecting 

availability. 

DOE is aware that there have been 

supply constraints for VSCs recently 

due to issues with electronic component 

supply caused by the COVID–19 

pandemic. Specifically, Chinese 

manufacturing and shipping of 

compressors decreased significantly 

during COVID-related lockdowns 

throughout the country between 2020 

and 2022. Due to China’s outsized 

impact on global supply, the effects of 

lockdowns were felt globally. Now that 

lockdowns have ended, however, the 

affected factories are open again and in 

production. Compressor manufacturers 

also indicated that they have been 

modifying sourcing strategies, in many 

cases establishing their own electronic 

component assembly lines in order to 

protect against potential future issues 

that could affect supply and production 

of VSCs. 

In considering all of the information 

provided by relevant manufacturers of 

VSCs, DOE believes that significant 

increases in VSCs in the U.S. market 

aligned with the standard levels 

adopted in this direct final rule are well 

within the production capacity of the 

compressor industry. DOE further notes, 

that AHAM, Whirlpool, Sub Zero, and 

Samsung are parties to the Joint 

Agreement and are supportive of the 

recommended standard adopted in this 

direct final rule. 

f. Product Classes 11 and 12 Alignment 

The Joint Agreement recommended 

that DOE adopt a level of 10 percent 

energy savings relative to the current PC 

12 standard. In light of the 

recommendation outlined in the Joint 

Agreement, and in consideration of 

comments received in response to the 

February 2023 NOPR, DOE is adopting 

a percentage increase in efficiency for 

PC 12 at 10 percent lower relative to the 

current standard. Additionally, as 

recommended in the Joint Agreement 

and proposed in the February 2023 

NOPR, DOE is including a multi-door 

energy use allowance for PC 12 for 

products with two doors. 

2. Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis portion of the 

engineering analysis is conducted using 

one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including the availability and reliability 

of public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product, the availability 

and timeliness of purchasing the 

product on the market. The cost 

approaches are summarized as follows: 

• Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially available product, 

component-by-component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials for the product. 

• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing a product, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 

repair websites, for example) to develop 

the bill of materials for the product. 

• Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalog teardown is feasible (for 

example, for tightly integrated products 

such as fluorescent lamps, which are 

infeasible to disassemble and for which 

parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

(e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE 

conducts price surveys using publicly 

available pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

In the direct final rule analysis, DOE 

conducted the analysis using a 

combination of physical teardowns, 

catalog teardowns, and price surveys. 

Where possible, physical teardowns 

were used to provide a baseline of 

technology options and pricing for a 

specific product class at a specific EL. 

Then with technology option 

information, DOE estimated the cost of 

various design options including 

compressors, VIPs, and insulation, by 

extrapolating the costs from price 

surveys. With specific costs for 

technology options, DOE was then able 

to ‘‘build-up’’ or ‘‘build-down’’ from the 

various teardown models to finish the 

cost-efficiency curves. DOE used this 

approach to calibrate the analysis to 

certified or measured energy use of 

specific available models where 

possible, while allowing a broader range 

of potential efficiency levels to be 

considered. 

The resulting bill of materials 

provides the basis for the manufacturer 

production cost (‘‘MPC’’) estimates. 

To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE 

applies a multiplier (the manufacturer 

markup) to the MPC. The resulting 

manufacturer selling price (‘‘MSP’’) is 

the price at which the manufacturer 

distributes a unit into commerce. DOE 

developed an average manufacturer 

markup by examining the annual 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

(‘‘SEC’’) 10–K reports filed by publicly 

traded manufacturers primarily engaged 

in appliance manufacturing and whose 

combined product range includes 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. 

3. Cost-Efficiency Results 

The results of the engineering analysis 

are presented as cost-efficiency data for 

each of the efficiency levels for each of 

the analyzed product classes that were 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3051 

analyzed. DOE developed estimates of 

MPCs for each unit in the teardown 

sample, and also performed additional 

modeling based on representative 

teardown samples, to extend the 

analysis to cover the range of efficiency 

levels appropriate for a representative 

product. To estimate the MPCs 

necessary to achieve higher efficiency 

levels, in particular those beyond the 

highest-efficiency products in the test 

sample, DOE considered design options 

that were most likely to be considered 

and implemented by manufacturers to 

achieve the higher efficiency levels. 

Based on input from manufacturers and 

an understanding of the markets, DOE 

then estimated the costs associated with 

those design option to determine the 

MPCs at each of the analyzed efficiency 

levels. 

The efficiency levels and design 

option progression for the analyzed 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers are 

presented in Table IV.5. The cells in the 

table list the design options that DOE 

considered at each higher efficiency 

level as compared with the next-lower 

efficiency level. Similarly, the efficiency 

levels and design options for standardsize freezers and Compact refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers are presented in 

Table IV.6. The MPCs for the analyzed 

product classes across the considered 

efficiency levels are presented in Tables 

IV.7 and IV.8. See chapter 5 of the direct 

final rule TSD for additional detail on 

the engineering analysis. 

TABLE IV.5—EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ANALYZED STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS

Product class 

(AV5) EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 

3 (11.9): 

EL Percent 1 .......... 5% ............................................... 10% ............................................. 15% ........................... 20% ........................... 27%. 

Design Options 

Added.

Variable Defrost; Higher-Energy 

Efficiency Ratio (EER) Single 

Speed Compressor.

Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor.Highest-EER Single 

Speed Compressor.

VIP side walls and 

doors.

Variable-speed 

compressor 

system.3

3 (21.0): 

EL Percent 1 .......... 5% ............................................... 10% ............................................. 15% ........................... 20% ........................... 28%. 

Design Options 

Added.

Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor.Variable Defrost; Higher-EER 

Single Speed Compressor.

Higher-EER Compressor; Variablespeed compressor 

system 3.

66% of Max-tech 

VIP4.

VIP side walls 

and doors. 

5 (23.0): 2

EL Percent 1 .......... 8% ............................................... 13% ............................................. 18% ........................... 20%..

Design Options 

Added.

Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor.Brushless-DC Evaporator Fan 

Motor; Higher-EER compressor 

Variable-speed compressor 

system 3.

Highest-EER Compressor; 50% of 

Max-tech VIP.

VIP side walls and 

doors..

5 (30.0): 2

EL Percent 1 .......... 7% ............................................... 11% ............................................. 15% ........................... 17%..

Design Options 

Added.

Variable Speed Compressor System 6.

Higher-EER Compressor; 6

Brushless-DC Evaporator Fan 

Motor; 50% of Max-tech VIP6.

Higher-EER Compressor; 50% of 

Max-tech VIP.

Highest-EER Compressor; VIP side 

walls and doors..

5–BI (26.0): 

EL Percent 1 .......... 10% ............................................. 15% ............................................. 16%..

Design Options 

Added.

Variable-speed compressor system 3.

50% of Max-tech VIP4 ................ VIP side walls and 

doors..

5A (35.0): 2

EL Percent 1 .......... 11% ............................................. 16% ............................................. 22%..

Design Options 

Added.

Higher-EER Compressor; Variable-speed compressor system 3.

Highest-EER Compressor; Variable Speed Compressor System; 42% of Max-tech VIP4.VIP side walls and 

doors..

7 (31.5): 

EL Percent 1 .......... 5% ............................................... 10% ............................................. 15% ........................... 19% ........................... 22%. 

Design Options 

Added.

Highest-EER Single Speed Compressor.Brushless-DC Evaporator Fan 

Motor; Variable-speed compressor system 3.

Highest-EER Variable 

Speed compressor 

system.

75% of Max-tech 

VIP4.

VIP side walls 

and doors. 

Notes: 

1Percent energy use less than baseline. 

2For three-door configuration. 

3 Includes two-speed fan control. 

4The percentage of surface area of VIP as compared with the VIP surface area used in the maximum-technology design, for which VIP would be installed for full 

coverage of the side walls and doors. 5Adjusted Volume in cubic feet. 

TABLE IV.6—EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ANALYZED STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS AND COMPACT

REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

Product class 

(AV4) EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 

9 (29.3): 

EL Percent 1 .................... 10% .............................................................. 15% ....................................... 20% ....................................... 25%. 

Design Options Added ... Switch to forced-convection condenser; 

Brushless-DC Condenser and Evaporator 

fans.

Highest-EER Compressor; 

Variable-speed compressor system 2.

37% of Max-tech VIP3 ......... VIP side walls and 

door. 

10 (26.0): 

EL Percent 1 .................... 10% .............................................................. 15% ....................................... 20% ....................................... 23%. 

Design Options Added ... Variable-speed compressor system 2 ........... Wall thickness increase; 

Brushless-DC Evaporator 

Fan.

Highest-EER Compressor; 

Variable-speed compressor system.

VIP door. 

11A (1.7): 

EL Percent 1 .................... 10% .............................................................. 15% ....................................... 20% ....................................... 32%. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3052 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE IV.6—EFFICIENCY LEVELS AND DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ANALYZED STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS AND COMPACT

REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS—Continued 

Product class 

(AV4) EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 

Design Options Added ... Wall thickness increase ............................... Higher-EER Single Speed 

Compressor.

Higher-EER Single Speed 

Compressor; VIP sides 

and door.

Highest-EER Single 

Speed Compressor. 

11A (4.4): 

EL Percent 1 .................... 10% .............................................................. 15% ....................................... 20% ....................................... 30%. 

Design Options Added ... Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor ....... Wall thickness increase ........ Higher-EER Single Speed 

Compressor.

Variable-speed Compressor System; 2

VIP sides walls and 

door. 

17 (9.0): 

EL Percent 1 .................... 10% .............................................................. 15% ....................................... 20%..

Design Options Added ... Highest-EER Compressor; Variable-speed 

Compressor System; 2 Variable Defrost.

50% of Max-tech VIP3 ......... VIP side walls and door panels..

18 (8.9): 

EL Percent 1 .................... 10% .............................................................. 15% ....................................... 20% ....................................... 30%. 

Design Options Added ... Higher-EER Single Speed Compressor ....... Wall thickness increase ........ Highest-EER Single Speed 

Compressor; VIP door.

Variable-speed Compressor System.2

Notes: 

1Percent energy use less than baseline. 

2 Includes two-speed fan control. 

3The percentage of surface area of VIP as compared with the VIP surface area used in the maximum-technology design, for which VIP would be installed for full 

coverage of the side walls and doors. 4Adjusted Volume in cubic feet. 

TABLE IV.7—COST-EFFICIENCY CURVES FOR STANDARD-SIZE REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS

Product Class 

(AV3) EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 

3 (11.9): 

EL Percent 1 .......................................................................... 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 27% 

MPC ...................................................................................... $368.51 $375.65 $377.11 $378.79 $434.79 $464.09 

Incremental MPC .................................................................. $0.00 $7.14 $8.60 $10.28 $66.28 $95.58 

3 (21.0): 

EL Percent 1 .......................................................................... 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 28% 

MPC ...................................................................................... $454.50 $456.08 $473.88 $498.64 $544.91 $570.09 

Incremental MPC .................................................................. $0.00 $1.59 $19.38 $44.14 $90.42 $115.59 

5 (23.0): 2

EL Percent 1 .......................................................................... 0% 8% 13% 18% 20% 

MPC ...................................................................................... $662.58 $678.47 $696.39 $736.57 $755.49 

Incremental MPC .................................................................. $0.00 $15.89 $33.81 $73.99 $92.91 

5 (30.0): 2

EL Percent 1 .......................................................................... 0% 7% 11% 15% 17% 

MPC ...................................................................................... $705.12 $740.80 $763.71 $774.63 $807.62 

Incremental MPC .................................................................. $0.00 $35.68 $58.58 $69.51 $102.50 

5–BI (26.0): 

EL Percent 1 .......................................................................... 0% 10% 15% 16% 

MPC ...................................................................................... $829.20 $848.87 $883.70 $918.52 

Incremental MPC .................................................................. $0.00 $19.67 $54.50 $89.32 

5A (35.0): 2

EL Percent 1 .......................................................................... 0% 11% 16% 22% 

MPC ...................................................................................... $765.69 $786.68 $824.44 $871.93 

Incremental MPC .................................................................. $0.00 $21.00 $58.75 $106.24 

7 (31.5): 

EL Percent 1 .......................................................................... 0% 5% 10% 15% 19% 22% 

MPC ...................................................................................... $669.60 $671.85 $691.36 $692.20 $750.52 $770.32 

Incremental MPC .................................................................. $0.00 $2.26 $21.77 $22.60 $80.92 $100.72 

Notes: 

1Percent energy use less than baseline. 

2For three-door configuration. 

3Adjusted volume in cubic feet. 

TABLE IV.8—COST-EFFICIENCY CURVES FOR STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS AND COMPACT REFRIGERATORS, 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

Product class 

(AV2) EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 

9 (29.3): 

EL Percent 1 ................................................................................................ 0% 10% 15% 20% 25% 

MPC 2 .......................................................................................................... $536.45 $553.18 $585.43 $614.85 $652.63 

Incremental MPC ........................................................................................ $0.00 $16.73 $48.97 $78.40 $116.17 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3053 

35U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 

Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval 

(EDGAR) system. Available at www.sec.gov/edgar/ 

search/ (last accessed July 1, 2022). 

36Because the projected price of standardscompliant products is typically higher than the 

price of baseline products, using the same markup 

for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 

result in higher per-unit operating profit. While 

such an outcome is possible, DOE maintains that in 

markets that are reasonably competitive it is 

unlikely that standards would lead to a sustainable 

increase in profitability in the long run. 

37U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Retail Trade 

Survey. 2017. www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ 

arts.html. 

38U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Wholesale Trade 

Survey. 2017. www.census.gov/awts. 

39U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Economic Census. 

www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2020/2017- 

economic-census.html. 

40U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Retail Trade 

Survey. 2017. www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ 

arts.html. 

41U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Wholesale Trade 

Survey. 2017. www.census.gov/awts. 

42U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Economic Census. 

www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2020/2017- 

economic-census.html. 

TABLE IV.8—COST-EFFICIENCY CURVES FOR STANDARD-SIZE FREEZERS AND COMPACT REFRIGERATORS, 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS—Continued 

Product class 

(AV2) EL0 EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 

10 (26.0): 

EL Percent 1 ................................................................................................ 0% 10% 15% 20% 23% 

MPC ............................................................................................................ $522.18 $553.37 $577.47 $579.41 $602.71 

Incremental MPC ........................................................................................ $0.00 $31.19 $55.29 $57.23 $80.53 

11A (1.7): 

EL Percent 1 ................................................................................................ 0% 10% 15% 20% 32% 

MPC ............................................................................................................ $146.55 $151.55 $152.77 $176.94 $181.26 

Incremental MPC ........................................................................................ $0.00 $5.00 $6.22 $30.38 $34.70 

11A (4.4): 

EL Percent1 ................................................................................................ 0% 10% 15% 20% 30% 

MPC ............................................................................................................ $212.15 $214.64 $220.57 $231.84 $289.23 

Incremental MPC ........................................................................................ $0.00 $2.49 $8.42 $19.69 $77.08 

17 (9.0): 

EL Percent 1 ................................................................................................ 0% 10% 15% 20% 

MPC ............................................................................................................ $268.95 $294.85 $318.20 $341.55 

Incremental MPC ........................................................................................ $0.00 $25.91 $49.26 $72.61 

18 (8.9): 

EL Percent 1 ................................................................................................ 0% 10% 15% 20% 30% 

MPC ............................................................................................................ $256.22 $258.76 $268.00 $281.06 $311.99 

Incremental MPC ........................................................................................ $0.00 $2.54 $11.78 $24.84 $55.77 

Notes: 

1Percent energy use less than baseline. 

2Adjusted volume in cubic feet. 

4. Manufacturer Selling Price 

To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and revenue 

attributable to the product, DOE applies 

a multiplier (the manufacturer markup) 

to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer 

selling price (‘‘MSP’’) is the price at 

which the manufacturer distributes a 

unit into commerce. DOE developed an 

average manufacturer markup by 

examining the annual Securities and 

Exchange Commission (‘‘SEC’’) 10–K 

reports 35 filed by publicly traded 

manufacturers primarily engaged in 

appliance manufacturing and whose 

combined product range includes 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. See chapter 12 of the direct 

final rule TSD for additional detail on 

the manufacturer markup. 

D. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 

markups, wholesaler markups, 

contractor markups) in the distribution 

chain and sales taxes to convert the 

MSP estimates derived in the 

engineering analysis to consumer prices, 

which are then used in the LCC and PBP 

analysis. At each step in the distribution 

channel, companies mark up the price 

of the product to cover business costs 

and operating profit. 

For refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers, the main parties in the 

distribution chain are retailers, 

wholesalers, and general contractors. 

DOE developed baseline and 

incremental markups for each actor in 

the distribution chain. Baseline 

markups are applied to the price of 

products with baseline efficiency, while 

incremental markups are applied to the 

difference in price between baseline and 

higher-efficiency models (the 

incremental cost increase). The 

incremental markup is typically less 

than the baseline markup and is 

designed to maintain similar per-unit 

operating profit before and after new or 

amended standards.36

DOE relied on economic data from the 

U.S. Census Bureau to estimate average 

baseline and incremental markups. 

Specifically, DOE used the 2017 Annual 

Retail Trade Survey for the ‘‘electronics 

and appliance stores’’ sector to develop 

retailer markups,37 the 2017 Annual 

Wholesale Trade Survey for the 

‘‘household appliances, and electrical 

and electronic goods merchant 

wholesalers’’ sector to estimate 

wholesaler markups,38 and the industry 

series for the ‘‘residential building 

construction’’ sector published by the 

2017 Economic Census to derive general 

contractor markups.39 DOE relied on 

economic data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau to estimate average baseline and 

incremental markups. Specifically, DOE 

used the 2017 Annual Retail Trade 

Survey for the ‘‘electronics and 

appliance stores’’ sector to develop 

retailer markups,40 the 2017 Annual 

Wholesale Trade Survey for the 

‘‘household appliances, and electrical 

and electronic goods merchant 

wholesalers’’ sector to estimate 

wholesaler markups,41 and the industry 

series for the ‘‘residential building 

construction’’ sector published by the 

2017 Economic Census to derive general 

contractor markups.42

In response to the February 2023 

NOPR, AHAM commented on DOE’s 

reliance on the concept of incremental 

markups, stating that it is based on 

discredited theory, and it is in 

contradiction to empirical evidence 

provided by AHAM during the 2014 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3054 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

43 2017 Core Statistics Economic Census: 

Establishment and Firm Size Statistics for the U.S. 

(NAICS 443141). 

NOPR for Energy Conservation 

Standards for Residential Dishwashers. 

(AHAM, No. 69 at p. 15–16) 

DOE disagrees that the theory behind 

the concept of incremental markups is 

discredited. DOE’s incremental markup 

approach assumes that an increase in 

profitability, which is implied by 

keeping a fixed markup when the 

product price goes up, is unlikely to be 

viable over time in a reasonably 

competitive market like household 

appliance retailers. The HerfindahlHirschman Index (HHI) reported by the 

2017 Economic Census indicates that 

household appliance stores sector 

(North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code 443141) is a 

competitive marketplace.43 DOE 

recognizes that actors in the distribution 

chains are likely to seek to maintain the 

same markup on appliances in response 

to changes in manufacturer selling 

prices after an amendment to energy 

conservation standards. However, DOE 

believes that retail pricing is likely to 

adjust over time as those actors are 

forces to readjust their markups to reach 

a medium-term equilibrium in which 

per-unit profit is relatively unchanged 

before and after standards are 

implemented. 

DOE acknowledges that markup 

practices in response to amended 

standards are complex and varying with 

business conditions. However, DOE’s 

analysis necessarily considers a very 

simplified and hypothetical version of 

the world of appliance retailing: 

namely, a situation in which nothing 

changes except for those changes in 

appliance offerings that occur in 

response to amended standards. 

Obtaining data on markup practices in 

the situation described above is very 

challenging. Hence, DOE continues to 

believe that its assumption that 

standards do not facilitate a sustainable 

increase in profitability is reasonable. 

Chapter 6 of the direct final rule TSD 

provides details on DOE’s development 

of markups for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. 

E. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual 

energy consumption of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers at 

different efficiencies in representative 

U.S. single-family homes, multi-family 

residences, and commercial buildings, 

and to assess the energy savings 

potential of increased product 

efficiency. The energy use analysis 

estimates the range of energy use of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers in the field (i.e., as they are 

actually used by consumers). The 

energy use analysis provides the basis 

for other analyses DOE performed, 

particularly assessments of the energy 

savings and the savings in consumer 

operating costs that could result from 

adoption of amended or new standards. 

The DOE test procedure produces 

standardized results that can be used to 

assess or compare the performance of 

products operating under specified 

conditions. Actual energy usage in the 

field often differs from that estimated by 

the test procedure because of variation 

in operating conditions, the behavior of 

users, and other factors. In the case of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, DOE used usage adjustment 

factors (UAFs) in the February 2023 

NOPR to address the difference in fieldmetered energy consumption and the 

DOE test results due to householdspecific characteristics. 88 FR 12478– 

12479. 

Specifically, DOE combined fieldmetered energy use data for full-size 

refrigeration products from the 

September 2011 Final Rule, the 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 

(‘‘NEEA’’), and the Florida Solar Energy 

Center (‘‘FSEC’’) with estimates of the 

test energy use of each field-metered 

unit. Then, DOE calculated a unit’s UAF 

by dividing the annual field-metered 

energy use by the annual energy 

consumption from the DOE test 

procedure. DOE then used maximum 

likelihood estimation to fit log-normal 

distributions to the empirical 

distributions of UAFs for primary 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, 

secondary refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. DOE sampled 

UAFs from these fitted log-normal 

distributions to estimate the actual 

energy use of refrigeration products for 

the consumer sample. DOE did not have 

adequate field-metering data to derive 

UAFs for compact refrigeration 

products; therefore, DOE assumed the 

UAF of compact refrigeration products 

was 1.0. 

In response to the February 2023 

NOPR, AHAM commented that DOE 

relies heavily on the EIA’s Residential 

Energy Consumption Survey (‘‘RECS’’) 

data for estimating energy use and how 

consumption varies at the household 

level. Specifically, AHAM expressed 

concern that the use of RECS data to 

estimate energy consumption at the 

household level may introduce ‘‘outlier 

values,’’ resulting in uncertainty and 

inaccuracies (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 17– 

18) In this direct final rule, as well as 

in the February 2023 NOPR, DOE did 

not tie the energy consumption of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers to RECS survey data. 88 FR 

12452. No household or demographic 

information from RECS affects the 

energy consumption of a particular 

household. Instead, as mentioned above, 

DOE sampled from distributions of 

UAFs that were derived from fieldmetering studies and assigned a 

randomly selected UAF to each 

household. Randomly sampling from 

distributions of UAFs acknowledges the 

inherent uncertainty in estimating the 

energy use for any particular household, 

while capturing the aggregate impact of 

UAFs measured in the field, and thus 

better approximates the most likely 

distribution of field energy use values 

across the installed base of products 

than relying strictly on survey data. 

DOE further notes, that AHAM is a party 

to the Joint Agreement and is supportive 

of the recommended standard adopted 

in this direct final rule. 

Chapter 7 of the direct final rule TSD 

provides details on DOE’s energy use 

analysis for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. 

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers. The effect of new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

on individual consumers usually 

involves a reduction in operating cost 

and an increase in purchase cost. DOE 

used the following two metrics to 

measure consumer impacts: 

• The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of an appliance or product over 

the life of that product, consisting of 

total installed cost (manufacturer selling 

price, distribution chain markups, sales 

tax, 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 

at higher efficiency levels by the change 

in annual operating cost for the year that 

amended or new standards are assumed 

to take effect. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the change in LCC relative to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3055 

the LCC in the no-new-standards case, 

which reflects the estimated efficiency 

distribution of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers in the absence of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards. In contrast, the PBP for a 

given efficiency level is measured 

relative to the baseline product. 

For each considered efficiency level 

in each product class, DOE calculated 

the LCC and PBP for a nationally 

representative set of housing units (all 

product classes) and commercial 

buildings (PC 11A only). DOE included 

commercial applications in the analysis 

of compact refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers (PC 11A) because they are used 

in both the residential and commercial 

sectors (e.g., hotel rooms and highereducation dormitories). DOE developed 

household samples from the 2020 RECS 

and commercial building samples from 

the 2018 Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey (‘‘CBECS’’). For 

each sample household or building, 

DOE determined the energy 

consumption for the refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, or freezer and the 

appropriate electricity price and 

discount rate. By developing a 

representative sample of households 

and buildings, the analysis captured the 

variability in energy consumption, 

energy prices, and discount rates 

associated with the use of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes MPCs, 

manufacturer markups, distribution 

chain markups, and sales taxes—and 

installation costs. Inputs to the 

calculation of operating expenses 

include annual energy consumption, 

energy prices and price projections, 

repair and maintenance costs, product 

lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE 

created distributions of values for 

product lifetime, discount rates, and 

sales taxes, with probabilities attached 

to each value, to account for their 

uncertainty and variability. 

The computer model DOE uses to 

calculate the LCC 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 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer user samples. For this 

rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach 

is implemented in Python. The model 

calculated the LCC for products at each 

efficiency level for 10,000 housing units 

or commercial buildings per simulation 

run. The analytical results include a 

distribution of 10,000 data points 

showing the range of LCC savings for a 

given efficiency level relative to the nonew-standards case efficiency 

distribution. In performing an iteration 

of the Monte Carlo simulation for a 

given consumer, product efficiency is 

chosen based on its probability. If the 

chosen product efficiency is greater than 

or equal to the efficiency of the standard 

level under consideration, the LCC 

calculation reveals that a consumer is 

not impacted by the standard level. By 

accounting for consumers who already 

purchase more efficient products, DOE 

avoids overstating the potential benefits 

from increasing product efficiency. DOE 

calculated the LCC and PBP for 

consumers of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers as if each were to 

purchase a new product in the first year 

of required compliance with new or 

amended standards. For all TSLs other 

than TSL 4 (the Recommended TSL 

detailed in the Joint Agreement), any 

amended standards were assumed to 

apply to refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers manufactured 3 

years after the date on which any new 

or amended standard is published. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) Therefore, DOE 

used 2027 as the first year of 

compliance with any amended 

standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers for all TSLs other 

than TSL 4. For TSL 4, DOE used 2029 

as the first year of compliance for 

representative PCs 5BI, 5A, 10, 11A, 17, 

and 18 and 2030 as the first year of 

compliance for the representative PCs 3, 

5, 7, and 9, consistent with the Joint 

Agreement. 

Table IV.9 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 of the direct final rule TSD 

and its appendices. 

TABLE IV.9—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs Source/method 

Product Cost ........................ Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer and retailer markups and sales tax, as appropriate. Applied price 

learning based on historical price index data to project product costs. Applied price trend to electronic controls 

used on products with VSDs. 

Installation Costs .................. Assumed no change with efficiency level; therefore, not included. 

Annual Energy Use .............. The total annual energy use multiplied by a usage adjustment factor, which is derived using field data. 

Variability: Based on the product class and field data. 

Energy Prices ....................... Electricity: Based on Edison Electric Institute (‘‘EEI’’) data for 2022. 

Variability: Regional energy prices determined for each Census Division and large state. 

Energy Price Trends ............ Based on AEO2023 price projections. 

Repair and Maintenance 

Costs.

Assumed no change with efficiency level for maintenance costs. Repair costs estimated for each product class 

and efficiency level. 

Product Lifetime ................... Weibull distributions based on historical shipments and age distribution of installed stock.

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 Survey of 

Consumer Finances (residential) and Damadoran Online (commercial). 

Compliance Date .................. 2027 for all TSLs other TSL 4. For TSL 4, 2029 for PCs 5BI, 5A, 10, 11A, 17, and 18 and 2030 for PCs 3, 5, 7, 

and 9. 

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the direct final rule 

TSD. 

In response to the February 2023 

NOPR, an individual objected to the 

LCC analysis for two reasons: (1) future 

dollars savings are not the same as 

present-day dollars for purchase, which 

is especially problematic for lowincome individuals; and (2) some in the 

elderly population would not live long 

enough to recover the incremental 

installed cost due to an amended 

standard, resulting in ‘‘age 

discrimination.’’ (Individual 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3056 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

44TraQline® is a quarterly market share tracker of 

150,000+ consumers. 

45Taylor, M. and Fujita, K.S. Accounting for 

Technological Change in Regulatory Impact 

Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. LBNL– 

6195E. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 

Berkeley, CA. April 2013. Available at 

escholarship.org/uc/item/3c8709p4#page-1. 

46Household refrigerator and home freezer 

manufacturing PPI series ID: PCU3352203352202. 

Available at www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

Commenter, No. 59 at p. 2) In regard to 

future dollar savings vs. present-day 

dollar savings for low-income 

households, DOE’s low-income 

consumer subgroup LCC analysis uses 

discount rates that are specific to lowincome households, resulting in higher 

discount rates for these households, on 

average, compared to the full consumer 

sample used in the standard LCC 

analysis. See section IV.I of this 

document as well as chapter 11 of the 

direct final rule TSD for more details. In 

regard to the incremental installed cost 

for low-income consumers, DOE notes 

that many low-income consumers are 

renters who are typically not 

responsible for purchasing refrigeration 

equipment (see the discussion in section 

IV.I of this document as well as chapter

11 of the direct final rule TSD).

Moreover, the low-income subgroup

results indicate that low-income

households, on average, are expected to

experience higher LCC savings and

lower payback periods than the general

population (see the results in section

V.B.1.b of this document). In regard to

some individuals not living long enough

to recoup the incremental installed cost

due to an amended standard, DOE notes

that even in such cases—which could

happen to non-elderly consumers as

well—the equipment would continue to

reap energy savings, but for a new

owner. Therefore, DOE does not believe

the LCC analysis discriminates against

elderly consumers relative to younger

consumers in the general population.

AHAM commented that due to the 

skewed nature of the LCC savings 

results, DOE should report median 

values rather than mean values. 

(AHAM, No. 69 at p. 18) DOE notes that 

there are a variety of ways to 

characterize distributions of impacts, 

and DOE considers the impacts of a 

potential amended standard on 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers holistically. DOE also notes that 

the median LCC savings for affected 

consumers are shown in the box-andwhisker plots in chapter 8 of the direct 

final rule TSD. 

AHAM also commented that DOE 

should be conducting a purchase 

decision analysis in its LCC model to 

reflect the actual conditions and 

expectations of the purchaser. (AHAM, 

No. 69 at p. 15) In the current setup of 

LCC analysis, DOE is not explicitly 

modeling the purchase decision made 

by purchasers when the standard 

becomes effective. DOE’s analysis is 

intended to model the range of 

individual outcomes likely to result 

from a hypothetical amended energy 

conservation standard at various levels 

of efficiency. DOE does not discount the 

consumer decision theory established in 

the broad behavioral economics field, 

but rather, notes that its methodological 

decision was made after considering the 

existence of various systematic market 

failures and their implication in rational 

versus actual purchase behavior. 

Furthermore, the outcome of the LCC is 

not considered in isolation, but in the 

context of the broader set of analyses, 

including the NIA. Moreover, the type 

of data required to facilitate a robust 

consumer choice modeling of a specific 

household appliance at the individual 

household level is currently lacking and 

AHAM did not provide much data. DOE 

further notes, that AHAM is a party to 

the Joint Agreement and is supportive of 

the recommended standard adopted in 

this direct final rule. 

1. Adjusted Volume Distribution

DOE developed adjusted volume

distributions within each PC containing 

more than one representative unit to 

determine the likelihood that a given 

purchaser would select each of the 

representative units for a given PC from 

the engineering analysis. DOE estimated 

the distribution of adjusted volumes for 

PC 3 and PC 5 based on the capacity 

distribution reported in the TraQline®

refrigerator data spanning from Q1 2018 

to Q1 2019.44 DOE estimated the 

distribution of adjusted volumes for PC 

11A based on the distribution of models 

from DOE’s Compliance Certification 

Management System (‘‘CCMS’’) 

Database. Table IV.10 presents the 

adjusted volume distribution of each of 

the PCs having more than one 

representative unit. DOE assumed that 

the adjusted volume distribution 

remains constant over the years 

considered in the analysis. 

TABLE IV.10—ADJUSTED VOLUME

PROBABILITY FOR EACH PRODUCT

CLASS HAVING MORE THAN ONE

REPRESENTATIVE UNIT

Adjusted volume 

(cu. ft.) 

Probability 

(%) 

PC 3: 

11.9 ................................... 22.3 

20.6 ................................... 77.7 

PC 5: 

23 ...................................... 34.7 

30 ...................................... 65.3 

PC 11A: 

1.7 ..................................... 84.7 

4.4 ..................................... 15.3 

2. Product Cost

To calculate consumer product costs,

DOE multiplied the MPCs developed in 

the engineering analysis by the markups 

described previously (along with sales 

taxes). DOE used different markups for 

baseline products and higher-efficiency 

products, because DOE applies an 

incremental markup to the increase in 

MSP associated with higher-efficiency 

products. 

Economic literature and historical 

data suggest that the real costs of many 

products may trend downward over 

time according to ‘‘learning’’ or 

‘‘experience’’ curves. Experience curve 

analysis implicitly includes factors such 

as efficiencies in labor, capital 

investment, automation, materials 

prices, distribution, and economies of 

scale at an industry-wide level.45 In the 

experience curve method, the real cost 

of production is related to the 

cumulative production or ‘‘experience’’ 

with a manufactured product. DOE used 

historical Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’) 

data for ‘‘household refrigerator and 

home freezer manufacturing’’ from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (‘‘BLS’’) 

spanning the time period between 1981 

and 2022 as a proxy of the production 

cost for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers and freezers.46 This is the most 

representative and current price index 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers. An inflation-adjusted price 

index was calculated by dividing the 

PPI series by the gross domestic product 

index from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis for the same years. The 

cumulative production of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers were 

assembled from the annual shipments 

from the Association of Household 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 

between 1951 and 2022, and shipment 

estimates prior to 1951 using a trend 

analysis. The estimated learning rate 

(defined as the fractional reduction in 

price expected from each doubling of 

cumulative production) is 39.4 ±1.9 

percent 

DOE included variable-speed 

compressors as a technology option for 

higher efficiency levels. To develop 

future prices specific for that 

technology, DOE applied a separate 

price trend to the controls portion of the 

variable-speed compressor, which 

represents part of the price increment 

when moving from an efficiency level 

achieved with the highest efficiency 

single-speed compressor to an efficiency 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3057 

47Semiconductors and related device 

manufacturing PPI series ID: PCU334413334413; 

www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

48 Dale, L., C. Antinori, M. McNeil, James E. 

McMahon, and K.S. Fujita. Retrospective evaluation 

of appliance price trends. Energy Policy. 2009. 37 

pp. 597–605. 

49Taylor, M., C.A. Spurlock, and H.-C. Yang. 

Confronting Regulatory Cost and Quality 

Expectations. An Exploration of Technical Change 

in Minimum Efficiency Performance Standards. 

2015. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. (LBNL), 

Berkeley, CA (United States). Report No. LBNL– 

1000576. Available at www.osti.gov/biblio/1235570/ 

(last accessed June 30, 2023). 

50Taylor, M. and K.S. Fujita. Accounting for 

Technological Change in Regulatory Impact 

Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. 2013. 

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL), Berkeley, 

CA (United States). Report No. LBNL–6195E. 

Available at escholarship.org/uc/3c8709p4 (last 

accessed July 20, 2023). 

51Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2018. Residential 

Electricity Prices: A Review of Data Sources and 

Estimation Methods. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL–2001169. 

Available at ees.lbl.gov/publications/residentialelectricity-prices-review (last accessed July 10, 

2023). 

52Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Nonresidential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data 

Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence 

Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. 

LBNL–2001203. Available at ees.lbl.gov/ 

publications/non-residential-electricity-prices (last 

accessed July 10, 2023). 

53U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration. Annual Energy 

Outlook 2023 with Projections to 2050. Washington, 

DC. Available at www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ (last 

accessed July 10, 2023). 

level with variable-speed compressor. 

DOE used PPI data on ‘‘semiconductors 

and related device manufacturing’’ 

between 1967 and 2022 to estimate the 

historic price trend of electronic 

components in the control.47 The 

regression, performed as an exponential 

trend line fit, results in an R-square of 

0.99, with an annual price decline rate 

of 6.3 percent. See chapter 8 of the TSD 

for further details on this topic. 

In response to the February 2023 

NOPR, AHAM commented that there is 

no theoretical underpinning for the 

implementation of an experience or 

learning curve and the functional form 

it should take. In addition, AHAM 

stated that the data that DOE used 

merely represents an empirical 

relationship, and a clear connection 

between the actual products in question 

and the data used needs to be made. 

AHAM noted that there is little reason 

to support the concept that price 

learning through manufacturing 

efficiencies should extend beyond the 

labor and materials in the product itself, 

and that such a relationship should not 

hold for other cost components. 

(AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 16–17) 

DOE notes that there is considerable 

empirical evidence of consistent price 

declines for appliances in the past few 

decades. Several studies examined 

refrigerator retail prices during different 

periods of time and showed that prices 

had been steadily falling while 

efficiency had been increasing, for 

example Dale, et al. (2009) 48 and 

Taylor, et al. (2015).49 As mentioned in 

Taylor and Fujita (2013),50 Federal 

agencies have adopted different 

approaches to account for ‘‘the changing 

future compliance costs that might 

result from technological innovation or 

anticipated behavioral changes.’’ Given 

the limited data availability on 

historical manufacturing costs broken 

by different components, DOE utilized 

the Producer Price Index (‘‘PPI’’) 

published by the BLS as a proxy for 

manufacturing costs to represent the 

analyzed product as a whole. While 

products may experience varying 

degrees of price learning during 

different product stages, DOE modeled 

the average learning rate based on the 

full historical PPI series for ‘‘household 

refrigerator and home freezer 

manufacturing’’ to capture the overall 

price evolution in relation to the 

cumulative shipments. DOE also 

conducted sensitivity analyses that are 

based on a particular segment of the PPI 

data for household refrigerator 

manufacturing to investigate the impact 

of alternative product price projections 

(low price learning and high price 

learning) in the NIA of this direct final 

rule. DOE further notes, that AHAM is 

a party to the Joint Agreement and is 

supportive of the recommended 

standard adopted in this direct final 

rule. 

3. Installation Cost

Installation cost includes labor,

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

product. DOE found no evidence that 

installation costs for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers would 

be impacted with increased efficiency 

levels. As a result, DOE did not include 

installation costs in the LCC and PBP 

analysis. 

4. Annual Energy Consumption

For each sampled household or

commercial building, DOE determined 

the energy consumption for a 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or 

freezer at different efficiency levels 

using the approach described previously 

in section IV.E of this document. 

5. Energy Prices

Because marginal electricity price

more accurately captures the 

incremental savings associated with a 

change in energy use from higher 

efficiency, it provides a better 

representation of incremental change in 

consumer costs than average electricity 

prices. Therefore, DOE applied average 

electricity prices for the energy use of 

the product purchased in the no-newstandards case, and marginal electricity 

prices for the incremental change in 

energy use associated with the other 

efficiency levels considered. 

DOE derived electricity prices in 2022 

using data from EEI Typical Bills and 

Average Rates reports. Based upon 

comprehensive, industry-wide surveys, 

this semi-annual report presents typical 

monthly electric bills and average 

kilowatt-hour costs to the customer as 

charged by investor-owned utilities. For 

the residential sector, DOE calculated 

electricity prices using the methodology 

described in Coughlin and Beraki 

(2018).51 For the commercial sector, 

DOE calculated electricity prices using 

the methodology described in Coughlin 

and Beraki (2019).52

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the 2022 energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

average price changes for each of the 

nine census divisions from the 

Reference case in AEO2023, which has 

an end year of 2050.53 To estimate price 

trends after 2050, DOE used the 2050 

electricity prices, held constant. 

6. Maintenance and Repair Costs

Repair costs are associated with

repairing or replacing product 

components that have failed in an 

appliance; maintenance costs are 

associated with maintaining the 

operation of the product. Typically, 

small incremental increases in product 

efficiency entail no, or only minor, 

changes in repair and maintenance costs 

compared to baseline efficiency 

products. DOE is not aware of any data 

that suggest the cost of maintenance 

changes as a function of efficiency for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. DOE therefore assumed that 

maintenance costs are the same 

regardless of EL and do not impact the 

LCC or PBP. 

For the February 2023 NOPR as well 

as this direct final rule, DOE developed 

a repair cost estimation method based 

on the average total installed cost and 

average annual repair costs by PC and 

EL from the September 2011 Final Rule. 

For each of three categories—standardsize refrigerator-freezers, standard-size 

freezers, and compact refrigeration 

products—DOE averaged the annual 

repair cost as a fraction of the total 

installed cost at each EL. Based on this 

method, DOE estimated consumers with 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers have 

annual repair costs equal to 1.8 percent 

of their total installed cost, consumers 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3058 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

54MIL–HDBK–217 is a handbook to establish and 

maintain consistent and uniform methods for 

estimating the inherent reliability of military 

electronic equipment and systems. Bellcore/ 

Telcordia is a similar reliability guide for the 

telecommunications and electronics industry. 

55Available at www.hbkworld.com/en/ 

knowledge/resource-center/articles/2022/mil-217- 

bellcore-telcordia-and-other-reliability-predictionmethods-for-electronic-products (last accessed July 

13, 2023). 

56The implicit discount rate is inferred from a 

consumer purchase decision between two otherwise 

identical goods with different first cost and 

operating cost. It is the interest rate that equates the 

increment of first cost to the difference in net 

present value of lifetime operating cost, 

incorporating the influence of several factors: 

transaction costs; risk premiums and response to 

uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at 

which a consumer is able to borrow or lend. The 

implicit discount rate is not appropriate for the LCC 

analysis because it reflects a range of factors that 

influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than 

the opportunity cost of the funds that are used in 

purchases. 

57U.S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System. Survey of Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 

2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. 

Available at www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/ 

scf/scfindex.htm (last accessed July 10, 2023). 

with standard-size freezers have an 

annual repair cost of 0.8 percent of their 

total installed cost, and consumers with 

compact refrigeration products have an 

annual repair cost of 0.9 percent of their 

total installed cost. Because highefficiency products have a higher 

installed cost, their estimated average 

annual repair costs are also higher. 

In response to the February 2023 

NOPR, an individual commented that 

product reliability is inversely related to 

the number of product parts, and 

Strauch suggested that DOE use the 

MIL–HDBK–217 or the Bellcore/ 

Telcordia reliability guides to inform its 

maintenance and repair cost analysis. 

(Individual Commenter, No. 59 at pp. 1– 

2) DOE appreciates the 

recommendation, but notes that the data 

required to properly use the MIL– 

HDBK–217 or Bellcore/Telcordia 

standards 54 (e.g., parts count, parts 

stress conditions, and laboratory and 

field failure rates of specific parts) is 

unavailable in the LCC analysis. This is 

due to the fact that the LCC analyzes 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer representative units as opposed 

to specific product models. Moreover, 

according to Hottinger Bru ̈ el & Kj#r 

(‘‘HBK’’) there are a number of 

limitations to such empirical methods, 

including: (1) the data used to inform 

these traditional empirical models is 

typically outdated, (2) whereas the 

models assume components fail 

independently of each other, in some 

cases the overall system design is the 

causal factor, and (3) obtaining highquality field and manufacturing data to 

inform the adjustment factors used in 

the models is difficult.55 For these 

reasons, for this direct final rule 

analysis DOE continued to use the 

method used in the February 2023 

NOPR. 

AHAM also commented that failed 

VIPs are unrepairable in the field 

meaning manufacturers work to ensure 

VIPs will not fail prior to the end of the 

product’s useful life. (AHAM, No. 69 at 

p. 6) DOE appreciates this information 

but notes that, due to a lack of available 

data, the repair cost estimates used in 

the LCC analysis are not componentspecific. 

7. Product Lifetime 

DOE performed separate modeling of 

lifetime for standard-size refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers, standard-size 

freezers, and compact refrigeration 

products. For standard-size refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE 

estimated product lifetimes by fitting a 

survival probability function to data on 

historical shipments and the age 

distributions of installed stock from 

RECS 2005, RECS 2009, RECS 2015, and 

RECS 2020. The survival function, 

which DOE assumed has the form of a 

cumulative Weibull distribution, 

provides an average and median 

lifetime. Moreover, the conversion from 

primary-to-secondary refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer was also modeled as 

part of the lifetime determination for 

standard-size refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

For compact refrigerators, DOE 

estimated an average lifetime of 8.8 

years using data on shipments and the 

number of units in use (stock). For 

compact freezers, DOE did not have 

reliable stock data available to compare 

against historical shipments. Therefore, 

DOE estimated an average lifetime of 

11.3 years by multiplying the average 

lifetime of compact refrigerators by the 

ratio of the average lifetime of standardsize freezers (18.4 years) to the average 

lifetime of standard-size refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers (14.3 years). 

In response to the February 2023 

NOPR, an individual commented that 

more stringent efficiency standards 

reduce the service lifetime of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. (Individual Commenter, No. 59 

at p. 1) DOE used the latest available 

data to inform the lifetime distributions 

used in this direct final rule analysis, 

and DOE does not have data to 

corroborate a causal connection between 

the stringency of efficiency standards 

and the expected service lifetime of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. Therefore, DOE continues to 

assume that amending the efficiency 

standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers will not directly 

impact the estimated service lifetime of 

these products. 

8. Discount Rates 

In the calculation of LCC, DOE 

applies discount rates appropriate to 

residential and commercial consumers 

to estimate the present value of future 

operating cost savings. DOE estimated 

distributions of residential and 

commercial discount rates for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers based on consumer financing 

costs and the opportunity cost of 

consumer funds (for the residential 

sector) and cost of capital of publicly 

traded firms (for the commercial sector). 

DOE applies weighted average 

discount rates calculated from consumer 

debt and asset data, rather than marginal 

or implicit discount rates.56 The LCC 

analysis estimates net present value 

over the lifetime of the product, so the 

appropriate discount rate will reflect the 

general opportunity cost of household 

funds, taking this time scale into 

account. Given the long time horizon 

modeled in the LCC, the application of 

a marginal interest rate associated with 

an initial source of funds is inaccurate. 

Regardless of the method of purchase, 

consumers are expected to continue to 

rebalance their debt and asset holdings 

over the LCC analysis period, based on 

the restrictions consumers face in their 

debt payment requirements and the 

relative size of the interest rates 

available on debts and assets. DOE 

estimates the aggregate impact of this 

rebalancing using the historical 

distribution of debts and assets. 

To establish residential discount rates 

for the LCC analysis, DOE identified all 

relevant household debt or asset classes 

in order to approximate a consumer’s 

opportunity cost of funds related to 

appliance energy cost savings. It 

estimated the average percentage shares 

of the various types of debt and equity 

by household income group using data 

from the Federal Reserve Board’s 

triennial Survey of Consumer 

Finances 57 (‘‘SCF’’) starting in 1995 and 

ending in 2019. Using the SCF and other 

sources, DOE developed a distribution 

of rates for each type of debt and asset 

by income group to represent the rates 

that may apply in the year in which 

amended standards would take effect. 

DOE assigned each sample household a 

specific discount rate drawn from one of 

the distributions. The average rate 

across all types of household debt and 

equity and income groups, weighted by 

the shares of each type, is 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3059 

approximately 4 percent (the average 

varies by PC). 

For commercial consumers, DOE used 

the cost of capital to estimate the 

present value of cash flows to be 

derived from a typical company project 

or investment. Most companies use both 

debt and equity capital to fund 

investments, so the cost of capital is the 

weighted-average cost to the firm of 

equity and debt financing. This 

corporate finance approach is referred to 

as the weighted-average cost of capital. 

DOE used currently available economic 

data in developing discount rates. The 

average discount rate for the PC 11A 

commercial consumer sample is 6.8 

percent. 

In response to the February 2023 

NOPR, AHAM commented that 

operating costs and the depreciation of 

capital investments are deductible costs 

for commercial end-users from Federal 

and State corporate income taxes. 

AHAM suggested that DOE should 

incorporate the effects of tax 

deductibility in the LCC analysis. 

(AHAM, No. 69 at p. 19) DOE responds 

that as noted in the comment, the 

estimation of commercial discount rates 

accounts for the tax deductibility of the 

energy costs and capital investment 

depreciation and therefore the net 

present value of the future operating 

cost savings in the LCC analysis should 

already reflect that effect. 

In response to the February 2023 

NOPR, AHAM further commented that 

DOE used an inappropriate discount 

rate in its analysis of the effects of 

standards on low-income households, 

claiming that it does not take into 

account issues of capital availability or 

the non-financial costs from a purchase. 

AHAM also presented data from their 

survey work with Bellomy Research 

showing that the lowest 30 percent 

income groups have no discretionary 

income to save, making it impossible for 

them to rebalance their balance sheets 

after making a purchase. (AHAM, No. 69 

at p. 11) 

With respect to the issue of DOE’s 

methodology for estimating consumer 

discount rates, DOE maintains that the 

LCC is not predicting a purchase 

decision, which DOE assumes to be 

AHAM’s interpretation given their focus 

on the availability of cash for appliance 

purchases. Rather, the LCC estimates the 

net present value of the financial impact 

of a given standard level over the 

lifetime of the product (i.e., 30 years) 

assuming the standard-compliant 

product has already been installed and 

allows for comparison of this value 

across different hypothetical minimum 

efficiency levels. It is applied to futureyear energy costs and non-energy 

operations and maintenance costs in 

order to calculate the net present value 

of the appliance to a household at the 

time of installation. The consumer 

discount rate reflects the opportunity 

cost of receiving energy cost savings in 

the future, rather than at the time of 

purchase and installation. The 

opportunity cost of receiving operating 

cost savings in future years, rather than 

in the first year of the modeled period, 

is dependent on the rate of return that 

could be earned if invested into an 

interest-bearing asset or the interest cost 

accrual avoided by paying down debt. 

Consumers in all income bins generally 

hold a variety of assets (e.g., certificates 

of deposit, stocks, bonds) and debts 

(e.g., mortgage, credit cards, vehicle 

loan), which vary in amount over time 

as consumers allocate their earnings, 

make new investments, etc. Thus, the 

consumer discount rate is estimated as 

a weighted average of the rates and 

proportions of the various types of 

assets and debts held by households in 

a given income bin, as reported by the 

Survey of Consumer Finances. In the 

low-income subgroup analysis, DOE 

specifically evaluated the impacts of 

increased efficiency on low-income 

households using discount rates 

estimated specifically for the lowincome bin. DOE further notes, that 

AHAM is a party to the Joint Agreement 

and is supportive of the recommended 

standard adopted in this direct final 

rule. 

See chapter 8 of the direct final rule 

TSD for further details on the 

development of consumer discount 

rates. 

9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the 

No-New-Standards Case 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

potential energy conservation standard 

at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s 

LCC analysis considered the projected 

distribution (market shares) of product 

efficiencies under the no-new-standards 

case (i.e., the case without amended or 

new energy conservation standards). 

To estimate the energy efficiency 

distribution of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, DOE used current 

shipments data provided by AHAM in 

response to the NOPR for PCs 3, 5, 5A, 

7, 9, 11A, and 18, and model counts 

from DOE’s CCMS database for PCs 5BI, 

10, and 17. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 2–3) 

Models in the database were categorized 

by capacity and assigned an efficiency 

level based on reported energy use. In 

the absence of data on trends in 

efficiency, DOE assumed the current 

efficiency distribution would be 

representative of the efficiency 

distribution in the compliance year in 

the no-new-standards case. The 

estimated market shares for the no-newstandards case for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are 

shown in Table IV.11. See chapter 8 of 

the direct final rule TSD for further 

information on the derivation of the 

efficiency distributions. 

TABLE IV.11—NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS

Product class 

Total 

adjusted 

volume 

(cu. ft.) 

Market share 

(%) 

EL 0 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 Total * 

3 ....................................................................... 11.9 77.0 4.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

20.6 77.0 4.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

5 ....................................................................... 23 90.0 7.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 ................ 100.0 

30 90.0 7.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 ................ 100.0 

5A ..................................................................... 35 97.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 ................ ................ 100.0 

5BI .................................................................... 26 27.0 51.4 0.0 21.6 ................ ................ 100.0 

7 ....................................................................... 31.5 85.5 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 

9 ....................................................................... 29.3 83.0 16.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 ................ 100.0 

10 ..................................................................... 26 95.3 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 ................ 100.0 

11A ................................................................... 1.7 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ................ 100.0 

4.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ................ 100.0 

17 ..................................................................... 9 19.4 58.2 13.4 9.0 ................ ................ 100.0 

18 ..................................................................... 8.9 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ................ 100.0 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3060 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

58Ward, D.O., Clark, C.D., Jensen, K.L., Yen, S.T., 

& Russell, C.S. (2011): ‘‘Factors influencing 

willingness-to pay for the ENERGY STAR® label,’’ 

Energy Policy, 39 (3), 1450–1458 (available at: 

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ 

S0301421510009171) (last accessed August 1, 

2023). 

59Thaler, R.H., Sunstein, C.R., and Balz, J.P. 

(2014). ‘‘Choice Architecture’’ in The Behavioral 

Foundations of Public Policy, Eldar Shafir (ed). 

60Thaler, R.H., and Bernartzi, S. (2004). ‘‘Save 

More Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics in 

Increase Employee Savings,’’ Journal of Political 

Economy 112(1), S164–S187. See also Klemick, H., 

et al. (2015) ‘‘Heavy-Duty Trucking and the Energy 

Efficiency Paradox: Evidence from Focus Groups 

and Interviews,’’ Transportation Research Part A: 

Policy & Practice, 77, 154–166 (providing evidence 

that loss aversion and other market failures can 

affect otherwise profit-maximizing firms). 

61Thaler, R.H., and Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: 

Improving Decisions on Health, Wealth, and 

Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

62 Davis, L.W., and G.E. Metcalf (2016): ‘‘Does 

better information lead to better choices? Evidence 

from energy-efficiency labels,’’ Journal of the 

Association of Environmental and Resource 

Economists, 3(3), 589–625 (available at: 

www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/ 

686252) (last accessed August 1, 2023). 

The LCC Monte Carlo simulations 

draw from the efficiency distributions 

and randomly assign an efficiency to the 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or 

freezer purchased by each sample 

household in the no-new-standards 

case. The resulting percent shares 

within the sample match the market 

shares in the efficiency distributions. 

In the February 2023 NOPR, DOE 

performed a random assignment of 

efficiency levels to consumers in its 

Monte Carlo sample. 88 FR 12452, 

12484–12485. While DOE acknowledges 

that economic factors may play a role 

when consumers decide on what type of 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or 

freezer to install, assignment of 

refrigeration product efficiency for a 

given installation, based solely on 

economic measures such as life-cycle 

cost or simple payback period, most 

likely would not fully and accurately 

reflect actual real-world installations. 

There are a number of market failures 

discussed in the economics literature 

that illustrate how purchasing decisions 

with respect to energy efficiency are 

unlikely to be perfectly correlated with 

energy use, as described below. DOE 

maintains that the method of 

assignment, which is in part random, is 

a reasonable approach, because it 

simulates behavior in the refrigeration 

product market, where market failures 

result in purchasing decisions not being 

perfectly aligned with economic 

interests, and is more realistic than 

relying only on apparent costeffectiveness criteria derived from the 

limited information in RECS. DOE 

further emphasizes that its approach 

does not assume that all purchasers of 

refrigeration products make 

economically irrational decisions (i.e., 

the lack of a correlation is not the same 

as a negative correlation). By using this 

approach, DOE acknowledges the 

uncertainty inherent in the data and 

minimizes any bias in the analysis by 

using random assignment, as opposed to 

assuming certain market conditions that 

are unsupported given the available 

evidence. 

The following discussion provides 

more detail about the various market 

failures that affect refrigeration product 

purchases. First, consumers are 

motivated by more than simple financial 

trade-offs. There are consumers who are 

willing to pay a premium for more 

energy-efficient products because they 

are environmentally conscious.58 There 

are also several behavioral factors that 

can influence the purchasing decisions 

of complicated multi-attribute products, 

such as refrigeration products. For 

example, consumers (or decision makers 

in an organization) are highly 

influenced by choice architecture, 

defined as the framing of the decision, 

the surrounding circumstances of the 

purchase, the alternatives available, and 

how they are presented for any given 

choice scenario.59 The same consumer 

or decision maker may make different 

choices depending on the characteristics 

of the decision context (e.g., the timing 

of the purchase, competing demands for 

funds), which have nothing to do with 

the characteristics of the alternatives 

themselves or their prices. Consumers 

or decision makers also face a variety of 

other behavioral phenomena including 

loss aversion, sensitivity to information 

salience, and other forms of bounded 

rationality.60 Thaler, who won the 

Nobel Prize in Economics in 2017 for 

his contributions to behavioral 

economics, and Sunstein point out that 

these behavioral factors are strongest 

when the decisions are complex and 

infrequent, when feedback on the 

decision is muted and slow, and when 

there is a high degree of information 

asymmetry.61 These characteristics 

describe almost all purchasing 

situations of appliances and equipment, 

including refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. The installation of 

a new or replacement refrigeration 

products is done very infrequently, as 

evidenced by the mean lifetime of 14.3 

years for standard-size refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers and 18.4 years for 

standard-size freezers. Further, if the 

purchaser of the refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, or freezer is not the 

entity paying the energy costs (e.g., a 

building owner and tenant), there may 

be little to no feedback on the purchase. 

Additionally, there are systematic 

market failures that are likely to 

contribute further complexity to how 

products are chosen by consumers, as 

explained in the following paragraphs. 

The first of these market failures—the 

split-incentive or principal-agent 

problem—is likely to significantly affect 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. The principal-agent problem is 

a market failure that results when the 

consumer that purchases the equipment 

does not internalize all of the costs 

associated with operating the 

equipment. Instead, the user of the 

product, who has no control over the 

purchase decision, pays the operating 

costs. There is a high likelihood of splitincentive problems in the case of rental 

properties where the landlord makes the 

choice of what refrigeration product to 

install, whereas the renter is responsible 

for paying energy bills. 

In addition to the split-incentive 

problem, there are other market failures 

that are likely to affect the choice of 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or 

freezer product efficiency made by 

consumers. For example, unplanned 

replacements due to unexpected failure 

of equipment such as refrigeration 

products are strongly biased toward 

like-for-like replacement (i.e., replacing 

the non-functioning equipment with a 

similar or identical product). Time is a 

constraining factor during unplanned 

replacements, and consumers may not 

consider the full range of available 

options on the market, despite their 

availability. The consideration of 

alternative product options is far more 

likely for planned replacements and 

installations in new construction. 

Additionally, Davis and Metcalf 62

conducted an experiment demonstrating 

that, even when consumers are 

presented with energy consumption 

information, the nature of the 

information available to consumers (e.g., 

from EnergyGuide labels) results in an 

inefficient allocation of energy 

efficiency across households with 

different usage levels. Their findings 

indicate that households are likely to 

make decisions regarding the efficiency 

of the air conditioning equipment of 

their homes that do not result in the 

highest net present value for their 

specific usage pattern (i.e., their 

decision is based on imperfect 

information and, therefore, is not 

necessarily optimal). Also, most 

consumers did not properly understand 

the labels (specifically whether energy 

consumption and cost estimates were 

national averages or specific to their 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3061 

63Attari, S.Z., M.L. DeKay, C.I. Davidson, and W. 

Bruine de Bruin (2010): ‘‘Public perceptions of 

energy consumption and savings.’’ Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Sciences 107(37), 16054– 

16059 (available at: www.pnas.org/content/107/37/ 

16054) (last accessed August 1, 2023). 

64Houde, S. (2018): ‘‘How Consumers Respond to 

Environmental Certification and the Value of 

Energy Information,’’ The RAND Journal of 

Economics, 49 (2), 453–477 (available at: 

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1756-

2171.12231) (last accessed August 1, 2023). 

65 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are lacking. In general, one would expect a close 

correspondence between shipments and sales. 

State). As such, consumers did not make 

the most informed decisions. 

In part because of the way 

information is presented, and in part 

because of the way consumers process 

information, there is also a market 

failure consisting of a systematic bias in 

the perception of equipment energy 

usage, which can affect consumer 

choices. Attari et al.63 show that 

consumers tend to underestimate the 

energy use of large energy-intensive 

appliances (such as air conditioners, 

dishwashers, and clothes dryers), but 

overestimate the energy use of small 

appliances (such as light bulbs). 

Therefore, it is possible that consumers 

systematically underestimate the energy 

use associated with refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, 

resulting in less cost-effective 

purchases. 

These market failures affect a sizeable 

share of the consumer population. A 

study by Houde 64 indicates that there is 

a significant subset of consumers that 

appear to purchase appliances without 

taking into account their energy 

efficiency and operating costs at all. 

The existence of market failures in the 

residential sector is well supported by 

the economics literature and by a 

number of case studies. If DOE 

developed an efficiency distribution 

that assigned refrigeration product 

efficiency in the no-new-standards case 

solely according to energy use or 

economic considerations such as lifecycle cost or payback period, the 

resulting distribution of efficiencies 

within the consumer sample would not 

reflect any of the market failures or 

behavioral factors above. Thus, DOE 

concludes such a distribution would not 

be representative of the refrigeration 

product market. Further, even if a 

specific household is not subject to the 

market failures above, the purchasing 

decision of refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, or freezer product efficiency can 

be highly complex and influenced by a 

number of factors (e.g., aesthetics) not 

captured by the building characteristics 

available in the RECS sample. These 

factors can lead to households or 

building owners choosing a refrigeration 

product efficiency that deviates from the 

efficiency predicted using only energy 

use or economic considerations such as 

life-cycle cost or payback period. 

There is a complex set of behavioral 

factors, with sometimes opposing 

effects, affecting the refrigeration 

product market. It is impractical to 

model every consumer decision 

incorporating all of these effects at this 

extreme level of granularity given the 

limited available data. Given these 

myriad factors, DOE estimates the 

resulting distribution of such a model, 

if it were possible, would be very 

scattered with high variability. It is for 

this reason DOE utilizes a random 

distribution (after accounting for 

efficiency market share constraints) to 

approximate these effects. The 

methodology is not an assertion of 

economic irrationality, but instead, it is 

a methodological approximation of 

complex consumer behavior. The 

analysis is neither biased toward high or 

low energy savings. The methodology 

does not preferentially assign lowerefficiency refrigeration products to 

households in the no-new-standards 

case where savings from the rule would 

be greatest, nor does it preferentially 

assign lower-efficiency refrigeration 

products to households in the no-newstandards case where savings from the 

rule would be smallest. Some 

consumers were assigned the 

refrigeration products that they would 

have chosen if they had engaged in 

perfect economic considerations when 

purchasing the products. Others were 

assigned less-efficient refrigeration 

products even where a more-efficient 

product would eventually result in lifecycle savings, simulating scenarios 

where, for example, various market 

failures prevent consumers from 

realizing those savings. Still others were 

assigned refrigeration products that 

were more efficient than one would 

expect simply from life-cycle costs 

analysis, reflecting, say, ‘‘green’’ 

behavior, whereby consumers ascribe 

independent value to minimizing harm 

to the environment. 

10. Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time (expressed in years) it takes the 

consumer to recover the additional 

installed cost of more efficient products, 

compared to baseline products, through 

energy cost savings. Payback periods 

that exceed the life of the product mean 

that the increased total installed cost is 

not recovered in reduced operating 

expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation for 

each efficiency level are the change in 

total installed cost of the product and 

the change in the first-year annual 

operating expenditures relative to the 

baseline. DOE refers to this as a ‘‘simple 

PBP’’ because it does not consider 

changes over time in operating cost 

savings. The PBP calculation uses the 

same inputs as the LCC analysis when 

deriving first-year operating costs. 

As noted previously, 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 first 

year’s energy savings resulting from the 

standard, as calculated under the 

applicable test procedure. (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 energy savings in 

accordance with the applicable DOE test 

procedure, and multiplying those 

savings by the average energy price 

projection for the year in which 

compliance with the amended standards 

would be required. 

G. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of annual 

product shipments to calculate the 

national impacts of potential amended 

or new energy conservation standards 

on energy use, NPV, and future 

manufacturer cash flows.65 The 

shipments model takes an accounting 

approach, tracking market shares of 

each product class and the vintage of 

units in the 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 in-service 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. For this direct 

final rule, DOE excluded PC 9A—BI 

from the shipments analysis due to its 

very small shipments volume. 

Total shipments for each product 

category (i.e., standard-size refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers, standard-size 

freezers, compact refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers, and compact 

freezers) are developed by considering 

the demand from various market 

segments. For standard-size refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers, DOE 

considered demand from replacements 

for units in stock that fail, shipments to 

new construction, and the demand 

created by increased saturation into 

existing households corresponding to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3062 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

66Fujita, K.S. Estimating Price Elasticity using 

Market-Level Appliance Data. LBNL–188289. 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, 

CA. August 2015. Available at escholarship.org/uc/ 

item/1t65f9c3#main. 

67The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states 

and U.S. territories. 

the conversion of a primary unit to 

secondary unit. For all other product 

categories, DOE considered demand 

from replacements for units in stock that 

fail, shipments to new construction, and 

shipments to first-time owners in 

existing households. DOE calculated 

shipments due to replacements using 

the retirement functions developed for 

the LCC analysis (see chapter 8 of the 

direct final rule TSD for details). DOE 

projected shipments to new 

construction using estimates for new 

housing starts and the average 

saturation of each product category in 

new households. Shipments to first-time 

owners were estimated by analyzing the 

increasing penetration of products into 

existing households in each product 

category. For standard-size refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers, DOE estimated 

shipments from increased saturation 

corresponding to the conversion of a 

primary unit to a secondary unit 

utilizing the primary-to-secondary 

conversion function developed for the 

LCC analysis. More detail on this 

methodology can be found in chapter 8 

of the direct final rule TSD. 

For the direct final rule analysis, DOE 

incorporated data from stakeholders 

into the shipments. Confidential 

aggregate historical shipments data from 

2015–2022 provided by AHAM were 

used to calibrate the total shipments for 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers, 

compact refrigerators, upright freezers, 

chest freezers, and built-in refrigeratorfreezers. For the direct final rule, DOE 

used the AHAM-provided estimates for 

the efficiency distributions based on 

shipments for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers and compact freezers. (AHAM, 

No. 69 at pp. 2–3) 

Whirlpool requested that DOE 

provide data to indicate that there 

would be no impact to appliance 

replacement at the proposed standard 

level at TSL 5. (Whirlpool, No. 85 at pp. 

8–9) DOE uses a price elasticity of 

demand to address the impact of 

increased prices on shipments based on 

an analysis using market-level appliance 

data including refrigerators.66 DOE 

provides the description of the price 

elasticity methodology in chapter 9 in 

the direct final rule TSD. 

Chapter 9 in the direct final rule TSD 

provides further information on the 

shipments analysis. 

H. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the national energy 

savings (‘‘NES’’) and the NPV from a 

national perspective of total consumer 

costs and savings that would be 

expected to result from new or amended 

standards at specific efficiency levels.67

(‘‘Consumer’’ in this context refers to 

consumers of the product being 

regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and 

NPV for the potential standard levels 

considered based on projections of 

annual product shipments, along with 

the annual energy consumption and 

total installed cost data from the energy 

use and LCC analyses. For the present 

analysis, DOE projected the energy 

savings, operating cost savings, product 

costs, and NPV of consumer benefits 

over the lifetime of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers sold 

from 2027 through 2056 for all TSLs 

other than TSL 4, the Recommended 

TSL detailed in the Joint Agreement. For 

TSL 4, DOE projected the energy 

savings, operating cost savings, product 

costs, and NPV of consumer benefits 

over the lifetime of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers sold 

from 2029 through 2058 for the product 

classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030 

through 2059 for the product classes 

listed in Table I.2. 

DOE evaluates the impacts of new or 

amended standards by comparing a case 

without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards 

case characterizes energy use and 

consumer costs for each product class in 

the absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. For this 

projection, DOE considers historical 

trends in efficiency and various forces 

that are likely to affect the mix of 

efficiencies over time. DOE compares 

the no-new-standards case 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 

standards cases, DOE considers how a 

given standard would likely affect the 

market shares of products with 

efficiencies greater than the standard. 

DOE uses a spreadsheet model, which 

is available in the docket, to calculate 

the energy savings and the national 

consumer costs and savings from each 

TSL. Interested parties can review 

DOE’s analyses by changing various 

input quantities within the spreadsheet. 

The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical 

values (as opposed to probability 

distributions) as inputs. 

Table IV.12 summarizes the inputs 

and methods DOE used for the NIA 

analysis for the direct final rule. 

Discussion of these inputs and methods 

follows the table. See chapter 10 of the 

direct final rule TSD for further details. 

TABLE IV.12—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Method 

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

Compliance Date of Standard ............................. 2027 for all TSLs other than TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 

and 2030 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

Efficiency Trends ................................................. No trend assumed. 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ................ Calculated for each efficiency level based on inputs from energy use analysis. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit ............................... Prices for the year of compliance are calculated in the LCC analysis. Prices in subsequent 

years are calculated incorporating price learning based on historical data. 

Annual Energy Cost per Unit .............................. Calculated for each efficiency level using the energy use per unit, and electricity prices and 

trends. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit .............. Annual repair costs from LCC. 

Energy Price Trends ........................................... AEO2023 projections (to 2050) and fixed at 2050 thereafter. 

Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion ..... A time-series conversion factor based on AEO2023. 

Discount Rate ...................................................... Three and seven percent. 

Present Year ....................................................... 2023. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3063 

68For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009. 

Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/index.cfm 

(last accessed July 13, 2023). 

1. Product Efficiency Trends 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency projected for 

the no-new-standards case and each of 

the standards cases. Section IV.F.9 of 

this document describes how DOE 

developed an energy efficiency 

distribution for the no-new-standards 

case (which yields a shipment-weighted 

average efficiency) for each of the 

considered product classes for the year 

of anticipated compliance with an 

amended or new standard. 

For the standards cases, DOE used a 

‘‘roll up’’ scenario to establish the 

shipment-weighted efficiency for the 

year that standards are assumed to 

become effective. In this scenario, the 

market shares of products in the nonew-standards case that do not meet the 

standard under consideration would 

‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new standard 

level, and the market share of products 

above the standard would remain 

unchanged. In the absence of data on 

trends in efficiency, DOE assumed no 

efficiency trend over the analysis period 

for both the no-new-standards and 

standards cases. For a given case, 

market shares by efficiency level were 

held fixed to their distribution in the 

compliance year. The approach is 

further described in chapter 10 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

2. National Energy Savings 

The national energy savings analysis 

involves a comparison of national 

energy consumption of the considered 

products between each potential 

standards case (‘‘TSL’’) and the case 

with no new or amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE calculated 

the national energy consumption by 

multiplying the number of units (stock) 

of each product (by vintage or age) by 

the unit energy consumption (also by 

vintage). DOE calculated annual NES 

based on the difference in national 

energy consumption for the no-newstandards case and for each higher 

efficiency standard case. DOE estimated 

energy consumption and savings based 

on site energy and converted the 

electricity consumption and savings to 

primary energy (i.e., the energy 

consumed by power plants to generate 

site electricity) using annual conversion 

factors derived from AEO2023. 

Cumulative energy savings are the sum 

of the NES for each year over the 

timeframe of the analysis. 

In this direct final rule analysis, DOE 

analyzed the energy and economic 

impacts of a potential standard on all 

product classes in the scope of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. Results for non-representative 

product classes (i.e., those not analyzed 

in the engineering, energy use, and LCC 

analyses) are scaled using results for the 

analyzed product class that best 

represents each non-representative 

product class. For non-representative 

freestanding product classes, energy use 

values are scaled by applying the ratio 

of the current Federal standard baseline 

between the two product classes at a 

fixed volume. For non-representative 

built-in product classes, DOE developed 

energy scalars using the most similar 

freestanding representative product 

class and assumed a 5-percent reduction 

in the increase in efficiency at each EL 

relative to the corresponding EL for the 

freestanding product class. For example, 

a 10-percent reduction in energy use for 

PC 3 would correspond to a 5-percent 

reduction for PC 3–BI. DOE assumes the 

incremental cost between efficiency 

levels is the same for representative and 

non-representative product classes. See 

chapter 10 of the direct final rule TSD 

for more details. 

In this direct final rule, for the 

Recommended TSL (TSL 4), the scaling 

of certain non-representative product 

classes (specifically PC 12, PC 4–BI, PC 

7–BI, and PC 9–BI) has been modified 

from the February 2023 NOPR, 

consistent with the Joint Agreement. In 

the February 2023 NOPR, PC 12 was 

scaled to PC 11A with the same 

standard level for PC 12 as PC 11A 

under a given TSL. However, under the 

Joint Agreement, at the Recommended 

TSL, PC 12 is scaled differently. At TSL 

4, for PC 11A, the standard is met at EL 

2 and for PC 12, the standard level 

corresponds to EL 1 for PC 11A. Thus, 

for TSL 4, DOE updated its scaling for 

PC 12 to reflect EL 1 rather than EL 2 

from PC 11A. In the February 2023 

NOPR, PC 4–BI and PC 7–BI were scaled 

to PC 7, and the standard level under 

TSL 4 corresponded to EL 3 for PC 4– 

BI, PC 7–BI, and PC 7. Under the Joint 

Agreement, at TSL 4, PC 7 continues to 

correspond to EL 3, but PC 4–BI and PC 

7–BI correspond to EL 4. Finally, in the 

February 2023 NOPR, PC 9—BI was 

scaled to PC 9, and both met the 

standard under TSL 4 at EL1. At TSL4, 

the standard for PC 9 is met at EL 2 

while PC–9 BI continues to be scaled to 

EL 1. 

Use of higher-efficiency products is 

sometimes associated with a direct 

rebound effect, which refers to an 

increase in utilization of the product 

due to the increase in efficiency. DOE 

did not find any data on the rebound 

effect specific to refrigerators that would 

indicate that consumers would alter 

their utilization of their product as a 

result of an increase in efficiency. DOE 

assumed a rebound rate of 0. DOE did 

not receive any comments regarding this 

assumption in response to the February 

2023 NOPR. 

In 2011, in response to the 

recommendations of a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the 

National Academy of Sciences, DOE 

announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use and greenhouse 

gas and other emissions in the national 

impact analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 

(Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 

approaches discussed in the August 18, 

2011 statement of policy, DOE 

published a statement of amended 

policy in which DOE explained its 

determination that EIA’s National 

Energy Modeling System (‘‘NEMS’’) is 

the most appropriate tool for its FFC 

analysis and its intention to use NEMS 

for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 

2012). NEMS is a public domain, multisector, partial equilibrium model of the 

U.S. energy sector 68 that EIA uses to 

prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The 

FFC factors incorporate losses in 

production and delivery in the case of 

natural gas (including fugitive 

emissions) and additional energy used 

to produce and deliver the various fuels 

used by power plants. The approach 

used for deriving FFC measures of 

energy use and emissions is described 

in appendix 10B of the direct final rule 

TSD. 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are (1) total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

operating costs (energy costs and repair 

and maintenance costs), and (3) a 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. DOE 

calculates net savings each year as the 

difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case 

in terms of total savings in operating 

costs versus total increases in installed 

costs. DOE calculates operating cost 

savings over the lifetime of each product 

shipped during the projection period. 

As discussed in section IV.F.2 of this 

document, DOE developed refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers price 

trends based on an experience curve 

calculated using historical PPI data. For 

efficiency levels with a single-speed 

compressor, DOE applied a price trend 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3064 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

69United States Office of Management and 

Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. 

September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 

georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/memo

randa/m03-21.html (last accessed July 10, 2023). 

developed using the ‘‘household 

refrigerator and home freezer 

manufacturing’’ PPI to the entire cost of 

the unit. For efficiency levels with a 

variable-speed compressor, DOE applied 

a price trend developed from the 

‘‘semiconductors and related device 

manufacturing’’ PPI to the cost 

associated with the electronics used to 

control the variable-speed compressor 

and the same price trend used for 

single-speed compressor units to the 

non-controls portion of the cost of the 

unit. By 2059, which is the end date of 

the projection period for the 

Recommended TSL detailed in the Joint 

Agreement, the average single-speed 

compressor refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers price is projected 

to drop 33-percent relative to 2030. 

DOE’s projection of product prices is 

described in chapter 8 of the direct final 

rule TSD. 

To evaluate the effect of uncertainty 

regarding the price trend estimates, DOE 

investigated the impact of different 

product price projections on the 

consumer NPV for the considered TSLs 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers. In addition to the default 

price trend, DOE considered two 

product price sensitivity cases: For the 

single-speed compressor refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers and 

the non-variable-speed controls portion 

of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, DOE estimated the high-pricedecline and the low-price-decline 

scenarios based on household 

refrigerator and home freezer PPI data 

limited to the period between the period 

1981–2008 and 2009–2021, respectively. 

For the variable-speed controls portion 

of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, DOE estimated the high-pricedecline and the low-price-decline 

scenarios based on an exponential trend 

line fit of the semiconductor PPI 

between the period 1994–2021 and 

1967–1993, respectively. The derivation 

of these price trends and the results of 

these sensitivity cases are described in 

appendix 10C of the direct final rule 

TSD. 

The energy cost savings are calculated 

using the estimated energy savings in 

each year and the projected price of the 

appropriate form of energy. To estimate 

energy prices in future years, DOE 

multiplied the average regional energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

national-average residential energy price 

changes in the Reference case from 

AEO2023, which has an end year of 

2050. To estimate price trends after 

2050, the 2046–2050 average was used 

for all years. As part of the NIA, DOE 

also analyzed scenarios that used inputs 

from variants of the AEO2023 Reference 

case that have lower and higher 

economic growth. Those cases have 

lower and higher energy price trends 

compared to the Reference case. NIA 

results based on these cases are 

presented in appendix 10C of the direct 

final rule TSD. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For this direct final 

rule, DOE estimated the NPV of 

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.69

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 ‘‘social rate of time 

preference,’’ which is the rate at which 

society discounts future consumption 

flows to their present value. 

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In analyzing the potential impact of 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards on consumers, DOE evaluates 

the impact on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be 

disproportionately affected by a new or 

amended national standard. The 

purpose of a subgroup analysis is to 

determine the extent of any such 

disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates 

impacts on particular subgroups of 

consumers by analyzing the LCC 

impacts and PBP for those particular 

consumers from alternative standard 

levels. 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

analyzed the impacts of the considered 

standard levels on low-income 

households and, for PC 11A, on small 

businesses. For low-income households, 

the analysis used a subset of the RECS 

2020 sample composed of low-income 

households. DOE separately analyzed 

different groups in the low-income 

household sample using data from RECS 

on home ownership status and on who 

pays the electricity bill. Low-income 

homeowners are analyzed equivalently 

to how they are analyzed in the 

standard LCC analysis. Low-income 

renters who do not pay their electricity 

bill are assumed to not be impacted by 

any new or amended standards. In this 

case, the landlord purchases the 

appliance and pays its operating costs, 

so is effectively the consumer and the 

renter is not impacted. Low-income 

renters who do pay their electricity bill 

are assumed to incur no first cost. DOE 

made this assumption to acknowledge 

that the vast majority of low-income 

renters may not pay to have their 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or 

freezer replaced (that would be up to the 

landlord). 

DOE notes that RECS 2020 indicates 

that a small fraction of low-income 

households only have a single compact 

refrigerator and/or freezer. Because this 

is the only refrigeration product in the 

household, DOE assumed that the 

landlord typically supplies the product. 

Additionally, RECS 2020 indicates that 

a small fraction of low-income 

households have a refrigeration product 

that would be categorized into PC 5, PC 

5BI, or PC 5A. As a result, DOE did not 

do a low-income subgroup analysis on 

PCs 5, 5BI, 5A, 11A, 17, and 18. 

For small businesses, DOE used the 

same sample from CBECS 2018 that was 

used in the standard LCC analysis but 

used discount rates specific to small 

businesses. DOE used the LCC and PBP 

model to estimate the impacts of the 

considered efficiency levels on these 

subgroups. 

Chapter 11 in the direct final rule TSD 

describes the consumer subgroup 

analysis. 

In response to the February 2023 

NOPR, AHAM commented that 

amended standards requiring more 

variable-speed compressors could lead 

to higher upfront costs, 

disproportionately impacting lowincome consumers. (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 

5) Whirlpool added that the proposed 

standards would raise the cost of entrylevel models, which are the preferred 

models for low-income consumers. 

(Whirlpool, No. 70 at pp. 5–6) As noted 

previously, many low-income 

consumers are renters who are not 

expected to pay the incremental cost 

due to an amended standard. For lowincome homeowners who are expected 

to bear that incremental cost, the 

analysis incorporates the higher 

incremental costs at each considered 

TSL. DOE notes that at the 

Recommended TSL (TSL 4), the 

estimated increase in installed cost 

relative to the baseline (EL 0) product 

across PCs 3, 7, and 9 is less than $20. 

Moreover, in the aggregate, DOE finds 

that low-income consumers have higher 

average LCC savings and lower payback 

periods relative to the general 

population (see the results in section 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3065 

70A.B. Jaffe and R.N. Stavins (1994). The energyefficiency gap What does it mean? Energy Policy, 

22 (10) 804–810, 10.1016/0301–4215(94)90138–4. 

71Murtishaw, S., & Sathaye, J. (2006). Quantifying 

the Effect of the Principal-Agent Problem on US 

Residential Energy Use. Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory. Retrieved from https://

escholarship.org/uc/item/6f14t11t. 

72Equity implications of market structure and 

appliance energy efficiency regulation, Energy 

Policy, 165(112943), https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.enpol.2022.112943. 

73U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 

Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval 

(‘‘EDGAR’’) system. Available at www.sec.gov/ 

edgar/search/ (last accessed July 5, 2023). 74U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of 

Manufactures. ‘‘Summary Statistics for Industry 

Groups and Industries in the U.S (2021).’’ Available 

at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/ 

data.html (last accessed July 5, 2023). 

75The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers login is available 

at: app.dnbhoovers.com (last accessed July 5, 2023). 

V.B.1.b of this document). DOE also

finds that, in the aggregate, only 8.6

percent of impacted low-income

consumers would experience a net cost

at TSL 4, meaning 91.4 percent would

see no change or a net benefit.

AHAM also commented that DOE has 

not supported its split-incentive 

assumption for low-income renters (i.e., 

renters will reap benefits of more 

efficient products through lower utility 

bills while landlords have little to no 

incentive to purchase more efficient 

products) nor has DOE considered the 

impact of amended standards on lowincome homeowners. (AHAM, No. 69 at 

p. 10) AHAM provided consumer

research results indicating that cost is

the primary consideration for

households when purchasing a new

refrigerator, low-income households

that make less than $25,000 per year

would not be able to purchase a new

refrigerator, and 78 percent of such

households would not pay $100 extra

for a more efficient refrigerator that

saved $50-$150 in utility bills over 10

years. (AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 10–11)

AHAM added that the proposed

standards in the February 2023 NOPR

will result in insignificant savings for

consumers, which do not amount to a

material benefit, especially for lowincome consumers. (AHAM, No. 69 at p.

15) Whirlpool commented that DOE’s

assumption that landlords will absorb

increased appliance costs and not pass

them on to tenants is incorrect.

(Whirlpool, No. 70 at p. 6)

The existence of a split-incentive 

across a substantial number of U.S. 

households, in which a tenant pays for 

the cost of electricity while the building 

owner furnishes appliances, has been 

identified through a number of studies 

of residential appliance and equipment 

use broadly. Building from early work 

including Jaffe and Stavins,70

Murtishaw and Sathaye 71 discussed the 

presence of landlord–tenant split 

incentives (i.e., the ‘‘principal-agent 

problem’’). While the study did not 

solely focus on the low-income 

households, they estimated that 33% of 

all residential refrigerator use is subject 

to the principal-agent problem, largely 

within rental housing. Spurlock and 

Fujita 72 showed that 87% of lowincome individuals who rented their 

homes were found to pay the electricity 

bill resulting from their energy use, such 

that they were likely subject to a 

scenario in which their landlord 

purchased the appliance, but they paid 

the operating costs. DOE notes that there 

continues to be a lack of data to 

corroborate the notion that landlords 

pass on some, or all, of increased 

appliance costs to tenants. Without 

representative data to suggest otherwise, 

DOE has continued to analyze lowincome renters under the assumption 

that they pay no upfront costs under an 

amended standard in this direct final 

rule. DOE further notes, that AHAM is 

a party to the Joint Agreement and is 

supportive of the recommended 

standard adopted in this direct final 

rule. 

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

DOE performed an MIA to estimate

the financial impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers and to 

estimate the potential impacts of such 

standards on employment and 

manufacturing capacity. The MIA has 

both quantitative and qualitative aspects 

and includes analyses of projected 

industry cash flows, the INPV, 

investments in research and 

development (‘‘R&D’’) and 

manufacturing capital, and domestic 

manufacturing employment. 

Additionally, the MIA seeks to 

determine how amended energy 

conservation standards might affect 

manufacturing employment, capacity, 

and competition, as well as how 

standards contribute to overall 

regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA 

serves to identify any disproportionate 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups, 

including small business manufacturers. 

The quantitative part of the MIA 

primarily relies on the GRIM, an 

industry cash flow model with inputs 

specific to this rulemaking. The key 

GRIM inputs include data on the 

industry cost structure, unit production 

costs, product shipments, manufacturer 

markups, and investments in R&D and 

manufacturing capital required to 

produce compliant products. The key 

GRIM outputs are the INPV, which is 

the sum of industry annual cash flows 

over the analysis period, discounted 

using the industry weighted average 

cost of capital, and the impact to 

domestic manufacturing employment. 

The model uses standard accounting 

principles to estimate the impacts of 

more stringent energy conservation 

standards on a given industry by 

comparing changes in INPV and 

domestic manufacturing employment 

between a no-new-standards case and 

the various standards cases. To capture 

the uncertainty relating to manufacturer 

pricing strategies following amended 

standards, the GRIM estimates a range of 

possible impacts under different 

scenarios. 

The qualitative part of the MIA 

addresses manufacturer characteristics 

and market trends. Specifically, the MIA 

considers such factors as a potential 

standard’s impact on manufacturing 

capacity, competition within the 

industry, the cumulative impact of other 

DOE and non-DOE regulations, and 

impacts on manufacturer subgroups. 

The complete MIA is outlined in 

chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. 

DOE conducted the MIA for this 

rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 1 

of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of 

the refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers manufacturing industry 

based on the market and technology 

assessment and publicly available 

information. This included a top-down 

analysis of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers manufacturers that 

DOE used to derive preliminary 

financial inputs for the GRIM (e.g., 

revenues; materials, labor, overhead, 

and depreciation expenses; selling, 

general, and administrative expenses 

(‘‘SG&A’’); and R&D expenses). DOE 

also used public sources of information 

to further calibrate its initial 

characterization of the refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

manufacturing industry, including 

company filings of form 10–K from the 

SEC,73 corporate annual reports, the 

U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of 

Manufactures (‘‘ASM’’),74 and reports 

from Dun & Bradstreet.75

In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared 

a framework industry cash flow analysis 

to quantify the potential impacts of 

amended energy conservation 

standards. The GRIM uses several 

factors to determine a series of annual 

cash flows starting with the 

announcement of the standard and 

extending over a 30-year period 

following the compliance date of the 

standard. These factors include annual 

expected revenues, costs of sales, SG&A 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3066 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

76For the no-new-standards case and all TSLs 

except for the Recommended TSL, the analysis 

period ranges from 2023–2056. For the 

Recommended TSL, the analysis period ranges from 

2023–2058 for the product classes listed in Table 

I.1 and 2023–2059 for the product classes listed in 

Table I.2. 77 Id. 

and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital 

expenditures. In general, energy 

conservation standards can affect 

manufacturer cash flow in three distinct 

ways: (1) creating a need for increased 

investment, (2) raising production costs 

per unit, and (3) altering revenue due to 

higher per-unit prices and changes in 

sales volumes. 

In addition, during Phase 2, DOE 

developed interview guides to distribute 

to manufacturers of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in 

order to develop other key GRIM inputs, 

including product and capital 

conversion costs, and to gather 

additional information on the 

anticipated effects of energy 

conservation standards on revenues, 

direct employment, capital assets, 

industry competitiveness, and subgroup 

impacts. 

In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE 

conducted structured, detailed 

interviews with representative 

manufacturers. During these interviews, 

DOE discussed engineering, 

manufacturing, procurement, and 

financial topics to validate assumptions 

used in the GRIM and to identify key 

issues or concerns. As part of Phase 3, 

DOE also evaluated subgroups of 

manufacturers that may be 

disproportionately impacted by 

amended standards or that may not be 

accurately represented by the average 

cost assumptions used to develop the 

industry cash flow analysis. Such 

manufacturer subgroups may include 

small business manufacturers, lowvolume manufacturers (‘‘LVMs’’), niche 

players, and/or manufacturers 

exhibiting a cost structure that largely 

differs from the industry average. DOE 

identified two subgroups for a separate 

impact analysis: small business 

manufacturers and domestic LVMs. The 

small business subgroup is discussed in 

chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. 

The domestic LVM subgroup is 

discussed in section V.B.2.d of this 

document and in chapter 12 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model 

and Key Inputs 

DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the 

changes in cash flow due to amended 

standards that result in a higher or 

lower industry value. The GRIM uses a 

standard, annual discounted cash flow 

analysis that incorporates manufacturer 

costs, manufacturer markups, 

shipments, and industry financial 

information as inputs. The GRIM 

models change in costs, distribution of 

shipments, investments, and 

manufacturer margins that could result 

from an amended energy conservation 

standard. The GRIM spreadsheet uses 

the inputs to arrive at a series of annual 

cash flows, beginning in 2023 (the base 

year of the analysis) and continuing 30 

years from the analyzed compliance 

year.76 DOE calculated INPVs by 

summing the stream of annual 

discounted cash flows during this 

period. For manufacturers of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, DOE used a real discount rate 

of 9.1 percent, which was derived from 

industry financials and then modified 

according to feedback received during 

manufacturer interviews. 

The GRIM calculates cash flows using 

standard accounting principles and 

compares changes in INPV between the 

no-new-standards case and each 

standards case. The difference in INPV 

between the no-new-standards case and 

a standards case represents the financial 

impact of the amended energy 

conservation standard on 

manufacturers. As discussed previously, 

DOE developed critical GRIM inputs 

using a number of sources, including 

publicly available data, results of the 

engineering analysis, results of the 

shipments analysis, and information 

gathered from industry stakeholders 

during the course of manufacturer 

interviews. The GRIM results are 

presented in section V.B.2 of this 

document. Additional details about the 

GRIM, the discount rate, and other 

financial parameters can be found in 

chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. 

a. Manufacturer Production Costs 

Manufacturing more efficient 

products is typically more expensive 

than manufacturing baseline products 

due to the use of more complex 

components, which are typically more 

costly than baseline components. The 

changes in the MPCs of covered 

products can affect the revenues, gross 

margins, and cash flow of the industry. 

For a complete description of the MPCs, 

see chapter 5 of the direct final rule 

TSD. 

b. Shipments Projections 

The GRIM estimates manufacturer 

revenues based on total unit shipment 

projections and the distribution of those 

shipments by efficiency level. Changes 

in sales volumes and efficiency mix 

over time can significantly affect 

manufacturer finances. For this analysis, 

the GRIM uses the NIA’s annual 

shipment projections derived from the 

shipments analysis from the base year 

(2023) to 30 years from the analyzed 

compliance date.77 See chapter 9 of the 

direct final rule TSD for additional 

details. 

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs 

Amended energy conservation 

standards could cause manufacturers to 

incur conversion costs to bring their 

production facilities and product 

designs into compliance. DOE evaluated 

the level of conversion-related 

expenditures that would be needed to 

comply with each considered efficiency 

level in each product class. For the MIA, 

DOE classified these conversion costs 

into two major groups: (1) product 

conversion costs; and (2) capital 

conversion costs. Product conversion 

costs are investments in research, 

development, testing, marketing, and 

other non-capitalized costs necessary to 

make product designs comply with 

amended energy conservation 

standards. Capital conversion costs are 

investments in property, plant, and 

equipment necessary to adapt or change 

existing production facilities such that 

new compliant product designs can be 

fabricated and assembled. 

Product Conversion Costs 

DOE based its estimates of the 

product conversion costs necessary to 

meet the varying efficiency levels on 

information from manufacturer 

interviews, the design paths analyzed in 

the engineering analysis, and market 

share and model count information. 

Generally, manufacturers preferred to 

meet amended standards with design 

options that were direct and relatively 

straight-forward component swaps, such 

as incrementally more efficiency 

compressors. However, at higher 

efficiency levels, manufacturers 

anticipated the need for platform 

redesigns. Efficiency levels that 

potentially necessitate significantly 

altered cabinet construction would 

require very large investments to update 

designs. Manufacturers noted that 

increasing foam thickness would require 

complete redesign of the cabinet, and 

potentially, the liner and shelving, 

should there be changes in interior 

volume. Additionally, extensive use of 

VIPs would require redesign of the 

cabinet to maximize the benefits of 

VIPs. 

Based on manufacturer feedback, DOE 

also estimated ‘‘re-flooring’’ costs 

associated with replacing obsolete 

display models in big-box stores (e.g., 

Lowe’s, Home Depot, Best Buy) due to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3067 

more stringent standards. Some 

manufacturers stated that with a new 

product release, big-box retailers 

discount outdated display models, and 

manufacturers share any losses 

associated with discounting the retail 

price. The estimated re-flooring costs for 

each efficiency level were incorporated 

into the product conversion cost 

estimates, as DOE modeled the reflooring costs as a marketing expense. 

Manufacturer data was aggregated to 

protect confidential information. 

DOE interviewed manufacturers 

accounting for approximately 81 percent 

of domestic refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, and freezer shipments. DOE 

scaled product conversion costs by 

model counts to account for the portion 

of companies that were not interviewed. 

In manufacturer interviews, DOE 

received feedback on the analyzed 

product classes. For non-represented 

product classes, for which there was 

less available data, DOE used model 

counts to scale the product conversion 

cost estimates for analyzed product 

classes. See chapter 10 of the direct final 

rule TSD for details on the mapping of 

analyzed product classes to nonrepresented product classes. See chapter 

12 of the direct final rule TSD for details 

on product conversion costs. 

Capital Conversion Costs 

DOE relied on information derived 

from manufacturer interviews and the 

engineering analysis to evaluate the 

level of capital conversion costs 

manufacturers would likely incur at the 

considered standard levels. During the 

interviews, manufacturers provided 

estimates and descriptions of the 

required tooling and plant changes that 

would be necessary to upgrade product 

lines to meet potential efficiency levels. 

Based on these inputs, DOE modeled 

incremental capital conversion costs for 

efficiency levels that could be reached 

with individual components swaps. 

However, based on feedback, DOE 

modeled major capital conversion costs 

when manufacturers would have to 

redesign their existing product 

platforms. DOE used information from 

manufacturer interviews to determine 

the cost of the manufacturing equipment 

and tooling necessary to implement 

complete redesigns. 

Increases in foam thickness require 

either reductions to interior volume or 

increases to exterior volume. Since most 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers must fit within standard 

widths, increases in foam thickness 

could result in the loss of interior 

volume. The reduction of interior 

volume has significant consequences for 

manufacturing. In addition to 

redesigning the cabinet to increase the 

effectiveness of insulation, 

manufacturers must update all designs 

and tooling associated with the interior 

of the product. This could include the 

liner, shelving, drawers, and doors. 

Manufacturers would need to invest in 

significant new tooling to accommodate 

the changes in dimensions. 

To minimize reductions to interior 

volume, manufacturers may choose to 

adopt VIP technology. Extensive 

incorporation of VIPs into designs 

require significant upfront capital due to 

differences in the handling, storing, and 

manufacturing of VIPs as compared to 

typical polyurethane foams. These 

investments are incorporated into the 

conversion costs estimated in the MIA 

for efficiency levels that would likely 

necessitate VIP technology. VIPs are 

relatively fragile and must be protected 

from punctures and rough handling. If 

VIPs have leaks of any size, the panel 

will eventually lose much of its thermal 

insulative properties and structural 

strength. If already installed within a 

cabinet wall, a punctured VIP may 

significantly reduce the structural 

strength of the refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, or freezer cabinet. As a result, 

VIPs require cautious handling during 

the manufacturing process. DOE did not 

receive detailed information about the 

percent of VIPs that are punctured 

during the manufacturing process. 

Manufacturers noted the need to 

allocate special warehouse space to 

ensure the VIPs are not jostled or 

roughly handled in the manufacturing 

environment. Furthermore, 

manufacturers anticipated the need for 

expansion of warehouse space to 

accommodate the storage of VIPs. VIPs 

require significantly more warehouse 

space than the polyurethane foams 

currently used in most refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The 

application of VIPs can be challenging 

and requires significant investment in 

hard-tooling or robotic systems to 

ensure the panels are positioned 

properly within the cabinet or door. 

Manufacturers noted that producing 

cabinets with VIPs is much more laborand time-intensive than producing 

cabinets with typical polyurethane 

foams. Particularly in high-volume 

factories, which can produce over a 

million refrigerator-freezers per year, the 

increase in production time associated 

in increased VIP usage would 

necessitate additional investment in 

manufacturing capacity to meet 

demand. The cost of extending 

production lines varies greatly by 

manufacturer, as it depends heavily on 

floor space availability in and around 

existing manufacturing plants. 

Higher volume manufacturers would 

generally have higher investments as 

they have more production lines and 

greater production capacity. For 

manufacturers of both PC 5 

(‘‘refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezer without 

an automatic ice maker’’) and PC 5A 

(‘‘refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost 

with bottom-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service’’), cabinet 

changes in one product class would 

likely necessitate improvements in the 

other product class as they often share 

the same architecture, tooling, and 

production lines. 

DOE estimated industry capital 

conversion costs by extrapolating the 

interviewed manufacturers’ capital 

conversion costs for each product class 

to account for the market share of 

companies that were not interviewed. 

DOE used the shipments analysis to 

scale the capital conversion cost 

estimates of the analyzed product class 

to account for the non-represented 

product class. See chapter 12 of the 

direct final rule TSD for additional 

details on capital conversion costs. 

Manufacturers may follow different 

design paths to reach the various 

efficiency levels analyzed. An 

individual manufacturer’s investments 

depend on a range of factors, including 

the company’s current product offerings 

and product platforms, existing 

production facilities and infrastructure, 

and make vs. buy decisions for 

components. DOE’s conversion cost 

methodology incorporated feedback 

from all manufacturers that took part in 

interviews and extrapolated industry 

values. While industry average values 

may not represent any single 

manufacturer, DOE’s model provides 

reasonable estimates of industry-level 

investments. 

DOE adjusted the conversion cost 

estimates developed in support of the 

February 2023 NOPR to 2022$ for this 

analysis. 

In general, DOE assumes all 

conversion-related investments occur 

between the year of publication of the 

direct final rule and the year by which 

manufacturers must comply with the 

new or amended standard. The 

conversion cost figures used in the 

GRIM can be found in section V.B.2 of 

this document. For additional 

information on the estimated capital 

and product conversion costs, see 

chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. 

d. Manufacturer Markup Scenarios 

MSPs include direct manufacturing 

production costs (i.e., labor, materials, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3068 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

78The gross margin percentages of 21 percent and 

29 percent are based on manufacturer markups of 

1.26 and 1.40 percent, respectively. 

and overhead estimated in DOE’s MPCs) 

and all non-production costs (i.e., 

SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with 

profit. To calculate the MSPs in the 

GRIM, DOE applied manufacturer 

markups to the MPCs estimated in the 

engineering analysis for each product 

class and efficiency level. Modifying 

these manufacturer markups in the 

standards case yields different sets of 

impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, 

DOE modeled two standards-case 

scenarios to represent uncertainty 

regarding the potential impacts on 

prices and profitability for 

manufacturers following the 

implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards: (1) a 

preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage 

scenario; and (2) a preservation-ofoperating-profit scenario. These 

scenarios lead to different manufacturer 

markup values that, when applied to the 

MPCs, result in varying revenue and 

cash flow impacts. 

Under the preservation-of-grossmargin-percentage scenario, DOE 

applied a single uniform ‘‘gross margin 

percentage’’ across all efficiency levels, 

which assumes that manufacturers 

would be able to maintain the same 

amount of profit as a percentage of 

revenues at all efficiency levels within 

a product class. As manufacturer 

production costs increase with 

efficiency, this scenario implies that the 

per-unit dollar profit will increase. DOE 

assumed a gross margin percentage of 21 

percent for all freestanding product 

classes and 29 percent for all built-in 

product classes.78 Manufacturers tend to 

believe it is optimistic to assume that 

they would be able to maintain the same 

gross margin percentage as their 

production costs increase, particularly 

for minimally efficient products. 

Therefore, this scenario represents a 

high bound of industry profitability 

under an amended energy conservation 

standard. 

In the preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario, as the cost of production goes 

up under a standards case, 

manufacturers are generally required to 

reduce their manufacturer markups to a 

level that maintains base-case operating 

profit. DOE implemented this scenario 

in the GRIM by lowering the 

manufacturer markups at each TSL to 

yield approximately the same earnings 

before interest and taxes in the 

standards case as in the no-newstandards case in the year after the 

expected compliance date of the 

amended standards. The implicit 

assumption behind this scenario is that 

the industry can only maintain its 

operating profit in absolute dollars after 

the standard takes effect. 

A comparison of industry financial 

impacts under the two scenarios is 

presented in section V.B.2.a of this 

document. 

3. Discussion of MIA Comments 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

considered comments it had received 

regarding its MIA presented in the 

February 2023 NOPR. The approach 

used for this direct final rule is largely 

the same approach DOE had used for 

the February 2023 NOPR analysis. 

In response to the February 2023 

NOPR, AHAM stated that manufacturers 

may need to significantly redesign 

products in several classes to comply 

with the proposed DOE standards. In 

some high-volume product classes, 

AHAM asserted that there are no or very 

few shipments of products that meet the 

proposed standards. AHAM stated that 

this indicates that even when compliant 

models exist, they may not represent 

real-world shipments. AHAM 

commented that for other product 

classes, there is considerable variation 

in the availability of compliant models 

and shipments. AHAM added that in 

many instances, there are few compliant 

models and no reported shipments of 

compliant products, suggesting that 

substantial redesign efforts may be 

required across the market. (AHAM, No. 

69 at pp. 2–3) 

DOE relied on multiple sources, 

including feedback from confidential 

manufacturer interviews and the design 

paths analyzed in the engineering 

analysis, to estimate the likely levels of 

redesign and investment required to 

meet each analyzed efficiency level. As 

discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this 

document, meeting higher efficiency 

levels may require product redesigns, 

particularly for efficiency levels that 

necessitate changes to the cabinet 

structure (i.e., changes to insulation 

such as increasing wall thickness or 

incorporating VIPs). Those costs are 

incorporated into the MIA. Regarding 

AHAM’s concerns about low shipments 

at higher efficiency levels, DOE 

incorporated data from stakeholders 

into the shipments analysis for this 

direct final rule analysis. DOE used 

confidential aggregate historical 

shipments data from 2015–2022 

provided by AHAM to calibrate the total 

shipments for standard-size refrigeratorfreezers, compact refrigerators, upright 

freezers, chest freezers, and built-in 

refrigerator-freezers. For this direct final 

rule, DOE also used the AHAMprovided estimates for the efficiency 

distributions based on shipments for 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers and 

compact freezers. See section IV.G of 

this document for additional 

information on the shipments analysis. 

In response to the February 2023 

NOPR, Whirlpool commented that a 

large decrease in INPV would stifle 

innovation as manufacturers would be 

forced to invest product development 

resources to meet the amended 

standards and potentially lay off U.S. 

production employees. (Whirlpool, No. 

70 at p. 5) 

As discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this 

document, DOE’s analysis shows that as 

efficiency levels increase, more 

manufacturers would need to dedicate 

more financial, engineering, laboratory, 

and marketing resources to updating 

products to meet more stringent 

standards. DOE accounts for those 

investments in the MIA (see section 

V.B.2.a of this document). However, 

DOE disagrees with the assertion that 

redesigning products to improve energy 

efficiency is in opposition to product 

innovation. As indicated by 

manufacturers’ participation in the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) voluntary ENERGY STAR 

program and the estimated shipments 

that meet ENERGY STAR levels, 

manufacturers and consumers consider 

energy efficiency a product attribute. Of 

the 63 refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, 

and freezer original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs) identified, 

approximately 46 OEMs manufacture 

models that meet ENERGY STAR levels 

and certify those models with the 

ENERGY STAR program. 

Approximately 22 percent of 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer shipments already meet 

ENERGY STAR levels. Regarding the 

potential for a reduction in direct 

employment as a result of amended 

standards, DOE provides a range of 

potential quantitative impacts to direct 

employment and a discussion of the 

potential qualitative impacts to direct 

employment in section V.B.2.b of this 

document. Most major manufacturers 

with U.S. production facilities currently 

produce a portion of their products 

outside of the United States (e.g., 

Mexico). Adopting an amended 

standard that necessitates large 

increases in labor content or large 

expenditures to re-tool facilities could 

cause manufacturers to reevaluate 

domestic production siting options. See 

section V.B.2.b of this document for 

additional details on potential impacts 

to direct employment. DOE further 

notes, that Whirlpool is a party to the 

Joint Agreement and is supportive of the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3069 

recommended standard adopted in this 

direct final rule. 

Whirlpool commented that adoption 

of the proposed standard levels could 

make it difficult for multi-brand 

companies like Whirlpool to 

differentiate their products and product 

lines from other manufacturers as 

models become more technologically 

complex and costly. Whirlpool added 

that this could lead to the elimination 

of certain product segments and result 

in lost energy savings as consumers 

switch to more energy-intensive product 

types. (Whirlpool, No. 70 at pp. 7–8) 

DOE uses the GRIM, as described in 

section IV.J.2 of this document, to 

determine the quantitative impacts on 

the refrigerators, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer industry as a whole. DOE 

recognizes that the industry impacts do 

not apply evenly across manufacturers. 

Many manufacturers would need to 

update certain product designs to meet 

amended standard levels. However, 

DOE expects that manufacturers would 

still be able to differentiate their 

products and product lines by various 

factors (e.g., price, technologies, 

consumer features, energy efficiency). 

At the adopted level, all analyzed 

product classes will be required to meet 

efficiency levels below max-tech levels. 

Thus, DOE does not expect 

manufacturers would need to 

implement all analyzed design options 

across their product portfolio to meet 

the adopted levels. Furthermore, in this 

direct final rule, DOE is adopting the 

Recommended TSL, which would 

require lower efficiency levels for highvolume product classes such as PC 5A 

and PC 7, as compared to the levels 

proposed in the February 2023 NOPR. 

Additionally, AHAM, a trade 

organization representing the interests 

of their members, including Whirlpool 

and other refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, and freezer OEMs, is a signatory 

of the Joint Agreement. As discussed in 

section IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is 

adopting energy allowances for special 

door and multi-door designs for some 

product classes. Therefore, DOE expects 

that these types of features and others 

will remain prevalent in the market and 

could offer means for product 

differentiation. See section IV.A.1 of 

this document for additional 

information on the energy use 

allowances. 

The California Investor-Owned 

Utilities (‘‘CA IOUs’’) noted the 

differences between PC 7 and PC 5A in 

DOE’s proposed energy efficiency 

standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. The CA IOUs 

commented that the main difference 

between the two classes is the cost of 

moving to the VIP side walls and doors 

at max-tech EL, with PC 7 having a 

substantially higher order of magnitude 

for capital conversion costs compared to 

PC 5A. The CA IOUs recommended 

revising the proposal to consider EL 5 

for PC 7 instead of EL 4. The CA IOUs 

requested that DOE elaborate on the 

reason for the differences in cost. (CA 

IOUs, No. 72 at p. 5) 

DOE relied on manufacturer feedback, 

among other sources, to derive the 

estimated product and capital 

conversion costs at each efficiency level 

for each directly analyzed product class. 

There are many reasons why the 

incremental industry conversion costs at 

each efficiency level could vary between 

product classes. These reasons include 

but are not limited to differences in 

analyzed design options, production 

volume, the number of models that 

would require redesign, the number of 

OEMs engaged in manufacturing each 

product class, the age of the product 

families and/or production equipment, 

and location of the production facilities. 

For PC 7, manufacturers could include 

less VIPs to meet the required efficiency 

level at EL 4 compared to EL 5. At EL 

4, 75 percent of the maximum area 

could incorporate VIPs whereas EL 5 

could incorporate VIPs for the 

maximum area on sidewalls and doors. 

As discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this 

document, incorporation of VIPs into 

designs requires significant upfront 

capital due to differences in the 

handling, storing, and manufacturing of 

VIPs as compared to typical 

polyurethane foams. DOE estimates the 

difference in capital conversion costs to 

be $117.9 million between EL 4 and EL 

5. For product conversion costs, 

extensive use of VIPs would require 

redesign of the cabinet to maximize the 

benefits of VIPs. DOE estimated the 

difference to be $18.8 million between 

EL 4 and EL 5, which is attributed to 

design efforts required to meet 75 

percent of maximum area of VIPs at EL 

4 and the maximum area of VIPs at EL 

5. Although manufacturers may 

incorporate some VIPs (on side walls 

and doors) for EL 2 for PC 5A, EL 2 may 

be achieved by component swaps rather 

than product redesign based on 

information gathered during 

manufacturer interviews. AHAM 

commented the cumulative regulatory 

burden is significant for home appliance 

manufacturers when redesigning 

products and product lines for 

consumer clothes dryers, residential 

clothes washers, conventional cooking 

products, refrigeration products, 

miscellaneous refrigeration products, 

and room air conditioners. (AHAM, No. 

69 at p. 20) AHAM asserted that 

engineers will therefore need to spend 

all their time redesigning products to 

meet more stringent energy efficiency 

standards, pulling resources from other 

development efforts and business 

priorities. AHAM suggested that DOE 

could reduce cumulative regulatory 

burden by spacing out the timing of 

final rules, allowing more lead time by 

delaying the publication of final rules in 

the Federal Register after they have 

been issued, and reducing the 

stringency of standards such that fewer 

products would require redesign. (Id. At 

p. 21) AHAM urged DOE to fully review 

the cumulative impacts its rules will 

have on manufacturers (as well as 

consumers). AHAM suggested that this 

review should include examining the 

potential impact on the economy and 

inflation as a result of reducing INPV so 

significantly. (Id. At p. 22) 

DOE analyzes cumulative regulatory 

burden in accordance with section 13(g) 

of the Process Rule. DOE details the 

rulemakings and expected conversion 

expenses of Federal energy conservation 

standards that could impact refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer OEMs 

that take effect approximately 3 years 

before the 2029 compliance date and 3 

years after the 2030 compliance date in 

section V.B.2.e of this document. As 

shown in Table V.29 in section V.B.2.e 

of this document, DOE considers the 

potential cumulative regulatory burden 

from other DOE energy conservation 

standards rulemakings for consumer 

clothes dryers, residential clothes 

washers, conventional cooking 

products, refrigeration products, 

miscellaneous refrigeration products, 

and room air conditioners in this direct 

final rule analysis. Regarding AHAM’s 

suggestion about spacing out the timing 

of final rules for home appliance 

rulemakings, DOE has statutory 

requirements under EPCA on the timing 

of rulemakings. For refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, 

consumer conventional cooking 

products, residential clothes washers, 

consumer clothes dryers, room air 

conditioners, and dishwashers, 

amended standards apply to covered 

products manufactured 3 years after the 

date on which any new or amended 

standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(4)(A)(i)) For miscellaneous 

refrigeration products, amended 

standards apply 5 years after the date on 

which any new or amended standard is 

published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(2)) 

However, the multi-product Joint 

Agreement recommends alternative 

compliance dates. As discussed in 

section of this document, the Joint 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3070 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

79Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/ 

files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_

apr2021.pdf (last accessed July 12, 2021). 

80For further information, see the Assumptions to 

AEO2023 report that sets forth the major 

assumptions used to generate the projections in the 

Agreement recommendations are in 

accordance with the statutory 

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for 

the issuance of a direct final rule. 

Therefore, as compared to the EPCArequired lead time, manufacturers will 

have additional time to meet amended 

standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers in this direct final 

rule. 

Regarding examining the cumulative 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards rulemakings on 

manufacturers and consumers, DOE 

must follow specific statutory criteria 

for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. An amended 

standard must be designed to achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is determined to be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

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

6295(o)(3)(B)) In its assessment of 

whether standards are economically 

justified, DOE considers the impact of 

the standard on manufacturers and 

consumers. DOE analyzes the impacts to 

manufacturers in accordance with 

section 13 of the Process Rule and the 

impacts to consumers in accordance 

with section 14 of the Process Rule. 

Although DOE does not analyze the 

cumulative burden on consumers, 

section V.B.1.a of this document 

discusses the economic impact of 

amended standards on individual 

consumers, which is the main impact 

consumers will face with a final 

amended energy conservation standard. 

AHAM stated that it cannot comment 

on the accuracy of DOE’s approach for 

including how manufacturers might or 

might not recover potential investments 

(i.e., the accuracy of DOE’s 

manufacturer markup scenarios) but 

that AHAM supports DOE’s intent in the 

microwave ovens supplemental notice 

of proposed rulemaking (‘‘SNOPR’’) 

(‘‘August 2022 SNOPR’’) energy 

conservation standards rulemaking to 

include those costs and investments in 

the actual costs of products and retail 

prices. 87 FR 52282. AHAM urged DOE 

to apply the same conceptual approach 

used in the August 2022 SNOPR in this 

refrigerator/freezer and all future 

rulemakings (i.e., to analyze a 

conversion-cost-recovery manufacturer 

markup scenario). (AHAM, No. 69 at p. 

18) 

As discussed in section IV.J.2.d of this 

document, DOE modeled two standardscase manufacturer markup scenarios to 

represent the uncertainty regarding the 

potential impacts on prices and 

profitability for manufacturers following 

the implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards. For the 

February 2023 NOPR, DOE applied the 

preservation-of-gross-margin-percentage 

scenario to reflect an upper bound of 

industry profitability and a 

preservation-of-operating-profit scenario 

to reflect a lower bound of industry 

profitability under amended standards. 

DOE used these scenarios to reflect the 

range of realistic profitability impacts 

under more stringent standards. 

Manufacturing more efficient 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers is generally more expensive 

than manufacturing baseline 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, as reflected by the MPCs 

estimated in the engineering analysis. 

Under the preservation-of-gross-margin 

scenario for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, incremental 

increases in MPCs at higher efficiency 

levels result in an increase in per-unit 

dollar profit per unit sold. In interviews, 

multiple manufacturers asserted that 

they would likely need to reduce 

manufacturer markups under more 

stringent standards to remain 

competitive in the marketplace. 

Therefore, the preservation of grossmargin-scenario represents the upper 

bound of industry profitability under 

amended standards. Applying the 

approach used in the microwave ovens 

rulemaking (i.e., a conversion-costrecovery scenario) would result in 

manufacturers increasing manufacturer 

markups under amended standards. 

Based on information gathered during 

confidential interviews in support of the 

February 2023 NOPR and a review of 

financial statements of companies 

engaged in manufacturing refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, DOE 

does not expect that the refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

industry would increase manufacturer 

markups under an amended standard. 

Furthermore, in response to the 

February 2023 NOPR, DOE did not 

receive any public or confidential data 

indicating that industry would increase 

manufacturer markups in response to 

more stringent standards. Therefore, 

DOE maintained the two manufacturer 

markup scenarios from the February 

2023 NOPR for this direct final rule 

analysis. 

K. Emissions Analysis 

The emissions analysis consists of 

two components. The first component 

estimates the effect of potential energy 

conservation standards on power sector 

and site (where applicable) combustion 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 

The second component estimates the 

impacts of potential standards on 

emissions of two additional greenhouse 

gases, CH4 and N2O, as well as the 

reductions in emissions of other gases 

due to ‘‘upstream’’ activities in the fuel 

production chain. These upstream 

activities comprise extraction, 

processing, and transporting fuels to the 

site of combustion. 

The analysis of electric power sector 

emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg 

uses emissions intended to represent the 

marginal impacts of the change in 

electricity consumption associated with 

amended or new standards. The 

methodology is based on results 

published for the AEO, including a set 

of side cases that implement a variety of 

efficiency-related policies. The 

methodology is described in appendix 

13A in the direct final rule TSD. The 

analysis presented in this notice uses 

projections from AEO2023. Power sector 

emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel 

combustion are estimated using 

Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories published by the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA).79

FFC upstream emissions, which 

include emissions from fuel combustion 

during extraction, processing, and 

transportation of fuels, and ‘‘fugitive’’ 

emissions (direct leakage to the 

atmosphere) of CH4 and CO2, are 

estimated based on the methodology 

described in chapter 15 of the direct 

final rule TSD. 

The emissions intensity factors are 

expressed in terms of physical units per 

megawatt-hour (‘‘MWh’’) or million 

British thermal units (‘‘MMBtu’’) of site 

energy savings. For power sector 

emissions, specific emissions intensity 

factors are calculated by sector and end 

use. Total emissions reductions are 

estimated using the energy savings 

calculated in the national impact 

analysis. 

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated 

in DOE’s Analysis 

DOE’s no-new-standards case for the 

electric power sector reflects the AEO, 

which incorporates the projected 

impacts of existing air quality 

regulations on emissions. AEO2023 

generally represents current legislation 

and environmental regulations, 

including recent government actions, 

that were in place at the time of 

preparation of AEO2023, including the 

emissions control programs discussed in 

the following paragraphs.80


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3071 

Annual Energy Outlook. Available at www.eia.gov/ 

outlooks/aeo/assumptions/ (last accessed July 13, 

2023). 81CSAPR requires states to address annual 

emissions of SO2 and NOX, precursors to the 

formation of fine particulate matter (‘‘PM2.5’’) 

pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of pollution with respect to the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(‘‘NAAQS’’). CSAPR also requires certain states to 

address the ozone season (May-September) 

emissions of NOX, a precursor to the formation of 

ozone pollution, in order to address the interstate 

transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 

1997 ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). 

EPA subsequently issued a supplemental rule that 

included an additional five states in the CSAPR 

ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 

(Supplemental Rule), and EPA issued the CSAPR 

Update for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 81 FR 74504 

(Oct. 26, 2016). 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (‘‘EGUs’’) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs. Title IV of the 

Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 

cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (‘‘DC’’). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et 

seq.) SO2 emissions from numerous 

States in the eastern half of the United 

States are also limited under the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (‘‘CSAPR’’). 76 

FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR 

requires these States to reduce certain 

emissions, including annual SO2

emissions, and went into effect as of 

January 1, 2015.81 AEO2023 

incorporates implementation of CSAPR, 

including the update to the CSAPR 

ozone season program emission budgets 

and target dates issued in 2016. 81 FR 

74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with 

CSAPR is flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of tradable 

emissions allowances. Under existing 

EPA regulations, for states subject to 

SO2 emissions limits under CSAPR, any 

excess SO2 emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand caused by the adoption of an 

efficiency standard could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by another regulated EGU. 

However, beginning in 2016, SO2

emissions began to fall as a result of the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(‘‘MATS’’) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 

(Feb. 16, 2012). The direct final rule 

establishes power plant emission 

standards for mercury, acid gases, and 

non-mercury metallic toxic pollutants. 

In order to continue operating, coal 

plants must have either flue gas 

desulfurization or dry sorbent injection 

systems installed. Both technologies, 

which are used to reduce acid gas 

emissions, also reduce SO2 emissions. 

Because of the emissions reductions 

under the MATS, it is unlikely that 

excess SO2 emissions allowances 

resulting from the lower electricity 

demand would be needed or used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by another regulated EGU. 

Therefore, energy conservation 

standards that decrease electricity 

generation will generally reduce SO2

emissions. DOE estimated SO2

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2023. 

CSAPR also established limits on NOX

emissions for numerous States in the 

eastern half of the United States. Energy 

conservation standards would have 

little effect on NOX emissions in those 

States covered by CSAPR emissions 

limits if excess NOX emissions 

allowances resulting from the lower 

electricity demand could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in NOX

emissions from other EGUs. In such 

case, NOX emissions would remain near 

the limit even if electricity generation 

goes down. Depending on the 

configuration of the power sector in the 

different regions and the need for 

allowances, however, NOX emissions 

might not remain at the limit in the case 

of lower electricity demand. That would 

mean that standards might reduce NOX

emissions in covered States. Despite this 

possibility, DOE has chosen to be 

conservative in its analysis and has 

maintained the assumption that 

standards will not reduce NOX

emissions in States covered by CSAPR. 

Standards would be expected to reduce 

NOX emissions in the States not covered 

by CSAPR. DOE used AEO2023 data to 

derive NOX emissions factors for the 

group of States not covered by CSAPR. 

The MATS limit mercury emissions 

from power plants, but they do not 

include emissions caps and, as such, 

DOE’s energy conservation standards 

would be expected to slightly reduce Hg 

emissions. DOE estimated mercury 

emissions reduction using emissions 

factors based on AEO2023, which 

incorporates the MATS. 

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

direct final rule, for the purpose of 

complying with the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866, DOE considered 

the estimated monetary benefits from 

the reduced emissions of CO2, CH4, 

N2O, NOX, and SO2 that are expected to 

result from each of the TSLs considered. 

In order to make this calculation 

analogous 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 projection period for 

each TSL. This section summarizes the 

basis for the values used for monetizing 

the emissions benefits and presents the 

values considered in this direct final 

rule. 

To monetize the benefits of reducing 

GHG emissions, this analysis uses the 

interim estimates presented in the 

Technical Support Document: Social 

Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous 

Oxide Interim Estimates Under 

Executive Order 13990 published in 

February 2021 by the IWG. 

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions 

DOE estimates the monetized benefits 

of the reductions in emissions of CO2, 

CH4, and N2O by using a measure of the 

SC of each pollutant (e.g., SC–CO2). 

These estimates represent the monetary 

value of the net harm to society 

associated with a marginal increase in 

emissions of these pollutants in a given 

year, or the benefit of avoiding that 

increase. These estimates are intended 

to include (but are not limited to) 

climate-change-related changes in net 

agricultural productivity, human health, 

property damages from increased flood 

risk, disruption of energy systems, risk 

of conflict, environmental migration, 

and the value of ecosystem services. 

For this direct final rule, DOE 

considered comments it had received 

regarding its approach for monetizing 

greenhouse gas emissions in the 

February 2023 NOPR. The approach 

used for this direct final rule is largely 

the same approach DOE had used for 

the February 2023 NOPR analysis. 

The attorneys general (AGs) of TN, 

AL, et al. commented that DOE’s 

misguided use of the SC–GHG estimates 

is a significant problem with the 

proposed standards. The AGs of TN, AL, 

et al. attached as evidence their 

comment letter in response to DOE’s 

proposed standards for consumer 

conventional cooking products, in 

which they expressed detailed concerns 

about the IWG estimates. The AGs of 

TN, AL, et al. noted that the reversal of 

the preliminary injunction that a 

coalition of States received in Louisiana 

v. Biden, 585 F. Supp. 3d 840 (W.D. La. 

2022) does not change the criticisms in 

the aforementioned comment letter. 

(The AGs of TN, AL, et al., No. 68 at pp. 

1–2) 

The IWG’s SC–GHG estimates were 

developed over many years, using 

transparent process, peer-reviewed 

methodologies, the best science 

available at the time of that process, and 

with input from the public. A number 

of criticisms raised in the comment 

letter attached by the AGs of TN, AL, et 

al. were addressed by the IWG in its 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, and 

previous parts of this section 

summarized the IWG’s conclusions on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3072 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

82 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. 

Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for 

Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 

12866. August 2016. Available at www.epa.gov/ 

sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_

august_2016.pdf (last accessed January 18, 2022). 

83Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. 

Newbold, and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and 

N2O mitigation benefits consistent with the US 

Government’s SC–CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 

2015. 15(2): pp. 272–298. 

key issues, including the question of 

discount rates cited by the Competitive 

Enterprise Institute (‘‘CEI’’). The IWG’s 

2016 TSD 82 and the 2017 National 

Academies report provide detailed 

discussions of the ways in which the 

modeling underlying the development 

of the SC–GHG estimates addressed 

quantified sources of uncertainty. In the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the IWG 

stated that the models used to produce 

the interim estimates do not include all 

of the important physical, ecological, 

and economic impacts of climate change 

recognized in the climate change 

literature. For these same impacts, the 

science underlying their ‘‘damage 

functions’’ lags behind the most recent 

research. In the judgment of the IWG, 

these and other limitations suggest that 

the range of four interim SC–GHG 

estimates presented in the TSD likely 

underestimate societal damages from 

GHG emissions. The IWG is in the 

process of assessing how best to 

incorporate the latest peer-reviewed 

science and the recommendations of the 

National Academies to develop an 

updated set of SC–GHG estimates. 

AHAM objected to DOE using the 

social cost of carbon and other 

monetization of emissions reductions 

benefits in its analysis of the factors 

EPCA requires DOE to balance in 

determining the appropriate standard. 

AHAM stated that while it may be 

acceptable for DOE to continue its 

current practice of examining the SCC 

and monetization of other emissions 

reductions benefits as informational so 

long as the underlying interagency 

analysis is transparent and vigorous, the 

monetization analysis should not 

impact the TSLs DOE selects as a new 

or amended standard. (AHAM, No. 69 at 

pp. 22–23) The AGs of TN, AL, et al. 

stated that even if it is important to take 

into account emissions reductions when 

considering the need for national energy 

conservation (as DOE has claimed), the 

IWG estimates are unlawful and poor 

methods for doing so. The AGs of TN, 

AL, et al. concluded that the IWG’s SC– 

GHG estimates are fundamentally 

flawed and are an unreliable metric on 

which to base administrative action. 

(The AGs of TN, AL, et al., No. 68 at pp. 

1–2) 

As stated in section III.F.1.f of this 

document, DOE accounts for the 

environmental and public health 

benefits associated with the more 

efficient use of energy, including those 

connected to global climate change, as 

they are important to take into account 

when considering the need for national 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) In addition, 

Executive Order 13563, which was reaffirmed on January 21, 2021, stated that 

each agency must, among other things: 

‘‘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).’’ For these reasons, DOE 

includes the monetized value of 

emissions reductions in its evaluation of 

potential standard levels. While the 

benefits associated with reduction of 

GHG emissions inform DOE’s evaluation 

of potential standards, the action of 

proposing or adopting specific 

standards is not ‘‘based on’’ the SC– 

GHG values, as DOE would reach the 

same conclusion regarding the 

economic justification of standards 

presented in this direct final rule 

without considering the social cost of 

greenhouse gases. 

DOE exercises its own judgment in 

presenting monetized climate benefits 

as recommended by applicable 

Executive orders, and DOE would reach 

the same conclusion presented in this 

proposed rulemaking in the absence of 

the social cost of greenhouse gases. That 

is, the social costs of greenhouse gases, 

whether measured using the February 

2021 interim estimates presented by the 

Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases or by 

another means, did not affect the rule 

ultimately proposed by DOE. 

DOE estimated the global social 

benefits of CO2, CH4, and N2O 

reductions using SC–GHG values that 

were based on the interim values 

presented in the Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, 

Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim 

Estimates under Executive Order 13990, 

published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

The SC–GHG is the monetary value of 

the net harm to society associated with 

a marginal increase in emissions in a 

given year, or the benefit of avoiding 

that increase. In principle, the SC–GHG 

includes the value of all climate change 

impacts, including (but not limited to) 

changes in net agricultural productivity, 

human health effects, property damage 

from increased flood risk and natural 

disasters, disruption of energy systems, 

risk of conflict, environmental 

migration, and the value of ecosystem 

services. The SC–GHG therefore, reflects 

the societal value of reducing emissions 

of the gas in question by one metric ton. 

The SC–GHG is the theoretically 

appropriate value to use in conducting 

benefit-cost analyses of policies that 

affect CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions. As 

a member of the IWG involved in the 

development of the February 2021 SC– 

GHG TSD, DOE agrees that the interim 

SC–GHG estimates represent the most 

appropriate estimate of the SC–GHG 

until revised estimates have been 

developed reflecting the latest, peerreviewed science. 

The SC–GHG estimates presented 

here were developed over many years, 

using transparent process, peerreviewed methodologies, the best 

science available at the time of that 

process, and with input from the public. 

Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, that 

included the DOE and other executive 

branch agencies and offices was 

established to ensure that agencies were 

using the best available science and to 

promote consistency in the social cost of 

carbon (SC–CO2) values used across 

agencies. The IWG published SC–CO2

estimates in 2010 that were developed 

from an ensemble of three widely cited 

integrated assessment models (IAMs) 

that estimate global climate damages 

using highly aggregated representations 

of climate processes and the global 

economy combined into a single 

modeling framework. The three IAMs 

were run using a common set of input 

assumptions in each model for future 

population, economic, and CO2

emissions growth, as well as 

equilibrium climate sensitivity—a 

measure of the globally averaged 

temperature response to increased 

atmospheric CO2 concentrations. These 

estimates were updated in 2013 based 

on new versions of each IAM. In August 

2016 the IWG published estimates of the 

social cost of methane (SC–CH4) and 

nitrous oxide (SC–N2O) using 

methodologies that are consistent with 

the methodology underlying the SC– 

CO2 estimates. The modeling approach 

that extends the IWG SC–CO2

methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has 

undergone multiple stages of peer 

review. The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates were developed by Marten et 

al.83 and underwent a standard doubleblind peer review process prior to 

journal publication. In 2015, as part of 

the response to public comments 

received to a 2013 solicitation for 

comments on the SC–CO2 estimates, the 

IWG announced a National Academies 

of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3073 

84National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating 

Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. 

2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, 

DC. 

85 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Carbon, Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 

Analysis under Executive Order 12866 (2010) 

United States Government. Available at 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/ 

documents/scc_tsd_2010.pdf (last accessed Jan. 3, 

2023); Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Carbon. Technical Update of the Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866 (2013). 78 FR 70586 

(November 26, 2013). Available at 

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/ 

2013-28242/technical-support-document-technicalupdate-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatoryimpact (last accessed April 15, 2022); Interagency 

Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, 

United States Government. Technical Support 

Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of 

Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under 

Executive Order 12866 (August 2016). Available at 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/ 

documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf (last 

accessed Jan. 3, 2023); Interagency Working Group 

on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States 

Government. Addendum to Technical Support 

Document on Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 

Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12866: 

Application of the Methodology to Estimate the 

Social Cost of Methane and the Social Cost of 

Nitrous Oxide (August 2016). Available at 

www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/ 

documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_

2016.pdf (last accessed Jan. 3, 2023). 

review of the SC–CO2 estimates to offer 

advice on how to approach future 

updates to ensure that the estimates 

continue to reflect the best available 

science and methodologies. In January 

2017, the National Academies released 

their final report, ‘‘Valuing Climate 

Damages: Updating Estimation of the 

Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide,’’ and 

recommended specific criteria for future 

updates to the SC–CO2 estimates, a 

modeling framework to satisfy the 

specified criteria, and both near-term 

updates and longer-term research needs 

pertaining to various components of the 

estimation process (National 

Academies, 2017).84 Shortly thereafter, 

in March 2017, President Trump issued 

Executive Order 13783, which 

disbanded the IWG, withdrew the 

previous TSDs, and directed agencies to 

ensure SC–CO2 estimates used in 

regulatory analyses are consistent with 

the guidance contained in OMB’s 

Circular A–4, ‘‘including with respect to 

the consideration of domestic versus 

international impacts and the 

consideration of appropriate discount 

rates’’ (E.O. 13783, section 5I). Benefitcost analyses following E.O. 13783 used 

SC–GHG estimates that attempted to 

focus on the U.S.-specific share of 

climate change damages as estimated by 

the models and were calculated using 

two discount rates recommended by 

Circular A–4, 3 percent and 7 percent. 

All other methodological decisions and 

model versions used in SC–GHG 

calculations remained the same as those 

used by the IWG in 2010 and 2013, 

respectively. 

On January 20, 2021, President Biden 

issued Executive Order 13990, which reestablished the IWG and directed it to 

ensure that the U.S. Government’s 

estimates of the social cost of carbon 

and other greenhouse gases reflect the 

best available science and the 

recommendations of the National 

Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked 

with first reviewing the SC–GHG 

estimates currently used in Federal 

analyses and publishing interim 

estimates within 30 days of the E.O. that 

reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions, including by taking global 

damages into account. The interim SC– 

GHG estimates published in February 

2021 are used here to estimate the 

climate benefits for this proposed 

rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG 

to undertake a fuller update of the SC– 

GHG estimates by January 2022 that 

takes into consideration the advice of 

the National Academies (2017) and 

other recent scientific literature. The 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD provides a 

complete discussion of the IWG’s initial 

review conducted under E.O.13990. In 

particular, the IWG found that the SC– 

GHG estimates used under E.O. 13783 

fail to reflect the full impact of GHG 

emissions in multiple ways. 

First, the IWG found that the SC–GHG 

estimates used under E.O. 13783 fail to 

fully capture many climate impacts that 

affect the welfare of U.S. citizens and 

residents, and those impacts are better 

reflected by global measures of the SC– 

GHG. Examples of omitted effects from 

the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct 

effects on U.S. citizens, assets, and 

investments located abroad, supply 

chains, U.S. military assets and interests 

abroad, and tourism, and spillover 

pathways such as economic and 

political destabilization and global 

migration that can lead to adverse 

impacts on U.S. national security, 

public health, and humanitarian 

concerns. In addition, assessing the 

benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation 

activities requires consideration of how 

those actions may affect mitigation 

activities by other countries, as those 

international mitigation actions will 

provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 

residents by mitigating climate impacts 

that affect U.S. citizens and residents. A 

wide range of scientific and economic 

experts have emphasized the issue of 

reciprocity as support for considering 

global damages of GHG emissions. If the 

United States does not consider impacts 

on other countries, it is difficult to 

convince other countries to consider the 

impacts of their emissions on the United 

States. The only way to achieve an 

efficient allocation of resources for 

emissions reduction on a global basis— 

and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens— 

is for all countries to base their policies 

on global estimates of damages. As a 

member of the IWG involved in the 

development of the February 2021 SC– 

GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this 

assessment and, therefore, in this 

proposed rule DOE centers attention on 

a global measure of SC–GHG. This 

approach is the same as that taken in 

DOE regulatory analyses from 2012 

through 2016. A robust estimate of 

climate damages that accrue only to U.S. 

citizens and residents does not currently 

exist in the literature. As explained in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, 

existing estimates are both incomplete 

and an underestimate of total damages 

that accrue to the citizens and residents 

of the U.S. because they do not fully 

capture the regional interactions and 

spillovers discussed above, nor do they 

include all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of 

climate change recognized in the 

climate change literature. As noted in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the 

IWG will continue to review 

developments in the literature, 

including more robust methodologies 

for estimating a U.S.-specific SC–GHG 

value, and explore ways to better inform 

the public of the full range of carbon 

impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE 

will continue to follow developments in 

the literature pertaining to this issue. 

Second, the IWG found that the use of 

the social rate of return on capital (7 

percent under current OMB Circular A– 

4 guidance) to discount the future 

benefits of reducing GHG emissions 

inappropriately underestimates the 

impacts of climate change for the 

purposes of estimating the SC–GHG. 

Consistent with the findings of the 

National Academies (2017) and the 

economic literature, the IWG continued 

to conclude that the consumption rate of 

interest is the theoretically appropriate 

discount rate in an intergenerational 

context,85 and recommended that 

discount rate uncertainty and relevant 

aspects of intergenerational ethical 

considerations be accounted for in 

selecting future discount rates. 

Furthermore, the damage estimates 

developed for use in the SC–GHG are 

estimated in consumption-equivalent 

terms, and so an application of OMB 

Circular A–4’s guidance for regulatory 

analysis would then use the 

consumption discount rate to calculate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3074 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

86 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of 

Greenhouse Gases. 2021. Technical Support 

Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and 

Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 

Order 13990. February. United States Government. 

Available at www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/ 

blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidencebased-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climatepollution/ (last accessed July 12, 2023). 

the SC–GHG. DOE agrees with this 

assessment and will continue to follow 

developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes 

that while OMB Circular A–4, as 

published in 2003, recommends using 

3-percent and 7-percent discount rates

as ‘‘default’’ values, Circular A–4 also

reminds agencies that ‘‘different

regulations may call for different

emphases in the analysis, depending on

the nature and complexity of the

regulatory issues and the sensitivity of

the benefit and cost estimates to the key

assumptions.’’ On discounting, Circular

A–4 recognizes that ‘‘special ethical

considerations arise when comparing

benefits and costs across generations,’’

and Circular A–4 acknowledges that

analyses may appropriately ‘‘discount

future costs and consumption benefits

. . . at a lower rate than for

intragenerational analysis.’’ In the 2015

‘‘Response to Comments on the Social

Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact

Analysis,’’ OMB, DOE, and the other

IWG members recognized that ‘‘Circular

A–4 is a living document’’ and ‘‘the use

of 7 percent is not considered

appropriate for intergenerational

discounting. There is wide support for

this view in the academic literature, and

it is recognized in Circular A–4 itself.’’

Thus, DOE concludes that a 7-percent

discount rate is not appropriate to apply

to value the social cost of greenhouse

gases in the analysis presented in this

analysis.

To calculate the present and 

annualized values of climate benefits, 

DOE uses the same discount rate as the 

rate used to discount the value of 

damages from future GHG emissions, for 

internal consistency. That approach to 

discounting follows the same approach 

that the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD 

recommends ‘‘to ensure internal 

consistency—i.e., future damages from 

climate change using the SC–GHG at 2.5 

percent should be discounted to the 

base year of the analysis using the same 

2.5-percent rate.’’ DOE has also 

consulted the National Academies’ 2017 

recommendations on how SC–GHG 

estimates can ‘‘be combined in RIAs 

[regulatory impact analyses] with other 

cost and benefits estimates that may use 

different discount rates.’’ The National 

Academies reviewed several options, 

including ‘‘presenting all discount rate 

combinations of other costs and benefits 

with [SC–GHG] estimates.’’ 

As a member of the IWG involved in 

the development of the February 2021 

SC–GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the 

above assessment and will continue to 

follow developments in the literature 

pertaining to this issue. While the IWG 

works to assess how best to incorporate 

the latest, peer-reviewed science to 

develop an updated set of SC–GHG 

estimates, it set the interim estimates to 

be the most recent estimates developed 

by the IWG prior to the group being 

disbanded in 2017. The estimates rely 

on the same models and harmonized 

inputs and are calculated using a range 

of discount rates. As explained in the 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, the IWG 

has recommended that agencies revert 

to the same set of four values drawn 

from the SC–GHG distributions based 

on three discount rates as were used in 

regulatory analyses between 2010 and 

2016 and were subject to public 

comment. For each discount rate, the 

IWG combined the distributions across 

models and socioeconomic emissions 

scenarios (applying equal weight to 

each) and then selected a set of four 

values recommended for use in benefitcost analyses: an average value resulting 

from the model runs for each of three 

discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent, 

and 5 percent), plus a fourth value, 

selected as the 95th percentile of 

estimates based on a 3-percent discount 

rate. The fourth value was included to 

provide information on potentially 

higher-than-expected economic impacts 

from climate change. As explained in 

the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD, and 

DOE agrees, this update reflects the 

immediate need to have an operational 

SC–GHG for use in regulatory benefitcost analyses and other applications that 

was developed using a transparent 

process, peer-reviewed methodologies, 

and the science available at the time of 

that process. Those estimates were 

subject to public comment in the 

context of dozens of proposed 

rulemakings as well as in a dedicated 

public comment period in 2013. 

There are a number of limitations and 

uncertainties associated with the SC– 

GHG estimates. First, the current 

scientific and economic understanding 

of discounting approaches suggests 

discount rates appropriate for 

intergenerational analysis in the context 

of climate change are likely to be less 

than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 

lower.86 Second, the IAMs used to 

produce these interim estimates do not 

include all of the important physical, 

ecological, and economic impacts of 

climate change recognized in the 

climate change literature and the 

science underlying their ‘‘damage 

functions’’—i.e., the core parts of the 

IAMs that map global mean temperature 

changes and other physical impacts of 

climate change into economic (both 

market and nonmarket) damages—lags 

behind the most recent research. For 

example, limitations include the 

incomplete treatment of catastrophic 

and non-catastrophic impacts in the 

integrated assessment models, their 

incomplete treatment of adaptation and 

technological change, the incomplete 

way in which inter-regional and 

intersectoral linkages are modeled, 

uncertainty in the extrapolation of 

damages to high temperatures, and 

inadequate representation of the 

relationship between the discount rate 

and uncertainty in economic growth 

over long time horizons. Likewise, the 

socioeconomic and emissions scenarios 

used as inputs to the models do not 

reflect new information from the last 

decade of scenario generation or the full 

range of projections. The modeling 

limitations do not all work in the same 

direction in terms of their influence on 

the SC–CO2 estimates. However, as 

discussed in the February 2021 SC–GHG 

TSD, the IWG has recommended that, 

taken together, the limitations suggest 

that the interim SC–GHG estimates used 

in this direct final rule likely 

underestimate the damages from GHG 

emissions. DOE concurs with this 

assessment. 

DOE’s derivations of the SC–CO2, SC– 

N2O, and SC–CH4 values used for this 

NOPR are discussed in the following 

sections, and the results of DOE’s 

analyses estimating the benefits of the 

reductions in emissions of these GHGs 

are presented in section V.B.6 of this 

document. 

a. Social Cost of Carbon

The SC–CO2 values used for this

direct final rule were based on the 

values developed for the IWG’s 

February 2021 SC–GHG TSD. Table 

IV.13 shows the updated sets of SC–CO2

estimates from the IWG’s TSD in 5-year

increments from 2020 to 2050. The full

set of annual values that DOE used is

presented in appendix 14–A of the

direct final rule TSD.


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3075 

87For example, the February 2021 SC–GHG TSD 

discusses how the understanding of discounting 

approaches suggests that discount rates appropriate 

for intergenerational analysis in the context of 

climate change may be lower than 3 percent. 

88See EPA, Revised 2023 and Later Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, Washington, DC, 

December 2021. Available at nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ 

ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1013ORN.pdf (last accessed 

January 13, 2023). 

89Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing 

PM2.5 Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at 

www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-tonreducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors (last accessed 

July 19, 2023). 

For purposes of capturing the 

uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, DOE has determined it 

is appropriate to include all four sets of 

SC–CO2 values, as recommended by the 

IWG.87

TABLE IV.13—ANNUAL SC–CO2 VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton CO2] 

Year 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

2020 ........................................................................................................... 14 51 76 152 

2025 ........................................................................................................... 17 56 83 169 

2030 ........................................................................................................... 19 62 89 187 

2035 ........................................................................................................... 22 67 96 206 

2040 ........................................................................................................... 25 73 103 225 

2045 ........................................................................................................... 28 79 110 242 

2050 ........................................................................................................... 32 85 116 260 

For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC–CO2

estimates published by EPA, adjusted to 

2020$.88 These estimates are based on 

methods, assumptions, and parameters 

identical to the 2020–2050 estimates 

published by the IWG (which were 

based on EPA modeling). DOE expects 

additional climate benefits to accrue for 

any longer-life refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers after 2070, but a 

lack of available SC–CO2 estimates for 

emissions years beyond 2070 prevents 

DOE from monetizing these potential 

benefits in this analysis. 

DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions 

reduction estimated for each year by the 

SC–CO2 value for that year in each of 

the four cases. DOE adjusted the values 

to 2022$ using the implicit price 

deflator for gross domestic product 

(‘‘GDP’’) from the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis. 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 

SC–CO2 values in each case. 

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous 

Oxide 

The SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values used 

for this direct final rule were based on 

the values developed for the February 

2021 SC–GHG TSD. Table IV.14 shows 

the updated sets of SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates from the latest interagency 

update in 5-year increments from 2020 

to 2050. The full set of annual values 

used is presented in appendix 14–A of 

the direct final rule TSD. To capture the 

uncertainties involved in regulatory 

impact analysis, DOE has determined it 

is appropriate to include all four sets of 

SC–CH4 and SC–N2O values, as 

recommended by the IWG. DOE derived 

values after 2050 using the approach 

described above for the SC–CO2. 

TABLE IV.14—ANNUAL SC–CH4 AND SC–N2O VALUES FROM 2021 INTERAGENCY UPDATE, 2020–2050 

[2020$ per metric ton] 

Year 

SC–CH4

Discount rate and statistic 

SC–N2O 

Discount rate and statistic 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

2020 ................................................. 670 1,500 2,000 3,900 5,800 18,000 27,000 48,000 

2025 ................................................. 800 1,700 2,200 4,500 6,800 21,000 30,000 54,000 

2030 ................................................. 940 2,000 2,500 5,200 7,800 23,000 33,000 60,000 

2035 ................................................. 1,100 2,200 2,800 6,000 9,000 25,000 36,000 67,000 

2040 ................................................. 1,300 2500 3,100 6,700 10,000 28,000 39,000 74,000 

2045 ................................................. 1,500 2,800 3,500 7,500 12,000 30,000 42,000 81,000 

2050 ................................................. 1,700 3,100 3,800 8,200 13,000 33,000 45,000 88,000 

DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O 

emissions reduction estimated for each 

year by the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates for that year in each of the 

cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2022$ 

using the implicit price deflator for 

gross domestic product (‘‘GDP’’) from 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis. To 

calculate a present value of the stream 

of monetary values, DOE discounted the 

values in each of the cases using the 

specific discount rate that had been 

used to obtain the SC–CH4 and SC–N2O 

estimates in each case. 

2. Monetization of Other Emissions 

Impacts 

For the direct final rule, DOE 

estimated the monetized value of NOX

and SO2 emissions reductions from 

electricity generation using benefit-perton estimates for that sector from the 

EPA’s Benefits Mapping and Analysis 

Program.89 DOE used EPA’s values for 

PM2.5-related benefits associated with 

NOX and SO2 and for ozone-related 

benefits associated with NOX for 2025, 

2030, and 2040, calculated with 

discount rates of 3 percent and 7 

percent. DOE used linear interpolation 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3076 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

90See U.S. Department of Commerce—Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. Regional Multipliers: A User 

Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling 

System (‘‘RIMS II’’). 1997. U.S. Government Printing 

Office: Washington, DC. Available at www.bea.gov/ 

sites/default/files/methodologies/RIMSII_User_

Guide.pdf (last accessed July 17, 2023). 

91Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and 

R.W. Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies Model Description and User’s Guide. 

2015. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: 

Richland, WA. PNNL–24563. 

to define values for the years not given 

in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years 

beyond 2040, the values are held 

constant. DOE combined the EPA 

benefit-per-ton estimates with regional 

information on electricity consumption 

and emissions to define weightedaverage national values for NOX and 

SO2 as a function of sector (see 

appendix 14B of the NOPR TSD). 

DOE multiplied the site emissions 

reduction (in tons) in each year by the 

associated $/ton values, and then 

discounted each series using discount 

rates of 3 percent and 7 percent as 

appropriate. 

M. Utility Impact Analysis 

The utility impact analysis estimates 

the changes in installed electrical 

capacity and generation projected to 

result for each considered TSL. The 

analysis is based on published output 

from the NEMS associated with 

AEO2023. NEMS produces the AEO 

Reference case, as well as a number of 

side cases that estimate the economywide impacts of changes to energy 

supply and demand. For the current 

analysis, impacts are quantified by 

comparing the levels of electricity sector 

generation, installed capacity, fuel 

consumption and emissions in the 

AEO2023 Reference case and various 

side cases. Details of the methodology 

are provided in the appendices to 

chapters 13 and 15 of the direct final 

rule TSD. 

The output of this analysis is a set of 

time-dependent coefficients that capture 

the change in electricity generation, 

primary fuel consumption, installed 

capacity and power sector emissions 

due to a unit reduction in demand for 

a given end use. These coefficients are 

multiplied by the stream of electricity 

savings calculated in the NIA to provide 

estimates of selected utility impacts of 

potential new or amended energy 

conservation standards. 

N. Employment Impact Analysis 

DOE considers employment impacts 

in the domestic economy as one factor 

in selecting a standard. Employment 

impacts from new or amended energy 

conservation standards include both 

direct and indirect impacts. Direct 

employment impacts are any changes in 

the number of employees of 

manufacturers of the products subject to 

standards. The MIA addresses those 

impacts. 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 

more efficient appliances. 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, caused by (1) reduced 

spending by consumers on energy, (2) 

reduced spending on new energy supply 

by the utility industry, (3) increased 

consumer spending on the products to 

which the new standards apply and 

other goods and services, and (4) the 

effects of those three factors throughout 

the economy. 

One method for assessing the possible 

effects on the demand for labor of such 

shifts in economic activity is to compare 

sector employment statistics developed 

by the Labor Department’s Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’). 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.90 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. 

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 

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, the BLS data 

suggest that net national employment 

may increase due to shifts in economic 

activity resulting from energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE estimated indirect national 

employment impacts for the standard 

levels considered in this direct final rule 

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

economy called Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies version 4 (‘‘ImSET’’).91

ImSET is a special-purpose version of 

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

designed to estimate the national 

employment and income effects of 

energy-saving technologies. The ImSET 

software includes a computer-based I–O 

model having structural coefficients that 

characterize economic flows among 187 

sectors most relevant to industrial, 

commercial, and residential building 

energy use. 

DOE notes that ImSET is not a general 

equilibrium forecasting model, and that 

the uncertainties involved in projecting 

employment impacts, especially 

changes in the later years of the 

analysis. Because ImSET does not 

incorporate price changes, the 

employment effects predicted by ImSET 

may over-estimate actual job impacts 

over the long run for this rule. 

Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to 

generate results for near-term 

timeframes (2029/30–2033/4), where 

these uncertainties are reduced. For 

more details on the employment impact 

analysis, see chapter 16 of the direct 

final rule TSD. 

O. Other Comments 

As discussed previously, DOE 

considered relevant comments, data, 

and information obtained during its 

own rulemaking process in determining 

whether the recommended standards 

from the Joint Agreement are in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). And 

while some of those comments were 

directed at specific aspects of DOE’s 

analysis of the Joint Agreement under 

42 U.S.C. 6295(o), others were more 

generally applicable to DOE’s energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

program as a whole. The ensuing 

discussion focuses on these general 

comments concerning energy 

conservation standards issued under 

EPCA. 

1. Commerce Clause 

The AGs of TN, AL, et al. commented 

that DOE’s approach to Congress’s 

Commerce Clause is improper because 

precedent dictates that Congress can 

only regulate intrastate activity under 

the Commerce Clause when that activity 

‘‘substantially affects interstate 

commerce.’’ (AGs of TN, AL, et al., No. 

0068 at pp. 3–5) The AGs of TN, AL, et 

al. commented that for the proposed 

standards to reach the intrastate market 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers, DOE must show that the 

intrastate activity covered by 42 U.S.C. 

6291(17) and 6302(5) substantially 

affects the interstate market for those 

products and the proposed standards 

show no constitutional basis for 

applying the standards to intrastate 

commerce in refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. (Id.) The AGs of 

TN, AL, et al. added that if such an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3077 

92National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine. 2021. Review of Methods Used by the 

U.S. Department of Energy in Setting Appliance 

and Equipment Standards. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. Available at doi.org/ 

10.17226/25992 (last accessed August 2, 2023). 

analysis showed the intrastate market 

did not substantially affect the interstate 

market (and so was not properly the 

subject of Federal regulation), then DOE 

would be obligated to redo its costbenefit analysis since the proposed 

standards would apply to a more 

limited set of products—those traveling 

interstate. (Id.) Finally, the AGs of TN, 

AL, et al. requested that even if DOE 

found that the intrastate market 

substantially affected interstate 

commerce, DOE should nevertheless 

exclude intrastate activities from the 

proposed standards to ‘‘maintain a 

healthy balance of power between the 

States and the Federal Government.’’ 

(Id. at 4–5) 

DOE responds that it believes the 

scope of both the standard proposed in 

the NOPR and the amended standard 

adopted in this direct final rule properly 

includes all refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers distributed in 

commerce for personal use or 

consumption because intrastate state 

activity regulated by 42 U.S.C. 6291(17) 

and 6302 is inseparable from and 

substantially affects interstate 

commerce. DOE has clear authority 

under EPCA to regulate the energy use 

of a variety of consumer products and 

certain commercial and industrial 

equipment, including the subject 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. See 42 U.S.C. 6295. Based on 

this statutory authority, DOE has a longstanding practice of issuing standards 

with the same scope as the standard in 

this direct final rule. For example, DOE 

has maintained a similar scope of 

products in the final rule that 

established the current standards for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, which was published on 

September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57516), and 

in the final rule establishing the 

preceding set of standards for these 

products, published on April 28, 1997 

(62 FR 23102). DOE disagrees with the 

AGs of TN, AL, et al.’s contention that 

the Commerce Clause, the Tenth 

Amendment, the Major Questions 

Doctrine, or any canons of statutory 

construction limit DOE’s clear and longstanding authority under EPCA to adopt 

the standard, including its scope, in this 

direct final rule. A further discussion 

regarding the AGs of TN, AL, et al.’s 

federalism concerns can be found at 

section VI.E of this document. 

2. National Academy of Sciences Report 

The National Academies of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine (‘‘NAS’’) 

periodically appoint a committee to 

peer review the assumptions, models, 

and methodologies that DOE uses in 

setting energy conservation standards 

for covered products and equipment. 

The most recent such peer review was 

conducted in a series of meetings in 

2020, and NAS issued the report 92 in 

2021 detailing its findings and 

recommendations on how DOE can 

improve its analyses and align them 

with best practices for cost-benefit 

analysis. 

AHAM stated that despite previous 

requests from AHAM and others, DOE 

has failed to review and incorporate the 

recommendations of the NAS report, 

instead indicating that it will conduct a 

separate rulemaking process without 

such a process having been initiated. 

(AHAM, No. 69 at pp. 9–10) AHAM 

further stated that DOE seems to be 

ignoring the recommendations in the 

NAS Report and even conducting 

analysis that is opposite to the 

recommendations. AHAM commented 

that DOE cannot continue to perpetuate 

the errors in its analytical approach that 

have been pointed out by stakeholders 

and the NAS report as to do so will lead 

to arbitrary and capricious rules. (Id.) 

As discussed, the rulemaking process 

for establishing new or amended 

standards for covered products and 

equipment are specified at appendix A 

to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. DOE 

periodically examines and revises these 

provisions in separate rulemaking 

proceedings. The recommendations 

provided in the 2011 NAS report, which 

pertain to the processes by which DOE 

analyzes energy conservation standards, 

will be considered by DOE in a separate 

rulemaking process. 

3. Family Well-Being 

The AGs of TN, AL, et al. submitted 

a joint comment that DOE’s proposed 

standards regulate an appliance that is 

commonly used in family kitchens, and 

the costs they impose affect every 

family’s budget, forcing lower-income 

families to make difficult financial 

decisions. Therefore, the AGs of TN, AL, 

et al. requested that DOE provide the 

assessment required by section 654 of 

the Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act, 1999, which 

considers the impact of the Proposed 

Standards on family well-being. (The 

AGs of TN, AL, et al., No. 68 at pp. 5– 

6) 

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 

proposed rule or policy that may affect 

family well-being. Although this direct 

final rule would not have any impact on 

the autonomy or integrity of the family 

as an institution as defined, this rule 

could impact a family’s well-being. 

When developing a Family 

Policymaking Assessment, agencies 

must assess whether: (1) the action 

strengthens or erodes the stability or 

safety of the family and, particularly, 

the marital commitment; (2) the action 

strengthens or erodes the authority and 

rights of parents in the education, 

nurture, and supervision of their 

children; (3) the action helps the family 

perform its functions, or substitutes 

governmental activity for the function; 

(4) the action increases or decreases 

disposable income or poverty of families 

and children; (5) the proposed benefits 

of the action justify the financial impact 

on the family; (6) the action may be 

carried out by State or local government 

or by the family; and whether (7) the 

action establishes an implicit or explicit 

policy concerning the relationship 

between the behavior and personal 

responsibility of youth, and the norms 

of society. 

DOE has considered how the 

proposed benefits of this rule compare 

to the possible financial impact on a 

family (the only factor listed that is 

relevant to this rule). As part of its 

rulemaking process, DOE must 

determine whether the energy 

conservation standards contained in this 

direct final rule are economically 

justified. As discussed in section V.C.1 

of this document, DOE has determined 

that the standards are economically 

justified because the benefits to 

consumers far outweigh the costs to 

manufacturers. Families will also see 

LCC savings as a result of this rule. 

Moreover, as discussed further in 

section V.B.1 of this document, DOE has 

determined that for the for low-income 

households, average LCC savings and 

PBP at the considered efficiency levels 

are improved (i.e., higher LCC savings 

and lower payback period) as compared 

to the average for all households. 

Further, the standards will also result in 

climate and health benefits for families. 

Numerous individuals commented 

against proposed standards. Comments 

cited cost increases on consumers, 

narrowing of consumer choice, and 

government overregulation. (Individual 

Commenters, No. 47–53, 56, 58, 59 at p. 

1) 

As discussed in section II.A of this 

document, DOE conducted numerous 

analyses in support of this direct final 

rule consistent with EPCA, which 

requires that DOE consider many 

factors, including those concerns raised 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3078 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

by commenters. Analyses include the 

potential negative impacts on 

consumers and manufacturers and an 

assessment of the impact relative to the 

cost and energy savings resulting from 

amended standards, which are 

discussed in further detail in sections 

IV.F, IV.H, and IV.J of this document. 

DOE conducted its engineering analysis 

to determine standards that are 

applicable to reducing energy 

consumption while remaining 

technologically feasible. The 

engineering analysis is discussed in 

greater detail throughout section IV.C of 

this document. DOE notes that the 

comments on government 

overregulation lack the necessary 

specificity to properly address them in 

this context. However, as mentioned 

above, DOE conducted the analysis in 

this rulemaking consistent with the 

requirements in EPCA and those used in 

past rulemakings for this product. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. It 

addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, 

the projected impacts of each of these 

levels if adopted as energy conservation 

standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, and the standards 

levels that DOE is adopting in this direct 

final rule. Additional details regarding 

DOE’s analyses are contained in the 

direct final rule TSD supporting this 

document. 

A. Trial Standard Levels 

In general, DOE typically evaluates 

potential amended standards for 

products and equipment by grouping 

individual efficiency levels for each 

class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE 

to identify and consider manufacturer 

cost interactions between the product 

classes, to the extent that there are such 

interactions, and market cross elasticity 

from consumer purchasing decisions 

that may change when different 

standard levels are set. 

In the analysis conducted for this 

direct final rule, DOE analyzed the 

benefits and burdens of six TSLs for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. DOE developed TSLs that 

combine efficiency levels for each 

analyzed product class. TSL 1 

represents a modest increase in 

efficiency, corresponding to the lowest 

analyzed efficiency level above the 

baseline for each analyzed product 

class. TSL 2 represents an increase in 

efficiency of 10 percent across the 

product classes analyzed, consistent 

with ENERGY STAR requirements, 

except for PC 10, for which a majority 

of consumers would experience a net 

cost at all considered ELs. Efficiency 

improvements for product class 10 were 

considered only for TSL 1 and max-tech 

TSL 6. TSL 3 increases the stringency 

for PCs 5, 5A, 7, 11A, and 18 and 

increases NES while keeping economic 

impacts on consumers relatively 

modest. TSL 4 is the Recommended TSL 

detailed in the Joint Agreement. TSL 4 

increases the proposed standard level 

for PCs 3 and 9, as well as the expected 

NES, while average LCC savings are 

positive for every product class. TSL 4 

also corresponds to different 

compliance years than the other TSLs. 

Rather than a compliance year of 2027, 

for TSL 4, 2029 is the compliance year 

for the product classes listed in Table I.1 

and 2030 is the compliance year for the 

product classes listed in Table I.2. TSL 

5 increases the proposed standard level 

for PC 5A and PC 7, decreases the 

proposed standard level for PC 9, and 

increases the expected overall NES, 

while average LCC savings remain 

positive for every product class. TSL 6 

represents max-tech. DOE presents the 

results for the TSLs in this document, 

while the results for all efficiency levels 

that DOE analyzed are in the direct final 

rule TSD. 

Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the 

corresponding efficiency levels that 

DOE has identified for potential 

amended energy conservation standards 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers. 

TABLE V.1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

PC 3 PC 5 PC5–BI PC 5A PC 7 PC 9 PC 10 PC 11A PC 17 PC 18 

TSL 1 ............................................................................................. EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 

TSL 2 ............................................................................................. EL 2 EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 EL 2 EL 1 EL 0 * EL 1 EL 1 EL 1 

TSL 3 ............................................................................................. EL 2 EL 2 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 1 EL 0* EL 2 EL 1 EL 2 

TSL 4 ** .......................................................................................... EL 3 EL 2 EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 2 EL 0 * EL 2 EL 1 EL 2 

TSL 5 ............................................................................................. EL 3 EL 2 EL 1 EL 3 EL 4 EL 1 EL 0 * EL 2 EL 1 EL 2 

TSL 6 ............................................................................................. EL 5 EL 4 EL 3 EL 3 EL 5 EL 4 EL 4 EL 4 EL 3 EL 4 

* DOE did not consider efficiency levels above baseline for PC 10 for TSLs 2–5. 

** Recommended TSL from the Joint Agreement. This TSL also includes different standard levels for the non-representative PCs 4–BI, 5A–BI, 7–BI, 9–BI, 9A–BI 

and 12. The compliance year varies by product class. See the Joint Agreement for details. 

Section IV.C.3 shows the design 

options determined to be required for 

representative products of each 

analyzed class as a function of the TSLs. 

B. Economic Justification and Energy 

Savings 

1. Economic Impacts on Individual 

Consumers 

DOE analyzed the economic impacts 

on refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer consumers by looking at the 

effects that potential amended standards 

at each TSL would have on the LCC and 

PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of 

potential standards on selected 

consumer subgroups. These analyses are 

discussed in the following sections. 

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

In general, higher-efficiency products 

affect consumers in two ways: (1) 

purchase price increases and (2) annual 

operating costs decrease. Inputs used for 

calculating the LCC and PBP include 

total installed costs (i.e., product price 

plus installation costs), and operating 

costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy 

prices, energy price trends, repair costs, 

and maintenance costs). The LCC 

calculation also uses product lifetime 

and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the 

direct final rule TSD provides detailed 

information on the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 

Tables V.2 through V.21 show the 

LCC and PBP results for the TSLs 

considered for each product class. In the 

first of each pair of tables, the simple 

payback is measured relative to the 

baseline product. In the second table, 

the impacts are measured relative to the 

efficiency distribution in the in the nonew-standards case in the compliance 

year (see section IV.F.9 of this 

document). Because some consumers 

purchase products with higher 

efficiency in the no-new-standards case, 

the average savings are less than the 

difference between the average LCC of 

the baseline product and the average 

LCC at each TSL. The savings refer only 

to consumers who are affected by a 

standard at a given TSL. Those who 

already purchase a product with 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3079 

efficiency at or above a given TSL are 

not affected. Consumers for whom the 

LCC increases at a given TSL experience 

a net cost. 

TABLE V.2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 3 

TSL * Efficiency 

level 

Average 

costs 

2022$ Simple 

payback 

years 

Average 

lifetime 

years Installed 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline 830.22 68.31 937.19 1,767.41 .................... 14.5 

1 ................................................................................................ 1 834.70 65.19 902.11 1,736.81 1.4 14.5 

2–3 ............................................................................................ 2 857.14 61.93 868.69 1,725.83 4.2 14.5 

4 ................................................................................................ 3 838.61 58.22 835.33 1,673.94 4.8 14.5 

5 ................................................................................................ 3 882.91 58.32 831.71 1,714.63 5.3 14.5 

4 959.74 55.15 809.28 1,769.02 9.8 14.5 

6 ................................................................................................ 5 999.59 50.11 758.46 1,758.05 9.3 14.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2030. 

TABLE V.3—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 3 

TSL ** Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

1 ................................................................................................................................. 1 30.50 3.9 

2–3 ............................................................................................................................. 2 40.14 17.3 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 3 50.91 28.3 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 3 43.46 34.2 

4 ¥10.94 70.7 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 5 0.03 67.1 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

** All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2030. 

TABLE V.4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5 

TSL * Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

2022$ Simple 

payback 

years 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed years 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline 1,312.92 103.02 1,441.88 2,754.80 .................... 14.5 

1–2 ............................................................................................ 1 1,343.59 95.86 1,364.05 2,707.64 4.3 14.5 

3 ................................................................................................ 2 1,382.17 91.75 1,323.25 2,705.42 6.1 14.5 

4 ................................................................................................ 2 1,313.51 91.73 1,329.76 2,643.28 5.6 14.5 

5 ................................................................................................ 2 1,382.17 91.75 1,323.25 2,705.42 6.1 14.5 

3 1,433.17 87.11 1,278.50 2,711.67 7.6 14.5 

6 ................................................................................................ 4 1,464.67 85.43 1,264.79 2,729.46 8.6 14.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2030. 

TABLE V.5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5 

TSL ** Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

1–2 ............................................................................................................................. 1 46.90 18.2 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 2 45.47 39.4 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 2 55.23 33.6 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 2 45.47 39.4 

3 38.19 52.8 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 4 20.22 60.3 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

** All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2030. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3080 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.6—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5BI 

TSL * Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

2022$ Simple 

payback 

years 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed years 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline 1,579.54 106.75 1,534.74 3,114.28 .................... 14.5 

1–3 ............................................................................................ 1 1,603.84 96.55 1,420.31 3,024.15 2.4 14.5 

4 ................................................................................................ 1 1,550.34 96.23 1,423.25 2,973.59 2.1 14.5 

5 ................................................................................................ 1 1,603.84 96.55 1,420.31 3,024.15 2.4 14.5 

2 1,659.01 91.45 1,371.03 3,030.04 5.2 14.5 

6 ................................................................................................ 3 1,714.16 90.43 1,369.31 3,083.47 8.2 14.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2029. 

TABLE V.7—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5BI 

TSL ** Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

1–3 ............................................................................................................................. 1 86.19 1.0 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 1 91.13 0.5 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 1 86.19 1.0 

2 22.77 44.8 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 3 ¥30.73 61.0 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

** All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2029. 

TABLE V.8—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5A 

TSL * Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

2022$ Simple 

payback 

years 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed years 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline 1,460.58 128.51 1,772.25 3,232.84 .................... 14.5 

1–2 ............................................................................................ 1 1,487.03 114.95 1,618.23 3,105.26 1.9 14.5 

3 ................................................................................................ 2 1,546.91 108.78 1,557.08 3,103.99 4.4 14.5 

4 ................................................................................................ 2 1,495.23 108.00 1,561.70 3,056.93 4.1 14.5 

5–6 ............................................................................................ 3 1,622.24 101.39 1,484.33 3,106.57 6.0 14.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2029. 

TABLE V.9—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5A 

TSL ** Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

1–2 ............................................................................................................................. 1 127.59 1.2 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 2 124.76 23.0 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 2 133.27 19.8 

5–6 ............................................................................................................................. 3 122.18 39.4 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

** All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2029. 

TABLE V.10—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 7 

TSL * Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

2022$ Simple 

payback 

years 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed years 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline 1,278.19 107.33 1,475.40 2,753.59 .................... 14.5 

1 ................................................................................................ 1 1,281.77 102.46 1,419.59 2,701.36 0.7 14.5 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3081 

TABLE V.10—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 7—Continued 

TSL * Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

2022$ Simple 

payback 

years 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed years 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

2 ................................................................................................ 2 1,305.88 97.68 1,368.72 2,674.59 2.9 14.5 

3 ................................................................................................ 3 1,307.20 92.09 1,304.25 2,611.45 1.9 14.5 

4 ................................................................................................ 3 1,242.09 91.60 1,310.33 2,552.41 1.6 14.5 

5 ................................................................................................ 4 1,399.77 87.83 1,271.83 2,671.59 6.2 14.5 

6 ................................................................................................ 5 1,431.19 84.98 1,244.65 2,675.84 6.8 14.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2030. 

TABLE V.11—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 7 

TSL ** Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

1 ................................................................................................................................. 1 52.10 0.0 

2 ................................................................................................................................. 2 70.96 9.6 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 3 134.10 1.2 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 3 142.56 0.5 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 4 73.96 42.6 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 5 69.71 48.3 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

** All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2030. 

TABLE V.12—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 9 

TSL * Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

2022$ Simple 

payback 

years 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed years 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline 1,023.63 70.01 1,072.00 2,095.63 .................... 18.5 

1–3 ............................................................................................ 1 1,050.17 63.46 983.71 2,033.88 4.1 18.5 

4 ................................................................................................ 2 1,039.42 60.04 950.64 1,990.06 6.6 18.5 

5 ................................................................................................ 1 1,050.17 63.46 983.71 2,033.88 4.1 18.5 

3 1,141.15 56.64 897.84 2,039.00 8.8 18.5 

6 ................................................................................................ 4 1,201.08 53.36 858.25 2,059.33 10.7 18.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2030. 

TABLE V.13—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 9 

TSL ** Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

1–3 ............................................................................................................................. 1 62.02 12.2 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 2 56.17 39.1 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 1 62.02 12.2 

3 46.62 52.2 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 4 26.33 61.0 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

** All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2030. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3082 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.14—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 10 

TSL * Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

2022$ Simple 

payback 

years 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed years 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

1 ................................................................................................ 1 1,037.56 38.90 638.00 1,675.56 11.2 18.5 

2–3 ............................................................................................ Baseline 994.99 42.72 686.42 1,681.41 .................... 18.5 

4 ................................................................................................ Baseline 963.19 42.36 688.01 1,651.20 .................... 18.5 

5 ................................................................................................ Baseline 994.99 42.72 686.42 1,681.41 .................... 18.5 

2 1,075.74 36.64 610.58 1,686.33 13.3 18.5 

3 1,078.80 34.66 583.52 1,662.32 10.4 18.5 

6 ................................................................................................ 4 1,115.72 33.71 574.13 1,689.85 13.4 18.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2029. 

TABLE V.15—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 10 

TSL ** Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

1 ................................................................................................................................. 1 5.94 57.5 

2 ¥5.13 69.8 

3 18.87 57.4 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 4 ¥8.65 70.0 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

** All results in this table assume a compliance year of 2027. 

TABLE V.16—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 11A 

TSL * Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

2022$ Simple 

payback 

years 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed years 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Residential: 

Baseline 298.57 35.44 288.26 586.83 .................... 8.9 

1–2 ..................................................................................... 1 305.89 32.01 262.49 568.38 2.1 8.9 

3 ......................................................................................... 2 308.97 30.52 251.30 560.27 2.1 8.9 

4 ......................................................................................... 2 299.10 30.33 253.30 552.40 2.1 8.9 

5 ......................................................................................... 2 308.97 30.52 251.30 560.27 2.1 8.9 

3 344.16 28.67 239.20 583.36 6.7 8.9 

6 ......................................................................................... 4 362.81 24.73 210.23 573.04 6.0 8.9 

Commercial: 

Baseline 299.37 25.22 179.75 479.12 .................... 8.9 

1–2 ..................................................................................... 1 306.71 22.99 165.59 472.30 3.3 8.9 

3 ......................................................................................... 2 309.79 22.03 159.45 469.24 3.3 8.9 

4 ......................................................................................... 2 299.89 21.52 158.91 458.81 3.2 8.9 

5 ......................................................................................... 2 309.79 22.03 159.45 469.24 3.3 8.9 

3 345.08 20.82 153.37 498.45 10.4 8.9 

6 ......................................................................................... 4 363.77 18.27 137.64 501.41 9.3 8.9 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2029. 

TABLE V.17—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 11A 

TSL ** Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

Residential: 

1–2 ...................................................................................................................... 1 0.00 0.0 

3 .......................................................................................................................... 2 8.11 8.4 

4 .......................................................................................................................... 2 8.35 8.0 

5 .......................................................................................................................... 2 8.11 8.4 

3 ¥14.97 84.8 

6 .......................................................................................................................... 4 ¥4.66 61.7 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3083 

TABLE V.17—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 11A— 

Continued 

TSL ** Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

Commercial: 

1–2 ...................................................................................................................... 1 0.00 0.0 

3 .......................................................................................................................... 2 3.06 16.1 

4 .......................................................................................................................... 2 3.16 15.7 

5 .......................................................................................................................... 2 3.06 16.1 

3 ¥26.15 99.3 

6 .......................................................................................................................... 4 ¥29.11 92.7 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

** All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2029. 

TABLE V.18—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 17 

TSL * Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

2022$ Simple 

payback 

years 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed years 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline 514.48 73.65 739.82 1,254.30 .................... 11.5 

1–3 ............................................................................................ 1 548.82 66.16 670.81 1,219.62 4.6 11.5 

4 ................................................................................................ 1 529.02 65.85 677.65 1,206.67 4.1 11.5 

5 ................................................................................................ 1 548.82 66.16 670.81 1,219.62 4.6 11.5 

2 585.96 62.52 638.75 1,224.71 6.4 11.5 

6 ................................................................................................ 3 623.09 58.56 603.65 1,226.75 7.2 11.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2029. 

TABLE V.19—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 17 

TSL ** Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

1–3 ............................................................................................................................. 1 32.29 5.6 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 1 36.86 4.5 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 1 32.29 5.6 

2 2.62 52.0 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 3 0.26 61.5 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

** All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2029. 

TABLE V.20—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 18 

TSL * Efficiency 

level 

Average costs 

2022$ Simple 

payback 

years 

Average 

lifetime 

Installed years 

cost 

First year’s 

operating 

cost 

Lifetime 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Baseline 487.72 31.07 329.24 816.96 .................... 11.5 

1–2 ............................................................................................ 1 491.75 28.09 301.39 793.14 1.4 11.5 

3 ................................................................................................ 2 506.37 26.58 288.10 794.47 4.2 11.5 

4 ................................................................................................ 2 490.19 26.33 289.27 779.46 4.1 11.5 

5 ................................................................................................ 2 506.37 26.58 288.10 794.47 4.2 11.5 

3 527.04 25.26 277.15 804.19 6.8 11.5 

6 ................................................................................................ 4 569.15 22.39 253.14 822.29 9.4 11.5 

Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

* All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2029. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3084 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.21—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE FOR PRODUCT CLASS 18 

TSL ** Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost savings 

Average 

LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Percent of 

consumers that 

experience 

net cost 

1–2 ............................................................................................................................. 1 23.82 0.8 

3 ................................................................................................................................. 2 22.49 18.9 

4 ................................................................................................................................. 2 23.55 17.6 

5 ................................................................................................................................. 2 22.49 18.9 

3 12.77 45.6 

6 ................................................................................................................................. 4 ¥5.34 68.5 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

** All TSLs except TSL 4 have a compliance year of 2027; TSL 4 has a compliance year of 2029. 

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis 

In the consumer subgroup analysis, 

DOE estimated the impact of the 

considered TSLs on low-income 

households and small businesses. Table 

V.22 compares the average LCC savings 

and PBP at each efficiency level for the 

low-income consumer subgroup with 

similar metrics for the entire consumer 

sample for PCs 3, 7, 9, and 10 (see 

section IV.I for an explanation of why 

other product classes are excluded). 

Table V.23 provides a similar 

comparison for PC 11A for the small 

business subgroup. In all cases, the 

average LCC savings and PBP for lowincome households at the considered 

efficiency levels are improved (i.e., 

higher LCC savings and lower payback 

period) from the average for all 

households. The LCC savings and 

payback period results for the small 

business subgroup for PC 11A are 

similar to those for all businesses. 

Chapter 11 of the direct final rule TSD 

presents the complete LCC and PBP 

results for the subgroups. 

TABLE V.22—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR LOW-INCOME CONSUMER SUBGROUP AND ALL CONSUMERS

TSL ** 

Average LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Simple payback period 

years 

Low-income 

households All households Low-income households All households 

Product Class 3: 

1 ................................................................................................................ 32.24 30.50 0.4 1.4 

2–3 ............................................................................................................ 58.01 40.14 1.3 4.2 

4 ................................................................................................................ 80.07 50.91 1.4 4.8 

5 ................................................................................................................ 76.69 43.46 1.6 5.3 

6 ................................................................................................................ 123.04 0.03 2.8 9.3 

Product Class 7: 

1 ................................................................................................................ 56.76 52.10 0.5 0.7 

2 ................................................................................................................ 87.29 70.96 1.8 2.9 

3 ................................................................................................................ 154.61 134.10 1.2 1.9 

4 ................................................................................................................ 161.87 142.56 1.0 1.6 

5 ................................................................................................................ 132.77 73.96 3.9 6.2 

6 ................................................................................................................ 142.45 69.71 4.2 6.8 

Product Class 9: 

1–3 ............................................................................................................ 65.99 62.02 2.8 4.1 

4 ................................................................................................................ 69.62 56.17 4.6 6.6 

5 ................................................................................................................ 65.99 62.02 2.8 4.1 

6 ................................................................................................................ 72.77 26.33 7.4 10.7 

Product Class 10: 

1 ................................................................................................................ 22.75 5.94 6.4 11.2 

2–5 ............................................................................................................ N/A N/A N/A N/A 

6 ................................................................................................................ 39.03 ¥8.65 7.6 13.4 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

** The compliance year for TSLs 1–3 and 5–6 is 2027; the compliance year for TSL 4 varies by product class: 2029: PC 10; 2030: PCs 3, 7, 

and 9. 

TABLE V.23—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONSUMER SUBGROUP AND ALL

BUSINESSES

TSL ** 

Average LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Simple payback period 

years 

Small 

businesses 

All 

businesses 

Small 

businesses 

All 

businesses 

Product Class 11A: 

1–2 ............................................................................................................ 0.00 0.00 3.3 3.3 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3085 

93The gross margin percentages of 21 percent and 

29 percent are based on manufacturer markups of 

1.26 and 1.40 percent, respectively. 

TABLE V.23—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONSUMER SUBGROUP AND ALL

BUSINESSES—Continued 

TSL ** 

Average LCC savings * 

2022$ 

Simple payback period 

years 

Small 

businesses 

All 

businesses 

Small 

businesses 

All 

businesses 

3 ................................................................................................................ 2.54 3.06 3.2 3.3 

4 ................................................................................................................ 2.64 3.16 3.2 3.2 

5 ................................................................................................................ 2.54 3.06 3.2 3.3 

6 ................................................................................................................ ¥31.43 ¥29.11 9.2 9.3 

* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers. 

** The compliance year for TSLs 1–3 and 5–6 is 2027; the compliance year for TSL 4 is 2029. 

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback 

As discussed in section IV.F.10 of this 

document, EPCA establishes 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 rebuttablepresumption payback period for each of 

the considered TSLs, DOE used discrete 

values, and, as required by EPCA, based 

the energy use calculation on the DOE 

test procedures for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. In 

contrast, the PBPs presented in section 

V.B.1.a of this document were 

calculated using distributions that 

reflect the range of energy use in the 

field. 

Table V.24 presents the rebuttablepresumption payback periods for the 

considered TSLs for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. While 

DOE examined the rebuttablepresumption criterion, it considered 

whether the standard levels considered 

for this rule are economically justified 

through a more detailed analysis of the 

economic impacts of those levels, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), 

that considers the full range of impacts 

to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, 

and environment. The results of that 

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. 

TABLE V.24—REBUTTABLE-PRESUMPTION PAYBACK PERIODS

TSL * PC 3 PC 5 PC 5BI PC 5A PC 7 PC 9 PC 10 

PC 11A 

PC 17 PC 18 

Res. Com. 

1 ............................................ 1.5 4.5 2.5 2.0 0.7 3.7 10.2 1.9 2.8 3.9 1.2 

2 ............................................ 4.3 4.5 2.5 2.0 2.9 3.7 ................ 1.9 2.8 3.9 1.2 

3 ............................................ 4.3 6.4 2.5 4.5 1.9 3.7 ................ 1.9 2.8 3.9 3.7 

4 ............................................ 4.9 5.8 2.2 4.2 1.6 6.0 ................ 1.8 2.7 3.5 3.6 

5 ............................................ 5.4 6.4 2.5 6.1 6.3 3.7 ................ 1.9 2.8 3.9 3.7 

6 ............................................ 9.6 9.0 8.6 6.1 6.9 9.7 12.2 5.3 7.9 6.2 8.3 

* The compliance year for TSLs 1–3 and 5–6 is 2027; the compliance year for TSL 4 varies by product class: 2029: PCs 5BI, 5A, 10, 11A, 17, and 18; 2030: PCs 

3, 5, 7, and 9. 

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers 

DOE performed an MIA to estimate 

the impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The 

next section describes the expected 

impacts on manufacturers at each 

considered TSL. Chapter 12 of the direct 

final rule TSD explains the analysis in 

further detail. 

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results 

In this section, DOE provides GRIM 

results from the analysis, which 

examines changes in the industry that 

would result from a standard. The 

following tables summarize the 

estimated financial impacts (represented 

by changes in INPV) of potential 

amended energy conservation standards 

on manufacturers of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, as 

well as the conversion costs that DOE 

estimates manufacturers of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers would 

incur at each TSL. 

The impact of potential amended 

energy conservation standards was 

analyzed under two scenarios: (1) the 

preservation-of-gross-margin percentage; 

and (2) the preservation-of-operatingprofit, as discussed in section IV.J.2.d of 

this document. The preservation-ofgross-margin percentages applies a 

‘‘gross margin percentage’’ of 21 percent 

for all freestanding product classes and 

29 percent for all built-in product 

classes, across all efficiency levels.93

This scenario assumes that a 

manufacturer’s per-unit dollar profit 

would increase as MPCs increase in the 

standards cases and represents the 

upper-bound to industry profitability 

under potential new or amended energy 

conservation standards. 

The preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario reflects manufacturers’ 

concerns about their inability to 

maintain margins as MPCs increase to 

reach more stringent efficiency levels. In 

this scenario, while manufacturers make 

the necessary investments required to 

convert their facilities to produce 

compliant products, operating profit 

does not change in absolute dollars and 

decreases as a percentage of revenue. 

The preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario results in the lower (or more 

severe) bound to impacts of potential 

amended standards on industry. 

Each of the modeled scenarios results 

in a unique set of cash flows and 

corresponding INPV for each TSL. INPV 

is the sum of the discounted cash flows 

to the industry from the base year 

through the end of the analysis period 

(30 years from the analyzed compliance 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3086 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

94The analysis period ranges from 2023–2056 for 

the no-new-standards case and all TSLs, except for 

TSL 4 (the Recommended TSL). The analysis period 

for the Recommended TSL ranges from 2023–2058 

for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2023– 

2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

95The engineering analysis modeled PC 5 (23.0 

AV) as requiring a higher-efficiency single-speed 

compressor to meet TSL 1 efficiencies and modeled 

PC 5 (30.0 AV) as requiring a variable-speed 

compressor system to meet TSL 1 efficiencies. 

year).94 The ‘‘change in INPV’’ results 

refer to the difference in industry value 

between the no-new-standards case and 

standards case at each TSL. To provide 

perspective on the short-run cash flow 

impact, DOE includes a comparison of 

free cash flow between the no-newstandards case and the standards case at 

each TSL in the year before amended 

standards would take effect. This figure 

provides an understanding of the 

magnitude of the required conversion 

costs relative to the cash flow generated 

by the industry in the no-new-standards 

case. 

Conversion costs are one-time 

investments for manufacturers to bring 

their manufacturing facilities and 

product designs into compliance with 

potential amended standards. As 

described in section IV.J.2.c of this 

document, conversion cost investments 

occur between the year of publication of 

the direct final rule and the year by 

which manufacturers must comply with 

the new standard. The conversion costs 

can have a significant impact on the 

short-term cash flow of the industry and 

generally result in lower free cash flow 

in the period between the publication of 

the direct final rule and the compliance 

date of potential amended standards. 

Conversion costs are independent of the 

manufacturer markup scenarios and are 

not presented as a range in this analysis. 

TABLE V.25—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND

FREEZERS

Unit 

No-newstandards case 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

INPV ...................................... 2022$ Million ......................... 4,905.8 4,841.5 to 

4,891.4 

4,798.5 to 

4,870.1 

4,387.6 to 

4,514.7 

4,401.3 to 

4,522.3 

3,839.9 to 

4,061.6 

3,080.1 to 

3,604.0 

Change in INPV * .................. % ........................................... .................... (1.3) to (0.3) (2.2) to (0.7) (10.6) to 

(8.0) 

(10.3) to 

(7.8) 

(21.7) to 

(17.2) 

(37.2) to 

(26.5) 

Free Cash Flow (2026) ** ...... 2022$ Million ......................... *** 414.5 385.3 363.3 137.8 195.3 (166.2) (581.0) 

Change in Free Cash Flow 

(2026) **.

% ........................................... .................... (7.0) (12.4) (66.7) (51.7) (140.1) (240.2) 

Capital Conversion Costs ...... 2022$ Million ......................... .................... 10.8 22.3 378.1 471.8 945.3 1,677.2 

Product Conversion Costs .... 2022$ Million ......................... .................... 71.7 121.7 314.7 358.5 458.7 711.4 

Total Conversion Costs ......... 2022$ Million ......................... .................... 82.5 144.0 692.8 830.3 1,404.0 2,388.6 

* Parentheses denote negative (¥) values. 

** TSL 4 (i.e., the Recommended TSL) represents the change in free cash flow in 2029. 

*** In 2029, the no-new-standards case free cash flow is $413.1 million. 

The following cash flow discussion 

refers to product classes as defined in 

Table I.1 in section I of this document 

and the efficiency levels and design 

options as detailed in Tables IV.5 

through IV.7 in section IV.C.3 of this 

document. 

At TSL 1, the standard represents a 

modest increase in efficiency, 

corresponding to the lowest analyzed 

efficiency level above the baseline for 

each analyzed product class. The 

change in INPV is expected to range 

from ¥1.3 to ¥0.3 percent. At this 

level, free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by 7.0 percent compared to the 

no-new-standards case value of $414.5 

million in the year 2026, the year before 

the 2027 standards year. Currently, 

approximately 24 percent of domestic 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer shipments meet the efficiencies 

required at TSL 1. See Table V.27 for the 

percentage of 2023 shipments that meet 

each TSL by product class. 

The design options DOE analyzed 

primarily included implementing more 

efficient single-speed compressors. For 

PC 5,95 PC 5A, PC 5–BI, PC 10, and PC 

17, the design options analyzed 

included implementing higherefficiency variable-speed compressors. 

DOE also analyzed implementing BLDC 

fan motors and variable defrost for some 

product classes. DOE expects 

manufacturers would likely need to 

increase wall thickness for some of PC 

11A models to meet TSL 1 efficiencies. 

At this level, capital conversion costs 

are minimal since most manufacturers 

can achieve TSL 1 efficiencies with 

relatively minor component changes. 

Product conversion costs may be 

necessary for developing, qualifying, 

sourcing, and testing new components. 

DOE expects industry to incur some reflooring costs as manufacturers redesign 

baseline products to meet the efficiency 

levels required by TSL 1. DOE estimates 

capital conversion costs of $10.8 million 

and product conversion costs of $71.7 

million. Conversion costs total $82.5 

million. 

At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is 

expected to increase by 1.6 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers in 2027. In the preservation-ofgross-margin percentage scenario, the 

minor increase in cashflow from the 

higher MSP is slightly outweighed by 

the $82.5 million in conversion costs, 

causing a negligible change in INPV at 

TSL 1 under this scenario. Under the 

preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario, manufacturers earn the same 

per-unit operating profit as would be 

earned in the no-new-standards case, 

but manufacturers do not earn 

additional profit from their investments. 

In this scenario, the manufacturer 

markup decreases in 2028, the year after 

the analyzed 2027 compliance year. 

This reduction in the manufacturer 

markup and the $82.5 million in 

conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a slightly negative 

change in INPV at TSL 1 under the 

preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario. See section IV.J.2.d of this 

document for details on the 

manufacturer markup scenarios. 

At TSL 2, the standard represents an 

increase in efficiency of approximately 

10 percent across all analyzed product 

classes, consistent with ENERGY STAR 

requirements, except for PC 10. The 

change in INPV is expected to range 

from ¥2.2 to ¥0.7 percent. At this 

level, free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by 12.4 percent compared to 

the no-new-standards case value of 

$414.5 million in the year 2026, the year 

before the 2027 standards year. 

Currently, approximately 26 percent of 

domestic refrigerator, refrigeratorVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:16 Jan 16, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17JAR2.SGM 17JAR2

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3087 

96For the Recommended TSL, the compliance 

year varies by product class. For the product classes 

listed in Table I.1, the analyzed compliance year is 

2029. For the product classes listed in Table I.2, the 

analyzed compliance year is 2030. The product 

classes associated with the 2030 compliance year 

account for approximately 68 percent of total 

shipments. 

freezer, and freezer shipments meet the 

efficiencies required at TSL 2. 

The design options DOE analyzed 

include implementing similar design 

options as TSL 1, such as more efficient 

compressors, BLDC fans, and variable 

defrost. For PC 3, the design options 

included implementing incrementally 

more efficient single-speed compressors 

and variable defrost. For PC 7, the 

design options analyzed included 

implementing variable-speed 

compressors. For PC 3 and PC 7, TSL 2 

corresponds to EL 2. For PC 10, TSL 2 

corresponds to baseline efficiency. For 

the remaining product classes, the 

efficiencies required at TSL 2 are the 

same as TSL 1. The increase in 

conversion costs from the prior TSL is 

entirely due to the increased efficiencies 

required for PC 3 and PC 7. Capital 

conversion costs may be necessary for 

updated tooling and additional stations 

to test more variable-speed compressors. 

Product conversion costs may be 

necessary for developing, qualifying, 

sourcing, and testing variable-speed 

compressors and associated electronics. 

DOE expects industry to incur slightly 

more re-flooring costs compared to TSL 

1. DOE estimates capital conversion 

costs of $22.3 million and product 

conversion costs of $121.7 million. 

Conversion costs total $144.0 million. 

At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is 

expected to increase by 2.3 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers in 2027. In the preservation-ofgross-margin-percentage scenario, the 

slight increase in cashflow from the 

higher MSP is outweighed by the $144.0 

million in conversion costs, causing a 

slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 

2 under this scenario. Under the 

preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario, the manufacturer markup 

decreases in 2028. This reduction in the 

manufacturer markup and the $144.0 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a slightly negative 

change in INPV at TSL 2 under the 

preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario. 

At TSL 3, the standard represents an 

increased stringency for PC 5, PC 5A, PC 

7, PC 11A, and PC 18 and increased 

NES while keeping economic impacts 

on consumers modest. The change in 

INPV is expected to range from ¥10.6 

to ¥8.0 percent. At this level, free cash 

flow is estimated to decrease by 66.7 

percent compared to the no-newstandards case value of $414.5 million 

in the year 2026, the year before the 

2027 standards year. Currently, 

approximately 18 percent of domestic 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer shipments meet the efficiencies 

required at TSL 3. 

In addition to the design options DOE 

analyzed at TSL 2, the design options 

analyzed for PC 5 include implementing 

higher-efficiency variable-speed 

compressors and incorporating partial 

VIP for larger capacity (i.e., adjusted 

volume) products. DOE expects that PC 

5A products would likely also need to 

incorporate some partial VIP. For PC 7, 

the deign options analyzed included 

implementing more efficient variablespeed compressors. Additionally, for the 

compact-size PC 18, DOE expects 

manufacturers may need to increase 

cabinet wall thickness. For PC 5, PC 5A, 

PC 11A, and PC 18, TSL 3 corresponds 

to EL 2. For PC 7, TSL 3 corresponds to 

EL 3. For the remaining product classes, 

the efficiencies required at TSL 3 are the 

same as TSL 2. The increase in 

conversion costs from the prior TSL are 

driven by the efficiencies required for 

PC 5 and PC 5A due to their large 

market share (together, these product 

classes account for approximately 30 

percent of total shipments) and the 

design options required to meet this 

level. Capital conversion costs may be 

necessary for new tooling for VIP 

placement as well as new testing 

stations for high-efficiency components. 

Product conversion costs may be 

necessary for developing, qualifying, 

sourcing, and testing new components. 

For products implementing VIPs, 

product conversion costs may be 

necessary for prototyping and testing for 

VIP placement, design, and sizing. For 

PC 5 and PC 5A, DOE understands the 

two product classes often share the 

same production lines, with shared 

cabinet architecture and tooling. DOE 

expects manufacturers would likely 

need to incorporate some VIPs into PC 

5A designs, but not to the extent 

required at TSL 5 and TSL 6. Thus, for 

the 10 OEMs that manufacture both PC 

5 and PC 5A, DOE expects 

manufacturers could implement similar 

cabinet upgrades (i.e., partial VIP) for PC 

5 and PC 5A designs to achieve the 

efficiencies required at this level. DOE 

expects industry to incur re-flooring 

costs as manufacturers redesign their 

products to meet the efficiency levels 

required by TSL 3. DOE estimates 

capital conversion costs of $378.1 

million and product conversion costs of 

$314.7 million. Conversion costs total 

$629.8 million. 

At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is 

expected to increase by 4.0 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers in 2027. In the preservation-ofgross-margin-percentage scenario, the 

increase in cashflow from the higher 

MSP is outweighed by the $692.8 

million in conversion costs, causing a 

negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under 

this scenario. Under the preservation-ofoperating-profit scenario, the 

manufacturer markup decreases in 2028. 

This reduction in the manufacturer 

markup and the $692.8 million in 

conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a negative change 

in INPV at TSL 3 under the 

preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario. 

At TSL 4 (i.e., the Recommended 

TSL), the standard represents an 

increased stringency for PC 3 and PC 9, 

as well as the expected NES, while 

maintaining positive average LCC 

savings for every analyzed product 

class. The change in INPV is expected 

to range from ¥10.3 to ¥7.8 percent. At 

this level, free cash flow is estimated to 

decrease by 51.7 percent compared to 

the no-new-standards case value of 

$413.1 million in the year 2029, the year 

before the 2030 standards year.96

Currently, approximately 14 percent of 

domestic refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, and freezer shipments meet the 

efficiencies required at TSL 4. 

In addition to the design options DOE 

analyzed at TSL 3, the design options 

analyzed for PC 3 products include 

implementing the highest-EER singlespeed compressors or variable-speed 

compressors. For PC 9, the design 

options analyzed included the highestEER variable-speed compressors. For PC 

3, TSL 4 corresponds to EL 3. For PC 9, 

TSL 4 corresponds to EL 2. For the 

remaining directly analyzed product 

classes, the efficiencies required at TSL 

4 are the same as TSL 3. At this level, 

the increase in conversion costs is 

entirely driven by the higher efficiency 

levels required for PC 3 and PC 9, which 

together account for approximately 33 

percent of current industry shipments. 

Many manufacturers of these product 

classes would need to update their 

platforms to integrate variable-speed 

compressors. For PC 5 and PC 5A, DOE 

understands the two product classes 

often share the same production lines, 

with shared cabinet architecture and 

tooling. DOE expects industry to incur 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3088 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

97The compliance year for the Recommended 

TSL varies by product class. For PC 1, PC 1A, PC 

2, PC 3, PC 3A, PC 4, PC 5, PC 6, PC 7, and PC 

9, the compliance year is 2030. For the remaining 

product classes, the compliance year is 2029. 

more re-flooring costs compared to TSL 

3. DOE estimates capital conversion 

costs of $471.8 million and product 

conversion costs of $358.5 million. 

Conversion costs total $830.3 million. 

At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is 

expected to increase by 4.8 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers in 2030. In the preservation-ofgross-margin-percentage scenario, the 

increase in cashflow from the higher 

MSP is outweighed by the $830.3 

million in conversion costs, causing a 

negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under 

this scenario. Under the preservation-ofoperating-profit scenario, the 

manufacturer markup decreases in 2031, 

the year after the analyzed 2030 

compliance year.97 This reduction in the 

manufacturer markup and the $830.3 

million in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a negative change 

in INPV at TSL 4 under the 

preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario. 

At TSL 5, the standard represents the 

maximum NPV. The change in INPV is 

expected to range from ¥21.7 to ¥17.2 

percent. At this level, free cash flow is 

estimated to decrease by 140.1 percent 

compared to the no-new-standards case 

value of $414.5 million in the year 2026, 

the year before the 2027 standards year. 

Currently, approximately 14 percent of 

domestic refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, and freezer shipments meet the 

efficiencies required at TSL 5. 

In addition to the design options DOE 

analyzed at TSL 4, the design options 

analyzed for PC 5A includes 

implementing VIPs on all of the cabinet 

surface (side walls and doors) and for 

PC 7 includes implementing VIPs on 

roughly 75 percent of the cabinet 

surface. For PC 5A, TSL 5 corresponds 

to EL 3. For PC 7, TSL 5 corresponds to 

EL 4. For PC 9, TSL 5 corresponds to EL 

1, the same efficiency level required for 

TSL 3. For the remaining product 

classes, the efficiencies required at TSL 

5 are the same as TSL 4. The increase 

in conversion costs compared to the 

prior TSL is entirely driven by the 

higher efficiency level required for PC 

5A and PC 7, which likely necessitates 

incorporating some VIPs. In interviews, 

some manufacturers stated that their 

existing PC 5A and PC 7 platforms 

cannot reach this efficiency level and 

would require a platform redesign, 

which would likely mean new cases, 

liners, and fixtures. DOE expects 

slightly more re-flooring costs compared 

to the prior TSL as manufacturers 

redesign products to meet the required 

efficiencies. DOE estimates capital 

conversion costs of $945.3 million and 

product conversion costs of $458.7 

million. Conversion costs total $1.40 

billion. 

At TSL 5, the large conversion costs 

result in a free cash flow dropping 

below zero in the years before the 

standards year. The negative free cash 

flow calculation indicates 

manufacturers may need to access cash 

reserves or outside capital to finance 

conversion efforts. 

At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is 

expected to increase by 7.0 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers in 2027. In the preservation-ofgross-margin-percentage scenario, the 

increase in cashflow from the higher 

MSP is outweighed by the $1.40 billion 

in conversion costs, causing a 

moderately negative change in INPV at 

TSL 5 under this scenario. Under the 

preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario, the manufacturer markup 

decreases in 2028. This reduction in the 

manufacturer markup and the $1.40 

billion in conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers cause a large decrease in 

INPV at TSL 5 under the preservationof-operating-profit scenario. 

At TSL 6, the standard reflects maxtech for all product classes. The change 

in INPV is expected to range from 

¥37.2 to ¥26.5 percent. At this level, 

free cash flow is estimated to decrease 

by 240.2 percent compared to the nonew-standards case value of $414.5 

million in the year 2026, the year before 

the 2027 standards year. Currently, 

approximately 0.9 percent of domestic 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer shipments meet the efficiencies 

required at TSL 6. 

At max-tech levels, manufacturers 

would likely need to implement the 

best-available-efficiency VSC, forcedconvection heat exchangers with multispeed BLDC fans, variable defrost, and 

increase in cabinet wall thickness for 

some classes (e.g., compact refrigerators 

and both standard-size and compact 

chest freezers). Manufacturers would 

also likely incorporate VIP doors for PC 

10 and PC 18 and VIPs for roughly half 

the cabinet surface (typically side walls 

and doors for an upright cabinet) for all 

other classes. At TSL 6, only a few 

manufacturers offer any products that 

meet the efficiencies required. For PC 3, 

which accounts for approximately 25 

percent of annual shipments, no OEMs 

currently offer products that meet the 

efficiency level required. For PC 5, 

which accounts for approximately 21 

percent of annual shipments, DOE 

estimates that seven out of 22 OEMs 

currently offer products that meet the 

efficiency level required. For PC 7, 

which accounts for approximately 11 

percent of annual shipments, only one 

out of the 11 OEMs currently offers 

products that meet the efficiency level 

required. 

The efficiencies required by TSL 6 

could require a major renovation of 

existing facilities and completely new 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer platforms for many OEMs. In 

interviews, some manufacturers stated 

that they are physically constrained at 

their current production location and 

would therefore need to expand their 

existing production facility or move to 

an entirely new facility. These 

manufacturers stated that their current 

manufacturing locations are at capacity 

and cannot accommodate the additional 

labor required to implement VIPs. DOE 

expects industry to incur more reflooring costs compared to TSL 5 as all 

display models below max-tech 

efficiency would need to be replaced 

due to the more stringent standard. DOE 

estimates capital conversion costs of 

$1.68 billion and product conversion 

costs of $711.4 million. Conversion 

costs total $2.39 billion. 

At TSL 6, the large conversion costs 

result in a free cash flow dropping 

below zero in the years before the 2027 

standards year. The negative free cash 

flow calculation indicates 

manufacturers may need to access cash 

reserves or outside capital to finance 

conversion efforts. 

At TSL 6, the shipment-weighted 

average MPC for all refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers is 

expected to increase by 16.8 percent 

relative to the no-new-standards case 

shipment-weighted average MPC for all 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers in 2027. In the preservation-ofgross-margin-percentage scenario, the 

increase in cashflow from the higher 

MSP is outweighed by the $2.39 billion 

in conversion costs, causing a large 

negative change in INPV at TSL 6 under 

this scenario. Under the preservation-ofoperating-profit scenario, the 

manufacturer markup decreases in 2028. 

This reduction in the manufacturer 

markup and the $2.39 billion in 

conversion costs incurred by 

manufacturers causes a significant 

decrease in INPV at TSL 6 under the 

preservation-of-operating-profit 

scenario. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3089 

98U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of 

Manufactures. ‘‘Summary Statistics for Industry 

Groups and Industries in the U.S (2021).’’ Available 

at www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/ 

data.html (last accessed July 5, 2023). 

99U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs 

for Employee Compensation—March 2023. June 16, 

2023. Available at www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ 

ecec.pdf (last accessed July 5, 2023). 100The comprehensive description of production 

and non-production workers is available at 

‘‘Definitions and Instructions for the Annual Survey 

of Manufacturers, MA–10000’’ (pp. 13–14) 

www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/technicaldocumentation/questionnaire/2021/instructions/ 

MA_10000_Instructions.pdf (last accessed 

September 9, 2023). 

TABLE V.26—PERCENTAGES OF 2023 SHIPMENTS THAT MEET EACH TSL BY PRODUCT CLASS

Directly analyzed equipment class TSL 1 

(%) 

TSL 2 

(%) 

TSL 3 

(%) 

TSL 4 

(%) 

TSL 5 

(%) 

TSL 6 

(%) 

PC 3 ......................................................... 23.0 19.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

PC 5 ......................................................... 10.0 10.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.5 

PC 5A ....................................................... 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

PC 7 ......................................................... 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

PC 5 BI .................................................... 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 21.6 

PC 9 ......................................................... 17.0 17.0 17.0 1.0 17.0 1.0 

PC 10 ....................................................... 4.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 

PC 11A ..................................................... 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

PC 17 ....................................................... 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6 9.0 

PC 18 ....................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Overall Industry * ............................... 24.4 26.4 18.5 14.1 13.6 0.9 

* Reflects the percent of industry shipments for all product classes that meet each TSL, including the product classes that were not directly 

analyzed (i.e., non-representative classes). 

b. Direct Impacts on Employment 

To quantitatively assess the potential 

impacts of amended energy 

conservation standards on direct 

employment in the refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

industry, DOE used the GRIM to 

estimate the domestic labor 

expenditures and number of direct 

employees in the no-new-standards case 

and in each of the standards cases 

during the analysis period. For the 

direct final rule, DOE used the most upto-date information available. DOE 

calculated these values using statistical 

data from the 2021 ASM,98 BLS 

employee compensation data,99 results 

of the engineering analysis, and 

manufacturer interviews conducted in 

support of the February 2023 NOPR. 

Labor expenditures related to product 

manufacturing depend on the labor 

intensity of the product, the sales 

volume, and an assumption that wages 

remain fixed in real terms over time. 

The total labor expenditures in each 

year are calculated by multiplying the 

total MPCs by the labor percentage of 

MPCs. The total labor expenditures in 

the GRIM were then converted to total 

production employment levels by 

dividing production labor expenditures 

by the average fully burdened wage 

multiplied by the average number of 

hours worked per year per production 

worker. To do this, DOE relied on the 

ASM inputs: Production Workers 

Annual Wages, Production Workers 

Annual Hours, Production Workers for 

Pay Period, and Number of Employees. 

DOE also relied on the BLS employee 

compensation data to determine the 

fully burdened wage ratio. The fully 

burdened wage ratio factors in paid 

leave, supplemental pay, insurance, 

retirement and savings, and legally 

required benefits. 

The number of production employees 

is then multiplied by the U.S. labor 

Percentage to convert total production 

employment to total domestic 

production employment. The U.S. labor 

percentage represents the industry 

fraction of domestic manufacturing 

production capacity for the covered 

product. This value is derived from 

manufacturer interviews, product 

database analysis, and publicly 

available information. Consistent with 

the February 2023 NOPR, DOE estimates 

that 28 percent of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers are 

produced domestically. 

The domestic production employees 

estimate covers production line 

workers, including line supervisors, 

who are directly involved in fabricating 

and assembling products within the 

OEM facility. Workers performing 

services that are closely associated with 

production operations, such as 

materials-handling tasks using forklifts, 

are also included as production labor. 

DOE’s estimates only account for 

production workers who manufacture 

the specific products covered by this 

rulemaking. 

Non-production workers account for 

the remainder of the direct employment 

figure. The non-production employees 

estimate covers domestic workers who 

are not directly involved in the 

production process, such as sales, 

engineering, human resources, and 

management.100 Using the amount of 

domestic production workers calculated 

above, non-production domestic 

employees are extrapolated by 

multiplying the ratio of non-production 

workers in the industry compared to 

production employees. DOE assumes 

that this employee distribution ratio 

remains constant between the no-newstandards case and standards cases. 

Using the GRIM, DOE estimates in the 

absence of new energy conservation 

standards there would be 6,366 

domestic production and nonproduction workers for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in 

2027. Table V.27 shows the range of the 

impacts of energy conservation 

standards on U.S. manufacturing 

employment in the refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer industry. 

The following discussion provides a 

qualitative evaluation of the range of 

potential impacts presented in Table 

V.27. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3090 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

101The design path analyzed in DOE’s 

engineering analysis for PC 5 with a 3-door 

configuration (adjusted volume of 30 ft3) would 

likely require some VIPs at TSL 4 (EL 2). See 

section IV.C.2 of this document for the analyzed 

design options at each efficiency level for the 

directly analyzed product classes. 

TABLE V.27—DOMESTIC DIRECT EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS FOR REFRIGERATOR, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZER, AND FREEZER

MANUFACTURERS IN THE ANALYZED COMPLIANCE YEAR

No-newstandards 

case 

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Direct Employment in 2027 * (Production 

Workers + Non-Production Workers) .... 6,366 6,403 6,405 6,526 6,494 6,740 7,571 

Potential Changes in Direct Employment 

Workers ** .............................................. ........................ (5,683) to 37 (5,683) to 39 (5,683) to 160 (5,683) to 166 (5,683) to 374 (5,683) to 1,205 

* For TSL 4 (the Recommended TSL), the direct employment values reflect 2030 estimates. 

** DOE presents a range of potential employment impacts. Numbers in parentheses denote negative values. 

The direct employment impacts 

shown in Table V.27 represent the 

potential domestic employment changes 

that could result following the 

compliance date for the refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer product 

classes in this direct final rule. The 

upper bound estimate corresponds to an 

increase in the number of domestic 

workers that would result from 

amended energy conservation standards 

if manufacturers continue to produce 

the same scope of covered products 

within the United States after 

compliance takes effect. The lower 

bound estimate represents the 

maximum decrease in production 

workers if manufacturing moved to 

lower labor-cost countries. Most 

manufacturers currently produce at least 

a portion of their refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers in 

countries with lower labor costs. 

Adopting an amended standard that 

necessitates large increases in labor 

content or large expenditures to re-tool 

facilities could cause manufacturers to 

reevaluate domestic production siting 

options. At the Recommended TSL (TSL 

4), DOE expects some manufacturers 

would need to implement insulation 

changes (e.g., VIPs and/or increasing 

wall thickness) into certain product 

classes, which could require additional 

labor content and capital investment. 

For the high-volume product classes, 

DOE expects that PC 5A and some PC 

5 models 101 would likely require 

implementing partial VIPs to meet TSL 

4 efficiencies. DOE estimates the 

products that would likely require some 

VIPs to meet TSL 4 efficiencies 

collectively account for approximately 

24 percent of industry shipments. Based 

on information gathered during 

confidential manufacturer interviews 

and public sources, DOE understands 

that a portion of PC 5 and PC 5A 

products are currently manufactured in 

the United States. Although it is 

possible that amended standards in this 

rulemaking and other DOE rulemakings 

could factor into production siting 

locations due to the level of investment 

and additional labor content required. 

However, based on information gathered 

during confidential manufacturer 

interviews, DOE does not expect most 

manufacturers would shift domestic 

production outside of the United States 

solely as a result of this direct final rule. 

Additional detail on the analysis of 

direct employment can be found in 

chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD. 

Additionally, the employment impacts 

discussed in this section are 

independent of the employment impacts 

from the broader U.S. economy, which 

are documented in chapter 16 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity 

In interviews, some manufacturers 

noted potential capacity concerns 

related to implementing VIPs, 

particularly for high-volume product 

lines (i.e., PC 3, PC 5, PC 5A, and PC 

7). These manufacturers noted that 

incorporating VIPs (or additional VIPs) 

is labor intensive. Implementing VIPs 

requires additional labor associated 

with initial quality control inspections, 

placement, and post-foam inspections. 

These manufacturers noted they are 

physically constrained at some factories 

and do not have the ability to extend 

production lines to accommodate 

additional labor content. As discussed 

in section V.B.2.a of this document, 

some manufacturers noted that the only 

way to maintain current production 

levels would be to expand the existing 

footprint, build a mezzanine, or move to 

a new production facility. In interviews, 

some manufacturers expressed concerns 

at the max-tech efficiencies for topmount (TSL 6), bottom-mount with 

through-the-door ice service (TSL 5), 

bottom-mount without through-the-door 

ice service (TSL 6), and side-by-side 

(TSL 6) standard-size refrigeratorfreezers, and stated that the 3-year 

period between the announcement of 

the direct final rule and the compliance 

date of the amended energy 

conservation standard might be 

insufficient to update existing plants or 

build new facilities to accommodate the 

additional labor required to 

manufacture the necessary number of 

products to meet demand. In this direct 

final rule, DOE adopts TSL 4 (the 

Recommended TSL). At the adopted 

level, the max-tech efficiencies are not 

required for any of the analyzed product 

classes, including the high-volume 

product classes manufacturers 

expressed concerns about during 

confidential interviews. Furthermore, 

compliance with amended standards 

would not be required until 2030 for 

freestanding top-mount product classes 

(i.e., PC 1, PC 1A, PC 2, PC 3, PC 3A, 

PC 6), freestanding side-by-side product 

classes (i.e., PC 4, PC 7), and 

freestanding bottom-mount without 

through-the-door ice service product 

class (i.e., PC 5), and 2029 for the 

remaining product classes. Compared to 

TSLs with a 2027 compliance date, 

manufacturers would have additional 

time to update production facilities and 

redesign products to meet amended 

standards. The Recommended TSL’s 

compliance dates would provide 

manufacturers the opportunity to spread 

capital requirements, engineering 

resources, and conversion activities over 

a longer period of time. 

In response to the February 2023 

NOPR, AHAM, Whirlpool, GEA, and 

Sub Zero expressed concerns that the 

supply of high-efficiency components 

such as VIPs and VSCs would not be 

able to ramp up in the 3-year 

compliance period to meet the expected 

consumer demand for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 

(AHAM, No. 69 at p. 5; Whirlpool, No. 

70 at p. 5; GEA, No. 75 at p. 2; and Sub 

Zero, No. 77 at p. 2) Conversely, 

Samsung commented that the industry 

has a significant amount of VSCs 

available for purchase, and that the 3- 

year compliance period is acceptable for 

manufacturers and suppliers to establish 

sufficient availability of VSCs. 

(Samsung, No. 78 at p. 3) 

In support of this analysis, DOE 

conducted research and interviewed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3091 

VSC and VIP component suppliers to 

gather additional information on the 

global market capacity for these highefficiency components. Based on the 

information gathered, DOE expects that 

VIP production lines can be quickly 

scaled up to meet demand of future 

amended standards (within 1 to 2 years 

depending on the specific VIP design). 

For VSCs, based on supplier 

information on the global refrigerator 

VSC production capacity, supply 

constraints, and ramp-up time, DOE 

determined that the industry can meet 

the increased demand of VSCs that may 

result due to the adoption of more 

stringent standards within the necessary 

compliance period, with an estimated 8 

to 12 month VSC production ramp-up, 

as needed. 

d. Impacts on Subgroups of 

Manufacturers 

Using average cost assumptions to 

develop industry cash flow estimates 

may not capture the differential impacts 

among subgroups of manufacturers. 

Small manufacturers, niche players, or 

manufacturers exhibiting a cost 

structure that differs substantially from 

the industry average could be affected 

disproportionately. DOE investigated 

small businesses as a manufacturer 

subgroup that could be 

disproportionally impacted by energy 

conservation standards and could merit 

additional analysis. DOE also identified 

the domestic LVM subgroup as a 

potential manufacturer subgroup that 

could be adversely impacted by energy 

conservation standards based on the 

results of the industry characterization. 

Small Businesses 

DOE analyzes the impacts on small 

businesses in a separate analysis for the 

standards proposed in the NOPR 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register and in chapter 12 of 

the direct final rule TSD. In summary, 

the Small Business Administration 

(‘‘SBA’’) defines a ‘‘small business’’ as 

having 1,500 employees or less for 

NAICS 335220, ‘‘Major Household 

Appliance Manufacturing.’’ Based on 

this classification, DOE identified one 

domestic OEM that qualifies as a small 

business. For a discussion of the 

impacts on the small business 

manufacturer subgroup, see chapter 12 

of the direct final rule TSD. 

Domestic, Low-Volume Manufacturers 

In addition to the small business 

subgroup, DOE identified domestic 

LVMs as a manufacturer subgroup that 

may experience differential impacts due 

to amended standards. DOE identified 

three domestic LVMs of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that 

would potentially face more challenges 

with meeting amended standards than 

other larger OEMs of the covered 

products. 

Although these LVMs do not qualify 

as small businesses according to the 

SBA criteria previously discussed (i.e., 

employee count exceeds 1,500), these 

manufacturers are significantly smaller 

in terms of annual revenues than the 

larger, diversified manufacturers selling 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers in the United States. The 

domestic LVM subgroup consists of 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer manufacturers that primarily sell 

high-end, built-in or fully integrated 

consumer refrigeration products 

(‘‘undercounter’’ and standard-size) as 

well as miscellaneous refrigeration 

products, commercial refrigeration 

equipment, and cooking products. 

Specifically, manufacturers indicated 

during confidential interviews that the 

fully integrated compact 

(‘‘undercounter’’) products produced by 

the domestic LVMs are niche products 

and are more expensive to produce 

(and, therefore, have higher selling 

prices) than the majority of the compact 

products sold in the United States. 

Table V.28 lists the range of product 

offerings and estimated total company 

annual revenue for the three domestic 

LVMs identified. These three 

manufacturers account for 

approximately 1 percent of the overall 

domestic refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, and freezer shipments. This 

table also contains the range of total 

company annual revenue for the five 

largest appliance manufacturers selling 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers in the U.S. market. These five 

appliance manufacturers account for 

approximately 95 percent of the overall 

domestic refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, and freezer shipments. 

TABLE V.28—REVENUES AND PRODUCT OFFERINGS OF LOW-VOLUME MANUFACTURERS AND LARGE MANUFACTURERS OF

REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

Manufacturer type 

Estimated range of annual 

company revenue * 

(2022$ millions) 

Refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer product offerings 

Domestic LVMs ............................... $186 to $4,030 .............................. High-end, built-in or fully integrated ‘‘undercounter’’ or standard-size 

refrigeration products (e.g., PC 5–BI, PC 13A, PC 14). 

Large Appliance Manufacturers ...... $15,730 to $164,030 ..................... Wide range of freestanding, standard-size refrigerator-freezers and 

freezers. (e.g., PC 3, PC 5, PC 5A, PC 7, PC 10) Most also offer 

premium brands for standard-size built-in products. 

* Revenue estimates refer to the total annual company revenue of the parent company and any associated subsidiaries. 

LVMs may be disproportionately 

affected by conversion costs. Product 

redesign, testing, and certification costs 

tend to be fixed per basic model and do 

not scale with sales volume. Both large 

manufacturers and LVMs must make 

investments in R&D to redesign their 

products, but LVMs lack the sales 

volumes to sufficiently recoup these 

upfront investments without 

substantially marking up their products’ 

selling prices. LVMs may also face 

challenges related to purchasing power 

and a less robust supply chain for key 

technologies or components, as 

compared to larger manufacturers. DOE 

notes that domestic LVMs have access 

to the same technology options as larger 

appliance manufacturers, the challenge 

with redesigning products to meet 

amended standards relates to scale and 

their ability to recover investments 

necessitated by more stringent 

standards. 

Although domestic, low-volume 

manufacturers would likely face 

additional challenges meeting amended 

standards for the built-in and compact 

(‘‘undercounter’’) refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer product 

classes compared to other refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer 

manufacturers, some of the adopted 

amendments may be beneficial for 

domestic LVMs. As discussed in section 

IV.A.1 of this document, DOE is 

proposing to incorporate certain energy 

use allowances for products with 

special doors and multi-door designs. A 

review of the three domestic LVM’s 

product offerings and information 

gathered in confidential interviews 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3092 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

indicates transparent door designs are 

particularly prevalent in their products. 

See section IV.A.1 of this document for 

additional details on energy use 

allowances for products with special 

doors and multi-door designs. 

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden involves looking at the 

cumulative impact of multiple DOE 

standards and the regulatory actions of 

other Federal agencies and States that 

affect the manufacturers of a covered 

product or equipment. While any one 

regulation may not impose a significant 

burden on manufacturers, the combined 

effects of several existing or impending 

regulations may have serious 

consequences for some manufacturers, 

groups of manufacturers, or an entire 

industry. Multiple regulations affecting 

the same manufacturer can strain profits 

and 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. 

For the cumulative regulatory burden 

analysis, DOE examines Federal, 

product-specific regulations that could 

affect refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, 

and freezer manufacturers that take 

effect approximately 3 years before the 

2029 compliance date and 3 years after 

the after the 2030 compliance date (2026 

to 2033). This information is presented 

in Table V.29. 

TABLE V.29—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION

STANDARDS AFFECTING REFRIGERATOR, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZER, AND FREEZER ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS

Federal Energy Conservation Standard Number of 

OEMs * 

Number of 

OEMs 

affected by 

this rule ** 

Approximate 

standards 

compliance 

year 

Industry 

conversion costs 

(Millions) 

Industry 

conversion 

costs/ 

equipment 

revenue *** 

Portable Air Conditioners; 85 FR 1378 (January 10, 

2020) .......................................................................... 9 2 2025 $320.9 (2015$) 6.7 

Consumer Conventional Cooking Products; 88 FR 

6818 † (February 1, 2023) .......................................... 34 12 2027 183.4 (2021$) 1.2 

Residential Clothes Washers; † 88 FR 13520 (March 

3, 2023) ...................................................................... 19 14 2027 690.8 (2021$) 5.2 

Consumer Clothes Dryers; † 87 FR 51734 (August 23, 

2022) .......................................................................... 15 11 2027 149.7 (2020$) 1.8 

Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products; † 88 FR 19382 

(March 31, 2023) ........................................................ 38 23 2029 126.9 (2021$) 3.1 

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers; † 88 FR 30508 

(May 11, 2023) ........................................................... 23 6 2027 15.9 (2022$) 0.6 

Dishwashers; † 88 FR 32514 (May 19, 2023) ............... 21 16 2027 125.6 (2021$) 2.1 

Refrigerated Bottled or Canned Beverage Vending Machines; † 88 FR 33968 (May 25, 2023) ..................... 5 1 2028 1.5 (2022$) 0.2 

Room Air Conditioners; 88 FR 34298 (May 26, 2023) 8 4 2026 24.8 (2021$) 0.4 

Microwave Ovens; 88 FR 39912 (June 20, 2023) ........ 18 12 2026 46.1 (2021$) 0.7 

Walk-in Coolers and Freezers; † 88 FR 60746 (September 5, 2023) .......................................................... 79 1 2027 89.0 (2022$) 0.8 

Commercial Water Heating Equipment; 88 FR 69686 

(October 6, 2023) ....................................................... 15 1 2026 42.7 (2022$) 3.8 

Consumer Water Heaters; † 88 FR 49058 (July 27, 

2023) .......................................................................... 22 3 2030 228.1 (2022$) 1.1 

Consumer Boilers; † 88 FR 55128 (August 14, 2023) .. 24 1 2030 98.0 (2022$) 3.6 

Commercial Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers; † 88 FR 70196 (October 10, 2023) ............ 83 10 2028 226.4 (2022$) 1.6 

Dehumidifiers; † 88 FR 76510 (November 6, 2023) ...... 20 4 2028 6.9 (2022$) 0.4 

Consumer Furnaces ‡ .................................................... 15 1 2029 162.0 (2022$) 1.8 

* This column presents the total number of OEMs identified in the energy conservation standard rule that is contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. 

** This column presents the number of OEMs producing refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that are also listed as OEMs in the 

identified energy conservation standard that is contributing to cumulative regulatory burden. 

*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of equipment revenue during the conversion period. Industry conversion 

costs are the upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the 

revenue from just the covered product/equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs 

are made and lasts from the publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation standard. The conversion period 

typically ranges from 3 to 5 years, depending on the rulemaking. 

† These rulemakings are at the NOPR stage, and all values are subject to change until finalized through publication of a final rule. 

‡At the time of issuance of this refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer direct final rule, the consumer furnace final rule has been issued 

and is pending publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER. Once published, the final rule pertaining to gas-fired consumer furnaces will be available at: 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031/document. 

As shown in Table V.29, the ongoing 

rulemakings with the largest overlap of 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer OEMs include miscellaneous 

refrigeration products, consumer 

conventional cooking products, 

residential clothes washers, consumer 

clothes dryers, and dishwashers, which 

are all part of the multi-product Joint 

Agreement submitted by interested 

parties. As detailed in the multi-product 

Joint Agreement, the signatories 

indicated that their recommendations 

should be considered a ‘‘complete 

package.’’ The signatories further stated 

that ‘‘each part of this agreement is 

contingent upon the other parts being 

implemented.’’ (Joint Agreement, No. 

103 at p. 3) 

The multi-product Joint Agreement 

states the ‘‘jointly recommended 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3093 

compliance dates will achieve the 

overall energy and economic benefits of 

this agreement while allowing necessary 

lead-times for manufacturers to redesign 

products and retool manufacturing 

plants to meet the recommended 

standards across product categories.’’ 

(Joint Agreement, No. 103 at p. 2) The 

staggered compliance dates help 

mitigate manufacturers’ concerns about 

their ability to allocate sufficient 

resources to comply with multiple 

concurrent amended standards and 

about the need to align compliance 

dates for products that are typically 

designed or sold as matched pairs (such 

as RCWs and consumer clothes dryers). 

See section IV.J.3 of this document for 

stakeholder comments about cumulative 

regulatory burden. See Table V.30 for a 

comparison of the estimated compliance 

dates based on EPCA-specified 

timelines and the compliance dates 

detailed in the Joint Agreement. 

TABLE V.30—EXPECTED COMPLIANCE DATES FOR MULTI-PRODUCT JOINT AGREEMENT

Rulemaking 

Estimated 

compliance year 

based on EPCA 

requirements 

Compliance year in the joint agreement 

Consumer Clothes Dryers ....................................................... 2027 2028 

RCWs ....................................................................................... 2027 2028 

Consumer Conventional Cooking Products ............................ 2027 2028 

Dishwashers ............................................................................ 2027 2027 * 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers ................ 2027 2029 or 2030 depending on the product class 

Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products ..................................... 2029 2029 

* Estimated compliance year. The Joint Agreement states, ‘‘3 years after the publication of a final rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER.’’ (Joint Agreement, No. 103 at p. 2). 

3. National Impact Analysis 

This section presents DOE’s estimates 

of the national energy savings and the 

NPV of consumer benefits that would 

result from each of the TSLs considered 

as potential amended standards. 

a. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential amended 

standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, DOE compared 

their energy consumption under the nonew-standards case to their anticipated 

energy consumption under each TSL. 

The savings are measured over the 

entire lifetime of products purchased in 

the 30-year period that begins in the 

year of anticipated compliance with 

amended standards (2027–2056 for all 

TSLs other than TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029– 

2058 for the product classes listed in 

Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product 

classes listed in Table I.2). Tables V.30 

and V.31 present DOE’s projections of 

the national energy savings for each TSL 

considered for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. The savings were 

calculated using the approach described 

in section IV.H.2 of this document. 

TABLE V.31—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR FREESTANDING REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, 

AND FREEZERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

TSL 

Standard size refrigerator-freezers Standard size 

freezers 

Compact 

Total 

Top mount Bottom 

mount 

Bottom 

mount with 

TTD 

Side-byside Upright Chest Refrigerators Freezers 

PC 1, 1A, 2, 

3, 3A, 3I, 

and 6 

PC 5 

and 5I PC 5A 

PC 4, 4I, 

and 7 

PC 8 and 

9 

PC 10 and 

10A 

PC 11, 11A, 

12, 13, 13A, 

14, and 15 

PC 16, 17, 

and 18 

(quads) 

Primary Energy ............................. 1 0.352 0.756 0.682 0.326 0.327 0.151 0.022 0.064 2.680 

2 0.738 0.756 0.682 0.699 0.316 0.000 0.022 0.064 3.278 

3 0.738 1.223 1.002 1.136 0.316 0.000 0.062 0.094 4.571 

4 1.310 1.263 1.023 1.173 0.512 0.000 0.049 0.096 5.427 

5 1.269 1.223 1.383 1.469 0.316 0.000 0.062 0.094 5.816 

6 2.442 1.950 1.383 1.687 0.916 0.365 0.310 0.195 9.248 

FFC ............................................... 1 0.361 0.777 0.701 0.335 0.336 0.155 0.023 0.065 2.753 

2 0.758 0.777 0.701 0.718 0.324 0.000 0.023 0.065 3.367 

3 0.758 1.257 1.029 1.167 0.324 0.000 0.063 0.097 4.696 

4 1.346 1.298 1.051 1.205 0.526 0.000 0.050 0.099 5.574 

5 1.303 1.257 1.421 1.509 0.324 0.000 0.063 0.097 5.974 

6 2.508 2.003 1.421 1.733 0.940 0.375 0.318 0.200 9.500 

* 2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

TABLE V.32—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND

FREEZERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

TSL 

Built-in 

Total All 

refrigerator 

Bottom-mount 

refrigerator 

Side-by-side 

refrigeratorfreezers Upright 

freezers 

PC 3A–BI PC 5–BI, 5I–BI 

PC 4–BI, 4I–BI, 

and 7–BI PC 9–BI 

(quads) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3094 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

102U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. Available at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-foragencies/circulars/ (last accessed July 13, 2023). 

DOE used the prior version of Circular A–4 (2003) 

as a result of the effective date of the new version. 103EPCA requires DOE to review its standards at 

least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain 

products, a 3-year period after any new standard is 

promulgated before compliance is required, except 

that in no case may any new standards be required 

within 6 years of the compliance date of the 

previous standards. While adding a 6-year review 

to the 3-year compliance period adds up to 9 years, 

DOE notes that it may undertake reviews at any 

time within the 6-year period and that the 3-year 

compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. 

A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate 

given the variability that occurs in the timing of 

standards reviews and the fact that for some 

products, the compliance period is 5 years rather 

than 3 years. 

TABLE V.32—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND

FREEZERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS *—Continued 

TSL 

Built-in 

Total All 

refrigerator 

Bottom-mount 

refrigerator 

Side-by-side 

refrigeratorfreezers Upright 

freezers 

PC 3A–BI PC 5–BI, 5I–BI 

PC 4–BI, 4I–BI, 

and 7–BI PC 9–BI 

Primary Energy ................................................................... 1 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.007 

2 0.005 0.007 0.005 0.000 0.017 

3 0.005 0.007 0.012 0.000 0.024 

4 0.011 0.007 0.017 0.000 0.036 

5 0.011 0.007 0.017 0.000 0.035 

6 0.028 0.018 0.021 0.001 0.067 

FFC ..................................................................................... 1 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.007 

2 0.005 0.007 0.005 0.000 0.017 

3 0.005 0.007 0.012 0.000 0.024 

4 0.012 0.007 0.018 0.000 0.037 

5 0.011 0.007 0.017 0.000 0.036 

6 0.028 0.018 0.021 0.001 0.069 

* 2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

OMB Circular A–4 102 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 

DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis 

using 9 years, rather than 30 years, of 

product shipments. The choice of a 9- 

year period is a proxy for the timeline 

in EPCA for the review of certain energy 

conservation standards and potential 

revision of and compliance with such 

revised standards.103 The review 

timeframe established in EPCA is 

generally not synchronized with the 

product lifetime, product manufacturing 

cycles, or other factors specific to 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. Thus, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical 

methodology. The NES sensitivity 

analysis results based on a 9-year 

analytical period are presented in 

Tables V.32 and V.33. The impacts are 

counted over the lifetime of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers purchased 2027–2035 for all 

TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029– 

2037 for the product classes listed in 

Table I.1 and 2030–2038 for the product 

classes listed in Table I.2. 

TABLE V.33—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR FREESTANDING REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, 

AND FREEZERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

TSL 

Standard size refrigerator-freezers Standard size 

freezers 

Compact 

Total 

Top mount Bottom 

mount 

Bottom 

mount with 

TTD 

Side-byside Upright Chest Refrigerators Freezers 

PC 1, 1A, 2, 

3, 3A, 3I, 

and 6 

PC 5 

and 5I PC 5A 

PC 4, 4I, 

and 7 

PC 8 and 

9 

PC 10 and 

10A 

PC 11, 11A, 

12, 13, 13A, 

14, and 15 

PC 16, 17, 

and 18 

quads 

Primary Energy ............................. 1 0.094 0.202 0.182 0.087 0.089 0.041 0.006 0.017 0.718 

2 0.197 0.202 0.182 0.187 0.086 0.000 0.006 0.017 0.876 

3 0.197 0.326 0.267 0.303 0.086 0.000 0.015 0.025 1.220 

4 0.351 0.338 0.274 0.314 0.141 0.000 0.012 0.025 1.454 

5 0.338 0.326 0.369 0.391 0.086 0.000 0.015 0.025 1.551 

6 0.647 0.519 0.369 0.449 0.249 0.100 0.077 0.051 2.460 

FFC ............................................... 1 0.097 0.208 0.187 0.089 0.092 0.042 0.006 0.017 0.738 

2 0.203 0.208 0.187 0.192 0.089 0.000 0.006 0.017 0.901 

3 0.203 0.335 0.275 0.312 0.089 0.000 0.016 0.025 1.255 

4 0.360 0.347 0.281 0.323 0.145 0.000 0.013 0.026 1.494 

5 0.348 0.335 0.379 0.402 0.089 0.000 0.016 0.025 1.595 

6 0.666 0.533 0.379 0.462 0.256 0.103 0.079 0.052 2.530 

* 2027–2035 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2037 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2038 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3095 

104U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/ 

circulars_a004_a-4 (last accessed July 1, 2021). 

TABLE V.34—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND

FREEZERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

TSL 

Built-in 

Total All 

refrigerator 

Bottom-mount 

refrigerator 

Side-by-side 

refrigeratorfreezers Upright 

freezers 

PC 3A–BI PC 5–BI, 5I–BI 

PC 4–BI, 4I–BI, 

and 7–BI PC 9–BI 

(quads) 

Primary Energy ................................................................... 1 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.002 

2 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.004 

3 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.006 

4 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.000 0.010 

5 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.000 0.009 

6 0.007 0.005 0.005 0.000 0.018 

FFC ..................................................................................... 1 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.002 

2 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.005 

3 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.000 0.006 

4 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.000 0.010 

5 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.000 0.010 

6 0.008 0.005 0.006 0.000 0.018 

* 2027–2035 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2037 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2038 for the product classes listed in Table I.2 

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from the 

TSLs considered for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. In 

accordance with OMB’s guidelines on 

regulatory analysis,104 DOE calculated 

NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- 

percent real discount rate. Tables V.34 

and V.35 show the consumer NPV 

results with impacts counted over the 

lifetime of products purchased in 2027– 

2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 

4, 2029–2058 for the product classes 

listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the 

product classes listed in Table I.2. 

TABLE V.35—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR FREESTANDING REFRIGERATORS, 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

TSL 

Standard size refrigerator-freezers Standard size 

freezers 

Compact 

Total 

Top mount Bottom 

mount 

Bottom 

mount with 

TTD 

Side-byside Upright Chest Refrigerators Freezers 

PC 1, 1A, 2, 

3, 3A, 3I, 

and 6 

PC 5 

and 5I PC 5A 

PC 4, 4I, 

and 7 

PC 8 and 

9 

PC 10 and 

10A 

PC 11, 11A, 

12, 13, 13A, 

14, and 15 

PC 16, 17, 

and 18 

(Billion $2022) 

3 percent ....................................... 1 2.46 4.45 4.70 2.24 1.63 0.44 0.06 0.42 16.41 

2 3.87 4.45 4.70 4.24 1.59 0.00 0.06 0.42 19.33 

3 3.87 5.65 5.28 7.37 1.59 0.00 0.28 0.47 24.51 

4 6.20 5.69 5.21 7.12 1.96 0.00 0.20 0.46 26.84 

5 6.26 5.65 5.87 5.54 1.59 0.00 0.28 0.47 25.66 

6 5.27 5.48 5.87 5.71 2.18 0.54 ¥0.20 0.48 25.33 

7 percent ....................................... 1 1.01 1.68 1.92 0.94 0.58 0.09 0.02 0.18 6.42 

2 1.43 1.68 1.92 1.68 0.57 0.00 0.02 0.18 7.47 

3 1.43 1.87 1.95 3.01 0.57 0.00 0.11 0.18 9.12 

4 2.01 1.76 1.81 2.63 0.55 0.00 0.07 0.17 9.00 

5 2.20 1.87 1.93 1.73 0.57 0.00 0.11 0.18 8.59 

6 0.58 1.09 1.93 1.64 0.28 ¥0.06 ¥0.33 0.09 5.24 

* 2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

TABLE V.36—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATORS, 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

TSL 

Built-in 

Total All 

refrigerator 

Bottom-mount 

refrigerator 

Side-by-side 

refrigeratorfreezers Upright 

freezers 

PC 3A–BI PC 5–BI, 5I–BI 

PC 4–BI, 4I–BI, 

and 7–BI PC 9–BI 

(Billion $2022) 

3 percent ............................................................................. 1 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.05 

2 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.09 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2

I I I I I 
3096 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.36—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR BUILT-IN REFRIGERATORS, 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS *—Continued 

TSL 

Built-in 

Total All 

refrigerator 

Bottom-mount 

refrigerator 

Side-by-side 

refrigeratorfreezers Upright 

freezers 

PC 3A–BI PC 5–BI, 5I–BI 

PC 4–BI, 4I–BI, 

and 7–BI PC 9–BI 

3 0.01 0.05 0.07 0.00 0.13 

4 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.14 

5 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.14 

6 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.10 

7 percent ............................................................................. 1 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 

2 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 

3 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.05 

4 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.04 

5 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.04 

6 ¥0.01 ¥0.01 0.01 0.00 ¥0.01 

* 2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Tables V.36 and V.37. 

The impacts are counted over the 

lifetime of products purchased in 2027– 

2035 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 

4, 2029–2037 for the product classes 

listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2038 for the 

product classes listed in Table I.2. As 

mentioned previously, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical methodology 

or decision criteria. 

TABLE V.37—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR FREESTANDING

REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

Discount rate TSL 

Standard size refrigerator-freezers Standard size 

freezers 

Compact 

Total 

Top mount Bottom 

mount 

Bottom 

mount with 

TTD 

Side-byside Upright Chest Refrigerators Freezers 

PC 1, 1A, 2, 

3, 3A, 3I, 

and 6 

PC 5 

and 5I PC 5A 

PC 4, 4I, 

and 7 

PC 8 and 

9 

PC 10 and 

10A 

PC 11, 11A, 

12, 13, 13A, 

14, and 15 

PC 16, 17, 

and 18 

(Billion $2022) 

3 percent ....................................... 1 0.85 1.40 1.56 0.78 0.56 0.10 0.01 0.14 5.40 

2 1.26 1.40 1.56 1.36 0.55 0.00 0.01 0.14 6.28 

3 1.26 1.64 1.68 2.46 0.55 0.00 0.08 0.15 7.81 

4 1.96 1.74 1.69 2.43 0.62 0.00 0.05 0.15 8.64 

5 1.89 1.64 1.76 1.60 0.55 0.00 0.08 0.15 7.67 

6 1.00 1.28 1.76 1.59 0.54 0.07 ¥0.21 0.09 6.13 

7 percent ....................................... 1 0.47 0.70 0.87 0.45 0.26 0.01 0.00 0.08 2.84 

2 0.62 0.70 0.87 0.73 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.08 3.26 

3 0.62 0.69 0.83 1.36 0.26 0.00 0.04 0.08 3.88 

4 0.84 0.70 0.79 1.21 0.22 0.00 0.03 0.07 3.86 

5 0.87 0.69 0.75 0.63 0.26 0.00 0.04 0.08 3.31 

6 ¥0.21 0.15 0.75 0.54 ¥0.01 ¥0.10 ¥0.23 0.00 0.88 

* 2027–2035 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2037 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2038 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

TABLE V.38—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR BUILT-IN

REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

TSL 

Built-in 

Total All 

refrigerator 

Bottom-mount 

refrigerator 

Side-by-side 

refrigeratorfreezers Upright 

freezers 

PC 3A–BI PC 5–BI, 5I–BI 

PC 4–BI, 4I–BI, 

and 7–BI PC 9–BI 

(Billion $2022) 

3 percent ............................................................................. 1 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 

2 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 

3 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.04 

4 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.04 

5 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.04 

6 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 

7 percent ............................................................................. 1 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 

2 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 

3 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 

4 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 

5 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3097 

TABLE V.38—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR BUILT-IN

REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS *—Continued 

TSL 

Built-in 

Total All 

refrigerator 

Bottom-mount 

refrigerator 

Side-by-side 

refrigeratorfreezers Upright 

freezers 

PC 3A–BI PC 5–BI, 5I–BI 

PC 4–BI, 4I–BI, 

and 7–BI PC 9–BI 

6 ¥0.01 ¥0.01 0.00 0.00 ¥0.02 

* 2027–2035 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2037 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2038 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

The previous results reflect the use of 

a default trend to estimate the change in 

price for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers over the analysis 

period (see section IV.H.3 of this 

document). DOE also conducted a 

sensitivity analysis that considered one 

scenario with a lower rate of price 

decline than the reference case and one 

scenario with a higher rate of price 

decline than the reference case. The 

results of these alternative cases are 

presented in appendix 10C of the direct 

final rule TSD. In the high-price-decline 

case, the NPV of consumer benefits is 

higher than in the default case. In the 

low-price-decline case, the NPV of 

consumer benefits is lower than in the 

default case. 

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 

DOE estimates that amended energy 

conservation standards for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers will 

reduce energy expenditures for 

consumers of those products, with the 

resulting net savings being 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.N of this document, DOE 

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

economy to estimate indirect 

employment impacts of the TSLs that 

DOE considered. There are uncertainties 

involved in projecting employment 

impacts, especially changes in the later 

years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE 

generated results for near-term 

timeframes (2029/30–2033/34), where 

these uncertainties are reduced. 

The results suggest that the adopted 

standards are likely to have a negligible 

impact on the net demand for labor in 

the economy. The net change in jobs is 

so small that it would be imperceptible 

in national labor statistics and might be 

offset by other, unanticipated effects on 

employment. Chapter 16 of the direct 

final rule TSD presents detailed results 

regarding anticipated indirect 

employment impacts. 

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of 

Products 

As discussed in section III.F.1.d of 

this document, DOE has concluded that 

the standards adopted in this direct 

final rule will not lessen the utility or 

performance of the refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers under 

consideration in this rulemaking. 

Manufacturers of these products 

currently offer units that meet or exceed 

the adopted standards. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

DOE considered any lessening of 

competition that would be likely to 

result from new or amended standards. 

As discussed in section III.F.1.e, EPCA 

directs the Attorney General of the 

United States (‘‘Attorney General’’) to 

determine the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard and to 

transmit such determination in writing 

to the Secretary within 60 days of the 

publication of a proposed rule, together 

with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of the impact. To assist the 

Attorney General in making this 

determination, DOE is providing DOJ 

with copies of this direct final rule and 

the TSD for review. 

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve 

Energy 

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

Nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts (costs) of energy 

production. Reduced electricity demand 

due to energy conservation standards is 

also likely to reduce the cost of 

maintaining the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the 

direct final rule TSD presents the 

estimated impacts on electricity 

generating capacity, relative to the nonew-standards case, for the TSLs that 

DOE considered in this rulemaking. 

Energy conservation resulting from 

potential energy conservation standards 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers is expected to yield 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of certain air 

pollutants and greenhouse gases. Table 

V.38 provides DOE’s estimate of 

cumulative emissions reductions 

expected to result from the TSLs 

considered in this rulemaking. The 

emissions were calculated using the 

multipliers discussed in section IV.K. 

DOE reports annual emissions 

reductions for each TSL in chapter 13 of 

the direct final rule TSD. 

TABLE V.39—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 30 

YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Power Sector Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................... 46.21 56.73 79.15 91.53 100.79 160.31 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................ 3.48 4.28 5.97 6.80 7.60 12.08 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................ 0.48 0.60 0.83 0.95 1.06 1.68 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................ 21.81 26.81 37.42 42.15 47.66 75.73 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................ 15.72 19.30 26.93 31.03 34.29 54.53 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2

I I I I I 
3098 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.39—CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 30 

YEARS OF SHIPMENTS *—Continued 

Trial standard level 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Hg (tons) .................................................. 0.11 0.13 0.19 0.22 0.24 0.38 

Upstream Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................... 4.58 5.62 7.83 9.22 9.98 15.88 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................ 416.14 510.42 711.93 839.67 906.55 1443.16 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................ 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.07 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................ 71.35 87.52 122.07 143.96 155.44 247.45 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................ 0.27 0.34 0.47 0.54 0.60 0.95 

Hg (tons) .................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total FFC Emissions 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................... 50.79 62.34 86.98 100.76 110.76 176.19 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................ 419.63 514.70 717.90 846.48 914.15 1455.24 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................ 0.50 0.62 0.87 0.99 1.10 1.75 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................ 93.17 114.33 159.50 186.11 203.10 323.18 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................ 16.00 19.64 27.40 31.57 34.89 55.49 

Hg (tons) .................................................. 0.11 0.13 0.19 0.22 0.24 0.38 

* 2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

As part of the analysis for this rule, 

DOE estimated monetary benefits likely 

to result from the reduced emissions of 

CO2 that DOE estimated for each of the 

considered TSLs for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 

Section IV.L of this document discusses 

the estimated SC–CO2 values that DOE 

used. Table V.39 presents the value of 

CO2 emissions reduction at each TSL for 

each of the SC–CO2 cases. The timeseries of annual values is presented for 

the selected TSL in chapter 14 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

TABLE V.40—PRESENT MONETIZED VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATORFREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

TSL 

SC–CO2 Case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

(Billion 2022$) 

1 ................................................................................................................. 0.49 2.11 3.30 6.39 

2 ................................................................................................................. 0.60 2.60 4.07 7.89 

3 ................................................................................................................. 0.85 3.64 5.69 11.03 

4 ................................................................................................................. 0.89 3.93 6.21 11.92 

5 ................................................................................................................. 1.08 4.63 7.25 14.06 

6 ................................................................................................................. 1.70 7.34 11.49 22.26 

* 2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

As discussed in section IV.L.2, DOE 

estimated the climate benefits likely to 

result from the reduced emissions of 

methane and N2O that DOE estimated 

for each of the considered TSLs for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. Table V.40 presents the value 

of the CH4 emissions reduction at each 

TSL, and Table V.41 presents the value 

of the N2O emissions reduction at each 

TSL. The time-series of annual values is 

presented for the selected TSL in 

chapter 14 of the direct final rule TSD. 

TABLE V.41—PRESENT MONETIZED VALUE OF METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATORFREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

TSL 

SC–CH4 Case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

(Billion 2022$) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2

I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3099 

TABLE V.41—PRESENT MONETIZED VALUE OF METHANE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATORFREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS *—Continued 

TSL 

SC–CH4 Case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

1 ................................................................................................................. 0.18 0.56 0.78 1.47 

2 ................................................................................................................. 0.23 0.68 0.96 1.81 

3 ................................................................................................................. 0.32 0.96 1.34 2.53 

4 ................................................................................................................. 0.34 1.07 1.51 2.84 

5 ................................................................................................................. 0.40 1.22 1.70 3.22 

6 ................................................................................................................. 0.64 1.93 2.70 5.11 

* 2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

TABLE V.42—PRESENT MONETIZED VALUE OF NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR REFRIGERATORS, 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

TSL 

SC–N2O Case 

Discount rate and statistics 

5% 

Average 

3% 

Average 

2.5% 

Average 

3% 

95th percentile 

(Billion 2022$) 

1 ....................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 

2 ....................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 

3 ....................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 

4 ....................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 

5 ....................................................................................................................... 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.04 

6 ....................................................................................................................... 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.07 

* 2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

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 global and U.S. 

economy continues to evolve rapidly. 

DOE, together with other Federal 

agencies, will continue to review 

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. DOE notes, 

however, that the adopted standards 

would be economically justified even 

without inclusion of monetized benefits 

of reduced GHG emissions. 

DOE also estimated the monetary 

value of the economic benefits 

associated with NOX and SO2 emissions 

reductions anticipated to result from the 

considered TSLs for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The 

dollar-per-ton values that DOE used are 

discussed in section IV.L of this 

document. Table V.42 presents the 

present value for NOX emissions 

reduction for each TSL calculated using 

7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, 

and Table V.43 presents similar results 

for SO2 emissions reductions. The 

results in these tables reflect application 

of EPA’s low dollar-per-ton values, 

which DOE used to be conservative. The 

time-series of annual values is presented 

for the selected TSL in chapter 14 of the 

direct final rule TSD. 

TABLE V.43—PRESENT MONETIZED VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATORFREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

TSL 3% 

Discount rate 

7% 

Discount rate 

(million 2022$) 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4,225.06 1,638.96 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 5,207.05 2,026.87 

3 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7,278.46 2,837.92 

4 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 7,910.68 2,778.25 

5 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 9,271.74 3,615.51 

6 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 14,703.70 5,718.41 

* 2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3100 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.44—PRESENT MONETIZED VALUE OF SO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATORFREEZERS, AND FREEZERS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS * 

TSL 3% 

Discount rate 

7% 

Discount rate 

(million 2022$) 

1 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,017.36 401.52 

2 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,254.07 496.67 

3 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,752.92 695.41 

4 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1,886.57 670.36 

5 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2,233.05 885.97 

6 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3,539.43 1,400.46 

* 2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

Not all the public health and 

environmental benefits from the 

reduction of greenhouse gases, NOX, 

and SO2 are captured in the values 

above, and additional unquantified 

benefits from the reductions of those 

pollutants as well as from the reduction 

of direct PM and other co-pollutants 

may be significant. DOE has not 

included monetary benefits of the 

reduction of Hg emissions because the 

amount of reduction is very small. 

7. Other Factors 

The Secretary of Energy, in 

determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, may consider 

any other factors that the Secretary 

deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No other factors 

were considered in this analysis. 

8. Summary of Economic Impacts 

Table V.44 presents the NPV values 

that result from adding the estimates of 

the economic benefits resulting from 

reduced GHG and NOX and SO2

emissions to the NPV of consumer 

benefits calculated for each TSL 

considered in this rulemaking. The 

consumer benefits are domestic U.S. 

monetary savings that occur as a result 

of purchasing the covered refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, and 

are measured for the lifetime of 

products shipped in 2027–2056 for all 

TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029– 

2058 for the product classes listed in 

Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product 

classes listed in Table I.2. 

The climate benefits associated with 

reduced GHG emissions resulting from 

the adopted standards are global 

benefits, and are also calculated based 

on the lifetime of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

shipped during the period 2027–2056 

for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 

2029–2058 for the product classes listed 

in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the 

product classes listed in Table I.2. 

TABLE V.45—CONSUMER NPV COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF CLIMATE BENEFITS AND HEALTH BENEFITS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Using 3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC–GHG case ............................................ 22.37 26.71 34.85 38.01 38.79 46.02 

3% Average SC–GHG case ............................................ 24.37 29.17 38.29 41.80 43.17 52.96 

2.5% Average SC–GHG case ......................................... 25.78 30.92 40.73 44.52 46.28 57.89 

3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case .................................. 29.58 35.60 47.28 51.57 54.63 71.11 

Using 7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2022$) 

5% Average SC–GHG case ............................................ 9.15 10.86 13.87 13.72 14.63 14.70 

3% Average SC–GHG case ............................................ 11.15 13.32 17.31 17.51 19.01 21.64 

2.5% Average SC–GHG case ......................................... 12.56 15.06 19.75 20.23 22.12 26.57 

3% 95th percentile SC–GHG case .................................. 16.36 19.75 26.30 27.28 30.46 39.79 

C. Conclusion 

When considering new or amended 

energy conservation standards, the 

standards that DOE adopts for any type 

(or class) of covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

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 by, to the greatest extent 

practicable, considering 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 this direct final rule, DOE 

considered the impacts of amended 

standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers at each TSL, 

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 highest efficiency level 

that is both technologically feasible and 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

tables in this section present a summary 

of the results of DOE’s quantitative 

analysis for each TSL. 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 who may be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3101 

105P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household 

Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic 

Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853–883. doi: 10.1111/ 

0034–6527.00354. 

106Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of 

Household Energy Consumption and Technology 

Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory. Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_

theory.pdf (last accessed July 1, 2021). 

disproportionately affected by a national 

standard and impacts on employment. 

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. 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; (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 (for example, 

between renters and owners, or builders 

and purchasers). Having 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 the purchase of a 

product in the standards case, this 

decreases sales for product 

manufacturers, and the impact on 

manufacturers attributed to lost revenue 

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 

standard decreases the number of 

products purchased by consumers, this 

decreases the potential energy savings 

from an energy conservation standard. 

DOE provides estimates of shipments 

and changes in the volume of product 

purchases in chapter 9 of the direct 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.105

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 is 

committed to developing a framework 

that can support empirical quantitative 

tools for improved assessment of the 

consumer welfare impacts of appliance 

standards. DOE has posted a paper that 

discusses the issue of consumer welfare 

impacts of appliance energy 

conservation standards, and potential 

enhancements to the methodology by 

which these impacts are defined and 

estimated in the regulatory process.106

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. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Refrigerator, 

Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer 

Standards 

Tables V.46 and V.47 summarize the 

quantitative impacts estimated for each 

TSL for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. The national 

impacts are measured over the lifetime 

of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers purchased in the 30-year period 

that begins in the anticipated year of 

compliance with amended standards 

(2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; 

for TSL 4, 2029–2058 for the product 

classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030– 

2059 for the product classes listed in 

Table I.2). The energy savings, 

emissions reductions, and value of 

emissions reductions refer to full-fuelcycle results. DOE is presenting 

monetized benefits of GHG emissions 

reductions in accordance with the 

applicable Executive orders and DOE 

would reach the same conclusion 

presented in this direct final rule in the 

absence of the social cost of greenhouse 

gases, including the Interim Estimates 

presented by the Interagency Working 

Group. The efficiency levels contained 

in each TSL are described in section 

V.A of this document. 

TABLE V.46—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR REFRIGERATOR, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZER, AND FREEZER TSLS: 

NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings 

Quads ....................................................... 2.76 3.38 4.72 5.61 6.01 9.57 

Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (million metric tons) ......................... 50.79 62.34 86.98 100.76 110.76 176.19 

CH4 (thousand tons) ................................ 419.63 514.70 717.90 846.48 914.15 1455.24 

N2O (thousand tons) ................................ 0.50 0.62 0.87 0.99 1.10 1.75 

SO2 (thousand tons) ................................ 16.00 19.64 27.40 31.57 34.89 55.49 

NOX (thousand tons) ................................ 93.17 114.33 159.50 186.11 203.10 323.18 

Hg (tons) .................................................. 0.11 0.13 0.19 0.22 0.24 0.38 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......... 19.68 24.06 33.21 36.36 41.23 63.08 

Climate Benefits * ..................................... 2.67 3.29 4.60 5.02 5.87 9.29 

Health Benefits ** ..................................... 5.24 6.46 9.03 9.80 11.50 18.24 

Total Benefits † ................................. 27.60 33.81 46.85 51.18 58.60 90.61 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .. 3.23 4.64 8.56 9.38 15.43 37.66 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2

I I I I I 
3102 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE V.46—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR REFRIGERATOR, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZER, AND FREEZER TSLS: 

NATIONAL IMPACTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Consumer Net Benefits ............................ 16.45 19.42 24.65 26.98 25.80 25.42 

Total Net Benefits ............................. 24.37 29.17 38.29 41.80 43.17 52.96 

Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$) 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ......... 8.36 10.25 14.17 14.00 17.60 26.88 

Climate Benefits * ..................................... 2.67 3.29 4.60 5.02 5.87 9.29 

Health Benefits ** ..................................... 2.04 2.52 3.53 3.45 4.50 7.12 

Total Benefits † ................................. 13.07 16.06 22.31 22.47 27.97 43.29 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ .. 1.92 2.75 5.00 4.96 8.96 21.65 

Consumer Net Benefits ............................ 6.44 7.50 9.17 9.04 8.64 5.23 

Total Net Benefits ............................. 11.15 13.32 17.31 17.51 19.01 21.64 

Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with consumer refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers shipped in 2027– 

2056 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in 

Table I.2. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027–2056 for all TSLs except TSL 

4; for TSL 4, 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the SC–CO2, SC–CH4, and SC–N2O. Together, these represent the global 

SC–GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are 

shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. To 

monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social 

Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 

† Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both the 3-percent 

and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate. 

TABLE V.47—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR REFRIGERATOR, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZER, AND FREEZER TSLS: 

MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

Manufacturer Impacts: 

Industry NPV (million 2022$) (Nonew-standards case INPV = 

4,905.8) ...................................... 4,841.5 to 4,891.4 4,798.5 to 4,870.1 4,387.6 to 4,514.7 4,401.3 to 4,522.3 3,839.9 to 4,061.6 3,080.1 to 3,604.0 

Industry NPV (% change) .............. (1.3) to (0.3) (2.2) to (0.7) (10.6) to (8.0) (10.3) to (7.8) (21.7) to (17.2) (37.2) to (26.5) 

Consumer Average LCC Savings 

(2022$): 

PC 3 ............................................... 30.50 40.14 40.14 50.91 43.46 0.03 

PC 5 ............................................... 46.90 46.90 45.47 55.23 45.47 20.22 

PC 5BI ............................................ 86.19 86.19 86.19 91.13 86.19 (30.73) 

PC 5A ............................................. 127.59 127.59 124.76 133.27 122.18 122.18 

PC 7 ............................................... 52.10 70.96 134.10 142.56 73.96 69.71 

PC 9 ............................................... 62.02 62.02 62.02 56.17 62.02 26.33 

PC 10 ............................................. 5.94 N/A N/A N/A N/A (8.65) 

PC 11A (residential) ....................... 0.00 0.00 8.11 8.35 8.11 (4.66) 

PC 11A (commercial) ..................... 0.00 0.00 3.06 3.16 3.06 (29.11) 

PC 17 ............................................. 32.29 32.29 32.29 36.86 32.29 0.26 

PC 18 ............................................. 23.82 23.82 22.49 23.55 22.49 (5.34) 

Shipment-Weighted Average * ....... 47.08 55.22 63.46 70.88 55.93 27.51 

Consumer Simple PBP (years): 

PC 3 ............................................... 1.4 4.2 4.2 4.8 5.3 9.3 

PC 5 ............................................... 4.3 4.3 6.1 5.6 6.1 8.6 

PC 5BI ............................................ 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.4 8.2 

PC 5A ............................................. 1.9 1.9 4.4 4.1 6.0 6.0 

PC 7 ............................................... 0.7 2.9 1.9 1.6 6.2 6.8 

PC 9 ............................................... 4.1 4.1 4.1 6.6 4.1 10.7 

PC 10 ............................................. 11.2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.4 

PC 11A (residential) ....................... 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 6.0 

PC 11A (commercial) ..................... 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.3 9.3 

PC 17 ............................................. 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.6 7.2 

PC 18 ............................................. 1.4 1.4 4.2 4.1 4.2 9.4 

Shipment-Weighted Average * ....... 3.0 3.6 4.3 4.5 5.4 8.7 

Percent of Consumers that Experience 

a Net Cost: 

PC 3 ............................................... 3.9 17.3 17.3 28.3 34.2 67.1 

PC 5 ............................................... 18.2 18.2 39.4 33.6 39.4 60.3 

PC 5BI ............................................ 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 61.0 

PC 5A ............................................. 1.2 1.2 23.0 19.8 39.4 39.4 

PC 7 ............................................... 0.0 9.6 1.2 0.5 42.6 48.3 

PC 9 ............................................... 12.2 12.2 12.2 39.1 12.2 61.0 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3103 

107Current shipments calculations relied on 

shipments in the year 2023. 

TABLE V.47—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR REFRIGERATOR, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZER, AND FREEZER TSLS: 

MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS—Continued 

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 

PC 10 ............................................. 57.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 70.0 

PC 11A (residential) ....................... 0.0 0.0 8.4 8.0 8.4 61.7 

PC 11A (commercial) ..................... 0.0 0.0 16.1 15.7 16.1 92.7 

PC 17 ............................................. 5.6 5.6 5.6 4.5 5.6 61.5 

PC 18 ............................................. 0.8 0.8 18.9 17.6 18.9 68.5 

Shipment-Weighted Average * ....... 10.2 12.7 20.5 24.4 33.2 60.0 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. The entry ‘‘N/A’’ means not applicable because there is no change in the standard at certain TSLs. 

* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2027 for all TSLs except TSL 4; for TSL 4, 2029 for PCs 5BI, 5A, 10, 11A, 17, and 18, 

and 2030 for PCs 3, 5, 7, and 9. 

DOE first considered TSL 6, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. At this level, DOE expects that 

all product classes would require VIPs 

and most would require VSCs. For most 

product classes, this represents the use 

of VIPs for roughly half the cabinet 

surface (typically side walls and doors 

for an upright cabinet), the bestavailable-efficiency variable-speed 

compressor, forced-convection heat 

exchangers with multi-speed BLDC fans, 

variable defrost, and increase in cabinet 

wall thickness for some classes (e.g., 

compact refrigerators and both standardsize and compact chest freezers). DOE 

estimates that less than 1 percent of 

annual shipments across all refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer product 

classes currently meet the max-tech 

efficiencies required. TSL 6 would save 

an estimated 9.57 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $5.23 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $25.42 

billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 6 are 176 Mt of CO2, 55.5 

thousand tons of SO2, 323 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.38 tons of Hg, 1,455 

thousand tons of CH4, and 1.75 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 6 is 

$9.29 billion. The estimated monetary 

value of the health benefits from 

reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 

6 is $7.12 billion using a 7-percent 

discount rate and $18.24 billion using a 

3-percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 6 is $21.64 billion. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated total 

NPV at TSL 6 is $52.96 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a standard level is 

economically justified. 

At TSL 6, for the largest product 

classes, which are 3, 5, 5A, and 7 and 

together account for approximately 76 

percent of annual shipments, there is a 

life-cycle cost savings of $0.03, $20.22, 

$122.18, and $69.71 and a payback 

period of 9.3 years, 8.6 years, 6.0 years 

and 6.8 years, respectively. However, for 

these product classes, the fraction of 

customers experiencing a net LCC cost 

is 67.1 percent, 60.3 percent, 39.4 

percent and 48.3 percent with increases 

in first cost of $169.37, $151.75, 

$161.65, and $153.01, respectively. 

Overall, a majority of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

consumers (60 percent) would 

experience a net cost and the average 

LCC savings would be negative for PC 

5BI, PC 10, PC 11A, and PC 18. 

Additionally, 35 percent of low-income 

households with a side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 7 

and used by 19 percent of low-income 

households) would experience a net 

cost. 

At TSL 6, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $1.83 

billion to a decrease of $1.30 billion, 

which corresponds to decreases of 37.2 

percent and 26.5 percent, respectively. 

Industry conversion costs could reach 

$2.39 billion as manufacturers work to 

redesign their portfolio of model 

offerings and re-tool entire factories to 

comply with amended standards at TSL 

6. 

DOE estimates that less than 1 percent 

of refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer current annual shipments meet 

the max-tech levels. At TSL 6, only a 

few manufacturers offer any standardsize products that meet the efficiencies 

required. For PC 3, which accounts for 

approximately 25 percent of annual 

shipments, no OEMs currently offer 

products that meet the efficiency level 

required. For PC 5, which accounts for 

approximately 21 percent of annual 

shipments, DOE estimates that seven 

out of 22 OEMs currently offer products 

that meet the efficiency level required. 

For PC 7, which accounts for 

approximately 11 percent of annual 

shipments, only one out of 11 OEMs 

currently offers products that meet the 

efficiency level required. 

At max-tech, manufacturers would 

likely need to implement all the most 

efficient design options in the 

engineering analysis. In interviews, 

manufacturer indicated they would 

redesign all product platforms and 

dramatically update manufacturing 

facilities to meet max-tech for all 

approximately 17.0 million annual 

shipments of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers.107

In particular, increased incorporation 

of VIPs could increase the expense of 

adapting manufacturing plants. As 

discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this 

document, DOE expects manufacturers 

would likely adopt VIP technology to 

improve thermal insulation while 

minimizing loss to the interior volume 

for their products. Extensive 

incorporation of VIPs requires 

significant capital expenditures due to 

the need for more careful product 

handling and conveyor, increased 

warehousing requirements, investments 

in tooling necessary for the VIP 

installation process, and adding 

production line capacity to compensate 

for more time-intensive manufacturing 

associated with VIPs. Manufacturers 

with facilities that have limited space 

and few options to expand may consider 

greenfield projects. In interviews, 

several manufacturers expressed 

concerns about their ability to produce 

sufficient quantities of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers at 

max-tech given the required scale of 

investment, redesign effort, and 3-year 

compliance timeline. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3104 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

6 for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers, the benefits of energy 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, emission reductions, and the 

estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the economic burden on 

many consumers, and the impacts on 

manufacturers, including the large 

potential reduction in INPV and the lack 

of manufacturers currently offering 

products meeting the efficiency levels 

required at this TSL. At TSL 6, a 

majority of refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, and freezers consumers (60 

percent) would experience a net cost 

and the average LCC savings would be 

negative for PC 5BI, PC 10, PC 11A, and 

PC 18. Additionally, manufacturers 

would need to make significant upfront 

investments to update product lines and 

manufacturing facilities. Manufacturers 

expressed concern that they would not 

be able to complete product and 

production line updates within the 3- 

year conversion period. Consequently, 

the Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 

is not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 5 for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. For classes other than 

refrigerator-freezers with bottommounted freezers and through-the-door 

ice service (PC 5A), this TSL represents 

efficiency levels less than max-tech. 

TSL 5 represents similar design options 

as max-tech, but generally incorporates 

the use of high-efficiency compressors 

(single speed compressors or VSCs) 

rather than maximum efficiency VSCs, 

incorporates VIPs in fewer product 

classes, and incorporates less VIP 

surface area for the product classes 

requiring the use of VIPs as compared 

to TSL 6. TSL 5 would save an 

estimated 6.01 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $8.64 billion using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $25.80 

billion using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 111 Mt of CO2, 34.9 

thousand tons of SO2, 203 thousand 

tons of NOX, 0.24 tons of Hg, 914 

thousand tons of CH4, and 1.10 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 5 is 

$5.87 billion. The estimated monetary 

value of the health benefits from 

reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at TSL 

5 is $4.50 billion using a 7-percent 

discount rate and $11.50 billion using a 

3-percent discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at TSL 5 is $19.01 billion. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated total 

NPV at TSL 5 is $43.17 billion. The 

estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a standard level is 

economically justified. 

At TSL 5, for the largest product 

classes, which are 3, 5, 5A, and 7, there 

is a life-cycle cost savings of $43.46, 

$45.47, $122.18, and $73.96 and a 

payback period of 5.3 years, 6.1 years, 

6.0 years and 6.2 years, respectively. For 

these product classes, the fraction of 

customers experiencing a net LCC cost 

is 34.2 percent, 39.4 percent, 39.4 

percent and 42.6 percent with increases 

in first cost of $52.69, $69.25, $161.65, 

and $121.58, respectively. Overall, 33 

percent of refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers consumers would 

experience a net cost and the average 

LCC savings are positive for all product 

classes. 

At TSL 5, an estimated 16 percent of 

all low-income households experience a 

net cost, including 11 percent of lowincome households with a top-mount or 

single-door refrigerator-freezer 

(represented by PC 3 and used by 72 

percent of low-income households) and 

32 percent of low-income households 

with a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer 

(represented by PC 7 and used by 19 

percent of low-income households). 

More than half of low-income PC 7 

consumers with a net cost experience a 

net cost of at least $40 and while lowincome PC 7 consumers experience an 

average LCC savings of $132.77 at TSL 

5, there are larger average LCC savings 

at TSL 4 ($161.87) and substantially 

fewer low-income PC 7 consumers 

would experience a net cost (0.6 

percent) at that TSL. Further, the 

incremental increase in purchase price 

at TSL 5 for PC 7 is $121.58, which may 

be difficult for low-income homeowners 

to afford. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $1.07 

billion to a decrease of $844.2 million, 

which corresponds to decreases of 21.7 

percent and 17.2 percent, respectively. 

DOE estimates that industry must invest 

$1.40 billion to comply with standards 

set at TSL 5. 

DOE estimates that approximately 14 

percent of refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, and freezer annual shipments 

meet the TSL 5 efficiencies. For 

standard-size refrigerator-freezers, 

which account for approximately 70 

percent of total annual shipments, 

approximately 1 percent of shipments 

meet the efficiencies required at TSL 5. 

Compared to max-tech, more 

manufacturers offer standard-size 

refrigerator-freezer products that meet 

the required efficiencies, however, 

many manufacturers do not offer 

products that meet this level. Of the 22 

OEMs offering PC 3 products, three 

OEMs offer models that meet the 

efficiency level required. Of the 22 

OEMs offering PC 5 products, 14 OEMs 

offer models that meet the efficiency 

level required. Of the 11 OEMs offering 

PC 7 products, only one OEM offers 

models that meet the efficiency level 

required. 

The manufacturers that do not 

currently offer models that meet TSL 5 

efficiencies would need to develop new 

product platforms. Updates could 

include incorporating variable defrost, 

BLDC evaporator fan motors, and highefficiency VSCs. Additionally, some 

product classes could require the use of 

VIPs. DOE expects manufacturers would 

likely need to incorporate some VIPs 

into PC 5 and PC 7 designs, but not to 

the extent required at max-tech. 

However, DOE expects manufacturers 

would need to incorporate the max-tech 

design options for PC 5A, which 

includes the use of VIPs for roughly half 

the cabinet surface (side walls and 

doors) to meet TSL 5 efficiencies. As 

discussed in section IV.J.2.c of this 

document, the inclusion of VIPs in 

product design necessitates large 

investments in tooling and significant 

changes to production plants. 

Furthermore, given that only 1 percent 

of current standard-size refrigeratorfreezer shipments meet TSL 5 efficiency 

levels, the manufacturers that are 

currently able to meet TSL 5 would 

need to scale up manufacturing capacity 

of compliant models. DOE anticipates 

conversion costs as high as $1.40 billion 

because the majority of product 

platforms in the industry would require 

redesign and investment. 

The Secretary concludes that at TSL 

5 for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers, the benefits of energy 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, emission reductions, and the 

estimated monetary value of the 

emissions reductions would be 

outweighed by the economic burden on 

consumers, particularly low-income 

consumers of side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers, and the impacts on 

manufacturers, including the large 

potential reduction in INPV and the lack 

of manufacturers currently offering 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3105 

108For all TSLs except the Recommended TSL, 

the efficiency levels required for non-representative 

product classes are the same as the efficiency levels 

required for the associated directly analyzed 

product classes. However, as noted in section V.A 

of this document, the Recommended TSL from the 

Joint Agreement includes standard levels for some 

non-representative product classes that differ from 

their associated representative product class. Thus, 

in addition to the representative PC 5A, PC 7, and 

PC 9, the efficiency levels required for nonrepresentative PC 9A–BI and PC 12 at the 

Recommended TSL also differ from the efficiency 

levels required at TSL 5. 

standard-size refrigerator-freezer 

products meeting the efficiency levels 

required at this TSL. Specifically, only 

one OEM currently offers any PC 7 

models that meet the TSL 5 efficiencies. 

At TSL 5, 32 percent of low-income PC 

7 consumers would experience a net 

cost and the incremental increase in 

purchase price of $121.58 may be 

difficult for low-income homeowners to 

afford. Consequently, the Secretary has 

concluded that TSL 5 is not 

economically justified. 

DOE then considered the 

Recommended TSL (i.e., TSL 4). For 

representative product classes other 

than PC 5A, PC 7, and PC 9, this TSL 

represents the same efficiency levels as 

TSL 5.108 Thus, the Recommended TSL 

represents similar design options as TSL 

5, except for PC 5A, PC 7, and PC 9. For 

PC 7, DOE expects manufacturers would 

not require the use of VIPs to meet the 

required efficiency level. For PC 5A, 

DOE expects manufacturers would 

require less VIP surface area to meet the 

required efficiency level. For PC 9, DOE 

expects manufacturers to implement 

variable speed compressor systems to 

meet required standards. DOE estimates 

that approximately 14 percent of annual 

shipments across all refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer product 

classes currently meet the efficiencies 

required. For the Recommended TSL, 

DOE’s analysis utilized the January 31, 

2029 (or January 31, 2030, for some 

product classes) compliance dates 

specified in the Joint Agreement. The 

Recommended TSL would save an 

estimated 5.61 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV 

of consumer benefit would be $9.04 

billion using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $26.98 billion using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at the Recommended TSL are 101 Mt of 

CO2, 31.6 thousand tons of SO2, 186 

thousand tons of NOX, 0.22 tons of Hg, 

846.5 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.99 

thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 

monetary value of the climate benefits 

from reduced GHG emissions 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate) at the 

Recommended TSL is $5.02 billion. The 

estimated monetary value of the health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions at the Recommended TSL is 

$3.45 billion using a 7-percent discount 

rate and $9.80 billion using a 3-percent 

discount rate. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs, health 

benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

total NPV at the Recommended TSL is 

$17.51 billion. Using a 3-percent 

discount rate for all benefits and costs, 

the estimated total NPV at the 

Recommended TSL is $41.80 billion. 

The estimated total NPV is provided for 

additional information, however DOE 

primarily relies upon the NPV of 

consumer benefits when determining 

whether a standard level is 

economically justified. 

At the Recommended TSL, for the 

largest product classes, which are 3, 5, 

5A, and 7, there is a life-cycle cost 

savings of $50.91, $55.23, $133.27, and 

$142.56 and a payback period of 4.8 

years, 5.6 years, 4.1 years, and 1.6 years, 

respectively. For these product classes, 

the fraction of customers experiencing a 

net LCC cost is 28.3 percent, 33.6 

percent, 19.8 percent, and 0.5 percent 

with increases in first cost of $47.67, 

$62.72, $81.32, and $24.39, respectively. 

Overall, 24.4 percent of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

consumers would experience a net cost 

and the average LCC savings are positive 

for all product classes. 

At the Recommended TSL, 9 percent 

of low-income households with a topmount or single-door refrigerator-freezer 

(represented by PC 3 and used by 72 

percent of low-income households) and 

0.6 percent of low-income households 

with a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer 

(represented by PC 7 and used by 19 

percent of low-income households) 

experience a net cost. Additionally, the 

incremental increase in purchase price 

is $24.39 for low-income PC 7 

homeowners at the Recommended TSL, 

substantially lower than the incremental 

increase in purchase price of $121.58 at 

TSL 5. 

At the Recommended TSL, the 

projected change in INPV ranges from a 

decrease of $504.4 million to a decrease 

of $383.5 million, which correspond to 

decreases of 10.3 percent and 7.8 

percent, respectively. DOE estimates 

that industry must invest $830.3 million 

comply with standards set at the 

Recommended TSL. DOE estimates that 

approximately 14 percent of refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer annual 

shipments meet the Recommended TSL 

efficiencies. 

Compared to TSL 5, more 

manufacturers offer standard-size 

refrigerator freezer products that meet 

the required efficiencies since PC 7 has 

a lower required efficiency level at the 

Recommended TSL. For PC 7, which 

accounts for 11 percent of shipments, 

three OEMs offer products that meet the 

efficiency level required. Furthermore, 

DOE does not expect manufacturers 

would need to incorporate VIPs into PC 

7 designs to meet the efficiencies 

required at the Recommended TSL. For 

PC 5 and PC 5A, DOE understands the 

two product classes often share the 

same production lines, with shared 

cabinet architecture and tooling. DOE 

expects manufacturers would likely 

need to incorporate some VIPs into PC 

5A designs, but not to the extent 

required at TSL 5 and TSL 6. Thus, for 

the 10 OEMs that manufacture both PC 

5 and PC 5A, DOE expects 

manufacturers could implement similar 

cabinet upgrades (i.e., partial VIP) for PC 

5 and PC 5A designs to achieve the 

efficiencies required at this level. 

For all TSLs considered in this direct 

final rule—except for the Recommended 

TSL—DOE is bound by the 3-year lead 

time requirements in EPCA when 

determining compliance dates (i.e., 

compliance with amended standards 

required in 2027). For the 

Recommended TSL, DOE’s analysis 

utilized the January 31, 2029 (or January 

31, 2030, for some product classes) 

compliance dates specified in the Joint 

Agreement as they were an integral part 

of the multi-product joint 

recommendation. These compliance 

dates provide manufacturers the 

flexibility to spread capital 

requirements, engineering resources, 

and other conversion activities over a 

longer period of time depending on the 

individual needs of each manufacturer. 

Furthermore, these delayed compliance 

dates provide additional lead time and 

certainty for suppliers of components 

that improve efficiency. The 

Recommended TSL mitigates risks 

raised by AHAM and multiple 

manufacturers in response to the 

February 2023 NOPR regarding the 

ability for VSC and VIP component 

suppliers to increase supply of these key 

components in the 3-year lead time 

required by EPCA. 

After considering the analysis and 

weighing the benefits and burdens, the 

Secretary has concluded that a standard 

set at the Recommended TSL for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers is economically justified. At 

this TSL, the average LCC savings are 

positive for all product classes for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3106 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

109The refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers (88 FR 12452); consumer conventional 

cooking products (88 FR 6818); residential clothes 

washers (88 FR 13520); consumer clothes dryers (87 

FR 51734); and dishwashers (88 FR 32514) utilized 

a 2027 compliance year for analysis at the proposed 

rule stage. Miscellaneous refrigeration products (88 

FR 12452) utilized a 2029 compliance year for the 

NOPR analysis. 

110AHAM has submitted written comments 

regarding cumulative regulatory burden for the 

other five rulemakings included in the multiproduct Joint Agreement. AHAM’s written 

comments on cumulative regulatory burden are 

available at: www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE2020-BT-STD-0039-0031 (pp. 12–15) for 

miscellaneous refrigeration products; 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD0005-2285 (pp. 44–27) for consumer conventional 

cooking products; www.regulations.gov/comment/ 

EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014-0464 (pp. 40–44) for 

residential clothes washers; www.regulations.gov/ 

comment/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0058-0046 (pp. 12– 

13) for consumer clothes dryers; and 

www.regulations.gov/comment/EERE-2019-BT-STD0039-0051 (pp. 21–24) for dishwashers. 

which an amended standard is 

considered. An estimated 24.4 percent 

of all refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, 

and freezer consumers experience a net 

cost. An estimated 9 percent of lowincome households with a top-mount or 

single-door refrigerator-freezer 

(represented by PC 3 and used by 72 

percent of low-income households) and 

0.6 percent of low-income households 

with a side-by-side refrigerator-freezer 

(represented by PC 7 and used by 19 

percent of low-income households), 

experience a net cost, which is a 

significantly lower percentage than 

under TSL 5. DOE notes that for lowincome PC 7 consumers, as well as 

across all PC 7 consumers, the 

Recommended TSL represents the 

largest average LCC savings of any TSL. 

The FFC national energy savings are 

significant and the NPV of consumer 

benefits is positive at the Recommended 

TSL using both a 3-percent and 7- 

percent discount rate. Notably, the 

benefits to consumers vastly outweigh 

the cost to manufacturers. At the 

Recommended TSL, the NPV of 

consumer benefits, even measured at the 

more conservative discount rate of 7 

percent is over 17 times higher than the 

maximum estimated manufacturers’ loss 

in INPV. The standard levels at the 

Recommended TSL are economically 

justified even without weighing the 

estimated monetary value of emissions 

reductions. When those emissions 

reductions are included—representing 

$5.02 billion in climate benefits 

(associated with the average SC–GHG at 

a 3-percent discount rate), and $9.80 

billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) 

or $3.45 billion (using a 7-percent 

discount rate) in health benefits—the 

rationale becomes stronger still. 

As stated, DOE conducts the walkdown analysis to determine the TSL that 

represents the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified as required under 

EPCA. DOE notes 72 percent of lowincome households have a top-mount 

refrigerator-freezer (represented by PC 3) 

and that an estimated 9 percent of lowincome PC 3 households experience a 

net cost at the Recommended TSL, 

whereas an estimated 6 percent of lowincome households with a top-mount 

refrigerator-freezer experience a net cost 

at TSL 3. However, the average LCC 

savings for low-income PC 3 consumers 

are $22.05 higher at the Recommended 

TSL than at TSL 3. Further, compared 

to TSL 3, it is estimated that the 

Recommended TSL would result in 

additional FFC national energy savings 

of 0.9 quads. These additional savings 

and benefits at the Recommended TSL 

are significant. DOE considers the 

impacts to be, as a whole, economically 

justified at the Recommended TSL. 

Although DOE considered amended 

standard levels for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers by 

grouping the efficiency levels for each 

product class into TSLs, DOE evaluates 

all analyzed efficiency levels in its 

analysis. In general, the standard level 

represents the maximum energy savings 

that does not result in a large percentage 

of consumers experiencing a net LCC 

cost. For example, for PC 5, more than 

half of consumers experience a net cost 

at EL 3. In the case of PC 7, for which 

DOE found that a relatively higher 

percentage of low-income consumers 

may experience net costs at higher 

efficiency levels, at the standard level 

chosen, 0.6 percent of low-income 

households with side-by-side 

refrigerator-freezers will experience a 

potential burden. The ELs at the 

standard level result in positive LCC 

savings for all product classes, 

significantly reduce the number of 

consumers experiencing a net cost, and 

reduce the decrease in INPV and 

conversion costs to the point where 

DOE has concluded they are 

economically justified, as discussed for 

the Recommended TSL in the preceding 

paragraphs. 

Therefore, based on the previous 

considerations, DOE adopts the energy 

conservation standards for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers at the 

Recommended TSL. 

While DOE considered each potential 

TSL under the criteria laid out in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o) as discussed above, DOE 

notes that the Recommended TSL for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers adopted in this direct final rule 

is part of a multi-product Joint 

Agreement covering six rulemakings 

(refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers; miscellaneous refrigeration 

products; conventional cooking 

products; residential clothes washers; 

consumer clothes dryers; and 

dishwashers). The signatories indicate 

that the Joint Agreement for the six 

rulemakings should be considered as a 

joint statement of recommended 

standards, to be adopted in its entirety. 

As discussed in section V.B.2.e of this 

document, many refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer OEMs 

also manufacture miscellaneous 

refrigeration products, conventional 

cooking products, residential clothes 

washers, consumer clothes dryers, and 

dishwashers. Rather than requiring 

compliance with five amended 

standards in a single year (2027),109 the 

negotiated multi-product Joint 

Agreement staggers the compliance 

dates for the five amended standards 

over a 4-year period (2027–2030). In 

response to the February 2023 NOPR, 

AHAM and individual manufacturers 

expressed concerns about the timing of 

ongoing home appliance rulemakings. 

Specifically, AHAM commented that 

the combination of the stringency of 

DOE’s proposals, the short lead-in time 

required under EPCA to comply with 

standards, and the overlapping 

timeframe of multiple standards 

affecting the same manufacturers 

represents significant cumulative 

regulatory burden for the home 

appliance industry. (AHAM, No. 69 at 

pp. 20–21) AHAM has submitted similar 

comments to other ongoing consumer 

product rulemakings.110 As AHAM is a 

key signatory of the Joint Agreement, 

DOE understands that the compliance 

dates recommended in the Joint 

Agreement would help reduce 

cumulative regulatory burden. These 

compliance dates help relieve concern 

on the part of some manufacturers about 

their ability to allocate sufficient 

resources to comply with multiple 

concurrent amended standards, about 

the need to align compliance dates for 

products that are typically designed or 

sold as matched pairs, and about the 

ability of their suppliers to ramp up 

production of key components. The 

Joint Agreement also provides 

additional years of regulatory certainty 

for manufacturers and their suppliers 

while still achieving the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

The amended energy conservation 

standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, which are 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3107 

expressed as kWh/yr, are shown in 

Table V.48. 

TABLE V.48—AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND

FREEZERS

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.6.79AV + 191.3 ....................... 0.240av + 191.3. 

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost .................................................................. 5.77AV + 164.6 ....................... 0.204av + 164.6. 

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost ............................................. (6.79AV + 191.3)*K2 ............... (0.240av + 191.3)*K2. 

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer ............... 6.86AV + 198.6 + 28I .............. 0.242av + 198.6 + 28I. 

3–BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer 8.24AV + 238.4 + 28I .............. 0.291av + 238.4 + 28I. 

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost .............................................................. (6.01AV + 171.4)*K3A ............. (0.212av + 171.4)*K3A. 

3A–BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost ............................................. (7.22AV + 205.7)*K3ABI ......... (0.255av + 205.7)*K3ABI. 

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer ............. (6.89AV + 241.2)*K4 + 28I ...... (0.243av + 241.2)*K4 + 28I. 

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

freezer.

(8.79AV + 307.4)*K4BI + 28I .. (0.310av + 307.4)*K4BI + 28I. 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer ......... (7.79AV + 279.0)*K5 + 28I ...... (0.275av + 279.0)*K5 + 28I. 

5–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer.

(8.46AV + 303.2)*K5BI + 28I .. (0.299av + 303.2)*K5BI + 28I. 

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service.

(7.22AV + 327.1)*K5A ............. (0.255av + 327.1)*K5A. 

5A–BI. Built-in refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer with through-the-door ice service.

(8.16AV + 368.4)*K5ABI ......... (0.288av + 368.4)*K5ABI. 

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service.

7.14AV + 280.0 ....................... 0.252av + 280.0. 

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service.

(6.92AV + 305.2)*K7 ............... (0.244av + 305.2)*K7. 

7–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted 

freezer.

(8.82AV + 384.1)*K7BI ............ (0.311av + 384.1)*K7BI. 

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

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost .......................................................... (7.76AV + 205.5)*K9 + 28I ...... (0.274av + 205.5)*K9 + 28I. 

9–BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost ......................................... (9.37AV + 247.9)*K9BI + 28I .. (0.331av + 247.9)*K9BI + 28I. 

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.

7.68AV + 214.5 ....................... 0.271av + 214.5. 

11A. Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost ................................................. 6.66AV + 186.2 ....................... 0.235av + 186.2. 

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost ............................. 5.02AV + 285.4 ....................... 0.177av + 285.4. 

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer 10.62AV + 305.3 + 28I ............ 0.375av + 305.3 + 28I. 

13A. Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost ............................................. (7.79AV + 220.4)*K13A ........... (0.275av + 220.4)*K13A. 

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer.6.14AV + 411.2 + 28I .............. 0.217av + 411.2 + 28I. 

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

freezer.

10.62AV + 305.3 + 28I ............ 0.375av + 305.3 + 28I. 

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost ............................................. 7.35AV + 191.8 ....................... 0.260av + 191.8. 

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost ......................................... 9.15AV + 316.7 ....................... 0.323av + 316.7. 

18. Compact chest freezers ................................................................................ 7.86AV + 107.8 ....................... 0.278av + 107.8. 

AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft3, as determined in appendices A and B of subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. 

Av = Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters. 

I = 1 for a product with an automatic icemaker and = 0 for a product without an automatic icemaker. 

Door Coefficients (e.g., K3A) are as defined in the table below. 

Door coefficient 

Products with 

a transparent 

door 

Products without a 

transparent 

door with a 

door-in-door 

Products without a transparent door or 

door-in-door with added external doors 

K2 ............................................................................ 1.0 1.0 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

K3A ......................................................................... 1.10 1.0 1.0. 

K3ABI ...................................................................... 1.10 1.0 1.0. 

K4 ............................................................................ 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K4BI ........................................................................ 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K5 ............................................................................ 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K5BI ........................................................................ 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K5A ......................................................................... 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥3). 

K5ABI ...................................................................... 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥3). 

K7 ............................................................................ 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K7BI ........................................................................ 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K9 ............................................................................ 1.0 1.0 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3108 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Door coefficient 

Products with 

a transparent 

door 

Products without a 

transparent 

door with a 

door-in-door 

Products without a transparent door or 

door-in-door with added external doors 

K9BI ........................................................................ 1.0 1.0 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

K12 .......................................................................... 1.0 1.0 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

K13A ....................................................................... 1.10 1.0 1.0. 

Notes: 

1 Nd is the number of external doors. 2The maximum Nd values are 2 for K2 and K12, 3 for K9BI, and 5 for all other K values. 

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the 

Adopted Standards 

The benefits and costs of the adopted 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values. The annualized 

net benefit is (1) the annualized national 

economic value (expressed in 2022$) of 

the benefits from operating products 

that meet the adopted standards 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy), minus 

increases in product purchase costs, and 

(2) the annualized monetary value of the 

climate and health benefits. 

Table V.49 shows the annualized 

values for consumer refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers under 

the Recommended TSL expressed in 

2022$. The results under the primary 

estimate are as follows. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate for 

consumer benefits and costs and health 

benefits from reduced NOX and SO2

emissions, and the 3-percent discount 

rate case for climate benefits from 

reduced GHG emissions, the estimated 

cost of the standards adopted in this 

rule is $590.5 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual monetized benefits are 

$1.7 billion in reduced equipment 

operating costs, $303.8 million in 

climate benefits, and $410.6 million in 

health benefits. In this case, the net 

benefit would amount to $1.8 billion per 

year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all 

benefits and costs, the estimated cost of 

the standards is $567.5 million per year 

in increased equipment costs, while the 

estimated annual monetized benefits are 

$2.2 billion in reduced operating costs, 

$303.8 million in climate benefits, and 

$592.9 million in health benefits. In this 

case, the net benefit would amount to 

$2.5 billion per year. 

TABLE V.49—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ADOPTED STANDARDS (THE RECOMMENDED TSL) FOR CONSUMER

REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

Million 2022$/year 

Primary 

estimate 

Lownet-benefits 

estimate 

Highnet-benefits 

estimate 

3% discount rate: 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ...................................................................................... 2,200.5 2,023.9 2,326.6 

Climate Benefits * ................................................................................................................. 303.8 291.8 307.9 

Health Benefits ** .................................................................................................................. 592.9 569.7 600.7 

Total Benefits † .............................................................................................................. 3,097.2 2,885.4 3,235.2 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ............................................................................... 567.5 666.6 547.8 

Net Benefits ................................................................................................................... 2,529.6 2,218.8 2,687.4 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡) .................................................................................... (49) to (37) (49) to (37) (49) to (37) 

7% discount rate: 

Consumer Operating Cost Savings ...................................................................................... 1,667.0 1,541.9 1,758.5 

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate) ................................................................................... 303.8 291.8 307.9 

Health Benefits ** .................................................................................................................. 410.6 395.8 415.7 

Total Benefits † .............................................................................................................. 2,381.4 2,229.5 2,482.0 

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡ ............................................................................... 590.5 677.9 569.6 

Net Benefits ................................................................................................................... 1,790.9 1,551.6 1,912.5 

Change in Producer Cashflow (INPV‡‡) .................................................................................... (49) to (37) (49) to (37) (49) to (37) 

Note: This table presents present value (in 2022$) of the costs and benefits associated with refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

shipped in 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and shipped in 2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. These results include benefits which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2029–2058 for the product classes listed in Table I.1 and shipped in 

2030–2059 for the product classes listed in Table I.2. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2023 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a high 

decline rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section IV.H.3 of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding. 

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC–GHG (see section IV.L of this document). For presentational 

purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown; however, DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC–GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane. 

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as 

health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. See section IV.L of this document for more details. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3109 

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC–GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but DOE 

does not have a single central SC–GHG point estimate. 

‡‡ Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life-cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as discussed in detail below. See 

sections IV.F and IV.H of this document. DOE’s NIA includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution chain beginning with the 

increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the product and ending with the increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also 

separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on manufacturers (the MIA). See section IV.J of this document. In the detailed MIA, DOE 

models manufacturers’ pricing decisions based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashflow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of impacts, which is the rule’s expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in industry 

cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted average cost of capital value of 9.1 percent that is estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of the industry weighted average cost of capital). For refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, those values are ¥$48.7 million to ¥$37.0 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a TSL 

is economically justified. See section V.C of this document. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup 

scenarios: the Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer Operating 

Cost Savings in this table, and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed manufacturers would not be able to 

increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized 

change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the MIA explained further in section IV.J of this document, to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this direct final rule to society, including potential changes in production and consumption, which is consistent 

with OMB’s Circular A–4 and E.O. 12866. If DOE were to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this direct final rule, the 

annualized net benefits would range from $2,480.9 million to $2,492.6 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $1,742.2 million to 

$1,753.9 million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses ( ) indicate negative values. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866, 13563, and 14094 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 

21, 2011), and amended by E.O. 14094, 

‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88 

FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires 

agencies, to the extent permitted by law, 

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 E.O. 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 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) 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, this final 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this final 

regulatory action constitutes a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within 

the scope of section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 

12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 

6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has 

provided to OIRA an assessment, 

including the underlying analysis, of 

benefits and costs anticipated from the 

final regulatory action, together with, to 

the extent feasible, a quantification of 

those costs; and an assessment, 

including the underlying analysis, of 

costs and benefits of potentially 

effective and reasonably feasible 

alternatives to the planned regulation, 

and an explanation why the planned 

regulatory action is preferable to the 

identified potential alternatives. These 

assessments are summarized in this 

preamble and further detail can be 

found in the technical support 

document for this rulemaking. 

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’’) and a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) for any 

rule that by law must be proposed for 

public comment, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As required by E.O. 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

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 website (www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel). 

DOE is not obligated to prepare a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking because there is not a 

requirement to publish a general notice 

of proposed rulemaking under the 

Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 

U.S.C. 601(2), 603(a). As discussed 

previously, DOE has determined that 

the Joint Agreement meets the necessary 

requirements under EPCA to issue this 

direct final rule for energy conservation 

standards for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers under the 

procedures in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). DOE 

notes that the NOPR for energy 

conservation standards for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

published elsewhere in the Federal 

Register contains an IRFA. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of consumer 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers must certify to DOE that their 

products comply with any applicable 

energy conservation standards. In 

certifying compliance, manufacturers 

must test their products according to the 

DOE test procedures for consumer 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, including any amendments 

adopted for those test procedures. DOE 

has established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including consumer refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. (See 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3110 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

generally 10 CFR part 429) The 

collection-of-information requirement 

for the certification and recordkeeping 

is subject to review and approval by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been 

approved by OMB under OMB control 

number 1910–1400. Public reporting 

burden for the certification is estimated 

to average 35 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. 

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 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(‘‘NEPA’’), DOE has analyzed this rule 

in accordance with NEPA and DOE’s 

NEPA implementing regulations (10 

CFR part 1021). DOE has determined 

that this rule qualifies for categorical 

exclusion under 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D, appendix B, B5.1, because it 

is a rulemaking that establishes energy 

conservation standards for consumer 

products or industrial equipment, none 

of the exceptions identified in B5.1(b) 

apply, no extraordinary circumstances 

exist that require further environmental 

analysis, and it meets the requirements 

for application of a categorical 

exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. 

Therefore, DOE has determined that 

promulgation of this rule is not a major 

Federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment 

within the meaning of NEPA, and does 

not require an environmental 

assessment or an environmental impact 

statement. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal 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. 

In the February 2023 NOPR, DOE 

tentatively determined that the 

proposed rule would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 88 FR 13616. 

Furthermore, DOE stated that EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of this proposed rule 

and that States can petition DOE for 

exemption from such preemption to the 

extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 

EPCA. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. 6297). 

Accordingly, DOE concluded that no 

further action was required by E.O. 

13132. 

The AGs of TN, AL, et al. submitted 

a joint comment that DOE’s analysis is 

woefully deficient. The AGs of TN, AL, 

et al. commented that this 

determination is incorrect because, in 

their view, the Proposed Standards have 

significant federalism implications 

within the meaning of Executive Order 

13132. The AGs of TN, AL, et al. go on 

to state that if the Proposed Standards 

are promulgated, ‘‘[a]ny State regulation 

which sets forth procurement 

standards’’ relating to refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, or freezers, is 

‘‘superseded’’ unless those ‘‘standards 

are more stringent than the 

corresponding Federal energy 

conservation standards. The AGs of TN, 

AL, et al. argue that preempting—even 

in part—State procurement rules is 

plainly a direct effect on the States and 

alters the federal-state relationship by 

directly regulating the States. See Exec. 

Order No. 13132 § 6(c).’’ (The AGs of 

TN, AL, et al., No. 68 at p. 3) Further, 

the AGs of TN, et al., argue that section 

6(b) of E.O. 13132 applies because states 

are purchasers of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; 

therefore, reliance interests are 

implicated and subject the states to 

substantial direct compliance costs. (Id. 

at 2–3) 

DOE reiterates that this direct final 

rule does not have significant federalism 

implications. DOE has examined this 

rule and has determined that it would 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the National Government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

expressly prescribes Federal preemption 

of State regulations as to energy 

conservation for the products that are 

the subject of this direct 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) Therefore, no further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

Even if DOE were to find otherwise, 

with regards to the AGs of TN, AL et 

al.’s arguments regarding section 6(c) of 

E.O. 13132, DOE notes that the AGs of 

TN, AL et al. do not provide any 

examples of a state procurement rule 

that conflicts with the standards 

adopted in this rulemaking and DOE is 

not aware of any such conflicts. While 

it is possible that a State may have to 

revise its procurement standards to 

reflect the new standards, States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. Absent such 

information, DOE concludes that no 

further action would be required by E.O. 

13132 even if the Executive order were 

applicable here. Moreover, assuming the 

hypothetical preemption alleged by the 

AGs of TN, AL et al. were to present 

itself, DOE notes that, like all interested 

parties, states were presented with an 

opportunity to engage in the rulemaking 

process early in the development of the 

proposed rule. Prior to publishing the 

proposed rulemaking, on November 15, 

2019, DOE published and sought public 

comment on a request for information 

(‘‘RFI’’) to collect data and information 

to help DOE determine whether any 

new or amended standards for 

consumer refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers would result in a 

significant amount of additional energy 

savings and whether those standards 

would be technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 84 FR 62470 

(‘‘November 2019 RFI’’). DOE then 

published a notice of public meeting 

and availability of the preliminary TSD 

on October 15, 2021, and sought public 

comment again. (‘‘October 2021 

Preliminary Analysis’’). 86 FR 57378. 

DOE then held a public meeting on 

December 1, 2021, to discuss and 

receive comments on the preliminary 

TSD, which was open to the public, 

including state agencies. As such, states 

were provided the opportunity for 

meaningful and substantial input as 

envisioned by the Executive order. 

With regards to the AGs of TN, AL et 

al.’s arguments regarding section 6(b) of 

E.O. 13132, the potential effect alleged 

by the AGs of TN, AL, et al. is the same 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3111 

effect experienced by all refrigerator 

consumers—models manufactured after 

a specific date must meet revised 

efficiency standards. This impact does 

not constitute a ‘‘substantial’’ impact as 

required by the Executive order. 

Further, contrary to the assertions of the 

AGs of TN et al., the direct final rule is 

required by law. As noted previously, 

where DOE determines that a proposed 

amended standard is designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency and is both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, it must adopt it. 

Therefore, section 6(b) is inapplicable. 

E.O. 13132, section6(b) (applicable to 

regulation ‘‘that is not required by 

statute’’). 

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,’’ 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, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 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 E.O. 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 direct 

final rule 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’’) 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, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

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 them. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a 

statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/ 

documents/umra_97.pdf. 

DOE has concluded that this direct 

final rule may require expenditures of 

$100 million or more in any one year by 

the private sector. Such expenditures 

may include (1) investment in research 

and development and in capital 

expenditures by consumer refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

manufacturers in the years between the 

direct final rule and the compliance 

date for the new standards and (2) 

incremental additional expenditures by 

consumers to purchase higher-efficiency 

consumer refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, starting at the 

compliance date for the applicable 

standard. 

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 

Federal agency to respond to the content 

requirements of UMRA in any other 

statement or analysis that accompanies 

the direct 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 

this document and the TSD for this 

direct final rule respond to those 

requirements. 

Under section 205 of UMRA, DOE 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(m), 

this direct final rule establishes 

amended energy conservation standards 

for consumer refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers that are designed 

to achieve the maximum improvement 

in energy efficiency that DOE has 

determined to be both technologically 

feasible and economically justified, as 

required by sections 6295(o)(2)(A) and 

6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the 

alternatives considered by DOE is 

presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for 

this direct final rule. 

H. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this rule 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

I. 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 Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 

12/f70/DOE%20Final%20

Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines

%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 

reviewed this direct final rule under the 

OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

J. 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 OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3112 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

111The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the 

following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed 

August 2, 2023). 

112The report is available at 

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. 

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 this 

regulatory action, which sets forth 

amended energy conservation standards 

for consumer refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, is not a significant 

energy action because the 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 this 

direct final rule. 

K. Information Quality

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peerreviewed 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 2664, 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and prepared a 

report describing that peer review.111

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. Because 

available data, models, and 

technological understanding have 

changed since 2007, DOE has engaged 

with the National Academy of Sciences 

to review DOE’s analytical 

methodologies to ascertain whether 

modifications are needed to improve 

DOE’s analyses. DOE is in the process 

of evaluating the resulting report.112

L. Congressional Notification

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of this rule prior to its effective date. 

The report will state that the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

determined that this action meets the 

criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

M. Materials Incorporated by Reference

The following standards appear in the

amendatory text of this document and 

were previously approved for the 

locations in which they appear: AS/NZS 

4474.1:2007; HRF–1–2019. 

VII. Approval of the Office of the

Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this direct final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Small 

businesses. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on December 28, 

2023, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on December 

29, 2023. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 

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. Amend appendix A to subpart B of 

part 430 by:

■ a. In section 1: 

■ i. In paragraph (b)(i), removing the 

text ‘‘5.3(e)’’ and adding in its place the

text ‘‘5.5’’; and

■ ii. Removing the undesignated 

paragraph immediately following 

paragraph (b)(ii); 

■ b. In section 3, adding in alphabetical 

order definitions for ‘‘Door-in-door’’ and

‘‘Transparent door’’;

■ c. In section 5.3: 

■ i. Removing paragraphs (a) and (f); 

and

■ ii. Redesignating paragraphs (b) 

through (e) as paragraphs (a) through

(d); and

■ d. Adding sections 5.4 and 5.5. 

The additions read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products 

* * * * * 

3. * * * 

Door-in-door means a set of doors or an 

outer door and inner drawer for which— 

(a) Both doors (or both the door and the

drawer) must be opened to provide access to 

the interior through a single opening; 

(b) Gaskets for both doors (or both the door

and the drawer) are exposed to external 

ambient conditions on the outside around the 

full perimeter of the respective openings; and 

(c) The space between the two doors (or

between the door and the drawer) achieves 

temperature levels consistent with the 

temperature requirements of the interior 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3113 

compartment to which the door-in-door 

provides access. 

* * * * * 

Transparent door means an external fresh 

food compartment door which meets the 

following criteria: 

(a) The area of the transparent portion of 

the door is at least 40 percent of the area of 

the door. 

(b) The area of the door is at least 50 

percent of the sum of the areas of all the 

external doors providing access to the fresh 

food compartments and cooler 

compartments. 

(c) For the purposes of this evaluation, the 

area of a door is determined as the product 

of the maximum height and maximum width 

dimensions of the door, not considering 

potential extension of flaps used to provide 

a seal to adjacent doors. 

* * * * * 

5. * * * 

5.4. Icemaker Energy Use 

(a) For refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers: To demonstrate compliance with the 

energy conservation standards at § 430.32(a) 

applicable to products manufactured on or 

after September 15, 2014, but before the 

compliance date of any amended standards 

published after January 1, 2022, IET, 

expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 

0.23 for a product with one or more 

automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 

(zero). To demonstrate compliance with any 

amended standards published after January 

1, 2022, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per 

cycle, is as defined in section 5.9.2.1 of HRF– 

1–2019. 

(b) For miscellaneous refrigeration 

products: To demonstrate compliance with 

the energy conservation standards at 

§ 430.32(aa) applicable to products 

manufactured on or after October 28, 2019, 

IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 

equals 0.23 for a product with one or more 

automatic icemakers and otherwise equals 0 

(zero). 

5.5. Triangulation Method 

If the three-point interpolation method of 

section 5.2(b) of this appendix is used for 

setting temperature controls, the average percycle energy consumption shall be defined as 

follows: 

E = EX + IET 

Where: 

E is defined in section 5.9.1.1 of HRF–1– 

2019; 

IET is defined in section 5.4 of this appendix; 

and 

EX is defined and calculated as described in 

appendix M, section M4(a) of AS/NZS 

4474.1:2007. The target temperatures txA

and txB defined in section M4(a)(i) of AS/ 

NZS 4474.1:2007 shall be the 

standardized temperatures defined in 

section 5.6 of HRF–1–2019. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend appendix B to subpart B of 

part 430 by: 

■ a. In section 5.3: 

■ i. Removing paragraph (a); and 

■ ii. Redesignating paragraphs (b) and 

(c) as paragraphs (a) and (b); and 

■ b. Adding section 5.4. 

The addition reads as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Freezers 

* * * * * 

5. * * * 

5.4. Icemaker Energy Use 

For freezers: To demonstrate compliance 

with the energy conservation standards at 

§ 430.32(a) applicable to products 

manufactured on or after September 15, 2014, 

but before the compliance date of any 

amended standards published after January 

1, 2022, IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per 

cycle, equals 0.23 for a product with one or 

more automatic icemakers and otherwise 

equals 0 (zero). To demonstrate compliance 

with any amended standards published after 

January 1, 2022, IET, expressed in kilowatthours per cycle, is as defined in section 

5.9.2.1 of HRF–1–2019. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Amend § 430.32 by: 

■ a. Redesignating table 3 to paragraph 

(b) and table 4 to paragraph (b)(2) as 

table 6 to paragraph (b)(1) and table 7 to 

paragraph (b)(2); and 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their compliance dates. 

* * * * * 

(a) Refrigerators/refrigerator-freezers/ 

freezers. The standards in this 

paragraph (a) 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. 

(1) The following standards apply to 

products manufactured on or before 

September 15, 2014, and before the 

2029/2030 compliance dates depending 

on product class (see paragraphs (a)(2) 

and (3) of this section). 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1) 

Product class 

Equations for maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

Based on AV 

(ft3) 

Based on av 

(L) 

1. Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 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 + 441.4.2 .................. 0.361av + 441.4. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3114 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(1)—Continued 

Product class 

Equations for maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

Based on AV 

(ft3) 

Based on av 

(L) 

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-the-door 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 + 431.1. 

7–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted 

freezer with through-the-door 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 + 260.6. 

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 refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with manual defrost ........... 9.03AV + 252.3 ....................... 0.319av + 252.3. 

11A.Compact refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers with 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-refrigerator—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 to subpart B of this part. 

av = Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters. 

(2) The following standards apply to 

products manufactured on or after 

January 31, 2029. 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(2) 

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 8.24AV + 238.4 + 28I .............. 0.291av + 238.4 + 28I. 

3A–BI. Built-in All-refrigerators—automatic defrost ............................................. (7.22AV + 205.7)*K3ABI ......... (0.255av + 205.7)*K3ABI. 

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

freezer.

(8.79AV + 307.4)*K4BI + 28I .. (0.310av + 307.4)*K4BI + 28I. 

5–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer.

(8.65AV + 309.9)*K5BI + 28I .. (0.305av + 309.9)*K5BI + 28I. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 3115 

TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(2)—Continued 

Product class 

Equations for maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

Based on AV 

(ft3) 

Based on av 

(L) 

5A. Refrigerator-freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service.

(7.76AV + 351.9)*K5A ............. (0.274av + 351.9)*K5A. 

5A–BI. Built-in refrigerator–freezer—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted 

freezer with through-the-door ice service.

(8.21AV + 370.7)*K5ABI ......... (0.290av + 370.7)*K5ABI. 

7–BI. Built-In Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted 

freezer.

(8.82AV + 384.1)*K7BI ............ (0.311av + 384.1)*K7BI. 

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

9–BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost ......................................... (9.37AV + 247.9)*K9BI + 28I .. (0.331av + 247.9)*K9BI + 28I. 

9A–BI. Built-In Upright freezers with automatic defrost with through-the-door 

ice service.

9.86AV + 288.9 ....................... 0.348av + 288.9. 

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.

7.68AV + 214.5 ....................... 0.271av + 214.5. 

11A. Compact all-refrigerators—manual defrost ................................................. 6.66AV + 186.2 ....................... 0.235av + 186.2. 

12. Compact refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost ............................. (5.32AV + 302.2)*K12 ............. (0.188av + 302.2)*K12. 

13. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer 10.62AV + 305.3 + 28I ............ 0.375av + 305.3 + 28I. 

13A. Compact all-refrigerators—automatic defrost ............................................. (8.25AV + 233.4)*K13A ........... (0.291av + 233.4)*K13A. 

14. Compact refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer.6.14AV + 411.2 + 28I .............. 0.217av + 411.2 + 28I. 

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

freezer.

10.62AV + 305.3 + 28I ............ 0.375av + 305.3 + 28I. 

16. Compact upright freezers with manual defrost ............................................. 7.35AV + 191.8 ....................... 0.260av + 191.8. 

17. Compact upright freezers with automatic defrost ......................................... 9.15AV + 316.7 ....................... 0.323av + 316.7. 

18. Compact chest freezers ................................................................................ 7.86AV + 107.8 ....................... 0.278av + 107.8. 

AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft3, as determined in appendices A and B to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. 

av = Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters. 

I = 1 for a product with an automatic icemaker and = 0 for a product without an automatic icemaker. 

Door Coefficients (e.g., K3ABI) are as defined in the following table. 

TABLE 3 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(2) 

Door coefficient 

Products 

with a 

transparent 

door 

Products 

without a 

transparent 

door with a 

door-in-door 

Products without a transparent door or door-in-door 

with added external doors 

K3ABI ............................................................................ 1.10 1.0 1.0. 

K4BI .............................................................................. 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K5BI .............................................................................. 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K5A ............................................................................... 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥3). 

K5ABI ............................................................................ 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥3). 

K7BI .............................................................................. 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K9BI .............................................................................. 1.0 1.0 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

K12 ............................................................................... 1.0 1.0 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

K13A ............................................................................. 1.10 1.0 1.0 

Notes: 

1 Nd is the number of external doors. 2The maximum Nd values are 2 for K12, 3 for K9BI, and 5 for all other K values. 

(3) The following standards apply to 

products manufactured on or after 

January 31, 2030. 

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(3) 

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.6.79AV + 191.3 ....................... 0.240av + 191.3. 

1A. All-refrigerators—manual defrost .................................................................. 5.77AV + 164.6 ....................... 0.204av + 164.6. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2
3116 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(3)—Continued 

Product class 

Equations for maximum energy use 

(kWh/yr) 

Based on AV 

(ft3) 

Based on av 

(L) 

2. Refrigerator-freezers—partial automatic defrost ............................................. (6.79AV + 191.3)*K2 ............... (0.240av + 191.3)*K2. 

3. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer ............... 6.86AV + 198.6 + 28I .............. 0.242av + 198.6 + 28I. 

3A. All-refrigerators—automatic defrost .............................................................. (6.01AV + 171.4)*K3A ............. (0.212av + 171.4)*K3A. 

4. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer ............. (7.28AV + 254.9)*K4 + 28I ...... (0.257av + 254.9)*K4 + 28I. 

5. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with bottom-mounted freezer ......... (7.61AV + 272.6)*K5 + 28I ...... (0.269av + 272.6)*K5 + 28I. 

6. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with top-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service.

7.14AV + 280.0 ....................... 0.252av + 280.0. 

7. Refrigerator-freezers—automatic defrost with side-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service.

(7.31AV + 322.5)*K7 ............... (0.258av + 322.5)*K7. 

9. Upright freezers with automatic defrost .......................................................... (7.33AV + 194.1)*K9 + 28I ...... (0.259av + 194.1)*K9 + 28I. 

AV = Total adjusted volume, expressed in ft3, as determined in appendices A and B to subpart B of this part. 

av = Total adjusted volume, expressed in Liters. 

I = 1 for a product with an automatic icemaker and = 0 for a product without an automatic icemaker. 

Door Coefficients (e.g., K3A) are as defined in the following table. 

TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(3) 

Door coefficient 

Products 

with a 

transparent 

door 

Products 

without a 

transparent 

door with a 

door-in-door 

Products without a transparent door or door-in-door 

with added external doors 

K2 ................................................................................. 1.0 1.0 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

K3A ............................................................................... 1.10 1.0 1.0. 

K4 ................................................................................. 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K5 ................................................................................. 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K7 ................................................................................. 1.10 1.06 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥2). 

K9 ................................................................................. 1.0 1.0 1 + 0.02 * (Nd¥1). 

Notes: 

1 Nd is the number of external doors. 2The maximum Nd values are 2 for K2, and 5 for all other K values. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–28978 Filed 1–16–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES2