# Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2024-31214 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** January 21, 2025 - **Citation:** 90 FR 7464 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007] RIN 1904-AD82 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: 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 commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers (“commercial refrigeration equipment” or “CRE”). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) to periodically review its existing standards to determine whether more-stringent standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in significant energy savings. In this final rule, DOE is adopting new and amended energy conservation standards for CRE. It has determined that the new and amended energy conservation standards for this equipment would result in significant conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and economically justified. DATES: The effective date of this rule is March 24, 2025. Compliance with the new and amended standards established for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers in this final rule is required on and after Monday, January 22, 2029. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 10, 2009 and October 23, 2013. 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/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. For further information on how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeremy Dommu, 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) 586-9870. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. Ms. Kristin Koernig, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email: Kristin.Koernig@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Synopsis of the 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 Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers 3. Applicability of this Final Rule to Large-Capacity CRE III. General Discussion A. General Comments 1. General Support 2. General Opposition a. Proposed Compliance Date b. Proposed Standards c. Rulemaking Process B. 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. Equipment Classes and Definitions a. Current Equipment Classes and Definitions b. Modifications to Equipment Classes and Definitions c. Equipment Without Standards Proposed in the October 2023 NOPR d. Pull-Down Equipment 2. CRE Market 3. Technology Options a. High-Efficiency Single-Speed Compressors b. Expansion Valves c. Doors for Open Units B. Screening Analysis 1. Screened-Out Technologies a. Increased Insulation Thickness and Other Technologies That Affect Internal or External Dimensions b. Vacuum-Insulated Panels c. Linear Compressors d. Air-Curtain Design e. Permanent Magnet Synchronous AC Motors f. Evaporator Fan Control g. Microchannel Condensers 2. Remaining Technologies a. Other Technologies Not Screened-Out C. Engineering Analysis 1. Efficiency Analysis a. Baseline Energy Use b. Higher Efficiency Levels c. Equipment Classes With Unique Energy Use Characteristics d. DOE Test Data e. Development of Standard Equations f. Engineering Spreadsheet g. Capacity Metrics 2. Cost Analysis a. General Approach of the Cost Analysis b. Costs of Specific Components c. Variable-Speed Compressor d. Doors With Krypton Gas Fill e. Cost-Efficiency Results f. Manufacturer Markup D. Markups Analysis E. Energy Use Analysis F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 1. Equipment Cost 2. Installation Cost 3. Annual Energy Consumption 4. Energy Prices 5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 6. Equipment Lifetime 7. Residual Value for Refurbished CRE 8. Discount Rates 9. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case 10. Payback Period Analysis G. Shipments Analysis H. National Impact Analysis 1. Equipment Efficiency Trends 2. National Energy Savings 3. Net Present Value Analysis a. Sensitivity Analysis for Equipment With Unique Energy Use Characteristics 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 a. Conversion Costs b. Impacts on Direct Employment c. Laboratory Resource Constraints d. Supply Chain e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden f. Refrigerant Transition 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 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. National Energy Savings b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits c. Indirect Impacts on Employment 4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment 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 CRE Standards 2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Adopted Standards 3. Removal of Obsolete Provisions VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1. Need for, and Objectives of, Rule 2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 3. Response to Comments Filed by Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 4. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Affected 5. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 6. Significant Alternatives Considered and Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impacts on Small Entities C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Information Quality M. Congressional Notification VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Synopsis of the Final Rule EPCA, Public Law 94-163, as amended, 1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified) Title III, Part C of EPCA, 2 added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified) Such equipment includes CRE, the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(E)) 1 All 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 reflects the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A-1 of EPCA. 2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1. Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to review its existing energy conservation standards for covered equipment no later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Pursuant to that statutory provision, DOE must publish either a notification of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). ( Id. ) Any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) DOE has conducted this review of the energy conservation standards for CRE under EPCA's 6-year-lookback authority described herein. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE analyzed the benefits and burdens of six trial standard levels (“TSLs”) for CRE. The TSLs and their associated benefits and burdens are discussed in detail in sections V.A through V.C of this document. As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE has determined that TSL 3 represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. The adopted standards, which are expressed in maximum daily energy consumption (“MDEC”) as a function of the volume or total display area (“TDA”), are shown in table I.1. These standards apply to all equipment listed in table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on the date 4 years after the publication of the final rule for this rulemaking. As discussed in section II.B.3 of this document, DOE is not, at this time, amending standards for the large-capacity CRE ranges presented in table IV.6 for the VOP.SC.M, SVO.SC.M, HZO.SC.L, SOC.SC.M, VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, and VCS.SC.L equipment classes. BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ER21JA25.089 ER21JA25.090 ER21JA25.091 ER21JA25.092 BILLING CODE 6450-01-C ARI Standard 1200-2006 and AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 are referenced in the amendatory text of this document and were previously approved for § 431.66. A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers 3 3 All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2023 dollars unless indicated otherwise. For purposes of discounting future monetary values, the present year in the analysis was 2024. Table I.3 summarizes DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the adopted standards on consumers of CRE, as measured by the average life-cycle cost (“LCC”) savings and the simple payback period (“PBP”). 4 The average LCC savings are positive for all equipment classes, and the PBP is less than the average lifetime of CRE, which is estimated to be 14.0 years (see section IV.F of this document). 4 The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards 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). BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ER21JA25.093 BILLING CODE 6450-01-C 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 The industry net present value (“INPV”) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2024-2058). Using a real discount rate of 10.0 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of CRE in the case without new and amended standards is $3,022.3 million in 2023$. Under the adopted standards, DOE estimates the change in INPV to range from −2.6 percent to −1.7 percent, which is approximately −$77.8 million to −$51.3 million. In order to bring equipment into compliance with new and amended standards, it is estimated that industry will incur total conversion costs of $117.7 million. DOE's analysis of the impacts of the adopted standards on manufacturers is described in section IV.J of this document. The analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (“MIA”) are presented in section V.B.2 of this document. C. National Benefits and Costs DOE's analyses indicate that the adopted energy conservation standards for CRE would save a significant amount of energy. The adopted TSL is TSL 3. Relative to the case without new and amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for CRE purchased during the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with the new and amended standards (2029- 2058) amount to 1.11 quadrillion British thermal units (“Btu”), or quads. 5 This represents a savings of 6.5 percent relative to the energy use of this equipment in the case without new and amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”). 5 The 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 IV.H.2 of this document. The cumulative net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer benefits of the standards for CRE ranges from $1.32 billion 2023$ (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $3.43 billion 2023$ (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased equipment costs for CRE purchased during the period 2029-2058. In addition, the adopted standards for CRE 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 19.7 million metric tons (“Mt”) 6 of carbon dioxide (“CO 2 ”), 6.0 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (“SO 2 ”), 36.9 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (“NO X ”), 168 thousand tons of methane (“CH 4 ”), 0.2 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (“N 2 O”), and 0.04 tons of mercury (“Hg”). 7 6 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO 2 are presented in short tons. 7 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 chapter 13 of this final rule TSD for further discussion of AEO2023 assumptions that affect air pollutant emissions. DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (“GHG”) using different estimates of the social cost of CO 2 (“SC-CO 2 ”), the social cost of methane (“SC-CH 4 ”), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (“SC-N 2 O”). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (“SC-GHG”). DOE used an updated set of SC-GHG estimates (in terms of benefit per ton of GHG avoided) published in 2023 by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) (“2023 SC-GHG”), as well as the interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (“IWG”) in 2021 (“2021 Interim SC-GHG”), which DOE used in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this rule before the updated values were available. 8 These values are discussed in section IV.L of this document. The climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates are estimated to be $4.6 billion, and the climate benefits associated with the average 2021 Interim SC-GHG estimates at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $1.12 billion. DOE notes, however, that the adopted standards would be economically justified even without inclusion of the estimated monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions. 8 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/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/eo12866_oil-and-gas-nsps-eg-climate-review-2060-av16-final-rule-20231130.pdf; https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg_2023_report_final.pdf (last accessed July 3, 2024). DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO 2 and NO X emissions reductions using benefit-per-ton estimates from the EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program 9 as discussed in Section IV.L of this document. DOE did not monetize the change in mercury emissions because the quantity is very small. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $0.86 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $2.19 billion using a 3-percent discount rate. 10 DOE is currently only monetizing health benefits from changes in ambient fine particulate matter (“PM 2.5 ”) concentrations from two precursors (SO 2 and NO X ), and from changes in ambient ozone from one precursor (NO X ), but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM 2.5 emissions. 9 Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing Directly-Emitted PM 2.5 , PM 2.5 Precursors and Ozone Precursors from 21 Sectors. Available at www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors. 10 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. Table I.4 summarizes the monetized benefits and costs expected to result from the new and amended standards for CRE. 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. BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ER21JA25.094 ER21JA25.095 BILLING CODE 6450-01-C The benefits and costs of the adopted 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 equipment purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits of emission reductions, all annualized. 11 11 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2024, 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 2024. 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 national operating cost savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered equipment and are measured for the lifetime of CRE shipped during the period 2029-2058. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the adopted standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of CRE shipped during the period 2029-2058. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with a 2 percent near-term Ramsey discount rate for the 2023 SC-GHG estimates and the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate for the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates. 12 12 DOE notes that using consumption-based discount rates ( e.g., 2 or 3 percent) is appropriate when discounting the value of climate impacts. Combining climate effects discounted at an appropriate consumption-based discount rate with other costs and benefits discounted at a capital-based rate ( i.e., 7 percent) is reasonable because of the different nature of the types of benefits being measured. Table I.5 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the adopted standard, expressed in terms of annualized values. The results under the primary estimates are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO X and SO 2 emissions, and either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards adopted in this rule is $71 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $210 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $222 million per year in climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $64 million per year in climate benefits (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates), and $90 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $452 million per year (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $294 million per year (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates). Using a 3-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and health benefits from reduced NO X and SO 2 emissions, and either the 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case or the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards is $68 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $265 million in reduced operating costs, $222 million in climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $64 million in climate benefits (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates), and $126 million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $545 million per year (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $387 million per year (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates). BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ER21JA25.096 ER21JA25.097 BILLING CODE 6450-01-C 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 concludes that the standards adopted in this final rule represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in the significant conservation of energy. Specifically, with regards to technological feasibility, design options used to achieve these standard levels are already commercially available for all equipment classes covered by this final rule. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the standards exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the standards. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO X and SO 2 reduction benefits, and a 2-percent near-term Ramsey discount rate case or the 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the standards for CRE is $71 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $210 million in reduced equipment operating costs, $222 million in climate benefits (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $64 million in climate benefits (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates), and $90 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $452 million per year (using the 2023 SC-GHG estimates) or $294 million per year (using the 2021 interim SC-GHG estimates). DOE notes that the net benefits are substantial even in the absence of the climate benefits, 13 and DOE would adopt the same standards in the absence of such benefits. 13 The information on climate benefits is provided in compliance with Executive Order 12866. 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. 14 For example, some covered equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these equipment on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than the impacts of equipment with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis. 14 Procedures, 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). As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in estimated national energy savings (“NES”) of 1.11 quad full-fuel-cycle (“FFC”), the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 7.4 million homes. Based on these findings, DOE has determined the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this 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 technical support document (“TSD”). II. Introduction The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical background related to the establishment of standards for CRE. A. Authority EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified) Title III, Part C of EPCA, 15 added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) EPCA specifies a list of equipment that constitutes covered equipment (hereafter referred to as “covered equipment”). 16 This equipment includes commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(E)) 15 As noted previously, for editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A-1. 16 “Covered equipment” means one of the following types of industrial equipment: Electric motors and pumps; small commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment; large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment; very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment; commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers; automatic commercial ice makers; walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers; commercial clothes washers; packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps; warm air furnaces and packaged boilers; and storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)-(K)) 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 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(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6296(a), (b), and (d)). 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(e)(2)-(3); 42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited circumstances for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(2)-(3); 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 covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards and as the basis for any representations regarding the energy use or energy efficiency of the equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s); 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to evaluate whether a basic model complies with the applicable energy conservation standard(s). (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)). The DOE test procedures for CRE appear at 10 CFR 431, subpart C, appendix B (“appendix B”). EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for CRE (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)) and directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)) Not later than six years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination (“NOPD”) that standards for the equipment 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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE must make the analysis on which a NOPD or NOPR is based publicly available and provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) Not later than two years after a NOPR is issued, DOE must publish a final rule amending the energy conservation standard for the equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A)) DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered equipment, including CRE. Any new or amended standard for covered equipment must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard if: (1) for certain equipment, including CRE, no test procedure has been established for the product; or (2) DOE determines by rule that the establishment of such standard will not result in significant conservation of energy (or, for certain products, water), or is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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. 6316(e)(1); 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 equipment subject to the standard; (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered equipment 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 equipment 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 considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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 equipment 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. 6316(e)(1); 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 covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 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 equipment 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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for covered equipment that has two or more subcategories. A rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a type (or class) of equipment must specify a different standard level for a type or class of equipment that has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that equipment within such group (A) consumes a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered equipment within such type (or class); or (B) has a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of equipment, DOE considers 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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) DOE is publishing this final rule pursuant to the six-year-lookback review requirement in EPCA described herein. B. Background 1. Current Standards DOE most recently completed a review of its CRE standards in a final rule published in the Federal Register on March 28, 2014 (“March 2014 Final Rule”), through which DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for CRE manufactured on and after March 27, 2017. 79 FR 17725. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.66(e) and are shown in table II.1. For CRE with two or more compartments ( i.e., hybrid refrigerators, hybrid freezers, hybrid refrigerator-freezers, and non-hybrid refrigerator-freezers), 10 CFR 431.66(e)(2) specifies that the maximum daily energy consumption for each model shall be the sum of the applicable standard for each of the compartments, as specified in 10 CFR 431.66(e)(1). For wedge cases, 10 CFR 431.66(e)(3) specifies instructions to comply with the applicable standards specified in 10 CFR 431.66(e)(1). Certain exclusions to the standards at 10 CFR 431.66(e)(1) are specified at 10 CFR 431.66(f). BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ER21JA25.098 BILLING CODE 6450-01-C 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers On July 16, 2021, DOE published a request for information (“RFI”) in the Federal Register to undertake an early assessment review for amended energy conservation standards for CRE to determine whether to amend applicable energy conservation standards for this equipment (“July 2021 RFI”). 86 FR 37708. Specifically, through the published notice and RFI, DOE sought data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether amended energy conservation standards would: (1) result in a significant savings of energy, (2) be technologically feasible, and (3) be economically justified. Id. On June 28, 2022, DOE published in the Federal Register a notification of the availability of a preliminary TSD for CRE (“June 2022 Preliminary Analysis”). 87 FR 38296. In that notification, DOE sought comment on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate potential standards for CRE, the results of preliminary analyses performed, and the potential energy conservation standard levels derived from these analyses, which DOE presented in the accompanying preliminary TSD (“June 2022 Preliminary TSD”). 17 Id. DOE held a public meeting related to the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis on August 8, 2022. 17 The June 2022 Preliminary TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0013. On October 10, 2023, DOE published in the Federal Register a NOPR to establish and amend energy conservation standards for CRE (“October 2023 NOPR”). 88 FR 70196. DOE also sought comment on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE used to evaluate the proposed standards for CRE, the results of the NOPR analyses performed, and the proposed new and amended energy conservation standard levels derived from these analyses, which DOE presented in the accompanying NOPR TSD (“October 2023 NOPR TSD”). 18 Id. DOE held a public meeting related to the October 2023 NOPR on November 7, 2023 (hereafter, the “November 2023 Public Meeting”). 18 The October 2023 NOPR TSD is available in the docket for this rulemaking at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0051. DOE received comments in response to the October 2023 NOPR from the interested parties listed in table II.2. BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ER21JA25.099 BILLING CODE 6450-01-C To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided during the November 2023 Public Meeting, DOE cites the written comments throughout this document. Any oral comments provided during the November 2023 Public Meeting that are not substantively addressed by written comments are summarized and cited separately throughout this document. On August 28, 2024, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice of data availability (“NODA”) to provide updated analytical results that reflect updates to the analysis that DOE is considering based on feedback received in response to the October 2023 NOPR (“August 2024 NODA”). 89 FR 68788. DOE also sought comment, data, and information regarding the updated analyses. Id. DOE received comments in response to the August 2024 NODA from the interested parties listed in table II.3. ER21JA25.100 ER21JA25.101 A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record. 19 19 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop energy conservation standards for CRE. (Docket NO. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov ). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document). 3. Applicability of This Final Rule to Large-Capacity CRE As discussed in section I of this document, DOE is establishing and amending standards in this final rule for the classes of equipment shown in table I.1. This includes all classes of CRE currently subject to energy conservation standards, and DOE is additionally establishing standards for chef bases or griddle stands. However, DOE is not, at this time, amending standards for large-capacity CRE ranges presented in table IV. for the VOP.SC.M, SVO.SC.M, HZO.SC.L, SOC.SC.M, VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, and VCS.SC.L equipment classes. Large-capacity CRE in these classes would remain subject to the current energy conservation standards applicable to those classes for which compliance was required beginning on March 27, 2017. DOE has summarized the comments it received in response to the October 2023 NOPR and August 2024 NODA specific to the large-capacity analysis as follows. Zero Zone, ASAP et. al., AHRI, and Hussmann commented in support of DOE's decision to separate self-contained units into two groups, and of DOE's updated assumption that larger self-contained equipment will use an A2L refrigerant, such as R-454C, when the refrigeration cooling load of the case is more than can be achieved using an allowable R-290 charge size. (Zero Zone, No. 114 at p. 1, (ASAP et al., No. 106 at pp. 1-2, AHRI, No. 104 at p. 9, Hussmann, No. 108 at p. 3) Hussmann and AHRI additionally agreed with DOE's finding that compressors using R-454C and R-455A have performance similar to compressors with refrigerants already in use ( e.g., R-404A) in larger equipment. (Hussmann, No. 108 at p. 3, AHRI, No. 104 at p. 9) Hillphoenix agreed with DOE's A2L compressor cost assumptions. (Hillphoenix, No. 110 at p. 3). Hussmann, AHRI, and Continental disagreed with DOE's A2L compressor cost assumptions and stated that the price of an A2L compressor is similar to an R-404A compressor at the same cooling capacity. (Hussmann, No. 108 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 104 at p. 9; Continental, No. 107 at p. 2). Hussmann and Due North commented with concerns that large volume units would be susceptible to discontinuation as they face some of the most severe proposed energy use reductions. (Hussmann, No. 80 at p. 7, Due North, No. 87, at pp. 1-2) The CA IOUs recommended that DOE reconsider how it defines `large' and `non-large' capacity equipment, and that DOE reconsider its assumption that all `large' units will require A2L refrigerants. (CA IOUs, No. 113 at p. 4) For all comments received in response to the October 2023 NOPR and August 2024 NODA, DOE appreciates the comments and continues to analyze the large-capacity ranges presented in table IV.5 for the VOP.SC.M, SVO.SC.M, HZO.SC.L, SOC.SC.M, VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, and VCS.SC.L equipment classes. Further, DOE is not addressing nor discussing any analytical methodologies or results for the large-capacity ranges of these equipment classes in this document as DOE continues to consider the comments submitted in response to the October 2023 NOPR and August 2024 NODA. III. General Discussion DOE developed this final rule after considering all oral and written comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent a variety of interests. This document addresses issues raised by these commenters. A. General Comments This section summarizes general comments received from interested parties regarding rulemaking timing and process. 1. General Support In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Ravnitzky, ASAP et al., NYSERDA, NEEA and NWPCC, and Killin supported the October 2023 NOPR, citing large national energy savings and considerable savings for businesses. (Ravnitzky, No. 57 at p. 1; ASAP et al., No. 79 at p. 1; NYSERDA, No. 88 at pp. 1-2; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 89 at p. 3; Killin, No. 59 at p. 1) Ravnitzky commented that the proposed rule would have significant environmental and public health benefits and that the net economic benefits for consumers and manufacturers would outweigh the costs of complying with the proposed rule. (Ravnitzky, No. 57 at p. 1) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Ravnitzky also commented that the rule creates a level playing field for manufacturers by harmonizing standards across different types and classes of CRE. (Ravnitzky, No. 57 at p. 1) Ravnitzky urged DOE to finalize and implement the rule as soon as possible, while also continuing to monitor and evaluate its impacts and outcomes and to seek feedback and input from stakeholders and experts. ( Id. at p. 5) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, NEEA and NWPCC supported the proposal of TSL 5 as it represents the highest standard level that is technically feasible and economically justified and provides a large amount of cost-effective energy savings for the Nation. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 89 at p. 3) In response to the August 2024 NODA, ASAP et al. supported DOE's updates to the analysis presented in the NODA and believe the updated analysis provides a strong basis for finalizing amended CRE standards, and encourages the adoption of the highest efficiency levels (“ELs”) that have positive life-cycle cost savings. (ASAP et al., No. 106 at p. 1) Based on DOE's updated analysis for the NODA, ASAP et al. estimated that amended standards meeting this criteria would yield about 1.5 quads of energy savings and up to about $4.5 billion in net present value savings for purchasers based on DOE's updated analysis for the August 2024 NODA. ( Id. ) An anonymous commenter expressed general support for adopting the max-tech level. (Anonymous, No. 105 at p. 1) Lepak commented in support of the rulemaking because, while it may increase costs for consumers, without these regulations innovation would not occur and consumers rely on regulations like this one to ensure that they have access to quality, energy efficient products. (Lepak, No. 116, at p. 1; Lepak, No. 117, at p. 1) Lepak added that energy efficiency measures help the county to meet its climate goals. ( Id. ) 2. General Opposition DOE also received comments, in response to the October 2023 NOPR and the August 2024 NODA, outlining numerous concerns with the proposed new and amended energy conservation standards. These included concerns about other cumulative regulatory changes the industry is currently addressing, including a final rule published by the EPA regarding refrigerant prohibitions in certain equipment, leading to requests to delay the rulemaking and/or extend the compliance date of the proposed standards; questions about the economic justification; technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness of the proposed standards; potential inaccuracies in the supporting analysis; potential issues regarding food safe temperatures; and concerns with certain rulemaking processes, including the public comment period. These comments are included and discussed throughout section III of this document. a. Proposed Compliance Date In the October 2023 NOPR, DOE estimated the publication of a final rule regarding amended energy conservation standards for CRE in the second half of 2024; therefore, for purposes of the October 2023 NOPR, DOE modeled a 3-year compliance period and 2028 as the first full year of compliance with any amended standards, consistent with the requirements of EPCA ( see 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)(C)(i)). 88 FR 70196, 70237. In response to the October 2023 NOPR, FMI and NACS, NAFEM, ITW, and NAMA recommended DOE extend its compliance deadline to 5 years due to the requirements of the AIM Act and the significant investment and redesign associated with the ongoing EPA rulemakings. (FMI and NACS, No. 78 at p. 2; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 2; ITW, No. 82 at p. 6; NAMA, No. 85 at p. 34) In response to the August 2024 NODA, NAFEM, NAMA, and Hillphoenix commented in support of additional time for compliance, and suggested a 5 year compliance period. (NAFEM, No. 101 at pp. 4-5; NAMA, No. 112 at p. 3; Hillphoenix, No. 110 at p. 12) In response to the August 2024 NODA, Continental stated that adopting standards with a 3 year compliance period would force them to exit the market for many equipment configurations. (Continental, No. 107 at p. 3) Hoshizaki commented that more than 100 of its CRE models would be affected by the energy conservation standards proposed in the October 2023 NOPR, and corresponding UL safety and NSF sanitation testing will be difficult or impossible to complete within the 3-year compliance period. (Hoshizaki, No. 76 at pp. 6-7) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, NAMA recommended that DOE increase the time of compliance to recoup investments and alleviate the stress of staffing, supply chain issues, and platform changes to use low GWP refrigerants. ( Id. at p. 18) NAMA suggested that DOE allow the industry 2-3 years after the effective date of EPA's final rule published in the Federal Register on October 24, 2023, to address HFCs through the AIM Act (“October 2023 EPA Final Rule”; 88 FR 73098) to absorb the costs of the refrigerant transition before redesigning their products to the next CRE energy conservation standards. ( Id. at pp. 19, 27) DOE acknowledges the concerns raised by manufacturers regarding the cumulative regulatory burden from the October 2023 EPA Final Rule and DOE energy conservation standards rulemakings, which is compounded by changes to Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”) safety standards for the equipment covered by this rulemaking. DOE notes that it has some flexibility under EPCA to delay the effective date of new and amended standards: if the Secretary determines that a 3-year period is inadequate, the Secretary may establish an effective date that would apply to CRE on or after a date that is not later than 5 years after the final rule is published in the Federal Register . (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)(C)) Based on stakeholder comments and DOE's assessment of the overlapping Federal refrigerant regulations and recent changes to UL safety standards for CRE, DOE is extending the compliance period from the 3-years analyzed in the October 2023 NOPR (modeled as a 2028 compliance year) to 4-years (modeled as a 2029 compliance year) for this final rule. Generally, DOE understands that aligning compliance dates to avoid multiple successive redesigns can help to reduce cumulative regulatory burden. However, stakeholder comments indicate and make clear that the rulemaking timelines and compliance periods for DOE and EPA regulations make it challenging to redesign and retest CRE simultaneously to meet both the October 2023 EPA Final Rule and new and amended DOE standards. As discussed in more detail in section IV.J.3.c of this document, manufacturers indicated that testing facilities and engineering resources are currently fully consumed by the transition to low-GWP refrigerants and new UL safety standards. Many manufacturers expressed concern that third-party laboratories already have backlogs and are experiencing delays, meaning that requiring new and amended standards for CRE within a short time period could exacerbate the issue. DOE has determined that a 4-year compliance period to redesign CRE to meet the adopted standards will help alleviate manufacturers' concerns about engineering and laboratory resource constraints. Furthermore, the longer compliance period will help mitigate cumulative regulatory burden by allowing manufacturers more flexibility to spread investments across 4 years instead of 3 years. Manufacturers will also have more time to recoup any investments made to redesign CRE to comply with the October 2023 EPA Final Rule as compared to a 3-year compliance period. Regarding manufacturers' requests to extend the compliance period to 5 years, DOE notes that much of the CRE market has already transitioned to low-GWP refrigerants and the portion of the market that has not transitioned will likely complete the conversion to low-GWP refrigerants 2 to 4 years prior to when compliance is required for new and amended energy conservation standards. Furthermore, as compared to the October 2023 NOPR, DOE is adopting generally less stringent efficiency levels in this final rule. As such, DOE expects that a 4-year compliance period (compliance with adopted standards required in 2029) provides industry sufficient time to redesign CRE to comply with new and amended standards. In the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2022 (“December 2022 EPA NOPR”), EPA proposed a January 1, 2025, compliance date for the refrigeration categories that apply to CRE. 87 FR 76738, 76773-76774 (Dec. 15, 2022). For self-contained CRE, which account for approximately 86 percent of industry CRE shipments covered by this final rule, the October 2023 EPA Final Rule finalized the compliance date as proposed. 88 FR 73098, 73150. For remote-condensing CRE, which account for the remaining 14 percent of industry CRE shipments covered by this final rule, the October 2023 EPA Final Rule finalized a compliance date of January 1, 2026 or January 1, 2027, depending on the category. Id. As discussed in the October 2023 EPA Final Rule, EPA considered updates to UL standard 60335-2-89 and the subsequent incorporation of those updates by electing to extend the compliance dates for many subsectors in retail food refrigeration, including remote-condensing CRE. However, EPA determined that self-contained CRE would not require a delayed compliance date because low-GWP refrigerants such as R-290 have been used in self-contained CRE applications for years, and, therefore, the industry is much further along in the transition to low-GWP refrigerants compared to other refrigeration subsectors. Id. at 88 FR 73154. DOE agrees with EPA and notes that it has observed, and manufacturers concur, 20 that a significant number of CRE models have already been transitioned to refrigerants that comply with the October 2023 EPA Final Rule. For example, 93 percent of CRE models currently rated to ENERGY STAR®'s CRE database use either R-290 or R-600a. 21 This is supported by NAFEM members and CRE industry statements captured in the comments from NAFEM, which stated that “most self-contained CRE today, in the commercial bar space, already uses alternate refrigerants, (almost exclusively R-290),” and “we already made the change to R-290 from R-134a more than 5 years ago.” (NAFEM, No. 83 at pp. 3-5) This demonstrates that data and technology are currently known and available for manufacturers to understand performance impacts of this refrigerant transition. 20 See Storemasters, No. 68 at pp. 1-2. 21 See www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-commercial-refrigerators-and-freezers/results (last accessed Oct. 23, 2024). As previously mentioned, compared to the October 2023 NOPR, DOE is adopting generally less stringent efficiency levels (in terms of percent energy use below the analyzed baseline) for 22 out of the 28 directly analyzed equipment classes. DOE notes that there were several changes made to the analysis in response to comments and data submitted on the October 2023 NOPR and the August 2024 NODA that resulted in DOE adopting generally less stringent standards, including but not limited to, the updates made to single-speed and variable-speed compressors, screening out design options such as evaporator fan controls and microchannel condensers, and updated baseline design options. Due to these updates and other considerations detailed throughout this final rule, DOE is adopting generally less stringent standards than the standards proposed in the October 2023 NOPR. As such, DOE expects fewer CRE models would require redesign to meet the levels adopted in this final rule compared to the levels proposed in the October 2023 NOPR. For example, DOE estimated that approximately 11 percent of shipments would meet the proposed TSL in the October 2023 NOPR by the analyzed compliance date. Comparatively, DOE estimates that approximately 49 percent of shipments would meet the TSL adopted in this final rule by the analyzed compliance date. Furthermore, DOE expects that the investment and redesign effort required to meet the adopted standards would be lower since fewer models would require redesign at the adopted standard level. As permitted under EPCA and discussed in the preceding paragraphs, DOE is extending the compliance period from the three years analyzed in the October 2023 NOPR (modeled as a 2028 compliance year) to four years (modeled as a 2029 compliance year) for this final rule. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6)(C)) b. Proposed Standards In response to the October 2023 NOPR, FMI and NACS commented that the proposed energy conservation standards are neither required nor justified under EPCA. (FMI and NACS, No. 78 at p. 2) FMI and NACS commented that DOE has not adequately demonstrated that these standards would be technologically feasible and cost-effective, adding that, in many cases, the proposed standards would require design elements and technology that is not economically justified or technically feasible. ( Id. ) FMI and NACS commented that DOE significantly underestimates the costs of compliance with the proposed rule and provided an example that one FMI member's analysis showed an increased case cost of 20-25 percent to comply with the proposed rule as well as more difficult and costly servicing. (FMI and NACS, No. 78 at p. 4). FMI and NACS commented that with more accurate cost and benefit information, it is likely that DOE's rebuttable payback period analysis will result in much longer payback periods. ( Id. ) In response to the comments from FMI and NACS, DOE notes that for the proposed levels in the October 2023 NOPR, the analyzed cost increases were consistent with FMI and NACS' comment ( i.e., up to the 20 to 25 percent increase), thus it is not clear that there is a disconnect on technologies required to get to the proposed levels. DOE further notes that the finalized standard levels presented in this final rule ( i.e., TSL 3) are generally less stringent and the cost increases to attain the finalized levels are less, on average, than the levels proposed in the October 2023 NOPR and were determined to be cost-effective. DOE further notes that in its analysis, the servicing costs were set proportional to the equipment cost ( i.e., higher cost for more efficient equipment—see section IV.F.5 of this document and chapter 8 of the final rule TSD for more details on these costs). An anonymous commenter stated that the cost benefits of the October 2023 NOPR are inflated by the assumption of social and health benefits, which are speculative, and added that higher costs from the October 2023 NOPR will render CRE unaffordable for consumers and industry. (Anonymous, No. 73 at p. 1) In response to the anonymous commenter, DOE notes that the October 2023 NOPR stated that the estimated total NPV is provided for additional information; however, DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a proposed standard level is economically justified. See 88 FR 70196, 70292. In response to the August 2024 NODA, Bice commented that she opposes the October 2023 NOPR, citing concerns with the multitude of proposals being published by the DOE. (Bice, No. 92 at p. 1) Bice commented also that these proposals are adding burdensome energy conservation standards to products that Americans use on a regular basis. ( Id. ) Bice stated her belief that the proposed standards would increase production costs for manufacturers and retail prices for consumers and small businesses, costing millions of dollars with few long-term benefits. ( Id. ) Bice commented that past rules published by the DOE are an unnecessary overreach of the Federal government, and that these regulations limit consumer choice, drive up prices, and impose onerous regulations on American manufacturers, many of whom being small businesses. ( Id. ) In response to Bice, as discussed in section II.A of this document, EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment; this equipment includes commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified; 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(E)) EPCA also includes a lookback period which directs DOE to conduct future rulemakings to determine whether to amend standards not later than six years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(6); 42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) DOE notes that as compared to the October 2023 NOPR, DOE is extending the compliance period from the three years analyzed in the October 2023 NOPR to four years for this final rule, which would allow manufacturers an additional year to redesign equipment and comply with the new or amended standards. Additionally, as discussed in III.A.2.a of this document, DOE is adopting generally less stringent standards than what DOE proposed in the October 2023 NOPR. DOE discusses the benefits and burdens of each TSL considered in section V.C of this document. Regarding the impacts to small businesses, DOE analyzes the impacts to small business consumers in section V.B.1.b of this document and small business manufacturers in section VI.B of this document. In response to the August 2024 NODA, Zycher commented that energy savings analyzed as a result of the proposed standards are about 2 tenths of one percent of the energy consumed in 2023 by the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors and are trivial. (Zycher, No. 97 at p. 3) Zycher further commented that, accordingly the reduction in GHG emissions and resulting decline in global temperatures are negligible. ( Id. at pp. 3-4 ) In response to Zycher's comment, DOE notes that CRE are one of many regulated products and equipment within DOE's authority to set efficiency standards, and that the appliance standards program has helped the United States avoid 2.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions. 22 Additionally, DOE notes that the energy savings analyzed as a result of new and amended standards in this final rule are compared to the overall energy use of the CRE market, not the overall energy consumed by the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. 22 See www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/about-appliance-and-equipment-standards-program . In response to the October 2023 NOPR and the August 2024 NODA, commenters expressed concern regarding the stringency of proposed standards, requesting no-new standards or alternate levels, citing technological feasibility, and expressing concern about equipment elimination, as discussed in the following sections. No-New-Standards In response to the October 2023 NOPR and August 2024 NODA, Storemasters, Kirby, Continental, NAFEM, Hoshizaki, ITW, AHRI, NAMA, and Hussmann recommended that DOE issue a no-new-standards rule at this time. (Storemasters, No. 68 at p. 2; Kirby, No. 66 at p. 2; Continental, No. 86 at p. 7; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 2; NAFEM, No. 101 at p. 5; Hoshizaki, No. 76 at p. 1; ITW, No. 82 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 81 at p. 5; NAMA, No. 112 at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 80 at p. 13) In response to the August 2024 NODA, Continental stated that while the August 2024 NODA revises some analysis and provides support documents, it does not provide updated standards levels, and Continental could not adequately conclude whether the updated determinations are sufficient to establish proposed energy standards that are technologically feasible and economically justified. (Continental, No. 107 at p. 3) Continental stated its understanding that DOE has statutory obligations and a court mandate however requests DOE not rush into adopting more stringent standards, and leave new energy savings for future rulemakings. ( Id. ) AHRI commented that no significant technologies have been developed since 2017 to bring about the additional energy efficiency that DOE expects in the October 2023 NOPR. (AHRI, No. 81 at p. 11) AHRI commented that a no-new-standards rule would allow time to collect data on products in the market, evaluate safety mitigation measures associated with the refrigerant transition, reduce the burden on manufacturers and end-users, and increase time for product re-design. ( Id. ) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, ITW stated that a “no new standards” decision at this time would give the industry and DOE time to work together on analyzing the correct data and new data for the new categories for which DOE has proposed energy use multipliers. (ITW, No. 82 at p. 6) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, notwithstanding Hussmann's comments regarding both a pause in the rulemaking and timing of the rulemaking, Hussmann commented that while it requests that DOE impose no new standards, the focus should not be on timing but rather on the proposed energy limits themselves being unachievable. (Hussmann, No. 80 at p. 13) Hussmann commented that they are currently amending to the UL/CSA 60335-1 and 60335-2-89 standards, which consumes laboratory resources, space, and time. (Hussmann, No. 108 at p. 2). Hussmann asserted that this shift requires new design modifications and the addition of new components, which may take 1-3 years of laboratory time to fulfill. ( Id. ) Hussmann stated that this limits their ability to fulfill new DOE requirements. ( Id. ) Hussmann stated that there is significant benefit to all stakeholders, the retailers, as well as the consumer to abstain from additional DOE energy efficiency regulation at this time. ( Id. ) In response to the August 2024 NODA Zycher commented that the CRE standards analyzed in the August 2024 NODA are flawed and should not be finalized. (Zycher, No. 97 at p. 10) With regard to stakeholders' request for DOE to adopt a “no-new-standards” determination to allow industry additional time to analyze data related to the proposed energy use multipliers, DOE notes that manufacturers and other commenters were provided with an additional opportunity to provide feedback on the updated results presented in the August 2024 NODA, which offered manufacturers approximately eight months after the October 2023 NOPR comment period ended to analyze data related to the proposed energy use multipliers. In response to Continental's comment about not having a proposed standard level in the August 2024 NODA, DOE notes that while one specific standard level was not proposed in the August 2024 NODA, standard equations at each efficiency level were presented in the August 2024 NODA. The August 2024 NODA provided stakeholders an additional opportunity to comment on the revisions to the analysis from the October 2023 NOPR, and the revised relationships between design, cost, and efficiency that were the basis of DOE's analysis leading to the standards established and amended in this final rule. Furthermore, EPCA specifies that any new or amended energy conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered equipment 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. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE has determined that TSL 3 represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. However, DOE notes that, as discussed in section III.A.2.a of this document, DOE is extending the compliance period from the 3-years analyzed in the October 2023 NOPR to 4-years for this final rule to mitigate concerns of commenters about cumulative regulatory burden and associated engineering and laboratory resource constraints, which have been exacerbated by the ongoing refrigerant transition in response to the October 2023 EPA Final Rule and updated safety standards ( e.g., UL 60335-2-89). Requested Alternate Levels In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Continental commented that if a no-new-standards determination is not possible, DOE should publish new standards levels that align with the ENERGY STAR Product Specification for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers Version 5.0, which will provide energy reductions at levels that have been substantially evaluated by stakeholders. (Continental, No. 86 at p. 7) In response to the October 2023 NOPR and the August 2024 NODA, Delfield commented that, while it is reasonable for DOE to push regulations toward the ENERGY STAR version 5.0 levels, 23 in general, DOE should limit reductions to no more than 20 percent compared to 2017 DOE levels. (Delfield, No. 71 at p. 1; Delfield, No. 99 at p. 1) 23 Available at: www.energystar.gov/products/spec/commercial_refrigerators_and_freezers_specification_version_5_0_pd (last accessed October 3, 2024). DOE appreciates the feedback from Continental and Delfield, and notes that out of the 11 ESTAR equipment classes analyzed in this final rule, the amended standards for 8 classes are at similar or less stringent levels than ENERGY STAR version 5.0 levels. In addition, in this final rule, of the 49 equipment classes analyzed, 28 equipment classes did not have greater than 20 percent energy use reduction from the current standard, as suggested by Delfield, and 36 equipment classes did not have greater than 20 percent energy use reduction from the baseline analyzed in this final rule. However, DOE disagrees that all equipment classes should align with these comments. All results of this analysis are based on DOE's final rule analysis, which shows that for 22 equipment classes, energy conservation standards more stringent than ENERGY STAR or 20% reduction from the current standard are technologically feasible and economically justified. For the full list of cost-efficiency results, see chapter 5 of the final rule TSD. In response to the August 2024 NODA, the CA IOUs commented that DOE should set standards at the highest EL with positive LCC savings for all equipment classes for the final rule. (CA IOUs, No. 113 at p. 6) As discussed in section III.F of this document, the potential impacts to individual consumers such as the changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards is one aspect of the seven factors that DOE evaluates when determining whether a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) As discussed in section V.C of this document, DOE has determined that TSL 3 represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE has determined that establishing standards at TSL 3 balances the benefits of the energy savings and impacts to consumers at TSL 3 with the potential burdens placed on CRE manufacturers. DOE notes that at TSL 3, affected purchasers for each CRE equipment class experience an average LCC savings ranging from $8 to $1,868 with a payback period ranging from 0.9 years to 7.0 years. Overall, approximately 91 percent of affected CRE purchasers would experience a net benefit or not be affected at TSL 3. Technological Feasibility In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Hoshizaki, ITW, SCC, and NAFEM commented that the proposal is not technologically feasible or economically justified, and that many technologies analyzed are already in use. (Hoshizaki, No. 76 at pp. 1, 3; ITW, No. 82 at p. 1; SCC, No. 74 at p. 1; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 2) Hoshizaki commented that the proposed energy standards would require over 30-percent reductions to meet the amended standards—VCS.SC.M, VCT.SC.M, VCS.SC.L, SOC.SC.M, and classifications with RT, PT, and RI doors. (Hoshizaki, No. 76 at p. 3) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Due North generally supported the October 2023 NOPR but expressed concern regarding the severe reductions of the proposed conservation standards to VCT.SC.L, VCT.SC.M, VOP.SC.M, VCT.SC.M.PT, and VCT.SC.M.SDPT equipment classes. (Due North, No. 87 at pp. 1-2) Due North commented that, based on its analysis, the proposed energy conservation standards would reduce the current threshold levels for VCT.SC.L by 19 percent, VCT.SC.M by 17-41 percent, depending on the unit refrigerated volume, and VOP.SC.M by 26 percent. ( Id. at p. 1) Due North stated that these reductions are severe and hard to achieve using present energy-saving technologies such as variable-speed compressors, electronically commutated fan motors, adaptive defrosts, efficient light-emitting diode (“LED”) lighting, and smart controls. ( Id. ) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Hussmann stated that DOE's proposed energy limits, that are up to 70 percent less than the current DOE standard levels, are unattainable for Hussmann products. (Hussmann, No. 80 at p. 6) Hussmann additionally commented that other Hussmann models would be required to meet 20-to-40-percent drops in energy limits while already using electronically commutated motors (“ECMs”), LED lights, and optimized air curtains/doors and insulation, and, in the face of these unattainable limits, Hussmann would need to weigh the benefits between feasibility, increased cost, development time, and consumer interest with the decision to discontinue certain product lines entirely. ( Id. at pp. 6-7) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Storemasters and FMI and NACS stated their concern with the proposed changes set forth in the October 2023 NOPR on the grounds that DOE has overestimated the energy efficiency benefits of its proposed rule because manufacturers may stop offering certain cases in order to comply with the proposed standards. (Storemasters, No. 68 at p. 1; FMI and NACS, No. 78 at p. 4). In response to the comments from Hoshizaki, ITW, SCC, NAFEM, Due North, Hussmann, and FMI and NACS, DOE notes that, in this final rule, it updated its October 2023 NOPR engineering analysis based on testing conducted, teardowns conducted, and stakeholder feedback received since the October 2023 NOPR, including comments received from Hoshizaki, ITW, SCC, NAFEM, Due North, Hussmann, and FMI and NACS. Furthermore, as compared to the October 2023 NOPR, DOE is adopting generally less stringent efficiency levels in this final rule. NAFEM indicated its belief that DOE has made high-level changes from the October 2023 NOPR to the August 2024 NODA and did not clearly explain what changes result from the changes made, and if they resolve the issues which were present in the October 2023 NOPR. (NAFEM, No. 101 at p. 2) In response to the comment from NAFEM, DOE notes that the engineering changes from the October 2023 NOPR to August 2024 NODA were explained in section II.A of the August 2024 NODA and are further detailed in section IV.C.1.a.iii of this document. 89 FR 68788, 68790-68794. For example, in section II.A.3.a of the August 2024 NODA on evaporator fan controls, DOE explained that “recognizing current uncertainty as to whether such food safety requirements could be maintained in certain applications of self-contained, closed CRE with the use of evaporator fan controls, DOE has tentatively screened out evaporator fan control as a design option for CRE. As a result, this NODA presents an updated engineering analysis that does not include evaporator fan control as a design option.” 89 FR 68788, 68793. In this final rule analysis, DOE is adopting TSL 3. DOE discusses the benefits and burdens of each TSL considered and DOE's conclusion in section V.C of this document. As discussed in that section, TSL 3 represents the maximum energy savings that are technically feasible and economically justified, as required by EPCA. Food Safety In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Hillphoenix, NAMA, and NAFEM stated that most CRE are certified to National Sanitation Foundation (“NSF”) 7 for food safe storage, which is required by U.S. and Canadian food safety standards and local health codes. (Hillphoenix, No. 77 at p. 3; NAMA, No. 85 at p. 16; NAFEM, No. 83 at pp. 10-11) ITW and NAFEM commented that to meet the energy efficiency standard proposed in the October 2023 NOPR, equipment would require design downgrades that would make it unable to consistently meet food safety standards, in which safe operating temperatures are required to be between 33 °F and 40 °F inside the cabinet. (ITW, No. 82 at p. 6; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 10) NAMA requested that design options be reviewed not only for their efficiency but also for the ability to maintain food safe performance. (NAMA, No. 85 at p. 16) ITW added that the proposed levels threaten to mandate equipment that cannot keep food at safe temperatures. (ITW, No. 82 at p. 1) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, FMI and NACS commented that, according to their members, the October 2023 NOPR does not evaluate the potential impact of the standards on food safety, because CRE that meet the proposed standards may be unable to consistently meet the refrigeration necessary to meet food safety standards. (FMI and NACS, No. 78 at p. 3) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, NAFEM commented that DOE's proposed energy limits would likely force manufacturers to make the choice between a DOE-compliant product with a smaller refrigeration system and a product designed with adequate capacity to maintain food safety in the many different environmental conditions and general product conditions. (NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 11) In response to the October 2023 NOPR and the August 2024 NODA, Hillphoenix suggested that DOE should categorize different CRE products based on the type of product or food displayed, and in the August 2024 NODA stated that current energy limits for CRE displaying perishable food products are too difficult to obtain while meeting NSF 7. (Hillphoenix, No. 77 at p. 3 and No. 110 at p. 2) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Hillphoenix also commented that bottle coolers operate at warmer temperatures than CRE displaying perishable products, in order to maintain product temperatures at 41 °F or less, but both have the same energy limits established by a single equipment class. (Hillphoenix No. No. 77 at p. 3) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Ravnitzky commented that the October 2023 NOPR should consider the impacts of energy efficiency standards on food quality and safety and balance the benefits of energy savings with the costs of food loss and waste. (Ravnitzky, No. 57 at p. 3) In response to comments about reviewing design options for efficiency but also for the ability to maintain food safe performance, and accounting for food loss and waste, DOE notes that in this final rule, consistent with the August 2024 NODA, DOE screened out evaporator fan controls after review of NSF 7 and other public comments stating that evaporator fan controls could potentially lead to internal case temperatures outside of NSF 7 tolerances, as further discussed in section IV.B.1.f. DOE has reviewed all design options analyzed to improve efficiency in this final rule and has determined, based on data and information available to DOE at the time of this final rule, that all other design options analyzed to improve efficiency would not affect the ability of CRE equipment to maintain food safe temperatures. In response to Hillphoenix's comment regarding categorizing different CRE equipment based on the type of product or food displayed, DOE notes that the CRE equipment classes do differentiate between frozen merchandise ( i.e., low-temperature freezers and ice-cream freezers) and refrigerated merchandise ( i.e., medium-temperature refrigerators and high-temperature refrigerators). In response to Hillphoenix's comment regarding bottle coolers operating at warmer temperatures than CRE displaying perishable products, DOE notes that all equipment certified to an equipment class must test their equipment according to the rating temperature for that equipment class, unless the equipment meets the definition of lowest application product temperature. See 10 CFR 431.62. Equipment Elimination In response to the October 2023 NOPR, SCC and NAFEM expressed concern that the October 2023 NOPR proposed standard level would force manufacturers to discontinue products or exit the CRE space. (SCC, No. 74 at p. 4; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 2) NAFEM and Continental added this would harm consumers, reduce competition, and may increase energy consumption. (NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 2; Continental, No. 86 at p. 6) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Due North commented that it still found the energy standards for the VCT.SC.M.PT and VCT.SC.M.SDPT classes to be too stringent, given their extensive installation at store checkout counters. (Due North, No. 87 at p. 2) Due North called this situation a potential threat to the future existence of these classes on the market. ( Id. ) With respect to these comments regarding the stringency of the proposed standards in the October 2023 NOPR and the equipment modifications needed to meet those standards, pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In the October 2023 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined that TSL 5 represented the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified and to establish new energy conservation standards for covered equipment not yet subject to energy conservation standards. 88 FR 70196, 70197. In response to the October 2023 NOPR, DOE received feedback from commenters suggesting changes to the October 2023 NOPR analysis. After consideration of this feedback and a review of new test data, in this final rule, DOE has adjusted certain aspects of the October 2023 NOPR analysis approach. In this final rule, DOE is adopting new and amended energy conservation standards( i.e., TSL 3) that DOE has determined represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified based on the numerous revisions to inputs and the analysis, resulting in revised analytical outputs since the October 2023 NOPR, discussed throughout section IV of this final rule. Further detail on changes to the engineering analysis from the October 2023 NOPR can be found in section IV.C of this document. As stated, in the preceding paragraphs, the results presented in this final rule are generally less stringent than the standards proposed in the October 2023 NOPR. In the October 2023 NOPR, the PT and SDPT multiplier values were 1.04 and 1.11 respectively. 88 FR 70196, 70231. In the August 2024 NODA, DOE analyzed a single multiplier with value of 1.07. 89 FR 68788, 68794. In this final rule, consistent with the August 2024 NODA, DOE is analyzing equipment classes with features that allow for higher energy use. As discussed further in section IV.C.1.c of this document, the adjusted maximum daily energy use equation for equipment classes with features is equal to 1.07 multiplied by the corresponding equipment class equation (adjusted for backsliding if needed). Although the multiplier analyzed in this final rule is less than that in the October 2023 NOPR for the SDPT multiplier, at the representative capacity the amended standard for VCT.SC.M with feature is 24.8 percent less stringent than the VCT.SC.M.PT equation and 18.3 percent less stringent than the VCT.SC.M.SDPT equation proposed in the October 2023 NOPR. Hussmann commented that, several of its models would be required to meet energy levels with energy use reductions up to 40 percent compared to 2017 DOE levels, and that Hussmann already put in work to meet the 2017 limits, limiting its ability to further improve energy consumption. (Hussmann, No. 80 at p. 10) Hussmann commented that if reduced energy limits reduce door and lighting options available for case energy performance, it will delay the conversion and prolong the use of open cases using far more energy than saved by tighter limits on door cases, leading to the obsolescence of some VCT equipment and driving customers to substitute products in the VOP classes that consume more energy, and Hussmann provided a table with additional detail. ( Id. at pp. 10-11) Hussmann commented also that it has been continuously innovating for years due to marketplace demand. ( Id. at p. 11) Hussmann pointed to a graph depicting its highest-volume dairy case from 1985 to 2023 and indicating that energy consumption has been reduced by 46 percent over the time period. ( Id. at p. 12) In response to the comment from Hussmann regarding door and lighting technology, DOE notes that the screening criteria in IV.B of this document screens out any technology options that are determined to have “a significant adverse impact on the utility of the equipment to subgroups of consumers, or result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment generally available in the United States at the time.” See section IV.B of this document for more details. Further, in response to Hussmann's comment regarding their efficiency improvements, DOE notes that the typical new consumer refrigerator uses one-quarter the energy than in 1973, despite offering 20 percent more storage capacity and being available at half the retail cost since EPCA was established in 1975, showing that there could be more potential savings than already achieved for the example cited by Hussmann. 24 24 See www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/articles/appliance-and-equipment-standards-fact-sheet . NAMA recommended that DOE champion and celebrate the changes that the industry has been making toward energy efficiency and reduce the demands to make additional changes. (NAMA, No. 85 at p. 9) NAMA commented that manufacturers have made changes that have further-reaching, more immediate impacts on energy efficiency than the design options being shown in the engineering analysis in the October 2023 NOPR TSD. ( Id. ) NAMA commented that the industry would appreciate some acknowledgement of these improvements over the past 10 years. ( Id. ) Kirby stated that changes made to comply with energy conservation standards and low-GWP HFC restrictions that went into effect in 2017 have led to price increases. (Kirby, No. 66 at pp. 1-2) In response to the August 2024 NODA, Storemasters commented that equipment manufacturers have already made significant changes to equipment to comply with the 2017 standards and much of the current equipment incorporates new refrigerants, particularly self-contained models that utilize R-290. (Storemasters, No. 68 at p. 1) In response to NAMA's, Kirby's, and Storemasters' comments about the industry improvements over the past 10 years ( i.e., since the publication of the March 2014 Final Rule), DOE does acknowledge that in response to the March 2014 Final Rule, manufacturers generally made several changes: changing from fluorescent to LED lighting; updating compressors to either higher efficiency compressors using HFC refrigerants, or compressors using hydrocarbon refrigerants; improved evaporators and condensers; and, in some cases, higher-efficiency fan motors. These changes are acknowledged in the October 2023 NOPR and August 2024 NODA as DOE updated the baseline design specifications and costs for each “primary equipment class” ( i.e., directly analyzed class, see IV.C.1 for further description) based on test data, manufacturer feedback, and publicly available market data ( e.g., spec sheets). See 88 FR 70196, 70225-70231, 89 FR 68788, 68792. Kirby and Storemasters commented that additional equipment modifications to meet the proposed standards in the October 2023 NOPR would represent a significant burden on their business because of increased equipment complexity and costs coupled with the potential for reduced equipment reliability, longevity, and consumer choice. (Kirby, No. 66 at p. 2, Storemasters, No. 68 at p. 1) Storemasters also stated that the new CRE it purchases includes significant changes over the past 6 years to comply with the 2017 standards and low-GWP HFC restrictions. (Storemasters, No. 68 at p. 1) An individual commenter further expressed concern with the new technologies, stating components necessary to achieve the proposed standards add cost, complexity to the designs, and result in limiting availability and extended lead times. (Individual Commenter, No. 70 at p.1) In response to the comments from Kirby and Storemasters, DOE notes that the commenters did not specify what design options may reduce equipment reliability. DOE screens out technology options that would result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment generally available in the United States at the time. In response to the comments from Kirby, Storemasters, and an individual commenter regarding the potential for reduced equipment longevity and consumer choice due to increased complexity, DOE is not aware of any data on how the analyzed design options affect equipment lifetime and consumer choice for consumers. See section IV.B of this document for additional information on the screening analysis and section IV.F.6 for a discussion on CRE lifetime. In response to the individual commenter regarding limiting availability and extended lead times, DOE notes that the screening analysis screens out any technology options that result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment generally available in the United States at the time. See section IV.B of this final rule. c. Rulemaking Process In response to the October 2023 NOPR, NAMA commented that while it appreciates DOE's willingness to schedule face-to-face meetings on these important rulemakings, questions posed by industry representatives during the November 2023 Public Meeting went largely unanswered by DOE and DOE consultants beyond providing information already provided in the October 2023 NOPR TSD or the October 2023 NOPR. (NAMA, No. 85 at p. 4) NAMA further commented that when industry broached many of these issues at the November 2023 Public Meeting, DOE read prepared answers but did not answer the original questions. ( Id. ) NAMA stated that there does not appear to have been any contact between DOE consultants and its manufacturing members. ( Id. at p. 6) NAMA commented that there are no records of manufacturer interviews, no record of emails exchanged, and no attempts made to contact these companies. ( Id. ) NAMA commented also that if DOE had conferred with manufacturers, it is more likely that the information in the October 2023 NOPR TSD would be closer to accurate information and more reflective of today's market. ( Id at p. 6) Hussmann recommended that, in future rulemakings, DOE engage manufacturers, component suppliers, retailers, and other stakeholders early in the process, because Hussmann alleged their equipment has already implemented available technologies, which yielded slight returns in energy savings with excessive cost. (Hussmann, No. 80 at p. 15) In response to the August 2024 NODA, NAMA added that DOE turned down its offer to work with them and DOE did not substantially change the NODA support document based on NAMA's comments on the October 2023 NOPR TSD. (NAMA, No. 112 at p. 3, 7) In response to the comment from NAMA about the November 2023 Public Meeting, DOE responded to all questions asked during the November 2023 Public Meeting to the best of its ability. (See November 2023 Public Meeting Transcript, No. 64). In response to the comment from NAMA regarding contact with its manufacturing members and the comment from Hussmann about engaging manufacturers, as stated in the October 2023 NOPR, DOE's contractors reached out to a range of representative manufacturers and conducted formal manufacturer interviews with nine manufacturers (representing approximately 60 percent of industry CRE shipments) in advance of the October 2023 NOPR. 88 FR 70196, 70251. During that process, DOE's contractors reached out to NAMA to inquire about its members' interest in participating in formal manufacturer interviews under a nondisclosure agreement but did not receive a response from NAMA. After the October 2023 NOPR was published, DOE held the November 2023 Public Meeting to receive comment on the standards proposed in the October 2023 NOPR and associated analyses and results. DOE has engaged with manufacturers through the rulemaking process, including hosting two Ex Parte meetings with AHRI, NAMA, and NAFEM; the first on Friday, January 27, 2023, 25 and the second on Monday, September 16, 2024, 26 and the October 2023 NOPR, the November 2023 Public Meeting, and the August 2024 NODA provided opportunity for NAMA and its members to provide comment, data, and information on the proposals and supporting analyses. 25 See www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0007-0050 . 26 See www.energy.gov/gc/ex-parte-communications . The CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider an informal or abbreviated negotiation to maximize energy savings for this rulemaking. (CA IOUs, No. 84 at pp. 6-7) The CA IOUs commented that they will support this rulemaking process by submitting test data for chef bases or griddle stands and high-efficiency, vertical, self-contained equipment in early 2024 and that the CA IOUs plan to send test results for prep tables to help DOE establish energy conservation standards for this equipment class in future rulemakings. ( Id. at p. 7) In the November 2023 Public Meeting, Continental and NAFEM recommended that there be continued dialogue between DOE and stakeholders concerning energy efficiency standards for CRE. (November 2023 Public Meeting Transcript, No. 64 at pp. 150, 152) Hoshizaki similarly requested negotiations with DOE to find realistic energy savings for this rulemaking. ( Id. at p. 21) In response to the comments from the CA IOUs, Continental, NAFEM, and Hoshizaki, DOE appreciates the recommendation but has not pursued a negotiation for this rulemaking. Additionally, DOE welcomes test data for any equipment category, including chef bases or griddle stands; buffet tables or preparation tables; or high-efficiency, vertical, self-contained equipment, submitted by the CA IOUs or any other stakeholder for consideration in future rulemakings. Continental commented that the proposed rulemaking will have a major impact on its business and pointed out that section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“Process Rule”) specifies a 75-day comment period while DOE is providing only 60 days—which is insufficient for a small business like Continental to review the October 2023 NOPR, the 567-page October 2023 NOPR TSD, and the many other supporting documents. (Continental, No. 86 at pp. 1-2) Continental commented also that DOE deviated from the requirement in the Process Rule that the amended test procedures be finalized at least 180 days prior to the close of the comment period for the October 2023 NOPR, instead providing an interval of 76 days for review and evaluation prior to the deadline of the comment period, which Continental stated is insufficient. ( Id. at pp. 2-3) In response to the comment from Continental, DOE notes that the current Process Rule at Section 6(b)(2) specifies that there will be not less than 60 days for public comment on the NOPR, which is consistent with the comment period in the October 2023 NOPR. This 60-day period is also consistent with EPCA requirements. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)). Further, the October 2023 NOPR stated that given that the analysis presented in the NOPR remained largely the same as the June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, and in light of the 45-day comment period DOE had already provided with the July 2021 RFI and the 60-day comment period DOE had already provided with its June 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE determined that a 60-day comment period was appropriate and provided interested parties with a meaningful opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. 88 FR 70196, 70205. DOE appreciates the considerable volume of comments and information it received in response to the October 2023 NOPR and the August 2024 NODA, which contributed to significant revisions to the final rule analysis and aided in DOE's ability to establish efficiency levels that would be technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE also notes that, in the October 2023 NOPR, DOE initially determined that the requirement that the amended test procedures be finalized at least 180 days prior to the close of the comment period for the October 2023 NOPR was sufficiently met because, for the equipment whose measured energy use was impacted by the CRE test procedure final rule (“September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule”; 88 FR 66152 (Sept. 26, 2023)), the CRE industry has thoroughly vetted both Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) 1200-2023 and the proposed addendum B to American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (“ASHRAE”) 72-2022. Id. at 88 FR 70205. Additionally, DOE believes that stakeholders have had sufficient time for review and evaluation of the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, especially because commenters had an additional opportunity to provide comment on this rulemaking through the August 2024 NODA, which was published more than 180 days after the publication of the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. Rulemaking Timeline In response to the October 2023 NOPR, ITW commented that if DOE cannot issue a “no new standards” ruling, DOE should extend the review period by 1 year to allow for sufficient time for manufacturers to conduct verification tests to validate the proposed energy standards for the various new equipment categories with different door characteristics and to provide informed comments to DOE. (ITW, No. 82 at p. 2) Hussmann, Hillphoenix, NAFEM, FMI and NACS, and Hoshizaki requested a pause in DOE rulemakings due to the requirements of the AIM act and other new regulations (Hussmann, No. 80 at p. 1; Hillphoenix, No. 77 at p. 2; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 26; FMI and NACS, No. 78 at pp. 2-3; Hoshizaki, No. 76 at p. 1) In response to the August 2024 NODA, Hillphoenix commented requesting a pause in rulemakings for CRE given the ongoing efforts to transition to new refrigerants, pursuant to the AIM Act. (Hillphoenix, No. 110 at p. 2) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Hoshizaki, SCC, AHRI, ITW, NAFEM, and Hussmann commented that a delay in the rulemaking would allow additional time for manufacturers to complete the transition to low-GWP refrigerants (Hoshizaki, No. 76 at pp. 1-2, 7; SCC, No. 74 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 81 at p. 5; ITW, No. 82 at p. 1; NAFEM, No. 83 at p. 26; Hussmann, No. 80 at pp. 6-7, 10) In response to comments requesting that DOE pause or delay the rulemaking, DOE is statutorily required to publish either a NOPD, if it finds that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Not later than two years after a NOPR is issued, DOE must publish a final rule amending the energy conservation standard for the equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(A)) The final rule that amended the current standards for CRE was issued in 2014. DOE is conducting this rulemaking pursuant to these statutory requirements. Additionally, pursuant to a consent decree entered on September 20, 2022 and amended on September 25, 2024, DOE has agreed to sign and post on DOE's publicly accessible website a rulemaking document for CRE by December 30, 2024, that, when effective, would be DOE's final agency action for standards for CRE. 27 Regarding delaying compliance due to the transition to low-GWP refrigerants, see sections III.A.2.a and IV.J.3.f of this document. 27 Consent Decree, Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Granholm, No. 1:20-cv-09127 (S.D.N.Y.), Sept. 20, 2022).), Amend. Consent Decree, State of N.Y. v. Granholm, No. 1:20-cv-09362 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2024). See www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ee-standards-settlement-20220920.pdf . September 25, 2024 amendment available at ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/doc1/127136202802 . In response to the August 2024 NODA, GAAS, NAMA, and Zero Zone commented that DOE did not allow sufficient time to review the documents, with an updated support document version published 10 days before the end of the comment period. (GAAS, No. 96 at p. 2; NAMA, No. 112 at p. 3; Zero Zone, No. 114 at p. 1) Zero Zone also commented that DOE should have made a comparison of changes between the October 2023 NOPR TSD and NODA support document. (Zero Zone, No. 114 at p.1) In response to these comments, DOE notes that updates to the NODA support document were minor clarifications, and all changes were detailed under “Revision History” in Section 8. With regards to Zero Zone's request for a list of changes, DOE detailed any changes from the October 2023 NOPR throughout the August 2024 NODA. B. Scope of Coverage This final rule covers the commercial refrigeration equipment that meet the definition of “commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers,” as codified at 10 CFR 431.62. “Commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers” means refrigeration equipment that: (1) is not consumer equipment (as defined in section 430.2 of part 430); (2) is not designed and marketed exclusively for medical, scientific, or research purposes; (3) operates at a chilled, frozen, combination chilled and frozen, or variable temperature; (4) displays or stores merchandise and other perishable materials horizontally, semi-vertically, or vertically; (5) has transparent or solid doors, sliding or hinged doors, a combination of hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid doors, or no doors; (6) is designed for pull-down temperature applications or holding temperature applications; and (7) is connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote condensing unit. 10 CFR 431.62. In the October 2023 NOPR, DOE proposed establishing equipment classes for high-temperature refrigerators and chef bases or griddle stands. 88 FR 70196, 70214-70215. DOE received several comments in response to the October 2023 NOPR regarding this proposal. In response to the October 2023 NOPR, NYSERDA and NEEA and NWPCC supported DOE's addition of chef bases and high-temperature refrigerators to the scope of coverage for the CRE energy conservation standards, agreeing with DOE's assertion that there are technically feasible opportunities for significant cost-effective energy savings from these categories. (NYSERDA, No. 88 at p. 1; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 89 at pp. 4-5) In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Continental disagreed with DOE's proposal to include standards for refrigerated chef bases and griddle stands at this time. (Continental, No. 86 at p. 2) Continental commented that while it concurred with this decision in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule to prescribe new test conditions for refrigerated chef bases and griddle stands, actual testing has not been conducted to form a basis for establishing standards efficiency levels at the mandated conditions. ( Id. at pp. 2-3) In response to the comment from Continental comment about lack of test data, as discussed in section IV.C.1.c of this document, DOE has tested chef bases or griddle stands per the amended test procedure prescribed by the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. In addition, manufacturers have had additional time to test chef bases and submit data since the publication of the October 2023 NOPR, and the August 2024 NODA provided additional opportunity to comment on the chef base or griddle stand analysis. For example, the CA IOUs commented on the August 2024 NODA stating that they conducted testing on CRE units, including chef bases or griddle stands. (The CA IOUs, No. 113, at p. 2). The CA IOUs tested 15 vertical solid door units (9 VCS.SC.M, 6 VCS.SC.L) and 5 chef bases or griddle stands (3 CB.SC.M, 2 CB.SC.L) to evaluate daily energy consumption and performance. Id. The CA IOUs commented that with DOE's test data published in the August 2024 NODA, the CA IOUs can confirm that the daily energy consumption values for the units they tested are consistent with DOE's data, and that the CA IOUs plan to share anonymized test results with the public once the CA IOUs finalize their test report. Id. Therefore, DOE continues to include high-temperature refrigerators and chef bases and griddle stands within the scope of this final rule. However, the scope of this final rule does not include some types of commercial refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that meet the definition at 10 CFR 431.62. These include blast chillers, blast freezers, buffet tables or preparation tables, mobile refrigerated cabinets, refrigerated bottled- or canned-beverage vending machines, and, as discussed in section II.B.3 of this document, the large-capacity CRE ranges presented in table IV.6 for the VOP.SC.M, SVO.SC.M, HZO.SC.L, SOC.SC.M, VCT.SC.M, VCT.SC.L, and VCS.SC.L equipment classes. See section IV.A.1 of this document for discussion of the equipment classes analyzed in this final rule. C. Test Procedure EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use these test procedures as the basis for certifying to DOE that their product complies with the applicable energy conservation standards and as the basis for any representations regarding the energy use or energy efficiency of the equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s); and 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to evaluate whether a basic model complies with the applicable energy conservation standard(s). 10 CFR 429.110(e). The current test procedure for CRE is codified at appendix B and includes provisions for determining daily energy consumption, the metric on which current standards are based. 10 CFR 431.66(e) This test procedure was amended in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, in which DOE amended and established test procedures for CRE as follows: (1) Established new definitions for high-temperature refrigerator, medium-temperature refrigerator, low-temperature freezer, and mobile refrigerated cabinet, and amended the definition for ice-cream freezer; (2) Incorporated by reference the most current versions of industry standards AHRI 1200, ASHRAE 72, and AHRI 1320; (3) Established definitions and a new appendix C including test procedures for buffet tables and preparation tables; (4) Established definitions and a new appendix D including test procedures for blast chillers and blast freezers; (5) Amended the definition and certain test conditions for chef bases or griddle stands; (6) Specified refrigerant conditions for CRE that use R-744; (7) Allowed for certification of compartment volumes based on computer-aided design (“CAD”) models; (8) Incorporated provisions for defrosts and customer order storage cabinets specified in waivers and interim waivers; (9) Adopted product-specific enforcement provisions; (10) Clarified use of the lowest application product temperature (“LAPT”) provisions; (11) Removed the obsolete test procedure in appendix A; and (12) Specified a sampling plan for volume and total display area (“TDA”). 88 FR 66152, 66154. In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Ravnitzky commented that the proposed rule lacks clear and detailed guidance on the test conditions and procedures for measuring energy consumption in CRE that use alternative refrigerants, such as hydrocarbons or CO 2 . (Ravnitzky, No. 57 at pp. 1-2) Ravnitzky added that these alternative refrigerants have different performance characteristics than conventional HFC refrigerants and may require different test methods to ensure accurate and consistent results. ( Id. at p. 2) Ravnitzky suggested that DOE specify or reference the test conditions and procedures for measuring the energy consumption of CRE that use alternative refrigerants, and that these should be consistent with ASHRAE or AHRI standards or best practices for testing CRE. ( Id. ) In response to the comment from Ravnitzky, the DOE CRE test procedure for CRE currently subject to energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 431.66(e) is located at appendix B and is applicable to CRE using any type of refrigerant. DOE notes that, consistent with ASHRAE 72-2022 with Errata, testing for self-contained equipment with hydrocarbon refrigerants ( e.g., R-290), CO 2 refrigerant ( i.e., R-744), or A2L refrigerants does not require a different test method than for self-contained equipment using conventional refrigerants. In appendix B, DOE provides specific instructions for CRE connected to a direct-expansion remote-condensing unit with R-744, which requires different liquid refrigerant measurements than direct-expansion remote-condensing units specified in appendix A to ASHRAE 72-2022 with Errata. Therefore, the appendix B is applicable to CRE using any type of refrigerant and is consistent with industry standards. NEEA and NWPCC expressed concern that the October 2023 NOPR misses savings opportunities for the remote condensing equipment classes. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 89 at p. 4) Specifically, NEEA and NWPCC recommended that remote condenser energy be accounted for in the testing and rating of CRE so that these energy-saving features can be assessed in the energy use analysis. ( Id. ). 28 NEEA and NWPCC explained that DOE's present analysis does not test the remote condenser; therefore, the energy-saving design options that impact the consumption of the remote condenser do not impact the tested rating. ( Id. ) NEEA and NWPCC commented that this approach fails to consider efficiency options such as ECMs, evaporator fans, variable-speed compressors (“VSCs”), or controls for remote condensing CRE—all of which create opportunities for significant energy savings. ( Id. ) 28 Remote condenser energy use is addressed in the current test procedure with standardized EER values rather than direct measurement of remote condenser performance. See section 5.1 of AHRI 1200-2023. In response to the comment from NEEA and NWPCC, the definition of “commercial refrigerator, freezer, and refrigerator-freezer” was established in EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(9)(A). The definition requires that the refrigeration equipment is connected to a self-contained condensing unit or to a remote condensing unit. The self-contained condensing unit is defined as an integral part of the refrigerated equipment, whereas the remote condensing unit is defined as being remotely located from the refrigerated equipment. Based on these definitions, the remote condensing unit energy use is currently accounted for by the DOE test procedure through a calculation approach specified in section 5.1 of AHRI 1200-2023, which is incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure at appendix B. In the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE stated it is aware of remote condensing CRE models for which specific dedicated condensing units are intended for use with specific refrigerated cases. 88 FR 66152, 66205. For CRE used with dedicated condensing units, the actual compressor used during normal operation is known ( i.e., the compressor in the dedicated condensing unit). Id. Accordingly, testing the whole system using the same approach as required for a self-contained CRE unit may produce energy use results that are more representative of how this equipment actually operates in the field. Id. DOE understands that remote CRE are most commonly installed with rack condensing systems, and that installations with dedicated condensing units represent a very small portion of the remote CRE market. Id. DOE is not aware of any remote CRE that are capable of installations only with a dedicated remote condensing unit ( i.e., DOE expects that all remote CRE may be installed with rack condensing systems). Id. In the June 2022 NOPR, DOE requested comment on its tentative determination not to propose amended test procedures for dedicated remote condensing units. Id. DOE only received comments agreeing with the June 2022 NOPR approach and DOE determined not to adopt test provisions for dedicated remote condensing units at this time. Id. In response to the October 2023 NOPR, Continental commented that designing commercial refrigerators and freezers with technology options to meet energy limits in 75 °F/55-percent relative humidity (“RH”) ambient conditions has shown to cause performance issues when these technologies are employed in real-world commercial kitchen conditions. (Continental, No. 86 at p. 3) In response to the August 2024 NODA, Continental disagreed with DOE establishing test procedures and efficiency standards for commercial refrigerators and freezers using ambient testing conditions of 75 °F/55 percent RH, stating that these conditions do not correspond with energy consumption during a representative average use period as required by EPCA. (Continental, No. 107 at p. 2) In response to the October 2023 NOPR and August 2024 NODA, Delfield disagreed with the 86 °F test ambient criteria for chef bases/griddle stands because it conflicts with the recently established Energy Star requirement, creating additional burden for manufacturers by requiring different test rooms from other equipment that is tested at 75/55 percent, and because it creates confusion for end-users when comparing energy consumption between unit types. (Delfield, No. 71, p. 1; Delfield, No. 99 at p. 2) Delfield added that 75/55 percent has been the primary ambient condition for CRE for around 40 years so they do not see a reason that this should change. ( Id. ) Delfield requested that DOE review this change and align with Energy Star version 5 regulations for ambient conditions and energy usage. ( Id. at pp. 2-3 ) In response to the comments from Continental and Delfield, the test procedure for equipment included in the scope of this rulemaking is prescribed at 10 CFR 431.64 and appendix B, and was finalized in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. As part of the test procedure rulemaking process, DOE provided stakeholders opportunity to comment on potential test procedure amendments, including on test conditions such as ambient temperature and humidity for testing. The September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule provides discussion of its deliberations in finalizing test procedures, for example regarding test ambient conditions for chef bases in section III.C.4 of the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule. See 88 FR 66152, 66203 (Sept. 26, 2023). DOE notes that the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule is consistent with the proposed addendum B to ASHRAE 72-2022, 29 which proposes the same test conditions for chef bases or griddle stands as in the DOE test procedure. In response to the comment from Delfield regarding end users' comparisons of products, DOE noted in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule that manufacturers may not offer CRE in a different CRE equipment class with similar designs to any chef base or griddle stand, in which case end-users are likely concerned primarily about comparing chef bases or griddle stands to each other at the same ambient conditions. 88 FR 66152, 66200. 29 See www.ashrae.org/file%20library/technical%20resources/standards%20and%20guidelines/standards%20addenda/72_2022_b_20240830.pdf . Hoshizaki and AHRI disagreed that the DOE test procedure for refrigerated buffet and preparation tables was a valid test procedure. (Hoshizaki, No. 76 at p. 2; AHRI, No 81 at p.6) Hoshizaki encouraged DOE to work with industry to make ASTM F2143, which is currently under review for final changes and votes, a valid test procedure with changes DOE requests. (Hoshizaki, No. 76 at p. 2) In response to Hoshizaki and AHRI, DOE notes that the DOE test procedure for refrigerated buffet and preparation tables, located at appendix C to subpart C of part 431, already references the latest version of ASTM F2143 as one of several references for the test procedure for refrigerated buffet and preparation tables. As noted in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE evaluated ASTM F2143-16 and identified the need for additional provisions or alternate requirements. 88 FR 66152, 66175. DOE noted that NSF 7 is intended to ensure refrigerating performance and food safety, not energy use; while ASTM F2143-16 was developed to evaluate energy performance, and with the additional requirements established in the September 2023 Test Procedure Final Rule, DOE determined that referencing ASTM F2143-16 is appropriate and meets the EPCA requirements. Id. DOE will consider any updates to industry test standards that are currently incorporated by reference, as well as any potential new industry test standards relevant to refrigerated buffet and preparation tables in future test procedure rulemakings. See section IV.A.1.c for additional comments and responses on refrigerated buffet or preparation tables and blast chillers and freezers. ITW and NAFEM also commented that DOE's current test procedure tests CRE in given ambient temperature, humidity, and door opening conditions that fall short of actual field conditions. (ITW, No. 82 at p. 6; NAFEM, No. 83 at pp. 10-11) ITW and NAFEM commented that the total door-open time that the ASHRAE 72 t [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2024-31214. Public record. Not legal advice.