37708 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Issue 36: DOE requests comment on if 

the capacity, AWEF, condenser fan 

power, and compressor types provided 

by AHRI are representative of the 

market for single-package and matchedpair wine cellar refrigeration systems. 

DOE also seeks information on the 

availability and prevalence of wine 

cellar refrigeration systems between 

13,000 and 18,000 Btu/h for walk-in 

wine cellars with a square footage of 

3,000 square feet or less. 

Issue 37: DOE seeks comment on 

whether the distribution channels used 

in the June 2014 ECS final rule and July 

2017 ECS final rule (as depicted in 

Table II.16) remain relevant today, and 

if not, DOE requests information on 

these channels as well as the existence 

of any additional channels that are used 

to distribute walk-in components into 

the market. Additionally, DOE requests 

comment on the appropriateness of 

these channels, and their respective 

fractions for the following equipment: 

display-panels, high-temperature 

freezers, single-package refrigeration 

systems, and wine cellars as described 

in sections II.A.1 through II.A.4 of this 

document. 

Issue 38: DOE seeks comment on its 

estimated equipment lifetime for WICF 

refrigeration system and envelope 

components. Specifically, DOE requests 

data on appropriate average lifetimes 

that DOE’s analyses should use for: 

Display-panels, high-temperature 

freezers, single-package refrigeration 

systems, and wine cellars as described 

in sections II.A.1 through II.A.4 of this 

document. 

Issue 39: DOE requests comment on 

its assumption that the market share of 

shipments for each equipment class 

would remain constant over time. 

Issue 40: DOE seeks input from 

stakeholders on whether the shipments 

shown for low-temperature dedicated 

condensing equipment and unit coolers 

are still relevant. Further, DOE seeks 

data on the annual shipments of lowtemperature single-package refrigeration 

systems (see section II.A.3 of this 

document) and the distribution of rated 

capacities as shown in Table II.15 of this 

document. 

Issue 41: DOE seeks input from 

stakeholders on whether the shipments 

shown for medium-temperature 

condensing equipment and unit coolers 

reflect the state of the current market. 

Issue 42: DOE seeks data on the 

annual shipments of mediumtemperature single-package refrigeration 

systems (see section II.A.3 of this 

document), high-temperature freezers 

(see section II.A.2 of this document) and 

wine cellar refrigeration systems (see 

section II.A.4 of this document) and the 

distribution of rated capacities of each 

(Btu/h). DOE also seeks data on the 

fraction of high-temperature freezers 

and wine cellar refrigeration systems 

that are sold as single-package, 

manufacturer matched-pair or split 

systems. Additionally, DOE requests 

data on the relative market size of 

refrigeration systems used in high 

temperature freezers compared to the 

refrigeration system market sizes for 

cooler applications (i.e., temperature 

greater than 32 °F) and low-temperature 

(e.g., less than or equal to ¥10 °F) 

freezer applications. 

Issue 43: DOE requests data on the 

fraction of low-temperature and 

medium-temperature panels that are 

installed outdoors versus indoors. 

Additionally, DOE requests data on the 

fraction of low-temperature and 

medium-temperature freight and 

passage doors that are installed outdoors 

versus indoors. 

Issue 44: DOE seeks input from 

stakeholders on whether the shipments 

shown for panels and doors reflect the 

state of the current market. Further, 

DOE seeks data on the annual 

shipments, in terms of units shipped, of 

low-temperature and mediumtemperature display panels described in 

section II.A.1 of this document. 

Issue 45: DOE also requests specific 

information on high-humidity mediumtemperature display door shipments 

(see section II.C.1.a of this document) 

and their fraction of annual display door 

shipments. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on July 7, 2021, by 

Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting 

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 July 8, 2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14902 Filed 7–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0007] 

RIN 1904–AD82 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment; 

Early Assessment Review; Commercial 

Refrigerators, Freezers, and 

Refrigerator-Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or ‘‘the Department’’) is 

undertaking an early assessment review 

for amended energy conservation 

standards for commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers 

(‘‘CRE’’) to determine whether to amend 

applicable energy conservation 

standards for this equipment. 

Specifically, through this request for 

information (‘‘RFI’’), DOE seeks data 

and information to evaluate whether 

amended energy conservation standards 

would result in significant savings of 

energy; be technologically feasible; and 

be economically justified. DOE 

welcomes written comments from the 

public on any subject within the scope 

of this document (including those topics 

not specifically raised in this RFI), as 

well as the submission of data and other 

relevant information concerning this 

early assessment review. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before August 30, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number [EERE–2017–BT–STD–0007], by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to CRE2017STD0007@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0007] in the 

subject line of the message. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

III of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37709 

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). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

mail and hand delivery/courier, the 

Department has found it necessary to 

make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing Covid–19 pandemic. DOE is 

currently suspending receipt of public 

comments via postal mail and hand 

delivery/courier. If a commenter finds 

that this change poses an undue 

hardship, please contact Appliance 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

1445 to discuss the need for alternative 

arrangements. Once the Covid–19 

pandemic health emergency is resolved, 

DOE anticipates resuming all of its 

regular options for public comment 

submission, including postal mail and 

hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at https://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the https://

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at: 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD0007. The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section III for 

information on how to submit 

comments through https://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Stephanie Johnson, 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– 

1943. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email: 

Peter.Cochran@Hq.Doe.Gov. 

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: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Rulemaking History 

II. Request for Information 

A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment 

Classes 

1. Equipment Classes 

2. Potential New Equipment Categories 

B. Significant Savings of Energy 

1. Shipments 

2. National Energy Savings 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. Technology Options 

2. Screening Analysis 

3. Engineering Efficiency Analysis 

D. Economic Justification 

1. Engineering Cost Analysis 

2. Markups Analysis & Distribution 

Channels 

3. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

4. Net Present Value 

5. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

III. Submission of Comments 

I. Introduction 

DOE has established an early 

assessment review process to conduct a 

more focused analysis to evaluate, based 

on statutory criteria, whether a new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

is warranted. Based on the information 

received in response to the RFI and 

DOE’s own analysis, DOE will 

determine whether to proceed with a 

rulemaking for a new or amended 

energy conservation standard. If DOE 

makes an initial determination that a 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard would satisfy the applicable 

statutory criteria or DOE’s analysis is 

inconclusive, DOE would undertake the 

preliminary stages of a rulemaking to 

issue a new or amended energy 

conservation standard. If DOE makes an 

initial determination based upon 

available evidence that a new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

would not meet the applicable statutory 

criteria, DOE would engage in notice 

and comment rulemaking before issuing 

a final determination that new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

are not warranted. 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 among 

other things, 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 C 2 of EPCA, added 

by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section 

441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as 

codified), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. This 

equipment includes CRE, the subject of 

this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(E)) 

Under EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) 

labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 

standards, and (4) certification and 

enforcement procedures. Relevant 

provisions of EPCA include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 

U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 

U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6316). 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

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

6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) 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 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a) and (e) (applying the 

preemption waiver provisions of 42 

U.S.C. 6297)). 

EPCA prescribes energy conservation 

standards for CRE and directs DOE to 

conduct rulemakings to establish new 

and amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(2)–(6)) DOE must follow 

specific statutory criteria for prescribing 

new or amended standards for covered 

equipment. EPCA requires that any new 

or amended energy conservation 

standard prescribed by the Secretary of 

Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy or water efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) The 

Secretary may not prescribe an amended 

or new standard that will not result in 

significant conservation of energy, or is 

not technologically feasible or 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) 

EPCA also requires that, not later than 

6 years after the issuance of any final 

rule establishing or amending a 

standard, DOE evaluate the energy 

conservation standards for each type of 

covered equipment, including those at 

issue here, and publish either a 

notification of determination that the 

standards do not need to be amended, 

or a NOPR that includes new proposed 

energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37710 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

3The currently applicable DOE test procedures 

for CRE appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, 

Appendix B. 

