Vol. 79 Monday, 

No. 76 April 21, 2014 

Part V 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers; Final Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22320 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2012–BT–TP–0016] 

RIN 1904–AC76 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 10, 2013, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

to amend the test procedures for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. That proposed rulemaking 

serves as the basis for this action. This 

final rule amends the test procedure that 

will be required for the testing of these 

products starting on September 15, 

2014. The amendments include test 

procedures for products with multiple 

compressors and an alternative method 

for measuring and calculating energy 

consumption for refrigerator-freezers 

and refrigerators with freezer 

compartments. DOE is also amending 

certain aspects of the test procedure in 

order to ensure better test accuracy and 

repeatability. This final rule does not 

address the proposal’s approach 

regarding the measurement of energy 

use associated with ice making, nor 

does it address the proposed treatment 

of built-in products, as DOE plans to 

address these topics in a future rule. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

May 21, 2014. Manufacturers will be 

required to use the amendments made 

in this rule to rate their products 

starting October 20, 2014. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in this rule is 

approved by the Director 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://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP0016. This is a link to the docket Web 

page for this final rule on the 

regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov 

Web page contains simple instructions 

on how to access all documents, 

including public comments, in the 

docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

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

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1317. Email: 

Lucas.Adin@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: 

Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

This final rule incorporates by 

reference into part 430 the following 

standard: 

AS/NZS 44474.1:2007, Performance 

of household electrical appliances— 

Refrigerating appliances, Part 1: Energy 

consumption and performance, Second 

edition, published August 15, 2007. 

Interested parties can purchase copies 

of Australian/New Zealand standards at 

http://www.standards.org.au/

SearchandBuyAStandard/Pages/

default.aspx. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Products Covered by the Final Rule 

B. Compliance Dates for the Amended Test 

Procedures 

C. Test Procedure Amendments 

Incorporated in This Final Rule 

1. Multiple-compressor Test 

2. Triangulation 

3. Anti-Circumvention Language 

4. Incomplete Cycling 

5. Correction of Temperature Measurement 

Period 

6. Mechanical Temperature Controls 

7. Ambient Temperature Gradient 

8. Elimination of Reporting of Product 

Height 

9. Definitions Associated With Defrost 

Cycles 

10. Measurement of Product Volume Using 

Computer-Aided Design Models 

11. Corrections to Temperature Setting 

Logic Tables 

12. Minimum Compressor Run-Time 

Between Defrosts for Variable Defrost 

Models 

13. Treatment of ‘‘Connected’’ Products 

14. Changes to Confidentiality of 

Certification Data 

15. Package Loading 

16. Product Clearance to the Wall During 

Testing 

17. Other Minor Corrections 

18. Relocation of Shelving for Temperature 

Sensors 

D. Other Matters Related to the Test 

Procedure and Discussion of Proposals 

not Adopted in this Final Rule 

1. Icemaking Test Procedure 

2. Built-In Refrigeration Products 

3. Specific Volume Measurement Issues 

4. Treatment of Products That Are 

Operable as a Refrigerator or Freezer 

5. Stabilization Period 

E. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

1. Test Burden 

2. Changes in Measured Energy Use 

3. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use 

IV. Procedural 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 the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 

6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’) sets 

forth a variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. (All 

references to EPCA refer to the statute 

as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical 

Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Public Law 

112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012).) Part B of title 

III, which for editorial reasons was 

redesignated as Part A upon 

incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified), 

establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles.’’ These consumer 

products include refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 

(collectively, ‘‘refrigeration products’’), 

the subject of this final rule. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(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 products must 

use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE 

that their products comply with the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22321 

1The signatories to these comments included the 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 

the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alliance 

to Save Energy, the Alliance for Water Efficiency, 

the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, the 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, the 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, the 

Consumer Federation of America, the National 

Consumer Law Center, Earthjustice, and the 

California Energy Commission. 

2Subsequently referred to as ‘‘AHAM Draft Test 

Procedure’’. 

3Subsequently referred to as ‘‘AHAM Revised 

Draft Test Procedure’’. 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted under EPCA, and (2) 

making representations about the 

efficiency of those products. Similarly, 

DOE must use these test procedures to 

determine whether the products comply 

with any relevant standards 

promulgated under EPCA. 

By way of background, the National 

Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 

1987 (NAECA), Public Law 100–12, 

amended EPCA by including, among 

other things, performance standards for 

refrigeration products. (42 U.S.C. 

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

amended these performance standards 

for products manufactured on or after 

January 1, 1993. 54 FR 47916. DOE 

subsequently published a correction to 

revise these new standards for three 

product classes. 55 FR 42845 (October 

24, 1990). DOE again updated the 

performance standards for refrigeration 

products on April 28, 1997, for products 

manufactured starting on July 1, 2001. 

62 FR 23102. 

EISA 2007 amended EPCA by 

requiring DOE to publish a final rule 

determining whether to amend the 

energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration products manufactured 

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

Consistent with this requirement, DOE 

initiated an effort to consider 

amendments to the standards for 

refrigeration products. As part of this 

effort, DOE issued a framework 

document on September 18, 2008, that 

discussed the various issues involved 

with amending the standards and 

potential changes to the test procedure. 

73 FR 54089. DOE later prepared 

preliminary analyses that examined in 

greater detail the impacts amended 

standards would be likely to have on a 

national basis. DOE published a notice 

of public meeting (NOPM) to initiate a 

discussion of these analyses, 74 FR 

58915 (Nov. 16, 2009), and held a public 

meeting on December 10, 2009, to 

discuss its preliminary findings. At that 

meeting, and in submitted written 

comments, interested parties indicated 

that the energy conservation standards 

for refrigeration products should 

address the energy use associated with 

automatic icemakers. They added, 

however, that a test procedure to 

measure icemaking energy use had not 

yet been sufficiently developed to 

provide a basis for the standards. 

(Energy Conservation Standards for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0012; American Council for an 

Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), No. 

46 at p. 1; California Investor Owned 

Utilities (IOUs), No. 39 at p. 2; LG, No. 

44 at pp. 2–3; Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC), No. 42 at p. 2; 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership 

(NEEP), No. 41 at p. 1; Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council (NPCC), No. 

36 at p. 1; Sub-Zero, No. 43 at pp. 2– 

3; Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP), Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 30 at pp. 28–29; 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (AHAM), No. 37 at p. 2; 

General Electric, No. 40 at p. 1) 

DOE also initiated a test procedure 

rulemaking to help address a variety of 

test procedure-related issues identified 

in the energy conservation standard 

rulemaking’s framework document by 

publishing a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) on May 27, 2010. 75 

FR 29824 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the 

May 2010 NOPR’’). The May 2010 

NOPR proposed to use a fixed value of 

84 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year to 

represent the icemaking energy use for 

those refrigeration products equipped 

with automatic icemakers. The NOPR 

also indicated that DOE would consider 

adopting an approach based on testing 

to determine icemaking energy use if a 

suitable test procedure could be 

developed. (Id. at 29846–29847) A broad 

group of stakeholders 1 submitted a joint 

comment supporting DOE’s proposal to 

use a temporary fixed placeholder value 

to represent the energy use of automatic 

icemakers. It also urged DOE to initiate 

a rulemaking no later than January 1, 

2012, and publish a final rule no later 

than December 31, 2012, to amend the 

test procedures to incorporate a 

laboratory-based measurement of 

icemaking energy use. The joint 

comment further recommended that 

DOE publish a final rule by July 1, 2013, 

and amend the energy conservation 

standards scheduled to take effect in 

2014 to account for the differences in 

energy use of icemakers measured using 

the new test procedure as compared 

with the 84 kWh per year fixed 

placeholder value. (Test Procedure for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket Number EERE–2009– 

BT–TP–0003; Joint Comment, No. 20 at 

5–6) 

In keeping with the timeline 

suggested in the joint comment, AHAM 

provided DOE in early January 2012 

with a draft test procedure that could be 

used to measure automatic icemaker 

energy usage. (AHAM Refrigerator, 

Refrigerator-Freezer and Freezer Ice 

Making Energy Test Procedure, Revision 

1.0—12/14/11,2 No. 4) Subsequently, 

consistent with the suggestions made by 

commenters and DOE’s previously 

stated intentions, DOE initiated work to 

develop the NOPR that was published 

on July 10, 2013. Prior to the NOPR’s 

publication, AHAM had drafted a 

revised test procedure and submitted it 

to DOE for consideration on July 18, 

2012. (AHAM Refrigerator, RefrigeratorFreezer and Freezer Ice Making Energy 

Test Procedure, Revision 2.0—7/10/12,3

No. 5) The proposal in the July 10, 2013 

NOPR (‘‘July 2013 NOPR’’) sought to 

improve the accuracy of certain aspects 

of the test procedure that DOE had 

recently promulgated in 2012. The 

NOPR proposed a method for 

measurement of the energy usage 

associated with icemaking, which was 

based on the revised approach suggested 

by AHAM. The NOPR also proposed 

several other test procedure 

amendments designed to clarify the test 

procedures, adopt a test method for 

multiple-compressor products based on 

an approach DOE had previously 

permitted certain manufacturers to use 

through test procedure waivers, and 

allow use of an alternative test method 

for products with both fresh food and 

freezer compartments with separate 

temperature controls. 

In response to the NOPR, AHAM 

submitted comments to DOE requesting 

that DOE grant its members more time 

to respond to (1) the proposal for 

measurement of energy usage associated 

with icemaking and (2) DOE’s request 

for comment regarding testing of builtin products in a built-in configuration. 

(AHAM, No. 24 at p. 1) DOE granted the 

comment period extension request for 

these two topics. See 78 FR 53374 (Aug. 

29, 2013). After having carefully 

considered these additional comments, 

DOE is finalizing an approach that 

temporarily declines to address the 

proposed icemaking test procedure 

amendments and the comments 

received regarding built-in products, 

while implementing the remainder of its 

proposal. 

Based on available data, this final rule 

is not expected to alter the measured 

energy use of any covered product as 

measured under the existing test 

procedures in Appendices A and B. 

Thus, these changes do not require an 

amendment to the energy conservation 

standards with which these products 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22322 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

4Multiplying 0.23 by 365 days per year yields 84 

kWh. 

must comply beginning on September 

15, 2014. Additional details regarding 

the adjustments made in this final rule 

are discussed below. 

General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

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

the criteria and procedures DOE follows 

when prescribing or amending test 

procedures for covered products. EPCA 

provides that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section shall be reasonably designed to 

produce test results that measure the 

energy efficiency, energy use or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use and 

shall not be unduly burdensome to 

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

In addition, if DOE determines that a 

test procedure amendment is warranted, 

DOE must publish proposed test 

procedures and offer the public an 

opportunity to present oral and written 

comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to 

amend a test procedure, DOE must first 

determine to what extent, if any, the 

proposed test procedure would alter the 

measured energy efficiency of any 

covered product as determined under 

the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the 

amended test procedure would alter the 

measured efficiency of a covered 

product, EPCA specifies the manner in 

which to amend the applicable energy 

conservation standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(2)) 

This final rule amends the test 

procedures that manufacturers must use 

to demonstrate compliance with the 

energy conservation standards starting 

on September 15, 2014 (i.e., 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendices A and B). 

DOE has determined that none of the 

amendments to the test procedures 

adopted in this final rule change the 

measured energy use of the products 

that will be required to use the 

prescribed testing methods. DOE’s 

analyses demonstrate that the 

amendments to Appendices A and B, 

including the incorporation of an 

optional ‘‘triangulation’’ method, will 

not affect measured energy use to an 

extent that would necessitate a change 

to any of the energy conservation 

standards for the products that would be 

affected by this rule. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)(2)) To demonstrate the effects 

of these amendments under 

consideration, the July 2013 NOPR 

discussed the anticipated impacts 

adopted by this rule. This evaluation is 

discussed in further detail in section 

III.E.2 of this final rule. 

Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers 

DOE’s test procedures for refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers are found at 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendices A1 

(currently in effect) and A (required for 

rating products starting September 15, 

2014). These procedures are the result of 

numerous evolutionary steps taken 

since DOE initially established its test 

procedures for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers in a final rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 14, 1977. See 42 FR 46140. 

See also 78 FR 41612–41613 (July 10, 

2013) (detailing the regulatory history of 

the DOE test procedures for refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers). 

On December 16, 2010, DOE issued a 

final and interim final rule that laid out 

a revised test procedure for refrigeration 

products. See 75 FR 78809. That rule 

established a new Appendix A, via an 

interim final rule. The new Appendix A 

included a number of comprehensive 

changes to help improve the 

measurement of energy consumption of 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. 

These changes included, among other 

things: (1) Adding new compartment 

temperatures and volume-adjustment 

factors, (2) adding new methods for 

measuring compartment volumes, (3) 

modifying the long-time automatic 

defrost test procedure to ensure that the 

test procedure measures all energy use 

associated with the defrost function, 

and (4) adding test procedures for 

products with a single compressor and 

multiple evaporators with separate 

active defrost cycles. DOE noted that the 

compartment temperature changes 

introduced by Appendix A would 

significantly impact the measured 

energy use and affect the calculated 

adjusted volume and energy factor (i.e., 

adjusted volume divided by energy use) 

values. Lastly, the interim final rule 

addressed icemaking energy use by 

including a fixed value for 

manufacturers to add when calculating 

the energy consumption of those 

products equipped with an automatic 

icemaker. Using available data 

submitted by the industry, this value 

was set at 84 kWh per year. See 75 FR 

78810, 78859 and 78871 (Dec. 16, 2010) 

(specifying the daily value of 0.23 kWh 

for products equipped with an 

automatic icemaker).4

Freezers 

DOE’s test procedures for freezers are 

found at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendices B1 (currently in effect) and 

B (required for the rating of products 

starting in 2014). As with refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers, these 

procedures are the result of numerous 

evolutionary steps taken since DOE 

established its test procedures for 

freezers in a final rule published in the 

Federal Register on September 14, 1977. 

See 42 FR 46140. See also 78 FR 41612– 

41613 (July 10, 2013) (detailing the 

regulatory history of the DOE test 

procedures for freezers). 

As with refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers, the December 16, 2010 notice 

also clarified testing requirements for 

freezers under Appendix B1 and created 

a new Appendix B, the latter of which 

must be used starting in September 

2014. That new test procedure changed 

a number of aspects of the procedure 

detailed in Appendix B1, including, 

among other things: (1) The freezer 

volume adjustment factor, (2) methods 

for measuring compartment volumes, 

and (3) the long-time automatic defrost 

test procedure. In addition, Appendix B 

addresses icemaking energy use by 

implementing for freezers the same 

procedure adopted for refrigeratorfreezers; parties must apply a fixed 

energy use value when calculating the 

energy consumption of freezers with 

automatic icemakers. 75 FR 78810. 

Finalization of the Test Procedure 

Rulemaking for Products Manufactured 

Starting in 2014 

The December 2010 interim final rule 

established comprehensive changes to 

the manner in which refrigeration 

products are tested by creating new 

Appendices A and B. In addition to the 

changes discussed above, these new 

appendices also include the 

modifications to Appendices A1 and B1 

that were finalized and adopted on 

December 16, 2010. DOE provided an 

initial comment period on the interim 

final rule, which ended on February 14, 

2011, and subsequently reopened the 

comment period on September 15, 2011 

(76 FR 57612) to allow for further public 

feedback in response to the 

promulgation of the final energy 

conservation standards that were 

published on the same day. 76 FR 

57516. This re-opening permitted 

interested parties to comment on the 

interplay between the test procedures 

and the energy conservation standards, 

and provided DOE with additional 

information to consider before making 

any final changes to the test procedures 

of Appendices A and B prior to their 

mandatory use. 76 FR 57612–57613. 

That comment period ended on October 

17, 2011. 

DOE also considered comments 

related to a petition for a test procedure 

waiver that had a direct bearing on 

elements of the test procedures used in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22323 

5See 78 FR 18327 (March 26, 2013) (LG Decision 

and Order), 78 FR 35899 (June 14, 2013) (Samsung 

Decision and Order), and 78 FR 38699 (June 27, 

2013) (GE Decision and Order). 

6This guidance is posted in DOE’s online 

Guidance and FAQ database, and is available for 

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

default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1. 

Appendix A. See 76 FR 16760 (March 

25, 2011) (Petition No. RF–018, 

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 

(Samsung)). 

During the comment periods that DOE 

provided, interested parties raised a 

number of issues for DOE to consider. 

The submitted comments included the 

following suggested changes: (1) 

Modifying the test procedure for 

multiple-compressor systems to reduce 

test burden; (2) modifying the test 

period for the second part of the test for 

products with long-time or variable 

defrost to assure proper accounting of 

all energy use associated with defrost; 

(3) developing separate test procedures 

and standards for products combining 

wine storage with fresh food 

compartments; (4) allowing an 

alternative three-test interpolation 

approach as an option to potentially 

improve measurement accuracy at the 

cost of greater test burden for those 

manufacturers choosing to use it; (5) 

adjusting the test procedure’s anticircumvention provisions; and (6) 

adjusting the default values for CTL and 

CTM (the longest and shortest duration 

of compressor run time between 

defrosts) used in the energy use 

equations for products that do not have 

defined values for these parameters in 

their control algorithms. (Test Procedure 

for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 

and Freezers, Docket Number EERE– 

2009–BT–TP–0003; Sub-Zero, No. 42; 

AHAM, No. 43, Whirlpool, No. 44) 

Stakeholders recommended that all of 

these changes be adopted as part of 

Appendices A and B. In the final rule 

published on January 25, 2012 (‘‘January 

2012 Final Rule’’), DOE considered the 

changes recommended by stakeholders. 

77 FR 3559. DOE declined to adopt 

certain changes recommended for 

Appendices A and B because the nature 

of those recommendations had not, in 

DOE’s view, been presented in a manner 

that would have afforded the public 

with a sufficient opportunity to 

comment on those issues. (Id.) 

Nevertheless, after finalizing the rule 

setting out Appendices A and B, DOE 

reviewed these various suggestions and 

considered including them as part of the 

test procedures for refrigeration 

products. As a result of this review, 

DOE proposed some of these 

recommended amendments in the July 

2013 NOPR. In that NOPR, DOE 

proposed (1) modified test procedures 

for products with multiple-compressor 

systems, (2) use of an alternative 

method for measuring and calculating 

energy use at standardized temperatures 

for refrigerator-freezers and refrigerators 

with freezer compartments, and (3) the 

modification of the anti-circumvention 

language currently applicable to testing 

of refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. This final rule adopts these 

proposed amendments into the test 

procedures. 

Waivers 

DOE granted a limited number of 

petitions for waiver from the test 

procedures for refrigeration products 

between the publication of the 

December 2010 final rule and the 

publication of the July 2013 NOPR. On 

January 10, 2012, DOE published a 

decision and order (D&O) responding to 

two waiver petitions from Samsung 

addressing products with multiple 

defrost cycle types. 77 FR 1474. That 

notice prescribed a procedure to 

account for the energy use from the 

multiple defrost cycles of a singlecompressor-based system. The approach 

is identical to the procedure established 

for Appendix A in the January 25, 2012 

Final Rule. 77 FR 3559. DOE also issued 

a D&O that granted a waiver to GE 

Appliances (GE) to use the same test 

procedure for similar products. See 77 

FR 75426 (Dec. 20, 2012) (GE waiver). 

In effect, these waivers permit these 

companies to test certain products that, 

due to their characteristics, cannot be 

tested according to the prescribed test 

procedure (i.e., Appendix A1) or for 

which use of the prescribed test 

procedure evaluates the model in a 

manner so unrepresentative of its true 

energy consumption characteristics as to 

provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data. (See 10 CFR 

430.27(a)(1)) 

DOE also granted a waiver to SubZero, Inc. (Sub-Zero) to address that 

company’s multiple-compressor 

products. See 77 FR 5784 (Feb. 6, 2012) 

(Sub-Zero waiver). That waiver 

permitted Sub-Zero to use the same test 

procedure that AHAM had 

recommended that DOE adopt for both 

Appendix A1 and Appendix A. (Test 

Procedure for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers, Docket Number 

EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003; AHAM, No. 

43 at pp. 2–3) DOE also granted similar 

waivers permitting the use of the same 

procedure to GE, LG, and Samsung.5

This final rule adopts a test procedure 

for multiple-compressor products that is 

based on the initial Sub-Zero waiver 

procedure. 

Finally, on August 16, 2012, DOE 

granted a waiver to Sanyo E&E 

Corporation (Sanyo) to address a hybrid 

refrigeration product, i.e., a product 

combining wine storage compartments 

in a product otherwise defined by DOE 

as a refrigerator. See 77 FR 49443 (D&O 

granting Sanyo’s petition for waiver 

(Sanyo waiver)). The waiver cites a 

guidance document that DOE published 

in February 2011, which indicates that 

products combining a wine storage 

compartment and a fresh food 

compartment are considered 

refrigerators and should be tested as 

such.6 The waiver further explains that 

the Sanyo hybrid product cannot be 

tested with its wine storage 

compartment at the standardized 

temperature required for testing 

refrigerators using Appendix A1 (i.e., 

38 °F), and that doing so would result in 

a non-representative energy use 

measurement. Hence, DOE granted 

Sanyo’s request that it be allowed to test 

its product using a standardized 

temperature of 55 °F for the wine 

storage compartment. Id. Because the 

Sanyo waiver is based upon testing in 

accordance with the Appendix A1 test 

procedure, it will terminate on 

September 15, 2014, when use of the 

Appendix A1 test procedure is no 

longer permitted. 

After DOE grants a waiver, the agency 

must, pursuant to its waiver provisions, 

initiate a rulemaking to amend its 

regulations to eliminate the continued 

need for the waiver. 10 CFR 430.27 (m). 

This final rule addresses this 

requirement for the Sub-Zero waiver by 

amending Appendix A to include a test 

procedure for multiple-compressor 

products that is based on the Sub-Zero 

waiver procedure. The Sub-Zero, 

Samsung, LG, and GE waivers for 

multiple-compressor products will 

terminate on September 15, 2014, the 

same date that manufacturers must use 

the test procedures in Appendix A for 

testing. DOE does not currently 

anticipate that additional products on 

the market with single-compressorbased systems using multiple defrost 

cycles will be introduced prior to 

September 15, 2014, since it is DOE’s 

understanding that this is a system 

design unique to those manufacturers 

who are currently covered by these 

waivers. Hence, at this time, DOE will 

not amend Appendix A1 to include this 

particular alternative test procedure. 

Stakeholder Summary 

At the public meeting held on July 25, 

2013, DOE discussed the NOPR, 

detailed the proposed revisions, and 

solicited oral comments from meeting 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22324 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

7Because the comments of Michael Fitzgibbon 

and Allen Cornelison address subjects not 

associated with the proposals detailed in the NOPR, 

this rule will not discuss those comments in detail. 

participants. Numerous stakeholders 

attended the meeting and/or provided 

written comments. These parties are 

identified in Table I.1 below.7

TABLE I–1—STAKEHOLDERS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THE INTERIM FINAL RULE

Name Acronym Type * Oral 

comments 

Written 

comments 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ...................... AHAM ............................................... IR b b 

BSH Home Appliances Corporation ........................................ BSH .................................................. M ........................ b 

Felix Storch, Inc. ...................................................................... FSI .................................................... M ........................ b 

GE Appliances & Lighting ....................................................... GE .................................................... M b b 

Panasonic Appliances Refrigeration Systems Corporation of 

America.

PAPRSA ........................................... M b b 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ............... ACEEE ............................................. EA b 

Sub Zero Group, Inc. ............................................................... Sub Zero .......................................... M ........................ b 

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

Michael Fitzgibbon ................................................................... Mr. Fitzgibbon .................................. I ........................ b 

Allen Cornelison ...................................................................... Mr. Cornelison .................................. I ........................ b 

Liebherr-Canada Ltd. ............................................................... Liebherr ............................................ M ........................ b 

Underwriters Laboratory .......................................................... UL ..................................................... TL b 

* IR: Industry Representative; M: Manufacturer; EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; I: Individual; TL: Test Laboratory. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

DOE’s most recent amendments to the 

test procedures for refrigeration 

products made a number of significant 

improvements. Even with these 

amendments, there remained a number 

of pending issues that DOE was unable 

to address. This final rule addresses 

those remaining issues and finalizes the 

test procedure for manufacturers to use 

when certifying their basic models as 

compliant with the energy conservation 

standards starting on September 15, 

2014. In finalizing these procedures, 

DOE accounted for comments interested 

parties made in response to the July 

2013 NOPR. These amendments will not 

result in a significant change in 

measured energy use as compared with 

the test procedures as established by the 

previous January 2012 Final Rule. 

Some of the improvements in this 

final rule could also have been 

implemented in the current test 

procedures as well as the procedures 

that will be required for certification 

starting September 15, 2014. However, 

the current test procedures will 

continue to be used only for a limited 

time. Hence, DOE did not make any 

substantive amendments to these test 

procedures, which are contained in 

Appendices A1 and B1. (The notice 

does, however, include amendments 

that would correct certain crossreferences in these appendices to 

sections of 10 CFR Part 429.) The 

amendments and issues that have been 

adopted are summarized in Section III. 

This rule makes a series of changes 

that include incorporation of a multiplecompressor test procedure, an optional 

triangulation test procedure, and other 

clarifications to the test procedure. This 

rulemaking does not address the ice 

making test procedure and built-in 

testing topics due to the more complex 

analysis required to evaluate the merits 

of the proposals. DOE also extended the 

comment period for those topics, as 

requested by interested parties. DOE 

expects to publish a separate final rule 

addressing those topics after the 

extended comment period comes to a 

close. 

III. Discussion 

This final rule contains a number of 

amendments to the refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer, and freezer test 

procedures. The following section 

discusses in further detail the various 

issues addressed by this final rule. Table 

III–1 below lists the subsections of this 

section and indicates where the 

amendments are located. Section A 

identifies the products covered by the 

final rule; section B specifies the 

compliance dates that apply to the 

amendments; section C discusses the 

key test procedure amendments made in 

this final rule; section D discusses 

additional test procedure topics, 

including DOE interpretations of certain 

test procedure issues; and section E 

discusses compliance of the final rule 

with other EPCA requirements. 

TABLE III–1—DISCUSSION SUBSECTIONS

Section Title 

Affected appendices 

A B 

III.A ................................................... Products Covered by the Final Rule ......................................................... No changes 

III.B ................................................... Compliance Dates for the Amended Test Procedures ............................. X X 

III.C.1 ............................................... Multiple-compressor Test .......................................................................... X ........................

III.C.2 ............................................... Triangulation .............................................................................................. X ........................

III.C.3 ............................................... Anti-Circumvention Language ................................................................... * 

III.C.4 ............................................... Incomplete Cycling .................................................................................... X X 

III.C.5 ............................................... Correction of Temperature Measurement Period ..................................... X X 

III.C.6 ............................................... Mechanical Temperature Controls ............................................................ X X 

III.C.7 ............................................... Ambient Temperature Gradient ................................................................. X X 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22325 

8This and other DOE guidance documents are 

located in the Guidance and Frequently Asked 

Questions database, at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

guidance/default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1. 

TABLE III–1—DISCUSSION SUBSECTIONS—Continued 

Section Title 

Affected appendices 

A B 

III.C.8 ............................................... Elimination of Reporting of Product Height ............................................... X X 

III.C.9 ............................................... Definitions Associated with Defrost Cycles ............................................... ** 

III.C.10 ............................................. Measurement of Product Volume using Computer-Aided Design Models X X 

III.C.11 ............................................. Corrections to Temperature Setting Logic Tables .................................... X X 

III.C.12 ............................................. Default Minimum Compressor Run-Time Between Defrosts for Variable 

Defrost Models.

X X 

III.C.13 ............................................. Treatment of ‘‘Connected’’ Products ......................................................... X X 

III.C.14 ............................................. Changes to Confidentiality of Certification Data ....................................... *** 

III.C.15 ............................................. Package Loading ....................................................................................... ........................ X 

III.C.16 ............................................. Rear Clearance During Testing ................................................................ X X 

III.C.17 ............................................. Other Minor Corrections † ......................................................................... X X 

III.C.19 ............................................. Relocation of Shelving .............................................................................. X X 

III.D.1 ............................................... Icemaking 

III.D.2 ............................................... Built-In Products 

III.D.3 ............................................... Volume Measurement Issues 

III.D.4 ............................................... Treatment of Products That are Operable as a Refrigerator or Freezer No changes 

III.D.5 ............................................... Stabilization Period 

III.E.1 ................................................ Test Burden 

III.E.2 ................................................ Change in Measured Energy Use 

III.E.3 ................................................ Standby and Off Mode Energy Use 

* This amendment appears in 10 CFR 430.23, but affects testing using all four appendices. 

** This amendment appears in 10 CFR 429.14, but affects certification reporting for products tested using Appendices A and B. 

*** This amendment includes proposed modifications to 10 CFR 429.14. 

† This section also discusses an amendment to 10 CFR 430.2. 

A. Products Covered by the Final Rule 

These amendments cover those 

products that meet the definition for 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or 

freezer, as codified in 10 CFR 430.2. The 

definitions for refrigerator and 

refrigerator-freezer were amended in the 

December 16, 2010 final rule. See 75 FR 

78817 and 78848. 

B. Compliance Dates for the Amended 

Test Procedures 

The amendments in this final rule are 

made to sections 429.14, 429.72, 

429.134, 430.2, 430.3, and 430.23 and in 

Appendices A and B. Manufacturers are 

required to use the amendments made 

to Appendices A and B to rate their 

products starting October 20, 2014. 

Some of the proposed amendments 

that aim to improve measurement 

accuracy by clarifying certain aspects of 

the test procedures or to reduce test 

burden could potentially be considered 

for adoption in the current test 

procedures (i.e., Appendices A1 and 

B1). However, these appendices will be 

obsolete after September 15, 2014, so 

DOE did not propose to amend them. 

DOE requested comments on this 

approach in the July 2013 NOPR. No 

stakeholders indicated that DOE should 

adopt any of the proposed amendments 

in the current test procedures. 

Whirlpool commented that it did not 

support making changes to Appendices 

A1 and B1. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 2) 

This final rule does not make any 

changes to the current test procedures of 

Appendices A1 and B1. 

The proposed amendments that apply 

to Appendices A and B will be effective 

30 days after issuance of a final rule, but 

manufacturers will not be required to 

use this procedure until September 15, 

2014. Beginning on that date, 

Appendices A and B will be mandatory 

for certifying that products comply with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards and for making 

representations regarding the energy use 

or operating costs of covered 

refrigeration products. Pursuant to 

guidance issued by DOE on June 29, 

2012,8 DOE permits manufacturers to 

use Appendices A and B before this 

2014 date if they choose to do so, 

provided that they indicate in their 

certification submissions that their 

ratings are based on Appendix A or B 

and that the products comply with the 

2014 standards. 

C. Test Procedure Amendments 

Incorporated in This Final Rule 

1. Multiple-compressor Test 

DOE proposed to replace the existing 

dual compressor test procedures in 

Appendix A with test procedures for 

multiple-compressor products, based on 

procedures developed by Sub-Zero and 

AHAM and permitted for use in test 

procedure waivers for Sub-Zero (see 77 

FR 5784 (Feb. 6, 2012)), GE (see 78 FR 

38699 (June 27, 2010)), Samsung (see 78 

FR 35901 (June 14, 2013)), and LG 

Electronics, Inc. (see 78 FR 18327 (Mar. 

26, 2013)). The July 2013 NOPR 

discussed the necessity of using a 

unique test procedure to accommodate 

multiple-compressor products to reduce 

the so-called ‘‘truncation error’’ that can 

occur when measuring the energy use of 

multiple compressors whose cycles are 

not synchronized. 78 FR 41629–30 (July 

10, 2013). The following sections 

discuss each aspect of DOE’s proposal 

and the changes finalized in this final 

rule. 

Multiple-Compressor Definition 

DOE proposed to define the term 

‘‘multiple-compressor’’ in lieu of the 

term ‘‘dual compressor’’ to provide 

general applicability to all refrigeration 

products that have more than one 

compressor. Although DOE is not aware 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22326 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

of any current refrigeration products 

with more than two sealed compressor 

systems, taking this broader approach in 

defining this particular term would 

ensure that products using more than 

two sealed refrigeration systems that 

might be manufactured and sold in the 

future are addressed by DOE’s 

regulations. Because DOE did not 

receive any comments objecting to this 

proposal, and for the reasons discussed 

above, DOE is adopting its proposed 

definition of ‘‘multiple-compressor’’ 

products in a new section 1.16 of 

Appendix A. 

Temperature Cycles 

DOE proposed to allow test periods 

for multiple-compressor refrigeration 

products to be determined based on 

compartment temperatures as an 

alternative to relying on compressor 

cycles. For multiple-compressor 

products, it may be difficult to 

determine which individual compressor 

is associated with events such as 

compressor cycle starts and stops. Thus, 

reliably identifying individual 

compressor cycles by examining power 

measurement data may prove difficult. 

As an alternative, DOE proposed to 

permit test periods to be selected based 

on the cycles of the compartment 

temperatures associated with the 

compressor systems. In proposing this 

alternative approach, DOE expressed its 

belief that complete temperature cycles 

are equivalent to complete compressor 

cycles because temperature cycle 

endpoints coincide nearly exactly with 

the relevant compressor cycle 

endpoints. Since the operation of the 

compressor causes the refrigeration 

system to reduce compartment 

temperatures, compressor and 

temperature cycles are inherently 

equivalent. In general, these 

temperature cycles would coincide with 

their corresponding compressor cycles 

(i.e., the compartment temperature falls 

as the compressor operates and rises 

when the compressor is not operating). 

However, using an approach based on 

temperature cycles may be easier to 

apply because the compartment 

temperature measurements of separate 

compressor systems are not combined 

like total product power inputs are, 

potentially making identification of test 

periods easier than when using the 

power input measurements to identify 

compressor cycles. 

In its comments on the NOPR, GE 

opposed DOE’s proposal. It indicated 

that using temperature cycles instead of 

compressor cycles to determine the 

endpoints of a test period could impact 

the measured energy use. GE provided 

data demonstrating that the impact on 

the overall energy use measurement 

could be as large as 9.6 percent in some 

cases. (GE, No. 31 at p. 2) AHAM also 

opposed DOE’s proposal for five 

reasons: (1) Temperature and 

compressor cycles do not always 

correlate with each other, (2) selecting 

temperature cycle starts and stops are 

more subjective than for compressor 

cycles, (3) unlike compressor cycles, 

temperature cycles could not be used for 

every product, (4) variable speed 

compressor products may not have true 

temperature cycles reflective of 

operation, and (5) software for 

identifying temperature cycle maxima 

and minima would be complicated to 

develop and may rely on compressor 

cycles. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 11–12) 

DOE notes that it proposed its 

temperature cycle-based approach based 

on the belief that the approach may be 

beneficial in some circumstances, by 

making identification of appropriate 

cycles easier. However, the stakeholder 

comments clearly indicate that allowing 

this alternative is unnecessary and, in 

some cases, potentially detrimental to 

the accuracy of the energy consumption 

measurement of a given product. 

Accordingly, DOE is not adopting its 

proposed temperature cycle approach 

and is continuing to require that the 

identification of test periods be 

accomplished using compressor cycles. 

However, DOE will adopt the 

proposed definition for temperature 

cycles. As described later in section 

III.C.9, DOE’s definition for ‘‘stable 

operation’’ allows for confirmation of 

stability for products with non-cycling 

compressors that have cycling 

temperatures; the concept of 

temperature cycles is needed for this 

reason and is being adopted. 

Measurement Frequency 

The current test procedure allows 

compartment temperature 

measurements to be taken at up to fourminute intervals (See Appendix A, 

sections 2.9 and 5.1.1). This approach, 

because of its lower measurement 

precision, permits more truncation error 

to occur while testing multiplecompressor products than would occur 

with shorter measurement intervals. 

Truncation error occurs when a test 

period comprising a whole number of 

one compressor’s cycles includes an 

incomplete portion of the other 

compressor’s cycles. The test 

procedures developed by Sub-Zero and 

AHAM reduce the potential magnitude 

of truncation error by requiring the 

measurements of multiple-compressor 

systems to be recorded at regular 

intervals not to exceed one minute. 

(Test Procedure for Residential 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket No. EERE–2009–BT– 

TP–0003, AHAM, No. 43 at p. 3) 

Therefore, the July 2013 NOPR 

proposed to decrease the maximum time 

between subsequent measurements by 

decreasing the time period between 

intervals to not exceed one minute in 

duration when testing multiplecompressor products. 

Both AHAM and GE supported DOE’s 

proposal to increase the measurement 

frequency to at least once per minute. 

(AHAM, No. 30 at p. 12; GE, No. 31 at 

p. 3) With no stakeholder opposition to 

DOE’s proposal, DOE is adopting its 

proposal that the measurement 

frequency for multiple-compressor 

products be no less than once per 

minute to limit truncation error. 

Neither the test procedure contained 

in the dual- and multiple-compressor 

test procedure waivers (e.g., the SubZero waiver) nor the NOPR proposal 

explicitly indicated which 

measurements would be required to be 

recorded every minute. It is DOE’s 

understanding that the data collected on 

a once-per-minute basis would include 

product power input, product energy 

use, and compartment temperature. 

These are the measurements that would 

require higher-frequency collection in 

order to improve the precision of the 

energy use measurement: The power 

input measurement is needed to identify 

the applicable test period (i.e., the time 

when compressors stop and start), and 

the measured energy use and 

compartment temperature are used in 

the calculation of annual energy use. To 

improve the clarity of the data 

collection requirement, this final rule 

clarifies that the requirement for onceper minute acquisition frequency 

applies to these three measurements. 

These changes appear in a new section 

4.2.3.1 of Appendix A, which addresses 

measurement frequency for multiplecompressor products. 

Stabilization Period 

DOE proposed to apply the 

stabilization requirement of section 2.9 

of Appendix A to multiple-compressor 

products instead of requiring the 24- 

hour stabilization period that is used in 

recent waivers. (The stabilization 

requirement in Appendix A, required 

for single-compressor products, 

stipulates that the average rate of 

temperature change of the product’s 

compartments must not exceed 0.042 °F 

per hour.) DOE proposed use of the 

section 2.9 approach for multiplecompressor products to reduce the 

burden when testing these products, the 

majority of which achieve stabilization 

in under 24 hours, and to ensure that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22327 

9See, e.g., ‘‘Decision and Order Granting a Waiver 

to GE Appliances From the Department of Energy 

Residential Refrigerator and Refrigerator-Freezer 

Test Procedures’’, Case No. RF–029, 78 FR 38699 

(June 27, 2013). This waiver test procedure has 

specific requirements for stability and steady state, 

including, for example, ‘‘Steady State for EP1: The 

temperature average for the first and last 

compressor cycle of the test period must be within 

1.0 degrees F (0.6 degrees C) of the test period 

temperature average for each compartment.’’ (Id. at 

pp. 38700–1). 

the existing stabilization requirement is 

met for any product that requires more 

than 24 hours to achieve stabilization. 

The proposal would also have allowed 

the use of temperature cycles rather 

than compressor cycles to determine 

steady-state conditions, for example, for 

products that might have non-cycling 

compressors but whose compartment 

temperatures may cycle. 

GE and AHAM opposed the DOE 

proposed stabilization requirements for 

multiple-compressor products, claiming 

such products have no true stabilization 

period. (GE, No. 31 at p. 4; AHAM, No. 

30 at p. 13) DOE notes that all products 

have a period of operation after plug-in 

or a change in temperature settings 

during which compartment 

temperatures gradually approach and 

eventually equate with, or at least 

fluctuate near, the targeted temperatures 

determined by user operable controls. 

The test procedures have specific 

provisions to ensure that measurements 

are made during stable operation. This 

is true even for the test procedures for 

multiple-compressor products that are 

covered under waivers.9

Nevertheless, DOE believes that the 

24-hour stabilization requirement found 

in these waivers—and as suggested by 

commenters—would adequately ensure 

stabilization is achieved for multiplecompressor products. DOE notes that 

commenters have suggested that 

reducing the test burden associated with 

a 24-hour duration for the stabilization 

period is less important than avoiding 

the potential complications that may 

arise from added test procedure 

complexity when verifying stability. 

Therefore, this final rule adopts the 

longer, but simpler, 24-hour 

stabilization period for multiplecompressor products, as recommended 

by AHAM and GE. Because the 

stabilization period will be a fixed 

number of hours, the proposed use of 

temperature cycles as an alternative to 

compressor cycles to define the 

stabilization period is unnecessary and 

is not adopted. 

First Part of the Test 

For multiple-compressor products 

with at least two cycling compressors, 

DOE proposed that the first part of the 

test last at least 24 hours with no defrost 

cycle interruption. For cases in which 

defrost cycles do not allow a full 24- 

hour test period, the July 2013 NOPR 

proposed allowing a shorter 18-hour test 

period. In other words, if a potential test 

period extends to only 18 hours before 

being interrupted by a defrost, this 18- 

hour test period could be used as the 

first part of the test rather than waiting 

for the next period of operation between 

defrosts, which would add at least a day 

to the test time. However, if the initial 

candidate test period extends fully to 

24-hours before being interrupted by a 

defrost, the full 24 hours would be used 

for the test period. DOE did not propose 

to adopt AHAM’s approach, which 

allows aggregating multiple separate 

segments of running time to increase the 

total test period time to accrue the 

minimum of 24 hours. DOE explained 

that each individual segment of running 

time would introduce its own 

truncation error, thus defeating the 

purpose of requiring a long 24-hour test 

period. After quantifying the maximum 

possible truncation error for 

refrigerators in the DOE test sample, 

DOE tentatively determined that 

allowing an 18-hour period would be a 

reasonable compromise to balance test 

burden and accuracy. 

In response to the DOE proposal, 

AHAM indicated that DOE’s approach 

would be more complicated than the 

waiver approach and that some 

products may require several weeks of 

testing to satisfy the minimum 18-hour 

requirement of the proposal. (AHAM, 

No. 30 at p.14) AHAM also stated that 

the energy use differences presented in 

the NOPR showing the difference 

between AHAM’s aggregated approach 

and the proposed single-segment 

approach were not necessarily entirely 

attributable to truncation error. (Id.) In 

addition, AHAM stated that DOE may 

have proposed not to allow multiple 

segments because DOE is concerned 

about test circumvention. (Id.) AHAM 

also stated that it did not agree with 

DOE’s characterization of the maximum 

of one percent error in the energy 

measurement as insignificant, asserting 

that such measurement error could 

represent the difference between a 

product satisfying or failing to meet the 

energy conservation standards. (Id.) 

While a one percent error may, in 

certain cases, potentially be significant, 

increasing the precision of a test can 

also introduce additional test burden, 

and the competing demands of 

precision and managing test burden 

generally require that compromises be 

made in establishing test procedures. It 

is for this reason that DOE proposed that 

the first part of the test be a continuous 

period of stable operation. As described 

in the NOPR, DOE’s analysis shows that 

truncation error can approach and/or 

exceed one percent of the measurement 

when the first part of the test is allowed 

to be less than 24 hours and/or when 

the first part of the test is allowed to 

include separate time periods, each with 

an average duration under 24 hours. 

(The average duration of the time period 

would be the total test period time 

divided by the number of time segments 

used (e.g., the average duration would 

be 12 hours if two intervals were used 

to comprise a 24-hour test period).) If 

two time segments are included in a 24- 

hour total test period, two truncation 

events are included, and the potential 

truncation error is twice as large 

compared to a single, continuous period 

of stable operation. Likewise, if three 

segments are used, the potential 

truncation error is three times as large. 

DOE notes that the analysis presented 

in the NOPR calculates truncation error 

directly—it does not represent multiple 

measurements for which other 

parameters might affect the 

measurement, as suggested by AHAM. 

See 78 FR 41633 (July 10, 2013). 

DOE believes that allowing an 18- 

hour test period would be an acceptable 

compromise between test precision and 

test burden in cases in which a defrost 

interrupts a candidate test period. 

Rather than require waiting through the 

defrost and the next 24 hours of steady 

operation, DOE decided to adopt an 

approach that allows use of the 18-hour 

period as the test period for the first part 

of the test. In so doing, DOE opted to 

make a small reduction in precision to 

avoid having to add 24 hours or more 

test time. On the other hand, if 

defrosting does not interrupt a 

candidate test period, allowing it to 

extend to 24 hours, the additional six 

hours of test time would be justified to 

enhance the test precision. This is why 

DOE proposed to allow the 18-hour test 

period only when the test period is 

interrupted by a defrost. 

AHAM stated that some products 

could require weeks of extra testing to 

sufficiently satisfy even a requirement 

of an 18-hour minimum duration for the 

test period. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 14) 

However, AHAM did not provide 

sufficient detail regarding this 

possibility to allow quantification of the 

related test burden. To the extent that a 

product cannot obtain 18 hours of 

steady operation between defrosts, 

alternative test methods for such 

products may have to be developed. As 

indicated by AHAM, should a one 

percent error occur with test periods 

shorter than 18 hours or with test 

periods comprised of separate running 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22328 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

10See, e.g., ‘‘Decision and Order Granting a 

Waiver to GE Appliances From the Department of 

Energy Residential Refrigerator and RefrigeratorFreezer Test Procedures’’, Case No. RF–029, 78 FR 

38699, 38700 (June 27, 2013). 

11See, e.g., ‘‘Decision and Order Granting a 

Waiver to GE Appliances From the Department of 

Energy Residential Refrigerator and RefrigeratorFreezer Test Procedures’’, Case No. RF–029, 78 FR 

38699 (June 27, 2013). This waiver test procedure 

has specific requirements for stability and steady 

state, including, for example, ‘‘Steady State for EP1: 

The temperature average for the first and last 

compressor cycle of the test period must be within 

1.0 degrees F (0.6 degrees C) of the test period 

temperature average for each compartment.’’ Id. at 

pp. 38700–1. 

periods, such an error could potentially 

make the difference between 

compliance and non-compliance for a 

borderline-compliant product. (AHAM, 

No. 30 at p. 15) Consequently, it would 

be inadvisable to allow the potential 

error to be greater than this by allowing 

use of multiple run segments or a 

reduction in the minimum test period 

duration. To mitigate this risk, this final 

rule retains the first-part test period 

requirements proposed in the NOPR. In 

response to AHAM’s comment regarding 

circumvention, DOE notes that although 

the agency is concerned about 

circumvention, DOE evaluated the 

proposal primarily based on balancing 

test precision and test burden. 

The July 2013 NOPR also proposed 

that products with cycling compressors 

be tested using a test period for the first 

part of the test comprising a whole 

number of compressor or temperature 

cycles of a ‘‘primary’’ compressor. DOE 

proposed that the freezer compressor 

would be considered the ‘‘primary’’ 

compressor if it cycles, and the fresh 

food compressor would be considered 

the ‘‘primary’’ compressor if the freezer 

compressor does not cycle. The test 

procedures of the multiple-compressor 

product waivers require that the test 

period for the first part of the test 

consist of a whole number of freezer 

compressor cycles.10 The proposal was 

consistent with the waiver procedure, 

except that it specified that the test 

period would be based on cycles of the 

fresh food compressor if the freezer 

compressor does not cycle. DOE 

received no comments on this topic, 

other than AHAM’s objection to the use 

of temperature cycles, which is 

discussed above. As a result, DOE will 

adopt the proposal for basing the firstpart test period on the cycles of a 

primary compressor, and the proposed 

requirement for selecting the primary 

compressor. 

Lastly, the July 2013 NOPR proposed 

to require that the first part of the test 

be a period of stable operation. AHAM 

strongly opposed this approach, arguing 

that it would be too restrictive, 

particularly for products with variable 

speed compressors. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 

15) AHAM indicated that ‘‘it does not 

matter whether the product reaches 

stability during that period or not— 

stability is not needed for the existing 

waiver approach.’’ AHAM further 

indicated that DOE should not mandate 

the design of products by requiring 

stability. (Id.) The DOE test 

procedures—including those set forth in 

DOE waivers for multiple-compressor 

products 11—have specific provisions to 

ensure that measurements are made 

during stable operation. DOE further 

notes that in the waiver test procedures, 

the test period for the first part of the 

test, ‘‘is calculated for a whole number 

of freezer compressor cycles . . .’’ and 

that testers are instructed to, ‘‘make this 

determination [i.e., that the unit under 

test has reached steady state for the first 

part of the test] for the fresh food 

compartment for the fresh food 

compressor cycles closest to the start 

and end of the test period.’’ 78 FR 

38700, 38701 (June 27, 2013). This 

language clearly implies that it is 

written for a system with cycling 

compressors, and that it requires 

stability to ensure that compartment 

temperatures do not rise or fall 

significantly during the test period. The 

DOE proposal, being based on the test 

procedure waivers, is consistent with 

the requirement for stability, but it also 

anticipates the potential for non-cycling 

compressors by providing a method to 

verify steady operation for the first part 

of the test for such products. The test 

procedure established by this final rule 

retains this approach. If there are 

products in existence that cannot 

properly be tested using this method, 

DOE believes that they would also not 

be properly tested using the waiver test 

procedure and, hence, DOE believes 

such products would require a different 

waiver with a different alternative test 

procedure. 

Second Part of the Test 

For the second part of the test, the 

July 2013 NOPR proposed a test period 

in which either the starting or stopping 

of the compressor can be used to 

determine both the beginning and end 

of the test period. For example, if a 

compressor start is used to determine 

the beginning of a test period, a later 

compressor start would be used to 

determine the end of the test period. 

Alternatively, a test period could begin 

and end when the compressor stops. 

Thus, a test period could extend from a 

compressor start to a compressor start or 

a compressor stop to a compressor stop, 

but not from a compressor start to a 

compressor stop or vice versa. In 

addition, the start and end of the test 

period must take place during stable 

operation before and after the target 

defrost cycle. DOE did not propose a 24- 

hour test period for the second part of 

the test because it concluded that 

increasing the period duration would 

not reduce the magnitude of the 

truncation error that might occur. 78 FR 

41634–41636 (July 10, 2013). 

The DOE proposal for multiplecompressor systems was consistent with 

Appendix A’s requirement that the test 

period for the second part of the test for 

products with long-time or variable 

defrost must start and end during stable 

operation. Appendix A requires that the 

compartment temperatures for the 

compressor cycles prior to and after the 

second part of the test be within 0.5 °F 

of their temperature averages for the 

first part of the test (See Appendix A, 

section 4.2.1.1), as opposed to the 1.0 °F 

requirement of the Sub-Zero waiver and 

the AHAM proposal. DOE stated in the 

July 2013 NOPR that this same tolerance 

for ensuring that the test period does not 

include any events associated with the 

defrost cycle (such as precooling or 

recovery) should apply to multiplecompressor systems as well as singlecompressor systems because the events 

before, during, and after the defrost 

cycles of both types of products have 

the same basic functions (removing frost 

from the evaporator) and same basic 

control sequence (optional precooling, 

heating, temperature recovery). 

However, DOE proposed a multiplecompressor system test procedure that 

would also require that the compressor 

cycles examined to confirm stable 

operation at the start and end of the 

second part of the test be the first and 

last compressor cycles (or temperature 

cycles) within the test period, consistent 

with the granted waivers. DOE believed 

that this approach would better ensure 

that the test period begins and ends 

during stable operation because the 

examination of compressor or 

temperature cycles would occur within 

the test period, and would not involve 

cycles that may fall outside the test 

period. In the special case where there 

are no cycling compressors, DOE 

proposed to require that the test period 

start and end when the compartment 

temperatures are within 0.5 °F of their 

averages for the first part of the test, 

which is also consistent with the 

Appendix A test procedure (See 

Appendix A, section 4.2.1.2). 

Both AHAM and GE supported DOE’s 

attempt to reduce the burden of the 

second part of the test for multiplecompressor products by not requiring 

that the test period last 24 hours. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22329 

(AHAM, No. 30 at p. 15; GE, No. 31 at 

p. 5) However, AHAM and GE indicated 

that DOE’s dataset was not large enough 

to support the proposal as is. (Id.) 

AHAM also stated that DOE’s proposal 

would cause an equal number of (if not 

more) concerns and complexity. (Id.) 

However, rather than detailing any 

specific concerns, AHAM recommended 

that DOE adopt the approach for the 

second part of the test found in the test 

procedure waivers for multiplecompressor products. AHAM offered to 

develop an improved procedure in the 

future. 

Although the stakeholders did not 

clarify which aspect of DOE’s proposal 

could not be supported by the limited 

dataset, DOE assumes that the key issue 

was the reduction of the test period for 

the second part of the test, eliminating 

the need for a duration of 24 hours. DOE 

notes that its conclusion that the 24- 

hour duration was unnecessary was 

based primarily on consideration of the 

energy use equations, and that its 

supporting data served as confirmation 

and demonstration of its initial 

conclusions that a 24-hour test period 

duration did not improve test accuracy. 

As discussed in the July 2013 NOPR, the 

term in the energy use equation that 

represents the contribution of defrost is 

not divided by the duration of the 

second part of the test, as is the term in 

the equation that represents the 

contribution of steady-state operation, 

which is divided by the duration of the 

first part of the test. This means that any 

truncation error introduced when 

measuring the energy usage for the 

second part of the test would not be 

reduced by selecting a longer test 

period, as would occur for the first part 

of the test. While DOE would not object 

to testers using continuous test periods 

as long as 24 hours for the second part 

of the test, DOE believes that combining 

multiple non-continuous running 

periods to accrue 24 hours of test period 

duration is inappropriate, because 

adding any additional running period 

has the potential to add additional 

truncation error to the calculation. 

Hence, DOE is adopting its proposed 

approach for the second part of the test 

for multiple-compressor products. 

One-Part Test Simplification 

In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed 

a one-part test for multiple-compressor 

products for which (a) only one 

compressor system has automatic 

defrost and (b) that defrost is neither 

long-time defrost nor variable defrost. 

DOE noted in the July 2013 NOPR that 

the proposed test period would start at 

a point during a defrost period and end 

at the same point during the subsequent 

defrost period, which is the same 

approach taken by the existing test 

procedure for single-compressor 

products with automatic defrost that is 

neither long-time nor variable (See 

Appendix A, section 4.2). DOE 

proposed using a single test period to 

minimize the test burden for products 

with short-time automatic defrost for 

only one of the compressor systems. 

GE commented that it is not aware of 

these types of products. (GE, No. 31 at 

p. 4) AHAM also questioned whether 

there are enough (or any) products that 

satisfy DOE’s description to warrant a 

separate procedure or whether it would 

instead be sufficient to use the existing 

waiver approach. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 

13) DOE proposed this simplification to 

reduce test burden. However, the 

stakeholder comments indicate that 

there is no need for such a reduction in 

burden, due to the lack of applicable 

products, so DOE is not adopting this 

proposal. Instead, all products will have 

to be tested using the two-part test 

method as described in this final rule. 

Test Simplifications for Tests With One 

or No Cycling Compressors 

In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed 

another test simplification for multiplecompressor products with either one or 

no cycling compressors. That proposal 

would allow use of the provisions in 

sections 4.1 and 4.2 of Appendix A for 

the first and second part of the test. 

Specifically, if only one of the 

compressors cycles, the test period for 

the first part of the test would be at least 

three hours long and comprise two or 

more complete cycles of the cycling 

compressor. Further, if none of the 

compressors cycle, the test period for 

the first part of the test would be three 

hours long. Both GE and AHAM 

indicated that DOE’s proposal may not 

accurately account for the energy use of 

a model that has one cycling compressor 

and a second variable speed 

compressor. (GE, No. 31 at p. 4; AHAM, 

No. 30 at p. 14) DOE proposed this 

simplification to reduce test burden. 

However, commenters indicated that 

there are circumstances for which the 

approach would not work and suggested 

that burden reduction was unnecessary 

in this case. Hence, this final rule does 

not adopt the proposal to simplify the 

test procedure for multiple-compressor 

products with no more than one cycling 

compressor. Instead, these products will 

require the full first part of the test 

adopted in this final rule. 

Energy Use Equations 

DOE proposed an energy use equation 

for multiple-compressor systems similar 

to the equation found in Appendix A for 

products with single compressors and 

multiple defrost cycle types. For both of 

these product types, the energy use for 

each distinct defrost cycle is added 

separately using its corresponding CT 

value (i.e., hours of compressor 

operation between defrosts) to adjust the 

measurement to represent the defrost 

cycle’s average contribution to energy 

use per 24 hours (See Appendix A, 

section 5.2.1.5). DOE received no 

comment on this proposal and therefore 

adopts it in this final rule. 

Effect on Measured Energy Use 

DOE notes that the July 2013 NOPR 

proposed to replace the existing test 

procedure’s dual compressor system test 

in Appendix A with a new test 

procedure that would address products 

using multiple-compressor systems. 

When modifying test procedures, DOE 

considers the extent to which the energy 

use or energy efficiency measurement 

may be altered under a proposed 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) As 

noted earlier, Appendix A will not be 

required for certifying compliance until 

the compliance date of the new 

refrigeration product energy 

conservation standards. 77 FR 3559 (Jan. 

25, 2012). DOE is aware of very few 

products that have multiple-compressor 

systems and has received petitions for 

waiver from the existing test procedure 

from Sub-Zero, GE, LG, and Samsung 

for testing of dual compressor products, 

which DOE has granted. 77 FR 5784 

(Feb. 6, 2012), 78 FR 38699 (Jun. 27, 

2013), 78 FR 18327 (Mar. 26, 2013), 78 

FR 35899 (Jun. 14, 2013). DOE’s 

tentative view, at the time of the July 

2013 NOPR, was that its proposed test 

procedure for multiple-compressor 

products would not significantly impact 

the manner in which such products 

would be tested using the test procedure 

of the waivers. DOE requested comment 

on the existence of other multiplecompressor products, how these 

products are tested (e.g., whether they 

use the existing dual compressor test 

procedure of Appendix A1), and 

whether the measurement of energy use 

would change using the proposed test 

procedure. 

GE responded that there are 

differences in measured energy 

consumption based on the proposal, 

citing the differences in the 

measurement depending on whether the 

test periods are determined based on 

compressor cycles or temperature 

cycles. (GE, No. 31 at p. 5) As 

previously discussed, DOE is finalizing 

the test procedure without the option of 

using temperature cycles to determine 

test periods—only a compressor-cyclebased approach is being adopted, which 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22330 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

12The Sub-Zero comment did not clarify, but 

DOE believes that the ‘‘industry verification 

program’’ referred to in Sub-Zero’s comments may 

be the verification program managed by AHAM— 

see http://www.aham.org/industry/ht/d/Items/cat_

id/49796/pid/1220/cids/389,425,49796. 

13 ‘‘Australian/New Zealand Standard, 

Performance of Household Electrical Appliances— 

Refrigerating Appliances, Part 1: Energy 

Consumption and Performance’’, AS/NZS 4474. 

1:2007, Appendix M, available for purchase at 

http://infostore.saiglobal.com/store/results2.aspx?

searchType=simple&publisher=all&keyword=AS/

NZS%204474. 

is the same one used in the test 

procedure waivers. Hence, DOE 

concludes that the measurement 

differences cited by GE would no longer 

be relevant. 

Additionally, AHAM cited the 

potential one percent truncation error as 

evidence that the proposed test 

procedure could impact measured 

energy use and indicated that DOE 

should analyze the data that it collected 

to determine if the measurement could 

change when using the proposed test 

procedure. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 16) 

DOE acknowledges there is a potential 

for truncation error when using the 

waiver test procedure (which is a 

question of overall accuracy). DOE 

believes that the measurement resulting 

from the procedure adopted in this final 

rule would result in a more accurate and 

representative measurement of the 

product’s energy use rather than an 

actual change in measured energy use. 

Sub-Zero responded that the waiver 

test procedure is accurate, repeatable, 

and has been verified through use at 

independent laboratories and in the 

‘‘industry verification program.’’ 12 It 

added that the proposed test procedure 

would be more complicated, timeconsuming, difficult to conduct and 

potentially less accurate and repeatable 

than the waiver test procedure. SubZero also pointed to the specific areas 

of concern contained in the AHAM 

comments. (Sub Zero, No. 32 at pp. 1– 

2) In this final rule, DOE has modified 

the procedure by addressing many of 

the key concerns raised in the AHAM 

comments. As discussed above, the 

remaining key difference between the 

procedure finalized in this final rule 

and the waiver test procedure pertains 

to the waiver test procedure’s use of 

non-continuous running periods to 

accrue a full 24 hours of testing time for 

both parts of the test. As discussed 

above, DOE believes that allowing noncontinuous running periods subjects the 

test procedure to risk of greater error, 

based on DOE’s testing and analysis. 

DOE believes that the potential error is 

likely to be greater than the one percent 

that AHAM separately suggested may 

not be acceptable. Were DOE to accept 

AHAM’s recommended approach, the 

risk of increasing the truncation error 

would be even larger than under the 

approach DOE is adopting today. DOE 

notes that it received no details of any 

work by industry, to which Sub-Zero 

alluded in its comments, to validate the 

waiver test procedure. Consequently, 

DOE’s views regarding the potential 

impacts of the procedure are based on 

a review of its own data and the 

fundamental fact that each additional 

running period introduced into the 

energy use equation can compound the 

truncation error with the addition of 

another truncation event. Hence, DOE 

has not adopted the waiver test 

procedures’ allowance of the use of noncontinuous running periods. Instead, 

DOE will adopt the approach proposed 

in the July 2013 NOPR, which requires 

a single segment of time to comprise the 

test period. In this way, the risk of 

truncation error will be substantially 

reduced, compared to the current test 

procedure waiver approach that some 

manufacturers have been permitted to 

use. 

DOE received no comments indicating 

the existence of other multiplecompressor products other than those 

identified in waivers and no comments 

indicating that any products are tested 

using the existing dual compressor test 

procedure. 

Elimination of Multiple-Compressor 

Test Procedure Waivers 

DOE notes that, consistent with its 

regulations, the Sub-Zero, GE, LG, and 

Samsung dual compressor waivers will 

terminate once parties are required to 

use the multiple-compressor test 

procedures of Appendices A and B to 

demonstrate compliance with DOE 

regulations (i.e., on September 15, 

2014). (See 10 CFR 430.27(m)) 

Multiple-Compressor Products With 

Manual Defrost 

These new procedures for multiplecompressor products apply only to 

multiple-compressor products with 

automatic defrost. DOE received no 

comment revealing the existence of 

multiple-compressor products with 

manual defrost and has not made 

changes in the test procedure to account 

for such products. 

2. Triangulation 

The July 2013 NOPR proposed 

incorporating a modified version of the 

so-called ‘‘triangulation’’ interpolation 

approach described in Australian/New 

Zealand Standard 4474.1–2007 13 (AS/ 

NZ 4474.1–2007) as an option to 

calculate energy use. DOE’s test 

procedures generally require conducting 

the energy test for two different settings 

of the temperature control. See, e.g., 10 

CFR Part 430, Subpart B, Appendix A, 

section 3.2.1. The energy use is 

calculated as a weighted average of the 

measurements of the two tests, 

depending on the compartment 

temperatures measured during the tests, 

to represent the energy use that would 

occur if the compartment temperature 

were exactly equal to its standardized 

temperature. See, e.g., Appendix A, 

section 6.2.1.2. As described in the 

NOPR, for products with two 

compartments, this calculation often 

represents the operation of a product in 

which one of the compartments is 

cooler than its standardized 

temperature. 78 FR 41636–41637 (July 

10, 2013). The triangulation approach 

resolves this issue by using a weighted 

average of the energy use measured from 

three tests, thus allowing calculation of 

the energy use that would occur when 

both compartment temperatures exactly 

equal their standardized temperatures. 

The July 2013 NOPR explained in detail 

why the triangular interpolation of the 

measurements for three temperature 

settings results in a more accurate 

measurement of energy when compared 

to the linear interpolation using two 

temperature settings. (Id. at 41637). 

The NOPR proposed to incorporate by 

reference parts of Appendix M of AS/

NZS 4474.1–2007 as an optional 

interpolation method. A new section 3.3 

of the test procedure would reference 

subsections M3.a through M3.c and 

Figure M1 of appendix M of AS/NZS 

4474.1–2007 to specify the requirements 

for the three-setting test procedure as an 

alternative to using the requirements of 

section 3.2 of Appendix A. The 

procedure would clarify that the target 

temperatures txA and txB discussed in 

the Australia/New Zealand procedure 

would be the standardized temperatures 

as defined in section 3.2 of the DOE test 

procedure. However, DOE proposed to 

require that the first two of the three 

tests comply with the requirements for 

the two-test method contained in 

Appendix A, section 3.2.1. DOE 

included this requirement because it 

would also allow for use of the current 

energy calculations as well as the 

triangulation energy calculations. 78 FR 

41639 (July 10, 2013). 

AHAM submitted comments 

supporting the adoption of a 

triangulation approach. (AHAM, No. 30 

at p. 17) However, AHAM suggested 

that DOE not require that the first two 

settings of the triangulation test adhere 

to the provisions in Appendix A for a 

two-setting test because AS/NZS 

4474.1–2007 allows test facilities to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22331 

choose the settings of all tests for more 

accurate results. (Id.) As a result, AHAM 

asked DOE to reconsider this aspect of 

its proposal in order to harmonize with 

AS/NZS 4474.1–2007 as well as with 

the refrigerator test standard currently 

under development by the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), as 

represented by its Committee Draft for 

Vote (CDV) of Part 1 of IEC 62552.2 

Household refrigerating appliances— 

Characteristics and test methods. (Id.) 

DOE agrees with AHAM that allowing 

greater flexibility in the selection of 

temperature settings may provide more 

accurate results. As described in AS/

NZS 4474.1–2007, when the three sets 

of measured compartment temperatures 

(freezer compartment temperature 

paired with fresh food compartment 

temperature) are plotted on a graph of 

freezer temperature versus fresh food 

compartment temperature, the triangle 

formed by the points must enclose the 

point representing the pair of 

standardized temperatures (i.e., 0 °F 

freezer compartment temperature and 

39 °F fresh food compartment 

temperature). Ensuring that the three 

tests meet this requirement may be 

much more difficult if the first two tests 

must be conducted exactly as dictated 

by the DOE test procedure. Therefore, 

DOE is permitting any three sets of 

temperature control settings to be 

selected for the optional triangulation 

approach, provided that the temperature 

settings for each individual 

compartment all represent median, 

coldest, or warmest settings. DOE is 

adopting this approach based on its 

belief that it is important to provide a 

valid measurement of energy use at the 

standardized compartment 

temperatures, and that using the settings 

prescribed for the current two-test 

approach is not essential to achieving 

this objective because the triangulation 

interpolation method is designed to 

work with any three settings with 

temperatures that surround the target 

standardized temperatures (i.e., for 

which the plotted triangle encloses the 

standardized temperature point, as 

described above). 

The July 2013 NOPR proposed a new 

section 6.2.2.3 detailing the calculation 

of energy use under the proposed 

triangulation approach. This proposed 

section would require using the 

calculations described in section M4.a 

of AS/NZS 4474.1–2007 to determine 

the energy consumption of the tested 

unit but excluding the energy use 

contribution of icemaking. The fixed 

value of energy use associated with 

icemaking, defined in section 6.2.2.1, 

would be added to this result for 

products with automatic icemakers. 

DOE received no comment on this 

proposal. Accordingly, DOE is adopting 

its proposed approach. 

Finally, during the 2013 public 

meeting, GE commented that DOE 

should consider incorporation of the 

single test to measure energy 

consumption found in Appendix L of 

AS/NZS 4474.1–2007. (This test 

requires that the compartment 

temperatures measured during the test 

are both no higher than their 

standardized temperatures.) (GE, NOPR 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 

99) Using a single test would reduce test 

burden, assuming the measured 

compartment temperatures are lower 

than their standardized temperatures for 

the first selected test setting and 

additional tests are not needed. 

However, in this final rule, DOE has 

decided not to incorporate a single 

setting test because stakeholders have 

not been provided adequate time to 

review the details of the suggested 

procedure. DOE may consider this 

procedure in the future. 

Certification 

DOE proposed to amend section 

429.14(b) to require manufacturers to 

identify which interpolation method 

they used to rate and certify a particular 

basic model (i.e., triangulation or a twosetting test). In the NOPR, DOE noted 

that more than one unit is tested for 

each rating (See, for example, 10 CFR 

429.11(b), which indicates a sample size 

minimum of two units). Therefore, DOE 

proposed to require that all units of a 

given model that are tested for 

certification purposes be tested using 

the same test method and that the 

certification report indicate whether the 

triangulation method was used. 

AHAM suggested that DOE not 

require manufacturers to report which 

method was used for certification 

testing (i.e., whether the two-test 

method or the triangulation method was 

used) because this would add to 

manufacturer reporting burden, and 

because DOE can request to see test 

reports of certified models if it wishes 

to confirm whether products were tested 

using triangulation. (AHAM, No. 30 at 

p. 17) AHAM also indicated that test 

facilities should be permitted to use 

different methods for each unit within 

a model’s sample to prevent 

unnecessary added test burden. (Id.) For 

example, individual units may have 

refrigeration and control systems tuned 

so that both compartments have 

temperatures equal to their standardized 

temperatures at equivalent temperature 

control settings. For such units, the 

calculated energy use (e.g., per 

Appendix A, section 6.2.2.2) would be 

the same when using the freezer 

compartment interpolation and the fresh 

food interpolation, and use of a third 

test and a triangular interpolation would 

not change the result. 

Viewed from within the context of 

compliance with the applicable energy 

conservation standard, an individual 

unit may satisfy the applicable standard 

with sufficient margin using the two-test 

method while other units within the 

same model sample may require the 

triangulation method to satisfy the 

relevant energy standard with sufficient 

margin. Because triangulation might not 

be required for testing of all units in a 

sample to show that the model meets 

the applicable energy conservation 

standard, and to limit the required test 

burden, DOE will not adopt the 

proposed requirement that triangulation 

must be used for all units tested to 

certify compliance for a given model if 

the test for one of the units uses the 

method. Further, because measurements 

using the two-test method would 

generally be more conservative 

(indicating higher energy use), but be 

only slightly different than 

measurements made using triangulation, 

DOE considers both methods to be 

valid. Hence, in order to further reduce 

the burden associated with certification, 

DOE will not require certification 

reports to indicate whether triangulation 

was used for testing. 

Regarding testing options generally, 

DOE notes that because the two-test 

method generally yields results that are 

more conservative than the triangulation 

test (i.e., higher energy use), DOE 

proposed to permit manufacturers to 

continue using the two-part test at their 

discretion. By permitting manufacturers 

to continue using the simpler two-part 

test, DOE intended to limit the overall 

burdens that are placed on the industry. 

However, given that tests conducted 

using the triangulation approach may 

potentially, for certain basic models, 

yield more representative results, DOE 

proposed to use this particular method 

when conducting assessment testing, 

pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104, and 

enforcement testing, pursuant to 10 CFR 

429.110, if either (a) the manufacturer 

indicates that the triangulation method 

was used for rating the model, or (b) 

certain conditions are observed during 

the first two tests of a given unit of a 

basic model that suggest that a third test 

might yield a more representative 

measurement than the two-test method. 

Specifically, if the calculated energy use 

using Appendix A, section 6.2.2.2 (one 

measurement based on use of the fresh 

food compartment temperature and the 

other based on the freezer compartment 

temperature) differs by more than five 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22332 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

14Committee Draft for Vote (CDV) of Part 1 of IEC 

62552.2 Household refrigerating appliances— 

Characteristics and test methods. 

15This guidance is posted in DOE’s online 

Guidance and FAQ database, and is available for 

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

default.aspx?pid=2&spid=1. 

percent of the greater of the two results 

for any tested unit of the basic model, 

DOE proposed that it would use the 

triangulation method for any assessment 

or enforcement testing for all units of 

that basic model. This approach may, in 

certain circumstances, require retesting 

of a unit previously tested if, for 

example, condition (b) above did not 

apply for the test conducted for a first 

unit of a tested model but did apply for 

later tests. AHAM suggested that DOE 

use the triangulation approach 

whenever testing units within its 

verification programs to guarantee 

accuracy. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 17) DOE 

is specifying in a new section 429.134 

that DOE will use the triangulation test 

prior to making a finding of 

noncompliance with respect to a 

particular basic model for that particular 

sample of tested units because the twotest method in some cases will result in 

a more conservative measure of energy 

use. In other circumstances, however, to 

limit unnecessary testing, DOE will not 

necessarily use the triangulation 

method. 

3. Anti-Circumvention Language 

Revisions Addressing Past Stakeholder 

Comments 

DOE proposed to revise the anticircumvention language in sections 10 

CFR 430.23(a)(10)(ii) and 10 CFR 

430.23(b)(7)(ii) to better reflect the 

wording found in the AHAM’s HRF–1– 

2008 procedure, as had been 

recommended in comments by AHAM 

and Whirlpool that were provided 

during the December 2010 interim final 

rule comment period. (See ‘‘Test 

Procedure for Residential Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers,’’ 

Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003, 

No. 16 at p. 4, No. 12 at p. 2) The 

current DOE anti-circumvention 

language was modeled after section 1.2 

of HRF–1–2008 and parts of the DOE 

language are nearly identical to the 

HRF–1–2008 language. DOE proposed to 

bring the DOE language into even closer 

alignment with HRF–1–2008 in the July 

2013 NOPR because such changes 

would not weaken the requirements and 

would help achieve better consistency 

with the nearly identical industry 

standard, which would generally make 

testing more consistent. DOE also 

proposed to move the four examples 

(currently section 10 CFR 

430.23(a)(10)(ii)A–D) describing 

components operating in a manner 

inconsistent with operation under 

typical room conditions to follow the 

paragraph describing operational 

behavior that DOE identifies as 

constituting anti-circumvention. 10 CFR 

430.23(a)(10)(i) 

In response to the July 2013 NOPR, 

AHAM and Whirlpool supported the 

proposed revisions to the anticircumvention sections. (AHAM, No. 30 

at p. 17; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 2) 

However, BSH commented that DOE 

should refer to the draft IEC test 

procedure 14 for guidance on how to 

improve DOE’s anti-circumvention 

sections. (BSH, No. 21 at p. 1) DOE 

notes that changes to the anticircumvention sections were proposed 

in response to earlier industry feedback 

and comment, which did not mention 

the IEC draft test procedure language. 

DOE reviewed the IEC draft test 

procedure, which has two key 

provisions that are not in the DOE test 

procedure—(a) the IEC draft test 

procedure provides detailed guidance 

on how to detect circumvention once 

suspected, and (b) the IEC draft test 

procedure identifies what is not 

considered to be circumvention. The 

IEC draft describes these provisions in 

detail. While DOE believes that the 

inclusion of these provisions may have 

merit, the agency wishes to ensure that 

the public receives a sufficient 

opportunity to review these provisions. 

Therefore, DOE is not adopting BSH’s 

suggestion at this time but may consider 

proposing these provisions in the future. 

DOE received no other comments on its 

proposed revisions to the anticircumvention language and is adopting 

its proposed changes for these sections. 

Components That Operate Differently 

During Testing 

The July 2013 NOPR discussed 

inquiries from Whirlpool and Samsung 

about when to apply for a test procedure 

waiver for products that operate 

differently during testing as compared 

to typical field operation. This scenario 

is addressed in a clause of the existing 

anti-circumvention language of the DOE 

test procedure that DOE did not propose 

to modify. See, e.g., 10 CFR 

430.23(a)(10) (indicating that a 

manufacturer must obtain a waiver if (i) 

a product contains energy consuming 

components that operate differently 

during the prescribed testing than they 

would during representative average 

consumer use, and (ii) applying the 

prescribed test to the product would 

evaluate it in a manner that is 

unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption). DOE also issued 

guidance on this matter on May 28, 

2013. That guidance provides a 

framework for assessing the potential 

need for a waiver within the context of 

the existing anti-circumvention 

provisions.15 As a result, the July 2013 

NOPR did not propose a specific 

amendment to the provisions of 

430.23(a)(10) (and 430.23(b)(7) for 

freezers) to further address the concerns 

raised by the Whirlpool and Samsung 

inquiries. The NOPR did, however, 

request comment on the need for a 

potential test procedure revision. 

AHAM agreed with DOE’s approach— 

i.e., not to modify the current anticircumvention language to 

accommodate products that operate 

differently during testing. AHAM 

indicated that the May 2013 guidance 

document sufficiently addresses this 

issue. This final rule makes no changes 

to the current anti-circumvention 

language. 

4. Incomplete Cycling 

In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed 

changing the incomplete cycling 

compressor test procedure to improve 

its accuracy and ease test burden. 

Specifically, DOE proposed to eliminate 

the 24-hour test period requirement for 

products exhibiting compressor cycles 

that exceed 12 hours in length, and 

instead require that the test period be 

comprised of a single compressor cycle. 

The July 2013 NOPR discusses the 

advantages of the proposal compared to 

the current requirement in section 4.1 of 

Appendices A and B. 78 FR 41640– 

41641 (July 10, 2013). 

During the NOPR public meeting, GE 

mentioned that based on its experience, 

test facilities in the U.S. and abroad base 

test periods on a whole number of 

compressor cycles rather than using the 

24-hour test period that is required in 

the DOE procedure for products with 

incomplete cycling. (GE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23 at p. 105; GE, No. 31 

at p. 7) In DOE’s view, using a whole 

number of compressor cycles yields an 

accurate measurement of the energy use 

of a product with incomplete cycling. 

GE supported the DOE proposal and 

agreed with DOE that test periods 

should be based on whole numbers of 

compressor cycles rather than be set at 

24 hours for incomplete cycling 

products. (Id.) AHAM also agreed with 

the DOE proposal. However, AHAM 

recommended that DOE remove the 

term ‘‘incomplete cycling’’ from the test 

procedures and instead modify section 

4.1 of Appendices A and B to simply 

state, ‘‘If fewer than two compressor 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22333 

cycles occur during a 24-hour period, 

then a single complete compressor cycle 

may be used.’’ (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 18) 

DOE notes that section 4.1 is the only 

place in either Appendix A or B that 

uses the term incomplete cycling. DOE 

agrees that the term is not needed and 

is adopting the change suggested by 

AHAM. 

Additionally, AHAM suggested that 

DOE modify the test procedures to allow 

the data used to establish steady state 

conditions (e.g., as described in 

Appendix A, section 2.9) to be used 

when performing the first part of the 

two-part test for products with longtime or variable defrost. (AHAM, No. 30 

at p. 18) AHAM argued that its approach 

would be better than requiring separate 

periods for verifying stabilization and 

the test period because of the shortened 

test time. (Id.) AHAM indicated that 

requiring a separate period to comprise 

the first part of the test made sense 

when data were collected manually 

because stability needed to be 

determined before collecting test data. 

However, current electronic data 

acquisition systems can collect data 

during the stability period without 

added burden. Finally, AHAM 

recommended that DOE adopt AHAM’s 

proposal for all products and not just 

incomplete cycling products. (Id.) GE 

made essentially the same comment 

during the public meeting. (GE, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 105– 

6) DOE notes that adopting these 

changes at this time would not allow 

adequate time for stakeholder input, but 

DOE may consider this approach in a 

future rulemaking. 

5. Correction of Temperature 

Measurement Period 

In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed 

to address an inconsistency in the 

existing test procedure associated with 

temperature measurements for shorttime defrost products (i.e., products 

whose defrost is neither long-time nor 

variable). Specifically, DOE proposed to 

require that the compartment 

temperatures used in energy use 

calculations for these products be the 

averages of the measured temperatures 

taken in a compartment during a stable 

period of compressor operation 

containing no defrost cycle or events 

associated with a defrost cycle, such as 

precooling or recovery, that includes at 

least two complete compressor or 

temperature cycles (if the compressor 

cycles on and off or the temperature 

cycles up and down) and is at least three 

hours in duration—essentially the same 

test period specified in section 4.1 of the 

test procedure for products with manual 

defrost, except that for these short-time 

defrost products this test period would 

be used for temperature measurement 

only, whereas it is used for both energy 

and temperature measurement for 

manual defrost products. DOE received 

no comments regarding this proposal. 

However, as discussed in section III.C.1, 

stakeholders objected to using 

temperature cycles to define test 

periods. Hence, DOE is adopting its 

proposed amendments to section 5.1.2 

of Appendices A and B for correcting 

the test procedure requirements for 

measuring compartment temperatures, 

except for the option to select test 

periods based on temperature cycles. 

6. Mechanical Temperature Controls 

Recently, third-party test facilities 

have asked DOE to clarify how to 

determine the proper settings for 

mechanical temperature controls. 

Specifically, they inquired whether, 

when setting mechanical controls to the 

warmest or coldest setting, the control 

should be adjusted to the position at the 

last number or symbol on the control, or 

whether it should be positioned to the 

most extreme physical positions of the 

control. In response to these inquiries, 

DOE proposed requiring that 

mechanical controls be set to the highest 

or lowest number or symbol indicated 

on the control. DOE proposed this 

method instead of the alternative 

because of the possibility of 

unintentionally turning off the unit 

when moving the control to the extreme 

physical position for the warmest 

setting. 

GE noted that different test facilities 

follow different methods for 

determining the warmest and coldest 

settings. (GE, No. 31 at p. 7) GE and 

Whirlpool supported DOE’s proposal 

because it would ensure that all test 

setups are the same, and because the 

proposal is consistent with the current 

Canadian Standards Association (CSA) 

test standard C300–08, ‘‘Energy 

Performance and Capacity of Household 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, 

Freezers, and Wine Chillers,’’ (‘‘CSA 

C300–08’’). Section 5.1.7.1(b) of CSA 

C300–08 requires that control settings 

must be at the ‘‘marked warmest or 

coldest settings.’’ (GE, No. 31 at p.7; 

Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 3)) 

FSI supported DOE’s intent to limit 

the interpretive nature of the test 

procedure, but stated that some 

products use temperature controls with 

‘‘extreme cold’’ positions that bypass 

the thermostat and are intended only for 

short-duration, rapid cool-down of 

newly inserted food. It also noted that 

the behavior of some compact products 

may be erratic at extreme temperature 

control settings. (FSI, No. 20 at p. 7) (FSI 

did not provide details of this erratic 

nature or why this behavior would 

occur specifically in compact products.) 

FSI recommended that the procedure 

use control settings for warm and cold 

operation that are one position higher 

and lower than the median position. 

(Id.) DOE notes that this method has not 

been previously raised or considered, 

and FSI provided no data to support its 

suggested approach. As a result, in the 

absence of any supporting data and with 

no opportunity for public comment on 

this approach, DOE is declining to 

include FSI’s additional 

recommendations and is adopting into 

section 3.2.1 of Appendices A and B the 

proposed amendment for mechanical 

controls. DOE notes, however, that any 

party that believes that testing a given 

model in accordance with the DOE test 

procedure will yield materially 

inaccurate comparative data must apply 

for a test procedure waiver. 

7. Ambient Temperature Gradient 

Location of Ambient Temperature 

Sensors 

Appendices A and B reference HRF– 

1–2008 for ambient temperature 

measurement requirements. However, 

the version of HRF–1–2008 in use at the 

time DOE was preparing the July 2013 

NOPR did not specify the location of 

sensors to measure ambient 

temperature. As a result, DOE proposed 

to add sensor location requirements in 

a new section 2.1.1. The proposal 

specified that the ambient temperature 

be recorded at points located 3 feet 

above the floor and 10 inches from the 

center of the two sides of the unit, the 

same locations that have been used for 

refrigerator testing for decades. See, e.g., 

HRF–1–1979, sec. 7.4.3.1, incorporated 

by reference in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, Appendix A1. 

FSI opposed DOE’s proposal to 

measure ambient temperature on the 

sides of the units. (FSI, No. 20 at pp. 7– 

8) However, based on FSI’s additional 

comments, DOE believes that FSI 

objected to DOE’s proposal to require 

additional measurement of ambient 

temperature at heights of 2 inches and 

7 feet (or one foot above the top of the 

unit, whichever is higher) rather than its 

proposal to require the two ambient 

temperature measurements at the 

locations used in the current test 

procedure. DOE believes that FSI’s 

concern is about the proposed 

requirement for four additional ambient 

temperature sensors. This issue is 

associated with maintenance of the 

ambient temperature gradient rather 

than specifically the measurement of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22334 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

16See 10 CFR 430.3(h)(6). 

ambient temperature, which is 

discussed below. 

AHAM, GE, and Whirlpool supported 

the proposed sensor locations. (AHAM, 

No. 30 at p. 19; GE, No. 31 at p. 7; 

Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4) AHAM stated 

that it issued an errata document in 

April 2013 for HRF–1–2008 to correct 

its inadvertent omission of specified 

temperature sensor locations. Given the 

publication of the errata, AHAM 

indicated that the new section of 

Appendices A and B proposed in the 

NOPR to address this issue may not be 

required (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 19), likely 

basing this statement on the assumption 

that, once the errata were published, 

they would be considered to be 

incorporated by reference in DOE’s test 

procedures with the surrounding 

sections of HRF–1–2008. DOE notes that 

its test procedures would have to be 

amended to clarify that the new section 

of HRF–1–2008 is incorporated by 

reference; when DOE incorporates a 

standard, the standard is only 

incorporated as it exists at the time of 

incorporation. As such, DOE had to 

specifically incorporate the November 

17, 2009 Errata to make them a part of 

the DOE test procedure.16 However, 

some of the proposals for the new 

ambient temperature section in 

Appendices A and B that DOE is 

adopting, discussed below, are not the 

same as the language in HRF–1–2008. 

Hence, DOE has decided to adopt the 

proposal to insert the ambient 

temperature requirements directly in 

section 2.1.1 of Appendices A and B. 

DOE notes that its requirements for 

ambient temperature measurement are 

consistent with the requirements in 

HRF–1–2008, including the recent 

errata, but that the adopted text more 

clearly describes the requirements. 

Relocation and Shielding 

In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE noted 

that the requirements in Appendices A 

and B suggest that relocating ambient 

temperature sensors is appropriate 

when necessary to avoid the impact of 

the warming effect of the condensing 

unit. DOE does not believe that this 

relocation is appropriate for the reasons 

outlined in the NOPR. See 78 FR 41643 

(July 10, 2013). Hence, DOE proposed to 

eliminate the temperature sensor 

relocation option. This option is 

suggested by section 5.3.1 of HRF–1– 

2008, which is incorporated by 

reference in Appendices A and B: 

‘‘Temperature measuring devices shall 

be located or shielded so that indicated 

temperatures are not affected by the 

operation of the condensing unit or 

adjacent units.’’ DOE proposed language 

to clarify that shielding is allowed but 

not relocation of the sensor. DOE 

proposed to include the modified 

language in Appendices A and B in the 

revised section 2.1 addressing ambient 

temperature requirements. DOE 

received no stakeholder comments 

opposed to the modified language. 

Hence, DOE adopts this proposal in this 

final rule. 

Condenser Temperature Sensor 

FSI commented that heat can build up 

behind refrigerators with rear-wall 

condensers, especially if they are placed 

near a wall. FSI recommended that DOE 

require placing a temperature sensor 

behind any unit with a rear mounted 

condenser. (FSI, No. 20 at p. 7) FSI 

provided no details on the exact 

placement of such a sensor, nor 

recommendations regarding the purpose 

or use of the measurement. DOE agrees 

that heat can build up behind any 

refrigeration product when placed close 

to a rear wall, which is the positioning 

required in the test procedure. The test 

procedure requires units to be placed 

with minimal clearance to a rear wall 

because such placement is very 

common in consumers’ homes—and the 

test procedure attempts to reproduce 

any impact that such field placement 

can have on a refrigerator’s 

performance. See 75 FR 78820–78821. 

Because FSI provided no supporting 

details regarding its recommendation 

and because DOE has no other basis on 

which to require accounting for heat 

buildup behind the cabinet, DOE is 

declining to adopt it. 

Maintaining the Ambient Temperature 

Gradient During Testing 

Appendices A and B currently require 

that the ambient temperature gradient 

be ‘‘maintained during the test.’’ 

Further, section 5.3.1 of HRF–1–2008, 

incorporated by reference in section 2.2 

of Appendices A and B, indicates that, 

‘‘Unless the area is obstructed by shields 

or baffles, the gradient is to be 

maintained from 2 inches (5.1 cm) 

above the floor or supporting platform 

to a height 1 foot (30.5 cm) above the 

unit under test.’’ DOE explained that 

this language from HRF–1–2008 is 

vague as to whether the ambient 

temperature gradients must be 

maintained if there are shields or baffles 

present. DOE proposed to eliminate this 

ambiguity by (1) removing the reference 

to HRF–1–2008 section 5.3.1 from 

section 2.2 of Appendices A and B and 

(2) revising section 2.1 of Appendices A 

and B to explain that parties must shield 

temperature measuring devices when 

measuring ambient temperature, if 

necessary to prevent the indicated 

temperatures from being affected by the 

condensing unit or adjacent units. DOE 

received no stakeholder opposition on 

this proposal and is adopting this 

proposal. 

Regarding the maintenance of ambient 

temperature gradients, DOE recognized 

that at least some test facilities have 

faced difficulties with this requirement, 

particularly in light of the current lack 

of specificity in Appendices A and B on 

how to demonstrate that the 

temperature gradient is being 

maintained during testing. DOE 

proposed to require the use of 

temperature sensors on both sides of the 

test sample at 2 inches above the floor, 

36 inches above the floor, and either 7 

feet above the floor or one foot above the 

top of the cabinet, whichever is higher. 

The 36-inch sensors have always been 

required, as discussed above, and the 

proposal added four additional required 

sensors. However, as discussed in the 

NOPR, most test laboratories already 

employ the four additional ambient 

temperature sensors. 78 FR 41644 (July 

10, 2013). In addition, DOE proposed 

that the gradient would be maintained 

during testing at locations between the 

two pairs of vertically-adjacent sensors 

on each side (i.e., between the 2-inch 

and 36-inch temperature sensors and 

also between the 36-inch and highest 

positioned sensors). 

FSI objected to the proposed 

additional temperature sensors to 

measure the temperature gradient, 

indicating that while this approach 

might be suitable for large products with 

condensers mounted underneath the 

cabinets, most compact refrigerators 

have condensers mounted on their rear 

walls. (FSI, No. 20 at p. 7) The comment 

did not clarify why maintaining the 

ambient temperature gradient would not 

be necessary for accurately measuring 

the energy use of compact refrigerators. 

However, FSI also recommended that 

DOE investigate the frequency at which 

tests are likely to be invalidated under 

the proposed requirements due to 

occurrence of excessive temperature 

gradients. (Id. at p. 8) In DOE’s work 

with test laboratories testing 

refrigerators, all of these test laboratories 

have used the four additional 

temperature sensors to document 

maintenance of the temperature 

gradient. While most of the laboratories 

have had no trouble maintaining the 

gradient, in some cases there have been 

issues with maintaining it. However, in 

such situations, both the laboratory and 

DOE have agreed that the inability to 

show that the gradient has been 

maintained indicates that the test does 

not follow the existing test procedure, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22335 

not simply the procedure as proposed in 

the July 2013 NOPR. Therefore, DOE 

believes that the 2013 NOPR proposal 

for ambient temperature gradients 

would not increase the frequency at 

which tests would be invalidated due to 

excessive temperature gradients. The 

requirement to maintain the gradient 

has been part of the procedure since 

development of HRF–1–1979 and the 

proposal to document maintenance of 

the gradient is simply a clarification that 

DOE is at this time adding to the test 

procedure instructions. 

AHAM requested that DOE revise the 

language of the proposal to better 

accommodate compact products and 

products that are less than six feet tall 

by eliminating the clause ‘‘7 feet (2.2 m) 

or to a height’’ from the proposal in 

section 2.1.2. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 19) 

For a product less than six feet tall, the 

clause in question would require 

ambient temperature sensors at 

locations more than 1 foot above the top 

of the unit. DOE agrees that maintaining 

the temperature gradient at heights 

greater than 1 foot above the unit is not 

necessary, since the temperature 

gradient at a distance more than 1 foot 

from the unit is not likely to affect its 

performance. Therefore, DOE is 

adopting AHAM’s suggested 

modification to the DOE proposal in 

section 2.1.2 of Appendices A and B 

because the ambient temperature 

gradient in the space more than one foot 

above the unit should not affect test 

results. 

Finally, DOE proposed that the 

temperature measured by ambient 

temperature sensors be recorded in the 

test data underlying certifications in 

accordance with 10 CFR 429.71. DOE 

received no comment specific to this 

proposal and therefore adopts this 

proposal in section 2.1.2 of Appendices 

A and B. 

Revising Ambient Temperature 

Requirements for Appendices A and B 

As mentioned previously, the ambient 

temperature requirements in 

Appendices A and B as finalized in the 

January 2012 Final Rule incorporate by 

reference certain sections of HRF–1– 

2008. Because DOE proposed in the July 

2013 NOPR to modify some of these 

requirements, it also proposed to adopt 

directly into the appendices a modified 

version of the ambient temperature 

requirements of HRF–1–2008. This 

would create new sections 2.1.1 through 

2.1.4 for both Appendices A and B and 

would remove the incorporation by 

reference for HRF–1–2008, section 5.3.1. 

DOE received no comments opposed to 

this amendment and therefore adopts it 

in this final rule. 

8. Elimination of Reporting of Product 

Height 

In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE proposed 

to eliminate the requirement for 

manufacturers to report product height 

in certification reports as currently 

specified in 10 CFR 429.14(b)(2). DOE 

made this proposal because the 

September 2011 Energy Conservation 

Standard final rule eliminated the 36- 

inch height restriction in the definition 

for compact products, effectively 

expanding the ‘‘compact’’ definition to 

include products with a total volume 

less than 7.75 cubic feet and height 

exceeding 36 inches. FSI, GE, 

Whirlpool, and AHAM all supported the 

DOE proposal. (FSI, No. 20 at p. 8; GE, 

No. 31 at p. 7; Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 

4; AHAM, No. 30 at p. 21) No 

commenter objected to this approach. 

As a result, DOE is adopting its 

proposal. 

9. Definitions Associated With Defrost 

Cycles 

In its proposal, DOE noted that the 

January 2012 Final Rule amendments 

modified the test periods for products 

with long-time or variable defrost (See, 

e.g., Appendix A, section 4.2.1). 77 FR 

3563–3568 (Jan. 25, 2012). That rule 

provided that the first part of the test 

would be a stable period of compressor 

operation that includes no portions of 

the defrost cycle, such as precooling or 

recovery. See 77 FR 3563 (Jan. 25, 2012) 

for a detailed explanation of the 

concepts of ‘‘precooling’’ and 

‘‘temperature recovery.’’ However, DOE 

did not define the terms ‘‘precooling’’ 

and ‘‘temperature recovery,’’ nor did it 

define what comprises a ‘‘stable period 

of compressor operation.’’ As a result, 

DOE proposed definitions for each of 

these terms in the July 2013 NOPR to 

clarify the requirements of the test 

procedure. 

Stable Operation Definition 

The July 2013 NOPR proposed to 

establish a definition for the term 

‘‘stable operation,’’ for which the rate of 

change of the compartment temperature 

would be no more than 0.042 °F per 

hour. This is consistent with the 

existing test procedure requirement for 

determining steady-state operation (See, 

for example, Appendix A, section 2.9). 

For products with compressor cycles, or 

temperature cycles resulting from the 

cycling of a system component such as 

a damper or fan, the average 

compartment temperatures measured for 

two separate cycles within a selected 

period would be compared to determine 

stability. For products with no 

temperature cycling, any two points 

within a period would be compared to 

determine stability. 

AHAM’s comment supported the DOE 

proposal to establish a definition for 

stable operation. AHAM did, however, 

suggest that DOE change ‘‘rate of 

change’’ to ‘‘difference in compartment 

temperatures,’’ explaining that this 

description ‘‘more accurately represents 

the fact that the test compares the 

temperature difference between two 

two-hour periods based on the time 

between those periods.’’ (AHAM, No. 30 

at p. 21) DOE agrees that the rate of 

change is calculated as the difference 

between two temperature values 

(measured either at two different times 

or as the average temperatures during 

two different time periods representing 

cycles) divided by the elapsed time 

between those times (or time periods). 

This is described explicitly in sections 

(A) and (B) of the proposed definition. 

In order to avoid potential 

misinterpretation that the words ‘‘rate of 

change’’ might mean something 

different, DOE will modify the 

definition to call this ‘‘average rate of 

change’’. 

AHAM also suggested that DOE 

include a diagram to assist with the 

definition of stable operation. (AHAM, 

No. 30 at p. 21) DOE notes that the 

figure provided in AHAM’s written 

comments suggests a more restrictive 

approach in defining stable operation 

than DOE had intended. AHAM’s figure 

indicates that the two periods that are 

compared to quantify the temperature 

rate of change are at least two hours 

long and that they are separated by at 

least 3 hours. The definition of stable 

operation neither has nor was intended 

to have this restriction, which is part of 

the current requirement for verifying 

that steady-state conditions exist (see 

Appendix A, section 2.9). The section 

2.9 requirements are used at the start of 

a test to verify that the compartment 

temperatures of a product are no longer 

rapidly decreasing. In contrast, the 

stable operation definition, while based 

on the same 0.042 °F per hour (equal to 

1 °F per 24 hours), is used to identify 

periods when the compartment 

temperatures are not changing or are 

changing in a repetitive cyclic pattern 

with minimal upward or downward 

drift of the per-cycle average 

temperature. DOE believes that the 

definition, with the revision regarding 

temperature difference as suggested by 

AHAM, is sufficiently clear. 

DOE also notes that the definition 

allows for the evaluation of stable 

operation for products that do not have 

cycling compressors but have cycling 

compartment temperatures. The cycles 

evaluated to determine existence of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22336 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

stable operation may be temperature 

cycles. For this reason, DOE retains its 

proposed definition of temperature 

cycles in the test procedures. 

DOE also proposed to define ‘‘stable 

period of compressor operation’’ as a 

period of stable operation for a product 

with a compressor. 78 FR 41645 (July 

10, 2013). AHAM commented that this 

term was not needed, since the concept 

is sufficiently clear without having to 

explicitly define the term, once ‘‘stable 

operation’’ has been defined. DOE 

acknowledges that the added definition 

for ‘‘stable period of compressor 

operation’’ is not necessary and has not 

added it to appendices A or B in this 

final rule. 

Precooling & Recovery Definitions 

AHAM also objected to DOE’s 

proposed definitions for precooling and 

recovery, indicating that Figure 1, 

which is in Appendices A and B, 

adequately defines these terms. (AHAM, 

No. 30 at p. 20) In addition, AHAM 

claimed that the DOE proposal conflicts 

with the graphical representation in 

Figure 1 of Appendices A and B. AHAM 

indicated that if definitions are 

established, they should agree with the 

illustration of ‘‘T2’’ in the figure, the test 

period for the second part of the test. 

AHAM further suggested that Figure 1 

does not define the end of the precool 

or the start of recovery and that 

definitions for the terms also should not 

define these times. (Id.) 

DOE notes that Figure 1 provides an 

example illustrating the test period for 

the second part of the test for a product 

with a cycling compressor. The figure 

includes examples of precool and 

recovery cycles, but it does not illustrate 

precooling and/or recovery for all 

situations. Furthermore, the intent of 

the second part of the test is to capture 

all product operation that either (1) 

significantly lowers the compartment 

temperature before defrost initiation or 

(2) restores compartment temperatures 

afterwards. This intent is clear from at 

least two provisions in the current 

regulatory text. First, the last sentence 

in section 4.2.1 of Appendix A as 

finalized by the January 2012 Final Rule 

states that ‘‘[t]he second part is designed 

to capture the energy consumed during 

all of the events occurring with the 

defrost control sequence that are outside 

of stable operation.’’ This section clearly 

identifies operation that is associated 

with defrost activity and is not 

consistent with stable operation, i.e., 

activity that the second part of test is 

designed to capture. Second, section 

4.2.1.1 notes that a ‘‘precooling’’ cycle, 

which is an extended compressor cycle 

that lowers the temperature(s) of one or 

both compartments prior to energizing 

the defrost heater, must be included in 

the second part of the test. 

DOE believes that the proposed 

definitions for precooling and recovery 

are consistent with the language in 

section 4.2.1 describing the second part 

of the test. AHAM provided an example 

of a product that cycles from +1 °F to 

¥1 °F and then changes its cycling from 

+2 °F to ¥2 °F with equivalent 

temperature averages. (AHAM, No. 30 at 

p. 20) AHAM indicated that the second 

cycle would be considered precooling 

according to the proposed definition. 

(Id.) DOE agrees that in AHAM’s 

example, the second cycle would be 

considered precooling because it would 

have had to include an ‘‘extended 

compressor cycle that lowers the 

temperature(s) of one or both 

compartments prior to energizing the 

defrost heater.’’ In order to cool the 

compartment the four degrees from +2 

°F to ¥2 °F, the compressor would 

likely have had to operate twice as long 

as it would have taken to cool the 

compartment the two degrees from +1 

°F to ¥1 °F. This would clearly be an 

extended compressor cycle and would 

be considered part of the second part of 

the test under the test procedure of 

Appendix A as finalized in the January 

2012 Final Rule. 

AHAM also recommended that DOE 

use the same terms already existing in 

Figure 1 (i.e., ‘‘precool cycles’’ instead 

of ‘‘precooling’’ and ‘‘recovery cycle’’ 

instead of ‘‘recovery’’). (Id.) DOE 

reiterates that Figure 1 illustrates the 

concepts of precooling and recovery but 

does not represent all possible defrost 

cycles. For example, Figure 2 of 

Appendix A shows a different example, 

which has ‘‘precool’’ and ‘‘recovery’’ 

periods, rather than cycles. DOE does 

not agree that it should avoid defining 

the term ‘‘precooling’’, which is already 

used in section 4.2.1 of Appendix A. 

Hence, DOE does not consider it 

necessary to use the identical 

terminology used in Figure 1, as AHAM 

recommended, and is adopting the 

‘‘precooling’’ definition as proposed, but 

has added text to section 4.2.1.1 of 

Appendices A and B to emphasize that 

the figure is for illustrative purposes 

and does not represent all possible 

defrost cycles. 

In response to the proposed definition 

for ‘‘recovery,’’ AHAM indicated that 

the proposal was problematic because it 

does not give a numerical definition of 

when the product has recovered and 

only references the temperature range. 

(AHAM, No. 30 at p. 20) DOE notes that 

the proposed recovery definition does 

not need a quantitative criterion. It is 

the period of refrigeration system 

operation that occurs after the defrost 

heater has been energized and before 

steady operation resumes. Hence, 

recovery can be considered to be 

complete when steady operation has 

resumed. This final rule adopts the 

recovery definition as proposed. 

10. Measurement of Product Volume 

Using Computer-Aided Design Models 

To facilitate the accurate 

measurement of product volume, DOE 

proposed to permit the use of computeraided design (CAD) models for 

measuring and computing the volume of 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers for the purposes of certifying 

compliance with the DOE energy 

conservation standards for these 

products. 78 FR 41645–41646 (July 10, 

2013). AHAM supported the DOE 

proposal and indicated that the proposal 

is consistent with current industry 

practice. AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 5–6) As 

a result, DOE is allowing CAD volume 

calculations to be used. This change 

will be made in a new section 429.72(c) 

of 10 CFR part 429. 

DOE also proposed regulatory 

language explaining how DOE would 

measure volume and calculate the 

maximum allowable energy use for the 

purpose of assessment and enforcement 

testing. DOE proposed to use the 

average of the adjusted volumes 

measured for the tested units, rather 

than the rated adjusted volume, for 

calculating the allowable energy use, if 

the average of the total refrigerated 

volume measurements is not within a 

prescribed tolerance of the rated total 

refrigerated volume. This tolerance 

would be 2 percent of the rated volume 

or 0.5 cubic feet, whichever is larger, for 

standard-size products and 2 percent of 

the rated volume or 0.2 cubic feet, 

whichever is larger, for compact 

products. Whirlpool supported this 

proposal. (Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4) 

DOE proposed to add a new section 

429.134 of 10 CFR part 429 to include 

the proposed volume requirements. 

DOE received no objections to this 

approach and is adopting these 

proposals. 

11. Corrections to Temperature Setting 

Logic Tables 

The July 2013 NOPR proposed 

corrections to the temperature setting 

logic tables in Appendices A and B. 78 

FR 41646–41647 (July 10, 2013). The 

December 16, 2010 Interim Final Rule 

established these tables to illustrate the 

requirements for setting temperature 

controls during testing. However, these 

tables were added to the CFR with extra 

horizontal lines that make the 

requirements unclear. DOE received no 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22337 

17For additional background on the ENERGY 

STAR Version 5.0 Specification for Residential 

Refrigerators and Freezers, go to https://

energystar.gov/products/specs/node/125. 

comment opposing the proposal to 

correct these logic tables. As a result, 

DOE will adopt the proposed revisions 

to the setting logic tables. 

12. Minimum Compressor Run-Time 

Between Defrosts for Variable Defrost 

Models 

The DOE test procedures in 

Appendices A and B provide specific 

provisions for calculating the energy use 

of models with variable defrost, which 

DOE defines generally as an automatic 

defrost system in which successive 

defrost cycles are determined by an 

operating condition variable or variables 

other than solely compressor operating 

time. These calculations include CTL

(minimum compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours) and CTM

(maximum compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours). Parties must 

report CTL and CTM values to DOE in 

their certification reports. If a party does 

not report such values for a given basic 

model, DOE would, in any verification 

or enforcement testing of the basic 

model, calculate the energy use of the 

basic model using the default values of 

6 and 96 for CTL and CTM. 

When DOE uses the CTL and CTM

values reported by the manufacturer 

rather than the default values, the 

resulting energy use measurements are 

typically more representative of the 

product’s actual operation because they 

represent the actual minimum and 

maximum amounts of compressor run 

time between defrosts that the model’s 

control system is designed to use. Thus, 

the actual compressor run time between 

defrosts should never be less than CTL

and never greater than CTM. However, 

in certain DOE testing of models for 

which the manufacturer reported values 

of CTL and CTM in the certification 

report, DOE has found that the number 

of hours of compressor operation 

between defrost cycles observed in the 

test data was less than the CTL value 

reported by the manufacturer in its 

certification report. This difference 

suggests either that the certified value 

was erroneous or that the model did not 

operate as designed. In either case, the 

energy use calculated using the values 

reported by the manufacturer would not 

be representative of how the model 

actually performed during the test and 

how it would be expected to perform in 

the field. In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to require that the value for 

CTL be the shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts observed during the 

test, if this observed time is less than the 

value of CTL reported in the certification 

report. 78 FR 41647 (July 10, 2013). 

AHAM supported this proposal but 

explained that products with demand 

defrost (i.e., those that do not have an 

algorithm with values of CTL and CTM, 

but instead defrost when necessary) 

should not be penalized for an observed 

value of compressor run time between 

defrosts lower than six hours, which is 

the CTL value that would be used 

according to Appendix A as finalized by 

the January 2012 final rule. (AHAM, No. 

30 at p. 22) (Decreasing CTL would 

increase the calculated annual energy 

use.) DOE is not convinced that a CTL

value equal to 6 hours is the most 

appropriate value to represent defrost 

energy use, if a shorter value is observed 

during testing, because it would yield 

an inaccurate representation of the 

tested unit’s energy use. However, DOE 

is concerned about inconsistency in test 

results that may occur if the proposal is 

adopted. For instance, the observation 

of compressor operation less than six 

hours between defrosts may be a 

random occurrence, dependent on a 

variety of factors that lead to the control 

system determining that a defrost is 

necessary. Such an event may occur 

sporadically, which could yield 

inconsistent test results for different 

tests of the same unit or different units 

of the same model. DOE may revisit the 

issue in a future rulemaking, but is not 

adopting the proposal for use of the 

observed value of minimum compressor 

run-time between defrosts in this final 

rule for products with no values of for 

CTL and CTM in the algorithm. Instead, 

the test procedure retains the existing 

requirements pertaining to the use of a 

minimum CTL value of 6 hours where 

there are no values for CTL and CTM in 

the algorithm, and will require use of 

the minimum observed value of CTL if 

less than the certified value, but will 

require that it be no less than 6 and no 

greater than 12. 

13. Treatment of ‘‘Connected’’ Products 

As part of the Version 5.0 ENERGY 

STAR Specification for Residential 

Refrigerators and Freezers, DOE 

developed, in cooperation with the EPA, 

specifications and test methods for 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

that have the capability to enable 

consumer-authorized energy related 

commands, such as demand-response 

signals from a utility.17 Products with 

this capability are referred to generally 

as ‘‘connected’’ products in the final 

draft version of ENERGY STAR Version 

5.0 and its associated test method. 

(ENERGY STAR Connected 

Refrigerators and Freezers Final Draft 

Test Method, No. 14) The draft test 

method addresses aspects of testing 

specific to the demand response 

functionality, but refers to the DOE test 

procedure in Appendix A to Subpart B 

of 10 CFR Part 430 for test setup and test 

conditions. However, the Appendix A 

test procedure finalized in the January 

2012 Final Rule does not address 

whether the communication module of 

a connected product should be in active 

communication mode or a noncommunicating mode during the 

standard DOE energy test, which is used 

in section 6 of the demand response test 

to establish the baseline energy 

consumption. (ENERGY STAR 

Connected Refrigerators and Freezers 

Final Draft Test Method, No. 14, p. 3) 

After carefully considering how to 

address connected products, DOE views 

connectivity as a feature that is subject 

to section 5.5.2.e of HRF–1–2008, which 

Appendix A incorporates by reference. 

That provision states that customer 

accessible features, not required for 

normal operation, which are electrically 

powered, manually initiated, and 

manually terminated, shall be set at 

their lowest energy usage positions 

when adjustment is provided. In the 

NOPR, DOE applied this approach to 

cabinet-integrated communications 

modules on the basis that this feature is 

not required for normal operation of the 

product. To ensure that Appendix A 

provides sufficient clarity on the 

condition of the communication module 

of connected products during the DOE 

energy test, DOE proposed to amend 

section 2 of the Appendix A test 

procedure to specify that the 

communication module, if integrated 

into the cabinet, must be energized but 

placed in the lowest energy use 

position, and there shall be no active 

communication during testing. DOE 

noted that some products may be 

manufactured without an integrated 

communication module, and instead 

will have the capability to allow 

connection of a module supplied by 

another manufacturer. In these cases, 

DOE would not specify a test condition 

for the communication module since the 

module used for the test will not be part 

of the basic model produced by the 

manufacturer. Thus, the proposed 

amendment to section 2 of the test 

procedure did not require connection of 

communication modules for products 

designed for use of an externallyconnected module. Finally, while the 

ENERGY STAR specification for 

connected products addresses only 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, 

DOE also proposed to add the same 

provisions to Appendix B to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22338 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

18Since units will be tested in their ‘‘as shipped’’ 

condition, a unit that is not shipped in its lowest 

energy use condition will use a higher amount of 

energy than if it had been shipped in the lowest 

energy use condition. Consequently, manufacturers 

will have a strong incentive to ensure that all units 

are shipped set to their lowest energy use setting. 

accommodate any future provisions 

made for connected freezers. 78 FR 

41647 (July 10, 2013). 

AHAM opposed the DOE proposal. 

AHAM indicated that a communication 

module’s connection to a network may 

not be the lowest energy use position 

because the energy consumed is not 

completely in the manufacturer’s 

control. AHAM claimed that the energy 

consumption when connected to a 

network mode will vary depending on 

transmission range, networking 

technology deployed, and the size and 

frequency of the data transmissions, all 

of which may be influenced by devices 

outside the refrigerator or by parties 

other than the manufacturer. (AHAM, 

No. 30 at p. 22) 

AHAM also stated that the DOE 

proposal encourages manufacturers to 

not integrate communication modules 

within units because models that do not 

have integrated communication 

modules would not need to be tested 

while connected to a network. (AHAM, 

No. 30 at p. 22) DOE noted in the July 

2013 NOPR that it could not require that 

models without integrated 

communication modules be tested with 

the modules energized, because the 

designs of third-party modules are not 

standardized and manufacturers of the 

refrigeration products cannot generally 

specify which modules are used with 

their products. Therefore, requiring 

products to be tested with an external 

communication device would not be 

appropriate. 

DOE’s key concern regarding on-board 

communication modules is that the test 

procedure should measure the energy 

that the module may use even when the 

product is not connected to a network 

for demand-response control. However, 

DOE recognizes that there would be a 

potential disincentive to design 

products with on-board modules if the 

test required that they be energized and 

connected during the test. Hence, DOE 

has modified its proposed approach 

concerning communication modules by 

requiring that products with on-board 

modules be tested in the configuration 

in which they leave the factory, rather 

than being energized and connected to 

a network. These changes are made in 

section 2.11 of Appendix A and 2.8 of 

Appendix B. DOE expects that, under 

this requirement, manufacturers will 

ship the units in their lowest energy use 

state, and the energy use associated with 

the communication module should be 

nearly or exactly zero, essentially 

equivalent to the non-existent module 

power contribution for test of a product 

designed to use an external 

communication module.18

While DOE has some concerns about 

communication modules engaged in 

intermittent higher-energy-use 

operations when in the presence of 

communications networks, there is 

insufficient information at this time 

regarding the potential for such 

operation and the likely energy use 

impact. Furthermore, DOE recognizes 

that it may be a challenge to develop a 

test procedure that provides consistent 

and accurate measurement of the energy 

use of such communications modules 

that is representative of their field 

energy use. DOE may consider 

development of such a test in the future. 

14. Changes to Confidentiality of 

Certification Data 

Section 429.14(b) specifies the data 

that manufacturers of residential 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers must provide to DOE when 

certifying compliance for each basic 

model. Data submitted for the items in 

paragraph (b)(2) (e.g., annual energy use 

and total adjusted volume) are treated 

by DOE as public data whereas the data 

for items in paragraph (b)(3) (e.g., the 

values for CTL and CTM used in the 

energy use calculation in section 

5.2.1.3) are evaluated on a case-by-case 

basis. The items listed in paragraph 

(b)(3) include specific information 

related to variable defrost control, 

variable anti-sweat heater control, and 

the use of alternate temperature sensor 

locations. For models with variable 

defrost and variable anti-sweat heaters, 

manufacturers must notify DOE whether 

certain products have these features, the 

values for anti-sweat heater power 

levels at 10 different relative humidity 

conditions, and the values of the 

variable defrost parameters, CTL, and 

CTM. Since publishing the current 

version of section 429.14, DOE has 

determined that there is no clear reason 

why whether a model has variable 

defrost, whether a model has variable 

anti-sweat heater control or whether the 

manufacturer used alternate 

temperature sensor locations should not 

be public information. DOE proposed to 

move these items to paragraph (b)(2), 

making them public data. The other 

details of variable defrost operation and 

variable anti-sweat heater control would 

remain in paragraph (b)(3). 

GE, AHAM, Whirlpool, and FSI all 

submitted comments opposing the DOE 

proposal. AHAM’s comment stated its 

preference that this information not be 

made public. (AHAM, No. 30 at pp. 23– 

24) AHAM stated that DOE could seek 

additional information from 

manufacturers on a case-by-case basis, 

such as the specific locations of 

temperature sensors. (Id.) For its 

explanation of why the information 

should be treated as confidential, 

AHAM referred to the comments it 

made in response to the compliance, 

certification, and enforcement 

rulemaking that resulted in the March 7, 

2011 final rule (see Docket EERE–2010– 

BT–CE–0014, No. 98 at p. 6). DOE notes, 

however, those comments addressed the 

confidentiality of the CTL and CTM

values and the actual sensor placement 

locations—none of which DOE 

proposed to make public. FSI 

commented that how each manufacturer 

obtains the energy consumption of 

models should be kept confidential. FSI 

also stated that simplifying the CCMS 

reporting would be beneficial to all 

companies, especially smaller 

companies. (FSI, No. 20 at p. 8) DOE 

notes that variable defrost can be 

considered a standard feature for 

products with electronic controls, 

which provide the capability to 

determine the appropriate defrost 

frequency. GE stated, without further 

explanation, that information regarding 

the presence of either variable defrost or 

variable anti-sweat heaters constitute 

trade secrets and should not be made 

public. (GE, No. 31 at p. 9) Contrary to 

GE’s assertion, however, many 

manufacturers, including GE, have 

applied for test procedure waivers for 

models with variable anti-sweat heater 

controls and have publicly provided a 

list of models that have this feature. 

DOE also notes that 33 percent of the 

models in the CCMS database have been 

reported to have variable defrost and 5 

percent have been reported to have 

variable anti-sweat heaters, suggesting 

that these features are fairly common 

among models available in the industry. 

For these reasons, and the absence of 

any specific reasons demonstrating that 

the presence of these features in 

already-marketed products constitutes a 

trade secret or that their disclosure 

would be likely to cause substantial 

competitive harm, DOE does not believe 

that revealing the presence of these 

features reveals any part of a model’s 

design that could be considered a trade 

secret or confidential commercial 

information. However, because several 

of the comments suggest that parties 

may have misunderstood the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22339 

information DOE proposed to make 

public, DOE will allow another 

opportunity for comment in another 

rulemaking prior to reaching a final 

decision regarding this aspect of its 

proposal. 

15. Package Loading 

Section 2.2 of the DOE test procedure 

for residential freezers, which is located 

in appendix B1 to subpart B of 10 CFR 

part 430 (Appendix B1), references the 

HRF–1–1979 test procedure for 

provisions related to certain operational 

conditions and product set-up 

procedures. Among these is a specific 

provision described in section 7.4.3.3 of 

HRF–1–1979, which requires that the 

freezer compartment be loaded to 75% 

of the maximum number of filled 

packages that can be fitted into the 

compartment, and that the 75% load be 

fitted into the compartment to permit air 

circulation around and above the load. 

The requirements applicable to these 

products in appendix B to subpart B of 

10 CFR part 430 (Appendix B) and the 

section it references in the HRF–1–2008 

procedure (section 5.5.5.3) are identical 

except that package loading is required 

only for manual defrost freezers, 

whereas it is required by HRF–1–1979 

for all freezer types. 

DOE learned that test laboratories may 

not all use the same approach to 

determine the number of packages they 

must load into a unit prior to testing. To 

ensure consistency, DOE proposed a 

method that would require an initial 

step of filling the compartment 

completely with as many packages as 

physically possible. This step would 

provide an indication of the number of 

packages required for a 100% fill. The 

tester would then calculate the number 

of packages required for a 75% fill, 

remove packages based on the 

calculation to achieve the required 75% 

fill, and adjust the packages to assure 

the necessary air gaps and the tiered or 

pyramid form needed for thermocouple 

placement. DOE proposed placing the 

description of this method in section 2.9 

of Appendix B. The proposed text 

specified that the number of packages 

representing the completely filled 

condition and the number left in the 

compartment for the test should both be 

recorded in the test data and maintained 

as part of the test record in accordance 

with 10 CFR 429.71. Because section 

5.5.5.3 of HRF–1–2008 also applies 

these requirements to each shelf of a 

multi-shelf freezer, the requirement to 

count and record the number of 

packages would apply on a per-shelf 

basis for such products. 78 FR 41649 

(July 10, 2013). 

GE, Whirlpool, and AHAM all agreed 

with DOE’s proposed package loading 

procedures. (GE, No. 31 at p. 8; 

Whirlpool, No. 27 at p. 4; AHAM, No. 

30 at p. 23) Therefore, this final rule 

adopts this amendment with one further 

minor clarification: In the event that the 

75% loading calculation results in a 

fraction, parties shall round to the 

nearest whole number to determine the 

required number of packages for 

loading. 

16. Product Clearance to the Wall 

During Testing 

In the December 16, 2010 interim 

final rule, which established 

Appendices A and B, DOE included 

provisions to address product 

clearances to the wall during testing. 75 

FR 78810. Specifically, section 2.8 of 

Appendix A and section 2.6 of 

Appendix B both require that the space 

between the plane of the cabinet’s back 

panel and the vertical surface behind 

the cabinet (i.e., the test chamber wall 

or simulated wall) be the minimum 

distance in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions or 2 inches, 

whichever is less. These sections 

specified that if the product has 

permanent rear spacers that extend 

beyond this distance, the product must 

be located with the spacers in contact 

with the vertical surface. However, DOE 

received a request for guidance from 

AHAM dated May 22, 2013 (AHAM 

Guidance Request) indicating that these 

provisions may not be sufficiently clear 

for cases in which the back of the test 

unit is not all on one plane due to 

protrusions or surface irregularities. 

(AHAM Guidance Request, No. 15, p. 2) 

AHAM requested that DOE clarify these 

sections by referencing the Committee 

Draft for Vote (CDV) version of Part 1 of 

IEC 62552.2 Household refrigerating 

appliances—Characteristics and test 

methods. According to AHAM, this 

reference provides guidance on productto-rear wall spacing that is consistent 

with section 2.8 but is more specific 

regarding the treatment of irregular 

surfaces. 

Because the IEC reference that AHAM 

suggested was not finalized by the time 

of the NOPR, and because DOE 

generally seeks to limit the number of 

external references incorporated in the 

DOE test procedure, DOE declined to 

propose incorporation by reference of 

the IEC procedure that AHAM 

suggested. However, to improve 

consistency in testing, DOE proposed to 

adopt revised language for section 2.8 

that is intended to accomplish the same 

objective. Specifically, DOE proposed to 

specify that, for the purposes of 

determining the appropriate clearance 

to the wall for the test, the rear plane of 

the cabinet is the largest flat surface at 

the rear of the cabinet. The proposed 

test procedure would also have 

indicated that individual features, such 

as brackets, compressors, or condensers 

that protrude from the rear plane could 

not be used as the basis for determining 

the rear clearance. AHAM agreed with 

this DOE proposal. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 

9) 

PAPRSA opposed this proposal, 

explaining that disallowing 

manufacturers to measure rear wall 

clearance from the plane of a rear wallmounted external condenser represents 

an unfair burden on products with rearmounted condensers. PAPRSA 

explained that the proposed 

requirement would leave manufacturers 

with less than 12 months to develop 

measures to make up for the additional 

reduction in rear-wall clearance under 

the new September 15, 2014 standards. 

(PAPRSA, No. 28 at p. 2) Based upon 

PAPRSA’s comments, DOE agrees that 

there are valid reasons to consider a 

rear-mounted condenser as the rear 

plane of the cabinet for the purposes of 

positioning the unit for testing, 

provided that the heat exchanging 

portion of the condenser is in fact 

mounted on the rear of the cabinet and 

consists of a uniformly flat (planeshaped) array of refrigerant tubes (i.e., 

not a rear-mounted condenser that is 

nearly uniformly flat, but with one or 

two refrigerant tubes protruding farther 

beyond the rear surface of the cabinet 

than the main plane of the condenser). 

DOE has modified the proposal to allow 

a rear-wall condenser to be considered 

the rear plane if it is plane-shaped and 

if the total surface area of the condenser 

plane is at least one-quarter of the total 

area of the rear face of the cabinet (i.e., 

the unit’s height times its width). This 

ratio is based upon DOE’s evaluation of 

products currently available on the 

market that have rear-mounted 

condensers and is intended to include 

all such products that would be most 

appropriately tested using this 

provision. The modified language 

provides a tolerance on flatness of the 

rear-wall condenser of plus or minus 

one-quarter inch (i.e., the plane would 

have to be uniformly flat) and indicates 

how the area of the rectangular plane 

would be determined. Therefore, today 

DOE adopts the proposal for rear 

clearance except that it allows rear-wall 

condensers that are planar and 

sufficiently large to be considered the 

rear plane for the maximum 2-inch 

clearance requirement. 

FSI disagreed with the proposed 

exclusion of protrusions extending 

beyond the rear plane when considering 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22340 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

the rear-wall clearance, indicating that 

there may be many design reasons to 

include such protrusions. FSI also 

commented that DOE’s discussion 

regarding products that might be 

installed with a slight rear tilt was 

unnecessary because manufacturers’ 

installation instructions generally 

require level installation. (FSI, No. 20 at 

p. 9) DOE believes that the exclusion of 

protrusions is necessary in order to 

ensure consistency in test results. There 

may be multiple protrusions, and it may 

not be clear which protrusion is the 

appropriate one for measuring the rear 

clearance. In addition, allowing the 

clearance to be measured from a small 

protrusion incentivizes the 

incorporation of a minor extension 

beyond the rear plane simply to obtain 

additional clearance for the test, while 

the protrusion would most likely be 

pushed against the rear wall in field 

installations. Hence, this final rule 

retains, in section 2.8 of Appendix A 

and 2.6 of Appendix B, the requirement 

that clearance be measured from the rear 

plane. Regarding the potential for 

rearward tilt, the proposed language 

simply addresses set-up requirements in 

cases in which the manufacturers’ 

instructions lead to installing the unit 

such that the rear plane is not perfectly 

parallel to the rear wall. Since DOE has 

identified products for which the 

manufacturer’s instructions would 

result in installation with a slight 

rearward tilt, DOE believes that 

adopting this provision as proposed will 

more accurately reflect the intended use 

of each product and will have no effect 

on products for which the instructions 

do not result in a rearward tilt. 

17. Other Minor Corrections 

In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE noted a 

minor error in section 6, ‘‘Calculation of 

Derived Results From Test 

Measurements,’’ of Appendix A. Section 

6.2.2.2 provides the method for 

calculating average per-cycle energy use 

(‘‘E’’) for refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers through calculations based on 

compartment temperatures. This section 

currently states that ‘‘E’’ is defined in 

section 6.2.1.1. However, section 6.2.1.1 

did not define the term ‘‘E’’ and 

contained only the equation E = ET1 + 

IET, which DOE felt did not sufficiently 

clarify the term’s meaning. Since the 

term ‘‘E’’ has the same basic meaning for 

all portions of section 6.2, DOE 

proposed to define this term in the 

introductory text of section 6.2 and to 

modify the text in the subsequent 

sections to refer to the definition 

consistently. For consistency, DOE 

proposed nearly identical changes for 

Appendix B. DOE received no comment 

opposing this proposal and therefore 

adopts this change in this final rule. 

DOE also noted that a certain aspect 

of the definition of ‘‘compact 

refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer’’ 

in 10 CFR 430.2, which distinguishes 

the product classes in section 430.32(a) 

for compact products from the classes 

for standard-size products, could 

potentially cause confusion. 

Specifically, compact products are 

defined to be under 7.75 cubic feet in 

volume. The definition used the term 

‘‘rated volume,’’ which is not defined or 

listed elsewhere in DOE’s test 

procedures or reporting requirements 

for these products. The definition is 

intended to refer to ‘‘total refrigerated 

volume,’’ but ‘‘rated volume’’ could 

potentially be confused with ‘‘adjusted 

volume,’’ which is a different 

measurement. To prevent confusion 

regarding the applicability of this 

definition, and to ensure standard 

terminology is used throughout DOE’s 

regulations, DOE proposed to amend the 

definition of ‘‘compact refrigerator/

refrigerator-freezer/freezer’’ in 10 CFR 

430.2 to specifically indicate that the 

definition applies to the product’s total 

refrigerated volume. DOE received no 

comments in opposition to this proposal 

and therefore adopts this change in this 

final rule. 

AHAM raised other minor issues in 

its guidance request to DOE dated May 

22, 2013, referred to previously in 

section III.C.13. See also 79 FR 41649. 

AHAM stated that the last sentence of 

the existing definition of ‘‘Defrost cycle 

type’’, found in section 1.9 of Appendix 

A (as finalized by the January 2012 

Final Rule), may be causing confusion. 

This sentence states that ‘‘defrost 

achieved regularly during the 

compressor off-cycles by warming the 

evaporator without active heat addition 

is not a defrost cycle type.’’ AHAM 

stated that this sentence could be 

interpreted as indicating that off-cycle 

defrost is not considered to be a type of 

automatic defrost. (AHAM Guidance 

Request, No. 15, p. 2) DOE inserted the 

clause in section 1.9 regarding off-cycle 

defrost as part of the December 2010 

Interim Final Rule in response to 

AHAM’s comments during that 

rulemaking that off-cycle defrost should 

not be considered a defrost cycle type. 

75 FR 78838 (Dec. 16, 2010). This clause 

was intended to distinguish off-cycle 

defrosts from the unique types of defrost 

cycles that involve a defrost heater, 

whose energy use contributions must be 

measured individually for products 

with multiple defrost cycle types. See 

Appendix A, section 4.2.4. However, as 

AHAM pointed out in its recent 

comments, the current language in 

section 1.9 is not intended to indicate 

that off-cycle defrost is not a form of 

automatic defrost. DOE clarified this 

issue as part of the preliminary analysis 

for the energy conservation standard 

rulemaking that ended September 15, 

2011. (Energy Conservation Standards 

for Residential Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 

2009–12–10 Public Meeting 

Presentation Slides, Docket No. EERE– 

2008–BT–STD–0012, No. 28 at p. 21) 

DOE understands AHAM’s concerns 

about possible misinterpretation of the 

cited sentence. To resolve this issue, 

DOE proposed to revise the definition of 

‘‘defrost cycle type’’ in section 1.9 of 

Appendix A to clarify that off-cycle 

defrost is a form of automatic defrost, 

even though it is not considered a 

defrost cycle type for the purposes of 

the test procedure for products with 

multiple defrost cycle types. AHAM 

supported the proposed revision. 

(AHAM, No. 30 at p. 24) As a result, 

DOE is adopting the revised definition 

in this final rule for section 1.11 of 

Appendix A. 

18. Relocation of Shelving for 

Temperature Sensors 

HRF–1–2008, section 5.5.4, which is 

incorporated into the DOE test 

procedures by reference (See section 2.2 

of Appendices A and B), requires at 

least one inch of air space separating the 

thermal mass of a temperature sensor 

from contact with any surface. In the 

case of interference with hardware at 

the specified sensor locations, section 

5.5.4 requires that the temperature 

sensors be placed at the nearest 

locations such that there will be a oneinch air space separating the sensor 

mass from the hardware. In the July 

2013 NOPR, DOE stated that, if the 

sensor is near shelving or other 

components whose position is 

adjustable by the consumer, it is more 

appropriate to relocate the shelf or 

component than to relocate the sensor. 

However, HRF–1–2008 section 5.5.2(a) 

requires that shelves and bins be evenly 

spaced throughout the compartment. As 

a result, DOE proposed to revise the test 

procedures to indicate that temperature 

sensor location would take precedence 

over the position of shelving and 

components whose position is 

adjustable by consumers, even if this 

means that the separation between 

shelves is not precisely equal. 

Specifically, DOE proposed to add 

language to Appendices A and B, 

section 5.1, indicating that consumermovable shelves and other components 

should be moved to maintain 

temperature sensor clearance 

requirements, allowing the temperature 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22341 

sensor locations to remain as specified 

in HRF–1–2008 Figure 5–1 or 5–2, but 

that parties should otherwise adhere as 

closely as practicable to the shelfplacement requirements of section 5.5.2 

of HRF–1–2008 (including the 

requirement that shelves and door bins 

be evenly spaced). 78 FR 41649 (July 10, 

2013). 

AHAM commented that the DOE 

proposal will impact some products 

significantly more than others. AHAM 

claimed that the range of impacts is so 

great that DOE should not make this 

change to the test procedure at this time. 

AHAM also stated that DOE’s proposal 

could result in measurements that are 

unrepresentative of actual consumer 

use. The test data AHAM provided 

showed an average impact of ¥0.58 

kWh per year with a range of ¥21 kWh 

per year to +18 kWh per year. (AHAM, 

No. 30 at p. 10) DOE agrees that the 

proposal may have an impact on 

measured energy use for a small 

percentage of products. Therefore, DOE 

will not adopt its proposal to prioritize 

temperature sensor locations over shelf 

placement. More specifically, the test 

will require that the shelves be placed 

in accordance with the requirements in 

section 5.5.2 of HRF–1–2008, and the 

sensors then be placed in the locations 

required in Figure 5–1 or 5–2 of HRF– 

1–2008. If the sensors cannot be placed 

in those locations due to interference 

with hardware, they must be relocated 

as to maintain the required 1-inch air 

gap between the sensor and adjacent 

hardware. 

Further, DOE is modifying the 

language in section 5.1 of Appendices A 

and B. In each appendix, this section (1) 

explains where parties must place 

temperature sensors and (2) requires 

parties that use alternative sensor 

locations for a particular basic model to 

(a) record the locations in the test data 

maintained in accordance with 10 CFR 

429.71 and (b) report the use of ‘‘nonstandard’’ temperature sensor locations 

in certification reports for the basic 

model, as required by 10 CFR 

429.14(b)(3). DOE is revising this 

section to specify that this reporting is 

required if the sensors are moved by any 

amount from the locations specified in 

Figure 5–1 or 5–2 of HRF–1–2008 in 

order to maintain the required 1-inch 

clearance from adjustable shelves or 

other components whose location is 

consumer-adjustable. Such reporting 

will give DOE notice in the case of 

verification testing that special attention 

must be paid to the specific locations of 

temperature sensors and shelves to 

ensure both are located in a manner 

consistent with the approach used in 

certification tests. Further, if there is 

any question about the locations, DOE 

may request manufacturers’ test reports 

to review exact locations of the sensors 

and components. 

D. Other Matters Related to the Test 

Procedure and Discussion of Proposals 

Not Adopted in This Final Rule 

1. Icemaking Test Procedure 

Nearly all refrigerator-freezers 

currently sold either have a factoryinstalled automatic icemaker or are 

‘‘icemaker-kitable’’—i.e., they are 

manufactured with the necessary water 

tubing, valve(s), and icemaker mounting 

hardware to allow quick installation of 

an automatic icemaker at any time after 

the product leaves the factory. Ice 

production increases the energy use of 

a refrigerator-freezer in two ways: (1) 

Some icemaker components (e.g., the 

mold heater and the gear motor) 

consume energy, and (2) additional 

refrigeration is required to cool and 

freeze incoming water and to remove 

the heat generated by icemaker 

components (e.g., the mold heater). The 

current test procedure for refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers does not 

measure the energy use associated with 

ice production. Specifically, HRF–1– 

1979, section 7.4.2 (which is 

incorporated by reference into 

Appendix A1) states, ‘‘Automatic 

icemakers are to be inoperative during 

the test’’. 

In the May 2010 NOPR DOE issued 

when proposing amendments to the test 

procedure that will become required 

later this year, DOE indicated that 

energy use associated with automatic 

icemaking represents 10 to 15 percent of 

the rated energy use of typical 

refrigeration products. See 75 FR 

29846–29847 (May 27, 2010). As 

discussed in section I of this rule, 

stakeholders commented, in response to 

DOE’s presentation of its preliminary 

analysis supporting the recently 

completed energy conservation standard 

rulemaking, that the test procedures and 

energy conservation standards for 

refrigeration products should address 

icemaking energy use. (See, e.g., Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0012; ACEEE, No. 46 at p. 1). 

However, stakeholders also 

commented that a test procedure to 

measure icemaking energy use had not 

yet been sufficiently developed. (Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, and 

Freezers, Docket No. EERE–2008–BT– 

STD–0012; AHAM, No. 37 at p. 2: 

General Electric, No. 40 at p. 1) To avoid 

delaying the energy conservation 

standard rulemaking, DOE published 

the new Appendix A test procedure and 

related energy conservation standard 

with a fixed placeholder energy use 

value of 84 kWh per year for products 

with automatic icemakers, to represent 

the average amount of energy consumed 

in ice production. 75 FR 78842–78843 

(Dec. 10, 2010) and 76 FR 57538 (Sept. 

15, 2011). (The 84 kWh per year value 

is equivalent to the 0.23 kWh per day 

value found in Appendices A and B, 

Section 6.2.2.1. That 0.23 kWh per day 

value is multiplied by 365 (See, e.g., 10 

CFR 430.23(a)(1)), which yields an 

annual consumption of 84 kWh per 

year.) 

In 2010, joint stakeholders, including 

manufacturers and efficiency advocates, 

drafted a consensus agreement that 

outlined recommendations for new 

energy and water conservation 

standards, test procedures, tax 

incentives and ENERGY STAR criteria 

for major home appliances. As part of 

that agreement, AHAM agreed to 

develop an icemaking test procedure 

before January 1, 2012. (Test Procedure 

for Residential Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers, and Freezers, 

Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–TP–0003, 

Joint Comment, No. 20 at p. 5) In early 

January 2012, AHAM provided DOE 

with a draft of its icemaking test 

procedure, ‘‘AHAM Refrigerator, 

Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Ice 

Making Energy Test Procedure, Revision 

1.0—12/14/11’’. (AHAM Draft Test 

Procedure, No. 4) That draft indicated 

that it would apply to refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers and freezers, as 

defined in 10 CFR 430.2, that are 

equipped with a single automatic 

icemaker (including non-icemakerequipped models that could be readily 

retrofitted with an optional automatic 

icemaker). 

In July 2012, AHAM provided DOE 

with a revision of its icemaking test 

procedure, ‘‘AHAM Refrigerator, 

Refrigerator-Freezer, and Freezer Ice 

Making Energy Test Procedure, Revision 

2.0—07/10/12’’. (AHAM Revised Draft 

Test Procedure, No. 5) The AHAM 

Revised Draft Test Procedure would 

have applied to products that have one 

or more automatic icemakers. In 

addition, it includes several revisions to 

the AHAM Draft Test Procedure. 

The July 2013 NOPR proposed an 

icemaking test procedure based largely 

on the AHAM Revised Draft Test 

Procedure. However, stakeholders 

requested additional time to review and 

comment on DOE’s proposal. (AHAM, 

No. 24 at p. 1) In order to allow 

stakeholders additional time to review 

its proposed amendments for 

measurement of icemaking energy use, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22342 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DOE will delay finalization of these 

amendments. As part of this process, 

DOE will provide the public with an 

additional opportunity to weigh in with 

their views regarding the icemaking test 

procedure through public notice and 

comment. Consequently, this final rule 

includes no amendments to the test 

procedures associated with 

measurement of icemaking energy use. 

The July 2013 NOPR also proposed to 

define ‘‘through-the-door ice and water 

dispenser,’’ explaining that this term 

appears in discussions of both 

icemaking operations and volume 

calculations within HRF–1–2008, which 

is incorporated by reference in 

Appendices A and B. The proposed 

definition indicated that a through-thedoor ice/water dispenser could dispense 

ice only, both ice and water, or water 

only. 78 at 41620 (July 10, 2013). AHAM 

commented that the ‘‘through-the-door 

ice and water dispenser’’ definition 

should not include ‘‘water only’’ 

dispensers because this language would 

confuse product class determinations. 

(AHAM, No. 24 at p. 8–9) DOE agrees 

that, although an ice and water 

dispenser may dispense water, the term 

as used in HRF–1–2008 is not intended 

to denote water-only dispensers. Hence, 

this final rule modifies the definition so 

that it applies to ice-only and ice/water 

dispensers, but not water-only 

dispensers. 

2. Built-In Refrigeration Products 

The July 2013 NOPR provided data 

showing the impact on measured energy 

use of testing built-in products in a 

built-in configuration. DOE requested 

information from stakeholders regarding 

this issue, including (a) additional data 

showing the impact on the energy use 

measurement of testing such products in 

a built-in condition, (b) the test burden 

that would be incurred with such a 

requirement, and (c) whether the DOE 

test procedure should require testing of 

built-in products in a built-in condition. 

AHAM requested an extension of the 

comment period to January 31, 2014, to 

allow stakeholders more time to prepare 

comments on this issue. (AHAM, No. 24 

at p. 1) DOE granted this request. Hence, 

given the need for DOE to thoroughly 

review these comments and any 

accompanying data, DOE will address 

this issue more fully in a future notice. 

3. Specific Volume Measurement Issues 

As part of the same May 22, 2013 

guidance request referred to previously 

in this final rule, AHAM requested that 

DOE clarify certain provisions of its 

prescribed method for measuring 

product interior volume in section 5.3 of 

Appendices A and B. Section 5.3 

references section 4 of HRF–1–2008 in 

both Appendices A and B. Section 4.2.2 

of HRF–1–2008 lists several components 

that parties must deduct from the 

measured interior volume, including 

‘‘the volume of air ducts required for 

proper cooling and operation of the 

unit.’’ Specifically, AHAM asked DOE 

whether this particular provision 

includes only air ducts that supply cold 

air to the fresh food and freezer 

compartments, or to all air ducts within 

the unit. (AHAM Guidance Request, No. 

15, p. 2) The guidance request did not 

include specific examples of ducts other 

than those that supply air to the fresh 

food and freezer compartments, which 

are both required for proper cooling and 

operation of the unit. In the July 2013 

NOPR, DOE stated that it was aware of 

air ducts used to cool icemaking 

compartments and that such ducts 

would also be required for proper 

operation of any refrigeration product 

that is equipped with an automatic 

icemaker, or any kitable product with an 

icemaking compartment that could have 

an automatic icemaker installed after 

shipment. As of the July 2013 NOPR, 

DOE was not aware of any other specific 

examples. However, since the volume 

measurement method generally 

excludes volumes occupied by 

components that are not intended to be 

removed by the user and that occupy 

space that cannot be used for storage, 

which are both likely to apply to an air 

duct, DOE took the view that parties 

should deduct the volume of any air 

duct in the interior of the cabinet from 

the measured product volume. 

AHAM responded by asking DOE not 

to require deduction of the measured 

volume of all air ducts in the interior of 

the cabinet, such as those that transfer 

cold air from an interior compartment to 

another enclosed space within the 

compartment. AHAM stated that DOE 

may have misunderstood the use of the 

term ‘‘unit’’ in HRF–1–2008, which 

AHAM claimed is intended to refer to 

the entire refrigeration system, and 

suggested that DOE may be interpreting 

‘‘unit’’ to mean the entire product. As 

explained by AHAM, the air ducts that 

are required ‘‘for the proper operation of 

the unit’’ are those required for 

providing air flow from the refrigeration 

system to the fresh food/freezer/separate 

auxiliary compartments and that air 

ducts that supply fresh food, freezer, 

and separate auxiliary compartments 

should be deducted from the total 

volume, which is consistent with the 

DOE view expressed in the July 2013 

NOPR. However, AHAM also indicated 

that the temperature inside special 

compartments and icemaker 

compartments are not included in the 

overall compartment temperature 

measurement, and thus their associated 

air ducts should not be required for 

proper operation of the refrigeration 

system. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 7) 

DOE responded to AHAM’s request 

for clarification on whether the air duct 

volumes are included in the measured 

volume in the July 2013 NOPR by 

clarifying how the currently required 

test procedure must be followed. 

Further, DOE notes that HRF–1–2008 is 

not sufficiently descriptive as to 

indicate that certain ducts are treated 

differently from others for the purposes 

of volume measurement, or that the 

term ‘‘unit’’ has a specific meaning 

within this particular context. DOE’s 

interpretation is based upon the past use 

of the term ‘‘unit,’’ which it believes is 

otherwise consistent with the remainder 

of the HRF–1–2008 test procedure, the 

DOE test procedure, and the testing 

methods for other products. Hence, DOE 

has not modified its interpretation that 

the volume of any air ducts in the 

cabinet would be deducted from the 

product’s total refrigerated volume. 

In addition, the July 2013 NOPR 

clarified whether the volume of water 

tanks used for chilling of water to be 

dispensed in a product’s water 

dispenser should be included or 

excluded in the calculation of total 

refrigerated volume. The NOPR 

indicated that if a water tank is integral 

to a product’s dispenser, it would be 

excluded from the volume, but that 

otherwise, it would be included. 78 FR 

41651 (July 10, 2013). AHAM 

commented that the tank would always 

be in the product’s refrigerated space 

and thus should always be included in 

the product’s total refrigerated volume, 

regardless of its proximity to the 

dispenser. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 7) After 

consideration of AHAM’s comment, 

DOE agrees that the volume of any water 

tank housed within the refrigerated 

space should be included in the 

calculation of total refrigerated volume. 

and notes that this provision is not 

limited to water tanks, but would apply 

to any other component that is located 

entirely within the refrigerated volume 

and not specifically excluded from the 

volume measurement by section 4.2.2 of 

HRF–1–2008. 

4. Treatment of Products That Are 

Operable as a Refrigerator or Freezer 

In the July 2013 NOPR, DOE 

addressed concerns regarding the 

appropriate test setting for products 

with a single compartment that can 

operate either as an electric refrigerator 

or freezer, as defined in 10 CFR 430.2. 

DOE noted that section 2.7 of Appendix 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22343 

A1 and Section 2.7 of Appendix A both 

require compartments that are 

convertible (e.g., from fresh food to 

freezer) to be operated in the highest 

energy use position. In the case of a 

product for which the convertible 

compartment is the only compartment 

(i.e., the entire product is convertible), 

the product effectively meets the 

definitions of two different covered 

products. In July 2013 NOPR, DOE 

stated that if the product is marketed as 

both an electric refrigerator and as a 

freezer, the product must be tested as 

both covered products, must meet both 

applicable standards, and must be 

certified as meeting both standards. If, 

however, the product is marketed only 

as a refrigerator or only as a freezer, the 

product must (1) be tested in accordance 

with the applicable test procedure, (2) 

meet the appropriate standard for that 

product, and (3) be certified 

accordingly. 78 FR 41651 (July 10, 

2013). 

AHAM commented that the DOE 

proposal for convertible products would 

impose an added test burden on 

manufacturers. Instead, AHAM 

suggested that DOE require that 

products be tested in the most energy 

intensive position, which AHAM claims 

is consistent with industry practice. 

(AHAM, No. 30 at p. 24) AHAM 

acknowledges that its own suggestion 

would still require test facilities to test 

convertible products as both a 

refrigerator and a freezer, but would be 

less burdensome than the DOE proposal. 

(Id.) DOE notes that the most energy 

intensive configuration may not be the 

configuration for which energy use is 

closer to the maximum allowable energy 

use for that particular configuration. 

Specifically, in certain cases, the lower 

energy use position (i.e., testing as a 

refrigerator) could result in measured 

energy use that is more likely to exceed 

the standard for the applicable 

refrigerator standard than the freezer 

standard when measured in the freezer 

configuration. Since such products must 

be able to meet the standard for each 

type of product, in DOE’s view, 

certifying compliance with only one of 

the configurations is incomplete. After 

further consideration, in part based on 

AHAM’s comment, DOE recognized that 

the language in the NOPR is 

inconsistent with the DOE’s existing 

regulatory definitions. Therefore, to 

ensure that consumers receive the most 

accurate information, DOE is requiring 

that convertible products be tested and 

certified as both refrigerators and 

freezers if the products meet the 

applicable definition(s). Furthermore, 

DOE notes that the definitions are 

applicable to a given model based on 

the performance of that model when 

operating under typical field 

conditions—not at the test procedure 

conditions. 

To ensure that this requirement is 

clearly indicated in the regulations, 

DOE has added a new paragraph 10 CFR 

429.14(c) to include this requirement. 

Specifically, DOE will require that 

manufacturers certify each individual 

model as complying with the energy 

conservation standard applicable to all 

product classes identified in § 430.32(a) 

into which the individual model falls if 

the individual model is distributed in 

commerce as a model within that 

product class. The manufacturer must 

assign a different basic model number to 

the units in each product class even if 

a manufacturer uses the same individual 

model number to identify the product. 

As an example, if a single individual 

model were distributed in commerce as 

an automatic defrost all-refrigerator 

(product class 3A) and as an automatic 

defrost upright freezer (product class 9), 

the manufacturer could use the same 

individual model number but would be 

required to test the model according to 

the test procedure applicable to each 

corresponding product class (i.e., 

Appendix A for class 3A and Appendix 

B for class 9). The manufacturer would 

also need to certify each basic model 

separately (i.e., in product class 3A and 

in product class 9) using a different 

basic model number for the two product 

classes. 

5. Stabilization Period 

AHAM’s May 22, 2013 guidance 

request asked whether the stabilization 

period (See section 2.9 of Appendix A1 

for an example) has a maximum time 

constraint. (AHAM Guidance Request, 

No. 15, p. 4) The stabilization period for 

products with cycling compressors 

consists of two separate time periods, 

each of which lasts at least two hours 

and comprises a whole number of 

compressor cycles, with an intervening 

time period of at least three hours. 

Specifically, AHAM asked whether the 

two time periods in question have a 

maximum duration or if they must be 

selected to be as short as possible while 

still satisfying the requirements. (Id.) In 

the July 2013 NOPR, DOE stated that 

neither of these requirements is 

explicitly stated in the test procedure, 

and neither is implied. DOE further 

indicated that the two time periods in 

question may be extended, for example, 

if there is irregular cycling of the 

compressor that makes the first possible 

selection of such a time period nonrepresentative of the average 

compartment temperatures for the 

captured time period. However, it 

would not be consistent with the test 

procedure to select two sets of time 

periods that would allow stability to 

appear to have been achieved when it 

has not. Alternative selections of time 

periods that satisfy the test procedure 

requirements should also demonstrate 

that stability has been achieved. At the 

time of the July 2013 NOPR, DOE did 

not believe that changes to the test 

procedure regulatory language were 

required to address this issue. 78 FR 

41651 (July 10, 2013). 

In its comments, GE expressed 

concerns that DOE’s view would allow 

selection of the three time periods used 

to evaluate steady state operation (i.e., 

the two periods for which average 

temperatures are measured and the 

intervening period separating the first 

two) to be left wholly to the discretion 

of the test facility, which could result in 

different test results for the same set of 

test data. (GE, No. 31 at p. 9) However, 

GE did not provide specific examples 

that show clearly why DOE should 

amend the stability requirements (e.g., 

to require the shortest stability time 

period that meets the requirements of 

section 2.9 of Appendix A). DOE 

believes that, in general, if stability is 

demonstrated for the shortest time 

period meeting the requirements that 

can be examined for a given time period 

of product operation, evaluation of the 

steady state condition should also be 

confirmed if different periods are 

selected for verifying that steady state 

operation has been reached. In other 

words, in a typical case, if the 

confirmation of steady state depends on 

the selection of specific time periods, 

while disregarding other adjacent time 

periods, the product has not fully 

reached steady state. In general, DOE 

expects that a test laboratory will select 

the shortest possible stabilization period 

in any case, in order to shorten test 

time. The test procedure has never had 

a maximum duration for the 

stabilization periods, and DOE believes 

GE’s comment does not provide 

sufficient information to justify a 

maximum duration. Therefore, DOE is 

declining to amend the stabilization 

requirements in the test procedure. 

E. Compliance With Other EPCA 

Requirements 

1. Test Burden 

EPCA requires that the test 

procedures DOE prescribes or amends 

be reasonably designed to produce test 

results that measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of a covered 

product during a representative average 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22344 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

use cycle or period of use. These 

procedures must also not be unduly 

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

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

amendments proposed in this final rule 

satisfy these requirements. 

Some of the test procedure 

amendments made in this final rule 

clarify how existing provisions of the 

test should be conducted, or otherwise 

represent minor changes to the test that 

do not significantly affect the equipment 

required for testing or the time required 

to conduct it. These amendments 

include changes to the anticircumvention language and ambient 

temperature gradient requirements, and 

clarifications regarding how to set 

mechanical temperature controls. 

AHAM suggested that ambient 

temperature gradient requirements 

could add an initial burden as test 

facilities adjust to accommodate the 

clarifying amendments. For example, 

laboratories may have to purchase 

additional thermocouples and fixtures 

to hang them. AHAM also suggested 

that ambient temperature amendments 

would require rewriting data acquisition 

software and could require some 

laboratories to obtain data acquisition 

hardware/equipment. (AHAM, No. 30 at 

p. 25) FSI expressed concern that the 

ambient temperature gradient 

requirements may invalidate some tests, 

leading to additional testing time, and 

that some test chambers may not be able 

to meet the requirements without 

significant facility modifications. (FSI, 

No. 20 at p. 8) 

DOE notes that it expects test facilities 

may need to make slight modifications 

to adhere to the clarified version of the 

ambient temperature requirements, 

particularly in demonstrating that the 

temperature gradients have been 

maintained. DOE does not consider the 

small initial costs involved with 

temperature sensors and ambient 

temperature fixtures to be significant 

compared to the costs of running 

multiple tests. In addition, based on 

comments received on previous 

rulemaking proposals involving data 

collection methods, DOE expects all test 

facilities to already have the data 

acquisition systems to adhere to all of 

the requirements being adopted today. 

Therefore, DOE believes this 

requirement is not likely to result in a 

significant additional test burden. As 

discussed in section III.C.6, DOE 

considers the amendments concerning 

the maintenance of the ambient 

temperature gradient to merely clarify 

the test procedure by specifying how to 

interpret the existing requirement for 

maintenance of the gradient. Hence, 

DOE does not consider these 

amendments to impose any new test 

facility requirements. 

This final rule also makes other 

changes, none of which would have a 

significant impact on burden. First, the 

modifications in the test procedure for 

incomplete cycling products could 

increase or decrease test time, as 

discussed in the NOPR. 78 FR 41641 

(July 10, 2013). However, based on tests 

conducted by DOE, the impact on test 

time for the amendment being adopted 

does not appear significant. FSI 

submitted comments that suggest it 

would incur significant test burden 

because the incomplete cycling 

modifications would increase test 

complexity. (FSI, No. 20 at p.6) DOE 

does not agree with this claim. The DOE 

proposal simply aligns the test 

procedure for incomplete-cycling 

products with those for products with 

cycling compressors by requiring a 

whole number of compressor cycles— 

the only difference being that a single 

compressor cycle is acceptable if the 

cycle takes at least 12 hours. In DOE’s 

view, this change does not constitute an 

increase in complexity. In DOE testing 

conducted prior to publication of the 

July 2013 NOPR, only four chest 

freezers tested have exhibited 

incomplete cycling. The impacts in test 

time for these four products were 

reductions for three products of 0.5, 3, 

and 10 hours and an increase for the 

fourth of 1.4 hours. 78 FR 41614 (July 

10, 2103). These results show that the 

impact on test burden would be small 

and limited primarily to chest freezers. 

Second, this final rule introduces an 

optional triangulation approach for 

products with two temperature controls. 

AHAM and FSI both submitted 

comments stating that reporting whether 

the triangulation method was used is an 

unnecessary burden. (AHAM, No. 30 at 

p. 17; FSI, No. 20 at p.5) DOE notes that 

it proposed to allow the use of 

triangulation in response to the request 

of stakeholders in a previous 

refrigeration product test procedure 

rulemaking and that the use of this 

approach, as implemented in this final 

rule, is on an optional basis. However, 

DOE has not adopted the proposed 

requirement to indicate in certification 

reports whether the method was used in 

testing—hence, it is DOE’s belief that 

the amendments adopting triangulation 

represent no added burden. 

Additionally, the test procedure 

modifications for products with 

multiple-compressors are, for the most 

part, consistent with the test procedures 

of existing test procedure waivers. This 

final rule eliminates most of the 

provisions of the multiple-compressor 

test procedure that DOE proposed in the 

NOPR that stakeholders criticized due 

to the potential added test burden. The 

key exception is the requirement that 

the first part of the test must be a 

continuous time period. However, as 

discussed in section III.C.1, DOE has 

imposed this requirement to limit the 

potential impact of truncation error; 

allowing the waiver approach could 

potentially introduce error in excess of 

the one percent that AHAM views as 

unacceptable. (See AHAM, No. 30 at p. 

15) 

DOE acknowledges that some test 

facilities may need time to adjust to the 

various test procedure modifications 

made in this final rule but believes that 

the modest burden associated with these 

adjustments is appropriate given the 

need for test results to be accurate and 

repeatable. 

Other amendments, including 

changes to the anti-circumvention 

language, the specifications for setting 

mechanical temperature controls, and 

the adoption of new definitions 

associated with defrost cycles, would 

clarify the test procedures but not add 

any new requirements that would 

increase test burden. 

2. Changes in Measured Energy Use 

When DOE modifies test procedures, 

it must determine to what extent, if any, 

the new test procedure would alter the 

measured energy use of covered 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) For the 

reasons described below, DOE has 

determined that none of the test 

procedure amendments would 

significantly alter the projected 

measured energy use of covered 

products. 

The test procedure amendments in 

this final rule would affect the test 

procedures that will be required for 

certifying compliance with the amended 

energy conservation standards, the 

compliance date of which is September 

15, 2014. Table III–1 indicates which 

parts of DOE’s test procedures would be 

affected by this rule’s amendments. As 

part of its evaluation of this rule, DOE 

has examined what impact it would 

likely have on the measured energy use 

of refrigeration products. 

Many of the changes made to 

Appendices A and B through this final 

rule clarify the manner in which the test 

should be conducted, or otherwise 

represent minor changes to the test or 

reporting requirements that would not 

affect measured energy use. These 

amendments include changes to the 

anti-circumvention language, 

clarifications for setting mechanical 

temperature controls, modified ambient 

temperature gradient requirements, new 

definitions to help clarify test 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22345 

requirements, elimination of the 

requirement to report product height, 

use of CAD models for measuring 

refrigerated volume, and corrections to 

the temperature setting logic tables. 

The modification of the test period for 

products that experience incomplete 

cycling could affect only a small 

minority of products and only to a 

minimal extent. To DOE’s knowledge, 

the only products that exhibit 

incomplete cycling are chest freezers. 

As described in section III.C.4, the 

accuracy of the measured energy use for 

such products would be improved. The 

measured energy use, to the extent it 

varies, would not necessitate a change 

in the standards for the single class of 

products that could theoretically be 

affected by this rule’s amendments. For 

these reasons, DOE does not believe an 

adjustment of the energy conservation 

standard is necessary for this test 

procedure change. 

DOE’s modifications addressing 

products with multiple-compressors are 

not expected to alter the measured 

energy use for these products. The test 

procedure as amended by this rule is 

functionally equivalent to the test 

procedure in the waivers that DOE has 

previously granted for products with 

multiple-compressors, differing 

primarily in the length and composition 

of test periods. AHAM commented that 

allowing test facilities to use 

temperature cycles would have a 

significant impact on the energy 

measurement. (AHAM, No. 30 at p. 11) 

As a result, DOE decided not to allow 

the use of temperature cycles to define 

test periods. DOE does not believe that 

any of the other changes applicable to 

products with multiple-compressors are 

likely to affect the measured energy use 

of any product currently known to DOE. 

As described in section III.C.2, the 

triangulation test method may, in 

certain cases, provide a slightly more 

accurate measurement of the actual 

energy consumption of a given product. 

This method would yield lower energy 

use measurements for some products as 

compared with the two-test method of 

the current DOE test procedures (See 

Appendix A1, section 3.1.2). Given that 

the triangulation method would be 

optional, in DOE’s view, the overall 

impact of this optional test on energy 

use measurement will likely be 

insignificant and would not require any 

change to the relevant standards. 

3. Standby and Off Mode Energy Use 

EPCA directs DOE to include standby 

mode and off mode energy consumption 

when amending test procedures and 

that this energy consumption be 

integrated into the overall energy 

consumption descriptor for the product, 

unless DOE determines that the current 

test procedures for the product already 

fully account for and incorporate the 

standby and off mode energy 

consumption of the covered product. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)(i)) The DOE 

test procedures for refrigeration 

products measure the energy use of 

these products during extended time 

periods that include periods when the 

compressor and other key components 

are cycled off. All of the energy these 

products use during the ‘‘off cycles’’ is 

already included in the measurements. 

A given refrigeration product being 

tested could include auxiliary features 

that draw power in a standby or off 

mode. In such instances, HRF–1–1979 

and HRF–1–2008, both of which are 

incorporated in relevant part into DOE’s 

test procedures, generally instruct 

manufacturers to set certain auxiliary 

features to the lowest power position 

during testing. In this lowest power 

position, any standby or off mode 

energy use of such auxiliary features 

would be included in the energy 

measurement. As a result, the July 2013 

NOPR did not propose any additional 

changes to account for standby and off 

mode energy consumption, since the 

current (and proposed) procedures 

address these modes. AHAM and GE 

submitted comments supporting DOE’s 

position on this issue. (AHAM, No. 30 

at p. 19; GE, No. 31 at p.9) Therefore, 

DOE maintains the position that no 

specific amendments are needed to 

address standby or off-mode energy use 

for these products. 

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 Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IFRA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE reviewed the test procedures in 

this final rule under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

procedures and policies published on 

February 19, 2003. This final rule 

prescribes test procedures that will be 

used to determine compliance with 

energy conservation standards for the 

products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) considers an entity to be a small 

business if, together with its affiliates, it 

employs less than a threshold number of 

workers specified in 13 CFR part 121, 

which relies on size standards and 

codes established by the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS). The threshold number 

for NAICS code 335222, which applies 

to Household Refrigerator and Home 

Freezer Manufacturing, is 1,000 

employees. 

DOE conducted a market survey to 

determine whether any manufacturers 

of products covered by this final rule 

were small businesses. During its 

market survey, DOE used all available 

public information to create a list of 

companies that manufacture 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, or 

freezers covered by this rulemaking. 

DOE reviewed these data to determine 

whether the entities met the SBA’s 

definition of a small business 

manufacturer of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, or freezers and 

screened out companies that do not 

offer products covered by this 

rulemaking, do not meet the definition 

of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are foreign 

owned and operated. DOE identified 

three small businesses at the time of the 

July 2013 NOPR and an additional small 

business presented itself during the July 

2013 NOPR comment period. However, 

DOE initially concluded that none of the 

test procedure modifications adopted in 

this final rule would pose a significant 

burden on manufacturers in this 

industry. 

FSI submitted comments indicating 

that, as a small business, the test 

procedure modifications would unfairly 

impact its certification activities. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22346 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Specifically, FSI argued that the 

following modifications would unfairly 

impact it: (a) Clarifications to the 

ambient temperature sensors 

requirements; (b) the optional 

triangulation energy calculation 

method; (c) modifications to the testing 

requirements for incomplete cycling 

products; and (d) clarifications to what 

DOE considers to make up a unit’s rear 

wall. FSI’s claims of test burden are 

discussed in section III.E.1 (Testing 

Burden). However, for the reasons 

discussed in section III.E.1, DOE 

concludes that FSI’s claims of test 

burden are overstated. 

Reiterating the conclusions 

enumerated above, DOE acknowledges 

that additional ambient temperature 

sensors will be required and their 

temperatures recorded, but this is 

expected to be a modest impact as 

compared to the overall cost associated 

with testing. Specifically, DOE 

estimated an additional cost per product 

test station of $395, which includes the 

labor involved in equipment setup. This 

represents approximately 1 percent of 

the total cost of a typical four-station 

test chamber, assuming additional 

sensors are needed for all four test 

stations. In the worst case, in which a 

test facility must purchase additional 

data acquisition equipment and 

software, the cost could be as high as 

$1,500, although DOE expects that few 

if any test laboratories would incur costs 

at this level. DOE further concludes that 

claims regarding repeated tests or test 

facility upgrades associated with the 

ambient temperature requirements 

would be necessary under the existing 

test procedures, and that the 

amendments of this final rule would not 

represent an increase in test burden 

beyond the requirement for sensors and 

added data collection to verify 

compliance with the requirements. DOE 

does not agree with FSI that the 

inclusion of the optional (and 

voluntary) triangulation test would add 

any burden to a manufacturer choosing 

not to use this method. DOE has also not 

adopted the proposed amendment 

requiring reporting of whether this 

optional approach is used in testing. 

Therefore, DOE concludes that the 

test procedure amendments of this final 

rule will not have a significant impact 

on small manufacturers under the 

provisions of the Act. These 

amendments do not require use of test 

facilities or test equipment that differ in 

any substantive way from the test 

facilities or test equipment that 

manufacturers currently use to evaluate 

the energy efficiency of these products. 

Further, the amended test procedures 

will not be significantly more difficult 

or time-consuming to conduct than the 

current test procedures that 

manufacturers must use to certify 

compliance with the energy 

conservation standards that must be 

met. For these reasons, DOE concludes 

and certifies that the rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

rulemaking. DOE has transmitted the 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA for review under 

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

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 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 

procedures for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established 

regulations regarding the certification 

and recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers. 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. 

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 

DOE is amending its test procedure 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers. 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 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et 

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, this rule amends an 

existing rule without affecting the 

amount, quality or distribution of 

energy usage, and, therefore, will not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Thus, this rulemaking is covered by 

Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, which applies to 

any rulemaking that interprets or 

amends an existing rule without 

changing the environmental effect of 

that rule. 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 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. The 

Executive Order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE 

examined this final rule and determined 

that it will not have a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. EPCA 

governs and prescribes Federal 

preemption of State regulations as to 

energy conservation for the products 

that are the subject of 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22347 

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, this final rule 

meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

regulatory action resulting in a rule that 

may cause the expenditure by State, 

local, and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100 million or more in any one year 

(adjusted annually for inflation), section 

202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency 

to publish a written statement that 

estimates 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; also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE examined this final rule according 

to UMRA and its statement of 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 will not have any impact on 

the autonomy or integrity of the family 

as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

will not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

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

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

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

this final rule under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

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

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB a Statement 

of Energy Effects for any 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)(i) is a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866, or 

any successor order; and (ii) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or 

(2) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use if the regulation is 

implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. 

This regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed modifications to the 

test procedures addressed by this action 

incorporate testing methods contained 

in certain sections of the commercial 

standards, AHAM Standards HRF–1– 

1979 and HRF–1–2008. DOE has 

evaluated these two versions of this 

standard and is unable to conclude 

whether it fully complies with the 

requirements of section 32(b) of the 

FEAA (i.e. whether it was developed in 

a manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review.) 

DOE has consulted with both the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the FTC about the impact on 

competition of using the methods 

contained in these standards and has 

received no comments objecting to their 

use. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22348 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

N. 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, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 10, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 

430 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of 

Federal Regulations as set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 429.14 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(3), and by revising 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 429.14 Residential refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers and freezers. 

(a) * * * 

(3) The value of total refrigerated 

volume of a basic model reported in 

accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section shall be the mean of the total 

refrigerated volumes measured for each 

tested unit of the basic model or the 

total refrigerated volume of the basic 

model as calculated in accordance with 

§ 429.72(c). 

(b) * * * 

(2) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report shall include the 

following public product-specific 

information: The annual energy use in 

kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr); the 

total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

(ft3); and the adjusted total volume in 

cubic feet (ft3). 

(3) Pursuant to § 429.12(b)(13), a 

certification report shall include the 

following additional product-specific 

information: whether the basic model 

has variable defrost control (in which 

case, manufacturers must also report the 

values, if any, of CTL and CTM (For an 

example, see section 5.2.1.3 in appendix 

A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430) used 

in the calculation of energy 

consumption), whether the basic model 

has variable anti-sweat heater control 

(in which case, manufacturers must also 

report the values of heater Watts at the 

ten humidity levels (5%, 15%, 25%, 

35%, 45%, 55%, 65%, 75%, 85%, and 

95%) used to calculate the variable antisweat heater ‘‘Correction Factor’’), and 

whether testing has been conducted 

with modifications to the standard 

temperature sensor locations specified 

by the figures referenced in section 5.1 

of appendices A1, B1, A, and B to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. 

■ 3. Add § 429.72 to read as follows: 

§ 429.72 Alternative methods for 

determining non-energy ratings. 

(a) General. Where § 429.14 through 

§ 429.54 authorize the use of an 

alternative method for determining a 

physical or operating characteristic 

other than the energy consumption or 

efficiency, such characteristics must be 

determined either by testing in 

accordance with the applicable test 

procedure and applying the specified 

sampling plan provisions established in 

those sections or as described in the 

appropriate product-specific paragraph 

below. In all cases, the computer-aided 

design (CAD) models, measurements, 

and calculations used to determine the 

rating for the physical or operating 

characteristic shall be retained as part of 

the test records underlying the 

certification of the basic model in 

accordance with § 429.71. 

(b) Testing. [Reserved] 

(c) Residential refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. The 

total refrigerated volume of a basic 

model of refrigerator, refrigeratorfreezer, or freezer may be determined by 

performing a calculation of the volume 

based upon computer-aided design 

(CAD) models of the basic model in lieu 

of physical measurements of a 

production unit of the basic model. Any 

value of total refrigerated volume of a 

basic model reported to DOE in a 

certification of compliance in 

accordance with § 429.14(b)(2) must be 

calculated using the CAD-derived 

volume(s) and the applicable provisions 

in the test procedures in 10 CFR part 

430 for measuring volume, and must be 

within two percent, or 0.5 cubic feet (0.2 

cubic feet for compact products), 

whichever is greater, of the volume of a 

production unit of the basic model 

measured in accordance with the 

applicable test procedure in 10 CFR part 

430. 

■ 4. Add § 429.134 to read as follows: 

§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement 

provisions. 

(a) General. The following provisions 

apply to assessment and enforcement 

testing of the relevant products. 

(b) Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers— (1) Verification of total 

refrigerated volume. The total 

refrigerated volume of the basic model 

will be measured pursuant to the test 

requirements of 10 CFR part 430 for 

each unit tested. The results of the 

measurement(s) will be averaged and 

compared to the value of total 

refrigerated volume certified by the 

manufacturer. The certified total 

refrigerated volume will be considered 

valid only if: 

(i) The measurement is within two 

percent, or 0.5 cubic feet (0.2 cubic feet 

for compact products), whichever is 

greater, of the certified total refrigerated 

volume, or 

(ii) The measurement is greater than 

the certified total refrigerated volume. 

(A) If the certified total refrigerated 

volume is found to be valid, the 

certified adjusted total volume will be 

used as the basis for calculation of 

maximum allowed energy use for the 

basic model. 

(B) If the certified total refrigerated 

volume is found to be invalid, the 

average measured adjusted total volume 

will serve as the basis for calculation of 

maximum allowed energy use for the 

tested basic model. 

(2) Test for models with two 

compartments, each having its own 

user-operable temperature control. The 

test described in section 3.3 of the 

applicable test procedure for 

refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers in 

appendix A to subpart B of 10 CFR part 

430 shall be used for all units of a tested 

basic model before DOE makes a 

determination of noncompliance with 

respect to the basic model. 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 5. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22349 

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

2461 note. 

■ 6. Section 430.2 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘compact 

refrigerator/refrigerator-freezer/freezer’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Compact refrigerator/refrigeratorfreezer/freezer means any refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer or freezer with a total 

refrigerated volume of less than 7.75 

cubic feet (220 liters). (Total refrigerated 

volume shall be determined using the 

applicable test procedure appendix 

prescribed in subpart B of this part.) 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 430.3 is amended by adding 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(e) AS/NZS. Australian/New Zealand 

Standard, GPO Box 476, Sydney NSW 

2001, (02) 9237–6000 or (12) 0065–4646, 

or go to www.standards.org.au/

Standards New Zealand, Level 10 Radio 

New Zealand House 144 The Terrace 

Wellington 6001 (Private Bag 2439 

Wellington 6020), (04) 498–5990 or (04) 

498–5991, or go to 

www.standards.co.nz. 

(1) AS/NZS 4474.1:2007, Performance 

of Household Electrical Appliances— 

Refrigerating Appliances; Part 1: Energy 

Consumption and Performance, Second 

edition, published August 15, 2007, IBR 

approved for Appendix A to Subpart B. 

(2) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 430.23 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(10) and (b)(7) to 

read as follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(10) The following principles of 

interpretation should be applied to the 

test procedure. The intent of the energy 

test procedure is to simulate typical 

room conditions (approximately 70 °F 

(21 °C)) with door openings by testing 

at 90 °F (32.2 °C) without door 

openings. Except for operating 

characteristics that are affected by 

ambient temperature (for example, 

compressor percent run time), the unit, 

when tested under this test procedure, 

shall operate in a manner equivalent to 

the unit in typical room conditions. 

(i) The energy used by the unit shall 

be calculated when a calculation is 

provided by the test procedure. Energy 

consuming components that operate in 

typical room conditions (including as a 

result of door openings, or a function of 

humidity), and that are not exempted by 

this test procedure, shall operate in an 

equivalent manner during energy testing 

under this test procedure, or be 

accounted for by all calculations as 

provided for in the test procedure. 

Examples: 

(A) Energy saving features that are 

designed to operate when there are no 

door openings for long periods of time 

shall not be functional during the 

energy test. 

(B) The defrost heater shall neither 

function nor turn off differently during 

the energy test than it would when in 

typical room conditions. Also, the 

product shall not recover differently 

during the defrost recovery period than 

it would in typical room conditions. 

(C) Electric heaters that would 

normally operate at typical room 

conditions with door openings shall 

also operate during the energy test. 

(D) Energy used during adaptive 

defrost shall continue to be tested and 

adjusted per the calculation provided 

for in this test procedure. 

(ii) DOE recognizes that there may be 

situations that the test procedures do 

not completely address. In such cases, a 

manufacturer must obtain a waiver in 

accordance with the relevant provisions 

of 10 CFR part 430 if: 

(A) A product contains energy 

consuming components that operate 

differently during the prescribed testing 

than they would during representative 

average consumer use and 

(B) Applying the prescribed test to 

that product would evaluate it in a 

manner that is unrepresentative of its 

true energy consumption (thereby 

providing materially inaccurate 

comparative data). 

(b) * * * 

(7) The following principles of 

interpretation should be applied to the 

test procedure. The intent of the energy 

test procedure is to simulate typical 

room conditions (approximately 70 °F 

(21 °C)) with door openings by testing 

at 90 °F (32.2 °C) without door 

openings. Except for operating 

characteristics that are affected by 

ambient temperature (for example, 

compressor percent run time), the unit, 

when tested under this test procedure, 

shall operate in a manner equivalent to 

the unit in typical room conditions. 

(i) The energy used by the unit shall 

be calculated when a calculation is 

provided by the test procedure. Energy 

consuming components that operate in 

typical room conditions (including as a 

result of door openings, or a function of 

humidity), and that are not exempted by 

this test procedure, shall operate in an 

equivalent manner during energy testing 

under this test procedure, or be 

accounted for by all calculations as 

provided for in the test procedure. 

Examples: 

(A) Energy saving features that are 

designed to operate when there are no 

door openings for long periods of time 

shall not be functional during the 

energy test. 

(B) The defrost heater shall neither 

function nor turn off differently during 

the energy test than it would when in 

typical room conditions. Also, the 

product shall not recover differently 

during the defrost recovery period than 

it would in typical room conditions. 

(C) Electric heaters that would 

normally operate at typical room 

conditions with door openings shall 

also operate during the energy test. 

(D) Energy used during adaptive 

defrost shall continue to be tested and 

adjusted per the calculation provided 

for in this test procedure. 

(ii) DOE recognizes that there may be 

situations that the test procedures do 

not completely address. In such cases, a 

manufacturer must obtain a waiver in 

accordance with the relevant provisions 

of 10 CFR part 430 if: 

(A) A product contains energy 

consuming components that operate 

differently during the prescribed testing 

than they would during representative 

average consumer use and 

(B) Applying the prescribed test to 

that product would evaluate it in a 

manner that is unrepresentative of its 

true energy consumption (thereby 

providing materially inaccurate 

comparative data). 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Appendix A to subpart B of part 

430 is amended: 

■ a. By revising the introductory text; 

■ b. In section 1. Definitions, by: 

■ i. Redesignating section 1.18 as 1.26; 

■ ii. Redesignating section 1.17 as 1.25; 

■ iii. Redesignating section 1.16 as 1.23; 

■ iv. Redesignating section 1.15 as 1.21; 

■ v. Redesignating section 1.14 as 1.20; 

■ vi. Redesignating section 1.13 as 1.19; 

■ vii. Redesignating section 1.12 as 1.15; 

■ viii. Redesignating section 1.11 as 

1.13; 

■ ix. Redesignating section 1.10 as 1.12; 

■ x. Redesignating section 1.9 as 1.11 

and revising the newly designated 

section 1.11; 

■ xi. Redesignating section 1.8 as 1.10; 

■ xii. Redesignating section 1.7 as 1.9; 

■ xiv. Redesignating section 1.6 as 1.7; 

■ xv. Redesignating section 1.5 as 1.6; 

■ xvi. Adding sections 1.5, 1.8, 1.14, 

1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.22, and 1.24; 

■ c. In section 2. Test Conditions, by: 

■ i. Revising sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.8; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22350 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

■ ii. Adding sections, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 

and 2.11; 

■ d. In section 3. Test Control Setting, 

by: 

■ i. Revising section 3.2.1; 

■ ii. Revising Tables 1 and 2; 

■ iii. Adding section 3.3; 

■ e. In section 4. Test Period, by: 

■ i. Revising sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.2.1.1, 

and 4.2.3; 

■ ii. Adding sections 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2, 

4.2.3.3, 4.2.3.4, 4.2.3.4.1, and 4.2.3.4.2; 

■ f. In section 5. Test Measurements, by 

revising sections 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 

5.2.1.3, 5.2.1.4, and 5.3; 

■ g. In section 6. Calculation of Derived 

Results from Test Measurements, by: 

■ i. Revising sections 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 

6.2.2.1, and 6.2.2.2; 

■ ii. Adding section 6.2.2.3. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Electric 

Refrigerators and Electric RefrigeratorFreezers 

Beginning on September 15, 2014, the test 

procedures in appendix A must be used to 

determine compliance with energy 

conservation standards for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. Prior to September 15, 

2014, manufacturers may continue to use 

appendix A1 or may elect to use appendix A 

early to show compliance with the 

September 15, 2014 energy conservation 

standards. Manufacturers must use a single 

appendix for all representations of energy use 

of a basic model, including certifications of 

compliance, and may not use appendix A1 

for certain representations and appendix A 

for other representations. 

1. Definitions 

* * * * * 

1.5 ‘‘AS/NZS 44474.1:2007’’ means 

Australian/New Zealand Standard 

44474.1:2007, Performance of household 

electrical appliances—Refrigerating 

appliances, Part 1: Energy consumption and 

performance. Only sections of AS/NZS 

44474.1:2007 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3) specifically referenced in this test 

procedure are part of this test procedure. In 

cases where there is a conflict, the language 

of the test procedure in this appendix takes 

precedence over AS/NZS 44474.1:2007. 

* * * * * 

1.8 ‘‘Complete temperature cycle’’ means 

a time period defined based upon the cycling 

of compartment temperature that starts when 

the compartment temperature is at a 

maximum and ends when the compartment 

temperature returns to an equivalent 

maximum (within 0.5 °F of the starting 

temperature), having in the interim fallen to 

a minimum and subsequently risen again to 

reach the second maximum. Alternatively, a 

complete temperature cycle can be defined to 

start when the compartment temperature is at 

a minimum and end when the compartment 

temperature returns to an equivalent 

minimum (within 0.5 °F of the starting 

temperature), having in the interim risen to 

a maximum and subsequently fallen again to 

reach the second minimum. 

* * * * * 

1.11 ‘‘Defrost cycle type’’ means a 

distinct sequence of control whose function 

is to remove frost and/or ice from a 

refrigerated surface. There may be variations 

in the defrost control sequence such as the 

number of defrost heaters energized. Each 

such variation establishes a separate distinct 

defrost cycle type. However, defrost achieved 

regularly during the compressor off-cycles by 

warming of the evaporator without active 

heat addition, although a form of automatic 

defrost, does not constitute a unique defrost 

cycle type for the purposes of identifying the 

test period in accordance with section 4 of 

this appendix. 

* * * * * 

1.14 ‘‘Ice storage bin’’ means a container 

in which ice can be stored. 

* * * * * 

1.16 ‘‘Multiple-compressor’’ refrigerator 

or refrigerator-freezer means a refrigerator or 

refrigerator-freezer with more than one 

compressor. 

1.17 ‘‘Precooling’’ means operating a 

refrigeration system before initiation of a 

defrost cycle to reduce one or more 

compartment temperatures significantly 

(more than 0.5 °F) below its minimum during 

stable operation between defrosts. 

1.18 ‘‘Recovery’’ means operating a 

refrigeration system after the conclusion of a 

defrost cycle to reduce the temperature of 

one or more compartments to the 

temperature range that the compartment(s) 

exhibited during stable operation between 

defrosts. 

* * * * * 

1.22 ‘‘Stable operation’’ means operation 

after steady-state conditions have been 

achieved but excluding any events associated 

with defrost cycles. During stable operation 

the average rate of change of compartment 

temperature must not exceed 0.042 °F 

(0.023 °C) per hour for all compartment 

temperatures. Such a calculation performed 

for compartment temperatures at any two 

times, or for any two periods of time 

comprising complete cycles, during stable 

operation must meet this requirement. 

(A) If compartment temperatures do not 

cycle, the relevant calculation shall be the 

difference between the temperatures at two 

points in time divided by the difference, in 

hours, between those points in time. 

(B) If compartment temperatures cycle as a 

result of compressor cycling or other cycling 

operation of any system component (e.g., a 

damper, fan, or heater), the relevant 

calculation shall be the difference between 

compartment temperature averages evaluated 

for whole compressor cycles or complete 

temperature cycles divided by the difference, 

in hours, between either the starts, ends, or 

mid-times of the two cycles. 

* * * * * 

1.24 ‘‘Through-the-door ice/water 

dispenser’’ means a device incorporated 

within the cabinet, but outside the boundary 

of the refrigerated space, that delivers to the 

user on demand ice and may also deliver 

water from within the refrigerated space 

without opening an exterior door. This 

definition includes dispensers that are 

capable of dispensing ice and water or ice 

only. 

* * * * * 

2. Test Conditions 

2.1 Ambient Temperature Measurement. 

Temperature measuring devices shall be 

shielded so that indicated temperatures are 

not affected by the operation of the 

condensing unit or adjacent units. 

2.1.1 Ambient Temperature. The ambient 

temperature shall be recorded at points 

located 3 feet (91.5 cm) above the floor and 

10 inches (25.4 cm) from the center of the 

two sides of the unit under test. The ambient 

temperature shall be 90.0 ± 1.0 °F (32.2 ± 

0.6 °C) during the stabilization period and the 

test period. 

2.1.2 Ambient Temperature Gradient. The 

test room vertical ambient temperature 

gradient in any foot of vertical distance from 

2 inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or 

supporting platform to a height of 1 foot (30.5 

cm) above the top of the unit under test is 

not to exceed 0.5 °F per foot (0.9 °C per 

meter). The vertical ambient temperature 

gradient at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) out 

from the centers of the two sides of the unit 

being tested is to be maintained during the 

test. To demonstrate that this requirement 

has been met, test data must include 

measurements taken using temperature 

sensors at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) from 

the center of the two sides of the unit under 

test at heights of 2 inches (5.1 cm) and 36 

inches (91.4 cm) above the floor or 

supporting platform and at a height of 1 foot 

(30.5 cm) above the unit under test. 

2.1.3 Platform. A platform must be used 

if the floor temperature is not within 3 °F (1.7 

°C) of the measured ambient temperature. If 

a platform is used, it is to have a solid top 

with all sides open for air circulation 

underneath, and its top shall extend at least 

1 foot (30.5 cm) beyond each side and front 

of the unit under test and extend to the wall 

in the rear. 

2.2 Operational Conditions. The unit 

under test shall be installed and its operating 

conditions maintained in accordance with 

HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3), sections 5.3.2 through section 

5.5.5.5 (excluding section 5.5.5.4). 

Exceptions and clarifications to the cited 

sections of HRF–1–2008 are noted in sections 

2.3 through 2.8, and 5.1 of this appendix. 

* * * * * 

2.8 Rear Clearance. 

(a) General. The space between the lowest 

edge of the rear plane of the cabinet and a 

vertical surface (the test room wall or 

simulated wall) shall be the minimum 

distance in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions, unless other 

provisions of this section apply. The rear 

plane shall be considered to be the largest flat 

surface at the rear of the cabinet, excluding 

features that protrude beyond this surface, 

such as brackets or compressors. 

(b) Maximum clearance. The clearance 

shall not be greater than 2 inches (51 mm) 

from the lowest edge of the rear plane to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22351 

vertical surface, unless the provisions of 

paragraph (c) of this section apply. 

(c) If permanent rear spacers or other 

components that protrude beyond the rear 

plane extend further than the 2 inch (51 mm) 

distance, or if the highest edge of the rear 

plane is in contact with the vertical surface 

when the unit is positioned with the lowest 

edge of the rear plane at or further than the 

2 inch (51 mm) distance from the vertical 

surface, the appliance shall be located with 

the spacers or other components protruding 

beyond the rear plane, or the highest edge of 

the rear plane, in contact with the vertical 

surface. 

(d) Rear-mounted condensers. If the 

product has a flat rear-wall-mounted 

condenser (i.e., a rear-wall-mounted 

condenser with all refrigerant tube 

centerlines within 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) of 

the condenser plane), and the area of the 

condenser plane represents at least 25% of 

the total area of the rear wall of the cabinet, 

then the spacing to the vertical surface may 

be measured from the lowest edge of the 

condenser plane. 

* * * * * 

2.11 Refrigerators and RefrigeratorFreezers with Demand-Response Capability. 

Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that 

have a communication module for demandresponse functions that is located within the 

cabinet shall be tested with the 

communication module in the configuration 

set at the factory just before shipping. 

* * * * * 

3. Test Control Settings 

3.2 * * * 

3.2.1 A first test shall be performed with 

all compartment temperature controls set at 

their median position midway between their 

warmest and coldest settings. For mechanical 

control systems, (a) knob detents shall be 

mechanically defeated if necessary to attain 

a median setting, and (b) the warmest and 

coldest settings shall correspond to the 

positions in which the indicator is aligned 

with control symbols indicating the warmest 

and coldest settings. For electronic control 

systems, the test shall be performed with all 

compartment temperature controls set at the 

average of the coldest and warmest settings; 

if there is no setting equal to this average, the 

setting closest to the average shall be used. 

If there are two such settings equally close to 

the average, the higher of these temperature 

control settings shall be used. A second test 

shall be performed with all controls set at 

their warmest setting or all controls set at 

their coldest setting (not electrically or 

mechanically bypassed). For all-refrigerators, 

this setting shall be the appropriate setting 

that attempts to achieve compartment 

temperatures measured during the two tests 

that bound (i.e., one is above and one is 

below) the standardized temperature for allrefrigerators. For refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers, the second test shall be 

conducted with all controls at their coldest 

setting, unless all compartment temperatures 

measured during the first part of the test are 

lower than the standardized temperatures, in 

which case the second test shall be 

conducted with all controls at their warmest 

setting. Refer to Table 1 of this appendix for 

all-refrigerators or Table 2 of this appendix 

for refrigerators with freezer compartments 

and refrigerator-freezers to determine which 

test results to use in the energy consumption 

calculation. If any compartment is warmer 

than its standardized temperature for a test 

with all controls at their coldest position, the 

tested unit fails the test and cannot be rated. 

TABLE 1—TEMPERATURE SETTINGS FOR ALL-REFRIGERATORS

First test Second test Energy calculation based 

on: Settings Results Settings Results 

Mid ..................................... Low ................................... Warm ................................ Low ................................... Second Test Only. 

High .................................. First and Second Tests. 

High .................................. Cold .................................. Low ................................... First and Second Tests. 

High .................................. No Energy Use Rating. 

TABLE 2—TEMPERATURE SETTINGS FOR REFRIGERATORS WITH FREEZER COMPARTMENTS AND REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS

First test Second test Energy calculation based 

on: Settings Results Settings Results 

Fzr Mid .............................. Fzr Low ............................. Fzr Warm .......................... Fzr Low ............................. Second Test Only. 

FF Mid ............................... FF Low ............................. FF Warm .......................... FF Low. 

Fzr Low ............................. First and Second Tests. 

FF High. 

Fzr High ............................ First and Second Tests. 

FF Low. 

Fzr High ............................ First and Second Tests. 

FF High. 

Fzr Low ............................. Fzr Cold ............................ Fzr Low ............................. No Energy Use Rating. 

FF High ............................. FF Cold ............................. FF High. 

Fzr Low ............................. First and Second Tests. 

FF Low. 

Fzr High ............................ Fzr Cold ............................ Fzr High ............................ No Energy Use Rating. 

FF Low ............................. FF Cold ............................. FF Low. 

Fzr Low ............................. First and Second Tests. 

FF Low. 

Fzr High ............................ Fzr Cold ............................ Fzr Low ............................. First and Second Tests. 

FF High ............................. FF Cold ............................. FF Low. 

Fzr Low ............................. No Energy Use Rating. 

FF High. 

Fzr High ............................ No Energy Use Rating. 

FF Low. 

Fzr High ............................ No Energy Use Rating. 

FF High. 

Notes: Fzr = Freezer Compartment, FF = Fresh Food Compartment. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22352 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

3.3 Optional Test for Models with Two 

Compartments and User Operable Controls. 

As an alternative to section 3.2, perform three 

tests such that the set of tests meets the 

‘‘minimum requirements for interpolation’’ of 

AS/NZS 44474.1:2007 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3) appendix M, section 

M3, paragraphs (a) through (c) and as 

illustrated in Figure M1. The target 

temperatures txA and txB defined in section 

M4(a)(i) of AS/NZ 44474.1:2007 shall be the 

standardized temperatures defined in section 

3.2 of this appendix. 

4. Test Period 

* * * * * 

4.1 Non-automatic Defrost. If the model 

being tested has no automatic defrost system, 

the test period shall start after steady-state 

conditions (see section 2.9 of this appendix) 

have been achieved and be no less than three 

hours in duration. During the test period, the 

compressor motor shall complete two or 

more whole compressor cycles. (A 

compressor cycle is a complete ‘‘on’’ and a 

complete ‘‘off’’ period of the motor.) If no 

‘‘off’’ cycling occurs, the test period shall be 

three hours. If fewer than two compressor 

cycles occur during a 24-hour period, then a 

single complete compressor cycle may be 

used. 

4.2 Automatic Defrost. If the model being 

tested has an automatic defrost system, the 

test period shall start after steady-state 

conditions have been achieved and be from 

one point during a defrost period to the same 

point during the next defrost period. If the 

model being tested has a long-time automatic 

defrost system, the alternative provisions of 

section 4.2.1 may be used. If the model being 

tested has a variable defrost control, the 

provisions of section 4.2.2 shall apply. If the 

model is a multiple-compressor product with 

automatic defrost, the provisions of section 

4.2.3 shall apply. If the model being tested 

has long-time automatic or variable defrost 

control involving multiple defrost cycle 

types, such as for a product with a single 

compressor and two or more evaporators in 

which the evaporators are defrosted at 

different frequencies, the provisions of 

section 4.2.4 shall apply. If the model being 

tested has multiple defrost cycle types for 

which compressor run time between defrosts 

is a fixed time of less than 14 hours for all 

such cycle types, and for which the 

compressor run times between defrosts for 

different defrost cycle types are equal to or 

multiples of each other, the test period shall 

be from one point of the defrost cycle type 

with the longest compressor run time 

between defrosts to the same point during the 

next occurrence of this defrost cycle type. For 

such products not using the procedures of 

section 4.2.4, energy consumption shall be 

calculated as described in section 5.2.1.1 of 

this appendix. 

* * * * * 

4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a 

system with a cycling compressor, the second 

part of the test starts at the termination of the 

last regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle. The 

average temperatures of the fresh food and 

freezer compartments measured from the 

termination of the previous compressor ‘‘on’’ 

cycle to the termination of the last regular 

compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle must both be within 

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

measured for the first part of the test. If any 

compressor cycles occur prior to the defrost 

heater being energized that cause the average 

temperature in either compartment to deviate 

from its average temperature for the first part 

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

compressor cycles are not considered regular 

compressor cycles and must be included in 

the second part of the test. As an example, 

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

compressor cycle that lowers the 

temperature(s) of one or both compartments 

prior to energizing the defrost heater, must be 

included in the second part of the test. The 

test period for the second part of the test ends 

at the termination of the first regular 

compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle after both 

compartment temperatures have fully 

recovered to their stable conditions. The 

average temperatures of the compartments 

measured from this termination of the first 

regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle until the 

termination of the next regular compressor 

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

of their average temperatures measured for 

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

that Figure 1 illustrates the concepts of 

precooling and recovery but does not 

represent all possible defrost cycles. 

4.2.3 Multiple-compressor Products with 

Automatic Defrost. 

4.2.3.1 Measurement Frequency. 

Measurements of power input, cumulative 

electric energy consumption (watt-hours or 

kilowatt-hours), and compartment 

temperature shall be taken at regular 

intervals not exceeding one minute. 

4.2.3.2 Steady-state Condition. Steady 

state shall be considered to have been 

attained after 24 hours of operation after the 

last adjustment of the temperature controls. 

4.2.3.3 Primary Compressor. If at least 

one compressor cycles, test periods shall be 

based on compressor cycles associated with 

the primary compressor system (these are 

referred to as ‘‘primary compressor cycles’’). 

If the freezer compressor cycles, it shall be 

the primary compressor system. 

4.2.3.4 Test Periods. The two-part test 

described in this section shall be used. The 

first part is a stable continuous period of 

compressor operation that includes no 

defrost cycles or events associated with a 

defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, 

for any compressor system. The second part 

is a continuous test period designed to 

capture the energy consumed during all of 

the events occurring with the defrost control 

sequence that are outside of stable operation. 

The second part of the test shall be 

conducted separately for each automatic 

defrost system present. 

4.2.3.4.1 First Part of Test. If at least one 

compressor cycles, the test period for the first 

part of the test shall include a whole number 

of complete primary compressor cycles 

comprising at least 24 hours of stable 

operation, unless a defrost occurs prior to 

completion of 24 hours of stable operation, 

in which case the first part of the test shall 

include a whole number of complete primary 

compressor cycles comprising at least 18 

hours of stable operation. If no compressor 

cycles, the first part of the test shall comprise 

at least 24 hours of stable operation, unless 

a defrost occurs prior to completion of 24 

hours of stable operation, in which case the 

first part of the test shall comprise at least 18 

hours of stable operation. 

4.2.3.4.2 Second Part of Test. (a) If at least 

one compressor cycles, the test period for the 

second part of the test starts during stable 

operation before all portions of the defrost 

cycle, at the beginning of a complete primary 

compressor cycle. The test period for the 

second part of the test ends during stable 

operation after all portions of the defrost 

cycle, including recovery, at the termination 

of a complete primary compressor cycle. The 

start and stop for the test period shall both 

occur either when the primary compressor 

starts or when the primary compressor stops. 

For each compressor system, the 

compartment temperature averages for the 

first and last complete compressor cycles that 

lie completely within the second part of the 

test must be within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of the 

average compartment temperature measured 

for the first part of the test. If any one of the 

compressor systems is non-cycling, its 

compartment temperature averages during 

the first and last complete primary 

compressor cycles of the second part of the 

test must be within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) of the 

average compartment temperature measured 

for the first part of the test. 

(b) If no compressor cycles, the test period 

for the second part of the test starts during 

stable operation before all portions of the 

defrost cycle, when the compartment 

temperatures of all compressor systems are 

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

temperatures measured for the first part of 

the test. The test period for the second part 

ends during stable operation after all portions 

of the defrost cycle, including recovery, 

when the compartment temperatures of all 

compressor systems are within 0.5 °F (0.3 °C) 

of their average temperatures measured for 

the first part of the test. 

5. Test Measurements 

* * * * * 

5.1 Temperature Measurements. (a) 

Temperature measurements shall be made at 

the locations prescribed in Figures 5.1 and 

5.2 of HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3) and shall be accurate 

to within ±0.5 °F (0.3 °C). No freezer 

temperature measurements need be taken in 

an all-refrigerator model. 

(b) If the interior arrangements of the unit 

under test do not conform with those shown 

in Figure 5.1 and 5.2 of HRF–1–2008, the 

unit must be tested by relocating the 

temperature sensors from the locations 

specified in the figures to avoid interference 

with hardware or components within the 

unit, in which case the specific locations 

used for the temperature sensors shall be 

noted in the test data records maintained by 

the manufacturer in accordance with 10 CFR 

429.71, and the certification report shall 

indicate that non-standard sensor locations 

were used. If any temperature sensor is 

relocated by any amount from the location 

prescribed in Figure 5.1 or 5.2 of HRF–1– 

2008 in order to maintain a minimum 1-inch 

air space from adjustable shelves or other 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22353 

components that could be relocated by the 

consumer, this constitutes a relocation of 

temperature sensors that shall be recorded in 

the test data and reported in the certification 

report as described above. 

5.1.1 Measured Temperature. The 

measured temperature of a compartment is 

the average of all sensor temperature readings 

taken in that compartment at a particular 

point in time. Measurements shall be taken 

at regular intervals not to exceed 4 minutes. 

Measurements for products with multiplecompressor systems shall be taken at regular 

intervals not to exceed one minute. 

5.1.2 Compartment Temperature. The 

compartment temperature for each test 

period shall be an average of the measured 

temperatures taken in a compartment during 

the test period as defined in section 4 of this 

appendix. For long-time automatic defrost 

models, compartment temperatures shall be 

those measured in the first part of the test 

period specified in section 4.2.1 of this 

appendix. For models with variable defrost 

controls, compartment temperatures shall be 

those measured in the first part of the test 

period specified in section 4.2.2 of this 

appendix. For models with automatic defrost 

that is neither long-time nor variable defrost, 

the compartment temperature shall be an 

average of the measured temperatures taken 

in a compartment during a stable period of 

compressor operation that (a) includes no 

defrost cycles or events associated with a 

defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, 

(b) is no less than three hours in duration, 

and (c) includes two or more whole 

compressor cycles. If the compressor does 

not cycle, the stable period used for the 

temperature average shall be three hours in 

duration. 

* * * * * 

5.2 * * * 

5.2.1 * * * 

5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The 

energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per 

day shall be calculated equivalent to: 

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

T1)) × (12/CT), 

Where: 

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

T2, and 12 are defined in 5.2.1.2; 

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

CTL = the shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts used in the variable 

defrost control algorithm (greater than or 

equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 

hours), or the shortest compressor run 

time between defrosts observed for the 

test (if it is shorter than the shortest run 

time used in the control algorithm and 

is greater than 6 hours), or 6 hours (if the 

shortest observed run time is less than 6 

hours), in hours rounded to the nearest 

tenth of an hour; 

CTM = maximum compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 

CTL but not more than 96 hours); 

F = ratio of per day energy consumption in 

excess of the least energy and the 

maximum difference in per-day energy 

consumption and is equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CTL and CTM in the algorithm, the default 

values of 6 and 96 shall be used, respectively. 

5.2.1.4 Multiple-compressor Products 

with Automatic Defrost. For multiplecompressor products, the two-part test 

method in section 4.2.3.4 of this appendix 

must be used. The energy consumption in 

kilowatt-hours per day shall be calculated 

equivalent to: 

Where: 

1440, EP1, T1, and 12 are defined in 5.2.1.2; 

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

identifies each individual compressor 

system that has automatic defrost; 

D = the total number of compressor systems 

with automatic defrost; 

EP2i = energy expended in kilowatt-hours 

during the second part of the test for 

compressor system i; 

T2i = length of time in minutes of the second 

part of the test for compressor system i; 

CTi = the compressor run time between 

defrosts for compressor system i in hours 

rounded to the nearest tenth of an hour, 

for long-time automatic defrost control 

equal to a fixed time in hours, and for 

variable defrost control equal to 

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

Where: 

CTLi = for compressor system i, the shortest 

compressor run time between defrosts used 

in the variable defrost control algorithm 

(greater than or equal to 6 but less than or 

equal to 12 hours), or the shortest compressor 

run time between defrosts observed for the 

test (if it is shorter than the shortest run time 

used in the control algorithm and is greater 

than 6 hours), or 6 hours (if the shortest 

observed run time is less than 6 hours), in 

hours rounded to the nearest tenth of an 

hour; 

CTMi = for compressor system i, the 

maximum compressor run time between 

defrosts in hours rounded to the nearest 

tenth of an hour (greater than CTLi but 

not more than 96 hours); and 

F = default defrost energy consumption 

factor, equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CTLi and CTMi in the algorithm, the 

default values of 6 and 96 shall be used, 

respectively. 

* * * * * 

5.3 Volume Measurements. (a) The unit’s 

total refrigerated volume, VT, shall be 

measured in accordance with HRF–1–2008 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

section 3.30 and sections 4.2 through 4.3. 

The measured volume shall include all 

spaces within the insulated volume of each 

compartment except for the volumes that 

must be deducted in accordance with section 

4.2.2 of HRF–1–2008, and be calculated 

equivalent to: 

VT = VF + VFF 

Where: 

VT = total refrigerated volume in cubic feet, 

VF = freezer compartment volume in cubic 

feet, and 

VFF = fresh food compartment volume in 

cubic feet. 

(b) In the case of products with automatic 

icemakers, the volume occupied by the 

automatic icemaker, including its ice storage 

bin, is to be included in the volume 

measurement. 

(c) Total refrigerated volume is determined 

by physical measurement of the test unit. 

Measurements and calculations used to 

determine the total refrigerated volume shall 

be retained as part of the test records 

underlying the certification of the basic 

model in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71. 

* * * * * 

6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test 

Measurements 

* * * * * 

6.2 Average Per-Cycle Energy 

Consumption. The average per-cycle energy 

consumption for a cycle type, E, is expressed 

in kilowatt-hours per cycle to the nearest one 

hundredth (0.01) kilowatt-hour and shall be 

calculated according to the sections below. 

6.2.1 All-Refrigerator Models. The 

average per-cycle energy consumption shall 

depend upon the temperature attainable in 

the fresh food compartment as shown below. 

* * * * * 

6.2.2 Refrigerators and RefrigeratorFreezers. The average per-cycle energy 

consumption shall be defined in one of the 

following ways as applicable. 

6.2.2.1 If the fresh food compartment 

temperature is at or below 39 °F (3.9 °C) 

during both tests and the freezer 

compartment temperature is at or below 15°F 

(¥9.4 °C) during both tests of a refrigerator 

or at or below 0°F (¥17.8 °C) during both 

tests of a refrigerator-freezer, the average percycle energy consumption shall be: 

E = ET1 + IET 

Where: 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; 

IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 

equals 0 (zero) for products without an 

automatic icemaker, and equals 0.23 for 

products with an automatic icemaker; 

and 

The number 1 indicates the test period 

during which the highest freezer 

compartment temperature was measured. 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3ER21AP14.014</GPH>
22354 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

6.2.2.2 If the conditions of 6.2.2.1 do not 

exist, the average per-cycle energy 

consumption shall be defined by the higher 

of the two values calculated by the following 

two formulas: 

E = ET1 + ((ET2 ¥ ET1) × (39.0 ¥ TR1)/(TR2 

¥ TR1)) + IET 

and 

E = ET1 + ((ET2 ¥ ET1) × (k ¥ TF1)/(TF2 

¥ TF1)) + IET 

Where: 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; 

IET is defined in 6.2.2.1; 

TR and the numbers 1 and 2 are defined in 

6.2.1.2; 

TF = freezer compartment temperature 

determined according to 5.1.4 in degrees 

F; 39.0 is the standardized temperature 

for fresh food compartments in degrees 

F; and 

k is a constant 15.0 for refrigerators or 0.0 for 

refrigerator-freezers, each being 

standardized freezer compartment 

temperatures in degrees F. 

6.2.2.3 Optional Test for Models with 

Two Compartments and User Operable 

Controls. If the procedure of section 3.3 of 

this appendix is used for setting temperature 

controls, the average per-cycle energy 

consumption shall be defined as follows: 

E = Ex + IET 

Where: 

E is defined in 6.2.1.1; 

IET is defined in 6.2.2.1; and 

Ex is defined and calculated as described in 

AS/NZS 44474.1:2007 (incorporated by 

reference; see § 430.3) appendix M, 

section M4(a). The target temperatures 

txA and txB defined in section M4(a)(i) of 

AS/NZS 44474.1:2007 shall be the 

standardized temperatures defined in 

section 3.2 of this appendix. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Appendix B to subpart B of part 

430 is amended: 

■ a. By revising the introductory text; 

■ b. In section 1. Definitions, by: 

■ i. Redesignating section 1.15 as 1.21; 

■ ii. Redesignating section 1.14 as 1.19; 

■ iii. Redesignating section 1.13 as 1.17; 

■ iv. Redesignating section 1.12 as 1.16; 

■ v. Redesignating section 1.11 as 1.15; 

■ vi. Redesignating section 1.10 as 1.13; 

■ vii. Redesignating section 1.9 as 1.11; 

■ viii. Redesignating sections 1.6 

through 1.8 as 1.7 through 1.9 

respectively; 

■ ix. Adding sections 1.6, 1.10, 1.12, 

1.14, 1.18, and 1.20; 

■ c. In section 2. Test Conditions, by; 

■ i. Revising sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 

2.6; 

■ ii. Adding sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 

2.8, and 2.9; 

■ d. Revising section 3.2.1 and Table 1 

in section 3. Test Control Settings; 

■ e. Revising sections 4.1 and 4.2.1.1 in 

section 4. Test Period; 

■ f. Revising sections 5.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1.3, 

and 5.3 in section 5. Test 

Measurements; 

■ g. In section 6. Calculation of Derived 

Results from Test Measurements, by: 

■ i. Revising section 6.2; 

■ ii. Removing section 6.2.1; 

■ iii. Redesignating section 6.2.1.1 as 

6.2.1 and revising the newly designated 

section 6.2.1; 

■ iv. Redesignating section 6.2.1.2 as 

6.2.2 and revising the newly designated 

section 6.2.2; 

■ v. Redesignating section 6.2.2 as 6.2.3 

and revising the newly designated 

section 6.2.3. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Freezers 

Beginning on September 15, 2014, the test 

procedures in appendix B must be used to 

determine compliance with energy 

conservation standards for freezers. Prior to 

September 15, 2014, manufacturers may 

continue to use appendix B1 or may elect to 

use appendix B early to show compliance 

with the September 15, 2014 energy 

conservation standards. Manufacturers must 

use a single appendix for all representations 

of energy use of a basic model, including 

certifications of compliance, and may not use 

appendix B1 for certain representations and 

appendix B for other representations. 

1. Definitions 

* * * * * 

1.6 ‘‘Complete temperature cycle’’ means 

a time period defined based upon the cycling 

of compartment temperature that starts when 

the compartment temperature is at a 

maximum and ends when the compartment 

temperature returns to an equivalent 

maximum (within 0.5 °F of the starting 

temperature), having in the interim fallen to 

a minimum and subsequently risen again to 

reach the second maximum. Alternatively, a 

complete temperature cycle can be defined to 

start when the compartment temperature is at 

a minimum and end when the compartment 

temperature returns to an equivalent 

minimum (within 0.5 °F of the starting 

temperature), having in the interim risen to 

a maximum and subsequently fallen again to 

reach the second minimum. 

* * * * * 

1.10 ‘‘Ice storage bin’’ means a container 

in which ice can be stored. 

* * * * * 

1.12 ‘‘Precooling’’ means operating a 

refrigeration system before initiation of a 

defrost cycle to reduce one or more 

compartment temperatures significantly 

(more than 0.5 °F) below its minimum during 

stable operation between defrosts. 

* * * * * 

1.14 ‘‘Recovery’’ means operating a 

refrigeration system after the conclusion of a 

defrost cycle to reduce the temperature of 

one or more compartments to the 

temperature range that the compartment(s) 

exhibited during stable operation between 

defrosts. 

* * * * * 

1.18 ‘‘Stable operation’’ means operation 

after steady-state conditions have been 

achieved but excluding any events associated 

with defrost cycles. During stable operation 

the average rate of change of compartment 

temperature must not exceed 0.042 °F (0.023 

°C) per hour. Such a calculation performed 

for compartment temperatures at any two 

times, or for any two periods of time 

comprising complete cycles, during stable 

operation must meet this requirement. 

(a) If compartment temperatures do not 

cycle, the relevant calculation shall be the 

difference between the temperatures at two 

points in time divided by the difference, in 

hours, between those points in time. 

(b) If compartment temperatures cycle as a 

result of compressor cycling or other cycling 

operation of any system component (e.g., a 

damper, fan, or heater), the relevant 

calculation shall be the difference between 

compartment temperature averages evaluated 

for whole compressor cycles or complete 

temperature cycles divided by the difference, 

in hours, between either the starts, ends, or 

mid-times of the two cycles. 

* * * * * 

1.20 ‘‘Through-the-door ice/water 

dispenser’’ means a device incorporated 

within the cabinet, but outside the boundary 

of the refrigerated space, that delivers to the 

user on demand ice and may also deliver 

water from within the refrigerated space 

without opening an exterior door. This 

definition includes dispensers that are 

capable of dispensing ice and water or ice 

only. 

* * * * * 

2. Test Conditions 

2.1 Ambient Temperature Measurement. 

Temperature measuring devices shall be 

shielded so that indicated temperatures are 

not affected by the operation of the 

condensing unit or adjacent units. 

2.1.1 Ambient Temperature. The ambient 

temperature shall be recorded at points 

located 3 feet (91.5 cm) above the floor and 

10 inches (25.4 cm) from the center of the 

two sides of the unit under test. The ambient 

temperature shall be 90.0 ±1.0 °F (32.2 ±0.6 

°C) during the stabilization period and the 

test period. 

2.1.2 Ambient Temperature Gradient. The 

test room vertical ambient temperature 

gradient in any foot of vertical distance from 

2 inches (5.1 cm) above the floor or 

supporting platform to a height of 1 foot (30.5 

cm) above the top of the unit under test is 

not to exceed 0.5 °F per foot (0.9 °C per 

meter). The vertical ambient temperature 

gradient at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) out 

from the centers of the two sides of the unit 

being tested is to be maintained during the 

test. To demonstrate that this requirement 

has been met, test data must include 

measurements taken using temperature 

sensors at locations 10 inches (25.4 cm) from 

the center of the two sides of the unit under 

test at heights of 2 inches (5.1 cm) and 36 

inches (91.4 cm) above the floor or 

supporting platform and at a height of 1 foot 

(30.5 cm) above the unit under test. 

2.1.3 Platform. A platform must be used 

if the floor temperature is not within 3 °F (1.7 

°C) of the measured ambient temperature. If 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 22355 

a platform is used, it is to have a solid top 

with all sides open for air circulation 

underneath, and its top shall extend at least 

1 foot (30.5 cm) beyond each side and front 

of the unit under test and extend to the wall 

in the rear. 

2.2 Operational Conditions. The freezer 

shall be installed and its operating conditions 

maintained in accordance with HRF–1–2008 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

sections 5.3.2 through section 5.5.5.5 (but 

excluding sections 5.5.5.2 and 5.5.5.4). The 

quick freeze option shall be switched off 

except as specified in section 3.1 of this 

appendix. Additional clarifications are noted 

in sections 2.3 through 2.9 of this appendix. 

2.3 Anti-Sweat Heaters. The anti-sweat 

heater switch is to be on during one test and 

off during a second test. In the case of a 

freezer with variable anti-sweat heater 

control, the standard cycle energy use shall 

be the result of the calculation described in 

6.2.3. 

* * * * * 

2.6 Rear Clearance. 

(a) General. The space between the lowest 

edge of the rear plane of the cabinet and a 

vertical surface (the test room wall or 

simulated wall) shall be the minimum 

distance in accordance with the 

manufacturer’s instructions, unless other 

provisions of this section apply. The rear 

plane shall be considered to be the largest flat 

surface at the rear of the cabinet, excluding 

features that protrude beyond this surface, 

such as brackets or compressors. 

(b) Maximum clearance. The clearance 

shall not be greater than 2 inches (51 mm) 

from the lowest edge of the rear plane to the 

vertical surface, unless the provisions of 

subsection (c) of this section apply. 

(c) If permanent rear spacers or other 

components that protrude beyond the rear 

plane extend further than the 2 inch (51 mm) 

distance, or if the highest edge of the rear 

plane is in contact with the vertical surface 

when the unit is positioned with the lowest 

edge of the rear plane at or further than the 

2 inch (51 mm) distance from the vertical 

surface, the appliance shall be located with 

the spacers or other components protruding 

beyond the rear plane, or the highest edge of 

the rear plane, in contact with the vertical 

surface. 

(d) Rear-mounted condensers. If the 

product has a flat rear-wall-mounted 

condenser (i.e., a rear-wall-mounted 

condenser with all refrigerant tube 

centerlines within 0.25 inches (6.4 mm) of 

the condenser plane), and the area of the 

condenser plane represents at least 25% of 

the total area of the rear wall of the cabinet, 

then the spacing to the vertical surface may 

be measured from the lowest edge of the 

condenser plane. 

* * * * * 

2.8 Freezers with Demand-Response 

Capability. Freezers that have a 

communication module for demand-response 

functions that is located within the cabinet 

shall be tested with the communication 

module in the configuration set at the factory 

just before shipping. 

2.9 For products that require the freezer 

compartment to be loaded with packages in 

accordance with section 5.5.5.3 of HRF–1– 

2008, the number of packages comprising the 

75% load shall be determined by filling the 

compartment completely with the packages 

that are to be used for the test, such that the 

packages fill as much of the usable 

refrigerated space within the compartment as 

is physically possible, and then removing 

from the compartment a number of packages 

so that the compartment contains 75% of the 

packages that were placed in the 

compartment to completely fill it. If 

multiplying the total number of packages by 

0.75 results in a fraction, the number of 

packages used shall be rounded to the nearest 

whole number, rounding up if the result ends 

in 0.5. For multi-shelf units, this method 

shall be applied to each shelf. For both 

single- and multi-shelf units, the remaining 

packages shall be arranged as necessary to 

provide the required air gap and 

thermocouple placement. The number of 

packages comprising the 100% and 75% 

loading conditions shall be recorded in the 

test data maintained in accordance with 10 

CFR 429.71. 

3. Test Control Settings 

* * * * * 

3.2 * * * 

3.2.1 A first test shall be performed with 

all temperature controls set at their median 

position midway between their warmest and 

coldest settings. For mechanical control 

systems, (a) knob detents shall be 

mechanically defeated if necessary to attain 

a median setting, and (b) the warmest and 

coldest settings shall correspond to the 

positions in which the indicator is aligned 

with control symbols indicating the warmest 

and coldest settings. For electronic control 

systems, the test shall be performed with all 

compartment temperature controls set at the 

average of the coldest and warmest settings; 

if there is no setting equal to this average, the 

setting closest to the average shall be used. 

If there are two such settings equally close to 

the average, the higher of these temperature 

control settings shall be used. A second test 

shall be performed with all controls set at 

either their warmest or their coldest setting 

(not electrically or mechanically bypassed), 

whichever is appropriate, to attempt to 

achieve compartment temperatures measured 

during the two tests that bound (i.e., one is 

above and one is below) the standardized 

temperature. If the compartment 

temperatures measured during these two 

tests bound the standardized temperature, 

then these test results shall be used to 

determine energy consumption. If the 

compartment temperature measured with all 

controls set at their coldest setting is above 

the standardized temperature, the tested unit 

fails the test and cannot be rated. If the 

compartment temperature measured with all 

controls set at their warmest setting is below 

the standardized temperature, then the result 

of this test alone will be used to determine 

energy consumption. Also see Table 1 of this 

appendix, which summarizes these 

requirements. 

TABLE 1—TEMPERATURE SETTINGS FOR FREEZERS

First test Second test Energy calculation based 

on: Settings Results Settings Results 

Mid ..................................... Low ................................... Warm ................................ Low ................................... Second Test Only. 

High .................................. First and Second Tests. 

High .................................. Cold .................................. Low ................................... First and Second Tests. 

High .................................. No Energy Use Rating. 

* * * * * 

4. Test Period 

* * * * * 

4.1 Non-automatic Defrost. If the model 

being tested has no automatic defrost system, 

the test period shall start after steady-state 

conditions (see section 2.7 of this appendix) 

have been achieved and be no less than three 

hours in duration. During the test period, the 

compressor motor shall complete two or 

more whole compressor cycles. (A whole 

compressor cycle is a complete ‘‘on’’ and a 

complete ‘‘off’’ period of the motor.) If no 

‘‘off’’ cycling occurs, the test period shall be 

three hours. If less than two compressor 

cycles occur during a 24-hour period, then a 

single complete compressor cycle may be 

used. 

* * * * * 

4.2 * * * 

4.2.1 * * * 

4.2.1.1 Cycling Compressor System. For a 

system with a cycling compressor, the second 

part of the test starts at the termination of the 

last regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle. The 

average temperature of the compartment 

measured from the termination of the 

previous compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle to the 

termination of the last regular compressor 

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

the average temperature of the compartment 

measured for the first part of the test. If any 

compressor cycles occur prior to the defrost 

heater being energized that cause the average 

temperature in the compartment to deviate 

from the average temperature for the first part 

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

compressor cycles are not considered regular 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3

22356 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 76 / Monday, April 21, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

compressor cycles and must be included in 

the second part of the test. As an example, 

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

compressor cycle that lowers the 

compartment temperature prior to energizing 

the defrost heater, must be included in the 

second part of the test. The test period for the 

second part of the test ends at the 

termination of the first regular compressor 

‘‘on’’ cycle after the compartment 

temperatures have fully recovered to their 

stable conditions. The average temperature of 

the compartment measured from this 

termination of the first regular compressor 

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

regular compressor ‘‘on’’ cycle must be 

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

temperature of the compartment measured 

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

that Figure 1 illustrates the concepts of 

precooling and recovery but does not 

represent all possible defrost cycles. 

* * * * * 

5. Test Measurements 

* * * * * 

5.1 Temperature Measurements. (a) 

Temperature measurements shall be made at 

the locations prescribed in Figure 5.2 of 

HRF–1–2008 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3) and shall be accurate to within ±0.5 

°F (0.3 °C). 

(b) If the interior arrangements of the unit 

under test do not conform with those shown 

in Figure 5.2 of HRF–1–2008, the unit may 

be tested by relocating the temperature 

sensors from the locations specified in the 

figures to avoid interference with hardware 

or components within the unit, in which case 

the specific locations used for the 

temperature sensors shall be noted in the test 

data records maintained by the manufacturer 

in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71, and the 

certification report shall indicate that nonstandard sensor locations were used. If any 

temperature sensor is relocated by any 

amount from the location prescribed in 

Figure 5.2 of HRF–1–2008 in order to 

maintain a minimum 1-inch air space from 

adjustable shelves or other components that 

could be relocated by the consumer, this 

constitutes a relocation of temperature 

sensors that shall be recorded in the test data 

and reported in the certification report as 

described above. 

* * * * * 

5.1.2 Compartment Temperature. The 

compartment temperature for each test 

period shall be an average of the measured 

temperatures taken in a compartment during 

the test period as defined in section 4 of this 

appendix. For long-time automatic defrost 

models, compartment temperature shall be 

that measured in the first part of the test 

period specified in section 4.2.1 of this 

appendix. For models with variable defrost 

controls, compartment temperature shall be 

that measured in the first part of the test 

period specified in section 4.2.2 of this 

appendix. For models with automatic defrost 

that is neither long-time nor variable defrost, 

the compartment temperature shall be an 

average of the measured temperatures taken 

in a compartment during a stable period of 

compressor operation that (a) includes no 

defrost cycles or events associated with a 

defrost cycle, such as precooling or recovery, 

(b) is no less than three hours in duration, 

and (c) includes two or more whole 

compressor cycles. If the compressor does 

not cycle, the stable period used for the 

temperature average shall be three hours in 

duration. 

* * * * * 

5.2 * * * 

5.2.1 * * * 

5.2.1.3 Variable Defrost Control. The 

energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per 

day shall be calculated equivalent to: 

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

T1)) × (12/CT), 

Where: 

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

T2, and 12 are defined in 5.2.1.2; 

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

CTL = the shortest compressor run time 

between defrosts used in the variable 

defrost control algorithm (greater than or 

equal to 6 but less than or equal to 12 

hours), or the shortest compressor run 

time between defrosts observed for the 

test (if it is shorter than the shortest run 

time used in the control algorithm and 

is greater than 6 hours), or 6 hours (if the 

shortest observed run time is less than 6 

hours), in hours rounded to the nearest 

tenth of an hour; 

CTM = maximum compressor run time 

between defrosts in hours rounded to the 

nearest tenth of an hour (greater than 

CTL but not more than 96 hours); 

F = ratio of per day energy consumption in 

excess of the least energy and the 

maximum difference in per-day energy 

consumption and is equal to 0.20. 

For variable defrost models with no values 

for CTL and CTM in the algorithm, the default 

values of 6 and 96 shall be used, respectively. 

* * * * * 

5.3 Volume Measurements. (a) The unit’s 

total refrigerated volume, VT, shall be 

measured in accordance with HRF–1–2008 

(incorporated by reference; see § 430.3), 

section 3.30 and sections 4.2 through 4.3. 

The measured volume shall include all 

spaces within the insulated volume of each 

compartment except for the volumes that 

must be deducted in accordance with section 

4.2.2 of HRF–1–2008. 

(b) In the case of freezers with automatic 

icemakers, the volume occupied by the 

automatic icemaker, including its ice storage 

bin, is to be included in the volume 

measurement. 

(c) Total refrigerated volume is determined 

by physical measurement of the test unit. 

Measurements and calculations used to 

determine the total refrigerated volume shall 

be retained as part of the test records 

underlying the certification of the basic 

model in accordance with 10 CFR 429.71. 

* * * * * 

6. Calculation of Derived Results From Test 

Measurements 

* * * * * 

6.2 Average Per-Cycle Energy 

Consumption. The average per-cycle energy 

consumption for a cycle type, E, is expressed 

in kilowatt-hours per cycle to the nearest one 

hundredth (0.01) kilowatt-hour, and shall be 

calculated according to the sections below. 

6.2.1 If the compartment temperature is 

always below 0.0 °F (¥17.8 °C), the average 

per-cycle energy consumption shall be 

equivalent to: 

E = ET1 + IET 

Where: 

ET is defined in 5.2.1; 

The number 1 indicates the test period 

during which the highest compartment 

temperature is measured; and 

IET, expressed in kilowatt-hours per cycle, 

equals 0 (zero) for products without an 

automatic icemaker, and equals 0.23 for 

products with an automatic icemaker. 

6.2.2 If one of the compartment 

temperatures measured for a test period is 

greater than 0.0 °F (17.8 °C), the average percycle energy consumption shall be equivalent 

to: 

E = ET1 + ((ET2 ¥ ET1) × (0.0 ¥ TF1)/(TF2 

¥ TF1)) + IET 

Where: 

IET is defined in 6.2.1 and ET is defined in 

5.2.1; 

TF = freezer compartment temperature 

determined according to 5.1.3 in degrees 

F; 

The numbers 1 and 2 indicate measurements 

taken during the first and second test 

period as appropriate; and 

0.0 = standardized compartment temperature 

in degrees F. 

6.2.3 Variable Anti-Sweat Heater Models. 

The standard cycle energy consumption of a 

freezer with a variable anti-sweat heater 

control (Estd), expressed in kilowatt-hours per 

day, shall be calculated equivalent to: 

Estd = E + (Correction Factor) where E is 

determined by 6.2.1, or 6.2.2, whichever 

is appropriate, with the anti-sweat heater 

switch in the ‘‘off’’ position or, for a 

product without an anti-sweat heater 

switch, the anti-sweat heater in its 

lowest energy use state. 

Correction Factor = (Anti-sweat Heater Power 

× System-loss Factor) × (24 hrs/1 day) × 

(1 kW/1000 W) 

Where: 

Anti-sweat Heater Power = 0.034 * (Heater 

Watts at 5%RH) 

+ 0.211 * (Heater Watts at 15%RH) 

+ 0.204 * (Heater Watts at 25%RH) 

+ 0.166 * (Heater Watts at 35%RH) 

+ 0.126 * (Heater Watts at 45%RH) 

+ 0.119 * (Heater Watts at 55%RH) 

+ 0.069 * (Heater Watts at 65%RH) 

+ 0.047 * (Heater Watts at 75%RH) 

+ 0.008 * (Heater Watts at 85%RH) 

+ 0.015 * (Heater Watts at 95%RH) 

Heater Watts at a specific relative humidity 

= the nominal watts used by all heaters 

at that specific relative humidity, 72 °F 

ambient (22.2 °C), and DOE reference 

freezer (FZ) average temperature of 0 °F 

(¥17.8 °C). 

System-loss Factor = 1.3 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–08644 Filed 4–18–14; 8:45 a.m.] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES3