```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41609-41675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16281]

[[Page 41609]]

Vol. 78

Wednesday,

No. 132

July 10, 2013

Part IV

Department of Energy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for 
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 41610]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016]
RIN 1904-AC76

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test 
Procedures for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today is issuing a notice 
of proposed rulemaking to amend the test procedures for refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that will be required for the 
testing of products starting September 15, 2014. DOE is proposing to 
amend the test procedure to address products with multiple compressors 
and to allow an alternative method for measuring and calculating energy 
consumption for refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators with freezer 
compartments. DOE is also proposing to amend certain aspects of the 
test procedure in order to ensure better test accuracy and 
repeatability. Additionally, DOE is soliciting comment on a potential 
test procedure to measure the energy use associated with making ice 
with an automatic icemaker. If adopted, that procedure would become 
effective in conjunction with any parallel energy conservation 
standards rulemaking that DOE would need to conduct pursuant to the 
six-year review process mandated under Federal law.

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting on July 25, 2013, from 9 a.m. to 
4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting will also be broadcast as a 
webinar. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants. DOE will 
accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of 
proposed rulemaking before and after the public meeting, but no later 
than September 23, 2013. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for 
details.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585. To attend, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 
(202) 586-2945. See section V, ``Public Participation'' for details.
    Any comments submitted must identify the NOPR for Test Procedures 
for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, and provide 
docket number EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016 and/or regulatory information number 
(RIN) number 1904-AC76. Comments may be submitted using any of the 
following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: #Res-Refrig-Freezer-2012-BT-TP-0016@ee.doe.gov. Include 
docket number EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016 and/or RIN 1904-AC76 in the subject 
line of the message.
    3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a 
CD. It is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD. It is not necessary to include printed 
copies.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section V, ``Public 
Participation''.
    The docket is available for review at regulations.gov, including 
Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and 
transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly 
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016. This Web 
page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the 
regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket.
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC, 20585-0121, 202-287-1317, email: refrigerators_and_freezers@ee.doe.gov or Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: 
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background and Authority
II. Summary of the Proposal
III. Discussion
    A. Products Covered by the Proposed Rule
    B. Proposed Dates for the Amended Test Procedures
    C. Proposed Test Procedure Amendments
    1. Icemaking Test Procedure
    2. Multiple Compressor Test
    3. Triangulation
    4. Anti-Circumvention Language
    5. Incomplete Cycling
    6. Mechanical Temperature Controls
    7. Ambient Temperature Gradient
    8. Definitions Associated with Defrost Cycles
    9. Elimination of Reporting of Product Height
    10. Measurement of Product Volume
    11. Corrections to Temperature Setting Logic Tables
    12. Minimum Compressor Run-Time Between Defrosts for Variable 
Defrost Models
    13. Treatment of ``Connected'' Products
    14. Changes to Confidentiality of Certification Data
    15. Package Loading
    16. Product Clearance to the Wall During Testing
    17. Other Minor Corrections
    18. Relocation of Shelving for Temperature Sensors
    D. Other Matters Related to the Test Procedure
    1. Built-In Refrigerators
    2. Specific Volume Measurement Issues
    3. Treatment of Products That Are Operable As a Refrigerator or 
Freezer
    4. Stabilization Period
    E. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements
    1. Test Burden
    2. Changes in Measured Energy Use
    3. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use
IV. Procedural Requirements
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

[[Page 41611]]

    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
V. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at the Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to Speak
    C. Conduct of Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Background and Authority

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to 
EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Pub. L. 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007).) 
Part B of title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309), which was subsequently 
designated as Part A for editorial reasons, establishes the ``Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.'' 
Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers (collectively 
referred to below as ``refrigeration products'') are all treated as 
``covered products'' under this Part. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 
6292(a)(1)) Under the Act, this program consists essentially of three 
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, and (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that 
manufacturers of covered products must use (1) as the basis for 
certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) for making 
representations about the efficiency of those products. Similarly, DOE 
must use these test requirements to determine whether the products 
comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
    By way of background, the National Appliance Energy Conservation 
Act of 1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100-12, amended EPCA by including, 
among other things, performance standards for refrigeration products. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(b)) On November 17, 1989, DOE amended these performance 
standards for products manufactured on or after January 1, 1993. 54 FR 
47916. DOE subsequently published a correction to revise these new 
standards for three product classes. 55 FR 42845 (October 24, 1990). 
DOE again updated the performance standards for refrigeration products 
on April 28, 1997, for products manufactured starting on July 1, 2001. 
62 FR 23102.
    EISA 2007 amended EPCA by requiring DOE to publish a final rule 
determining whether to amend the energy conservation standards for 
refrigeration products manufactured starting in 2014. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(b)(4)) Consistent with this requirement, DOE initiated an effort 
to consider amendments to the standards for refrigeration products. As 
part of this effort, DOE issued a framework document on September 18, 
2008, that discussed the various issues involved with amending the 
standards and potential changes to the test procedure. 73 FR 54089. DOE 
later prepared preliminary analyses that examined in greater detail the 
impacts amended standards would be likely to have on a national basis. 
DOE published a notice of proposed meeting (NOPM) to initiate a 
discussion of these analyses, 74 FR 58915 (Nov. 16, 2009), and held a 
public meeting on December 10, 2009, to discuss its preliminary 
findings. At that meeting, and in submitted written comments, 
interested parties indicated that the energy conservation standards for 
refrigeration products should address the energy use associated with 
automatic icemakers. They added, however, that a test procedure to 
measure icemaking energy use had not yet been sufficiently developed to 
provide a basis for the standards. (Energy Conservation Standards for 
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-
2008-BT-STD-0012; American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 
(ACEEE), No. 46 at p. 1; California Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs), 
No. 39 at p. 2; LG, No. 44 at pp. 2-3; Natural Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC), No. 42 at p. 2; Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership 
(NEEP), No. 41 at p. 1; Northwest Power and Conservation Council 
(NPCC), No. 36 at p. 1; Sub-Zero, No. 43 at pp. 2-3; Appliance 
Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), Public Meeting Transcript, No. 30 
at pp. 28-29; Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), No. 
37 at p. 2; General Electric, No. 40 at p. 1)
    DOE also initiated a test procedure rulemaking to help address a 
variety of test procedure-related issues identified in the energy 
conservation standard rulemaking's framework document. Taking these 
issues into account, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NOPR) on May 27, 2010. 75 FR 29824 (hereafter referred to as ``the May 
2010 NOPR''). The May 2010 NOPR proposed to use a fixed value of 84 kWh 
per year to represent the icemaking energy use for those refrigeration 
products equipped with automatic icemakers. The NOPR also indicated 
that DOE would consider adopting an approach based on testing to 
determine icemaking energy use if a suitable test procedure could be 
developed. Id. at 29846-29847. A broad group of stakeholders \1\ 
submitted a joint comment supporting DOE's proposal to use a temporary 
fixed placeholder value to represent the energy use of automatic 
icemakers. It also urged DOE to initiate a rulemaking no later than 
January 1, 2012, and publish a final rule no later than December 31, 
2012, to amend the test procedures to incorporate a laboratory-based 
measurement of icemaking energy use. The joint comment further 
recommended that DOE publish a final rule by July 1, 2013, amending the 
energy conservation standards scheduled to take effect in 2014 to 
account for the differences in energy use of icemakers measured using 
the new test procedure as compared with the 84 kWh per year fixed 
placeholder value. (Test Procedure for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-
Freezers, and Freezers, Docket Number EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003; Joint 
Comment, No. 20 at 5-6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The signatories to these comments included the Association 
of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the 
Alliance to Save Energy, the Alliance for Water Efficiency, the 
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, the Northwest Power and 
Conservation Council, the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, 
the Consumer Federation of America, the National Consumer Law 
Center, Earthjustice, and the California Energy Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In keeping with the timeline suggested in the comment, AHAM 
provided DOE in early January 2012 with a draft test procedure that 
could be used to measure automatic icemaker energy usage. (AHAM 
Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer and Freezer Ice Making Energy Test 
Procedure, Revision 1.0--12/14/11,\2\ No. 4) Subsequently, consistent 
with the suggestions made by commenters and DOE's previously stated 
intentions, DOE initiated work to develop today's notice. On July 18, 
2012, AHAM provided DOE with a revised test procedure. (AHAM 
Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer and Freezer Ice Making Energy Test 
Procedure, Revision 2.0--7/10/12,\3\ No. 5) Today's notice, which is 
based in part on the approach suggested by AHAM, is designed to help 
the agency improve the accuracy of certain aspects of the test 
procedure that it recently promulgated. To ensure that any potential 
technical issues are addressed, DOE is soliciting

[[Page 41612]]

comments from the public on the potential adoption of the icemaking 
energy use measurement test that is detailed in today's notice. The 
procedure would be added as a new and separate section to the test 
procedure. Based on the comments received, DOE may adopt this testing 
approach (along with any necessary modifications) as part of the 
overall procedure but would require its usage to occur in parallel with 
any energy conservation standards rulemaking that would result from the 
mandatory review required under EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Subsequently referred to as ``AHAM Draft Test Procedure''
    \3\ Subsequently referred to as ``AHAM Revised Draft Test 
Procedure''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE does not anticipate, based on collected preliminary data that 
its proposed changes to the current procedure would be likely to 
require an adjustment to those standards that manufacturers must meet 
starting in 2014. Additional details regarding these adjustments are 
detailed below and explain why an adjustment to the 2014 standards will 
not be necessary.

General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. EPCA provides in relevant part that ``[a]ny test 
procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably 
designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, 
energy use . . . or estimated annual operating cost of a covered 
product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, as 
determined by the Secretary [of Energy], and shall not be unduly 
burdensome to conduct.'' (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
    In cases where DOE is considering amending a test procedure (or 
adding a new one), DOE publishes a proposal and offers the public an 
opportunity to present oral and written comments. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(2)) When considering amending a test procedure, DOE must 
determine the extent to which, if any, the proposal would alter the 
measured energy use of a given product as determined under the existing 
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the amended 
test procedure would alter the measured energy use of a covered 
product, DOE must also amend the applicable energy conservation 
standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
    Today's rulemaking addresses amendments that, if adopted, would 
apply to the test procedures that manufacturers must use to demonstrate 
compliance with the energy conservation standards starting on September 
15, 2014 (i.e., 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices A and B). DOE 
has determined that none of the amendments to the test procedures 
proposed in this notice would be likely to significantly change the 
measured energy use of refrigeration products. DOE's analyses 
demonstrate that the proposed amendments to Appendices A and B, along 
with the possible incorporation of an optional ``triangulation'' 
method, will not affect measured energy use to any significant extent 
that would necessitate a change to any of the energy conservation 
standards for the products that would be affected by today's proposal. 
(42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) Further, the preliminary data indicate that if 
DOE were to adopt the icemaking energy measurement test procedure 
detailed in today's notice, an adjustment to the standards be 
unnecessary. To demonstrate the effects of these amendments under 
consideration, DOE has conducted a preliminary evaluation of the 
anticipated impacts presented by today's proposal. This evaluation is 
discussed in further detail in section D.II of this notice. DOE notes 
that the proposed icemaking energy measurement test procedure 
amendments, if adopted, would not be required for manufacturers to use 
unless DOE were to set new or amended standards for refrigeration 
products after September 2014. Until such standards are developed, 
manufacturers would continue following the method that is laid out in 
Appendices A and B.

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers

    DOE's test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 
are found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices A1 (currently in 
effect) and A (required for rating products starting September 15, 
2014). DOE initially established its test procedures for refrigerators 
and refrigerator-freezers in a final rule published in the Federal 
Register on September 14, 1977. 42 FR 46140. Industry representatives 
viewed these test procedures as too complex and eventually developed 
alternative test procedures in conjunction with AHAM that were 
incorporated into the 1979 version of HRF-1, ``Household Refrigerators, 
Combination Refrigerator-Freezers, and Household Freezers'' (HRF-1-
1979). Using this industry-created test procedure, DOE revised its test 
procedures on August 10, 1982. 47 FR 34517. On August 31, 1989, DOE 
published a final rule establishing test procedures for variable 
defrost control (a control type in which the time interval between 
successive defrost cycles is determined by operating conditions 
indicating the need for defrost rather than by compressor run time) 
refrigeration products, dual compressor refrigerator-freezers, and 
freezers equipped with ``quick-freeze'' (a manually-initiated feature 
that bypasses the thermostat and runs the compressor continuously until 
terminated). 54 FR 36238. DOE amended the test procedures again on 
March 7, 2003, by modifying the test period used for products equipped 
with long-time automatic defrost (a control type in which defrost 
cycles are separated by 14 hours or more of compressor run time) or 
variable defrost. 68 FR 10957. The test procedures include provisions 
for determining the annual energy use in kilowatt-hours (kWh) (54 FR 
6062, Feb. 7, 1989) and the accompanying annual operating costs. 42 FR 
46140 (Sept. 14, 1977).
    DOE further amended the test procedures in a final rule published 
on December 16, 2010. 75 FR 78810. These amendments helped clarify how 
to test products for compliance with the applicable standards. The 
amendments clarified certain elements in Appendix A1 to ensure that 
regulated entities fully understand how to apply and implement the test 
procedure. These changes included clarifying how refrigeration products 
equipped with special compartments and/or more than one fresh food 
compartment or more than one freezer compartment should be tested. The 
amendments also accounted for the various waivers granted by DOE, 
specifically with regard to variable anti-sweat heater controls. The 
final rule also modified the regulatory definition of ``electric 
refrigerator-freezer'' by requiring the storage temperatures in the 
fresh food compartment of such a product to be at a level that would 
effectively exclude the coverage of combination wine storage-freezer 
products. See 10 CFR 430.2. The definition for ``electric 
refrigerator'' had already been amended to clarify the characteristics 
that distinguish it from related products, such as wine storage 
products, as part of a final rule published on November 19, 2001. 66 FR 
57845. However, the December 2010 final rule made additional 
refinements to the definition. 75 FR at 78817 (Dec. 16, 2010). DOE is 
considering further modifying its product definitions to cover wine 
storage products as part of a separate rulemaking. See 77 FR 7547 (Feb. 
13, 2012) (announcing the availability of DOE's framework document 
regarding wine chillers and other miscellaneous refrigeration 
products).
    In the December 16, 2010 notice, DOE also established a new 
Appendix A, via an interim final rule. The new

[[Page 41613]]

Appendix A included a number of comprehensive changes to help improve 
the measurement of energy consumption of refrigerators and 
refrigerator-freezers. These changes included, among other things: (1) 
New compartment temperatures and volume adjustment factors, (2) new 
methods for measuring compartment volumes, (3) a modification of the 
long-time automatic defrost test procedure to ensure that the test 
procedure measures all energy use associated with the defrost function, 
and (4) test procedures for products with a single compressor and 
multiple evaporators with separate active defrost cycles. DOE noted 
that the compartment temperature changes introduced by Appendix A would 
significantly impact the measured energy use and affect the calculated 
adjusted volume and energy factor (i.e., adjusted volume divided by 
energy use) values. Lastly, the interim final rule also addressed 
icemaking energy use by including a fixed value for manufacturers to 
add when calculating the energy consumption of those products equipped 
with an automatic icemaker. Using available data submitted by the 
industry, this value was set at 84 kWh per year. See 75 FR 78810, 78859 
and 78871 (Dec. 16, 2010) (specifying daily value of 0.23 kWh for 
products equipped with an automatic icemaker).\4\ In light of 
stakeholders' strong recommendations that the test procedure and energy 
conservation standards incorporate the energy use associated with 
icemaking, AHAM's development efforts, and additional work performed by 
NIST and DOE, DOE is soliciting the public for feedback on a possible 
replacement for the ``fixed value'' approach by detailing a test 
procedure based on these collective efforts that relies on laboratory 
measurements to determine the energy use of automatic icemakers. Based 
on the comments received, DOE may adopt this approach or consider other 
alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Multiplying 0.23 by 365 days per year yields 84 kWh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freezers

    DOE's test procedures for freezers are found at 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B, appendices B1 (currently in effect) and B (required for the 
rating of products starting in 2014). DOE established its test 
procedures for freezers in a final rule published in the Federal 
Register on September 14, 1977. 42 FR 46140. As with DOE's test 
procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, industry 
representatives viewed the freezer test procedures as too complex and 
worked with AHAM to develop alternative test procedures, which were 
incorporated into the 1979 version of HRF-1. DOE revised its test 
procedures for freezers based on this AHAM standard on August 10, 1982. 
47 FR 34517. The subsequent August 31, 1989 final rule established test 
procedures for freezers with variable defrost control and freezers with 
the quick-freeze feature. 54 FR 36238. A subsequent amendment occurred 
to correct that rule's effective date. 54 FR 38788 (Sept. 20, 1989). 
The current test procedures include provisions for determining the 
annual energy use in kWh and annual electrical operating costs for 
freezers.
    As with refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, the December 16, 
2010 notice also clarified compliance testing requirements for freezers 
under Appendix B1 and created a new Appendix B, the latter of which 
manufacturers are required to use starting in 2014. That new test 
procedure changed a number of aspects of the procedure detailed in 
Appendix B1, including, among other things: (1) The freezer volume 
adjustment factor, (2) methods for measuring compartment volumes, and 
(3) the long-time automatic defrost test procedure. In addition, 
Appendix B also addresses icemaking energy use by implementing for 
freezers the same procedure adopted for refrigerator-freezers in which 
a fixed energy use value is applied when calculating the energy 
consumption of freezers with automatic icemakers. 75 FR 78810.

Finalization of the Test Procedure Rulemaking for Products Manufactured 
Starting in 2014

    The December 2010 interim final rule established comprehensive 
changes to the manner in which refrigeration products are tested by 
creating new Appendices A and B. In addition to the changes discussed 
above, these new appendices also incorporate the modifications to 
Appendices A1 and B1 that were finalized and adopted on December 16, 
2010.
    DOE provided an initial comment period on the interim final rule, 
which ended on February 14, 2011, and subsequently reopened the comment 
period on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 57612) to allow for further public 
feedback in response to the promulgation of the final energy 
conservation standards that were published on the same day. 76 FR 
57516. This re-opening permitted interested parties to comment on the 
interplay between the test procedure and the energy conservation 
standards, and provided DOE with additional information to consider 
before making any final changes to the test procedures of Appendices A 
and B prior to their use by manufacturers starting on September 15, 
2014. 76 FR at 57612-57613. That comment period ended on October 17, 
2011. DOE also considered comments related to a petition for a test 
procedure waiver that had a direct bearing on elements of the test 
procedures used in Appendix A. See 76 FR 16760 (March 25, 2011) 
(petition no. RF-018, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung)).
    During the comment periods that DOE provided, interested parties 
raised a number of issues for DOE to consider with respect to the test 
procedure. The submitted comments included suggestions that DOE modify 
the test procedure for multiple compressor systems to reduce test 
burden, modify the test period for the second part of the test for 
products with long-time or variable defrost to assure proper accounting 
of all energy use associated with defrost, develop separate test 
procedures and standards for products combining wine storage with fresh 
food compartments, allow use of an alternative three-test interpolation 
approach as an option to potentially improve measurement accuracy at 
the cost of greater test burden for those manufacturers choosing to use 
it, adjust the test procedure's anti-circumvention provisions, and 
adjust the default values of CTL and CTM (the 
longest and shortest duration of compressor run time between defrosts) 
to be used in the energy use equations for products that do not have 
defined values for these parameters in their control algorithms. (Test 
Procedure for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 
Docket Number EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003; Sub-Zero, No. 42; AHAM, No. 43, 
Whirlpool, No. 44) Stakeholders recommended that all but the last of 
these changes be adopted in the current test procedures (Appendices A1 
and B1) as well as the test procedures that will be required for 
certification of compliance with the new energy standards starting 
September 15, 2014 (Appendices A and B). The recommendation for 
changing the default values of CTL and CTM 
applied only to the latter set of test procedures.
    On January 25, 2012, DOE published a final rule setting out the 
test procedures for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers (Appendix 
A) and freezers (Appendix B) that manufacturers must use starting in 
2014. 77 FR 3559. In finalizing the test procedures, DOE considered the 
changes recommended by stakeholders, including recommendations for 
certain amendments to be made to the current test procedures found in 
10 CFR 430.23

[[Page 41614]]

and in Appendices A1 and B1. DOE declined to make the recommended 
amendments for these appendices because the supplementary comment 
period DOE provided had explicitly focused solely on issues related to 
Appendices A and B. Aspects of Appendices A1 and B1 had already been 
settled and finalized with the December 2010 final rule. Id. at 3568-
3571. Additionally, DOE declined to adopt certain changes recommended 
for Appendices A and B. DOE declined to adopt these suggestions because 
the nature of those recommendations had not, in DOE's view, been 
presented in a manner that would have afforded the public with a 
sufficient opportunity to adequately comment on those issues. Id.
    Nevertheless, after finalizing the rule setting out Appendices A 
and B, DOE reviewed these various suggestions and weighed their 
possible inclusion as part of the test procedure framework for 
refrigeration products. As a result of this review, DOE has decided to 
propose the inclusion of some of these recommended amendments in 
today's NOPR, including modified test procedures for products with 
multiple compressor systems, use of an alternative method for measuring 
and calculating energy use consumption at standardized temperatures for 
refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators with freezer compartments, and 
the modification of the anti-circumvention language currently found in 
these appendices.

Waivers

    DOE has granted a limited number of petitions for waiver from the 
test procedures for refrigeration products since the publication of the 
December 2010 final rule. On January 10, 2012, DOE published a decision 
and order (D&O) responding to two waiver petitions from Samsung 
addressing products with multiple defrost cycle types. 77 FR 1474. That 
notice prescribed a procedure to account for the energy use associated 
with the multiple defrost cycles of a single-compressor-based system. 
The approach is identical to the procedure established for Appendix A 
in the January 25, 2012, final rule that manufacturers will need to 
follow starting in 2014. 77 FR 3559. DOE also issued a Decision and 
Order (D&O) that granted a waiver to GE Appliances (GE) to use the same 
test procedure for similar products. See 77 FR 75426 (Dec. 20, 2012) 
(GE waiver). In effect, these waivers permit these companies to address 
certain products that cannot be readily tested or that otherwise would 
produce unrepresentative energy consumption measurements under the 
currently required test in Appendix A1.
    DOE also granted a waiver to Sub-Zero, Inc. (Sub-Zero) to address 
that company's multiple-compressor products. See 77 FR 5784 (Feb. 6, 
2012) (Sub-Zero waiver). That waiver permitted Sub-Zero to use the same 
test procedure that AHAM had recommended that DOE adopt for both 
Appendix A1 and Appendix A. (Test Procedure for Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket Number EERE-2009-BT-TP-
0003; AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 2-3) Today's NOPR proposes to add a test 
procedure for multiple compressor products that is based on the Sub-
Zero waiver procedure.
    Finally, on August 16, 2012, DOE granted a waiver to Sanyo E&E 
Corporation (Sanyo) to address a hybrid refrigeration product, i.e., a 
product combining wine storage compartments in a refrigerator. See 77 
FR 49443 (Decision and Order granting Sanyo's petition (Sanyo waiver)). 
The waiver cites a guidance document that DOE published in February 
2011, which indicates that products combining a wine storage 
compartment and a fresh food compartment are considered refrigerators 
and should be tested as such.\5\ The waiver further explains that the 
Sanyo hybrid product cannot be tested with its wine storage compartment 
at the standardized temperature required for testing refrigerators 
using Appendix A1 (i.e., 38 [deg]F), and that doing so would result in 
a non-representative energy use measurement. Hence, DOE granted Sanyo's 
request that it be allowed to test the product using a standardized 
temperature of 55 [deg]F for the wine storage compartment. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This guidance is posted in DOE's online Guidance and FAQ 
database, and is available for viewing at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After granting a waiver, DOE waiver provisions generally direct the 
agency to initiate a rulemaking to amend its regulations to eliminate 
the continued need for the waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(m). Today's notice 
addresses this requirement for the Sub-Zero waiver by proposing to 
amend Appendix A to include a test procedure for multiple compressor 
products that is based on the Sub-Zero waiver procedure. The Sub-Zero 
waiver would terminate on September 15, 2014, the same date that 
manufacturers must use the test procedures in Appendix A for testing. 
The Samsung and GE waivers have already been addressed by the January 
2012 final rule for products manufactured starting September 15, 2014. 
DOE does not currently anticipate that additional products on the 
market with single-compressor-based systems using multiple defrost 
cycles will be introduced prior to 2014, since it is DOE's 
understanding that this is a system design unique to those 
manufacturers who are currently covered by these waivers. Hence, at 
this time, DOE does not believe amending Appendix A1 to include this 
particular alternative test procedure is necessary. As for hybrid 
products such as the one identified by Sanyo, DOE will consider 
developing appropriate test procedures for these and similar products 
in a separate rulemaking. See 77 FR 7547 (Feb. 13, 2012).

II. Summary of the Proposal

    DOE's December 2010 and January 2012 notices made a number of 
changes to the previous versions of the test procedures. These changes 
included modifying the current procedure and creating a substantially 
revised procedure that manufacturers must begin to use when certifying 
and rating refrigeration products starting in 2014. While the final 
rules made a number of significant improvements to the test procedures, 
there remained some pending issues that DOE was unable to address. 
Today's notice attempts to address those remaining issues.
    Some of the improvements proposed in this notice could be 
considered for implementation in the current test procedures as well as 
the procedures that will be required for certification starting in 
2014. However, the current test procedures will continue to be used 
only for a limited time. Hence, DOE is not proposing to make any 
substantive amendments to these test procedures, which are contained in 
Appendices A1 and B1. (The proposal does, however, include amendments 
that would correct certain cross-references in these appendices to 
sections of 10 CFR 429). DOE requests comments on its proposed 
amendments to Appendices A and B, along with its tentative decision to 
refrain from applying this approach to the currently required 
Appendices A1 and B1.
    The proposed amendments and issues on which DOE seeks public 
comment are summarized below.
    First, DOE is soliciting comment on its proposal to incorporate 
laboratory-based test procedures for measuring energy use associated 
with automatic icemaking to replace the standardized value used to 
represent icemaking energy use that DOE adopted as part of the December 
2010 test procedure interim final rule. See 75 FR at 78859 (Appendix A, 
sec. 6.2.2.1.) and 78871

[[Page 41615]]

(Appendix B, sec. 6.2.1.1.). Responding to DOE's preliminary analysis 
in 2009, a broad group of stakeholders agreed that DOE should regulate 
icemaking energy use as part of the refrigeration product energy 
conservation standards. The commenters recognized, however, that 
suitable test procedures were not yet available to allow their 
introduction in time for use with the 2014 energy conservation 
standards. (See Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012; 
ACEEE, No. 46 at p. 1; and AHAM, No. 37 at p. 2) With this 
understanding, many of these stakeholders collaborated to submit a 
joint comment recommending that DOE conduct a rulemaking in 2012 to 
amend its refrigeration product test procedures to incorporate 
icemaking energy use. (Test Procedure for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-
Freezers, and Freezers, Docket Number EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003; Joint 
Comment, No. 20 at pp. 5-6) AHAM submitted to DOE a ``draft'' version 
of this test procedure in January 2012. Later, in July 2012, it 
submitted a revised version of this earlier draft and recommended that 
DOE adopt it. (AHAM Draft Test Procedure, No. 4; and AHAM Revised Draft 
Test Procedure, No. 5) \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ DOE's proposal is more consistent with the revised AHAM test 
procedure than with AHAM's initial draft. However, it is instructive 
to consider the contrast between the initial and revised AHAM test 
procedures, since justification for certain complications present in 
the DOE proposal for testing products that cycle compressors during 
icemaking are best explained through comparison with the simpler, 
but potentially less accurate, method of the initial AHAM draft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today's notice solicits comment on an approach that would measure 
the energy use of automatic icemaking. That approach is based in part 
on the suggested approach from AHAM. Depending on the nature of any 
submitted comments, DOE may modify this approach. At this time, DOE is 
proposing that manufacturers would not be required to use this 
procedure until DOE amends the energy conservation standards for 
refrigeration products as part of the mandatory review required under 
EPCA. By linking this new measurement method with a new standards 
rulemaking, DOE can better ensure that all of these new requirements 
are coordinated within the context of a standards rulemaking (which 
would include any potential impacts related to icemaking energy use) 
and avoid any potential labeling issues that may arise, particularly 
since the new standards that DOE promulgated in 2011 will not be 
required for compliance purposes until 2014. See 76 FR 57516.
    Further, DOE notes that manufacturers must base their written 
representations of energy usage on a new test procedure within 180 days 
of when the final rule for that procedure is published. See 42 U.S.C. 
6293(c)(2). Given the upcoming transition to the new standards for 
2014, it is possible that this requirement, if adopted, could lead to 
confusion as consumers attempt to understand the meaning of the 
reported values, particularly if the reported values differ between two 
identical models that may have been tested under different provisions. 
Additionally, manufacturers would need to adjust their testing and 
labeling to account for the new icemaking energy measurement protocol. 
In light of these concerns, it is DOE's tentative view that linking the 
timing of when manufacturers should begin using the icemaking energy 
use test method with the agency's statutorily-mandated review of the 
2014 standards would reduce consumer confusion and minimize the overall 
burdens faced by manufacturers while ensuring that a viable procedure 
is in place for measuring the energy use from icemaking. DOE notes that 
if it should adopt this measurement procedure, it would use that 
procedure in evaluating potential adjustments to the energy 
conservation standards as part of the mandatory review. This two-step 
approach should help ensure a smoother transition to a potential new 
set of standards based on any icemaking energy use test that DOE may 
adopt. DOE also notes that if this procedure were adopted in the manner 
described above, a manufacturer seeking to use the new procedure 
earlier than required would need to obtain a test procedure waiver from 
DOE in advance of doing so.
    Second, today's notice proposes to add test procedures for products 
with multiple compressor systems. These proposed procedures are based 
on the waiver granted to Sub-Zero on February 6, 2012. 77 FR 5784. They 
are proposed for inclusion only in Appendix A (i.e. procedures for 
these products required starting in 2014). The approach is not 
applicable to freezers and, hence, is not proposed for inclusion in 
Appendix B.
    Third, the proposal would address two issues raised by commenters 
during the previous refrigeration product test procedure rulemaking. 
The first would make modest changes to the ``anti-circumvention'' 
language of 10 CFR 430.23, which is found in paragraph (a)(10) for 
refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, and paragraph (b)(7) for 
freezers. This proposed amendment would help clarify product design and 
control system issues to ensure that the measurements from testing are 
accurate and representative of expected consumer use. The second would 
allow the optional use of a new, alternative method for measuring and 
calculating the energy use of refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators 
with freezer compartments. This method, commonly known as 
``triangulation,'' may, for some products, provide a more accurate 
measure of energy use--notably, for products with control systems that 
are not balanced to simultaneously match the standardized temperatures 
of both the freezer and fresh food compartments at the same positions 
of the temperature controls for these compartments. Triangulation 
involves the use of an additional test conducted using a third 
temperature control setting. (Under Appendix A, only two temperature 
control settings are used to calculate the energy usage of a given 
refrigeration product.) The proposal would allow manufacturers to use 
this test as an alternative for certification if a manufacturer 
believed that the more comprehensive triangulation test would provide a 
more accurate measurement of energy use than the simpler, ``two 
temperature-control-setting'' method already provided in DOE's 
regulations. The proposal would also require that certification reports 
indicate whether triangulation has been used for testing. The NOPR 
proposes that triangulation be adopted in Appendix A. This test method 
is not applicable to freezers and, hence, is not proposed for inclusion 
in Appendix B. Additionally, while manufacturers would have the option 
of using either the two-part or triangulation test, DOE is proposing 
that it would use the triangulation test for assessment and enforcement 
testing in some cases.
    Today's proposal also includes amendments associated with 
certification of compliance. First, it includes a proposal to eliminate 
the current requirement to report the height of refrigeration products 
in certification reports starting September 15, 2014. This information 
will no longer be necessary to classify products after this date, 
because the compact product classes will no longer have a height limit. 
See 76 FR 57515, 57538 (Sept. 15, 2011) and DOE Guidance (Oct. 6, 2011) 
regarding compact products, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/refr-frz_faq_2011-10-06.pdf. This change in 
the certification report requirements of 10 CFR 429.14(b)(2) would, in 
DOE's

[[Page 41616]]

view, reduce the overall reporting burden faced by manufacturers. The 
proposal would also move the requirement to report whether a product 
has variable defrost or variable anti-sweat heaters from section 
429.14(b)(3) to section 429.14(b)(2) to reflect that DOE intends for 
this information to be publicly available.
    As a measure intended to reduce testing burden and potentially 
improve the accuracy of reported data, today's proposal would permit 
the use of volume calculations derived using computer aided design 
(CAD) tools in lieu of physical measurements of each basic model. To 
enable manufacturers to use this option, DOE is proposing changes to 
the requirements of Appendices A and B for measuring volume, adding a 
new section 429.72 establishing requirements applicable to volume 
measurement, and adding a process in a new section 10 CFR 429.134 for 
verifying the rated volume of a product. Finally, the references in 
section 5.1 of Appendices A and B to certification test reports would 
be corrected, changing references from 10 CFR 429.14 to 10 CFR 429.71.
    The proposal also includes several clarifying amendments. These 
include: (a) Clarifying the term ``incomplete cycling'' as it applies 
to tested products and also modifying the test period for these 
products to ensure more accurate energy use measurement, (b) more 
specific instructions for setting mechanical temperature controls at 
their warmest and coldest settings, (c) clarifying the requirements for 
measuring ambient temperature and for maintaining ambient temperature 
gradients during testing, (d) establishing definitions for several 
commonly understood (but undefined) terms used in the test procedures, 
(e) a correction to the definition of the term ``E'' as used in section 
6.2.2.2 of Appendix A to reference the proper section of the procedure, 
(f) required conditions for ``connected'' products during testing, (g) 
more specific instructions regarding the required clearance to the rear 
wall during testing, and (h) more specific instructions for relocation 
of interior components, such as shelving, to allow placement of 
temperature sensors in the required locations. In DOE's view, adopting 
these proposed amendments would improve test accuracy and would help 
ensure consistency when tests are carried out by different testing 
laboratories. These proposals, which are not expected to lead to any 
changes in measured energy usage, would be adopted in Appendices A and 
B.
    Today's proposal also includes corrections to the temperature 
setting tables--Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix A and Table 1 of Appendix B. 
These tables would be modified in the CFR to properly reflect the 
intended temperature-setting progression from the initial test through 
the final test. The proposal would eliminate some horizontal lines in 
these tables to clarify the temperature-setting logic.
    Further, DOE is seeking comments on a specific aspect related to 
built-in products, namely, whether testing these products in their 
built-in conditions would provide more representative and accurate 
energy consumption measurements. Under the current procedures, 
manufacturers are not required to test these products in a built-in 
condition. However, data recently collected by DOE, described in 
section III.D.1, suggest that some built-in products may yield 
different energy use measurements depending on whether they are tested 
in a built-in condition.
    Finally, DOE has proposed amendments to address issues that DOE has 
identified through product testing. The first involves products with 
variable defrost, which are tested using provisions in Appendices A and 
B that are designed to account for variation in compressor run time 
between defrost cycles. DOE has observed in some cases that the actual 
minimum time between defrosts during testing was less than the minimum 
value reported to DOE in the model's certification report. To ensure 
that measured values of energy use are representative of the actual 
operation of models with variable defrost, DOE proposes to require use 
of the minimum observed compressor run time between defrosts if it is 
less than the certified value. The second proposal is to include more 
specific instructions regarding loading of packages in freezers, as 
required by Appendix B, which DOE believes will result in more 
consistent performance of this aspect of the test procedure.
    The proposed amendments discussed in this notice would, if adopted, 
take effect 30 days after issuance of the final rule. However, 
manufacturers would be required to use the modified versions of 
Appendices A and B for rating products starting on the compliance date 
for the 2014 standards, which is September 15, 2014. 76 FR 70865 (Nov. 
16, 2011). With the exception of the proposed test method for icemaker 
energy use, which would be addressed separately from the other proposed 
amendments to Appendices A and B, these changes either involve 
clarifications or provide alternatives to those methods that 
manufacturers already must use--or otherwise permit manufacturers to 
use a procedure that the industry has already largely developed and 
vetted. None of these amendments would, to DOE's knowledge, alter the 
measured energy use to any significant extent, and DOE does not 
anticipate that manufacturers will need to make substantial efforts to 
adjust to any of these proposed changes. With respect to the adoption 
of the proposed icemaker-related amendments for Appendices A and B, 
none of these changes would be required until DOE prescribes new or 
amended standards for refrigeration products. Until that time, 
manufacturers would continue using the fixed value approach prescribed 
in the regulations to account for icemaking energy use. Should these 
proposed amendments be adopted, manufacturers seeking to use this 
procedure prior to DOE's promulgation of new or amended standards would 
need to obtain a test procedure waiver in advance of doing so.

III. Discussion

    This notice contains a number of proposed modifications to the 
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer test procedures, and 
DOE encourages stakeholders to submit comments on any aspect of these 
proposals. Comments are especially encouraged if stakeholders wish to 
provide supporting data, propose alternate approaches, and express 
support for (or objections to) DOE's tentative views on the issues 
discussed in this notice.
    The following section discusses in further detail the various 
issues addressed by today's notice. Table III-1 below lists the 
subsections of this section and indicates where the proposed 
amendments, along with the potential icemaking energy measurement test 
that DOE is considering, would appear in each appendix. Section A 
identifies the products covered by the proposal; section B specifies 
the compliance dates that would apply to the proposed amendments; 
section C discusses the test procedure amendments; section D discusses 
testing of built-in products and requests comment on the discussion 
without proposing a test procedure amendment; and section E discusses 
compliance of the proposal with other EPCA requirements.

[[Page 41617]]

                   Table III-1--Discussion Subsections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Affected appendices
      Section              Title       ---------------------------------
                                               A                B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.A..............  Products Covered         No proposed changes.
                      by the Proposed
                      Rule.
                                       ---------------------------------
III.B..............  Proposed Dates                  X                X
                      for the Amended
                      Test Procedures.
1..................  Icemaking Test                  X                X
                      Procedure.
2..................  Multiple                        X   ...............
                      Compressor Test.
3..................  Triangulation....               X   ...............
                                       ---------------------------------
4..................  Anti-                              *
                      Circumvention
                      Language.
                                       ---------------------------------
5..................  Incomplete                      X                X
                      Cycling.
6..................  Mechanical                      X                X
                      Temperature
                      Controls.
7..................  Ambient                         X                X
                      Temperature
                      Gradient.
8..................  Definitions                     X                X
                      Associated with
                      Defrost Cycles.
                                       ---------------------------------
9..................  Elimination of                    **
                      Reporting of
                      Product Height.
                                       ---------------------------------
10.................  Measurement of                  X                X
                      Product Volume
                      ***.
11.................  Corrections to                  X                X
                      Temperature
                      Setting Logic
                      Tables.
III.C.12...........  Default Minimum                 X                X
                      Compressor Run-
                      Time Between
                      Defrosts for
                      Variable Defrost
                      Models.
III.C.13...........  Treatment of                    X                X
                      ``Connected''
                      Products.
                                       ---------------------------------
III.C.14...........  Changes to                        ***
                      Confidentiality
                      of Certification
                      Data.
                                       ---------------------------------
III.C.15...........  Package Loading..  ...............               X
III.C.16...........  Rear Clearance                  X                X
                      During Testing.
III.C.17...........  Other Minor                     X                X
                      Corrections
                      [dagger].
III.C.18...........  Relocation of                   X                X
                      Shelving.
                                       ---------------------------------
III.D.1............  Built-In                 No proposed changes.
                      Refrigerators.
                                       ---------------------------------
III.D.2............  Products that are  ...............  ...............
                      Operable as a
                      Refrigerator or
                      a Freezer.
1..................  Test Burden......  ...............  ...............
2..................  Changes in         ...............  ...............
                      Measured Energy
                      Use.
3..................  Standby and Off    ...............  ...............
                      Mode Energy Use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This amendment would appear in 10 CFR 430.23, but would affect testing
  using all four appendices.
** This amendment would appear in 10 CFR 429.14, but would affect
  certification reporting for products tested using Appendices A and B.
*** This amendment includes proposed modifications to 10 CFR 429.14.
[dagger] This section also proposes an amendment to 10 CFR 430.2.

A. Products Covered by the Proposed Rule

    Today's amendments cover those products that meet the definitions 
for refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and freezer, as codified in 10 
CFR 430.2. The definitions for refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer 
were amended in the December 16, 2010 final rule. 75 FR at 78817 and 
78848.

B. Proposed Dates for the Amended Test Procedures

    This notice proposes amendments that would be made in sections 
429.14 and 430.23 and in Appendices A and B.
    The proposed amendments to sections 429.14 and 430.23 would be 
effective 30 days after publication of a final rule. Manufacturers 
would not be required to use the amended test procedures to rate their 
products until 180 days after issuance of the final rule. See 42 U.S.C. 
6293(c)(2).
    Some of the proposed amendments that aim to improve measurement 
accuracy by clarifying certain aspects of the test procedures or to 
reduce test burden could potentially be considered for adoption in the 
current test procedures (i.e., Appendices A1 and B1). However, these 
appendices are scheduled to be obsolete after September 2014, so DOE is 
not proposing to amend them. DOE requests comments on this approach.
    The proposed amendments that would apply to Appendices A and B 
would be effective 30 days after issuance of a final rule, but 
manufacturers would not be required to use this procedure prior to 
September 15, 2014. Once that date arrives, however, Appendices A and B 
will be mandatory for making representations regarding the energy use 
or operating costs of refrigeration products. Manufacturers would be 
permitted to use Appendices A and B before this 2014 date if they 
choose to do so, provided that they indicate in their certification 
submissions that their ratings are based on Appendix A or B and that 
the products satisfy the 2014 standards.
    As discussed in section I, this NOPR addresses the joint comments 
of a broad group of stakeholders who urged DOE to initiate a rulemaking 
to amend the test procedures for refrigeration products to incorporate 
a laboratory-based measurement of icemaking energy use. The joint 
comment further recommended that DOE publish a final rule by July 1, 
2013, and amend the energy conservation standards scheduled to take 
effect in 2014 to account for the differences in measured energy use of 
icemakers when using the new test procedure as compared with the 84 kWh 
per year fixed placeholder value. (Test Procedure for Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket Number EERE-2009-BT-TP-
0003; Joint Comment, No. 20 at 5-6) However, as discussed in section 1, 
DOE has tentatively determined that its proposal to address icemaking 
energy use would not affect measured energy use to any significant 
extent. Hence,

[[Page 41618]]

DOE believes at this time that adjusting the energy conservation 
standards as suggested would not be necessary. Section 1 discusses 
DOE's preliminary assessment of the likely impact of the icemaking test 
procedure detailed in today's notice on energy consumption 
measurements. Supporting data are provided to help illustrate this 
impact.
    As pointed out earlier, the proposed icemaking test procedure would 
not be required until DOE prescribes new or amended standards for 
refrigeration products. Until that time, manufacturers would continue 
using the fixed value approach currently prescribed in DOE's 
regulations to account for icemaking energy use. Should these proposed 
amendments be adopted, manufacturers seeking to use this procedure 
prior to DOE's promulgation of new or amended standards would need to 
obtain a test procedure waiver in advance of doing so.

C. Proposed Test Procedure Amendments

    The following discussion addresses aspects of DOE's proposal to 
amend 10 CFR 430.23 and Appendices A and B. DOE seeks comment on all 
aspects of its proposal as described below.
1. Icemaking Test Procedure
    Nearly all refrigerator-freezers currently sold either have a 
factory-installed automatic icemaker or are ``icemaker-kitable''--i.e., 
they are manufactured with the necessary water tubing, valve(s), and 
icemaker mounting hardware to allow quick installation of an automatic 
icemaker at any time after the product leaves the factory. Ice 
production increases the energy use of a refrigerator-freezer in two 
ways: (1) Some icemaker components (e.g., the mold heater and the gear 
motor) consume energy, and (2) additional refrigeration is required to 
cool and freeze incoming water and to remove the heat generated by 
icemaker components (e.g., the mold heater).
    The current test procedure for refrigerators and refrigerator-
freezers does not measure the energy use associated with ice 
production. Specifically, HRF-1-1979, section 7.4.2 (which is 
incorporated by reference into the current test procedures of Appendix 
A1) states, ``Automatic icemakers are to be inoperative during the 
test''.\7\ In the May 2010 NOPR, DOE indicated that energy use 
associated with automatic icemaking represents 10 percent to 15 percent 
of the rated energy use of typical refrigeration products. See 75 FR at 
29846-29847 (May 27, 2010). As discussed in section I of this notice, 
stakeholders commented in response to DOE's presentation of its 
preliminary analysis supporting the recently completed energy 
conservation standard rulemaking that the test procedures and energy 
conservation standards for refrigeration products should address 
icemaking energy use (see, for example, Energy Conservation Standards 
for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. 
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012; ACEEE, No. 46 at p. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ DOE has published guidance documents clarifying how to 
render icemakers ``inoperative'' during a test. See, for example, 
``Additional Guidance Regarding Application of Current Procedures 
for Testing Energy Consumption of Refrigerator-Freezers with 
Automatic Ice Makers'', http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/rf_test_procedure_addl_guidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, stakeholders also commented that a test procedure to 
measure icemaking energy use had not yet been sufficiently developed. 
(Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-
Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012; AHAM, No. 37 
at p. 2: General Electric, No.40 at p. 1) To avoid delaying the energy 
conservation standard rulemaking, DOE published the new Appendix A test 
procedure and related energy conservation standard with a fixed 
placeholder energy use value of 84 kWh/year for products with automatic 
icemakers, to represent the average amount of energy consumed in ice 
production. 75 FR at 78842-78843 (Dec. 10, 2010) and 76 FR at 57538 
(Sept. 15, 2011). (The 84 kWh/year value is equivalent to the 0.23 kWh/
day value found in Appendices A and B, Section 6.2.2.1. That 0.23 kWh/
day value is multiplied by 365 (see, for example, 10 CFR 430.23(a)(1)), 
which yields an annual consumption of 84 kWh/year.)
    As part of the 2010 industry and efficiency advocate consensus 
agreement, AHAM agreed to develop an icemaking test procedure before 
January 1, 2012. (Test Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003, 
Joint Comment, No. 20 at p. 5).
Summary of AHAM's Initial Draft and Revised Draft Icemaking Test 
Procedures
    A key aspect to determining annual energy use associated with 
icemaking is the average daily ice production. AHAM presented some 
information to DOE in late 2009 regarding this value in a document 
summarizing the status of its test procedure development work, titled 
``AHAM Update to DOE on Status of Ice Maker Energy Test Procedure--
November 19, 2009''.\8\ (AHAM Ice Making Test Update, AHAM, No. 7 at p. 
5). That document also included data suggesting that using a daily 
production rate of 1.8 pounds of ice per refrigeration product would be 
appropriate. This value was based on a total ``sample size'' of 155. 
However, the document did not elaborate further on the sample size 
other than to indicate that it had been derived using the combined data 
from three consumer surveys and three separate field tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Subsequently referred to as ``AHAM Ice Making Test Update''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In early January 2012, AHAM provided DOE with a draft of its 
icemaking test procedure, ``AHAM Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, 
and Freezer Ice Making Energy Test Procedure, Revision 1.0--12/14/11''. 
(AHAM Draft Test Procedure, No. 4) That draft indicated that it applies 
to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers, as defined in 10 
CFR 430.2, that were equipped with a single automatic icemaker 
(including non-icemaker-equipped models that could be readily 
retrofitted with an optional automatic icemaker).
    In July 2012, AHAM provided DOE with a revision of its icemaking 
test procedure, ``AHAM Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer 
Ice Making Energy Test Procedure, Revision 2.0--07/10/12''. (AHAM 
Revised Draft Test Procedure, No. 5) The AHAM Revised Draft Test 
Procedure applies to products that have one or more automatic 
icemakers. In addition, it includes several revisions to the AHAM Draft 
Test Procedure. The paragraphs below summarize the AHAM Revised Draft 
Test Procedure and highlight provisions from the AHAM Draft Test 
Procedure relevant to the detailed procedure on which DOE seeks 
comment.
    The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure does not address the average 
ice production rate and does not include a value to apply when 
converting the measured icemaking energy use into a value of energy use 
per daily cycle. In contrast, the earlier AHAM Draft Test Procedure 
retained the current assumed 1.8-pound daily ice production rate 
through the use of an annual ice consumption value set at 657 pounds. 
Dividing this value by 365 days yields an ice production rate of 1.8 
pounds per day. (AHAM Draft Test Procedure, No. 4 at pp. 7-8)
    The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure would require an ambient test 
room temperature of 90 [deg]F, which is consistent with the DOE 
procedures (see, e.g., Appendix A, section 2.1). It

[[Page 41619]]

would also require target compartment temperatures of 39 [deg]F for 
fresh food compartments and 0 [deg]F for freezer compartments. These 
temperatures match the standardized temperatures prescribed by the DOE 
energy tests (see Appendix A, section 3.2 for refrigerator-freezers and 
Appendix B, section 3.2 for freezers). While the AHAM revised draft 
test does not mention the freezer compartment standardized temperature 
for refrigerators, which the DOE test sets at 15 [deg]F (see Appendix 
A, section 3.2), it does indicate that its scope would extend to 
refrigerators. See AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure, section 2.1.
    In view of the above, DOE requests comment on whether any 
refrigerators (i.e., ``electric refrigerator'' as defined in 10 CFR 
430.2, and not a refrigerator-freezer) are sold with automatic 
icemakers (including non-icemaker-equipped models that could be readily 
retrofitted with an optional automatic icemaker). (DOE's review found 
none.) If so, DOE also seeks comment on whether test procedures for 
automatic icemakers should cover these ``electric refrigerators'' and 
to what extent, if any, the test procedure would need to be modified to 
accommodate the testing of these products. DOE is seeking comment on 
this issue in part to ascertain whether this aspect of today's proposal 
should apply to refrigerators as opposed to only refrigerator-freezers. 
DOE is currently unaware of any refrigerator that is sold equipped with 
an automatic icemaker.
    The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure also does not mention whether 
the test procedure would apply to refrigeration products with manual 
defrost. Such products are tested with frozen food packages in their 
freezer compartments (see, for example, Appendix B, section 2.2 and 
HRF-1-2008, sections 5.5.3 and 5.5.5.3). Any icemaking test procedure 
would likely require that such products be tested with the frozen food 
packages removed, since some of the test operations, such as removing 
ice from the ice bin, may be impossible if the freezer compartment is 
full of packages. DOE requests comment on whether any manual defrost 
refrigerator-freezers or freezers are sold with automatic icemakers and 
whether any test procedure modifications would be required to address 
such products.
    The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure specifies the use of target 
compartment temperatures, equal to the standardized compartment 
temperatures already prescribed in Appendices A and B, for a baseline 
test involving no icemaking. However, rather than following the DOE 
procedure of requiring tests to measure icemaking energy use at the 
median and cold (or warm) settings of the temperature controls and 
calculating energy use as a weighted average of the measurements at the 
two selected settings (see Appendix A, section 3.2.1), the AHAM Revised 
Draft Test Procedure, if adopted, would require that a single test be 
conducted with the temperature controls adjusted to achieve a 
compartment temperature within 2 [deg]F of the target temperature. The 
temperature controls would not be adjusted further during the phases of 
the test in which the product is producing ice.
    The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure would also require that the 
test setup be in accordance with the setup already prescribed by the 
DOE test procedure (or ``DOE energy test''). It also specifies that the 
supply water for the icemaker must have a temperature range of 90 +/- 2 
[deg]F and a pressure range of 60 15 pounds per square inch 
gauge pressure (psig).\9\ No further setup requirements are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Gauge pressure is absolute pressure minus barometric 
pressure, i.e., the pressure that a pressure gauge connected to the 
water supply piping would indicate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In calculating the energy use per pound of ice produced, the AHAM 
Revised Draft Test Procedure would require subtracting the average 
energy use per day (in kWh/day) measured during a baseline test (during 
which the product is not making ice) from the average energy use per 
day (in kWh/day) measured during an icemaking test, and dividing the 
difference between the results of the two tests by the average rate of 
ice production (pounds per hour) during the icemaking test. This 
calculation would yield a final value in kilowatt-hours per pound (kWh/
lb). The energy use for both the baseline and icemaking tests would be 
measured under the proposed procedures during steady-state operation 
and not during a defrost.
    The test period for the baseline test could consist of at least 
seven hours of operation equivalent to the procedure for confirming 
steady-state conditions during the DOE energy test (see Appendix A, 
section 2.9). For products with cycling compressors, this test period 
would include two periods of at least two hours each, both comprising a 
whole number of compressor cycles, separated by one period of at least 
three hours. Although this test period is used only to confirm steady-
state conditions in the DOE test procedure, the AHAM Revised Draft Test 
Procedure would also use this period as the test period for measuring 
energy use when the product is not making ice.
    According to the AHAM Revised Draft Test procedure, the icemaking 
part of the test for products that do not cycle their compressors 
during icemaking would require a test period of at least 24 hours and 
consist of multiple complete icemaker cycles. If the test is 
interrupted by a defrost or if the ice storage bin fills before 24 
hours have elapsed, the test period would be the maximum time between 
defrost cycles or the maximum time before the ice bin is filled with 
ice.
    The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure would calculate icemaking 
energy use in products that cycle their compressors during icemaking 
differently from the initial AHAM Draft Test Procedure. Specifically, 
the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure would use a measurement of 
average ice production per hour that would be adjusted to account for 
differences in compressor run time of a first test period based on 
compressor cycles (which would be used to determine average energy use 
during icemaking) and a second test period based on icemaker cycles 
(which would be used as the basis for measuring the energy use per 
icemaking cycle and the mass of harvested ice). (AHAM Revised Draft 
Test Procedure, No. 5 at p. 8). The adjustment would be based on the 
two measurements of energy use associated with the two test periods. In 
contrast, the AHAM Draft Test Procedure relied on energy use and 
harvested ice mass measured for a single test period based on icemaker 
cycles, irrespective of whether the compressor cycles during icemaking 
(AHAM Draft Test Procedure, No. 4 at p. 7). The contrast between these 
two approaches is highlighted because, as discussed in more detail 
below, the approach DOE is considering would include the more 
comprehensive approach of the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure.
    Under the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure, the final calculated 
result would be the incremental icemaking energy use per mass of ice in 
kilowatt hours per pound of ice. There would be no further conversion 
of this value into energy use per daily cycle or per year. In contrast, 
the AHAM Draft Test Procedure included a conversion calculation to 
yield an annual ice production rate. (AHAM Draft Test Procedure, No. 4 
at p. 7-8)
Potential Approach Under Consideration
    The approach DOE is considering for measuring icemaking energy use 
is based on the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure. It differs from that 
draft in

[[Page 41620]]

that the DOE approach would include greater detail to improve clarity 
and testing consistency. If adopted, DOE would likely add this 
icemaking energy measurement procedure as a new section 8 for both 
Appendices A and B. While this discussion touches on a number of key 
aspects related to the potential approach, DOE encourages interested 
parties to review it carefully and to comment on all of its aspects.
    The key modifications DOE is considering compared with the AHAM 
test procedure would attempt to:
    (1) Establish a definition for ``ice piece'' in addition to the 
definitions suggested by the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure.
    (2) Clarify that the anti-sweat heater must be turned off during 
the icemaking test period, and that the water filter must be installed.
    (3) Require that measurements be recorded during testing at time 
intervals not exceeding one minute.
    (4) Clarify the points at which an icemaker cycle begins and ends. 
Many icemakers have mold heaters that are energized with 100W or more 
power input for more than a minute. This temporary increase in power is 
easily recognizable when evaluating the wattage data for a refrigerator 
test. Icemakers without mold heaters do not provide such an indication 
that one icemaking cycle has ended and the next has started. These 
icemakers would require the use of an alternative method to identify 
the beginning and end of icemaker cycles. The proposal would specify 
three alternative options: measuring the icemaker mold temperature, 
measuring the water supply temperature, or monitoring the activation of 
the water supply solenoid valve.
    (5) Require that each compartment's average temperature during the 
baseline part of the test be no more than 1 [deg]F warmer than its 
standardized temperature
    (6) Require that each compartment's average temperature during 
icemaking be no more than 1[deg]F (0.6 [deg]C) warmer than its 
temperature during the baseline test, and require adjustment of 
temperature control settings if necessary to meet this temperature 
requirement. Also, the proposed test procedure would require products 
with a feature that automatically reduces the freezer compartment 
temperature setpoint or maintains compressor operation at an elevated 
duty cycle or speed during icemaking to be tested with this feature 
enabled.
    (7) Prescribe the use of a baseline test period consistent with the 
test period specified in the DOE test procedure in Appendix A, section 
4.1, rather than using the stabilization test period as the test period 
for baseline energy use calculation.
    (8) Prescribe the use of equations that are equivalent, but not 
identical to, those of the AHAM Revised Draft, making more direct use 
of values measured during the test and involving fewer intermediate 
calculations.
    (9) Apply a temperature stability criterion to the icemaking test 
period.
    (10) Specify that icemaking would be initiated earlier than 
specified in the AHAM Revised Draft after completion of defrost.
    (11) Address refrigeration products with multiple icemakers by 
requiring that such units be tested with only one of these icemakers 
operating during the test, rather than all of them simultaneously. The 
approach DOE is considering would also specify which icemaker to 
operate.
    (12) Specify a daily ice production rate of 1.8 pounds per day in 
order to allow calculation of the contribution of icemaking to annual 
energy use. DOE is also considering requiring that products that cycle 
their compressors during icemaking would have their energy use 
calculated in a manner similar to the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure 
(i.e., calculate energy use both for test periods comprising a complete 
(whole) number of compressor cycles and for test periods comprising 
complete icemaker cycles). The two calculations would be performed 
using the data from the same single icemaking test, as recommended in 
the AHAM Revised Draft. Using this approach would, in DOE's view, help 
improve measurement accuracy for the reasons described below.
Potential Icemaking Section
    As noted above, DOE is considering incorporating an icemaking test 
based on AHAM's Revised Draft Test Procedure into Appendices A and B 
(i.e. the test procedures manufacturers must use starting in September 
2014) by adding a new Section 8 to both appendices. Separating this new 
method from the other sections would, in DOE's view, help reduce the 
risk of confusion and improve the overall clarity of the procedures.
Icemaking Definitions
    To help ensure clarity during testing, DOE proposes to add four 
definitions to provide background for the terminology that would be 
used in conjunction with whatever potential icemaking test procedure 
DOE adopts. Two of these definitions are identical to those used in the 
AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure and are commonly understood in the 
industry but are currently undefined:
    ``Harvest'' means the process of freeing or removing ice pieces 
from an automatic icemaker.
    ``Ice Storage Bin'' means a container in which ice can be stored.
    In addition, DOE proposes to define ``Ice Piece'' as a piece of ice 
made by an automatic icemaker and that has not been reduced in size by 
crushing or other mechanical action. Although people often refer to ice 
pieces as ice ``cubes'', DOE proposes to use ``pieces'' instead to (a) 
avoid the suggestion that ice pieces must have a specific shape, and 
(b) avoid confusion with DOE's energy conservation standards for 
automatic commercial ice makers, which include a definition for ``cube 
type ice''. (See 10 CFR 431.132) DOE also notes that the AHAM Revised 
Draft Test Procedure does not use the term ``cube'' and has established 
the precedent of using the term ``ice piece'', as seen in the 
definition for ``harvest'' discussed above.
    Finally, since neither the test procedures in Appendices A and B 
nor the HRF-1-2008 test procedure specifically define the term 
``through-the-door ice/water dispenser'' and because this term or 
similar terms are used both in the sections addressing measurement of 
ice making energy use and in the volume calculation method, DOE 
proposes to incorporate a definition for this term in both Appendices A 
and B to read as follows: ``Through-the-door ice/water dispenser'' 
means a device incorporated within the cabinet, but outside the 
boundary of the refrigerated space, that delivers to the user on demand 
ice or water from within the refrigerated space without opening an 
exterior door. This definition includes dispensers that are capable of 
dispensing ice and water, ice only, or water only.
    DOE requests comment on these proposed definitions.
Anti-Sweat Heater Operation
    To minimize test variation and potential error, particularly for 
products with variable anti-sweat heater control, the proposed 
procedure would require all anti-sweat heater switches to be in the 
``off'' position for the test. Variable anti-sweat heater control is a 
feature that energizes the anti-sweat heaters only as much as needed, 
depending on ambient humidity and other conditions, to prevent the 
condensation of water vapor on the door gaskets and cool surfaces near 
them.
    This requirement is proposed for two reasons: (1) To avoid the 
random activation of variable anti-sweat heaters

[[Page 41621]]

during testing should the ambient humidity levels in the test room vary 
during the test and (2) to help clarify the power input measurement of 
the test by removing the power consumption associated directly with 
anti-sweat heaters. Because random activation of variable anti-sweat 
heaters could add extra power consumption to one part of the test and 
not the other, complete removal of anti-sweat heater power use from the 
measurement may ease the interpretation of power consumption signals 
measured during the test. Hence, DOE proposes that the heaters be 
turned off both to avoid change in anti-sweat heater energy between 
portions of the icemaking test and to allow for better evaluation of 
the power input measurements that will be used to define test periods 
and the number of icemaker cycles--these factors would improve the 
accuracy and repeatability of the test.
    A potential issue with this proposal is that it may be susceptible 
to circumvention by products that have an anti-sweat heater switch if 
the icemaker's operation is modified once the switch is turned off. For 
example, a manufacturer may be able to reduce icemaking energy use at a 
lower ice production rate by reducing fan and/or compressor speed when 
the switch is turned off, which would violate the anti-circumvention 
provision. An alternative proposal to address the potentially random 
activation of variable anti-sweat heaters would be to require that 
icemaking tests be conducted with the anti-sweat heater switch turned 
on and the test chamber humidity level set sufficiently low to prevent 
heater activation--this proposed change would apply to products without 
anti-sweat heater switches, as described below. However, this approach 
would add more testing burden, since it would require that all 
refrigerators with variable anti-sweat heating be tested in this 
fashion, which requires using test facilities capable of reducing 
humidity levels as needed. Another approach would be to require that 
humidity levels in the test facility be maintained within a narrow 
range for which the variation in energy use of any variable anti-sweat 
heater would be insignificant. However, this could also add 
significantly to test burden, since many existing test facilities do 
not have the necessary equipment to control humidity levels. If it 
subsequently becomes clear that some manufacturers are exploiting this 
flexibility in a manner that would yield unrepresentative measurements 
of energy use, DOE may implement one of the alternative proposals in a 
future rulemaking.
    For products with variable anti-sweat heater control but with no 
anti-sweat heater switch, the proposal would require that the test be 
performed in an ambient condition with humidity levels sufficiently low 
to prevent the anti-sweat heater from being energized. The proposal 
would not specify the humidity level required to assure that the heater 
is not energized, which DOE expects would maximize testing flexibility 
and minimize the burden associated with meeting this requirement since 
not all variable anti-sweat heater control systems will start to 
energize the heaters at the same humidity level. Data regarding the 
humidity levels at which variable anti-sweat heater systems energize 
are provided to DOE by manufacturers of products with this feature in 
certification reports. (See 10 CFR 429.14(b)(3)) These data suggest 
that this threshold humidity level is close to 35 percent relative 
humidity. DOE may consider the possibility of specifying an ambient 
humidity level depending on the nature of the feedback it receives in 
comments to this proposal.
    DOE is aware of potential issues with its proposal for products 
with variable anti-sweat heater control but without anti-sweat heater 
switches and may consider alternative options to ensure that the 
objectives of the proposal are met. One potential issue is that some 
test facilities may not have the capability to sufficiently control 
humidity levels to assure that variable anti-sweat heaters would not be 
energized during testing. Based on DOE's review of available 
refrigeration products, every product examined that is equipped with a 
variable anti-sweat heater control also uses an anti-sweat heater 
switch. As a result, it is DOE's belief that, in spite of the potential 
inability of some existing test facilities to reduce humidity 
sufficiently to avoid variable anti-sweat heater activation, all or 
nearly all variable anti-sweat heater products can be readily tested 
using the proposed procedure by turning off their anti-sweat heater 
switches, which would reduce or eliminate the need for upgrades to 
testing facilities. Accordingly, DOE does not anticipate any new 
burdens associated with its proposed humidity requirements.
    DOE requests comments on whether there are other alternative 
approaches it should consider to help ensure that random activation of 
variable anti-sweat heaters will not affect the accuracy of the 
measurements. DOE also seeks comment on the testing approaches it has 
proposed in today's notice to address this issue.
Setup for Icemaking
    The test procedures in Appendix A and Appendix B do not require 
water lines or water filters to be connected or installed; they do, 
however, require the ice storage bin to be empty of ice. To properly 
execute the icemaking test that DOE is considering, DOE would revise 
sections 2.6(a) and 2.6(g) of Appendix A and sections 2.4(a) and 2.4(g) 
of Appendix B to read as follows:
    (a) Connection of water lines and installation of water filters are 
required only when conducting the icemaking test described in section 
8;
* * * * *
    (g) Ice storage bins shall be emptied of ice, except as required 
for the icemaking test described in section 8.
    These modifications would ensure that testing would be conducted 
consistent with current practice when measuring the energy use not 
associated with icemaking, but would clarify that these requirements 
would change when conducting the icemaking test. Also, the new section 
8 would indicate that water lines and water filters must be installed 
for the icemaking test.
    DOE seeks comments on this approach.
Ambient Temperature and Water Inlet Specifications
    Currently, DOE is considering requiring that the icemaking test be 
conducted in a 90 [deg]F ambient condition, identical to the condition 
required by the current test. While this temperature is not a typical 
household condition, it is intended to account for the energy use 
associated with door openings and other thermal loads (e.g., cooling 
down warm food) that would occur during usage in a typical household 
environment (with an ambient temperature of approximately 70 [deg]F), 
and its use in the DOE tests has been reaffirmed through rulemakings 
several times since DOE initially adopted the Appendix A1 and Appendix 
B1 test procedures in a final rule published August 10, 1982. 47 FR 
34517. DOE would apply this condition to the icemaking test to reduce 
the complexity that would be incurred by imposing a different ambient 
temperature requirement. Using the same temperature will allow all 
tests to be conducted sequentially without waiting for the test chamber 
to adjust and stabilize at a different temperature.
    Water inlet temperature affects the thermal load (i.e., heat) that 
refrigeration systems must remove from the cabinet to make ice, and 
water inlet pressure could potentially affect the water

[[Page 41622]]

quantity that flows into the icemaker mold during each icemaker cycle. 
For the reasons that follow below, adopting the same inlet conditions 
specified in the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure (i.e., 902 [deg]F inlet water temperature and 6015 psig inlet 
water pressure) is also under consideration.
    DOE recognizes that the water inlet temperature noted above is not 
consistent with typical household water supply temperatures. However, 
due to the intermittent flow of water supplying an icemaker, and the 
relatively long periods between successive fillings of the icemaker 
mold with water, the temperature of water entering the refrigeration 
product's water supply system will always be very close to the ambient 
temperature since most of the supply line is located outside the 
refrigerated cabinet. For example, the ice production rate of automatic 
icemakers in refrigeration products tested by DOE ranged from 4 to 5.5 
pounds per day, with icemaker cycle times of an hour or more. Unless 
there is significant use of water for features other than icemaking, 
such as the water dispenser of a product with through-the-door ice and 
water dispensing, the water that will be supplied to the cabinet at the 
start of each icemaker cycle will have been stagnant in the supply tube 
of the product for at least one hour. This is sufficient time for the 
temperature of the supply water to equilibrate (i.e., achieve balance) 
with the ambient air temperature, and the same equilibration will occur 
during an icemaking test.
    Supplying water to the cabinet at any temperature other than 
ambient would require using a water temperature conditioning system 
located adjacent to the cabinet, or a recirculating loop to ensure that 
the supply temperature at the cabinet water inlet remains at a 
specified temperature other than the ambient temperature. DOE believes 
that requiring such a system would represent an undue test burden 
because specifying an inlet water temperature equal to a typical 
household ambient condition rather than 90 [deg]F would have a limited 
impact on the overall test result. The heat that must be removed from 
the water to make ice at 0 [deg]F (i.e. ``Q'') is equal to the sum of 
three separate components: (a) The heat capacity of water (1 Btu/lb-
[deg]F) multiplied by the temperature reduction from the supply 
temperature down to 32 [deg]F, (b) the heat of fusion of water (144 
Btu/lb), and (c) the heat capacity of ice (0.5 Btu/lb-[deg]F) 
multiplied by the temperature reduction from 32 [deg]F to 0 [deg]F. 
This value equals 218 Btu/lb for testing with a water inlet temperature 
of 90 [deg]F--see below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.028

    In contrast, requiring an inlet water temperature of 72 [deg]F, 
which would occur in 72 [deg]F ambient conditions more typical for a 
household, the heat removed during icemaking would be 200 Btu/lb, only 
8 percent less. Because the impact of using a 90 [deg]F water supply 
temperature is modest and because the test burden associated with 
attempting to simulate a more typical household water supply 
temperature would be significant, the DOE proposal retains the water 
inlet temperature requirement, 902 [deg]F, as specified in 
the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure.
    DOE also recognizes that the pressure range under consideration is 
broad. However, refrigeration products are designed to be used in 
settings that can have a wide range of water supply pressures. For 
example, the installation instructions for a typical refrigeration 
product indicate that it can be used with water supply pressures 
ranging from 20 to 125 psig. See Typical Water Line Installation 
Instructions, No. 3 at p. 1 (providing instructions for installing the 
water dispenser line for a typical refrigeration product, including 
indication of the acceptable water pressure range). The quantity of 
water supplied for each icemaker cycle is regulated by the product to 
be within a narrow range regardless of the water supply pressure. 
Because these products are designed to operate consistently with a 
relatively wide range of water supply pressures, and because allowing 
the proposed range will reduce the potential need for test facilities 
to boost or reduce the pressure of the supply water, DOE may adopt the 
same wide range of allowable pressures as suggested in the AHAM Revised 
Draft Test Procedure. Adopting this approach would minimize the testing 
burden faced by manufacturers when compared with an equally viable 
alternative that would require testing facilities to fine-tune water 
pressure during testing.
    DOE seeks comment on the approach discussed above regarding water 
temperature and pressure conditions.
Frequency of Measurement
    DOE is considering requiring that the temperature, input power, and 
energy use measurements needed to evaluate steady-state conditions and 
calculate energy use be recorded at intervals not exceeding one minute. 
DOE is aware that most test facilities record data for refrigeration 
product energy tests at a frequency of once per minute. The current DOE 
test procedures allow a recording interval of up to four minutes (see, 
for example, Appendix A1, section 5.1.1). Because the icemaking test 
involves multiple recurring events (i.e., icemaker cycles and 
compressor cycles) that are not synchronized, a shorter recording 
interval would improve the accuracy of the measurements. Additionally, 
updating the requirements to reflect the increased accuracy of the 
equipment routinely employed by test facilities would ensure that the 
procedure adequately accounts for the improved technology already used 
in the field. DOE believes that the test burden associated with this 
requirement, if any, would be insignificant since most, if not all, 
test facilities already use one-minute recording intervals during 
testing.
    DOE requests comment on the requirement for this proposed limit on 
the data acquisition time interval and its assumptions.
Icemaker Cycle Indication
    Determining the start and end of icemaker cycles is essential for 
the icemaking test in order to properly correlate ice production with 
the energy used to produce the ice. Most automatic

[[Page 41623]]

icemakers used in refrigeration products have a mold heater (or harvest 
heater) that is used to release ice from the mold. The input power 
measurements for the cabinet can readily be used to determine when this 
heater is energized, thus allowing for easy identification of the start 
and end of icemaker cycles.
    The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure indicates that the icemaker 
harvest cycle test period starts and ends upon the initiation of 
harvest. (AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure, No. 5 at p. 7) In 
contrast, DOE would define the icemaking cycle as starting and ending 
when the icemaker mold heater shuts off. DOE is considering this 
delineation between icemaker cycles to ensure that both the energy used 
to freeze the ice (which occurs prior to the harvest) and to operate 
the harvest heater are associated with the harvested ice for purposes 
of calculating overall energy use. DOE requests comment on this 
specification for icemaker harvest cycles.
    DOE notes that icemakers in some refrigeration products use 
harvesting methods that do not involve mold heaters. One example is the 
``twist tray'' icemaker, which has a plastic ice mold and employs a 
motor that rotates one end of the ice mold at slow speed, turning the 
mold upside-down, and then twisting the mold as the rotation is stopped 
by a catch at the mold's other end, thus releasing ice into the ice 
storage bin. To address icemakers of this type, and future designs that 
may be able to harvest ice without mold heaters, DOE would require one 
of three alternative methods to be used to determine when ice is 
harvested, since the examination of the power input data may not 
reliably reveal the time of harvest.
    The three alternative methods under consideration are: (1) 
measuring mold temperature, (2) measuring water supply temperature, or 
(3) detecting actuation events of the icemaker water supply solenoid 
valve. Each of these methods would provide an equally reliable and 
readily identifiable indication of when water for the next batch of ice 
flows into the mold. Hence, DOE would define icemaker cycles for these 
methods based on when the given method indicates that water starts 
flowing or has entered the mold.
    In addition, each of these methods has certain practical advantages 
that readily lend themselves to being appropriate indicators of ice 
harvesting. The ice mold temperature can reliably indicate the 
occurrence of ice harvesting because it rapidly rises when the solenoid 
valve dispenses warm water into the ice mold. Similarly, the water 
supply temperature can reliably indicate ice harvesting because the 
solenoid valve must dispense water into the ice mold for every round of 
ice production. Although water supply temperatures must remain in the 
90  2[emsp14][deg]F range at all times during the test, the 
temperature of water in the inlet tube typically may change slightly 
during the filling of the icemaker mold due to temperature gradients 
within the test laboratory. If this change in water supply temperature 
is large enough, for example greater than 0.5 [deg]F, this temperature 
change could be used to indicate the start of an icemaker cycle. NIST 
test data show a shift in water inlet temperature of roughly 0.9[deg]F 
(0.5 [deg]C) when the solenoid valve opens during testing of a 
refrigerator that has an icemaker without a mold heater. (NIST 
Technical Note 1759, No. 6 at p. 22-23) Finally, monitoring of the 
solenoid valve input voltage, current, or power will indicate that a 
new harvest cycle has started because the solenoid valve must be 
energized to supply water to the icemaker mold. To accommodate 
differences in individual product design or laboratory instrumentation 
capabilities which may favor one method over another, and because DOE 
sees no apparent difference in precision among these three methods, DOE 
proposes to include these three approaches and require that one of them 
be used if the icemaker has no mold heater. Further, the approach would 
require that the test report state in these cases which of these 
methods is used.
    DOE requests comment on the proposed requirement to monitor harvest 
cycles if the product does not have a mold heater, the details of the 
three proposed alternate methods to accomplish this monitoring, and the 
proposed requirement that the test report indicate which one of these 
three methods was used. DOE further requests comment on whether other 
alternative methods could be used and/or should be allowed in the test 
procedure, including details of these alternative methods. DOE also 
seeks comment on whether it should specifically identify when one of 
these three alternative approaches must be used.
    DOE's method would also clearly specify the start and end points of 
icemaker cycles for icemakers without mold heaters. As mentioned above, 
under the proposal, these time periods would occur when the mold heater 
is de-energized for products with mold heaters. For products without 
mold heaters, the proposed test procedure would indicate that the start 
and end points would occur when frozen ice drops into the ice storage 
bin and/or at the initiation of water flow into the icemaker mold. DOE 
requests comment on this proposed specification.
Control Settings
    DOE would adopt generally the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure's 
requirement to use a single compartment temperature setting for the 
baseline test and the icemaking test, rather than specifying separate 
tests at median and warm or cold settings. Following this approach 
would limit the overall test burden faced by manufacturers.
    However, DOE is concerned that significant differences in 
compartment temperatures between the baseline and icemaking tests could 
result in unrealistic indications of icemaking energy use. In 
particular, if the temperature of either compartment rises 
significantly during the icemaking test, the portion of the measured 
energy use associated with maintaining compartment temperatures would 
decrease significantly, which could potentially result in a value of 
energy use associated with icemaking that is lower than the actual 
amount. The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure approach would treat any 
such deviation in temperature between baseline and icemaking operation 
for fixed positions of the temperature control settings as typical for 
operation in the field, since homeowners are not expected to adjust 
temperature control settings when the icemaker starts making ice. (AHAM 
Revised Draft Test Procedure, No. 5 at p. 5)
    However, DOE notes that there are some distinct differences between 
icemaking in the laboratory and icemaking in the field that weigh in 
favor of making temperature adjustments in some circumstances. First, 
the icemaking test would be conducted with no load in either the 
freezer or fresh food compartment, while a refrigerator in the field 
would generally be stocked with food. This load in a typical 
refrigerator, acting as a thermal mass, significantly dampens 
variations in compartment temperatures during icemaking. In an 
icemaking test conducted in a refrigeration product without any loaded 
food products, the compartment temperature could respond much more 
rapidly to the added load associated with icemaking.
    Second, the icemaking test would be conducted with the icemaker 
operating at full capacity, meaning that for the entire icemaking test 
period, it would continually produce successive batches of ice without 
stopping. In contrast, in the field, continuous icemaking would 
typically occur only for the initial filling of the bin, and successive 
icemaker

[[Page 41624]]

cycles would occur after a portion of ice has been withdrawn from the 
ice bin. The comparison of daily ice production with the ice production 
rate of tested refrigerators discussed in the following paragraph helps 
illustrate this point.
    AHAM's ice production value of 1.8 pounds per day represents 
typical daily average ice production (AHAM Ice Making Test Update, No. 
7 at p. 5). DOE compared this value to measured icemaking production 
rates when typical refrigerators operate continuously. The production 
rates measured by the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
(NIST) for four tested residential refrigerator-freezers ranged from 
3.7 to 10.6 lb/day, at least double AHAM's average daily production 
rate. (NIST Technical Note 1697, No. 6). Hence, even the icemaker of 
this test with the lowest production rate would operate less than half 
a day to produce the amount of ice specified by the AHAM estimate (1.8 
lb/day). This means that the product does not continually make ice and 
would have time to recover compartment temperatures between icemaker 
cycles. As a result, even if the compartment temperatures rise slightly 
during icemaking, they could recover to their ``baseline'' levels 
before the next icemaker cycle starts.
    The tendency of the food product thermal mass to limit the 
compartment temperature rise that could occur during icemaking and the 
ability of the system to recover to steady state temperatures between 
icemaking cycles suggests that the average increase in cabinet 
temperatures during icemaking in the field may be significantly less 
than would occur for a laboratory test of continuous icemaking in an 
empty cabinet. This observation casts significant doubt on the premise 
of the AHAM position that the compartment temperature rise in the field 
would be comparable to that in the test, and likewise casts doubt on 
AHAM's suggestion that allowing the temperature to rise in this fashion 
during the test would lead to energy use measurements for icemaking 
that are representative of field operation. For these reasons, DOE 
believes that a laboratory-based icemaking energy use measurement for a 
product whose temperatures drift upwards during icemaking would be more 
representative of field energy use if an adjustment were made during 
the icemaking portion of the test to ensure that the compartment 
temperatures are no warmer than their temperatures measured during the 
baseline test, perhaps within a 1 [deg]F allowance. Hence, DOE's 
approach would require controls to be adjusted to cooler settings 
during the icemaking portion of the test, if necessary, to ensure that 
the compartment temperatures are no warmer than 1 [deg]F above their 
averages during the baseline test.
    DOE selected this 1 [deg]F maximum compartment temperature rise 
between the baseline and icemaking tests by considering the one percent 
maximum threshold for uncertainty discussed in the section above and 
reviewing the results of icemaking tests conducted by NIST (NIST 
Technical Note 1697, No. 6; NIST Technical Note 1759, No. 8). Test 
Samples 3 and 4 of NIST Technical Note 1697 and Test Samples 1 and 2 of 
NIST Technical Note 1759 were tested using an icemaking test procedure 
consistent with the approach under consideration but using three sets 
of temperature control settings for the baseline and for icemaking 
portions of the test rather than the single set being proposed. The 
results obtained using the three temperature control settings permit 
one to calculate the results that would be expected for any desired 
combination of compartment temperatures close to those measured during 
the tests--these results can be calculated using the triangulation 
approach. See section III.C.3. DOE used this approach to calculate 
total annual energy use, including the energy use associated with 
icemaking for the tested samples, for compartment temperature 
conditions matching the standardized temperatures (0 [deg]F in the 
freezer and 39 [deg]F in the fresh food compartment), and for 
conditions in which either the fresh food or freezer compartment 
temperature shifts 1 [deg]F or 2 [deg]F from its standardized 
temperature during the icemaking test. (Assessment of Icemaking Test 
Temperature Control Setting Tolerance, No. 9). The results of the 
calculations are summarized in Table III-2 below.

             Table III-2--Impact on Energy Use of Shift in Compartment Temperature During Icemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Change in annual energy use
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Product class              2011 Sample 3       2011 Sample 4       2012 Sample 1       2012 Sample 2
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     5A (percent)        5A (percent)         5 (percent)         5 (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Fresh Food Compartment Temperature Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-2 [deg]F.......................                +0.4                +0.3                +0.1               +13.5
-1 [deg]F.......................                +0.2                +0.1                +0.1                +6.6
+1 [deg]F.......................                -0.2                -0.1                -0.1                -6.3
+2 [deg]F.......................                -0.4                -0.3                -0.1               -12.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Freezer Compartment Temperature Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 [deg]F........................                +1.2                +3.5                +1.8                -1.5
-1 [deg]F.......................                +0.6                +1.7                +1.0                -0.8
+1 [deg]F.......................                -0.6                -1.5                -1.0                +0.9
+2 [deg]F.......................                -1.3                -2.9                -2.1                +1.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``2011'' samples are those discussed in NIST Technical Note 1697, while ``2012'' samples are those discussed in
  NIST Technical Note 1759.

    The calculations reflected in the above table show that the 1 
[deg]F shift in compartment temperature during icemaking can change the 
annual energy use measurement by as much as 6.6 percent. However, this 
extreme case occurred for the one test sample among the group of four 
that is not typical of most products in the U.S. market. (NIST 
Technical Note 1759, No. 8 at p. 20) The calculated annual energy use 
results for the other three products showed little sensitivity to 
temperature shifts in the fresh food compartment during the icemaking 
test. One of the test samples

[[Page 41625]]

showed a calculated change in annual energy use as high as 1.7 percent 
when the freezer compartment temperature shifted 1 [deg]F. This change 
would yield a variation of 11 kWh over an entire year--the annual 
energy use of this product was calculated to be 671 kWh assuming all 
compartment temperatures match their standardized temperatures during 
all tests. This analysis shows that even the 1 [deg]F compartment 
temperature tolerance that DOE has considered for the icemaking test 
leads to overall measurement uncertainty larger than the desired one 
percent threshold discussed in the section above.
    On the other hand, limiting compartment temperature variation to 
less than 1 [deg]F between the baseline and icemaking tests could pose 
considerable test burdens because of the potential difficulty of 
achieving such tight control for both compartments of a refrigeration 
product. To mitigate these burdens, DOE would allow an increase in 
compartment temperatures of no more than 1 [deg]F between the two 
tests, and would not impose a lower limit on the compartment 
temperatures for the icemaking test. In cases where the compartment 
temperature increases for the icemaking test, DOE would require 
adjustment of the temperature control to the warmest settings for which 
the compartment temperature is no more than 1 [deg]F warmer than 
measured during the baseline test.
    DOE's method would not allow disabling of ``quick freeze'' 
operation during icemaking for products that use this feature to 
accelerate icemaking. Quick freeze is an operating mode that, when 
selected by the user, runs the compressor without stopping for a 
specified interval in order to rapidly reduce the compartment 
temperature (see Appendix B1, section 1.9). DOE tested a product with a 
control system that automatically activated a ``quick freeze'' 
operation whenever the product was making ice. Such a product clearly 
would be incurring additional energy use associated with continuous 
compressor operation during icemaking in the field. Hence, DOE would 
require that such control features remain active (not disabled) during 
the icemaking test.
    Additionally, the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure contained a 
requirement that compartment temperatures be within 2 [deg]F of their 
standardized temperatures for the baseline test, and that if both the 
freezer and fresh food compartments cannot be maintained in this range, 
then the freezer compartment must be maintained in this range and the 
fresh food compartment must be maintained as close to this range as 
possible (AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure, No. 5 at p. 5). DOE 
conducted an analysis using the NIST icemaking test data discussed 
above to determine the impact of deviation in compartment temperatures 
from their standardized temperatures for the baseline test. The 
analysis, summarized in Table III-3, shows that the 2 [deg]F allowance 
can result in an increase in the total annual energy use measurement of 
2 percent or more. (Assessment of Icemaking Test Temperature Control 
Setting Tolerance, No. 9) Hence, DOE considered proposing a tighter 
tolerance of 1 [deg]F, which, for most products, would limit the 
variation on the total annual energy use measurement to roughly one 
percent. However, DOE recognizes that the precision with which 
compartment temperatures can be set during testing may be insufficient 
to use a 1 [deg]F tolerance. In recognition of this limitation, DOE 
would require temperature controls to be set during baseline testing in 
the warmest settings for which the compartment temperatures are no more 
than 1 [deg]F warmer than their standardized compartment temperatures. 
Using this approach would mean that the fresh food and freezer 
compartment temperatures would be no warmer than 40 [deg]F and 1 
[deg]F, respectively, during the baseline test.

    Table III-3--Impact on Energy Use of Deviation in Compartment Temperature from Standardized Temperatures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Change in annual energy use
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Product class              2011 Sample 3       2011 Sample 4       2012 Sample 1       2012 Sample 2
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     5A  (percent)       5A  (percent)       5  (percent)        5  (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Fresh Food Compartment Temperature Deviation from 39 [deg]F
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-2 [deg]F.......................                -0.1                -0.1                -0.4                +1.5
-1 [deg]F.......................                -0.1                 0.0                -0.2                +0.7
+1 [deg]F.......................                +0.1                 0.0                +0.2                -0.7
+2 [deg]F.......................                +0.1                +0.1                +0.4                -1.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Freezer Compartment Temperature Deviation from 0 [deg]F
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 [deg]F........................                +0.7                +2.3                +0.4                -0.6
-1 [deg]F.......................                +0.4                +1.1                +0.2                -0.3
+1 [deg]F.......................                -0.4                -1.0                -0.2                +0.4
+2 [deg]F.......................                -0.7                -1.9                -0.5                +0.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``2011'' samples are those discussed in NIST Technical Note 1697, while ``2012'' samples are those discussed in
  NIST Technical Note 1759.

    As discussed above, DOE is considering using the warmest 
temperature control settings that satisfy the compartment temperature 
requirements for the baseline and icemaking tests. By preventing the 
use of excessively cold settings, this approach would help to ensure 
consistency between tests conducted by different laboratories. For 
products with mechanical temperature controls, DOE proposes requiring 
that the temperature settings be those for which the temperature 
setting indicator aligns with a control symbol. This provision will 
prevent setting the indicator at undefined positions between the 
symbols and thus will also help to ensure consistency between tests 
conducted by different laboratories.
    DOE requests comment on all aspects of its approach regarding 
temperature settings.
Test Periods
    DOE is considering using an approach that would modify the test 
periods

[[Page 41626]]

suggested in AHAM's Draft Test Procedure in two key ways. The proposal 
would include: (a) A test period for the baseline test that is more 
consistent with the existing DOE test procedure and (b) an energy use 
calculation based upon two test periods for products that undergo 
compressor cycles during icemaking. The first of these proposed changes 
diverges also from the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure, while the 
latter one is consistent with the more recent AHAM approach.
Baseline Test Period
    The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure would allow use of the 
stabilization test period for measuring baseline energy use. In 
contrast, DOE is proposing that the stabilization and energy 
measurement test periods be defined as they are in the DOE test 
procedure (see, for example, Appendix A, sections 2.9 and 4.1). 
However, in order to minimize testing burden, DOE is proposing to 
permit the overlap of these test periods in order to avoid the three or 
more hours of additional test time that would be required if no overlap 
were allowed. The proposal would permit this overlap only if the 
baseline test period ends no later than the stabilization test period 
ends.
Icemaking Test Period
    For products that do not cycle their compressors during icemaking, 
there is no potential distinction between compressor cycles and 
icemaker cycles. For such products, DOE is considering adopting the 
same icemaking test period suggested in both the initial and revised 
AHAM Draft Test Procedures. This test period would incorporate a 
complete (whole) number of icemaker cycles, beginning when the first of 
these cycles starts and ending with the completion of the last cycle.
    On the other hand, for products that cycle their compressors during 
icemaking, DOE considered whether energy use measurements should be 
based on compressor cycles or icemaker cycles. The initial AHAM Draft 
Test Procedure suggested a test period based on icemaker cycles for the 
icemaking portion of the test, but AHAM later altered this approach in 
its revised draft, suggesting instead that both compressor and icemaker 
cycles be part of the test period. NIST reviewed several icemaking test 
procedure approaches and concluded that average power input is a much 
stronger function of compressor cycles than icemaker cycles. (NIST 
Technical Note 1759, No. 8 at p. 48) Hence, when subtracting the 
average power of the baseline test from the average power of the 
icemaking test, as is done to determine the energy use associated with 
icemaking (AHAM Draft Test Procedure, No. 4 at p. 7), a much more 
stable and repeatable result is attained if the average power is 
calculated for a test period based on compressor cycles.
    In contrast to the average power input during icemaking, the ice 
mass must be correlated with the icemaker cycles rather than with 
compressor cycles because ice production occurs in batches that are 
harvested at the end of icemaker cycles. Furthermore, the NIST work 
shows that, assuming the product is in stable operation during 
icemaking, the energy use per icemaker cycle stays relatively constant, 
even though the time between harvests may vary. NIST recommended an 
approach that calculates average power based on compressor cycles and 
average energy use per pound of ice produced using the same test data. 
Without increasing test time, the approach improves accuracy and 
repeatability in determining the energy use associated with ice 
production, as compared to the use of the same calculation based only 
on icemaker cycles. NIST's suggested calculation of energy use expended 
per pound of ice produced, abbreviated as EIM, in kilowatt-hours per 
pound, can be expressed as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.029

Where:
PI3 is the icemaking test average power input in Watts, measured 
based on compressor cycles;
PI1 is the baseline test average power input in Watts;
EPI2 is the energy use in kilowatt-hours, measured based on icemaker 
cycles;
MICE--CYC is the mass of ice in pounds produced per 
icemaker cycle; and
NCYC is the number of icemaker cycles in the test period 
associated with the energy measurement EPI2.

    This equation uses the icemaking test average power based on 
compressor cycles (the more stable test period for measuring average 
power) when subtracting the average power of the baseline test. This 
approach of using the more stable power measurement based on compressor 
cycles in the calculation helps to minimize the potential error 
associated with the measurement, since any variation in the measurement 
of PI3 is amplified by subtracting the baseline test average power PI1. 
However, to maximize accuracy, the calculation must also use the 
measurement based on the icemaker cycles, since the energy use 
measurement based on compressor cycles is not correlated to the ice 
production. The improvement in accuracy afforded by this approach is 
illustrated in Table III-4 below, which shows test data for an 
icemaking test for a 22 cu. ft. refrigerator-freezer with a bottom-
mounted freezer and no through-the-door ice service. The table compares 
successive icemaker cycles from results based on the AHAM Draft Test 
Procedure against those results obtained using the NIST-recommended 
approach of the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure. The data show that 
it takes more than roughly 15 icemaker cycles for the results of the 
two tests to be consistently close to each other.
    The data also indicate that test results using the AHAM Draft Test 
Procedure fluctuate between icemaker cycles during testing, indicating 
that this test method's accuracy depends on whether the test period 
ends on a cycle that happens to experience no fluctuations--an 
extremely unlikely event based on the inherent variability built into 
the AHAM Draft Test Procedure. In cases where the test must terminate 
early due to the filling of the ice storage bin or initiation of a 
defrost, the test would end and the error would not be corrected by the 
additional icemaker cycles exhibited for this test. Because of its 
significantly improved accuracy over the AHAM Draft Test Procedure, and 
the absence of any increase in testing time, DOE is considering the 
approach recommended by NIST that the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure 
ultimately adopted for products with cycling compressors during 
icemaking.

[[Page 41627]]

  Table III-4--Comparison of Draft AHAM and NIST Icemaking Test Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Cumulative energy use per ice
                                                produced  (kWh/lb)
                                         -------------------------------
           Icemaker cycle No.                                  NIST
                                            AHAM Draft      recommended
                                               Test         test  (AHAM
                                                          revised draft)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................           0.010           0.165
2.......................................           0.151           0.186
3.......................................           0.192           0.189
4.......................................           0.148           0.191
5.......................................           0.177           0.191
6.......................................           0.194           0.192
7.......................................           0.169           0.192
8.......................................           0.186           0.193
9.......................................           0.196           0.193
10......................................           0.178           0.193
11......................................           0.189           0.193
12......................................           0.194           0.193
13......................................           0.180           0.192
14......................................           0.188           0.192
15......................................           0.194           0.192
16......................................           0.182           0.192
17......................................           0.189           0.192
18......................................           0.194           0.192
19......................................           0.184           0.192
20......................................           0.191           0.193
21......................................           0.193           0.193
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of these recorded data, DOE seeks comment on whether the 
NIST approach it is considering would be reasonably sufficient for 
purposes of assessing icemaking energy use.
Icemaking Test Stability
    The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure does not require temperature 
stability during the icemaking portion of the test. DOE has tested a 
product that significantly reduces its freezer temperature during 
icemaking, from 0 [deg]F to roughly -12 [deg]F. This reduction in 
temperature requires three to four icemaker cycles to occur. During the 
initial reduction in freezer compartment temperature, the energy use 
per icemaker cycle was much higher than after the compartment 
temperature stabilized, starting at 0.28 kWh/lb and dropping to 0.20 
kWh/lb. A test that included the initial icemaker cycles, during which 
the compartment temperature was dropping significantly, would have 
resulted in a significantly higher measurement of icemaking energy use. 
The data also showed that selecting a temperature stability threshold 
of 3 [deg]F (i.e. the maximum allowable variation for the freezer 
compartment temperature from its average during the selected test 
period) is sufficient to reduce the potential error to less than one 
percent of the product's overall energy use. (Examination of Icemaking 
Test Period Stability, No. 10) These test data show that a stability 
requirement for the icemaking test is important in order to obtain 
repeatable results. Hence, DOE is weighing whether to include a 
requirement that the temperature for the freezer compartment remain 
within 3 [deg]F of the compartment's temperature average for the full 
test period for the icemaking part of the test. For products with non-
cycling compressors, the proposal would apply this requirement by 
comparing the freezer compartment temperatures for complete icemaker 
cycles. For products with cycling compressors, the requirement would be 
applied by comparing average temperatures for complete compressor 
cycles and would also be applied to the freezer compartment.
    DOE seeks comment on this potential approach.
Duration of the Icemaking Test Period and Initiation of Icemaking
    The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure would require test periods 
lasting 24 hours, if this is possible during steady icemaking operation 
between defrost cycles, and that the ice storage bin be able to hold 24 
hours of ice production. The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure also 
specifies that if 24 hours of icemaking operation are not possible 
between two defrost cycles, the icemaker would be enabled after the 
product has recovered from a defrost. DOE would adopt nearly identical 
requirements for the test duration and initiation of test, except that 
the DOE approach would specify that icemaking should be initiated 
shortly after the start of compressor operation following a defrost 
cycle. The DOE approach would reduce the overall testing time compared 
to the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure approach because the AHAM 
approach may lead to the start of a second ``recovery'' period after 
the initiation of icemaking, since the cabinet temperatures may shift 
after icemaking starts. The shifting of these temperatures would 
require additional time for the unit under test to reach the new steady 
operating condition.
    DOE seeks comment on these potential durations and initiation 
periods.
Ice Mass
    Measuring the ice mass produced by a test sample is a necessary 
prerequisite to determine the energy use required per pound of ice 
produced. The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure requires that the 
amount of ice produced during the test be determined by weighing the 
ice storage bin with the ice in it and subtracting the weight of the 
empty ice storage bin. It would also provide that the weight 
measurement must not include the ice harvested prior to the test period 
or after the initiation of the

[[Page 41628]]

last harvest cycle. (AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure, No. 5 at p. 8)
    To properly correlate total ice production with the test period 
used for the energy use measurement, DOE's approach would require 
calculating the mass of ice produced per icemaker cycle in pounds. This 
value would be multiplied by the number of icemaker cycles within the 
test period in the equation used to calculate energy use per pound of 
ice produced (see the equation for EIM above). This approach would 
enhance test accuracy by explicitly assuring proper correlation of ice 
production with the test period used for measuring energy use.
    DOE seeks comment on its potential approach.
Products with Multiple Icemakers
    DOE is aware of very few refrigerator models with multiple 
icemakers. The only such products of which DOE is aware are French Door 
refrigerator-freezers with one icemaker serving a through-the-door ice 
dispenser and a second icemaker located in the bottom-mounted freezer 
compartment. The AHAM Draft Test Procedure did not address multiple 
icemaker products. (AHAM Draft Test Procedure, No. 4 at p. 4) However, 
the AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure included methods for testing 
products with multiple icemakers. Specifically, the test would require 
that all icemakers make ice during the icemaking part of the test. 
(AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure, No. 5 at p. 10) The icemaking test 
would continue for 24 hours, until interrupted by a defrost, or until 
all ice bins are full.
    For products with one icemaker serving a through-the-door dispenser 
and another that does not, DOE is considering requiring that 
manufacturers account for icemaking energy use by measuring the energy 
consumption only for the icemaker serving the through-the-door 
dispenser. This approach would minimize the testing burden while 
providing a measurement of energy use that should be reasonably 
representative of actual usage since the icemaker serving the through-
the-door dispenser would likely be more frequently used. This 
expectation of more frequent use of the through-the-door icemaker is 
based on the fact that this ice is much more convenient for consumers 
to access. Taking this approach would also make the test simpler to 
perform. As discussed above, one of the complications of measuring the 
energy use associated with icemaking is the lack of coordination 
between icemaker and compressor cycles. The test approach described 
above is a compromise that balances the need for accuracy and the need 
to limit test burden by using two test periods based on the same 
icemaking test. If two icemakers were operating, the test procedure 
would have to address the non-synchronized cycles of two icemakers and 
the compressor. The AHAM Revised Draft Test Procedure does not fully 
address how this issue should be handled other than indicating that 
icemaking for both icemakers would be initiated after recovery from 
defrost and that the test may continue until both ice bins are full. 
Because of these unresolved complications and DOE's expectation that 
most of the ice would be produced by the icemaker serving the through-
the-door feature, DOE's approach would involve testing only this 
icemaker. DOE seeks comment on its tentative approach and expectations.
    Additionally, DOE's approach would not address other configurations 
of products with multiple icemakers. As a result, DOE seeks comment on 
(a) whether any such products exist or are likely to exist, (b) what 
their configuration details might be, and (c) what test procedure 
modifications should be developed to address these products.
Ice Production Rate
    DOE initially obtained ice production rate information from AHAM, 
based on available survey data it reviewed. That data indicated that 
1.8 pounds per day would be a representative ice production rate. (AHAM 
Ice Making Test Update, No. 7 at p. 5). DOE used this production rate 
as the basis for the fixed icemaking energy use placeholder it adopted 
in the Appendix A and B test procedures. 75 FR at 78842-3 (Dec. 16, 
2010).
    Subsequently, NEEA sponsored a field study that monitored daily 
refrigerator energy use, kitchen ambient temperature, and the number of 
icemaking harvest cycles for refrigerators at 80 sites. (NEEA Icemaking 
Field Study Data Summary Spreadsheet, No. 11). The study showed that 
the average number of icemaking cycles per day for the field test sites 
was 3.3 cycles/day. The spreadsheet did not include data indicating the 
mass of ice produced per icemaking cycle for any of the test sites. 
Hence, calculating the average ice production per refrigerator per day 
requires applying a representative value of ice production per 
icemaking cycle to the NEEA data. Values of this parameter measured 
during tests conducted by DOE and NIST are summarized in Table III-5 
below. The average of these measurements is 0.21 lb/cycle. Multiplying 
the 3.3 cycles/day of the NEEA study by this average gives an average 
daily ice production rate of 0.7 lb/day.

             Table III-5--Ice Production per Icemaking Cycle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Ice
                                                 Product     production
                 Data Source                      class       (lb) per
                                                                cycle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIST 2011 Sample 1...........................            3          0.31
NIST 2011 Sample 2...........................            7          0.21
NIST 2011 Sample 3...........................           5A          0.15
NIST 2011 Sample 4...........................           5A          0.12
NIST 2012 Sample 1...........................            5          0.2
NIST 2012 Sample 2...........................            5          0.15
DOE Sample 1.................................            7          0.19
DOE Sample 2.................................            3          0.26
DOE Sample 3.................................           5A          0.26
                                                   Average          0.21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``NIST 2011'' samples are those discussed in NIST Technical Note 1697,
  ``NIST 2012'' samples are those discussed in NIST Technical Note 1759,
  and ``DOE'' samples are those tested by DOE.

    The NEEA data suggest that daily ice consumption rate may be half 
of the 1.8 lb/day initially selected for the test procedure. However, 
the field study was limited to sites in the northwest region of the 
United States and its representativeness as a national average ice 
production rate is not certain. The 1.8 lb/day value was initially 
proposed by AHAM as a representative value based on its own testing, 
and DOE has insufficient information about the details of its 
development to question its validity. Hence, DOE is considering 
retaining the 1.8 lb/day production rate for use in the test procedure.
Impact of the Icemaking Test Procedure on Energy Consumption 
Measurement
    DOE conducted testing to validate the feasibility of its potential 
icemaking test procedure. The test results can be examined to determine 
if they suggest that icemaking energy measurements using the proposed 
test procedure would differ significantly from the 84 kWh/year fixed 
value currently used in Appendices A and B. As noted above, this annual 
energy use is based on a daily production rate estimate of 1.8 lb/day 
(1.8 lb/day multiplied by 0.128 kWh per pound of ice multiplied by 365 
days per year). The section above discusses the daily ice production 
rate. This section examines data currently available to DOE regarding 
icemaking energy use per pound of ice and

[[Page 41629]]

calculations of annual energy use based on these data.
    Table III-6 summarizes the icemaking energy test results conducted 
by DOE and NIST. Measured icemaking energy consumption per pound values 
range from 0.092 kWh/lb to 0.192 kWh/lb, with an average of 0.139 kWh/
lb. Note that this average includes the measurement for DOE test 3B but 
not 3A (see Table III-6, below), since these measurements were made for 
separate icemakers of a single product. In DOE's view, the product used 
in tests 3A and 3B is not sufficiently representative of icemaking in 
refrigeration products, in large part because it has two automatic 
icemakers, an uncommon feature currently. As a result, DOE sought to 
prevent double-counting (i.e., results from both icemakers of this one 
unit which may not be representative of the market) when calculating 
the average energy usage measurements and, therefore, DOE included only 
one of its measurements in the average. Consistent with the approach 
contained in today's notice, DOE included only the measurement for the 
ice maker serving the through-the-door dispenser of this product to 
determine the average for the tested samples. DOE requests additional 
data indicating the energy use associated with icemaking, using test 
methods as nearly identical as possible to the test method detailed in 
today's notice.

                                       Table III-6--Icemaking Test Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Through-the-door                       Icemaking       Icemaking
           ID No.              Product class      (TTD) ice         Ice mold        energy use      energy use
                                                  delivery?          heater?         (kWh/lb)       (kWh/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIST
    2011-1..................               3  No..............  Yes.............           0.143              94
    2011-2..................               7  No..............  Yes.............           0.150              99
    2011-3..................              5A  TTD.............  Yes.............           0.170             112
    2011-4..................              5A  TTD.............  Yes.............           0.113              74
    2012-1..................               5  No..............  Yes.............           0.125              82
    2012-2..................               5  No..............  No..............           0.092              60
DOE
    1.......................               7  TTD.............  Yes.............           0.134              88
    2.......................               3  No..............  Yes.............           0.134              88
    3A......................              5A  No..............  No..............           0.169             111
    3B......................              5A  TTD.............  Yes.............           0.192             126
                                    Averages                                               0.139              92
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The averages include data for DOE icemaker 3B but not icemaker 3A (both are part of the same test sample
  refrigerator-freezer).

    The test data show that the initial icemaking energy use estimate 
of 0.128 kWh per pound of ice is a very good approximation, as is the 
84 kWh annual energy use. The samples tested by NIST and by DOE were 
selected to provide a range of icemaker styles with which to evaluate 
the icemaking test procedure, rather than to provide the actual average 
of the icemaking performance of refrigeration products currently on the 
market. Hence, DOE does not consider the 8 kWh difference in annual 
energy use measurement (84 kWh as compared with 92 kWh) to be 
significant. Given the closeness of these values, DOE may also 
consider, as an alternative to the test procedure detailed in today's 
notice, retaining the 84 kWh/year value to denote the energy usage 
stemming from icemaking.
    DOE requests comments and alternative data addressing the energy 
use expended for production of a pound of ice, and DOE's tentative 
conclusion that the impact of the proposed test procedure changes on 
energy use measurements is not significant.
2. Multiple Compressor Test
    Refrigerator-freezers combine a fresh food compartment and a 
freezer compartment in a single cabinet. Most refrigerator-freezers use 
a single-compressor refrigeration system that directly cools the 
freezer compartment; cooling for the fresh food compartment is achieved 
by circulating air between the two compartments. This approach cools 
the fresh food compartment with cold freezer air and allows the 
freezer-located refrigeration system to remove heat gained by the fresh 
food compartment. However, some refrigerator-freezers have a separate 
refrigeration system serving each individual compartment. This approach 
has been adopted by some manufacturers to improve food preservation in 
the fresh food compartment. By preventing the introduction of dry 
freezer air into the fresh food compartment, its humidity can be 
maintained at higher levels, which can improve food preservation. (See, 
e.g., Sub-Zero Dual Refrigeration User Manual Excerpt, No. 2 at p. 1)
    DOE first recognized that testing products with more than one 
compressor requires different test procedures from those that apply to 
single compressor system-based products as early as 1989. See 54 FR 
36238 (introducing a dual compressor system test procedure). The 1989 
proposal introduced a two-part procedure that separately measures each 
compressor system's energy use. The first part measures the energy use 
during stable operation between defrosts, while the second, conducted 
separately for each defrost, measures the energy use contribution of 
the defrost cycle for each compressor system. This second part of the 
test, like the second part of the test for products with long-time or 
variable defrost, measures total energy use during the defrost cycle. 
See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix A1, section 4.2.3.
    In order to determine the amount of energy use associated with 
defrost using the measurements for the second part of the test, the 
test procedure requires that the average energy use for stable 
operation for a period of time exactly equal to the elapsed time of the 
second part of the test be subtracted from the total energy use 
measured for the second part of the test. This difference is then 
adjusted by the defrost frequency in order to calculate its 
contribution for each 24-hour daily cycle (see, e.g., Appendix A1, 
section 5.2.1.2).
    However, when measuring the defrost energy use for one of the 
compressors of a dual-compressor system, the second compressor 
continues to operate. If its average energy use per unit of time during 
the second part of the test exactly matches its average energy use per 
unit of time expended during the

[[Page 41630]]

first part of the test, this compressor's energy use cancels out in the 
equation, and the calculation provides an accurate indication of the 
first compressor's defrost energy use. The timing of cycles of the two 
compressors generally is not synchronized. If the average duty cycle 
(i.e. the fraction of time the compressor runs) of the second 
compressor is different during the second part of the test than it was 
during the first part of the test, the equation does not properly 
cancel out its energy use, which would create an error in the 
calculated defrost energy use. As an example, the second compressor may 
have completed a whole number of compressor cycles during the first 
part of the test, but may have completed 4.5 compressor cycles during 
the second part of the test. The additional half compressor cycle may 
represent the time period when the second compressor is not running. 
Hence, the average duty cycle for the second part of the test would be 
less than for the first part of the test, and the defrost energy use 
for the first compressor would not be correctly calculated.
    The same issue applies during the first part of the test. Each of 
the two compressors has an average duty cycle and a cycle time, which 
are not likely identical. In order to ensure that the single time 
period selected to measure the energy use of both compressors reflects 
the average duty cycle for both, this time period must be equal to a 
whole number of compressor cycles for both. However, this is not 
generally possible unless the cycle times of the two compressors are 
identical or are perfect multiples of each other. If they are not, a 
portion of one of the compressor's last cycles is cut from the test 
period, resulting in a ``truncated'' test period. If the average energy 
use of this compressor for this truncated time is different from its 
average duty cycle, the result is a truncation error. This error can 
either increase or decrease the energy use measurements of either part 
of the test.
    By requiring the energy use of the two compressor systems to be 
separately measured, the current procedure eliminated the truncation 
error, since the measurements focus on each individual system rather 
than the combined unit. Because the energy use of each compressor is 
evaluated and calculated separately, different test periods equal to 
whole compressor cycles can be selected for each compressor system, 
thus avoiding truncation error.
    As part of the most recent rulemaking to address the test 
procedures for refrigeration products, DOE amended the dual compressor 
system equation definitions. See 75 FR at 78830. These amendments 
clarified two areas of the procedure. First, DOE modified the text in 
section 4.1.2.4 of Appendix A1 to explicitly include the compressor and 
defrost heater in the list of components associated with each system 
that must have their energy use separately measured. Second, DOE 
corrected errors in the energy use equation that addresses this class 
of products (section 5.2.1.4 of Appendices A1 and A). Id.
    AHAM had expressed concerns during that prior rulemaking about the 
continued test burden associated with separately measuring the energy 
used by the two systems, as well as the problem that some of the 
components of existing dual compressor products are shared by the two 
compressor systems. As a result of the shared nature of these 
components, their energy use cannot be readily assigned to one system 
or the other as required by the test. (See Test Procedure for 
Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket 
No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003; AHAM; No. 16 at p. 7; No. 43 at pp. 2-3) Sub-
Zero, a manufacturer of dual-compressor products also expressed similar 
concerns and supported AHAM's views (Test Procedure for Residential 
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-
2009-BT-TP-0003; Sub-Zero; No. 23 at p. 1; No. 42 at pp. 1-2).
    On September 6, 2011, Sub-Zero filed a petition for waiver from the 
test procedures for its products that use more than one compressor. DOE 
published a decision and order granting this waiver request (the ``Sub-
Zero waiver'') on February 6, 2012. 77 FR 5784. The Sub-Zero waiver 
prescribed an alternative test procedure that does not require separate 
measurement of each system's components but includes specific 
provisions to minimize the measurement error associated with 
truncation. The test does this by requiring a duration of 24 hours for 
key parts of the test, including the stabilization period, along with 
the first and second parts of the test. Id. By increasing the test 
period to 24 hours, the total energy use measured during the test is 
much greater than the possible truncation error, thus reducing the 
error to an insignificant magnitude. This result is illustrated with 
test data in the discussion below.
    The last set of comments AHAM submitted in response to the December 
2010 interim final rule recommended that DOE replace the dual 
compressor system test procedure with one that is essentially identical 
to the Sub-Zero waiver test procedure. (Test Procedure for Residential 
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-
2009-BT-TP-0003, AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 2-3)
    DOE declined to adopt AHAM's proposed test procedure during the 
last round of rulemaking because stakeholders did not have an 
opportunity to comment on the AHAM procedure. Given the complexity of 
the proposed dual compressor test, and the extent to which it differed 
from the existing DOE test, DOE believed that, prior to modifying the 
test procedure in the manner suggested by AHAM, all interested parties 
should have an opportunity to fully vet and comment on that approach. 
DOE also noted the limitations of the existing dual compressor test 
procedure and indicated it would consider revising the procedure in a 
future rulemaking. 77 FR at 3570-1 (Jan. 25, 2012). Today's notice is 
addressing these issues.
Summary of AHAM's Proposed Multiple Compressor Test Procedure
    The multiple compressor test procedure being proposed by DOE today 
is based in part on the multiple compressor test procedure previously 
suggested by AHAM--and that DOE ultimately permitted Sub-Zero to use in 
response to that company's waiver request. The proposed procedure would 
determine energy use based on a measurement of power input at the 
product's power cord rather than requiring a separate measurement of 
the power input of the two compressor systems. The energy use 
calculated for a multiple compressor product would include: (a) energy 
use measured during the first part of the test, which involves stable 
operation (excluding events associated with defrost), and (b) a defrost 
energy use contribution for each compressor that undergoes defrost 
cycles, based on measurements made during a second part of the test, 
which would be conducted for each of the defrosting compressor systems.
    To ensure that the product has stabilized after adjusting the 
temperature controls, the AHAM procedure would require waiting 24 hours 
rather than evaluating steady-state conditions as currently prescribed 
in Appendix A1, section 2.9.
    The revised draft AHAM procedure would require the first part of 
the test to be at least 24 hours long in order to minimize the 
truncation error (see the discussion above explaining truncation 
error). The test period would consist of a whole number of freezer 
compressor cycles. The procedure would allow this test period to be a 
summation of several running periods that do not include any

[[Page 41631]]

of the events associated with defrost cycles. To ensure stability 
during the first part of the test, the procedure would require that the 
compartment temperatures measured for the compressor cycle at the start 
and end of the test period (or of each individual running period 
comprising the test period, if there is more than one) be within 
1.0[emsp14][deg]F of the test period's temperature average, and that 
these measurements for fresh food temperature be based on the complete 
fresh food compressor cycles that are closest to the start and end of 
the test period.
    The revised draft AHAM procedure would require the second part of 
the test for each measured defrost cycle to be at least 24 hours in 
duration, running from a time of stable compressor operation (normal 
compressor cycling) through all events associated with the measured 
defrost to a later time of stable compressor operation. The test 
procedure would allow additional non-continuous running periods of 
stable operation to be added to the test period if needed to achieve a 
total test duration of 24 hours. To ensure stability during the second 
part of the test, AHAM's revised procedure would require the 
compartment temperature averages for the first and last compressor 
cycle of this test period to be within 1.0[emsp14][deg]F of their 
averages for the first part of the test. DOE notes that this approach 
is less stringent than the current Appendix A requirement for long-time 
or variable defrost systems. That provision requires that compartment 
temperature averages for compressor cycles just prior to and after the 
second part of the test be within 0.5[emsp14][deg]F of their averages 
for the first part of the test (see Appendix A, section 4.2.1.1).
Proposed Amendment
    DOE proposes to replace its dual compressor test procedure with a 
modified version of the test procedure recommended by AHAM. The key 
differences between the DOE proposal and the Sub-Zero/AHAM test 
procedure are:
    (1) The proposal would define the term ``multiple compressor'' to 
help enhance the clarity of this term and to ensure that a uniform 
definition applies to this term. Adopting such a definition would 
lessen the risk of confusion.
    (2) The proposal would allow an examination of temperature cycles 
as an alternative to an examination of compressor cycles as the basis 
for test period duration and for compartment temperature calculation. 
Also, a definition is proposed for the term ``complete temperature 
cycle'' to support this change.
    (3) The proposal would use a stabilization period consistent with 
the existing test procedure rather than requiring 24 hours for 
stabilization.
    (4) The proposal would allow a single-part test if only one 
compressor system has defrost and it is a timed defrost with less than 
14 hours of compressor run time between defrosts.
    (5) In cases where only one compressor in a multiple-compressor-
based product cycles, the proposal would specify a test period 
consisting of a complete number of compressor or temperature cycles 
lasting at least three hours for the first part of the test, similar to 
single-compressor products. Similarly, if none of the compressors 
cycle, the procedure would allow a 3-hour test period for the first 
part of the test.
    (6) Under the proposal, if at least one compressor cycles, the test 
periods would be based on temperature cycles or compressor cycles of a 
``primary'' compressor system. This would be the freezer compressor 
system, if its compressor cycles.
    (7) For the first part of the test, the proposal would require 24 
hours of continuous stable operation if there is no defrost 
interruption. It would also require at least 18 hours of continuous 
stable operation if there is a defrost interruption, rather than 
allowing use of non-continuous running periods, as suggested by AHAM.
    (8) For the second part of the test, the proposal would not require 
24 hours of operation.
    (9) The proposed test would require that, for both the first and 
the second parts of the test, the temperature averages for the first 
and last cycle of the test period (either compressor or temperature 
cycles) for each system must be within 0.5 [deg]F of the temperature 
average for the first part of the test.
    These modifications and other details of the implementation of the 
proposed procedure are discussed in more detail below. DOE seeks 
comment on this approach, including on the details that follow below.
Multiple Compressor Definition
    The term ``multiple compressor'' is currently undefined. In light 
of this gap, and the accompanying need to ensure clarity for 
manufacturers, DOE is proposing to define this term. This term would be 
used in lieu of the term ``dual-compressor'' in order to provide 
general applicability to all refrigeration products that have more than 
one compressor. Although DOE is not aware of any current refrigeration 
products with more than two sealed compressor systems, taking this 
broader approach in defining this particular term would ensure that 
products using more than two sealed refrigeration systems that might be 
manufactured and sold in the future are addressed by DOE's regulations. 
The new definition in Appendix A, for example, would read as follows: 
``Multiple Compressor'' refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer means a 
refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer with more than one compressor.
    DOE requests comment on this proposed definition.
Temperature Cycles
    DOE is proposing that test periods for multiple compressor 
refrigeration products be determined by either compressor operation or 
compartment temperatures. Reliably identifying individual compressor 
cycles from power data based on a single power measurement of all the 
energy use for multiple compressor refrigeration products may be 
difficult because identifying compressor cycle starts and stops may be 
challenging and it might not be obvious which events are associated 
with each compressor unless some means of differentiating these events 
applies. As an alternative, the proposed test procedure would allow the 
selection of test periods based on the cycles of the compartment 
temperatures associated with the multiple compressor systems. Complete 
temperature cycles are equivalent to complete compressor cycles because 
the starts and stops of each temperature cycle coincide nearly exactly 
with the starts and stops of the compressor cycles for the compressor 
associated with the considered compartment temperature. Since it is the 
operation of the compressor that causes the refrigeration system to 
reduce compartment temperatures, compressor and temperature cycles are 
inherently equivalent. This approach may be easier to apply to some 
multiple compressor products because the compartment temperature 
measurements of separate compressor systems are not combined like total 
product power inputs are. In general, these temperature cycles would 
coincide with their corresponding compressor cycles (i.e. the 
compartment temperature falls as the compressor operates and it rises 
when the compressor is not operating), but the use of temperature 
cycles may make identification of test periods easier.
    DOE proposes to use a definition for ``complete temperature cycle'' 
that would refer to a cycle based on compartment temperature 
variations. To maintain flexibility, the proposal would allow the 
selection of both temperature

[[Page 41632]]

cycles that start when the temperature is at a maximum and those that 
start when the temperature is at a minimum--such temperature cycles 
would correspond to compressor cycles that start when the compressor 
starts or when it stops, respectively. Under the ``maximum 
temperature'' approach, the time period would be based on a starting 
point that coincides with the compartment temperature reaching its 
maximum temperature and would end once the compartment temperature 
returns to an equivalent maximum (within 0.5[emsp14][deg]F of the 
starting temperature). During the course of the temperature cycle, the 
compartment temperature must have fallen to a minimum temperature for 
the period before rising again to reach the maximum temperature. 
Likewise, under the ``minimum temperature'' approach, the time period's 
starting point would occur once the compartment temperature reaches a 
minimum and ends when the compartment temperature returns to an 
equivalent minimum (within 0.5[emsp14][deg]F of the starting 
temperature), having, in the interim, risen to a maximum and 
subsequently fallen again to reach the second minimum.
    By defining the complete temperature cycle in this way, this 
proposed definition should resolve the potential difficulties in 
identifying test periods based on compressor cycles, because, as 
mentioned above, the compartment temperature measurements would be made 
separately for the different compressor systems, whereas the power 
input measurement combines all of the product's power input. DOE 
requests comment on this proposed definition that would define a 
``complete temperature cycle'' in a manner that would permit the use of 
temperature cycles to identify test periods.
Measurement Frequency
    The current test procedure allows temperature measurements to be 
taken at up to four-minute intervals (see Appendix A sections 2.9 and 
5.1.1). This approach, however, carries with it an inability to further 
reduce the risk of truncation error beyond a certain degree. The Sub-
Zero and revised draft AHAM procedures would further reduce this risk 
by requiring the measurement of multiple-compressor systems to be 
recorded at regular intervals not to exceed one minute (Test Procedure 
for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 
Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003, AHAM, No. 43 at p. 3).
    In DOE's view, increasing the frequency of measurement periods 
would provide a more accurate picture regarding the energy usage of 
refrigeration products. DOE is aware that most test facilities record 
data for refrigeration product energy tests at a frequency of once per 
minute. DOE believes that there would be, at most, an insignificant 
test burden associated with this requirement since most test facilities 
already use one-minute recording intervals. Accordingly, DOE proposes 
to adopt a data collection interval that would not exceed one minute in 
length. DOE requests comment on the requirement for this proposed limit 
on the data acquisition time interval for test of multiple compressor 
products.
Stabilization Period
    Instead of requiring a stabilization period of 24 hours as AHAM 
suggests, DOE is proposing to apply the existing stabilization 
requirements (see Appendix A, section 2.9). The DOE proposal would also 
permit the use of temperature cycles rather than compressor cycles to 
determine steady-state conditions. For example, while the current 
section 2.9 requires the comparison of temperature averages for two 
periods lasting at least two hours comprising complete compressor 
cycles, the proposal would allow this comparison to consider periods 
comprising complete temperature cycles or complete compressor cycles. 
As described above, it may be easier in certain cases to identify 
individual temperature cycles than individual compressor cycles for a 
multiple compressor system. DOE proposes to offer this alternative to 
reduce test burden for the majority of products, which achieve 
stabilization in less than 24 hours, and to ensure that the existing 
stabilization requirement is met for any product that requires more 
than 24 hours to achieve stabilization. DOE requests comments on this 
proposal.
One-Part Test Simplification
    DOE proposes using a one-part test for multiple compressor products 
where (a) only one compressor system has automatic defrost and (b) the 
defrost is a ``short-time'' defrost (i.e., not a ``long-time defrost'' 
with more than 14 hours of compressor operation between defrosts (see 
Appendix A, Section 1.12) or variable defrost). The proposed test 
period would start at a point during a defrost period and end at the 
same point during the subsequent defrost period, as does the existing 
test procedure for single-compressor products with automatic defrost 
that is neither long-time nor variable (see Appendix A, section 4.2). 
DOE proposes to allow use of the single test period to minimize the 
test burden for products with short-time automatic defrost for only one 
of the compressor systems.
    Such a one-part test introduces the possibility of truncation error 
associated with the second compressor system. However, the clock time 
(as opposed to the compressor run time upon which CT values are based--
see Appendix A section 5.2.1.2) between defrosts for short-time defrost 
systems is generally about 24 hours. (For example, one of the 
refrigerators tested and reverse-engineered as part of the September 
2011 refrigeration product energy conservation standard rulemaking had 
a defrost timer with a 10.5-hour timer interval, and clock time between 
defrosts of 22 hours for a test with temperature controls in the median 
setting). (Refrigerator with Defrost Timer Example, No. 12) As 
described below in the discussion addressing truncation error 
associated with the first part of a two-part test, a test duration of 
24 hours is sufficiently long to minimize the overall impact of this 
type of error.
    DOE requests comments on its proposal to allow a one-part test for 
multiple compressor products in which only one compressor system has a 
defrost cycle that is neither long-time nor variable.
Test Simplifications for Tests With One or No Cycling Compressors
    AHAM's Revised Draft Test Procedure does not consider potential 
test simplifications that could be implemented for multiple compressor 
refrigeration products for which one or more of the compressors does 
not cycle. The DOE proposal would address this possibility by providing 
details on how to determine test periods and the intervals over which 
compartment temperatures should be measured if the tested unit has one 
or no cycling compressors. Specifically, if only one of the compressors 
cycles, the test period for the first part of the test would be at 
least three hours long and comprise two or more complete cycles of the 
cycling compressor. Further, if none of the compressors cycle, the test 
period for the first part of the test would be three hours long. These 
test periods are nearly identical to the test periods for products with 
single compressors. (e.g. Appendix A, section 4.1) This approach, which 
would reduce manufacturer testing burdens, is justified because 
truncation error is essentially eliminated when only one compressor 
cycles or when no compressors cycle.
    The proposed test procedure would use a similar simplification for 
the second part of the test for such products. For example, for a 
product

[[Page 41633]]

with one cycling compressor, it would require that the second part of 
the test start and stop when the single cycling compressor starts or 
stops. In addition, the criteria for compartment temperatures at the 
test period start and stop times would be based on temperature 
measurements made for full cycles of the single cycling compressor. 
Again, using this approach for the second part of the test is, in DOE's 
view, merited since truncation error is eliminated with one or no 
compressors cycling.
    DOE requests comment on this proposed approach to help simplify the 
test periods for both the first and second parts of the test when less 
than two of the compressors of a multiple compressor product cycle 
during a test.
First Part of a Two-Part Test for a System With at Least Two Cycling 
Compressors
    DOE's proposal would require that the first part of the test for 
multiple compressor products have a test duration of at least 24 hours 
if the test period is not interrupted by a defrost cycle. The proposal 
would require test periods to be selected based on the compressor or 
temperature cycles of a ``primary'' compressor. A primary compressor 
would normally be the freezer compressor, if it cycles. If the freezer 
compressor does not cycle, a fresh food compressor would be the primary 
compressor, and the test periods would be based upon the compressor or 
temperature cycles of this fresh food compressor. DOE proposes to 
require that the first part of the test would include a whole number of 
primary compressor cycles or temperature cycles. If a defrost cycle 
occurs prior to the completion of the 24-hour test period, the DOE 
proposal would allow a shorter test duration of 18 hours. This proposal 
contrasts with the AHAM test procedure proposal, which would permit 
multiple segments of running time that add up to at least 24 hours. 
DOE's reasoning for its approach is described below.
    DOE is adopting this modified approach of AHAM's revised draft 
procedure because the accuracy of the test is not necessarily improved 
by allowing the use of multiple segments of running time to increase 
the total test period time to 24 hours. This is because each segment 
that is used to comprise the test period would introduce its own 
contribution to truncation error. Hence, the benefit to accuracy 
associated with adding additional time to the test period would be 
reduced or eliminated by the additional truncation error introduced by 
each additional segment of test period time. DOE recognizes that there 
may be situations in which it is difficult to obtain 24 hours of 
uninterrupted stable operation. Based on a review of the test data for 
tests of multiple compressor products described below, DOE has 
tentatively concluded that shortening the test period time to 18 hours 
is a reasonable compromise in such cases, but that further reductions 
may not be acceptable because of the potential for the truncation error 
to become unreasonably large.
    At the same time, an 18-hour test period would be possible without 
combining non-continuous running periods, assuming that most multiple 
compressor products have variable defrost. Multiple compressor products 
are generally premium products with electronic control and variable 
defrost as standard convenience features. DOE is aware of products sold 
by Sub-Zero, Liebherr, Bosch, LG, and GE (under that company's Monogram 
line of appliances) that use multiple compressor systems. To the extent 
DOE could determine based upon the certification information in its 
product listing database, models of this type all have variable defrost 
systems. Occasionally, defrost cycles may occur with less than 18 hours 
of stable operation between them, but variable defrost products would 
increase the defrost time interval during testing. DOE expects that in 
all cases, the period of stable operation after the second defrost 
would extend to at least 18 hours. The DOE test would continue to be 
conducted with the product doors closed, creating little opportunity 
for moisture to enter the cabinet. Under these conditions, the need for 
frequent defrost is eliminated, and a variable defrost product would 
increase the time duration between defrosts to significantly longer 
intervals. Hence, DOE believes that an 18-hour minimum continuous test 
period is reasonable for multiple compressor products.
    DOE selected the 18-hour minimum test period duration after 
considering truncation error--both the actual truncation error 
associated with a given refrigerator test and the maximum possible 
truncation error that could occur for the product, given the compressor 
cycle times and compressor duty cycles exhibited in the examined tests. 
In order to conduct this evaluation, DOE examined the test data of two 
multiple compressor refrigerator-freezer products. Table III-7 below 
summarizes the test data showing the relationship between truncation 
error and test period duration. DOE was able to distinguish between the 
operation of the separate compressors of the two products based on an 
examination of power input and temperature data. This allowed DOE to 
determine the truncation error (including the maximum possible 
truncation error) by calculating the difference in measured energy use 
between a test period with whole fresh food cycles and a test period 
based on freezer cycles with a truncated fresh food cycle. This method 
was used because the test period for the first part of the tests 
includes a whole number of freezer compressor cycles. In general, it 
includes a whole number of fresh food compressor cycles plus a fraction 
of a fresh food compressor cycle. The actual truncation error is the 
difference in energy use for the fresh food compressor between its 
actual energy use for this fraction of a fresh food compressor cycle 
and the energy use it would have incurred had it operated at its 
average wattage for the same amount of time. The maximum possible 
truncation error is calculated assuming that for the remaining fraction 
of a fresh food compressor cycle the compressor either runs 
continuously or is not energized.

                                               Table III-7--Truncation Error Data for First Part of Test *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Number......................                              1
                                                                  2
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class.......................                              4
                                                                  5
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature Setting.................  Mid........................  Warm.......................  Mid........................  Cold
Hours...............................  32.9.......................  31.0.......................  21.9.......................  21.1
Actual Error........................  0.2%.......................  0.6%.......................  0.0%.......................  0.1%
Maximum Error.......................  1.0%.......................  1.1%.......................  0.6%.......................  0.6%
Hours...............................  12.3.......................  13.4.......................  12.6.......................  15.1
Actual Error........................  1.1%.......................  1.0%.......................  0.2%.......................  0.1%
Maximum Error.......................  2.6%.......................  2.5%.......................  1.1%.......................  0.9%

[[Page 41634]]

 
Hours...............................  6.8........................  8.0........................  5.6........................  10.7
Actual Error........................  2. 6%......................  1.1%.......................  0.4%.......................  0.4%
Maximum Error.......................  4.7%.......................  4.2%.......................  2.4%.......................  1.2%
Hours...............................  4.1........................  4.1........................  2.1........................  5.3
Actual Error........................  2.6%.......................  4.5%.......................  0.2%.......................  0.4%
Maximum Error.......................  7.8%.......................  8.1%.......................  6.3%.......................  2.4%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Error is presented as a percent of total energy use including defrost energy use.

    The data show that the truncation error could be substantially less 
than one percent for a test period of 24 hours, although in a worst 
case (the maximum truncation error) scenario, it could be approximately 
one percent. Hence, if more than 24 hours of run time is present 
between defrost cycles, using a 24-hour test period would provide 
acceptably accurate measurements. DOE test data also show that the 
potential error could be significantly greater than one percent for a 
test period of 12 hours. Hence, the test period should exceed 12 hours 
in length in order to reduce this error.
    As mentioned above, in cases where a first stable period between 
defrosts is not long enough, it would be expected that the next stable 
period would be long enough, since most multiple compressor products 
have variable defrost. However, DOE believes that an 18-hour test 
period would be acceptable in order to balance the needs of accuracy 
and the limitation of test burden. As a result, DOE is proposing to 
require that the first part of the test include at least 18 hours of 
stable compressor operation if the 24-hour requirement cannot be met 
due to an interruption by a defrost cycle. DOE seeks comment on this 
proposed minimum test period duration.
    To ensure stability during the 24-hour first part of the test, the 
revised draft AHAM procedure would require that compartment 
temperatures measured for the compressor cycles at the start and end of 
the test period (or of each individual running period comprising the 
test period if there is more than one) be within 1.0 [deg]F of this 
test period's temperature average. Measurements for fresh food 
compartment temperatures would be based on the complete fresh food 
compressor cycles that are closest to the start and end of the test 
period. Because of the duration of the required test period, this 
temperature requirement would help ensure temperature and average 
energy use stability throughout the test. However, as described in 
section III.C.8, DOE is proposing to establish a definition for the 
term ``stable operation.'' This definition would provide a temperature 
tolerance based on a temperature change rate of 0.042 [deg]F per hour, 
which is consistent with the existing test procedure requirements for 
determining steady-state operation (see, for example, Appendix A, 
section 2.9). In essence, DOE proposes to require that the first part 
of the test for products with multiple compressors be a period of 
stable operation consistent with this definition, thus obviating the 
need for additional requirements specific for multiple compressor 
products. DOE requests comments on this proposal.
Second Part of the Two-Part Test
    The draft AHAM test procedure would require the second part of the 
test to have a 24-hour duration that would start before a defrost cycle 
during stable operation and continue through the defrost cycle 
(including any precooling and post-defrost temperature recovery) to the 
next period of stable operation. If additional defrosts limit the test 
period to less than 24 hours, the revised draft AHAM procedure would 
require that additional periods of stable operation be appended to the 
test period to ensure a total duration of at least 24 hours, even if 
the test period is not continuous.
    The DOE proposal would not require a 24-hour test period for the 
second part of the test, and would not permit non-continuous running 
periods to comprise the full test period. The DOE proposal would 
clarify that the test period may be defined by compressor cycles or 
temperature cycles, and would require that it start and end when the 
product is at equivalent states. For example, it can both start and 
stop at the start of a compressor on-cycle. Similarly, it can both 
start and stop at the end of a compressor on-cycle.
    As described above for the first part of the test, combining 
multiple running periods to create a test period does not reduce the 
impact of truncation error. This observation also applies to the second 
part of the test. Hence, the DOE proposal would not allow combined 
multiple running periods to comprise the second part of the test.
    DOE's analysis and testing show that increasing the duration of 
this part of the test would not reduce the risk of truncation error. 
The energy use associated with defrost would be calculated as the 
energy use measured during the second part of the test minus the energy 
use that would have been measured during the same time period if the 
product had been in stable operation for this time with no influence of 
events associated with defrost (as done with single-compressor 
products--see, for example, Appendix A, section 5.2.1.2). A longer test 
period duration would not minimize the truncation error in this 
calculation because the calculation would not involve dividing by the 
test period duration in hours, as would be done for the contribution to 
daily energy use of the first part of the test. Hence, the duration of 
the second part of the test would have no direct influence on the 
magnitude of truncation error associated with the non-synchronous 
operation of the compressors during this part of the test. The 
truncation error would instead be minimized by the ratio 12/CT, which 
adjusts the entire energy use contribution of defrost according to the 
defrost frequency. Consequently, DOE does not believe that there is a 
benefit to requiring a 24-hour duration for the second part of the test 
because increasing test period duration would not reduce the magnitude 
of the truncation error that might occur.
    DOE investigated truncation error associated with the second part 
of the test in multiple compressor refrigeration products. Table III-8 
below contains data from testing that DOE conducted. The data show that 
the duration of the second part of the test makes little difference to 
either the actual truncation error measured for the test or the maximum 
possible truncation error. These errors are calculated in the same 
manner described in the discussion above involving the first part of 
the test. DOE found that the maximum possible truncation error 
associated with the second part of the test did not exceed 0.5% of the 
total daily energy use measurement, and there is no significant 
difference in this maximum truncation error associated with the length 
of the test period. Hence, DOE concludes that requiring a 24-hour test 
period for the second part of the test is unnecessary, and is proposing 
that the test period start and end during stable operation.

[[Page 41635]]

                                              Table III-8--Truncation Error Data for Second Part of Test *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Number......................                              1
                                                                  2
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class.......................                              4
                                                                  5
                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temperature Setting.................  Mid........................  Warm.......................  Mid........................  Cold
Hours...............................  25.9.......................  27.8.......................  25.1.......................  27.2
Actual Error........................  0.2%.......................  0.1%.......................  0.2%.......................  0.2%
Maximum Error.......................  0.4%.......................  0.5%.......................  0.3%.......................  0.3%
Hours...............................  2.5........................  3.6........................  7.4........................  10.7
Actual Error........................  0.1%.......................  0.1%.......................  0.0%.......................  0.3%
Maximum Error.......................  0.4%.......................  0.5%.......................  0.3%.......................  0.3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Error is presented as a percent of total energy use including defrost energy use.

    The revised draft AHAM procedure for the second part of the test 
specified its start and end points as follows: ``The test period shall 
start at the beginning of [a] normal compressor cycle after the 
previous defrost occurrence (refrigerator or freezer). The test period 
includes the target defrost and following normal compressor cycles 
until the next defrost occurrence (refrigerator or freezer).'' (Test 
Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 
Freezers, Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003, AHAM, No. 43 at p. 3) DOE 
believes that this approach is not sufficiently precise since (a) the 
term ``beginning of [a] normal compressor cycle'' does not clarify 
whether the start can occur at the start of an on-cycle, start of an 
off-cycle, or at either point in the test, and (b) there is no clear 
end point for the test period. The AHAM approach would, however, 
specify that the temperature average for each compartment for the first 
and last compressor cycle of the test period must be within 1.0 [deg]F 
of the temperature average for the first part of the test, which would 
ensure that the test period does not omit any portion of the defrost 
cycle, such as precooling or temperature recovery. (Id.) The 1.0 [deg]F 
temperature requirement is essentially designed to ensure that the 
second part of the test both starts and ends during steady state 
operation. By having the start and end points occur during steady state 
operation, the procedure would ensure that all of the events associated 
with defrost occur after the start and before the end of the second 
part of the test. By having all of the events occur in this manner 
during testing, all additional energy use associated with defrost would 
be captured by the procedure.
    The alternate test procedure DOE permitted in the Sub-Zero waiver 
specifies the start and end of the test period for the second part of 
the test slightly differently: ``The test period shall start at the end 
of a regular freezer compressor on-cycle after the previous defrost 
occurrence (refrigerator or freezer). The test period also includes the 
target defrost and subsequent regular freezer compressor cycles, ending 
at the end of a regular freezer compressor on cycle before the next 
defrost occurrence (refrigerator or freezer).'' 77 FR at 5785-5786 
(Feb. 6, 2012). The Sub-Zero waiver procedure also shares the same 
requirement as the AHAM test procedure proposal regarding the 
temperature average for each compartment for the first and last 
compressor cycle of the test period--these must be within 1.0 [deg]F of 
the temperature average for the first part of the test. Id.
    The specified start and end times for the Sub-Zero waiver test 
procedure are consistent with the start and end times specified by DOE 
for long-time and variable defrost in Appendix A in the January 2010 
test procedure final rule. 77 FR at 3564-3565 (Jan. 25, 2012). The test 
procedure final rule required that the test period both start and end 
at the end of a compressor on-cycle, because this method provides a 
more accurate measurement of defrost energy use. Id. DOE believes that 
measurement accuracy will improve for all refrigeration products with 
long-time or variable defrost, including those with multiple 
compressors because starting and ending the test period at the same 
part of a compressor cycle ensures that the product is in the same 
state (i.e. having the same compartment temperatures) at the end of the 
test period that it was in at the start of the test period.
    The DOE proposal would adopt a similar approach to the Sub-Zero 
procedure described above for the second part of the test for multiple 
compressor systems. However, DOE's proposal would permit a test to 
start and end at the start of the on-cycle of the primary compressor, 
or to start and end at the start of the off-cycle. In this way, the DOE 
proposal would allow greater flexibility in conducting the test, while 
ensuring the improved accuracy associated with starting and ending the 
test period when the refrigeration product is in the same state. The 
DOE proposal would also specify that if the test periods are defined 
based on temperature cycles rather than compressor cycles, the test 
period for the second part of the test would both start and end when 
the temperature associated with the primary compressor system is at a 
minimum, or it would both start and end when it is at a maximum. This 
strategy is equivalent to requiring that the test period both start and 
end either when the compressor starts or when it stops, ensuring that 
the product is in the same state at the end of the test period as it 
was at the start. Hence, this approach would ensure accuracy in 
measuring the energy use associated with defrost for products tested 
using test periods based on temperature cycles.
    In addition, the DOE proposal for multiple compressor systems would 
remain consistent with Appendix A's requirement that the test period 
for the second part of the test for products with long-time or variable 
defrost must start and end during stable operation. Appendix A requires 
that the compartment temperatures for the compressor cycles prior to 
and after the second part of the test be within 0.5 [deg]F of their 
temperature averages for the first part of the test (see Appendix A, 
section 4.2.1.1), as opposed to the 1.0 [deg]F requirement of the Sub-
Zero waiver and the AHAM proposal. DOE believes that this same 
tolerance for ensuring that the test period does not include any events 
associated with the defrost cycle (such as precooling or recovery) 
should apply to multiple compressor systems as it does for single-
compressor systems because the events before, during, and after the 
defrost cycles of both types of products have the same basic functions 
(removing frost from the evaporator) and same basic control sequence 
(optional precooling, heating, temperature recovery).
    However, the DOE proposal for multiple compressor systems would

[[Page 41636]]

also require that the compressor cycles examined to confirm stable 
operation at the start and end of the second part of the test be the 
first and last compressor cycles (or temperature cycles) within the 
test period, consistent with the AHAM proposal and Sub-Zero waiver. DOE 
believes that this approach would better ensure that the test period 
starts and ends during stable operation since it examines compressor or 
temperature cycles within the test period, not the cycles that may fall 
outside of it.
    In the special case in which there are no cycling compressors, the 
DOE proposal would require that the test period start and end when the 
compartment temperatures are within 0.5 [deg]F of their averages for 
the first part of the test--this is also consistent with the Appendix A 
test procedure (see Appendix A, section 4.2.1.2).
    DOE seeks comments on its proposals for the second part of the 
test.
Energy Use Equations
    The energy use equations proposed by AHAM for the multiple 
compressor system test procedure and contained in the Sub-Zero waiver 
are similar to those already found in Appendix A for products with 
single compressors and multiple defrost cycle types tested using the 
two-part test. The similarity stems from the fact that the energy use 
for each compressor system's defrost is added separately using its 
appropriate CT (i.e. hours of compressor operation between defrosts) 
value to adjust the measurement so that it represents a tested unit's 
average energy use over 24 hours (see Appendix A, section 5.2.1.5). The 
DOE proposal for this energy use equation is essentially identical to 
the AHAM proposal and Sub-Zero waiver. However, the DOE proposal would 
also include a test for products where only one of the compressor 
systems has automatic defrost--and that defrost is neither long-time 
nor variable. The proposal for this test, which is described above, 
would reduce the test burden for these types of products. Hence, DOE is 
also proposing to apply the energy use equation for products tested 
using a single test period (see Appendix A, section 5.2.1.1) to those 
multiple compressor products that can use the single-part test.
Scope of Amendments
    DOE proposes to replace the existing test procedure in Appendix A 
for products with dual compressor systems with the new test procedure 
described in this section for products using multiple compressor 
systems. When modifying test procedures, DOE considers the extent to 
which the energy use or energy efficiency measurement may be altered 
under a proposed procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) The test procedures 
of Appendix A will not be required for certifying compliance until the 
new refrigeration product energy conservation standards take effect on 
September 15, 2014. 77 FR 3559 (Jan. 25, 2012). DOE is aware of very 
few products that have multiple compressor systems and has received a 
petition for waiver from the existing test procedure only from Sub-
Zero--DOE has granted this petition. 77 FR 5784 (Feb. 6, 2012). In 
DOE's tentative view, today's proposal would not affect the manner in 
which those Sub-Zero products covered under the waiver are measured for 
energy usage. DOE seeks information on whether any other products are 
currently tested using the dual compressor test procedure, whether 
their measured energy use would change as a result of the proposed test 
procedure amendment, and by how much the measurement would change. DOE 
notes that, consistent with its regulations, if it adopts the proposed 
amendments in Appendix A to address multiple compressor products such 
as those covered by the Sub-Zero waiver, that waiver would terminate 
once the amendments to the procedure are required to be used to 
demonstrate compliance with DOE regulations--i.e., on September 15, 
2014.
    DOE notes that the discussion in this section focused only on 
multiple compressor system products with automatic defrost. DOE 
recognizes that the issues associated with truncation error would also 
affect multiple compressor products with manual defrost. However, DOE 
is not aware of any such products and has for this reason not proposed 
to address them in its test procedures. DOE requests comment on whether 
any such products exist and whether provisions for assuring the 
accuracy of testing them should be incorporated into the test procedure 
as part of this rulemaking.
    DOE is also interested in receiving general comments regarding the 
proposed multiple compressor test procedure.
3. Triangulation
    The energy use of refrigeration products is sensitive to the 
temperature(s) maintained within the cabinet.\10\ For this reason, the 
DOE test procedures for refrigeration products specify standardized 
compartment temperatures that form the basis of the energy use 
measurements (see, for example, Appendix A1, section 3.2). However, 
conducting a test in which the product's compartment(s) temperatures 
exactly match the standardized temperatures is generally impossible. 
Particularly, today's electronic controls often provide only integer 
options for temperature control set points. The lack of smaller 
increments would make tuning to the standardized temperature within a 
tight tolerance impossible if the control did not exactly match the 
standardized temperature for one of the available settings. Even if 
smaller control increments are available, such as with mechanical 
controls, to try to approach the standardized temperatures within tight 
tolerances would require several iterations of adjusting the 
temperature controls, followed by re-stabilization and evaluation of 
the new steady state. This approach is particularly difficult for 
refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators with freezer compartments 
because the temperatures of two compartments must be adjusted, rather 
than just one, and because the compartment temperatures can affect each 
other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See DOE's discussion regarding the impact of the new 
Appendix A standardized compartment temperatures on energy use 
measurement in the refrigeration product energy conservation 
standard technical support document at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/refrig_finalrule_tsd.pdf 
(Chapter 5, section 5.4.2.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To avoid these difficulties, the current test procedures require 
two tests in which the controls are adjusted so that the measured 
compartment temperatures bound the standardized temperatures (i.e., the 
compartment temperature is warmer than the standardized temperature for 
one test and cooler for the second). The energy consumption is 
calculated as a weighted average of the measurements of the two tests, 
with averaging weights based on the measured compartment temperatures 
for the two tests in order to account for their respective variation 
from the standardized temperatures. In other words, the two 
measurements establish the relationship of energy use as a function of 
the compartment temperature(s). DOE's existing test procedure under 
Appendix A assumes this relationship is linear, which means that the 
energy use is calculated using linear interpolation (i.e., a method to 
fit a straight line between a set of points). For example, the energy 
use equation of section 6.2.1.2 of Appendix A, which applies to all-
refrigerators (i.e., refrigerators without freezer compartments or with 
freezer compartments of 0.5 cubic feet capacity or less, see Appendix 
A, section 1.2), simply determines the value of this

[[Page 41637]]

function at the standardized temperature.
    For refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators with freezer 
compartments, the two-test approach is complicated by two independent 
variables--the temperatures of the fresh food and freezer compartments. 
The energy use depends on both of these temperatures. However, based on 
information provided by two tests, it is mathematically impossible to 
determine how the product's energy use varies as both of the 
temperatures vary independently. As a result, when using two tests, it 
is generally not possible to determine what the product's energy use 
would be when both compartments are at their standardized temperatures.
    However, there is one exception to this rule: it is possible to 
determine the energy use in the special case where the temperature 
controls are perfectly tuned to the standardized temperatures. In this 
special case, on a chart showing freezer temperature as a function of 
fresh food temperature, the line passing through the points defined by 
the compartment temperature pairs measured for the two tests would also 
pass through a point defined by the standardized temperatures. For this 
exception, if the energy use is calculated separately for the fresh 
food and freezer compartments' standardized temperatures (assuming 
energy use is a linear function of fresh food temperature for one of 
these calculations and assuming it is a linear function of freezer 
temperature for the other), the two energy use calculations would give 
the same result. For the general case in which such energy use 
calculations are not equal, the test procedure indicates that the 
larger of these measurements is used as the basis for the product's 
rating (see Appendix A, section 6.2.2.2). For this general case, this 
higher energy use calculation applies to an operating state in which 
one of the compartments is at its standardized temperature and the 
other is cooler than its standardized temperature. Consequently, this 
calculation overestimates the energy use that would occur if both 
compartments were at their standardized temperatures. It is this 
overestimation that the so-called triangulation approach eliminates for 
products that have both fresh food and freezer compartments.
    DOE believes the triangulation approach could provide a more 
accurate estimate of energy use at the standardized temperatures by 
requiring a third test. If conducted with appropriate control settings, 
this third test would provide additional information regarding the 
dependence of energy use on the compartment temperatures, specifically 
providing the information needed to determine the energy use for any 
chosen pair of compartment temperatures. Hence, the approach allows a 
more accurate calculation of energy use when both compartments are at 
their standardized temperatures.
    In most cases, the error in the calculated energy use when using 
the two-test method is small because temperature controls are 
reasonably well-tuned for the standardized temperatures. The modest 
overestimation of energy use associated with the two-test approach is 
acceptable in these cases because it avoids the additional test burden 
of conducting a third test. However, there may be circumstances in 
which conducting the third test would avoid excessive measurement 
error. These cases can be identified by observing when the two energy 
use calculations required in Appendix A, section 6.2.2.2 yield 
significantly different results. Table III-9 below quantifies the 
difference in fresh food and freezer interpolations to calculate energy 
use for six refrigerator-freezer samples tested by DOE using Appendix 
A. The difference between the two compartment interpolations ranges 
from a potential overestimation of energy usage of 15 to 51 kWh/year.

                                              Table III-9--Fresh Food and Freezer Interpolation Comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Difference
                                                                                     Fresh food          Freezer           between           Percent
                  Sample No.                              Product class             interpolation     interpolation    interpolations     difference %
                                                                                      (kWh/yr)          (kWh/yr)          (kWh/yr)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................................  7...............................               599               548                51               8.5
2.............................................  3...............................               580               617                37               6.0
3.............................................  5A..............................               631               595                37               5.9
4.............................................  5...............................               646               683                37               5.4
5.............................................  4...............................               595               562                33               5.5
6.............................................  3...............................               471               485                15               3.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Australian/New Zealand Standard 4474.1-2007 \11\ (AS/NZ 4474.1-
2007) includes a triangulation method that involves three tests 
conducted using three temperature control setting combinations to allow 
calculation of energy use for the product that would occur when both 
compartment temperatures exactly equal their standardized temperatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Australian/New Zealand Standard, Performance of Household 
Electrical Appliances--Refrigerating Appliances, Part 1: Energy 
Consumption and Performance'', AS/NZS 4474. 1:2007, Appendix M, 
available for purchase at http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store/results2.aspx?searchType=simple&publisher=all&keyword=AS/NZS%204474.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Stakeholders suggested in oral and written comments to the 2010 
NOPR that DOE should adopt the triangulation method outlined in AS/NZS 
4474.1-2007 to improve the flexibility and repeatability of the test 
procedure. 75 FR at 78822 (Dec. 16, 2010). In the interim final rule, 
DOE declined to adopt this method because it had not been subject to 
stakeholder evaluation and comment. Id. AHAM commented again in 
response to the interim final rule that DOE should adopt the 
triangulation method in the test procedures, indicating that it should 
be introduced as an optional approach for setting temperature controls 
for testing. AHAM also indicated that DOE could have put this topic up 
for stakeholder comment in the interim final rule, and added that if 
the DOE permits triangulation, it must also use triangulation for 
enforcement purposes. (Test Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003, 
AHAM, No. 39 at pp. 3-4) In the January 2012 final rule, which 
finalized Appendices A and B, DOE noted that the triangulation approach 
departs sufficiently from current procedures for setting temperature 
controls such that it would have been inappropriate for DOE to 
incorporate it based solely on the strength of the very limited number 
of NOPR comments, which contained little to no supporting data. 77 FR 
at 3571 (Jan. 25, 2012).

[[Page 41638]]

Further, interested parties did not have an adequate opportunity to 
fully evaluate and comment on this issue. Hence, DOE did not 
incorporate the triangulation approach into DOE's test procedure in the 
January 2012 final rule.
    However, the rulemaking initiated with today's notice provides an 
opportunity to present the triangulation approach and subject it to 
full stakeholder consideration and comment. DOE has evaluated the 
triangulation approach, determined that it has merit, and is proposing 
to adopt it as an alternative approach, as described below.
    DOE conducted testing to evaluate the triangulation approach and to 
quantify the difference in measurement when using it as compared to the 
two-test method currently required. Table III-10 below summarizes test 
results for two of the tested refrigerator-freezers. The first product 
has a side-mounted freezer and electronic temperature controls, and the 
second product has a top-mounted freezer and mechanical temperature 
controls. These are the two products of Table III-9 that have the 
greatest discrepancy between the two energy use calculations based on 
the fresh food and freezer compartment standardized temperatures.

                                                        Table III-10--Triangulation Test Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            [emps]                    [emps]               [emps]               [emps]              [emps]              [emps]              [emps]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Sample 1 (Side-Mount)
                                                    Sample 2 (Top-Mount)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Number..................  1..................  2..................  3..................  1.................  2.................  3
Setting (Freezer/Fresh Food).  (Mid/Mid)..........  (Cold/Cold)........  (Mid/Warm).........  (Mid/Mid).........  (Warm/Warm).......  (Mid/Cold)
Fresh Food Temperature         39.9...............  32.6...............  40.4...............  36.4..............  44.9..............  37.4
 ([deg]F).
Freezer Temperature ([deg]F).  -1.4...............  -5.6...............  4.9................  -0.3..............  7.8...............  -3.4
Energy Consumption (kWh/day).  1.60...............  1.92...............  1.52...............  1.70..............  1.34..............  1.81
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Results:
 
    Fresh Food at Std. Temp.:
 
        Energy Use (kWh/day).                               1.64
                                                            1.59
        Freezer Temperature                                 -1.9
         ([deg]F).
                                                            2.2
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Freezer at Std. Temp.:
 
        Energy Use (kWh/day).                               1.50
                                                            1.69
        Fresh Food                                          42.3
         Temperature ([deg]F).
                                                            36.7
    Energy Use Difference (%)                               8.5%
                                                            6.0%
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Triangulation Result (kWh/                                  1.62
 day).
                                                            1.67
Triangulation and Two-Test                                 -1.2%
 Percent Difference (%).
                                                           -1.2%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, the existing DOE test procedure requires a 
rating based on the higher of the two test results (Appendix A, section 
6.2.2.2). Hence, for Sample 1, the daily energy use measured using the 
current test procedure is 1.64 kWh, based on a weighted average of 
results using the fresh food compartment temperatures to determine 
averaging weights. At this level of energy use, the fresh food 
compartment temperature would be equal to the standardized temperature 
of 39 [deg]F--and the freezer compartment temperature would be -1.9 
[deg]F. The equivalent freezer compartment temperature for this test is 
calculated by applying the same averaging weights used for the energy 
use calculation to determine a freezer compartment average temperature. 
The triangulation energy use result, which was determined by matching 
the standardized temperatures for both compartment temperatures, is 
1.62 kWh--lower than the two-test result by approximately 1.2 percent. 
This difference in measured energy use reflects the difference between 
the freezer compartment temperatures of the two test methods. The table 
shows similar results for a second tested sample. These results 
illustrate the limitations of the current test procedure's two-test 
approach to exactly determine the energy use of a product when both 
compartments are at the standardized temperatures and provide an 
indication of the magnitude of the potential difference in results 
obtained when using the triangulation method. DOE concludes that the 
triangulation method can make, at most, a modest difference in the 
measured energy use for a subset of products. Since DOE expects this 
difference to be small in the vast majority of cases, and since use of 
the two-setting test will always result in a more conservative 
measurement of energy use, DOE believes that this generally does not 
merit a mandatory third test when considering the additional test 
burden that such a requirement would cause.
    Because DOE recognizes that there may be circumstances in which the 
additional test may be more representative of a given product's energy 
use, particularly in cases where a product's temperature controls are 
not tuned well to the standardized temperatures, which may result in 
more significant measurement differences. In such cases, DOE believes 
that it is appropriate to allow ratings based on use of the 
triangulation approach to obtain more precise energy use measurements. 
Hence, DOE proposes in this notice to adopt in Appendix A a modified 
version of the AS/NZS triangulation approach as a voluntary testing 
option that manufacturers may choose to use. DOE requests comments on 
its proposal to allow triangulation as an optional approach.
Implementation of Triangulation in DOE's Test Procedures
    DOE proposes to permit triangulation as an optional method to 
certify refrigeration products where, due to the basic model's 
operational characteristics, use of the triangulation method could 
result in a more representative measurement of energy use than the two-
setting test. DOE's approach would be to permit this option in Appendix 
A. These procedures would incorporate by reference parts of Appendix M 
of AS/NZS 4474.1-2007 as an optional linear interpolation method. A new 
section 3.3 of the test procedure would reference subsections M3.a 
through M3.c and Figure M1 of appendix M of AS/NZS 4474.1-2007 to 
outline the requirements for the three-setting test procedure as an 
alternative to using the requirements of section 3.2 of Appendix A. The 
procedure would

[[Page 41639]]

clarify that the target temperatures txA and txB 
discussed in the Australia/New Zealand procedure would be the 
standardized temperatures as defined in section 3.2 of the DOE test 
procedure. However, the DOE proposal would require that the first two 
of the three tests comply with the requirements for the DOE two-test 
method as described in Appendix A, section 3.2.1.
    A new section 6.2.2.3 would set the required energy calculation for 
the triangulation option. The section would reference section M4.a of 
AS/NZS 4474.1-2007 to determine the energy consumption of the unit and 
add to it the icemaking energy use, which would be defined in section 
6.2.2.1 and which would, if adopted, be measured as described in the 
new section 8 that DOE is considering adding to its test procedure.
    DOE requests comments on this approach for implementing 
triangulation into the DOE test procedure.
Certification
    DOE is also proposing that manufacturers identify which method they 
have used to rate and certify a particular basic model. This proposed 
amendment would require a manufacturer to indicate whether 
triangulation serves as the basis for the certified rating. This change 
would be made in section 429.14(b). DOE recognizes that more than one 
test is conducted for each rating (see, for example, 10 CFR 429.11(b), 
which indicates a sample size minimum of two units). DOE proposes to 
require that all units of a given model that are tested for 
certification purposes be tested using the same test method and 
proposes to require that the certification report indicate whether the 
triangulation method was used. This requirement would be added to the 
sampling plan for residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 
freezers in 10 CFR 429.14.
    Since the two-test method generally yields results that are more 
conservative than the triangulation test (i.e., higher energy use), DOE 
would permit manufacturers to continue using the two-part test at their 
discretion. By permitting manufacturers to continue using the simpler 
two-part test, DOE's intention is to limit the overall burdens that are 
placed on the industry. In those instances where individual 
manufacturers believe that use of the triangulation method will give a 
more representative value of the energy use of a given basic model, 
those manufacturers can elect to follow the more comprehensive steps of 
the triangulation method.
    However, given that tests conducted using the triangulation 
approach may potentially, for certain basic models, yield more 
representative results, DOE is proposing to use this particular method 
when conducting assessment testing, pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104, and 
enforcement testing, pursuant to 10 CFR 429.110, if certain conditions 
are observed during the first two tests of a given unit of a basic 
model that suggest that a third test would clearly yield a more 
representative measurement than the two-test method. Specifically, if 
the difference in the energy use calculated using the two compartment 
temperatures measured for the two sets of tests for any one unit of a 
basic model is greater than five percent, DOE would use the 
triangulation method for any assessment or enforcement testing of units 
in that basic model. This approach may, in certain circumstances, 
require conducting a third test of particular units of a basic model on 
which DOE has recently conducted assessment or enforcement testing. DOE 
requests comment on this five percent threshold. As noted, whether used 
optionally for manufacturer certification testing or for assessment or 
enforcement testing, DOE would require that all units of a basic model 
be tested using the same method.
    DOE welcomes comment on its proposal to require manufacturers to 
state in their certification reports whether the triangulation approach 
was used to determine energy use of a product, and on the proposals to 
use triangulation for assessment and enforcement if (a) the product was 
certified using this method, or (b) the measurement results calculated 
based on the first two tests differ by more than five percent using the 
two different compartment temperatures for the interpolations.
4. Anti-Circumvention Language
Revisions Addressing Past Stakeholder Comments
    The current test procedure requires very specific conditions during 
testing that would normally not exist during consumer use in the field. 
For example, products are tested in 90[emsp14][deg]F ambient 
temperature conditions (see, for example, Appendix A1, section 2.1), 
which is much warmer than typical room temperature. Recognizing that 
manufacturers could design product control systems to detect energy 
test conditions and modify their operation during testing to obtain a 
more favorable rating, AHAM introduced ``anti-circumvention'' language 
into the 2007 version of HRF-1. (HRF-1-2007, section 1.2) AHAM revised 
this language slightly in HRF-1-2008.
    In the December 2010 final rule, DOE added similar language to 10 
CFR 430.23(a)-(b), which contain general provisions applicable to 
Appendices A and A1 and Appendices B and B1, respectively. 
Specifically, the final rule added a new section 430.23(a)(10) and a 
new section 430.23(b)(7), which require that all refrigeration products 
tested under the DOE test procedures operate during the prescribed 
testing in a manner equivalent to their operation during representative 
average consumer use. Both of these provisions included four examples 
of situations in which a manufacturer must obtain a waiver under 10 CFR 
430.27. However, the anti-circumvention language adopted by DOE was not 
identical to the language contained in either HRF-1-2007 or HRF-1-2008. 
77 FR at 3568 (Jan. 25, 2012).
    DOE issued an interim final rule covering amendments to Appendices 
A and B in conjunction with the final rule that added the anti-
circumvention language to 10 CFR 430.23. During the comment period for 
the interim final rule, AHAM and Whirlpool urged DOE to adopt anti-
circumvention language identical to HRF-1-2008's. (Test Procedure for 
Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket 
No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003, No. 16 at p. 4, No. 12 at p. 2)
    In the January 2012 final rule for Appendices A and B, DOE noted 
that amendments made to 10 CFR 430.23 as part of the December 2010 
final rule were already final and not subject to further amendment. 
However, DOE noted that it would consider making such revisions in a 
future rulemaking. 77 FR at 3568 (Jan. 25, 2012).
    In this notice, DOE proposes to adopt AHAM's suggested revisions to 
sections 430.23(10)(a)(ii) and 430.23(7)(a)(ii), and to adjust the 
order of the parts of these sections. The modified anti-circumvention 
language would duplicate the HRF-1-2008 text, as recommended by AHAM in 
its comments on the interim final rule, which address the four examples 
providing test procedure instructions for specific control features. 
(Test Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 
and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003, No. 16 at p. 4, No. 12 
at p. 2)
    In addition, DOE proposes to move the discussion of the 
circumstances that would lead to the requirement for a waiver to the 
end of the anti-circumvention section. Currently, the four examples 
mentioned above appear directly after the waiver requirements

[[Page 41640]]

discussion. However, their format providing test procedure instructions 
(e.g., ``Energy used during adaptive defrost shall continue to be 
tested and adjusted per the calculation provided for in this test 
procedure.'') is inconsistent with their appearance directly after the 
waiver discussion. Hence, DOE proposes to reorder the sections, so that 
the four examples instead follow the sentence, ``Energy consuming 
components that operate in typical room conditions (including as a 
result of door openings, or a function of humidity), and that are not 
exempted by this test procedure, shall operate in an equivalent manner 
during energy testing under this test procedure, or be accounted for by 
all calculations as provided for in the test procedure''. The 
discussion of circumstances leading to the requirement to obtain 
waivers would appear at the end of the section.
    DOE welcomes stakeholder comment on DOE's proposed revisions to the 
anti-circumvention language and on the reordering of the language.
Components That Operate Differently During Testing
    The DOE test procedure simulates typical room conditions 
(approximately 70[emsp14][deg]F) with door openings by testing at 
90[emsp14][deg]F without door openings. See 10 CFR 430.23(a)(10). DOE's 
adoption of a modified version of AHAM's anti-circumvention language 
for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers was intended to prevent 
manufacturers from designing products that actively reduce the energy 
use of key components when they sense that the product is undergoing 
energy testing. DOE's test procedure is designed to permit passive 
changes in operation because a product under test is expected to 
operate differently in certain respects than it would under typical 
room conditions to remove the higher thermal load imposed by the test 
conditions while continuing to maintain the same thermostatically-
controlled internal temperature (e.g., compressor percent run time 
would be expected to increase during operation at a room temperature of 
90 [deg]F as compared with typical room conditions). In this case, the 
added thermal load to simulate door-openings and the insertion of warm 
food products is the reason for conducting the test in the 90 [deg]F 
ambient rather than at approximately 70 [deg]F.
    On August 27, 2012, Whirlpool Corporation submitted a petition for 
waiver from the DOE test procedure for basic models of refrigeration 
products that use a dual-speed condenser fan motor. (Whirlpool 
subsequently altered its waiver request into a request for guidance.) 
These basic models run their condenser fans at low speed in typical 
room conditions, increasing condenser fan speed when sensors detect 
ambient temperatures greater than 80[emsp14][deg]F. Increasing 
condenser fan speed increases the heat rejection from the condenser to 
a consumer's home, which reduces the condensing temperature and 
potentially increases the measured efficiency of the refrigeration 
system during testing if the reduction in compressor energy use exceeds 
the increase in fan energy use. Whirlpool indicated that fan noise 
necessitated the use of a lower fan speed below 80[emsp14][deg]F in 
order to maintain consumer acceptance.
    Based on Whirlpool's description, this feature represents an active 
operation change that would require the filing of a waiver request from 
a manufacturer under 10 CFR 430.23(a)(10)(i), since this feature 
appears to cause the product to operate differently during energy 
testing than it would during representative average consumer use. See 
also 10 CFR 430.27 (regarding general test procedure waiver 
requirements). In its petition, Whirlpool acknowledged that such a 
feature may conflict with section 430.23(a)(10), but argued that 
disabling this feature in order to force the test unit to operate in a 
manner equivalent to typical room conditions would be intrusive to the 
product's operation and could introduce concerns about test accuracy. 
In effect, Whirlpool requested that DOE waive the conditions of section 
430.23(a)(10) with respect to this particular feature and permit 
testing and rating of models with this feature without the use of an 
alternative test procedure. Whirlpool also indicated that it had 
determined through testing that Samsung has already introduced models 
using such a control feature.
    As a related matter, on March 7, 2013 Samsung Electronics America 
Inc. (Samsung) submitted to DOE a petition for waiver for several 
models that use a multi-speed condenser fan motor, with a description 
similar in nature to the petition submitted by Whirlpool. The petition 
did not indicate the specific impact on the measured energy use 
resulting from the use of this feature or propose an alternative test 
method, but requested that DOE confirm whether, in fact, the use of 
this feature represents a violation of the language in 10 CFR 
430.23(a)(10) requiring that energy consuming components that operate 
in typical room conditions (including as a result of door openings, or 
a function of humidity), and that are not exempted by the DOE test 
procedure, shall operate in an equivalent manner during energy testing 
under the DOE test procedure, or be accounted for by all calculations 
as provided for in the DOE test procedure. Samsung stated that the 
general purpose of this feature is to induce a condensing rate that is 
appropriate for the given ambient room conditions, thus minimizing 
stress on the refrigerant system and improving system performance and 
durability.
    To address these types of issues generally, DOE initially proposed 
modified language in its May 27, 2010 NOPR (see 75 FR at 29856), but 
did not adopt this language due to valid concerns expressed in 
stakeholder comments. In response to the issues raised by Whirlpool and 
Samsung, DOE issued guidance on this matter on May 28, 2013, that 
provides a framework for assessing the potential need for a waiver 
within the context of the existing anti-circumvention provisions.\12\ 
In the absence of more specific details about the expected energy 
impact of this feature, DOE is unable to propose a specific amendment 
to the provisions of 430.23(a)(10) (and 430.23(b)(7) for freezers) that 
would address these concerns. However, DOE requests comments as to 
whether modifications to the anti-circumvention language are needed in 
order to address control algorithms similar to the control described 
above as well as any available data regarding the net impacts on the 
measured energy consumption for such a feature and the impacts on the 
representativeness of related ratings. DOE may consider revising the 
test procedure accordingly in this or a future test procedure 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This guidance is posted in DOE's online Guidance and FAQ 
database, and is available for viewing at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Incomplete Cycling
    The refrigeration circuit compressor, which is a key component of 
refrigeration products, generally is the component that consumes the 
most energy. Most products use single-speed compressors with sufficient 
capacity for peak demand conditions, such as when doors are frequently 
opened. Hence, when testing a product with the doors closed, 
compressors cycle on and off as the thermostat in the cabinet 
intermittently energizes the compressor to provide more cooling. Energy 
use is high when the compressor is operating and low or even zero when 
it is not. In order to provide a meaningful measurement of average 
product energy use to maintain specified compartment temperatures, the 
measurements must be made for a whole number of compressor cycles. A 
full compressor cycle includes both the time when the compressor is 
operating and the time

[[Page 41641]]

when it is not. At the end of a full compressor cycle, the cabinet is 
in the same state as at the start of the cycle, where the start of the 
cycle is marked by the time at which the compartment thermostat (or 
electronic control system) switches the compressor on (or, 
alternatively, both the start and end of the cycle occur when the 
compressor is turned off). For this reason, the DOE test procedure 
requires that when measuring energy use, test periods must include at 
least two whole compressor cycles (see, for example, Appendix A, 
section 4.1).
    However, some refrigeration products may, for some test conditions, 
have compressor cycles lasting many hours. In such cases, the specified 
test period (two whole compressor cycles) could last significantly 
longer than a day. To limit the testing burden, the test procedure 
currently limits the test period to a maximum of 24 hours. The test 
procedures use the term ``incomplete cycling'' to denote this condition 
in which two compressor cycles last more than 24 hours.
    In DOE testing, several freezers had compressor cycles lasting 
longer than 12 hours each, thus invoking the requirements associated 
with incomplete cycling. (Test Data for Incomplete Cycling Freezers, 
No. 13) Table III-11 shows the potential measurement error associated 
with the 24-hour test period as compared with a test period comprising 
a whole number of compressor cycles. DOE determined that this 
measurement error varied from 3 to 14 percent for these products. While 
products that operated with incomplete cycling did so only for one of 
the two temperature control settings used for the test, the errors 
shown are based on the energy use associated with the standardized 
compartment temperature, based upon the weighted average of energy use 
measurements made for the two settings. The magnitude of the error and 
its direction (i.e., whether it results in overestimating or 
underestimating energy use) depend on whether the 24-hour test period 
begins when the compressor starts or when it stops. The current DOE 
test procedure does not specify when such a 24-hour period should 
start. For these tests, the error is reported based on 24-hour test 
periods that begin when the compressor starts. In each case, the 24-
hour test overestimates the energy use that would have been calculated 
using test periods consisting of whole numbers of compressor cycles.

           Table III-11--Measurements Error Associated With 24-Hour Test Period for Incomplete Cycling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class..................  10.................  10................  10................  10
Total Volume (cuft)............  12.9...............  14.3..............  12.9..............  14.7
Settings used in Test..........  Mid, Warm..........  Mid, Warm.........  Mid, Warm.........  Mid, Warm
Setting with Incomplete Cycling  Mid................  Mid...............  Mid...............  Mid
Energy use 24-hour limit (start  347................  367...............  404...............  391
 w/compressor start).
Energy use whole number of       336................  356...............  349...............  377
 cycles.
Percent Impact.................  -3.2%..............  -3.0%.............  -13.6%............  -3.6%
Test start.....................  5/7/10.............  7/28/10...........  11/4/10...........  8/7/10
End............................  5/18/10............  8/18/10...........  11/15/10..........  8/17/10
Duration in hours..............  264................  504...............  264...............  240
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Assessment of Added Test Time
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two full cycles:
    Test period (hr)...........  47.1...............  42.1..............  27.9..............  50.8
    Additional time (hr).......  23.1...............  18.1..............  3.9...............  26.8
        (percent test time)....  9%.................  4%................  2%................  11%
Single cycle:
    Test period (hr)...........  23.5...............  21.0..............  14.0..............  25.4
    Test time change (hr)......  -0.5...............  -3.0..............  -10.0.............  +1.4
        (percent test time)....  -2%................  -13%..............  -42%..............  +6%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The table also summarizes the increase in test time for these 
products if a two-cycle or one-cycle test period were specified rather 
than the current 24-hour test period. For two-cycle test periods, the 
total test time would increase from 2 to 11 percent. For a single-cycle 
test period, the total test time could increase up to 6 percent but 
would on average decrease.
    DOE also conducted a theoretical analysis calculating the magnitude 
of the error associated with the current 24-hour test period. For this 
analysis, DOE considered variation in (a) The ratio of compressor 
``on'' time relative to ``off'' time, (b) the duration of full 
compressor cycles, and (c) whether the 24-hour test period starts when 
the compressor starts or when it stops. This analysis shows that the 
error associated with the 24-hour test period can be as large as 40 
percent for a temperature setting for a product operating with 
incomplete cycling and demonstrates that the current 24-hour test 
period limit for incomplete cycling products can, in certain 
circumstances, result in significant errors in measurement as compared 
with the products' actual average energy use. (Theoretical Analysis of 
Potential Measurement Error for Incomplete Cycling Products, No. 1)
    Based on the test data and its analysis, DOE tentatively concludes 
that the current test procedure's approach for incomplete cycling 
products requiring a 24-hour test period has the potential for a large 
measurement error. Further, DOE's test data show that requiring, 
instead, the use of a full compressor cycle would not add significant 
test burden and would in most cases reduce test time. For this reason, 
DOE proposes to eliminate the current 24-hour test period for products 
exhibiting incomplete cycling. In order to mitigate the test burden of 
this change, DOE proposes to allow the test period to consist of a 
single compressor cycle. DOE requests comments on this proposal.
Temperature Measurement for Incomplete Cycling or Non-Cycling Products
    As discussed in section III.C.3, the energy use of refrigeration 
products is sensitive to the temperatures maintained in the 
compartments. However, the compartment temperatures for most products 
are not constant. The temperatures of refrigeration product 
compartments vary as the compressor cycles, dropping when the 
compressor is operating and

[[Page 41642]]

rising when it is not operating. In order to provide a meaningful 
measurement of compartment temperature, the measurement must be an 
average for one or more whole compressor cycles, which includes both 
the off-time and on-time of the compressor.
    The December 2010 interim final rule modified the test period for 
measuring temperature for products tested starting in 2014. This 
change, implemented in Appendices A and B (see, e.g., Appendix A, 
section 5.1.2), requires that the test period for temperature 
measurement coincide with the test period for energy measurement, 
regardless of whether the product's compressor cycles regularly, does 
not cycle, or exhibits incomplete cycling. These changes were 
incorporated into Appendices A and B as part of amendments made to the 
second part of the test for products with long-time or variable 
defrost. 75 FR at 78836 (Dec. 16, 2010).
    However, DOE has become aware that requiring the same test periods 
for temperature measurement and energy use, as done for Appendices A 
and B as described above, may not be appropriate for products with an 
automatic defrost cycle that is neither long-time nor variable in 
nature (i.e., ``short-time defrost'' products). In Appendices A1 and 
B1, the temperature measurement is made during one or more complete 
compressor cycles, one of which shall be the last complete compressor 
cycle in the test period (i.e., the test period specified for energy 
measurement) (see, e.g., Appendix A1, sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.2.1). For 
products with short-time defrost, the test period is from one point 
during a defrost cycle to the same point during the next defrost cycle 
(see, e.g., Appendix A1, section 4.2). The last complete compressor 
cycle in such a test period occurs during stable cycling of the 
compressor just before the defrost timer initiates the defrost cycle. 
Hence, modifying the test period for temperature measurement to be the 
same as the test period used for measuring energy usage would be 
inconsistent with DOE's current test procedures for such products.
    To ensure the accuracy and consistency of the soon-to-be required 
test procedures for short-time defrost products, DOE is proposing to 
address the inconsistency associated with temperature measurements for 
short-time defrost products. Specifically, DOE proposes to require that 
the compartment temperatures for such products shall be the average of 
the measured temperatures taken in a compartment during a stable period 
of compressor operation containing no defrost cycle or events 
associated with a defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, that 
includes at least two complete compressor or temperature cycles (if the 
compressor(s) or temperatures cycle) and is at least three hours in 
duration--essentially the same test period specified in section 4.1 of 
the test procedure for products with manual defrost. This provision 
would apply to Appendices A and B. This proposed approach for defining 
temperature measurement invokes several definitions described elsewhere 
in this notice: The term ``complete temperature cycles'' is described 
in section III.C.2, while ``precooling'', ``recovery'', and ``stable 
operation'' are discussed in section III.C.8. As described in these 
sections, DOE proposes to add these definitions to Appendices A and B 
to support already-established test procedures for products with long-
time or variable defrost (see, for example, Appendix A, section 4.2.1), 
and to support the multiple compressor test procedures proposed for 
Appendix A.
    DOE welcomes comment on its proposed revision to section 4.1 to 
reduce the potential error while limiting test burden for incomplete 
cycling products, as well as the proposed revisions to section 5.1 to 
ensure consistency regarding measurement of compartment temperature.
6. Mechanical Temperature Controls
    As discussed in section III.C.3 of this notice, DOE's procedure 
requires testing at two temperature settings. Appendix A, section 3.2.1 
requires that temperature controls be set to the median setting for the 
first test. The test procedure then calls for a second test to be 
performed with all controls set at their warmest setting or all 
controls set to their coldest setting.
    Achieving either the warmest or coldest setting for electronic 
control products is straightforward because controls are set to either 
the highest or lowest temperature setting that the electronic control 
allows. However, DOE has received questions about how to properly 
position a mechanical control to obtain the highest or lowest 
temperature setting. More specifically, DOE has become aware that there 
may be confusion as to the meaning of the term ``setting'' for the 
purposes of this aspect of the test, particularly for products with 
mechanical controls that have a range of motion extending beyond the 
printed indications on the knob or label. In such cases, DOE proposes 
to clarify whether the control should be set either with a pointer 
aligned to the highest or lowest number or letter on the dial or to the 
warmest or coldest end of the range by turning the dial completely 
until it is physically unable to be turned further. In doing so, DOE is 
seeking to ensure test consistency to avoid different lab 
interpretations of the temperature control setting requirements, which 
could generate inconsistent results.
    To improve test result consistency, DOE is considering modifying 
section 3.2.1 of Appendices A and B to indicate that the warmest and 
coldest setting should be achieved by aligning mechanical temperature 
control dials to the highest or lowest numeral or symbol that indicates 
a temperature setting. The new approach, which is intended to 
standardize testing practices while accounting for variability in 
design of mechanical temperature controls, would be inserted in section 
of 3.2.1 of Appendices A and B. It would read, ``. . . the warmest and 
coldest settings shall correspond to the positions in which the 
indicator is aligned with control symbols indicating the warmest and 
coldest settings.'' The remainder of section 3.2.1 would not be 
changed.
    DOE welcomes stakeholder comment on its proposal to modify section 
3.2.1 of the current test procedure to clarify mechanical control 
settings during testing.
7. Ambient Temperature Gradient
    DOE has observed that the key sections of the two industry-based 
protocols (i.e., HRF-1-1979 and HRF-1-2008) on which the DOE procedures 
rely contain inconsistencies regarding specified ambient temperature 
and vertical ambient temperature gradient requirements. Vertical 
ambient temperature gradient is the rate of temperature variation with 
height. For example, the temperature gradient measured by two 
temperature sensors separated vertically but otherwise at the same 
location in a room is equal to the difference in measured temperature 
divided by their vertical separation.
    The key requirements for ambient temperature sensors, ambient 
temperature, ambient temperature gradients, and temperature sensor 
shielding are summarized in Table III-12 below. All of these factors 
are significant for purposes of specifying the ambient temperature 
conditions surrounding a test sample because each one can affect the 
measured energy use. For example, the ambient temperature sensor 
location affects the measured value of ambient temperature since 
temperatures generally are not completely uniform throughout the test 
chamber. Also, the ambient temperature level directly affects the 
cabinet thermal

[[Page 41643]]

load that must be removed by the refrigeration system.

           Table III-12--Key Ambient Temperature Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Requirement               Appendix A1           Appendix A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambient Temperature Sensor    The ambient           Not specified
 Location.                     temperature is to     (missing from HRF-1-
                               be recorded at        2008).
                               points located 3
                               feet (91.5 cm)
                               above the floor
                               line and 10 inches
                               (25.4 cm) from the
                               center of the two
                               sides of the
                               cabinet. (HRF-1-
                               1979, section
                               7.4.3.1).
Ambient Temperature.........  The ambient           The ambient
                               temperature shall     temperature shall
                               be 90.0   be 90.01 [deg]F
                               minus>0.6 [deg]C)     (32.20.6 [deg]C)
                               stabilization         during the
                               period and the test   stabilization
                               period. (Appendix     period and the test
                               A1, section 2.1).     period (Appendix A,
                                                     section 2.1).
Ambient Temperature Gradient  The vertical ambient  The vertical ambient
 Sensor Locations.             temperature           temperature
                               gradient in any       gradient at
                               foot of vertical      locations 10 inches
                               distance from 2       (25.4 cm) out from
                               inches (5.1 cm)       the centers of the
                               above the floor or    two sides of the
                               supporting platform   unit being tested
                               to a height of 7      shall be maintained
                               feet (2.17 m) or to   during the test.
                               a height 1 foot       Unless the area is
                               (30.5 cm) above the   obstructed by
                               top of the cabinet,   shields or baffles,
                               whichever is          the gradient shall
                               greater, is not to    be maintained from
                               exceed 0.5 [deg]F     2 inches (5.1 cm)
                               per foot (0.9         above the floor or
                               [deg]C per meter).    supporting platform
                               (HRF-1-1979,          to a height 1 feet
                               section 7.2.1) Also   (30.5 cm) above the
                               see text below        unit under test.
                               under ``Maintaining   The vertical
                               Ambient Temperature   ambient temperature
                               Gradient During the   gradient in any
                               Test''.               foot of vertical
                                                     distance is not to
                                                     exceed 0.5 [deg]F
                                                     per foot (0.9
                                                     [deg]C per meter)
                                                     (HRF-1-2008,
                                                     section 5.3.1).
Ambient Temperature Gradient  See above (HRF-1-     See above (HRF-1-
                               1979, section         2008, section
                               7.2.1).               5.3.1).
Maintaining Ambient           * * * the vertical    See above (HRF-1-
 Temperature Gradient During   ambient temperature   2008, section
 the Test.                     gradient at           5.3.1).
                               locations 10 inches
                               (25.4 cm) out from
                               the centers of the
                               two sides of the
                               unit being tested
                               is to be maintained
                               during the test.
                               Unless the area is
                               obstructed by
                               shields or baffles,
                               the gradient is to
                               be maintained from
                               2 inches (5.1 cm)
                               above the floor or
                               supporting platform
                               to a height 1 foot
                               (30.5 cm) above the
                               unit under test.
                               (Appendix A1,
                               section 2.2).
Shielding of Temperature      Temperature           Temperature
 Sensors.                      measuring devices     measuring devices
                               are to be located     shall be located or
                               or shielded so that   shielded so that
                               indicated             indicated
                               temperatures will     temperatures are
                               not be affected by    not affected by the
                               the operation of      operation of the
                               the condensing        condensing unit or
                               unit. (HRF-1-1979,    adjacent units (HRF-
                               section 7.4.3.1).     1-2008, section
                                                     5.3.1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Test temperature requirements for freezers, described in Appendices 
B1 and B, are the same as those summarized in the table above--the 
Appendix B1 requirements are identical to those of Appendix A1, and the 
Appendix B requirements identical to those of Appendix A.
Location of Ambient Temperature Sensors
    DOE notes that Appendices A and B do not specify the locations of 
the ambient temperature measurement sensors, since these locations are 
not specified in HRF-1-2008. To remedy this gap, DOE proposes to add 
requirements for these sensor locations in a new section 2.1.1 to be 
added for these two appendices. The addition of these requirements 
would help ensure testing consistency. DOE requests comment on this 
proposed amendment.
Shielding
    DOE notes one issue with the shielding requirements (as specified 
in section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2008, which is incorporated by reference in 
Appendices A and B): the requirements suggest that relocating the 
sensors is appropriate in order to avoid the impact of the warming 
effect of the condensing unit.
    DOE does not believe that relocating temperature sensors is an 
appropriate means to remedy the effects of the condensing unit or 
adjacent products under test. As Table III-12 clearly lays out, the 
requirements for temperature sensor placement are precise, providing 
manufacturers with the necessary specificity in setting up sensors for 
the test. See HRF-1-2008, sec. 5.3.1. An attempt to relocate these 
sensors in a manner that conflicts with these requirements would, in 
DOE's view, undermine the procedure's purpose to ensure that an 
accurate measurement of energy usage is obtained. Hence, to remove any 
potential ambiguity or potential loophole, DOE is proposing to 
eliminate the current sensor relocation option. DOE proposes to 
implement this change in Appendices A and B by moving the shielding 
requirement, without the option for sensor relocation, to a new section 
2.1. Making a change in this manner would, as described below, permit 
the removal of related references to section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2008 
currently contained in Appendices A and B.
    DOE requests comment on its proposals to disallow relocation of 
ambient temperature sensors in order to prevent them from being 
affected by the test sample's condensing unit or adjacent test samples.
Maintaining the Ambient Temperature Gradient During Testing
    The requirement for maintaining the temperature gradient during the 
test was added to the test procedure during the rulemaking that adopted 
sections of HRF-1-1979 by reference. 47 FR 34517 (Aug. 10, 1982). DOE 
proposed amendments to its then-existing test procedure based on the 
test methods of HRF-1-1979. See 45 FR 47396 (July 14, 1980). These 
amendments incorporated HRF-1-1979, section 7.2.1 to require that the 
vertical temperature gradient in the test room in every foot of 
vertical distance must be no more than 0.5 [deg]F per foot. On August 
10, 1982, DOE revised its test procedures by adding a requirement that 
the ambient temperature gradient be maintained during testing to 
address comments pointing out that the proposal lacked

[[Page 41644]]

such a requirement. 47 FR at 34522-34523. This new language was 
incorporated into Appendix A1, section 2.2. DOE tentatively believes 
that amending this requirement may be necessary because (a) it is not 
clear that the temperature gradient requirement applies when 
temperature sensors are shielded, and (b) there are no specific details 
provided in the referenced HRF-1 procedure regarding the measurements 
that would demonstrate successful compliance with this requirement.
    The current temperature gradient maintenance language indicates 
that the temperature gradients should be maintained during testing. 
However, the next part of the requirement states, ``Unless the area is 
obstructed by shields or baffles, the gradient is to be maintained from 
2 inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or supporting platform to a height 1 
foot (30.5 cm) above the unit under test.'' (See Appendix A, section 
2.2) This language is unclear as to whether the ambient temperature 
gradients must be maintained as described if there are shields or 
baffles. DOE is unaware of any refrigeration product equipped with 
shields or baffles in the specified locations. Hence, DOE concludes 
that such shields or baffles would be those placed in the vicinity of 
the temperature sensors during testing to comply with the requirements 
to shield the sensors from the effects of the condensing unit or 
adjacent products under test. (See, e.g., HRF-1-1979, section 7.4.3.1) 
DOE proposes to eliminate the ambiguity regarding whether the 
temperature gradients are to be maintained when the temperature sensors 
are shielded by removing the qualifying text, ``unless the area is 
obstructed by shields or baffles''.
    DOE has observed during testing that the gradients are often 
difficult to maintain during testing. It is DOE's understanding that 
test laboratories generally shield the temperature sensors as required 
and strive to arrange the shields to ensure that the temperature 
gradients are maintained during the test at the specified location 10 
inches from the sides of the units. For example, DOE is aware that test 
laboratories have generally placed temperature sensors 10 inches from 
the sides of the unit at heights 2 inches above the floor, 36 inches 
above the floor, and 12 inches above the top of the unit. The 36-inch 
high sensors are monitored to ensure they remain within the 90 +/-1 
[deg]F specified ambient temperature range required under the 
procedure. The laboratories also strive to maintain temperature 
gradients between the lower and higher pairs of temperature sensors on 
each side of the unit (i.e., between the 2-inch and 36-inch sensors and 
also between the 36-inch and highest sensors). Often, one of these 
gradients exceeds 0.5 [deg]F per foot for a few minutes after the start 
of a compressor ``on''-cycle, when condenser heat release is highest.
    In order to rectify this situation, the laboratories shield the 
sensors (or adjust the shielding as needed) and recheck whether the 
gradients are maintained. The condensing unit as well as the operation 
of adjacent test units can impact the temperature measurements by 
raising the temperature in some locations in the test chamber. The 
condensing unit rejects heat from the product's refrigeration system by 
transferring it to the air surrounding the cabinet, either by drawing 
air through the condensing unit, or by direct transfer to the air from 
a condenser mounted on the outside of the cabinet. If this warm air 
passes near a temperature sensor after leaving the warm condenser, the 
temperature measured by the sensor will rise.
    Further, if this temperature rise is sufficiently greater at one 
temperature sensor than at the temperature sensor below it, the 
measured vertical ambient temperature gradient will increase, 
potentially above the maximum 0.5 [deg]F per foot. Such a condition 
indicates a failure to ``maintain the vertical ambient temperature 
gradient during the test'', as required by the test procedure. DOE 
recognizes that it may be difficult to maintain the temperature 
gradient during testing if some of the temperature sensors are exposed 
to the warm air of the condensing unit or adjacent test units and 
requests comment on whether maintaining the gradient at a location 10 
inches from the side of the unit as specified is essential to assure 
repeatable results. Intrinsic to this issue is whether maintaining the 
temperature gradient can be demonstrated using a different location. 
However, DOE also recognizes that the test procedure does not specify 
how to demonstrate that the temperature gradient is maintained during 
the test. DOE proposes to require the use of sensors on both sides of 
the test sample at three heights, as described above--at 2 inches above 
the floor, 36 inches above the floor, and one foot above the top of the 
cabinet--and that the gradient must be maintained during the test 
between the two pairs of vertically-adjacent sensors on each side (i.e. 
between the 2-inch and 36-inch temperature sensors and also between the 
36-inch and highest sensors). In addition, DOE would require that the 
temperatures measured by these sensors be recorded in the test data 
underlying certifications in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71. DOE 
proposes these changes for Appendices A and B.
    DOE requests comments on its proposal to modify the requirements 
for maintaining the ambient temperature gradient during testing. In 
addition, because DOE is aware that it may be difficult to maintain the 
gradients when temperature sensors are affected by the heat of the 
condensing unit or adjacent units, DOE also requests comments on 
whether verification of temperature gradient maintenance should be 
performed in a different location.
Revising Ambient Temperature Requirements for Appendices A and B
    Several of the ambient temperature requirements of Appendices A and 
B appear in section 5.3.1 of HRF-1-2008, which is incorporated by 
reference. DOE is proposing to modify some of these requirements, 
particularly those related to maintaining the temperature gradient 
during testing, as described above. In order to make the necessary 
changes related to temperature gradient and ambient temperature sensor 
location requirements while retaining certain other requirements, DOE 
proposes to move these requirements directly into Appendices A and B, 
in new sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.3, and to remove the incorporation by 
reference for HRF-1-2008 section 5.3.1.
    DOE requests comments on the proposed changes to ambient 
temperature and ambient temperature gradient requirements, and on the 
proposed approach to implement these changes.
8. Definitions Associated With Defrost Cycles
    DOE's amendments in the January 2012 final rule included 
modifications to test periods for products with long-time and variable 
defrost (see, for example, Appendix A, section 4.2.1). 77 FR at 3563-
3568 (Jan. 25, 2012). That rule provided that the first part of the 
test would be a stable period of compressor operation that includes no 
portions of the defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery. See 77 
FR at 3563 (Jan. 25, 2012) for a detailed explanation of the concepts 
of ``precooling'' and ``temperature recovery.'' However, DOE did not 
define the terms ``precooling'' and ``temperature recovery'', nor did 
it define what comprises a ``stable period of compressor operation.'' 
To address any potential issues that may arise from this gap, today's 
notice proposes definitions for each of these terms.

[[Page 41645]]

    These definitions would also clarify two other proposed sections of 
the test procedures, should they be adopted. Today's notice proposes 
adopting test procedures for multiple compressor refrigeration products 
that use the same concepts of stable operation, precooling, and 
recovery that are important in describing the test procedure for 
products with long-time or variable defrost (see section III.C.2). That 
procedure would be added as part of Appendix A. In addition, this 
notice proposes to alter the manner in which to determine compartment 
temperatures in Appendices A and B for products with short-time defrost 
(automatic defrost that is neither long-time nor variable defrost). 
Determining compartment temperatures under today's proposal would 
invoke the concepts of precooling, recovery, and stable operation.
    The proposed definitions are as follows:
    ``Precooling'' means operating a refrigeration system before 
initiation of a defrost cycle to reduce one or more compartment 
temperatures significantly (more than 0.5 [deg]F) below its minimum 
during stable operation between defrosts.
    ``Recovery'' means operating a refrigeration system after the 
conclusion of a defrost cycle to reduce the temperature of one or more 
compartments to the temperature range that the compartment(s) exhibited 
during stable operation between defrosts.
    ``Stable operation'' means operation after steady-state conditions 
have been achieved but excluding any events associated with defrost 
cycles. During stable operation the rate of change of all compartment 
temperatures must not exceed 0.042 [deg]F (0.023 [deg]C) per hour. Such 
a calculation performed for compartment temperatures at any two times, 
or for any two complete cycles, during stable operation must meet this 
requirement.
    (A) If compartment temperatures do not cycle, the relevant 
calculation shall be the difference between the temperatures at two 
points in time divided by the difference, in hours, between those 
points in time.
    (B) If compartment temperatures cycle as a result of compressor 
cycling or other cycling operation of any system component (e.g., a 
damper, fan, or heater), the relevant calculation shall be the 
difference between compartment temperature averages evaluated for whole 
compressor cycles or complete temperature cycles divided by the 
difference, in hours, between either the starts, ends, or mid-times of 
the two cycles.
    ``Stable period of compressor operation'' is a period of stable 
operation of a refrigeration system that has a compressor.
    The proposed definition for stable operation uses the same rate of 
temperature change specified in the current test procedures as the 
indication of steady-state conditions (see, for example, Appendix A, 
section 2.9).
    DOE seeks comment on its proposal to add these definitions to 
Appendices A and B.
9. Elimination of Reporting of Product Height
    Before 1997, DOE made no class distinctions by product size, and 
compact refrigerators were governed by the same standards as full-size 
refrigerators. In 1997, DOE issued a final rule that added new product 
classes for compact refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, 
which included products with a total volume of less than 7.75 cubic 
feet that are also 36 inches or less in height. 62 FR 23102, 23111 
(Apr. 28, 1997). DOE explained in its July 1995 proposal that it was 
considering treating compact products separately from standard-sized 
products because compact products had fewer design options to help 
reduce their energy consumption. 60 FR 37388, 37396 (July 20, 1995). 
The July 1995 NOPR proposed a 36-inch height limit for compact class 
products and explained that this limit was established in recognition 
of the design constraints faced by manufacturers, particularly with 
respect to top and bottom panel insulation thicknesses. See 60 FR at 
37397 (July 20, 1995).
    However, the majority of compact products are not undercounter 
products that fall within these specified dimensions. To account for 
this situation, the September 2011 Energy Conservation Standard final 
rule (September 2011 Final Rule) eliminated the 36-inch height 
restriction in the definition for compact products, effectively 
expanding the ``compact'' definition to include products with a total 
volume less than 7.75 cubic feet and height exceeding 36 inches. 76 FR 
at 57538 (Sept. 15, 2014). As described in DOE guidance, the 36-inch 
height requirement still forms part of the classification of a product 
as ``compact'' until the new standards final rule is required for 
compliance in September 2014.\13\ To confirm the proper classification 
of products as compact or standard size before the change in the 
definition takes effect, DOE has required reporting of product height 
in certification reports (see 10 CFR 429.14(b)(2)). However, such 
reporting will no longer be necessary after the new definition applies. 
Consequently, DOE proposes removing this remaining reporting 
requirement from 10 CFR 429.14(b)(2). DOE requests comments on this 
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/refr-frz_faq_2011-10-06.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Measurement of Product Volume
    The current DOE test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, and freezers in Appendices A1 and B1 require that the total 
refrigerated volume of these products be measured according to HRF-1-
1979. In contrast, Appendices A and B require that volume be measured 
according to HRF-1-2008. In general, these referenced procedures 
describe the dimensions that must be measured, list volumes to include 
or deduct in the final calculation, and specify the appropriate 
rounding of the final calculated values. However, the procedures do not 
specify whether measurements may be based on design specifications or 
if physical measurement of the actual test unit is required. With 
respect to the latter approach, the procedures do not specify the types 
of instruments that would be appropriate or should be used for 
performing these measurements, leaving it to the test laboratory to 
determine the best means by which to conduct this portion of the test.
    Since the January 2012 final rule was published, DOE has become 
aware that some manufacturers use computer programs to calculate these 
volumes based on computer-aided design (CAD) models of the product in 
lieu of physical measurements. While DOE understands that this practice 
may allow for more precise measurement of these products, especially 
where the measured volumes include irregular shapes and textured 
surfaces, and recognizes that neither the referenced AHAM test 
procedures nor the DOE test procedures specifically prohibit it, DOE 
has identified two potential issues involved with measuring volumes in 
this manner. First, the use of measurements based upon design models 
for the purposes of certification represents an assumption that the 
actual production units will be exactly consistent with the designs, 
which may not actually occur. Second, independent verification of the 
manufacturer's rated volume by a test laboratory that does not possess 
these models can be difficult, particularly when a product's interior 
volume includes irregularly shaped

[[Page 41646]]

surfaces or volumes that cannot easily be measured by hand. Because 
permitted maximum annual energy use is a function of volume within a 
given product class, discrepancies between the volumes measured 
directly during lab testing and the volumes manufacturers calculate 
using CAD models could potentially, under the current regulations, 
affect whether a tested unit of a given basic model meets the 
applicable energy conservation standard.
    In recognition of the practical difficulties associated with 
measuring the volumes of many products currently on the market, DOE is 
proposing to explicitly permit the use of CAD models for measuring and 
computing the volume of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 
freezers for the purposes of certifying compliance with the DOE energy 
conservation standards for these products. This proposal is intended to 
ensure that manufacturers are able to accurately measure the volumes of 
their products and that test laboratories are able to verify these.
    In addition to a general provision that permits the use of CAD 
models for determining the volume for the purposes of certification, 
DOE would also require that manufacturers retain measurements derived 
using CAD as part of the test records that underlie certifications 
pursuant to 10 CFR 429.71. These provisions would include a requirement 
that the manufacturer make these records available to DOE upon request 
in the form of printed diagrams and/or spreadsheets that demonstrate 
the calculations of volume performed using the CAD model (rather than 
computer files that would require use of CAD software to read, such as 
.dwg files). For the purposes of volume verification, DOE would ensure 
that the volume measured by the test laboratory is within a prescribed 
tolerance of the total refrigerated volume certified by the 
manufacturer. DOE could also request documentation of the 
manufacturer's volume measurements as needed.
    DOE would modify section 5.3 of Appendices A and B to incorporate 
the requirements allowing use of CAD for volume calculation.
    In determining the appropriate tolerance for assessing the validity 
of volume ratings, DOE considered information from two primary sources. 
First, DOE considered the AHAM Refrigerator, Refrigerator-Freezer, and 
Freezer Verification Program Procedural Guide, which uses a 2 percent 
tolerance for verification of manufacturer volume ratings. To ensure 
that this threshold would be appropriate, DOE evaluated its own test 
data and compared volume measurements taken over the past three years 
for nearly 300 individual test units representing over 100 models. DOE 
found that, on average, manufacturers' reported adjusted volumes are 
slightly less than 0.5 percent larger than the adjusted volumes 
measured by the test laboratory and that less than 20 percent of units 
had an adjusted volume more than two percent larger than their 
certified adjusted volume. Among the tested units that exceeded the 2 
percent threshold, more than 70 percent were beyond 3 percent and 
nearly one third were beyond 4 percent. There was also greater 
variation in the frequency of results above the 2 percent threshold 
compared with the units below the threshold, with the frequency of 
observations below 2 percent following a roughly normal distribution 
and the frequency of results above 2 percent appearing more erratic. 
Finally, DOE observed that the impact of a difference in reported 
adjusted volume of 2 percent resulted in an impact on the calculated 
energy conservation standard of only 0.5%, probably less than the 
impacts of other potential errors in measurement and data reporting. 
This all suggests that the 2 percent threshold is appropriate and that 
the vast majority of measurements should fall well within this margin.
    Based upon this analysis, DOE is proposing to adopt requirements 
that are essentially the same as those used by AHAM for its 
verification program. Specifically, the test laboratory's measurement 
of volume must be no more than 2 percent smaller than the 
manufacturer's rated volume. If 2 percent of the rated volume is 
smaller than 0.5 cubic feet for standard-size products or 0.2 cubic 
feet for compact products, then a 0.5 (or 0.2) cubic feet tolerance 
would be used. For example, if a product's rated volume is 29.2 cubic 
feet, the 2 percent margin would be 0.6 cubic feet. Since this is 
larger than 0.5 cubic feet, the 2 percent margin would be used; 
therefore, under the proposed approach, the laboratory measurement 
would have to be at least 28.6 cubic feet for the rating to be 
considered valid. If DOE determines that the rated volume is not valid, 
the energy conservation standard applicable to the tested model would 
be calculated based upon the volume measured by the laboratory. DOE 
proposes to add a new section 429.134 of 10 CFR part 429 to address the 
volume verification protocol. DOE also proposes to amend the 
certification requirements in section 429.14 to require reporting of 
the total refrigerated volume of each compartment instead of the 
adjusted volume. This will enable direct comparisons between the 
certified volume of a basic model and independently measured volumes 
for the same model and will also harmonize the DOE reporting 
requirements for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 
with those of the Federal Trade Commission.
    As a related matter, DOE noted during its review of test data and 
manufacturer ratings of adjusted volume that some volumes may have been 
improperly reported or calculated. Specifically, in some cases it 
appeared that the adjusted volume may have been calculated based on a 
total refrigerated volume that was rounded to the nearest whole cubic 
foot rather than the nearest 0.1 cubic foot as required by section 
4.2.3 of AHAM HRF-1-1979, which is referenced by the DOE test 
procedure. In the most extreme theoretical case, this error could 
result in the reporting of a total refrigerated volume that is larger 
by up to 0.5 cubic feet. For a product such as an upright freezer with 
automatic defrost (product class 9 in the DOE energy conservation 
standards), this would result in a difference in adjusted volume of 
0.865 cubic feet, and a resultant increase in calculated energy 
conservation standard for that basic model of nearly 11 kWh/year. Such 
a margin could make the difference between a model meeting the standard 
or failing to do so. In any evaluation of a product's certified total 
refrigerated volume, DOE will consider all aspects of the volume 
calculation, including the rounding of the measured total volume that 
was used in the calculation to help determine whether a manufacturer 
derived its certified value of total refrigerated volume in conformity 
with the DOE test procedure.
    DOE seeks comment on its proposal to add a provision permitting use 
of CAD for measurement of product volume to section 429.72 and 
procedures for verifying rated volumes to section 429.134, including 
the proposed tolerance range. DOE also requests information on the 
documentation kept by manufacturers of CAD modeling used for 
calculations of volume and whether this documentation is in or could be 
converted to a format that would allow review by DOE without use of CAD 
software.
11. Corrections to Temperature Setting Logic Tables
    The December 16, 2010 Interim Final Rule established tables in 
Appendices A and B to illustrate the requirements for setting 
temperature controls during testing. 75 FR at 78840-78842. However, the 
tables were presented in the notice without the necessary horizontal 
lines to properly divide the

[[Page 41647]]

different test result possibilities and next steps. The tables were 
then entered into the CFR with horizontal lines in locations that 
effectively confused the information that the tables were intended to 
present. DOE proposes to correct these errors and ensure that the 
tables in the CFR are corrected to properly show the sequence of 
temperature control settings required for testing.
12. Minimum Compressor Run-Time Between Defrosts for Variable Defrost 
Models
    The DOE test procedures in Appendices A and B provide specific 
provisions for calculating the energy use of models with variable 
defrost, which DOE defines generally as an automatic defrost system in 
which successive defrost cycles are determined by an operating 
condition variable or variables other than solely compressor operating 
time. For such models, the periodicity of defrost cycles may vary based 
on factors other than the time since the last compressor cycle, such as 
ambient temperature and humidity, length and frequency of door 
openings, and other factors that may affect the formation of frost on 
the evaporator or provide an indication of how much frost may have 
accumulated. As noted in the definition, this differs from models with 
non-variable automatic defrost, which generally perform defrosts of the 
evaporator based solely on compressor operating time. The energy use of 
variable defrost products is measured using a two-part test which 
separately measures the energy use associated with defrost in the 
second part of the test.
    To properly account for energy use associated with defrost, 
Appendices A and B both provide calculations specifically for models 
that have variable defrost. These calculations estimate the 
contribution to energy use based upon the values for the minimum 
compressor run-time between defrosts (CTL) and the maximum 
compressor run time between defrosts (CTM). Some models have 
control algorithms with specific values for CTL and 
CTM, which DOE requires manufacturers to report as part of 
their certifications of compliance. These values must be known in order 
to calculate the representative average value CT for compressor run 
time between defrosts, which is used to calculate defrost frequency and 
therefore also defrost contribution to energy use. In any subsequent 
verification or enforcement testing, DOE uses the values of 
CTL and CTM reported by the manufacturer. For 
models that are not programmed with fixed CTL and 
CTM values, tests must be conducted using default values of 
6 and 96, respectively. For descriptions of these calculations, see 
sections 5.2.1.3 and 5.2.1.5 of Appendix A, and section 5.2.1.3 of 
Appendix B.
    In general, use of the CTL and CTM values 
reported by the manufacturer rather than the default values should 
result in measurements of energy use that are more representative of 
the product's actual operation because they represent the actual 
minimum and maximum amounts of compressor run time between defrosts 
that the model's control system is designed to use. Thus, the 
compressor run time between defrosts should never be less than 
CTL and never greater than CTM. However, in 
certain DOE testing of models for which the manufacturer reported 
values of CTL and CTM in the certification 
report, DOE has found that the number of hours of compressor operation 
between defrost cycles observed in the test data was less than the 
CTL value reported by the manufacturer in its certification 
report. This difference suggests either that the certified value was 
erroneous or that the model did not operate as designed. In either 
case, the energy use calculated using the values reported by the 
manufacturer would not be representative of how the model actually 
performed during the test and how it would be expected to perform in 
the field. To ensure that the energy use calculations will reflect the 
actual operation of the unit as tested, DOE is proposing to require the 
use of a value for CTL for the energy use calculation that 
is equal to the shortest compressor run time between defrosts observed 
during the test, if this observed time is less than the value of 
CTL reported in the certification report. If the model did 
not have values of CTL and CTM reported in the 
certification report, the observed value of CTL would only 
be used if it is less than the default value of 6 hours. This change is 
proposed for sections 5.2.1.3 and 5.2.1.5 of Appendix A and section 
5.2.1.3 of Appendix B.
13. Treatment of ``Connected'' Products
    As part of the Version 5.0 ENERGY STAR Specification for 
Residential Refrigerators and Freezers, DOE is developing, in 
cooperation with the EPA, specifications and test methods for 
refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that have the capability to 
enable consumer-authorized energy related commands, such as demand-
response signals from a utility.\14\ Products with this capability are 
referred to generally as ``connected'' products in the final draft 
ENERGY STAR specification and in the associated test method (ENERGY 
STAR Connected Refrigerators and Freezers Final Draft Test Method, No. 
14). The draft test method addresses aspects of testing specific to the 
demand response functionality, but refers to the DOE test procedure in 
Appendix A to Subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430 for test setup and test 
conditions. However, the current Appendix A test procedure does not 
address the condition of the communication module of a connected 
product during the standard DOE energy test, which is used in section 6 
of the demand response test to establish the baseline energy 
consumption and can be placed by the user in either an active 
communication mode or a non-communicating mode (ENERGY STAR Connected 
Refrigerators and Freezers Final Draft Test Method, No. 14, p. 3). DOE 
views this feature as subject to section 5.5.2.e of AHAM HRF-1-2008, 
incorporated by reference in Appendix A, which states that customer 
accessible features, not required for normal operation, which are 
electrically powered, manually initiated, and manually terminated, 
shall be set at their lowest energy usage positions when adjustment is 
provided. In keeping with this requirement, and to ensure that Appendix 
A provides sufficient clarity on the condition of the communication 
module of connected products during the DOE energy test, DOE is 
proposing to amend section 2 of the Appendix A test procedure to 
specify that the communication module, if integrated into the cabinet, 
must be energized but placed in the lowest energy use position, and 
there shall be no active communication during testing. DOE understands 
that some products will be manufactured without an integrated 
communication module, and instead will have the capability to allow 
connection of a module supplied by another manufacturer. In these 
cases, DOE cannot specify a test condition for the communication module 
since the module used for the test will not be standardized. Thus, the 
proposed requirement in section 2 of the test procedure does not 
require connection of communication modules for products designed for 
use of an externally-connected module. Finally, while the ENERGY STAR 
specification for connected products addresses only refrigerators and 
refrigerator-freezers, DOE is also proposing to add the same provisions 
to Appendix B to accommodate any future provisions made for connected 
freezers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For additional background on the ENERGY STAR Version 5.0 
Specification for Residential Refrigerators and Freezers, go to 
https://energystar.gov/products/specs/node/125.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 41648]]

14. Changes to Confidentiality of Certification Data
    Section 429.14(b) specifies the data that manufacturers of 
residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers must 
provide to DOE in certifications of compliance for each basic model. 
Data submitted for the items in paragraph (b)(2) are treated by DOE as 
public data whereas the data for items in paragraph (b)(3) are 
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The items listed in paragraph (b)(3) 
include specific information related to variable defrost control, 
variable anti-sweat heater control, and the use of alternate 
temperature sensor locations. For models with variable defrost and 
variable anti-sweat heaters, this includes not only the specific 
operational details of those features, but whether the model has those 
features at all. Since the publishing of the current version of section 
429.14, DOE has determined that there is no clear reason that the 
indications as to whether a model has variable defrost or variable 
anti-sweat heater control or the use of alternate temperature sensor 
locations should be treated as non-public and proposes to move them to 
paragraph (b)(2), which would make them public data. The other details 
of variable defrost operation and variable anti-sweat heater control 
would remain in paragraph (b)(3). These changes would take effect 30 
days after publication of the final rule.
15. Package Loading
    Section 2.2 of the DOE test procedure for residential freezers, 
which is located in appendix B1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 
(Appendix B1), references the AHAM HRF-1-1979 test procedure for 
provisions related to certain operational conditions. Among these is a 
specific provision described in section 7.4.3.3 of AHAM HRF-1-1979, 
which requires that the freezer compartment be loaded to 75% of the 
maximum number of filled packages that can be fitted into the 
compartment, and that the 75% load is to be fitted into the compartment 
as to permit air circulation around and above the load. The 
requirements applicable to these products in appendix B to subpart B of 
10 CFR part 430 (Appendix B) and the section it references in AHAM HRF-
1-2008 procedure (section 5.5.5.3), are essentially identical except 
that package loading is required only for manual defrost freezers 
whereas it is required by HRF-1-1979 for all freezer types.
    DOE has learned that there may be ambiguity about how to 
consistently determine the actual number of packages that fulfills the 
75% loading requirement for a given basic model. To clarify, DOE views 
the appropriate method of accomplishing this requirement as consisting 
of two steps. The first step is to determine the number of packages 
that represents 75% of the maximum capacity of the freezer compartment, 
and the second step is to arrange the 75% load such that the air gap of 
0.5 to 1.5 inches between the load and the compartment wall and the 
pyramid or tiered form needed for placement of the thermocouples are 
both established, as required by section 7.4.3.3 of the AHAM HRF-1-1979 
procedure (or section 5.5.5.3 of AHAM HRF-1-2008).
    For determining the number of packages that represents 75% of the 
load, the compartment should be filled completely with the packages 
that are to be used for the test, such that the packages fill as much 
of the usable refrigerated space within the compartment as is 
physically possible. Once this has been accomplished, a number of 
packages is removed from the compartment so that the compartment 
contains 75% of the packages that were placed in the compartment to 
completely fill it. The remaining packages would then be arranged as 
necessary in order to achieve the necessary air gap and the tiered or 
pyramid form needed for thermocouple placement.
    To ensure that this practice is used consistently, DOE proposes to 
place a description of this practice in section 2.9 of Appendix B. The 
proposed text also specifies that the number of packages representing 
the completely filled condition and the number left in the compartment 
for the test should both be recorded in the test data, and maintained 
as part of the test record in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71. Because 
section 5.5.5.3 of HRF-1-2008 also applies these requirements to each 
shelf of a multi-shelf freezer, the requirement to count and record the 
number of packages would apply on a per-shelf basis for such products.
    DOE requests comment on these clarifications and proposed 
amendments to Appendix B.
16. Product Clearance to the Wall During Testing
    In the December 16, 2010 interim final rule, which established 
Appendices A and B, DOE included provisions to address product 
clearances to the wall during testing. 75 FR 78810. Specifically, 
section 2.8 of Appendix A and section 2.6 of Appendix B both require 
that the space between the plane of the cabinet's back panel and the 
vertical surface behind the cabinet (i.e., the test chamber wall or 
simulated wall) be the minimum distance in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions or 2 inches, whichever is less. If the 
product has permanent rear spacers that extend beyond this distance, 
the product is to be located with the spacers in contact with the 
vertical surface. However, DOE received a request for guidance from 
AHAM dated May 22, 2013 (AHAM Guidance Request) indicating that these 
provisions may not be sufficiently clear for cases in which the back of 
the test unit is not all on one plane due to protrusions or surface 
irregularities rather than a uniformly flat panel. (AHAM Guidance 
Request, No. 15, p. 2). AHAM requested that DOE clarify these sections 
by referencing the Committee Draft for Vote (CDV) version of Part 1 of 
IEC 62552.2 Household refrigerating appliances--Characteristics and 
test methods. As explained by AHAM, this reference provides guidance on 
product spacing that is consistent with section 2.8, but is more 
specific regarding the treatment of irregular surfaces.
    Because the IEC reference that AHAM suggested has not been 
finalized as of the date of this notice, and because DOE generally 
seeks to limit the number of external references incorporated in the 
DOE test procedure, DOE declines to incorporate by reference the IEC 
procedure suggested by AHAM. However, since clarification of this item 
may result in more consistent application of the DOE test procedure, 
DOE proposes to adopt revised language for section 2.8 that is intended 
to accomplish the same objective. Specifically, DOE proposes to specify 
that, for the purposes of determining the appropriate clearance to the 
wall for the test, the rear plane of the cabinet is the largest flat 
surface at the rear of the cabinet. The test procedure would also 
indicate where individual features, such as brackets, the compressor, 
or the condenser protrude from the rear plane, that these could not to 
be used as the basis for determining the rear clearance. To account for 
products that are required by the manufacturer's instructions to be set 
up with the front of the unit slightly higher off the floor than the 
rear, such that the top of the cabinet is closer to the wall behind the 
cabinet than the bottom, the proposed language specifies that the 
reference point for the maximum 2 inch clearance is lowest part of the 
rear plane of the cabinet. The proposed language also permits the top 
of the cabinet to touch the vertical surface if necessary to meet the 
clearance requirement at the bottom, and for the clearance requirement 
to be

[[Page 41649]]

exceeded if the bottom edge is still more than 2 inches from the 
vertical surface when the top edge is in contact with the vertical 
surface. Similarly, the proposed language is consistent with the 
existing Appendix A test procedure, which allows for the 2-inch 
clearance requirement to be exceeded if individual features extend more 
than 2 inches beyond the rear plane, provided these features are in 
contact with the vertical surface during the test. DOE proposes to 
incorporate this language in section 2.8 of Appendix A and section 2.6 
of Appendix B, and requests comment on these proposed additions.
17. Other Minor Corrections
    In reviewing the text of Appendix A, DOE observed that the version 
adopted in the January 25, 2012 final rule contained a minor error in 
section 6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements. 
Section 6.2.2.2, which provides the method for calculating average per-
cycle energy use (``E'') for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 
through interpolation based on compartment temperatures, states that 
``E'' is defined in section 6.2.1.1.'' Section 6.2.1.1, however, does 
not define the term ``E'' and contains only a formula for E = ET1 + 
IET, which does not clarify the meaning in section 6.2.2.2. Since the 
term ``E'' itself has the same basic meaning for all portions of 
section 6.2, DOE proposes to place the definition of this term in the 
introductory text of section 6.2 and modify the text in the follow-on 
sections so that it is referred to consistently. For consistency, DOE 
has proposed nearly identical changes for Appendix B.
    DOE has also noted that a certain aspect of the definition of 
``compact refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer'' in 10 CFR 430.2, 
which distinguishes the product classes in section 430.32(a) for 
compact products from the classes for standard-size products, could 
potentially cause confusion. Specifically, the definition limits the 
applicability of the compact product classes to products smaller than 
7.75 cubic feet in volume. The volume referred to in the definition is 
the total refrigerated volume measured as specified in section 5.3 of 
Appendices A, A1, B, and B1. However, the definition uses the term 
``rated volume,'' which is not defined or listed elsewhere in DOE's 
test procedures or reporting requirements for these products, and could 
potentially be confused with the ``adjusted volume,'' which is a 
different measurement. To prevent confusion regarding the applicability 
of this definition, and to ensure standard terminology is used 
throughout DOE's regulations, DOE proposes to amend the definition of 
``compact refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer'' in 10 CFR 430.2 
to specifically indicate that the definition applies based upon the 
product's total refrigerated volume.
    Also, in its guidance request to DOE dated May 22, 2013, referred 
to previously in section III.C.15, AHAM raised additional issues. One 
of these was about a portion of the existing definition of ``Defrost 
cycle type'' found in section 1.9 of Appendix A. Specifically, AHAM 
referred to the last sentence of the definition, which states that ``. 
. . defrost achieved regularly during the compressor off-cycles by 
warming the evaporator without active heat addition is not a defrost 
cycle type,'' and indicated that this sentence may be causing confusion 
by implying that this type of defrost, which is commonly referred to as 
``off-cycle defrost'' does not constitute automatic defrost. (AHAM 
Guidance Request, No. 15, p. 2) DOE inserted the clause regarding off-
cycle defrost as part of the December 2010 Interim Final Rule in 
response to AHAM's concern that off-cycle defrost should not be 
considered a defrost cycle type. 75 FR at 78838 (Dec. 16, 2010). 
However, as pointed out by AHAM in its recent comments, this does not 
imply that off-cycle defrost is not a form of automatic defrost. DOE 
agrees and made its position on this topic public as part of the 
preliminary analysis for the energy conservation standard rulemaking 
that ended September 15, 2011. (Energy Conservation Standards for 
Residential Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 2009-
12-10 Public Meeting Presentation Slides, Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-
0012, No. 28 at p. 21) However, DOE understands AHAM's concerns that 
the definition of defrost cycle types may be misinterpreted. The clause 
in question was intended to distinguish off-cycle defrosts from the 
unique types of defrost cycles that involve a defrost heater, which 
must be identified individually to establish test periods as required 
by section 4.2 of the test procedure. To clarify this intent, DOE has 
proposed a revision to the definition of ``defrost cycle type'' in 
section 1.9 of Appendix A.
    Finally, another issue raised in AHAM's May 22, 2013 guidance 
request addressed test periods for products with automatic defrost that 
is neither long-time nor variable. (AHAM Guidance Request, No. 15, p. 
3) Section III.C.5 addresses this issue.
18. Relocation of Shelving for Temperature Sensors
    HRF-1-2008, section 5.5.4, which is incorporated into the DOE test 
procedures by reference, requires at least one inch of air space 
separating the thermal mass of a temperature sensor from contact with 
any surface. In the case of interference with hardware at the specified 
sensor locations, section 5.5.4 requires that the temperature sensors 
be placed at the nearest locations such that there will be a one inch 
air space separating the sensor mass from the hardware. In the case of 
proximity of the sensor to shelving or other components whose position 
is adjustable by the consumer, DOE believes that it is more appropriate 
to relocate the shelf or component than to relocate the sensor. 
However, HRF-1-2008 section 5.5.2(a) requires that shelves and bins be 
evenly spaced throughout the compartment. DOE proposes to revise the 
test procedures to indicate that temperature sensor location would take 
precedence over the position of shelving and components whose position 
is adjustable by consumers, even if this means that the shelving 
closest to the temperature sensors would not be in their evenly spaced 
locations. Specifically, DOE proposes to add language to Appendices A 
and B, section 5.1 indicating that consumer-movable shelves and other 
components should be moved to maintain temperature sensor clearance 
requirements. While DOE intends that this action would take precedence 
over the even-spacing requirement, to minimize variation in such 
repositioning DOE also proposes to specify that any placement adhere as 
closely as practicable to the setup instructions of section 5.5.2 of 
HRF-1-2008 (including the requirement that shelves and door bins be 
evenly spaced). For example, if shelves are repositioned from the 
exactly evenly spaced positions to accommodate temperature sensors, 
they should still be spaced as nearly evenly as possible while meeting 
the required minimum 1-inch separation between the temperature sensor 
thermal mass and the shelf. DOE requests comments on this proposal.

D. Other Matters Related to the Test Procedure

1. Built-In Refrigerators
    In the course of evaluating the proposed amendments to the DOE test 
procedures for residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 
freezers, DOE tested several current models of these products. Included 
were three ``built-in

[[Page 41650]]

refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer'' models, as defined in 10 
CFR 430.2. That provision generally applies to products that (1) Have 
unfinished sides that are not intended to be viewable after 
installation, (2) are designed exclusively to be installed totally 
encased by cabinetry, fastened to the adjoining cabinetry, walls, or 
floor, and (3) are either equipped with a factory-finished face or 
accept a custom front panel.
    While the tests that DOE conducted on these models were generally 
associated with evaluating the proposed amendments discussed in this 
notice, DOE also conducted testing to evaluate any additional impact on 
measured energy use that may result from being tested in a built-in 
condition in the test laboratory. DOE performed these tests by 
enclosing the models in simulated cabinetry and conducting a round of 
tests using Appendix A, and then compared the results from this round 
of tests to the results of tests conducted using Appendix A with the 
products in a freestanding condition. DOE conducted these tests to 
address questions that DOE received from testing organizations 
regarding the proper test conditions for products of this type under 
the DOE test procedure and to ensure that the DOE test procedures 
prescribed as a result of this rulemaking will result in measures of 
energy consumption that are representative of average use, as required 
under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3). Because these products are, by definition, 
designed to operate when enclosed by cabinetry, DOE tentatively views 
the built-in condition during testing as more accurately representing 
the average use condition of these products than testing these products 
in a free-standing condition.
    DOE expects that many manufacturers and testing organizations are 
unlikely to test these products in a built-in condition in the 
laboratory, however, and that in some cases it may not be necessary. 
DOE believes this to be the case generally because some models of this 
type use a refrigeration system that, because of the way they reject 
heat from the refrigeration system, are designed to consume little or 
no additional energy as a result of being installed in cabinetry, 
meaning that the difference in measured energy use would essentially be 
zero. The heat rejection from the condenser of the refrigeration system 
of these units is achieved by drawing air in from the front of the 
product and blowing the air back out the front, after the air is warmed 
by the condenser and the compressor. Enclosing such a product in 
cabinetry adds no restriction to the air flow path--hence, there should 
be no significant impact on energy use (see, for example, the test 
results for Samples No. 1 and 3 shown in Table III-13).
    However, there are competing designs in which the flow of air used 
to remove refrigeration system heat can be restricted when the 
refrigeration product is built into cabinetry. As a result, these 
products could, in DOE's tentative view, consume more energy when 
tested in a built-in condition than in a free-standing one.
    DOE conducted tests on a model of each type of design, and the 
results were consistent with the expectations noted above. More 
specifically, two models demonstrated essentially no change in measured 
energy use, and the other model demonstrated an increase in measured 
energy use of approximately 5 percent when tested in a built-in 
condition. Table III-13 summarizes available DOE data for refrigerator-
freezer samples tested in a freestanding configuration and a built-in 
configuration according to UL 250 sections 8.65 and 11.2. Samples 1 and 
3 reject heat through the front and the test results show change in 
energy use of 0.5% or less, for the built-in test, which very likely 
represents test variation rather than the impact of testing in the 
built-in configuration. Sample 2 rejects heat through the back of the 
unit and has a significant increase in energy consumption for the 
built-in test.

                             Table III-13--Freestanding and Built-In AEU Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Freestanding annual                                Percent difference
   Sample No.        Heat rejection    energy consumption (kWh/  Built-in annual energy    between freestanding
                        location                year)           consumption  (kWh/year)  and built-in tests  (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............  Front..............                      679                      675                     -0.5
2...............  Rear...............                      576                      607                      5.1
3...............  Front..............                      485                      487                      0.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While testing products in a built-in condition would theoretically 
yield the most accurate results, there may be added costs. Assuming 
that built-in manufacturers do not already have the facilities and 
testing set-up to test their products in a built-in condition, the 
primary added cost in this instance stems from the added time and 
material required for technicians to set up a built-in unit to be 
tested in a configuration comparable to the manner in which it would be 
installed in the field. That additional requirement could be 
significant but it may also represent a first-time-only cost if 
manufacturers were able to continue using the same built-in 
configuration set-up for all subsequent built-in products that would 
need to be tested.
    In order to ensure that DOE has considered all relevant aspects of 
this matter prior to proposing a specific requirement in the test 
procedure for these products to be tested in a built-in condition, DOE 
is requesting more information from manufacturers, testing 
organizations, and any other interested parties on several aspects of 
this element of the test. Specifically, DOE is interested in receiving 
information about whether testing in a built-in condition would 
generally be more representative of energy consumption in average use 
and, if so, the extent to which testing in this condition would be 
expected to affect the measured energy use of these products. DOE is 
also interested in receiving information about the amount of additional 
test burden, if any, that would be imposed as result of a specific 
requirement for all manufacturers of these products to test them in a 
built-in condition in order to determine their rated value of energy 
consumption for the purpose of assessing compliance with the energy 
conservation standards in 10 CFR 430.32.
2. Specific Volume Measurement Issues
    As part of the same May 22, 2013 guidance request referred to 
previously in this notice, AHAM requested clarification of certain 
provisions of DOE's prescribed method for measuring product interior 
volume in section 5.3 of Appendices A and B, which both reference AHAM/
ANSI HRF-1-2008. Section 4.2.2 of the HRF-1-2008

[[Page 41651]]

procedure lists several components that are required to be deducted 
from the measured interior volume, among which is ``the volume of air 
ducts required for proper cooling and operation of the unit.'' AHAM 
requested guidance on DOE's interpretation as to whether this 
particular provision includes only air ducts that supply cold air to 
the fresh food and freezer compartments, or to all air ducts within the 
unit (AHAM Guidance Request, No. 15, p. 2). The guidance request did 
not include specific examples of ducts other than those which supply 
air to the fresh food and freezer compartments, which are both clearly 
required for proper cooling and operation of the unit. DOE is aware 
also of air ducts used to cool icemaking compartments--such ducts would 
also be required for proper operation of any refrigeration product that 
is equipped with an automatic icemaker, or any kitable product with an 
icemaking compartment that could have an automatic icemaker installed 
after shipment. DOE is not aware of any other specific examples. 
However, since the volume measurement method generally excludes volumes 
occupied by components that are not intended to be removed by the user 
and that occupy space that cannot be used for storage, which are both 
likely to apply to an air duct, DOE takes the view that any air duct in 
the interior of the cabinet should be deducted from the measured 
product volume.
    In a separate communication from a manufacturer, DOE received a 
question as to whether a water tank within the fresh food space should 
be included in the measured volume as measured using HRF-1-2008. The 
tank in question is used for chilling water prior to use in the 
product's water dispenser and is located downstream of the valve that 
admits water into the cabinet from the household water supply. DOE 
notes that such features were addressed in sections 4.2.1.1(a) and 
6.2.1 of HRF-1-1979, which treated ``water coolers'' as special 
features and required that they be included in the measured volume. The 
text of section 4.2.2 of HRF-1-2008, which addresses the determination 
of volume, is more general than the provisions in HRF-1-1979 and does 
not specifically address features such as water coolers. Section 4.2.2 
of HRF-1-2008 did add a clarification that through-the-door ice and 
water dispensers and the insulating hump are not included in the volume 
and that generally no part of the dispenser unit shall be included as 
volume. DOE understands this to mean that if the water cooler unit is 
integral to the dispenser, and thus a part of the dispenser unit, it 
would be deducted from the volume. However, if the water cooler is 
separate from the dispenser unit and located within the refrigerated 
space, it would be included in the volume measurement.
    To limit the potential for future confusion regarding components 
such as those discussed in the preceding paragraphs, DOE proposes to 
amend section 5.3 of Appendices A and B to clarify the general intent 
of the volume measurement procedure and the treatment of general 
categories of components. Specifically, the proposed amendment to 
section 5.3 would state that the measured volume is to include all 
spaces within the refrigerated volume of each compartment, with the 
exception of the volumes that are required to be deducted in accordance 
with section 4.2.2 of HRF-1-2008. As discussed in section III.C.1 of 
this notice, DOE has also proposed a definition for ``through-the-door 
ice and water dispenser'' for inclusion in Appendices A and B. With 
this definition, and the proposed clarification in section 5.3 
regarding the general volume to be measured, DOE intends to remove any 
ambiguity regarding the components to be deducted from the volume and 
the boundaries between these components and the measured refrigerated 
volume.
    DOE requests comment on these interpretations and the proposed 
modifications to section 5.3 of the test procedures in Appendices A and 
B addressing volume measurement.
3. Treatment of Products That Are Operable as a Refrigerator or Freezer
    Since completion of the last test procedure rulemaking, DOE has 
received questions regarding the appropriate test setting for products 
with a single compartment that can be operated in either the 
temperature range for an electric refrigerator or the temperature range 
for a freezer, as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. DOE notes that section 2.7 
of Appendix A1 and Section 2.7 of Appendix A both require compartments 
that are convertible (e.g., from fresh food to freezer) to be operated 
in the highest energy use position. In the case of a product for which 
the convertible compartment is the only compartment (i.e., the entire 
product is convertible), the product effectively meets the definitions 
of two different covered products. If the product is marketed as both 
an electric refrigerator and as a freezer, the product must be tested 
as both covered products, must meet both applicable standards, and must 
be certified as meeting both standards.
    If, however, the product is marketed only as a refrigerator or only 
as a freezer, the product must be tested in accordance with the 
applicable test procedure, must meet the appropriate standard for that 
product, and must be certified accordingly.
4. Stabilization Period
    AHAM's May 22, 2013 guidance request asked whether the 
stabilization period (see section 2.9 of Appendix A1 for an example) 
has a maximum time constraint. (AHAM Guidance Request, No. 15, p. 4) 
The stabilization period for products with cycling compressors consists 
of two time periods of at least two hours duration comprising a whole 
number of compressor cycles, and the time interval between these two 
periods, where there is an elapsed time of at least three hours between 
the two time periods. Specifically, AHAM asked whether the two time 
periods in question have a maximum duration or if they must be selected 
to be as short as possible while still satisfying the requirements. 
(Id.) Neither of these requirements is explicitly stated in the test 
procedure, and neither is implied. The two time periods in question may 
be extended, for example, if there is irregular cycling of the 
compressor that makes the first possible selection of such a time 
period non-representative of the average compartment temperatures for 
the captured time period. However, it would not be consistent with the 
test procedure to select two sets of time periods that would allow 
stability to appear to have been achieved when it has not. Alternative 
selections of time periods that satisfy the test procedure requirements 
should also demonstrate that stability has been achieved. DOE does not 
believe that changes to the test procedure regulatory language are 
required as clarification for this issue.

E. Compliance With Other EPCA Requirements

    In addition to the issues discussed above, DOE examined its other 
obligations under EPCA in developing the amendments in today's notice. 
These requirements are addressed in greater detail below.
1. Test Burden
    EPCA requires that the test procedures DOE prescribes or amends be 
reasonably designed to produce test results which measure the energy 
efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered 
product during a representative average use cycle or period of use. 
These

[[Page 41652]]

procedures must also not be unduly burdensome to conduct. See 42 U.S.C. 
6293(b)(3). DOE has concluded that the amendments proposed in today's 
notice satisfy this requirement.
    Some of the proposed test procedure amendments would clarify how 
the test should be conducted, or otherwise represent minor changes to 
the test that do not affect the equipment required for testing, nor the 
time required to conduct it. These proposed amendments include changes 
to the anti-circumvention language and ambient temperature gradient 
requirements, and clarifications to help with setting mechanical 
temperature controls.
    The proposal would also make other changes, none of which would 
have a significant impact on burden. First, the proposed change in the 
test procedure for incomplete cycling products could increase or 
decrease test time, as illustrated in section III.C.5. However, based 
on tests conducted by DOE, the impact on test time for the proposed 
amendment does not appear significant. Second, the proposed change to 
the test procedure to allow use of the triangulation approach for 
products with two temperature controls would create an optional test 
and not affect test burden.
    Additionally, the proposed modification of test procedures for 
products with multiple compressors is expected to reduce overall test 
burdens for manufacturers. This expectation is consistent with 
information DOE received in written comments such as those from Sub-
Zero, which cited the test burden of the current test procedure as an 
issue in its comments as part of the recent refrigerator test procedure 
rulemaking. (Test Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003, 
Sub-Zero, No. 42 at p. 1)
    Regarding the proposed changes to the requirements for ambient 
temperature measurement and ambient temperature gradients, these 
changes would also not increase the burden faced by manufacturers since 
they would not impose an additional recurring test requirement. The 
proposed amendments to the anti-circumvention language, the 
specifications for setting mechanical temperature controls, and the 
adoption of new definitions associated with defrost cycles would 
clarify the test procedures but not add any new requirements that would 
increase test burden. To the extent that there is any burden, the 
proposed elimination of the current product height reporting 
requirement would, in DOE's view, reduce overall burdens on 
manufacturers.
    After reviewing each of the changes under consideration, DOE 
believes that the icemaking test procedure under consideration would be 
the only change detailed in this notice that would be likely to 
increase test burden. That procedure would involve additional 
measurements and set up requirements not included in the current test 
procedure. Specifically, it would require the installation of a water 
supply; the measurement of several additional parameters, including ice 
weight and water pressure; additional test time; and (for products with 
icemakers that have no harvest heaters) the monitoring of icemaker mold 
temperature, water supply temperature, or solenoid valve activity in 
addition to the measurements already required for the DOE refrigeration 
product test procedures.
    Providing the required water supply to a test facility will likely 
require some investment. Assuming that the building housing the test 
facility has water available, the cost of extending this supply to the 
test facility will require some length of \1/2\-inch outer-diameter 
copper tubing, possibly with insulation to prevent water vapor 
condensation, and a pressure gauge to confirm that the supply pressure 
is within the required range specified by the procedure under 
consideration. Such a water supply system may also require a pressure 
regulating valve to reduce the supply pressure to the required range if 
the water supply pressure in the test facility exceeds the pressure 
required by the test procedure. Assuming $100 for materials and one day 
for installation at a $75 per hour loaded labor rate, the water supply 
system cost would be roughly $700 per test chamber. The cost of a scale 
to weigh ice and the other additional items (temperature sensors, etc.) 
required for conducting the icemaking test are not expected to exceed 
$100. The resulting overall test facility cost increase of $800 is 
insignificant compared to the overall anticipated cost of a test 
facility suitable for testing refrigeration products.
    The additional set-up time for connecting the water supply to the 
product and, if necessary, a temperature sensor to the icemaking mold, 
may represent an additional half hour of time. The more significant 
impact on test burden of the icemaking test would be the additional 
time required to conduct the test. The product would first have to 
stabilize at the temperature settings used for the icemaking baseline 
test. During this first phase of the test, there may be some 
readjustment of the settings required to assure that compartment 
temperatures are within the specified tolerance limits of the 
standardized temperatures. DOE estimates that the stabilization, 
readjustment, and baseline test duration will typically be 24 hours. 
The proposed test procedure would require that the duration of the 
icemaking portion of the test be 24 hours, unless interrupted by 
defrost or termination of icemaking because the ice storage bin fills. 
Hence, DOE expects that the icemaking test will typically add two days 
of test time. While this is not an insignificant addition to the time 
required to test a refrigeration product, DOE believes it is warranted 
in light of the complexity associated with making a measurement of 
icemaking energy use.
    DOE welcomes any comment regarding DOE's stance on test burden 
impacts of the potential amendments discussed in this notice.
2. Changes in Measured Energy Use
    When DOE modifies test procedures, it must determine to what 
extent, if any, the new test procedure would alter the measured energy 
use of covered products. (42 U.S.C 6293(e)(1)). For the reasons 
described below, DOE has tentatively determined that the projected 
impact on measured energy use of covered products would not be 
significantly altered by any of the proposed test procedure amendments.
    The test procedure amendments proposed in this notice would, if 
adopted, primarily affect aspects related to testing after September 
15, 2014, when the new energy conservation standards take effect. Table 
III-1 indicates which parts of DOE's test procedures would be affected 
by the proposed amendments. The discussion in this section focuses on 
the potential impact on energy measurements regarding other aspects of 
DOE's proposal that would be required starting in 2014 (Appendices A 
and B).
Impact of Proposed Changes To Testing Using Appendices A and B
    Many of the proposed changes to Appendices A and B would clarify 
how the test should be conducted, or otherwise represent minor changes 
to the test or reporting requirements that would not affect measured 
energy use. These proposed amendments include changes to the anti-
circumvention language, clarifications for setting mechanical 
temperature controls, modified ambient temperature gradient 
requirements, new definitions to help clarify test requirements, 
elimination of the requirement to report product height, use of CAD 
models for measuring refrigerated volume, and

[[Page 41653]]

corrections to the temperature setting logic tables.
    The proposed change that would modify the test period of those 
products that experience incomplete cycling could increase or decrease 
measured energy use for a small minority of products and only to a 
minimal extent. To DOE's knowledge, the only products that exhibit 
incomplete cycling are chest freezers. As described in section III.5, 
the energy use measured for such products could increase or decrease, 
depending on how test laboratories currently interpret the requirements 
for the test period for such products, but the measured energy use 
would be more likely to decrease. For these reasons, DOE does not 
believe an adjustment of the energy conservation standard is necessary 
for this test procedure change.
    The proposed modification to address products with multiple 
compressors is not expected to alter the measured energy use for these 
products. The test procedure is functionally equivalent to the test 
procedure of the Sub-Zero waiver, differing primarily in the 
requirements for confirming that the unit has reached steady state and 
in the length and composition of test periods. It also provides 
guidelines for testing multiple-compressor units that may differ in 
design details from the Sub-Zero products identified in the waiver, 
such as multiple compressor products with non-cycling compressors, and 
it provides more flexibility in how to define test periods. None of 
these changes would be likely to affect the measured use of any 
products currently known to DOE.
    As described in section III.3, the triangulation test method may, 
in certain cases, provide a slightly more accurate measurement of the 
actual energy consumption of a given product. This method would yield 
lower energy use measurements for some products as compared with the 
two-test method of the current DOE test procedures (see Appendix A1, 
section 3.1.2). However, the proposed alternative test would be 
optional. DOE believes that the majority of products would continue to 
be tested using the current two-test method, since the test time 
required for the triangulation approach would be roughly 50 percent 
greater. Further, DOE testing showed that the products for which the 
energy use measurement would be most likely to change, i.e., those 
products for which the two interpolations of the current test 
procedures (based on the freezer temperature for one calculation and 
the fresh food temperature for the other), would yield, at most, a 1.2 
percent decrease in measured energy usage when using the triangulation 
method. Therefore, DOE tentatively concludes that the overall impact of 
this optional test on energy use measurement will likely be 
insignificant and that it would not require any change to the relevant 
standards.
    In addition to the amendments discussed above for Appendices A and 
B, DOE is considering adopting a laboratory-based test procedure to 
measure the energy use associated with automatic icemaking. DOE 
conducted testing to validate the feasibility of the proposed icemaking 
test procedure and to evaluate if icemaking energy measurements using 
the procedure detailed above differ significantly from the 84 kWh/year 
fixed value used for automatic icemakers in the current test 
procedures. The test data and discussion of the results are presented 
in section III.1. Measured icemaker energy consumption values in the 
sample of products that DOE and NIST tested ranged from 60 kWh/year to 
126 kWh/year, with an average of 92 kWh. While it is unclear precisely 
how well the group of products DOE tested represents any given set of 
products equipped with automatic icemakers, DOE believes that the 
average icemaking energy use of the group is sufficiently close to the 
fixed value of the current test procedure as to demonstrate that the 
test method proposed in today's notice is likely to have a minimal 
impact on the measured energy use of the products that would be 
evaluated using this method. Hence, DOE tentatively concludes that this 
potential impact would be de minimus and, if adopted, would not require 
a change to the energy conservation standard. (See 42 U.S.C 6293(e)(1-
2)) DOE seeks additional input from the public regarding the accuracy 
of this assessment.
    However, because the DOE test procedure for measurement of 
icemaking energy use has not yet been finalized, DOE expects that 
manufacturers will require additional time after the test method is 
finalized to conduct testing of their products and assess their ability 
to comply with a measurement-based standard. In anticipation of such 
factors, the joint petition submitted to DOE during the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking had requested that any measurement-
based standard for icemaking energy use take effect three years after 
publication of the final rule establishing such a standard (see Docket 
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0012, No. 49, p. 17). The schedule laid out in the 
joint petition would have resulted in a final rule establishing a 
measurement-based standard for icemaking energy use in mid-2013 with a 
compliance date in mid-2016. Although the standards and test procedure 
final rules did not commit to a specific timeline for implementing a 
standard based on a test requiring laboratory measurement of icemaking 
energy use, DOE acknowledges that development of this test has required 
additional time to ensure that any potential issues have been 
sufficiently addressed.
    In addition, because EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years 
after publication of a final rule establishing new or amended standards 
for a covered product, DOE must publish either a notice of proposed 
rulemaking with new proposed standards or a notice of determination 
that such standards do not need to be amended, DOE expects to commence 
an energy conservation standards rulemaking for residential 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that would result in 
publication of such a notice by late 2017. 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1). 
Because of the expected overlap between this future energy conservation 
standards rulemaking and the potential compliance delay period for the 
icemaking energy standard if an adjustment proved to be necessary, 
along with the potential difficulties that a short transition period to 
2014 could impose if an icemaking test were required by September 15, 
2014, DOE has tentatively concluded that adoption of an energy 
conservation standard for icemaking energy use would more appropriately 
occur as part of this future rulemaking. DOE would also link the 
required use of a new test procedure that includes an icemaking energy 
use measurement test with any new standards rulemaking. By following 
this approach, DOE believes that there will be more than sufficient 
time to address any remaining technical issues and for manufacturer 
compliance once those dates are set. Thus, until the compliance date of 
any such standard, the 84 kWh per year placeholder value would remain 
in effect for both the test procedure and the energy conservation 
standards.
    Depending upon the comments DOE receives on this proposed approach, 
DOE may also consider alternatives. DOE invites commenters to offer 
other alternatives to help ensure both the maximum amount of energy 
savings along with ensuring that the test procedures that are 
ultimately adopted will sufficiently address icemaking energy use.
    DOE also requests comments on its assessment of the impacts on 
energy use measurements of the proposed test procedure amendments. DOE 
further

[[Page 41654]]

requests comments to support any potentially claimed change in the 
measured energy use, including data, if any, that would weigh in favor 
of adjusting the standards set to take effect on September 15, 2014, 
for products with automatic icemakers. DOE further requests comment on 
whether the fixed placeholder value for the icemaking energy use should 
be retained, rather than adopting a laboratory measurement, and whether 
to consider adopting a measurement-based standard to occur as part of a 
future energy conservation standards rulemaking for refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
3. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use
    EPCA directs DOE to amend test procedures to include standby mode 
and off mode energy consumption, and requires that this energy 
consumption be integrated into the overall energy consumption 
descriptor for the product, unless DOE determines that the current test 
procedures for the product already fully account for and incorporate 
the standby and off mode energy consumption of the covered product. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(i)). The DOE test procedures for refrigeration 
products involve measuring the energy use of these products during 
extended time periods that include periods when the compressor and 
other key components are cycled off. All of the energy these products 
use during the ``off cycles'' is already included in the measurements. 
A given refrigeration product being tested could include auxiliary 
features that draw power in a standby or off mode. In such instances, 
HRF-1-1979 and HRF-1-2008, both of which are incorporated in relevant 
part into DOE's test procedure, generally instruct manufacturers to set 
certain auxiliary features to the lowest power position during testing. 
In this lowest power position, any standby or off mode energy use of 
such auxiliary features would be included in the energy measurement. 
Hence, no separate changes are needed to account for standby and off 
mode energy consumption, since the current (and as proposed) procedures 
address these modes. DOE requests comments on this determination.

IV. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site (http://www.energy.gov/gc).
    DOE reviewed the test procedures in today's proposed rule under the 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and 
policies published on February 19, 2003. This proposed rule would 
prescribe test procedures to test compliance with energy conservation 
standards for the products that are the subject of this rulemaking.
    Specifically, DOE proposes to make changes and additions to the 
existing test procedure for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 
freezers. Changes to the existing rule as described above have 
potential impacts on manufacturers who will be required to revise their 
current testing procedures for compliance. As described in section 1, 
DOE believes the implementation of an icemaking test procedure is the 
only test procedure amendment proposed in today's notice that would 
represent an increase in test burden.
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers an entity to be a 
small business if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a 
threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121, which relies 
on size standards and codes established by the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS). The threshold number for NAICS code 
335222, which applies to Household Refrigerator and Home Freezer 
Manufacturing, is 1,000 employees.
    DOE conducted a market survey to determine whether any 
manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking were small 
businesses. During its market survey, DOE used all available public 
information to create a list of companies that manufacture 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers covered by this 
rulemaking. DOE reviewed these data to determine whether the entities 
met the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or freezers and screened out 
companies that do not offer products covered by this rulemaking, do not 
meet the definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign owned and 
operated. DOE identified three small businesses that manufacture 
refrigeration products.
    DOE then determined the expected impacts of the rule on affected 
small businesses and whether an IRFA was needed (i.e., whether DOE 
could certify that this rulemaking would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities).
    One of the three small businesses identified by DOE primarily 
manufactures compact refrigerators and related compact products such as 
wine chillers and stand-alone ice makers. These ice makers differ from 
the automatic icemakers installed in many refrigeration products in 
that they are separate icemaking appliances designed solely for the 
production and storage of ice. DOE reviewed the refrigerator, 
refrigerator-freezer, and freezer products manufactured by this small 
business and concluded that none of them are sold with automatic 
icemakers installed. Hence, it would not be required to rate products 
using the proposed icemaking test procedure. A second of the three 
small businesses primarily manufactures undercounter refrigeration 
products, most of which are compact. DOE reviewed the products 
manufactured by this small business and concluded that none of them are 
sold with automatic icemakers installed. The third small business, on 
the other hand, was found to manufacture refrigeration products with 
automatic icemakers and thus would be subject to the additional testing 
requirements proposed in today's test procedure. This small business 
has 800 employees.
    Most of the test procedure amendments proposed in this notice would 
not affect test burden. One of the amendments would simply incorporate 
a test procedure for multiple compressor products that manufacturers 
already use in accordance with test procedure waivers they have 
received from DOE in order to test and rate these products.

[[Page 41655]]

Many of the other amendments clarify how to conduct the test rather 
than create any fundamental change in the way the test is conducted. An 
amendment addressing incomplete cycling would apply to a very small 
minority of products, much less than one percent of refrigeration 
product models. Amendments addressing the reporting of product height 
and the measurement of refrigerated volume would reduce measurement and 
reporting burden. Also, an amendment allowing for use of a third test 
for products whose control systems are not tuned to match both fresh 
food and freezer compartment standardized temperatures simultaneously 
(triangulation) is optional.
    The primary incremental cost for small businesses under this 
rulemaking would result from the aforementioned automatic icemaker 
testing requirements. The cost to provide a required water supply for a 
test facility to address icemaking testing is estimated at $800. The 
buildings in which the test facilities are housed would already have a 
water supply--this additional cost would be the cost of extending that 
supply to the interior of a test facility. The additional test burden 
impact estimated by DOE is associated with additional test time. DOE 
estimates that the additional cost associated with this test time is 
$1,250 per test, based on an assumption that test time would increase 
50% as compared with the current test (e.g., extension of test duration 
from four to six days) and based also on the costs DOE incurred to 
conduct testing using the proposed procedure. Since certification for 
refrigeration products is generally based on testing of three products, 
the incremental testing cost impact for this small business 
manufacturer associated with test time is estimated to be $3,750 per 
refrigeration product.
    These costs were applied to the number of existing models subject 
to testing requirements outlined in this rulemaking, which DOE 
estimated at 20 basic models, based on its review of the number of 
products that would have automatic icemakers offered by the examined 
manufacturer. DOE assumed that the costs would be incurred in the year 
preceding the implementation of the new testing requirements, which, 
for the purposes of the analysis, is assumed to take effect coincident 
with a revision of the 2014 energy conservation standards in 2021. The 
test costs are assumed to occur in the preceding year as the 
manufacturer certifies the new product models in preparation for the 
potential adjustment in energy conservation standards. Based on these 
assumptions, incremental testing costs for small businesses were 
estimated at $76,000 in 2020.
    As explained below, the findings of the DOE analysis suggest that 
small business manufacturers of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 
and freezers would not be disproportionately impacted by the proposed 
test procedure, relative to their competition. DOE conducted an 
analysis to evaluate the testing cost burden that would likely be 
affected by the inclusion of the proposed procedure for automatic 
icemakers relative to the estimated annual R&D budget of the small 
manufacturer. The analysis utilized financial data gathered from other 
public sources (including Hoover's and financial statements from 
publicly-traded manufacturers in the industry) to derive the estimated 
average annual R&D budget of the small business impacted by this rule. 
The average industry R&D expenditure was estimated at 2.4 percent of 
revenues. The average annual revenues for a small business manufacturer 
of residential refrigeration products was estimated based on revenues 
of these manufacturers as reported by Hoover's. The annualized costs 
associated with this rulemaking were then compared to estimated R&D 
expenditures to determine the magnitude of the cost impacts of this 
test procedure on small businesses. Based on this analysis, DOE 
estimates that the cost burden of the proposed test procedure to this 
small manufacturer represents a one-time cost of approximately 5 
percent of the annual R&D budget for an average small business 
manufacturer of residential refrigeration products. Based on this 
analysis, DOE concludes that this value would be unlikely to represent 
a significant economic impact on this small manufacturer in light of 
the small additional one-time cost that would be incurred to conduct 
the proposed procedure.
    Based on the criteria outlined above, DOE has determined that the 
proposed test procedure amendments would not have a ``significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,'' and the 
preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis is not warranted. DOE 
will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual 
basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    DOE seeks comment on its estimated additional cost of testing due 
to the new requirements for testing presented in this NOPR. 
Specifically, DOE seeks comment on the impacts of the additional cost 
of testing on small manufacturers. DOE also seeks comment on its 
reasoning that the proposed test procedure changes would not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of refrigeration products must certify to DOE that 
their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standard. 
In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products 
according to the DOE test procedure for refrigeration products, 
including any amendments adopted for that test procedure. The 
information collection requirement for certification and recordkeeping 
is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (PRA). This requirement has been submitted to OMB for approval. DOE 
received OMB approval to collect this information and has established 
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for 
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including the 
refrigeration products addressed by today's proposed rule. 76 FR 12422 
(March 7, 2011). The public reporting burden for the certification is 
estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. While DOE has proposed to add a new 
reporting requirement (whether the manufacturer used the triangulation 
method for its certification tests), it has also proposed to remove a 
requirement (reporting of product height). Thus, DOE has determined 
that there is effectively no change in the reporting burden for these 
products.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this notice, DOE proposes to amend its test procedure for 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. These proposed 
amendments would improve the ability of DOE's procedures to more 
accurately account for the energy consumption of products that 
incorporate a variety of new technologies that were not contemplated 
when the current procedure was promulgated. DOE has determined that

[[Page 41656]]

this proposed rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically 
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 
CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule proposes to amend an existing 
rule without changing its environmental effect, and, therefore, is 
covered by the Categorical Exclusion in 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, 
appendix A6. See 76 FR 63764, 63788 (Oct. 13, 2011). The exclusion 
applies because this proposed rule would establish a strictly 
procedural requirement by revising existing test procedures. These 
proposed revisions will not affect the amount, quality, or distribution 
of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any environmental 
impacts. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an 
environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' imposes certain requirements 
on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that 
preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. 64 FR 43255 
(Aug. 10, 1999). The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process that it will follow in developing such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this proposed rule and 
determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal 
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the 
products that are the subject of today's proposed rule. States can 
petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and 
based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further 
action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation specifies the following: (1) the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) any effect on existing Federal law or 
regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for affected conduct while 
promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) the retroactive 
effect, if any; (5) definitions of key terms; and (6) other important 
issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines 
issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 
requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of 
applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether 
they are met or whether it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. 
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the 
extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the relevant 
standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. 
L. 104-4; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires each Federal agency to assess 
the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. For a regulatory action resulting 
in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million 
or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 
of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish estimates of the resulting 
costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 
1532(a)-(b)) UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an 
effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, 
local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially-affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect such governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (The policy is 
also available at http:/www.gc.doe.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). 
Today's proposed rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor 
a mandate that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more in 
any year, so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
Today's proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or 
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation 
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under 
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed today's proposed rule under OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to

[[Page 41657]]

prepare and submit to OIRA a Statement of Energy Effects for any 
significant energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined 
as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to 
promulgation of a final rule and that (1) Is a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the 
Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any 
significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of 
any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the 
regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action 
and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. 
Today's proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866. It has likewise not been designated 
as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Moreover, 
it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it is not a significant 
energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of 
Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the DOE Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal 
Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy 
Administration Authorization Act of 1977 (FEAA). (15 U.S.C. 788) 
Section 32 essentially provides in part that, where a rule authorizes 
or requires use of commercial standards, the rulemaking must inform the 
public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, 
section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the 
Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of 
the commercial or industry standards on competition.
    The proposed modifications to the test procedures addressed by this 
proposed action incorporate testing methods contained in certain 
sections of the commercial standard, HRF-1-2008, and a separate 
standard adopted by the Australian and New Zealand governments--
Australian/New Zealand Standard 44474.1:2007, Performance of household 
electrical appliances--Refrigerating appliances, Part 1: Energy 
consumption and performance. DOE has evaluated this standard and is 
unable to conclude whether it fully complies with the requirements of 
section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in a manner 
that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review). The 
Attorney General and FTC will be consulted about the impact on 
competition of using the methods contained in this standard, prior to 
the issuance of a final rule.

V. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

    The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in 
the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If 
you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards 
at (202) 586-2945 or Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. Please note that 
foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance 
security screening procedures. Any foreign national wishing to 
participate in the meeting should advise DOE as soon as possible by 
contacting Ms. Edwards to initiate the necessary procedures. Please 
also note that those wishing to bring laptops into the Forrestal 
Building will be required to obtain a property pass. Visitors should 
avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes. Persons can 
attend the public meeting via webinar. For more information, refer to 
the Public Participation section near the end of this notice.
    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be 
published on DOE's Web site http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/current_rulemakings-notices.html. Participants 
are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the 
webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to Speak

    Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement 
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at 
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an 
advance copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, or text (ASCII) file format, to the appropriate address shown in 
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice. The request and 
advance copy of statements must be received at least one week before 
the public meeting and may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent by mail. 
DOE prefers to receive requests and advance copies via email. Please 
include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make a follow-up 
contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting 
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The 
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but 
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and 
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of 
the public meeting. After the public meeting, interested parties may 
submit further comments on the proceedings as well as on any aspect of 
the rulemaking until the end of the comment period.
    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference 
style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the 
public meeting, allow time for general statements by participants, and 
encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues 
affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a 
general statement (within time limits determined by DOE) before the 
discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other 
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on 
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer 
questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE 
representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other 
matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the public 
meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those 
attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any 
further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that 
may be needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
    A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, 
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning 
of this notice. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the 
transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but

[[Page 41658]]

no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning 
of this notice. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the 
methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this 
notice.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web 
page will require you to provide your name and contact information. 
Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies 
staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable 
except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and 
submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not 
processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this 
information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to regulations.gov information for which disclosure 
is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or 
financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business 
Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through regulations.gov cannot 
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive 
any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on 
submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be 
posted to regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact 
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment 
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email 
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover 
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any 
comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not 
necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be 
accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English and are free of any defects or 
viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy 
of the document that includes all of the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with 
the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these 
documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 
determination about the confidential status of the information and 
treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include the following: (1) A 
description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are 
customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether 
the information is generally known by or available from other sources; 
(4) whether the information was previously made available to others 
without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation 
of the competitive injury to the submitting person that would result 
from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. Modifications to Appendices A1 and B1
    DOE is primarily proposing changes to the test procedures that will 
be required for certification starting in 2014. Many of these changes 
would help improve measurement accuracy by clarifying certain aspects 
of the test procedures, and would reduce test burden, but would not 
affect measured energy use. While the current test procedures are 
scheduled to be obsolete after September 2014, DOE may consider 
proposing these amendments also in the current test procedures to allow 
for the earlier adoption of these improvements and to smooth the path 
for their possible adoption in the test procedures that will be 
applicable after September 2014. DOE requests comments on whether any 
of the proposed amendments should also be considered for the current 
test procedures of Appendices A1 and B1.
2. Icemaking Test Procedure Request for Comments
    DOE requests comments on any aspects of the proposal for 
measurement of energy use associated with icemaking. DOE further 
requests comment on the following details of the test procedure 
proposal.
a. Refrigerators With Automatic Icemakers
    DOE requests comment on whether any refrigerators (i.e., ``electric 
refrigerator'' as defined in 10 CFR 430.2 rather than ``electric 
refrigerator-freezer'') are sold with automatic icemakers. If so, DOE 
also seeks comment on whether test procedures for automatic icemakers 
should cover these ``electric refrigerators'' and to what extent, if 
any, the test procedure would need to be modified to accommodate the 
testing of these products. DOE is seeking comment on this issue in part 
to ascertain whether this aspect of today's proposal should apply to 
refrigerators as opposed to only refrigerator-freezers. DOE is 
currently unaware of any refrigerators that are also equipped with an 
automatic icemaker.

[[Page 41659]]

b. Manual Defrost Products With Automatic Icemakers
    DOE requests comment on whether any manual defrost refrigerator-
freezers or freezers are sold with automatic icemakers and whether any 
modifications to the proposed test procedure are required to address 
such products.
c. Icemaking Definitions
    DOE requests comment on the proposal to establish definitions for 
``Harvest'', ``Ice storage bin'', and ``Ice piece'' in the test 
procedures.
d. Anti-Sweat Heater Switch
    DOE requests comment on the proposed requirements that products 
with anti-sweat heater switches be tested with the switches in the off 
position and that products with variable anti-sweat heater control 
without an anti-sweat heater switch be tested in an ambient environment 
with sufficiently low humidity to prevent the anti-sweat heaters from 
being energized. DOE also requests suggestions regarding how the 
objectives of these requirements could be satisfied with alternative 
approaches.
e. Setup for Icemaking
    DOE requests comment on the proposed modification of the setup 
requirements, specifically the requirements addressing water lines, 
water filters, and ice storage bins.
f. Icemaking Water Temperature and Pressure Conditions
    DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require 90 +/-2 [deg]F water 
inlet temperature and 60  15 psig inlet pressure 
conditions.
g. Icemaking Data Collection Rate for Icemaking Test
    DOE requests comments on the proposed one minute maximum data 
collection interval for the proposed icemaking test and its assumption 
that most test facilities record data for refrigeration product energy 
tests at a frequency of at least once per minute.
h. Icemaker Cycles
    DOE requests comment on its proposed delineation between icemaker 
cycles at the end of the harvest of a batch of ice.
i. Alternative Icemaker Cycle Indication
    DOE requests comment on its proposal for monitoring icemaker cycles 
for products whose icemakers have no mold heaters, on the details of 
the three proposed methods, on the requirements that one of the three 
identified methods be used to indicate icemaker cycles and that the 
test report indicate which one was used, and whether DOE should propose 
requirements indicating under what circumstances which of the three 
alternatives must be used. DOE further requests comment on whether 
additional alternative methods should be allowed by the test procedure. 
Finally, DOE requests comments on its proposal that the delineation 
between icemaking cycles determined by the proposed alternative methods 
would be when water is flowing into the icemaker mold.
j. Icemaker Field Operation
    DOE assumes that in the field, continuous icemaking would typically 
occur only for initial filling of the bin and successive icemaker 
cycles would occur after a portion of ice has been withdrawn from the 
ice bin. DOE seeks comment and data confirming DOE's assumption or, if 
that assumption is incorrect, information suggesting an alternative 
approach and description with respect to icemaking operation in the 
field.
k. Icemaking Temperature Setting
    DOE requests comments on its proposed variation limits on 
compartment temperatures during different parts of the icemaking test, 
which would require that (1) Compartment temperatures be set to their 
warmest setting for which compartment temperatures are no more than 1 
[deg]F warmer than their standardized temperatures for the baseline 
test, (2) if the compartment temperatures increase during icemaking 
that they be adjusted to their warmest setting for which compartment 
temperatures are no more than 1 [deg]F warmer during the icemaking test 
than they were in the baseline test, (3) for mechanical controls these 
settings be aligned with symbols on the temperature dial, and (4) 
products that use quick-freeze control during icemaking be tested 
without disabling this feature during the test.
l. Test Period for Baseline Part of Test
    DOE requests comments on its proposal to adopt a test period for 
the baseline part of the test that is equivalent to its existing test 
period for products with manual defrost, i.e. consisting of a period of 
time at least three hours in duration and, if the product's compressor 
cycles, comprising at least two complete compressor cycles. DOE further 
requests comment on the proposal to allow overlap of the stabilization 
period and the test period for the baseline part of the test as long as 
the stabilization period ends no later than the test period for the 
baseline part of the test.
m. Test Periods for Icemaking Part of Test
    With respect to refrigeration products that cycle their compressors 
during icemaking, DOE requests comments on its proposal to (1) 
establish test periods for the icemaking part of the test based both on 
icemaker cycles and on compressor cycles and (2) require that energy 
use be calculated using both of these test periods and applying them to 
the same period of icemaking in order to provide a more accurate 
calculation of icemaking energy use. Likewise, DOE requests comment on 
its proposal to allow use of only the test period based on icemaker 
cycles for refrigeration products that do not cycle their compressors 
during icemaking.
n. Icemaking Test Period Stability Tolerance
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to include a temperature 
stability requirement in the icemaking test procedure that would 
require the temperature in the freezer compartment, measured for any 
compressor cycle (if the refrigeration product cycles its compressor 
during icemaking) or any icemaker cycle (if the refrigeration product 
does not cycle its compressor during icemaking) within the test period, 
to be within 3 [deg]F of the compartment's temperature average for the 
full test period.
o. Icemaking Test Period Duration
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt a minimum test period 
duration of 24 hours for the icemaking portion of the test, if this is 
possible prior to a defrost cycle occurrence or filling of the ice 
storage bin. Additionally, DOE requests comments on its proposal to 
require icemaking to be initiated shortly after the start of compressor 
operation following a defrost cycle.
p. Ice Mass
    DOE requests comment on its proposed method of measuring ice mass.
q. Multiple Icemakers
    The DOE proposal addresses refrigeration products with one icemaker 
serving a through-the-door feature and another not serving this 
feature, proposing that icemaking energy use be measured only for the 
icemaker serving the through-the-door feature. DOE requests comment on 
this approach for testing these products. DOE also requests comment on 
whether

[[Page 41660]]

products with multiple icemakers using other configurations exist, what 
their design details are, whether DOE should consider modifying the 
proposed test procedure to address these products, and how the proposed 
test procedure should be modified to address them.
r. Ice Production Rate
    DOE seeks information on consumer daily ice production to help 
determine the most appropriate ice production rate for the test 
procedure. DOE further seeks comment on whether the proposed 1.8 pounds 
per day ice production rate should be retained or whether a lower rate, 
as suggested by data provided by the Northwest Energy Efficiency 
Alliance, should be considered.
s. Measurements of Energy Use Associated With Icemaking
    DOE seeks icemaking energy use data for typical products sold with 
automatic icemakers, using the test procedure proposed in this notice. 
DOE seeks these data in order to improve confidence in the 
understanding of typical icemaking energy use per pound of ice of 
residential refrigeration products.
t. Impact on Energy Use Measurement
    DOE requests comments on its assessment of the impacts on energy 
use measurements of the proposed test procedure amendments. DOE further 
requests comments to support any potentially claimed change in the 
measured energy use, including data, if any, that would weigh in favor 
of adjusting the standards set to take effect on September 15, 2014, 
for products with automatic icemakers. DOE further requests comment on 
whether the fixed placeholder value for the icemaking energy use should 
be retained, rather than adopting a laboratory measurement, with 
adoption of a measurement-based standard to occur as part of a future 
energy conservation standards rulemaking for refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
3. Multiple Compressor Test Procedure Request for Comments
    DOE is interested in receiving general comments regarding the 
proposed multiple compressor test procedure and specific comments 
regarding the following items.
a. Multiple Compressor Definition
    DOE requests comment on its proposed definition of refrigerator-
freezers or refrigerators with multiple compressors.
b. Temperature Cycles
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to allow use of temperature 
cycles as alternative indicators for start and stop times for multiple 
compressor test periods.
c. Data Collection Rate
    DOE requests comments on the proposed one minute maximum data 
collection interval for the proposed multiple compressor test.
d. Multiple Compressor Stabilization Period
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to apply the current 
stabilization requirement of Appendix A, section 2.9 to multiple 
compressor products and also on its proposal to allow evaluation of 
temperatures based either on temperature cycles or compressor cycles 
when evaluating stabilization.
e. One-Part Multiple Compressor Test
    DOE requests comments on its proposal to allow a one-part test for 
multiple compressor products where only one compressor system has a 
defrost cycle (but this system's defrost control is neither long-time 
nor variable).
f. Test Periods for Products With One or No Cycling Compressors
    DOE requests comment on its proposal allowing simplified test 
periods for both the first and second parts of the test (consistent 
with the test periods used for products with single compressors) when 
testing multiple-compressor products in which one or no compressor 
cycles during a test.
g. Duration of the First Part of the Test
    DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the first part of the 
test to be a single continuous period lasting at least 24 hours, if 
this period is not interrupted by a defrost, and that the test period 
be no less than 18 hours long if it is interrupted by a defrost. 
Further, DOE seeks comment on its proposal that this test period 
comprise a whole number of cycles of a ``primary'' compressor (or a 
whole number of temperature cycles of the compartment associated with 
the ``primary'' compressor), and that the ``primary'' compressor be the 
freezer compressor, if the freezer compressor cycles during the test.
h. Stabilization for the First Part of the Test
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that the first part 
of the test consist of a period of stable operation. DOE also seeks 
comment on its proposed definition for stable operation, which would 
require compartment temperature changes during the period to not exceed 
0.042 [deg]F per hour.
i. Second Part of the Test
    DOE requests comment on its proposal that the second part of the 
test that would be conducted for each compressor system that has a 
defrost cycle must include start and end points that occur during 
stable operation while surrounding the defrost cycle being measured. 
Further, DOE requests comment on the proposal that both the start and 
end of the test period occur either (a) when the primary compressor on-
cycle starts or (b) when the primary compressor on-cycle stops--or 
alternatively that both the start and end of the test period occur 
either (c) when the compartment temperature associated with the primary 
compressor is at a maximum or (d) when the compartment temperature 
associated with the primary compressor is at a minimum. Finally, DOE 
requests comment on its proposal to allow start and end times for the 
test period for products with non-cycling compressors to occur when the 
compartment temperatures are within 0.5 [deg]F of their averages for 
the first part of the test.
j. Measurement Changes for Multiple Compressor Products
    DOE requests information regarding any refrigeration products with 
multiple compressors (other than those already covered by test 
procedure waivers) and whether the proposed test procedure would alter 
the measurement of energy use of any multiple compressor products. If 
the proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy use, DOE 
requests information regarding how large the change would be and what 
aspects of the proposed test would be most responsible for that change.
k. Multiple Compressor Products With Manual Defrost
    DOE requests comment on whether any multiple compressor 
refrigeration products with manual defrost exist and whether the test 
procedure proposal should address such products.
4. Triangulation Approach
    DOE welcomes comment on its proposal to include the triangulation 
approach as an optional interpolation method in the test procedure, 
including comment on the proposed approach for implementing this method 
in the test procedure and the proposed requirement to indicate in 
certification

[[Page 41661]]

reports that triangulation has been used for certification. DOE also 
welcomes comment on its proposal to use triangulation for assessment 
and enforcement testing if (a) the product was certified using this 
method, or (b) the measurement results calculated based on the first 
two tests differ by more than five percent using the two different 
compartment temperatures for the interpolations.
5. Anti-Circumvention Language
a. Modification to Anti-Circumvention Language
    DOE invites stakeholder comment on its proposal to modify the anti-
circumvention language.
b. Components That Operate Differently During Testing
    DOE seeks comment on potential revisions to the anti-circumvention 
language that would, in limited circumstances, permit the use of 
control algorithms that may cause a system to operate differently 
during testing from how it would operate in the field.
6. Incomplete Cycling
    DOE seeks comment on its proposed amendment to the incomplete 
cycling definition and the associated modification of the test period 
for such products from 24 hours to one whole compressor cycle. DOE also 
seeks comment on its proposal to alter the test period requirements of 
Appendices A and B for products with automatic (but not long-time or 
variable) defrost so that the temperature measurements are made during 
test periods that do not include any of the events associated with 
defrost cycles. DOE also requests comment on whether temperature 
measurement requirements for incomplete cycling or non-cycling products 
in Appendices A1 and B1 should be made consistent with the temperature 
measurement requirements in Appendices A and B, i.e., that the 
temperature measurement and energy measurement test periods would 
coincide.
7. Mechanical Control Settings
    DOE invites stakeholder comment on its proposal to modify its test 
procedures to clarify the setting of mechanical controls during 
testing.
8. Ambient Temperature Conditions
    DOE requests comment on its proposed changes to ambient temperature 
and ambient temperature gradient requirements and its proposed approach 
to implementing these changes.
9. Definitions Associated With Defrost Cycles
    DOE welcomes comment on the proposed definitions for terms 
associated with defrost cycles--``precooling'', ``recovery'', ``stable 
operation'', and ``stable period of compressor operation''.
10. Elimination of Product Height Reporting
    DOE invites comment on its proposal to eliminate the certification 
requirement for reporting product height starting September 15, 2014.
11. Measurement of Product Volume
    DOE seeks comment on its proposal to permit the use of CAD models 
to measure product volumes for the purposes of certification, the 
proposed 2 percent (or 0.5/0.2 cubic foot) allowance with respect to 
differences between the certified and measured volumes, and the 
requirements for retention of CAD-generated volume calculations as part 
of certification test reports. DOE also requests information on the 
documentation kept by manufacturers of CAD modeling used for 
calculations of volume and whether this documentation is in or could be 
converted to a format that would allow review by DOE without use of CAD 
software.
12. Package Loading
    DOE requests comment on its clarifications of the appropriate 
method for determining that the 75% package loading requirement for 
manual defrost freezers in section 5.5.5.3 of HRF-1-2008 has been met 
and the proposed amendments to the text of Appendix B to address this 
issue.
13. Product Clearance to the Wall During Testing
    DOE requests comment on its proposed revisions to the text of 
Appendices A and B to address product clearance to the wall during 
testing.
14. Relocation of Shelving
    DOE requests comments on its proposal to require that shelving and/
or other components whose position is adjustable by consumers be 
relocated to assure that temperature sensors maintain the required 
clearance from hardware, while indicating that the shelving be 
installed as evenly as possible if relocation for temperature sensors 
is required.
15. Built-in Refrigerators
    DOE requests comment on whether testing in a built-in condition 
would generally be more representative of energy consumption in average 
use and, if so, the extent to which testing in this condition would be 
expected to affect the measured energy use of these products. DOE is 
also interested in receiving comment on whether there would be a 
significant additional test burden resulting from a requirement that 
specifies these products be tested in a built-in condition.
16. Measurement of Product Volume
    DOE requests comment on its interpretations of the volume 
measurement provisions of AHAM HRF-1-2008 pertaining to air ducts and 
water coolers, and its proposed revisions to section 5.3 of the test 
procedures in Appendices A and B addressing volume measurement.
17. Test Burden
    DOE seeks comment regarding its assessment of the test burden 
impacts of the test procedure amendments proposed in this notice.
18. Changes in Measured Energy Use
    DOE invites stakeholder comment regarding DOE's assessments of the 
potential changes in measured energy use associated with the proposed 
test procedure changes. DOE requests comment on whether any of the 
proposed amendments to the test procedures could alter energy use 
measurements, and, if so, DOE requests data showing the magnitude of 
the measurement changes.
19. Standby and Off/Mode Energy Use
    DOE tentatively proposed that no separate changes are needed to 
account for standby and off mode energy consumption, since the current 
(and as proposed) procedures already address energy consumed in standby 
and off modes. DOE requests comments on this determination.
20. Regulatory Flexibility
    DOE requests comment on its initial conclusion that there are no 
small business manufacturers of refrigeration products that would be 
affected by the proposed changes in the test procedures for products 
with automatic icemakers.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed 
rulemaking.

List of Subjects

 10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation,

[[Page 41662]]

Household appliances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 28, 2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 
429 and 430 of chapter II of title 10, of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
2. Section 429.14 is amended by adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4), 
and by revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  429.14  Residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and 
freezers.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Where the test procedures for these products provide more than 
one means for measuring the energy consumption of a basic model, all 
units of the basic model must be tested using the same method.
    (4) The value of total refrigerated volume of a basic reported in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section shall be the mean of 
the total refrigerated volumes measured for each tested unit of the 
basic model or the total refrigerated volume of the basic model as 
calculated in accordance with Sec.  429.72.
    (b) * * *
    (2) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall 
include the following public product-specific information: The annual 
energy use in kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr); the fresh food 
compartment volume in cubic feet (ft\3\) and the freezer compartment 
volume in cubic feet (ft\3\), as applicable; whether the basic model 
has variable defrost control; whether the basic model has variable 
anti-sweat heater control; whether testing has been conducted with 
modifications to the standard temperature sensor locations specified by 
the figures referenced in section 5.1 of appendices A1, B1, A, and B to 
subpart B of part 430; and whether the optional triangulation approach 
of section 3.3 of appendix A was used for certification testing.
    (3) Pursuant to Sec.  429.12(b)(13), a certification report shall 
include the following additional product-specific information: for 
models with variable defrost control, the values, if any, of 
CTL and CTM (for an example, see section 5.2.1.3 
in appendix A to subpart B of part 430) used in the calculation of 
energy consumption; and, for models with variable anti-sweat heater 
control, the values of heater watts at the ten relative humidity levels 
(5%, 15%, 25%, 35%, 45%, 55%, 65%, 75%, 85%, and 95%) used to calculate 
the variable anti-sweat heater ``Correction Factor''.
0
3. Add Sec.  429.72 to read as follows:

Sec.  429.72  Alternative methods for determining non-energy ratings.

    (a) General. Where Sec. Sec.  429.14 through 429.54 authorize the 
use of an alternative method for determining a physical or operating 
characteristic other than the energy consumption or efficiency, such 
characteristics must be determined either by testing in accordance with 
the applicable test procedure and applying the specified sampling plan 
provisions established in those sections or as described in the 
appropriate product-specific paragraph below. In all cases, the models, 
measurements, and calculations used to determine the rating for the 
physical or operating characteristic shall be retained as part of the 
test records underlying the certification of the basic model in 
accordance with 10 CFR 429.71.
    (b) Testing. [Reserved]
    (c) Residential refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 
The total refrigerated volume of a basic model of refrigerator, 
refrigerator-freezer, or freezer may be determined by performing a 
calculation of the volume based upon computer-aided design (CAD) models 
of the basic model in lieu of physical measurements of a production 
unit of the basic model. Any value of total refrigerated volume of a 
basic model reported to DOE in a certification of compliance in 
accordance with Sec.  429.14(b)(2) must be calculated using the CAD-
derived volume(s) and the applicable provisions in the test procedures 
in part 430 for measuring volume, and must be within two percent, or 
0.5 cubic feet (0.2 cubic feet for compact products), whichever is 
greater, of the volume of a production unit of the basic model measured 
in accordance with the applicable test procedure in part 430.
0
4. Add Sec.  429.134 to read as follows:

Sec.  429.134  Product-specific enforcement provisions.

    (a) General. The following provisions apply to enforcement testing 
of the relevant products.
    (b) Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers.
    (1) Verification of total refrigerated volume. The total 
refrigerated volume of the basic model will be measured pursuant to the 
test requirements of part 430 for each unit tested. The results of the 
measurement(s) will be averaged and compared to the value of total 
refrigerated volume certified by the manufacturer. The certified volume 
will be considered valid only if:
    (i) The measurement is within two percent, or 0.5 cubic feet (0.2 
cubic feet for compact products), whichever is greater, of the 
certified volume, or
    (ii) The measurement is greater than the certified volume.
    (A) If the certified total refrigerated volume is found to be 
valid, that volume will be used as the basis for calculation of maximum 
allowed energy use for the basic model.
    (B) If the certified total refrigerated volume is found to be 
invalid, the average measured volume will serve as the basis for 
calculation of maximum allowed energy use for the tested basic model.
    (2) Reserved.
    (b) Test for Models with Two Compartments and User Operable 
Controls. The test described in section 3.3 of the applicable test 
procedure for refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers shall be used if:
    (1) The certification report indicates that the basic model was 
certified using this method, or
    (2) The difference between the two values calculated as described 
in section 6.2.2.2 of the test procedure is greater than five percent 
of the larger value for any one unit of the basic model.

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
5. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
6. Section 430.2 is amended by revising the definition of ``compact 
refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer'' to read as follows:

Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *

[[Page 41663]]

    Compact refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer means any 
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer or freezer with total refrigerated 
volume less than 7.75 cubic foot (220 liters) (total refrigerated 
volume as determined in appendices A1 and B1 of subpart B of this part 
before appendices A and B become mandatory and as determined in 
appendices A and B of this subpart once appendices A and B become 
mandatory (see the notes at the beginning of appendices A and B)).
* * * * *
0
7. Section 430.3 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  430.3  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (e) AS/NZS. Australian/New Zealand Standard, GPO Box 476, Sydney 
NSW 2001, (02) 9237-6000 or (12) 0065-4646, or go to 
www.standards.org.au/Standards New Zealand, Level 10 Radio New Zealand 
House 144 The Terrace Wellington 6001 (Private Bag 2439 Wellington 
6020), (04) 498-5990 or (04) 498-5991, or go to www.standards.co.nz.
    (1) AS/NZS 4474.1:2007, Performance of Household Electrical 
Appliances--Refrigerating Appliances; Part 1: Energy Consumption and 
Performance, August 15, 2007, IBR approved for Appendix A to Subpart B.
    (2) Reserved.
* * * * *
0
8. Section 430.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(10) and (b)(7) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  430.23  Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water 
consumption.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (10) The following principles of interpretation should be applied 
to the test procedure. The intent of the energy test procedure is to 
simulate typical room conditions (approximately 70 [deg]F (21 [deg]C)) 
with door openings by testing at 90 [deg]F (32.2 [deg]C) without door 
openings. Except for operating characteristics that are affected by 
ambient temperature (for example, compressor percent run time), the 
unit, when tested under this test procedure, shall operate in a manner 
equivalent to the unit in typical room conditions.
    (i) The energy used by the unit shall be calculated when a 
calculation is provided by the test procedure. Energy consuming 
components that operate in typical room conditions (including as a 
result of door openings, or a function of humidity), and that are not 
exempted by this test procedure, shall operate in an equivalent manner 
during energy testing under this test procedure, or be accounted for by 
all calculations as provided for in the test procedure.
    Examples:
    A. Energy saving features that are designed to operate when there 
are no door openings for long periods of time shall not be functional 
during the energy test.
    B. The defrost heater shall not either function or turn off 
differently during the energy test than it would when in typical room 
conditions. Also, the product shall not recover differently during the 
defrost recovery period than it would in typical room conditions.
    C. Electric heaters that would normally operate at typical room 
conditions with door openings shall also operate during the energy 
test.
    D. Energy used during adaptive defrost shall continue to be tested 
and adjusted per the calculation provided for in this test procedure.
    (ii) DOE recognizes that there may be situations that may not be 
completely addressed by the test procedures. A manufacturer must obtain 
a waiver in accordance with the relevant provisions of 10 CFR part 430 
in such cases, if:
    A. A product contains energy consuming components that operate 
differently during the prescribed testing than they would during 
representative average consumer use; and
    B. Applying the prescribed test to that product would evaluate it 
in a manner that is unrepresentative of its true energy consumption 
(thereby providing materially inaccurate comparative data).
    (b) * * *
    (7) The following principles of interpretation should be applied to 
the test procedure. The intent of the energy test procedure is to 
simulate typical room conditions (approximately 70 [deg]F (21 [deg]C)) 
with door openings by testing at 90 [deg]F (32.2 [deg]C) without door 
openings. Except for operating characteristics that are affected by 
ambient temperature (for example, compressor percent run time), the 
unit, when tested under this test procedure, shall operate in a manner 
equivalent to the unit in typical room conditions.
    (i) The energy used by the unit shall be calculated when a 
calculation is provided by the test procedure. Energy consuming 
components that operate in typical room conditions (including as a 
result of door openings, or a function of humidity), and that are not 
exempted by this test procedure, shall operate in an equivalent manner 
during energy testing under this test procedure, or be accounted for by 
all calculations as provided for in the test procedure.
    Examples:
    A. Energy saving features that are designed to operate when there 
are no door openings for long periods of time shall not be functional 
during the energy test.
    B. The defrost heater shall not either function or turn off 
differently during the energy test than it would when in typical room 
conditions. Also, the product shall not recover differently during the 
defrost recovery period than it would in typical room conditions.
    C. Electric heaters that would normally operate at typical room 
conditions with door openings shall also operate during the energy 
test.
    D. Energy used during adaptive defrost shall continue to be tested 
and adjusted per the calculation provided for in this test procedure.
    (ii) DOE recognizes that there may be situations that may not be 
completely addressed by the test procedures. A manufacturer must obtain 
a waiver in accordance with the relevant provisions of 10 CFR part 430 
in such cases, if:
    A. A product contains energy consuming components that operate 
differently during the prescribed testing than they would during 
representative average consumer use; and
    B. Applying the prescribed test to that product would evaluate it 
in a manner that is unrepresentative of its true energy consumption 
(thereby providing materially inaccurate comparative data).
* * * * *
0
9. Appendix A to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
0
a. In section 1. Definitions, by:
0
1. Redesignating section 1.5 as 1.6;
0
2. Redesignating section 1.6 as 1.7;
0
3. Redesignating section 1.7 as 1.9;
0
4. Redesignating section 1.8 as 1.10;
0
5. Redesignating section 1.9 as 1.11 and revising the newly designated 
section 1.11;
0
6. Redesignating section 1.10 as 1.12;
0
7. Redesignating section 1.11 as 1.14;
0
8. Redesignating section 1.12 as 1.17;
0
9. Redesignating section 1.13 as 1.21;
0
10. Redesignating section 1.14 as 1.22;
0
11. Redesignating section 1.15 as 1.23;
0
12. Redesignating section 1.16 as 1.26;
0
13. Redesignating section 1.17 as 1.28;
0
14. Redesignating section 1.18 as 1.29;
0
15. Adding sections 1.5, 1.8, 1.11, 1.13, 1.15, 1.16, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 
1.24 1.25, and 1.26;
0
b. In section 2. Test Conditions, by:
0
1. Revising sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.6, and 2.8;
0
2. Adding sections, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, and 2.11;
0
c. In section 3. Test Control Setting, by:
0
1. Revising section 3.2.1;
0
2. Adding section 3.3;

[[Page 41664]]

0
3. Revising Tables 1 and 2;
0
d. In section 4. Test period, by:
0
1. Revising sections 4.1, 4.2, and 4.2.3;
0
2. Adding sections 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.3.3, 4.2.3.4, 4.2.3.4.1, 
4.2.3.4.2, 4.2.3.4.3;
0
3. In section 5. Test Measurements, by revising sections 5.1, 5.1.1, 
5.1.2, 5.2.1.1, 5.2.1.3, 5.2.1.4, 5.2.1.5, and 5.3;
0
e. In section 6. Calculation of Derived Results from Test Measurements, 
by:
0
1. Revising sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.2.1, 6.2.2.2; and;
0
2. Adding section 6.2.2.3;
0
f. Adding section 8. Icemaking Test.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Electric Refrigerators and Electric 
Refrigerator-Freezers

* * * * *

1. Definitions

* * * * *
    1.5 ``AS/NZS 44474.1:2007'' means Australian/New Zealand 
Standard 44474.1:2007, Performance of household electrical 
appliances--Refrigerating appliances, Part 1: Energy consumption and 
performance. Only sections of AS/NZS 44474.1:2007 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3) specifically referenced in this test 
procedure are part of this test procedure. In cases where there is a 
conflict, the language of the test procedure in this appendix takes 
precedence over AS/NZS 44474.1:2007.
* * * * *
    1.8 ``Complete temperature cycle'' means a time period defined 
based upon the cycling of compartment temperature that starts when 
the compartment temperature is at a maximum and ends when the 
compartment temperature returns to an equivalent maximum (within 0.5 
[deg]F of the starting temperature), having in the interim fallen to 
a minimum and subsequently risen again to reach the second maximum. 
Alternatively, a complete temperature cycle can be defined to start 
when the compartment temperature is at a minimum and ends when the 
compartment temperature returns to an equivalent minimum (within 0.5 
[deg]F of the starting temperature), having in the interim risen to 
a maximum and subsequently fallen again to reach the second minimum.
* * * * *
    1.11 ``Defrost cycle type'' means a distinct sequence of control 
whose function is to remove frost and/or ice from a refrigerated 
surface. There may be variations in the defrost control sequence 
such as the number of defrost heaters energized. Each such variation 
establishes a separate distinct defrost cycle type. However, defrost 
achieved regularly during the compressor off-cycles by warming of 
the evaporator without active heat addition, although a form of 
automatic defrost, does not constitute a unique defrost cycle type 
for the purposes of identifying the test period in accordance with 
section 4 of this appendix.
* * * * *
    1.13 ``Harvest'' means the process of freeing or removing ice 
pieces from an automatic icemaker.
* * * * *
    1.15 ``Ice piece'' means a piece of ice made by an automatic 
icemaker that has not been reduced in size by crushing or other 
mechanical action.
    1.16 ``Ice storage bin'' means a container in which ice can be 
stored.
* * * * *
    1.18 ``Multiple compressor'' refrigerator or refrigerator-
freezer means a refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer with more than 
one compressor.
    1.19 ``Precooling'' means operating a refrigeration system 
before initiation of a defrost cycle to reduce one or more 
compartment temperatures significantly (more than 0.5 [deg]F) below 
its minimum during stable operation between defrosts.
    1.20 ``Recovery'' means operating a refrigeration system after 
the conclusion of a defrost cycle to reduce the temperature of one 
or more compartments to the temperature range that the 
compartment(s) exhibited during stable operation between defrosts.
* * * * *
    1.24 ``Stable operation'' means operation after steady-state 
conditions have been achieved but excluding any events associated 
with defrost cycles. During stable operation the rate of change of 
all compartment temperatures must not exceed 0.042 [deg]F (0.023 
[deg]C) per hour. Such a calculation performed for compartment 
temperatures at any two times, or for any two complete cycles, 
during stable operation must meet this requirement.
    (A) If compartment temperatures do not cycle, the relevant 
calculation shall be the difference between the temperatures at two 
points in time divided by the difference, in hours, between those 
points in time.
    (B) If compartment temperatures cycle as a result of compressor 
cycling or other cycling operation of any system component (e.g., a 
damper, fan, or heater), the relevant calculation shall be the 
difference between compartment temperature averages evaluated for 
whole compressor cycles or complete temperature cycles divided by 
the difference, in hours, between either the starts, ends, or mid-
times of the two cycles.
    1.25 ``Stable period of compressor operation'' is a period of 
stable operation of a refrigeration system that has a compressor.
    1.26 ``Through-the-door ice/water dispenser'' means a device 
incorporated within the cabinet, but outside the boundary of the 
refrigerated space, that delivers to the user on demand ice or water 
from within the refrigerated space without opening an exterior door. 
This definition includes dispensers that are capable of dispensing 
ice and water, ice only, or water only.
* * * * *

2. Test Conditions

    2.1 Ambient Temperature Measurement. Temperature measuring 
devices shall be shielded so that indicated temperatures are not 
affected by the operation of the condensing unit or adjacent units.
    2.1.1 Ambient Temperature. The ambient temperature shall be 
recorded at points located 3 feet (91.5 cm) above the floor and 10 
inches (25.4 cm) from the center of the two sides of the unit under 
test. The ambient temperature shall be 90.0 1.0 [deg]F 
(32.2 0.6 [deg]C) during the stabilization period and 
the test period.
    2.1.2 Ambient Temperature Gradient. The test room vertical 
ambient temperature gradient in any foot of vertical distance from 2 
inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or supporting platform to a height 
of 7 feet (2.2 m) or to a height 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the top of 
the unit under test, whichever is greater, is not to exceed 0.5 
[deg]F per foot (0.9 [deg]C per meter). The vertical ambient 
temperature gradient at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) out from the 
centers of the two sides of the unit being tested is to be 
maintained during the test. To demonstrate that this requirement has 
been met, test data must include measurements taken using 
temperature sensors at locations 2 inches (5.1 cm) and 36 inches 
(91.4 cm) above the floor or supporting platform and at a height of 
1 foot (30.5 cm) above the unit under test.
    2.1.3 Platform. A platform must be used if the floor temperature 
is not within 3 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) of the measured ambient 
temperature. If a platform is used, it is to have a solid top with 
all sides open for air circulation underneath, and its top shall 
extend at least 1 foot (30.5 cm) beyond each side and front of the 
unit under test and extend to the wall in the rear.
    2.2 Operational Conditions. The unit under test shall be 
installed and its operating conditions maintained in accordance with 
HRF-1-2008, (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), sections 
5.3.2 through section 5.5.5.5 (excluding section 5.5.5.4). 
Exceptions and clarifications to the cited sections of HRF-1-2008 
are noted in sections 2.3 through 2.8, and 5.1 of this appendix.
* * * * *
    2.6 The unit under test and its refrigerating mechanism shall be 
assembled and set up in accordance with the printed consumer 
instructions supplied with the unit. Set-up of the unit shall not 
deviate from these instructions, unless explicitly required or 
allowed by this test procedure. Specific required or allowed 
deviations from such set-up include the following:
    (a) Connection of water lines and installation of water filters 
are required only when conducting the icemaking test described in 
section 8 of this appendix;
    (b) Clearance requirements from surfaces of the unit shall be as 
described in section 2.8 of this appendix;
    (c) The electric power supply shall be as described in HRF-1-
2008 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), section 5.5.1;
    (d) Temperature control settings for testing shall be as 
described in section 3 of this appendix. Settings for convertible 
compartments and other temperature-controllable or special 
compartments shall be as described in section 2.7 of this appendix;
    (e) The unit does not need to be anchored or otherwise secured 
to prevent tipping during energy testing;

[[Page 41665]]

    (f) All the unit's chutes and throats required for the delivery 
of ice shall be free of packing, covers, or other blockages that may 
be fitted for shipping or when the icemaker is not in use; and
    (g) Ice storage bins shall be emptied of ice except as required 
for the icemaking test described in section 8 of this appendix.
    For cases in which set-up is not clearly defined by this test 
procedure, manufacturers must submit a petition for a waiver (see 
section 7 of this appendix).
* * * * *
    2.8 Rear Clearance.
    (a) General. The space between the lowest edge of the rear plane 
of the cabinet and a vertical surface (the test room wall or 
simulated wall) shall be the minimum distance in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions, unless other provisions of this section 
apply. The rear plane shall be considered to be the largest flat 
surface at the rear of the cabinet, excluding features that protrude 
beyond this surface, such as brackets, the compressor, or rear-wall-
mounted condensers.
    (b) Maximum clearance. The clearance shall not be greater than 2 
inches (51 mm) from the lowest edge of the rear plane to the 
vertical surface, unless the provisions of subsection (c) of this 
section apply.
    (c) If permanent rear spacers or other components that protrude 
beyond the rear plane extend further than the 2 inch (51 mm) 
distance, or if the highest edge of the rear plane is in contact 
with the vertical surface when the unit is positioned with the 
lowest edge of the rear plane at or further than the 2 inch (51 mm) 
distance from the vertical surface, the appliance shall be located 
with the spacers or other components protruding beyond the rear 
plane, or the highest edge of the rear plane, in contact with the 
vertical surface.
* * * * *
    2.11 Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers with Demand-
Response Capability. For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 
that have a communication module for demand-response functions, 
whether integrated within the cabinet or external to the cabinet and 
connected by the consumer, the communication module must be 
installed, energized, and connected to a network, but there shall be 
no active communication during testing.
* * * * *

3. Test Control Settings

    3.2 * * *
    3.2.1 A first test shall be performed with all compartment 
temperature controls set at their median position midway between 
their warmest and coldest settings. For mechanical control systems, 
(a) knob detents shall be mechanically defeated if necessary to 
attain a median setting, and (b) the warmest and coldest settings 
shall correspond to the positions in which the indicator is aligned 
with control symbols indicating the warmest and coldest settings. 
For electronic control systems, the test shall be performed with all 
compartment temperature controls set at the average of the coldest 
and warmest settings--if there is no setting equal to this average, 
the setting closest to the average shall be used. If there are two 
such settings equally close to the average, the higher of these 
temperature control settings shall be used. A second test shall be 
performed with all controls set at their warmest setting or all 
controls set at their coldest setting (not electrically or 
mechanically bypassed). For all-refrigerators, this setting shall be 
the appropriate setting that attempts to achieve compartment 
temperatures measured during the two tests that bound (i.e., one is 
above and one is below) the standardized temperature for all 
refrigerators. For refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, the 
second test shall be conducted with all controls at their coldest 
setting, unless all compartment temperatures measured during the 
first part of the test are lower than the standardized temperatures, 
in which case the second test shall be conducted with all controls 
at their warmest setting. Refer to Table 1 of this appendix for all 
refrigerators or Table 2 of this appendix for refrigerators with 
freezer compartments and refrigerator-freezers to determine which 
test results to use in the energy consumption calculation. If any 
compartment is warmer than its standardized temperature for a test 
with all controls at their coldest position, the tested unit fails 
the test and cannot be rated.

                                                   Table 1--Temperature Settings for All Refrigerators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          First test                                             Second test
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------       Energy calculation based on--
              Settings                        Results                  Settings                 Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid.................................  Low....................  Warm...................  Low...................  Second Test Only.
                                                                                        High..................  First and Second Tests.
                                      High...................  Cold...................  Low...................  First and Second Tests.
                                                                                        High..................  No Energy Use Rating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           Table 2--Temperature Settings for Refrigerators With Freezer Compartments and Refrigerator-Freezers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          First test                                             Second test
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------       Energy calculation based on--
              Settings                        Results                  Settings                 Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fzr Mid.............................  Fzr Low................  Fzr Warm...............  Fzr Low...............  Second Test Only.
FF Mid..............................  FF Low.................  FF Warm................  FF Low................
                                                               Fzr Low                  First and Second Tests
                                                               FF High................
                                                               FF High
                                                               Fzr High                 First and Second Test.
                                                               FF Low
                                                               Fzr High                 First and Second Test.
                                                               FF High
                                      Fzr Low................  Fzr Cold...............  Fzr Low...............  No Energy Use Rating.
                                      FF High................  FF Cold................  FF High...............  No Energy Use Rating.
                                                                                        Fzr Low...............  First and Second Tests
                                                                                        FF Low................
                                      Fzr High...............  Fzr Cold...............  Fzr High..............  No Energy Use Rating.
                                      FF Low.................  FF Cold................  FF Low................
 
Fzr Low.............................  First and Second Tests.
                                                                                        FF Low................
                                      Fzr High...............  Fzr Cold...............  Fzr Low...............  First and Second Tests.
                                      FF High................  FF Cold................  FF Low................
 
Fzr Low.............................  No Energy Use Rating...

[[Page 41666]]

 
                                                                                        FF High...............
 
Fzr High............................  No Energy Use Rating...
                                                                                        FF Low................
 
Fzr High............................  No Energy Use Rating...
 
FF High.............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Fzr = Freezer Compartment, FF = Fresh Food Compartment.

* * * * *
    3.3 Optional Test for Models with Two Compartments and User 
Operable Controls. As an alternative to section 3.2, in addition to 
the two tests described in section 3.2.1, perform a third test such 
that the set of tests meets the ``minimum requirements for 
interpolation'' of AS/NZS 44474.1:2007 (incorporated by reference; 
see Sec.  430.3) appendix M, section M3, paragraphs (a) through (c) 
and as illustrated in Figure M1. The target temperatures 
txA and txB defined in section M4(a)(i) of AS/
NZ 44474.1:2007 shall be the standardized temperatures defined in 
section 3.2 of this appendix.

4. Test Period

* * * * *
    4.1 Non-Automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has no 
automatic defrost system, the test period shall start after steady-
state conditions (see section 2.9 of this appendix) have been 
achieved and be no less than three hours in duration. During the 
test period, the compressor motor shall complete two or more whole 
compressor cycles. (A compressor cycle is a complete ``on'' and a 
complete ``off'' period of the motor.) If no ``off'' cycling occurs, 
the test period shall be three hours. If incomplete cycling occurs 
(fewer than two compressor cycles during a 24-hour period), then a 
single complete compressor cycle may be used.
    4.2 Automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has an 
automatic defrost system, the test period shall start after steady-
state conditions have been achieved and be from one point during a 
defrost period to the same point during the next defrost period. If 
the model being tested has a long-time automatic defrost system, the 
alternative provisions of section 4.2.1 may be used. If the model 
being tested has a variable defrost control, the provisions of 
section 4.2.2 shall apply. If the model is a multiple compressor 
product with automatic defrost, the provisions of section 4.2.3 
shall apply. If the model being tested has long-time automatic or 
variable defrost control involving multiple defrost cycle types, 
such as for a product with a single compressor and two or more 
evaporators in which the evaporators are defrosted at different 
frequencies, the provisions of section 4.2.4 shall apply. If the 
model being tested has multiple defrost cycle types for which 
compressor run time between defrosts is a fixed time of less than 14 
hours for all such cycle types, and for which the compressor run 
times between defrosts for different defrost cycle types are equal 
to or multiples of each other, the test period shall be from one 
point of the defrost cycle type with the longest compressor run time 
between defrosts to the same point during the next occurrence of 
this defrost cycle type. For such products not using the procedures 
of section 4.2.4, energy consumption shall be calculated as 
described in section 5.2.1.1 of this appendix.
* * * * *
    4.2.3 Multiple Compressor Products with Automatic Defrost.
    4.2.3.1 Measurement Frequency. Measurements shall be taken at 
regular intervals not exceeding one minute.
    4.2.3.2 Steady-state Condition. The requirements of section 2.9 
of this appendix shall be met for the compartment temperature of 
each compartment served by each of the compressors of the multiple 
compressor product. As an alternative to evaluating steady-state 
conditions based on complete compressor cycles, this evaluation may 
be based on complete temperature cycles for the compartments served 
by each of the compressors.
    4.2.3.3 Short-Time Defrost for a Single Compressor. For multiple 
compressor products where (a) only one compressor system has 
automatic defrost and (b) this is a short-time defrost (i.e., not 
long-time or variable), the test period shall start after steady-
state conditions have been achieved and be from one point during a 
defrost period to the same point during the next defrost period.
    4.2.3.4 If the conditions of section 4.2.3.3 do not apply, the 
two-part method shall be used. The first part is a stable period of 
compressor operation that includes no defrost cycles or events 
associated with a defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, for 
any compressor system. The second part is designed to capture the 
energy consumed during all of the events occurring with the defrost 
control sequence that are outside of stable operation. The second 
part of the test shall be conducted separately for each automatic 
defrost system present.
    4.2.3.4.1 Multiple Compressor Products with at Least Two Cycling 
Compressors. For a multiple compressor product with at least two 
cycling compressors, test periods shall be based on compressor or 
temperature cycles associated with the primary compressor system 
(these are referred to as primary compressor cycles or primary 
temperature cycles). If the freezer compressor cycles, it shall be 
the primary compressor system. The first part of the test shall 
include a whole number of complete primary compressor cycles or a 
whole number of complete primary temperature cycles comprising at 
least 24 hours of stable operation. If a defrost occurs prior to 
completion of 24 hours of stable operation, the first part of the 
test shall be at least 18 hours long.
    The second part of the test starts during stable operation 
before all portions of the defrost cycle at the beginning of a 
complete primary compressor or temperature cycle. The test period 
for the second part of the test ends after all portions of the 
defrost cycle and after all compartment temperatures have fully 
recovered to their stable operation conditions at the termination of 
a complete primary compressor or temperature cycle. If the test 
period is based on compressor cycles, the start and stop shall both 
occur either when the primary compressor starts or when the primary 
compressor stops. If the test period is based on temperature cycles, 
the start and stop shall both occur either when the primary 
compartment temperature is at a maximum or when it is at a minimum. 
For each compressor system, the compartment temperature averages for 
the first and last complete compressor or temperature cycles that 
lie completely within the second part of the test must be within 0.5 
[deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of the average compartment temperature measured 
for the first part of the test. If any one of the compressor systems 
is non-cycling, its compartment temperature averages during the 
first and last complete primary compressor or temperature cycles of 
the second part of the test must be within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) 
of the average compartment temperature measured for the first part 
of the test.
    4.2.3.4.2 Multiple Compressor Products with Non-Cycling 
Compressors. For a multiple compressor product with no cycling 
compressors, the first part of the test is a stable period of 
compressor operation that includes no defrost cycles or events 
associated with a defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, 
that shall start after steady-state conditions (see section 2.9 of 
this appendix) have been achieved, and shall be three hours in 
duration.

[[Page 41667]]

    The second part of the test starts during stable operation 
before all portions of the defrost cycle when the compartment 
temperatures of all compressor systems are within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 
[deg]C) of their average temperatures measured for the first part of 
the test. The second part stops during stable operation after all 
portions of the defrost cycle when the compartment temperatures of 
all compressor systems are within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C) of their 
average temperatures measured for the first part of the test.
    4.2.3.4.3 Multiple Compressor Products with One Cycling 
Compressor. For a multiple compressor product with one cycling 
compressor, the first part of the test is a stable period of 
compressor operation that includes no defrost cycles or events 
associated with a defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, 
that shall start after steady-state conditions (see section 2.9 of 
this appendix) have been achieved, shall be no less than three hours 
in duration, and shall consist of two or more whole compressor or 
temperature cycles of the cycling compressor system.
    The second part of the test shall be as described in section 
4.2.3.4.1 for the second part of the test for multiple compressor 
products with at least two cycling compressors. The single cycling 
compressor system shall be considered the primary compressor system.
* * * * *

5. Test Measurements

* * * * *
    5.1 Temperature Measurements. Temperature measurements shall be 
made at the locations prescribed in Figures 5.1 and 5.2 of HRF-1-
2008 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) and shall be 
accurate to within 0.5 [deg]F (0.3 [deg]C). No freezer 
temperature measurements need be taken in an all-refrigerator model.
    If the interior arrangements of the unit under test do not 
conform with those shown in Figure 5.1 and 5.2 of HRF-1-2008, the 
unit may be tested by relocating the temperature sensors from the 
locations specified in the figures to avoid interference with non-
adjustable hardware or components within the unit, in which case the 
specific locations used for the temperature sensors shall be noted 
in the test data records maintained by the manufacturer in 
accordance with 10 CFR 429.71, and the certification report shall 
indicate that non-standard sensor locations were used. If the 
temperature sensor placement required by this section is impeded by 
adjustable shelves or other components that could be relocated by 
the consumer, those components shall be repositioned as necessary to 
allow for placement of the sensors in the required locations. Any 
repositioning of components shall adhere as closely as practicable 
to the set-up instructions specified in section 5.5.2 of HRF-1-2008 
while maintaining a minimum 1-inch air space between the sensor 
thermal mass and adjacent hardware.
    5.1.1 Measured Temperature. The measured temperature of a 
compartment is the average of all sensor temperature readings taken 
in that compartment at a particular point in time. Measurements 
shall be taken at regular intervals not to exceed 4 minutes. 
Measurements for products with multiple compressor systems shall be 
taken at regular intervals not to exceed one minute.
    5.1.2 Compartment Temperature. The compartment temperature for 
each test period shall be an average of the measured temperatures 
taken in a compartment during the test period as defined in section 
4 of this appendix. For long-time automatic defrost models, 
compartment temperatures shall be those measured in the first part 
of the test period specified in section 4.2.1 of this appendix. For 
models with variable defrost controls, compartment temperatures 
shall be those measured in the first part of the test period 
specified in section 4.2.2 of this appendix. For models with 
automatic defrost that is neither long-time nor variable defrost, 
the compartment temperature shall be an average of the measured 
temperatures taken in a compartment during a stable period of 
compressor operation that (a) includes no defrost cycles or events 
associated with a defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, (b) 
is no less than three hours in duration, and (c) includes two or 
more whole compressor cycles or two or more complete temperature 
cycles. If neither the compressor nor the temperature cycles, the 
stable period used for the temperature average shall be three hours 
in duration.
* * * * *
    5.2 * * *
    5.2.1 * * *
    5.2.1.1 Non-automatic Defrost, Automatic Defrost, and Multiple 
Compressor Products in which only one compressor system uses 
automatic defrost (but not long-time or variable). The energy 
consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent 
to:

ET = EP x 1440/T

Where:

ET = test cycle energy expended in kilowatt-hours per day;
EP = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the test period;
T = length of time of the test period in minutes; and
1440 = conversion factor to adjust to a 24-hour period in minutes 
per day.
* * * * *
    5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The energy consumption in 
kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:

ET = (1440 x EP1/T1) + (EP2 - (EP1 x T2/T1)) x (12/CT),

Where:

1440 is defined in 5.2.1.1 and EP1, EP2, T1, T2, and 12 are defined 
in 5.2.1.2;

CT = (CTL x CTM)/(F x (CTM - 
CTL) + CTL);

CTL = the shortest compressor run time between defrosts 
observed for the test--or the shortest compressor run time between 
defrosts used in the variable defrost control algorithm (greater 
than or equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours)--whichever is 
shorter, in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour;
CTM = maximum compressor run time between defrosts in 
hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 
CTL but not more than 96 hours);
F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least 
energy and the maximum difference in per-day energy consumption and 
is equal to 0.20.

    For variable defrost models with no values for CTL 
and CTM in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 
shall be used, respectively. However, the shortest compressor run 
time between defrosts observed for the test shall be used for 
CTL, if it is less than 6.
    5.2.1.4 Multiple Compressor Products with Automatic Defrost. For 
multiple compressor products that do not meet the conditions of 
section 4.2.3.3 of this appendix, the two-part test method in 
section 4.2.3.4 of this appendix must be used. The energy 
consumption in kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent 
to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.030

Where:

1440, EP1, T1, and 12 are defined in 5.2.1.2;
i = a variable that can equal 1, 2, or more that identifies each 
individual compressor system that has automatic defrost;
D = the total number of compressor systems with automatic defrost.
EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the 
second part of the test for compressor system i;
T2i = length of time in minutes of the second part of the 
test for compressor system i;
CTi = the compressor run time between defrosts for 
compressor system i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an 
hour, for long-time automatic defrost control equal to a fixed time 
in hours, and for variable defrost control equal to

(CTLi x CTMi)/(F x (CTMi- 
CTLi) + CTLi);

Where:

CTLi = for compressor system i, the shortest compressor 
run time between defrosts observed for the test--or the shortest 
compressor run time between defrosts used in the variable defrost 
control algorithm (greater than or equal to 6 but less than or equal 
to 12 hours)--whichever is shorter, in hours rounded to the nearest 
tenth of an hour;

[[Page 41668]]

CTMi = maximum compressor run time between defrosts for 
compressor system i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour 
(greater than CTLi but not more than 96 hours);
F = default defrost energy consumption factor, equal to 0.20.

    For variable defrost models with no values for CTLi 
and CTMi in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 
shall be used, respectively. However, the shortest compressor run 
time between defrosts observed for compressor system i during the 
test shall be used for CTLi, if it is less than 6.
    5.2.1.5 Long-time or Variable Defrost Control for Systems with 
Multiple Defrost Cycle Types. The energy consumption in kilowatt-
hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.031

Where:

1440 is defined in 5.2.1.1 and EP1, T1, and 12 are defined in 
5.2.1.2;
i is a variable that can equal 1, 2, or more that identifies the 
distinct defrost cycle types applicable for the refrigerator or 
refrigerator-freezer;
EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours during the 
second part of the test for defrost cycle type i;
T2i = length of time in minutes of the second part of the 
test for defrost cycle type i;
CTi is the compressor run time between instances of 
defrost cycle type i, for long-time automatic defrost control equal 
to a fixed time in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour, 
and for variable defrost control equal to

(CTLi x CTMi)/(F x (CTMi - 
CTLi) + CTLi);

CTLi = for defrost cycle type i, the shortest compressor 
run time between defrosts of this type observed for the test--or the 
shortest compressor run time between defrosts of this type used in 
the variable defrost control algorithm (greater than or equal to 6 
but less than or equal to 12 hours for the defrost cycle type with 
the longest compressor run time between defrosts)--whichever is 
shorter, in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour;
CTMi = maximum compressor run time between instances of 
defrost cycle type i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an 
hour (greater than CTLi but not more than 96 hours);

    For cases in which there is more than one fixed CT value (for 
long-time defrost models) or more than one CTM and/or 
CTL value (for variable defrost models) for a given 
defrost cycle type, an average fixed CT value or average 
CTM and CTL values shall be selected for this 
cycle type so that 12 divided by this value or values is the 
frequency of occurrence of the defrost cycle type in a 24 hour 
period, assuming 50% compressor run time.

F = default defrost energy consumption factor, equal to 0.20.

    For variable defrost models with no values for CTLi 
and CTMi in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 
shall be used, respectively. However, the shortest compressor run 
time between defrosts observed for defrost cycle type i during the 
test shall be used for CTLi, if it is less than 6.
    D is the total number of distinct defrost cycle types.
    5.3 Volume Measurements. The unit's total refrigerated volume, 
VT, shall be measured in accordance with HRF-1-2008 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3), section 3.30 and sections 4.2 through 
4.3. The measured volume shall include all spaces within the 
insulated volume of each compartment except for the volumes that 
must be deducted in accordance with section 4.2.2 of HRF-1-2008, and 
be calculated equivalent to:

VT = VF + VFF

Where:

VT = total refrigerated volume in cubic feet,
VF = freezer compartment volume in cubic feet, and
VFF = fresh food compartment volume in cubic feet.

    In the case of products with automatic icemakers, the volume 
occupied by the automatic icemaker, including its ice storage bin, 
is to be included in the volume measurement.
    Total refrigerated volume is determined by physical measurement 
of the test unit. Measurements and calculations used to determine 
the total refrigerated volume shall be retained as part of the test 
records underlying the certification of the basic model in 
accordance with 10 CFR 429.71.
* * * * *

6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements

* * * * *
    6.2 Average Per-Cycle Energy Consumption. The average per-cycle 
energy consumption for a cycle type, E, is expressed in kilowatt-
hours per cycle to the nearest one hundredth (0.01) kilowatt-hour 
and shall be calculated according to the sections below.
    6.2.1 All-Refrigerator Models. The average per-cycle energy 
consumption shall depend upon the temperature attainable in the 
fresh food compartment as shown below.
* * * * *
    6.2.2 Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers. The average per-
cycle energy consumption shall be defined in one of the following 
ways as applicable.
    6.2.2.1 If the fresh food compartment temperature is at or below 
39 [deg]F (3.9 [deg]C) during both tests and the freezer compartment 
temperature is at or below 15 [deg]F (-9.4 [deg]C) during both tests 
of a refrigerator or at or below 0 [deg]F (-17.8 [deg]C) during both 
tests of a refrigerator-freezer, the average per-cycle energy 
consumption shall be:

E = ET1 + IET
Where:

ET is defined in 5.2.1;
IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0 (zero) for 
products without an automatic icemaker, and for products with an 
automatic icemaker, shall be equal to 0.23 until the energy 
conservation standards at 10 CFR 430.32(a) are amended. Beginning on 
the compliance date of any such amended standards, the icemaking 
energy shall be calculated as described in section 8.3.6 of this 
appendix; and
The number 1 indicates the test period during which the highest 
freezer compartment temperature was measured.

    6.2.2.2 If the conditions of 6.2.2.1 do not exist, the average 
per-cycle energy consumption shall be defined by the higher of the 
two values calculated by the following two formulas:

E = ET1 + ((ET2 - ET1) x (39.0 - TR1)/(TR2 - TR1)) + IET

 and

E = ET1 + ((ET2 - ET1) x (k - TF1)/(TF2 - TF1)) + IET

Where:

ET is defined in 5.2.1;
IET is defined in 6.2.2.1;
TR and the numbers 1 and 2 are defined in 6.2.1.2;
TF = freezer compartment temperature determined according to 5.1.4 
in degrees F;
39.0 is a specified fresh food compartment temperature in degrees F; 
and k is a constant 15.0 for refrigerators or 0.0 for refrigerator-
freezers, each being standardized freezer compartment temperatures 
in degrees F.

    6.2.2.3 Optional Test for Models with Two Compartments and User 
Operable Controls. If the procedure of section 3.3 of this appendix 
is used for setting temperature controls, the average per-cycle 
energy consumption shall be defined as follows:

E = Ex + IET

Where:

E is defined in 6.2.1.1;
IET is defined in 6.2.2.1; and

Ex is defined and calculated as described in AS/NZS 
44474.1:2007 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) appendix 
M, section M4(a). The target temperatures txA and 
txB defined in section M4(a)(i) of AS/NZS 44474.1:2007 
shall be the standardized temperatures defined in section 3.2 of 
this appendix.
* * * * *

[[Page 41669]]

8. Icemaking Test

    This section would apply to manufacturers seeking to demonstrate 
compliance with any new or amended energy conservation standard that 
DOE may issue in a final rule for refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, and freezers that DOE may issue after September 15, 2014. 
Absent the issuance of a test procedure waiver by the Department of 
Energy permitting the earlier use of this section, this section is 
not required unless and until such final rule is issued.
    8.1 Special Test Conditions.
    8.1.1 Multiple Icemakers. If one of the automatic icemakers in a 
product with multiple icemakers serves a through-the-door ice 
dispenser, initiate icemaking only for this icemaker when conducting 
the icemaking part of the test of section 8.3.
    8.1.2 Anti-sweat Heater. The anti-sweat heater switch shall be 
off for the icemaking test. In the case of a product equipped with 
variable anti-sweat heater control but without an anti-sweat heater 
switch, the test shall be conducted in an ambient humidity condition 
that will prevent the anti-sweat heater from being energized.
    8.1.3 Connection of water lines and installation of water 
filters are required. Inlet water temperature shall be 90 +/- 2 
[deg]F. The water supply system shall be designed to assure that 
inlet water temperature stays within this specified range at all 
times during the test. Inlet water pressure shall be 60 +/- 15 psig.
    8.1.4 Data collection frequency for temperatures, power, and 
energy shall be no less than once per minute.
    8.1.5 Icemaker Cycle Indication. The end of one icemaker cycle 
and the start of the following icemaker cycle is defined to occur 
when the mold heater (to release ice pieces) is turned off. When 
measuring energy use for an icemaker (a) without a mold heater or 
(b) for which review of test data does not allow easy determination 
of the times that a mold heater was turned off, the end of one 
icemaker cycle and the start of the following icemaker cycle is 
defined to occur when one of the methods described in this section 
indicates the initiation of water flow into the icemaker mold. One 
of the following measurement approaches shall be used to indicate 
the start and end of icemaker cycles using measurements at a data 
acquisition time interval no greater than the data acquisition time 
interval used for the test's energy and temperature measurements. 
The test data record maintained in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71 
shall indicate which of these three methods is used.
    8.1.5.1 Mold Temperature. Measure icemaker mold temperature 
during the test with a temperature sensor adhered to the bottom of 
the icemaker mold. Ensure that the temperature sensor is installed 
so that the icemaker operation, including operations such as 
twisting of the icemaker mold and ice dropping into the ice bin, 
will not be impeded by the temperature sensor and its connecting 
wire(s), and that neither the temperature sensor nor its connecting 
wire(s) will be dislodged or damaged by icemaker operation.
    8.1.5.2 Water Supply Temperature. Measure the temperature of the 
water at a location in the water supply line where the measured 
temperature changes (within the 90 +/-2F supply temperature range) 
when water is supplied to the icemaker, thus reliably indicating the 
start of an icemaking cycle. If the temperature changes measurably 
when the icemaker water supply valve opens, this change may be used 
to provide an indication of when a new icemaker cycle has started.
    8.1.5.3 Solenoid Valve Activation. Measure power input, voltage, 
or current supplied to the icemaker water supply solenoid valve to 
indicate when the valve is energized. Make this measurement at a 
frequency sufficient to identify individual valve activation events, 
or use an event counter to track valve activation events. 
Alternatively, measure energy use of the valve with a precision 
sufficient to indicate individual activation events.
    8.2 Baseline Test. Render the icemaker inoperative as described 
in HRF-1-2008 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), section 
5.5.2(c), and empty the ice storage bin before beginning the 
baseline test.
    8.2.1 Baseline Test Temperature Control Settings. Baseline test 
compartment temperatures shall be as defined in sections 5.1.3 and 
5.1.4 of this appendix and measured during the same test period used 
to determine baseline test average power, as described in section 
8.2.3. Temperature controls shall be adjusted to their warmest 
settings for which baseline test compartment temperatures are no 
more than 1 [deg]F (0.6 [deg]C) warmer than their standardized 
temperatures, as defined in section 3.2 of this appendix. For 
products with a single temperature control, this requirement shall 
apply to the freezer compartment. For mechanical temperature 
controls, only settings corresponding to positions in which the 
indicator is aligned with a control symbol shall be used. 
Temperature controls shall be readjusted and stabilization shall be 
repeated, if necessary to meet this requirement. Temperature 
controls shall not be adjusted between the icemaking baseline test 
and subsequent parts of the icemaking test except as described in 
section 8.3.2.2.
    8.2.2 Stabilization. After setting the temperature controls as 
described in section 8.2.1, wait until steady-state conditions have 
been confirmed, as described in section 2.9 of this appendix.
    8.2.3 Baseline Test Average Power. The test period shall be as 
described in section 4.1 of this appendix and shall not include any 
defrost cycles or events associated with a defrost cycle, such as 
precooling or recovery. The stabilization period and the baseline 
test period may overlap, provided the baseline test period ends no 
earlier than the stabilization period. The baseline test average 
power, expressed in Watts (W), shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.032

Where:

EPI1 = Energy use measured for the baseline test period (Icemaking 
Test Period 1), expressed in kilowatt-hours;
TI1 = Length of time in minutes of the baseline test period;
1,000 = conversion factor to adjust kilowatt-hours to watt-hours; 
and
60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to hours.

    8.3 Icemaking Test.
    8.3.1 Initiation and Duration of Icemaking Operation.
    8.3.1.1 For units that can complete 24 hours of icemaking or can 
fill their ice storage bin without encountering a defrost or the 
precooling preceding the defrost, or for units for which the defrost 
can be disabled or bypassed by the tester, verify that the ice 
storage bin is empty and initiate icemaking during a compressor on 
cycle. Continue the icemaking operation until either:
    (a) The ice storage bin becomes full and stops the icemaker, or
    (b) an icemaker harvest occurs at least 24 hours after the 
initial icemaker harvest.
    8.3.1.2 For units that cannot complete 24 hours of icemaking 
without encountering a defrost or the precooling preceding the 
defrost, verify that the ice storage bin is empty and initiate 
icemaking shortly after the start of the compressor after a defrost. 
Continue the icemaking operation until either (a) the ice storage 
bin becomes full and stops the icemaker, or (b) the next defrost 
cycle occurs.
    8.3.2 Compartment Temperatures.
    8.3.2.1 Compartment Temperature Measurement. For products with 
cycling compressors during icemaking, the compartment temperatures 
shall be as measured for Icemaking Test Period 3, which is defined 
in section 8.3.5.2 and comprises a whole number of compressor 
cycles. For products with non-cycling compressors during icemaking, 
compartment temperatures shall be as measured for Icemaking Test 
Period 2, which is defined in section 8.3.4.1 and comprises a whole 
number of icemaking cycles.
    8.3.2.2 Temperature Control Settings. If either compartment 
temperature is warmer during the icemaking test than it was during 
the baseline test without making temperature control setting 
adjustments, the compartment temperature controls shall be adjusted 
to their warmest settings for which compartment temperatures are no 
more than 1 [deg]F warmer than their temperatures measured for the 
baseline test. For products with a single temperature control, this 
requirement shall apply to the freezer compartment. For mechanical 
temperature controls, only settings corresponding to positions in 
which the indicator is aligned with a control symbol shall be used. 
For products with controls that automatically reduce compartment 
temperature settings or automatically increase compressor duty cycle 
or compressor speed to enhance cooling for icemaking, this enhanced 
cooling feature shall not be disabled during icemaking, and 
temperature control settings shall not be adjusted.
    8.3.3 Ice Mass per Icemaker Cycle.
    8.3.3.1 Total Ice Mass. After completion of icemaking, determine 
the total mass of ice produced, MICE, expressed in 
pounds, by weighing the ice storage bin when it contains the ice 
made during the test and subtracting the weight of the empty ice 
storage bin.

[[Page 41670]]

    8.3.3.2 Total Number of Icemaker Cycles. Count the total number 
of icemaker cycles (i.e., number of harvests), TNCYC, 
that have occurred between initiation of icemaking and ice weight 
measurement based on examination of the recorded power input data or 
the measurements described in section 8.1.5.
    8.3.3.3 The Ice Mass per Icemaker Cycle, expressed in pounds, 
shall be calculated as:

MICE--CYC = MICE/TNCYC

Where:

MICE is defined in section 8.3.3.1; and
TNCYC is defined in section 8.3.3.2.

    8.3.4 Energy Use per Ice Mass for Non-Cycling Compressor During 
Icemaking. This section describes the calculation of energy use per 
mass of ice produced if the compressor does not cycle during the 
icemaking test. Icemaking Test Period 2 can be used to measure both 
energy use per icemaker cycle and icemaking test average power.
    8.3.4.1 Icemaking Test Period 2. The test period shall include a 
whole number of icemaker cycles (defined in section 8.1.5). The 
following stability requirement shall apply for the chosen test 
period: the average temperature of the freezer compartment for each 
complete icemaker cycle included in the test period shall be within 
3 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) of its temperature average for the full test 
period. The number of icemaker cycles within the test period is 
designated NCYC, which can be less than or equal to 
TNCYC.
    8.3.4.2 Icemaking Test Average Power. The test period shall be 
as described in section 8.3.4.1. The icemaking test average power, 
expressed in Watts (W), shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.033

Where:

EPI2 = Energy use measured for the icemaking test period (Icemaking 
Test Period 2), expressed in kilowatt-hours;
TI2 = Length of time in minutes of the icemaking test period;
1,000 = conversion factor to adjust kilowatt-hours to watt-hours; 
and
60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to hours.

    8.3.4.3 Energy Use per Ice Mass. The energy use per mass of ice 
produced, EIM, expressed in kilowatt-hours per pound, shall be 
calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.034

Where:

PI2 and TI2 are defined in section 8.3.4.2;
PI1 is defined in section 8.2.3;
MICE--CYC is defined in section 8.3.3.4;
NCYC is defined in section 8.3.4.1;
1,000 = conversion factor to adjust watt-hours to kilowatt-hours; 
and
60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to hours.

    8.3.5 Energy Use per Ice Mass for Cycling Compressor During 
Icemaking. This section describes the calculation of energy use per 
mass of ice produced if the compressor cycles during the icemaking 
test. Icemaking Test Period 2 shall be used to measure energy use 
per icemaker cycle and Icemaking Test Period 3 shall be used to 
measure icemaking test average power.
    8.3.5.1 Icemaking Test Period 2. The icemaking test period for 
measuring energy use per icemaker cycle shall be as described in 
section 8.3.4.1, except that the stability requirement shall be 
evaluated for Icemaking Test Period 3 rather than for Icemaking Test 
Period 2 as follows: the average temperature of the freezer 
compartment for each compressor cycle within Test Period 3 must be 
within 3 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) of the average temperature of the 
freezer compartment during Icemaking Test Period 3, which comprises 
a whole number of compressor cycles. The stability requirement is 
satisfied if the freezer compartment temperature determined for each 
compressor cycle contained in the test period is within 3 [deg]F 
(1.7 [deg]C) of the compartment's temperature for Icemaking Test 
Period 3.
    8.3.5.2 Icemaking Test Period 3. The test period for measuring 
icemaking average power shall be the longest period that can be 
selected from the test data that includes a whole number of 
compressor cycles starting after the start of Icemaking Test Period 
2 and ending before the end of Icemaking Test Period 2.
    8.3.5.3 Icemaking Test Average Power. The test period for 
measuring average power shall be as described in section 8.3.5.2. 
The icemaking test average power, expressed in Watts (W), shall be 
calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.035

Where:

EPI3 = Energy use measured for Icemaking Test Period 3, expressed in 
kilowatt-hours;
TI3 = Length of time in minutes of Icemaking Test Period 3;
1,000 = conversion factor to adjust kilowatt-hours to watt-hours; 
and
60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to hours.

    8.3.5.4 Energy Use per Ice Mass. The energy use per mass of ice 
produced, EIM, expressed in kilowatt-hours per pound, shall be 
calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.036

Where:

PI3 is defined in section 8.3.5.3;
PI1 is defined in section 8.2.3;
EPI2 = Energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours, measured during 
Icemaking Test Period 2, defined in section 8.3.4.1;
MICE--CYC is defined in section 8.3.3.4; and
NCYC is defined in section 8.3.4.1;

    8.3.6 The icemaking energy use per cycle, IET, expressed in 
kilowatt-hours per cycle, shall be calculated as:

IET = 1.8 x EIM

Where:

EIM = Energy use per ice mass, defined in section 8.3.4.3 or 
8.3.5.4; and
1.8 = Daily ice production in pounds.

0
10. Appendix B to subpart B of part 430 is amended:
0
a. In section 1. Definitions, by:
0
1. Redesignating section 1.6 as 1.7;
0
2. Redesignating section 1.7 as 1.8;
0
3. Redesignating section 1.8 as 1.10;
0
4. Redesignating section 1.9 as 1.13;
0
5. Redesignating section 1.10 as 1.15;
0
6. Redesignating section 1.11 as 1.17;
0
7. Redesignating section 1.12 as 1.18;
0
8. Redesignating section 1.13 as 1.19;
0
9. Redesignating section 1.14 as 1.22;
0
10. Redesignating section 1.15 as 1.24;
0
11. Adding sections 1.6, 1.9, 1.11, 1.12, 1.14, 1.16, 1.20 1.21, and 
1.23;
0
b. In section 2. Test Conditions, by;
0
1. Revising sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.6;
0
2. Adding sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.8, and 2.9;
0
c. Revising section 3.2.1 and Table 1 in section 3. Test Control 
Settings;
0
d. Revising section 4.1 in section 4. Test Period;
0
e. Revising sections 5.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1.3, and 5.3 in section 5. Test 
Measurements;
0
f. In section 6. Calculation of Derived Results from Test Measurements, 
by:
0
1. Revising section 6.2;
0
2. Removing section 6.2.1
0
3. Redesignating section 6.2.1.1 as 6.2.1 and revising the newly 
designated section 6.2.1;
0
4. Redesignating section 6.2.1.2 as 6.2.2 and revising the newly 
designated section 6.2.2;
0
5. Redesignating section 6.2.2 as 6.2.3 and revising the newly 
designated section 6.2.3;
0
g. Adding section 8, Icemaking Test.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Freezers

* * * * *

1. Definitions

    1.6 ``Complete temperature cycle'' means a time period defined 
based upon cycling of compartment temperature that starts when the 
compartment temperature is at a maximum and ends when the 
compartment temperature returns to an equivalent maximum (within 0.5 
[deg]F of the starting temperature), having in the interim fallen to 
a minimum and subsequently risen again to reach the second maximum. 
Alternatively, a complete temperature cycle can be defined to start 
when the compartment temperature is at a minimum and ends when the 
compartment temperature returns to an equivalent minimum (within 0.5 
[deg]F of the starting temperature), having in the interim risen to 
a maximum and subsequently fallen again to reach the second minimum.
* * * * *

[[Page 41671]]

    1.9 ``Harvest'' means the process of freeing or removing ice 
pieces from an automatic icemaker.
* * * * *
    1.11 ``Ice piece'' means a piece of ice made by an automatic 
icemaker that has not been reduced in size by crushing or other 
mechanical action.
    1.12 ``Ice storage bin'' means a container in which ice can be 
stored.
* * * * *
    1.14 ``Precooling'' means operating a refrigeration system 
before initiation of a defrost cycle to reduce one or more 
compartment temperatures significantly (more than 0.5 [deg]F) below 
its minimum during stable operation between defrosts.
* * * * *
    1.16 ``Recovery'' means operating a refrigeration system after 
the conclusion of a defrost cycle to reduce the temperature of one 
or more compartments to the temperature range that the 
compartment(s) exhibited during stable operation between defrosts.
* * * * *
    1.20 ``Stable operation'' means operation after steady-state 
conditions have been achieved but excluding any events associated 
with defrost cycles. During stable operation the rate of change of 
all compartment temperatures must not exceed 0.042 [deg]F (0.023 
[deg]C) per hour. Such a calculation performed for compartment 
temperatures at any two times, or for any two complete cycles, 
during stable operation must meet this requirement.
    (A) If compartment temperatures do not cycle, the relevant 
calculation shall be the difference between the temperatures at two 
points in time divided by the difference, in hours, between those 
points in time.
    (B) If compartment temperatures cycle as a result of compressor 
cycling or other cycling operation of any system component (e.g., a 
damper, fan, or heater), the relevant calculation shall be the 
difference between compartment temperature averages evaluated for 
whole compressor cycles or complete temperature cycles divided by 
the difference, in hours, between either the starts, ends, or mid-
times of the two cycles.
    1.21 ``Stable period of compressor operation'' is a period of 
stable operation of a refrigeration system that has a compressor.
* * * * *
    1.23 ``Through-the-door ice/water dispenser'' means a device 
incorporated within the cabinet, but outside the boundary of the 
refrigerated space, that delivers to the user on demand ice or water 
from within the refrigerated space without opening an exterior door. 
This definition includes dispensers that are capable of dispensing 
ice and water, ice only, or water only.
* * * * *

2. Test Conditions

    2.1 Ambient Temperature Measurement. Temperature measuring 
devices shall be shielded so that indicated temperatures are not 
affected by the operation of the condensing unit or adjacent units.
    2.1.1 Ambient Temperature. The ambient temperature shall be 
recorded at points located 3 feet (91.5 cm) above the floor and 10 
inches (25.4 cm) from the center of the two sides of the unit under 
test. The ambient temperature shall be 90.0 1.0[emsp14][deg]F (32.2 0.6 [deg]C) during the 
stabilization period and the test period.
    2.1.2 Ambient Temperature Gradient. The test room vertical 
ambient temperature gradient in any foot of vertical distance from 2 
inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or supporting platform to a height 
of 7 feet (2.2 m) or to a height 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the top of 
the unit under test, whichever is greater, is not to exceed 0.5 
[deg]F per foot (0.9 [deg]C per meter). The vertical ambient 
temperature gradient at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) out from the 
centers of the two sides of the unit being tested is to be 
maintained during the test. To demonstrate that this requirement has 
been met, test data must include measurements taken using 
temperature sensors at locations 2 inches (5.1 cm) and 36 inches 
(91.4 cm) above the floor or supporting platform and at a height of 
1 foot (30.5 cm) above the unit under test.
    2.1.3 Platform. A platform must be used if the floor temperature 
is not within 3[emsp14][deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) of the measured ambient 
temperature. If a platform is used, it is to have a solid top with 
all sides open for air circulation underneath, and its top shall 
extend at least 1 foot (30.5 cm) beyond each side and front of the 
unit under test and extend to the wall in the rear.
    2.2 Operational Conditions. The freezer shall be installed and 
its operating conditions maintained in accordance with HRF-1-2008 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), sections 5.3.2 through 
section 5.5.5.5 (but excluding sections 5.5.5.2 and 5.5.5.4). The 
quick freeze option shall be switched off except as specified in 
section 3.1 of this appendix. Additional clarifications are noted in 
sections 2.3 through 2.9 of this appendix.
    2.3 Anti-Sweat Heaters. The anti-sweat heater switch is to be on 
during one test and off during a second test. In the case of an 
electric freezer with variable anti-sweat heater control, the 
standard cycle energy use shall be the result of the calculation 
described in 6.2.3.
    2.4 The unit under test and its refrigerating mechanism shall be 
assembled and set up in accordance with the printed consumer 
instructions supplied with the unit. Set-up of the freezer shall not 
deviate from these instructions, unless explicitly required or 
allowed by this test procedure. Specific required or allowed 
deviations from such set-up include the following:
    (a) Connection of water lines and installation of water filters 
are required only when conducting the icemaking test described in 
section 8 of this appendix;
    (b) Clearance requirements from surfaces of the unit shall be as 
described in section 2.6 of this appendix;
    (c) The electric power supply shall be as described in HRF-1-
2008 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) section 5.5.1;
    (d) Temperature control settings for testing shall be as 
described in section 3 of this appendix. Settings for special 
compartments shall be as described in section 2.5 of this appendix;
    (e) The unit does not need to be anchored or otherwise secured 
to prevent tipping during energy testing;
    (f) All the unit's chutes and throats required for the delivery 
of ice shall be free of packing, covers, or other blockages that may 
be fitted for shipping or when the icemaker is not in use; and
    (g) Ice storage bins shall be emptied of ice except as required 
for the icemaking test described in section 8 of this appendix.
    For cases in which set-up is not clearly defined by this test 
procedure, manufacturers must submit a petition for a waiver (see 
section 7 of this appendix).
* * * * *
    2.6 Rear Clearance.
    (a) General. The space between the lowest edge of the rear plane 
of the cabinet and a vertical surface (the test room wall or 
simulated wall) shall be the minimum distance in accordance with the 
manufacturer's instructions, unless other provisions of this section 
apply. The rear plane shall be considered to be the largest flat 
surface at the rear of the cabinet, excluding features that protrude 
beyond this surface, such as brackets, the compressor, or rear-wall-
mounted condensers.
    (b) Maximum clearance. The clearance shall not be greater than 2 
inches (51 mm) from the lowest edge of the rear plane to the 
vertical surface, unless the provisions of subsection (c) of this 
section apply.
    (c) If permanent rear spacers or other components that protrude 
beyond the rear plane extend further than the 2 inch (51 mm) 
distance, or if the highest edge of the rear plane is in contact 
with the vertical surface when the unit is positioned with the 
lowest edge of the rear plane at or further than the 2 inch (51 mm) 
distance from the vertical surface, the appliance shall be located 
with the spacers or other components protruding beyond the rear 
plane, or the highest edge of the rear plane, in contact with the 
vertical surface.
* * * * *
    2.8 Freezers with Demand-Response Capability. For freezers that 
have a communication module for demand-response functions, whether 
integrated within the cabinet or external to the cabinet and 
connected by the consumer, the communication module must be 
installed, energized, and connected to a network, but there shall be 
no active communication during testing.
    2.9 For products that require the freezer compartment to be 
loaded with packages in accordance with section 5.5.5.3 of HRF-1-
2008, the number of packages comprising the 75% load shall be 
determined by filling the compartment completely with the packages 
that are to be used for the test, such that the packages fill as 
much of the usable refrigerated space within the compartment as is 
physically possible and removing from the compartment a number of 
packages so that the compartment contains 75% of the packages that 
were placed in the compartment to completely fill it. For multi-
shelf units this method should be applied to each shelf. The 
remaining packages may be arranged as necessary to provide the 
required air gap and thermocouple placement. The

[[Page 41672]]

number of packages comprising the 100% and 75% loading conditions 
should be recorded in the test data maintained in accordance with 10 
CFR 429.71.

3. Test Control Settings

* * * * *
    3.2 * * *
    3.2.1 A first test shall be performed with all temperature 
controls set at their median position midway between their warmest 
and coldest settings. For mechanical control systems, (a) knob 
detents shall be mechanically defeated if necessary to attain a 
median setting, and (b) the warmest and coldest settings shall 
correspond to the positions in which the indicator is aligned with 
control symbols indicating the warmest and coldest settings. For 
electronic control systems, the test shall be performed with all 
compartment temperature controls set at the average of the coldest 
and warmest settings--if there is no setting equal to this average, 
the setting closest to the average shall be used. If there are two 
such settings equally close to the average, the higher of these 
temperature control settings shall be used.
    A second test shall be performed with all controls set at either 
their warmest or their coldest setting (not electrically or 
mechanically bypassed), whichever is appropriate, to attempt to 
achieve compartment temperatures measured during the two tests that 
bound (i.e., one is above and one is below) the standardized 
temperature. If the compartment temperatures measured during these 
two tests bound the standardized temperature, then these test 
results shall be used to determine energy consumption. If the 
compartment temperature measured with all controls set at their 
coldest setting is above the standardized temperature, the tested 
unit fails the test and cannot be rated. If the compartment 
temperature measured with all controls set at their warmest setting 
is below the standardized temperature, then the result of this test 
alone will be used to determine energy consumption. Also see Table 1 
of this appendix, which summarizes these requirements.

                                                       Table 1--Temperature Settings for Freezers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          First test                                             Second test
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------       Energy calculation based on--
              Settings                        Results                  Settings                 Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid.................................  Low....................  Warm...................  Low...................  Second Test Only.
                                                                                        High..................  First and Second Tests.
                                      High...................  Cold...................  Low...................  First and Second Tests.
                                                                                        High..................  No Energy Use Rating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

4. Test Period

* * * * *
    4.1 Non-automatic Defrost. If the model being tested has no 
automatic defrost system, the test period shall start after steady-
state conditions (see section 2.7 of this appendix) have been 
achieved and be no less than three hours in duration. During the 
test period, the compressor motor shall complete two or more whole 
compressor cycles. (A whole compressor cycle is a complete ``on'' 
and a complete ``off'' period of the motor.) If no ``off'' cycling 
occurs, the test period shall be three hours. If incomplete cycling 
occurs (less than two compressor cycles during a 24-hour period), 
then a single complete compressor cycle may be used.
* * * * *

5. Test Measurements

* * * * *
    5.1 Temperature Measurements. Temperature measurements shall be 
made at the locations prescribed in Figure 5.2 of HRF-1-2008 
(incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3) and shall be accurate 
to within 0.5[emsp14][deg]F (0.3 [deg]C).
    If the interior arrangements of the unit under test do not 
conform with those shown in Figure 5.2 of HRF-1-2008, the unit may 
be tested by relocating the temperature sensors from the locations 
specified in the figures to avoid interference with non-adjustable 
hardware or components within the unit, in which case the specific 
locations used for the temperature sensors shall be noted in the 
test data records maintained by the manufacturer in accordance with 
10 CFR 429.71, and the certification report shall indicate that non-
standard sensor locations were used.
    If the temperature sensor placement required by this section is 
impeded by adjustable shelves or other components that could be 
relocated by the consumer, those components shall be repositioned as 
necessary to allow for placement of the sensors in the required 
locations. Any repositioning of components shall adhere as closely 
as practicable to the set-up instructions specified in section 5.5.2 
of HRF-1-2008 while maintaining a minimum 1 inch air space between 
the sensor thermal mass and adjacent hardware.
* * * * *
    5.1.2 Compartment Temperature. The compartment temperature for 
each test period shall be an average of the measured temperatures 
taken in a compartment during the test period as defined in section 
4 of this appendix. For long-time automatic defrost models, 
compartment temperature shall be that measured in the first part of 
the test period specified in section 4.2.1 of this appendix. For 
models with variable defrost controls, compartment temperature shall 
be that measured in the first part of the test period specified in 
section 4.2.2 of this appendix. For models with automatic defrost 
that is neither long-time nor variable defrost, the compartment 
temperature shall be an average of the measured temperatures taken 
in a compartment during a stable period of compressor operation 
that;
    (a) Includes no defrost cycles or events associated with a 
defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery,
    (b) Is no less than three hours in duration, and
    (c) Includes two or more whole compressor cycles or two or more 
complete temperature cycles. If neither the compressor nor the 
temperature cycles, the stable period used for the temperature 
average shall be three hours in duration.
* * * * *
    5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The energy consumption in 
kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated equivalent to:

ET = (1440 x K x EP1/T1) + (EP2-(EP1 x T2/T1)) x K x (12/CT),

Where:

ET, K, and 1440 are defined in section 5.2.1.1;
EP1, EP2, T1, T2, and 12 are defined in section 5.2.1.2;
CT = (CTL x CTM)/(F x (CTM - 
CTL) + CTL)

Where:

CTL = the shortest compressor run time between defrosts 
observed for the test--or the shortest compressor run time between 
defrosts used in the variable defrost control algorithm (greater 
than or equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 hours)--whichever is 
shorter, in hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour;
CTM = maximum compressor run time between defrosts in 
hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 
CTL but not more than 96 hours);
F = ratio of per day energy consumption in excess of the least 
energy and the maximum difference in per-day energy consumption and 
is equal to 0.20.

    For variable defrost models with no values for CTL 
and CTM in the algorithm, the default values of 6 and 96 
shall be used, respectively. However, the shortest compressor run 
time between defrosts observed for the test shall be used for 
CTL, if it is less than 6.
    5.3 Volume Measurements. The unit's total refrigerated volume, 
VT, shall be measured in accordance with HRF-1-2008 (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3), section 3.30 and sections 4.2 through 
4.3. The measured volume shall include all spaces within the 
insulated volume of each compartment except for the volumes that 
must be deducted in accordance with section 4.2.2 of HRF-1-2008.
    In the case of freezers with automatic icemakers, the volume 
occupied by the automatic icemaker, including its ice storage

[[Page 41673]]

bin, is to be included in the volume measurement.
    Total refrigerated volume is determined by physical measurement 
of the test unit. Measurements and calculations used to determine 
the total refrigerated volume shall be retained as part of the test 
records underlying the certification of the basic model in 
accordance with 10 CFR 429.71.
* * * * *

6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test Measurements

* * * * *
    6.2 Average Per-Cycle Energy Consumption. The average per-cycle 
energy consumption for a cycle type, E, is expressed in kilowatt-
hours per cycle to the nearest one hundredth (0.01) kilowatt-hour, 
and shall be calculated according to the sections below.
    6.2.1 If the compartment temperature is always below 
0.0[emsp14][deg]F (-17.8 [deg]C), the average per-cycle energy 
consumption shall be equivalent to:

E = ET1 + IET

Where:

ET is defined in 5.2.1;

    The number 1 indicates the test period during which the highest 
compartment temperature is measured; and
    IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, equals 0 (zero) for 
products without an automatic icemaker, and for products with an 
automatic icemaker shall be equal to 0.23 until the energy 
conservation standards at 10 CFR 430.32(a) are amended. Beginning on 
the compliance date of any such amended standards, the icemaking 
energy shall be calculated as described in section 8.3.6 of this 
appendix.
    6.2.2 If one of the compartment temperatures measured for a test 
period is greater than 0.0[emsp14][deg]F (17.8 [deg]C), the average 
per-cycle energy consumption shall be equivalent to:

E = ET1 + ((ET2 - ET1) x (0.0 - TF1)/(TF2 - TF1)) + IET
Where:

IET is defined in 6.2.1 and ET is defined in 5.2.1;
TF = freezer compartment temperature determined according to 5.1.3 
in degrees F;

    The numbers 1 and 2 indicate measurements taken during the first 
and second test period as appropriate; and

0.0 = standardized compartment temperature in degrees F.

    6.2.3 Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Models. The standard cycle 
energy consumption of an electric freezer with a variable anti-sweat 
heater control (Estd), expressed in kilowatt-hours per day, shall be 
calculated equivalent to:

Estd = E + (Correction Factor) where E is determined by 6.2.1, or 
6.2.2, whichever is appropriate, with the anti-sweat heater switch 
in the ``off'' position or, for a product without an anti-sweat 
heater switch, the anti-sweat heater in its lowest energy use state.
Correction Factor = (Anti-sweat Heater Power x System-loss Factor) x 
(24 hrs/1 day) x (1 kW/1000 W)

Where:

Anti-sweat Heater Power = 0.034 * (Heater Watts at 5%RH)
+ 0.211 * (Heater Watts at 15%RH)
+ 0.204 * (Heater Watts at 25%RH)
+ 0.166 * (Heater Watts at 35%RH)
+ 0.126 * (Heater Watts at 45%RH)
+ 0.119 * (Heater Watts at 55%RH)
+ 0.069 * (Heater Watts at 65%RH)
+ 0.047 * (Heater Watts at 75%RH)
+ 0.008 * (Heater Watts at 85%RH)
+ 0.015 * (Heater Watts at 95%RH)
Heater Watts at a specific relative humidity = the nominal watts 
used by all heaters at that specific relative humidity, 
72[emsp14][deg]F ambient (22.2 [deg]C), and DOE reference freezer 
(FZ) average temperature of 0[emsp14][deg]F (-17.8 [deg]C).
System-loss Factor = 1.3
* * * * *

8. Icemaking Test

    This section would apply to manufacturers seeking to demonstrate 
compliance with any new or amended energy conservation standard that 
DOE may issue in a final rule for refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, and freezers after September 15, 2014. Absent the issuance 
of a test procedure waiver by the Department of Energy permitting 
the earlier use of this section, this section is not required unless 
and until such final rule is issued.
    8.1 Special Test Conditions.
    8.1.1 Multiple Icemakers. If one of the automatic icemakers in a 
product with multiple icemakers serves a through-the-door ice 
dispenser, initiate icemaking only for this icemaker when conducting 
the icemaking part of the test of section 8.3.
    8.1.2 Anti-sweat Heater. The anti-sweat heater switch shall be 
off for the icemaking test. In the case of a freezer equipped with 
variable anti-sweat heater control but without an anti-sweat heater 
switch, the test shall be conducted in an ambient humidity condition 
that will prevent the anti-sweat heater from being energized.
    8.1.3 Connection of water lines and installation of water 
filters are required. Inlet water temperature shall be 90 +/- 2 
[deg]F. The water supply system shall be designed to assure that 
inlet water temperature stays within this specified range at all 
times during the test. Inlet water pressure shall be 60 +/- 15 psig.
    8.1.4 Data collection frequency for temperatures, power, and 
energy shall be no less than once per minute.
    8.1.5 Icemaker Cycle Indication. The end of one icemaker cycle 
and the start of the following icemaker cycle is defined to occur 
when the mold heater (to release ice pieces) is turned off. When 
measuring energy use for an icemaker (a) without a mold heater or 
(b) for which review of test data does not allow easy determination 
of the times that a mold heater was turned off, the end of one 
icemaker cycle and the start of the following icemaker cycle is 
defined to occur when one of the methods described in this section 
indicates the initiation of water flow into the icemaker mold. One 
of the following measurement approaches shall be used to indicate 
the start and end of icemaker cycles using measurements at a data 
acquisition time interval no greater than the data acquisition time 
interval used for the test's energy and temperature measurements. 
The test data record maintained in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71 
shall indicate which of these three methods is used.
    8.1.5.1 Mold Temperature. Measure icemaker mold temperature 
during the test with a temperature sensor adhered to the bottom of 
the icemaker mold. Ensure that the temperature sensor is installed 
so that the icemaker operation, including operations such as 
twisting of the icemaker mold and ice dropping into the ice bin, 
will not be impeded by the temperature sensor and its connecting 
wire(s), and that neither the temperature sensor nor its connecting 
wire(s) will be dislodged or damaged by icemaker operation.
    8.1.5.2 Water Supply Temperature. Measure the temperature of the 
water at a location in the water supply line where the measured 
temperature changes (within the 90 2F supply temperature 
range) when water is supplied to the icemaker, thus reliably 
indicating the start of an icemaking cycle. If the temperature 
changes measurably when the icemaker water supply valve opens, this 
change may be used to provide an indication of when a new icemaker 
cycle has started.
    8.1.5.3 Solenoid Valve Activation. Measure power input, voltage, 
or current supplied to the icemaker water supply solenoid valve to 
indicate when the valve is energized. Make this measurement at a 
frequency sufficient to identify individual valve activation events, 
or use an event counter to track valve activation events. 
Alternatively, measure energy use of the valve with a precision 
sufficient to indicate individual activation events.
    8.2 Baseline Test. Render the icemaker inoperative as described 
in HRF-1-2008 (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3), section 
5.5.2(c), and empty the ice storage bin before beginning the 
baseline test.
    8.2.1 Baseline Test Temperature Control Settings. Baseline test 
compartment temperatures shall be as defined in section 5.1.3 of 
this appendix and measured during the same test period used to 
determine baseline test average power, as described in section 
8.2.3. Temperature controls shall be adjusted to their warmest 
settings for which baseline test compartment temperatures are no 
more than 1 [deg]F (0.6 [deg]C) warmer than their standardized 
temperatures, as defined in section 3.2 of this appendix. For 
mechanical temperature controls, only settings corresponding to 
positions in which the indicator is aligned with a control symbol 
shall be used. Temperature controls shall be readjusted and 
stabilization shall be repeated, if necessary to meet this 
requirement. Temperature controls shall not be adjusted between the 
icemaking baseline test and subsequent parts of the icemaking test 
except as described in section 8.3.2.2.
    8.2.2 Stabilization. After setting the temperature controls as 
described in section 8.2.1, wait until steady-state conditions have 
been confirmed, as described in section 2.7 of this appendix.
    8.2.3 Baseline Test Average Power. The test period shall be as 
described in section 4.1 of this appendix and shall not include

[[Page 41674]]

any defrost cycles or events associated with a defrost cycle, such 
as precooling or recovery. The stabilization period and the baseline 
test period may overlap, provided the baseline test period ends no 
earlier than the stabilization period. The baseline test average 
power, expressed in Watts (W), shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.037

Where:

EPI1 = Energy use measured for the baseline test period (Icemaking 
Test Period 1), expressed in kilowatt-hours;
TI1 = Length of time in minutes of the baseline test period;
1,000 = conversion factor to adjust kilowatt-hours to watt-hours; 
and
60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to hours.

    8.3 Icemaking Test
    8.3.1 Initiation and Duration of Icemaking Operation
    8.3.1.1 For units that can complete 24 hours of icemaking or can 
fill their ice storage bin without encountering a defrost or the 
precooling preceding the defrost, or for units for which the defrost 
can be disabled or bypassed by the tester, verify that the ice 
storage bin is empty and initiate icemaking during a compressor on 
cycle. Continue the icemaking operation until either:
    (a) The ice storage bin becomes full and stops the icemaker, or
    (b) An icemaker harvest occurs at least 24 hours after the 
initial icemaker harvest.
    8.3.1.2 For units that cannot complete 24 hours of icemaking 
without encountering a defrost or the precooling preceding the 
defrost, verify that the ice storage bin is empty and initiate 
icemaking shortly after the start of the compressor after a defrost. 
Continue the icemaking operation until either:
    (a) The ice storage bin becomes full and stops the icemaker, or
    (b) The next defrost cycle occurs.
    8.3.2 Compartment Temperature.
    8.3.2.1 Compartment Temperature Measurement. For products with 
cycling compressors during icemaking, the compartment temperature 
shall be as measured for Icemaking Test Period 3, which is defined 
in section 8.3.5.2 and comprises a whole number of compressor 
cycles. For products with non-cycling compressors during icemaking, 
compartment temperatures shall be as measured for Icemaking Test 
Period 2 (defined in section 8.3.4.1) and comprises a whole number 
of icemaking cycles.
    8.3.2.2 Temperature Control Settings. If the compartment 
temperature is warmer during the icemaking test than it was during 
the baseline test without making temperature control setting 
adjustments, the compartment temperature control shall be adjusted 
to its warmest setting for which compartment temperature is no more 
than 1 [deg]F warmer than its temperature measured for the baseline 
test. For mechanical temperature controls, only settings 
corresponding to positions in which the indicator is aligned with a 
control symbol shall be used. For products with controls that 
automatically reduce compartment temperature settings or 
automatically increase compressor duty cycle or compressor speed to 
enhance cooling for icemaking, this enhanced cooling feature shall 
not be disabled during icemaking, and temperature control settings 
shall not be adjusted.
    8.3.3 Ice Mass per Icemaker Cycle
    8.3.3.1 Total Ice Mass. After completion of icemaking, determine 
the total mass of ice produced, MICE, expressed in 
pounds, by weighing the ice storage bin when it contains the ice 
made during the test and subtracting the weight of the empty ice 
storage bin.
    8.3.3.2 Total Number of Icemaker Cycles. Count the total number 
of icemaker cycles (i.e., number of harvests), TNCYC, 
that have occurred between initiation of icemaking and ice weight 
measurement based on examination of the recorded power input data or 
the measurements described in section 8.1.5.
    8.3.3.3 The Ice Mass per Icemaker Cycle, expressed in pounds, 
shall be calculated as:

MICE--CYC = MICE/TNCYC

Where:

MICE is defined in section 8.3.2.1; and
TNCYC is defined in section 8.3.2.2.

    8.3.4 Energy Use per Ice Mass for Non-Cycling Compressor During 
Icemaking. This section describes the calculation of energy use per 
mass of ice produced if the compressor does not cycle during the 
icemaking test. Icemaking Test Period 2 can be used to measure both 
energy use per icemaker cycle and icemaking test average power.
    8.3.4.1 Icemaking Test Period 2. The test period shall include a 
whole number of icemaker cycles (defined in section 8.1.5). The 
following stability requirement shall apply for the chosen test 
period: the average temperature of the freezer compartment for each 
complete icemaker cycle included in the test period shall be within 
3 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) of its temperature average for the full test 
period. The number of icemaker cycles within the test period is 
designated NCYC, which can be less than or equal to 
TNCYC.
    8.3.4.2 Icemaking Test Average Power. The test period shall be 
as described in section 8.3.4.1. The icemaking test average power, 
expressed in Watts (W), shall be calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.038

Where:

EPI2 = Energy use measured for the icemaking test period (Icemaking 
Test Period 2), expressed in kilowatt-hours;
TI2 = Length of time in minutes of the icemaking test period;
1,000 = conversion factor to adjust kilowatt-hours to watt-hours; 
and
60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to hours.

    8.3.4.3 Energy Use per Ice Mass. The energy use per mass of ice 
produced, EIM, expressed in kilowatt-hours per pound, shall be 
calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.039

Where:
PI2 and TI2 are defined in section 8.3.4.2;
PI1 is defined in section 8.2.3;
MICE--CYC is defined in section 8.3.3.4;
NCYC is defined in section 8.3.4.1;
1,000 = conversion factor to adjust watt-hours to kilowatt-hours; 
and
60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to hours.

    8.3.5 Energy Use per Ice Mass for Cycling Compressor During 
Icemaking. This section describes the calculation of energy use per 
mass of ice produced if the compressor cycles during the icemaking 
test. Icemaking Test Period 2 shall be used to measure energy use 
per icemaker cycle and Icemaking Test Period 3 shall be used to 
measure icemaking test average power.
    8.3.5.1 Icemaking Test Period 2. The icemaking test period for 
measuring energy use per icemaker cycle shall be as described in 
section 8.3.4.1, except that the stability requirement shall be 
evaluated for Icemaking Test Period 3 rather than for Icemaking Test 
Period 2 as follows: the average temperature of the freezer 
compartment for each compressor cycle within Test Period 3 must be 
within 3 [deg]F (1.7 [deg]C) of the average temperature of the 
freezer compartment during Icemaking Test Period 3.
    8.3.5.2 Icemaking Test Period 3. The test period for measuring 
icemaking average power shall be the longest period that can be 
selected from the test data that includes a whole number of 
compressor cycles starting after the start of Icemaking Test Period 
2 and ending before the end of Icemaking Test Period 2.
    8.3.5.3 Icemaking Test Average Power. The test period for 
measuring average power shall be as described in section 8.3.5.2. 
The icemaking test average power, expressed in Watts (W), shall be 
calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.040

Where:

EPI3 = Energy use measured for Icemaking Test Period 3, expressed in 
kilowatt-hours;
TI3 = Length of time in minutes of Icemaking Test Period 3;
1,000 = conversion factor to adjust kilowatt-hours to watt-hours; 
and
60 = conversion factor to adjust minutes to hours.

    8.3.5.4 Energy Use per Ice Mass. The energy use per mass of ice 
produced, EIM, expressed in kilowatt-hours per pound, shall be 
calculated as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JY13.041

Where:

PI3 is defined in section 8.3.5.3;
PI1 is defined in section 8.2.3;

[[Page 41675]]

EPI2 = Energy use, expressed in kilowatt-hours, measured during 
Icemaking Test Period 2, defined in section 8.3.4.1;
MICE--CYC is defined in section 8.3.3.4; and
NCYC is defined in section 8.3.4.1;

    8.3.6 The icemaking energy use per cycle, IET, expressed in 
kilowatt-hours per cycle, shall be calculated as:

IET = 1.8 x EIM

Where:

EIM = Energy use per ice mass, defined in section 8.3.4.3 or 
8.3.5.4; and
1.8 = Daily ice production in pounds.

[FR Doc. 2013-16281 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```