4The analysis conducted in support of 

developing the March 2014 Final Rule is available 

in the Technical Support Document (‘‘TSD’’) 

available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003-0102. 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 

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

DOE is issuing this RFI to collect data 

and information to inform its decision 

of whether to propose amended energy 

conservation standards consistent with 

its obligations under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(6)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)) 

B. Rulemaking History 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE published a 

final rule establishing amended 

standards for CRE on March 28, 2014 

(the ‘‘March 2014 Final Rule’’), for 

which compliance was required as of 

March 27, 2017. 79 FR 17725. The 

current energy conservation standards 

consist of maximum daily energy 

consumption (‘‘MDEC’’) values as a 

function of either refrigerated volume or 

total display area (‘‘TDA’’) and are 

located in title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) part 431, subpart 

C.3

II. Request for Information 

DOE is publishing this RFI to collect 

data and information during the early 

assessment review to inform its 

decision, consistent with its obligations 

under EPCA, as to whether the 

Department should proceed with an 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking. DOE has identified certain 

topics for which information and data 

are requested to assist in the evaluation 

of the potential for amended energy 

conservation standards. DOE also 

welcomes comments on other issues 

relevant to its early assessment that may 

not specifically be identified in this 

document. Specifically, for any future 

rulemaking to consider amended energy 

conservation standards, DOE would 

likely follow an analysis approach 

consistent with that used in the March 

2014 Final Rule.4 DOE welcomes 

comment on the applicability of that 

analysis approach in addition to the 

specific issues discussed in the 

following sections. 

A. Scope of Coverage and Equipment 

Classes 

1. Equipment Classes 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

may divide equipment into equipment 

classes by the type of energy used, or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that justify a different standard. 

(42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 

In making a determination whether 

capacity or another performance-related 

feature justifies a different standard, 

DOE must consider such factors as the 

utility to the consumer of such a feature 

and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. 

For CRE, the current energy 

conservation standards in 10 CFR 

431.66 are based on 49 equipment 

classes, which are determined according 

to the following performance-related 

features that provide utility to the 

consumer: Operating temperature 

(refrigerator, freezer, or ice cream 

freezer), presence of doors (open or 

closed), door type (solid or transparent), 

condensing unit type (remote or selfcontained), configuration (horizontal, 

vertical, semi-vertical, or service over 

counter), and temperature pull-down 

capability. 

Issue 1: DOE requests feedback on the 

current CRE equipment classes and 

whether changes to these individual 

equipment classes and their 

descriptions should be made or whether 

certain classes should be merged or 

separated. DOE also requests comment 

on whether any other new equipment 

classes are appropriate. 

DOE has also identified certain 

specific topics regarding equipment 

classes and definitions on which it 

requests comment, as discussed in the 

following sections. 

a. Door Angle 

DOE differentiates equipment classes, 

in part, based on whether the door angle 

is horizontal or vertical. 10 CFR 

431.66(e)(1). Door angle refers to: (1) For 

equipment with flat doors, the angle 

between a vertical line and the line 

formed by the plane of the door, when 

the equipment is viewed in crosssection; and (2) for equipment with 

curved doors, the angle formed between 

a vertical line and the straight line 

drawn by connecting the top and bottom 

points where the display area glass joins 

the cabinet, when the equipment is 

viewed in cross-section. 10 CFR 431.62. 

DOE defines ‘‘horizontal closed’’ as 

equipment with hinged or sliding doors 

and a door angle greater than or equal 

to 45 degrees. Id. ‘‘Vertical closed’’ 

refers to equipment with hinged or 

sliding doors and a door angle less than 

45 degrees. Id. 

DOE has identified CRE models with 

solid doors that do not create a flat 

plane. For example, a refrigerated case 

may have one door on the front vertical 

surface and another on the top 

horizontal surface, with the doors 

connecting at the top front corner of the 

case (i.e., when both doors are open, the 

front and top of the case have a 

continuous opening similar to semivertical open equipment). In this 

example, the doors do not create a flat 

plane, as referenced in part 1 of the door 

angle definition, and the doors are not 

curved and do not include display glass 

as referenced in part 2 of the door angle 

definition. 

Issue 2: DOE requests comment on 

whether it should amend the door angle 

definition to address CRE models with 

doors on multiple faces of the 

equipment or CRE with curved solid 

doors. DOE also requests comment on 

the appropriate equipment class for 

such equipment, including how 

manufacturers are currently treating 

such equipment. 

b. Open Equipment With Doors 

Equipment classes are also 

differentiated based on whether the 

equipment is ‘‘open’’ (i.e., does not have 

doors) and the orientation of the air 

curtain (horizontal open, semi-vertical 

open, and vertical open). 10 CFR 

431.66(e)(1). DOE has identified CRE 

models that meet the open equipment 

class definitions, except that they also 

have doors that provide an alternate 

method of access to the refrigerated 

space. Based on a review of this 

equipment, the open portion of the 

equipment is intended for customer 

access to the refrigerated space. The 

doors are typically located at the back 

of the equipment and provide an 

alternate or secondary method of access 

for loading product into the case. The 

doors are not accessible to customers 

during normal operation and may have 

a means for locking. 

Issue 3: DOE requests comment on 

whether the open equipment definitions 

in 10 CFR 431.62 should be revised to 

clarify treatment of open equipment 

with doors providing an alternate or 

secondary method of access to the 

refrigerated space. DOE also seeks 

information on how manufacturers are 

currently treating such equipment. 

c. Equipment With Pass-Through Doors 

CRE with pass-through doors are 

typically closed cases with doors on 

both the front and rear sides of the 

refrigerated case. The current DOE CRE 

test procedure incorporates by reference 

the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 72– 

2005 (‘‘ASHRAE 72–2005’’), ‘‘Method of 

Testing Commercial Refrigerators and 

Freezers’’. Section 7.2 of ASHRAE 72– 

2005 specifies that for ‘‘units with passthrough doors, only the doors on one 

side of the unit shall be opened during 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37711 

5 Docket No. EERE–2006–STD–0126, ARI, No. 7, 

Exhibit B at p. 1. 

6Freedonia Group, Inc. Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment to 2014. 2010. Cleveland, OH. Study 

2261. https://www.freedoniagroup.com/ 

Commercial-Refrigeration-Equipment.html. 

7North American Association of Food Equipment 

Manufacturers. 2008 Size and Shape of Industry. 

2008. Chicago, IL. 

8North American Association of Food Equipment 

Manufacturers. 2012 Size and Shape of Industry. 

2012. Chicago, IL. 

9Navigant Consulting, Inc. Energy Savings 

Potential and R&D Opportunities for Commercial 

Refrigeration. 2009. Prepared by Navigant 

Consulting, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Washington, DC. 

10Energy Star. Unit Shipment and Sales Data 

Archives. Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/ 

index.cfm?c=partners.unit_shipment_data_

archives. 

11Available at https://www.eia.gov/consumption/ 

commercial/data/1999/. 

12Available at https://www.eia.gov/consumption/ 

commercial/data/2003/. 

13Historical linear feet of shipped units is the 

figure used by industry to depict the annual amount 

of CRE capacity shipped, and is an alternative way 

to express shipments data. 

the test’’. Although equipment with 

pass-through doors are subject to the 

door opening requirements of ASHRAE 

72–2005 and would therefore have the 

same door opening sequences as nonpass-through CRE (i.e., only the door(s) 

on one side of the equipment would be 

opened), CRE with pass-through doors 

may have a different tested energy 

performance than comparable CRE 

without pass-through doors. The 

presence of multiple doors introduces 

additional potential heat leak pathways 

to the refrigerated cabinet, which could 

increase energy use. For example, passthrough doors require additional door 

gaskets, glass panels (for transparent 

equipment classes), and, in some cases, 

anti-sweat heaters. 

Issue 4: DOE requests comment and 

supporting data on whether passthrough doors are a performance-related 

feature that justifies a different energy 

conservation standard than other similar 

CRE without pass-through doors. DOE 

seeks data and performance information 

regarding the performance impacts of 

pass-through door models compared to 

similar non-pass-through CRE. 

2. Potential New Equipment Categories 

DOE is aware of certain equipment 

that meets the CRE definition at 10 CFR 

431.62, but for which there are no 

current DOE test procedures or energy 

conservation standards (in the case of 

refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 

preparation tables; additional pull-down 

temperature applications; and chef 

bases or griddle stands) or for which 

new test procedures and equipment 

classes may be appropriate (in the case 

of high-temperature CRE and models 

with dedicated remote condensing 

units). In a separate RFI to consider 

amended test procedures for CRE, DOE 

requested feedback on appropriate 

definitions and test procedures for these 

potential new equipment categories. 86 

FR 31182 (‘‘June 2021 Test Procedure 

RFI’’). If DOE were to establish test 

procedures for these equipment 

categories, DOE requests information to 

determine how to organize this 

equipment into additional equipment 

classes, if necessary, when considering 

potential energy conservation standards. 

Issue 5: DOE requests comment on 

whether equipment capacity or any 

other performance-related features for 

these potential new equipment 

categories would justify a different 

energy conservation standard compared 

to other CRE currently subject to energy 

conservation standards or to other 

equipment within that same category. 

For example, refrigerated salad bars, 

buffet tables, and preparation tables may 

require separate equipment classes for 

equipment with and without 

refrigerated storage compartments. DOE 

also requests comment on whether the 

equipment characteristics delineating 

the existing CRE equipment classes 

would similarly apply to these potential 

new equipment categories. 

B. Significant Savings of Energy 

On March 28, 2014, DOE established 

an energy conservation standard for CRE 

that is expected to result in 2.89 

quadrillion British thermal units 

(‘‘quads’’) of site energy savings over a 

30-year period. Additionally, in the 

March 2014 Final Rule, DOE estimated 

that an energy conservation standard 

established at an energy use level 

equivalent to that achieved using the 

maximum available technology (‘‘maxtech’’) would have resulted in 4.21 

additional quads of savings. 79 FR 

17726, 17806. 

While DOE’s request for information 

is not limited to the following issues, 

DOE is particularly interested in 

comment, information, and data on the 

following topics to inform whether 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards would result in a significant 

savings of energy. 

1. Shipments 

For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE 

did not obtain shipments data from a 

single source, but used data from 

multiple sources to estimate shipments 

and cross-verify the data from one 

source to another. Those sources were 

2005 shipments data provided by the 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) as part 

of its comments on the 2006 rulemaking 

Framework document; 5 a CRE market 

report by Freedonia Group, Inc.; 6 a 2008 

and a 2012 market report by the North 

American Association of Food 

Equipment Manufacturers; 7 8 a 2009 

DOE report prepared by Navigant 

Consulting on CRE; 9 CRE shipments 

from ENERGY STAR; 10 and CRE 

saturation estimates calculated from the 

Energy Information Administration 

(‘‘EIA’’) Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey (‘‘CBECS’’) for 

1999 11 and 2003.12 Based on these data 

sources, DOE developed an allocation of 

shipments for the 25 equipment classes 

(‘‘primary equipment classes’’) that were 

analyzed from a total of 49 overall in the 

March 2014 Final Rule. In addition, 

considering commercial floorspace 

projections and CRE market saturations, 

DOE developed an estimate of CRE 

shipments projections. Table II.1 shows 

the allocation of CRE for the 25 primary 

equipment classes, expressed in linear 

feet of shipped units 13 and Table II.2 

shows total CRE shipments between 

2014 and 2020, as projected in the 

March 2014 Final Rule. See chapter 9 of 

the March 2014 Final Rule TSD for 

details on the development of 

shipments estimates. 

TABLE II.1—PERCENT OF SHIPPED LINEAR FEET FOR CRE BY EQUIPMENT CLASS

Equipment class Percent Equipment class Percent 

VOP.RC.M ........................................................................ 10.3 SVO.SC.M ........................................................................ 1.1 

VOP.RC.L ......................................................................... 0.5 SOC.RC.M ....................................................................... 2.1 

VOP.SC.M ......................................................................... 1.3 SOC.SC.M ........................................................................ 0.2 

VCT.RC.M ......................................................................... 0.8 HZO.RC.M ........................................................................ 1.3 

VCT.RC.L .......................................................................... 10.7 HZO.RC.L ......................................................................... 4.0 

VCT.SC.M ......................................................................... 4.8 HZO.SC.M ........................................................................ 0.1 

VCT.SC.L .......................................................................... 0.2 HZO.SC.L ......................................................................... 0.2 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37712 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II.1—PERCENT OF SHIPPED LINEAR FEET FOR CRE BY EQUIPMENT CLASS—Continued 

Equipment class Percent Equipment class Percent 

VCT.SC.I ........................................................................... 0.3 HCT.SC.M ........................................................................ 0.1 

VCS.SC.M ......................................................................... 25.4 HCT.SC.L ......................................................................... 0.4 

VCS.SC.L .......................................................................... 15.0 HCT.SC.I .......................................................................... 0.4 

VCS.SC.I ........................................................................... 0.1 HCS.SC.M ........................................................................ 4.4 

SVO.RC.M ........................................................................ 8.2 HCS.SC.L ......................................................................... 0.6 

PD.SC.M ........................................................................... 7.6 

VOP = Vertical Open 

SVO = Semi-Vertical Open 

HZO = Horizontal Open 

VCT = Vertical Closed Transparent 

HCT = Horizontal Closed Transparent 

SOC = Service Over Counter 

PD = Pull-Down 

HCS = Horizontal Closed Solid 

VCS = Vertical Closed Solid 

RC = Remote Condensing 

SC = Self Contained 

M = Medium Temperature 

L = Low Temperature 

I = Ice Cream Temperature 

TABLE II.2—TOTAL ESTIMATED CRE SHIPMENTS FROM 2014 TO 2020 

Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 

Estimated Shipments (million units) ........ 1.01 1.03 1.06 1.11 1.16 1.21 1.26 

Estimated Shipments (million linear ft.) ... 6.14 6.24 6.45 6.72 7.00 7.30 7.60 

Issue 6: DOE requests annual sales 

data (in units shipped or linear feet of 

shipped units) of CRE from 2014 to 

2020, disaggregated by equipment class. 

DOE also seeks feedback on how the 

breakdowns by equipment class 

presented in Table II.1 of this document 

and the annual shipments estimates 

shown in Table II.2 of this document 

compare to the actual shipments in 

those years. If disaggregated shipments 

data are not available at the equipment 

class level, DOE requests shipments 

data at any broader available category. 

Issue 7: DOE also seeks historical and 

current shipments data on any 

additional CRE categories under 

consideration for potential standards 

(i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet 

tables, and preparation tables; soliddoor equipment for pull-down 

temperature applications; chef bases or 

griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; 

and CRE with dedicated remote 

condensing units). 

2. National Energy Savings 

The purpose of the national impact 

analysis (‘‘NIA’’) is to estimate aggregate 

impacts of potential new and/or 

amended efficiency standards at the 

national level in terms of national 

energy savings (‘‘NES’’) and net present 

value (‘‘NPV’’, discussed in section 

II.D.4 of this document) of the total 

consumer benefits. The NIA considers 

lifetime impacts of potential standards 

on equipment shipped in a 30-year 

period that begins with the expected 

compliance date for new and/or 

amended standards. 

DOE measures savings of potential 

standards relative to a ‘‘no-newstandards’’ case that reflects conditions 

without new and/or amended standards, 

and uses current efficiency market 

shares to characterize the no-newstandards case equipment efficiency 

distribution. By accounting for 

consumers who already purchase more 

efficient CRE, DOE avoids overstating 

the potential benefits from potential 

standards. In the March 2014 Final 

Rule, DOE developed efficiency trends 

for CRE in the no-new-standards case 

and the standards cases assuming that 

the market would move over time to 

adopt ENERGY STAR rated equipment. 

To estimate the impact that energy 

efficiency standards would have in the 

year compliance becomes required, DOE 

used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario. A roll-up 

scenario assumes that equipment 

efficiencies in the no-new-standards 

case, which do not meet the standard 

level under consideration, would ‘‘roll 

up’’ to meet the new efficiency standard 

level. Equipment shipments at 

efficiencies above the efficiency 

standard level under consideration are 

not affected. See chapter 10 of the 

March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details 

on this approach. 

Issue 8: DOE seeks input on whether 

any market or technology changes 

would warrant a different approach to 

develop CRE efficiency trends than the 

one followed in the March 2014 Final 

Rule. DOE requests any relevant data 

that could be used to project efficiency 

trends for CRE. 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. Technology Options 

During the March 2014 Final Rule, 

DOE considered a number of technology 

options that manufacturers could use to 

reduce energy consumption in CRE. 

Table II.3 includes a complete list of 

those technology options considered in 

developing the March 2014 Final Rule. 

TABLE II.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR CRE CONSIDERED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARCH 2014 FINAL RULE

Technology option category Technology option 

Lighting ...................................................................................... Higher efficiency lighting (e.g., Light Emitting Diodes [LEDs]). 

Higher efficiency lighting ballasts. 

Remote lighting ballast location. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37713 

TABLE II.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR CRE CONSIDERED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MARCH 2014 FINAL RULE— 

Continued 

Technology option category Technology option 

Lighting occupancy sensors. 

Heat Exchangers ....................................................................... Improved evaporator coil design. 

Improved condenser coil design (self-contained equipment only). 

Low-pressure differential evaporators. 

Liquid suction heat exchangers. 

Fans ........................................................................................... Higher efficiency fan motors (e.g., Electronically Commutated Motors (‘‘ECM’’)). 

Variable-speed fan motors with controls. 

Higher efficiency fan blades. 

Defrost ....................................................................................... Hot-gas defrost. 

Defrost cycle controls. 

Insulation ................................................................................... Increased insulation thickness. 

Vacuum insulated panels. 

Expansion Valves ...................................................................... Higher efficiency expansion valves. 

Doors ......................................................................................... Improved gaskets. 

Inert gas fill. 

Low-emissivity coating. 

Additional glass panes. 

Anti-fog films. 

Anti-sweat heater controls. 

Other Technologies ................................................................... Night Curtains. 

Compressors ............................................................................. Higher efficiency compressors (for self-contained equipment only). 

Issue 9: DOE seeks information on the 

technologies listed in Table II.3 of this 

document, including their applicability 

to the current market and how these 

technologies may impact the energy use 

of CRE as measured according to the 

DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks 

information on how these technologies 

may have changed since they were 

considered in the March 2014 Final 

Rule analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks 

information on the range of efficiencies 

or performance characteristics that are 

currently available for each technology 

option. 

Issue 10: DOE seeks information on 

the technologies listed in Table II.3 of 

this document regarding their market 

adoption, costs, and any concerns with 

incorporating them into products (e.g., 

impacts on consumer utility, potential 

safety concerns, manufacturing/ 

production/implementation issues, etc.), 

particularly as to changes that may have 

occurred since the March 2014 Final 

Rule. 

Issue 11: DOE seeks comment on any 

other technology options that it should 

consider for inclusion in its analysis 

and if these technologies may impact 

equipment features or user utility. 

In a final rule published on December 

20, 2011, EPA listed propane (R–290) as 

acceptable for use in self-contained 

CRE, subject to a charge limit of 150 

grams and other appropriate safety 

measures to address the flammability 

risk. 76 FR 78832. In an April 10, 2015 

final rule, EPA additionally listed 

isobutane (R–600a) and the hydrocarbon 

blend R–441A as acceptable for use in 

self-contained CRE, also subject to a 

150-gram charge limit and other safety 

measures to address flammability. 80 FR 

19454. 

A review of the market indicates that 

manufacturers of self-contained CRE 

have begun transitioning to hydrocarbon 

refrigerants, which have different 

thermo-physical properties than 

traditionally-used refrigerants. In 

considering how manufacturers would 

improve efficiencies for CRE, DOE is 

interested in how equipment energy 

consumption is affected by the ongoing 

transition to alternative refrigerants. 

Issue 12: DOE requests comment on 

which refrigerant(s) DOE should 

consider as potential technology options 

for improving CRE efficiencies. DOE 

additionally requests comment and 

supporting data on the energy 

consumption impact of this transition to 

alternative refrigerants. DOE also seeks 

information on the availability of such 

alternative refrigerants and their 

applicability and/or penetration in the 

current market. Specifically, DOE 

requests information on whether charge 

limits or safety standards (e.g., 

standards issued by Underwriter’s 

Laboratory) would restrict their use. 

DOE also requests comment on any 

additional design changes or safety 

measures that may be required for CRE 

to incorporate alternative refrigerants. 

Issue 13: DOE similarly requests 

comment on the likely alternative 

refrigerant(s) for use with remote 

condensing CRE. DOE specifically 

requests supporting data on how such a 

transition would impact the energy 

consumption of remote condensing CRE 

as measured under the DOE test 

procedure and on any additional design 

changes or safety measures that may be 

required for some alternative 

refrigerants. 

CRE manufacturers may similarly be 

transitioning from traditional foam 

blowing agents to alternatives, which 

may affect the physical properties of the 

foam itself, namely its ability to resist 

heat transfer (i.e., the R-value). These 

differences in the R-value of insulation 

foam in turn affect the energy 

performance of CRE by influencing case 

heat load. 

Issue 14: DOE requests comment and 

supporting data on the market 

penetration, costs, and thermal 

resistivities of insulation foams using 

traditional and alternative blowing 

agents. DOE additionally requests 

comment on any potential safety 

concerns, such as flammability, arising 

from alternative foam blowing agents. 

Finally, DOE requests comment and 

supporting data on any additional 

design changes or safety measures that 

may be required to incorporate 

alternative foam blowing agents in CRE. 

As discussed previously in this RFI, 

DOE may consider energy conservation 

standards for refrigerated salad bars, 

buffet tables, and preparation tables; 

additional pull-down temperature 

applications; chef bases or griddle 

stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE 

with dedicated remote condensing 

units. The features and operation of 

these types of equipment may introduce 

additional technology options not 

previously considered. 

Issue 15: DOE requests comment on 

any technology options not previously 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37714 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

considered for CRE, including 

technology options that could be used to 

improve the energy efficiency of 

refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 

preparation tables; additional pull-down 

temperature applications; chef bases or 

griddle stands; high-temperature CRE; 

and CRE with dedicated remote 

condensing units. DOE also seeks 

information on how technology options 

may have unique efficiency impacts on 

these equipment categories. For 

example, there may be greater energy 

savings potential associated with 

variable-speed compressors and fan 

motors in pull-down temperature 

applications and chef bases or griddle 

stands compared to the other existing 

CRE equipment classes. 

2. Screening Analysis 

The purpose of the screening analysis 

is to evaluate the technologies that 

improve equipment efficiency to 

determine which technologies will be 

eliminated from further consideration 

and which will be passed to the 

engineering analysis for further 

consideration. DOE determines whether 

to eliminate certain technology options 

from further consideration based on the 

following criteria: Technological 

feasibility; practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

product availability; adverse impacts on 

health or safety; and unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3). 

Table II.4 summarizes the technology 

options that DOE screened out in the 

March 2014 Final Rule, and the 

applicable screening criteria. 

TABLE II.4—PREVIOUSLY SCREENED OUT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FROM THE MARCH 2014 FINAL RULE

Screened technology option 

EPCA criteria 

(X = basis for screening out) 

Technological 

feasibility 

Practicability to 

manufacture, 

install, and 

service 

Adverse impact 

on product utility 

Adverse impacts 

on health and 

safety 

Does not reduce 

energy 

consumption 

measured by the 

DOE test 

procedure 

Higher Efficiency Expansion Valves ..................... X 

Variable Speed Condenser Fans and Condenser 

Fan Motor Controllers.

X 

Anti-Sweat Heater Controllers .............................. X 

Liquid Suction Heat Exchangers .......................... X X 

Air Curtain Design ................................................. X 

Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on 

what impact, if any, the screening 

criteria described in this section would 

have on each of the technology options 

listed in Table II.3 of this document 

with respect to CRE. Similarly, DOE 

seeks information regarding how these 

same criteria would affect any other 

technology options not already 

identified in this document with respect 

to their potential use in CRE. 

Issue 17: With respect to the screened 

out technology options listed in Table 

II.4 of this document, DOE seeks 

information on whether these options 

would, based on current and projected 

assessments regarding each of them, 

remain screened out under the 

screening criteria described in this 

section. With respect to each of these 

technology options, what steps, if any, 

could be (or have already been) taken to 

facilitate the introduction of each option 

as a means to improve the energy 

performance of CRE and the potential to 

impact consumer utility of the CRE. 

3. Engineering Efficiency Analysis 

The engineering analysis estimates 

the cost-efficiency relationship of 

equipment at different levels of 

increased energy efficiency (‘‘efficiency 

levels’’). This relationship serves as the 

basis for the cost-benefit calculations for 

commercial consumers, manufacturers, 

and the Nation, as described further in 

section II.D of this document. 

As discussed, the current energy 

conservation standard for each CRE 

equipment class is based on MDEC in 

kWh/day determined according to an 

equation using the equipment’s chilled 

volume (‘‘V’’) in cubic feet (‘‘ft3’’), or its 

TDA in square feet (‘‘ft2’’). The current 

standards for CRE are found at 10 CFR 

431.62. 

Issue 18: DOE requests feedback on 

whether the current established energy 

conservation standards for CRE are 

appropriate baseline efficiency levels for 

the existing equipment classes. DOE 

further requests comment on whether 

the existing energy conservation 

standards are based on the appropriate 

normalization metric (i.e., TDA or 

volume) for the existing equipment 

classes. 

As mentioned in section II.A.2 of this 

RFI, DOE is evaluating whether to 

develop test procedures for refrigerated 

salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation 

buffet tables; solid-doored equipment 

for pull-down applications; chef bases 

or griddle stands; high-temperature 

CRE; and CRE with dedicated remote 

condensing units. As no energy 

conservation standards currently exist 

for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, 

and preparation buffet tables, soliddoored equipment for pull-down 

applications, chef bases or griddle 

stands, and current energy conservation 

standards are not specific to hightemperature CRE and CRE with 

dedicated remote condensing units, 

DOE is interested in data that would 

allow the development of a baseline 

efficiency levels for these equipment 

categories (and any applicable 

equipment classes). 

Although existing CRE energy 

conservation standards are based on 

either the chilled volume or TDA for a 

CRE model, for these newly considered 

equipment categories, other parameters 

may be more appropriate as the basis for 

an equation representing how the 

maximum allowable daily energy 

consumption varies with equipment 

size and application. For example, for 

refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 

preparation tables, pan volume or 

surface area (possibly in addition to the 

chilled volume of any refrigerated 

compartments that are not thermally 

separate from the pans) may be the 

appropriate capacity metric. Similarly, 

for solid-doored equipment for pulldown applications, product capacity 

may be the relevant metric. 

Issue 19: DOE requests comment on 

appropriate parameters to use as the 

basis for efficiency levels to represent 

potential energy conservation standards 

for refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37715 

14Available at https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ 

certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A*. 

and preparation tables. DOE similarly 

seeks information on appropriate 

parameters to use in developing 

efficiency levels for solid-door 

equipment for pull-down applications, 

chef bases or griddle stands, hightemperature CRE, and CRE with 

dedicated remote condensing units. 

Issue 20: DOE requests data 

describing the energy consumption, and 

storage and/or display capacity of 

refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 

preparation tables; solid-door 

equipment for pull-down applications; 

chef bases or griddle stands; hightemperature CRE; and CRE with 

dedicated remote condensing units that 

could be used in assessing appropriate 

baseline efficiency levels based on the 

current market for this equipment. DOE 

requests information on the typical 

design options that would be expected 

to be incorporated into a baseline model 

for each equipment category. 

As part of DOE’s analysis, DOE 

develops efficiency levels above the 

baseline as potential energy 

conservation standards to evaluate in 

the rulemaking analyses. Among these, 

DOE typically establishes efficiency 

levels at the maximum available and 

max-tech efficiencies. The maximum 

available efficiency level represents the 

highest efficiency units currently 

available on the market. 

DOE has performed a preliminary 

analysis of CRE models, found in the 

DOE’s Compliance Certification 

(‘‘CCMS’’) Database,14 to assess the 

potential to improve efficiency relative 

to current (i.e., baseline) standard levels. 

DOE observed that models are currently 

available with daily energy 

consumptions significantly lower than 

the baseline at the currently allowable 

energy conservation standard. 

Issue 21: DOE seeks input on whether 

the maximum available efficiency levels 

(i.e., the lowest available energy use 

levels) are appropriate and 

technologically feasible for 

consideration as possible energy 

conservation standards for CRE. DOE 

seeks information on the design options 

incorporated into these maximumavailable models, and also on the order 

in which manufacturers incrementally 

incorporate each design option when 

improving efficiency from the baseline 

to the maximum-available efficiency 

level (i.e., which design options would 

be included at incremental efficiency 

levels between the baseline and 

maximum available). DOE also requests 

information on the design changes 

implemented to achieve efficiencies 

better than the max-tech considered in 

the March 2014 Final Rule analysis. 

Issue 22: DOE also seeks information 

on the maximum-available efficiencies 

for the CRE for which there are no 

specific DOE energy conservation 

standards, and for which DOE does not 

have manufacturer-submitted efficiency 

information (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, 

buffet tables, and preparation tables; 

solid-door equipment for pull-down 

applications; chef bases or griddle 

stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE 

with dedicated remote condensing 

units), and on the test procedures used 

to determine any such efficiencies. DOE 

requests feedback on which design 

options are incorporated into the most 

efficient equipment available in these 

equipment categories. 

DOE defines a max-tech efficiency 

level to represent the theoretical 

maximum possible efficiency if all 

available design options are 

incorporated in a model. In many cases, 

the max-tech efficiency level is not 

commercially available because it is not 

economically feasible. In the March 

2014 Final Rule, DOE determined maxtech efficiency levels using energy 

modeling. The energy models were 

based on the use of all design options 

applicable to the specific equipment 

classes. While some of these equipment 

configurations had not likely been 

tested as prototypes, all of the 

individual design options had been 

incorporated in available equipment. 

See chapter 5 of the March 2014 Final 

Rule TSD for details on this approach. 

In its review of the CCMS data, DOE 

identified basic models with certified 

daily energy consumptions lower than 

the max-tech efficiency levels 

considered in the March 2014 Final 

Rule analysis. 

Issue 23: DOE seeks feedback on what 

design options would be incorporated at 

a max-tech efficiency level, and the 

efficiencies associated with those levels, 

for each equipment class. As part of this 

request, DOE also seeks information as 

to whether there are limitations on the 

use of certain combinations of design 

options. DOE is particularly interested 

in any design options that may have 

become available since the March 2014 

Final Rule that would allow greater 

energy savings relative to the max-tech 

efficiency levels assessed for each 

equipment class in that rulemaking. 

Issue 24: Additionally, DOE requests 

comment on what design options 

should be considered for the max-tech 

efficiency levels for refrigerated salad 

bars, buffet tables, and preparation 

tables; solid-door equipment for pulldown applications; chef bases or griddle 

stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE 

with dedicated remote condensing 

units, as well as other potential 

equipment classes not currently subject 

to a standard. 

D. Economic Justification 

In determining whether a proposed 

energy conservation standard is 

economically justified, DOE analyzes, 

among other things, the potential 

economic impact on consumers, 

manufacturers, and the Nation. DOE 

seeks comment on whether there are 

economic barriers to the adoption of 

more-stringent energy conservation 

standards. DOE also seeks comment and 

data on any other aspects of its 

economic justification analysis from the 

March 2014 Final Rule that may 

indicate whether a more-stringent 

energy conservation standard would be 

economically justified or cost effective. 

While DOE’s request for information 

is not limited to the following issues, 

DOE is particularly interested in 

comment, information, and data on the 

following. 

1. Engineering Cost Analysis 

For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE 

developed cost-efficiency relationships 

by estimating the efficiency 

improvements and costs associated with 

incorporating specific design options 

into the assumed baseline model for 

each analyzed equipment class. See 

chapter 5 of the March 2014 Final Rule 

TSD for details on this approach. As a 

result of recent technological 

innovations, costs for several design 

options considered in the March 2014 

Final Rule (e.g., LED lighting and ECMs 

for fans) are likely to have changed 

since they were previously assessed. 

Issue 25: DOE requests comment on 

the increase in manufacturer production 

cost associated with incorporating each 

particular design option from the 

baseline efficiency to max-tech. 

Specifically, DOE is interested in 

whether and how the costs estimated for 

design options in the March 2014 Final 

Rule have changed since the time of that 

analysis. DOE also requests information 

on the investments necessary to 

incorporate specific design options, 

including, but not limited to, costs 

related to new or modified tooling (if 

any), materials, engineering and 

development efforts to implement each 

design option, and manufacturing/ 

production impacts. 

Issue 26: DOE requests comment and 

supporting data on the incremental 

manufacturer product costs associated 

with transitioning to alternative 

refrigerants, including costs associated 

with converting any refrigeration system 

components (e.g., compressors, heat 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37716 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

15U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 

Administration. Commercial Demand Module of the 

National Energy Modeling System: Model 

Documentation 2012 DOE/EIA–M066. 2012. 

Washington, DC 

exchangers) and with any additional 

safety measures (e.g., labels, ventilation 

fans, or leak detection sensors) that may 

be required to address the flammability 

risks of some alternative refrigerants. 

DOE also seeks information on 

whether any updates to the approach 

used in the analysis supporting the 

March 2014 Final Rule would be 

appropriate based on the current CRE 

market. For example, customer demand 

for certain equipment configurations 

and sizes may have changed. For the 

March 2014 Final Rule, DOE developed 

cost-efficiency curves for 25 primary 

equipment classes based on units with 

typical sizes and configurations within 

those classes See chapter 5 and 

appendix 5A of the March 2014 Final 

Rule TSD for details on the costefficiency analysis, including the 

primary equipment class analysis and 

representative model configurations. 

Issue 27: DOE seeks feedback on 

whether the 25 primary equipment 

classes and the corresponding 

representative unit configurations in the 

March 2014 Final Rule analysis are still 

appropriate for the current CRE market. 

If not, DOE requests information on 

whether representative equipment 

characteristics (e.g., volume, 

dimensions, operating parameters, and 

controls) have significantly changed 

since the March 2014 Final Rule 

analysis. 

2. Markups Analysis & Distribution 

Channels 

In generating end-user price inputs for 

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

period (‘‘PBP’’) analysis and national 

impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’), DOE must 

identify distribution channels (i.e., how 

the equipment are distributed from the 

manufacturer to the consumer), and 

estimate relative sales volumes through 

each channel. By applying a multiplier 

called a ‘‘markup’’ to the manufacturer 

selling price, DOE estimates the 

commercial consumer’s price. 

For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE 

defined three distribution channels for 

CRE and estimated their respective 

shares of shipments: (1) From 

manufacturers to consumers (national 

account channel); (2) from 

manufacturers to wholesalers to 

consumers (wholesaler channel); and (3) 

from manufacturers to wholesalers to 

mechanical contractors and then to 

consumers (contractor channel). Table 

II.5 shows the distribution channel 

market shares. See chapter 6 of the 

March 2014 Final Rule TSD for details 

on this approach. 

TABLE II.5—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS MARKET SHARES

Equipment type 

National 

account channel 

(%) 

Wholesaler 

channel 

(%) 

Contractor 

channel 

(%) 

Display Cases (VOP, SVO, HZO, VCT, HCT, SOC, and PD) ........................................ 70 15 15 

Solid-Door Equipment (VCS and HCS) ........................................................................... 30 60 10 

Issue 28: DOE seeks input on whether 

the distribution channels described, and 

the percentage of shipments in each 

channel, as shown in Table II.5 of this 

document, are still accurate for CRE. 

DOE also requests data and feedback on 

the magnitude and impact of online 

sales to the CRE distribution channels. 

More specifically, DOE seeks input on 

whether the markups for online sales 

are significantly different from CRE sold 

through conventional distribution 

channels. 

Issue 29: DOE requests similar data on 

the distribution channels and 

percentage of shipments in each 

channel for the other categories of CRE 

being considered in a potential energy 

conservation standards rulemaking (i.e., 

refrigerated salad bars, buffet tables, and 

preparation tables; solid-door 

equipment for pull-down applications; 

chef bases or griddle stands; hightemperature CRE; and CRE with 

dedicated remote condensing units). 

3. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducts the LCC and PBP 

analysis to evaluate the economic effects 

of potential energy conservation 

standards for CRE on individual 

consumers. For any given efficiency 

level, DOE measures the PBP and the 

change in LCC relative to an estimated 

baseline level. The LCC is the total 

consumer expense over the life of the 

equipment, consisting of purchase, 

installation, and operating costs 

(expenses for energy use, maintenance, 

and repair). Inputs to the calculation of 

total installed cost include the cost of 

the equipment—which includes the 

manufacturer selling price, distribution 

channel 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, 

equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and 

the year that compliance with new and 

amended standards is required. 

a. Efficiency Distribution 

For the March 2014 Final Rule, due to 

lack of data on CRE market shares by 

efficiency level within each of the 

equipment classes, DOE developed the 

no-new-standards case efficiency 

distribution of CRE according to a costbased method that used parameters and 

assumptions from the EIA’s National 

Energy Modeling System (‘‘NEMS’’).15

DOE also used CRE market data from 

the ENERGY STAR program. See 

chapter 10 of the March 2014 Final Rule 

TSD for details on this approach. 

Issue 30: DOE requests data regarding 

the current, historical, and future 

market shares of CRE by efficiency level 

(e.g., expressed in terms of increments 

of 10 percent reduction below the 

MDEC in kWh/day, as determined by 

the current standards, specified at 10 

CFR 431.62) for each equipment class. 

Issue 31: DOE also seeks data on the 

current, historical, and future efficiency 

distribution of any additional categories 

of CRE under consideration broken out 

by efficiency for potential standards 

(i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet 

tables, and preparation tables; soliddoor equipment for pull-down 

applications; chef bases or griddle 

stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE 

with dedicated remote condensing 

units). 

b. Installation Costs 

For the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE 

estimated different installation costs for 

remote condensing and self-contained 

CRE but assumed that installation costs 

do not vary with efficiency levels in any 

equipment class. Therefore, installation 

costs did not impact the LCC or PBP 

analysis. See chapter 8 of the March 

2014 Final Rule TSD. 

Issue 32: DOE requests comment on 

whether any market or technology 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37717 

16Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Index 

Industry Data, Series: PCU3334153334153. 

17Available online at: https://www.sba.gov/sites/ 

default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

changes since the March 2014 Final 

Rule would indicate that installation 

costs vary by efficiency level, and, if so, 

what the factors and technologies 

affecting installation costs are, and how 

costs vary as CRE efficiency increases, 

for each equipment class. 

Issue 33: DOE also requests comment 

and data on installation costs for any 

additional categories of CRE under 

consideration for potential standards 

(i.e., refrigerated salad bars, buffet 

tables, and preparation tables; soliddoor equipment for pull-down 

applications; chef bases or griddle 

stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE 

with dedicated remote condensing 

units). 

c. Repair and Maintenance Costs 

Maintenance costs are associated with 

maintaining equipment’s operation, 

whereas repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing components that 

have failed in a refrigeration system and 

envelope (i.e., panels and doors). In the 

March 2014 Final Rule, DOE estimated 

maintenance and repair costs as 

annualized values applied over the life 

of the considered equipment. For 

maintenance costs, DOE considered 

lamp replacements and other lighting 

maintenance activities as required 

maintenance for CRE, with varying costs 

by efficiency level. For repair costs, 

DOE considered costs for component 

failures (i.e., evaporator fans, condenser 

fans, compressors, coils, doors) during 

the lifetime of CRE, which varied by 

efficiency level. 79 FR 17726, 17766; see 

chapter 8 of the March 2014 Final Rule 

TSD for details on this approach. 

Issue 34: DOE seeks comment and 

data on whether it should estimate 

maintenance and repair costs for CRE 

based on the March 2014 Final Rule 

approach in a potential future 

rulemaking for CRE, considering any 

additional technology options discussed 

in this RFI, and any market and 

technology changes since the March 

2014 Final Rule. In particular, DOE is 

interested in data on the maintenance 

and repair costs of CRE with alternative 

refrigerants, and how those vary, if at 

all, compared to CRE with traditionally 

used refrigerants. 

Issue 35: DOE also requests comment 

and data on maintenance and repair 

costs for any additional categories of 

CRE under consideration for potential 

standards (i.e., refrigerated salad bars, 

buffet tables, and preparation tables; 

solid-door equipment for pull-down 

applications; chef bases or griddle 

stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE 

with dedicated remote condensing 

units). 

d. Equipment Lifetimes 

The equipment lifetime is the age at 

which the equipment is retired from 

service. In the March 2014 Final Rule, 

DOE based its estimates of CRE lifetime 

on discussions with industry experts 

and assumed a 10-year average lifetime 

for most CRE in large grocery/multi-line 

stores and restaurants. For small food 

retail stores and other small businesses, 

DOE used a 15-year average lifetime to 

account for longer consumer usage of 

CRE. DOE reflects the uncertainty of 

equipment lifetimes in the LCC analysis 

for both equipment markets by using 

probability distributions. 79 FR 17726, 

17766; see chapter 8 of the March 2014 

Final Rule TSD for details on this 

approach. 

Issue 36: DOE requests comment and 

data on whether any market and 

technology changes since the March 

2014 Final Rule would affect its 

equipment lifetime estimates for CRE for 

which DOE currently has standards, and 

if so, how. 

Issue 37: DOE also requests comment 

and data on lifetimes of any additional 

categories of CRE under consideration 

for potential standards (i.e., refrigerated 

salad bars, buffet tables, and preparation 

tables; solid-door equipment for pulldown applications; chef bases or griddle 

stands; high-temperature CRE; and CRE 

with dedicated remote condensing 

units). 

4. Net Present Value 

To develop the national NPV from 

potential standards, DOE calculates 

annual energy expenditures and annual 

equipment expenditures for the no-newstandards case and the standards case. 

The discounted difference between 

energy bill savings and increased 

equipment expenditures in each year is 

the NPV. 

In the March 2014 Final Rule, DOE 

developed an equipment price trend for 

CRE, based on the inflation-adjusted 

index of the producer price index 

(‘‘PPI’’) for air conditioning, 

refrigeration, and forced air heating 

from 1978 to 2012,16 which showed a 

slight downward trend. DOE projected a 

future trend in the analysis period by 

extrapolating the historic trend using 

linear regression. Were DOE to conduct 

a rulemaking, DOE may consider 

incorporating price trends for certain 

design options that may experience 

price declines during the analysis 

period (e.g., LED lighting and ECM fan 

motors). 

Issue 38: DOE requests comment on 

its approach for projecting a long-term 

price trend for CRE, as well as on the 

merits of incorporating price trends for 

certain design options that may 

experience price declines during the 

expected 30-year analysis period, 

following potential future energy 

conservation standards for CRE. 

5. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

The purpose of the manufacturer 

impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) is to estimate 

the financial impact of amended energy 

conservation standards on 

manufacturers of CRE, and to evaluate 

the potential impact of such standards 

on direct employment and 

manufacturing capacity. As part of the 

MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of 

amended energy conservation standards 

on subgroups of manufacturers of 

covered equipment, including small 

business manufacturers. DOE uses the 

Small Business Administration’s 

(‘‘SBA’’) small business size standards 

to determine whether manufacturers 

qualify as small businesses, which are 

listed by the North American Industry 

Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’).17

Manufacturing of CRE is classified 

under NAICS 333415, ‘‘Air-conditioning 

and warm air heating equipment and 

commercial and industrial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturing,’’ and the 

SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees 

or less for a domestic entity to be 

considered as a small business. This 

employee threshold includes all 

employees in a business’ parent 

company and any other subsidiaries. 

One aspect of assessing manufacturer 

burden involves examining the 

cumulative impact of multiple DOE 

standards and the product-specific 

regulatory actions of other Federal 

agencies that affect the manufacturers of 

a covered product or equipment. In 

addition to energy conservation 

standards, other regulations can 

significantly affect manufacturers’ 

financial operations. 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. 

Issue 39: To the extent feasible, DOE 

seeks the names and contact 

information of any domestic or foreignbased manufacturers that distribute CRE 

in the United States. 

Issue 40: DOE requests the names and 

contact information of small business 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
37718 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

CRE manufacturers, as defined by the 

SBA’s size threshold that distribute 

equipment in the United States. In 

addition, DOE requests comment on any 

other manufacturer subgroups that 

could disproportionally be impacted by 

amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE requests feedback on 

any potential approaches that could be 

considered to address impacts on 

manufacturers, including small 

businesses. 

Issue 41: DOE requests information 

regarding the cumulative regulatory 

burden impacts on manufacturers of 

CRE associated with (1) other DOE 

standards applying to different products 

or equipment that these manufacturers 

may also make, and (2) equipmentspecific regulatory actions of other 

Federal agencies. DOE also requests 

comment on its methodology for 

computing cumulative regulatory 

burden and whether there are any 

flexibilities it can consider that would 

reduce this burden while remaining 

consistent with the requirements of 

EPCA. 

III. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by the date under the 

DATES heading, comments and 

information on matters addressed in this 

notification and on other matters 

relevant to DOE’s early assessment of 

whether more-stringent energy 

conservation standards are not 

warranted for CRE. 

Submitting comments via https://

www.regulations.gov. The https://

www.regulations.gov web page requires 

you to provide your name and contact 

information. Your contact information 

will be viewable to DOE Building 

Technologies staff only. Your contact 

information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. If 

this instruction is followed, persons 

viewing comments will see only first 

and last names, organization names, 

correspondence containing comments, 

and any documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to https://

www.regulations.gov information for 

which disclosure is restricted by statute, 

such as trade secrets and commercial or 

financial information (hereinafter 

referred to as Confidential Business 

Information (CBI)). Comments 

submitted through https://

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through https://www.regulations.gov 

before posting. Normally, comments 

will be posted within a few days of 

being submitted. However, if large 

volumes of comments are being 

processed simultaneously, your 

comment may not be viewable for up to 

several weeks. Please keep the comment 

tracking number that https://

www.regulations.gov provides after you 

have successfully uploaded your 

comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to https:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. Faxes 

will not be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English, and free of 

any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing test procedures and 

energy conservation standards. DOE 

actively encourages the participation 

and interaction of the public during the 

comment period in each stage of this 

process. Interactions with and between 

members of the public provide a 

balanced discussion of the issues and 

assist DOE in the process. Anyone who 

wishes to be added to the DOE mailing 

list to receive future notices and 

information about this process should 

contact Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or via email at 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on July 9, 2021, by 

Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting 

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. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 134 / Friday, July 16, 2021 / Proposed Rules 37719 

Signed in Washington, DC, on July 9, 2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14977 Filed 7–15–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

21 CFR Part 1308 

[Docket No. DEA–495] 

Schedules of Controlled Substances: 

Placement of N-Ethylhexedrone, alphaPyrrolidinohexanophenone, 4-Methylalpha-ethylaminopentiophenone, 4′- 

Methyl-alphapyrrolidinohexiophenone, alphaPyrrolidinoheptaphenone, and 4′- 

Chloro-alphapyrrolidinovalerophenone in Schedule 

I 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Drug Enforcement 

Administration proposes placing six 

synthetic cathinones, as identified in 

this proposed rule, in schedule I of the 

Controlled Substances Act. If finalized, 

this action would make permanent the 

existing regulatory controls and 

administrative, civil, and criminal 

sanctions applicable to schedule I 

controlled substances on persons who 

handle (manufacture, distribute, reverse 

distribute, import, export, engage in 

research, conduct instructional 

activities or chemical analysis, or 

possess), or propose to handle these six 

specified controlled substances. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted 

electronically or postmarked on or 

before August 16, 2021. 

Requests for hearing and waivers of 

an opportunity for a hearing or to 

participate in a hearing must be 

received on or before August 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling 

of comments, please reference ‘‘Docket 

No. DEA–495’’ on all electronic and 

written correspondence, including any 

attachments. 

• Electronic comments: The Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) 

encourages that all comments be 

submitted electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal which 

provides the ability to type short 

comments directly into the comment 

field on the web page or attach a file for 

lengthier comments. Please go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov and follow the 

online instructions at that site for 

submitting comments. Upon completion 

of your submission you will receive a 

Comment Tracking Number for your 

comment. Please be aware that 

submitted comments are not 

instantaneously available for public 

view on Regulations.gov. If you have 

received a Comment Tracking Number, 

your comment has been successfully 

submitted and there is no need to 

resubmit the same comment. 

• Paper comments: Paper comments 

that duplicate the electronic submission 

are not necessary. Should you wish to 

mail a paper comment, in lieu of an 

electronic comment, it should be sent 

via regular or express mail to: Drug 

Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA 

Federal Register Representative/DPW, 

8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, 

Virginia 22152. 

• Hearing requests: All requests for a 

hearing and waivers of participation, 

together with a written statement of 

position on the matters of fact and law 

asserted in the hearing, must be sent to: 

Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: 

Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, 

Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests 

for hearing and waivers of participation 

should also be sent to: (1) Drug 

Enforcement Administration, Attn: 

Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette 

Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and 

(2) Drug Enforcement Administration, 

Attn: DEA Federal Register 

Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette 

Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Terrence L. Boos, Ph.D., Drug and 

Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug 

Enforcement Administration; 

Telephone: (571) 362–3249. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

In this proposed rule, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) 

proposes to permanently schedule the 

following six controlled substances in 

schedule I of the Controlled Substances 

Act (CSA), including their salts, 

isomers, and salts of isomers whenever 

the existence of such salts, isomers, and 

salts of isomers is possible within the 

specific chemical designation: 

• N-ethylhexedrone (other names: aethylaminohexanophenone, ethyl 

hexedrone, HEXEN, 2-(ethylamino)-1- 

phenylhexan-1-one), 

• alpha-pyrrolidinohexanophenone 

(other names: a-pyrrolidinohexanophenone, alpha-PHP, a-PHP, 

PV7, 1-phenyl-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)hexan1-one), 

• 4-methyl-alphaethylaminopentiophenone (other names: 

N-ethyl-4-methylnorpentedrone, 4- 

methyl-a-ethylaminopentiophenone, 4- 

MEAP, 2-(ethylamino)-1-(4- 

methylphenyl)pentan-1-one), 

• 4′-methyl-alphapyrrolidinohexiophenone (other names: 

4′-methyl-a-PHP, 4′-methyl PHP, PV4, 

4-MPHP, MPHP, 4-methyl-alphapyrrolidino hexanophenone, 1-(4- 

methylphenyl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)hexan1-one), 

• alpha-pyrrolidinoheptaphenone 

(other names: alphapyrrolidinoheptiophenone, alpha-PHpP, 

PV8, 1-phenyl-2-(pyrrolidin-1- 

yl)heptan-1-one), and 

• 4′-chloro-alphapyrrolidinovalerophenone (other names: 

4-chloro-a-pyrrolidinopentiophenone, 

4-chloro-a-PVP, 4-Cl-a-PVP, 4-chloro-2- 

(1-pyrrolidinyl)-valerophenone, 1-(4- 

chlorophenyl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1- 

yl)pentan-1-one). 

Posting of Public Comments 

Please note that all comments 

received in response to this docket are 

considered part of the public record. 

They will, unless reasonable cause is 

given, be made available by DEA for 

public inspection online at http://

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personal identifying 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. The Freedom of 

Information Act applies to all comments 

received. If you want to submit personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be made 

publicly available, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also place 

all of the personal identifying 

information you do not want made 

publicly available in the first paragraph 

of your comment and identify what 

information you want redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be made 

publicly available, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also 

prominently identify the confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. 

Comments containing personal 

identifying information or confidential 

business information identified as 

directed above will be made publicly 

available in redacted form. If a comment 

has so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be made publicly available. 

Comments posted to http://

www.regulations.gov may include any 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS