Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Notices 55775 

prescribed test procedures may evaluate 

the basic model in a manner so 

unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption characteristics as to 

provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data.’’ Sub-Zero requests 

that the Assistant Secretary grant this 

petition on both grounds. 

In granting the Sanyo petition, DOE 

acknowledged that wine storage 

compartments cannot be tested at the 

prescribed temperature of 38 °F (now 39 

°F in the revised Refrigerator Test 

Procedure), because the minimum wine 

compartment temperature is higher. 

Sanyo submitted an alternate test 

procedure to account for the energy 

consumption of its wine storage/

beverage center models. That alternate 

procedure would test the wine storage 

compartment at 55 °F, instead of the 

prescribed 38 °F. To justify the use of 

this standardized temperature for 

testing; Sanyo stated in its petition that 

it designed these models to provide an 

average wine compartment temperature 

of 55 to 57 °F, which it determined is 

a commonly recommended temperature 

for wine storage. This temperature is 

presumed to be representative of 

expected consumer use. DOE also noted 

that the test procedures for wine 

products adopted by the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers 

(AHAM), California Energy Commission 

(CEC), and Natural Resources Canada all 

use the standardized temperature of 55 

°F for wine storage compartments; 

consistent with Sanyo’s petition. 

Furthermore, DOE prescribed that 

Sanyo also use the proposed K factor 

(correction factor) value of 0.85 when 

calculating energy consumption. 

DOE granted Sanyo’s waiver petition 

in 2012, acknowledging that the existing 

test procedure cannot properly measure 

the energy consumed in actual 

consumer usage. Thereafter in 2013, 

DOE granted PAPRSA’s similar waiver 

application. 

Sub-Zero is a family-owned company 

that has been headquartered in 

Madison, Wisconsin for over 65 years. 

Sub-Zero developed the niche market 

for customized built-in residential 

refrigeration and manufactures all our 

products in the United States, with 

factories in Wisconsin and Arizona. 

While technically not a ‘‘small 

business’’ using DOE’s definition, SubZero is a small producer of refrigeration 

products striving to compete in an age 

of large, multi-national manufacturers 

and is one of the few remaining U.S. 

companies that produce all of its 

products here in the U.S. The 

company’s future viability is clearly 

threatened by this situation and we 

sincerely ask DOE to grant immediate 

relief. 

Issues with the DOE Test Procedure 

Sub-Zero is requesting a waiver to the 

test procedures for its hybrid models 

that consist of a combination of one or 

more refrigerated storage compartments 

and a wine storage compartment. While 

DOE considers such hybrid models as 

covered products, there is no current 

DOE test procedure appropriate to these 

hybrid models. Therefore, the current 

testing requirements do not measure 

energy usage in a manner that truly 

represents the energy-consumption 

characteristics of these products. 

Further, it is not even possible to test 

these models under the existing testing 

procedures. DOE fully recognizes these 

issues associated with testing hybrid 

wine products and has initiated a 

rulemaking to address these products in 

the future. Therefore Sub-Zero requests 

this waiver until such time as DOE’s 

rulemaking is complete. 

As explained in the Sanyo petition, 

wine connoisseurs recommend an 

average of 55–57 °F for the long term 

storage of wine, and Sub-Zero has also 

designed the wine storage 

compartments of its products with this 

ideal average temperature in mind. 

Since various wines have different ideal 

drinking temperatures, products are 

designed such that the wine storage 

compartment can achieve a range of 

temperatures above 39 °F. DOE’s test 

procedures (10 CFR 430 Subpart B 

Appendix A) specify that energy 

consumption be determined at a 

compartment temperature of 39 °F and 

therefore cannot apply to a product that 

is designed to be incapable of achieving 

this temperature. Further, as described 

in the Sanyo petition, hybrid models 

will typically have door-opening usage 

aligned with household freezers and 

wine storage products. Thus, the K 

factor (correction factor) of .85 from 

CAN/CSA 300–08 6.3.1.2 and AHAM/

ANSI HRF–1 should be used to 

determine energy consumption. 

Proposed Modified Test Procedure 

As in the two previously granted 

petitions, the wine storage compartment 

shall be tested at 55 °F. 

Sub Zero shall use the K factor 

(correction factor) value of 0.85 when 

calculating the energy consumption of 

the models listed below. 

The energy consumption is defined by 

the higher of the two values calculated 

by the following two formulas 

(according to 10 CFR Part 430, subpart 

B, Appendix A): 

Energy consumption of the wine 

compartment: 

EWine = ET1 + [(ET2¥ET1) × (55 

°F¥TW1)/(TW2¥TW1)] *0.85 

Energy consumption of the 

refrigerated compartment: 

ERefrigerated Compartment = ET1 + 

[(ET2¥ET1) × (39 °F¥TRC1)/

(TRC2¥TRC1)]. 

Affected Models 

The basic models of Sub-Zero hybrid 

refrigerated storage-wine storage 

products affected are: 

IW–30R 

In conclusion, this is a critical issue 

for our company and we request that 

DOE expedite the handling of this 

petition for an interim and final waiver. 

Sub-Zero would be pleased to discuss 

this waiver petition with DOE and 

provide any additional information that 

the Department might require. We will 

also notify all manufacturers known to 

us of similar domestically marketed 

products of this waiver petition. 

Sincerely, 

Paul V. Sikir 

Vice President of Design Engineering 

Via email: AS_Waiver_Requests@

ee.doe.gov 

[FR Doc. 2014–22227 Filed 9–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Case No. RF–042] 

Petition for Waiver of GE Appliances 

From the Department of Energy 

Residential Refrigerator and 

Refrigerator-Freezer Test Procedure 

and Grant of Interim Waiver 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Petition for Waiver, 

Notice of Granting Application for 

Interim Waiver, and Request for Public 

Comments. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt 

of a petition for waiver from GE 

Appliances (GE) seeking an exemption 

from specified portions of the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) test 

procedure for determining the energy 

consumption of electric refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers. GE seeks to use 

an alternate test procedure to address 

certain issues involved in testing certain 

specific basic models identified in its 

petition that are equipped with dualcompressor systems that GE contends 

cannot be accurately tested using the 

currently applicable DOE test 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

55776 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Notices 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was re-designated Part A. 

procedure. DOE solicits comments, data, 

and information concerning GE’s 

petition and its suggested alternate test 

procedure. Today’s notice also grants 

GE with an interim waiver from the 

electric refrigerator-freezer test 

procedure, subject to use of the 

alternative test procedure set forth in 

this notice. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information with respect to the GE 

Petition until October 17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by case number ‘‘RF–042,’’ by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: AS_Waiver_Requests@

ee.doe.gov. Include the case number 

[Case No. RF–042] in the subject line of 

the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J/ 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Please submit 

one signed original paper copy. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

review the background documents 

relevant to this matter, you may visit the 

U.S. Department of Energy, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024; (202) 

586–2945, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. Available documents 

include the following items: (1) This 

notice; (2) public comments received; 

(3) the petition for waiver and 

application for interim waiver; and (4) 

prior DOE rulemakings regarding 

similar refrigerator-freezers. Please call 

Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above 

telephone number for additional 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Building Technologies 

Program, Mail Stop EE–2J, Forrestal 

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–0371. Email: 

Bryan.Berringer@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mail Stop GC–71, Forrestal Building, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0103. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background and Authority 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975, as 

amended (EPCA), Public Law 94–163 

(42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified), 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles, a program covering 

most major household appliances, 

which includes the electric refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers that are the 

focus of this notice.1 Part B includes 

definitions, test procedures, labeling 

provisions, energy conservation 

standards, and the authority to require 

information and reports from 

manufacturers. Further, Part B 

authorizes the Secretary of Energy to 

prescribe test procedures that are 

reasonably designed to produce results 

that measure the energy efficiency, 

energy use, or estimated annual 

operating costs of a covered product, 

and that are not unduly burdensome to 

conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test 

procedure for electric refrigerators and 

electric refrigerator-freezers is contained 

in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

A. 

The regulations set forth in 10 CFR 

430.27 contain provisions that enable a 

person to seek a waiver from the test 

procedure requirements for covered 

products. The DOE will grant a waiver 

if it is determined that the basic model 

for which the petition for waiver was 

submitted contains one or more design 

characteristics that prevents testing of 

the basic model according to the 

prescribed test procedures, or if the 

prescribed test procedures may evaluate 

the basic model in a manner so 

unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption characteristics as to 

provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). 

Petitioners must include in their 

petition any alternate test procedures 

known to the petitioner to evaluate the 

basic model in a manner representative 

of its energy consumption. The 

Assistant Secretary may grant the 

waiver subject to conditions, including 

adherence to alternate test procedures. 

10 CFR 430.27(f)(2). Waivers remain in 

effect pursuant to the provisions of 10 

CFR 430.27(l). 

The waiver process also allows the 

DOE to grant an interim waiver from test 

procedure requirements to 

manufacturers that have petitioned DOE 

for a waiver of such prescribed test 

procedures. 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2). Within 

one year of issuance of an interim 

waiver, DOE will either: (i) Publish in 

the Federal Register a determination on 

the petition for waiver; or (ii) publish in 

the Federal Register a new or amended 

test procedure that addresses the issues 

presented in the waiver. 10 CFR 

430.27(h)(1). When DOE amends the test 

procedure to address the issues 

presented in a waiver, the waiver will 

automatically terminate on the date on 

which use of that test procedure is 

required to demonstrate compliance. 10 

CFR 430.27(h)(2). 

II. Petition for Waiver of Test Procedure 

On June 27, 2014, GE submitted a 

petition for waiver from the test 

procedure applicable to residential 

electric refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers set forth in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix A. GE is seeking a 

waiver because it is developing new 

refrigerator-freezers that incorporate a 

dual-compressor design that it believes 

is not properly accounted for in DOE’s 

amended test procedure published on 

April 21, 2014 (78 FR 22320). In its 

petition, GE seeks a waiver from the 

new DOE test procedure applicable to 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

under 10 CFR part 430 for two basic 

models of dual-compressor system 

products. Specifically, based upon the 

information provided by GE, these basic 

models demonstrate non-uniform 

cycling of their compressors, which 

prevents the verification of two criteria 

in the Appendix A test procedure—to 

ensure (a) that the first part of the test 

comprise a period of stable operation, 

and (b) that the second part of the test 

(used to measure the energy use 

contribution of the defrost cycle(s)) start 

and end during periods of stable 

operation. 

DOE previously granted a similar 

waiver to GE through a subsequent 

Decision and Order (78 FR 38699 (June 

27, 2013)) under Case No. RF–029 

pertaining to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix A1. DOE also granted 

similar waivers to Sub-Zero (77 FR 5784 

(February 6, 2012)), LG (77 FR 18327 

(March 26, 2013)); and Samsung (78 FR 

35899 (June 14, 2014)) and (79 FR 19884 

(April 10, 2014)). 

In its final rule published on April 21, 

2014 (78 FR 22320), which amended the 

test procedure for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers in Appendix A, 

DOE incorporated provisions to address 

the testing of products with multiple 

compressors, which were intended to 

obviate the need for waivers for 

multiple-compressor products such as 

the ones previously granted to GE and 

others, if these products are tested using 

the new Appendix A. However, in its 

petition for waiver, GE contends that 

due to certain characteristics of the 

basic models listed in the petition, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Notices 55777 

Appendix A test procedure does not 

accurately measure the energy 

consumption of these basic models. 

Specifically, GE claims that 

requirements in the Appendix A test 

procedure—to ensure (a) that the first 

part of the test comprise a period of 

stable operation, and (b) that the second 

part of the test (used to measure the 

energy use contribution of the defrost 

cycle(s)) start and end during periods of 

stable operation—cannot be applied to 

these basic models, because their 

compressor cycles do not repeat 

uniformly, which is one of the 

assumptions built into the test 

procedure. 

In lieu of using Appendix A, GE has 

submitted an alternate test procedure to 

account for the energy consumption of 

its refrigerator-freezer models with dual 

compressors. GE’s alternative test is 

essentially the same as the test for 

multiple-compressor products with 

automatic defrost in section 4.2.3 of 

Appendix A, except that (a) the test 

period for the first part of the test would 

not be required to meet the 

requirements for evaluation of stable 

operation provided in section 1.22 of 

Appendix A, (b) the second part of the 

test would have a minimum duration— 

this would be at least 24 hours, unless 

a second defrost (other than the target 

defrost captured within the test period) 

occurs before the end of 24 hours, in 

which case, the test period duration 

would be at least 18 hours, (c) the start 

of the second part of the test would 

occur ‘‘at the end of a regular freezer 

compressor on-cycle after the previous 

defrost occurrence’’ rather than during a 

period of stable operation as defined in 

section 1.22 of Appendix A, and (d) the 

end of the second part of the test would 

occur ‘‘at the end of a freezer 

compressor on-cycle before the next 

defrost occurrence’’ rather than during a 

period of stable operation as defined in 

section 1.22 of Appendix A. 

GE believes its alternate test 

procedure will allow for the accurate 

measurement of the energy use of these 

products, which GE contends is not 

achieved by the current Appendix A test 

procedure. Specifically, due to the nonuniform compressor cycles of this 

product, which prevent consistent 

application of the requirements 

provided in section 1.22 of Appendix A 

for evaluating the stable operation of a 

tested unit, the alternative test would 

not explicitly impose these stable 

operation requirements. Based on the 

information provided by GE, the 

variation in test results associated with 

different selections of test periods 

would be insignificant as long as the test 

starts after the 24-hour stabilization 

period, which is required both by the 

Appendix A test procedure and the 

alternative test procedure suggested by 

GE. Further, GE’s alternative test’s 

minimum duration for the second part 

of the test would also not significantly 

affect the results. 

Although not explicitly stated in the 

alternative test method, or in GE’s 

petition, DOE understands the term 

‘‘stable operation’’ used in the petition 

to have a different meaning than the 

same term as used in Appendix A, since 

the alternative test method does not use 

the same stability criteria. In this case, 

DOE understands ‘‘stable operation’’ to 

mean operation after steady-state 

conditions have been achieved but 

excluding any defrost cycles or events 

associated with a defrost cycle, such as 

precooling or recovery, and that this 

term would apply in the same way for 

the first and second parts of the test. 

DOE understands the term also to mean 

operation in which the average rate of 

change of compartment temperatures is 

zero or very close to zero—the 

temperatures may fluctuate around 

representative average temperatures as 

the compressors cycle on and off, but 

over several compressor cycles, these 

average compartment temperatures 

would not significantly change. The key 

difference in this interpretation of stable 

operation as compared with the 

definition in Appendix A is that it 

involves neither assignment of a specific 

maximum rate of change of the average 

temperature nor specification of a 

method to verify that operation is stable. 

DOE further notes that this particular 

use of the term ‘‘stable operation’’ is 

limited solely to the basic models that 

are the subject of this waiver, as DOE 

has verified using information provided 

by GE about the actual operational 

characteristics of these models that such 

a test is appropriate in this limited case. 

GE also requests an interim waiver 

from the existing DOE test procedure. 

An interim waiver may be granted if it 

is determined that the applicant will 

experience economic hardship if the 

application for interim waiver is denied, 

if it appears likely that the petition for 

waiver will be granted, and/or the 

Assistant Secretary determines that it 

would be desirable for public policy 

reasons to grant immediate relief 

pending a determination of the petition 

for waiver. See 10 CFR 430.27(e)(2). 

As noted previously, DOE recently 

addressed multiple compressor 

products in its April 21, 2014 final rule. 

In considering GE’s petition for waiver, 

DOE sought additional details about the 

specific operating characteristics of the 

products that are the subject of the 

petition in order to determine whether 

they cannot be tested using the section 

of the amended test procedure that was 

adopted specifically to address such 

products. GE indicated in its petition 

that the compressors serving the fresh 

food and freezer compartments of these 

models have non-synchronous cycles 

that do not repeat uniformly, which 

prevents these models from achieving 

the temperature stability conditions 

specified in the Appendix A test 

procedure. To better understand GE’s 

claim and the issues raised in the 

petition, DOE requested data regarding 

the operational characteristics of these 

products, which GE provided. DOE was 

specifically concerned that the use of 

GE’s proposed test method could 

present the risk of truncation error in 

the energy use measurement or the 

possibility of variation between separate 

tests of the same unit due to 

temperature drift in the compartments 

or differences in the operational state of 

the compressors at the beginning or end 

of the test period. The data provided by 

GE indicated that these models 

demonstrate non-uniform cycling that 

makes direct use of the Appendix A 

requirements for evaluating temperature 

stability problematic—these 

requirements may be appropriate for 

some operating modes of the basic 

models, but not for other operating 

modes. The data also showed that the 

use of GE’s proposed test method is 

unlikely to result in significant variation 

in test measurements for these 

particular models on the basis of the 

selected test period. DOE notes, 

however, that these conclusions are 

limited to the models listed in GE’s 

petition based upon the data provided 

by GE and that other basic models may 

demonstrate operating characteristics 

that differ from these models as to make 

this alternative test method 

inappropriate for measuring their energy 

use. Should DOE receive petitions for 

waiver requesting use of the alternative 

test identified in this notice for other 

basic models, DOE may request from the 

manufacturer information about the 

operation of those basic models that 

would demonstrate that their energy use 

can be accurately measured using this 

alternative test and that such models 

cannot in fact be tested using the 

currently assigned test method in 

Appendix A. 

For the reasons discussed above, DOE 

has determined that use of the currently 

required DOE test procedure for the 

specific GE models identified in its 

petition would provide test results so 

unrepresentative as to provide 

materially inaccurate comparative data. 

Therefore, it appears likely that GE’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

55778 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Notices 

petition for waiver will be granted. For 

these same reasons, DOE has also 

determined that it is desirable for public 

policy reasons to grant GE immediate 

relief pending a determination of the 

petition for waiver. DOE grants GE’s 

application for interim waiver from 

testing of the two basic models of 

refrigerator-freezers identified in 

petition for waiver and request for 

interim waiver. 

Therefore, it is ordered that: 

The application for interim waiver 

filed by GE is hereby granted for GE’s 

refrigerator-freezer product lines that 

incorporate dual compressors subject to 

the following specifications and 

conditions below. GE shall be required 

to test and rate its refrigerator-freezer 

product line containing dual 

compressors according to the alternate 

test procedure as set forth in section III, 

‘‘Alternate test procedure.’’ 

The interim waiver applies to the 

following basic models: 

ZIC30***** 

ZIK30***** 

DOE makes decisions on waivers and 

interim waivers for only those models 

specifically set out in the petition, not 

future models that may be manufactured 

by the petitioner. GE may submit a new 

or amended petition for waiver and 

request for grant of interim waiver, as 

appropriate, for additional models of 

refrigerator-freezers for which it seeks a 

waiver from the DOE test procedure. In 

addition, DOE notes that granting of an 

interim waiver or waiver does not 

release a petitioner from the 

certification requirements set forth at 10 

CFR part 429. 

Further, this interim waiver is 

conditioned upon the presumed validity 

of statements, representations, and 

documents provided by the petitioner. 

DOE may revoke or modify this interim 

waiver at any time upon a 

determination that the factual basis 

underlying the petition for waiver is 

incorrect, or upon a determination that 

the results from the alternate test 

procedure are unrepresentative of the 

basic models’ true energy consumption 

characteristics. 

III. Alternate Test Procedure 

EPCA requires that manufacturers use 

DOE test procedures when making 

representations about the energy 

consumption and energy consumption 

costs of products covered by the statute. 

(42 U.S.C. 6293(c)) Consistent 

representations are important for 

manufacturers to use in making 

representations about the energy 

efficiency of their products and to 

demonstrate compliance with 

applicable DOE energy conservation 

standards. Pursuant to its regulations 

applicable to waivers and interim 

waivers from applicable test procedures 

at 10 CFR 430.27, DOE will consider 

setting an alternate test procedure for 

GE in a subsequent Decision and Order. 

During the period of the interim 

waiver granted in this notice, GE shall 

test the products listed above according 

to the test procedures for residential 

electric refrigerator-freezers prescribed 

by DOE at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix A, except that, for the GE 

basic models listed above only, the 

energy consumption shall be 

determined as follows: 

Where: 

— ET is the test cycle energy (kWh/day); 

— 1440 = number of minutes in a day 

— EP1 is the dual compressor energy 

expended during the first part of the test (If 

at least one compressor cycles, the test period 

for the first part of the test shall include a 

whole number of complete primary 

compressor cycles comprising at least 24 

hours of stable operation, unless a defrost 

occurs prior to completion of 24 hours of 

stable operation, in which case the first part 

of the test shall include a whole number of 

complete primary compressor cycles 

comprising at least 18 hours of stable 

operation); 

—T1 is the length of time for EP1 

(minutes); 

—D is the total number of compartments 

with distinct defrost systems; 

—i is the variable that can equal to 1,2 or 

more that identifies the compartment with 

distinct defrost system; 

—EP2i is the total energy consumed during 

the second (defrost) part of the test being 

conducted for compartment i. (kWh); 

—T2i is the length of time (minutes) for the 

second (defrost) part of the test being 

conducted for compartment i. 

—12 = conversion factor to adjust for a 

50% run-time of the compressor in hours/day 

—CTi is the compressor on time between 

defrosts for only compartment i. CTi for 

compartment i with long time automatic 

defrost system is calculated as per 10 CFR 

Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix A clause 

5.2.1.2. CTi for compartment i with variable 

defrost system is calculated as per 10 CFR 

part 430 subpart B, Appendix A clause 

5.2.1.3. (hours rounded to the nearest tenth 

of an hour). 

Stabilization: 

The test shall start after a minimum 

24 hours stabilization run for each 

temperature control setting. 

Test Period for EP2i, T2i: 

EP2i includes precool, defrost, and 

recovery time for compartment i, as well 

as sufficient dual compressor cycles to 

allow T2i to be at least 24 hours, unless 

a defrost occurs prior to completion of 

24 hours, in which case the second part 

of the test shall include a whole number 

of complete primary compressor cycles 

comprising at least 18 hours. The test 

period shall start at the end of a regular 

freezer compressor on-cycle after the 

previous defrost occurrence (refrigerator 

or freezer). The test period also includes 

the target defrost and following freezer 

compressor cycles, ending at the end of 

a freezer compressor on-cycle before the 

next defrost occurrence (refrigerator or 

freezer). 

Test Measurement Frequency 

Measurements shall be taken at 

regular interval not exceeding 1 minute. 

* * * * * 

IV. Summary and Request for 

Comments 

Through today’s notice, DOE grants 

GE an interim waiver from the specified 

portions of the test procedure applicable 

to certain basic models of refrigeratorfreezers with dual compressors and 

announces receipt of GE’s petition for 

waiver from those same portions of the 

test procedure. DOE is publishing GE’s 

petition for waiver pursuant to 10 CFR 

430.27(b)(1)(iv). The petition includes a 

suggested alternate test procedure to 

determine the energy consumption of 

GE’s specified basic models of 

refrigerator-freezers with dual 

compressors. GE is required to follow 

this alternate procedure as a condition 

of its interim waiver, and DOE is 

considering including this alternate 

procedure in its subsequent Decision 

and Order. 

DOE solicits comments from 

interested parties on all aspects of the 

petition, including the suggested 

alternate test procedure and calculation 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN17SE14.019</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Notices 55779 

2 78 FR 25724 et seq. 

3 78 FR 38699 et seq. 

4 79 FR 22320 et seq. 

5 79 FR at 22323. 

6EERE–2012–BT–TP–0016–0023, p. 85–88. 

7 79 FR at 22328 and 22329. 

8EERE–2012–BT–TP–0016–0023, at p. 88. 

9For each compressor system, the compartment 

temperature averages for the first and last complete 

compressor cycles that lie completely within the 

second part of the test must be within 0.5 °F (0.3 

°C) of the average compartment temperature 

measured for the first part of the test. 

methodology. Pursuant to 10 CFR 

430.27(b)(1)(iv), any person submitting 

written comments to DOE must also 

send a copy of such comments to the 

petitioner. The contact information for 

the petitioner is: Earl F. Jones, Senior 

Counsel, GE Appliances, Appliance 

Park 2–225, Louisville, KY 40225. All 

submissions received must include the 

agency name and case number for this 

proceeding. Submit electronic 

comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, Portable Document Format (PDF), 

or text (American Standard Code for 

Information Interchange (ASCII)) file 

format and avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption. 

Wherever possible, include the 

electronic signature of the author. DOE 

does not accept telefacsimiles (faxes). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

10, 2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Application for Interim Waiver and Petition 

for Waiver, 10CFR430, Subpart B, Appendix 

A1-Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Refrigerator-freezers 

Case No. Non-Confidential Version 

Submitted by: Earl F. Jones Senior Counsel, 

GE Appliances, Appliance Park 2–225, 

Louisville, KY 40225, earl.jones@ge.com, 

502–452–3164 (voice), 502–452–0395 (fax). 

U.S. Department of Energy Application 

for Interim Waiver and Petition for 

Waiver, 10CFR430, Subpart B, 

Appendix A—Uniform Test Method for 

Measuring Refrigerator-Freezers 

I. Introduction 

GE Appliances, an operating division 

of General Electric Co., (‘‘GE’’) is a 

leading manufacturer and marketer of 

household appliances, including, as 

relevant to this proceeding, refrigeratorfreezers (‘‘refrigerators’’), files this 

Petition for Waiver and Application for 

Interim Waiver (collectively, 

‘‘Petition’’). On May 2, 2013, the 

Assistant Secretary granted an interim 

waiver 2 and on June 27 the final 

waiver 3 pursuant to GE’s February 28 

petition advising the Department that 

the energy consumption of GE’s new 

dual compressor refrigerator could not 

be accurately measured using the test 

procedure set forth in 430 Subpart B, 

Appendix A1. GE continued to test the 

product under the waiver-approved test 

procedure. In issuing the new 

refrigerator test procedure on April 21, 

2014,4 the Assistant Secretary nullified 

all Appendix A1 waivers, including the 

one granted to GE. The Department’s 

decision was explained as follows: 

After DOE grants a waiver, the agency 

must, pursuant to its waiver provisions, 

initiate a rulemaking to amend its regulations 

to eliminate the continued need for the 

waiver. 10 CFR 430.27 (m). This final rule 

addresses this requirement for the Sub-Zero 

waiver by amending Appendix A to include 

a test procedure for multiple-compressor 

products that is based on the Sub-Zero 

waiver procedure. 

The Sub-Zero, Samsung, LG, and GE 

waivers for multiple-compressor products 

will terminate on September 15, 2014, the 

same date that manufacturers must use the 

test procedures in Appendix A for testing.5

The conclusion that GE can use the 

Appendix A test procedure to accurately 

measure energy consumption of the new 

2014 models of the product that was 

previously covered by waiver is, 

unfortunately, erroneous. GE has made 

this point to DOE consistently and on 

multiple occasions: First, in the 2013 

waiver petition, next, at the NOPR 

stakeholders meeting held on July 25, 

2013,6 and, finally, in its NOPR 

comments.7

GE’s representative at the 

stakeholders meeting most clearly 

described the operation of GE’s 

refrigerator: 

MR. BROWN: Bill with GE Appliances. 

Again, I would reiterate that stability for 

multiple compressor products is not the same 

as stability for a single compressor product. 

If you did achieve .042 degrees per hour, it 

may be more due to luck than actually the 

product [being] what you’d consider to be 

stable. Again, with both compressors 

operating on their own schedule, with their 

own controls, you may see that the fresh food 

[temperature] is stable and the freezer’s not. 

Then you’d keep going further and the 

freezer is stable and the fresh food is not. So 

that’s again why we chose just to use a longer 

period of time instead of trying to invoke this 

.042 degrees per hour. 

* * * * * 

So again, I would reiterate for multiple 

compressor products, that . . . looking at 

stability with a strict .042 degrees per hour 

like you would on a single compressor 

product is . . . just not applicable to the 

multiple compressor product. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Lucas. 

MR. ADIN: Lucas Adin, DOE. 

Just a quick follow-up question for 

clarification. So it sounds like, based on your 

comment Bill, that a single stability criteria 

for multiple compressor products may not be 

appropriate because of how they operate. It’s 

different from single compressor products. 

But is it reasonable to say that multiple 

compressor products do get to some form of 

stability that is, you know, unique to perhaps 

each individual product, but at least it’s 

something that you know will repeat 

consistently over time, or is it something that 

you can actually identify? 

MR. BROWN: Yes. This is Bill with GE 

again. 

You may see a repeating operation in the 

freezer, and you may see it in the fresh food. 

But you’d see it on different time frames. So 

where a freezer temperature may be high, the 

fresh food may be low, and you know, if you 

just picture a sine curve, these are sine 

curves that are out of phase with one 

another. 

So you would never get to a point, or you 

may never get a point where you’ve got both 

of these meeting this type of stability criteria 

at the same time. So instead of trying to 

search through the data, to find if there just 

happens to be [a] place where this occurs, we 

just chose in our waiver to . . . use a long 

period of time 8 (emphasis supplied). 

One reason GE’s product does not 

achieve stability as described in 

Appendix A is that it has two 

compartments—one for fresh food and 

one for frozen foods—but unlike what 

we understand to be the Sub-Zero 

design, the GE compressors are not 

designed to synchronize such that both 

compartments achieve temperature 

stability at the same time. Stated 

another way, it is not designed such that 

. . . ‘‘the compartment temperature 

averages for the first and last complete 

compressor cycles [of each compressor 

system can] lie completely within the 

second part of the test [and] within 0.5 

°F (0.3 °C) of the average compartment 

temperature measured for the first part 

of the test.’’ Appendix A, 4.2.3.4.2, 

paraphrased. (See below for full 

section.) 9

While the Appendix A test procedure 

does adopt the definition of steady state 

condition that was first approved in the 

Sub-Zero waiver and subsequently GE’s 

waiver, it imposes an unachievable goal 

for GE by requiring that a 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) 

steady state condition be achieved by 

comparing the compartment 

temperatures during a single freezer 

compressor cycle to the average 

compartment temperatures achieved 

during 24 hours of fresh food and 

freezer compressor cycles. This can only 

be done if the cycles repeat uniformly. 

As described above and illustrated 

below, this does not occur with the GE 

dual compressor refrigerator. 

The non-synchronous nature of the 

compressors’ operation is depicted in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

55780 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Notices 

10 GE’s new models provide the additional 

environmental benefit of not using HFC refrigerants: 

Instead the two compressors use isobutane, which 

has a GWP of two orders of magnitude less than 

HFC–134a. 

11The Department’s regulations provide that the 

Assistant Secretary will grant a Petition upon 

‘‘determin[ation] that the basic model for which the 

waiver was requested contains a design 

characteristic which either prevents testing of the 

basic model according to the prescribed test 

procedures, or the prescribed test procedures may 

evaluate the basic model in a manner so 

unrepresentative of its true energy consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data.’’ 10 CFR § 430.27(l). GE requests 

that the Assistant Secretary grant this Petition on 

both grounds. 

the following plot of Watts and 

compartment temperatures versus time. 

As is apparent from the above, at no 

time during the freezer compressor 

cycles before the defrost (at appx. 4270 

mins.) are the fresh food and freezer 

temperatures in phase: While the fresh 

food temperature cycles repeat with 

each fresh food compressor cycle, the 

freezer temperature cycles repeat with 

every two freezer compressor cycles. 

Thus, the Appendix A assumption that 

the cycles are uniform and in phase 

does not hold for these GE models. The 

only relevant impact of this nonuniformity is the confounding effect on 

making the required calculation. The 

product provides improved consumer 

utility because it provides for better 

temperature and humidity control.10

II. GE’s Proposed Waiver 

Based on the above GE requests that 

the Assistant Secretary grant it a waiver 

from the Appendix A test procedure and 

allow GE to test its refrigerator-freezer 

model pursuant to the modified 

procedure previously approved in 78 FR 

38699, case No. RF–029, and submitted 

herewith as Attachment 1. This request 

is filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 430.27 11

as the test procedure does not allow the 

energy used by GE’s new 2014 model. 

The waiver should continue in effect 

until DOE amends the test procedure to 

accommodate such products. GE also 

requests that the Department grant an 

interim waiver to test and rate the 

models listed on Attachment 2. 

We would be pleased to discuss this 

request with DOE and provide further 

information as needed. 

GE requests expedited treatment of 

the Petition and Application. It is 

critical that the Waiver request be acted 

on, and hopefully granted, in July 2014 

in order to provide sufficient time for 

final design and testing by the 

September 15, 2014 effective date of the 

energy efficiency standard. 

I hereby certify that all manufacturers 

of domestically marketed units of the 

same product type have been notified of 

this Petition and Application, list of 

which is found in Attachment 3, hereto. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Earl F. Jones, Senior Counsel and 

Authorized Representative of GE 

Appliances 

Attachment 1 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN17SE14.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Notices 55781 

Where: 

— ET is the test cycle energy (kWh/day); 

— 1440 = number of minutes in a day 

— EP1 is the dual compressor energy 

expended during the first part of the test (If 

at least one compressor cycles, the test period 

for the first part of the test shall include a 

whole number of complete primary 

compressor cycles comprising at least 24 

hours of stable operation, unless a defrost 

occurs prior to completion of 24 hours of 

stable operation, in which case the first part 

of the test shall include a whole number of 

complete primary compressor cycles 

comprising at least 18 hours of stable 

operation); 

— T1 is the length of time for EP1 

(minutes); 

— D is the total number of compartments 

with distinct defrost systems; 

— i is the variable that can equal to 1,2 or 

more that identifies the compartment with 

distinct defrost system; 

— EP2i is the total energy consumed during 

the second (defrost) part of the test being 

conducted for compartment i. (kWh); 

— T2i is the length of time (minutes) for the 

second (defrost) part of the test being 

conducted for compartment i. 

— 12 = conversion factor to adjust for a 

50% run-time of the compressor in hours/day 

— CTi is the compressor-on time between 

defrosts for only compartment i. CTi for 

compartment i with long time automatic 

defrost system is calculated as per 10 CFR 

Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix A clause 

5.2.1.2. CTi for compartment i with variable 

defrost system is calculated as per 10 CFR 

part 430 subpart B, Appendix A clause 

5.2.1.3. (hours rounded to the nearest tenth 

of an hour). 

Stabilization: 

The test shall start after a minimum 24 

hours stabilization run for each temperature 

control setting. 

Test Period for EP2i, T2i: 

EP2i includes precool, defrost, and 

recovery time for compartment i, as well as 

sufficient dual compressor cycles to allow 

T2i to be at least 24 hours, unless a defrost 

occurs prior to completion of 24 hours, in 

which case the second part of the test shall 

include a whole number of complete primary 

compressor cycles comprising at least 18 

hours. The test period shall start at the end 

of a regular freezer compressor on-cycle after 

the previous defrost occurrence (refrigerator 

or freezer). The test period also includes the 

target defrost and following freezer 

compressor cycles, ending at the end of a 

freezer compressor on-cycle before the next 

defrost occurrence (refrigerator or freezer). 

Test Measurement Frequency 

Measurements shall be taken at regular 

intervals not exceeding 1 minute. 

* * * * * 

Attachment 2 

ZIC30***** 

ZIK30***** 

[FR Doc. 2014–22228 Filed 9–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP14–548–000] 

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of 

America LLC ; Notice of Application 

Take notice that on September 2, 

2014, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of 

America LLC (NGPL), 3250 Lacey Road, 

Downers Grove, Illinois 60615, filed an 

application pursuant to section 7(b) of 

the Natural Gas Act (NGA) for 

authorization to abandon by sale to 

Devon Gas Services, L.P. approximately 

96.28 miles of pipeline; 5,325 

horsepower of compression; and various 

taps and meters in Texas and Oklahoma, 

all as more fully set forth in the 

application which is on file with the 

Commission and open to public 

inspection. The filing is available for 

review at the Commission in the Public 

Reference Room or may be viewed on 

the Commission’s Web site web at 

http://www.ferc.gov using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket 

number excluding the last three digits in 

the docket number field to access the 

document. For assistance, contact FERC 

at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 

toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202) 

502–8659. 

Any questions concerning this 

application may be directed to Bruce H. 

Newsome, Vice President, Natural Gas 

Pipeline Company of America LLC, 

3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers 

Grove, Illinois 60515, by telephone at 

(630) 725–3070, or by email at bruce_

newsome@kindermorgan.com. 

Pursuant to section 157.9 of the 

Commission’s rules, 18 CFR 157.9, 

within 90 days of this Notice, the 

Commission staff will either: Complete 

its environmental assessment (EA) and 

place it into the Commission’s public 

record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or 

issue a Notice of Schedule for 

Environmental Review. If a Notice of 

Schedule for Environmental Review is 

issued, it will indicate, among other 

milestones, the anticipated date for the 

Commission staff’s issuance of the EA 

for this proposal. The filing of the EA 

in the Commission’s public record for 

this proceeding or the issuance of a 

Notice of Schedule for Environmental 

Review will serve to notify federal and 

state agencies of the timing for the 

completion of all necessary reviews, and 

the subsequent need to complete all 

federal authorizations within 90 days of 

the date of issuance of the Commission 

staff’s EA. 

There are two ways to become 

involved in the Commission’s review of 

this project. First, any person wishing to 

obtain legal status by becoming a party 

to the proceedings for this project 

should, on or before the comment date 

stated below file with the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

a motion to intervene in accordance 

with the requirements of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) 

and the Regulations under the NGA (18 

CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party 

status will be placed on the service list 

maintained by the Secretary of the 

Commission and will receive copies of 

all documents filed by the applicant and 

by all other parties. A party must submit 

seven copies of filings made in the 

proceeding with the Commission and 

must mail a copy to the applicant and 

to every other party. Only parties to the 

proceeding can ask for court review of 

Commission orders in the proceeding. 

However, a person does not have to 

intervene in order to have comments 

considered. The second way to 

participate is by filing with the 

Secretary of the Commission, as soon as 

possible, an original and two copies of 

comments in support of or in opposition 

to this project. The Commission will 

consider these comments in 

determining the appropriate action to be 

taken, but the filing of a comment alone 

will not serve to make the filer a party 

to the proceeding. The Commission’s 

rules require that persons filing 

comments in opposition to the project 

provide copies of their protests only to 

the party or parties directly involved in 

the protest. 

Persons who wish to comment only 

on the environmental review of this 

project should submit an original and 

two copies of their comments to the 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Environmental commentors will be 

placed on the Commission’s 

environmental mailing list, will receive 

copies of the environmental documents, 

and will be notified of meetings 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICESEN17SE14.021</GPH>