```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 76 (Monday, April 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22277-22318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08640]

[[Page 22277]]

Vol. 79

Monday,

No. 76

April 21, 2014

Part IV

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial 
Refrigeration Equipment; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 22278]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0025]
RIN 1904-AC99

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial 
Refrigeration Equipment

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
revises and reorganizes its test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment (CRE) to clarify certain terms, procedures, and compliance 
dates to improve the repeatability and remove ambiguity from the CRE 
test procedure. In this final rule, DOE also addresses a number of test 
procedure clarifications that arose as a result of the negotiated 
rulemaking process for certification of commercial heating, 
ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration, and water heating 
equipment.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is May 21, 2014.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
this final rule is approved by the Director of the Office of the 
Federal Register as of May 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=80. 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: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-6590. Email: commercial_refrigeration_equipment@ee.doe.gov.
    Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6111. Email: 
mailto:Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference 
into 10 CFR part 431 the following industry standards:
    (1) ANSI/ASHRAE 72-2005, (``ASHRAE 72-2005''), ``Method of Testing 
Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,'' Copyright 2005.
    (2) ASTM E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), ``Standard Test Method for 
Solar Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet Materials Using Sunlight,'' 
approved April 1, 2009.
    Copies of ASHRAE standards may be purchased from the American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 
Inc., 1971 Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, or at www.ashrae.org/.
    Copies of ASTM standards may be purchased from ASTM International, 
100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, 
(877) 909-2786, or at www.astm.org/.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Amendments to the Test Procedure
    1. Scope of Coverage
    a. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables, and Other Refrigerated Holding and 
Serving Equipment
    b. Chef Bases and Griddle Stands
    c. Existing Cases Undergoing Refurbishments or Retrofits
    d. Case Doors Shipped as After-Market Additions
    2. Definitions Pertinent to Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
    a. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment With Drawers
    b. Transparent and Solid Doors
    c. Hybrid Equipment and Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers
    3. Relationship Among Rating Temperature, Operating Temperature, 
and Integrated Average Temperature
    4. Proper Configuration and Use of Components or Features in the 
DOE Test Procedure
    a. Energy Management Systems
    b. Lighting
    c. Test Package Temperatures
    5. Treatment of Other Specific Equipment Features and 
Accessories During Testing
    a. Customer Display Signs/Lights
    b. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps
    c. Anti-Sweat Door Heaters
    d. Ultraviolet Lights
    e. Illuminated Temperature Displays and Alarms
    f. Condenser Filters
    g. Refrigeration System Security Covers
    h. Night Curtains and Covers
    i. Grill Options
    j. Coated Coils
    k. Internal Secondary Coolant Circuits
    l. Wedge Cases
    m. Misting or Humidification Systems
    n. Air Purifiers
    o. General Purpose Outlets
    p. Crankcase Heaters
    q. Interior/Exterior Liners
    r. Other Comments Received From Interested Parties
    6. Rounding of Test Results and Certified Ratings
    7. Testing at the Lowest Application Product Temperature
    a. Definition of Lowest Application Product Temperature
    b. Incorporation by Reference of ASHRAE 72-2005
    8. Clarifications in Response to Interpretations to AHRI 1200-
2010
    9. Clarification of Methodology for Measuring Total Display Area
    10. Compliance Date of Test Procedure Amendments
    B. Other Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comments and DOE 
Responses
    1. Ambient Test Temperatures
    2. Burden of Testing
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    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 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. Authority and Background

A. Authority

    Title III, Part C of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 
(EPCA), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by 
Public Law 95-619, Title IV, Sec. 441(a), established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program 
covering certain industrial equipment, which includes the commercial 
refrigeration equipment that is the focus

[[Page 22279]]

of this final rule.\1\ All references to EPCA refer to the statute as 
amended through the American Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections 
Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 112-210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 
testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of 
covered equipment must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that 
their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation 
standards adopted under EPCA, (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1)), and (2) making 
representations about the efficiency of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine 
whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated 
under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(e)(1))
General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered equipment. EPCA provides, in relevant part, that any test 
procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy 
use and estimated annual operating costs of a covered product during a 
representative average use cycle or period of use and shall not be 
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
    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 on them. (42 
U.S.C. 6314(c)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test 
procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test 
procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered 
product or equipment \2\ as determined under the existing test 
procedure. If DOE determines that the amended test procedure would 
alter the measured efficiency of a covered product, DOE must amend the 
applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(6)(D))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The term ``covered product'' broadly refers to all types of 
appliances and equipment regulated by DOE regardless of whether they 
are consumer products or commercial and industrial equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6314(c)(1), no later than 3 years after the date of 
prescribing a test procedure pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6314, and from time 
to time thereafter, DOE is required to conduct a reevaluation and 
determine whether to amend the test procedure. If DOE determines a test 
procedure should be amended, it shall promptly publish in the Federal 
Register proposed test procedures, incorporating such amendments and 
affording interested persons an opportunity to present oral and written 
data, views, and arguments. (42 U.S.C. 6314(c)(2))
    In February 2012, DOE published a final rule (2012 test procedure 
final rule) prescribing new amendments to the test procedure for 
commercial refrigeration equipment. 77 FR 10291, 10318-21 (Feb. 21, 
2012). Pursuant to EPCA's requirement in 42 U.S.C. 6314(c), DOE has 
reevaluated the CRE test procedure and concluded that it should be 
amended to clarify a number of provisions regarding how aspects of the 
test are conducted, to more explicitly define some terms, and to more 
clearly specify the compliance dates for various provisions. DOE's 
adopted amendments to the test procedure are presented in this final 
rule.

B. Background

    EPCA mandates that the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, 
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 117-2002, ``Method of 
Testing Closed Refrigerators,'' shall be the initial test procedure for 
the types of equipment to which standards are applicable under 42 
U.S.C. 6313(c)(2)-(3). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(A)(ii)) EPCA requires DOE 
to address whether to amend its test procedures if ASHRAE amends this 
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(E)-(F)) In 2005, ASHRAE combined 
Standard 72-1998, ``Method of Testing Open Refrigerators,'' and 
Standard 117-2002 and published the test method as ASHRAE Standard 72-
2005 (ASHRAE 72-2005), ``Method of Testing Commercial Refrigerators and 
Freezers,'' which was approved by the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI) on July 29, 2005. Consistent with EPCA's requirement 
in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)(E), DOE reviewed ASHRAE 72-2005, as well as 
American Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Standard 1200-2006 (ARI 1200-
2006), which was approved by ANSI on August 28, 2006. DOE determined 
that ARI 1200-2006 included by reference the test procedures in ASHRAE 
72-2005 and the rating temperatures prescribed in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(6)(B)) As a result, DOE published a final rule in December 2006 
(2006 test procedure final rule) that adopted ARI 1200-2006 as the DOE 
test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment. 71 FR 71340, 
71357 (Dec. 8, 2006). The 2006 test procedure final rule specified 
rating temperatures of 38 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) for commercial 
refrigerators and refrigerator compartments, 0 [deg]F (2 
[deg]F) for commercial freezers and freezer compartments, and -15 
[deg]F (2 [deg]F) for commercial ice-cream freezers. 71 FR 
at 71370 (Dec. 8, 2006). DOE also adopted Association of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers (AHAM) Standard HRF-1-2004, ``Energy, Performance and 
Capacity of Household Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and 
Freezers,'' for measuring compartment volumes for equipment covered 
under the 2006 test procedure final rule. 71 FR at 71358 (Dec. 8, 
2006). The test procedure established in the 2006 final rule became 
effective on January 8, 2007 (71 FR at 71340), and its use has been 
required to demonstrate compliance with the current energy conservation 
standards.
    More recently, on February 21, 2012, DOE published the 
aforementioned 2012 test procedure final rule, in which it adopts 
several amendments to the DOE test procedure for commercial 
refrigeration equipment. These amendments include updating the standard 
incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure in response to the 
relevant industry organizations issuing updated versions. Specifically, 
DOE updated the incorporation by reference of Air-Conditioning, 
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 
(AHRI 1200-2010), ``Performance Rating of Commercial Refrigerated 
Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets,'' as the DOE test procedure 
for this equipment. 77 FR at 10318 (Feb. 21, 2012). The 2012 test 
procedure final rule also includes an amendment to incorporate by 
reference the updated ANSI/AHAM Standard HRF-1-2008 (AHAM HRF-1-2008), 
``Energy, Performance, and Capacity of Household Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers,'' for determining compartment 
volumes for this equipment. 77 FR at 10318 and 10321 (Feb. 21, 2012). 
These updates were primarily editorial in nature and aligned the AHRI 
test procedure with the nomenclature and methodology used in DOE's 2009 
standards rulemaking on commercial refrigeration equipment. The updated 
AHRI 1200-2010 also

[[Page 22280]]

references the most recent version of the AHAM standard, AHAM HRF-1-
2008.
    In addition, the 2012 test procedure final rule includes several 
amendments designed to address certain energy efficiency features that 
were not accounted for by the previous DOE test procedure, including 
provisions for measuring the impact of night curtains,\3\ lighting 
occupancy sensors, and scheduled controls. 77 FR at 10296-10298 and 
10319-10320 (Feb. 21, 2012). In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE 
also adopts amendments to allow testing of commercial refrigeration 
equipment that cannot operate at the rating temperature specified in 
the DOE test procedure. Specifically, the 2012 test procedure final 
rule allows testing of commercial refrigeration equipment at its lowest 
application product temperature (LAPT), for equipment that is 
physically incapable of reaching the prescribed rating temperature. 77 
FR at 10320 (Feb. 21, 2012). The 2012 test procedure final rule also 
allows manufacturers to test and certify equipment at the more-
stringent rating temperatures and ambient conditions required by NSF 
\4\ for food safety testing. 77 FR at 10320-10321 (Feb. 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Night curtains are devices made of an insulating material, 
typically insulated aluminum fabric, designed to be pulled down over 
the open front of the case to decrease infiltration and heat 
transfer into the case when the merchandizing establishment is 
closed.
    \4\ Founded in 1944 as the National Sanitation Foundation, the 
organization is now referred to simply as NSF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The test procedure amendments established in the 2012 test 
procedure final rule became effective on March 22, 2012. 77 FR at 10292 
(Feb. 21, 2012). The amendments are required to be used in conjunction 
with the amended standards established in DOE's recently published 
energy conservation standards final rule (March 2014 energy 
conservation standards final rule) beginning on March 28, 2017. 79 FR 
17726, 17727 (Mar. 28, 2014).
    Since publication of the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE has 
received a number of inquiries from interested parties regarding DOE 
regulations for commercial refrigeration equipment, including how 
different types of equipment fit into DOE's definitions of commercial 
refrigeration equipment at 10 CFR 431.62, and questions involving 
certain provisions of the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.64. More 
specifically, DOE has received inquiries and questions regarding the 
applicability of DOE's test procedure and Federal energy conservation 
standards to particular models of commercial refrigeration equipment, 
the proper configuration and use of certain components and features of 
commercial refrigeration equipment for purposes of testing according to 
the DOE test procedure, and the compliance date of the amendments 
specified in the 2012 test procedure final rule. On October 28, 2013, 
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (hereafter referred to as the October 2013 test procedure 
NOPR) to amend the test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment (CRE) appearing at 10 CFR 431.64. 78 FR 64296 (Oct. 28, 
2013). In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE presented proposed 
amendments to address the questions presented by interested parties 
and, where appropriate, proposed edits to the regulatory language to 
clarify DOE's existing regulations. 78 FR at 64296 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    On February 26, 2013, members of the Appliance Standards and 
Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) unanimously decided to 
form a working group to negotiate rulemaking on certification for 
commercial heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC); 
commercial water heating (WH); and commercial refrigeration equipment. 
A notice of intent to form the Commercial Certification Working Group 
was published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2013 (Docket No. 
EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023). 78 FR 15653 (Mar. 12, 2013). DOE received 35 
nominations for the Working Group. On April 16, 2013, DOE published a 
notice of open meeting that announced the first meeting and listed the 
22 nominees that were selected to serve as members of the Working 
Group, in addition to two members from ASRAC, and one DOE 
representative. 78 FR 22431 (Apr. 16, 2013). The members of the Working 
Group were selected to ensure a broad and balanced array of stakeholder 
interests and expertise, and include efficiency advocates, 
manufacturers, a utility representative, and third party laboratory 
representatives. As part of that rulemaking process, DOE conducted a 
number of regulatory negotiation sessions over the course of the summer 
of 2013 involving major stakeholders in the CRE market.\5\ One outcome 
of these meetings was an agreement on the need to clarify aspects of 
the DOE test procedure with respect to the treatment of specific 
features of commercial refrigeration equipment. On August 30, 2013, the 
Working Group submitted a report to ASRAC containing recommendations on 
the certification requirements for HVAC, WH, and refrigeration 
equipment (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023, No. 51) and ASRAC voted 
unanimously to accept these recommendations (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-
NOC-0005, No. 13). In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE also 
proposed clarifications of the treatment of those features by the DOE 
test procedure. 78 FR at 64306-64308 (Oct. 28, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ All of the details of the negotiation sessions can be found 
in the public meeting transcripts that are posted to the docket for 
the Working Group (www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-
BT-NOC-0023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 5, 2013, DOE held a public meeting (December 2013 NOPR 
public meeting) to present the test procedure amendments proposed in 
the October 2013 test procedure NOPR and accept comments from 
interested parties. Interested parties submitted comments on the 
ambient test conditions and the burden of testing and certification of 
commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE analyzed all of the comments 
received in response to the October 2013 test procedure NOPR and 
incorporated recommendations, where appropriate, into this test 
procedure final rule.

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    In this final rule, DOE adopts amendments to clarify DOE's test 
procedure provisions, definitions, the treatment of specific 
accessories when testing under the DOE test procedure, and the 
applicability of the existing test procedure and standards to different 
types of commercial refrigeration equipment. Specifically, DOE is 
adopting edits to definitions currently incorporated into the existing 
DOE test procedure and including additional definitions to be 
incorporated into the existing test procedure (reorganized into 
appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 431). DOE is also adopting edits 
to definitions and including additional definitions to be incorporated 
into the test procedure used to determine compliance with the amended 
energy conservation standards adopted for commercial refrigeration 
equipment on March 28, 2014 (reorganized into appendix B to subpart C 
of 10 CFR part 431). 79 FR 17726. DOE does not believe that the test 
procedure clarifications adopted in this final rule will affect the 
measured energy use of any covered commercial refrigeration equipment 
as they relate to the applicable energy conservation standards. Rather, 
the additional definitions and amendments to the DOE test procedure for 
commercial refrigeration equipment would serve only to clarify existing 
nomenclature, testing provisions, compliance dates, and requirements 
for

[[Page 22281]]

certain features and types of commercial refrigeration equipment; they 
would not establish new requirements with regard to testing commercial 
refrigeration equipment.
    DOE notes that certification is not currently required for 
commercial refrigeration equipment. On December 31, 2013, DOE published 
a final rule adopting amended regulations governing alternative energy 
determination methods (AEDMs), basic model definition, and the 
compliance dates for certification of commercial HVAC, refrigeration, 
and WH (2013 AEDM final rule). 78 FR 79579, 79590. The 2013 AEDM Final 
Rule adopted a certification date of December 31, 2014, for self-
contained, closed solid, and closed transparent commercial 
refrigeration equipment and a certification date of July 1, 2015, for 
all other commercial refrigeration equipment. Id. DOE also recently 
published a NOPR proposing, among other things, to revise and expand 
the certification requirements for commercial refrigeration equipment. 
79 FR 8886, 8899-8900 (Feb. 14, 2014). The specific proposals discussed 
in the NOPR were developed as a result of the negotiations and 
recommendations of the Working Group for commercial HVAC, WH, and 
refrigeration equipment (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023).

III. Discussion

    Section III.A presents all of the revisions to the DOE test 
procedure found at 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, ``Uniform test method 
for measuring the energy consumption of commercial refrigerators, 
freezers, and refrigerator-freezers,'' incorporated in this final rule, 
and discusses the comments received on these topics during the December 
2013 NOPR public meeting and the associated comment period. The changes 
adopted as a result of this final rule include revisions addressing the 
following:
    1. The applicability of the test procedure and related energy 
conservation standards to certain types of equipment;
    2. the definitions of ``hybrid commercial refrigeration 
equipment,'' ``commercial refrigeration equipment with drawers,'' and 
``commercial refrigeration equipment with solid and/or transparent 
doors'';
    3. the relationship among the rating temperature, operating 
temperature, and integrated average temperature (IAT);
    4. the proper configuration and use of energy management systems, 
lighting controls, and test packages in the DOE test procedure for 
commercial refrigeration equipment;
    5. the treatment of various features and components;
    6. the rounding requirements for test results and certified 
ratings;
    7. the provision adopted in the 2012 test procedure final rule to 
allow testing at the LAPT for equipment that cannot operate at the 
prescribed rating temperature for its equipment class;
    8. clarifications raised by AHRI's Interpretations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 
5 of AHRI 1200-2010;
    9. the methodology used to determine total display area (TDA); and
    10. the compliance date of certain amendments established in the 
2012 test procedure final rule.
    In response to the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE received 
several comments from stakeholders that did not pertain to a specific 
test procedure amendment. In section III.B, DOE provides responses to 
comments pertaining to (1) the ambient test temperatures required in 
the DOE test procedure and (2) the burden of testing and certifying 
equipment as compliant with DOE's energy conservation standards.

A. Amendments to the Test Procedure

    This final rule incorporates the following changes to the test 
procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment in 10 CFR part 431, 
subpart C.
1. Scope of Coverage
    On October 18, 2005, DOE published a final rule adopting EPCA's 
definition of commercial refrigeration equipment. This definition 
includes seven provisions pertaining to the operational, functional, 
and design characteristics of the equipment that must be met for a 
piece of equipment to qualify as commercial refrigeration equipment. 70 
FR 60407, 60414 (Oct. 18, 2005). This definition forms the basis of the 
scope of coverage of DOE's regulations for commercial refrigeration 
equipment. While the definition of commercial refrigeration equipment 
encompasses a broad cross-section of commercial refrigeration equipment 
types, DOE has only established energy conservation standards for 
certain types of covered commercial refrigeration equipment specified 
at 10 CFR 431.66, and these standards apply to all new equipment 
distributed into U.S. commerce. 76 FR at 12426 and 12437 (March 7, 
2011). There are also several types of equipment that meet the 
definition of commercial refrigeration equipment for which DOE has not 
yet set energy conservation standards. These include, for example, 
buffet tables, salad bars, prep tables, and griddle stands.
    EPCA and DOE regulations require manufacturers of commercial 
refrigeration equipment to use the DOE test procedure for commercial 
refrigeration equipment to evaluate compliance with any applicable 
energy conservation standards and to support any representations as to 
the energy use. The DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment is set forth at 10 CFR 431.64.
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed 
clarifications regarding the applicability of the current DOE energy 
conservation standards and test procedure to specific equipment 
categories, including the following:
    i. Salad bars, buffet tables, and other refrigerated holding and 
serving equipment;
    ii. chef bases and griddle stands;
    iii. existing cases undergoing refurbishments or retrofits; and
    iv. cases with doors shipped as after-market accessories.
    78 FR at 64299-64300 (Oct. 28, 2013).
a. Salad Bars, Buffet Tables, and Other Refrigerated Holding and 
Serving Equipment
    Salad bars, buffet tables, and other refrigerated holding and 
serving equipment are types of commercial refrigeration equipment that 
store and display perishable items temporarily during food preparation 
or service. As DOE stated in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, 
these units typically have specific design attributes, such as easily 
accessible or open bins that allow convenient and unimpeded access to 
the refrigerated products, which make them unique from commercial 
refrigeration equipment designed for storage or retailing. 78 FR at 
64299-300 (Oct. 28, 2013). In this final rule, DOE maintains that while 
salad bars, buffet tables, and other refrigerated holding and serving 
equipment are covered equipment types because they meet the definition 
of commercial refrigeration equipment in EPCA, the DOE test procedure 
and current Federal standards do not apply due to their unique 
operation. Should DOE decide to consider test procedures or energy 
conservation standards for salad bars, buffet tables, and other 
refrigerated holding and serving equipment, it would do so in a future 
rulemaking.
b. Chef Bases and Griddle Stands
    Chef bases and griddle stands are designed to be placed directly 
under cooking equipment, such as a commercial grill. Chef bases and 
griddle stands are also designed to provide

[[Page 22282]]

food-safe temperatures in extremely hot environments, and thus are 
designed with uniquely robust refrigeration systems. These 
refrigeration systems require larger compressors to provide more 
cooling capacity for the storage volume than equipment with compressors 
that are appropriately sized for more typical ambient temperatures. As 
a result, this equipment consumes more energy than similarly sized, 
standard CRE models.
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE stated that chef bases 
and griddle stands are considered commercial refrigeration equipment 
according to DOE's definition at 10 CFR 431.62 and stated that it 
believes that chef bases and griddle stands can be tested using the DOE 
test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment. DOE also noted 
that current energy conservation standards do not apply to these types 
of equipment and DOE did not consider standards for this equipment in 
its recent revision of energy conservation standards for commercial 
refrigeration equipment. 79 FR 17726 (Mar. 28, 2014). DOE further 
proposed additions to 10 CFR 431.66 to make clear that the current 
energy conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment do 
not apply to chef bases and griddle stands. 78 FR at 64300 (Oct. 28, 
2013). To clearly differentiate ``chef bases'' and ``griddle stands'' 
from conventional types of commercial refrigeration equipment that are 
currently covered by energy conservation standards, DOE proposed to 
establish a definition for ``chef base'' and/or ``griddle stand'' based 
on the unique operation of chef bases and griddle stands, which are 
designed to provide food-safe temperatures in extremely warm 
environments in excess of 200 [deg]F, and thus are designed with 
uniquely robust refrigeration systems.
    In response to the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, interested 
parties provided comments on DOE's proposed definition and coverage of 
chef bases and griddle stands. Continental agreed with DOE's proposed 
definition of ``chef base or griddle stand,'' stating that it 
corresponds with industry practice regarding types of units designed 
and marketed for harsh applications that should be given special 
consideration for energy consumption limits. (Continental, No. 14 at p. 
1) \6\ Traulsen suggested that DOE replace the term ``cooking 
equipment'' with ``cooking appliance,'' but stated that otherwise found 
the definition of ``chef base or griddle stand'' to be acceptable. 
(Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information 
that is in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop test procedures 
for commercial refrigeration equipment (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-
0025, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). This particular 
notation refers to a comment: (1) Submitted by Continental; (2) 
appearing in document number 14 of the docket; and (3) appearing on 
page 1 of that document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hill Phoenix agreed with DOE that chef bases and griddle stands do 
not yet have energy conservation standards associated with them and 
requested that other, similar equipment designed to be placed or 
mounted directly under equipment that is designed to hold food at an 
elevated temperature be considered in this category. (Hill Phoenix, No. 
13 at p. 1) Similarly, Southern Store Fixtures requested clarification 
on the exact definition of chef bases, specifically, whether this 
covered refrigeration units with food warming equipment on top. 
(Southern Store Fixtures, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 25) 
True commented that while some consumers may place food-warming 
equipment on top of a refrigeration unit, a majority of consumers will 
place high-temperature cooking equipment atop the unit, and 
manufacturers will almost always design equipment for the harsh case. 
(True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 26) Hill Phoenix also 
noted that NSF Type II equipment is designed to operate at elevated 
temperatures and similarly would use more energy if tested using the 
current CRE test procedure (than Type I equipment) and, as such, 
suggested that NSF Type II equipment also should fall into the category 
of equipment for which standards have not yet been set. (Hill Phoenix, 
No. 13 at pp. 1-2)
    DOE appreciates the agreement of interested parties with DOE's 
proposed definition. With regard to replacing the term ``cooking 
equipment'' with ``cooking appliance,'' as suggested by interested 
parties, DOE's appliance standards and commercial equipment program 
generally refers to equipment as something designed and primarily found 
in commercial applications, while the term ``appliance'' refers to a 
primarily residential application. DOE finds that chef bases and 
griddle stands, and the associated cooking apparatus placed above these 
equipment, are typically used in commercial kitchens. As such, DOE 
believes the term ``cooking equipment'' is more appropriate than 
``cooking appliance'' for use in the definition of ``chef bases'' and 
``griddle stands,'' as it is consistent with DOE's designation of 
equipment as designed for commercial applications.
    Regarding the inclusion of additional equipment designed for use 
directly under equipment that is designed to hold food at an elevated 
temperature as suggested by several commenters, DOE believes that this 
equipment can be adequately represented in the current CRE equipment 
categories and does not find sufficient justification to exclude them 
with the exclusion of ``chef bases'' and ``griddle stands.'' The 
categorization of griddle stands was meant to accommodate equipment 
that experienced temperatures in excess of 200 [deg]F, which requires 
significant modification of the refrigeration system to maintain 
cooling in such a high temperature environment. DOE does not find that 
temperatures required for short-term holding of food are significantly 
different from the temperatures observed in restaurants or other closed 
cooking environments in which conventional commercial refrigeration 
equipment is placed. DOE does not believe that maintenance of 
refrigeration performance in these environments requires significantly 
different equipment design, as is the case of ``chef bases'' and 
``griddle stands.'' In addition, DOE has not observed specific 
marketing or identification of commercial refrigeration equipment 
designed for use under food-warming and holding equipment. Thus, based 
on DOE's assessment, the refrigeration system and design of this 
equipment is not significantly different from other types of commercial 
refrigeration equipment, and DOE believes that the existing DOE test 
procedure is sufficiently representative of field use, and application 
of the existing energy conservation standard appropriate for this 
equipment.
    In response to Hill Phoenix's comment regarding NSF Type II 
equipment, DOE believes that NSF Type II equipment can be effectively 
characterized by the existing DOE test procedure and effectively meet 
the existing energy conservation standards. DOE previously considered 
NSF Type II equipment in the 2012 test procedure final rule and found 
that the compressor systems can effectively operate at test 
temperatures. In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE agreed with 
interested parties that testing cases at an ambient temperature of 80 
[deg]F, rather than the currently specified 75 [deg]F, will not have a 
significant impact on energy consumption for cases with doors and 
recognized that the impact on open cases may be greater than on closed 
cases, but did not believe that equipment will have operation or

[[Page 22283]]

performance issues if tested at the temperatures prescribed by the DOE 
test procedure. 77 FR at 10305-10307 (Feb. 21, 2012). DOE maintains 
that the energy consumption of a case should scale with ambient 
temperature and does not believe these issues will prevent units from 
being tested using the DOE-prescribed test temperatures or complying 
with DOE energy conservation standards. DOE researched the equipment 
available on the market and requested specific data regarding the 
existence of cases that cannot meet the standard or the characteristics 
of their operation. DOE did not encounter any data arising from this 
search that would conflict with its current treatment of these 
equipment types, and no commenters provided any additional data to 
support the contention that these equipment types cannot meet the DOE 
standards. In addition, NSF Type II equipment is typically placed 
outdoors and may see a wide variety of temperatures in the field; thus, 
DOE finds the current rating conditions of 75 [deg]F and 45 percent 
relative humidity appropriately representative for this equipment.
c. Existing Cases Undergoing Refurbishments or Retrofits
    Energy conservation standards apply only to new equipment 
manufactured after the effective date of the applicable standard, and 
not to equipment undergoing retrofits or refurbishments. DOE stated in 
its certification, compliance, and enforcement (CCE) final rule, 
published on March 7, 2011, that manufacturers must certify to DOE that 
each basic model of covered equipment meets the applicable standard 
before distributing that equipment into U.S. commerce. 76 FR at 12426 
and 12437. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE clarified that 
its authority covers only newly manufactured equipment and does not 
extend to rebuilt and refurbished equipment. 78 FR at 64300 (Oct. 28, 
2013).
    DOE did not receive any negative comments in response to this 
clarification and continues to maintain that its energy conservation 
standards and test procedures apply to only new equipment and not 
existing equipment undergoing refurbishments or retrofits.
d. Case Doors Shipped as After-Market Additions
    A basic model of commercial refrigeration equipment is tested, 
rated, and subject to specific standards based on the equipment 
class(es) to which that basic model belongs. For commercial 
refrigeration equipment, one of the features that distinguishes the 
current equipment classes for the purposes of applying standards is the 
presence of doors (i.e., open or closed). In the October 2013 test 
procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that when a model of commercial 
refrigeration equipment is offered for sale with doors as an optional 
accessory, regardless of how the unit is shipped, such unit must be 
tested and certified as equivalent to a basic model shipped with doors 
pre-installed. DOE also requested comment on whether, if this same 
model is offered for sale as a model without doors, it should be tested 
and rated with no doors installed and meet the corresponding energy 
conservation standards for open case equipment.
    In response to the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, the Northwest 
Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) commented that it believed equipment 
that can optionally be sold with doors or without should be tested and 
certified in each configuration. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 1) DOE did not 
receive any negative comments on this proposal.
    DOE agrees with NEEA that commercial refrigeration equipment that 
can optionally be sold with doors or without doors should be treated as 
separate basic models in separate equipment classes and should be 
tested both with doors and without doors. This is consistent with the 
definition of basic models, which is based on features that affect the 
energy use of a covered piece of equipment as established in DOE's CCE 
final rule, and requires individual models that would fall into 
different equipment classes to be certified separately. 76 FR at 12429 
(March 7, 2011) (see 10 CFR 431.62).
2. Definitions Pertinent to Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
    DOE currently categorizes commercial refrigeration equipment by 
equipment classes based on several general characteristics of a given 
basic model. 10 CFR 431.62 provides definitions that assist 
manufacturers in determining which equipment class and associated 
energy conservation standard applies to a given basic model of 
commercial refrigeration equipment. However, 10 CFR 431.62 does not 
provide explicit guidance on how to classify commercial refrigeration 
equipment with drawers or how to differentiate between a unit with 
transparent doors and a unit with solid doors. In the October 2013 test 
procedure NOPR, DOE proposed definitions and clarifications regarding 
the treatment of commercial refrigeration equipment with drawers and 
commercial refrigeration equipment with transparent and/or solid doors. 
78 FR at 64300-03 (Oct. 28, 2013). DOE also proposed clarification with 
regard to the definitions for and categorization of hybrid equipment 
and commercial refrigerator freezers. 78 FR at 64303 (Oct. 28, 2013). 
These proposals, comments submitted by interested parties, and DOE's 
response to submitted comments are presented in the subsequent 
sections.
a. Commercial Refrigeration Equipment With Drawers
    DOE's definition of commercial refrigerator, freezer, and 
refrigerator-freezer specified at 10 CFR 431.62 includes a requirement 
that the equipment ``[h]as transparent or solid doors, sliding or 
hinged doors, a combination of hinged, sliding, transparent, or solid 
doors, or no doors.'' Based on this definition, DOE interprets the term 
``door'' to mean any movable component of the CRE unit that:
    1. When closed, separates the interior refrigerated space from the 
ambient air; and
    2. when opened, provides access to the refrigerated products inside 
the CRE unit.
    Based on this definition, in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, 
DOE presented its view that drawers are treated as equivalent to doors 
for purposes of DOE's regulatory program, including compliance with 
DOE's energy conservation standards. Likewise, DOE believes drawers are 
treated as doors when conducting the DOE test procedure. 78 FR at 
64300-01 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    To demonstrate the comparable operation of models of commercial 
refrigeration equipment with drawers as compared to similar models with 
traditional doors, in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE 
presented the test results for several CRE units with drawers from 
multiple manufacturers using the current DOE test procedure and 
compared their performance to nearly identical units with hinged doors 
(belonging to the vertical closed solid, or VCS, equipment family) from 
the same manufacturer product lines. As a result of the testing, DOE 
found that the units with drawers performed similarly to the hinged-
door units to which they were compared. DOE also presented the effect 
of drawer-opening distances for CRE units with drawers and found 
minimal variation in measured total daily energy consumption (TDEC) at 
different drawer opening distances. 78 FR at 64301 (Oct. 28, 2013). DOE 
believes these test results confirm that the door-opening requirements 
in the DOE test procedure

[[Page 22284]]

apply to basic models of commercial refrigeration equipment with 
drawers, just as they do for CRE units with other types of hinged or 
sliding doors, and that the current energy conservation standards 
prescribed for commercial refrigeration equipment are equally 
applicable to CRE units with drawers.
    To clarify how DOE's regulatory scheme applies to basic models of 
CRE units with drawers, in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE 
proposed to add language to the definition section at 10 CFR 431.62, 
defining doors as being inclusive of drawers, and requested comment on 
its proposed definition. 78 FR at 64301 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    Several interested parties commented on DOE's proposed definition 
of door to include drawers, the applicability of the DOE test procedure 
to units with drawers, and DOE's coverage of units with drawers in 
general. DOE presents the comments received by interested parties and 
DOE's response in the following sections.
Definition of Door
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE defined door at 78 FR 
64301 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    DOE received several comments and suggestions from interested 
parties regarding its proposed definition for doors. Continental 
commented that DOE's definition of ``door'' should not include drawers. 
Continental stated that it is counter-intuitive to define a ``drawer'' 
as a subset of a ``door'' and this would result in confusion and 
misinterpretation and suggested that, instead, DOE change the usage of 
the term ``door'' in applicable procedures to ``door or drawer.'' 
(Continental, No. 14 at p. 1) AHRI did not agree with DOE's proposed 
definition of ``door'' to be inclusive of drawers and instead suggested 
that DOE create separate definition for drawers or amending the current 
definition for ``doors'' by replacing ``door'' with the term ``door/
drawer.'' (AHRI, No. 15 at p. 3)
    NEEA, AHRI, Southern Store Fixtures, and True commented that DOE's 
definition of doors would include night curtains and recommended that 
DOE include a specific exclusion of night curtains in the definition of 
doors. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 15 at p. 4; Southern Store 
Fixtures, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 32; True, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 37) Several interested parties, 
including NEEA, Traulsen, True, Southern Store Fixtures, and Unified 
Brands, recommended that DOE remove the ``use of tools'' clause from 
the definition, as most drawers and some doors are intended to be 
removed without the use of tools. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2; Traulsen, No. 
17 at p. 2; True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 37; Southern 
Store Fixtures, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 37; Unified 
Brands, No. 9 at p. 1)
    DOE appreciates the suggestions of interested parties regarding 
changes and improvements to DOE's proposed definition for door. DOE 
agrees with interested parties that a night curtain would have met the 
definition of ``door'' proposed in the October 2013 test procedure 
NOPR. This was not DOE's intent, as night curtains are intended to be 
treated as an energy-saving feature for open cases. DOE also adopted a 
specific definition for night curtain in the 2012 test procedure final 
rule. 77 FR at 10318 (Feb. 21, 2012). To clarify that night curtains 
are not to be treated as doors for the purposes of testing using the 
DOE test procedure or complying with DOE's energy conservation 
standards, in this final rule DOE is adding language to the definition 
of ``door'' to exclude night curtains.
    DOE also acknowledges comments submitted by interested parties 
regarding the requirement that a door be ``affixed such that it is not 
removable without the use of tools.'' DOE's intent with the proposed 
clause was to exclude temporary insulating panels or other devices that 
are not doors, but may be placed on open cases periodically to limit 
energy consumption when the case is not in use for merchandizing. DOE 
agrees with commenters that some doors and drawers are intended to be 
removable without the use of tools for the ease of cleaning, product 
loading, or other utility features, and that these cases should still 
be treated as closed cases with doors. Therefore, in the definition of 
``door'' adopted in this final rule, DOE is removing the ``use of 
tools'' provision. Upon further consideration, DOE found the statement 
to be superfluous. This does not include night curtains or other panels 
that are not in place when the case is being used for merchandising.
    Regarding the inclusion of drawers in DOE's definition of ``door,'' 
DOE acknowledges the concerns of interested parties that referring to 
drawers as doors in the test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment may be confusing and non-intuitive. However, DOE's test 
procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment only addresses the 
treatment of ``doors'' and does not explicitly reference the treatment 
of ``drawers.'' This terminology is established in ASHRAE Standard 72-
2005, the method of test referenced in AHRI 1200-2010, the test 
procedure incorporated by reference as the foundation of DOE's test 
procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment. Given that the 
nomenclature in these referenced test standards is not the sole purview 
of DOE, DOE believes the most straightforward method for clarifying 
that the treatment of drawers should be identical to the treatment of 
doors for the purposes of conducting the DOE test procedure and 
compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards is to continue to 
define door as inclusive of drawers, as proposed in the October 2013 
test procedure NOPR. 78 FR at 64301 (Oct. 28, 2013). However, if the 
ASHRAE Standard Project Committee were to revise ASHRAE Standard 72-
2005 to include drawers specifically, DOE could review and incorporate 
the revised test standard, if appropriate, to further eliminate 
confusion. DOE understands that this may occur in a forthcoming version 
of ASHRAE Standard 72, anticipated to be published in 2014. Until such 
a revised test standard is available, DOE will also incorporate 
language into the test procedure at 10 CFR 431.64 to specify that 
drawers are to be treated as identical to doors when conducting the DOE 
test procedure.
Applicability of the DOE Test Procedure to Commercial Refrigeration 
Equipment With Drawers
    Several interested parties commented that the current DOE test 
procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment does not provide 
sufficient clarity regarding how to test units with drawers. 
Specifically, commenters identified (1) the type and configuration of 
drawer pans, (2) the location and number of simulators and test 
packages in the drawers, (3) how to determine interior refrigerated 
volume of a drawered unit, and (4) how far a drawer should be opened 
during testing as areas of ambiguity when applying the existing DOE 
test procedure to CRE models with drawers. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at p. 
2; Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 2; National, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 
at p. 42) Unified Brands and Traulsen commented that, depending on the 
design of the drawer unit, moving the test simulators in and out of the 
refrigerated compartment may cause variation in the integrated average 
temperature (IAT), which could drive increased energy consumption, and 
added that testing of commercial refrigeration equipment with doors 
does not require test simulators to be removed from the refrigerated 
compartment. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at p. 2; Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 2) 
Specifically, National opined that when calculating total volume of a 
drawered

[[Page 22285]]

unit, there should be considerations for drawer pan capacity. 
Additionally, National urged DOE to center the definition of a unit's 
volume on the amount of product that the unit can hold. (National, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 42)
    Unified Brands commented that it is inappropriate for a drawer to 
be included as equivalent to a door for the purposes of testing and 
compliance with the DOE test procedure and energy conservation 
standards because when a drawer is opened, the entire contents of the 
drawer are removed from the interior volume of the cabinet and exposed 
to the ambient conditions. In addition, Unified Brands stated that it 
manufactures drawer units in which the drawer is fully insulated 
refrigerated space and the cabinet is mostly structural. Unified Brands 
further commented that drawer units are often designed with additional 
refrigeration capacity beyond that of a similarly sized door unit due 
to the unique air flow and refrigeration challenges that drawers 
provide. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at pp. 1-2)
    Lastly, Unified Brands commented that current CRE models may 
require as many as 12 separate drawer openings, requiring 12 door-
opening apparatus, the electronic capability to control all of the 
openers, and a significant amount of space. Unified Brands added that 
testing equipment with drawers also increases burden by increasing the 
complexity of the test and increasing the risk associated with managing 
thermocouple wires to prevent thermocouple displacement and breakage. 
(Unified Brands, No. 9 at pp. 2-3) Unified Brands was also concerned 
that multiple thermocouple wires may prevent the drawer gaskets from 
sealing properly, resulting in increased energy use. (Unified Brands, 
No. 9 at p. 2)
    Based on comments received by interested parties, DOE reviewed its 
test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment with regards to 
specific requirements necessary to accommodate or clarify the 
application of the CRE test procedure to equipment with drawers. The 
DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment adopts 
specific sections of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 
Standard for Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household 
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers (AHAM HRF-1-2004) as 
the protocol for determining refrigerated compartment volume for 
compliance with the current standards and specific sections of AHAM 
HRF-1-2008 for measuring refrigerated compartment volume to determine 
compliance with the amended standards adopted in the March 2014 energy 
conservation standard final rule. 79 FR 17726 (Mar. 28, 2014). DOE 
reviewed these methods for determining refrigerated compartment volume 
and finds them sufficient for determining internal refrigerated volume 
for commercial refrigeration equipment with drawers.
    With regard to the comment from Unified Brands about a model of 
commercial refrigeration equipment in which the drawers are insulated 
and the outer case acts more as a support, DOE researched this type of 
commercial refrigeration equipment and reviewed the applicable methods 
for calculating refrigerated or frozen compartment volume. DOE 
specifically references section 3.21, ``Volume,'' of AHAM HRF 1-2004 
and section 3.30, ``Volume,'' of AHAM HRF 1-2008. Both of these 
sections contain definitions for ``fresh food compartment volume'' and 
``freezer compartment volume,'' which are defined as the portion of the 
total refrigerated volume above or below 32 [deg]F, respectively. The 
total refrigerated volume is a combination of these two compartment 
volumes. Based on these definitions, DOE believes that only the volume 
that is purposefully refrigerated for food display or storage is to be 
included in the refrigerated volume calculation. Thus, in the case of a 
drawered CRE model in which only the drawers are insulated and directly 
cooled, only the interior volume of the drawers would be included in 
the calculation of refrigerated volume, not the entire volume of the 
cabinet housing. DOE believes that this is clear in the existing 
protocol specified in AHAM HRF 1-2004 and AHAM HRF 1-2008 and further 
clarification is not necessary on this matter.
    Regarding test simulator locations, filler package placement, and 
pan configuration for CRE models with drawers, DOE reviewed the ASHRAE 
Standard 72-2005, which is the industry standard referenced by the DOE 
test procedure, to determine the sufficiency of existing guidance for 
placing test simulators and filler packages in commercial refrigeration 
equipment with drawers. ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 specifically addresses 
CRE models with shelves and without shelves and, in general, specifies 
that test simulators shall be placed at the right end, front and back, 
and the left end, front and back. Test simulators are also to be placed 
intermittently across the face of CRE model at shelf standard breaks or 
with specific spacing in the case of CRE models without shelving. Since 
CRE models with drawers typically do not have shelves, these models 
will be treated as CRE models without shelves. Therefore, applying the 
requirements for CRE models without shelves to CRE models with drawers, 
it is logical that test simulators should be placed in the front and 
back corners of the drawer and, depending on the width of the drawer, 
36- to 48-inch intervals across the width of the drawer in the front 
and back, as is the case for commercial refrigeration equipment without 
shelves. DOE does not see a problem applying the requirements for a CRE 
model without shelves in ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 to a CRE model with 
drawers, which qualifies as a CRE model without shelves, and believes 
placing test simulators in this manner will accurately and 
representatively capture the internal temperature of the equipment.
    With regard to filler package placement, ASHRAE Standard 72-2005 
specifies that the remaining usable space where test simulators are not 
required shall be loaded with filler packages or filler material so as 
to occupy between 70 and 90 percent of the refrigerated volume and to 
uniformly occupy the space from the front to the rear. Again, DOE does 
not anticipate issues in applying these requirements to CRE models with 
drawers just as they are applied to CRE models with doors. In the case 
of CRE models with drawers, each drawer should be filled with filled 
packages or filler material up to the load limit. DOE acknowledges that 
it is theoretically possible that the drawers could hold less than 70 
percent of the net refrigerated volume if the entire cabinet was 
refrigerated. However, DOE notes that this would be an inefficient 
design choice and DOE does not see a significant utility associated 
with having significant amounts of unusable refrigerated volume. 
Therefore, DOE does not believe accommodation is necessary for such 
situations. If a manufacturer produces a case that cannot meet the 
requirements of 70 percent packing, that manufacturer must apply for a 
test procedure waiver.
    As to the pan configuration necessary for testing CRE models with 
drawers, DOE understands that CRE with drawers often consist of a 
sliding frame that accommodates the placement of standard size pans 
typically used by the food service industry for holding food. DOE 
acknowledges that theoretically many configurations of pans could be 
placed in a commercial refrigerator or freezer with drawers. DOE's test 
procedure requires that the model be configured with a pan 
configuration that allows for the maximum packing of filler packages as 
specified by the test

[[Page 22286]]

procedure, but not exceeding 90 percent of the refrigerated volume. To 
clarify this requirement, DOE is adopting language to specify that 
commercial refrigeration equipment with drawers should be configured 
with the drawer pans that allow for the maximum packing of test 
simulators and filler packages without exceeding 90 percent of the 
refrigerated volume.
    In response to the Unified Brands comment regarding the burden of 
conducting the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment on 
equipment with drawers, DOE does not believe that the requirements are 
significantly more complex than those for testing commercial 
refrigeration equipment with doors. Numerous door-opening apparatus are 
also required for multi-compartment doored cases, and thermocouples 
must also be configured so as to measure test simulators in the 
internal refrigerated volume. DOE acknowledges that incrementally more 
thermocouple wire may need to be attached to thermocouples placed in 
test simulators in drawers, to ensure sufficient slack is available for 
the drawer to fully open and fully close without disturbing the 
thermocouple placement within the test simulator. However, DOE does not 
believe that providing this additional length of thermocouple wire is a 
significant additional burden, given many test simulators may already 
be equipped with excess thermocouple wire.
General Treatment of Drawers as Equivalent to Doors
    In response to the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE also 
received several comments from interested parties regarding the 
appropriateness of treating drawers as equivalent to doors for the 
purposes of testing under DOE's test procedure for commercial 
refrigeration equipment and compliance with DOE's energy conservation 
standards in general. DOE presents these comments and DOE's response in 
this section.
    Traulsen commented that units with drawers typically hold less 
product by mass and volume than an identical unit with doors only and 
questioned how this will affect the IAT and the infiltration of air 
during the door/drawer opening period. (Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 2) 
According to Unified Brands, many drawer units are specifically 
designed for drawers and do not have a door unit of similar 
construction for comparison and, prior to assuming similarity between 
door and drawer units, a statistically significant sample of product 
designs should be tested and validated. (Unified Brands, No. 9 at pp. 
1-2)
    DOE's test data, presented in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, 
does not suggest that drawers are significantly different from doors in 
terms of applying the DOE test procedure or the thermodynamic 
requirements. 78 FR at 64301 (Oct. 28, 2013). Lacking additional data 
contradicting DOE's test data, DOE is maintaining its position that 
drawers are to be treated as equivalent to doors for the purposes of 
conducting the DOE test procedure and complying with DOE's energy 
conservation standards.
b. Transparent and Solid Doors
    In reviewing the CRE test procedure, DOE identified opportunities 
for clarification within the definitions and classifications of 
commercial refrigeration equipment with solid doors versus those with 
transparent doors. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE 
proposed several new definitions for transparent, closed solid, and 
closed transparent to clarify the test procedure requirements at 10 CFR 
431.64 to ensure appropriate equipment categorization. 78 FR at 64301-
64303 (Oct. 28, 2013).
Definition of Transparent
    The DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment, as 
amended by the 2012 test procedure final rule, incorporates by 
reference AHRI 1200-2010. 77 FR at 10318 (Feb. 21, 2012). AHRI 1200-
2010 defines total display area (TDA) as ``the sum of the projected 
area(s) for visible product expressed in [square feet]'' and provides 
procedures for calculating the TDA of commercial refrigeration 
equipment with panels, end enclosures, doors, or other envelope 
components that have some transparent area(s). Appendix D of AHRI 1200-
2010 provides further guidance and examples to clarify the calculation 
of TDA. The appendix also defines a transparent material as that which 
allows at least 65 percent light transmittance. Therefore, based on 
AHRI 1200-2010, a transparent door would be one partially or entirely 
composed of a material that allows greater than or equal to 65 percent 
light transmittance.
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed a definition 
for ``transparent'' based on an unambiguous measurement of the light 
transmission properties of a material in accordance with ASTM Standard 
E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), ``Standard Test Method for Solar 
Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet Materials Using Sunlight,'' at 
normal incidence. 78 FR at 64301-64302 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    In response to DOE's proposed definition of ``transparent,'' 
several interested parties provided comments and suggestions for 
adopting an appropriate definition for commercial refrigeration 
equipment applications. Continental stated that DOE's proposed 
definition of ``transparent'' introduces unnecessary complexity and 
suggested that a simple dictionary-type definition as ``able to [be] 
seen through'' would be sufficient for nearly all applications for 
covered commercial refrigeration equipment. Continental added that DOE 
has the right and obligation to challenge a manufacturer's claim if DOE 
believes it does not meet a basic definition of the terminology or the 
intent of the standard. (Continental, No. 14 at p. 1) NEEA, True, and 
Hussmann were concerned that DOE's proposed threshold of 65 percent 
light transmittance might inadvertently exclude some types of Low-E, 
high performance glass, which can have visible transmittance as low as 
45 percent. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2; True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
7 at p. 53; Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 1) NEEA and Hussmann recommended DOE 
consider lowering the threshold for determining whether a material is 
transparent or not, and suggested that DOE possibly refer to the 
WINDOWS 5 model, developed by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,\7\ 
that was used in the engineering analysis. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2; 
Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ http://windows.lbl.gov/software/window/window.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    True and Southern Store Fixtures noted that self-serve counter 
display cases may be fitted with see-through mirror-finish, or glass 
reflective panels, which would affect the transparency of the doors 
depending on the measurement angle and direction. (Southern Store 
Fixtures, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 53; True, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 55)
    True also noted that the majority of losses through transparent 
doors were a result of the difference in insulation capacities between 
the glass door and the solid door, and that only a small portion of the 
losses were due to light entering through transparent doors. True 
therefore opined that treating a glass door as solid, irrespective of 
its transparency, was inaccurate. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
7 at p. 51)
    DOE appreciates the suggestions by commenters. In response to 
Continental's concern regarding the potential complexity of a 
quantitative method for determining a transparent

[[Page 22287]]

material, rather than a definition based on the intent or application 
of the material, DOE notes that the method to determine transparency of 
a material is not mandatory for equipment classification or testing. In 
the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE noted that determination of 
the light transmittance of a transparent material is not required in 
all cases to classify a basic model of commercial refrigeration 
equipment as equipment with transparent doors and clarified that 
manufacturers may continue to specify equipment as belonging to a 
transparent equipment class (e.g., vertical closed transparent or 
horizontal closed transparent) or a solid without testing because, in 
most cases, it will be obvious whether a material is transparent or 
not; therefore, testing would not be necessary to verify the 
classification of a material as transparent or not. 78 FR at 64302 
(Oct. 28, 2013). Thus, incorporation of a quantitative test procedure 
is not anticipated to add to the complexity and burden of conducting 
the DOE test procedure for most models of commercial refrigeration 
equipment.
    DOE agrees with Continental that DOE has the obligation and the 
right to challenge the classification of certain materials as 
transparent. However, there may be cases in which the material is not 
obviously transparent or solid, such as basic models with special 
decals or opaque glass. DOE prefers to use a quantitative, objective 
method to determine transparency of a material and subsequent equipment 
classification, which will also provide certainty to the regulated 
industry. Therefore, DOE is adopting in this final rule a definition of 
``transparent'' based on the evaluation of that material in accordance 
with ASTM Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009).
    In response to the comments from NEEA, True, and Hussmann 
expressing concern about the inclusion of Low-E and high-performance 
glass as a ``transparent'' material when such fenestration products may 
have visible transmittance values as low as 45 percent, DOE researched 
available high-performance glass door products for commercial 
refrigeration equipment to determine an appropriate threshold for light 
transmittance. While some Low-E glass with reflective coatings designed 
for extremely sunny environments can have visible transmittance values 
as low as 0.2 (meaning 20 percent transparent), DOE finds that it is 
unlikely commercial refrigeration equipment would incorporate such 
material since this equipment is not typically installed in extremely 
sunny environments. In addition, such a low visible transmittance value 
would significantly diminish the ability of consumers to see through 
the glass to the contents inside the unit, which is the intent of 
including transparent material in a given CRE design. Therefore, DOE is 
adopting a threshold for determining a transparent material of 45 
percent light transmittance as determined in accordance with ASTM 
Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009).
    Regarding comments by True and Southern Store Fixtures, DOE 
acknowledges that some glass may be available with a mirrored finish to 
prevent viewing or light transmittance when viewed from one side of the 
glass, but not the other. DOE does not intend to treat such glass as 
solid, as it provides the function of transparent material (i.e., being 
able to see through to the internal contents of the case) when viewed 
from one side of the glass. In the equipment described by commenters, 
this would be when viewed at an angle of incidence normal (90 degrees) 
to the plane of the case and from the exterior. DOE believes that 
reflective glass would fully meet the definition of ``transparent'' 
when tested at normal incidence and in the intended direction of 
viewing. Therefore, to clarify the orientation of glass when testing 
using ASTM Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), DOE is incorporating 
language into the definition of ``transparent'' to specify that the 
material is to be tested at normal incidence and in the intended 
direction of viewing.
Definition of Equipment With Transparent Doors Versus Solid Doors
    In the energy conservation standards specified at 10 CFR 431.66, 
DOE refers to equipment families using the terms ``closed solid'' and 
``closed transparent'' (for example, vertical closed solid (VCS) and 
vertical closed transparent (VCT)). In the October 2013 test procedure 
NOPR, DOE proposed definitions for ``closed transparent'' and ``closed 
solid'' to clarify what factors differentiate a CRE basic model as a 
transparent-door model or a solid-door model. DOE based its proposed 
definitions on a percentage of outer surface area of all doors that are 
transparent. Specifically, DOE proposed that if 75 percent or more of 
the outer surface area of all doors on a CRE unit is transparent, that 
unit would be considered closed transparent. Conversely, DOE proposed 
that ``closed solid'' would refer to CRE equipment with doors, and in 
which more than 75 percent of the outer surface area of all doors is 
not transparent. 78 FR at 64318 (Oct. 28, 2013). As DOE presented at 
the December 2013 test procedure NOPR public meeting, DOE intended for 
the definition of ``closed solid'' to include equipment in which more 
than 25 percent of the outer surface area of all doors on a unit are 
not transparent, and notes that the inclusion of the 75 percent figure 
in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR was a typographical error.
    DOE received several comments from interested parties in response 
to the categorization of closed transparent versus closed solid 
equipment families proposed in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR. 
Hill Phoenix, AHRI, and Hussmann commented that a case that has a 
transparent door on the front and a solid door on the side or back, 
where approximately 50 percent of the door surface area is transparent 
and approximately 50 percent of the door surface area is solid, was not 
adequately addressed by DOE's proposed definitions. Hill Phoenix, AHRI, 
and Hussmann further suggested that a CRE model where 25 percent or 
more of the outer surface area of all doors on the unit are transparent 
should be treated as a transparent case and that any case that has more 
than 75 percent of the door area as solid should be subject to the 
closed solid energy conservation standards. (Hill Phoenix, No. 13 at p. 
2; AHRI, No. 15 at p. 4; Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 2)
    Continental commented that DOE's proposed definitions do not 
correlate with the way commercial refrigeration systems are typically 
designed for units with transparent doors. Continental further 
commented that if more than 25 percent of the doors on a unit are 
transparent, the refrigeration systems are commonly ``upsized'' to 
provide the increased cooling capacity required. Thus, Continental 
suggested that DOE's definition should align with industry practice and 
adopt a 25 percent threshold or, at most, a 32 percent level. 
(Continental, No. 14 at p. 2)
    Traulsen recommended that the definition of ``closed transparent'' 
refer to CRE models in which 75 percent or more of the transparent area 
of the doors on the customer side of the pass-through or the operator/
customer side of the reach-in \8\ style unit is transparent, and 
``closed solid'' be defined as equipment in which more than 75 percent 
of the outer surface area of all the doors on each side of the unit is 
not transparent. Traulsen added that transparent doors and the design 
and operation of closed transparent equipment carry a higher

[[Page 22288]]

energy penalty and DOE should be cautious of creating definitions that 
classify equipment with transparent doors as closed solid equipment. 
Traulsen further recommended ignoring other doors on the backside of 
the unit when classifying closed transparent equipment, similar to the 
treatment of pass-through-type equipment in ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, 
where only doors on the one side of the pass-through should be operated 
during the test. (Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The comment submitted by Traulsen referenced ``read-in'' 
style units. DOE believes Traulsen meant to reference ``reach-in'' 
style units and has amended the submitted comment to reflect this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hussmann suggested that DOE further clarify what ``the outer 
surface area of the door'' is and whether it includes mullions and door 
frames. (Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 2)
    Alternatively, Zero Zone offered that the ENERGY STAR[supreg] \9\ 
program uses definitions that describes a number of additional details 
about glass door equipment and recommended that DOE should consider 
these definitions. For example, Zero Zone stated that it manufactures a 
CRE model with transparent doors on the front and solid doors on the 
back, and that the ENERGY STAR definitions would classify such a case 
as a glass door cabinet and DOE's proposed definitions would qualify 
such as case as a solid door cabinet. In addition, Zero Zone suggested 
that DOE perform an engineering analysis to assess the impact and 
feasibility of reduced energy conservation standard levels for closed 
transparent equipment with a small percent of transparent area. (Zero 
Zone, No. 18 at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency and DOE that establishes a voluntary rating, 
certification, and labeling program for highly energy efficient 
consumer products and commercial equipment. Information on the 
program is available at www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=home.index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to comments regarding the fraction of transparent 
surface area of all outer doors on a given CRE model that 
differentiates closed transparent equipment from closed solid 
equipment, DOE acknowledges comments from interested parties regarding 
the increased energy use associated with closed transparent equipment 
due to the increased thermal conductance of glass as compared to 
insulated case walls and other design and operation features. In 
determining the fraction of transparent door surface area to qualify a 
basic model of commercial refrigeration equipment as equipment with 
transparent doors, DOE proposed a transparent surface area higher than 
50 percent to ensure that only doors with a majority of transparent 
surface area were considered transparent doors. 78 FR at 64302 (Oct. 
28, 2013). However, DOE finds the suggestions of Traulsen, Hill 
Phoenix, AHRI, and Hussmann--that equipment with transparent doors on 
one side of the cabinet and solid doors on another be treated as 
transparent equipment--reasonable and consistent with DOE's intended 
application of closed transparent equipment. That is, equipment with 
only one transparent door and the remaining sides consisting of solid 
insulated case wall and similar equipment with two doors, one that is 
transparent and one on another side that is solid, should be treated 
equivalently for the purposes of testing and compliance with DOE energy 
conservation standards. However, DOE finds the suggestion of Traulsen 
to address only the customer-side of a CRE model to be inconsistent and 
impractical to implement given the variety of door configurations that 
could be present on other sides of the CRE unit. DOE believes it is 
most appropriate to address the outer surface area of all the doors 
that may be present on any of the sides of a CRE model when determining 
whether the equipment belongs in the closed solid or closed transparent 
equipment family.
    Regarding Hussmann's request that DOE provide additional clarity as 
to the definition of ``outer surface area,'' DOE used the term ``outer 
surface area'' to refer to the surface area on only one side of a door. 
DOE acknowledges that solid and transparent doors installed on 
commercial refrigeration equipment are physically three-dimensional 
objects, with surface area measurements on each of six sides: Four 
edges and two faces. DOE used the term ``outer surface area'' to refer 
to the side of the door facing out of, rather than into, the cabinet. 
In response to Hussmann's comment inquiring whether the outer surface 
area of the door included mullions and door frames, DOE is clarifying 
that the outer surface area to be accounted for is that of the door 
itself, as defined in section III.A.2.a, as a unique component of the 
CRE model. In this case, the door consists of the door frame and any 
transparent area that represents the ``moveable panel'' that 
``facilitates access to the refrigerated space.'' This would not 
include mullions, which are fixed portions of the CRE model's envelope 
on which the doors are mounted. DOE has specified how to determine the 
applicability of transparent equipment families to a given model in 
section 1.2 of each appendix.
    In response to Zero Zone's suggestion that DOE consider the ENERGY 
STAR[supreg] definitions for solid door cabinet, glass door cabinet, 
and mixed solid/glass door cabinet, DOE reviewed the definitions in the 
ENERGY STAR ``Version 2.1 Program Requirements for Commercial 
Refrigerators and Freezers'' \10\ (Version 2.1 Program Requirements), 
as well as associated stakeholder comments received during the 
development of the ENERGY STAR Version 2.1 Program Requirements in 
developing the proposed definitions for closed solid and closed 
transparent.\11\ The primary difference between the ENERGY STAR 
classification scheme and that proposed by DOE is the treatment of CRE 
models with mixed solid and transparent doors on at least one side of 
the unit. In DOE's proposal, cases with mixed solid and transparent 
doors would be treated as either solid or transparent cases, based on 
the outer surface area of the doors, whereas ENERGY STAR treats this 
equipment in a separate equipment category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ENERGY STAR[supreg] 
Program Requirements for Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers: 
Eligibility Criteria; Version 2.1. Effective January 1, 2010. (Last 
accessed August 15, 2013.) http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/Commercial_Refrigerator_and_Freezer_Program_Requirements.pdf?dae6-ef7c.
    \11\ See Continental Refrigerator, Comments on Specification for 
Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers, Version 2.0 Draft 3. Dated 
January 7, 2009. Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/refrig/Continental_Comments.pdf?f45c-2369. Beverage-Air Corporation, Beverage-Air 
Comments re: ENERGY VERSION 2.0--DRAFT 3, Dated January 8, 2009. 
Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/refrig/Beverage-Air_Comments.pdf?f45c-2369. Anonymous, Comments on Draft 2. Dated 
September 15, 2008. Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/refrig/Anonymous_Comments.pdf?f45c-2369. True Manufacturing, Comments on Draft 2. 
Dated September 17, 2008. Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/refrig/True_Comments.pdf?f45c-2369. Traulsen, Comments on Draft 1. Dated April 
18, 2008. Available at: https://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/refrig/Traulsen_Comments.pdf?f45c-2369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE believes the definitions proposed in the October 2013 test 
procedure NOPR are straightforward and would unambiguously address 
equipment categorization. 78 FR at 64318 (Oct. 28, 2013). In addition, 
setting the threshold for transparent surface area of all outer doors 
at greater than 25 percent makes it unlikely that equipment with 
substantial amounts of transparent area will be categorized in the 
closed solid equipment family. For example, equipment that has one door 
that is half-transparent and half-solid would be treated as ``closed 
transparent'' and would have to meet the energy conservation standard 
for the appropriate equipment class based on its volume or TDA. As a 
result, DOE

[[Page 22289]]

does not anticipate issues associated with equipment with small 
transparent areas that cannot meet the applicable energy conservation 
standard. Also, these definitions are consistent with the equipment 
categorization methodology DOE uses to establish standards for covered 
equipment. As such, DOE believes defining terms that are used directly 
in the description and determination of equipment classes for 
commercial refrigeration equipment is the most clear, unambiguous 
method for defining and categorizing equipment as closed transparent or 
closed solid, and DOE does not see a need to establish a unique 
equipment category for mixed solid/transparent equipment.
c. Hybrid Equipment and Commercial Refrigerator-Freezers
    At 10 CFR 431.62, DOE defines a commercial hybrid refrigerator, 
freezer, or refrigerator-freezer as having two or more chilled and/or 
frozen compartments that are in two or more different equipment 
families, contained in one cabinet, and sold as a single unit. In the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to replace the 
definition of ``commercial hybrid refrigerator, freezer, and 
refrigerator-freezer'' with a definition of ``commercial hybrid,'' and 
introduce a new definition of ``commercial refrigerator-freezer'' to 
clarify DOE's definitions and equipment categories. 78 FR at 64303-
64304, 64318 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    In response to the definitions proposed in the October 2013 test 
procedure NOPR, DOE received comments from interested parties regarding 
DOE's definition for commercial hybrid and the applicability of the 
definition of commercial hybrid to certain equipment. Continental 
commented that the proposed definition of ``commercial hybrid'' should 
specify that the ``two compartments'' are separated by an insulated 
partition to isolate them for different storage applications, as this 
would limit confusion with multiple section cabinets, which may have 
non-insulated partitions or ducting between them purely for air 
distribution, shared throughout the entire unit. (Continental, No. 14 
at p. 2)
    True noted that DOE's definition did not explicitly state that dual 
temperature units were separated by a vertical partition, and therefore 
might include solid-shelf units. (True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
7 at p. 71) Similarly, National expressed confusion over the 
application of the DOE rule in cases where two sections of a unit were 
at different temperatures, but potentially use the same evaporator coil 
or share air between the two spaces. (National, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 7 at p. 75) National commented that some two-door units 
are built with airflow down the middle and panels with louvers to 
distribute air. (National, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 79)
    Hussmann agreed with DOE's proposed definitions of commercial 
hybrid and commercial refrigerator-freezer, but requested clarification 
on how to classify or handle a piece of equipment that contains at 
least one section or compartment that is not covered by the DOE test 
procedure (e.g., salad bars and buffet tables). (Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 
2) Royston noted that in many hybrid units such as salad bars, it was 
unclear what percentage of the unit would be considered refrigerated. 
(Royston, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 82)
    In response to Continental's suggestion that DOE consider 
specifying that the compartments in a commercial hybrid refrigerator, 
freezer, or refrigerator freezer be separated by an insulated partition 
or be thermally isolated from one another, DOE agrees that the intent 
of the commercial hybrid equipment provisions is to address equipment 
with thermally distinct compartments from different equipment families 
(e.g., vertical closed transparent and vertically closed solid). As 
such, DOE is adopting language to specify that commercial hybrid 
equipment is equipment consisting of two or more thermally separated 
refrigerated compartments that are in two or more different equipment 
families that is sold as a single unit.
    In regard to clarification on how to classify or handle a piece of 
equipment that contains at least one section or compartment that is not 
covered by the DOE test procedure (e.g., salad bars and buffet tables), 
DOE clarifies that this type of equipment is not hybrid equipment 
because it does not consist of two or more different equipment 
families. Only the compartment(s) of the piece of commercial 
refrigeration equipment that is covered by one of DOE's existing 
equipment classes is included in DOE's equipment family definitions. 
The compartment that is not covered by DOE's existing standards for 
commercial refrigeration equipment is not included in DOE's equipment 
family definitions and, thus, such a unit would not meet the definition 
of commercial hybrid. Using the example presented in Hussmann's 
comment, consider a commercial refrigerator that contains one 
compartment that falls into the vertical closed solid equipment family 
and a thermally separate compartment that offers accessible 
refrigerated bins for the purposes of preparing sandwiches or holding 
buffet items. As presented in section III.A.1.a, sandwich prep tables 
and buffet tables are not currently regulated under DOE's existing 
energy conservation standards or subject to DOE's test procedure for 
commercial refrigeration equipment. As such, this CRE model would be 
covered under DOE's existing energy conservation standards as a 
commercial refrigerator in the vertical closed solid equipment family 
based on the refrigerated volume of only the refrigerated compartment 
comprising the vertical closed solid commercial refrigerator. This CRE 
model would be tested under the DOE test procedure for commercial 
refrigeration equipment as a commercial refrigerator, and the 
compartment containing the sandwich prep or buffet table bins would be 
disabled and not included in the determination of energy consumption 
for that equipment. If the same refrigeration system serves both 
compartments and the refrigeration of the sandwich/buffet compartment 
cannot be disabled, manufacturers may apply for a test procedure waiver 
for such equipment if the measured energy use would not be 
representative of the commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 
refrigerator-freezer portion of the CRE basic model.
3. Relationship Among Rating Temperature, Operating Temperature, and 
Integrated Average Temperature
    Currently, the table at 10 CFR 431.66(d)(1) describing the energy 
conservation standards for equipment other than hybrid equipment, 
refrigerator-freezers, and wedge cases refers to the ``rating 
temperature'' and ``operating temperature'' of equipment, and the table 
describing the applicable test procedure for covered equipment at 10 
CFR 431.64(b)(3) refers to the term ``integrated average temperature.'' 
DOE defines ``integrated average temperature'' as ``the average 
temperature of all the test package measurements taken during the 
test.'' 10 CFR 431.62.
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed explicit 
definitions for ``rating temperature'' as the IAT at which a model of 
commercial refrigeration equipment should be evaluated in accordance 
with the DOE test procedure, and ``operating temperature'' as the range 
of IATs at which the unit of commercial refrigeration equipment is 
capable of operating. In addition, DOE noted that while the operating 
temperature range

[[Page 22290]]

of equipment is used to establish the appropriate equipment class for 
CRE basic models based on the standards table at 10 CFR 431.66(d)(1), 
only the definition of ``ice-cream freezer'' explicitly identifies the 
appropriate operating range (i.e., at or below -5 [deg]F). 10 CFR 
431.62 Therefore, DOE also proposed definitions of ``commercial 
refrigerator'' and ``commercial freezer'' that reference the operating 
temperature range of each category of equipment. 78 FR at 64303-64304, 
64318 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    In response to DOE's proposed definitions for commercial 
refrigerator, commercial freezer, and commercial refrigerator-freezer, 
Continental commented that the use of the term ``capable of'' 
introduced confusion and does not accurately reflect industry 
practices. Continental offered the example of a piece of equipment that 
is designed and marketed as a refrigerator, but includes an oversized 
refrigeration system that may be necessary to hold products at 
temperatures near 32 [deg]F that would allow the refrigerator to be 
capable of operating below 32 [deg]F in some applications, although it 
is not intended to be operated that way. As such, Continental suggested 
that DOE define the commercial refrigerator operating range as ``all 
refrigerated compartments in the unit are designed, marketed or 
intended for operating at or above 32[emsp14][deg]F.'' (Continental, 
No. 14 at p. 2) Similarly, Hussmann suggested DOE replace ``capable of 
operating'' with ``designed, marketed, or intended to be operated by 
the manufacturer.'' (Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 2)
    DOE acknowledges comments from interested parties, but notes that 
DOE prefers to have an objective method for determining coverage of 
equipment under DOE's equipment classes. DOE believes that relying on 
how a piece of equipment is ``designed, marketed, or intended to be 
used'' provides too much flexibility for manufacturers to specify how a 
CRE basic model is ``intended to be used,'' without consideration of 
how the equipment actually can be used. As such, DOE maintains that, 
for self-contained equipment and remote equipment with thermostats, DOE 
will establish the operating range of equipment based on the operating 
temperatures the commercial refrigeration equipment is capable of 
maintaining. DOE will determine the operating range of covered 
equipment based on the maximum and minimum thermostat set points. 
However, DOE acknowledges that, for equipment with an operating 
temperature range that is primarily in, for example, the commercial 
refrigerator operating temperature range (i.e., at or above 32 [deg]F), 
but has a minimum operating temperature in the commercial freezer range 
slightly below 32 [deg]F (e.g., 30 [deg]F), it may not be appropriate 
to require such equipment to be certified as both a commercial 
refrigerator and a commercial freezer. DOE believes that equipment 
should be categorized in the equipment class most representative of the 
operating temperature range of that equipment. As such, DOE is adopting 
a tolerance on the minimum and maximum IAT that categorizes equipment 
as a commercial refrigerator, commercial freezer, or commercial ice 
cream freezer. DOE believes a tolerance of 2 [deg]F would 
allow sufficient flexibility that equipment with an operating 
temperature range that is substantially representative of one equipment 
class, but with a minimum or maximum operating temperature that extends 
slightly into the operating temperature range of another equipment 
class, is not required to be certified in both equipment classes. This 
tolerance is also consistent with the tolerance on the rating 
temperatures for the relevant equipment classes. Therefore, in this 
final rule, DOE will establish in 10 CFR 431.66 operating temperature 
ranges of greater than or equal to 32 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) for 
commercial refrigerators, less than 32[emsp14][deg]F (2 
[deg]F) for commercial freezers, and less than or equal to -5 [deg]F 
(2 [deg]F) for ice cream freezers.
    DOE acknowledges that for remote equipment the operating range of 
equipment could be much broader, as it is based on the operating 
parameters of the compressor system much more than the case design. 
Manufacturers may design a case that could optimize performance for 
operation as a freezer, but customers would be able to adjust the 
compressor operating characteristics to operate the case at 
refrigerator temperatures, even though it is not intended to be used 
that way. As such, in this test procedure final rule DOE adopts 
additional language to clarify that for remote condensing equipment, 
the operating temperature range is based on the range of IATs at which 
a piece of commercial refrigeration equipment is marketed, designed, or 
intended to be used. DOE does not see the need to establish such a 
definition for self-contained equipment with thermostats and will 
maintain the definition of ``operating temperature'' proposed in the 
NOPR based on the IATs at which a piece of commercial refrigeration 
equipment is capable of operating.
    Traulsen recommended changing all referenced temperature thresholds 
from 32 [deg]F to 25 [deg]F, since some equipment, including meat 
refrigerators, is intended to be operated as low as 25 [deg]F. 
(Traulsen, No. 17 at p. 3)
    In response to Traulsen's recommendation regarding establishing 
equipment categories based on operating ranges of greater than or equal 
to 25 [deg]F for commercial refrigerators, below 25 [deg]F for 
commercial freezers, and a combination of the two for commercial 
refrigerator-freezers, DOE believes that 32 [deg]F is a more 
appropriate temperature threshold for differentiating chilled from 
frozen food storage equipment. Equipment that can operate at 25 [deg]F 
is functionally a freezer, since food is primarily composed of liquid 
water and water freezes at 32 [deg]F. In addition, an operating 
temperature threshold of 32 [deg]F was determined in the 2009 CRE 
energy conservation standards final rule and has been in place 
historically for the purposes of compliance with those standards since 
January 1, 2012. 74 FR 1092, 1099-1100 (Jan. 9, 2009). DOE notes that 
the equipment mentioned by Traulsen, which operates both at or above 32 
[deg]F and below 32 [deg]F, would qualify as both a commercial 
refrigerator and a commercial freezer and would have to be certified in 
both equipment categories. To the extent that the equipment was not 
able to reach the rating temperature for commercial freezers of 0 
[deg]F, the equipment would be tested at its LAPT for certification as 
a freezer.
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE recognized that some 
basic models may have operating characteristics that include an 
operating temperature range that spans multiple equipment classes, and 
proposed language to clarify that equipment meeting the definition of 
multiple equipment classes when operated as intended by the 
manufacturer would have to be tested and certified as each of these 
equipment classes to demonstrate compliance with DOE's energy 
conservation standards. 78 FR at 64304 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    Zero Zone and AHRI disagreed with DOE's proposal that the equipment 
capable of operating in two or more operating temperature ranges be 
tested and certified as complying with both equipment classes. Zero 
Zone and AHRI suggested that these cases be tested and certified at 
their lowest published operating temperature, which would be reflective 
of the highest energy use mode. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 
15 at p. 4) Zero Zone added that if DOE requires equipment to be tested 
at all the published operating temperature ranges, more-complex 
controls may be required to reduce energy so the equipment can meet the 
energy conservation standards for both

[[Page 22291]]

equipment categories, and suggested that DOE consider the increased 
cost of these controls compared to the benefits to consumers. Zero Zone 
added that, in general, remote freezers can be operated inefficiently 
as a refrigerator by customer settings on the remote condensing unit, 
but added that it does not condone such operation. As such, Zero Zone 
suggested DOE use the term ``marketed operating temperature'' to avoid 
having equipment potentially tested at two different temperature 
classes because it can be operated at two or more temperature class 
operating ranges even though it is not designed for use in these 
operating temperature ranges. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at p. 2)
    In contrast, NEEA supported DOE's proposal that equipment intended 
to operate in multiple equipment classes be tested and certified in 
each equipment class to demonstrate compliance with DOE's energy 
conservation standards because NEEA believed it will allow a level 
playing field for manufacturers to produce energy compliant 
refrigeration equipment. (NEEA, No. 16 at p. 2)
    DOE considered comments submitted by interested parties regarding 
the potential for commercial refrigeration equipment classified into 
two equipment categories. Zero Zone and AHRI both suggested that 
equipment instead be deemed compliant based on testing and 
certification in the more-stringent configuration or most energy-
consuming mode. Zero Zone also discussed the example of a dual 
temperature unit that can operate as a commercial refrigerator or a 
commercial freezer. DOE notes that, while the freezer configuration 
would represent the most energy-consuming mode, determining the more-
stringent standard level is less straightforward. Although the freezer 
configuration may use more energy, the energy conservation standard 
level for the refrigerator configuration may in fact be more stringent. 
This would especially be true if the operating range of the case was 
such that the CRE model could not be tested at the rating temperature 
of 0 [deg]F for freezers. For example, in the case of a piece of 
commercial refrigeration equipment that has an operating temperature 
range of 10 to 50 [deg]F, the unit can operate as a refrigerator, at or 
above 32 [deg]F, or be converted to operate as a freezer, but only down 
to 10 [deg]F. Thus, the unit cannot operate at the rating temperature 
for freezers of 0 [deg]F and would be certified at the equipment's LAPT 
of 10 [deg]F. However, the equipment, when tested at the LAPT, would 
still be subject to the same energy conservation standard and, as such, 
the freezer energy conservation standard would be much easier to meet.
    In addition, rating the equipment as a freezer may or may not 
accurately represent the use of the equipment in the field. That is, 
dual temperature equipment may spend considerable operating hours as a 
refrigerator and less significant operating hours as a freezer. This 
may be the case in a commercial kitchen, for example, where freezer 
space is necessary at the beginning of the week when new product 
arrives, but is converted to refrigerator space over the course of the 
week as food is prepared and stored for more immediate use. DOE does 
not find it tenable that dual temperature equipment operating 
inefficiently as a refrigerator most of the time could be compliant 
with DOE's energy conservation standards due to its certification as a 
commercial freezer only.
    DOE acknowledges Zero Zone's concern that equipment that can 
operate as a refrigerator or a freezer may require more-complex 
controls to meet DOE's energy conservation standards as both a 
refrigerator and a freezer. However, based on the difficulty in 
determining the ``more-stringent'' standard and the potential for 
certification of otherwise non-compliant equipment, DOE believes that 
this incremental burden is justified to ensure compliance with DOE's 
energy conservation standards. Further, DOE notes that equipment that 
can operate as both a refrigerator and a freezer competes directly with 
equipment in both categories and, as such, must be certified to meet 
the energy conservation standard for both equipment categories to 
provide a fair and level playing field when selling this equipment in 
the market.
    In this test procedure final rule, DOE continues to require that 
self-contained equipment or remote condensing equipment with 
thermostats capable of operating at IATs that span multiple equipment 
categories be certified and comply with DOE's regulations for each 
applicable equipment category. Similarly, DOE adopts requirements for 
remote condensing equipment without a thermostat that specify that if a 
given basic model of CRE is marketed, designed, or intended to operate 
at IATs spanning multiple equipment categories, the CRE basic model 
must be certified and comply with the relevant energy conservation 
standards for all applicable equipment categories.
4. Proper Configuration and Use of Components or Features in the DOE 
Test Procedure
    In response to several inquiries from interested parties regarding 
the proper configuration and use of certain components or features 
specified in the DOE test procedure, DOE proposed specific provisions 
in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR for the treatment of energy 
management systems and case lighting when conducting the DOE test 
procedure. 78 FR at 64304-64306 (Oct. 28, 2013). In addition, DOE also 
addressed and clarified the appropriate temperatures of test packages 
when loaded into the test unit. 78 FR at 64306 (Oct. 28, 2013). These 
proposals, comments received by interested parties, and DOE's responses 
are summarized in the subsequent sections.
a. Energy Management Systems
    The DOE test procedure specifies that all devices that would 
normally be used in the field must be installed and operated in the 
same manner during the test unless such installation and operation is 
inconsistent with any requirement of the test procedure.\12\ Such 
devices include energy management systems. In the October 2013 test 
procedure NOPR, DOE presented its interpretation of energy management 
systems as electronic devices that control specific systems in 
commercial refrigeration equipment to save energy, for example, 
automatic controls that are capable of turning off cabinet lights on a 
predetermined schedule or in response to an external variable, 
increasing the temperature setting of the thermostat (in refrigerators 
that store non-perishable items) during non-merchandizing hours, or 
activating and deactivating anti-sweat heaters, pan heaters, or defrost 
heaters. 78 FR at 64304 (Oct. 28, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ASHRAE 72-2005, section 6.1.1, ``Accessories,'' as 
incorporated by reference into the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 
431.64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE further proposed that, 
if normal field installation or operation of any device would be 
inconsistent with any test procedure requirement, then the specific 
function of that device that causes inconsistency with the DOE test 
procedure provisions must be disabled for the duration of the test. In 
addition, if the device is designed for multiple functions, only those 
functions of the device that cause inconsistency with the DOE test 
procedure requirements must be disabled. 78 FR at 64321 (Oct. 28, 
2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its 
proposal regarding treatment of energy management systems during the 
DOE test procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in 
the October

[[Page 22292]]

2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.
b. Lighting
    The DOE test procedure specifies that all devices that would 
normally be used in the field must be installed and operated in the 
same manner during the test. 10 CFR 431.64. Specifically, due to 
language and provisions in ARI 1200-2006 (as incorporated by reference 
in the 2006 test procedure final rule) and AHRI 1200-2010 (as 
incorporated by reference in the 2012 test procedure final rule and 
this test procedure update) regarding case lighting, DOE believes that 
the energy consumption associated with lights installed on a model of 
commercial refrigeration equipment are intended to be captured during 
testing. In addition, the DOE test procedure requires that all standard 
components, such as shelves, end enclosures, lights, anti-condensate 
heaters, racks, and similar items that would normally be used during 
shopping or working periods, shall be installed and used as recommended 
by the manufacturer, which DOE interprets to mean that if lighting is 
installed on the case, the lighting should be operated as intended to 
be used in the field. However, due to the variety of types of lighting 
controls and schemes available on the market, the existing provisions 
for ``accessories'' may prove insufficient to yield consistent results 
during testing. Therefore, in the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE 
established specific periods in the test during which these variable 
lights may be turned off or dimmed to account for energy savings due to 
installed occupancy sensors or scheduled lighting controls. 77 FR at 
10319-10320 (Feb. 21, 2012).
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, to clarify the treatment 
of lighting under DOE's test procedure, DOE proposed to specify in 
Appendix A to Subpart C that all lighting must be energized to the 
maximum illumination level for the duration of testing for commercial 
refrigeration equipment except for closed solid models of commercial 
refrigeration equipment that include automatic controls that disable 
case lighting when the door is closed, the use of which is specified by 
the manufacturer instructions. DOE also proposed to specify in Appendix 
B to Subpart C, which will be required for equipment testing on or 
after the compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards, 
that case lighting shall be energized to its maximum illumination level 
except for when a model of commercial refrigeration equipment is 
equipped with lighting occupancy sensors and/or scheduled controls, or 
when the a model is outfitted with other permanently installed, 
automatic energy management systems that control case lighting. 78 FR 
at 64305-64306 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    Zero Zone commented that they agree with DOE's proposed exception 
for solid door models that utilize an automatic control to disable case 
lighting when the door is closed. However, Zero Zone did not believe 
DOE's treatment of manual case lighting adjustment, such as light 
switches, is consistent with its treatment of manually deployable night 
curtains for open cases. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at p. 3) In addition, Zero 
Zone was concerned that an open case model with several lighting 
options would be tested with all lights installed for the test 
procedure, but the customer may choose to have a select amount of the 
lights on in the operation of the installed case. Zero Zone inquired if 
each lighting scheme in the open case model would be considered a base 
model and tested separately. (Zero Zone, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 
7 at pp. 153-154) True commented that certain occupancy sensors with a 
learning curve built into them would not be able to be accurately 
tested since there is no activity near the unit during testing. True 
added that they can be programmed to override the sensor if needed. 
(True, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 155-156)
    DOE acknowledges Zero Zone's comment regarding the consistency of 
the DOE test procedure as it relates to the treatment of manual 
lighting controls and manual night curtains. DOE addressed this issue 
in the 2012 test procedure final rule, in which DOE stated that night 
curtains represent an incremental cost and explicit energy management 
feature that must be uniquely specified on commercial refrigeration 
equipment, making it unlikely that customers would purchase a case with 
night curtains and not employ them. By contrast, manual light switches 
may be installed for a variety of energy- or utility-related reasons 
and typically come standard on a baseline unit of commercial 
refrigeration equipment. As such, DOE finds it less likely that 
customers will employ manual light switches to adjust case lighting 
during unoccupied periods with any regularity. 77 FR at 10299-10300 
(Feb. 21, 2012). DOE continues to maintain that the incremental cost of 
night curtains and dedicated use as an energy-efficiency feature make 
them unique from manual light switches and justify different treatment 
in the DOE test procedure.
    In response to Zero Zone's comment regarding the variety of 
lighting options available for installation on a given model of 
commercial refrigeration equipment, DOE notes that these different 
lighting schemes will have an impact on the measured daily energy 
consumption of the case. As such, each light option could be treated as 
an individual basic model and be tested and certified as such. However, 
to the extent that manufacturers do not wish to account for the reduced 
energy consumption associated with reduced lighting configurations, all 
lighting configurations may be grouped into a CRE basic model. In this 
case, the CRE basic model would be tested and certified based on the 
lighting configuration with the maximum lighting energy usage and all 
individual models certified under that basic model would receive that 
rating.
    In response to True's comment regarding lighting controls that are 
triggered by occupancy sensors, these lighting controls should 
currently be tested with all the controlled lighting turned on to the 
maximum illumination level and the occupancy sensor disabled to 
determine whether the model complies with existing energy conservation 
standards, as reflected in Appendix A. Beginning on the compliance date 
of any amended energy conservation standards for commercial 
refrigeration equipment, manufacturers shall use the prescribed test 
provisions for cases with lighting occupancy sensors included in 
Appendix B.
c. Test Package Temperatures
    The ASHRAE 72-2005 method of test, as referenced by ARI 1200-2006 
and AHRI 1200-2010, and thus incorporated by the DOE test procedure at 
10 CFR 431.64, provides specific instruction at section 6.2 as to the 
loading of test simulators and filler packages. ASHRAE 72-2005 also 
requires temperature stabilization before the formal test period 
begins, as detailed in section 7.4. After steady-state operation is 
reached, the unit must then operate for another period of 12 hours 
without any adjustment to the controls before it is deemed to be 
stabilized and the testing can begin. These established stabilization 
requirements are designed to ensure that the product simulators and 
test packages are cooled to the test temperature prior to initiation of 
the test period and data collection, and the unit of commercial 
refrigeration equipment under test is not operating in a pull-down 
application during any part of the DOE test procedure.
    In response to inquiries received by interested parties, DOE 
presented clarification of these stabilization requirements in the 
October 2013 test

[[Page 22293]]

procedure NOPR, but did not find that the test procedure required more 
explicit clarification. 78 FR at 64306 (Oct. 28, 2013). DOE did not 
receive any comments from interested parties on its proposal regarding 
treatment of test package temperatures during the DOE test procedure 
and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the October 2013 
test procedure NOPR with no modifications.
5. Treatment of Other Specific Equipment Features and Accessories 
During Testing
    During the negotiated rulemaking for certification of commercial 
heating, ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration, and water 
heating equipment, stakeholders raised a number of issues regarding the 
treatment during the DOE test procedure of specific features, 
components, and accessories that may be in place on certain basic 
models of commercial refrigeration equipment. In the October 2013 test 
procedure NOPR, DOE presented proposals that resulted from the 
negotiations regarding the treatment of specific features, components, 
and accessories. 78 FR at 64306-64308 (Oct. 28, 2013). The specific 
proposals and the resultant amendments adopted in this final rule are 
discussed in the following sections.
a. Customer Display Signs/Lights
    Manufacturers stated that some customers, when ordering commercial 
refrigeration equipment, may wish to add additional exterior signage, 
outside of the body of the refrigerated cabinet, to certain units of a 
given model to advertise the product inside. This lighting and signage 
is optional and is not integral to the cabinet. Further, this auxiliary 
signage does not illuminate product inside the body of the cabinet. 
During the negotiations, stakeholders inquired regarding how this 
lighting or signage should be treated during testing.
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that under 
the DOE test procedure, all lighting that is integral to the 
refrigerated cabinet or illuminates the product contained within must 
be operational during the test, and DOE proposed to add clarifying 
language in the regulatory text to address customer display signs/
lights. Under DOE's proposal, supplemental lighting that exists solely 
for the purposes of advertising or drawing attention to the case and is 
not integral to the case would not be operated during testing under the 
DOE test procedure. 78 FR at 64306 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its 
proposal regarding treatment of customer display signs/lights during 
the DOE test procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented 
in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.
b. Condensate Pan Heaters and Pumps
    Commercial refrigeration equipment captures water from the air 
entering the cabinet during operation by causing the water to condense 
and then freeze on the evaporator coil of the equipment. During a 
defrost cycle, this frost is melted and the meltwater produced must be 
removed from the unit. In many types of equipment, this meltwater is 
collected in a pan beneath the unit. Some models of commercial 
refrigeration equipment come equipped with electric resistance heaters 
that evaporate this water out of the pan and into the ambient air. 
Other models may come equipped with pumps that send meltwater to an 
external drain.
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that, during 
the DOE test procedure, these electric resistance heaters and 
condensate pumps must be installed and operational during the entire 
test (as per section 6.1.1, ``Accessories,'' of ASHRAE 72-2005) and 
clarified that the ``entire test'' includes stabilization (including 
pull-down), steady-state, and performance testing periods. Prior to the 
start of the stabilization period, as defined by ASHRAE 72-2005, the 
condensate pan should be dry, and during the entire test following the 
start of the stabilization period, any condensate moisture generated 
should be allowed to accumulate in the pan as it would during normal 
operation, with no manual removal of water at any time during the 
entire test. DOE proposed that if a manufacturer offers a given basic 
model for sale with an available condensate pan heater or pump, the 
manufacturer must make representations of the performance of the basic 
model as tested with the feature in place, and DOE proposed clarifying 
language in the regulatory text to address condensate pan heaters and 
pumps. 78 FR at 64306 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    In response to DOE's proposal in the October 2013 test procedure 
NOPR, AHRI, Hussmann, and Zero Zone commented that condensate pan 
heaters should not be required to be tested for remote equipment, since 
they are not accounted for in the energy conservation standard 
engineering analysis. (AHRI, No. 15 at p. 3; Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 4; 
Zero Zone, No. 18 at p. 2) AHRI commented that condensate pan heaters 
or pumps are usually added in the field to fulfill specific needs of 
commercial customers and are typically installed on less than 5 percent 
of the total remote cases sold within the U.S. AHRI further commented 
that it is unreasonable to require manufacturers to test potentially 
all remote equipment with condensate pan heaters to certify its basic 
models to DOE, if those models may be sold with condensate pan heaters 
in some specific applications. (AHRI, No. 15 at p. 3) Hussmann 
corroborated that remote equipment shipped with condensate pan heaters 
represents less than 1 percent of case volume for Hussmann and stated 
its belief that the discussions during the negotiated rulemaking 
(Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023) were primarily surrounding self-
contained equipment. (Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 4)
    Zero Zone added that if case manufacturers are deterred from 
supplying condensate pan heaters, end users will work around this by 
buying condensate pans from third parties that typically are not 
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Recognized or UL Listed and do not come 
with protective covers. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at pp. 2-3)
    DOE acknowledges the opinions of interested parties and agrees that 
condensate pan heaters and pumps are not common on remote equipment. As 
such, DOE agrees that determination of daily energy consumption for 
remote cases with condensate pan heaters may not be the most 
representative configuration. Thus, DOE is adopting language in this 
final rule applying the requirements for testing with condensate pan 
heaters and pumps in place for self-contained equipment only.
    DOE notes that whether or not condensate pan heaters were included 
in DOE's engineering analysis and energy modeling to support standard 
development is not dispositive as to what features are included and 
accounted for when testing a given basic model of commercial 
refrigeration equipment. DOE models a representative model for each 
equipment class, but manufacturers may deviate from that assumed 
representative model in any number of ways, including the addition of 
features and accessories that improve the utility of cases in specific 
applications, such as condensate pan heaters and pumps.
c. Anti-Sweat Door Heaters
    Many transparent-door cases come equipped with anti-sweat electric 
resistance heaters that serve to evaporate any water that condenses on 
the transparent surface of the door

[[Page 22294]]

during operation. In some instances, manufacturers may equip their 
cases with higher-powered anti-sweat heaters in anticipation of 
potential adverse operating conditions.
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that anti-
sweat heaters should be operational during testing under the DOE test 
procedure and proposed adding clarifying language in the regulatory 
text to address anti-sweat door heaters. Models with a user-selectable 
setting must be tested with the anti-sweat heaters turned on and set to 
the maximum usage position and models featuring an automatic, non-user 
adjustable controller that turns on or off based on environmental 
conditions must be tested with the controller operating in the 
automatic state. Additionally, DOE proposed that, if a unit is not 
shipped with a controller from the point of manufacture, and is 
intended to be used with a controller, the manufacturer must make 
representations of the basic model based on the rated performance of 
that basic model as tested when equipped with a controller intended by 
the manufacturer for use with the unit. 78 FR at 64306-64307 (Oct. 28, 
2013).
    NEEA stated that it supports DOE's proposal that anti-sweat heaters 
be in operation during testing unless controls are shipped with the 
unit and can be turned off by these controls during testing. (NEEA, No. 
16 at pp. 2-3) DOE did not receive any negative comments from 
interested parties on its proposal regarding treatment anti-sweat door 
heater in the DOE test procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal 
presented in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no 
modifications.
d. Ultraviolet Lights
    Some manufacturers equip certain models of commercial refrigeration 
equipment with ultraviolet lights, which can be operated by end users 
to neutralize pathogens and ensure case cleanliness. Manufacturers 
inquired as to how these will be addressed by the DOE test procedure. 
In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that ultraviolet 
lights should not be turned on during the test procedure and proposed 
adding regulatory text to clarify this position. 78 FR at 64307 (Oct. 
28, 2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its 
proposal regarding treatment of ultraviolet lights during the DOE test 
procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.
e. Illuminated Temperature Displays and Alarms
    Manufacturers may equip some commercial refrigeration equipment 
models with illuminated displays that provide visual information to the 
equipment operator regarding, for example, the temperature inside the 
refrigerated case or if the case temperature falls outside of a 
specified range. DOE understands these items to be features integral to 
the design of the given model and proposed that they should be enabled 
during the test as they would be during normal field operation. In the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to add clarifying 
language in the regulatory text to address illuminated temperature 
displays and alarms. 78 FR at 64307 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its 
proposal regarding treatment of illuminated temperature displays and 
alarms during the DOE test procedure and, as such, is adopting the 
proposal presented in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no 
modifications.
f. Condenser Filters
    Manufacturers may offer models equipped with non-permanent filters 
over a model's condenser coil to prevent particulates such as flour 
from blocking the condenser coil and reducing airflow. In the October 
2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that these filters should be 
removed during the DOE test procedure and proposed to add clarifying 
language as part of the regulatory text. 78 FR at 64307 (Oct. 28, 
2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its 
proposal regarding treatment of condensate filters during the DOE test 
procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.
g. Refrigeration System Security Covers
    Manufacturers may offer for sale with a basic model an option to 
include straps or other devices to secure the condensing unit and 
prevent theft or tampering. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, 
DOE proposed that these security devices should be removed during 
testing under the DOE test procedure and proposed to add clarifying 
language as part of the regulatory text to clarify this provision. 78 
FR 64307 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its 
proposal regarding treatment of refrigeration system security covers 
during the DOE test procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal 
presented in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no 
modifications.
h. Night Curtains and Covers
    Night curtains and night covers are defined at 10 CFR 431.62 as a 
device that is deployed temporarily to decrease air exchange and heat 
transfer between the refrigerated case and the surrounding environment. 
In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE stated that the proper 
treatment of these components during the DOE test procedure is 
discussed in the current text of the DOE test procedure, 10 CFR 431.64, 
as amended by the 2012 DOE test procedure final rule. DOE also added 
these provisions at section 1.2.10 in Appendix B and proposed adding 
language to clarify that night curtains may not be used when testing 
under Appendix A. 78 FR at 64307 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties regarding 
treatment of night curtains and covers during the DOE test procedure 
and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the October 2013 
test procedure NOPR with no modifications.
i. Grill Options
    Manufacturers may offer for sale with a basic model optional grills 
that are used to direct airflow in unique applications, such as when a 
unit is mounted close to a rear wall and the airflow needs to be 
directed upwards. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed 
that, if present, non-standard grills should be removed during testing 
under the DOE test procedure and proposed to add clarifying language as 
part of the regulatory text. 78 FR at 64307 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its 
proposal regarding treatment of grill options during the DOE test 
procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.
j. Coated Coils
    Coated coils, generally specified for use in units that will be 
subjected to environments in which acids or oxidizers are present, are 
treated with an additional coating (such as a layer of epoxy or 
polymer) as a barrier to protect the bare metal of the coil from 
deterioration through environmental contact. In the October 2013 test 
procedure NOPR, DOE presented its belief that the existing DOE test 
procedure accurately accounts for the

[[Page 22295]]

performance of all types of coils, including those with coatings, and 
that no additional accommodations or clarifications are needed in the 
test procedure. Commercial refrigeration equipment with coated coils 
shall be tested in accordance with the DOE test procedure, as specified 
at appendices A and B to subpart C of 10 CFR part 431. 78 FR at 64307 
(Oct. 28, 2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties regarding 
treatment of coated coils during the DOE test procedure and, as such, 
is adopting the proposal presented in the October 2013 test procedure 
NOPR with no modifications.
k. Internal Secondary Coolant Circuits
    The use of internal, secondary, working fluid that is cooled by a 
remote condensing unit is a proprietary design that purportedly allows 
for greater control of unit temperature, and may present other 
attributes desirable to a customer. In the October 2013 test procedure 
NOPR, DOE stated that it found no evidence indicating that this design 
could not be tested using the DOE test procedure as written, as the 
operation of equipment with internal secondary coolant circuits would 
be effectively the same as that of a standard remote condensing case 
from the perspective of the test procedure. 78 FR at 64307 (Oct. 28, 
2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties regarding 
treatment of internal secondary coolant circuits during the DOE test 
procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.
l. Wedge Cases
    Wedge cases are models of commercial refrigeration equipment that 
fit between two other cases to fill a gap (such as in a corner) in a 
continuous case lineup. They may require air spillover from adjacent 
cases to meet the manufacturer's design temperatures. During the 
negotiation proceedings, manufacturers inquired as to how wedge cases 
should be treated under the DOE test procedure.
    DOE considered the coverage and testing of wedge cases in the 2009 
energy conservation standards final rule. 74 FR 1092, 1102-1103 (Dec. 
9, 2009). Based on that assessment, DOE understands that wedge cases 
meet the definition of commercial refrigeration equipment and fall into 
existing CRE equipment classes. In the October 2013 test procedure 
NOPR, DOE stated that it is unaware of any technical attributes that 
prevent wedge cases from being tested using the DOE test procedure, or 
that the DOE test procedure is not representative of the energy use of 
a given basic model of wedge case. 78 FR at 64307 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties regarding 
treatment of wedge cases during the DOE test procedure and, as such, is 
adopting the proposal presented in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR 
with no modifications.
m. Misting or Humidification Systems
    Manufacturers may offer for sale with a basic model optional 
misting or humidification systems, which dispense a water mist used to 
maintain the optimal quality of products. These are commonly used with 
cases containing, for example, fresh produce, meat, or seafood. In the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that, if present, these 
systems should be inactive during testing under the DOE test procedure 
and proposed to add clarifying language as part of the regulatory text. 
78 FR at 64307-64308 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its 
proposal regarding treatment of misting or humidification systems 
during the DOE test procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal 
presented in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no 
modifications.
n. Air Purifiers
    Manufacturers may offer for sale purifying systems to remove 
contaminants from air recirculated within the interior of a 
refrigerated case. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE 
proposed that air purifiers should be inactive during testing under the 
DOE test procedure and proposed to add clarifying language as part of 
the regulatory text. 78 FR at 64308 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its 
proposal regarding treatment of air purifiers during the DOE test 
procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.
o. General Purpose Outlets
    Some commercial refrigeration equipment may be offered for sale 
with integrated general purpose electrical outlets, which may be used 
to power additional equipment such as scales or slicers. In the October 
2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that, during testing under the 
DOE test procedure, no external load should be connected to the general 
purpose outlets contained within a unit and proposed to add clarifying 
language as part of the regulatory text. 78 FR at 64308 (Oct. 28, 
2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its 
proposal regarding treatment of general purpose outlets during the DOE 
test procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.
p. Crankcase Heaters
    Some models of self-contained commercial refrigeration equipment 
feature electric resistance heaters designed to keep the compressor 
warm in order to maintain the refrigerant contained within at optimal 
conditions when the unit is operating at low ambient temperatures. In 
the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed that, if present, 
crankcase heaters should be operational during the test. Under this 
proposal, if a control system, such as a thermostat or electronic 
controller, is used to modulate the operation of the crankcase heater, 
it should be used as intended per the manufacturer's instructions. DOE 
proposed to add clarifying language regarding testing units with 
crankcase heaters. 78 FR at 64308 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its 
proposal regarding treatment of crankcase heaters during the DOE test 
procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.
q. Interior/Exterior Liners
    Manufacturers may offer for sale a variety of different interior or 
exterior liner materials with a given CRE basic model. These liners, by 
virtue of differences in thickness, composition, and other physical 
attributes, could change the insulative properties of the case walls 
and thus alter the energy consumption of the case. The test procedure 
estimates the heat loss from the refrigerated space to the surroundings 
by measuring the amount of energy needed to maintain the refrigerated 
space at the given rating temperature. In the October 2013 test 
procedure NOPR, DOE presented its belief that the DOE test procedure 
adequately accounts for variability in the energy consumption of models 
with different liner types just as it accounts for the energy 
performance of models with varying levels of insulation. Therefore, DOE 
did not propose any additional measures to accommodate these equipment 
features. 78 FR at 64308 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    DOE did not receive any comments from interested parties on its 
proposal

[[Page 22296]]

regarding treatment of interior/exterior liners during the DOE test 
procedure and, as such, is adopting the proposal presented in the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR with no modifications.
r. Crankcase Pressure Regulators
    During the 2013 Working Group meetings, stakeholders mentioned that 
they sometimes equip the compressors of self-contained commercial 
refrigeration units with devices called crankcase pressure regulators. 
The function of these devices is to maintain optimal gas pressure 
within the compressor crankcase in instances where the voltage input to 
the compressor may not be uniform. This often is the case, for example, 
in rural locations where the transmission system may experience 
interruptions or fluctuations resulting in line voltage drops. Working 
Group members agreed unanimously that manufacturers should offer an 
identical model without this feature for the purposes of testing. DOE 
plans to address this through guidance.
s. Other Comments Received From Interested Parties
    In response to the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE received 
several additional comments pertaining to its treatment of accessories 
generally. Zero Zone agreed with DOE's accommodations of some specific 
accessories and features proposed in the October 2013 test procedure 
NOPR. However, Zero Zone questioned why DOE did not make allowances for 
customers with high ambient humidities and allow the use of higher 
anti-sweat heat for those applications. Zero Zone recommended that, to 
be consistent, DOE should require testing with the options it plans to 
exclude in this rulemaking, and if the equipment can't pass the energy 
standard with these options installed, customers need to modify their 
stores to avoid the need for the equipment modifications. (Zero Zone, 
No. 18 at p. 3)
    The government of the People's Republic of China (China) 
recommended that all non-core energy-consuming accessories, such as 
lighting associated with short-term opening and closing of the 
refrigerator door, networking and standby, or operation of the 
deodorizing system, should be left out and not included in the 
measurement of daily energy consumption. (China, No. 10 at p. 2) In 
addition, China recommended that, if a manufacturer included in their 
product literature information that the operation of some functions was 
auxiliary to the effective operation of the refrigeration equipment, 
their energy consumption would account for a small proportion of total 
energy consumption and could be excluded from the calculation of total 
or combined daily energy consumption. (China, No. 10 at p. 4)
    In response to Zero Zone's comment regarding accounting for the use 
of anti-sweat heaters at high humidities in the DOE test procedure, DOE 
notes that its test procedure is meant to represent an average cycle of 
use. The ambient temperatures required in the DOE test procedure are 
75[emsp14][deg]F and 45 percent relative humidity. These ambient 
conditions apply to all equipment and are meant to be representative of 
the typical installation conditions for most commercial refrigeration 
equipment. DOE does not believe that the additional complexity and 
burden associated with testing at additional or different ambient 
temperature conditions for some equipment is justified to capture 
additional use of anti-sweat heaters. DOE notes that, as presented in 
section III.A.5.c, this final rule establishes provisions that anti-
sweat door heaters that do not have automatic controls should be 
energized when testing in accordance with the DOE test procedure and 
that energy use due to anti-sweat door heaters that have automatic 
controls will be captured based on the control algorithm associated 
with the automatic control scheme.
    In response to China's comment regarding the treatment of non-core 
or auxiliary accessories, DOE believes that, to a large extent, the 
provisions adopted in this section address the appropriate treatment of 
specific non-core and auxiliary accessories. DOE notes that, to ensure 
consistent and repeatable testing, it is beneficial to adopt specific 
test provisions for the treatment of specific accessories. The 
proposals adopted in this test procedure final rule address specific 
accessories agreed upon as a result of negotiations between DOE and 
interested parties. DOE does not believe adopting more-general 
provisions for the treatment of ``non-core'' accessories, as suggested 
by China, is necessary. In addition, DOE believes such ambiguous 
provisions may result in misinterpretation and lack of consistency in 
implementation of the test procedure. Therefore, DOE is not adopting 
provisions for testing of accessories other than those proposed in the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR. 78 FR at 64306-08 (Oct. 28, 2013).
6. Rounding of Test Results and Certified Ratings
    The current DOE test procedure, which incorporates by reference 
provisions from ARI 1200-2006 and AHRI 1200-2010, requires that the 
calculated daily energy consumption (CDEC), for remote condensing 
equipment, and the total daily energy consumption (TDEC), for self-
contained refrigeration equipment, be expressed in terms of kilowatt-
hours (kWh) per day and must be stated in increments of 0.01 kWh per 
day. This is consistent with the number of significant figures 
expressed in the energy conservation standards listed at 10 CFR 431.66.
    DOE's requirements for calculating test results and certified 
ratings for covered commercial refrigeration equipment are found at 10 
CFR 431.64 and 10 CFR 429.42, respectively. The DOE test procedure 
currently requires that results for CDEC or TDEC resulting from testing 
a single unit be rounded to 0.01 kWh per day. In the case where the 
reported value is derived from testing, at least two or more units 
should be tested pursuant to 429.42 and the appropriate sampling 
statistics must be applied in order to develop the represented value. 
DOE is adopting in this final rule provisions to clarify that the 
represented value should also be rounded to the nearest 0.01 kWh per 
day after application of the sampling statistics. For commercial 
refrigeration equipment rated using an AEDM, the certified rating must 
be derived pursuant to 429.70 and rounded to 0.01 kWh per day.
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed to clarify 10 
CFR 431.64 by specifying that all calculations in the DOE test 
procedure must be carried out using raw, measured values, and the 
results from the testing of a single unit of a given basic model should 
be expressed in 0.01 kWh per day. DOE also proposed to update the 
language at 10 CFR 429.42 to reflect the same rounding requirements, 
namely that certified ratings be expressed in 0.01 kWh per day 
increments. 78 FR at 64308 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    In response to this proposal, Traulsen suggested that, in lieu of 
leaving an ambiguous rounding factor that may result in inconsistencies 
between manufacturers or reporting entities, DOE require all 
calculations to be carried out to the third decimal point and rounding 
to the second decimal point for the purposes of certification and 
compliance with DOE's energy conservation standards. (Traulsen, No. 17 
at p. 3) Southern Store Fixtures commented that the rounding of test 
results and the raw data, per ASHRAE Standard 72, is carried to one 
decimal point and should be consistent with this test procedure. 
(Southern Store Fixtures, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 165)

[[Page 22297]]

    In response to Southern Store Fixtures' comment regarding values in 
ASHRAE 72-2005 that are carried to the first decimal point, DOE notes 
that pressure and temperature measurements are specified to the first 
decimal point and reporting these values to the third decimal point may 
be inappropriate. However, these values are not used directly in the 
calculation of TDEC or CDEC, and the number of significant digits past 
the decimal is not relevant. For these quantities, the number of 
significant digits to be carried through calculations is dictated by 
the number of significant digits in the value as a whole, and at least 
three significant digits are expected for all these quantities.
    In this final rule, DOE is not modifying the proposal presented in 
the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, and is adopting in this test 
procedure final rule language that all calculations in the DOE test 
procedure must be carried out using raw, measured values and the 
results from the testing of a single unit of a given basic model should 
be expressed in 0.01 kWh per day.
7. Testing at the Lowest Application Product Temperature
    In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE establishes provisions 
for testing equipment that is not capable of achieving the prescribed 
rating temperature for its respective equipment class: 38 [deg]F 
(2 [deg]F) for commercial refrigerators, 0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) for commercial freezers, and -15 [deg]F (2 
[deg]F) for ice-cream freezers. 77 FR at 10320 (Feb. 21, 2012). This 
equipment includes, for example, floral cases and ice storage cases, 
which do not have operating temperatures that are low enough to meet 
their respective rating temperature requirements. The 2012 test 
procedure amendments specify that such equipment must be tested at its 
LAPT, instead of the specified rating temperature for its given 
equipment class. 77 FR at 10320 (Feb. 21, 2012). DOE regulations at 10 
CFR 431.62 define LAPT as the integrated average temperature closest to 
the specified rating temperature for a given piece of equipment 
achievable and repeatable such that the IAT of a given unit is within 
2 [deg]F of the average of all IAT values for that basic 
model. For cases with thermostats, this will be the lowest thermostat 
set point.
a. Definition of Lowest Application Product Temperature
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE clarified the 
definition and intent of the LAPT for equipment that cannot maintain 
the prescribed rating temperature. 78 FR at 64308-09 (Oct. 28, 2013). 
That is, DOE specified the LAPT is the lowest temperature at which a 
given basic model is capable of operating, and equipment rated under 
the LAPT provisions must be tested in accordance with all the 
requirements of the DOE test procedure, except that the rating 
temperature for this equipment will be the LAPT and the IAT measured 
during the test will be within 2 [deg]F of the LAPT instead 
of within 2 [deg]F of the prescribed rating temperature for 
that equipment class. DOE acknowledged that the lowest operating 
temperature for a given unit may vary slightly for specific units 
tested under a given basic model due to manufacturing tolerances, 
refrigerant charge, or other minor differences among units of a given 
CRE basic model. However, the LAPT should be specified such that, if 
DOE were to select a representative unit of this model randomly to test 
for compliance purposes, DOE would be able to test the unit by setting 
the unit to operate as cold as possible and achieve an integrated 
average temperature that is 2 [deg]F of the LAPT. 78 FR 
64308-09 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    In response to DOE's proposed clarification of LAPT in the October 
2013 NOPR, interested parties had several suggestions regarding the 
definition of LAPT. Traulsen recommended the following clarification to 
the LAPT definition: The term ``LAPT'' is attained by adjusting the 
unit thermostat to the lowest operating temperature where the ``IAT'' 
is maintained at a condition of 2 [deg]F over the duration 
of the test procedure. The LAPT value is equal to or greater than the 
rating temperature based on refrigeration system capacity or lowest 
possible thermostat set point. (Traulsen, No. 15 at p. 3) Hussmann 
recommended that DOE change the definition of LAPT for remote equipment 
without a thermostat from ``adjusted dew point'' to ``dew point,'' 
since that is what is controlled in a test environment. Hussmann also 
stated that it believed the LAPT should not be below the manufacturer's 
lowest specified operating temperature and that testing of the LAPT as 
the ``temperature achieved with the adjusted dew point temperature (as 
defined in AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010) set to 5 degrees colder than 
that required to maintain the manufacturers lowest specified operating 
temperature'' will only result in an unsuccessful, unrepeatable, non-
steady state test due to excessive ice build-up on the evaporator coil. 
(Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 3)
    DOE appreciates the recommendations submitted by interested parties 
regarding the definition and specification of LAPT. Specifically, DOE 
believes that Traulsen's recommended language is generally incorporated 
into the existing definition and procedure proposed in the October 2013 
test procedure NOPR. Further, DOE notes that the term ``LAPT'' should 
be defined so as to describe the characteristics and specification of 
the lowest IAT a CRE basic model is capable of achieving, rather than 
the procedure for determining LAPT, which is described in the relevant 
section of 10 CFR 431.64. DOE also notes that the LAPT for a given CRE 
basic model does not have to be ``maintained'' throughout the test 
procedure, but rather the IAT resulting from conducting the test 
procedure should be within 2 [deg]F of the specified LAPT.
    In addition, in response to Hussmann's recommendation regarding the 
LAPT provisions for remote equipment that does not have a thermostat, 
DOE agrees with Hussmann that it may be more appropriate to specify the 
dew point, as opposed to the adjusted dew point for remote equipment. 
AHRI 1200-2010 defines the dew point as the refrigerant vapor 
saturation temperature at a specified pressure. This corresponds 
typically to the temperature in the evaporator. Conversely, the 
adjusted dew point is defined in AHRI 1200-2010 as a temperature lower 
than the actual dew point to account for suction line pressure losses 
and represents the saturated suction temperature at the compressor. 
This is more representative of the refrigerant temperature entering the 
compressor and is the value used to specify compressor performance for 
the purposes of determining the CDEC for remote cases in AHRI 1200-
2010. AHRI 1200-2010 further specifies the adjusted dew point as 2 
[deg]F lower than the evaporator dew point for commercial refrigerators 
and 3 [deg]F lower than the evaporator dew point for commercial 
freezers, when applying standardized assumptions regarding condensing 
rack performance (see Table 1 in section 5, ``Rating Requirements for 
Remote Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage 
Cabinets,'' of AHRI 1200-2010). While the dew point and the adjusted 
dew point are dependent on one another, DOE acknowledges that the dew 
point controls the internal refrigerated temperature directly and is 
what is directly controlled in a test environment. DOE notes that 
specifying

[[Page 22298]]

the dew point, rather than the adjusted dew point, as 5 degrees below 
that required to maintain the manufacturer's lowest specified operating 
temperature will not change the resultant LAPT value for remote 
equipment, as the two values are dependent on one another. 
Specifically, the adjusted dew point is specified as 3 [deg]F lower 
than the dew point for commercial freezers and ice-cream freezers and 2 
[deg]F lower than the dew point for commercial refrigerators.
    In response to Hussmann's comment that specifying the adjusted dew 
point as 5 degrees colder than that required to maintain the 
manufacturer's lowest specified operating temperature will result in 
internal refrigerated temperatures that may be lower than the 
manufacturer's lowest specified operating temperature, which could lead 
to ice buildup on the evaporator coil, DOE acknowledges that this may 
be a concern but notes that this may be an issue for only a small 
number of basic models. If a model is not able to operate consistently 
at a temperature 5 degrees below the dew point required to maintain the 
manufacturer's lowest specified operating temperature, a manufacturer 
must request a test procedure waiver.
    DOE notes that it adopted such language in the 2012 test procedure 
final rule to ensure that the achieved LAPT represented a conservative 
rating for remote equipment. DOE believed this was necessary because 
the internal refrigerated temperature for remote equipment is so 
variable and dependent on the remote condensing rack capacity and 
operation. 77 FR at 10305 (Feb. 21, 2012). DOE is reluctant to revise 
the LAPT for remote equipment without a thermostat as the dew point 
required to achieve the necessary integrated average temperature inside 
the case for that basic model. As recommended by Hussmann, this 
approach would allow manufacturers to specify virtually any temperature 
as the LAPT for a given CRE basic model, including a temperature not 
representative of the lowest temperature the CRE model can achieve. As 
such, DOE is adopting language that continues to establish the LAPT for 
remote equipment without a thermostat based on specifying the dew point 
as 5 degrees below the temperature required to maintain the lowest 
specified operating temperature of that equipment.
b. Incorporation by Reference of ASHRAE 72-2005
    Although ASHRAE 72-2005 is currently evoked as the DOE method of 
test through DOE's incorporation by reference of ARI 1200-2006 and AHRI 
1200-2010 as the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment, 
DOE has never specifically incorporated by reference ASHRAE 72-2005. 
Due to the explicit reference of ASHRAE 72-2005 in the proposed 
definition of LAPT in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE 
proposed to incorporate by reference ASHRAE 72-2005 at 10 CFR 431.63. 
78 FR at 64309 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    In response to DOE's proposal to incorporate by reference ASHRAE 
72-2005, ASHRAE recommended that DOE update the reference of ANSI/
ASHRAE 72-2005 to the 2013 edition of this standard. (ASHRAE, No. 8 at 
p. 1) DOE notes that, at this time, a new edition of ASHRAE 72 is not 
available. DOE is aware that ASHRAE 72 is intended to be published 
soon, but DOE is not electing to delay publication of this final rule 
to accommodate ASHRAE's publication timeline. When a new edition of 
ASHRAE 72 is available, DOE will review the revised test protocol and 
consider amending DOE's test procedure to reference the updated ASHRAE 
72 version, as appropriate.
8. Clarifications in Response to Interpretations to AHRI 1200-2010
    The 2012 test procedure final rule amends the DOE test procedure 
for commercial refrigeration equipment to reference AHRI 1200-2010 as 
the method of test to be used as of the compliance date of the amended 
standards established published in the March 2014 energy conservation 
standards final rule. 77 FR at 10295-10296 (Feb. 21, 2012); 79 FR 
17726, 17734 (Mar. 28, 2014).
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE discussed five 
interpretations to AHRI 1200-2010 that AHRI had recently published. 
AHRI issued interpretations 1 through 4 to AHRI 1200-2010 to clarify 
the method for calculation of TDA. Interpretation 5 to AHRI 1200-2010 
clarifies the approach for testing commercial refrigeration equipment 
with two independent refrigeration sections. 78 FR at 64309-64310 (Oct. 
28, 2013). In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE presented its 
belief that the TDA should be measured as the ``projected visible 
area'' and discussed how Interpretations 1, 3, and 4 were consistent 
with this method. Specifically, Interpretation 1 specifies that TDA 
should not include any transparent areas where the view is blocked by 
solid features, Interpretation 3 describes how to treat silk screens 
and other semi-transparent coverings on transparent doors or panels, 
and Interpretation 4 provides guidance to determine the area and length 
of commercial refrigeration equipment with curved fronts. DOE did not 
propose further clarification of the DOE test procedure beyond the 
definition of ``transparent'' proposed in section III.B.2.a of the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR, believing that the existing test 
instructions contained in ARI 1200-2006, AHRI 1200-2010, and the DOE 
test procedure were sufficient to specify clearly how to calculate TDA 
for cases with solid features covering portions of projected area or 
for cases with non-rectangular geometries. 78 FR at 64310 (Oct. 28, 
2013). However, DOE found Interpretation 2, which includes solid 
features in the calculation of TDA such as door frames and mullions, to 
be inconsistent with DOE's method of calculating TDA. DOE's proposed 
method, comments received by interested parties, and DOE's responses 
are laid out in more detail in section III.A.9.
    DOE also reviewed Interpretation 5, which clarifies the method for 
evaluating commercial refrigeration equipment with more than one 
refrigerated section, and found that AHRI's Interpretation 5 is 
consistent with the DOE test procedure for these systems, as specified 
at 10 CFR 431.66(d)(2)(i), which explains how to test commercial 
refrigeration equipment with more than one refrigerated compartment or 
section. 78 FR at 64310 (Oct. 28, 2013).
    In response to DOE's discussion of the AHRI interpretations in the 
October 2013 test procedure NOPR, China recommended adding clarifying 
language to specify how to calculate the TDA for curved front cases and 
suggested that the TDA for these cases be based on the effective 
projected area. (China, No. 10 at p. 3)
    DOE acknowledges China's suggestion that the DOE test procedure 
provide more-explicit guidance for how to calculate TDA for cases with 
unique, non-rectangular geometries. DOE notes that AHRI Interpretation 
4 lays out clearly the approach for doing so. DOE discussed this 
approach in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR and determined that it 
was consistent with the DOE test procedure and did not need 
clarification. 78 FR at 64310 (Oct. 28, 2013). However, based on 
China's request, DOE notes that some interested parties may find 
additional clarification useful. As such, DOE is adopting additional 
clarification in the DOE test procedure for cases with curved front 
geometries.
    DOE notes that, on October 1, 2013, ANSI approved a revised edition 
of the AHRI 1200 test procedure, AHRI 1200-2013, which incorporates a 
new graphic

[[Page 22299]]

to Appendix D describing the measurement of TDA for cases with curved-
fronts and adds language clarifying the calculation of the height 
dimension (Dh). Specifically, AHRI 1200-2013 specifies that 
the dimension L shall be taken as the arc length of the curves section 
of visible product area. AHRI 1200-2013 also adopted language to 
Appendix D that reads ``when measuring Dh, only the visible 
dimension shall be considered. Opaque door frames, light shades, non-
transparent silk screens, and the like that impede visibility shall be 
excluded from the measurement.'' AHRI 1200-2013 did not make any other 
changes to the methods, nomenclature, or layout of AHRI 1200, and is 
otherwise consistent with ARI 1200-2006 and AHRI 1200-2010, the test 
procedures currently incorporated by reference into the DOE test 
procedure.
    In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE incorporated by 
reference AHRI 1200-2010 as the test procedure for commercial 
refrigeration equipment manufactured on or after the compliance date of 
the amended energy conservation standards adopted in the March 2014 
energy conservation standards final rule.\13\ 77 FR at 10295, 10308-09, 
10318-21 (Feb. 21, 2012); 79 FR 17726, 17734 (Mar. 28, 2014). DOE also 
maintained the incorporation by reference of ARI 1200-2006 for 
equipment certified prior to March 28, 2017. 77 FR at 10318-10320 (Feb. 
21, 2012). In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE discussed the 
changes made between ARI 1200-2006 and AHRI 1200-2010 as including both 
editorial and technical changes to (1) the equipment class nomenclature 
used within the test procedure; (2) the integrated average rating 
temperature for ice-cream freezers; and (3) the method of normalizing 
and reporting units for equipment energy consumption. 77 FR at 10296 
(Feb. 21, 2012). AHRI 1200-2013 differs from AHRI 1200-2010 in adopting 
(1) a new definition of ``transparent surface,'' which is a surface 
with a minimum of 65 percent light transmission or 65 percent clear 
surface; (2) a new statement in Appendix D specifying that when 
calculating Dh only the visible dimension shall be 
considered; and (3) an additional figure, Figure D18, providing 
clarification regarding the calculation of TDA for radius cases with 
transparent sides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE adopted a 
specific date (January 1, 2016), which was the anticipated 
compliance date for any standards amended as a result of the ongoing 
CRE energy conservation standards rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2010-
BT-STD-0003). However, DOE discussed in the preamble to the 2012 
test procedure final rule that the intent was to require compliance 
with the test procedure amendments adopted in that final rule 
consistent with the compliance of any new or amended standards. 77 
FR 10292, 10295, 10308-9, 10318-21 (Feb. 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE finds the amendments adopted in AHRI 1200-2013 to be generally 
consistent with the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment, except DOE finds the need for additional clarity surrounding 
the description of how TDA is to be calculated for radius cases the 
definition of ``transparent surface.'' For radius cases, DOE maintains 
that TDA shall be calculated as the projection of visible product, as 
described in section III.A.9. To clarify the method for calculating TDA 
for equipment with curved-front geometries, DOE is adopting a new 
figure specifying the dimensions Dh, L, and area 
Ae are to be determined as planar projections of the area of 
visible product when viewed at an angle normal to the transparent area 
for radius cases. Regarding the definition of ``transparent surface,'' 
as discussed in section III.A.2.b, DOE adopts a definition of 
``transparent'' based on a light transmittance of 45 percent when 
measured in accordance with ASTM Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009).
9. Clarification of Methodology for Measuring Total Display Area
    DOE uses TDA to determine the applicable performance standard for 
remote condensing commercial refrigeration equipment with transparent 
doors or no doors. Appendix D of ARI 1200-2006 and AHRI 1200-2010, as 
incorporated by reference by DOE at 10 CFR 431.63, provides a 
definition and instructions on determining TDA. AHRI 1200-2013 provides 
the same definition and instructions, and specifies that when 
calculating Dh, only the visible dimension shall be 
considered, an additional figure, Figure D18, provides clarification 
regarding the calculation of TDA for radius cases with transparent 
sides. Appendix D of ARI 1200-2006, AHRI 1200-2010, and AHRI 1200-2013 
defines TDA as follows:

    ``Total Display Area (TDA) is the sum of the projected area(s) 
for visible product.''

    Moreover, Appendix D provides a general equation for calculating 
the ``projected area(s),'' in the form of:

TDA = Dh*L + Ae,

Where:
Ae = Projected area from visible product through end 
walls
Dh = Dimension of projected visible product
L = Length of Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandiser

    Figures D1 through D16 of Appendix D of ARI 1200-2006, AHRI 1200-
2010, and AHRI 1200-2013 provide instructions on the measurement of 
Dh, L, and Ae for various geometries of 
commercial refrigerated display merchandisers. These figures show that 
TDA includes only those areas through which displayed product is 
visible for the Ae and Dh dimension, irrespective 
of the presence of other transparent areas through which product cannot 
be viewed. As Interpretations 1, 3, and 4 of AHRI 1200-2010 and the 
amendments adopted in AHRI 1200-2013 make clear, the converse is also 
true--areas of the product zone that cannot be viewed as part of a 
direct projection through a transparent area are not to be included in 
any measurement of Dh. The term ``direct projection'' refers 
to the view at an angle perpendicular to the plane of product 
presentation (facing area). ARI 1200-2006, AHRI 1200-2010, and AHRI 
1200-2013 all define the third variable, ``L'', as the ``length of 
commercial refrigerated display merchandiser.'' However, Appendix D 
contains no figures or illustrations instructing a user how to perform 
this measurement.
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE discussed the 
calculation of TDA for various CRE models and, at the public meeting 
presented figures, to illustrate the concept that the measurement of 
TDA in practice should be consistent with its definition as the 
``dimension of projected visible product.'' (DOE, No. 3 at pp. 68-71) 
DOE clarified that this included the dimension L, which corresponds to 
the total length of the transparent area of the merchandiser through 
which product can be seen; areas of opaque material that overhang the 
product zone and well as areas of transparent material that do not 
project upon a zone occupied by product, should not be included in this 
length. To clarify the calculation of TDA, DOE proposed to add 
clarifying text and figures to the test procedure explaining that the 
measurement of TDA should be representative of the ``dimension of 
projected visible product'' and that no opaque materials or areas of 
transparent material through which product cannot be viewed should be 
included in the calculation of TDA. 78 FR at 64310-64312 (Oct. 28, 
2013).
    In response to DOE's proposal to clarify the method of calculating 
TDA, DOE received several comments from interested parties objecting to 
DOE's interpretation and offering suggestions for other methods of 
calculating the dimension L when determining TDA of a CRE basic model 
with transparent doors or no doors. AHRI, Hill Phoenix, Hussmann, and 
Zero Zone disagreed

[[Page 22300]]

with DOE's definition of the length of a commercial refrigerated 
display merchandiser and stated that industry has always treated the 
length ``L'' as the ``length of the commercial refrigerated display 
merchandiser'' from inside wall to inside wall, disregarding the 
presence of non-transparent mullions and door frames. AHRI, Hill 
Phoenix, Hussmann, and Zero Zone further believed, and provided 
quantitative justification to support, that DOE must have used case 
length in the engineering analysis for the 2009 and the current 
rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-STD-0003) The commenters stated it 
is impossible to have a typical 30-inch by 67-inch door have 13 square 
feet of TDA without including the mullions and door frames and provided 
analysis to support this viewpoint. The commenters added that using TDA 
as DOE described in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR instead of 
case length would reduce the standard level by 10 to 12.5 percent. 
(AHRI, No. 15 at pp. 1-3; Hill Phoenix, No. 13 at pp. 2-6; Hussmann, 
No. 11 at pp. 3-4; Zero Zone, No. 18 at pp. 3-4) Hussmann expressed 
concern that changing the method for calculating TDA without changing 
the standards would unfairly penalize manufacturers. (Hussmann, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 190)
    Arneg and Zero Zone commented that the TDA is dependent on the 
distance the observer is located from the door and their orientation of 
viewing. (Arneg, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 196; Zero Zone, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 196-198)
    To be consistent with current industry practice and DOE's energy 
conservation standard rulemaking analysis (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0003), AHRI, Hill Phoenix, and Hussmann suggested that DOE use the 
interior refrigerated length, calculated from inside wall to inside 
wall, except for when a case has greater than 5 inches of non-
transparent area. For CRE models with more than 5 inches of non-
transparent length in the dimension L, the commenters recommended that 
DOE use total length of transparent area plus 5 inches. (AHRI, No. 15 
at pp. 1-3; Hill Phoenix, No. 13 at pp. 2-6; Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 4)
    Zero Zone recommended that DOE adjust the energy conservation 
standard to account for the reduction in TDA associated with not 
including the door frames and mullions in the calculation of TDA. If 
DOE elects not to adjust the energy conservation standard commensurate 
with the change in calculation of TDA, Zero Zone recommended that DOE 
not alter the calculation of TDA from that assumed in the engineering 
analysis for the ongoing energy conservation standard rulemaking 
(Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003) and noted that the market place will 
sort out the value and utility of equipment that has more or less 
visible product. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at p. 4) Zero Zone suggested that 
DOE incorporate a TDA-dependent component in the formula for energy, 
and another component considering non-TDA space or volume, noting that 
this is a unique design, although something similar has been done for 
ice cases. (Zero Zone, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 206-207) 
Traulsen suggested using volume to calculate energy consumption for 
glass door remotes, effectively bypassing the TDA discussion, or 
suggested leaving TDA as a square-footage calculated wall-to-wall, top 
to bottom while ignoring the depth dimension. (Traulsen, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 209-211)
    Southern Store Fixtures expressed concern that setting the 
precedent of eliminating mullions could result in the elimination from 
the calculation of TDA of other components in the refrigerated space 
that occupy space not containing merchandise. Southern Store Fixtures 
asserted that this could eventually cause the calculation to become 
complicated and burdensome for manufacturers. (Southern Store Fixtures, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 207-208)
    Hussmann, True, and Zero Zone agreed that, for the majority of 
cases observed in the field, calculating L using the length of the 
interior refrigerated volume or the continuous length of the 
transparent doors (including mullions and doorframes) would be the 
same. (Hussmann, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 217-218; True, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 7 at p. 218; Zero Zone, Public Meeting 
Transcript, No. 7 at pp. 219-220)
    In response to the suggestions offered by interested parties, DOE 
finds that calculating TDA to include portions of non-transparent area 
is inconsistent with the stated definition of TDA. However, DOE 
acknowledges that defining TDA as strictly the total length of 
transparent area may be inconsistent with the method used by industry 
to calculate TDA today. As a compromise, DOE is adopting in this final 
rule, a method for calculating the TDA of CRE basic models that is 
representative of the dimension through which product can be viewed, 
but which accommodates small non-transparent areas that are part of the 
doors themselves and are typically included in the calculation of TDA 
by manufacturers today. With regards to the calculation of TDA for the 
vertical closed transparent case modeled in DOE's engineering analysis 
supporting the March 2014 energy conservation standards final rule, DOE 
notes that the case modeled represents a typical multi-deck 
refrigerated merchandiser with five doors of 13 square feet each, for a 
TDA of 65 square feet (see appendix 5A of the technical support 
document for March 2014 energy conservation standards rulemaking final 
rule, Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003). DOE based its calculation of 
representative door TDA upon the continuous length of transparent area 
of the CRE model, which included mullions and door frames, but excluded 
any additional case wall present on the front face of the unit. In 
other words, DOE included the entire length of the transparent doors, 
including minor non-transparent areas, in its calculation of case TDA. 
DOE notes that, for the case modeled, the interior length of the 
refrigerated volume would be the same as the continuous length of 
transparent area when measured from door edge to door edge. DOE 
emphasizes that the model is meant to be representative of the energy 
use of a given type of commercial refrigeration equipment, and not to 
represent all the different design options available for any given 
model within an equipment category.
    DOE agrees with interested parties that if the dimension L were 
determined strictly as the length of transparent area, not including 
any non-transparent mullions or door frames, the difference may be on 
the order of 10 percent. However, to respond to the concerns of 
interested parties, DOE is not adopting such a strict definition of L, 
but rather a ``continuous'' length of transparent area to be consistent 
with the continuous dimension of Dh. DOE believes that, to 
be consistent with the definition and intent of TDA, the dimension L 
should represent the continuous length of transparent area, as proposed 
in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR. 78 FR at 64321 (Oct. 28, 
2013). However, DOE acknowledges that some unique case designs may 
feature large sections of case wall or other non-transparent area 
between sections of transparent area and agrees with interested parties 
that some threshold is necessary to ensure only materials with a 
significant majority of transparent area are included in the dimension 
L (e.g., transparent doors with thin door mullions or other non-
transparent hardware). DOE has reviewed the suggestion, submitted by 
interested parties that 5-inches or less of

[[Page 22301]]

non-transparent length be allowed in the measurement of L. DOE finds 
that a threshold of 5-inches or less is not sufficient to accommodate 
the non-transparent lengths for a large number of transparent-door CRE 
models with more than 3 doors. In addition, DOE notes that a fixed 
threshold of 5-inches for cases, regardless of the size of the case and 
the length of the dimension ``L'' does not treat all cases 
equivalently. However, DOE acknowledges that the concept of a threshold 
for non-transparent area, as suggested by interested parties, prevents 
cases with significant portions of non-transparent area between 
transparent doors or cases with transparent doors significantly inset 
from the case end walls from calculating an unrepresentatively high 
TDA, as would be the case if only interior refrigerated case length was 
used. As such, DOE believes a more consistent approach would be to 
apply a threshold of non-transparent area that may be included in the 
dimension ``L'' based on a percentage of the interior refrigerated case 
length that is not transparent. DOE is adopting in this final rule a 
threshold of 10 percent of non-transparent area that may be included in 
the dimension L. DOE believes this will more equitably treat the 
variety of case designs available on the market. DOE also notes that 
the 10 percent threshold is less stringent than the 5-inch threshold 
recommended by manufacturers. That is, a threshold of 10 percent 
accommodates greater amounts of non-transparent area in the dimension 
``L'' for a majority of CRE models. In addition, a threshold of 10 
percent is consistent with the modeling performed in the CRE energy 
conservation standard rulemaking (Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003).
    For those cases with greater than 10 percent of non-transparent 
area in the interior refrigerated length of the CRE model, DOE agrees 
with the general approach recommended by interested parties that the 
dimension L should be determined as the total length, along the axis of 
the merchandiser, of portions through which product can be viewed from 
an angle normal to the transparent area (i.e., the projected linear 
dimension(s) of visible product) plus 10 percent, to provide equitable 
treatment of cases with different door configurations.
    Therefore, in this final rule, DOE adopts instructions for 
calculating TDA that define L as the interior length of the CRE model, 
provided no more than 10 percent of that length consists of non-
transparent material. For those cases with greater than 10 percent of 
non-transparent area, L shall be determined as the projected linear 
dimension(s) of visible product plus 10 percent of non-transparent 
area.
    DOE believes this instruction is consistent with and clarifies 
current industry practice and the existing provisions of the DOE test 
procedure and, as such, believes that this amendment should not change 
the measured energy consumption of covered equipment. Therefore, DOE is 
adopting these amendments in both Appendix A, which is the test 
procedure required for equipment testing to demonstrate compliance with 
current energy conservation standards, and Appendix B, which will be 
required for testing on March 28, 2017, consistent with the compliance 
date of the amended energy conservation standards established in the 
March 2014 energy conservation standards final rule. 79 FR 17726, 17727 
(Mar. 28, 2014).
10. Compliance Date of Test Procedure Amendments
    In this final rule, DOE also reorganizes the test procedure 
requirements at 10 CFR 431.64 so that they are easier to understand, 
and updates the compliance date to be consistent with the compliance 
date of the amended standards established in the March 2014 energy 
conservation standards final rule. 79 FR 17726, 17727 (Mar. 28, 2014).
    EPCA prescribes that if any rulemaking amends a test procedure, DOE 
must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure 
would alter the measured energy efficiency of any covered equipment as 
determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(6)) 
Further, if DOE determines that the amended test procedure would alter 
the measured efficiency of covered equipment, DOE must amend the 
applicable energy conservation standard accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(6))
    In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE stated that some test 
procedure amendments will change the measured energy consumption of 
some covered equipment. 77 FR at 10295 and 10309 (Feb. 21, 2012). 
Specifically, DOE determined the provisions to accommodate testing of 
night curtains and lighting occupancy sensors and controls altered the 
measured energy consumption of covered equipment. 77 FR at 10309 (Feb. 
21, 2012). As such, DOE established in the 2012 test procedure final 
rule that use of the amended test procedure for compliance with DOE 
energy conservation standards or representations with respect to energy 
consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment would be required on 
the compliance date of the revised energy conservation standards 
established in the March 2014 energy conservation standards final rule. 
77 FR at 10309 (Feb. 21, 2012); 79 FR 17726, 17727 (Mar. 28, 2014).
    To improve clarity, in the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE 
proposed to reorganize the language at 10 CFR 431.64 into Appendices A 
and B. In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, Appendix A contained 
the test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment established 
in the 2006 test procedure final rule and Appendix B included the 
amended test procedure established in the 2012 test procedure final 
rule that will be required to be used on March 28, 2014, consistent 
with the compliance date of the amended standards established in the 
March 2014 energy conservation standards final rule. 78 FR at 64318-
64325 (Oct. 28, 2013); 79 FR 17726, 17727 (Mar. 28, 2014).
    In response to DOE's proposal, Hussmann stated that is does not 
understand why DOE cannot allow energy-saving features adopted in the 
2012 test procedure final rule to demonstrate compliance with current 
energy conservation standards. (Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 3) Hussmann 
further stated that it believes that the provision allowing 
manufacturers to rate equipment conservatively that were tested at a 
temperature lower than the required 38  2 [deg]F provided 
the basic model still meets the applicable energy conservation standard 
should be included in Appendix A (effective 30 days after publication 
of a final rule in the Federal Register) as well as Appendix B. 
Hussmann added that this will reduce testing burden for manufacturers 
without sacrificing efficiency. (Hussmann, No. 11 at p. 3) Zero Zone 
commented that it agreed with DOE's proposed approach to test remote 
cases under the LAPT and suggested that the test method should be 
included as part of Appendix A and immediately become part of DOE's 
test procedure. (Zero Zone, No. 18 at p. 3)
    With regard to permitting early use of the test procedure 
amendments established in the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE 
acknowledges Hussmann's request and notes that DOE has published 
guidance establishing that, while manufacturers need not comply with a 
new or amended test procedure prior to the compliance date established 
for that test procedure, manufacturers may voluntarily use amended test 
procedures to rate and certify their products prior to the compliance 
date if they also comply

[[Page 22302]]

with energy conservation standards based on that test procedure. See 
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/tp_faq_2012-06-29.pdf. DOE cannot permit amended test procedure 
provisions that affect the measured energy consumption to be used to 
demonstrate compliance with energy conservation standards that were not 
set based on that test procedure. Specifically, the provisions adopted 
in Appendix B in this final rule may be used prior to the compliance 
date established in this final rule as long as the equipment also 
demonstrates compliance with the amended standards established in the 
March 2014 energy conservation standards final rule, which used that 
test procedure as a basis. 79 FR 17726, 17734 (Mar. 28, 2014). 
Manufacturers may not use the test procedure established in Appendix B 
to demonstrate compliance with existing energy conservation standards.
    In response to Hussmann's request to include allowances for 
conservatively rating commercial refrigerators at temperatures lower 
than the specified rating temperature of 38  2 [deg]F in 
Appendix A as well as Appendix B, DOE acknowledges that, in addition to 
testing and certification to comply with DOE's energy conservation 
standards, commercial refrigeration equipment that is marketed to hold 
perishable food items must also be classified and certified by NSF/
ANSI-7, ``Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers'' (hereafter referred 
to as NSF-7), a food safety standard issued by NSF.\14\ NSF-7 
establishes two classes for commercial display cases: Type I, which is 
tested at ASHRAE Standard 72 standard ambient conditions (75 [deg]F dry 
bulb and 64 [deg]F wet bulb temperature), and Type II, which is tested 
at higher ambient conditions (80 [deg]F dry bulb and 68 [deg]F wet bulb 
temperature). These two test conditions are also reported in terms of 
dry bulb temperature and percentage relative humidity. Type I 
corresponds to 75 [deg]F and 55 percent relative humidity, and Type II 
corresponds to 80 [deg]F and 60 percent relative humidity. NSF-7 also 
requires Type I and Type II equipment to be tested such that the 
average temperature of each test package containing an individual 
temperature sensor does not exceed 41 [deg]F and no single temperature 
sensor exceeds a reading of 43 [deg]F at any time during the test. NSF-
7 does not specify a required average temperature for all test sensors 
or the measurement of energy consumption during the test. On the other 
hand, DOE does require an integrated average test temperature of 38 
[deg]F  2 [deg]F. However, manufacturers have reported that 
they test cases at lower IATs than that specified by DOE to ensure the 
NSF-7 requirements are met. In the 2012 test procedure final rule, DOE 
establishes provisions that allow manufacturers to optionally test 
equipment at internal or ambient conditions more stringent than the 
prescribed DOE rating temperatures and conditions for that equipment 
class, to reduce the repetitive test burden of testing at both DOE and 
NSF-7 conditions. 77 FR at 10305-07 (Feb. 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ NSF International. ``NSF/ASNI 7--2009: Commercial 
Refrigerators and Freezers.'' Ann Arbor, MI. http://www.nsf.org/business/food_equipment/standards.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE believes that accommodating Hussmann's request and including 
the provisions regarding certification of equipment at conservative 
IATs in both Appendix A and Appendix B won't affect the measured energy 
consumption of covered equipment or the stringency of the applicable 
energy conservation standard, as the provision is voluntary and thus is 
not required for equipment testing. In addition, DOE believes that 
allowing manufacturers to implement this conservative rating approach 
as of 30 days after publication of a final rule in the Federal Register 
will significantly reduce the burden associated with testing equipment 
that must be certified to both DOE's energy conservation standards and 
NSF's food safety standard. Therefore, DOE is adopting optional 
provisions to allow manufacturers to conservatively rate equipment at 
internal or ambient temperatures more stringent than the rating 
temperature or ambient conditions prescribed for their equipment class, 
provided the basic model still meets the applicable energy conservation 
standard, in both Appendix A and Appendix B. DOE notes that all other 
test procedure requirements must be satisfied to ensure a valid test; 
only the IAT and rating conditions may be adjusted.
    In response to Zero Zone's recommendation that DOE include the 
provisions for testing equipment that cannot be tested at the specified 
rating temperature at the LAPT in Appendix A in addition to Appendix B, 
DOE is incorporating the LAPT provisions into both Appendix A and 
Appendix B as part of this final rule.

B. Other Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comments and DOE Responses

    In response to the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE received 
comments from interested parties regarding several issues that pertain 
to the CRE test procedure, but not to specific provisions or 
amendments. Specifically, DOE received comments on the ambient 
temperatures used for testing commercial refrigeration equipment at 
standard rating conditions and the burden of testing.
1. Ambient Test Temperatures
    DOE's test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment 
establishes standard rating conditions for testing covered equipment of 
75 [deg]F and 55 percent relative humidity. Commercial refrigeration 
equipment that is marketed to hold perishable food items is classified 
and certified by NSF/ANSI-7, ``Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers'' 
(hereafter referred to as NSF-7), a food safety standard issued by NSF. 
NSF-7 establishes two classes for commercial display cases: Type I, 
which is tested at ASHRAE Standard 72 standard ambient conditions (75 
[deg]F dry bulb and 64 [deg]F wet bulb temperature), and Type II, which 
is tested at higher ambient conditions (80 [deg]F dry bulb and 68 
[deg]F wet bulb temperature). These two test conditions are also 
reported in terms of dry bulb temperature and percentage relative 
humidity. Type I corresponds to 75 [deg]F and 55 percent relative 
humidity, and Type II corresponds to 80 [deg]F and 60 percent relative 
humidity. NSF-7 also requires Type I and Type II equipment to be tested 
such that the average temperature of each test package containing an 
individual temperature sensor does not exceed 41 [deg]F and no single 
temperature sensor exceeds a reading of 43 [deg]F at any time during 
the test. NSF-7 does not specify a required average temperature for all 
test sensors or the measurement of energy consumption during the test. 
On the other hand, DOE does require an integrated average test 
temperature of 38 [deg]F  2 [deg]F. However, manufacturers 
have reported that they test cases at lower IATs than that specified by 
DOE to ensure the NSF-7 requirements are met.
    Continental commented that commercial refrigeration equipment is 
designed primarily to keep food safe in harsh conditions and added that 
most commercial kitchens have multiple pieces of heat-generating 
cooking equipment near the refrigeration equipment and ambient 
temperatures much higher than 75 [deg]F. Continental suggested that DOE 
utilize ambient test temperatures and allowable energy consumption 
levels cognizant of public health and safety. (Continental, No. 14 at 
p. 2)
    In response to the comment from Continental, DOE believes that the 
existing test conditions specified within the ASHRAE 72 test procedure 
and

[[Page 22303]]

accepted by industry are generally representative of field conditions. 
With respect to equipment designed to operate in harsher ambient 
conditions, DOE previously considered NSF Type II equipment in the 2012 
test procedure final rule and found that the compressor systems can 
effectively operate at test temperatures. In the 2012 test procedure 
final rule, DOE agreed with interested parties that testing cases at an 
ambient temperature of 80 [deg]F, rather than the currently specified 
75 [deg]F, will not have a significant impact on energy consumption for 
cases with doors and recognized that the impact on open cases may be 
greater than on closed cases, but did not believe that equipment will 
have operation or performance issues if tested at a the temperatures 
prescribed by the DOE test procedure. 77 FR at 10305-10307 (Feb. 21, 
2012). DOE maintains that the energy consumption of a case should scale 
with ambient temperature and does not believe these issues will prevent 
units from being tested using the DOE-prescribed test temperatures or 
complying with any existing or amended DOE energy conservation 
standards.
2. Burden of Testing
    Felix Storch, Inc. (FSI) expressed concern that there would be an 
undue burden on small business to conduct the proposed test procedures. 
FSI's opinion was that DOE has not calculated the full extent to which 
the proposed test procedures revisions will affect small manufacturers. 
FSI further commented that small businesses have limited R&D budgets 
and expertise to understand and carry out the proposed test procedures 
effectively. (FSI, No. 12 at p. 1)
    FSI recommended, to limit burden on small business, that: (1) Small 
businesses be allowed to use a single test for each basic model; (2) 
DOE provide free consulting help to small businesses to interpret test 
procedures and be bound in enforcement cases by the interpretations it 
provides; (3) DOE, upon issuance of notices or rulemaking documents, be 
required to notify affected small businesses of new or revised 
regulations, and no enforcement be permitted against small business 
absent such notification; and (4) CCMS submission be optional, not 
required, for small businesses as this represents a large burden with 
little benefit to the consumer community. (FSI, No. 12 at p. 3) 
Finally, FSI stated that small businesses, such as FSI, serve small 
niche markets and increase customer choice by providing customizable 
solutions. (FSI, No. 12 at p. 3)
    DOE understands that amending test procedures or including 
additional provisions in those test procedures could increase the 
burden on manufacturers to quantify the performance of their equipment. 
EPCA requires that the test procedures promulgated by DOE be reasonably 
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy 
use, and estimated operating costs of the covered equipment during a 
representative average use cycle. EPCA also requires that the test 
procedure not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
    DOE has analyzed the expected incremental cost of the test 
procedure amendments adopted in this final rule and its impact on 
manufacturers. All commercial refrigeration equipment covered by this 
rule is currently required to be tested using the DOE test procedure to 
show compliance with applicable energy conservation standards. The DOE 
test procedure, as amended by the 2012 test procedure final rule, 
consists of one 24-hour test at standard rating conditions to determine 
daily energy consumption.
    In addition, the 2012 test procedure final rule amends the test 
procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment to update the 
referenced industry test procedures to their most current versions 
(AHRI 1200-2010 and AHAM HRF-1-2008); incorporates provisions for 
testing certain energy efficiency features, including night curtains 
and lighting occupancy sensor and scheduled controls; and provides a 
test procedure for specialty equipment that cannot be tested at the 
prescribed rating temperature. As part of that rulemaking, DOE 
considered the burden associated with the test procedure amendments and 
certified that the rule would not have a ``significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities,'' and the preparation of a 
regulatory flexibility analysis was not warranted. 77 FR at 10314-10316 
(Feb. 21, 2012).
    The test procedure amendments adopted in this final rule only 
reorganize and clarify the existing requirements in the DOE test 
procedure, both those established in the 2006 test procedure final rule 
and those established in the 2012 test procedure final rule; they do 
not alter or affect any of the test procedure requirements or technical 
provisions in any way. DOE does not believe that the proposed test 
procedure amendments would affect the way in which any covered 
commercial refrigeration equipment is tested, nor would they impact the 
burden of conducting such a test.
    In this test procedure final rule, DOE is also allowing 
manufacturers to test at the internal temperatures and/or ambient 
conditions required for NSF-7 testing within 30 days of publication of 
this final rule in the Federal Register. This will dramatically reduce 
the burden for manufacturers that produce equipment for food storage, 
as under the amended test procedure these two 24-hour tests can be 
combined. The NSF-7 test is similar in length and burden to the DOE 
test, but is performed at slightly different internal and external 
temperatures. Certification of equipment tested at NSF-7 test 
temperatures for the purposes of compliance with DOE energy 
conservation standards will only be possible for equipment that is able 
to meet the DOE energy conservation standard at the more stringent NSF-
7 test conditions. However, DOE believes this provision can still 
potentially decrease the burden of test for some manufacturers.
    The amendments to the test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment were chosen to help minimize the impact of additional testing 
while clarifying and reorganizing the DOE test procedure to provide 
more accurate and repeatable test methods. Because none of these 
amendments significantly increase the burden of a test, DOE believes 
that the test procedure finalized here will not be unduly burdensome to 
conduct.
    In response to FSI's comments regarding this impact of DOE's test 
procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment on small businesses, 
DOE notes that the bulk of FSI's recommendations address CCE provisions 
that were established in a previous rulemaking (76 FR at 12446-12449 
(March 7, 2011)) and are not addressed in this final rule. DOE provided 
a robust analysis of the estimated burden of the test procedure 
clarifications and amendments adopted in this final rule and determined 
that these changes would not cause an undue burden on small 
manufacturers. This analysis is presented in section IV.B of this final 
rule.
    With regard to burden on small manufacturers associated with 
previously promulgated rulemakings, DOE is only analyzing the 
incremental burden associated with the amendments and provisions 
adopted as a result of this final rule. However, DOE notes that 
previous rulemakings, such as those that accounted for the impact of 
CCE requirements on CRE manufacturers, including small businesses, have 
accounted for the incremental burden associated with these requirements 
and, in each case, found the burden to not

[[Page 22304]]

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Specifically, with regard to an allowance for small businesses to use a 
single test for each basic model, DOE established a sample size of not 
less than two in the CCE final rule for all manufacturers regardless of 
size to ensure a suitable representation of model variability. 76 FR at 
12453 (March 7, 2011). Regarding the availability of free consulting 
help for small businesses to interpret test procedures, DOE has 
established a guidance process whereby interested parties may submit 
questions to DOE at any time regarding proper conduct of the DOE test 
procedure or compliance with relevant certification requirements. DOE 
also maintains a database of issues on which DOE has issued guidance 
for reference.\15\ When DOE issues notices or rulemaking documents, 
these documents are immediately available on DOE's Web site for 
Appliance and Commercial Equipment Standards \16\ and are publicly 
available via the Federal Register. DOE seeks to be as open as possible 
in conducting rulemakings and invites interested parties to participate 
openly. Regarding CCMS submission of certified ratings for small 
businesses, DOE has the same requirements for small businesses as for 
large entities and is under the same requirements to verify compliance 
with applicable energy conservation standards. Without certification 
reports, DOE has no record of compliance for applicable covered 
products. Further, DOE has attempted to design the CCMS templates to be 
as simple and straightforward as possible to minimize burden on 
manufacturers required to use these templates. Therefore, DOE continues 
to require certification of the TDEC or CDEC of covered basic models of 
commercial refrigeration equipment based on the testing of at least two 
unique units and the submittal of certification reports using DOE's 
CCMS templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ U.S. Department of Energy Appliance & Commercial Equipment 
Standards Program Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions, available 
at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1.
    \16\ http://energy.gov/node/773531/about_appliance_and_equipment.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 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 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 act analysis (IRFA) 
whenever an agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed 
rulemaking. When an agency promulgates a final rule after being 
required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency 
must prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis. The requirement 
to prepare these analyses does not apply to any proposed or final rule 
if the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
If the agency makes such a certification, the agency must publish the 
certification in the Federal Register along with the factual basis for 
such certification.
    As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of 
Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, so that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 (Feb. 12, 2003). 
DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the 
General Counsel's Web site at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    In the October 2013 test procedure NOPR, DOE reviewed the proposed 
rule to amend the test procedure for commercial refrigeration 
equipment, under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 
the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE 
certified that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not result in a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 78 FR at 
64313 (October 28, 2013). DOE received comments on its certification 
and the economic impacts of the test procedure, and has responded to 
these comments in section III.B.2. After consideration of these 
comments, DOE certifies that the test procedure amendments set forth in 
this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is 
set forth below.
    For the commercial refrigeration industry, the Small Business 
Association (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those 
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purpose of the 
statute. DOE used the SBA's size standards to determine whether any 
small entities would be required to comply with the rule. The size 
standards are codified at 13 CFR Part 121. The standards are listed by 
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry 
description and are available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Commercial refrigeration 
equipment manufacturing is classified under NAICS 333415, ``Air-
Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and 
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' Small entities 
within this industry description are those with 750 employees or fewer.
    DOE conducted a market survey to determine whether any small 
business manufacturers of equipment would be covered by this 
rulemaking. During its market survey, DOE used all available public 
information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE's research 
involved the review of industry trade association membership 
directories (including AHRI), equipment databases (e.g., Federal Trade 
Commission (FTC), the Thomas Register, California Energy Commission 
(CEC), and ENERGY STAR databases), individual company Web sites, and 
marketing research tools (e.g., Dunn and Bradstreet reports, Manta) to 
create a list of companies that manufacture or sell commercial 
refrigeration equipment covered by this rulemaking. DOE also referred 
to a list of small businesses that manufacture commercial refrigeration 
equipment, supplied by Traulsen in a written comment provided in 
response to the NOPR proposing amendments to the DOE test procedure for 
commercial refrigeration equipment published November 24, 2010 (Docket 
No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-0034, Traulsen, No. 9 at pp. 4-5). Using these 
sources, DOE identified 61 manufacturers of commercial refrigeration 
equipment.
    DOE then reviewed this data to determine whether the entities met 
the SBA's definition of a small business manufacturer of commercial 
refrigeration equipment and screened out companies that do not offer 
equipment covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a 
``small business,'' or are foreign owned and operated. Based on this 
review, DOE has identified 26 companies that would be considered small 
manufacturers and will be directly regulated by this rule, which 
represents 43 percent of national CRE manufacturers. Although 43 
percent would be considered a substantial number of small entities,

[[Page 22305]]

further analysis of incremental costs associated with this rulemaking 
determined no significant impact on these manufacturers. Specifically, 
the changes to the test procedure adopted in this final rule consist 
only of clarifications regarding:
    1. The applicability of the test procedure and related energy 
conservation standards to certain types of equipment;
    2. the definitions of ``hybrid commercial refrigeration 
equipment,'' ``commercial refrigeration equipment with drawers,'' and 
``commercial refrigeration equipment with solid and/or transparent 
doors'';
    3. the relationship among the rating temperature, operating 
temperature, and integrated average temperature;
    4. the proper configuration and use of energy management systems, 
lighting controls, and test packages in the DOE test procedure for 
commercial refrigeration equipment;
    5. the treatment of various features, components, and accessories 
under the DOE test procedure;
    6. the rounding requirements for test results and certified 
ratings;
    7. the provision adopted in the 2012 test procedure final rule to 
allow testing at the lowest application product temperature for 
equipment that cannot operate at the prescribed rating temperature for 
its equipment class;
    8. clarifications raised by Interpretations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of 
AHRI 1200-2010;
    9. the methodology used to determine total display area; and
    10. the compliance date of certain amendments established in the 
2012 test procedure final rule.
    All commercial refrigeration equipment covered by this rule is 
currently required to be tested using the DOE test procedure to show 
compliance with established energy conservation standards. The DOE test 
procedure manufacturers must use to demonstrate compliance with 
existing standards is that established in the 2006 test procedure final 
rule, which references ARI 1200-2006 and AHAM HRF-1-2004. This test 
procedure consists of one 24-hour test at standard rating conditions to 
determine daily energy consumption.
    The 2012 test procedure final rule amends the test procedure for 
commercial refrigeration equipment to update the referenced industry 
test procedures to their most current versions (AHRI 1200-2010 and AHAM 
HRF-1-2008); incorporates provisions for testing certain energy 
efficiency features, including night curtains and lighting occupancy 
sensor and scheduled controls; and provides a test procedure for 
specialty equipment that cannot be tested at the prescribed rating 
temperature. As part of that rulemaking, DOE considered the burden 
associated with the test procedure amendments and certified that the 
rule would not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities,'' and the preparation of a regulatory 
flexibility analysis was not warranted. 77 FR at 10314-10316 (Feb. 21, 
2012).
    The test procedure amendments adopted in this final rule only 
reorganize and clarify the existing requirements in the DOE test 
procedure, both those established in the 2006 test procedure final rule 
and those established in the 2012 test procedure final rule; they do 
not alter or affect any of the test procedure requirements or 
provisions in any way. DOE does not believe that the proposed test 
procedure amendments would affect the way in which any covered 
commercial refrigeration equipment is tested, nor would they increase 
the burden of conducting such a test.
    Rather, some of the provisions adopted in this final rule will 
reduce the burden associated with testing and certifying commercial 
refrigeration equipment. Specifically, this final rule allows 
manufacturers to reduce burden by testing and certifying equipment and 
internal and ambient test conditions that satisfy both the DOE test 
procedure and the NSF-7 test procedure effective 30 days after 
publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. This may 
significantly decrease the amount of testing manufacturers must do to 
demonstrate compliance with both programs.
    DOE also notes that the amendments regarding the treatment of 
various features, components, and accessories under the DOE test 
procedure were the result of a series of negotiations that occurred 
between DOE, manufacturers, and energy efficiency advocates and, thus, 
represent a mutually agreed upon approach for each of these features. 
DOE believes adoption of these clarifications will streamline testing 
and make DOE's test procedure easier and more straightforward to 
implement.
    The negotiations also resulted in a recently published final rule 
adopting amended regulations governing AEDMs, basic model definition, 
and compliance for commercial HVAC, refrigeration, and WH equipment. 
The AEDM provisions allow an alternative method for determining 
compliance in lieu of conducting actual physical testing. 78 FR 79579, 
79590. Commercial refrigeration equipment previously were required to 
test two units of each basic model, so the addition of an AEDM option 
reduces the number of units for which manufacturers will need to 
conduct this test procedure. The 2013 AEDM final rule also clarified 
its basic model definitions, which give manufacturers the flexibility 
to group individual models based on certain characteristics into an 
individual basic model for the purposes of demonstrating compliance 
with DOE's energy conservation standards. DOE notes that the AEDM and 
basic model provisions adopted in the 2013 AEDM final rule will reduce 
the burden of demonstrating compliance with DOE's energy conservation 
standards in general, such that the burden estimates for testing 
discussed here represent a worse case. The specific reductions in 
burden accomplished in the 2013 AEDM final rule are discussed in more 
detail in that rule. 78 FR 79590-79591 (Dec. 31, 2013).
    Based on this factual basis, DOE continues to certify that this 
rule will not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities,'' and the preparation of a regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not warranted. DOE has transmitted the 
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review 
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment must certify to 
DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation 
standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their 
products according to the DOE test procedure for commercial 
refrigeration equipment, including any amendments adopted for that test 
procedure. DOE has established regulations for the certification and 
recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and 
commercial equipment, including commercial refrigeration equipment. 76 
FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). 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 approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1910-1400. 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.

[[Page 22306]]

    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 final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for commercial 
refrigeration equipment. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a 
class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.). The rule is covered by Categorical Exclusion A5, for rulemakings 
that interpret or amend an existing rule without changing the 
environmental effect, as set forth in DOE's NEPA regulations in 
appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021. This rule will not affect 
the quality or distribution of energy usage and therefore will not 
result in any environmental impacts. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999), 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR at 13735 (March 14, 2000). DOE has examined this 
final rule and has determined that it would 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 this 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(d)) 
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: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
the 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. 
104-4 sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531) requires each Federal agency 
to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, 
and Tribal governments and the private sector. For proposed regulatory 
actions likely to result in a rule that may cause expenditures by 
State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate or by the private 
sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for 
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish 
estimates of the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the 
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a 
Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input 
by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a 
proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate'' and requires an 
agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to 
potentially affected small governments before establishing any 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on 
its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. 
(This policy is also available at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.) DOE reviewed this final rule pursuant to UMRA and its policy 
and determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental 
mandate nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 
million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.

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. 
This 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 15, 1988), that this regulation will not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

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

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

[[Page 22307]]

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, Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects 
for any proposed significant energy action. A ``significant energy 
action'' is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is 
expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any 
successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect 
on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by 
the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any 
proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed 
statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use 
should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to 
the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, 
and use. This regulatory action would not have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy and therefore it 
is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 
Statement of Energy Effects.

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy 
Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275), as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. When a proposed rule 
contains or involves use of commercial standards, the rulemaking must 
inform the public of the use and background of such standards. (15 
U.S.C. 788 Section 32)
    This final rule incorporates testing methods contained in ASTM 
Standard E 1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), ``Standard Test Method for Solar 
Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet Materials Using Sunlight,'' and 
ASHRAE 72-2005, ``Method of Testing Commercial Refrigerators and 
Freezers.'' DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude 
whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 323(b) of 
the Federal Energy Administration Act (i.e., whether they were 
developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, 
comment, and review).
    As required by section 32(c) of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974 as amended, DOE has consulted with the Attorney General and 
the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission about the impact on 
competition of using the methods contained in these standards before 
prescribing a final rule.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this 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 this final 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 431

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 2014.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 
431 of chapter II of title 10, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as 
set forth below:

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

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

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

Sec.  429.42  [Amended]

0
2. Section 429.42 is amended by adding in paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (ii), 
and (iii), the words ``increments of 0.01'' before the phrase 
``kilowatt hours per day (kWh/day).''

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
3. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. Section 431.62 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the definition for ``commercial hybrid refrigerator, 
freezer, and refrigerator-freezer'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions for ``chef base or 
griddle stand,'' ``closed solid,'' ``closed transparent,'' ``commercial 
freezer,'' ``commercial hybrid,'' ``commercial refrigerator,'' 
``commercial refrigerator-freezer,'' ``door,'' ``operating 
temperature,'' ``rating temperature,'' and ''transparent''; and
0
c. Revising the definitions for ``ice-cream freezer'' and ``lowest 
application product temperature.''
    The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec.  431.62  Definitions concerning commercial refrigerators, freezers 
and refrigerator-freezers.

* * * * *
    Chef base or griddle stand means commercial refrigeration equipment 
that is designed and marketed for the express purpose of having a 
griddle or other cooking appliance placed on top of it that is capable 
of reaching temperatures hot enough to cook food.
    Closed solid means equipment with doors, and in which more than 75 
percent of the outer surface area of all doors on a unit are not 
transparent.
    Closed transparent means equipment with doors, and in which 25 
percent or more of the outer surface area of all doors on the unit are 
transparent.
    Commercial freezer means a unit of commercial refrigeration 
equipment in which all refrigerated compartments in the unit are 
capable of operating below 32 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
    Commercial hybrid means a unit of commercial refrigeration 
equipment:
    (1) That consists of two or more thermally separated refrigerated 
compartments that are in two or more different equipment families, and
    (2) That is sold as a single unit.
    Commercial refrigerator means a unit of commercial refrigeration 
equipment in which all refrigerated compartments in the unit are 
capable of operating at or above 32 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
    Commercial refrigerator-freezer means a unit of commercial 
refrigeration equipment consisting of two or more refrigerated 
compartments where at least one refrigerated compartment is

[[Page 22308]]

capable of operating at or above 32 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) and 
at least one refrigerated compartment is capable of operating below 32 
[deg]F (2 [deg]F).
* * * * *
    Door means a movable panel that separates the interior volume of a 
unit of commercial refrigeration equipment from the ambient environment 
and is designed to facilitate access to the refrigerated space for the 
purpose of loading and unloading product. This includes hinged doors, 
sliding doors, and drawers. This does not include night curtains.
* * * * *
    Ice-cream freezer means a commercial freezer that is designed to 
operate at or below -5 [deg]F (2 [deg]F) (-21 [deg]C  1.1 [deg]C) and that the manufacturer designs, markets, or 
intends for the storing, displaying, or dispensing of ice cream.
* * * * *
    Lowest application product temperature means the lowest integrated 
average temperature at which a given basic model is capable of 
consistently operating (i.e., maintaining so as to comply with the 
steady-state stabilization requirements specified in ASHRAE 72-2005 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.63) for the purposes of 
testing under the DOE test procedure).
* * * * *
    Operating temperature means the range of integrated average 
temperatures at which a self-contained commercial refrigeration unit or 
remote-condensing commercial refrigeration unit with a thermostat is 
capable of operating or, in the case of a remote-condensing commercial 
refrigeration unit without a thermostat, the range of integrated 
average temperatures at which the unit is marketed, designed, or 
intended to operate.
* * * * *
    Rating temperature means the integrated average temperature a unit 
must maintain during testing (i.e., either as listed in the table at 
Sec.  431.66(d)(1) or the lowest application product temperature).
* * * * *
    Transparent means greater than or equal to 45 percent light 
transmittance, as determined in accordance with the ASTM Standard E 
1084-86 (Reapproved 2009), (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.63) at normal incidence and in the intended direction of viewing.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 431.63 is amended by:
0
a. Removing ``for Sec.  431.64'' in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) and 
adding in its place, ``for Sec.  431.64 and appendices A and B to 
subpart C to part 431'';
0
b. Removing ``and 431.66'' in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) and adding in 
its place, ``431.66, and appendices A and B to subpart C of part 431''; 
and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  431.63  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (d) ASHRAE. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 
Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1971 Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 
30329, or http://www.ashrae.org/.
    (1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 72-2005, (ASHRAE 72-2005), ``Method of 
Testing Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers,'' Copyright 2005, IBR 
approved for Sec.  431.62, and appendices A and B to subpart C of part 
431.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (e) ASTM. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, 
West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909-2786, or go to http://www.astm.org/.
    (1) ASTM E 1084 (Reapproved 2009), ``Standard Test Method for Solar 
Transmittance (Terrestrial) of Sheet Materials Using Sunlight,'' 
approved April 1, 2009, IBR approved for Sec.  431.62.
    (2) [Reserved]

0
6. Section 431.64 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  431.64  Uniform test method for the measurement of energy 
consumption of commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-
freezers.

* * * * *
    (b) Testing and calculations. Determine the daily energy 
consumption of each covered commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 
refrigerator-freezer by conducting the appropriate test procedure set 
forth below, in appendix A or B to this subpart. The daily energy 
consumption of commercial refrigeration equipment shall be calculated 
using raw measured values and the final test results shall be reported 
in increments of 0.01 kWh/day.

0
7. Section 431.66 is amended by:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (d)(1) removing every instance of ``>=32'' 
and adding in its place ``>=32 2'', removing every instance 
of ``2'', and removing 
``2**''
0
b. Adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  431.66  Energy conservation standards and their effective dates.

* * * * *
    (f) Exclusions. The energy conservation standards in paragraphs (b) 
through (e) of this section do not apply to salad bars, buffet tables, 
and chef bases or griddle stands.

0
8. Add appendices A and B to subpart C of part 431 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the 
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Refrigerators, 
Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers

    Note: After October 20, 2014 but before March 28, 2017, any 
representations made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of 
commercial refrigeration equipment must be made in accordance with 
the results of testing pursuant to this appendix.

    Manufacturers conducting tests of commercial refrigeration 
equipment after May 21, 2014 and prior to October 20, 2014, must 
conduct such test in accordance with either this appendix or Sec.  
431.64 as it appeared at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, in the 10 CFR 
parts 200 to 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2014. Any 
representations made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of 
such commercial refrigeration equipment must be in accordance with 
whichever version is selected. Given that after October 20, 2014 
representations with respect to the energy use or efficiency of 
commercial refrigeration equipment must be made in accordance with 
tests conducted pursuant to this appendix, manufacturers may wish to 
begin using this test procedure as soon as possible.

1. Test Procedure

    1.1. Determination of Daily Energy Consumption. Determine the 
daily energy consumption of each covered commercial refrigerator, 
freezer, refrigerator-freezer or ice-cream freezer by conducting the 
test procedure set forth in the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 
Institute (ARI) Standard 1200-2006, ``Performance Rating of 
Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage 
Cabinets,'' section 3, ``Definitions,'' section 4, ``Test 
Requirements,'' and section 7, ``Symbols and Subscripts'' 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.63). For each commercial 
refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a self-contained 
condensing unit, also use ARI Standard 1200-2006, section 6, 
``Rating Requirements for Self-contained Commercial Refrigerated 
Display Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.'' For each commercial 
refrigerator, freezer, or refrigerator-freezer with a remote 
condensing unit, also use ARI Standard 1200-2006, section 5, 
``Rating Requirements for Remote Commercial Refrigerated Display 
Merchandisers and Storage Cabinets.''
    1.2. Methodology for Determining Applicability of Transparent 
Door Equipment Families. To determine if a door for a given model of 
commercial refrigeration equipment is transparent: (1) Calculate the 
outer door surface area including frames and mullions; (2) calculate 
the transparent surface area within the outer door surface area 
excluding frames and mullions; (3) calculate the ratio

[[Page 22309]]

of (2) to (1) for each of the outer doors; and (4) the ratio for the 
transparent surface area of all outer doors must be greater than 
0.25 to qualify as a transparent equipment family.
    1.3. Additional Specifications for Testing of Components and 
Accessories. Subject to the provisions regarding specific components 
and accessories listed below, all standard components that would be 
used during normal operation of the basic model in the field shall 
be installed and in operation during testing as recommended by the 
manufacturer and representative of their typical operation in the 
field unless such installation and operation is inconsistent with 
any requirement of the test procedure. The specific components and 
accessories listed in the subsequent sections shall be operated as 
stated during the test.
    1.3.1. Energy Management Systems. Applicable energy management 
systems may be activated during the test procedure provided they are 
permanently installed on the case, configured as sold and in such a 
manner so as to operate automatically without the intervention of 
the operator, and do not conflict with any of other requirements for 
a valid test as specified in this appendix.
    1.3.2. Lighting. Energize all lighting, except customer display 
signs/lights as described in section 1.3.3 and UV lighting as 
described in section 1.3.6 of this appendix, to the maximum 
illumination level for the duration of testing. However, if a closed 
solid unit of commercial refrigeration equipment includes an 
automatic lighting control system that can turn off internal case 
lighting when the door is closed, and the manufacturer recommends 
the use of this system in writing in the product literature 
delivered with the unit, then the lighting control should be 
operated in the automatic setting, even if the model has a manual 
switch that disables the automatic lighting control.
    1.3.3. Customer display signs/lights. Do not energize 
supplemental lighting that exists solely for the purposes of 
advertising or drawing attention to the case and is not integral to 
the operation of the case.
    1.3.4. Condensate pan heaters and pumps. For self-contained 
equipment only, all electric resistance condensate heaters and 
condensate pumps must be installed and operational during the test. 
This includes the stabilization period (including pull-down), 
steady-state, and performance testing periods. Prior to the start of 
the stabilization period as defined by ASHRAE 72-2005 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  431.63), the condensate pan must be dry. 
Following the start of the stabilization period, allow any 
condensate moisture generated to accumulate in the pan. Do not 
manually add or remove water from the condensate pan at any time 
during the test.
    1.3.5. Anti-sweat door heaters. Anti-sweat door heaters must be 
in operation during the entirety of the test procedure. Models with 
a user-selectable setting must have the heaters energized and set to 
the maximum usage position. Models featuring an automatic, non-user-
adjustable controller that turns on or off based on environmental 
conditions must be operating in the automatic state. If a unit is 
not shipped with a controller from the point of manufacture and is 
intended to be used with an automatic, non-user-adjustable 
controller, test the unit with a manufacturer-recommended controller 
that turns on or off based on environmental conditions.
    1.3.6. Ultraviolet lights. Do not energize ultraviolet lights 
during the test.
    1.3.7. Illuminated temperature displays and alarms. All 
illuminated temperature displays and alarms shall be energized and 
operated during the test as they would be during normal field 
operation.
    1.3.8. Condenser filters. Remove any nonpermanent filters that 
are provided to prevent particulates from blocking a model's 
condenser coil.
    1.3.9. Refrigeration system security covers. Remove any devices 
used to secure the condensing unit against unwanted removal.
    1.3.10. Night curtains and covers. Do not deploy night curtains 
or covers.
    1.3.11. Grill options. Remove any optional, non-standard grills 
used to direct airflow.
    1.3.12. Misting or humidification systems. Misting or 
humidification systems must be inactive during the test.
    1.3.13. Air purifiers. Air purifiers must be inactive during the 
test.
    1.3.14. General purpose outlets. During the test, do not connect 
any external load to any general purpose outlets contained within a 
unit.
    1.3.15. Crankcase heaters. Crankcase heaters must be operational 
during the test. If a control system, such as a thermostat or 
electronic controller, is used to modulate the operation of the 
crankcase heater, it must be activated during the test.
    1.3.16. Drawers. Drawers are to be treated as identical to doors 
when conducting the DOE test procedure. Commercial refrigeration 
equipment with drawers should be configured with the drawer pans 
that allow for the maximum packing of test simulators and filler 
packages without the filler packages and test simulators exceeding 
90 percent of the refrigerated volume. Packing of test simulators 
and filler packages shall be in accordance with the requirements for 
commercial refrigerators without shelves, as specified in section 
6.2.3 of ASHRAE 72-2005 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.63).

2. Test Conditions

    2.1. Integrated Average Temperatures. Conduct the testing 
required in section 1 and 2 of this appendix A, and determine the 
daily energy consumption at the applicable integrated average 
temperature as found in the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Integrated
           Category                 Test procedure           average
                                                           temperature
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Refrigerator with Solid     ARI Standard..........  38 [deg]F (2
                                                         [deg]F).
(ii) Refrigerator with          ARI Standard..........  38 [deg]F (2
                                                         [deg]F).
(iii) Freezer with Solid        ARI Standard..........  0 [deg]F (2
                                                         [deg]F).
(iv) Freezer with Transparent   ARI Standard..........  0 [deg]F (2
                                                         [deg]F).
(v) Refrigerator-Freezer with   ARI Standard..........  38 [deg]F (2 [deg]F)
                                                         for
                                                         refrigerator
                                                         compartment. 0
                                                         [deg]F (2 [deg]F)
                                                         for freezer
                                                         compartment.
(vi) Commercial Refrigerator    ARI Standard..........  38 [deg]F (2
 Condensing Unit Designed for                            [deg]F).
 Pull-Down Temperature
 Applications and Transparent
 Doors.
(vii) Ice-Cream Freezer.......  ARI Standard..........  -15.0 [deg]F
                                1200-2006 \1\.........   (2
                                                         [deg]F).
(viii) Commercial               ARI Standard..........  (A) 0 [deg]F
 Refrigerator, Freezer, and     1200-2006 \1\.........   (2
 Refrigerator-Freezer with a                             [deg]F) for low
 Self-Contained Condensing                               temperature
 Unit and without Doors.                                 applications.
                                                        (B) 38 [deg]F
                                                         (2
                                                         [deg]F) for
                                                         medium
                                                         temperature
                                                         applications.
(ix) Commercial Refrigerator,   ARI Standard..........  (A) 0 [deg]F
 Freezer, and Refrigerator-     1200-2006 \1\.........   (2
 Freezer with a Remote                                   [deg]F) for low
 Condensing Unit.                                        temperature
                                                         applications.
                                                        (B) 38 [deg]F
                                                         (2
                                                         [deg]F) for
                                                         medium
                                                         temperature
                                                         applications.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   431.63.

[[Page 22310]]

    2.2. Lowest Application Product Temperature. If a unit of 
commercial refrigeration equipment is not able to be operated at the 
integrated average temperature specified in the table in paragraph 
2.1, test the unit at the lowest application product temperature 
(LAPT), as defined in Sec.  431.62. For units equipped with a 
thermostat, LAPT is the lowest thermostat setting. For remote 
condensing equipment without a thermostat or other means of 
controlling temperature at the case, the lowest application product 
temperature is the temperature achieved with the dew point 
temperature (as defined in AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 
(incorporated by reference see Sec.  431.63)) set to 5 degrees 
colder than that required to maintain the manufacturer's lowest 
specified operating temperature.
    2.3. Testing at NSF Test Conditions. For commercial 
refrigeration equipment that is also tested in accordance with NSF 
test procedures (Type I and Type II), integrated average 
temperatures and ambient conditions used for NSF testing may be used 
in place of the DOE-prescribed integrated average temperatures and 
ambient conditions provided they result in a more stringent test. 
That is, the measured daily energy consumption of the same unit, 
when tested at the rating temperatures and/or ambient conditions 
specified in the DOE test procedure, must be lower than or equal to 
the measured daily energy consumption of the unit when tested with 
the rating temperatures or ambient conditions used for NSF testing. 
The integrated average temperature measured during the test may be 
lower than the range specified by the DOE applicable temperature 
specification provided in paragraph 2.1 of this appendix, but may 
not exceed the upper value of the specified range. Ambient 
temperatures and/or humidity values may be higher than those 
specified in the DOE test procedure.

3. Volume and Total Display Area

    3.1. Determination of Volume. Determine the volume of a 
commercial refrigerator, freezer, refrigerator-freezer, or ice-cream 
freezer using the method set forth in the ANSI/AHAM HRF-1-2004, 
``Energy, Performance and Capacity of Household Refrigerators, 
Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers'' (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  431.63), section 3.21, ``Volume,'' sections 4.1 through 4.3, 
``Method for Computing Total Refrigerated Volume and Total Shelf 
Area of Household Refrigerators and Household Wine Chillers,'' and 
sections 5.1 through 5.3, ``Method for Computing Total Refrigerated 
Volume and Total Shelf Area of Household Freezers.''
    3.2. Determination of Total Display Area. Determine the total 
display area of a commercial refrigerator, freezer, refrigerator-
freezer, or ice-cream freezer using the method set forth in ARI 
Standard 1200-2006 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.63), 
but disregarding the specification that ``transparent material 
(>=65% light transmittance) in Appendix D. Specifically, total 
display area shall be the sum of the projected area(s) of visible 
product, expressed in ft \2\ (i.e., portions through which product 
can be viewed from an angle normal, or perpendicular, to the 
transparent area). Determine L as the interior length of the CRE 
model, provided no more than 10 percent of that length consists of 
non-transparent material. For those cases with greater than 10 
percent of non-transparent area, L shall be determined as the 
projected linear dimension(s) of visible product plus 10 percent of 
non-transparent area.
    See Figures A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, A3.4, and A3.5 as examples of how 
to calculate the dimensions associated with calculation of total 
display area. In the diagrams, Dh and L represent the 
dimensions of the projected visible product.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 22311]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP14.000

[[Page 22312]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP14.001

[[Page 22313]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP14.002

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

Appendix B to Subpart C of Part 431--Amended Uniform Test Method for 
the Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Refrigerators, 
Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers

    Note: Any representations made on or after March 28, 2017, with 
respect to the energy use or efficiency of commercial refrigeration 
equipment must be made in accordance with the results of testing 
pursuant to this appendix.

1. Test Procedure

    1.1. Determination of Daily Energy Consumption. Determine the 
daily energy consumption of each covered commercial refrigerator, 
freezer, refrigerator-freezer or ice-cream freezer by conducting the 
test procedure set forth in the AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010, 
section 3, ``Definitions,'' section 4, ``Test Requirements,'' and 
section 7, ``Symbols and Subscripts'' (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  431.63). For each commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 
refrigerator-freezer with a self-contained condensing unit, also use 
AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010, section 6, ``Rating Requirements for 
Self-contained Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and 
Storage Cabinets.'' For each commercial refrigerator, freezer, or 
refrigerator-freezer with a remote condensing unit, also use AHRI 
Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010, section 5, ``Rating Requirements for 
Remote Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and Storage 
Cabinets.''

1.2. Methodology for Determining Applicability of Transparent Door 
Equipment Families

    To determine if a door for a given model of commercial 
refrigeration equipment is transparent: (1) Calculate the outer door 
surface area including frames and mullions; (2) calculate the 
transparent surface area within the outer door surface area 
excluding frames and mullions; (3) calculate the ratio of (2) to (1) 
for each of the outer doors; and (4) the ratio for the transparent 
surface area of all outer doors must be greater than 0.25 to qualify 
as a transparent equipment family.
    1.3. Additional Specifications for Testing of Components and 
Accessories. All standard components that would be used during 
normal operation of the basic model in the field shall be installed 
and used during testing as recommended by the manufacturer and 
representative of their typical operation in the field unless such 
installation and operation is inconsistent with any requirement of 
the test procedure. The specific components and accessories listed 
in the subsequent sections shall be operated as stated during the 
test.
    1.3.1. Energy Management Systems. Applicable energy management 
systems may be activated during the test procedure provided they are 
permanently installed on the case, configured and sold in such a 
manner so as to operate automatically without the intervention of 
the operator, and do not conflict with any of other requirements for 
a valid test as specified in this appendix.
    1.3.2. Lighting. All lighting except for customer display signs/
lights as described in section 1.3.3 and UV lighting as described in 
section 1.3.6 of this appendix shall be energized to the maximum 
illumination level for the duration of testing for commercial 
refrigeration equipment with lighting except when the unit is 
equipped with lighting occupancy sensors and controls. If the unit 
includes an automatic lighting control system, it should be enabled 
during test. If the unit is equipped with lighting occupancy sensors 
and controls in should be tested in accordance with section 1.3.2.1 
of this appendix.
    1.3.2.1. Lighting Occupancy Sensors and Controls. For units with 
lighting occupancy sensors and/or scheduled lighting controls 
installed on the unit, determine the effect of the controls/sensors 
on daily energy consumption by either a physical test or a 
calculation method and using the variables that are defined as:
    CECA is the alternate compressor energy consumption (kilowatt-
hours);
    LECsc is the lighting energy consumption of internal case lights 
with lighting occupancy sensors and controls deployed (kilowatt-
hours);
    Pli is the rated power of lights when they are fully on (watts);
    Pli(off) is the power of lights when they are off (watts);

[[Page 22314]]

    Pli(dim) is the power of lights when they are dimmed (watts);
    TDECo is the total daily energy consumption with lights fully 
on, as measured by AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 (kilowatt-hours);
    tdim is the time period during which the lights are dimmed due 
to the use of lighting occupancy sensors or scheduled lighting 
controls (hours);
    tdim,controls is the time case lighting is dimmed due to the use 
of lighting controls (hours);
    tdim,sensors is the time case lighting is dimmed due to the use 
of lighting occupancy sensors (hours);
    tl is the time period when lights would be on without lighting 
occupancy sensors and/or scheduled lighting controls (24 hours);
    toff is the time period during which the lights are off due to 
the use of lighting occupancy sensors and/or scheduled lighting 
controls (hours);
    toff,controls is the time case lighting is off due to the use of 
scheduled lighting controls (hours);
    toff,sensors is the time case lighting is off due to the use of 
lighting occupancy sensors (hours); and
    tsc is the time period when lighting is fully on with lighting 
occupancy sensors and scheduled lighting controls enabled (hours).
    1.3.2.1.i. For both a physical test and a calculation method, 
determine the estimated time off or dimmed, toff or 
tdim, as the sum of contributions from lighting occupancy 
sensors and scheduled lighting controls that dim or turn off 
lighting, respectively, as shown in the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP14.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP14.004

    The sum of tsc, toff, and tdim 
should equal 24 hours and the total time period during which the 
lights are off or dimmed shall not exceed 10.8 hours. For cases with 
scheduled lighting controls, the time the case lighting is off and/
or dimmed due to scheduled lighting controls 
(toff,controls and/or tdim,controls, as 
applicable) shall not exceed 8 hours. For cases with lighting 
occupancy sensors installed, the time the case lighting is off and/
or dimmed due to lighting occupancy sensors (toff,sensors 
and/or tdim,sensors, as applicable) shall not exceed 10.8 
hours. For cases with lighting occupancy sensors and scheduled 
lighting controls installed, the time the case lighting is off and/
or dimmed due to lighting occupancy sensors (toff,sensors 
and/or tdim,sensors, as applicable) shall not exceed 2.8 
hours and the time the case lighting is off and/or dimmed due to 
scheduled lighting controls (toff,controls and/or 
tdim,controls, as applicable) shall not exceed 8 hours.
    1.3.2.1.ii. If using a physical test to determine the daily 
energy consumption, turn off the lights for a time period equivalent 
to toff and dim the lights for a time period equal to 
tdim. If night curtains are also being tested on the 
case, the period of lights off and/or dimmed shall begin at the same 
time that the night curtain is being deployed and shall continue 
consecutively, in that order, for the appropriate number of hours.
    1.3.2.1.iii. If using a calculation method to determine the 
daily energy consumption--
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP14.005

    Where EER represents the energy efficiency ratio from Table 1 in 
AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.63) for remote condensing equipment or the values shown in the 
following table for self-contained equipment:

EER for Self-Contained Commercial Refrigerated Display Merchandisers and
                            Storage Cabinets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Operating temperature class                   EER Btu/W
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medium.....................................................           11
Low........................................................            7
Ice Cream..................................................            5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1.3.2.1.iii.C. For remote condensing units, calculate the 
revised compressor energy consumption (CECR) by adding 
the CECA to the compressor energy consumption (CEC) 
measured in AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.63). The CDEC for the entire case is the 
sum of the CECR and LECsc (as calculated 
above) and the fan energy consumption (FEC), anti-condensate energy 
consumption (AEC), defrost energy consumption (DEC), and condensate 
evaporator pan energy consumption (PEC) (as measured in AHRI 
Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010).
    1.3.2.1.iii.D. For self-contained units, the TDEC for the entire 
case is the sum of total daily energy consumption as measured by the 
AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.63) test with the lights fully on (TDECo) and 
CECA, less the decrease in lighting energy use due to 
lighting occupancy sensors and scheduled lighting controls, as shown 
in following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP14.006

    1.3.3. Customer display signs/lights. Do not energize 
supplemental lighting that exists solely for the purposes of 
advertising or drawing attention to the case and is not integral to 
the operation of the case.
    1.3.4. Condensate pan heaters and pumps. For self-contained 
equipment only, all electric resistance condensate heaters and

[[Page 22315]]

condensate pumps must be installed and in operation during the test. 
This includes the stabilization period (including pull-down), 
steady-state, and performance testing periods. Prior to the start of 
the stabilization period as defined by ASHRAE 72-2005 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  431.63), the condensate pan must be dry. 
Following the start of the stabilization period, allow any 
condensate moisture generated to accumulate in the pan. Do not 
manually add or remove water to or from the condensate pan at any 
time during the test.
    1.3.5. Anti-sweat door heaters. Anti-sweat door heaters must be 
operational during the entirety of the test procedure. Models with a 
user-selectable setting must have the heaters energized and set to 
the maximum usage position. Models featuring an automatic, non-user-
adjustable controller that turns on or off based on environmental 
conditions must be operating in the automatic state. If a unit is 
not shipped with a controller from the point of manufacture and is 
intended to be used with an automatic, non-user-adjustable 
controller, test the unit with a manufacturer-recommended controller 
that turns on or off based on environmental conditions.
    1.3.6. Ultraviolet lights. Do not energize ultraviolet lights 
during the test.
    1.3.7. Illuminated temperature displays and alarms. All 
illuminated temperature displays and alarms shall be energized and 
operated during the test as they would be during normal field 
operation.
    1.3.8. Condenser filters. Remove any nonpermanent filters that 
are provided to prevent particulates from blocking a model's 
condenser coil.
    1.3.9. Refrigeration system security covers. Remove any devices 
used to secure the condensing unit against unwanted removal.
    1.3.10. Night curtains and covers. For display cases sold with 
night curtains installed, the night curtain shall be employed for 6 
hours; beginning 3 hours after the start of the first defrost 
period. Upon the completion of the 6-hour period, the night curtain 
shall be raised until the completion of the 24-hour test period.
    1.3.11. Grill options. Remove any optional non-standard grills 
used to direct airflow.
    1.3.12. Misting or humidification systems. Misting or 
humidification systems must be inactive during the test.
    1.3.13. Air purifiers. Air purifiers must be inactive during the 
test.
    1.3.14. General purpose outlets. During the test, do not connect 
any external load to any general purpose outlets contained within a 
unit.
    1.3.15. Crankcase heaters. Crankcase heaters must be operational 
during the test. If a control system, such as a thermostat or 
electronic controller, is used to modulate the operation of the 
crankcase heater, it must be utilized during the test.
    1.3.16. Drawers. Drawers are to be treated as identical to doors 
when conducting the DOE test procedure. Commercial refrigeration 
equipment with drawers should be configured with the drawer pans 
that allow for the maximum packing of test simulators and filler 
packages without the filler packages and test simulators exceeding 
90 percent of the refrigerated volume. Packing of test simulators 
and filler packages shall be in accordance with the requirements for 
commercial refrigerators without shelves, as specified in section 
6.2.3 of ASHRAE 72-2005 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.63).

2. Test Conditions

    2.1. Integrated Average Temperatures. Conduct the testing 
required in section 1 of this appendix B, and determine the daily 
energy consumption at the applicable integrated average temperature 
in the following table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Integrated average
            Category                Test procedure        temperature
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Refrigerator with Solid       AHRI Standard 1200  38 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
(ii) Refrigerator with            AHRI Standard 1200  38 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
(iii) Freezer with Solid Door(s)  AHRI Standard 1200  0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
(iv) Freezer with Transparent     AHRI Standard 1200  0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
(v) Refrigerator-Freezer with     AHRI Standard 1200  38 [deg]F (2 [deg]F)
                                                       for refrigerator
                                                       compartment.
                                                      0 [deg]F (2 [deg]F)
                                                       for freezer
                                                       compartment.
(vi) Commercial Refrigerator      AHRI Standard 1200  38 [deg]F (2 [deg]F).
 Condensing Unit Designed for
 Pull-Down Temperature
 Applications and Transparent
 Doors.
(vii) Ice-Cream Freezer.........  AHRI Standard 1200  -15.0 [deg]F
                                   (I-P)-2010 \1\.     (2
                                                       [deg]F).
(viii) Commercial Refrigerator,   AHRI Standard 1200  (A) 0 [deg]F
 Freezer, and Refrigerator-        (I-P)-2010 \1\.     (2
 Freezer with a Self-Contained                         [deg]F) for low
 Condensing Unit and without                           temperature
 Doors.                                                applications.
                                                      (B) 38.0 [deg]F
                                                       (2
                                                       [deg]F) for
                                                       medium
                                                       temperature
                                                       applications.
(ix) Commercial Refrigerator,     AHRI Standard 1200  (A) 0 [deg]F
 Freezer, and Refrigerator-        (I-P)-2010 \1\.     (2
 Freezer with a Remote                                 [deg]F) for low
 Condensing Unit.                                      temperature
                                                       applications.
                                                      (B) 38.0 [deg]F
                                                       (2
                                                       [deg]F) for
                                                       medium
                                                       temperature
                                                       applications.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   431.63.

[[Page 22316]]

    2.2. Lowest Application Product Temperature. If a unit of 
commercial refrigeration equipment is not able to be operated at the 
integrated average temperature specified in the table in paragraph 
2.1 of this appendix, test the unit at the lowest application 
product temperature (LAPT), as defined in Sec.  431.62. For units 
equipped with a thermostat, LAPT is the lowest thermostat setting. 
For remote condensing equipment without a thermostat or other means 
of controlling temperature at the case, the lowest application 
product temperature is the temperature achieved with the dew point 
temperature (as defined in AHRI Standard 1200 (I-P)-2010 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.63)) set to 5 degrees 
colder than that required to maintain the manufacturer's lowest 
specified application temperature.
    2.3. Testing at NSF Test Conditions. For commercial 
refrigeration equipment that is also tested in accordance with NSF 
test procedures (Type I and Type II), integrated average 
temperatures and ambient conditions used for NSF testing may be used 
in place of the DOE-prescribed integrated average temperatures and 
ambient conditions provided they result in a more stringent test. 
That is, the measured daily energy consumption of the same unit, 
when tested at the rating temperatures and/or ambient conditions 
specified in the DOE test procedure, must be lower than or equal to 
the measured daily energy consumption of the unit when tested with 
the rating temperatures or ambient conditions used for NSF testing. 
The integrated average temperature measured during the test may be 
lower than the range specified by the DOE applicable temperature 
specification provided in paragraph 2.1 of this appendix, but may 
not exceed the upper value of the specified range. Ambient 
temperatures and/or humidity values may be higher than those 
specified in the DOE test procedure.

3. Volume and Total Display Area

    3.1. Determination of Volume. Determine the volume of a 
commercial refrigerator, freezer, refrigerator-freezer, or ice-cream 
freezer using the method set forth in the HRF-1-2008 (incorporated 
by reference, see Sec.  431.63), section 3.30, ``Volume,'' and 
sections 4.1 through 4.3, ``Method for Computing Refrigerated Volume 
of Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Wine Chillers and 
Freezers.''
    3.2. Determination of Total Display Area. Determine the total 
display area of a commercial refrigerator, freezer, refrigerator-
freezer, or ice-cream freezer using the method set forth in ARI 
Standard 1200-2006 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.63), 
but disregarding the specification that ``transparent material 
(>=65% light transmittance) in Appendix D. Specifically, total 
display area shall be the sum of the projected area(s) of visible 
product, expressed in ft\2\ (i.e., portions through which product 
can be viewed from an angle normal, or perpendicular, to the 
transparent area). Determine L as the interior length of the CRE 
model, provided no more than 5 inches of that length consists of 
non-transparent material. For those cases with greater than 5 inches 
of non-transparent area, L shall be determined as the projected 
linear dimension(s) of visible product plus 5 inches of non-
transparent area.
    See Figures A3.1, A3.2, and A3.3 as examples of how to calculate 
the dimensions associated with calculation of total display area. In 
the diagrams, Dh and L represent the dimensions of the 
projected visible product.
BILLING CODE 4500-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP14.007

[[Page 22317]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP14.008

[[Page 22318]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR21AP14.009

[FR Doc. 2014-08640 Filed 4-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
```