This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

3559 

Vol. 77, No. 16 

Wednesday, January 25, 2012 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003] 

RIN 1904–AB92 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedures 

for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rulemaking amends the 

interim final rule for test procedures for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, issued on December 16, 2010. 

Specifically, it amends test procedures 

at subpart B, appendices A and B, by 

incorporating changes to the interim 

final rule that will apply to all 

measurements of energy consumption of 

newly manufactured products starting 

September 15, 2014. 

These amendments modify the 

required test period for the second part 

of the test for products with cycling 

compressor systems and long-time 

automatic defrost or variable defrost 

control and adjust the default values of 

maximum and minimum compressor 

run time for products with variable 

defrost. These changes will ensure a 

more accurate measurement of the 

energy use of products with variable 

defrost control. 

DATES: The amendments are effective 

February 24, 2012 and are required to 

establish compliance with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards starting on September 15, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: The docket is available for 

review at regulations.gov, including 

Federal Register notices, framework 

documents, public meeting attendee 

lists and transcripts, comments, and 

other supporting documents/materials. 

All documents in the docket are listed 

in the regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

A link to the docket web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%

252BN%252BO%252BSR;rpp=10;

po=0;D=EERE-2009-BT-TP-0003. 

This web page will contain a link to 

the docket for this rulemaking on the 

regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 

web page will contain simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 287– 

1317, email: Lucas.Adin@ee.doe.gov or 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

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

586–8145, email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Authority 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Products Covered by the Final Rule 

B. Compliance Dates for the Amended Test 

Procedures 

C. Test Procedure Amendments 

Incorporated in This Final Rule 

1. Default Values for CTL and CTM

2. Modification of Long-Time and Variable 

Defrost Test Method To Fully Capture 

Energy Use for Temperature Recovery 

D. Other Issues 

1. Anti-Circumvention Language 

2. Refrigeration Products Designed for Sale 

With or Without Icemakers 

3. Wine Storage and Combination Wine 

Storage Products 

4. Multiple Compressor Systems 

5. Triangulation 

E. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

1. Test Burden 

2. Changes in Measured Energy Use 

IV. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Background and Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291, et 

seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or, ‘‘the Act’’) sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. (All 

references to EPCA refer to the statute 

as amended through the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007), Public Law 110–140 (Dec. 

19, 2007)). Part B of title III (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309), which was subsequently 

redesignated as Part A for editorial 

reasons, establishes the ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles.’’ 

Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers (collectively referred to below 

as ‘‘refrigeration products’’) are all 

treated as ‘‘covered products’’ under 

this Part. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)–(2) and 

6292(a)(1)) Under the Act, this program 

consists essentially of three parts: (1) 

Testing, (2) labeling, and (3) Federal 

energy conservation standards. The 

testing requirements consist of test 

procedures that manufacturers of 

covered products must use (1) as the 

basis for certifying to the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA, and (2) for making 

representations about the efficiency of 

those products. Similarly, DOE must use 

these test requirements to determine 

whether the products comply with any 

relevant standards promulgated under 

EPCA. 

By way of background, the National 

Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 

1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100–12, 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
3560 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

amended EPCA by including, among 

other things, performance standards for 

refrigeration products. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(b)) On November 17, 1989, DOE 

amended these performance standards 

for products manufactured on or after 

January 1, 1993. 54 FR 47916. DOE 

subsequently published a correction to 

revise these new standards for three 

product classes. 55 FR 42845 (October 

24, 1990). DOE again updated the 

performance standards for refrigeration 

products on April 28, 1997, for products 

manufactured on or after July 1, 2001. 

62 FR 23102. 

EISA 2007 amended EPCA by 

requiring DOE to publish a final rule 

determining whether to amend the 

energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration products manufactured 

starting in 2014. (42 U.S.C. 6295(b)(4)) 

Consistent with this requirement, DOE 

issued on September 18, 2008, a 

framework document that outlined a 

series of issues related to its 

examination of potential amendments to 

the standards for refrigeration products. 

73 FR 54089. On September 29, 2008, 

DOE held a public workshop to discuss 

the framework document and the issues 

it raised. The framework document 

identified several test procedure issues, 

including: (1) Compartment temperature 

changes; (2) modified volume 

calculation methods; (3) products that 

deactivate energy-using features during 

energy testing; (4) variable anti-sweat 

heaters; (5) references to the updated 

AHAM Standard HRF–1–2008, (‘‘HRF– 

1–2008’’), ‘‘Energy and Internal Volume 

of Refrigerating Appliances (2008),’’ 

developed by the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), 

including the ‘‘Errata to Energy and 

Internal Volume of Refrigerating 

Appliances, Correction Sheet’’ issued on 

November 17, 2009; (6) convertible 

compartments; and (7) harmonization 

with international test procedures. 

(‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Framework Document for 

Residential Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers,’’ RIN 1904– 

AB79, Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0012). DOE conducted analyses 

and developed new energy conservation 

standards for refrigeration products that 

led to the eventual publication of the 

final rule adopting new energy 

conservation standards for refrigeration 

products manufactured starting 

September 15, 2014. See 76 FR 59516 

(Sept. 15, 2011) (‘‘standards final rule’’) 

and 76 FR 70865 (Nov. 16, 2011) (date 

correction notice). 

DOE initiated the test procedure 

rulemaking in part to address the issues 

identified in the framework document, 

and published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking on May 27, 2010, hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘the NOPR.’’ 75 FR 29824. 

In response to issue (3) above, as 

applied to automatic icemakers, DOE 

separately published a guidance 

document addressing various aspects 

related to the icemaker, including the 

proper manner in which to render an 

icemaker inoperative for the energy 

consumption test. See 75 FR 2122 (Jan. 

14, 2010). DOE held a public meeting to 

discuss the NOPR proposals on June 22, 

2010 and subsequently published the 

combined final/interim-final rule on 

December 16, 2010. 75 FR 78810. The 

final rule (or ‘‘December 2010 final 

rule’’) implemented test procedure 

amendments applicable to products 

manufactured before the effective date 

of the new energy conservation 

standards that DOE had been 

considering, and the interim final rule 

(or ‘‘interim final rule’’) implemented 

on an interim basis test procedure 

amendments applicable to products 

subject to the new energy conservation 

standards—i.e., those products 

manufactured starting September 15, 

2014. Id. DOE adopted this split 

approach in response to industry 

requests to provide an additional 

opportunity to comment on final aspects 

related to the interim final rule. Id. at 

78845. 

General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered products. 

EPCA provides in relevant part that 

‘‘[a]ny test procedures prescribed or 

amended under this section shall be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure energy 

efficiency, energy use * * * or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use, as 

determined by the Secretary [of Energy], 

and shall not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) 

In addition, if DOE determines that a 

test procedure amendment is warranted, 

it must publish proposed test 

procedures and offer the public an 

opportunity to present oral and written 

comments. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) When 

considering amending a test procedure, 

DOE must determine ‘‘to what extent, if 

any, the proposed test procedure would 

alter the * * * measured energy use 

* * * of any covered product as 

determined under the existing test 

procedure.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If 

DOE determines that the amended test 

procedure would alter the measured 

energy use of a covered product, DOE 

must also amend the applicable energy 

conservation standard accordingly. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) 

With respect to today’s rulemaking, 

DOE has determined that none of the 

amendments adopted in this final rule 

notice is likely to significantly change 

the measured energy use of refrigeration 

products when compared to the test 

procedure set forth in the interim final 

rule. In such situations, EPCA does not 

require a standards rulemaking to 

address such changes in measured 

energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)). 

Today’s rule also fulfills DOE’s 

obligation to periodically review its test 

procedures under 42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(1)(A). DOE anticipates that its 

next evaluation of this test procedure 

will occur in a manner consistent with 

the timeline set out in this provision. 

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers 

DOE’s test procedures for refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers are found at 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices A1 

(currently in effect) and A (required for 

rating of products starting September 

15, 2014). DOE initially established its 

test procedures for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers in a final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 14, 1977. 42 FR 46140. 

Industry representatives viewed these 

test procedures as too complex and 

eventually developed alternative test 

procedures in conjunction with AHAM 

that were incorporated into the 1979 

version of HRF–1, ‘‘Household 

Refrigerators, Combination RefrigeratorFreezers, and Household Freezers’’ 

(HRF–1–1979). Using this industrycreated test procedure, DOE revised its 

test procedures on August 10, 1982. 47 

FR 34517. On August 31, 1989, DOE 

published a final rule establishing test 

procedures for variable defrost control 

(a control type in which the time 

interval between successive defrost 

cycles is determined by operating 

conditions indicating the need for 

defrost rather than by compressor run 

time), dual compressor refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers equipped with 

‘‘quick-freeze’’ (a manually-initiated 

feature that bypasses the thermostat and 

runs the compressor continuously until 

terminated). 54 FR 36238. DOE 

amended the test procedures again on 

March 7, 2003, by modifying the test 

period used for products equipped with 

long-time automatic defrost (a control 

type in which defrost cycles are 

separated by 14 hours or more of 

compressor run time) or variable 

defrost. 68 FR 10957. The test 

procedures include provisions for 

determining the annual energy use in 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 3561 

kilowatt-hours (kWh) and the 

accompanying annual operating costs. 

DOE further amended the test 

procedures on December 16, 2010. 75 

FR 78810. These amendments helped 

clarify how to test products for 

compliance with the applicable 

standards. The amendments clarified 

certain elements in Appendix A1 to 

ensure that regulated entities fully 

understand how to apply and 

implement the test procedure. These 

changes included clarifying how 

refrigeration products equipped with 

special compartments and/or more than 

one fresh food compartment or more 

than one freezer compartment should be 

tested. The amendments also accounted 

for the various waivers granted by DOE, 

specifically with regard to variable antisweat heater controls. The final rule also 

modified the regulatory definition of 

‘‘electric refrigerator-freezer’’ to require 

that storage temperatures in the fresh 

food compartment be at a level that 

would effectively exclude coverage of 

combination wine storage-freezer 

products. See 10 CFR 430.2. The 

definition for ‘‘electric refrigerator’’ was 

also changed to clarify the 

characteristics that distinguish it from 

related products such as wine storage 

products. DOE is considering modifying 

its product definitions to address wine 

storage products in a separate future 

rulemaking. 

In that same notice, DOE also 

established a new Appendix A, via an 

interim final rule. The new Appendix A 

included a number of comprehensive 

changes to help improve the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. 

These changes included, among other 

things: (1) New compartment 

temperatures and volume adjustment 

factors, (2) new methods for measuring 

compartment volumes, (3) a 

modification of the long-time automatic 

defrost test procedure to ensure that the 

test procedure measures all energy use 

associated with the defrost function, 

and (4) test procedures for products 

with a single compressor and multiple 

evaporators with separate active defrost 

cycles. DOE noted that the compartment 

temperature changes introduced by 

Appendix A would significantly impact 

the measured energy use and affect the 

calculated adjusted volume and energy 

factor (i.e. adjusted volume divided by 

energy use) values. Lastly, the interim 

final rule also addressed icemaking 

energy use by including a fixed value 

for manufacturers to add when 

calculating the energy consumption of 

those products equipped with an 

automatic icemaker. DOE may consider 

revising this approach once a more 

appropriate means of accounting for this 

feature’s energy consumption is 

developed. 

Freezers 

DOE’s test procedures for freezers are 

found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendices B1 (currently in effect) and 

B (required for the rating of products 

starting in 2014). DOE established its 

test procedures for freezers in a final 

rule published in the Federal Register 

on September 14, 1977. 42 FR 46140. As 

with DOE’s test procedures for 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, 

industry representatives viewed the 

freezer test procedures as too complex 

and worked with AHAM to develop 

alternative test procedures, which were 

incorporated into the 1979 version of 

HRF–1. DOE revised its test procedures 

for freezers based on this AHAM 

standard on August 10, 1982. 47 FR 

34517. The subsequent August 31, 1989 

final rule established test procedures for 

freezers with variable defrost control 

and freezers with the quick-freeze 

feature. 54 FR 36238. A subsequent 

amendment occurred to correct that 

rule’s effective date. 54 FR 38788 (Sept. 

20, 1989). The current test procedures 

include provisions for determining the 

annual energy use in kWh and annual 

electrical operating costs for freezers. 

The December 16, 2010 notice also 

clarified compliance testing 

requirements for freezers under 

Appendix B1 and created a new 

Appendix B, the latter of which would 

apply in 2014. That new procedure 

changed a number of aspects to the 

procedure detailed in Appendix B1, 

including, among other things: (1) The 

freezer volume adjustment factor, (2) 

methods for measuring compartment 

volumes, and (3) the long-time 

automatic defrost test procedure. In 

addition, Appendix B also addresses 

icemaking energy use by implementing 

the same procedure as for refrigeratorfreezers in which a fixed energy use 

value is applied when calculating the 

energy consumption of freezers with 

automatic icemakers. 

Finalization of the Test Procedure 

Rulemaking for Products Manufactured 

Starting in 2014 

The interim final rule established 

comprehensive changes to the manner 

in which the test procedures are 

conducted by creating new Appendices 

A and B. In addition to the changes 

discussed above, these appendices 

incorporate the recent changes made to 

Appendices A1 and B1. These new 

appendices also incorporate the 

modifications to Appendices A1 and B1 

that were finalized and adopted on 

December 16, 2010. 

DOE had provided an initial comment 

period on the interim final rule that 

ended on February 14, 2011. DOE 

subsequently reopened the comment 

period on September 15, 2011 (76 FR 

57612) to allow further public feedback 

in response to the promulgation of the 

final energy conservation standards that 

were published on the same day. 76 FR 

57516. DOE reopened the comment 

period to permit interested parties to 

comment on the interplay between the 

test procedure and the energy 

conservation standards in order to 

permit DOE to make any final changes 

that may be needed to the final test 

procedure for products that will be 

manufactured starting in 2014. 76 FR 

57612–57613 (Sept. 15, 2011). The 

comment period ended on October 17, 

2011. 

Three stakeholders submitted 

comments in response to both 

supplemental comment periods that 

DOE provided for additional feedback— 

the Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM), Sub Zero-Wolf, 

Inc. (Sub Zero), and Whirlpool 

Corporation (Whirlpool). Table I.1 

below identifies these commenters and 

their affiliation. No other comments 

were received. 

TABLE I.1—STAKEHOLDERS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM

FINAL RULE

Name Acronym Type* 

Association of 

Home Appliance 

Manufacturers.

AHAM .............. IR 

Sub Zero-Wolf, Inc Sub Zero .......... M 

Whirlpool Corporation.Whirlpool .......... M 

* IR: Industry Representative; M: 

Manufacturer. 

DOE also considered comments 

related to a petition for a test procedure 

waiver (RF–018, Samsung) that had a 

direct bearing on elements of the test 

procedures used in Appendix A. See 76 

FR 16760 (March 25, 2011). 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

Today’s rulemaking finalizes the test 

procedures that manufacturers must 

follow when certifying basic models as 

compliant with the new energy 

conservation standards starting in 2014. 

In finalizing these procedures, DOE 

made minor changes to the procedure 

laid out in the December 2010 interim 

final rule to account for comments from 

interested parties. The changes will not 

result in a significant change in 

measured energy use when compared to 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
3562 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

the procedure detailed in the interim 

final rule. The December 2010 

amendments for Appendices A1 and B1 

are unchanged by today’s rulemaking 

and continue to apply to products 

manufactured through September 14, 

2014. (Those aspects of the December 

2010 notice were not reopened for 

comment as they were not part of the 

interim final rule. 75 FR at 78813–78815 

(Dec. 16, 2010).) In addition, other 

amendments made in the December 

2010 final rule, including modified 

definitions, anti-circumvention 

language, applying the anti-sweat heater 

switch credit to energy use 

measurements, and rounding off energy 

test results also were not part of the 

interim final rule and were not 

reopened for comment. Accordingly, 

these aspects of the December 2010 

notice remain unchanged. 

Today’s rulemaking makes a series of 

changes that include (a) modifying the 

default values of CTL and CTM, 

parameters, which represent the 

minimum and maximum compressor 

run time between defrosts, for products 

with variable defrost that do not have 

values for these parameters specified in 

their control algorithms, and (b) 

modifying the test period for products 

with cycling compressors and long-time 

or variable defrost to ensure the 

procedure accurately captures energy 

use associated with temperature 

recovery after defrost. The rulemaking 

also makes changes to clarify how to 

apply the second part of the test for 

products with long-time or variable 

defrost. 

III. Discussion 

The following section discusses in 

further detail the various issues 

addressed by today’s rulemaking. These 

issues center chiefly on issues raised in 

commenter submissions. Section A 

identifies the products covered by the 

rule; section B specifies the compliance 

dates for the test procedure amendments 

made; section C discusses the test 

procedure amendments; and section D 

discusses stakeholder comments not 

associated with new amendments. 

A. Products Covered by the Final Rule 

Today’s amendments cover those 

products that meet the definitions for 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, and 

freezer, as codified in 10 CFR 430.2. The 

definitions for refrigerator and 

refrigerator-freezer were amended in the 

December 2010 final rule on December 

16, 2010. 75 FR 78810, 78817. 

Today’s rulemaking does not change 

any of the definitions for refrigeration 

products that DOE amended as part of 

the December 2010 final rule. While 

DOE appreciates the concerns raised by 

commenters, these particular issues 

were not completely vetted through the 

rulemaking process. DOE may, however, 

revisit and more closely examine these 

issues as part of a future rulemaking 

activity. Section D.3 discusses the 

comments related to wine storage and 

wine storage combination products, 

including the amended definitions for 

refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer. 

B. Compliance Dates for the Amended 

Test Procedures 

Manufacturers will need to use new 

Appendices A and B to rate refrigeration 

products once they are required to 

comply with the amended energy 

conservation standards—i.e. September 

15, 2014. Likewise, Appendices A and 

B will be mandatory for representations 

regarding energy use or operating cost of 

these products starting on that date. 

C. Test Procedure Amendments 

Incorporated in This Final Rule 

Today’s rulemaking finalizes 

Appendices A and B, with some 

amendments. These amendments are 

described in greater detail below. 

1. Default Values for CTL and CTM

Refrigeration products with variable 

defrost vary the frequency of defrost by 

reducing this frequency to save energy 

when the frost accumulation rate on the 

evaporator drops—such as when the 

number of door openings is reduced or 

when ambient humidity is low. Defrost 

frequency is characterized by the 

compressor run time between defrosts, 

CT, which is expressed in the test 

procedure in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour. Variable 

defrost control algorithms vary CT as 

the defrost need changes. These 

algorithms may specify a minimum CT 

value (CTL) and a maximum CT value 

(CTM), consistent with the minimum 

and maximum defrost frequencies 

required for specific products to provide 

reliable defrost performance while 

minimizing energy use. The DOE test 

procedure calculates the energy use of 

variable defrost products using a 

weighted average of the algorithm’s CTL

and CTM. See 75 FR at 78857, 78865 

(Dec. 16, 2010) (detailing requirements 

of section 5.2.1.3 of new Appendix A 

and existing Appendix A1, 

respectively). To address those products 

that may have control algorithms that do 

not use specific maximum and 

minimum values for the compressor run 

time between defrost cycles, the test 

procedure specifies a CTL value of 12 

hours and a CTM value of 84 hours. See 

id. These values remained the same for 

both Appendix A1 (final rule) and 

Appendix A (interim final rule). 

AHAM argued that the default CTL

and CTM values for the variable defrost 

control algorithm should be changed to 

6 and 96 hours in order to maintain 

consistency with HRF–1–2008. (AHAM, 

No. 39 at p. 5) AHAM did not provide 

any supporting data to show that these 

values would be more representative of 

the operation of refrigeration products 

with variable defrost control algorithms 

without specific CT values, nor did it 

provide any justification for the change 

other than to maintain consistency with 

HRF–1–2008. 

In light of AHAM’s comments, DOE 

reviewed the certification data 

submitted by refrigeration product 

manufacturers in August 2011 and 

specifically examined the submissions 

of those products with variable defrost 

to determine the prevalence of different 

values for CTL and CTM. DOE also 

investigated whether the certification 

data showed any evidence of products 

without specified CT values, since these 

would be the products whose energy 

use measurement would be affected by 

the change suggested by AHAM. Of 

2,674 records in the database, 1,397 

products were identified as having 

variable defrost. None of the records for 

these products included undeclared 

values for CTL and CTM. Table III.1 

below shows the default CTL and CTM

values of the current test procedure and 

of HRF–1–2008. It also shows the 

average, mean, and most prevalent 

values for CTL and CTM gleaned from 

available certification records. For each 

of these CTL and CTM combinations, the 

calculated CT value is also presented. 

The summary table shows that neither 

the 12 and 84 default values nor the 

AHAM-suggested values of 6 and 96 

provide an exact representation of the 

products in the database. However, the 

data below also suggest that using 6 and 

96 as default values more closely 

approximates the recorded values of 

those refrigeration products from the 

database than 12 and 84. 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 3563 

1The evaporator is the component of a 

refrigeration system that cools the cabinet air. Most 

conventional refrigerators use a single evaporator 

Continued 

TABLE III.1—VALUES OF CTL, CTM AND CT 

CTL CTM CT 

Current DOE Test Procedure Default ............................................................................. 12.0 84.0 38.2 

HRF–1–2008 Default ....................................................................................................... 6.0 96.0 24.0 

Database Average ........................................................................................................... 8.0 82.3 *28.8 

Database Median ............................................................................................................. 8.0 96.0 30.0 

Database Most Prevalent Values .................................................................................... 8.0 96.0 30.0

* This is the CT calculated using the average CTM and CTL values. The average of the CT values calculated individually for each database 

record is 28.2. 

Further, the use of the default CTL

and CTM values is prescribed for those 

products that do not have specific 

values for these parameters in the 

product’s control algorithm. Since the 

algorithm for such a product 

presumably does not explicitly set a 

minimum value for this time period, it 

is conceivable that the compressor run 

time between defrosts could at times be 

lower than the 6 hours specified in the 

test procedure as a minimum for CTL

(see section 5.2.1.3 of Appendix A1 or 

A). When operating in this mode, such 

a product would be using more energy 

for defrost than would a product with 

an algorithm-defined CTL of 6 hours, 

due to the higher defrost frequency. 

Hence, DOE concludes that to ensure 

that the test procedure provides a 

conservative estimate of energy use 

associated with defrost (i.e. at least as 

high as the actual energy use), it is 

reasonable to require use of a lower 

default CTL value when calculating 

energy use for products that do not have 

algorithm-specified CTL values. For this 

reason, because the HRF–1–2008 default 

values are more representative of the 

refrigeration products in the database 

than the current default values, and in 

order to maintain consistency with this 

industry standard, DOE is changing the 

default values to 6 and 96 in this final 

rule. This change is being made for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers in both Appendices A and B. 

2. Modification of Long-Time and 

Variable Defrost Test Method To Fully 

Capture Energy Use for Temperature 

Recovery 

Background 

The interim final rule amended the 

test procedure for products with longtime and variable defrost by modifying 

the second part of the test to better 

capture energy use associated with 

precooling and temperature recovery. 75 

FR 78810, 78832–78836 (Dec. 16, 2010). 

A test procedure waiver petition 

submitted by Samsung (see 76 FR 17670 

(March 25, 2011)) has raised the 

question of whether DOE should 

consider further changes to the second 

part of the test procedure for these 

products. 

As described in DOE’s December 2010 

notice, precooling involves cooling the 

compartment(s) of a refrigerator-freezer 

to temperatures significantly lower than 

the user-selected temperature settings 

prior to an automatic defrost cycle. Id. 

at 78832. The document also noted that 

the two-part test served as a means to 

reduce the burden on testing long-time 

and variable defrost products. Id. These 

products initiate defrost cycles after 

significantly longer periods of 

compressor run time than conventional 

automatic defrost products. Long-time 

defrost products initiate defrost after 

more than 14 hours of compressor run 

time, and variable defrost products 

adjust defrost frequency based on 

whether defrost is needed, potentially 

delaying the next defrost up to 96 hours 

of compressor run time. The second part 

of the test measures the energy use 

consumed during a defrost cycle. 

The two-part test and procedures for 

the second part of the test were initially 

established in 1982. 47 FR 34521–34522 

(Aug. 10, 1982). Since that time, more 

sophisticated controls have replaced the 

mechanical defrost timers that were 

generally used. 68 FR 10958 (March 7, 

2003). Consequently, the initial 

procedures for the second part of the 

test did not fully capture or consider the 

high level of sophistication that is now 

possible and made available with the 

use of modern electronic control 

systems. The defrost controls in use 

when the second part of the test was 

first established consisted of a 

mechanical defrost timer energized to 

advance when the compressor is 

energized. The initial two-part test 

specified that the second part starts 

when the heater energizes, which is 

coincident with the time the compressor 

turns off in a product using a 

mechanical timer control. 68 FR 10957– 

10958 (March 7, 2003). The first 

adjustment of the test procedure 

considering the potential for more 

sophisticated control was made on 

March 7, 2003. This amendment of the 

test procedure revised the second part of 

the test to allow it to start when the 

compressor turns off prior to activation 

of the defrost heater, which is typical of 

an approach enabled by more 

sophisticated electronic controls. Id. 

The interim final rule made 

additional amendments to the second 

part of the test to address precooling, 

another defrost control feature requiring 

more sophisticated control than a 

mechanical timer. 75 FR 78832–78836 

(Dec. 16, 2010). The amendments also 

addressed partial temperature recovery, 

which refers to a case in which the 

compartment temperatures of a 

refrigerator partially recover, but do not 

reach, their steady-state operating 

temperatures. For the purposes of 

testing, a product is considered to reach 

a state of partial temperature recovery 

when compartment temperatures do not 

reach the steady-state operating 

temperature by the end of the second 

part of the test (as previously specified 

in the test procedure) after the rise in 

compartment temperature associated 

with defrost. The amendments require, 

for a system with a cycling compressor, 

that the average compartment 

temperatures for the compressor cycles 

occurring immediately before and after 

the test period for the second part of the 

test be within 0.5 °F of the compartment 

temperature measured for the first part 

of the test. Under the interim final rule’s 

procedure, the modified test period 

would start at the end of a compressor 

‘‘on’’ cycle and end at the start of a 

compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle. Id. at 73885 

Additional Issue Identified During 

Review of Samsung Waiver 

After publication of the interim final 

rule, an additional issue associated with 

the two-part test was raised during the 

agency’s review of a test procedure 

waiver petition submitted by Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc. (Samsung). 

That petition sought a waiver from the 

current test requirements for the 

company’s products that use dual 

evaporators. 76 FR 16760 (March 25, 

2011).1 These products use a variable 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
3564 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

that cools the freezer compartment, transferring 

cold freezer air to the fresh food compartment to 

cool the latter compartment. Samsung’s dual 

evaporator approach uses separate evaporators in 

the freezer and fresh food compartments and does 

not exchange air between the compartments. 

2The Samsung waiver docket items have been 

consolidated and loaded into the docket for this 

refrigerator test procedure rulemaking, see 

‘‘Documents Related to Samsung Waiver—Case No. 

RF–018, Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–WAV–0017’’, 

No. 45. 

defrost strategy that employs multiple 

defrost cycle types, which the interim 

final rule’s procedure addresses for 

products starting in 2014. 75 FR at 

78836–78838 (Dec. 16, 2010). DOE 

explained in the December 2010 notice 

that Appendices A1 and B1 do not 

address such products and 

manufacturers seeking to certify these 

types of products as compliant prior to 

2014 must first obtain a test procedure 

waiver to enable them to test these 

products. Id. at 78838. Samsung sought 

a waiver to permit the company to use 

the Appendix A procedures for products 

with multiple defrost cycle types when 

rating current products. 76 FR at 16763 

(March 25, 2011). 

Whirlpool commented in response to 

Samsung’s waiver petition that applying 

the second part of the test to the fresh 

food defrost of one of these products 

results in an energy credit. (Whirlpool, 

Samsung Petition for Test Procedure 

Waiver, Case No. RF–018, Docket No. 

EERE–2011–BT–WAV–0017, No. 4 at p. 

3) 2 Whirlpool’s waiver comments 

discuss the data from testing performed 

by the Canadian Standards Association 

that examined the energy consumption 

of a Samsung model that uses multiple 

defrost cycles—Samsung model No. 

RFG297AAPN. Whirlpool asserts that 

the test results are illogical because the 

energy use contribution of the fresh food 

compartment defrost is negative (i.e. an 

energy credit), and adds that the energy 

use contribution of the freezer 

compartment defrost is underestimated. 

(Id. at p. 4) Whirlpool recommended 

that the test period for the second 

(defrost) part of the test for the fresh 

food defrost should end at the end of the 

second compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle after 

defrost, and that such a change to the 

test procedure only for the fresh food 

defrost would increase the measured 

energy use of the product by 1.6 

percent. (Id. at pp. 5–6) 

Samsung’s response to Whirlpool’s 

comment pointed out that the potential 

energy credit issue had been raised by 

DOE in its test procedure NOPR public 

meeting on June 22, 2010. (Samsung, 

Samsung Petition for Test Procedure 

Waiver, Case No. RF–018, Docket No. 

EERE–2011–BT–WAV–0017, No. 5 at 

p. 2) In its view, this issue had been 

presented by DOE for discussion and 

consideration by all interested parties— 

including Whirlpool. The company 

pointed out that the test procedure DOE 

ultimately selected had received the 

support of Whirlpool. Id. See also 

Whirlpool, No. 13 at p. 6. 

DOE’s Previous Discussion Regarding 

the Appropriate End of the Test Period 

As indicated by Samsung, DOE raised 

this issue of Appendix A1’s potential 

inability to capture all energy usage 

during defrost cycles when using the 

second (defrost) part of the test. (NOPR 

Public Meeting Presentation, No. 9 at p. 

53) DOE recognized this possibility 

during its evaluation of the energy use 

associated with the fresh food 

compartment defrost of a Samsung 

product similar to the products 

addressed in the company’s test 

procedure waiver request. That 

evaluation indicated that the calculated 

energy use contribution from the fresh 

food defrost was often negative, which 

resulted in an energy use ‘‘credit’’. DOE 

evaluated alternative test periods and 

concluded that more reasonable results 

are obtained when the test period ends 

at the end of a compressor cycle after 

the defrost cycle. (Id.) DOE sought 

comment during its public meeting to 

seek additional information on the 

issues associated with the long-time 

defrost test method that were presented. 

(Id. at p. 55) 

DOE’s presentation also indicated that 

it projected that the impact on measured 

energy use of the test procedure change 

would be an increase of approximately 

3 percent, if applied to both defrosts of 

the Samsung product that was the focus 

of the discussion. (Id. at p. 53) This 3 

percent impact was determined based 

on moving the end of the test period for 

the second part of the test from the 

second compressor start after defrost to 

the second compressor stop. DOE again 

reviewed the same data and concluded 

that the test procedure change 

associated with this final rule would 

reduce this measured energy use 

differential by half (i.e. 1.5 percent). 

(‘‘Summary of Energy Use 

Measurements for a Refrigerator-Freezer 

with two Defrost Cycle Types’’, No. 46) 

The interim final rule test procedure 

applied to this product does not allow 

the second part of the test to end at the 

second compressor start after defrost, 

due to the requirement that the average 

temperature for the compressor cycle 

immediately following the test period be 

within 0.5 °F of the average temperature 

measured for the first part of the test. 

(See Appendix A, section 4.2.1.1) 

Hence, the impact on energy use 

measurement associated with test 

procedure changes to address the 

observed negative energy use 

measurement associated with freshfood-only defrost cycles depends on 

details of the compared test periods. 

Stakeholders generally supported the 

test procedure approach as proposed in 

the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NOPR)—and as adopted in the interim 

final rule—and none suggested that the 

test period of the second part of the test 

should be changed to address the 

anomaly presented, i.e. that 

measurements for a specific product 

showed a negative energy use 

contribution associated with the fresh 

food defrost. Hence, DOE concluded 

that the anomaly was associated with an 

insignificant number of products and 

thus not generally significant to the test 

procedure for products tested using the 

two-part test. Consequently, in the 

interim final rule, DOE did not amend 

the end of the test period for the second 

part of the test to coincide with the end 

of a compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle (rather than 

the start of that cycle). 

Comment Submitted in Response to the 

Reopening of the Comment Period 

After considering Whirlpool’s waiver 

petition comments suggesting that DOE 

modify the second part of the test, DOE 

specifically requested comment on this 

topic when it reopened the interim final 

rule comment period. 76 FR 57613– 

57614 (Sept. 15, 2011). DOE received 

one comment on this topic, from 

Whirlpool, which suggested that the end 

of the second part of the test be moved 

so that it coincides with the end of a 

compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle. (Whirlpool, No. 

44 at pp. 1–2) Whirlpool asserted that 

this change should be made for all 

defrosts, whether they are for fresh food 

compartments or freezer compartments. 

Whirlpool indicated that, for at least 

one product, the impact of this test 

procedure change on the measured 

energy use for a product having a 

separate defrost for the fresh food 

compartment would be an increase of 

approximately 3 percent. Although 

Whirlpool did not identify the 

manufacturer of that product, it 

mentioned that its concerns are an 

extension of those concerns it raised 

earlier in response to a waiver request 

made by a competitor—i.e. Samsung. 

The 3 percent impact cited by 

Whirlpool matches the CSA data 

presented in Whirlpool’s comments 

regarding the Samsung waiver petition: 

the waiver comments indicate that the 

tested product’s energy use increases 

from 572.5 kWh to 592.1 kWh per year 

(an increase of 3.4 percent) with the 

modified test procedure, i.e. when 

ending the second part of the test at the 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 3565 

3Note that the elapsed time after the defrost 

heater is energized is not the same as T2, since the 

test period generally starts prior to activation of the 

heater for testing in accordance with Appendix A. 

end rather than the start of the second 

compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle after the defrost. 

(Whirlpool, Samsung Petition for Test 

Procedure Waiver, Case No. RF–018, 

Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–WAV–0017, 

No. 4 at p. 5) This projected impact on 

the measured energy use is consistent 

with DOE’s own conclusions regarding 

Samsung products with multiple 

defrosts. See NOPR Public Meeting 

Presentation, No. 9 at p. 53. However, as 

discussed above, it overestimates the 

measurement impact associated with 

the amendments made in this final rule. 

Assessment of the Suggested Test Period 

Modification 

Whirlpool’s interim final rule 

comments provided little or no 

explanation of how and why the 

suggested test period will result in more 

accurate test results. Instead, the 

comments indicate that the ‘‘underlying 

principle when measuring the energy 

consumption of any product which 

operates in cycles is to measure from the 

same point in one cycle to the same 

point in a successor cycle,’’ and assert 

that the test procedure of Appendix A 

measures from a compressor stop to a 

compressor start for products with 

cycling compressors. However, 

Whirlpool did not provide any 

explanation supporting the concept of 

measuring from a point in one cycle to 

the same point in a successor cycle. 

(Whirlpool, No. 44 at pp. 1–2) 

Nevertheless, Whirlpool’s waiver 

comments note the unintended 

consequences associated with the 

negative energy use contribution 

measured for the fresh food defrost of 

the Samsung product when using the 

interim final rule’s version of the 

Appendix A test period as 

demonstrating that the test period 

contained in the interim final rule is 

inappropriate. (Whirlpool, Samsung 

Petition for Test Procedure Waiver, Case 

No. RF–018, Docket No. EERE–2011– 

BT–WAV–0017, No. 4 at p. 5) 

DOE had provided data in its NOPR 

public meeting presentation supporting 

the use of the modified test period, 

ending when the compressor stops. This 

situation was illustrated both for the 

fresh food defrost contribution alone 

and for the total defrost energy use 

contribution, including both fresh food 

and freezer compartment defrosts. The 

data showed that a test period that both 

starts and ends when the compressor 

stops matched the energy expended by 

the defrost heater during a fresh food 

defrost—and provided a closer match of 

energy use measured from one initiation 

of the combined defrost cycle (the 

defrost cycle involving both the fresh 

food and freezer compartments) to the 

next initiation of the combined defrost 

cycle than the Appendix A1 procedure. 

(NOPR Public Meeting Presentation, No. 

9 at p. 53) More recently, DOE prepared 

an assessment demonstrating that a test 

period for the second part of the test 

both starting and ending at the end of 

a compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle is consistent 

with the full-cycle measurement 

specified for testing non-variable 

automatic defrost products. See 

(‘‘Refrigerator Test Procedure: 

Adjustments to Second Part of Test’’, 

No. 47) This document shows 

mathematically that a calculation of 

energy use using the ‘‘section 4.2’’ test 

period (‘‘full test period’’) matches the 

two-part calculation only when the 

second part of the test ends at the end 

of a compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle. 

Part of the justification for modifying 

the test procedure in the manner 

suggested by Whirlpool is based on the 

observation that when using the test 

period prescribed by the interim final 

rule, the average compartment 

temperature would be warmer at the 

end of the test period than at its start for 

a system with a cycling compressor. The 

interim final rule test procedure 

includes a provision to verify that the 

product does not employ partial 

recovery. Using this provision requires 

examining the full compressor cycle 

immediately after the test period to 

ensure that it is a regular compressor 

cycle, i.e. a compressor cycle associated 

with steady state operation. However, 

the test does not account for the 

additional temperature recovery 

associated with a regular compressor 

‘‘on’’ cycle. The December 2010 notice 

indicates that the test period T2 starts 

when the compartment is at its typical 

minimum temperature associated with 

steady state cycling operation. This 

minimum temperature is represented by 

the lower horizontal line of the 

temperature plot in Figure 1 of 

Appendix A. 75 FR at 78855 (Dec. 16, 

2010) (see temperature plot of Figure 1, 

‘‘Long-time Automatic Defrost Diagram 

for Cycling Compressors’’). 

On the other hand, the compartment 

temperature is at its typical steady-state 

cycling maximum (the higher horizontal 

line of the temperature plot) when test 

period T2 ends. Hence, while the 

compartment temperature has recovered 

to the range within which it varies 

during steady state operation, it has not 

recovered to the temperature state 

associated with the start of the test 

period—i.e. the temperature is warmer 

than at the start of the test period. In 

order to allow recovery to the start-oftest-period temperature, the test period 

would have to continue till the end of 

the compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle. These 

arguments illustrate that the test period 

prescribed by the interim final rule for 

the second part of the test is unlikely to 

fully account for energy use associated 

with temperature recovery. 

DOE concludes that the test period for 

the second part of the test that is 

specified in the interim final rule for 

products with cycling compressors and 

long-time or variable defrost may not 

accurately represent energy use 

associated with defrost, which 

necessitates a change to enhance the 

accuracy of the measurement. DOE 

received no other comments on this 

topic. Hence, in light of this new 

information, and its own review, DOE is 

adopting the approach suggested by 

Whirlpool to help ensure the procedure 

in Appendix A provides a greater level 

of accuracy. 

Four-Hour Time Limit 

DOE also considered whether to 

retain the four-hour time limit that the 

current test imposes on the second part 

of the test. This limit applies to the 

elapsed time after the defrost heater is 

energized.3 (See Appendix A section 

4.2.1.1 or Figure 1) The four-hour limit 

terminates the test period when 

recovery from defrost and return to 

steady-state cycling operation takes an 

unusually long time. During its review 

of the test period for the second part of 

the test, DOE noticed that for some 

products, the extension of the test 

period associated with the test period 

revision recommended by Whirlpool led 

to a test period invoking the four-hour 

limit (i.e. the desired end of the test 

period was more than four hours later 

than activation of the defrost heater). 

DOE notes that modern data 

collection is performed almost 

exclusively using automated data 

acquisition systems. This approach to 

recording data significantly reduces the 

test burden that could potentially be 

associated with extending the test 

beyond the four-hour limit, allowing a 

product to fully complete its 

temperature recovery after defrost 

during testing. Test technicians do not 

need to observe product behavior during 

the test from minute to minute to ensure 

that data are recorded. Instead, 

technicians are more likely to 

periodically check the status of a given 

test once or twice a day to determine 

whether a defrost has occurred and 

whether the test period has been 

completed. With modern variabledefrost products, a full refrigerator test 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
3566 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4Personal communication, Detlef Westphalen of 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. with Terry Drew, CSA 

International, 12/5/11. 

5For example, suppose the test period criteria for 

temperature recovery are met at the end of the third 

compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle after the defrost, but the four 

hour limit ends the test period just after the start 

of the third compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle. In this case, a 

significant portion of compressor energy use is 

eliminated from the measurement for the second 

part of the test. 

can take a week to complete because of 

the duration of the time intervals 

between defrosts. The compressor run 

time between defrosts can last as long as 

96 hours for variable defrost products 

(see Appendix A, section 5.2.1.3 

regarding the maximum allowable 

duration for CTM, the maximum 

compressor run time between defrosts). 

At a typical compressor on-time of 50 

percent, the time involved in waiting for 

a defrost cycle can be days. With the use 

of automated data acquisition 

equipment by test labs necessitating 

only periodic status checks, the need for 

24-hour staffing for data recording has 

been effectively eliminated.4

Further, the continued application of 

the four-hour limit is likely to reduce 

measurement accuracy, since the limit 

could cause a significant portion of the 

compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle to be dropped 

from the measurement.5 In light of the 

more advanced capabilities of testing 

labs and the operation of modern 

refrigeration products, DOE believes 

that the four-hour time limit of the 

second part of the test is obsolete as a 

means to limit test burden and may in 

fact prevent the accurate measurement 

of energy consumption of these 

products. Because of the impact of the 

four-hour time limit on test 

measurement accuracy, and because it is 

no longer needed to reduce test burden, 

DOE is eliminating this provision of the 

test procedure for Appendices A and B 

in this notice. Making this change will 

also fully address the potential problem 

identified by Whirlpool by eliminating 

any incentives by some manufacturers 

to exploit potential limitations 

presented by a procedure that 

artificially limits the overall testing 

duration without fully capturing that 

product’s energy consumption. 

Recovery for Both Compartments of a 

Refrigerator or Refrigerator-Freezer 

The interim final rule requirements 

for confirming that the second part of 

the test does not include events 

associated with precooling and 

temperature recovery provide a means 

to compare the temperatures of ‘‘the 

compartment’’ measured during the first 

part of the test with the average 

temperatures of ‘‘the compartment’’ for 

compressor cycles preceding and 

following the second part of the test. 

(See Appendix A, section 4.2.1.1) The 

language does not specify which 

compartment must be evaluated in this 

fashion. In order to assure that the test 

procedure properly accounts for energy 

use associated with precooling and 

temperature recovery of the entire 

product, the language of section 4 of 

Appendix A is modified to clarify that 

these requirements apply to both 

compartments (i.e. the freezer 

compartment and the fresh food 

compartment), regardless of which 

compartment’s evaporator undergoes 

defrost. DOE is making this clarification 

to assure testing accuracy. 

Modification of Figure 2 of Appendices 

A and B 

The interim final rule includes a 

figure for both Appendices A and B that 

illustrates the second part of the test for 

products with non-cycling compressors. 

That figure, Figure 2, includes two 

horizontal lines in the temperature plot 

that have no meaning. In this final rule, 

these lines of Figure 2 have been 

removed. DOE is making this change to 

avoid confusion and to ensure the 

accuracy of the measured test results. 

This amendment represents no change 

to the specified test procedure. 

Addition of Minor Edits for Clarification 

While reviewing the modified new 

sections 4.2.1.1 and 4.2.1.2 

incorporating the changes discussed 

above, DOE concluded that some minor 

adjustments to the language would be 

needed to clarify the test procedure and 

to ensure the overall consistency of the 

procedure. These adjustments include 

the following: 

• In the first and second lines of both 

sections, changing ‘‘* * * the second 

part starts * * *’’ to ‘‘* * * the second 

part of the test starts * * *’’. 

• In section 4.2.1.1, changing ‘‘* * * 

first part’s temperature * * *’’ to 

‘‘* * * average temperature for the first 

part of the test * * *’’ 

These changes are made in parallel 

sections to both Appendices A and B. 

Impact of the Test Procedure Change on 

Measured Energy Use 

Whirlpool estimated that modifying 

the test procedure to address the 

observed negative energy use associated 

with fresh food compartment defrosts 

would increase the measured energy use 

of a tested competitor’s product by 3 

percent. (Whirlpool, No. 44 at p. 2) 

These results are consistent with the 

results DOE observed, as reported in the 

NOPR public meeting. (NOPR Public 

Meeting Presentation, No. 9 at p. 53). 

However, as discussed above, DOE has 

re-examined the available data and now 

projects that the increase in energy use 

for such a product is only 1.5 percent 

applying the amended procedure made 

in this final rule. This latter estimate 

more accurately reflects the differences 

in the test period of the second part of 

the tests as represented by the interim 

final rule and today’s final rule. 

(‘‘Summary of Energy Use 

Measurements for a Refrigerator-Freezer 

with two Defrost Cycle Types’’, No. 46) 

In addition, as discussed further below, 

DOE has determined that the impact of 

the test procedure change on energy use 

measurement for most affected products 

is near 1 percent. DOE also notes that 

the energy use impact of this change 

would apply only for those variable 

defrost products that use cycling 

compressors. 

To assess the potential impact on the 

measured energy use associated with 

the test procedure change suggested by 

Whirlpool, DOE reviewed the data it 

collected to support the test procedure’s 

development and data collected as part 

of its compliance efforts. The analysis 

DOE conducted drew from two separate 

sets of test reports. The first set included 

tests conducted using the current test 

procedures of Appendix A1. For this set 

of tests, the applicable temperature 

settings did not permit one to calculate 

a weighted-average energy use at the 

Appendix A standardized compartment 

temperatures of 0 °F for the freezer 

compartment, and 39 °F for the fresh 

food compartment, because the 

measured compartment temperatures for 

the two tests conducted at different 

temperature control settings (i.e. median 

setting and either warmest or coldest 

settings prescribed in the temperature 

control setting requirements of 

Appendix A1, section 3) did not 

generally bound these standardized 

temperatures. The second set of tests, in 

contrast, included measurements at 

temperature settings allowing 

calculation of results consistent with the 

Appendix A standardized compartment 

temperatures. These tests involved the 

use of temperature control settings 

suitable for the Appendix A 

standardized temperatures. 

For the first set of tests, DOE 

evaluated the impact of the test 

procedure change only for the coldest 

compartment temperature setting used 

in the test, which was typically the 

median setting. The compartment 

temperatures of these tests fell within 

3°F of the Appendix A standardized 

temperatures. While this difference 

represents a deviation from the 

Appendix A test requirements, DOE still 

considers these results to be a good 

predictor of the expected operation of 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 3567 

6NPD Group, Inc. http://www.npd.com/ 

corpServlet?nextpage=corp_welcome.html. 

these products under standardized 

compartment temperature conditions for 

two reasons—(1) the small size of the 

temperature deviations and (2) the 

measured data demonstrate that the 

influence of compartment temperature 

on the estimated impact of the test 

procedure change was negligible. 

The analysis focused on four key 

refrigerator-freezer product classes: class 

3 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic 

defrost with top-mounted freezer 

without through-the-door ice service), 

class 5 products without exception 

relief (refrigerator-freezers—automatic 

defrost with bottom-mounted freezer 

without through-the-door ice service), 

class 5 with exception relief to account 

for through-the-door ice service (for the 

purposes of this discussion, designated 

product class 5A under the recently 

promulgated standards for 2014), and 

class 7 (refrigerator-freezers—automatic 

defrost with side-mounted freezer with 

through-the-door ice service). These 

product classes were chosen because 

they represent significant market share, 

have automatic defrost, and are the most 

likely products to have variable defrost, 

thus indicating that they would be more 

likely candidates to be tested using the 

two-part test. The assessment focused 

solely on products with cycling 

compressors and variable defrost, since 

the test procedure change does not 

affect energy use measurement for other 

products. 

DOE re-evaluated the test results for 

both sets of data using the modified test 

period for the second part of the test as 

described in this section, including both 

shifting the end of the test period to a 

compressor stop (rather than a 

compressor start) and removing the 

four-hour time limit. Table III.2 

summarizes the results of this 

assessment for both sets of data and 

does not include any data covering 

Samsung products. The average 

measurement impact for these 25 

products is under 1 percent. 

TABLE III.2—MEASURED ENERGY USE INCREASE

First set of tests Second set of tests 

Product class Number of units 

Average energy 

use impact 

(percent) 

Number of units 

Average energy 

use impact 

(percent) 

3 ....................................................................................................... 6 0.99 2 0.90 

5 ....................................................................................................... 2 1.05 1 0.89 

5A ..................................................................................................... 3 1.08 2 1.21 

7 ....................................................................................................... 6 0.73 3 0.85 

All Units ............................................................................................ 17 0.92 8 0.95 

DOE also separately evaluated data for 

six Samsung products falling into 

classes 5A and 7, for which the overall 

average measured impact was 1.55 

percent. DOE believes that the reason 

for the greater sensitivity of Samsung 

products to this test procedure change 

as compared with other products is that 

these products have two defrosts (one 

combined defrost of both the freezer and 

fresh food compartment evaporators and 

one defrost of only the fresh food 

evaporator) occurring in the same 

amount of time that other products use 

one defrost. 

Shipment-Weighted Impact of the Test 

Procedure Change on Measured Energy 

Use 

DOE developed estimates of 

shipment-weighted impacts on the 

measured energy use of the test 

procedure change for the four product 

classes highlighted in Table III.2. The 

test procedure amendments apply only 

to variable defrost products with cycling 

compressors. Table III.3 summarizes the 

percentage of models with variable 

defrost for the evaluated refrigeratorfreezer product classes as reported to 

DOE in August 2011 as part of the 

annual certification data submission. 

DOE used these percentages of basic 

models as a proxy for shipmentweighted average percentages. Because 

the certification data do not distinguish 

between cycling and non-cycling 

compressor systems, these percentages 

include both types and for that reason 

provide a conservative (i.e. larger) 

estimate regarding the market share of 

affected products. (As discussed above, 

only products with variable defrost and 

cycling compressors will be affected by 

the test procedure change.) The table 

also shows the market share of Samsung 

products by product class based on sales 

data purchased from the NPD Group6

for the years 2007 and 2008. DOE 

calculated the shipment-weighted 

average impact of the test procedure 

change as follows. 

In this equation, SS is the Samsung 

market share and SV is the variable 

defrost market share. DOE assumed that 

the Samsung products all have variable 

defrost. Table III.3 shows the results of 

this calculation of weighted average 

energy use impact for the four product 

classes. The percentage impact varies 

from less than 0.5 percent to just above 

1 percent. From these projections, DOE 

concludes that the level of change in the 

measurement does not necessitate a 

change in the energy conservation 

standards, as discussed in section 

III.E.2. 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULESER25JA12.009</GPH>
3568 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE III.3—WEIGHTED IMPACT

Product class 

Percent of 

basic models 

with variable 

defrost 

Percent 

Samsung 

products 

Weighted 

average energy 

use impact 

3 ....................................................................................................................................... 36 0 0.36 

5 ....................................................................................................................................... 90 18 1.00 

5A ..................................................................................................................................... 100 24 1.13 

7 ....................................................................................................................................... 95 6 0.98 

D. Other Issues 

This section discusses comments 

made by stakeholders regarding items 

for which DOE has not made 

corresponding changes in the test 

procedure. 

1. Anti-Circumvention Language 

In the December 2010 final rule, DOE 

added anti-circumvention language to 

10 CFR 430.23, in section (a)(10) 

addressing refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers and in section (b)(7) addressing 

freezers. 75 FR 78818–78820 (Dec. 16, 

2010). AHAM commented that the anticircumvention language has significant 

differences as compared with the 

language of HRF–1–2008 and that the 

exact language of HRF–1–2008 should 

be adopted. (AHAM, No. 39 at p. 4) The 

language identified by AHAM appears 

in a section that provides general 

guidance for manufacturers to consider 

with respect to potential anticircumvention issues. The specific 

language changes AHAM recommended 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘Energy saving features that are 

designed to be activated by a lack of 

door openings shall not be functional 

during the energy test.’’ should read 

‘‘Energy saving features that are 

designed to operate when there are no 

door openings for long periods of time 

shall not be functional during the 

energy test.’’ 

2. ‘‘The defrost heater should not 

either function or turn off differently 

during the energy test than it would 

when operating in typical room 

conditions.’’ should read ‘‘The defrost 

heater shall not either function or turn 

off differently during the energy test 

than it would when operating in typical 

room conditions. Also, the product shall 

not recover differently during the 

defrost recovery period than it would in 

typical room conditions.’’ 

3. In ‘‘Electric heaters that would 

normally operate at typical room 

conditions with door openings should 

also operate during the energy test.’’ the 

‘‘should’’ should be replaced with 

‘‘shall.’’ 

As noted earlier, amendments to 10 

CFR 430.23 as part of the December 16, 

2010 notice were made as part of the 

December 2010 final rule. These issues 

were not fully vetted as part of the reopening notice, which focused on issues 

related to Appendices A and B. DOE 

notes, however, that it developed this 

limited guidance in reliance on the 2007 

version of HRF–1. (Compare section 

HRF–1–2007, section 1.2 with HRF–1– 

2008, section 1.2). Should DOE need to 

clarify the application of these 

conditions, it may do so in the future. 

2. Refrigeration Products Designed for 

Sale With or Without Icemakers 

In the standards final rule, DOE 

discussed issues raised by AHAM 

regarding refrigeration products 

designed for sale with or without 

icemakers (‘‘kitable models’’). Such 

products may leave the factory with an 

icemaker installed, but could also leave 

the factory without an icemaker and 

instead have an icemaker installed 

downstream in the distribution chain, 

by the retailer, or even by a customer 

after purchase of the product. 76 FR at 

57538 (Sept. 15, 2011). Icemakers can 

also be produced by third-party 

manufacturers separate from the 

refrigeration products’ manufacturers. 

(For example, the third party brand 

Aquafresh is advertised as a 

replacement for all major icemaker 

brands. See ‘‘Aquafresh RIM900 Ice 

Maker Information,’’ No. 48 at p. 1) 

AHAM commented in response to the 

energy standards NOPR that kitable 

models should be treated as if they have 

the icemaker installed. (AHAM, 

Refrigeration Products Energy 

Conservation Standard Rulemaking, 

Docket Number EE–2008–BT–STD– 

0012, No. 73 at p. 6) DOE responded to 

these claims by noting that such 

products could be purchased either with 

or without the icemaker, that the field 

energy use for products without an 

icemaker would be less by the amount 

of energy use associated with icemaking 

(which is represented by a fixed value 

of 84 kWh in the interim final rule test 

procedure) and that better consistency 

with the test procedure would be 

established if such products were 

required to be certified both with and 

without the icemaker. 76 FR at 57538– 

57539 (Sept. 15, 2011). 

AHAM strongly opposed the DOE 

approach and its comments to DOE 

stressed that the approach would create 

unnecessary burden and cost with no 

public benefit. AHAM cited the 

following reasons in support of its 

position: 

• As far as AHAM is aware, 

manufacturers typically assign kitable 

models a single model number 

regardless of whether the icemaker is 

installed when the product leaves the 

factory. Requiring certification of the 

model with and without the icemaker 

might require establishing a second 

model number for each such product, 

which would represent a great cost to 

manufacturers. 

• The approach is overly burdensome 

because it requires twice the test burden 

and twice as much reporting. 

• Consumers that install an icemaker 

after purchase of a refrigerator would 

not be aware of the additional energy 

use associated with icemaking. 

• If manufacturers maintain a single 

model number for the product with and 

without the icemaker, there might be 

confusion if consumers see two different 

energy use values indicated for the same 

model (i.e. one for the unit with the 

icemaker and one for the unit without 

the icemaker). 

• The manufacturer may not have any 

control over whether an icemaker is 

installed in the unit after it leaves the 

factory, making it difficult to ensure that 

the correct energy label is included with 

the unit. 

AHAM’s approach would be to treat 

kitable models as if they have an 

icemaker. Such an approach would 

ensure that a purchaser of a kitable 

model would receive a product that 

would have energy use no more than the 

rated value. This approach would also 

mean that there would be only one 

energy use value associated with each 

model number, and would avoid 

multiple testing and reporting. (AHAM, 

No. 43 at pp. 6–7) 

DOE is declining to adopt AHAM’s 

approach within the context of today’s 

notice. 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 3569 

DOE acknowledges, however, that 

manufacturers may have no control of 

events occurring after a product leaves 

their factory, and, hence, may not know 

which label to ship with a product, if 

the label were required to accurately 

reflect whether the product has an 

icemaker installed. Further, although 

AHAM claims that this approach is 

burdensome, its claim that such 

products would have to be tested twice 

is incorrect—a single test would 

indicate product performance with and 

without the icemaker, because it would 

include a measurement of the product 

without an icemaker. Calculating the 

energy use for an icemaker-equipped 

product would be a matter of adding a 

fixed value to calculate this value, as 

specified by the Appendix A test 

procedure (see section 6.2.2.2). 

Additionally, AHAM did not quantify 

the burden involved. Without such 

quantification, or a meaningful 

explanation as to why a second set of 

tests would be needed, DOE has little 

information with which to judge the 

merits of AHAM’s recommendations or 

its claims. DOE also notes that product 

labeling is the jurisdiction of the FTC 

and that any contents of those labels lie 

primarily within the province of that 

agency’s rulemaking authority. 

Further, DOE notes that any approach 

eventually adopted for kitable models 

must ensure that both versions of the 

kitable model (i.e. sold either with or 

without the icemaker) meet their 

respective energy standards. DOE notes 

that this goal would automatically be 

achieved with the new standards and 

the new test procedures as represented 

by the September 2011 standards final 

rule and this test procedure final rule 

notice, since both the test procedure and 

the standards apply a fixed value of 84 

kWh (to represent icemaker energy 

consumption) to the measured energy 

use of a product when configured 

without an icemaker—this new value 

represents the energy use of an 

icemaker-equipped version of that 

product. This situation will likely 

change once a laboratory-based 

procedure is implemented for 

measuring icemaking energy use, as is 

contemplated in a future rulemaking. 

Consideration of an approach to address 

kitable models would, in all likelihood, 

be more appropriately addressed as part 

of a future rulemaking to decide 

whether to incorporate such a 

laboratory-based icemaking energy use 

measurement. DOE adds that the full 

rulemaking process would allow the 

issues associated with kitable models to 

be thoroughly considered and reviewed 

by stakeholders, thus ensuring that the 

adopted approach is vetted and 

acceptable to all affected parties. 

Accordingly, DOE is declining to adopt 

AHAM’s suggestion. 

3. Wine Storage and Combination Wine 

Storage Products 

This section addresses issues 

associated with wine storage products 

and combination wine storage products. 

The latter are refrigeration products 

combining wine storage with fresh food 

and/or freezer compartments. 

Definitions for Refrigerator and 

Refrigerator-Freezer 

DOE amended the definitions for 

refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer as 

part of the final rule published in the 

December 16, 2010 notice. See 75 FR at 

78817. The modified definitions did two 

things that the previous definitions did 

not. First, they clarified that products 

that combine freezer compartments with 

compartments not designed to be 

capable of 39 °F storage temperature 

(but include no other types of 

compartments) are not refrigeratorfreezers. Second, the definitions 

clarified the requirements for fresh food 

compartments of refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. Regarding this 

second item, the revised definitions 

clarified that a product is not 

necessarily disqualified from status as a 

refrigerator or refrigerator-freezer if its 

fresh food compartments can maintain 

average temperatures above 39 °F for 

some temperature control settings. Id. 

The amendments did not include 

language specifying that products 

incorporating wine storage 

compartments—for the purpose of this 

discussion, compartments that are not 

designed to be capable of maintaining 

storage temperatures below 39 °F—in 

products that would otherwise be 

refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers 

under the definition would be treated as 

something other than these covered 

products. Id. at 78817. Wine chillers are 

typically designed to operate between 

50 °F and 60 °F to ensure the proper 

storage temperature for bottled wine. 

DOE subsequently posted on its Web 

site a guidance document explaining its 

interpretation of the amended 

definitions. (‘‘Guidance on Scope of 

Coverage for Hybrid (Wine Storage) 

Refrigeration Products Issued Feb. 10, 

2011’’, No. 49). The Guidance clarified 

DOE’s interpretation of the definitions 

and explained that adding a wine 

storage compartment to a refrigerator or 

a refrigerator-freezer does not change its 

status as a refrigerator or refrigeratorfreezer under the regulations. 

AHAM objected to this interpretation 

of the test procedure final rule 

definitions. (AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 4–5). 

It argued that DOE’s interpretation is 

inequitable because it treats freezers 

differently than refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. AHAM also argued 

that the Guidance was, in its view, 

inconsistent with the separate 

rulemaking approach that DOE had 

indicated it was considering applying to 

wine chillers. AHAM argued further 

that establishing coverage through 

interpretation, which it believed was 

performed by the Guidance, was 

inappropriate, and stated that such steps 

should be taken only through the 

established rulemaking process. 

At the outset, DOE notes that these 

definitions were established as part of 

the December 2010 final rule. Because 

of the limited nature of the re-opening 

of the comment period, which focused 

on those issues related to the conduct of 

the test procedures detailed in 

Appendices A and B, these particular 

issues were not completely vetted 

through the rulemaking process. Hence, 

DOE may revisit and reconsider these 

issues as part of a future rulemaking 

activity. 

DOE further notes that AHAM does 

not contest the validity of the text of the 

definitions themselves but only how 

DOE may choose to apply these 

definitions to a small group of products 

that have yet to comprise any significant 

share of the overall refrigeration product 

market. DOE’s research was able to 

identify only seven distinct products 

that are clearly part of this product 

group. (‘‘Wine Storage Combination 

Products’’, No. 50). 

With respect to the definitions, the 

coverage of refrigeration products has 

been clarified through guidance to help 

explain that products that meet a 

specific set of performance criteria 

would be treated as covered products. 

Any product meeting these criteria are 

subject to the regulations covering these 

products. These criteria were 

established through a lengthy notice and 

comment process associated with this 

test procedure rulemaking that began in 

May 2010 and on which manufacturers 

had ample opportunity to comment. 

DOE adds that, consistent with its prior 

statements, it fully intends to initiate a 

wine-chiller-specific rulemaking to 

address potential standards for these 

products. 

DOE also notes that there are some 

key technical differences between 

freezers and refrigerators/refrigeratorfreezers. These differences require that 

different approaches be considered 

when deciding how to treat those 

refrigeration products that include a 

wine storage compartment. In 

particular, the standardized temperature 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
3570 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

7 DOE notes that the requirement for separate 

measurement of the two systems for dual 

compressor products is not new. It was initially 

established in the test procedure on August 31, 

1989. 54 FR 36238. 

8Sub Zero’s comments mention that they have 

submitted a petition for a test procedure waiver to 

obtain relief for their dual-compressor products 

from use of the current test procedure (see 76 FR 

71335 (Nov. 17, 2011)), which they claim are 

for a freezer is 0 °F, while the 

standardized temperature for the fresh 

food compartment of a refrigeratorfreezer is 45 °F under current test 

procedures and 39 °F under test 

procedures that manufacturers will need 

to use for compliance purposes in 2014. 

A wine storage compartment can be 

expected to approach a 45 °F 

temperature during testing, but 

approaching 0 °F would be extremely 

unlikely given the nature of the 

product—specifically, the technical 

requirements for designing a 

compartment of a product to achieve a 

0 °F temperature differs significantly 

from those required to achieve the much 

higher temperature (39 °F) needed for 

the safe storage of fresh food—or the 

even higher standardized temperature 

(45 °F) required by the current test 

procedure during the testing of these 

products. These differences not only 

require different design considerations, 

but they also result in very different 

energy consumption characteristics. 

Moreover, the definitions for these 

three products (refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, and freezer), which DOE 

adopted with full input from the public, 

including manufacturers, contain clear 

differences with respect to the inclusion 

of separate compartments. Both the 

refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer 

definitions explicitly contemplate the 

inclusion of compartments with more 

than one temperature range, while the 

freezer definition does not. See 10 CFR 

430.2. As a result, a freezer-wine chiller 

combination product does not fall 

squarely into any of these definitions. In 

contrast, a wine chiller combined with 

either a refrigerator or refrigeratorfreezer would fall within the definitions 

for those two products. Treating these 

three products in the exact same manner 

as suggested by AHAM—i.e., to exclude 

them from any coverage—would ignore 

these differences as well as the technical 

differences noted above. Accordingly, 

because of these differences, a freezerwine chiller product should not be 

treated in the same manner as a 

refrigerator-wine chiller or refrigeratorfreezer-wine chiller products. 

DOE recognizes, however, that some 

combination wine storage products may 

have characteristics that would make 

attempts at testing them with the wine 

storage compartment approaching 45 °F 

provide non-representative results. For 

such products, manufacturers may still 

market such items by first petitioning 

DOE for an appropriate test procedure 

waiver. DOE highlighted this option 

when it issued its February 2011 

Guidance. Also, in the case of those 

products that may be unable to comply 

with the applicable standards, 

manufacturers have the option of 

applying for exception relief with the 

Office of Hearings and Appeals. See 42 

U.S.C. 7194 and 10 CFR part 1003. 

Federal Energy Conservation Standards 

for Wine Chillers 

In the energy conservation standards 

NOPR (‘‘standards NOPR’’), and again in 

the standards final rule, DOE explained 

its interpretation that wine chillers are 

not covered products under the 

definition for electric refrigerator, and 

thus are not covered by the energy 

conservation standards for refrigeration 

products. 75 FR 59470, 59486 (Sept. 27, 

2010) and 76 FR 57516, 57534 (Sept. 15, 

2011). As noted in the standards final 

rule, several stakeholders submitted 

comments favoring the regulation of 

wine chiller products. DOE noted that it 

may consider initiating a rulemaking to 

establish coverage and energy standards 

for these products. Id. 

In its comments on the interim final 

rule, AHAM reiterated its support for a 

rulemaking to regulate wine storage 

products, and indicated that such a 

rulemaking should include products in 

which wine storage compartments are 

combined with fresh food and/or freezer 

compartments. (AHAM, No. 43 at p. 4). 

Sub Zero requested that DOE conduct a 

comprehensive analysis, with full 

stakeholder input, leading to a Federal 

efficiency standard for all wine storage 

products and combination/hybrid that 

include wine chillers. (Sub Zero, No. 42 

at p. 2). 

Consistent with earlier statements, 

DOE will consider conducting 

rulemakings addressing coverage, test 

procedures, and energy conservation 

standards for wine chiller and related 

products. DOE has already taken an 

initial step in this process by publishing 

a coverage determination proposal to 

establish coverage for refrigeration 

products that do not have compressors 

and condensers integrated with their 

cabinets—many of which include wine 

chillers. 76 FR 69147 (Nov. 8, 2011). 

Such products cannot be immediately 

covered under the authority granted to 

DOE by EPCA to regulate conventional 

refrigeration products, which 

necessitates a separate coverage 

determination to address these noncondenser/compressor products. (42 

U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)). 

4. Multiple Compressor Systems 

In the test procedure NOPR, DOE 

proposed to address certain 

inconsistencies in the test procedure for 

dual compressor systems. 75 FR at 

29841 (May 27, 2010). These systems 

have separate refrigeration systems 

serving the fresh food and freezer 

compartments. AHAM commented that 

DOE should simplify this test procedure 

and suggested an alternative test 

procedure addressing such products. 

(AHAM, No. 16 at p. 7). DOE explained 

that it could not adopt the AHAM 

proposal in the interim final rule 

because the AHAM procedure 

represents a significant departure from 

the proposal that was presented in the 

NOPR, and that stakeholders were not 

provided an adequate opportunity to 

comment on the procedure to allow its 

adoption. 75 FR at 78831 (Dec. 16, 

2010). DOE noted, however, that it may 

consider this approach in a future 

rulemaking that would more fully revise 

the test procedure. See id. 

AHAM raised this issue in all three of 

its written comments submitted in 

response to the interim final rule. 

(AHAM, No. 39 at p. 4; AHAM, No. 40 

at pp. 1–2; AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 2–3). 

AHAM’s recommendations regarding 

how this test procedure should measure 

the energy consumption of multiple 

compressor-based systems has changed 

each time it has provided specific test 

procedure recommendations. See 

AHAM, No. 16 at p. 7 (Aug. 10, 2010), 

AHAM, No. 40 at pp. 1–2 (March 4, 

2011), and AHAM, No. 43 at pp. 2–3 

(Oct. 17, 2011). In spite of its 

continually evolving position, AHAM 

urged DOE to modify the dual 

compressor test procedure because, in 

its view, the DOE test procedure 

contains specific problems that relate to 

its requirement that a manufacturer 

separately measure the energy use of the 

two separate systems.7 The group made 

two assertions in support of its view. 

First, AHAM argued that this 

requirement posed a significant test 

burden. Second, AHAM asserted that 

many dual compressor products do not 

work in the manner that the test 

procedure assumes they do—i.e. as 

separate independent systems. Instead, 

AHAM argued that many of these 

products use shared systems. (AHAM, 

No. 40 at p. 2). Sub-Zero supported the 

alternative approach incorporated in 

AHAM’s October 17, 2011 comments 

and asserted that it provided a practical, 

accurate, and repeatable test procedure 

that should be incorporated into the 

final rule.8 (Sub Zero, No. 42 at pp. 1– 

2). 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 3571 

difficult or impossible to conduct. (Sub Zero, No. 

44 at pp. 1–2). The waiver process is the 

appropriate step in addressing such products that 

cannot properly be tested using the DOE test 

procedures. 

9A more conservative (i.e. larger) estimate of 

energy usage is most likely to occur in situations 

where a tested product’s temperature controls have 

not been tuned—without such tuning, the two 

calculations of energy use of Appendix A, section 

6.2.2.2 using the fresh food compartment 

temperature for one calculation and the freezer 

compartment temperature for the other can differ 

significantly from each other. For such a product, 

the two compartments attain their standardized 

temperatures at very different positions within the 

range of their temperature controls (e.g. the fresh 

food compartment may attain 39 °F with its control 

at the mid setting while the freezer compartment 

control may have to be in its coldest position to 

achieve 0 °F in the compartment). 

AHAM added that Appendix A1 

should be modified to include the 

revised test procedure for dual 

compressor system products it 

suggested that DOE adopt. (AHAM, No. 

43 at p. 2). 

DOE notes that modifications to the 

Appendix A1 test procedure for dual 

compressor systems implemented in the 

December 16, 2010 notice were made as 

part of the final rule. Because of the 

limited nature of the reopening notice, 

which focused on issues related to 

Appendices A and B, these suggested 

changes to Appendix A1 were not fully 

vetted for consideration in this 

rulemaking. 

DOE further notes that the current 

procedure’s requirement that each 

compressor system of a dual compressor 

system be separately measured was first 

established in 1989. See 54 FR 36238, 

36241 (Aug. 31, 1989). Manufacturers 

are, by now, very familiar with this 

procedure and how to most efficiently 

and accurately perform it. The issues 

that AHAM initially raised in its August 

10, 2010, comments regarding the 

burden associated with this test (which 

AHAM did not detail) require additional 

consideration and a more fulsome 

evaluation. Additionally, the constantly 

changing nature of AHAM’s 

recommended approach highlights the 

unsettled nature of that approach and 

underscores the complexity of this 

issue. In DOE’s view, these facts tend to 

indicate that the adoption of any one of 

AHAM’s three suggested alternatives 

would likely be premature, particularly 

without further public input. Hence, 

DOE is declining to adopt any of 

AHAM’s suggestions at this time. 

DOE notes that AHAM did not 

indicate that its approach will be 

applicable to freezers. Consequently, 

DOE did not evaluate the 

appropriateness of this approach for 

those products. DOE is unaware of any 

freezer products that employ a dual 

compressor system. 

5. Triangulation 

During the test procedure NOPR 

public meeting, stakeholders introduced 

the concept of triangulation in the 

context of setting a refrigeration 

product’s temperature controls for 

testing. The triangulation approach 

involves conducting tests at three 

temperature control setting 

combinations as opposed to the two 

settings generally required in the 

current test procedures. By properly 

setting the controls for the three tests 

and calculating the appropriate 

weighted average of the energy use 

measurements of those tests, 

triangulation allows one to calculate the 

projected level of energy use if both the 

fresh food and freezer compartment 

temperatures matched their 

standardized temperatures (i.e. 0 °F in 

the freezer compartment and 39 °F in 

the fresh food compartment for a 

refrigerator-freezer tested according to 

Appendix A). In comparison, the 

current DOE test procedure provides a 

more conservative measurement (i.e. 

potentially higher value) of energy use 

at the standardized temperatures that 

reduces the overall testing burdens by 

limiting the number of required tests 

from three under the triangulation 

approach to two.9

Stakeholders suggested in oral and 

written comments on the NOPR that 

triangulation should be introduced into 

the DOE test procedures. See 75 FR at 

78822 (Dec. 16, 2010). DOE indicated in 

the interim final rule that this test 

procedure approach has not been 

subject to stakeholder evaluation and 

comment and that it could not be 

adopted at the time for that reason. Id. 

AHAM commented again that 

triangulation should be adopted in the 

test procedures, indicating that it should 

be introduced as an optional approach 

for setting temperature controls for 

testing. AHAM also indicated that DOE 

could have put this topic up for 

stakeholder comment in the interim 

final rule, and added that if the DOE 

adopts triangulation for certification 

purposes, it should also be required for 

enforcement purposes. (AHAM, No. 39 

at pp. 3–4) 

DOE believes the triangulation 

approach departs enough from current 

procedures for setting temperature 

controls that it would have been 

inappropriate for DOE to incorporate it 

based solely on the strength of the 

NOPR comments, which were sparse 

and contained little to no supporting 

data. Those technical differences, 

coupled with the lack of any 

opportunity for all interested parties to 

fully evaluate this issue, weigh in favor 

of not incorporating the triangulation 

approach into DOE’s test procedure at 

this time. Consequently, DOE did not 

adopt it in either the December 2010 

final rule or the interim final rule. 

Additionally, introducing 

triangulation could have unforeseen 

implications, as alluded to in AHAM’s 

comments, which suggested that, if 

adopted, it should also be used for 

enforcement purposes. (Id. at p. 4) 

Testing using triangulation could, in 

certain circumstances, yield different 

results as compared with the approach 

of the current DOE test procedure. 

Those differences could be significant 

enough to affect whether a given 

product complies with an applicable 

standard. This complication alone 

merits a more thorough consideration by 

the agency before the triangulation 

approach is adopted. For these reasons, 

DOE is declining to adopt the 

triangulation method into the test 

procedures of Appendix A at this time. 

DOE, may, however, consider the 

incorporation of this method when it 

considers potential changes to the test 

procedure as periodically required 

under 42 U.S.C. 6293(b). 

E. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

In addition to the issues discussed 

above, DOE examined its other 

obligations under EPCA in developing 

the amendments in today’s notice. 

These requirements are addressed in 

greater detail below. 

1. Test Burden 

EPCA requires that the test 

procedures DOE prescribes or amends 

be reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average 

use cycle or period of use. These 

procedures must also not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. See 42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3). DOE has concluded that the 

amendments being adopted today 

satisfy this requirement. In large part, 

today’s rule simply finalizes the interim 

final rule of December 16, 2010. Where 

the interim final rule has been modified, 

the amendments require no changes to 

the current requirements for equipment 

and instrumentation for testing. 

While the amendments adopted today 

have the potential to slightly extend the 

testing time for some products that use 

long-time or variable defrost, this 

extended duration is likely to represent 

an insignificant impact on the overall 

test burden. In particular, while the 

duration of the second part of the test 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
3572 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

will extend for those products that use 

cycling compressors—the test period 

will be extended typically for the 

duration of a compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle, 

but may be longer in the limited number 

of cases where the four-hour time limit 

between defrost heater activation and 

the end of the test period under the 

current test procedure applies. The 

amended procedure will, in the vast 

majority of cases, not extend the testing 

duration for products. DOE estimates 

that any products that would be affected 

by these changes would have an 

extended testing duration of between 1 

and 2 hours. Given that most, if not all, 

modern testing is conducted using 

automated data acquisition equipment 

and that these tests typically last a full 

week for a typical product, the addition 

of this amount of time is unlikely to 

result in any significant added burden. 

As described in section C.2, in tests 

conducted using automated data 

acquisition, a test technician does not 

actively monitor the test minute to 

minute. Instead, the test status is 

checked periodically during the test, 

perhaps once or twice per day. At the 

time of such a check, the test generally 

would have completed the next defrost 

cycle to be measured, or alternatively, 

the next defrost cycle would not yet 

have started, in which case the test 

would be checked again later. In few, if 

any, cases would extension of the 

defrost part of the test by 1 or 2 hours 

significantly lengthen the overall test 

time. The extension of the test period of 

the second part of the test would cause 

delay only if, during such status check, 

the latest defrost cycle has started but 

not ended. Also, for such a case, a twohour extension of the test, if it did 

occur, would represent about a 1 

percent increase in test time, assuming 

a one-week average test duration. 

Consequently, DOE concludes that the 

possible small increase in test time is 

more than outweighed by the improved 

accuracy of the test represented by the 

test procedure amendment. 

The test procedure changes modifying 

the default values for CTL and CTM and 

revising the reference to the test data 

records requirements impose no 

changes in test burden. 

2. Changes in Measured Energy Use 

In this final rule, DOE is amending 

the test period for the second part of the 

test. This test is conducted as part of the 

two-part test for products with longtime or variable-defrost and cycling 

compressor systems. DOE estimates that 

this test procedure change will increase 

measured energy use roughly 1 percent 

for affected standard-size refrigeratorfreezers. The other test procedure 

amendments made in this final rule will 

not affect energy use measurement. 

When DOE modifies test procedures, 

it must determine to what extent, if any, 

the new test procedure would alter the 

measured energy use of covered 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) In this 

case, DOE has determined that the 

projected impact on the measured 

energy use of covered products that are 

affected would be altered by 

approximately 1 percent. DOE considers 

this an insignificant impact on 

measured energy use. Accordingly, DOE 

has determined that an adjustment to 

the applicable standard is not required. 

IV. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that test procedure 

rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule that by law must 

be proposed for public comment, unless 

the agency certifies that the proposed 

rule, if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site (http:// 

www.gc.doe.gov). 

DOE reviewed the test procedures in 

today’s final rule under the provisions 

of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. This final rule 

prescribes test procedures that will be 

used to test compliance with energy 

conservation standards for the products 

that are the subject of this rulemaking. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) considers an entity to be a small 

business if, together with its affiliates, it 

employs less than a threshold number of 

workers specified in 13 CFR part 121, 

which relies on size standards and 

codes established by the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS). The threshold number 

for NAICS code 335222, which applies 

to Household Refrigerator and Home 

Freezer Manufacturing, is 1,000 

employees. 

DOE searched the SBA Web site 

(http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/ 

dsp_dsbs.cfm) to identify manufacturers 

within this NAICS code that produce 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and/ 

or freezers. Most of the manufacturers 

supplying these products are large 

multinational corporations with more 

than 1,000 employees. There are several 

small businesses involved in the sale of 

refrigeration products that are listed on 

the SBA Web site under the NAICS code 

for this industry. However, DOE 

believes that only U-Line Corporation of 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin is a small 

business that manufactures these 

products. U-Line primarily 

manufactures compact refrigerators and 

related compact products such as wine 

chillers and stand-alone icemakers— 

these icemakers differ from the 

automatic icemakers installed in many 

refrigeration products in that they are 

complete icemaking appliances 

designed solely for the production and 

storage of ice, using either typical 

residential icemaking technology or a 

reduced-scale version of the icemaking 

technology used extensively in 

commercial icemakers. 

DOE had initially concluded in its 

December 2010 notice that the final rule 

will not have a significant impact on 

small manufacturers under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. DOE received no comments 

objecting to this conclusion. 

DOE concludes also that the test 

procedure amendments of today’s notice 

will not have a significant impact on 

small manufacturers under the 

provisions of the Act. These 

amendments do not require use of test 

facilities or test equipment that differ in 

any substantive way from the test 

facilities or test equipment that 

manufacturers currently use to evaluate 

the energy efficiency of these products. 

Further, the amended test procedures 

will not be significantly more difficult 

or time-consuming to conduct than 

current DOE energy test procedures. 

For these reasons, DOE concludes and 

certifies that the rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE has transmitted the 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 3573 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA for review under 

5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of refrigeration 

products must certify to DOE that their 

products comply with any applicable 

energy conservation standard. In 

certifying compliance, manufacturers 

must test their products according to the 

DOE test procedure for refrigeration 

products, including any amendments 

adopted for that test procedure. The 

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. DOE 

received OMB approval to collect this 

information and has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including the 

refrigeration products addressed by 

today’s final rule. 76 FR 12422 (March 

7, 2011). The public reporting burden 

for the certification is estimated to 

average 20 hours per response, 

including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and 

reviewing the collection of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this notice, DOE amends its test 

procedure for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers. These 

amendments will improve the ability of 

DOE’s procedures to more accurately 

account for the energy consumption of 

products that incorporate a variety of 

new technologies that were not 

contemplated when the current 

procedure was promulgated. The 

amendments also will be used to 

develop and implement future energy 

conservation standards for refrigeration 

products. DOE has determined that this 

final rule falls into a class of actions that 

are categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, this rule amends an 

existing rule without changing its 

environmental effect, and, therefore, is 

covered by the Categorical Exclusion in 

10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix 

A6. See 76 FR 63764, 63788 (Oct. 13, 

2011). The exclusion applies because 

this rule establishes a strictly procedural 

requirement by revising existing test 

procedures. These revisions will not 

affect the amount, quality, or 

distribution of energy usage, and, 

therefore, will not result in any 

environmental impacts. Accordingly, 

neither an environmental assessment 

nor an environmental impact statement 

is required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

imposes certain requirements on 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 

1999). The Executive Order requires 

agencies to examine the constitutional 

and statutory authority supporting any 

action that would limit the 

policymaking discretion of the States 

and to carefully assess the necessity for 

such actions. The Executive Order also 

requires agencies to have an accountable 

process to ensure meaningful and timely 

input by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

that it will follow in developing such 

regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE 

examined this final rule and determined 

that it will not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of today’s final rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297) No further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard; and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation specifies the following: (1) 

The preemptive effect, if any; (2) any 

effect on existing Federal law or 

regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

definitions of key terms; and (6) other 

important issues affecting clarity and 

general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or 

whether it is unreasonable to meet one 

or more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this final 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 

104–4; 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. For a regulatory action 

resulting in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish estimates of 

the resulting costs, benefits, and other 

effects on the national economy. (2 

U.S.C. 1532(a)–(b)) UMRA also requires 

a Federal agency to develop an effective 

process to permit timely input by 

elected officers of State, local, and 

Tribal governments on a proposed 

‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially-affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect such 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. (The policy is also available at 

www.gc.doe.gov). Today’s final rule 

contains neither an intergovernmental 

mandate nor a mandate that may result 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
3574 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

in an expenditure of $100 million or 

more in any year, so these requirements 

do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. 

Today’s final rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s rule under OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any significant 

energy action. A ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ is defined as any action by an 

agency that promulgates or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule 

and that (1) is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use if the regulation is 

implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Today’s regulatory 

action is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. It 

has likewise not been designated as a 

significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy. Therefore, it is not a 

significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the DOE 

Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–91; 42 

U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977 (FEAA). 

(15 U.S.C. 788) Section 32 essentially 

provides in part that, where a rule 

authorizes or requires use of commercial 

standards, the rulemaking must inform 

the public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

Today’s action does not incorporate 

testing methods contained in any new 

commercial standards not already 

referenced by the current regulations on 

which the Attorney General and FTC 

have not already been previously 

consulted earlier during this rulemaking 

process. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of today’s rule before its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of these final rules. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 9, 

2012. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 

chapter II of title 10, of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Appendix A to subpart B of part 

430 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising section 4.2.1.1, including 

figure 1; 

■ b. Revising section 4.2.1.2, including 

figure 2; 

■ c. Revising 4.2.4; and 

■ d. Revising sections 5.2.1.3 and 

5.2.1.5. 

The revisions read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Electric 

Refrigerators and Electric RefrigeratorFreezers 

* * * * * 

4. Test Period 

* * * * * 

4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a 

system with a cycling compressor, the second 

part of the test starts at the termination of the 

last regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle. The 

average temperatures of the fresh food and 

freezer compartments measured from the 

termination of the previous compressor ‘‘on’’ 

cycle to the termination of the last regular 

compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle must both be within 

0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of their average temperatures 

measured for the first part of the test. If any 

compressor cycles occur prior to the defrost 

heater being energized that cause the average 

temperature in either compartment to deviate 

from its average temperature for the first part 

of the test by more than 0.5 °F (0.3 °C), these 

compressor cycles are not considered regular 

compressor cycles and must be included in 

the second part of the test. As an example, 

a ‘‘precooling’’ cycle, which is an extended 

compressor cycle that lowers the 

temperature(s) of one or both compartments 

prior to energizing the defrost heater, must be 

included in the second part of the test. The 

test period for the second part of the test ends 

at the termination of the first regular 

compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle after both 

compartment temperatures have fully 

recovered to their stable conditions. The 

average temperatures of the compartments 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 3575 

measured from this termination of the first 

regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle until the 

termination of the next regular compressor 

‘‘on’’ cycle must both be within 0.5 °F (0.3 

°C) of their average temperatures measured 

for the first part of the test. See Figure 1. 

4.2.1.2 Non-cycling Compressor System. 

For a system with a non-cycling compressor, 

the second part of the test starts at a time 

before defrost during stable operation when 

the temperatures of both fresh food and 

freezer compartments are within 0.5 °F 

(0.3 °C) of their average temperatures 

measured for the first part of the test. The 

second part stops at a time after defrost 

during stable operation when the 

temperatures of both compartments are 

within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of their average 

temperatures measured for the first part of 

the test. See Figure 2. 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULESER25JA12.004</GPH>
3576 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

4.2.4 Systems with Multiple Defrost 

Frequencies. This section applies to models 

with long-time automatic or variable defrost 

control with multiple defrost cycle types, 

such as models with single compressors and 

multiple evaporators in which the 

evaporators have different defrost 

frequencies. The two-part method in 4.2.1 

shall be used. The second part of the method 

will be conducted separately for each distinct 

defrost cycle type. 

* * * * * 

5. Test Measurements 

* * * * * 

5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The 

energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per 

day shall be calculated equivalent to: 

ET = (1440 × EP1/T1) + (EP2 ¥ (EP1 × T2/ 

T1)) × (12/CT), 

Where: 

1440 is defined in 5.2.1.1 and EP1, EP2, T1, 

T2, and 12 are defined in 5.2.1.2; 

CT = (CTL × CTM)/(F × (CTM ¥ CTL) + CTL); 

CTL = least or shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than or 

equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 

hours); 

CTM = maximum compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 

CTL but not more than 96 hours); 

F = ratio of per day energy consumption in 

excess of the least energy and the 

maximum difference in per-day energy 

consumption and is equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CTL and CTM in the algorithm, the default 

values of 6 and 96 shall be used, respectively. 

* * * * * 

5.2.1.5 Long-time or Variable Defrost 

Control for Systems with Multiple Defrost 

cycle Types. The energy consumption in 

kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated 

equivalent to: 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULESER25JA12.005</GPH> ER25JA12.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 3577 

Where: 

1440 is defined in 5.2.1.1 and EP1, T1, and 

12 are defined in 5.2.1.2; 

i is a variable that can equal 1, 2, or more 

that identifies the distinct defrost cycle 

types applicable for the refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer; 

EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the second part of the test for 

defrost cycle type i; 

T2i = length of time in minutes of the second 

part of the test for defrost cycle type i; 

CTi is the compressor run time between 

instances of defrost cycle type i, for longtime automatic defrost control equal to a 

fixed time in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour, and for variable 

defrost control equal to 

(CTLi × CTMi)/(F × (CTMi ¥ CTLi) + CTLi); 

CTLi = least or shortest compressor run time 

between instances of defrost cycle type 

i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth 

of an hour (CTL for the defrost cycle type 

with the longest compressor run time 

between defrosts must be greater than or 

equal to 6 but less than or equal to 

12 hours); 

CTMi = maximum compressor run time 

between instances of defrost cycle type 

i in hours rounded to the nearest tenth 

of an hour (greater than CTLi but not 

more than 96 hours); 

For cases in which there are more than one 

fixed CT value (for long-time defrost models) 

or more than one CTM and/or CTL value (for 

variable defrost models) for a given defrost 

cycle type, an average fixed CT value or 

average CTM and CTL values shall be selected 

for this cycle type so that 12 divided by this 

value or values is the frequency of 

occurrence of the defrost cycle type in a 

24 hour period, assuming 50% compressor 

run time. 

F = default defrost energy consumption 

factor, equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CT Li and CTMi in the algorithm, the 

default values of 6 and 96 shall be used, 

respectively. 

D is the total number of distinct defrost cycle 

types. 

■ 3. Appendix B to subpart B of part 430 

is amended by: 

■ a. Revising section 4.2.1.1 including 

figure 1; 

■ b. Revising section 4.2.1.2, including 

figure 2; and 

■ c. Revising section 5.2.1.3. 

The revisions read as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Freezers 

* * * * * 

4. Test Period 

* * * * * 

4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a 

system with a cycling compressor, the second 

part of the test starts at the termination of the 

last regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle. The 

average temperature of the compartment 

measured from the termination of the 

previous compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle to the 

termination of the last regular compressor 

‘‘on’’ cycle must be within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of 

the average temperature of the compartment 

measured for the first part of the test. If any 

compressor cycles occur prior to the defrost 

heater being energized that cause the average 

temperature in the compartment to deviate 

from the average temperature for the first part 

of the test by more than 0.5 °F (0.3 °C), these 

compressor cycles are not considered regular 

compressor cycles and must be included in 

the second part of the test. As an example, 

a ‘‘precooling’’ cycle, which is an extended 

compressor cycle that lowers the 

compartment temperature prior to energizing 

the defrost heater, must be included in the 

second part of the test. The test period for the 

second part of the test ends at the 

termination of the first regular compressor 

‘‘on’’ cycle after the compartment 

temperatures have fully recovered to their 

stable conditions. The average temperature of 

the compartment measured from this 

termination of the first regular compressor 

‘‘on’’ cycle until the termination of the next 

regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle must be 

within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of the average 

temperature of the compartment measured 

for the first part of the test. See Figure 1. 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULES
3578 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

4.2.1.2 Non-cycling Compressor System. 

For a system with a non-cycling compressor, 

the second part of the test starts at a time 

before defrost during stable operation when 

the compartment temperature is within 0.5 °F 

(0.3 °C) of the average temperature of the 

compartment measured for the first part of 

the test. The second part stops at a time after 

defrost during stable operation when the 

compartment temperature is within 0.5 °F 

(0.3 °C) of the average temperature of the 

compartment measured for the first part of 

the test. See Figure 2. 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULESER25JA12.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 3579 

* * * * * 

5. Test Measurements 

* * * * * 

5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The 

energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per 

day shall be calculated equivalent to: 

ET = (1440 × K × EP1/T1) + (EP2¥(EP1 × T2/ 

T1)) × K × (12/CT), 

Where: 

ET, K, and 1440 are defined in section 

5.2.1.1; 

EP1, EP2, T1, T2, and 12 are defined in 

section 5.2.1.2; 

CT = (CTL × CTM)/(F × (CTM¥CTL) + CTL) 

Where: 

CTL = least or shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than or 

equal to 6 hours but less than or equal 

to 12 hours); 

CTM = maximum compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 

CTL but not more than 96 hours); 

F = ratio of per day energy consumption in 

excess of the least energy and the 

maximum difference in per-day energy 

consumption and is equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CTL and CTM in the algorithm, the default 

values of 6 and 96 shall be used, respectively. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–1341 Filed 1–24–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0219; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–NM–228–AD; Amendment 

39–16921; AD 2012–01–09] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

The Boeing Company Model 757–200, 

–200CB, and –300 series airplanes with 

off-wing escape slide systems installed. 

This AD was prompted by reports of inflight loss of the off-wing escape slide. 


sroberts on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with RULESER25JA12.008</GPH>