71596 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

Total Lamp Arc Power is the sum of the lamp 

arc powers for all lamps operated by the 

ballast as determined by section 6.2.5, 

ballast input power is as determined by 

section 6.2.6, and b is equal to 1.0 for 

high-frequency ballasts and 0.9 for lowfrequency ballasts. 

7.3. Calculate Power Factor (PF). 

Where: 

Ballast input power is determined in 

accordance with section 6.2.6, input 

voltage is determined in accordance with 

section 6.2.7, and input current in 

determined in accordance with section 

6.2.8. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28793 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–TP–0034] 

RIN 1904–AC40 

Energy Efficiency Program for Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 

Test Procedures for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment 

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) proposes amendments to 

its test procedure for commercial 

refrigeration equipment (CRE). The 

amendments would update the 

referenced industry test procedures to 

the most current version, incorporate 

methods to evaluate the energy impacts 

resulting from the use of night curtains 

and lighting occupancy sensors, and 

allow testing of certain commercial 

refrigerators at their lowest application 

product temperature. These test 

procedures will apply to commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers, as defined in the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 

as amended. Use of any amended test 

procedures will be required on the 

compliance date of any standards 

developed in the associated energy 

conservation standard rulemaking. DOE 

will hold a public meeting to receive 

and discuss comments on the proposal. 

DATES: DOE will hold a public meeting 

in Washington, DC on Thursday, 

January 6, 2011, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

Additionally, DOE plans to conduct the 

public meeting via webinar. DOE will 

accept comments, data, and other 

information regarding this notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) before or 

after the public meeting, but no later 

than January 24, 2011. See section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this NOPR for 

details. 

You can attend the public meeting via 

webinar, and registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on the following Web site: 

https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/ 

638471849. Participants are responsible 

for ensuring their systems are 

compatible with the webinar software. 

The purpose of the meeting is to 

receive comments and to help DOE 

understand potential issues associated 

with this proposed rulemaking. DOE 

must receive requests to speak at the 

meeting before 4 p.m., Thursday, 

December 22, 2010. DOE must receive a 

signed original and an electronic copy 

of statements to be given at the public 

meeting before 4 p.m., Thursday, 

December 29, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 1E–245, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please 

note that foreign nationals planning to 

participate in the public meeting are 

subject to advance security screening 

procedures which require advance 

notice of 30 days prior to attendance of 

the public meeting. If a foreign national 

wishes to participate in the public 

meeting, please inform DOE of this fact 

as soon as possible by contacting Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 so 

that the necessary procedures can be 

completed. 

Interested parties may submit 

comments, identified by docket number 

EERE–2010–BT–TP–0034 or Regulation 

Identifier Number (RIN) 1904–AC40, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: CRE–2010–TP– 

0034@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket 

number EERE–2010–BT–TP–0034 and/ 

or RIN 1904–AC40 in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. Please submit one 

signed paper original. 

Written comments regarding the 

burden-hour estimates or other aspects 

of the collection-of-information 

requirements contained in this proposed 

rule may be submitted to Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy through the methods listed 

above and by e-mail to 

Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the docket number or RIN for 

this rulemaking. For detailed 

instructions on submitting comments 

and additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this document. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, visit the U.S. 

Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 for 

additional information regarding 

visiting the Resource Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Charles Llenza, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2192, 

Charles_Llenza@ee.doe.gov. In the 

Office of General Council contact Mr. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP24NO10.387</GPH> EP24NO10.388</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71597 

Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 

586–8145, Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov; or 

Ms. Elizabeth Kohl, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 

586–7796, Elizabeth.Kohl@hq.doe.gov. 

For information on how to submit or 

review public comments and on how to 

participate in the public meeting, 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone (202) 586–2945. E-mail: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

C. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Framework Comment Summary and 

DOE Responses 

1. Coordination With Other Programs 

2. Coordination With the Air-Conditioning, 

Heating and Refrigeration Institute 

3. Burden of Testing 

4. Testing of Transient Technologies and at 

Variable Refrigeration Load 

5. Rating Temperatures 

6. Energy Efficiency Features 

B. Summary of the Test Procedure 

Revisions 

1. Update References to Industry Test 

Procedures to Most Current Versions 

2. Include Method for Determining Energy 

Savings Due to the Use of Night Curtains 

on Open Cases 

3. Include Calculation for Determining 

Energy Savings Due to Use of Lighting 

Occupancy Sensors or Controls 

4. Include Provision for Testing at Lowest 

Application Product Temperature. 

IV. Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

E. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

F. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

G. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

H. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

I. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

K. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at 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. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291 et 

seq.) as amended by the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) establishes 

an energy conservation program for 

certain commercial and industrial 

equipment (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317). EPCA 

prescribes energy conservation 

standards for certain self-contained 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers with solid or 

transparent doors and designed for a 

pull-down or holding temperature 

application. (42 U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)–(3)) 

EPCA also requires DOE to develop 

standards for ice-cream freezers; selfcontained commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers 

without doors; and remote condensing 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(c)(4)(A)) DOE published a final 

rule establishing standards for these 

equipment classes on January 9, 2009. 

74 FR 1091. 

Manufacturers of covered equipment, 

including commercial refrigeration 

equipment, must use prescribed test 

procedures to measure energy efficiency 

or use and certify to DOE that 

equipment complies with energy 

conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(3) and (4)) The current test 

procedures for commercial refrigeration 

equipment appear under Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

431, subpart C. 

EPCA requires DOE to conduct an 

evaluation of each class of covered 

equipment at least once every 7 years to 

determine whether to, among other 

things, amend the test procedures for 

such equipment. Any amended test 

procedures must be reasonably designed 

to produce test results that reflect 

energy efficiency, energy use, and 

estimated operating costs during a 

representative average use cycle and 

must not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

In addition, EPCA contains specific 

provisions relating to test procedures for 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

Test procedures for commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers must be: (1) The test procedures 

determined to be generally accepted 

industry testing procedures; or (2) rating 

procedures developed or recognized by 

the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) or by the 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(i)) 

EPCA also establishes initial test 

procedures for self-contained 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers with doors. These test 

procedures are the ASHRAE 117 test 

procedures that went into effect on 

January 1, 2005. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(A)(ii)) 

If ASHRAE 117 is amended, however, 

the Secretary must, by rule, amend the 

DOE test procedure to ensure 

consistency with the amended ASHRAE 

117 unless certain findings are made by 

clear and convincing evidence. In 

addition, if a test procedure other than 

ASHRAE 117 is approved by ANSI, the 

Secretary must review the relative 

strengths and weaknesses of the new 

test procedure relative to the ASHRAE 

117 test procedure and, based on that 

review, adopt one new test procedure 

for use in the standards program. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(E)–(F)) 

In 2006 DOE published a final rule 

that adopted ANSI/Air-Conditioning 

and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) 

Standard 1200–2006 (hereafter 

referenced as ARI Standard 1200–2006) 

as the referenced test procedure for 

measuring energy consumption and 

ANSI/Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HRF– 

1–2004 (hereafter referred to as AHAM 

HRF–1–2004) for measuring refrigerated 

compartment volume. 71 FR 71370. 

These industry standards for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

have since been updated from the 

procedures currently referenced in the 

regulations. As stated previously, EPCA 

authorizes DOE to review the merits of 

the updated industry test procedures. If 

DOE determines that a test procedure 

amendment is warranted, DOE must 

publish proposed test procedures and 

offer the public an opportunity to 

present oral and written comments on 

the amendment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) 

B. Background 

ASHRAE Standard 117–2002, 

‘‘Method of Testing Closed 

Refrigerators,’’ was the test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment for 

which standards were specified in 

EPACT 2005. EPACT 2005 mandated 

use of the ASHRAE 117 standard in 

effect on January 1, 2005. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Subsequently, 

ASHRAE amended this test procedure 

and adopted ASHRAE Standard 72– 

2005, ‘‘Method of Testing Commercial 

Refrigerators and Freezers,’’ which was 

approved by ANSI on July 29, 2005. 

DOE reviewed ASHRAE Standard 72– 

2005, as well as ARI Standard 1200– 

2006, which was approved by ANSI on 

August 28, 2006. (42 U.S.C. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71598 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

6314(a)(6)(E)–(F)) DOE determined that 

ARI Standard 1200–2006 includes the 

test procedures in ASHRAE Standard 

72–2005 as well as the rating 

temperatures prescribed in EPACT 

2005. As a result, DOE published a final 

rule on December 8, 2006 in which it 

adopted ARI Standard 1200–2006, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets,’’ as the DOE test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 71 FR 71370; 10 CFR 

431.63–431.64. ARI Standard 1200– 

2006 contains rating temperature 

specifications of 38 degrees Fahrenheit 

(°F) (±2 °F) for commercial refrigerators 

and refrigerator compartments, 0 °F (±2 

°F) for commercial freezers and freezer 

compartments, and ¥5 °F (±2 °F) for 

commercial ice-cream freezers. In the 

test procedure final rule, DOE adopted 

a ¥15 °F (±2 °F) rating temperature for 

commercial ice-cream freezers, rather 

than the ¥5 °F (±2 °F) prescribed in the 

ARI Standard 1200–2006. During the 

2006 test procedure rulemaking, DOE 

determined that testing at a ¥15 °F (±2 

°F) rating temperature was more 

representative of the actual energy 

consumption of commercial freezers 

specifically designed for ice cream 

application. 71 FR 71357. In addition, 

DOE adopted AHAM Standard HRF–1– 

2004, ‘‘Energy, Performance and 

Capacity of Household Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers,’’ for 

measuring compartment volumes for 

equipment covered under this rule. 71 

FR 71370 (Dec. 8, 2006). 

Since the publication of the final rule, 

ARI has merged with the Gas Appliance 

Manufacturers Association (GAMA) to 

form the Air-Conditioning, Heating and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) and 

updated its test procedure, the most 

recent version of which is AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010. AHRI Standard 

1200–2010 includes changes to the 

equipment class nomenclature used in 

the test procedure, the method of 

normalizing equipment energy 

consumption, the ice-cream freezer test 

temperature, and other minor 

differences. These changes aligned the 

AHRI test procedure with the 

nomenclature and methodology used in 

DOE’s 2009 standards rulemaking on 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

DOE proposes to reference AHRI 1200– 

2010, the test procedure currently used 

in industry. 

Similarly, AHAM has updated 

Standard HRF–1–2004 to the most 

recent version, AHAM HRF–1–2008. 

The changes to this standard are mostly 

editorial and involved reorganizing 

some of the sections for simplicity and 

usability. As part of the reorganization, 

the HRF–1–2004 section numbers that 

are referenced within the DOE test 

procedure were updated to the structure 

in HRF–1–2008. However, the content 

of those sections was not substantially 

changed. The newly updated AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010 references the most 

recent version of the AHAM standard, 

AHAM HRF–1–2008. As such, DOE 

proposes to update the referenced test 

procedure to adopt AHAM HRF–1–2008 

as the prescribed method for 

determining refrigerated compartment 

volume. 

DOE also proposes changes to the test 

procedure to better address certain 

energy efficiency features for which the 

current test procedure cannot account. 

During the 2009 energy conservation 

standards rulemaking, DOE screened 

out several energy efficiency 

technologies because their effects were 

not captured by the current test 

procedure. 72 FR 41162, 41179–80 (July 

26, 2007). DOE proposes modifications 

to its test procedure to better address 

some of these technologies. Specific 

changes include provisions for 

measuring the impact of night curtains 

and lighting occupancy sensors and 

controls. 

On May 18, 2010, DOE held a public 

meeting (the May 2010 Framework 

public meeting) to discuss the 

rulemaking framework for the 

concurrent commercial refrigeration 

equipment (CRE) energy conservation 

standard (docket number EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0003). During this May 2010 

Framework public meeting, DOE 

received comments from several 

interested parties that additional rating 

temperatures should be considered in 

the test procedure. Some equipment is 

designed for storing goods such as wine, 

candy, and flowers at temperatures that 

are held constant, but are higher than 

the temperatures typically used in 

commercial refrigerators. The 

commenters stated that some covered 

refrigeration equipment designed for 

operation at higher temperatures is not 

able to be tested at the prescribed 38 °F, 

and they suggested that DOE consider 

this in the test procedures and standards 

rulemakings. Consequently, DOE 

proposes provisions for testing 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

is designed to operate at temperatures 

higher than 38 °F at the lowest possible 

application product temperature. 

C. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

The Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. 

L. 110–140) amended EPCA to require 

DOE, for each covered product for 

which current test procedures do not 

account for standby and off mode 

energy consumption, to modify the test 

procedures to integrate such energy 

consumption into the energy 

descriptor(s) for that product, if 

technically feasible. Otherwise, DOE 

must prescribe a separate standby and 

off mode energy use test procedure, if 

technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)) EISA 2007 also requires 

any final rule to establish or revise a 

standard for a covered product, adopted 

after July 1, 2010, to incorporate standby 

mode and off mode energy use into a 

single amended or new standard, if 

feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)) DOE 

currently believes that the ‘‘off mode’’ 

and ‘‘standby mode’’ conditions of 

operation do not apply to the equipment 

covered by this rulemaking because the 

provision within EISA which stipulates 

that off mode and standby mode energy 

usage must be quantified only appears 

in relation to consumer products and is 

not required for commercial equipment. 

Additionally, commercial refrigeration 

equipment, whether in retail, 

foodservice, or other applications, 

operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 

to maintain product at the necessary 

temperature for safe storage or retailing. 

Therefore, standby and off modes will 

not be considered for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. 

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

DOE is considering modifications to 

its test procedure to incorporate the 

current industry-accepted test 

procedures, address certain energy 

efficiency features that currently are not 

accounted for in the test procedure 

(light occupancy sensors and night 

curtains), and allow testing of 

commercial refrigeration equipment that 

cannot be tested at one of the three 

currently specified product test 

temperatures. 

EPCA prescribes that if any 

rulemaking amends a test procedure, 

DOE must determine ‘‘to what extent, if 

any, the proposed test procedure would 

alter the measured energy efficiency 

* * * of any covered product as 

determined under the existing test 

procedure.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1); 

6314(a)(6)) Further, if DOE determines 

that the amended test procedure would 

alter the measured efficiency of a 

covered product, DOE must amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2); 

6314(a)(6)) DOE recognizes that the 

proposed test procedure amendments 

would affect the measured energy use of 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

DOE is considering amending the 

standards currently in effect for 

commercial refrigeration equipment in a 

concurrent rulemaking. DOE will 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71599 

1 In the following discussion, comments will be 

presented along with a notation in the form 

‘‘Continental, No. 1.2.006 at p. 190,’’ which 

identifies a written comment DOE received and 

included in the docket of this rulemaking. DOE 

refers to comments based on when the comment 

was submitted in the rulemaking process. Section 

1.1.XXX refers to Federal Register documents, 

section 1.2.XXX refers public meeting support 

documents, and 1.3.XXX refers to comments 

submitted by interested parties. This particular 

notation refers to a comment (1) By Continental, (2) 

in document number 6 in the public meeting 

support materials, and (3) appearing on page 190. 

consider these proposed test procedure 

amendments as any final energy 

conservation standards are developed. 

DOE also proposes to require use of 

any amended test procedures to be 

consistent with the compliance date of 

any revised energy conservation 

standards. DOE would add language to 

any final test procedure amendments to 

the effect that the amendments need not 

be performed at that time to determine 

compliance with the current energy 

conservation standards. Instead, 

manufacturers would be required to use 

the amended test procedures to 

demonstrate compliance with DOE’s 

energy conservation standards on the 

compliance date of any final rule 

establishing amended energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. 

Further clarification would also be 

provided that, as of 360 days after 

publication of any test procedure final 

rule, representations as to the energy 

consumption of any covered products 

would need to be based on results 

generated using the amended test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) 

III. Discussion 

As part of the current rulemaking on 

the energy conservation standard for 

commercial refrigeration equipment, 

DOE held a public meeting on May 18, 

2010 to present its framework document 

(http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/ 

cre_framework_04–30–10.pdf and to 

receive comments from interested 

parties. DOE considered the comments 

received as a result of the framework 

document public meeting and 

incorporated recommendations, where 

appropriate, that applied to the test 

procedure. 

In Section 0, DOE provides responses 

to comments in the following subject 

areas: 

1. Coordination With Other Programs; 

2. Coordination with AHRI; 

3. Burden of Testing; 

4. Transient Testing; 

5. Rating Temperatures; and 

6. Energy Efficiency Features. 

Section III.B provides a summary of 

the proposed revisions to the test 

procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart 

C, ‘‘Uniform test method for measuring 

the energy consumption of commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers.’’ These proposed revisions 

include: 

1. Update References to Industry Test 

Procedures to Most Current Version; 

2. Include Method for Determining 

Energy Savings Due to the Use of Night 

Curtains on Open Cases; 

3. Include Calculation for 

Determining Energy Savings Due to Use 

of Lighting Occupancy Sensors or 

Controls; 

4. Include Provision for Testing at 

Lowest Application Product 

Temperature. 

Comments relevant to these subject 

areas are also addressed in section III.B. 

A. Framework Comment Summary and 

DOE Responses 

1. Coordination With Other Programs 

During the Framework public 

meeting, DOE received several 

comments regarding the potential 

overlap between testing performed for 

the purposes of compliance with DOE 

standards and testing performed for 

certification for voluntary energy 

efficiency programs. Continental stated 

that testing requirements should be 

unified between ENERGY STAR® and 

DOE standards. (Continental, No. 

1.2.006 at p. 190 1) Continental also 

stated that a common database of 

certified equipment should be shared 

between DOE and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

ENERGY STAR program. (Continental, 

No. 1.2.006 at pp. 190¥191) 

The use of common test procedures, 

reporting, and test data repository 

pertains to many commercial and 

residential products, including 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

ENERGY STAR currently requires 

testing according to ASHRAE Standard 

72–2005. ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 is 

referenced as the method of test in ARI 

Standard 1200–2006, DOE’s current 

referenced test procedure, as well as 

AHRI Standard 1200–2010, which DOE 

proposes to incorporate by reference in 

today’s test procedure. As a result, DOE 

believes that testing according to ARI 

standard 1200–2006 or 1200–2010 

would be sufficient for purposes of 

ENERGY STAR certification. 

DOE acknowledges that 

manufacturers may have to submit 

separate reports for showing compliance 

with ENERGY STAR and DOE energy 

conservation standards. Reporting 

requirements for the purposes of 

certification and compliance with DOE 

energy conservation standards are 

currently being addressed under a 

separate rulemaking (docket number 

EERE–2010–BT–STD–0003). DOE 

believes that further analysis or effort to 

coordinate a common database or other 

aspects with the ENERGY STAR 

program pertain to many covered 

products, both commercial and 

residential, and should be addressed in 

the context of that rulemaking rather 

than this test procedure rulemaking. 

2. Coordination with the AirConditioning, Heating and Refrigeration 

Institute 

Many interested parties provided DOE 

with comments regarding coordination 

between DOE and AHRI in the 

development of test procedures. AHRI 

reminded stakeholders that AHRI 

Standard 1200, which is referenced in 

the DOE test procedure, is under 

constant review, and invited interested 

parties, including DOE, to participate in 

this review. (AHRI, No. 1.2.006 at p. 71, 

No. 1.3.008 at p. 3) AHRI also expressed 

support for DOE’s plan to adopt the 

2008 version of AHRI Standard 1200. 

(AHRI, No. 1.3.008 at p. 3) Similarly, 

DOE was encouraged to participate in 

the ASHRAE and AHRI standards 

revision processes to ensure continuity 

between Federal and industry 

standards. (True, No. 1.2.006 at p. 72) 

California Codes and Standards likewise 

agreed that DOE should coordinate with 

AHRI to update AHRI Standard 1200. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 

1.3.005 at pp. 2–3) A joint comment 

submitted by the Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance and the Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council 

(Northwest Joint Comment) agreed with 

the use of AHRI Standard 1200 as the 

basis for testing, but urged DOE to begin 

updating its own test procedure in 

parallel with its efforts to clarify 

equipment classes. (Adjuvant 

Consulting, No. 1.3.003 at p. 3) Further, 

the Northwest Joint Comment stated 

that AHRI Standard 1200 will need 

updating for this rulemaking because it 

excludes some equipment classes, may 

not have universally applicable test 

conditions, and is unable to quantify the 

effects of some technology options. The 

Northwest Joint Comment also stated 

that AHRI Standard 1200 should be 

modified to capture the impacts of all 

technologies considered by DOE in the 

rulemaking and appropriate operating 

regimes. (Adjuvant Consulting, No. 

1.3.003 at pp. 2–3) 

During the development of these 

proposed test procedures amendments, 

DOE closely followed the activities of 

engineering committees that oversee 

AHRI Standard 1200 and ASHRAE 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71600 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Standard 72 and will continue to stay 

abreast of AHRI and ASHRAE efforts to 

revise and update their respective test 

procedures and standards. In the 

interest of coordinating with AHRI, DOE 

proposes to update the references in the 

DOE test procedure to the most recent 

version of AHRI Standard 1200, AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010. DOE also proposes 

to amend aspects of this testing protocol 

as part of the DOE procedure to capture 

the performance of certain energy 

efficiency features, as described in 

section III.B. Regarding equipment 

classes that may be excluded from AHRI 

Standard 1200, DOE believes that all 

equipment classes for which DOE 

intends to set standards are able to be 

tested using AHRI Standard 1200–2010. 

Also, DOE believes the test conditions 

currently prescribed in AHRI Standard 

1200–2010 are applicable to all 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

covered under this rulemaking with the 

exception of equipment that cannot be 

tested at the 38 °F integrated average 

product temperature, see further 

discussion in sections III.A.5 and III.B.4. 

3. Burden of Testing 

During the Framework public 

meeting, and in written comments, 

several interested parties expressed 

concern regarding the burden of testing. 

Master-Bilt stated that transitioning to a 

system of third-party testing would 

more than double its testing costs. 

(Master-Bilt, No. 1.2.006 at p. 200) Zero 

Zone commented that changes to the 

test procedure would make existing test 

data invalid, would possibly require 

multiple tests at different 

configurations, and would increase 

costs. (Zero Zone, No. 1.3.007 at p. 1) 

True expressed a concern that there is 

a learning curve associated with how to 

test equipment at standard conditions 

(True, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 133–134) and 

that introducing additional test 

conditions would significantly increase 

the cost and burden of testing. (True, 

No. 1.2.006 at pp. 131–132) 

DOE understands that amending test 

procedures or including additional 

provisions in those test procedures 

could increase the burden on 

manufacturers to quantify the 

performance of their equipment. EPCA 

requires that the test procedures 

promulgated by DOE be reasonably 

designed to produce test results that 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 

and estimated operating costs of the 

covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle. It also 

requires that the test procedure not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

DOE has analyzed the expected 

incremental cost of the proposed test 

procedure changes and its impact on 

manufacturers. The proposed changes to 

the test procedure consist of: Updating 

the referenced industry test procedures 

to the most current versions; testing 

requirements for units sold with night 

curtains and lighting occupancy sensors 

or controls installed; and provisions for 

testing units that cannot operate at the 

specified 38 °F integrated average 

product temperature. 

All commercial refrigeration 

equipment for which standards were set 

in EPACT 2005 are currently required to 

be tested using the DOE test procedure 

to show compliance with the EPACT 

2005 standard levels. Equipment for 

which standards were set in the 2009 

final rule will similarly be required to 

test units using the DOE test procedure 

to show compliance with the 2009 

standards levels beginning January 1, 

2012. The current DOE test procedure 

references AHRI Standard 1200–2006 

and AHAM HRF–1–2004. This test 

procedure consists of one 24-hour test at 

standard rating conditions to determine 

daily energy consumption. 

The updated versions of AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010 and AHAM HRF– 

1–2008 do not vary substantially from 

the previously referenced versions. 

Aligning the DOE test procedure with 

the most recent industry test procedures 

currently in use—AHRI standard 1200– 

2010 and AHAM HRF–1–2008—will 

simplify testing requirements and 

reduce the burden of testing for both 

small and large manufacturers. 

For equipment that could be sold with 

night curtains installed, the current test 

procedure requires one 24-hour test 

without the night curtain installed. To 

minimize the additional burden of test 

on manufacturers, under the proposed 

revisions, if a unit is tested and shows 

compliance with the relevant energy 

conservation standard without night 

curtains installed, that unit can also be 

sold with night curtains installed 

without additional testing. In addition, 

if a manufacturer chose to sell cases 

only with night curtains installed, only 

one 24-hour test would be required. If, 

however, a piece of equipment does not 

meet DOE’s energy conservation 

standards without night curtains 

installed, DOE proposes to allow the 

unit to be tested a second time with 

night curtains installed. In this instance, 

assuming the energy conservation 

standard is met, the case would also be 

required to be sold with night curtains 

installed. This would require an 

increased burden of test on only those 

units that cannot show compliance with 

DOE energy conservation standards 

without night curtains installed. As 

DOE proposes to incorporate provisions 

for testing a unit with night curtains 

installed into the same 24-hour test, the 

burden of conducting the test with and 

without night curtains is approximately 

the same. 

For units sold with lighting 

occupancy sensors and scheduled 

controls installed, no additional testing 

or measurements will be required. 

Manufacturers will use a calculation 

method to determine the energy savings 

due to lighting occupancy sensors and 

scheduled controls. DOE believes that 

additional calculations will only require 

a few additional minutes of testing time, 

which represents approximately a 25- 

percent increase in the calculation 

intensity of the test. When compared to 

the physical testing segment of the 

procedure, which takes, a minimum of 

24 hours, the additional calculations 

required by the lighting occupancy 

sensor and scheduled control 

requirements would increase the total 

burden of the test by less than an 

estimated 0.01 percent. In addition, this 

additional burden would be required 

only for units that cannot comply with 

the energy conservation standard with 

lighting occupancy sensors or controls 

installed. Thus, DOE believes that the 

proposed additional calculations for 

lighting occupancy sensors and controls 

would not significantly increase the 

burden of test for manufacturers of 

covered products. 

For equipment that cannot be tested at 

the 38 °F integrated average product 

temperature, manufacturers are 

currently required to test the unit using 

AHRI Standard 1200 at the 38 °F test 

temperature. Under the proposed 

revisions, these manufacturers would be 

allowed to test units that cannot meet 

the 38 °F test temperature to be tested 

at the lowest application product 

temperature, with the only difference 

being the integrated average product 

temperature. Since the same test is 

being performed in both cases, DOE 

believes that this will not increase the 

burden of test for those manufacturers 

and is likely to lead to more 

representative energy consumption 

values. DOE notes that AHRI Standard 

1200–2010 test is often already 

performed by a manufacturer for 

participation in voluntary programs, 

independent collection of energy 

consumption information, or other 

reasons. 

The proposed changes to the test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment were chosen to help 

minimize the impact of additional 

testing while updating industry 

standards to reflect the most current 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71601 

versions, capture new energy efficiency 

technologies, and provide more accurate 

test procedures for equipment that 

cannot be tested at the currently 

prescribed integrated average product 

temperature. For the reasons stated 

above, DOE believes that the proposed 

test procedures would not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. 

For further discussion of the 

economic impact of additional testing 

on the small CRE manufacturers, as the 

entities that would be the most 

impacted from additional testing 

requirements, please see section IV.C of 

today’s NOPR. 

DOE requests comment on its 

conclusion that the proposed test 

procedure changes would not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. 

4. Testing of Transient Technologies 

and at Variable Refrigeration Load 

During the Framework public meeting 

and comment period, several interested 

parties commented on incorporating 

provisions into the test procedure to 

capture the effects of features that 

operate to reduce energy consumption 

at variable refrigeration load or at 

variable time periods. California Codes 

and Standards stated that ASHRAE 

Standard 72 is only a steady-state test, 

and that the test would not capture a 

number of transient measures that may 

produce significant energy savings in 

the field. (California Codes and 

Standards, No. 1.2.006 at p. 13) The 

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE) emphasized 

that it believes that a single metric is not 

adequate to describe CRE operation and 

that DOE should at least look at partload and full-load metrics. (ACEEE, No. 

1.2.006 at pp. 69–70) California Codes 

and Standards also stated that test 

methods should be developed for the 

purpose of measuring the maximum 

possible energy savings, and that this 

should include a part-load test. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 

1.3.005 at p. 1) 

DOE finds that there are two types of 

transient technologies: Those that 

operate as a function of variable ambient 

conditions and those that operate at 

variable times to reduce refrigeration 

load. DOE discussed the technologies 

that operate at variable times (night 

curtains and occupancy sensors) in 

section A.3 above; a discussion of the 

technologies that operate as a function 

of variable ambient conditions is 

provided below. 

Technologies that operate as a 

function of variable ambient conditions 

can reduce annual energy consumption 

of commercial refrigeration equipment 

by adapting to changes in refrigeration 

load that result from changes in ambient 

conditions. These variable load, or partload, technologies include higher 

efficiency expansion valves, condenser 

fan motor controllers, and anti-sweat 

heater controllers. ASHRAE Standard 

72–2005 calls for testing at a single 

ambient temperature and relative 

humidity, so technologies that are 

designed to reduce energy use under 

variable ambient conditions will not 

affect the measured combined daily 

energy consumption (CDEC) per the 

existing test procedure. 

An independent test to quantify the 

performance of technologies that 

decrease energy use at variable 

refrigeration load would most likely 

involve testing a unit at different 

ambient conditions, including lower 

temperatures and humidities. However, 

section 342 of EPCA requires that test 

procedures ‘‘shall be reasonably 

designed to produce test results which 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 

and estimated operating costs of a type 

of industrial equipment (or class 

thereof) during a representative average 

cycle of use (as determined by the 

Secretary), and shall not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6314(2)) 

It is DOE’s understanding that, 

although ASHRAE Standard 72–2005 is 

a steady-state test, some variation in 

refrigeration load is experienced in 

display cases with doors as part of the 

door opening requirement included in 

that test. When the doors are opened, 

the refrigeration load increases because 

warm ambient air has entered the case. 

If the equipment being tested has more 

efficient operation at variable 

refrigeration load, the case will use less 

energy overall. In this way, the effects 

of variable load, or part-load, features 

are already captured to some degree in 

the current test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

with doors. Similarly, if the test 

procedure is altered to capture 

decreased energy consumption as a 

result of night curtain use, the efficacy 

of many part-load technologies in open 

cases will also be captured. 

Further, additional independent or 

explicit part-load testing will result in 

increased cost and burden for 

manufacturers of covered products. 

During the May 2010 Framework public 

meeting, True expressed a concern that 

there is a learning curve associated with 

how to test equipment at standard 

conditions (True, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 

133–134) and that introducing 

additional test conditions would 

significantly increase the cost and 

burden of testing. (True, No. 1.2.006 at 

pp. 131–132) From conversations with 

manufacturers, DOE estimates that partload testing at additional rating 

conditions could more than double the 

cost and burden of testing for all 

commercial refrigeration equipment. 

DOE believes that explicit testing at 

multiple sets of conditions is not 

justified because of this increased 

burden. Thus, the DOE test procedure 

will continue to rely on one standard 

rating condition, relying on the transient 

effects inherent in the proposed test 

procedure to capture part-load 

performance. 

5. Rating Temperatures 

During the Framework public 

meeting, True stated that the current 

standard only directly addresses a 

standard ambient test condition of 75 °F 

and 55 percent relative humidity, but 

that the Food and Drug Administration 

and NSF standards also include an 80 

°F ambient condition. (NSF 

International was founded in 1944 as 

the National Sanitation Foundation; the 

organization’s name is now simply 

NSF.) True also stated that higher realworld operating temperatures will 

impact the energy use of commercial 

refrigeration equipment in some 

applications. (True, No. 1.2.006 at p. 38) 

California Codes and Standards added 

that it is important to verify that systems 

operating under extreme ambient 

conditions can perform safely at those 

temperatures and humidities. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 

1.2.006 at p. 133) True further asserted 

that equipment tested at 75 °F and 55 

percent relative humidity will perform 

differently than if operated at 95 °F and 

95 percent relative humidity. (True, No. 

1.2.006 at p. 129) ACEEE added that 

perhaps there should be an adverse 

temperature and humidity rating 

condition to ensure that equipment will 

operate effectively in those scenarios. 

(ACEEE, No. 1.2.006 at p. 131) Southern 

Store Fixtures commented that if 

additional test conditions are used, 

equipment that operates outside of these 

conditions should be exempt. (Southern 

Store Fixtures, No. 1.2.006 at p. 133) 

Zero Zone, however, stated that testing 

at a variety of ambient conditions could 

become burdensome and the 75/55 

condition is a sound compromise. (Zero 

Zone, No. 1.2.006 at p. 130) 

DOE received similar comments on 

the 2009 CRE energy conservation 

standard NOPR. Those comments 

encouraged DOE to differentiate 

between NSF Type I equipment, which 

is tested at standard test conditions, and 

NSF Type II equipment, which is tested 

at 80 °F. DOE found that the relative 

difference between Type I equipment 

designed to be operated at the standard 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71602 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

2Southern California Edison, Refrigeration and 

Technology and Test Center, Energy Efficiency 

Division. Effects of the Low Emissivity Shields on 

Performance and Power Use of a Refrigerated 

Display Case. August 1997. Available at http:// 

www.econofrost.com/acrobat/sce_report_long.pdf. 

test condition of 75 °F and Type II 

equipment designed to operate at 80 °F 

would not significantly impact the 

energy use of the equipment as tested at 

the 75 °F test condition. Thus, DOE 

concluded it was unnecessary to 

institute a distinction between Type I 

and Type II commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 74 FR 1092, 1117 (Jan. 9, 

2009). 

The current DOE test procedure 

requires that energy consumption 

testing for all commercial refrigeration 

equipment covered in these rulemakings 

be conducted according to ASHRAE 

Standard 72–2005, which prescribes 

specific ambient conditions. DOE 

believes that equipment classified as 

NSF Type II can be tested at the 

standard rating conditions prescribed in 

the DOE test procedure without any 

significant additional burden on 

manufacturers. Accordingly, DOE 

proposes to continue to rate all 

commercial refrigeration equipment at 

the standard rating condition prescribed 

in the referenced industry test 

procedure. 

DOE requests comment on the burden 

to manufacturers associated with testing 

NSF Type II equipment at the standard 

test condition. 

6. Energy Efficiency Features 

DOE received a number of comments 

from stakeholders concerning energy 

efficiency features that exist for the 

explicit purpose of lowering energy 

consumption, such as lighting 

occupancy sensors and controls, night 

curtains, higher efficiency expansion 

valves, condenser fan motor controllers, 

and anti-sweat heater controllers. The 

Northwest Joint Comment stated that 

the current test procedure does not have 

the capacity to test all of the equipment 

classes and technology options that are 

likely to be within the scope of coverage 

for this rulemaking. (Adjuvant 

Consulting, No. 1.3.003 at pp. 1–2) True 

commented that the test procedure 

should represent a baseline level of 

energy consumption with no energy 

efficiency devices enabled. (True, No. 

1.2.006 at pp. 63–64) Southern Store 

Fixtures commented that some of these 

devices, such as night curtains, may not 

be used by 24-hour stores (Southern 

Store Fixtures, No. 1.2.006 at pp. 66– 

67), and also suggested that DOE consult 

with end users of these energy 

efficiency features before considering 

them. (Southern Store Fixtures, No. 

1.2.006 at p. 67) True stated that energy 

controls have a variety of different 

features and energy conservation levels, 

and that they are sometimes already 

tested by manufacturers. (True, No. 

1.2.006 at p. 65) The Northwest Joint 

Comment added that a percent time off 

assumption or scaling factor might not 

be adequate to capture the effects of all 

time-dependent technology options. 

(Adjuvant Consulting, No. 1.3.003 at p. 

3) 

As part of this rulemaking effort, DOE 

has evaluated technology options 

suggested by interested parties and has 

developed provisions to quantify the 

performance of those options that can be 

specifically addressed while still 

meeting the statutory requirements of a 

test procedure. Specific proposed 

changes include provisions for 

measuring the energy impacts of 

lighting occupancy sensors and 

controls, and night curtains. Other 

technologies, such as higher efficiency 

expansion valves, condenser fan motor 

controllers, and anti-sweat heater 

controllers, are technologies that 

function to reduce energy consumption 

at part-load conditions. As discussed in 

section III.A.4, ‘‘Testing of Transient 

Technologies and at Variable 

Refrigeration Load,’’ the energy saving 

potential of these technologies is 

already captured to some degree in the 

current test procedure. Further, DOE 

believes that explicit testing for these 

energy efficiency technologies that 

reduce energy consumption at part load 

is not justified because it would 

significantly increase the testing burden. 

DOE requests comment on the burden 

to test energy efficiency technologies 

other than those explicitly accounted for 

in this test procedure revision, namely 

night curtains and lighting occupancy 

sensors and scheduled control. 

B. Summary of the Test Procedure 

Revisions 

Today’s proposed rule contains the 

following proposed changes to the test 

procedure in 10 CFR part 431, subpart 

C. 

1. Update References to Industry Test 

Procedures to Most Current Versions 

The current DOE test procedure for 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

adopted ARI Standard 1200–2006, with 

additional provisions for testing icecream freezers at ¥15 °F, as the test 

procedure used to measure the energy 

consumption of a piece of commercial 

refrigeration equipment to establish 

compliance with the applicable energy 

conservation standard. Since the 

publication of the 2006 test procedure 

final rule, AHRI has released an updated 

version of the test procedure, AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010. The updated test 

procedure includes both editorial and 

technical changes to the equipment 

class nomenclature used within the test 

procedure, the test product temperature 

for ice-cream freezers, and the method 

of normalizing and reporting units for 

equipment energy consumption. These 

changes align the test procedure with 

the nomenclature and methodology 

used in the 2009 DOE energy 

conservation standard final rule. AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010 is the test 

procedure currently used in industry, 

and DOE proposes to adopt it as the 

DOE test procedure. 

The current DOE test procedure also 

references AHAM HRF–1–2004 as the 

protocol for determining refrigerated 

compartment volume. AHAM has also 

updated its Standard HRF–1–2004. The 

most recent version is AHAM HRF–1– 

2008, which makes editorial changes 

including reorganizing some of the 

sections for simplicity and usability. 

The newly updated AHRI 1200–2010 

also references AHAM HRF–1–2008. For 

consistency, DOE proposes to adopt the 

more recent AHAM HRF–1–2008 for 

measuring refrigerated compartment 

volume. 

DOE requests comment on updating 

the referenced industry test procedures 

to the most current versions. 

2. Include Method for Determining 

Energy Savings Due to the Use of Night 

Curtains on Open Cases 

The current test procedure, ARI 

Standard 1200–2006, and method of 

test, ASHRAE Standard 72–2005, do not 

account for potential energy savings 

resulting from the use of night curtains 

on open cases. Night curtains are 

devices made of an insulating material, 

typically insulated aluminum fabric, 

designed to be pulled down over the 

open front of the case (similar to the 

way a window shade operates) when the 

merchandizing establishment is closed 

or the customer traffic is significantly 

decreased. The insulating shield, or 

night curtain, decreases infiltration and 

mixing of the cool air inside the case 

with the relatively warm, humid air in 

the store interior. It also reduces 

conductive and radiative heat transfer 

into the case. This can reduce 

compressor loads and defrost cycles, 

significantly decreasing energy use. A 

1997 study by the Southern California 

Edison Refrigeration Technology and 

Test Center found that, when used for 

6 hours per day, night curtains reduce 

total energy use of the case by 

approximately 8 percent.2

To allow manufacturers to account for 

the possible energy savings of cases sold 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71603 

3U.S. Department of Energy. Demonstration 

Assessment of Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Freezer 

Case Lighting. October 2009. Prepared by Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory for the U.S. DOE 

Solid State Lighting Technology Demonstration 

GATEWAY Program. Available at http:// 

apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ 

ssl/gateway_freezer-case.pdf. 

with night curtains, DOE intends to 

adopt a standardized physical test 

method. A physical test would 

accurately capture differences in energy 

use reduction as a function of similar 

technologies and case dimensions. It is 

important to capture the differences in 

energy use reduction from similar 

technologies because of the large 

performance disparities that can exist. 

For example, night curtains made of 

low-emissivity materials, such as 

aluminum, decrease the radiative losses 

from the case and therefore are much 

more effective at reducing heat loss than 

night curtains made of plastic, linoleum, 

or other non-reflective materials. In 

addition, each night curtain may reduce 

infiltration differently depending on its 

insulating characteristics and design. 

The case dimensions and default 

infiltration load also impact night 

curtain performance. As such, a 

physical test will also accurately 

capture differences in the energy 

conservation utility of night curtains as 

a function of case dimension. 

DOE proposes using the following 

physical test method, as specified by 

ASHRAE Standard 72–2005. This 

method would be similar to section 7.2 

in ASHRAE Standard 72–2005, ‘‘DoorOpening Requirements,’’ and would 

read as follows: 

Night Curtain Requirements. For open 

display cases sold with night curtains 

installed, the night curtain shall be employed 

according to manufacturer instructions for a 

total of 6 hours, 3 hours after the start of a 

defrost period. Upon the completion of the 6- 

hour period, the night curtain shall be raised 

until the completion of the 24-hour test 

period. 

DOE proposes a 6-hour test period to 

approximate the typical usage of a night 

curtain. In studies analyzing the effects 

of night curtain use, such as the 

previously cited 1997 study by the 

Southern California Edison 

Refrigeration Technology and Test 

Center, a similar 6-hour time period has 

been used. The test for night curtains 

would apply only to cases sold with 

night curtains installed. The 

assumptions made in the testing of night 

curtains may not reflect their use in the 

field in all applications. However, this 

test would be a standard for all cases 

sold with night curtains, regardless of 

their anticipated use. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposal for the incorporation of night 

curtains into the DOE test procedure. 

3. Include Calculation for Determining 

Energy Savings Due to Use of Lighting 

Occupancy Sensors or Controls 

The current test procedure, ARI 

Standard 1200–2006, and method of 

test, ASHRAE Standard 72–2005, do not 

account for potential energy savings 

resulting from the use of lighting 

occupancy sensors and scheduled 

controls. The energy savings due to the 

use of occupancy-based sensors or 

schedule-based controls will vary in the 

field due to differing environmental and 

operating conditions. However, studies, 

including a demonstration project 

conducted through the DOE GATEWAY 

program, have shown that lighting 

occupancy sensors or controls could 

reduce the total energy use of a typical 

refrigerated merchandising unit 

operating in a grocery store by up to 40 

percent.3

Lighting occupancy sensors and 

schedule-based control systems are 

designed to reduce the amount of time 

that lights are on within commercial 

refrigeration equipment. Lighting 

occupancy sensors use passive infrared, 

ultrasonic, or other motion-sensing 

technology to detect the presence of a 

customer or employee. These sensors 

turn off or dim the lights within the 

equipment when no motion is detected 

in the sensor’s coverage area. Schedulebased lighting controls allow lights to be 

turned off or dimmed at scheduled 

times throughout the day. The energy 

efficiency benefits from reducing case 

lighting energy use are two-fold, 

because both the direct electricity 

consumption of the lights and the heat 

load on the refrigeration system are 

decreased. Light-emitting diode 

technology, used in much of today’s 

new commercial refrigeration 

equipment, lends itself to rapid on/off 

cycling or dimming, which enables the 

use of occupancy sensors or scheduled 

controls, or both. Lighting occupancy 

sensors and scheduled controls can be 

addressed similarly based on available 

energy usage data. 

DOE proposes using an analytical 

method similar to equation 4, section 

5.2.3 of AHRI Standard 1200–2010, to 

calculate the energy use of lighting 

within the refrigerated volume. 

Equation 1 presents a method to 

calculate the direct lighting energy 

consumption (LECsc) with lighting 

occupancy sensors and controls 

deployed for either remote condensing 

or self-contained units. 

Where: 

LECsc = lighting energy consumption of 

internal case lights with lighting 

occupancy sensors and controls 

deployed (kilowatt-hours); 

Pli = rated power of lights when they are fully 

on (watts); 

Pli(off) = power of lights when they are off 

(watts); 

Pli(dim) = power of lights when they are 

dimmed (watts); 

tsc = time period when lighting is fully on 

with lighting occupancy sensors and 

controls enabled (hours); 

toff = time period which the lights are off due 

to the use of lighting occupancy sensors 

or scheduled controls (hours); and 

tdim = time period which the lights are 

dimmed due to the use of lighting 

occupancy sensors or scheduled controls 

(hours). 

In equation 1, toff and tdim are 

determined based on the sum of any 

contribution from lighting occupancy 

sensors and scheduled controls that turn 

off or dim lighting, respectively. These 

values are summed, as shown in 

equation 2, to determine the total 

amount of time lighting is dimmed or 

off. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP24NO10.364</GPH>
71604 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

toff = time period which the lights are off due 

to the use of lighting occupancy sensors 

or scheduled controls (hours); 

tdim = time period which the lights are dim 

due to the use of lighting occupancy 

sensors or scheduled controls (hours); 

toff,controls = time case lighting is off due to the 

use of lighting controls (hours); 

tdim,controls = time case lighting is dimmed due 

to the use of lighting controls (hours); 

toff,sensors = time case lighting is off due to the 

use of lighting occupancy sensors 

(hours); and 

tdim,sensors = time case lighting is dimmed due 

to the use of lighting occupancy sensors 

(hours). 

As the test procedure is for 24-hour 

time period, the sum of tsc, Toff, and tdim

should equal 24 hours. DOE also 

proposes that the total time period 

during which the lights are off or 

dimmed shall not exceed 10.8 hours 

based on the maximum estimated 

energy savings from lighting occupancy 

sensors and controls. This limit is 

established to prevent double counting 

of energy savings in equipment where 

both lighting occupancy sensors and 

schedule based controls are installed. 

Where: 

toff = time period which the lights are off due 

to the use of lighting occupancy sensors 

or scheduled controls (hours); 

tdim = time period which the lights are 

dimmed due to the use of lighting 

occupancy sensors or scheduled controls 

(hours); 

tsc= time period when lighting is fully on 

with lighting occupancy sensors and 

controls enabled (hours); 

tl = time period when lighting would be on 

without lighting occupancy sensors or 

controls (24 hours); 

with the sum of all toff and tdim from both 

lighting occupancy sensors and controls not 

to exceed 10.8 hours. 

In equation 2, the time the case 

lighting is dimmed or off due to 

scheduled lighting controls (toff,controls or 

tdim,controls, as applicable) will be 8 hours 

for those cases with lighting controls 

installed. This will depend on whether 

the controls dim or turn off lights. A 

time off period of 8 hours was chosen 

for scheduled controls to approximate 

the typical usage of lighting control 

products based on comments received 

during previous DOE rulemakings for 

this equipment. Specifically, during the 

previous rulemaking for commercial 

refrigeration equipment, California 

Utilities commented that 8 hours 

reflected the California predicted ‘‘low 

load’’ period. (Docket number EERE– 

2006–BT–STD–0126, California Joint 

Comment, No. 41, at p. 12) 

The time the case lighting is off or 

dimmed due to lighting occupancy 

sensors (toff,sensors or tdim,sensors, as 

applicable) will be 2.8 or 10.8 hours for 

cases with lighting occupancy sensors 

installed, depending on whether 

scheduled controls are also installed. 

For equipment with only lighting 

occupancy sensors installed toff,sensors or 

tdim,sensors, as applicable, will be 10.8 

hours. For equipment with both lighting 

occupancy sensors and lighting controls 

installed, the lighting controls will be 

assumed to override the occupancy 

sensor during the time the lighting 

control is used to reduce case lighting. 

Thus, the time the case lighting is off or 

dimmed due to lighting occupancy 

sensors (toff,sensors or tdim,sensors, as 

applicable) will be 2.8 hours for 

equipment with lighting occupancy 

sensors and lighting controls installed. 

The time off period for lighting 

occupancy sensors was derived based 

on the previously cited demonstration 

project conducted through the DOE 

GATEWAY program. 

Equations 1, 2, and 3 can be used to 

calculate the energy use of CRE whether 

the equipment utilizes lighting 

occupancy sensors or control, and 

whether the light settings are set at fully 

on, fully off, or dimmed. For example, 

consider a situation in which lighting 

that is dimmed throughout the day by 

occupancy sensors and is turned off 

completely by scheduled controls 

during closing hours. In this example, 

tdim for the dimmed occupancy sensor 

would be 2.8 hours, and toff for the 

scheduled lighting control, which turns 

off the lights, would be 8 hours. The 

sum of toff and tdim would be equal to the 

maximum 10.8 hours. In this example, 

both tdim,controls and toff,sensors would equal 

zero. 

In addition to conserving energy 

directly through decreased lighting 

electrical load, occupancy sensors also 

decrease the heat load from lights that 

are located inside the refrigerated space 

on the refrigeration equipment. 

Therefore, a second calculation is 

necessary to account for these energy 

impacts. This second calculation 

quantifies the reduced compressor 

energy use, which is then used to 

calculate total energy use, as described 

below. 

For remote condensing equipment, 

the calculation of Alternate Component 

Indirect Effect in section 5.4 of AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010 can be used to 

measure the energy impacts on the 

compressor. Thus, for remote 

condensing equipment, equation 4, from 

AHRI Standard 1200 equations 5.4 and 

5.4.2, can be applied to calculate the 

decreased compressor power due to use 

of lighting occupancy sensors and 

controls. 

Where: 

CECA= Alternate Compressor Energy 

Consumption (kilowatt-hours); 

LECsc = lighting energy consumption of 

internal case lights with lighting 

occupancy sensors and controls 

deployed (kilowatt-hours); 

Pli = rated power of lights when they are fully 

on (watts); 

tl = time lighting would be on without 

lighting occupancy sensors or controls 

(24 hours); and 

EER = energy efficiency ratio from Table 1 in 

AHRI Standard 1200–2010 for remote 

condensing equipment and the values 

shown in Table III.1 of this document for 

self-contained equipment (British 

thermal units/watt). 

TABLE III.1. EER FOR SELF-CONTAINED COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATED

DISPLAY MERCHANDISERS AND

STORAGE CABINETS

Operating temperature 

class 

EER 

Btu/W 

Medium ............................... 11 .26 

Low ..................................... 7 .14 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP24NO10.365</GPH> EP24NO10.366</GPH> EP24NO10.367</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71605 

TABLE III.1. EER FOR SELF-CONTAINED COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATED

DISPLAY MERCHANDISERS AND

STORAGE CABINETS—Continued 

Operating temperature 

class 

EER 

Btu/W 

Ice Cream ........................... 4 .80 

Note: 

1EER values for operating temperature 

classes are calculated based on the average 

EER value of all equipment in that class which 

was analyzed as part of the previous (2009) 

rulemaking. This does not include equipment 

for which standards were set by Congress in 

EPACT 2005 (VCT, VCS, HCT, HCS, and 

SOC at M and L temperatures) or classes for 

which standards were set using extension 

multipliers in the 2009 rulemaking (VOP.SC.L, 

SVO.SC.L, VOP.SC.I, SVO.SC.I, HZO.SC.I, 

VOP.SC.I, SVO.SC.I, HZO.SC.I, HCS.SC.I, 

SOC.SC.I). 

2These values only represent compressor 

EER and do not include condenser fan energy 

use. 

The CECA includes a multiplication 

factor of 0.75 to account for the fact that 

not all of the heat produced from the 

lights will impact the compressor load. 

The factor of 0.75 was suggested by 

manufacturers during discussions with 

the AHRI Standard 1200 engineering 

committee. 

For remote condensing commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers with lighting occupancy 

sensors, controls, or both installed, the 

revised compressor energy consumption 

(CECR) shall be the CECA added to the 

compressor energy consumption (CEC) 

measured in AHRI Standard 1200–2010, 

as shown in equation 5. 

Where: 

CECR = reduced compressor energy 

consumption (kilowatt-hours); 

CEC = compressor energy consumption as 

measured by AHRI Standard 1200 

(kilowatt-hours); and 

CECA = alternate compressor energy 

consumption (kilowatt-hours). 

The CECR and LECsc value would then 

be substituted for the lighting 

energy consumption (LEC) and CEC 

without controls or sensors in the 

calculation of CDEC for remote 

condensing cases as shown in 

equation 6. 

Where: 

CDEC = combined daily energy consumption 

(kilowatt-hours); 

CECR = reduced compressor energy 

consumption (kilowatt-hours); 

FEC = fan energy consumption (kilowatthours); 

LECsc = lighting energy consumption with 

lighting sensors and controls deployed 

(kilowatt-hours); 

AEC = anti-condensate energy consumption 

(kilowatt-hours); 

DEC = defrost energy consumption (kilowatthours); and 

PEC = condensate evaporator pan energy 

consumption (kilowatt-hours). 

For self-contained equipment, the 

CECA and LECsc would be calculated as 

above and then used directly with the 

total daily energy consumption as 

measured by AHRI Standard 1200–2010, 

with the lights fully on to determine the 

daily energy consumption used to show 

compliance with the DOE energy 

conservation standard for this 

equipment as shown in equation 7. For 

self-contained equipment: 

Where: 

TDECo = total daily energy consumption with 

lights fully on, as measured by AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010 (kilowatt-hours); 

Pli = rated power of lights when they are fully 

on (watts); 

tl = time period when lights would be on 

without lighting occupancy sensors or 

controls (24 hours); and 

LECsc = lighting energy consumption with 

lighting occupancy sensors and controls 

deployed (kilowatt-hours). 

The test procedure modifications to 

account for lighting occupancy sensors 

and controls would only apply to 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

sold with lighting occupancy sensors 

and controls installed by the 

manufacturers. However, this analytical 

method would place the least additional 

burden on manufacturers and would be 

a standard for all commercial 

refrigeration equipment sold with 

lighting occupancy sensors and 

controls, regardless of their anticipated 

use. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed calculation method for 

treatment of lighting occupancy sensors 

and controls in the DOE test procedure 

for commercial refrigeration equipment. 

Specifically, DOE requests comment on 

the values assumed for the time period 

when lighting is off or reduced due to 

lighting occupancy sensors or controls 

and the factor used to scale the amount 

of heat produced by case lighting. 

4. Include Provision for Testing at 

Lowest Application Product 

Temperature 

During the Framework public meeting 

and Framework comment period of the 

2009 energy conservation standard 

rulemaking, DOE received comments on 

the inclusion of ‘‘application 

temperatures’’ for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. Application 

temperatures are rating temperatures 

other than the standard rating 

temperatures prescribed by DOE’s test 

procedures (38 °F for commercial 

refrigerators, 0 °F for commercial 

freezers, and ¥15 °F for commercial icecream freezers). Interested parties 

commented that allowing for an 

application temperature category is 

essential because operating temperature 

plays a key role in equipment energy 

consumption. However, interested 

parties stated that the application 

temperature category should be reserved 

for equipment that cannot operate at 

0 °F or at 38 °F; that DOE should not 

regulate equipment that has few 

shipments; and that appropriate Federal 

standards and rating temperatures 

should be developed for equipment 

with large numbers of shipments. 

DOE analyzed the shipments data 

provided by ARI during the Framework 

comment period of the 2009 

rulemaking. DOE found that, excluding 

equipment for which EPACT 2005 

amended EPCA to set standards (selfcontained commercial refrigerators and 

commercial freezers with doors), only 

1.7 percent of units under the previous 

rulemaking were equipment that operate 

at ‘‘application temperatures,’’ namely 

45 °F, 20 °F, 10 °F, or ¥30 °F. Of these, 

units that operate at 45 °F (typically 

‘‘wine chillers’’) had the highest 

shipments, and these were 

predominantly remote condensing 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP24NO10.368</GPH> EP24NO10.369</GPH> EP24NO10.370</GPH>
71606 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

equipment. Given the relatively low 

shipment volumes of equipment that 

operates at application temperatures, 

DOE did not develop separate standards 

for equipment that operates at an 

application temperature different than 

one of the three prescribed rating 

temperatures. 72 FR 41162, 41168–69 

(July 26, 2007). 

During the May 2010 Framework 

public meeting, several parties again 

commented that some equipment 

covered under this rulemaking is 

designed to operate at significantly 

higher temperatures than the designated 

temperature for that product class. 

Specifically, California Codes and 

Standards stated that DOE should 

review test methods for niche 

equipment that may require different 

temperature criteria and schedules. 

(California Codes and Standards, No. 

1.3.005 at p. 3) Structural Concepts also 

stated that some types of equipment, 

such as candy and wine cases, operate 

at 55 or 60 °F, yet would have to be 

tested at 38 °F to meet a standard. This 

is an issue because these units are not 

designed to operate at that temperature. 

(Structural Concepts, No. 1.2.006 at p. 

59). 

DOE recognizes that this type of 

equipment may not be able to maintain 

an integrated average temperature of 

38 °F, as required by the current DOE 

test procedure. DOE also acknowledges 

that self-contained commercial 

refrigerators comprise most of the 

equipment that operates at temperatures 

higher than the 38 °F rating 

temperature. However, these equipment 

classes were not included in the 2009 

rulemaking analysis of products that 

operate at application temperature 

because they were not included in the 

scope of that rulemaking. Because selfcontained refrigerators are included in 

the current energy conservation 

standard rulemaking, the shipment 

volume of this equipment that operates 

at temperatures higher than 38 °F may 

increase. 

AHRI Standard 1200–2010 has 

provisions for such equipment to be 

rated at the application product 

temperature. For equipment that 

operates at a temperature that is not one 

of the specified rating temperatures, 

DOE believes that allowing such 

equipment to be tested at its application 

product temperature could create a 

loophole that would allow 

manufacturers to certify less-efficient 

equipment. This loophole would enable 

a manufacturer to sell equipment that 

can operate at one of the prescribed test 

temperatures, but would not comply 

with the standard if tested at that test 

temperature because that equipment 

would comply when tested at the higher 

application temperature. 

However, equipment that operates at 

temperatures greater than the 38 °F 

rating temperature may be able to 

become more efficient if allowed to be 

tested at temperatures other than 38 °F 

and may represent a large enough 

shipment volume to warrant a separate 

rating temperature. Thus, DOE proposes 

including a provision for rating 

refrigerators that cannot operate at the 

prescribed 38 °F integrated average 

product temperature at the lowest 

application product temperature. In the 

context of this rulemaking, the ‘‘lowest 

application product temperature’’ would 

be defined as the lowest temperature 

setting that can be maintained for the 

duration of the test. In this case, the 

integrated average product temperature 

achieved during the test should be 

recorded. Equipment tested at the 

lowest application product temperature 

will still be required to comply with the 

standard for its respective equipment 

class. 

DOE requests comment on the 

provision for testing commercial 

refrigerators that cannot be tested at 

38 °F at the lowest application product 

temperature. 

IV. Regulatory Review 

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 

proposed action was not subject to 

review under the Executive Order by the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

In this proposed rule, DOE proposes 

amendments to test procedures that may 

be used to implement future energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

refrigeration equipment. DOE has 

determined that this rule falls into a 

class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

The rule is covered by Categorical 

Exclusion A5, for rulemakings that 

interpret or amend an existing rule 

without changing the environmental 

effect, as set forth in DOE’s NEPA 

regulations in appendix A to subpart D, 

10 CFR part 1021. This rule will not 

affect the 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. 

C. 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 proposed 

for public comment, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. As required by 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, so that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 

(February 12, 2003). DOE has made its 

procedures and policies available on the 

Office of the General Counsel’s Web 

site: http://www.gc.doe.gov. 

DOE reviewed today’s proposed rule, 

which would amend the test procedures 

for commercial refrigeration equipment, 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. DOE tentatively concludes and 

certifies that the proposed rule, if 

adopted, would not result in a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The factual 

basis for this certification is set forth 

below. 

DOE used the small business size 

standards published on January 31, 

1996, as amended, by the SBA to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be required to comply with the 

rule. 61 FR 3286; see also 65 FR 30836, 

30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 

FR 53533, 53544 (September 5, 2000). 

The size standards are codified at 13 

CFR part 121. The standards are listed 

by NAICS code and industry description 

and are available at http://www.sba.gov/ 

idc/groups/public/documents/ 

sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf. 

Commercial refrigeration equipment 

manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS 333415, ‘‘Air-Conditioning and 

Warm Air Heating Equipment and 

Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 

Equipment Manufacturing.’’ 70 FR 

12395 (March 11, 2005). Small entities 

within this industry description are 

those with 750 employees or fewer. 

Analysis of the manufacturers in the 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

market identified 22 small 

manufacturers that will be directly 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71607 

4U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Factfinder, 

2002 Economic Census, Manufacturing, Industry 

Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, 

available at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ 

IBQTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=EC0231I4&- 

ib_type=NAICS2002&-NAICS2002=333415&- 

geo_id=&-_industry=333415&- 

NAICS2002sector=8699171&-_lang=en&- 

fds_name=EC0200A1. 

5U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, available at http:// 

www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/SelectTable.asp. 

regulated by this rule. DOE seeks 

comment on its estimate of the number 

of small businesses in the CRE market. 

The proposed changes to the test 

procedure consist of updating the 

referenced industry test procedures to 

the most current versions; testing 

requirements for units sold with night 

curtains and lighting occupancy sensors 

or controls installed; and provisions for 

testing units that cannot operate at the 

specified 38 °F integrated average 

product temperature. 

All commercial refrigeration 

equipment for which standards were set 

in EPACT 2005 are currently required to 

be tested using the DOE test procedure 

to show compliance with the EPACT 

2005 standard levels. Manufacturers of 

equipment for which standards were set 

in the 2009 final rule will similarly be 

required to test units using the DOE test 

procedure to show compliance with the 

2009 standards levels beginning January 

1, 2012. The current DOE test procedure 

references AHRI Standard 1200–2006 

and AHAM HRF–1–2004. This test 

procedure consists of one 24-hour test at 

standard rating conditions to determine 

daily energy consumption. Aligning the 

DOE test procedure with the most recent 

industry test procedures currently in 

use—AHRI standard 1200–2010 and 

AHAM HRF–1–2008—will simplify 

testing requirements and reduce the 

burden of testing for both small and 

large manufacturers. 

For equipment that could be sold with 

night curtains installed, the current test 

procedure requires one 24-hour test 

without the night curtain installed. To 

minimize the additional burden of test 

on manufacturers, under the proposed 

revisions, if a unit is tested and shows 

compliance with the relevant energy 

conservation standard without night 

curtains installed, that unit can also be 

sold with night curtains installed 

without additional testing. In addition, 

if a manufacturer chose to sell cases 

only with night curtains installed, only 

one 24-hour test would be required. If, 

however, a piece of equipment does not 

meet DOE’s energy conservation 

standards without night curtains 

installed, DOE proposes to allow the 

unit to be tested a second time with 

night curtains installed. In this instance, 

assuming the energy conservation 

standard is met, the case would also be 

required to be sold with night curtains 

installed. This would require an 

increased burden of test on only those 

units that cannot show compliance with 

DOE energy conservation standards 

without night curtains installed. As 

DOE proposes to incorporate provisions 

for testing a unit with night curtains 

installed into the same 24-hour test, the 

burden of conducting the test with and 

without night curtains is approximately 

the same. 

DOE estimates that testing a single 

unit in accordance with the current DOE 

test procedure takes 1 week of 

laboratory time and costs approximately 

$5,000. If two tests are required, there 

will be an increase of approximately 

$5,000 per unit tested. This estimate is 

based on information from 

manufacturers and private testing 

services quoted on behalf of DOE in the 

last 2 years for completing a test 

according to AHRI Standard 1200–2006 

on commercial refrigerators, freezers, 

and refrigerator-freezers. 

DOE also researched the number of 

CRE manufacturers that sell open cases, 

which would potentially be sold with a 

night curtain. DOE found that larger 

manufacturers typically offer more 

unique individual basic models than 

smaller manufacturers. DOE also found 

that the larger manufacturers sell more 

open cases than smaller manufacturers. 

DOE estimates that for both small and 

large manufacturers who offer open 

cases, open cases that could be sold 

with night curtains comprised about 20 

percent of total models, or 

approximately between 1 and 50 

models. While testing with and without 

night curtains will not be required for 

all these models, at this time DOE 

cannot predict the number of cases that 

will require two tests because the 

standards with which this test 

procedure will be used to show 

compliance have not been established. 

Therefore, assuming conservatively that 

half of the open cases that could be sold 

with night curtains will not meet the 

new energy conservation standards and 

will require two tests, DOE’s analysis 

found that the incremental cost of 

running the extra tests ranged from 

approximately $2,500 to $125,000. 

Further, DOE identified that a single 

small manufacturer produces the 

majority of all open cases produced by 

small manufacturers. In fact, many 

small manufacturers identified by DOE 

did not sell open cases at all. 

DOE understands, however, that small 

manufacturers have less expendable 

capital available and may be more 

affected by the additional cost of testing. 

To estimate the additional cost of testing 

due to night curtains for small 

manufacturers, DOE estimated the 

average cost of additional testing for all 

open cases compared to the average 

annual value added statistic. The 

average value added statistic is 

representative of an entity’s annual 

gross operating margin and is calculated 

by subtracting the cost of materials, 

supplies, containers, fuel, purchased 

electricity, and contract work from the 

value of shipments. DOE analyzed the 

impact on the smallest manufacturers of 

commercial refrigeration equipment 

since these manufacturers would likely 

be the most vulnerable to cost increases. 

For CRE manufacturers, the two 

smallest entities were in the 25 to 49 

and 50 to 99 employee size category in 

NAICS 333415 as reported by the U.S. 

Census.4 The average annual value 

added for manufacturers in these size 

ranges from the census data was $2.97 

to $6.38 million in 2001$, per the 2002 

Economic Census, or approximately 

$3.56 to $7.64 million per year in 2010$ 

after adjusting for inflation using the 

implicit price deflator for gross 

domestic product.5

DOE also examined the average value 

added statistic provided by Census for 

all manufacturers with between 100 and 

249 employees in this NAICS 

classification as the most representative 

value from the 2002 Economic Census 

data of the CRE manufacturers. More 

than half (13 manufacturers) of the 

identified small manufacturers fell into 

this category, including the 

manufacturer that has the greatest 

percentage of open cases that could be 

sold with night curtains. The average 

annual value added statistic for all small 

manufacturers with between 100 and 

249 employees was $16.3 million 

(2010$). 

Given this data, and assuming the 

estimate of $5,000 for the additional 

testing costs is accurate, DOE concluded 

that the additional costs for testing 

under the proposed requirements would 

be approximately 0.4 percent of annual 

value added for the two smallest firms. 

The additional costs would be 

approximately 0.3 percent of the average 

annual value added for representative 

small CRE manufacturers with between 

100 and 249 employees. For the 

manufacturer that sells the greatest 

percentage of open cases that could be 

sold with a night curtain, 56 percent, 

DOE estimates the additional cost of 

testing would equal $80,000, or 0.6 

percent of the average annual value 

added. 

The requirements for units sold with 

lighting occupancy sensors and controls 

will not include additional testing. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71608 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Instead, DOE proposes incorporating a 

calculation method that will determine 

the energy impact of lighting occupancy 

sensors and controls. Again, 

manufacturers will only be required to 

show compliance of a unit with lighting 

occupancy sensors or controls installed 

if the equivalent unit without lighting 

occupancy sensors and controls does 

not comply with the applicable energy 

conservation standard. DOE believes 

that additional calculations will only 

require a few additional minutes of 

testing time, which represents about a 

15 percent increase in the calculation 

intensity of the test. However, the 

physical test requirements are the far 

more burdensome and time-intensive 

portion of the test. When including the 

time of physical testing, a minimum of 

24 hours, DOE estimates that the 

additional calculations required by the 

lighting occupancy sensor and 

scheduled control requirements would 

increase the total burden of test by less 

than 0.01 percent. Assuming the current 

cost of testing would be $5,000 and a 

0.01 increase cost in testing, this would 

represent an addition $50 per unit. If 

additional calculation is required for a 

conservative 50 percent of units, the 

total incremental increase in cost of 

testing will range from $50 to $6,500 

and will be less 0.0005 percent of the 

annual average value added for all CRE 

manufacturers, including small 

manufacturers. 

For equipment that cannot be tested at 

the 38 °F integrated average product 

temperature, manufacturers currently 

are required to test the unit using AHRI 

Standard 1200 at the 38 °F test 

temperature. Under the proposed 

revisions, these manufacturers would be 

allowed to test units that cannot meet 

the 38 °F test temperature to be tested 

at the lowest application product 

temperature, with the only difference 

being the integrated average product 

temperature. Since the same test is 

being performed in both cases, DOE 

believes that this will not increase the 

burden of test for those manufacturers 

and, in fact, will lead to more 

representative energy consumption 

values. In addition, the provision for 

testing units that cannot operate at the 

specified 38 °F integrated average 

product temperate will affect only a 

small percentage of units. DOE believes 

there would not be an incremental 

increase in testing burden, for small or 

large manufacturers, due to this 

provision. 

DOE believes that the total increase in 

testing burden resulting from the test 

procedure amendments proposed in this 

NOPR are almost exclusively due to the 

provisions for testing night curtains. 

DOE estimates that the total increase in 

testing burden does not exceed 0.6 

percent of average annual value added 

for any manufacturer of commercial 

refrigeration equipment, small or large. 

As the average value added statistic is 

representative of an entities annual 

gross operating margin, DOE concludes 

that 0.6 percent of this value is not a 

significant economic impact. Further, 

0.6 percent of annual average value 

added was found for only the most 

impacted small manufacturer. DOE 

believes that one does not represent a 

substantial number. 

Based on the factual basis stated 

above, DOE believes 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 required. 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 

certification that the proposed test 

procedure changes will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

D. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of commercial 

refrigeration equipment must certify to 

DOE that their equipment complies with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standard. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their 

equipment according to the DOE test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment, including any amendments 

adopted for that test procedure. DOE has 

proposed regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including commercial refrigeration 

equipment. 75 FR 56796 (Sept. 16, 

2010). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been submitted to OMB for 

approval. 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. 

Public comment is sought regarding: 

Whether this proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

the accuracy of the burden estimate; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. Send comments 

on these or any other aspects of the 

collection of information to Charlie 

Llenza (see ADDRESSES) and by e-mail to 

Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov. 

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. 

E. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; Pub. L. 

104–4) requires each Federal agency to 

assess the effects of Federal regulatory 

actions on State, local, and Tribal 

governments and the private sector. For 

proposed regulatory actions likely to 

result in a rule that may cause 

expenditures by State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the aggregate or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish estimates of 

the resulting costs, benefits, and other 

effects on the national economy. (2 

U.S.C. 1532(a),(b)) The UMRA also 

requires a Federal agency to develop an 

effective process to permit timely input 

by elected officers of State, local, and 

Tribal governments on a 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 small governments. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a 

statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (This policy is 

also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov/ 

.) DOE reviewed today’s proposed rule 

pursuant to UMRA and its policy and 

determined that the rule contains 

neither an intergovernmental mandate 

nor a mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71609 

F. 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 

proposed 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 unnecessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

G. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of 

policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined today’s 

proposed rule and has determined that 

it does not preempt State law and does 

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 equipment that is the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for a waiver of 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. 

H. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 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 so that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation; (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction; (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 

defines key terms; and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of 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 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, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

I. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB’s 

guidelines were published in 67 FR 

8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published in 67 FR 

62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 

reviewed today’s proposed rule under 

the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

J. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA), Office of Management and 

Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for 

any proposed significant energy action. 

A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined 

as any action by an agency that 

promulgated 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 proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

Today’s regulatory action would not 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy 

and therefore it is not a significant 

energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

K. 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 15, 1988), that this proposed 

regulation, if promulgated as a final 

rule, would not result in any takings 

that might require compensation under 

the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91), DOE must comply with section 32 

of the Federal Energy Administration 

Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–275), as 

amended by the Federal Energy 

Administration Authorization Act of 

1977. When a proposed rule contains or 

involves use of commercial standards, 

the rulemaking must inform the public 

of the use and background of such 

standards. (15 U.S.C. 788 32) 

The proposed rule incorporates 

testing methods contained in the 

following commercial standards: (1) ARI 

Standard 1200–2010 ‘‘Performance 

Rating of Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandisers and Storage 

Cabinets;’’ and (2) AHAM Standard 

HRF–1–2008, ‘‘Energy, Performance and 

Capacity of Household Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers’’ 

section 3.21, ‘‘Volume,’’ and sections 4.1 

through 4.3, ‘‘Method for Computing 

Refrigerated Volume of Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, Wine Chillers, 

and Freezers.’’ DOE has evaluated these 

standards and is unable to conclude 

whether they fully comply with the 

requirements of section 323(b) of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act (i.e., 

whether they were developed in a 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71610 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review). 

As required by section 32(c) of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 as amended, DOE will consult 

with the Attorney General and the 

Chairman of the Federal Trade 

Commission about the impact on 

competition of using the methods 

contained in these standards before 

prescribing a final rule. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at Public Meeting 

The time and date of the public 

meeting are listed in the DATES and 

ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of 

this NOPR. The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 1E–245, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. To attend 

the public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945. Any 

foreign national wishing to participate 

in the meeting should advise DOE of 

this fact as soon as possible by 

contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards to 

initiate the necessary procedures. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Requests to 

Speak 

Any person who has an interest in 

today’s notice or who is a representative 

of a group or class of persons that has 

an interest in these issues may request 

an opportunity to make an oral 

presentation. Such persons may handdeliver requests to speak, along with a 

computer diskette or CD in WordPerfect, 

Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file 

format to the address shown in the 

ADDRESSES section at the beginning of 

this NOPR between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. Requests may also be sent by 

mail or e-mail to 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Persons requesting to speak should 

briefly describe the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and provide 

a telephone number for contact. DOE 

requests persons selected to be heard to 

submit an advance copy of their 

statements at least two weeks before the 

public meeting. At its discretion, DOE 

may permit any person who cannot 

supply an advance copy of their 

statement to participate, if that person 

has made advance alternative 

arrangements with the Building 

Technologies Program. The request to 

give an oral presentation should ask for 

such alternative arrangements. 

C. Conduct of Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also employ 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 

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 presentations by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this rulemaking. Each 

participant will be allowed to make a 

prepared general statement (within 

DOE-determined time limits) prior to 

the discussion of specific topics. DOE 

will permit 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 from DOE and 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. 

DOE will make the entire record of 

this proposed rulemaking, including the 

transcript from the public meeting, 

available for inspection at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, 6th Floor, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The transcript 

will also be available on DOE’s Web site 

at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

commercial/ 

refrigeration_equipment.html. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

other information regarding the 

proposed rule before or after the public 

meeting, but no later than the date 

provided at the beginning of this NOPR. 

Please submit comments, data, and 

other information electronically to CRE– 

2010–TP–0034@ee.doe.gov. Submit 

electronic comments in WordPerfect, 

Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file 

format and avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption. 

Comments in electronic format should 

be identified by the docket number 

EERE–2010–BT–TP–0034 and/or RIN 

1904–AC40 and wherever possible carry 

the electronic signature of the author. 

No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit two copies: One copy of 

the document including all the 

information believed to be confidential 

and one copy of the document with the 

information believed to be confidential 

deleted. DOE will make its own 

determination as to the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) a date 

upon which such information might 

lose its confidential nature 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 comments are welcome on 

all aspects of this rulemaking, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments on following issues: 

1. DOE’s conclusion that the proposed 

test procedure changes would not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. 

2. The burden to manufacturers 

associated with testing NSF Type II 

equipment at the standard test 

condition. 

3. The burden to test other energy 

efficiency technologies other than those 

explicitly accounted for in this test 

procedure revision, namely night 

curtains and lighting occupancy sensors 

and scheduled control. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71611 

4. Updating the referenced industry 

test procedures to the most current 

version. 

5. The proposal for the incorporation 

of night curtains into the DOE test 

procedure. 

6. The proposed calculation method 

for treatment of lighting occupancy 

sensors and controls in the DOE test 

procedure for commercial refrigeration 

equipment. Specifically, DOE requests 

comment on the values assumed for the 

time period when lighting is off or 

reduced due to lighting occupancy 

sensors or controls and the factor used 

to scale the amount of heat produced by 

case lighting. 

7. The provision for testing 

commercial refrigerators that cannot be 

tested at 38 °F at the lowest application 

product temperature. 

8. The number of small businesses in 

the CRE market. 

9. The certification that the proposed 

test procedure changes will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this NOPR. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

10, 2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

431 of title 10, Code of Federal 

Regulations, to read as follows: 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

2. Section 431.62 is amended by 

adding in alphabetical order the 

definitions of ‘‘lighting control’’, 

‘‘lighting occupancy sensor’’, ‘‘lowest 

application product temperature’’, and 

‘‘night curtain’’ to read as follows’’: 

§ 431.62 Definitions concerning 

commercial refrigerators, freezers and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

* * * * * 

Lighting control means an electronic 

device that automatically adjusts the 

lighting in a display case at scheduled 

times throughout the day. 

Lighting occupancy sensor means an 

electronic device that uses passive 

infrared, ultrasonic, or other motionsensing technology to detect the 

presence of a customer or employee, 

allowing the lights within the 

equipment to be turned off or dimmed 

when no motion is detected in the 

sensor’s coverage area. 

Lowest application product 

temperature means the lowest 

integrated average product temperature 

achievable and maintainable within ±2 

°F for the duration of the test. 

Night curtain means a device that is 

temporarily employed to decrease air 

exchange and heat transfer between the 

refrigerated case and the surrounding 

environment. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 431.63 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c) 

introductory text, and (c)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.63 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) ANSI/AHAM HRF–1–2008, 

(‘‘HRF–1–2008’’), Energy and Internal 

Volume of Refrigerating Appliances, 

including errata issued November 17, 

2009, IBR approved for § 431.64. 

* * * * * 

(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating 

and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson 

Blvd, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, 

(703) 524–8800, ahri@ahrinet.org, or 

http://www.ahrinet.org/Content/ 

StandardsProgram_20.aspx. 

(1) AHRI Standard 1200–2010 (‘‘AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010’’), Performance 

Rating of Commercial Refrigerated 

Display Merchandisers and Storage 

Cabinets, 2010, IBR approved for 

§§ 431.64 and 431.66. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 431.64 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 431.64 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers. 

* * * * * 

(b) Testing and calculations. 

Determine the daily energy 

consumption of each covered 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer by conducting the 

test procedure set forth in the AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

(ARI) Standard 1200–2010, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets,’’ section 3, 

‘‘Definitions,’’ section 4, ‘‘Test 

Requirements,’’ and section 7, ‘‘Symbols 

and Subscripts.’’ (Incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.63) For each 

commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 

refrigerator-freezer with a self-contained 

condensing unit, also use ARI Standard 

1200–2010, section 6, ‘‘Rating 

Requirements for Self-contained 

Commercial Refrigerated Display 

Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.’’ 

(Incorporated by reference, see § 431.63) 

For each commercial refrigerator, 

freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a 

remote condensing unit, also use ARI 

Standard 1200–2006, section 5, ‘‘Rating 

Requirements for Remote Commercial 

Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 

Storage Cabinets.’’ (Incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.63) 

(1) For open display cases sold with 

night curtains installed, the night 

curtain shall be employed for 6 hours, 

3 hours after the start of a defrost 

period. Upon the completion of the 6- 

hour period, the night curtain shall be 

raised until the completion of the 24- 

hour test period. 

(2) For commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers sold 

with lighting occupancy sensors, 

scheduled lighting controls, or lighting 

occupancy sensors and scheduled 

lighting controls installed on the unit, 

the effect on daily energy consumption 

will be calculated using the variables 

that are defined as: 

CECA is the Alternate Compressor 

Energy Consumption (kilowatt-hours); 

LECsc is the lighting energy 

consumption of internal case lights with 

lighting occupancy sensors and controls 

deployed (kilowatt-hours); 

Pli is the rated power of lights when 

they are fully on (watts); 

Pli(off) is the power of lights when they 

are off (watts); 

Pli(dim) is the power of lights when 

they are dimmed (watts); 

‘TDECo is the total daily energy 

consumption with lights fully on, as 

measured by AHRI Standard 1200–2010 

(kilowatt-hours); 

tdim is the time period which the lights 

are dimmed due to the use of lighting 

occupancy sensors or scheduled 

controls (hours); 

tdim,controls is the time case lighting is 

dimmed due to the use of lighting 

controls (hours); 

tdim,sensors is the time case lighting is 

dimmed due to the use of lighting 

occupancy sensors (hours); 

tl is the time period when lights 

would be on without lighting occupancy 

sensors or controls (24 hours); 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
71612 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

toff is the time period which the lights 

are off due to the use of lighting 

occupancy sensors or scheduled 

controls (hours); 

toff,controls is the time case lighting is off 

due to the use of lighting controls 

(hours); 

toff,sensors is the time case lighting is off 

due to the use of lighting occupancy 

sensors (hours); and 

tsc is the time period when lighting is 

fully on with lighting occupancy 

sensors and controls enabled (hours). 

(i) For both self-contained and remote 

condensing commercial refrigerators, 

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers— 

(A) Calculate the LECsc using the 

following equation: 

In the equation toff and tdim are 

determined based on the sum of any 

contribution from lighting occupancy 

sensors and scheduled controls which 

dim or turn off lighting, respectively, as 

shown in the following equation: 

The sum of tsc, toff, and tdim should equal 

24 hours and the total time period 

during which the lights are off or 

dimmed shall not exceed 10.8 hours. 

The time the case lighting is off or 

dimmed due to scheduled lighting 

controls (toff,controls or tdim,controls, as 

applicable) will be 8 hours for those 

cases with lighting controls installed. 

The time the case lighting is off or 

dimmed due to lighting occupancy 

sensors (toff,sensors or tdim,sensors, as 

applicable) will be 10.8 hours for cases 

with lighting occupancy sensors 

installed. For cases with lighting 

occupancy sensors and scheduled 

lighting controls installed, the time the 

case lighting is off or dimmed due to 

lighting occupancy sensors (toff,sensors or 

tdim,sensors, as applicable) will be 2.8 

hours and the time the case lighting is 

off or dimmed due to scheduled lighting 

controls (toff,controls or tdim,controls, as 

applicable) will be 8 hours. 

(B) Calculate the CECA using the 

following equation: 

Where EER represents the energy 

efficiency ratio from Table 1 in AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.63) for remote 

condensing equipment or the values 

shown in the following table for selfcontained equipment: 

EER FOR SELF-CONTAINED COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATED DISPLAY MERCHANDISERS AND STORAGE CABINETS

Operating temperature 

class 

EER 

Btu/W 

Medium ............................... 11 .26 

Low ..................................... 7 .14 

Ice Cream ........................... 4 .80 

Note: 

1EER values for operating temperature 

classes are calculated based on the average 

EER value of all equipment in that class which 

was analyzed as part of the previous (2009) 

rulemaking. This does not include equipment 

for which standards were set by Congress in 

EPACT 2005 (VCT, VCS, HCT, HCS, and 

SOC at M and L temperatures) or classes for 

which standards were set using extension 

multipliers in the 2009 rulemaking (VOP.SC.L, 

SVO.SC.L, VOP.SC.I, SVO.SC.I, HZO.SC.I, 

VOP.SC.I, SVO.SC.I, HZO.SC.I, HCS.SC.I, 

SOC.SC.I). 2These values only represent compressor 

EER and do not include condenser fan energy 

use. 

(ii) For remote condensing 

commercial refrigerators, freezers, and 

refrigerator-freezers with lighting 

occupancy sensors, controls, or lighting 

occupancy sensors and controls 

installed, the revised compressor energy 

consumption (CECR) shall be the CECA

added to the compressor energy 

consumption (CEC) measured in AHRI 

Standard 1200–2010. (Incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.63) The CDEC for 

the entire case shall be the sum of the 

CECR and LECsc (as calculated above) 

and the fan energy consumption (FEC), 

anti-condensate energy consumption 

(AEC), defrost energy consumption 

(DEC), and condensate evaporator pan 

energy consumption (PEC) (as measured 

in AHRI Standard 1200–2010). 

(iii) For self-contained commercial 

refrigerators, freezers, and refrigeratorfreezers with lighting occupancy 

sensors, controls, or lighting occupancy 

sensors and controls installed, the TDEC 

for the entire case shall be the sum of 

total daily energy consumption as 

measured by the AHRI Standard 1200– 

2010 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.63) test with the lights fully on 

(TDECo) and CECA, less the decrease in 

lighting energy use due to occupancy 

sensors and controls, as shown in the 

following equation. 

(3) Conduct the testing required in 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, 

and determine the daily energy 

consumption, at the applicable 

integrated average temperature in the 

following table. The integrated average 

temperature is determined using the 

required test method. If a refrigerator or 

medium temperature unit is not able to 

be tested at the specified integrated 

average temperature of 38 °F, the unit 

may be tested at the lowest application 

product temperature, as defined in 

§ 431.61. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1EP24NO10.371</GPH> EP24NO10.372</GPH> EP24NO10.373</GPH> EP24NO10.374</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Proposed Rules 71613 

Category Test procedure Integrated average 

temperatures 

(i) Refrigerator with Solid Door(s) ..................................................... ARI Standard 1200–2010* 38 °F (±2 °F). 

(ii) Refrigerator with Transparent Door(s) ......................................... ARI Standard 1200–2010* 38 °F (±2 °F). 

(iii) Freezer with Solid Door(s) .......................................................... ARI Standard 1200–2010* 0 °F (±2 °F). 

(iv) Freezer with Transparent Door(s) .............................................. ARI Standard 1200–2010* 0 °F (±2 °F). 

(v) Refrigerator-Freezer with Solid Door(s) ...................................... ARI Standard 1200–2010* 38 °F (±2 °F) for refrigerator compartment. 

0 °F (±2 °F) for freezer compartment. 

(vi) Commercial Refrigerator with a Self-Contained Condensing 

Unit Designed for Pull-Down Temperature Applications and 

Transparent Doors.

ARI Standard 1200–2010* 38 °F (±2 °F). 

(vii) Ice-Cream Freezer ..................................................................... ARI Standard 1200–2010* ¥15.0 °F (±2 °F). 

(viii) Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator-Freezer 

with a Self-Contained Condensing Unit and without Doors.

ARI Standard 1200–2010* (A) For low temperature applications, the integrated average temperature of all test 

package averages shall be 0 °F (±2 °F). 

(B) For medium temperature applications, 

the integrated average temperature of all 

test package averages shall be 38.0 °F 

(±2 °F). 

(ix) Commercial Refrigerator, Freezer, and Refrigerator-Freezer 

with a Remote Condensing Unit.

ARI Standard 1200–2010* .... (A) For low temperature applications, the integrated average temperature of all test 

package averages shall be 0 °F (±2 °F). 

(B) For medium temperature applications, 

the integrated average temperature of all 

test package averages shall be 38.0 °F 

(±2 °F). 

* Incorporated by reference, see § 431.63. 

(4) Determine the volume of each 

covered commercial refrigerator, freezer, 

or refrigerator-freezer using the 

methodology set forth in the AHAM 

HRF–1–2008, ‘‘Energy and Internal 

Volume of Refrigerating Appliances,’’ 

(incorporated by reference, see § 431.63) 

section 3.30, ‘‘Volume,’’ and sections 4.1 

through 4.3, ‘‘Method for Computing 

Refrigerated Volume of Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, Wine Chillers and 

Freezers.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2010–29210 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM10–15–000] 

Mandatory Reliability Standards for 

Interconnection Reliability Operating 

Limits 

November 18, 2010. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Under section 215 of the 

Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission proposes to 

approve three new Interconnection 

Reliability Operations and Coordination 

Reliability Standards and seven revised 

Reliability Standards related to 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Operations, Interconnection Reliability 

Operations and Coordination, and 

Transmission Operations. These 

proposed Reliability Standards were 

submitted to the Commission for 

approval by the North American Electric 

Reliability Corporation, which the 

Commission has certified as the Electric 

Reliability Organization responsible for 

developing and enforcing mandatory 

Reliability Standards. The proposed 

Reliability Standards were designed to 

prevent instability, uncontrolled 

separation, or cascading outages that 

adversely impact the reliability of the 

interconnection by ensuring prompt 

action to prevent or mitigate instances 

of exceeding Interconnection Reliability 

Operating Limits. The Commission also 

proposes to approve the addition of two 

new terms to the NERC Glossary of 

Terms. In addition, pursuant to section 

215(d)(5) of the Federal Power Act, the 

Commission proposes to direct NERC to 

develop a modification to the proposed 

term ‘‘Real-time Assessment’’ to address 

a specific concern identified by the 

Commission. The Commission raises 

some concerns with regard to certain 

aspects of NERC’s proposals and, based 

on the responses from NERC and 

industry, may choose to direct certain 

modifications to the proposed new and 

revised Reliability Standard, as well as 

the new Glossary Terms, as discussed 

below. 

DATES: Comments are due January 24, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and in 

accordance with the requirements 

posted on the Commission’s Web site, 

http://www.ferc.gov. Comments may be 

submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Agency Web site: Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format, and not in a scanned format, at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters 

unable to file comments electronically 

must mail or hand-deliver an original 

copy of their comments to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

These requirements can be found on the 

Commission’s Web site, see, e.g., the 

‘‘Quick Reference Guide for Paper 

Submissions,’’ available at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ 

efiling.asp or via phone from FERC 

Online Support at (202) 502–6652 or 

toll-free at 1–866–208–3676. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Darrell Piatt (Technical Information), 

Office of Electric Reliability, Division 

of Reliability Standards, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 

20426, Telephone: (202) 502–6687; 

A. Cory Lankford (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE. Washington, DC 

20426, Telephone: (202) 502–6711; 

William Edwards (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS-1